A lot of steel manufactures are providing a "LEED" letter that includes both recycled content values for Electric Arc Furnance (EAF) and Basic Oxygen Furnance (BOF) method of producing steel. If they don't state which was was used for the steel on our project, do I have to ask them to tell me which method was used for the steel on our project and if they don't know should I use BOF, which always has significantly less recycled content than EAF? Is one method more common than another? Also, I am seeing a lot of steel suppliers state that they recover approx. "95-100% of the steel scrap within 500 miles" from their facility. In this case, the only way around this is we would need them to provide an actual location in order to count as regional material, correct? Thanks!
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium for
Susan Walter
HDRLEEDuser Expert
1296 thumbs up
November 6, 2013 - 1:27 pm
The EAF or BOF is helpful to know and understand in general but doesn't translate into LEED documentation. If you don't know the recycled content for the steel then you use the default of 25% (see above).
You're right on with the regional extraction but you should go read that thread for more specific advice.
Courtney Royal
Sr. Sustainability ConsultantTaitem Engineering
50 thumbs up
November 6, 2013 - 1:44 pm
Thank you, Susan. I won't need to use the default value because I do have recycled content information. Let me further clarify, the mfg letter does provide post-consumer and pre-consumer recycled content values for both EAF and BOF. My question is, do I need to find out exactly which method was used for the steel on our project in order to report the recycled content correctly? And, if i can't find that out should I just use the BOF recycled content values because they are always lower than EAF? Thanks.
Susan Walter
HDRLEEDuser Expert
1296 thumbs up
November 6, 2013 - 1:52 pm
Ah, my mistake, I thought you had the furnace type only. If you have the manufacturer's letter on their content, use that. How they got there is interesting but not relevant.
Courtney Royal
Sr. Sustainability ConsultantTaitem Engineering
50 thumbs up
November 6, 2013 - 2:00 pm
Well although I have the recycled content value per each method (EAF and BOF), I dont have which of these methods was used to produce the steel used on our project. And its because of that I am not sure which recycled content values to use in credit calcs. As I mentioned before, I assume I should use the lower recycled values (as in BOF), but obviously I don't want to unless I have to!
RETIRED
LEEDuser Expert
623 thumbs up
November 6, 2013 - 5:47 pm
Ladies - Good dialogue here. At first I was going to take Susan's approach and say that the industry-wide letters are useless but (when I came back from lunch) understanding that the information is manufacturers specific is important. Yet, Courtney - are you sure it is manufacturer specific and not industry wide? If so, it seems like the manufacturer would tell you what type of furnace they use for their steel production - at least broken down by their product type(s).
I think you are correct on your assumption regarding regional.
Courtney Royal
Sr. Sustainability ConsultantTaitem Engineering
50 thumbs up
November 7, 2013 - 9:07 am
On the letter I got from the mfg, it says they purchase steel from three different mfg facilities and depending on that supplier, they may have, at any given time, steel manufactured by BOF and by EAF. Further in the letter they provide recycled content values per each BOF and EAF method from American Iron and Steel Institute and Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries. So, those would be industry wide numbers, correct? What should the letter say to be acceptable? Sorry to belabor this, but there is so much to work and I am constantly confused with how to record steel!
RETIRED
LEEDuser Expert
623 thumbs up
November 8, 2013 - 12:40 pm
I think yes - they are industry wide numbers. I think the letter would need to say the specific recycled content about the different products your project used. Have you seen Nucor’s documentation - http://www.nucor.com/media/Recycled_Content_Letter.pdf?
For steel, I’ve fallen back to use the 25% PCW default value unless I can get mill certs (mill certificates) or other specific documentation from the manufacturer (like Nucor’s), which has spoiled me.
Mariah Grife
Walsh Construction11 thumbs up
November 8, 2013 - 3:09 pm
Michelle -
With the Recycled Content letter you reference from Nucor - Do you feel that there Combined Nucor Steel Recycling rate is not specific enough? Or are you indicating that this is the adequate amount of specificity you need when getting documentation from the manufacturer?
I have Nucor on a project I am working on, and was planning to plug the combined recycling rate in for their recycled value - would this be correct?
RETIRED
LEEDuser Expert
623 thumbs up
November 8, 2013 - 6:13 pm
Mariah - I focus on page 2 of the Nucor info. You can get what "shape" steel you have and then you get the specific manufacturing facility - and voilà - you have the exact pre- and post-consumer recycled content info for your product.
Mariah Grife
Walsh Construction11 thumbs up
November 11, 2013 - 6:26 pm
The problem is, multiple kinds of steel shapes were purchased on the project I am on, and I am not sure what percentage of what shape was purchased. Is the Nucor-specific Combined value listed on page 1 of Nucor information not specific enough for LEED Online reviewers?
RETIRED
LEEDuser Expert
623 thumbs up
November 11, 2013 - 6:34 pm
Typically I require (and can get) the contractor to break out the steel costs by shape so that I can assign the specific recycled content outlined on page 2 of the Nucor info.
I do NOT think the combined value on page 1 is sufficient - especially since it is a combination of pre- and post-consumer recycled content. Without the costs by steel shape, I think you have to fall back on the default 25% post-consumer value.
Tim Crowley
LEED AP / Founderwww.BCdesignbuild.com
60 thumbs up
December 3, 2013 - 5:21 pm
Michelle - Great advice, as always.