Hi there, thanks for looking into my question.
I am working on a project where we have recieved this letter as backup documentation with a contractor log and hauler log of pickups but no additional documentation(weigh bills, invoices, truck numbers or tickets). Will this be acceptable to CaGBC?
Letter
Please accept this letter as confirmation that all broken Concrete/Asphalt and rubble materials from GFL, have been accepted for the purpose of recycling. All disposable loads are carefully inspected prior to dumping. We accept only cleaned Concrete/Aspalt from sites that are controlled in accordance with soils consultants and general contractors.
During the course of the year, we receive loads of broken Concrete/Asphalt for recycling at all of our location. This material is then reused but not limited to road way base, parking lots and driveways. The average weight of concrete and asphalt loads is 20 metric tonnes.
Sincerely,
VP
Tiffany Beffel
Managing PartnerInnovative Workshop Consulting
LEEDuser Expert
22 thumbs up
November 8, 2020 - 6:55 am
Hi Katarzyna - I don't believe this letter has everything you need to justify a facility average for your commingled concrete, asphalt, and rubble. If you do upload it, I would expect clarifying comments from reviewers in return. The average weight as indicated doesn't give any indication as to the facility's average recycling rate. Was that noted anywhere? Did the contractor's log or haul pickup log indicate any essential data that would support a percentage of diverted material?
Katarzyna Gajewska
Sustainable Building SpecialistWSP
November 17, 2020 - 10:57 am
Hi Tiffany, thank you for your reply. It;s assumed that all the material brought to this recieving site is recycled as this site only takes asphlat/concrete.
Would you comment on whether the letter itself supplemented with a log distributed by the hauler is adaquate documentation?
Cheers,
Kat
Tiffany Beffel
Managing PartnerInnovative Workshop Consulting
LEEDuser Expert
22 thumbs up
November 22, 2020 - 5:43 pm
Hi Kat - I would still expect reviewer comments on your documentation if it doesn't contain the facility average. The letter doesn't appear to even include a diversion rate. Even if it is clear that they recycle the asphalt/concrete, it doesn't sound like you have project specific haul tickets to support a project specific diversion. You could also reach out to GBCI through your project on LEED Online to see if there is an alternative pathway or documentation that would be accepted for your specific project.
Susan Di Giulio
Senior Project ManagerZinner Consultants
152 thumbs up
November 22, 2020 - 9:12 pm
Sorry to correct, but despite the word "comingled (unfortunate!), this is a single-stream recycling facility handling so-called "inerts"; not commingled general construction refuse. As such, it is automatically assumed to recycle 100% of accepted material. EXCEPT you need to determine that they are not using the materials for what is called "alternative daily cover" or ADC, at landfills. You will need either tip tickets or a spreadsheet from GFL documented how much material was collected.
Tiffany Beffel
Managing PartnerInnovative Workshop Consulting
LEEDuser Expert
22 thumbs up
November 23, 2020 - 7:32 am
No correction necessary and I agree Susan, however, based upon the description, it appears that haul tickets are not available and the facility provided a letter that seemed to try and account for a facility average. I was understanding that the letter was all that was provided with a log of haul pickups but no actual weights of material leaving the project site. Regardless of whether or not it is considered commingled or not, if the project doesn't have weights of the materials leaving the site, is it not true that it could then utilize the facility average if documented as such? I also have historically captured concrete and asphalt separately considering them individual streams. And, it all cases, based upon the description provided it still appears that the issue lies with the actual documentation captured and provided by the hauler, which doesn't seem to be sufficient for what reviewers will require.