See all forum discussions about NC-2009 MRc2
 Subscribe to new posts about NC-2009 MRc2 Post a new question aboutNC-2009 MRc2
See LEEDuser’s guidance on NC-2009 MRc2»
FAQs about MRc2 :

How is construction waste accounted for when utilizing off-site construction, like modular construction or pre-fabrication of assemblies?

How does MRc2 work for projects pursuing a campus approach, or any project where waste management will be shared with other construction projects?

Can materials that have been unused and returned to the manufacturer as part of a “take-back” program contribute to the credit?

Should I include hazardous material such as lead-based paint in MRc2 calculations?

Should household-type trash from workers' lunches and office use be included in MRc2 diversion and calculations?

Can sending material to waste-to-energy plants count toward MRc2?

The requirements of this credit say that land-clearing debris does not contribute to the percentage of materials diverted from the landfill. What exactly is considered "land clearing debris"?

Oops! Our trash was measured by both weight and volume at different times. How do I standardize this?

The waste management facility we are using is providing us with monthly documentation specific to our waste, showing 80% diversion. They also have a published, facility-wide rate of roughly 20%, and they have no published rate for construction waste. Will

View answers »

Forum discussion

NC-2009 MRc2:Construction Waste Management

Construction Waste Management || Clean Fill

Profile picture for user Andrew
Andrew Gil
Architect, Associate, LEED AP BD+C. USGBC NY Upstate Board of Directors
HOLT Architects. P.C.
LEEDuser Basic Member
43 thumbs up

Apologies if this topic has already been addressed (and, on that note, I have a suggestion: As the number of postings grows & grows, it might be very helpful to be able to search within a topic for key words -e.g. "clean fill")- to see if the question has already been posted and answered). My question is this; when I ran my first two LEED registered projects through LEED v2.1 & 2.2, I was acustomed to the arguement that (i) you can't get credit for something that is normally done anyway, and (ii) what contractors pay to dispose of clean fill? I am very surprised to see concrete and masonry listed in the LEED v.3 Ref. Guide, and can't help wonder why the change? THANKS!

2
Post a reply

You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?

LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.

Go premium for $15.95  »

Mon, 08/29/2011 - 17:44

I think that argument number 1 was debunked a long time ago. If you're doing the work, then why can't you get credit for it? As for argument number 2, I'm a little confused. Are you using waste concrete and masonry as clean fill and can't find a fair market value? My v2.2 Reference Guide mentions the use of concrete and masonry fill in the same manner as my v3 Reference Guide. Both state that one should use the open market value but I'll give you that the v2.2 RG is more vague than the v3 RG. Why the change? I think it has to do with encouraging teams to divert as much as they can from landfills while not allowing teams to claim extravagent cost savings for doing it.
Profile picture for user Andrew
Andrew Gil
Architect, Associate, LEED AP BD+C. USGBC NY Upstate Board of Directors
HOLT Architects. P.C.
LEEDuser Basic Member
43 thumbs up

Mon, 08/29/2011 - 18:02

Gee, if that arguement was debunked a long time ago, then I must not have been paying attention for a long time. To respond to your question about why not get credit for doing the work, I would have to say that it matters hugely what you are referring to as "the work": In this case, the USGBC awards credit for diverting clean fill from the landfill and, to me, THAT is "the work". In 100% of the construction projects that I've seen up close and personal, I've never known a contractor to pay to send concrete and masonry debris to the landfill (which, for what they weight, would result in a staggering costs to the GC) but, instead, just looks around for the first "CLEAN FILL WANTED" sign. And, in that reality, the GC hasn't taken any action to *divert* anything from the landfill and so why would you want to credit them for incorporating sustainable measures into their practice?
Profile picture for user tristanroberts
Tristan Roberts
Representative
Vermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
7780 thumbs up

Sat, 09/03/2011 - 12:04

Andrew, to find keywords on LEEDuser, you can use the search function in the upper right, and/or use your browser to search for a specific word(s) on the page.Regarding your question, I would say that the ease of diverting certain high-weight construction debris is part of why the thresholds for this credit are set so high: as high as 95%. In LEED 2012, it appears that this will get even tougher.

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 17:49

Sorry for the delay. Your original post referred to situations that did exist in the very early days of LEED. There were many contractors out there that would not or did not consider that their 'standard' practice counted and felt that they would have to change something. Debunking happened when they were finally able to realize that diverting waste responsibly was green no matter how long they've been doing it.

Add new comment

To post a comment, you need to register for a LEEDuser Basic membership (free) or login to your existing profile.