NC-2009 MRc4: Recycled Content 1-2 points

In the waste diversion process many questions have come up regarding utilizing Waste-to-Energy as a landfill diverstion strategy. Can Waste-to-Energy be utilized as a landfill diversion strategy if; this effort ran parallel to sorting recyclable and reusable materials, and the power plant proposed has approved EPA pollution control devices. Alternatively, can paying additional cost to transport non recyclable trash to a Waste-to Energy power plant to be incinerated and converted into electrical energy count as diverted waste?

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.

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?

We are performing a comparative analysis for fiberglass insulation regarding MR Credit 4: Recycled Content. Depending on the manufacturer, recycled content is reported either a plant- and product-specific average, or a country-wide average (various plants and products). We have contacted a manufacturer using North American average recycled content claims, and they state that the recycled content across their facilities and product lines can range from 0-70%. Are country-wide recycled content averages acceptable as documentation for MR Credit 4: Recycled Content? If country-wide averages are not acceptable, what level of specificity is acceptable?

The project team is seeking clarification for our intended use of on-site excavated rock. During excavation and site work at the project, a large amount of limestone rock was encountered. Instead of disposing of the rock off-site, we are using it on-site. We are breaking up the on-site rock into 12 - 18" pieces for use as rip-rap. This eliminates the need to use virgin quarry rock and reduces the amount of the volume of waste sent to the landfill. We would like to apply the market value of the rip-rap to MR credit 4.1, Recycled Content (pre-consumer). We will use the following formula for our calculations: # of Tons of excavated rock used on site * the local quarry price per ton * 1/2 = $ applied to MRc4.1 Since this approach will use what is typically a waste stream and use it to reduce the demand for off-site materials, it seems to meet the overall intent of the LEED process. If the rock cannot be applied to MRc4.1, is there any other credit that it could be applied to?

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.

This project has contracted with the construction waste hauling company Richard S. Burns and Company, Inc. (here after known as RSBCO) who will take all construction waste from our project and recycle about 90% of it through a patented process that produce several products. These recycled construction waste products are unconventional and one of the products is sold for use in landfill operations. We would like the USGBC to confirm that these products made from construction waste meet the intent of the MR Credit 2 - the diversion of construction waste into the commercial products stream - thereby qualifying our project for MR credits 2.1 and 2.2. RSBCO has developed and patented a specific process of receiving, sorting, grinding, and blending construction waste materials to recover recyclable materials and produce desired products from the rest of the waste. The process begins with screening out fine particles for later use. The material then moves through a positive sorting process where individually recyclable materials like ferrous and non-ferrous metals, cardboard, masonry, and wood are recovered. RSBCO sells ferrous and non-ferrous metals and cardboard to secondary processing markets. On-site, RSBCO processes masonry and wood into a clean fill product used around pipes, in drainage trenches, or as substrate for road construction. We think the recovered recyclable materials and the clean fill product both clearly meet the intent of the MR credit 2.The process continues with negatively sorting the remaining construction material to remove undesirable materials such as plastic trash bags and clothing. This undesirable material represents less than 10% of total materials received and is continuously scrutinized for further recycling opportunities. The remaining material is then ground, screened again for metal recovery, and sized. The ground and crushed aggregate from all stages of the process are then blended in specific proportion to create a product called Barrier

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?

When removing petroleum contaminated soils there are two options for disposal. One would be to haul the contaminated soils to a hazardous materials landfill. The other option is to incinerate the soil to burn off the petroleum and remediate the soil into a environmentally safe product. In the case of Biomed project we elected to have the contaminated soils recycled (incinerated). During the site cleanup WT removed 787.4 TONS of contaminated soils from the project site. We are currently applying for the "Brownfield Credit" which all of this documentation will be sent to document the cleanup. Also LEED specifically says that land clearing waste (soils) cannot be included in the waste management plan, but for this case we feel that because of the soils were recycled from a hazardous material that we should be able to apply the tonnage to our waste management calculations. Can we use this toward this credit too?

When a LEED NC project attempts LEED CI Indoor Environmental Quality credit 4.5: Low Emitting Materials - Systems Furniture and Seating as an Innovation in Design strategy, are they required to include the furniture costs in Materials and Resources credits 3 thru 7?

Our project features a custom Glazed Aluminum Curtain Wall skin. The curtain wall contractor will obtain custom-made glass, aluminum, and steel components from its suppliers. In order to facilitate material transport and installation, the contractor has elected to construct unitized curtain wall sections of various sizes and shapes in the shop before transporting the sections to the site and mounting them on the building. Because the curtain wall sections are composed of multiple materials, the sections could be considered individual "assemblies" according to the Reference Guide. If an assembly calculation is used, the relative weights of the components in each section would have to be used to determine the recycled value of each individual section. We submit that it is appropriate to calculate the recycled value of the curtain wall using the original components, rather than performing an assembly calculation for the individual unitized sections. The custom-made glass, aluminum, and steel components used in the construction of the sections can be accounted for pre-assembly. The contractor is able to identify the cost and recycled content information for each type of material. Since the recycled content value of the curtain wall\'s component materials can be accurately tracked using our proposed approach, the intent of the credit is maintained, as preference can be given to materials containing recycled content. Please confirm if this approach is acceptable.

Please provide clarification on documentation of recycled content claims and FSC certified claims for woods products such as particleboard, MDF and other composites.

Our project is located in Los Angeles, California. Construction waste is sorted at the jobsite into various boxes i.e. wood, metal, concrete/inert material, drywall/gypsum, co-mingled recycled waste (small wood scraps, wire cuttings, conduit, metal stud cut offs, etc.), and general trash boxes. A contracted hauler regularly collects these boxes. General trash is taken directly to the landfill where it is weighed and then buried. Separated recycling materials are taken to various certified City of Los Angeles recycling facilities where they are weighed and processed. Co-mingled recycled waste is taken to special certified recycling facilities where the co-mingled mix is weighed and then the recyclable materials are removed from the mix and sent to appropriate facilities for processing. This process does not allow for each recyclable material type from the co-mingled load to be weighed separately. The City of Los Angeles\' Department of Sanitation audits all of the co-mingled sorting facilities on a regular basis and establishes a yearly average recycling percentage rate for "each" facility. The certification recycling percentage rates vary. When calculating the construction waste recycling percentage for MRc2.1, will the USGBC accept the City of Los Angeles\' annual recycling percentage rate for the "specific" facility that accepts this LEED project\'s co-mingled component of the project\'s waste stream?