From what I've read in the LEED manuals and seen online, used salvaged materials that would have qualified under MRc3 can also qualify as recycled materials, provided that you don't count them for both. Thus, a project using a lot of salvaged materials but not enough to meet the 5% materials cost threshold, can count the materials instead as 100% post-consumer. Re-manufacturing or not is irrelevant for recycled provided that the material was post-consumer waste. See my response to Michelle below.
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium for
Tristan Roberts
RepresentativeVermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
11477 thumbs up
July 3, 2014 - 1:43 pm
Jamison, I disagree. What language are you seeing that supports this interpretation?It is well-known that if a project doesn't qualify for MRc1, it can apply salvaged building materials to MRc2.In contrast, MRc3 is one of the least-achieved achieved credits, but I have never heard it said that if you don't earn MRc3, just apply that material to MRc4. I think that would be officially stated and well-known if if were the case.
Jamison Hill
Energy Engineer/LEED ConsultantCommunity Environmental Center
3 thumbs up
July 3, 2014 - 2:47 pm
You're right Tristan.
I don't know for sure and I shouldn't advocate something that may "lead", no pun intended, to confusion or problems later down the road for somebody and their projects. Rightly or wrongly, many people seem to use this forum as an unofficial form of USGBC tech support, which it is not. I should be careful what I advocate.
This is actually a question I asked you about on the MRc3 forum. Last I heard you and Michelle were looking into this.
Officially the LEED Manual prohibits you from counting salvaged materials in both bins simultaneously, but it doesn't say if you can count something salvaged as recycled for MRc3 instead of reused for MRc4, particularly if it went through some type of "remanufacturing" process. Instead it says remanufactured concrete (crushed concrete replacing new aggregate) won't count as material re-use, since it ostensibly is too far removed from the original material, and lot of the embodied energy & by consequence environmental benefit is lost in the remanufacturing process.
On the other hand, a remanufactured coffee table made from an existing door would count as materials reuse.
Since it says the reused aggregate will count as a post-consumer material, it seems to me that you may do the same for the wood in the table example, since the wood much like that aggregate mentioned above was recycled from an existing post-consumer source, in this case, a door.
The only caveats I see:
1. Don't double count. Pick a category and stick to it
2. Preserve as much of the material identity and embodied energy as possible, especially if you are looking to argue it under MRc3.
Still this is just one man's opinion. And while I'd like to think otherwise ;-), this man (aka me) and his opinion in the grand scheme of things doesn't matter that much.
Rather it's the opinion of the GBCI who would be reviewing his submittals, and the submittals of the original poster that matters.
I was just telling a fellow forum follower how I would handle this credit. Hopefully the lady took it with a large grain of salt. :)
Tristan Roberts
RepresentativeVermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
11477 thumbs up
July 3, 2014 - 5:16 pm
I see the logic. I would, as you indicate, caution against flying into this approach wholesale without positive indications from GBCI. Requesting a CIR or LEED Interpretation would be ideal, or contacting GBCI with a question about a specific product.