Senario: Building not currently recycling. Have arranged waste hauler to begin as soon as construction ends (and demolition dumpster is off loading dock in urban site).
Question1:
We will probably not collect enough data in the performance period to eran MRc7, but we would still like to pursue MRc6. If 100% of waste stream is directed to landfill, and we audit this stream, is that sufficient to meet MRc6?
Question2:
This is a medical office buildign that has hazardous medical waste that is picked up from a seperate vendor. We will completly exclude this weight adn volume from all calculations, is this appropriate?
Brittany Bliffen
Sustainability ManagerYR&G
39 thumbs up
November 2, 2011 - 1:27 pm
Q1: According to the reference guide, in order to achieve MRc6 you must analyze both the disposal waste stream (landfill or incineration) and the diverted waste stream (recycling, composting, reuse). If there is no diverted waste stream, I don't believe you can achieve MRc6.
Q2: Yes, that is appropriate. Hazardous medical waste should not be included in the audit.
Tristan Roberts
RepresentativeVermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
11475 thumbs up
November 2, 2011 - 2:01 pm
I would defer to Brittany, but I am surprised—I think that if 100% of the waste stream is landfilled, you could audit that and earn the credit. However, you do have to identify opportunities for reducing waste going to the landfill, so if you intend to continue landfilling 100% of waste even after the audit, then the effort is wasted and you wouldn't be meeting the credit requirements.
Brittany Bliffen
Sustainability ManagerYR&G
39 thumbs up
November 4, 2011 - 4:17 pm
Good point Tristan. I think it is unclear from the credit language in the reference guide to determine if it is acceptable or not to earn MRc6 if you don't have recycling in the project building during the performance. But it seems implied to me.
If the building has no recycling in place before the performance period starts, then theoretically you would have problems documenting MRp2: Solid Waste Management as well.
If the project building is in a location (for instance, in some locations outside of the U.S.) that does not have the infrastructure to support a recycling program, then I would imagine that some leniency would be granted for these credits.
Has anybody out there dealt with this situation before?
Dan Ackerstein
PrincipalAckerstein Sustainability, LLC
LEEDuser Expert
819 thumbs up
December 8, 2011 - 12:34 pm
Interesting situation and I think both Brittany and Tristan have offered great insights here. As I see it, even with 100% landfill-directed waste, earning MRc6 should be feasible. The concept of a waste audit is fundamentally based on the idea that the first step towards improving diversion rates is to understand your waste stream - that principle should hold whether your current diversion rate is 90% or 0%.
That being said, I think Brittany's point about MRp2 is important. Although EBOM does not establish a minimum diversion rate for achieving certification, inherent in MRp2 is an expectation that a diversion program of some sort is in place. In some circumstances (outside the US, as noted) it may be difficult to divert even 5% of waste, but if your SWMP is going to fly, it should detail exactly how you plan to get at least some fraction of your waste stream out of the landfill.
I would also note one clarification on Tristan's response; although the credit does require that you identify opportunities for increased diversion, there is no corresponding requirement that you seize, or even consider seizing, those opportunities. The act of identifying the opportunities is enough, in much the same way that elsewhere in the rating system you are rewarded for simply metering resource consumption. In this instance, the credit is about data collection and analysis, not the actions or outcomes that result. In other words, MRc6 is sort of like metering for your trash. . .
Hope that helps,
Dan