The MR Credit for Environmentally Preferable Non-structural materials is confusing to me. It says it is "1 point" but in the text it says a credit can be obtained for each attribute met. If the former, it looks like instead of being able to obtain credits for each of these different product attributes, it is an OR rather than an AND now? How does this encourage multi-attribute thinking for products? It seems to me that you would be able to cherry pick throughout your products to find a single attribute that qualifies for each material and tally them all up to see what you get.
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium for
Christina Macken
Assistant Project Manager, LEED v4U.S. Green Building Council
141 thumbs up
August 10, 2011 - 12:14 pm
Hi Jessica -
Thank you for pointing out a line we will need to clarify. The MR Credit for Environmentally Preferable Non-Structural Materials is worth one point total. What we mean by "credit can be obtained by each attribute met" is that each attribute can contribute to the 50% of non-structural materials by cost regardless of the attribute. Using a matrix approach to product attributes removes the threshold for each individual attribute (as in past versions of LEED) so products that do not meet a minimum threshold will still contribute toward the meeting the credit requirements. Think of each attribute as being separated by an AND/OR. You have the option of meeting the requirements by meeting the threshold in one of the attribute categories or many.
Jessica McNaughton
CaraGreen33 thumbs up
August 10, 2011 - 9:10 pm
I am looking at this from the perspective of interior products manufacturers like countertops, carpets, wall panels, tile etc. I think the current structure may be premature in putting requirements in place that are costly (3rd party cert. or EPD) which require a lot of resources. Smaller companies may not be able to take on those costs and survive, so this favors large companies with the resources to meet the requirements. It is unfortunate for the innovative, smaller companies who may have better products. Based on your response, my understanding is correct in that the four single credits for Materials Reuse, Recycled Content, Rapidly Renewable and Regional Materials have been consolidated into a single credit. So products that used to promote contributing to "multiple credits" in these areas (ex. a recycled product within 500 miles of project) would now contribute to a single credit, but through multiple channels. The only conceivable way to contribute to more than one credit category in Materials and Resources (as a non-structural building material) would be through the Transparency credit, obtaining third party certification, and the avoidance of chemicals of concern. Most product companies will need to completely reposition their products. I think this is aspirational and a good long term plan, I am just concerned that most product manufacturers today would not meet this requirement and may not be able to shoulder potentially substantial costs involved.
Keith Lindemulder
Environmental Business Development- LEED AP BD&CNucor Corporation
193 thumbs up
September 13, 2011 - 6:21 pm
Chrissy,
According to your comment above each attribute should be reviewed separately and combined to determine the aggregate perferable perscriptive value. So it's possible for a product to provide more than its actual value to the total.
For example, lets say you purchase $10,000 worth of a product which is made from 100% recycled content AND is sourced (manufactured and purchased) locally AND is part of an extended producer take back program. That product/material would have an aggregate value of $30,000 ($10,000 recycled + $10,000 local + $10,000 take back)?
Or am I missing something in the fine print?