See all forum discussions about NC-2009 MRc2
 Subscribe to new posts about NC-2009 MRc2 Post a new question aboutNC-2009 MRc2
See LEEDuser’s guidance on NC-2009 MRc2»
FAQs about MRc2 :

Oops! Our trash was measured by both weight and volume at different times. How do I standardize this?

The waste management facility we are using is providing us with monthly documentation specific to our waste, showing 80% diversion. They also have a published, facility-wide rate of roughly 20%, and they have no published rate for construction waste. Will

How is construction waste accounted for when utilizing off-site construction, like modular construction or pre-fabrication of assemblies?

How does MRc2 work for projects pursuing a campus approach, or any project where waste management will be shared with other construction projects?

Can materials that have been unused and returned to the manufacturer as part of a “take-back” program contribute to the credit?

Should I include hazardous material such as lead-based paint in MRc2 calculations?

Should household-type trash from workers' lunches and office use be included in MRc2 diversion and calculations?

Can sending material to waste-to-energy plants count toward MRc2?

The requirements of this credit say that land-clearing debris does not contribute to the percentage of materials diverted from the landfill. What exactly is considered "land clearing debris"?

View answers »

Forum discussion

NC-2009 MRc2:Construction Waste Management

recycling versus incineration

Default Avatar
Jeff Jones
Owner
Accountable Recycling Options
LEEDuser Basic Member
26 thumbs up

I am receiving conflicting information regarding landfill diversion documentation and the ability to count materials that are used as a "fuel product" (paid for by waste-to-energy plant), versus burning waste at a cost to owner. Is a fuel product permitted to be counted as recycling? Currently, there are many recycling facilities counting this as recycling in their landfill diversion docs, and if it is not permitted, they will likely send it to a landfill.

3
Post a reply

You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?

LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.

Go premium for $15.95  »

Profile picture for user tristanroberts
Tristan Roberts
Representative
Vermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
7780 thumbs up

Thu, 07/21/2011 - 14:46

Jeff, USGBC gives the intent for MRc2 (see credit language above) as diverting materials from landfills or incineration. The point about whether you are being paid for the waste, or paying to dispose of it, is interesting, but I don't think it affects how LEED sees the material: it doesn't meet the credit requirement for diversion in any case.Beyond MRc2 consideration, if your choices are landfill or incinerate in a modern facility, I would go with the latter.
Default Avatar
Jeff Jones
Owner
Accountable Recycling Options
LEEDuser Basic Member
26 thumbs up

Thu, 07/21/2011 - 15:14

Tristan, thanks very much and this is what I expected. The issue then becomes how will this be addressed with recyclers, and that is what I am trying to help them with. Recyclers will have to weigh the benefit of processing materials to meet specs for becoming a fuel product for sale, or simply the cost to place it in a landfill.
Default Avatar
Jeff Jones
Owner
Accountable Recycling Options
LEEDuser Basic Member
26 thumbs up

Thu, 07/21/2011 - 15:27

Tristan, as I read the language further in the Credit Language in the Potential Technologies & Strategies, it makes this statement - Construction debris processed into a recycled content commodity that has an open market value (e.g., wood derived fuel [WDF], alternative daily cover material, etc.) may be applied to the construction waste calculation. Can you please clarify how a fuel product (for sale) would not meet this requirement? My understanding is in LEED 2012 ADC will not be permitted, will this be the same for wood derived fuel? Thanks in advance for clarifying this.
Profile picture for user tristanroberts
Tristan Roberts
Representative
Vermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
7780 thumbs up

Thu, 07/21/2011 - 16:00

Jeff, you raise a good point that I had forgotten about. I think this reverses my opinion here. The key difference is between an incineration facility which burns everything it takes in, and a recycling facility which sorts waste and directs it to its highest use. It appears that USGBC accepts incineration of material if it goes through such a process.
Default Avatar
Jeff Jones
Owner
Accountable Recycling Options
LEEDuser Basic Member
26 thumbs up

Thu, 07/21/2011 - 16:39

Thanks Tristan. Personally, I believe there should be some sort of incentive for recycling facilities to send materials to end-use destinations that are not incinerators. It appears the USGBC places the same reward for grinding old carpet up with wood and sending to an incinerator versus baling and sending scrap carpet to Shaw to be manufactured into new carpet. Recyclers operate on cost/benefit, so if grinding is less expensive, then we can imagine where it goes. Thanks again
Default Avatar
Kathy Trejo
Garmann Miller
LEEDuser Premium Member
3 thumbs up

Mon, 01/23/2012 - 18:03

Due to conflicting opinions found here and having a project that has the ability to benefit (or not) from a local waste-to-energy plant I decided to check the CIR library for clarification. The request to count waste-to-energy as diversion has been made 4 times and denied 4 times. I reviewed rulings from 3/24/2004, 5/25/2008, 6/25/2008, & 5/9/2011. Reasons? There are several given, but a statement from the 6/25/2008 ruling pretty much sums it up: "Energy-from-waste facilities may have virtues compared to landfills, but they are not equivlant to salvage and recycling with regards to the intent and requirements of this credit."

Add new comment

To post a comment, you need to register for a LEEDuser Basic membership (free) or login to your existing profile.