NC 2009 MRc6: Rapidly Renewable Materials

Jean, it is relatively tough to achieve this credit due to the issue you're encountering. I think  that a winning formula likely includes flooring, perhaps insulation, perhaps wall covering, some sealants or coatings, perhaps casework. There is a long list of qualifying products in the sidebar to the right, under GreenSpec products.

Tanja, the linseed oil content in those products would count as rapidly renewableTerm describing a natural material that is grown and harvested on a relatively short-rotation cycle (defined by the LEED rating system to be ten years or less)., as they are derived from the flax plant, which is harvested annually.

Carlos, I hadn't heard of guadua, and looked it up. It seems to be a type of bamboo? It probably qualifies for this credit, as long as it has harvesting cycle if less than 10 years. Bamboo is considered "rapidly renewableTerm describing a natural material that is grown and harvested on a relatively short-rotation cycle (defined by the LEED rating system to be ten years or less)." and counts for this credit.

Fabiano, you FSCIndependent, third-party verification that forest products are produced and sold based on a set of criteria for forest management and chain-of-custody controls developed by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), an international nonprofit organization. FSC criteria for certifying forests around the world address forest management, legal issues, indigenous rights, labor rights, multiple benefits, and environmental impacts.-certified bamboo can count toward MRc7. We go into some detail on this on the MRc7 page.

As a rule, wood is not considered rapidly renewableTerm describing a natural material that is grown and harvested on a relatively short-rotation cycle (defined by the LEED rating system to be ten years or less).. However, you raise a potentially interesting question—from my quick searching online, I found that it's ready to harvest within 4–10 years. It can live much longer but the wood is not really usable after that point, as it starts to rot on the inside.

I'm not totally sure, but that may leave enough wiggle room for you to argue for including it. To make that worth the effort, the cost value on the project would have to be large enough. What are you using it for?

Coincidentally, a similar question just came up on our CI MRc6 forum, and my collegue Nadav Malin gave a much more definitively positive response. I suggest reading his opinion.

A couple thoughts:

1) The credit language specifies "plants."

2) Animals have to be killed to extract their fat. Stearic acid is a byproduct of beef production.

3) I recall a rule of thumb that wool is okay under MRc6 since the animal is theoretically not killed (although in practice it's likely to be raised for both meat and wool), while leather, for example, is excluded due to the need for killing. However, I am not sure where I picked up that rule and if it really exists. Anyone have input?

Anyway, I would say that you're unlikely to be able to count the stearic acid here.

Hey Tristan,

I agree with your first thought, except if you take a look at the definition of Rapidly RenewableTerm describing a natural material that is grown and harvested on a relatively short-rotation cycle (defined by the LEED rating system to be ten years or less). in the Reference Guide it states the following:
"Rapidly Renewable materials are consdiered to be an agricultural product, both fiber and animal, that takes 10 years or less to grow or raise, and to harvest in an ongoing sustainable fashion."
If you read that explanation I think it's pretty clear that animal based products could fall within the requirement, especially if we could prove that the animal wasn't harmed in the process (though that doesn't appear to be written into the requirements).

Hi Lauren,

You are definitely right that animal materials can be included in the calculations for MRc6, though it is without question that the animal cannot be killed during the harvesting process. There is a good CIRCredit Interpretation Ruling. Used by design team members experiencing difficulties in the application of a LEED prerequisite or credit to a project. Typically, difficulties arise when specific issues are not directly addressed by LEED information/guide ruling from 4/17/2009 (on leather) that sheds a bit of light on the USGBC's thinking "Although leather is an animal product, it is not deemed to be rapidly renewableTerm describing a natural material that is grown and harvested on a relatively short-rotation cycle (defined by the LEED rating system to be ten years or less). as the leather material or hide may not be collected until after the death of the animal. An example an acceptable renewable animal source would be sheep’s fleece. The fleece can be sheered from the animal without presenting harm to it nor does it prevent the animal from regenerating the material."
If sounds like stearic acid would count only if it could be harvested in such a way that the animal could regenerate that fat on a regular basis.
Best- Anne

Thanks Anne!

I do not find the objection to leather to be an effective argument as it is essentially a byproduct of the beef industry. The animal is not killed during the harvesting of the leather, it is killed during the harvesting of the meat. I know that for some this is hardly a noteworthy distinction and I respect the sensibilities of those who have objection to our harvesting of animals. However, a product such as leather would be landfill if it was not harvested as a material. If we were discussing the difference between fur and leather I can certainley appreciate that there is no commercially viable trade for the meat of most fur bearing animals and so the exclusion makes sence for fur. But leather is a byproduct and as so should be accepted otherwise this becomes a moral argument between Vegitarians and Carnivores which really is not what this is all about.
That really is an argument for a different forum.

Clint, have you looked at how MRc6 is changing to a biobasedGenerally, classification of products and materials derived from plant and animal sources as opposed to minerals. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has a program to promote the use of emerging biobased products that defines them more narrowly, to exclude products that already have established markets, such as food, animal feed, and lumber. credit in LEED 2012? I hadn't looked at this in terms of leather, etc., but I wonder if they would be allowed.

Elliot, have you checked out the "GreenSpec Products" sidebar to the right?  There are a ton of ideas there, and although you need a BuildingGreen Suite membership to view the results when you click through, it's a worthwhile resource.

While items like bamboo, linoleum, and wool are likely to be made overseas, what about items like cotton (insulation), agrifiber (straw-core doors, straw panels), or soy-based products? While I can't say for sure, any of these products seem likely to have domestic sources.

Anyone else? And please keep us posted on what you learn.

Agrifiber based flush doors, raised panel doors and door jambs are available for commercial projects. The cores are made with wheat straw based particlboard with no added urea-formaldehyde1. Formaldehyde is a naturally occurring VOC found in small amounts in animals and plants but is carcinogenic and an irritant to most people when present in high concentrations, causing headaches, dizziness, mental impairment, and other symptoms. When present in the air at levels above 0.1 ppm, it can cause watery eyes; burning sensations in the eyes, nose, and throat; nausea; coughing; chest tightness; wheezing; skin rashes; and asthmatic and allergic reactions. 2. A known carcinogen with no known safe exposure level. Formaldehyde occurs naturally, but appears in unnaturally high concentra­tions in many buildings because it is an ingredient in binders used in many building materials and furnishings. resins. The doors are manufactured by several commercial door companies. The products are usually in the 75% percent compliant material range.

That's a new one on me. I would be very surprised if live plants were allowed to count toward this credit. Doesn't mean that someone hasn't snuck them through at some point, but I wouldn't count on it, myself.

Anyone have different info?

How can I find out for sure, I need to be able to advise my client. I have gotten feedback from projects that have been awarded based on using live plants and green roofing and an individual who does LEED reviews also agree's green roof/landscaping counts, but I can't advise based on this alone.

This seems like an interesting issue. In the past LEED versions, Division 32 90-Plantings was not included in the MR credits. However, 2009 has allowed Division 32 90. If projects received credit for past versions of LEED, it might have just been lucky with a reviewer. I also wouldn't count plants as a given. A CIRCredit Interpretation Ruling. Used by design team members experiencing difficulties in the application of a LEED prerequisite or credit to a project. Typically, difficulties arise when specific issues are not directly addressed by LEED information/guide might be in order if they want a definite answer. While our firm has not tried to get credit for plants directly in the past, vegetative roofing is covered under Division 9, and we have received credit for the recycled content of the roof planting trays for a green roof.

Lisa, did you ever get any closure on your vegitative roof question? My first throught is that it wouldnt apply to this credit but when I look at the reference guide it seems to meet all of the requiremetns: the seedum is harvested in less than 10 years, roofing is within division 2-10, and the vegitative roof is a building system. The fact that its still alive doesnt meant that it isnt part of the building. Im a bit conflicted...