NC-2009 MRc2: Construction Waste Management 1-2 points

Our project is located on a Washington State DSHS-JRA Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration (Detention) Campus in Chehalis called Green Hill School. The project consists of two new commercial buildings replacing two obsolete buildings (demolished in this project). Both new buildings, Heath Center/Administration (HCA) and Intensive Management Unit (IMU), will be placed on the same site area (building footprint) as one of the obsolete buildings (Building \'X\'). Each new building footprint covers approximately 1/2 the existing footprint of the obsolete Building \'X\'. After the demolition of the 2nd obsolete building (Building \'W\'), this area and other disturbed areas will be restored with native/adaptive landscaping to create a green space. Only the HCA building will be pursuing USGBC recorded status of LEED Silver. The HCA building consists of a Health Center including medical, dental, and mental health services on the first floor and Administration offices on the second floor. This project will be completed in 3 phases, two bid packages and two separate Contractors. We are proposing one consistent LEED boundary that we will use for all the LEED credit. The entire project will have 3 different construction and TESC boundaries that will be different from the LEED boundary due to the phasing of demolition and construction and the inclusion of the IMU bldg (which is not pursuing LEED) in the construction boundary. Bid Pack #1 - Site Utilities and Demolition of Building \'X\' summer \'07 Bid Pack #2 - Phase I - New Construction of HCA & IMU building (in footprint of demolished bldg \'X\') spring to winter \'08 Phase II - Demolition of Bldg \'W\' and restoration of native/adaptive landscaping winter \'08/spring \'09 We could include 1/2 of Bldg \'X\' within our LEED boundary OR exclude Building \'X\' demolition from the LEED scope of work. We are planning to divert this demolition waste from the landfill, but the paperwork may be confusing with only 1/2 the building counting towards our LEED credits and the paper work from demolition of Building \'X\' will be from a different Contractor. Bldg \'W\' will be included in the LEED boundary and is in the same Bid Pack #2 that includes the new construction, although this demolition and restoration of landscape will be Phase II. Prior to demolition, a full hazardous material abatement would be completed to abate asbestos, mercury, and lead based paints. Demolition of building \'X\' and \'W\' would mostly consist of grinding up concrete into a rocky base coarse which would be used as base material along the perimeter road of the secured campus. Temporary stockpiling of soils from demolition of Building \'X\' and preparation of the site will be used to fill-in area of demolition of Building \'W\'. We propose that the LEED boundary for our HCA building would include half of the footprint of the demolished Building \'X" and the entire footprint of the demolished building \'W\' (excluding the other new building - IMU building which in located over the other 1/2 of Building \'X\'). The inquiry is: Is our proposal for our LEED boundary acceptable? Based on the LEED site boundary described above, is it permissible to have 3 different phased TESC boundaries and Construction boundaries beyond the one consistent LEED boundary for the HCA building? Is it permissible to calculate only the portion of the demolition of Bldg \'X\' which is in the LEED boundary toward MRc2 with the paper work being provided from a different contractor?

Our major renovation project is a high-rise building in Germany. One of the recycling methods we apply is underground waste disposal, also called mine backfill (Bergversatz), a method which, in Germany, is governed by statutory provisions. Since with our project, a relatively large amount of material (gypsum waste, sheet glass, gypsum fiberboard panels, etc.) is disposed of in this manner, we would like to make sure that this way of recycling is acceptable in line with the Credit Intent. Underground waste disposal or mine backfill means that exploited deep mines are backfilled with liquid or solid mining or non-mining materials. Depending on their nature, the filling materials are stored in barrels or packed in big bags and their storage is controlled. The backfill may also consist of bulk material. Under the German Closed Substance Cycle and Waste Management Act (Kreislaufwirtschafts- und Abfallgesetz) and, in addition, under the German ordinance on the underground disposal of waste (Bergversatzverordnung) it is specified that if this disposal serves an economic purpose, e.g. if it prevents a mine from collapsing by filling it air-free, it is not considered as waste disposal but rather as waste recycling. Furthermore, for every 500 metric tons, analyses must be performed and submitted which confirm that the underground waste material is recognized as safe. As under the applicable German laws and regulations, underground waste disposal is recognized as recycling, we would like to know whether this recycling method complies with the requirements of the LEED Credit Intent and whether LEED also recognizes underground waste disposal as a means of recycling?

A CS project is inheriting an existing building that still has furniture from the previous tenant. The project team is seeking clarification on how to account for this furniture in MRc2 and how to document the selling of this furniture to a re-seller.

Methodology #1 Each co-mingled load of construction debris is weighted at the MRF and visually inspected then the percentage of each recyclable material is tallied. The recyclable materials are then processed for sale on the secondary market. The tallied data is documented in a running monthly report created by either the MRF or the Hauler and is submitted to the contractor for the project. Methodology #2 The MRF\'s self-reported recycling percentage rate (for the entire facility) is applied toward specific LEED projects\' delivered co-mingled tonnage brought to that facility. We are aware of the CIR ruling dated 12.2.05 stating that a project can use this methodology if a facility has government oversight over a facility\'s recycling rate calculations. In our case we have government oversight of the MRFs overall recovery rates but the reporting methodology required by the oversight agency doesn\'t account for C&D debris - asphalt, gypsum wallboard, and concrete tonnage which is processed through those facilities. LEED NC v2.2 accepts and credits concrete towards MRc2 but this disconnect between how the oversight agency tracks materials versus what is actually processed in a facility doesn\'t allow for accurate reporting and subsequent award of LEED credit in our local market. Please let us know if one or both methods are acceptable for tracking and documenting co-mingled boxes for MRc2.

Our LEED project consists of a 69,000 square foot addition to a 105,000 square foot University Athletic Center. The University will also partially renovate some portions of the existing Center, which consists of a series of buildings that date back to the 1930\'s. Although the renovation work in the existing Athletic Center will not seek LEED certification, the project team would like to implement as many sustainable strategies as possible on this work. For example, the construction team will be developing a Construction Waste Management Plan, consistent with the requirements of MRc2.1 (minimum 50% diversion from landfill), that will be utilized on both the Addition project and the renovation work. In order to streamline this waste management plan process, the project team would like to utilize a single set of dumpsters on site to sort the diverted and landfill materials. This will effectively commingle the materials for both projects, yet save the University the thousands of dollars it would cost to use and manage separate dumpsters. This will also eliminate any confusion as to which dumpster to use or not use as both the Addition project and the renovation work will be constructed within similar timeframes and in close location to each other. Thus, the project team is requesting USGBC clarification as to whether this streamlined approach is an acceptable means of complying with the intent of MRc2. The project team will ensure that at least 50% of the combined construction waste is diverted from landfill to comply with MRc2.1.

This CIR asks for further clarification of the ruling dated 3/23/2004 that states "Incineration cannot be used as an alternative method for diverting waste from the landfill for purposes of credit achievement." Our recycling facility processes construction and demolition (C&D) debris into numerous commodities. One of these products is Wood Derived Fuel (WDF) which is sold to local paper mills to replace virgin wood, natural gas and oil. While the product is burned, it is not incinerated. The USEPA has recently provided a category for such materials and defined them as Biofuel: A gaseous, liquid, or solid fuel that contains an energy content derived from a biological source. WDF has an energy content value of 8,500 Btus per pound of fuel and is derived from the collection, sorting and processing of C&D waste. The LEED Reference Guide defines recycling as "the collection, reprocessing, marketing and use of materials that are diverted or recovered from the solid waste stream." Before accepting co-mingled C&D debris for processing, the recycler we use demands that we provide Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (A.H.E.R.A.) documentation proving the C&D loads have been inspected and abated. In addition, they maintain on-site testing equipment to detect lead & asbestos (such as XRF for lead and a polarized light microscope for asbestos). C&D debris that passes these tests is then accepted and sent through an elaborate sorting system where commodities ranging from LDPE plastic to Steel are separated and sold. Wood represents the largest volume of material they accept and is processed into 4-different commodities including WDF, Colorized Mulch, Pulp Furnish and Alternate Daily Cover. Facilities that purchase WDF have boiler permits that meet the requirements of 40 CFR Part 63 of the USEPA National Emission Standards (http://www.epa.gov/epacfr40/chapt-I.info/). Prior to the development of recycled WDF, most C&D wood waste was land filled and lumber mill saw dust was used as WDF. As the market for recycled WDF has developed, its use has resulted in lumber mill wood waste residuals traditionally consumed as fuel to be up-cycled into particle board, pulp and MDF, which is currently the highest use of this resource. . When C&D wood waste is land filled, the anaerobic conditions present in a landfill result in wood waste generating large quantities of methane gas. Methane gas has a global warming potential that is 23 times more hazardous than CO2 (http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid1215.php, November 08, 2006), where as consuming WDF in a modern industrial boiler is considered carbon neutral. The CIR ruling dated 3/23/2004 specifically denies diversion credit for C&D debris delivered to a mass-burn incinerator that uses excess heat to generate electricity, (Waste to Energy, WTE). The CIR recognized that the primary function of a WTE incinerator is to reduce the volume of waste placed in a landfill. The incinerator accepts everything that could be delivered to the landfill and they charge as much or more than is typically charged for landfill disposal. In contrast, our permitted recycling facility creates a recycled content commodity that is sold for profit. They manufacture WDF from a portion of the C&D debris they receive and they sell the WDF to paper mills that operate USEPA permitted industrial boilers to produce the heat energy needed to manufacture and recycle paper. Use of this product as a commodity is consistent with the LEED Reference Guides definition of recycling and with CIR dated 5/17/2004 for the production of Alternative Daily Cover. Audit documentation, such as receipts of sale of WDF to USEPA permitted facilities, can provide evidence of material diversion as WDF. For these reasons, we believe producing Wood Derived Fuel (WDF) meets the intent of the credit and seek to gain a ruling as such from the USGBC materials TAG.

Our LEED NC v2.2 registered project includes pursuit of MRc2 - Construction Waste Management credits and we would like to know if our strategy for compliance is acceptable. We have been actively sorting and recycling wood, concrete/masonry, metals, cardboard, paper and plastic in a region of the country which has severely limited available CDL recycling facilities, due primarily to the negative impacts of hurricane Katrina in 2005. To date, approximately 16,000CY of excavated soil from our project site has been removed and donated to a non-profit, private school to assist in preparing their site on campus facility expansions. The school site is located approximately 500 feet from our project site. If the excavated soil were to have been hauled off to a landfill, the travel distance would have been greater than 25 miles one-way. It is projected that an additional 1,000CY of excavated soil from the project site will also be made available to the school as our project progresses. We are aware the LEED NC v2.2 MRc2 - Construction Waste Management credit requirements indicate excavated soil does not contribute to this credit, however the excavated soil was donated to a neighboring school which the credit requirements make special note that ".diversion may include donation of materials to charitable organizations.". We believe we are meeting the intent of the credit by diverting construction and demolition debris from disposal in area landfills and in addition, we are significantly reducing environmental impact from transportation vehicle emissions and providing a non-profit organization with materials to provide site expansion.

Is lead-based paint containing material considered hazardous for the purposes of LEED and therefore eligible for exclusion from the calculations of waste diversion?

During construction while excavating for placement of compacted sub-grade and asphalt, limestone was found on our project site. Due to its location and interference with the parking surface elevation, the rock was removed and donated to the local county which was used for permanent erosion control on a different project site. Although the reference guide disregards excavated soil and land clearing debris from this credit, we propose that the limestone as a product differs from the "land clearing debris" because it is a material which can be recycled into another product that otherwise would have had to been extracted and manufactured. We believe that this attribute of the limestone allows it to count as a "reusable material". We also believe that the donation and redirection of the limestone as a reusable material for a different site, not only meets the intent of this credit by diverting waste, but is also an acceptable manner (as defined by the reference guide) by which to qualify for the credit as it is "redirecting reusable materials to appropriate sites". In keeping with the intent of this credit, can we include this rock in our MRc2 Construction Waste Management Calculations?

WCA Bondad Landfill has developed a plan for LEED-NCv2.2, MRc2, Construction Waste Management for a project in Western Colorado. Due to limited options for waste recycling in this rural region of Colorado, WCA Bondad Landfill has developed an alternate approach that we believe is consistent with the intent of MRc2 and with previous CIR rulings. Two waste bins will be placed on the job site. One bin will be placed for general refuse (commonly known as "MSW" or "Municipal Solid Waste"), which is non-recyclable trash (food waste, etc.). The other bin will be reserved for materials to be utilized as alternate daily cover ("ADC"), also known as "beneficial layer" at the landfill. This material will include large plastic, packaging material, non-contaminated soil that cannot be used on-site and any other clean trash or construction waste materials that there are no recycling options for in the area. All ferrous metals will be diverted and recycled. Masonry, concrete, and sheetrock will be reused on site as fill and soil amendment. Federal regulations require waste disposal facilities to cover the working face of a landfill at the end of each operating day with six inches of earthen material, or an approved ADC. As noted in a CIR for MR Credit 2.1 (Inquiry ID 0277-MRc21-041902) landfills typically use soil from the initial excavation of the pit as the daily cover material. However, landfills in southwestern Colorado - and around the country - run out of clean fill from their own excavation stocks. At times, WCA Bondad Landfill mines clean earth, or purchases soil which is routinely trucked from soil quarries at a distance. WCA\'s processing and use of this non-recyclable contractor waste as ADC will prevent the need for WCA to mine, purchase or transport ADC, thus effectively diverting materials from the waste stream by reusing them at the landfill. Our approach will be consistent with a CIR dated 5/17/2002 in which non-recyclable material is processed at the landfill and used as Alternate Daily Cover. The difference here is that the material processed to be used as ADC will not be marketed as a product for sale or for use elsewhere, as was the Barrier product referenced in the previous CIR. The environmental benefits will be the same however. Consistent with the CIR dated 5/17/2002, all quantities will be tracked and actual use at the landfill will be documented. Please confirm that our approach is compliant with NCv2.2, MRc2.