This credit focuses on diverting waste from landfills by finding multiple alternatives for end uses of the waste, namely recycling, reuse on site, donation for reuse on another site, or resale. All of these diversion methods count towards credit compliance—MRc2.1 with a 50% construction waste diverted for one point and MRc2.2 with a 75% diversion rate for two points.
Look for opportunities to prevent the generation of waste on construction sites because the less waste you generate, the less you have to recycle or reuse to earn the credit.
There are two different approaches to recycling construction and demolition (C&DConstruction and demolition) waste: separating materials at the source (onsite), or commingling them and sending them to an off-site waste sorting facility. Either approach can work well. Your choice will depend on whether there is room for sorting onsite, whether the contractor is willing to take that on, and if there are good sorting facilities nearby.
The ease or difficulty of this credit depends on project-specific and regional conditions.
The general contractor (GC) is responsible for developing the CWM plan early in the construction process, if not before (during preconstruction). The GC does this in collaboration with the project team and is then responsible for implementing it, verifying that it is being followed throughout the construction process, and documenting the results.
Either identify a hauler with a strong recycling program, or research and find local recycling facilities to which you can send your hauler.
Research the waste management system:
Check local government websites for recycling programs. Also search for other ways to put materials back in circulation, such as exchange programs and brokers. For example, pallets and packaging can be sold or given away through these programs.
Construction materials vary with project location and building type. Some materials are easier to recycle than others. For example, copper wire and steel studs are readily recycled into new products, but vinyl tiles may not be. Research and specify what materials can be recycled, reused, or salvaged in the project’s municipality or region—and design with these materials so that waste scrap can be diverted from the landfill. For example, specify carpet from a manufacturer that has a take-back program, or ceiling tiles that are easily recyclable. Using precast concrete will avoid waste generation from in-situ concrete that will help in total waste generated.
Demolition projects can give away furniture, computers, and other equipment. Projects can also reuse items like doors, and crush demolished concrete and other paving materials to be reused as fill onsite. Demolition and renovation jobs can present many opportunities for salvaging items like wood timbers, architectural detailing, stonework, and millwork for reuse on another project, sale, or donation.
Research and use manufacturer “take-back” programs as much as possible. Manufacturers increasingly take back equipment and materials at no or low cost to the project. These programs are common with certain equipment and computers, ceiling tiles, and carpeting, for example.
Develop a list of construction materials from the budget estimate.
Determine if the waste will be measured by volume or by weight and keep it consistent. (Most projects pursue measurement by weight instead of volume.)
Target materials that are plentiful and either heavy or voluminous, depending on your documentation approach, and that are easy to recover and recycle to meet the 50% or 75% credit thresholds.
If discarding a lot of heavy stone, metal or masonry products, it will probably be more advantageous to track weight.
If discarding lots of packaging, insulating foam, and other light materials, you may prefer to track volume.
Selecting the right waste processor can minimize cost, but you have to strike a balance between cost and the feasibility of using that waste processing plant based on distance from the site and whether the hauler will agree to use that facility.
Recycling often generates revenue for the hauler who may then reduce the fee for the project. It also generates savings by reducing landfill tipping fees, which is beneficial to the contractor.
Contractors may claim that the CWM coordination and administrative oversight cost more money than recycling is worth, but many good contractors have figured out how to do CWM and can make it work for the same amount or less than typical trash hauling. This is somewhat dependent on the location of the project and available local resources.
If dealing with an existing building and a large amount of material is salvageable, consider deconstruction and materials salvage as an alternative to demolition. The contractor will have to oversee the process carefully. Many resources are available on deconstruction. (See Resources.)
Deconstruction will add extra cost to the project due to the additional labor required to take materials apart, remove nails from wood, and maintain material integrity. Ideally, the contractor will find a buyer for the materials to help offset these costs.
Thinking long term, consider what design decisions can increase the likelihood of deconstruction further down the road when specifying materials and systems to be used in the current project. Material selection and assembly type can impact how materials may be deconstructed and reused at the end of the building’s life-cycle.
Perform a site survey to decide whether deconstruction makes sense. This will depend on how the building was assembled and the value of the materials to be salvaged.
Deconstruction is a good practice for maintaining a building material’s integrity so it can be reused. It certainly diverts waste from landfill and contributes to credit compliance as waste diversion.
Typically, good materials to salvage via deconstruction include wood framing, steel columns and beams, hardwood flooring, multi-paned windows, architectural details, plumbing and electrical fixtures, hardware and cabinetry, and high-quality brick work.
Renovation and restoration projects are good candidates for deconstruction.
There are industry standards on good practices for deconstruction as well as directories of experienced contractors, such as the Deconstruction Institute (see Resources).
Deconstruction can take longer than demolition. Project teams should estimate whether the extra labor spent on deconstruction can be offset by the value of the salvaged materials. Other benefits to weigh include the environmental benefits of reduced waste and avoiding use of new resources, and publicity benefits for materials reuse.
The project team should discuss the appropriate recycling process, including whether sorting will occur on or off site. This decision may be made after the general contractor joins the team. Both options have pros and cons (see table).
Early in the project, the architect should be involved in the plan to schedule construction and deconstruction with the contractor.
Hire a general contractor early in the project to discuss the deconstruction process and phasing.
Integrate CWM plan and MRc2 requirements into the construction specifications.
For guidance on how to write LEED specifications and CWM requirements into construction documents, see MasterSpec (see Resources).
If separation is occurring off-site at a comingled or mixed-debris processing plant, make sure the processor or recycling facility can provide documentation for the amount of waste processed, by weight or by volume, as agreed, as well as a diversion rate from the facility. This could be either a project-specific diversion rate supplied by the facility, or a letter from the state regulating body with the facility's average rate of recycling.
Waste prevention is an important part of CWM.
Orienting the GC to the tracking tools early on and providing on-going support to the CWM effort is critical to success.
The GC and project team should hold an orientation meeting to review all LEED-specific issues related not only to recycling and reuse, or salvaging, but also to reducing waste onsite in general.
The GC develops the CWM plan.
A CWM plan is an action plan for how to deal with construction and demolition (C&D) waste. At a minimum, it needs to identify what the recycling goals are, what materials will be recycled, reused or salvaged, which materials will be landfilled, and the estimated amounts of each (either by volume or by weight, but consistently throughout the project), processors that will receive the construction and demolition waste, and onsite procedures for achieving the stated goals.
Developing the CWM plan is the responsibility of the contractor but, ideally, the project team should work together to come up with a thorough CWM plan that addresses not only recycling, but also reusing and salvaging as many materials as possible.
In developing a CWM plan, take into account regional constraints, and weigh the feasibility of recycling or salvaging materials against other environmental factors, such as the impact of hauling waste long distances if recyclers are far from the project site. In such an instance, if site conditions allow, one strategy would be to stockpile material to be hauled only once or twice during a project to cut down on transportation cost and associated environmental impact.
Source separating, or onsite sorting, can yield the highest recycling rate and the best price for materials. Try to encourage the contractor to locate separate containers onsite to sort the materials.
Providing a sample CWM plan and guidelines on how to communicate it to subcontractors and workers can help to minimize any hesitation on the part of the GC.
Hiring construction teams that already have LEED experience and are familiar with CWM is helpful for credit achievement. They may already have developed CWM plans, have existing relationships with haulers and recyclers, and know how to train construction field personnel in CWM practices and track diversion rates.
Review LEED requirements with contractors during the bidding process so that they understand their responsibilities.
Subcontractors should be contractually required to implement their part of the CWM plan. Accountability is key to successfully implementing a CWM plan.
Hire a special deconstruction contractor if required.
Provide a deconstruction-detailed drawing and specification with specific handling instructions for each material to be removed, such as whether it will be salvaged and sold, reused onsite, or marked for recycling.
Require measures for deconstruction in the CWM plan.
The GC is responsible for implementing the CWM plan and making sure the recycling and reuse goals are met. (The GC should make sure to review the action steps and tips associated with developing the CWM plan, above.)
Provide training for each contractor and subcontractor about the CWM plan and the importance of documenting it. Make sure everyone is on the same page regarding recycling goals. Make each training session specific to that trade.
As new subcontractors start work on site, have a LEED orientation session as part of safety trainings or other jobsite orientation meetings.
Consider designating a recycling coordinator (most likely someone in the GC’s office) to deal with all issues both onsite and off-site pertaining to CWM and making sure the plan is implemented properly and followed by all involved.
Weekly construction meetings should include an update, with a biweekly or monthly report collected by the LEED consultant, architect or owner. The CWM plan should outline this step, but it is important to make sure that all subcontractors and the GC are working together to comply during construction.
The contractor should communicate with all subcontractors about the recycling policy to make sure it is being followed. Recycling activities should be discussed regularly at job meetings.
A designated recycling coordinator can facilitate communication with all field personnel and address problems in the field promptly. This can reduce the risk of getting to the end of construction and falling short of diversion goals when it is too late to do anything about it.
The GC and recycling coordinator should track the deconstruction process and make sure requirements and specifications are being met.
The deconstruction contractor submits sales receipts, donation receipts, and recycling weight tickets to the GC or recycling coordinator, so the diversion rates can be included in the CWM tally.
Preserving materials for reuse reduces waste disposal fees.
Train the staff on how to streamline onsite waste sorting. Identify champions within each subcontractor’s team to lead the CWM effort for their teams.
Designate a separate area to place bins for recycling. If waste is commingled (for off-site separation by the recycling center), some additional space is still required to keep wet waste and other garbage apart from recyclables.
A good CWM plan will include measures for waste prevention so that less waste is created in the first place. Consider requesting subcontractors to ask their vendors to use minimal or take-back packaging. As an incentive, specify that all subcontractors are responsible for returning pallets or recycling their packaging.
Use signage to support the CWM plan—reminding subcontractors to sort waste appropriately. Post signs on the sorting bins, garbage cans, and throughout the site. Signs should include whatever languages are needed to communicate with workers on the jobsite.
The recycling coordinator tracks onsite waste recycling every month, or with every filled bin, to stay on track. The bins may fill at different times, depending on the material. Every time a bin is emptied and weighed, fill in the data on the tracking sheet.
In cities where tipping fees are high, a lot of waste haulers separate waste automatically, just to avoid the fees, so contractors and subcontractors may have to source-separate onsite anyway.
Consider fencing recycling areas, screening recycling and trash dumpsters from the public or locating them in an inconspicuous area. Neighborhood “use” of dumpsters to dispose of old mattresses and other furnishings is a problem that contractors deal with regularly, especially in cities where disposal of bulky items is expensive. On the other hand, in areas where there are limited resources for construction waste recycling, projects can stockpile wood and other potentially desirable construction waste and make it available to workers and the community to take home. This material can then count towards diversion.
If separation is occurring off-site, make sure recyclables are not contaminated with other garbage and wet waste. Provide separate containers for food waste and miscellaneous garbage and mark all containers clearly and prominently.
Keeping coffee cups and food waste out of recycling bins can be especially challenging. Use clear signage to prevent this and make it easy for food waste to be properly disposed of by providing trash cans clearly marked and in various locations on the site or at each building level.
If separation is occurring off-site at a mixed-debris processing plant, make sure the recycling facility can provide documentation for the amount of waste processed, by weight or by volume, as well as monthly recycling rate information, which is required for documentation purposes.
Keep an ongoing log of weight tickets and receipts. The GC needs to track construction waste throughout the construction process. It is crucial that contractors request and keep all receipts and weight tickets from recycling companies to prove that diversion goals were achieved, as well as letters from recycling companies certifying their monthly recycling rates.
LEED project managers should provide contractors with tracking or log-book forms to simplify the tracking process. See the Resources section for the LEEDuser CWM tracking calculator.
Waste amounts must be tracked consistently, either by weight or volume. If materials are very heavy, it is best to use the weight approach. Most waste processors track by weight, anyway. But this will depend on what the bulk of the project’s waste is made of.
Do not include land-clearing debris or excavated soil or rock in your calculations. Even if diverted from landfill, it is not to be included in the credit calculations. Contractors often think that trees and stumps are still part of the diverted waste, but take them out of the LEED submittal template and supporting documentation if the contractor includes them.
Compile construction waste recycling data from all the monthly reports, and complete your LEED documentation online for submission to the USGBC.
Monthly reports from recycling facilities, showing their average monthly recycling rates, are an appropriate form of documentation for this credit.
A master spreadsheet facilitates information collection for subcontractors, giving them a road map of exactly what types of information to collect for each product.
Build on construction waste management practices for future renovations and remodeling.
Excerpted from LEED for New Construction and Major Renovations Version 2.2
Divert construction, demolition and land-clearing debris from disposal in landfills and incinerators. Redirect recy- clable recovered resources back to the manufacturing process. Redirect reusable materials to appropriate sites.
Recycle and/or salvage at least 50% (or 75% for a second point) of non-hazardous construction and demolition debris. Develop and implement a construction waste management plan that, at a minimum, identifies the materials to be diverted from disposal and whether the materials will be sorted on-site or co-mingled. Excavated soil and land-clearing debris do not contribute to this credit. Calculations can be done by weight or volume, but must be consistent throughout.
Recycle and/or salvage an additional 25% beyond MR Credit 2.1 (75% total) of non-hazardous construction and demolition debris. Excavated soil and land-clearing debris do not contribute to this credit. Calculations can be done by weight or volume, but must be consistent throughout.
Establish goals for diversion from disposal in landfills and incinerators and adopt a construction waste manage- ment plan to achieve these goals. Consider recycling cardboard, metal, brick, acoustical tile, concrete, plastic, clean wood, glass, gypsum wallboard, carpet and insulation. Designate a specific area(s) on the construction site for segregated or comingledA process of recycling materials that allows consumers to dispose of various materials (such as paper, cardboard, plastic, and metal) in one container that is separate from waste. The recyclable materials are not sorted until they are collected and brought to a sorting facility. collection of recyclable materials, and track recycling efforts throughout the construction process. Identify construction haulers and recyclers to handle the designated materials. Note that diversion may include donation of materials to charitable organizations and salvage of materials on-site.
Source for receiving salvaged or deconstructed materials.
Waste management solutions - New York only.
New York City's only non-profit retail outlet for salvaged and surplus building materials.
A step-by-step guide on deconstruction for contractors.
Template for writing specifications on construction waste management as part of the MasterSpec licensed spec system.
Federal Green Construction Guide for Specifiers sample spec language.
Sample CWM Plan.
Resources Guide to developing a CWM plan.
This is a resource database of contractors proficient with deconstruction and organizations, distributors, or contractors seeking material to salvage.
This website from the California Integrated Waste Management Board contains information on recycling and the use of recycled-content materials. The site includes many publications available for free download, such as sample construction and demolition debris recycling specifications.
This online database contains information on companies that haul, collect and process recyclable debris from construction projects sorted by zip code.
CMDepot is a place where you can buy & sell excess construction material, tools, & equipment. You simply login, submit a listing of your excess material, and wait for a buyer. If a buyer contacts you, you can work out payment details and a delivery method.
Comprehensive web page on construction waste management for large projects, with links to other resources.
WasteCapTRACE is an online documentation program for tracking construction and demolition debris recycling. It generates a custom construction waste management plan, provides a forum in which multiple team members can record data, and outputs reports and charts for your LEED submission. WasteCapTRACE is priced on a per-project basis, with fees linked to project square footage (like LEED application fees).
PlanetReuse is a nationwide reclaimed construction material broker and consultant company. They make it easier to use a wide variety of reclaimed materials in new projects as well as help find new projects for building materials being deconstructed, guiding owners and contractors through every step of the process. LEED documents are also provided for waste management documentation.
This guide is developed by wastematch.org, an organization that matches donors to recipients.
Model specification language that can be used by architects and engineers who want to reduce waste during construction.
Use clear signage such as in these example to keep construction and demolition waste separated for diversion purposes.
Use a tracking sheet and calculator like this one to monitor your credit compliance.
This template is the flattened, public version of the dynamic template for this credit that is used within LEED-Online v2 by registered project teams. This and other public versions of LEED credit templates come from the USGBC website, and are posted on LEEDuser with USGBC's permission. You'll need to fill out the live version of this template on LEED Online to document this credit.
Documentation for this credit is part of the Construction Phase submittal.
This document provides key tips and sample tracking sheets and checklists for your project's construction waste management (CWM) plan.
If you use commingled construction waste management, in which CWM is commingled and weighed off-site or calculated using a recycling facility's average diversion rate, you'll need special documentation to justify your rates for LEED. This sample was provided by Sustainable Solutions Corporation.
Could I calculate the amount of waste as a percent for a LEED building shred in the waste area location with other building not in the LEED zone by the square feet percent in a new construction project?
Usama - Please refer to LEED InterpretationLEED Interpretations are official answers to technical inquiries about implementing LEED on a project. They help people understand how their projects can meet LEED requirements and provide clarity on existing options. LEED Interpretations are to be used by any project certifying under an applicable rating system. All project teams are required to adhere to all LEED Interpretations posted before their registration date. This also applies to other addenda. Adherence to rulings posted after a project registers is optional, but strongly encouraged. LEED Interpretations are published in a searchable database at usgbc.org. ID #10265 - http://www.usgbc.org/leed-interpretations?keys=10265 - for additional information on construction waste on a site with multiple projects. This LI is referenced and discussed under the FAQs on this forum - http://www.leeduser.com/credit/NC-2009/MRc2.
Thanks Michelle, your reply so rich and useful for me.
If I am using the monthly statements supplied by our recycling service, do I leave the 'Total Waste' column blank since the monthly statements are for all of the recycling service's clients? And would I enter each month's percentages or just total them up?
Lee - Did you post this in the right forum? It seems like you are asking about LEED 2009 documentation - http://www.leeduser.com/rating-systems/NC-2009/leed-new-construction-2009 - as its form has a Total Waste column and the template for LEED-NC v2.2 does not.
Regardless, no - you would not leave the Total Waste column blank. This is where the quantity of waste (landfilled or diverted) would be entered. I typically total up all of the same materials for the entire job and enter that total on the form - even if I have the monthly data.
What is the difference between NC-v2.2 MRc2 and NC-2009 MRc2.
Also is the Waste management Plan is to be submitted as a requirement to get the construction waste Management Credit for both NC-v2.2 MRc2 and NC-2009 MRc2.
Monica - As a guest, I don't think that you can see the credit language information above, which is one reason (among many others) to join LEEDuser. I would suggest that you check out the LEED Rating Systems available - http://www.usgbc.org/leed/rating-systems/new-construction - to get the credit requirements and then note the differences. The Reference Guide for v2.2 explain the documentation requirements while you’ll need to check the Sample Forms in LOv3 for the documentation for v2009 (click Form Updates from the main LOv3 page for this link - http://www.usgbc.org/sampleforms). You can also get sample templates for v2.2 here - http://www.usgbc.org/sampleforms/v2.
The Credit Library on USGBC’s new website would also be a source to get your question answered. Check out http://www.usgbc.org/node/1733056?return=/credits/new-construction/v2.2/... for v2.2 and http://www.usgbc.org/node/1731280?return=/credits/new-construction/v2009... for v2009.
The Waste Management Plan (WMP) needs to be prepared for either LEED version. The submittal is uploaded as a separate document for v2009 but is submitted as a narrative summary (via a text box) for v2.2 - but the full blown WMP could be requested during clarification requests.
In our project for Calculation of the Percentage of construction waste diverted from Landfill intially i was not calculating the Food waste generated from our Construction site (mainly from work force) into the Waste recycling calculation ( since i considered it as Harzdous or bio degradeable waste ) .But later i got a comment saying that the food waste also must be added into the landfill waste qty while calculating the Percentage of construction waste diverted from Landfill .Is that correct or not because i tried to find some answers in LEED manual & 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's i couldn't find any .Please help
If the reviewer is asking for the information, then I would provide it. We’ve gone around on the food waste issue on this forum - http://www.leeduser.com/credit/NC-2009/MRc2?all-comments=true#comment-2849 - and although it is not specifically called out anywhere, this credit is supposed to document non-hazardous waste leaving the site so we have noted it should be included. It is also listed in the FAQs on that forum but as a guest you can't see them.
Is it required to submit 'confirmation' (from waste recycling companies) that they would recycle the waste received. Does this confirmation/ documented proof required to be uploaded to LEED online?
In v2.2, uploading confirmation or backup documentation is not a requirement of the Template used in LOv2 - only the waste management plan is a required upload. Of course, you should have backup and understand where your materials are going. As an example for cardboard on the Template, I list “XYZ Recycling / Baled and shipped to paper recycler in Oklahoma” for the Diversion / Recycling Hauler or Location column to give the reviewers a sense that I understand the ultimate disposition of the materials. Consider becoming a member of LEEDuser so you can access the Resources and Documentation Toolkit where a sample Template can be found.
If our project includes donations of furniture items from building demolition in the calculations for Construction Waste Management, does that translate into having to include new furniture items in the calcuations for other MR Credits, such as recycled content or regional materials?
Thanks in advance for your input.
Peggy - In my experience, I have not included donations of non-fixed furniture from a building in my calculations for MRc2. I typically only count items that were fixed in the building and would have been in place when the building was demoed. I mean, would you really demo the building with usable furniture in it? And I thought reviewers might think I was padding my values for diversion if it were included. But I learned something today (thanks to your question) because I checked the LI and Addenda database. I found LI ID#10055 for LEED-NC v2.2 that can be applied to LEED v2009 if reasonable and appropriate that states: “Furniture may be included within its own category, without the need to breakdown the material composition unless components of the furniture are to be salvaged independently. In addition, diversion by re-sale is acceptable.” This was in response to a question regarding how to deal with furniture in MRc2. Read the full formal inquiry and ruling to learn more - https://www.usgbc.org/leedinterpretations/LISearch.aspx?liaccessid=10055.
That being said, including furniture (in my case fixed) in MRc2 has not triggered any request for including furniture in MRc3-7. The credit requirements for these credits in NC list inclusion of furniture (Division 12) as optional.
However, I had a LEED NC review (v2009) where we used LEED-CI IEQc4.5 (Low-emitting materials: Furniture and Furnishing) as an ID credit and the reviewer told us that we HAD to include furniture in MRc3-7. We politely responded with the April 2012 LI (ID#10149, ID#10150, ID#10151, ID#10152, and ID#10153 - under MRc3, MRc4, MRc5, MRc6, and MRc7, respectively.) All are dated 4/1/2012 and state: “No, LEED NC projects are not required to include furniture in their calculations for MR credit 3-7 if using low emitting furniture for an ID strategy…”). So confusion can happen.
"... confusion can happen." Well, that's an understatement!!
Thanks so much for your thorough reply. The project in question is a public library and while the demo happened lo these many years ago, bidding was delayed because it was thought that bids would be lower later (but weren't), and construction was completed a year ago but the library is not open yet because there is no budget to staff it, and memories are tired and fuzzy at this point.
We are looking into what items may have been donated/salvaged during the demo. We are .19% below the 95% threshold for the ID/EP CWM Credit - dang! Grasping at straws to try to get there....
Again - thanks!
Peggy - I'm glad my response was useful. Based on that LI above, I think you could count the furniture - if you can gather the information and feel you have the backup to support it. Good luck wrapping it all up. It sounds like a doozy.
Should i have to incluye the demolition waste of an existing building in a leed projet? Or the projet counts since a clean site?
Florinda - If the existing building is on your LEED site and your project is demolishing it to build new, then yes - you have to count the waste from the demolition. Please see the demolition paragraph above under Bird's Eye View. I am not sure what your second sentence means…
A current LEED v2.2 project is in danger of falling short of MRc2.2. The Contractor has asked about including asphalt: I thought this would fall into the category of Land-clearing debris, but I see specific mention of re-using on-site (as a sub base); can anyone enlighten me as to whether there are other ways to include asphalt demolition, such as an asphalt plant accepting the material for their re-use of?
Gil – I do not consider asphalt to be landclearing debris and have seen it counted for this credit. My only experience with asphalt reuse/recycling is exactly what you describe - the asphalt batch plant accepted the removed asphalt and re-milled it into new asphalt. The removed material is called RAP (Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement). Consider checking out this article - http://www.asphaltpavement.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article.... You also might want to check with your local DOT. If anyone else can help Gil, please speak up.
On our construction site, a lot of trees are to be cut down and will be recycled into mulch offsite. However, several large trees will be saved and relocated to new permanent locations on the jobsite. Can these trees be included as materials diverted from the landfill? Can the trees recycled into mulch be included as materials diverted from the landfill?
Kelly - I would think that you could NOT count the trees that are made into mulch because I would consider them landclearing debris. But it is great that you are making them into mulch!
Nor do I think that you can count the trees that are saved and relocated under this credit - again due to landclearing debris issue. But you might want to consider including the relocated trees in the MRc5 - Regional Materials calcs for on-site extraction.
Regarding MRc2: Construction waste management we (general contractor) have learned that our sub-contractors have already taken huge amounts of construction waste and sold it directly to steel factories , luckily they (sub-contractors) have recorded the amounts of sold steel scrap.
Please note that we already have a hauler segregating ,in a designated construction waste area near site, the day to day construction waste from our (general contractor) construction activity and the hauler is responsible for taking the construction waste to the respective factories and is providing us with hauler receipts and factory certificates. But we don't have authority to take construction waste from all the subcontractors as it is a huge project and each subcontractor own their construction waste however they are obliged to support the LEED project towards MRc2.1-2.2 by ensuring that they send to the factories.
Now the question is: The subcontractors are willing to ask the steel factories to provide certificates to prove that they received the exact amounts of steel scrap. Would such certificates be accepted by the GBCI ,provided that the calculations hit the targeted 75% threshold, therefore ensuring the project is awarded with the point(s)?
Walid, it seems to be that certificates from the steel factories would be an acceptable piece of documentation here. However, I don't think you are covering waste hauled by these subcontractors that is NOT diverted, so how do you know what the quantity of non-diverted waste is?
Working on a project whereby a new school was built beside an old school - wondering if we should take the deconstructed old school into our CWM plan or if that will hurt us. Or do we need to consider the deconstructed waste? Looking for clarification. Thanks.
Troy, if the deconstructed school was part of the LEED project scope, then it needs to be included in your MRc2 calcs regardless of whether it will hurt you. But why would it, if it was diverted from the landfill?
How is buried material (brick, concrete, steel) from a demolition 10 yrs ago treated in MRC2? As land-clearing debris? (no LEED definition for this term) Our project is on a non-chemical brownfieldAbandoned, idled, or under used industrial and commercial facilities/sites who expansion, redevelopment, or reuse is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination (may include hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants). They can be in urban, suburban, or rural areas. EPA's Brownfields initiative helps communities mitigate potential health risks and restore the economic vitality of such areas or properties. (EPA) site. The material must be removed to dig the foundation for the new building but is contaminated with soil, rust, etc. and cannot be recycled. We do not wish to be penalized for someone else's waste. Can we exclude this material as land-clearing debris or other? Thank you for your insight.
Lindsey, this seems like a gray area to me that would require submitting 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 to get true clarification on. If you consider the credit language mentioning "Excavated soil and land-clearing debris," you might think that this could be excluded from the credit. However, I generally think of land-clearing debris as vegetation, and I understand the intent behind this language as preventing projects from taking credit for moving soil from point A to point B on the site.
In a case where the excavated matter is neither soil nor vegetation, and where it could be going to a landfill, I think there is a strong case that it should be included in your calcs. While it's unfortunate in terms of your credit calcs, perhaps there is an opportunity for something better to happen with this stuff, or for the project to work harder on other CWM to earn the credit. Hopefully you are getting credit under SSc3 for your hard work.
Interestingly, I lead a LEED Green Associate study group and many participants report getting a question on the exam related to how a rusty pipe uncovered during land clearing would be counted. I wonder what you consider to be the "best answer" for the sake of a test - count it as land clearing debris or count it as part of MRc1?
Emily - I can't speak to the content of the GA exam but I would think that a rusty pipe is not landclearing debris (see MRc2 forum’s FAQs for LEED 2009 (http://www.leeduser.com/credit/NC-2009/MRc2) where land clearing debris is defined as soil, vegetation, and rocks per the Reference Guide). Hence, I agree with Tristan’s thoughts above would count it under MRc2. I don’t think it would ever count under MRc1.
Does anyone know of a facility that recycles drywall in Kentucky or middle Tenessee?
We used a company called Green City Recycling from the Louisville Area
In an effort to get the EP credit, our project team was curious if we could Divert waste & debris from a neighboring project on a college campus and take credit for the waste stream diverted. It makes sense and doesn't at the same time to me as to why it would be acceptable.
Daniel, unfortunately this is not permitted by the LEED rating system. See a similar situation in LEED InterpretationLEED Interpretations are official answers to technical inquiries about implementing LEED on a project. They help people understand how their projects can meet LEED requirements and provide clarity on existing options. LEED Interpretations are to be used by any project certifying under an applicable rating system. All project teams are required to adhere to all LEED Interpretations posted before their registration date. This also applies to other addenda. Adherence to rulings posted after a project registers is optional, but strongly encouraged. LEED Interpretations are published in a searchable database at usgbc.org. ID#2316 by logging into the USGBC.org website.
You could still achieve the EP point with just the one building if you reach 95% diversion. In fact, adding another building wouldn't necessarily help you get there since the point is awarded based on percentage and not on absolute quantity diverted. Depending on your location in the country, some CW haulers/recyclers can achieve this level of diversion.
Having said all of that, I certainly don't want to discourage waste diversion on the adjacent project! It just won't contribute to your LEED project...
We’ve submitted a library for certification that includes an existing building and an addition. The addition is big enough that we can’t claim any Building Reuse points under MRc1. Instead, we included the existing building as part of our construction waste management points under MRc2, which gets us a great diversion rate.
This is encouraged not just here in LEEDuser, but also in the Reference Guide. At the end of the intro to the MR section for the NC 2.2 Ref Guide, it says: “Projects that are incorporating existing buildings but do not meet the requirements for MR Credit 1 may apply the reused portions of the exiting buildings towards the achievement of MR Credit 2.” That guidance is repeated at the end of the MRc2 “Approach and Implementation” section.
But we got this response from the reviewer:“However, some of the diverted materials (concrete debris and all existing building materials listed as reused on site) appear to be reused on site, and therefore do not meet credit requirements. Per the LEED Reference Guide for New Construction v2.2, Third Edition, MRc2.1 and MRc2.2 apply to materials that leave the site.”
I only have version 1 of the Ref Guide, so I checked the errata. The only reference I could find to this issue was in the errata to the 2nd edition, which directly contradicts what the reviewer is saying: “Insert as the last sentence of the Approach & Implementation section: “Materials salvaged and reused on-site can contribute to this credit if they are not included in Credit 3 calculations.” “
Does anyone else have experience with this issue? I’m submitting a formal query, but thought I’d check here as well.
First, good for you for documenting the existing building. I've gone down that road and it is a difficult. Secondly, having done this once, there may be issues with how you documented the existing versus the removed building elements that are contributing to the reviewer's response. It seems to me that it is not clear how the existing building is applied into the credit calculations. It has the potential to really swag the results.
Can I assume that you did a big spreadsheet listing the item and its associated weight (assuming like most projects you did this credit by weight)? You only included 'permanent' items? I recall not including the existing building windows, roof and other items that LEED encourages you to upgrade into the calculation. This was at a reviewer's recommendation. In the end it was simpler to focus on buidling structure and use that as a way to achieve the credit next credit.
Finally, you may want to check the RG v 2.0. This was the program we did this under and it may have had some advice.
Thanks for this great response, Susan. I should have come back right away to report that we got a response to our query (after about two weeks), and they acknowledged that they should not have rejected the existing building's material. So we're good now!
We are working in a very complex (shape) building in México, in order to develop it correctly provisional steel structure is used to support some permanent elements.
This provisional structure is going to be used especially for this project only.
If the steel is going to be returned to the manufacturer and melted in order to produce other elements for different projects or different use, can it count for the calculations? or does it count as a working tool?
I would count it for this credit. It seems to meet the intent of diverting something from the landfill that might otherwise be a waste material. (In practice, of course, it's very unlikely that this would be a waste material—but the credit threshold is set pretty high.)
We are completing a project for a local airport faciity where we have removed nearly all of the existing asphalt parking area. The majority of this existing asphalt has been been taken off-site and weighed and this has been carefully tracked as part of our Construction Waste Management Plan.
However, there is still a significant area where we will be using the existing "extra" asphalt on site for our project directly as pulverized sub-base for some new parking lot area as part of our project AND there is sufficient material that will also be used on site but NOT in our LEED project area but still on the Owner's property (also as pulverized sub-base for asphalt parking areas).
Since these asphalt quantities will not be taken off-site by a hauler and thus weighed and logged, can we estimate their tonnage based on the volume of the asphalt? This is all still material being diverted from the waste stream so we still want to count it toward this credit, but it will require the estimation of the tonnage based on volume.
Can this be explained in the narrative and have a chance of being accepted?
Kathy, I would propose that this is an acceptable method for tracking the asphalt. First, it is absolutely fine to re-use the asphalt off-site and still count it toward MRc2 (http://bit.ly/tHoTZe LEED InterpretationLEED Interpretations are official answers to technical inquiries about implementing LEED on a project. They help people understand how their projects can meet LEED requirements and provide clarity on existing options. LEED Interpretations are to be used by any project certifying under an applicable rating system. All project teams are required to adhere to all LEED Interpretations posted before their registration date. This also applies to other addenda. Adherence to rulings posted after a project registers is optional, but strongly encouraged. LEED Interpretations are published in a searchable database at usgbc.org. ID#2464).
Second, there are several indications in the reference guide that support a calculation like that you suggest. MRc1 allows building re-use to contribute to MRc2. The actual language on pg. 352 of the 2009 BD+C Reference Guide (sorry, didn't have my 2.2 handy) is "determine an approximate weight or volume for existing building elements." This establishes precedent in my mind for counting materials that cannot be physically measured for volume or weight. Also, as mentioned in the post below, each version of the Reference Guide has included a volume to mass conversion table which also supports this approach.
The only other idea that is out there would be to actually calculate the volume/weight of the asphalt using trucks with load cells or known volumes during transport. Please let us know how this gets resolved!
Starting construction for a project and several contractors have balked at being able to have everything that is diverted either weighed or logged with tickets. The CM has found a document that provides a conversion from Volume of most materials to weight. I believe that the table was produced by the California Integrated Waste Management Board and uses their own studies along with those by FEECO Incorporated, the Tellus Institute of Boston and the US EPA for conversion factorsEstimates are presented in customary U.S. units. Floorspace estimates may be converted to metric units by using the relationship: 1 square foot is approximately equal to 0.0929 square meters. Energy estimates may be converted to metric units by using the relationship: 1 Btu is approximately equal to 1,055 joules; one kilowatthour is exactly equal to 3,600,000 joules; and one gigajoule (109 joules) is approximately 278 kilowatthours (kWh).. Has anyone had any success using such a method to log Waste Diversion using weight. I believe that most diverted waste will be weighed or logged with tickets, but it is clear that some will not. If you have had success, please share any tips that might help solidify our numbers. Thanks.
There is no specific conversion factor for materials that is accepted by LEED. In the LEED-NC v2.0 Reference Guide (blow the dust off that one!) solid waste conversion factorsEstimates are presented in customary U.S. units. Floorspace estimates may be converted to metric units by using the relationship: 1 square foot is approximately equal to 0.0929 square meters. Energy estimates may be converted to metric units by using the relationship: 1 Btu is approximately equal to 1,055 joules; one kilowatthour is exactly equal to 3,600,000 joules; and one gigajoule (109 joules) is approximately 278 kilowatthours (kWh). were listed:
Mixed waste 350 (lb/cy)
Conversion rates are typically not questioned unless they seem outlandish. It also helps that you're citing reputable sources for your conversion factors.
The current v3 Reference Guide has these converstion factors listed in Table 2 and added:
Steel 1,000 (lb/cy)
I tried to use the tracking sheet from the documentation toolkit. It seems to be very useful, however I get errors from time to time and I don't know what's incorrect, because the icons are blocked and I can't see the equations. E.g. Every time I put a number in a "disposed in landfill" column in the month tally, it shows me #ADR! in the master sheet. I assume the equation in the master tally just adds the numbers from the month sheets, so I don't know what's wrong.
Is there a possibility to get the unlocked version of the tracking sheet, or can someone advice me how to overcome this problem?
Alicja, I tried to re-create your issue by entering figures in each category under “Disposed in Landfill” on the Tracking Sheet but I could not duplicate your error message. It is working well. Is there any pattern as to when it triggers the error, such as a particular month or way the figure is entered that is different from other entries?
Tristan from LEEDuser would be the one who could answer your request about making the unlocked version available.
In the meantime, if you don’t figure out what is creating your input error, you could always re-create the Tracking document in-house using this one as the template, which I know is not the quickest fix!
On our MRc2 credit we were asked to "Clarify". In the "Technical Advice" it reads: "Please provide documentation from the state regulating body stating the facility's average recycling rate. Alternatively, provide project-specific diversion rates".
The project we built is in Aliso Viejo, CA where it is mandatory that "CR&R" is used as the waste hauler. CR&R sorts and recylcles all the trash and construciton debris. I was getting quarterly reports from them listing the average diversion rate for each quarter. We submitted these but obviously these were'nt good enough. I have spent several days trying to find something from the State of California and have spoken to people at Calrecycle but no one seems to know where I can get "State Documentation" regarding the average recycling rate. Can I get some help on this?
Karen, if you have folks at the state cooperating with you, perhaps they could provide some sort of letter or inspection documentation backig up CR&R's numbers?
We are getting comments based on a 2005 v2.1 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 (#3000) about a project in Los Angeles that seems to indicate that we cannot use monthly commingled diversion rates at all unless the "method of recording and calculating the recycling rate is regulated by a local or state government authority".
In WA state, our process is not the same as the City of Los Angeles. Our regulating body requires these facilities to get a solid waste handling permit that includes recycling and adhere to state priorities and goals for diversion. Recycling rate audits and annual reporting to the State are not required for facilities with these permits.
We have a mature recycling industry with commingled receivers we have used on dozens of successful projects. We have provided permits and reporting that indicates the receiver methodology for calculation. These documents have always worked before. And we find no additional detail in the 2009 reference manual or addenda regarding the regulatory part of this requirement.
Our receiver indicates he is getting the same request for this nonexistent regulatory information from other local projects. Are we to understand that no projects in the State of Washington will be able to get MRcr2 points anymore because we don't regulate our waste the way that the City of Los Angeles does? Does anyone have any insight into this?
Does WA have a state wide manadate regarding minimum watse diversion rates that should be achieved by all contracted MRF and recycling facilities? In our experience, using the mandate to demostrate waste diversion rates has been successful though this number is much lower than what would have been the actual diversion rate for the project. On a different note, using the facility diversion rate number as reflection of construction waste diverted can be a problem expecially in cases where waste is commingled and sorted as the percentage of waste diversion can be from other commercial waste sources that is not typical to a construction site.
No, there is no state wide mandate just non-metric goals and priorities in the regulation. And yes, understood that monthly commingled diversion has its issues, but it is the predominant method on our sites.
We have 25+ certified projects representing every rating system, and all of them have achieved waste diversion points in the past based on this same documentation.
We are really struggling with how to deal with requirements that seem to change once they get in the reviewer's hands and end up penalizing projects that have been doing the "right thing" all along usually at some expense.
Obviously a project cannot change it's construction practices when it's already complete so we have to rely on the reference standards, manual and addenda to guide projects throughout design and construction. Can you point me toward where this regulatory requirement is spelled out so that we can advise ongoing and future projects?
Unfortantely there is no standard regulations unless the local goverment has something in place. Solid Waste is very much dependent on where you or your project is located and the rules there. In your situation where it is after the fact, the only option that may be of help is if some way you can track down records showing the MRF's average monthly diversion rates and attach with it a narrative that describes the MRF's sorting process and their partner recycling centers. It is unfrotunate that USGBC is using a blanket approach for documentation when the reality is that the whole solid waste industry is far from being a standard process.
I agree Michelle that more clarity is needed from USGBC on this regulatory requirement for comingledA process of recycling materials that allows consumers to dispose of various materials (such as paper, cardboard, plastic, and metal) in one container that is separate from waste. The recyclable materials are not sorted until they are collected and brought to a sorting facility. waste. We learned from a large national waste firm that they have attempted to get some interest in establishing industry standards that will meet this concern but have not received any support.
Just to make sure you are aware, the requirement itself is found on the v3 LEED Credit Form on LEED Online when you select "Comingled" in the data Table. That then triggers a new Comingled section to appear with this specific documentation upload requirement I have pasted below. It simultaneously triggers a new Comingled box to also appear in the Upload section with the same comingled upload requirements. It would be nice if this information did not take such sleuthing to find!
Below is the LEED credit form language:
Upload MRc2-2. For commingled waste provide documentation verifying the diversion rate of the waste. Documentation can be either a project specific diversion rate provided by the sorting facility or the average annual recycling rate for the sorting facility provided by the regulating local or state government authority.
I interpret the “project specific diversion rate” to be free of the regulating authority requirement, since it is actual separated waste weights or volumes specific to that project. Does anyone have reason to believe differently?
Thanks for the response. Yes, I am aware of the template statement which echoes the 2005 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 they are using. It is, however, very unclear to me why such an "old" requirement has not been incorporated in the 2009 reference manual.
Like you, we advise clients during design and construction about LEED requirements, so we need to be able to rely on the reference materials published at the time of registration. Instead we are encountering more and more review comments that say "in future projects do this..." and requirements that appear only on templates. We actually didn't think that was possible in the "no precendent setting land of review comments and CIRs of old".
We understand that the online platform is more flexible than hardcopy resources, but we are getting the feeling that GBCI is out in front of USGBC rather than aligned. That's like trying to build a building when the code keeps changing along the way.
Yes, you are correct. The project specific diversion requirement is free of the regulatory issue. I have a project that just got reviewed that successfully took that approach. However, in WA 95% of our projects use commingled diversion rates. We have 8 projects currently in progress that will be penalized for doing the right thing that has been acceptable for others for the past 6 years.
Change and evolution of requirements are necessary and acceptable, but the rules of play need to be set at the beginning of the game or eventually there are going to be a lot of disgruntled players. The greatest value of LEED is that it creates a context in which green buildings can be compared apples to apples and encourages people to strive to implement sustainable measures they can quantify and understand. We are trying to raise all boats, right? These kind of midstream changes and surprise requirements that appear when it's too late to course correct are creating vast frustration and negative reinforcement for our clients, who then may not bother to attempt this next time.
Michelle, How did this turn out in the end? We're facing the exact same situation right now. We're going to provide copies of permits for our processors and explain the regulator environment for our region and keep our fingers crossed that the absence of regulated reporting methodology is not the real issue at hand. If it is, then you and I both know that there isn't a recycling in the State that can meet the commingled requirements for LEED and that will be quite a shock to the industry.
Let me know if you are interested in pooling together some resources to lobby the USGBC for further clarification and/or approaching our regulating bodies here in WA to get a process in place that actually regulates the reporting of diversion rates for LEED projects. I already have a couple of recyclers and others in the industry interested if we need to mobilize based on how the USGBC responds to the clarification about our regulatory environment here in WA State.
Hi there -
I realize the original post here was from over a year ago, but since it seems others are running into this issue... The requirement change may have been initiated by a 2005 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, but it has in fact been incorporated into the 2009 Reference Guide, via an Addendum dated 5/9/2011 (ID#100000902):
"Add the following to end of first paragraph:For commingled recycling the average annual recycling rate for a sorting facility is acceptable for recording diversion rates only when the facility's method of recording and calculating the recycling rate is regulated by a local or state government authority."
HOWEVER, per the USGBC Addenda webpage, "Project teams are required to adhere to rating system addenda based upon project registration date. It is strongly recommended that project teams adhere to reference guide addenda as well."
Therefore, if you were registered prior to 5/9/2011, you are NOT required to adhere to this addendum You should point out to the reviewer that they are applying an addendum that was in place after your registration date. Hope that helps.
Excellent point, thanks for chiming in! To add a bit more strength to the fact that old CIRs do not apply to LEED v2009 projects, the LEED Certification Manual states: “All CIR rulings that were generated in response to a CIR submitted on or before June 26, 2009, and which pertain to a pre-LEED 2009 Rating System, are public and precedent setting for projects registered under the same version of a pre-LEED 2009 Rating System… LEED 2009 project teams may reference public rulings in their applications; however public rulings are not binding for LEED 2009 projects. GBCI is not obligated to apply pre-LEED 2009 CIR rulings to LEED 2009 projects.” Therefore, v2009 projects rely on the Ref. Manual and the Addenda only as stated.
Now to figure out how we can meet the requirements on future projects! Seattle still does not have the infrastructure needed to provide what the Addenda requires for projects post 5/9/11.
The way I read the Reference Guide (addendum included) is the goverment authority issue only applies if the **annual** recycling rate for the facility is provided, as opposed to the project-specific recycling rate. Monthly reports that are project-specific should be accpeptable. I would object to any Reviewer who asked for government authority documentation when project-specific data were provided.
I agree, I read it the same way! Due the urban nature of the projects in our area, commingled diversion is typically the only thing we have space on the site to use. Seattle's commingled diversion rates are typically monthly average facility diversion rates. Technically, neither the Interpretation or the Addenda addresses this issue directly as we do not have annual or project specific data. It's a bit of a grey area if you ask me but then again you get used to that color working on LEED projects...
We have responded to Review Comments on a project pointing out this issue as well as letting them know that their comments aren't applicable due to the dates of registration and the addenda. It's a bit of a shot gun approach but hopefully it will save time and a potential Appeal fee.
Well, the ref guide/addendum definitely ONLY specifies the requirement for annual rates, not monthly (it does NOT differentiate between facility or project-specific)... So good luck! Let us all know how it turns out. Thanks!
WE have a major renovation project that is registered under NC2.2 New Construction, because the renovation is so extensive. Part of the renovation is the replacement of the flat mod. bit. roofing system. We have obtained the 75% landfill diversion on all of our other projects and were hoping to get at least the 50% rate for this project. Our Contractor is having a hard time with finding a way to recycle the Modified Bitumen roofing material and that is approximately 50% by both weight and volume of the demolition material. Does anybody know of a source or way to handle the recycling of that type of waste stream?
Keith, is recycling into asphalt for roads an option? That's the best idea I can think of.
In cases where in some batch of concrete mix there are some excess and the GC used that to create some concrete paver blocks to be used on high foot traffic locations on site can we consider that for the MRc2?
When the project is finished in construction and the concrete paver blocks will no longer be used, how should we treat those?
Katherine, I would say you could apply this to MRc2, but only if the paver blocks are diverted from the waste stream after construction. Perhaps through donation to a salvage store, another construction project, or take them to the GC"s next project?
Our project used comingling instead of sorting onsite and we indicated this methodology in the CWM Plan, however, we were recently denied the credit based on the fact that the Contractor listed the hauler and comingling sorting facility but did not list the end destination of all the recycled materials. Where does it state that this is required for credit compliance? And, if the sorting facility has multiple recycling destinations, do we just list them all, not knowing really where our project's materials ended up? Anyone have luck in providing back-up documentation for comingling?
Linda, you mention your CWM Plan but I am wondering what you provided for your uploaded backup documentation for the comingledA process of recycling materials that allows consumers to dispose of various materials (such as paper, cardboard, plastic, and metal) in one container that is separate from waste. The recyclable materials are not sorted until they are collected and brought to a sorting facility. waste. Did you include the verification document for the recycling facility the Contractor and hauler used that shows it is regulated by a local or state government with regards to the annual recycling rates being claimed? If not, perhaps that is the trigger. If the facility is not regulated but your recycled waste was sorted and weighed for your project specifically, I would certainly resubmit the credit and provide a spreadsheet from the sorting facility listing the recycling destinations for the various specific waste streams the project had. Sounds like the reviewer needs assurance that the waste ended up at appropriate recycling facilities following the facility sorting exercise.
None of the LEED reference guides provide guidance on comingling requirements or documentation. Can you upload a sample of the "verification document for the recycling facility the Contractor and hauler used that shows it is regulated by a local or state government with regards to the annual recycling rates being claimed" that you speak of?
Linda - Per your request, we are looking to find a comingledA process of recycling materials that allows consumers to dispose of various materials (such as paper, cardboard, plastic, and metal) in one container that is separate from waste. The recyclable materials are not sorted until they are collected and brought to a sorting facility. verification document sample for you that is not confidential. In the meantime, you might request it of a recycling facility that is accustomed to documenting this way, even if it is outside your region.
By the way, you mention that none of the LEED reference guides gave you the comingled verification guidance that I mentioned. It is found on the v3 LEED Credit Form on LEED Online when you select "Comingled" in the data Table. That then triggers a new Comingled section to appear with this specific documentation upload requirement. It simultaneously triggers a new Comingled box to also appear in the Upload section with the same comingled upload requirements. It would be nice if this information did not take such sleuthing to find!
Thanks, Valerie, a sample would be really helpful to provide to our Contractors.
I agree 'sleuthing' as become an integral part of LEED documentation! As part of our LEED process management, we are now advising all Team members to refer not only to the reference guides, but to the LEED Online forms, as they have additional criteria that does not appear in the reference guide and/ or addenda.
We advise the same. Prior to the v3 Reference Guides, documentation requirements were fairly well defined. It still required cross-checking with the LEED credit forms, but the documentation requirements section in the v3 Reference Guides are a clear departure from v2 and are very non-committal. I find it takes playing around with various scenarios in the v3 LEED credit forms to trigger all of the options to open to be able to get a fuller understanding of the documentation requirements.
We have a lot of projects doing commingled diversion and have seen these comments before. It sounds like you have three issues rolled up together.
The CWM plan is supposed to list the intended receivers for each type of recycled material you anticipate. Generally, that info comes from the hauler, and we see it most often as a standard looking page that they provide the contractor with their proposal.
The commingled documentation issue has two components. You can only use a monthly diversion rate in the template for your commingled waste if the receiver has a solid waste permit. That's the "verification that it's regulated" they are looking for. Then in addition, you need to upload the report that receiver issues that indicates their monthly diversion rate. As Valerie indicates, these permits and reports shouldn't be so hard to get. I could provide a sample but don't know how to upload documents to this forum for that purpose.
And boy, do I agree with you both about requirements on the credit forms. It makes things a lot harder to have some things show up online and can screw up bidders who didn't anticipate a requirement until they can get online and start trying checkboxes. And to add insult to injury things can get changed online midstream, making requirements different for different concurrent projects. Can be frustrating.
LEED AP BD+C, ID+C, O+M, Managing Principal
Earthly Ideas LLC
Reused building components that don’t reach the MRc1.1 or MRc1.2 thresholds may be applied to MRc2 as waste diversion.
If onsite material is being reused but is not being counted toward MRc1 or MRc3, it may count toward MRc2.
LEEDuser is produced by BuildingGreen, Inc., with YR&G authoring most of the original content. LEEDuser enjoys ongoing collaboration with USGBC. Read more about our team
Copyright 2013 – BuildingGreen, Inc.