Why does no one ask for paper work to verify that material is shipped by rail or water? There are so many manufactures that fill out the submission documents and lie about how it got to the job Site.
This puts honest manufacturers at a disadvantage for both cost and lead time. Not only is there added transportation costs, material may take up to 3 times as long to be delivered by rail as it does by truck.
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium for
Erica Downs
LEED ConsultantThe Green Engineer
254 thumbs up
November 18, 2013 - 11:17 pm
Hi Barbara - when you say "why does no one ask" -- are you referring to the LEED Reviewers, or various parties on the project team? It sounds like you're referring to the project team (correct?).
I asked a related question below, which I have not seen an answer to yet: What exactly IS the documentation requirement for this method of distance tracking? I suspect that this option is new enough that few teams using this method are far enough along to have received comments from a LEED Reviewer. Teams that don't collect enough documentation may find this point being rejected.
If anyone has actually gone through the review process using this option, any advice would be appreciated!
barbara anderson
November 20, 2013 - 12:30 pm
Hi Erica,
I am referring to anyone on a LEED project team. This can include an architect, interior designer, specification writer, LEED reviewer, or a LEED certifications consultant. I have only seen one specification in 5 years that requested the bill of lading for materials shipped by rail. When I ask any of the mentioned parties the answer is “it is not required”. If a project is using the regional material credit and the product is manufactured and extracted beyond the distance, there is no proof other than a bill of lading.
Thanks
Erica Downs
LEED ConsultantThe Green Engineer
254 thumbs up
November 21, 2013 - 5:42 pm
Barbara - the Option 2 method of calculating is very new (July 2012) to LEED v3. I beleive it was previously available in LEEDv2.2, but only for projects outside of the US (see discussion on LEEDv2.2 - MRc5).
Documentation of the standard 500-mile radius is typically a statement from the manufacturer or supplier stating the location of manufacture and source of raw materials, and is determined on an "as the crow flies" basis. If you draw a 500-mile radius around the site, any source locations inside that radius would qualify. Or, a website such as Geobytes will tell you the straight-line distance between two locations.
Transportation method never entered into the equation, so to speak, prior to the July 2012 Addenda, so in general the various parties would be correct that the BOL for rail shipments was not required. There is no indication in the Reference Guide Addenda, or on LEEDuser for that matter, as to what will be expected from project teams using Option 2. They may now very well need that BOL.
However, like I said before, this is such a new option that I suspect relatively few projects have actually received LEED Reviewer feedback on their documenation. And projects going through Review now or in the last year likely had their specs written long before the Addendum. We may start hearing back from teams who submit materials using Option 2 and see lots of Reviewer requests for additional information.
Once again, any feedback from LEEDuser members would be appreciated!
barbara anderson
November 24, 2013 - 3:06 pm
Hi Erica,
I did not realize that this method of calculation was not implemented in the US. In Canada, this has been included in the Regional Materials Credit since the first LEED reference guide was published in 2007.
"Use building materials or products that have been extracted,harvested, recovered and processed within 800 km (500 miles) (2,400 km if shipped by rail or water) of the final manufacturing site."
"Demonstrate that the final manufacturing site is within 800 km (500 miles) (2,400 km if shipped by rail or water) of the project site for these products. "
If you rely on a statement from the manufacture or supplier stating the location of manufacture and source of raw materials you cannot be sure they have railed the product. In Canada there have been many projects where the manufacture said the product has been railed, but on further investigation, it was transported by truck. After it is installed, it is too late to do anything about it!
Thanks for your help.
Jenelle Shapiro
9 thumbs up
February 13, 2014 - 1:59 am
Hello Ladies,
I have been using the "mode of transporation" approach to this credit (option 2) since LEED v2.2 in the United States, and was actually the individual who submitted the CIR for approval originally back in 2008. As a general contractor, I have now worked to change our specification language on all projects to use this approach. Mode of transit is the key to truly understanding the real picture in regards to emissions associated with transportation. The way I have documented this on our jobs is to request a letter from the material manufacturer on their letter head, stating the material extraction and manfucturing locations, and telling us how they were shipped from between each location. This letter as proof has been accepted on all projects. After spending ample time researching supply chain mateiral data with climate scientists, the Option 1 rule of 500 mile radius really does not do justice to the intent of the credit. If we truly want to select materials that produce less transportation emissions, we need to understand how they are moved from one location to another, as a truck has far more emissions and can carry far less material than a train, or even more so, a barge. Hope this helps!