See all forum discussions about NC-2009 MRc5
 Subscribe to new posts about NC-2009 MRc5 Post a new question aboutNC-2009 MRc5
See LEEDuser’s guidance on NC-2009 MRc5»
FAQs about MRc5 :

Why can’t I include mechanical, electrical and plumbing components in this credit? What if I consistently include MEP materials in the calculations for all of the MR credits I’m attempting?

We are pursuing IEQc4.5 as an ID credit. Are we thus required to include the cost of furniture in MRc3–7?

What if different parts of a product are manufactured at different locations?

What is the purpose of the newly added Option 2? Can I pursue both options?

How do we account for materials using the new Option 2 equation?

With steel and aluminum products, why do I often get review comments questioning why my extraction distance is the same as my manufacture distance?

View answers »

Forum discussion

NC-2009 MRc5:Regional Materials

How Calculate Raw Material Distance for New Option 2

The new Option 2 of MRc5 which was deemed to be applicable in the July 6, 2012 Addendum qualifies products and the raw materials used to make them based on the actual distance of the route they travel to the job site. That works fine for the PRODUCT but how does it work for the RAW MATERIALS used to make the product? The RAW MATERIALS are never shipped to the job site - they are shipped to the manufacturing facility. So how does one determine whether the RAW MATERIALS used to make a product qualify or not? Option 2 reads as follows: Building materials or products shipped by rail or water have been extracted, harvested or recovered, as well as manufactured within a 500 mile (800 kilometer) total travel distance of the project site using a weighted average determined through the following formula: (Distance by rail/3) + (Distance by inland waterway/2) + (Distance by sea/15) + (Distance by all other means)

0
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  »

Fri, 12/14/2012 - 17:02

I am not an expert either, but I would interpret the wording to mean that I need to know the extraction location, the mode of transport to the manufacturer, the manufacturer's location, and the mode of transport to the site. I would calculate the distances as the crow flies, not the actual routes taken, in order to be consistent with the method used in Option 1. Based on the wording "500 mile total", I would add the two distances together after using the weighted formula. If that total is less than 500, then I would count it as a regional material. Personally, I disagree with how this whole credit is setup/worded (as I explained in my post on this forum on October 31), and I completely understand the confusion with the new option. I don't work for LEED User, but I typically look/ask here for answers to confusing questions like this one. If there doesn't seem to be a satisfactory answer, I would definitely consider filing a CIR to get an official ruling.

Fri, 12/14/2012 - 17:35

Zachary: Thanks for your thoughts. I would think that for Option 2 you would have to use the actual route taken by both the product and the raw materials since the requirement reads "within a 500 mile (800 kilometer) total travel distance of the project site." The words "total travel distance" are different than in Option 1 where the word "radius" is used instead. If it was as a crow flies, it would be a radius. That being said, it is very difficult to document this. Seldom is a contract with a supplier or a transport provider written to stipulate the actual route traveled by the raw material to the manufacturing facility or by the product to the job site.

Fri, 12/14/2012 - 17:30

I would agree with you that the total distance traveled would include all the zig-zags. Has anyone ever received documentation from a supplier or vendor for any of the travel information successfully?

Add new comment

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