See all forum discussions about Schools-NC-v4 MRc3
 Subscribe to new posts about Schools-NC-v4 MRc3 Post a new question aboutSchools-NC-v4 MRc3
See LEEDuser’s guidance on Schools-NC-v4 MRc3»
FAQs about MRc3 :

The credit language says “Products meeting recycled content criteria are valued at 100% of their cost for the purposes of credit achievement calculation.” How much recycled content has to be in a product for 100% of its cost to count toward credit achieve

Is there any way around the requirement that no more than 30% of the materials used to meet Option 2 be structure and enclosure items?

If Sustainable Agricultural Network (SAN) certification isn’t required for agricultural products to comply with Option 2, does the manufacturer still have to provide documentation of third-party verification?

For the manufacturer “take-back” pathway under Option 2, does the extended producer responsibility program have to be run by the manufacturer?

Are there other ways the products can contribute to Option 1?

Can Corporate Sustainability Reports from the manufacturers of the products I’ve selected help me achieve the Option 1 point for “raw material source and extraction reporting?”

View answers »

Forum discussion

Schools-NC-v4 MRc3:Building product disclosure and optimization - sourcing of raw materials

Structure and enclosure

Profile picture for user Zuchman
Allison Zuchman
Senior Sustainability Consultant
The Green Engineer
LEEDuser Basic Member
12 thumbs up

One of the most impactful changes to this credit from LEEDv3 is: "Structure and enclosure materials may not constitute more than 30% of the value of compliant building products." In my experience so far, this requirement plus the change to the regional attribute (100 miles and only as a multiplier of another attribute) make 25% very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve on most projects. I am curious, has anyone achieved this credit? And if so, any tips?

0
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  »

Thu, 06/30/2016 - 20:23

In fact Allison, this is a very good point. We had a similar situation with a special v4 project whose 65% of its budget was spent for structure and enclosure materials simply making the threshold of 25% unattainable by definition. In my opinion this is something that the USGBC needs to reconsider.
Profile picture for user pmelton
Paula Melton
Editorial Director
BuildingGreen, Inc.
LEEDuser Expert
159 thumbs up

Fri, 07/01/2016 - 13:36

Yes, very good point! USGBC told me at one point that all of the BPDO credits had been earned (mostly on v2009 projects or v4 pilot projects), so presumably a project has done this. I know it wasn't under Option 1 because that is not currently achievable. Maybe it was a CI project, though? I wonder if you can hit the 25% if you include furniture and furnishings in the scope.
Profile picture for user Zuchman
Allison Zuchman
Senior Sustainability Consultant
The Green Engineer
LEEDuser Basic Member
12 thumbs up

Fri, 07/01/2016 - 13:52

Perhaps a CI project? (A CS project would have no chance at all.) Furniture and furnishings may help a little but that is often a separate part of the project scope/budget handled by others. In general, I do not think adding furniture would make the impact we are looking for to meet the credit requirements, though I suppose that could depend on project type (i.e low-rise school vs high-rise office).

Add new comment

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