Maybe I just had bad luck with the reviewer, but I'm doing a recycling project in a LEED EBOM building. So we do have recycling in place. The tenant provides recycling container at each desk even discussed do to recycling only at the desk. Now the reviewer still asks me to prove the required recycling area in the tenant space.
However neither the guide nor the LEED online template asks for recycling area within the tenant space. "provide an easily accessible dedicated area or areas for the collection and storage of materials for recycling for the the tenant space." not in the tenant space. Than recycling area is based on building size not tenant space. Ok you have to draw a line somewhere and make sure there is actually recycling in place. And we did provide the contract and even hauler reports.
However a good recycling program does not increase space for storing the waste / recyclables. It replaces common waste practice. PNC bank for instance first had recycling only at each desk, now they don't have any waste or recycling at peoples desks. Avoid trash all together. Do you have to have an imaginary recycling area than to meet the prerequisite?
Sorry for venting, but I'm grew up with recycling and I think requiring a certain additional area dedicated to recycling in or outside of the tenant space is counter productive, because as the item of this prerequisite says you want to reduce waste all together.
Regardless, I can't find a requirements for a certain square footage of recycling space in the tenant area rather than the building. Besides the guide also states "LEED for Commercial Interiors does not require adherence to these guideline (referring to the table of area for recycling): the intent is .. to size the facilities appropriately..."
We do have recycling container in the space and have it documented. I guess the reviewer overlook the floor plans and the summary, or I don't understand the question.
Review comment: " The LEED Prerequisite Form has been provided stating that the project has provided appropriately sized dedicated areas for the collection and storage of materials for recycling, including cardboard, paper, plastic, glass, and metals. The floor plan showing the location of the recycling storage areas within the LEED-CI project space has been provided. A narrative describing the base building recycling policy, base building tracking numbers, and a base building contract have also been provided. However, the provided narrative does not describe the size, accessibility and dedication of the recycling storage areas within the LEED-CI Project Boundary as required. Note that the base building recycling areas are not applicable to this prerequisite within LEED-CI. The documentation must confirm that sufficient recycling collection and storage areas have been provided within the LEED-CI Project Boundary to serve the LEED-CI occupants. TECHNICAL ADVICE: Please provide a narrative which confirmsthat the LEED-CI recycling area is adequately sized to serve the LEED-CI occupants by describing the expected volume generated by the LEED-CI occupants and the pick-up frequencies of the recycling area within the LEED-CI Project Boundary."
We provided: floor plan of the tenant space highlighting the location of the individual desk container and the container in the break room area; recycling contract; actual recycling and waste generation numbers; a summary: "The building is LEED EBOM certified and has a recycling program in place. Paper, cardboard, glass, plastics and metals are commingled. The building has a single stream recycling program. Within the tenant space, recycling container are provided at each individual desk and the copier and break rooms. The cleaning personal collects recyclables and stores it in the recycling area next to the loading dock. one 8 yard container is picked up two to three times a week (Tuesday, Friday, Saturday)."
Anyone else had this problem before?
Steve Khouw
PrincipalDNA GreenDesign
169 thumbs up
June 16, 2012 - 1:49 am
Susann, I am 100 percent with you. We are having these sort of challenges on a couple of projects. It really depends who you get as your LEED reviewer (I know that sounds unfair, just me too venting). A case in example, just scroll down my comment about recycling/storage space in the basement.
And I don't follow the "recommended" size neither as outlined in the Reference Manual, we should minimize this space to the functionality - space to accommodate enough bins and circulation for carting away, that's all. For a recent 150k SF project, we got away with half of the recommended 270 SF!
Hernando Miranda
OwnerSoltierra LLC
344 thumbs up
June 16, 2012 - 12:43 pm
Susan,
I have working on LEED projects since 1998. I also helped develop LEED NCv2.x and CI. What you are seeing is an increase is "new, we have the authority" requirements being imposed, not by the GBCi, but by the USGBC's LEED Department. The LEED Department appears to be relying on outside consultant who write these "new" rules. Those outside consultants appear to be LEED Consultants working on LEED projects. That is the only explanation I can come up with for these types of changes.
You have to actively work on LEED projects to even think recycling area is a hard requirement. But, having been disgusted by the LEED Consultants who developed the Reference Guides, often in contradiction to the intended requirements of the credit authors, I can tell you this.
The Reference Guides are based on an extreme level of word interpretation. That is the way it has been since the LEED v2 Reference Guide which was written by Paladino Consulting. If a credit was written with the word "area" in it, then Paladino would interpret is as the rating system having a hard requirement for area. Area was required in LEED v2. It died in LEED v2.1, v2.2, and v3. Now it has raised its ugly head again.
I stopped supporting the USGBC (vice-chair of the EQ Technical Advisory Group, and member of the CI Core Committee) beacuse of my disgust for this type of word interpretation invented by Paladino. Had I known this would happen I would have ensured that credit language the TAG developed would use a word like "place" instead of "area." Or, make is absolutely clear that a specific area was not the intent. I apologize for not seeing this coming, but how could it be predicted?
Common sense tells you to not be strict in your interpretation. That is not being green. But, think about LEED and the words in the credit language and you will see that is exactly what is going on.
The responsibility for allowing this type or hard word interpretation lies solely with the USGBC's LEED Department.
Scot Horst: Senior Vice President of LEED a former LEED Consultant, Reference Guide author, and Certification Reviewer.
Brendan Owens: Vice President of LEED. Brendan has never been a LEED Consultant.
Susann Geithner
PrincipalEmerald Built Environments
1297 thumbs up
June 18, 2012 - 8:37 am
I have been working an large and small LEED projects for 5 years now and I just wish I could limit the time I have to deal with this kind of interpretation and review issues, so I can go back to educating occupants on recycling, figure out ways to reuse more materials in my project and actually make a difference.
Steve, yes it very much depends on the reviewer, however they also can only work with what's giving to them as rules and they aren't perfect either.