November Surprise?

I'm reading this the same way. Feels like a MAJOR change with very little fanfare. Is there a way for projects that were already counting on 2 points with diversion and separated teams to get credit under the old definition? It's clearly too late for those projects underway to change their waste reduction planning. Certainly appreciate the emphasis on waste reduction, but this could be a big disappointment for teams that have already invested a ton of time and resources in source-separation. 

You have to follow the addenda that were in place when you registered your project, although you are "encouraged" to follow all of them. https://www.usgbc.org/help/does-my-project-have-follow-addenda

Related, this one apparently deletes the prerequisite for waste management planning: https://www.usgbc.org/leedaddenda/100002444

Still digging through this addenda release...definitely a big one without any of these major changes being noted in the addenda update article as they have been in past releases. 

Hi Everyone, 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts about the C&D credit changes in the November LEED v4.1 release. In the past 5 years the overwhelming feedback from stakeholders and project teams has been that the LEED v4 and beta v4.1 C&D credits need updating.  There has been confusion around quantifying material streams, how to account for commingled recycling, and questonable diversion documentation. With the November addenda release our technical committees and LSC have focused the credit more on waste prevention (rather than diversion) and have simplified the credit (material streams and the prerequisite are gone).  Note that the certified facilities pathway has been moved to exemplary performance (see the BD+C Guide here https://www.usgbc.org/leed/v41#bdc), which makes a second point for diverison a possibility in locations with certified facilites. Further, projects can get 2 points through a combination of option 1 diversion and option 2 generating less waste than the threshold (the credit options 1 and 2 are AND/OR, not exclusive). These changes are meant to focus on preventing waste through project design innovations and other "upstream" zero waste strategies, while still allowing end of life waste diversion to play a role in LEED.  If you have feedback on the C&D credit changes or any other v4.1 updates, please provide your suggested changes and comments by scrolling to the botton of the page at www.usgbc.org/leed/v41 and clicking on the "submit proposals" button.

From this interpretation, for the total weight per sf calculation, does that mean demolition is omitted in the tracking approach?

Wes, regarding the exemplary performance for certified facilities, this would have to go into the Innovation category though, correct?

Correct Jenelle - EP is part of the innovation category

Hi Jenelle. No, demolition is not omitted from the total waste generation per area calculations. 

Thanks, Jonathan, for asking this question!

Hi Jonathan - we do post the redlines of the rating system, but not redlines for the v4.1 beta reference guide. The redlines are downloadable at the v4.1 page under the various rating system types. www.usgbc.org/leed/v41 

Is anyone aware of plans to update the Construction & Demolition Waste Calculator or submittal forms to reflect the new criteria?  Or has this already been done and I am just not finding it? I work for a recycling facility and we like to present project waste data to the teams in the same format they will be asked to enter it for LEED. 

Wes - thank you for the professional response and keeping the LEED Systems functional while processing whatever force it was that came through to initiate this change.  It's important to have continuity and I think you've provided it.  BUT... are we allowed to speak LEED here?

The explanations you provided are energetic and appreciated,  but they are discomfortingly defeatist.

Will there be no appeal across north america for better waste management? 

Many areas can't separate streams so ... we're not gonna do it anymore?

We're done promoting Recycling Certification?

No more working with the STILL ill equipped waste industry?

What does the future hold?  Sending materials to site in paper bags?  It might be possible in the future... but for now the waste industy is being let off the hook here.

Waste Separation and accounting can be done... there's just not will to guide the change.

Hi - For option 2, does anybody know what square footage to use?  Specifically, we have a parking garage on the first few floors of the building...can we include that in the overall square footage calculation?  it was definitely part of the construction and part of the concrete waste generation.  Thank you!

i just asked GBCI this exact question this past wednesday. LEED Online requires project teams to exclude floor area dedicated to enclosed parking when registering the project. So should we include floor area dedicated to parking when determining waste per floor area? GBCI did not know, so this is currently into the Subject Matter Expert for response. Stay tuned.

Hi David!  Wow, great timing. Thank you so much.  Yes, please post back once you get a ruling. You are supposed to include garages for most other calcs, like recycled content, energy calcs, ventilation etc., so it seems like you should.  The gross sf calc for registration purposes seeems like the only spot where it is excluded.  Thanks again!

you are spot on....BUT.....there are 'loopholes' lurching around the math on this one, hence the pause in the answer. 

always been fascinated with the numbers that should be kept consistent and the numbers that should be kept unconsistent in LEED applications :)

Joseph and David, 

V4.1 says to go to v4 when the text is not sufficient in the new manual. “Refer to the LEED v4 reference guide, with the following additions and modifications”.

In v4, Equation 2, the denominator says “Project gross floor area”. And the definition of GFA is without parking. https://www.usgbc.org/help/what-gross-floor-area Which makes it harder, but perhaps fairer, to get the points.

I just received the response from the USGBC Subject Matter Expert on this one, here is the language they provided:

Thank you for contacting GBCI regarding LEED v4.1 BD+C: NC, MRc Construction and Demolition Waste - Option 2. Waste Prevention.

The LEED SME confirmed that the project team can include the parking area in the Option 2 waste calculations. Though it's not habitable floor area, it does support the project and should be included in the LCA and the construction waste credit.

Hi David!

Thanks so much for the follow up!  That is great news! 

I strongly echo Stephen Montgomery's and Jonathan Weiss's comments. Sorry I was out of the loop with addenda (I will try to get back in) as I only recently saw the latest version of the credit language which removes any incentive to site-segregate, hides the certified facility in exemplary performance and make waste intensity combined again for demo and construction? How does that help promote sustainable construction practices? I'd rather LEED projects NOT get two easy points for CWM then to water down the credit so that it's 99% dendentent on how much demolition there is in the project scope, completely removing acocuntability from the construction team and waste facility, and undermining the efforts to educate and improve the industry. What was wrong with the July 10th, 2020 version that included all those great options?

Thanks Jonathan for sharing! I will also submit these comments under the LEED v4.1 feedback page as Wes suggests above. I recommend everyone submit their experiences and feedback directly to USGBC as well. 

Recycling Facility Certification: I agree with Geoff's comments that it promotes greater accountability. Unfortunately, we have not been able to convince a single waste processing facility to pursue certification.

Material Streams: We continue to have conversations with construction teams and struggle to get "some" source separating on-site. 

Waste Prevention: Yes, we should be designing for and educating construction teams to reduce waste but I find this strategy extremely challenging in practice. It is unclear to me how an urban project with demolition could possibly achieve these points, even with the most dedicated Construction Manager. I plotted a few recent LEED projects for reference; see below. I suspect urban sites are experiencing contamination from illegal dumping. 

• Building A: 13.9 lbs waste/SF: New Construction, Greenfield, Suburban site
• Building B: 24.1 lbs waste/SF: Addition, Site required minimal demolition, Urban site with significant security
• Building C: 10.7 lbs waste/SF: New Construction, Greenfield, Urban site
• Building D: 61.0 lbs waste/SF: New Construction, Site required significant demolition, Urban site
• Building E: 3.9 lbs waste/SF: New Construction, Greenfield, Urban site with significant security
• Building F: 8.3 lbs waste/SF: New Construction, Greenfield, Surburban Site
• Building G: 124.4 lbs waste/SF: Renovation & addition, significant masonry demolition, Urban site
• Building H: 32.9 lbs waste/SF: Renovation, significant masonry demolition, Urban site

I think the only way in which to we can make serious improvements across the industry is to convince the Building Owner to incentivize construction teams to recycle and reduce waste.