Reclaimed wood

Hi Tia - Your description sounds like the wood is reused - not recycled. Hence based on what you shared, I would say no - this repurposed material is not recycled and hence cannot be counted here.

Check out FAQs above and “Reused” vs. “recycled” at http://www.leeduser.com/credit/NC-2009/MRc3.

I hope you have looked closely at your regional materials to ensure this wood can't contribute there with other materials like stone, concrete, plant materials, and many more.

Michelle, I agree that this material fits most neatly as a reused material for MRc3, but I've always thought that reused materials are kind of a subset of recycled content materials, and could be counted as recycled if the submitter chooses. That doesn't apply the other way, of course--most recycled materials can't be called reused. And they certainly can't be claimed in both credits. But either recycled or reused materials CAN also be claimed as regional (if they fit the requirements), so including these timbers under MRc5 wouldn't prevent Tia from also listing them under MRc3 or MRc4. I haven't checked the recent CIRs or addenda for this issue, however--is there some ruling that argues against my supposition that this material can go under MRc4?

Nadav - I’m not aware of the subset you are referring to. As I’ve been doing research for clients I’ve kept an eye out for relevant LI’s in LEED Interpretations Database. Unfortunately, I haven’t found anything that makes a case for reused as recycled. LI ID #2289 actual indicates the opposite - http://www.usgbc.org/leed-interpretations?keys=2289. This non-applicable LI from 2003 (http://www.usgbc.org/leed-interpretations?keys=3007) says the opposite thing regarding remanufacturing but this is an older version of MRc3, which rewarded reuse of materials from off site. Please note that I did not do an exhaustive search of LI Database, which would be the definitive source. I would encourage Tia or someone from that team to do that as that is the role of a paid LEED consultant.

However, I was re-reading MRc3’s LEEDuser forum and there is an FAQ there that discusses remanufacturing. (Note: LEED Reviewers typically eschew quoting LEEDuser in responses but…) See “We are demolishing an existing building, crushing the concrete and stone, and using it as fill onsite. Does this count under MRc3?” at http://www.leeduser.com/credit/NC-2009/MRc3. In fact, there is a current unanswered post on that forum (http://www.leeduser.com/credit/NC-2009/MRc3#comment-50462) that is asking about this FAQ. I can’t find an LI that backs up this FAQ and it may be based on the non-applicable LI ID #3007 (not valid for LEED 2009), which could be adding to the confusion. This is certainly a misunderstood area that would great to have some more clarity on. Maybe Tristan can provide assistance across forums?

Michelle, LI #2289 refers to virgin rock found on-site, so its not even applicable. Excavation of the building foundation is in effect a form of mining and extraction. Thus, the limestone encountered must be considered a virgin material, since it wouldn't have been used otherwise if the building were never built. Technically, its a stretch to consider it salvage; since it was never part of a building. And since it is land-clearing/earthworks debris, you can't get credit under MRc2. However it does have a cost-value as a building material, so you could use the market rate for quarried limestone as part of your MRc5 calculation, furthermore your extraction (excavation) & manufacturing (breaking & crushing) distances are both 0, since everything happens on-site. This how I understand LI 2289.

Anyhow, I looked at language for MRc3 in the 2009 BD+C Ref. Guide.
Under Section 2. Related Credits, it says: "Remanufactured materials are not considered a re-use of material. However these materials can contribute toward the following credits: *MRc2 *MRc4"

However in Table 1 of Section 6. Calculations: Remanufactured doors are considered a re-used used item for the material cost calculation. This leads me to believe that MRc3 & MRc4 exist on a spectrum (doors into tables [MRc3], doors into mulch [MRc4]). Since the points threshold is greater for MRc4, 10% of cost versus 5%, I'm sure most reviewers will allow you to count your salvage materials as recycled content under MRc4 so long as you don't count them again under MRc3. However it would be an interesting question to ask GBCI.

Jamison - Welcome to this conversation. As you have discovered, there is conflicting information on the recycled/reused issue. (My use of LI ID #2289 was an example of this.)

Tristan Roberts contacted USGBC about a question on MRc3 about this issue and I contacted them today also. Hopefully we'll hear back soon. Stay tuned!

Thanks Michelle. I have a project where we are using some salvage materials but not enough to move it into points territory, and I'd like to see if I could reclassify it as recycled.

I will let you know what I hear. In the mean time and as you probably already know, if the material is regionally extracted, you should be able to count it for MRc5 even if you can't reclassify it.

Michelle, Trinstan. Have you heard anything new from the USGBC, concerning the matter?

Tia - The USGBC Materials and Resources Subject Matter Expert (SME) was out of the office for an extended time so I heard from the GBCI Materials and Resources SME who is a LEED Certification Reviewer. She stated: “The defining factor of whether it can be included in MRc3 or MRc4 would appear to be whether it is remanufactured (i.e. turned into a new product). It appears that salvaged columns which are remanufactured into a product with a new use: trim/finish, would be considered post-consumer content. Remanufactured goods cannot apply to MRc3. If the columns were simply refurbished and then used again as columns, then they would contribute to MRc3.” This is good news for your efforts and I hope it works out!

Jamison – I would not take this as wholesale allowance to count your salvaged materials as recycled. You would need to look at whether these materials are actually remanufactured. Tristan is going to respond to your posts on MRc3.