Hi Michelle,
I thought I'd better post this under NC also. I've never used volume for any waste diversion calcs before, but my urban CI project is struggling to figure out how to comply with the new source separation requirements with no room on site for extra bins and no commingled facilities that will provide project specific diversion. If waste streams need to be 5% of the total waste to actually constitute a waste stream, how do you figure out if they will be? What do you do if at the end of the day they're not? Will the USGBC actually not consider wood or cardboard a waste stream, even with an on-site source separation strategy, if it doesn't equal 5% of the total waste diverted?
It seems to me that using volume measurement would broaden the potential waste streams. Materials that are lighter like cardboard may not constitute 5% by weight but might by volume. Since the reporting and receiving facility receipts are generally tonnage oriented, how do we substantiate volume? Am I correct in assuming that one would simply say a 2cuyd container was hauled to the facility so the volume is 2 cuyds? What if the container is not full? Could one divide a larger container into smaller spaces inside for separate waste streams and then claim the volume of that smaller space for each stream when the larger container is hauled away? It doesn't seem as if volume metrics would be as precise and easily verified as weight metrics, so do I have the right sense of how the documentation would work? I'm concerned that this doesn't seem much different than eyeball audits
RETIRED
LEEDuser Expert
623 thumbs up
March 26, 2018 - 3:08 pm
Michelle - Unfortunately I haven't taken a v4 project far enough to answer your questions about not hitting the 5%. However, I would note that USGBC is saying in the Reference Guide that the 5% by weight or volume for a material stream is a best practice, which means to me that it is a guideline - not a requirement.
Your questions are numerous regarding measuring volume. Here's how I'd like to address those - by sharing my experience working with a construction recycling firm that uses commingled materials and volume. They would save a number of containers from a specific LEED job. Then they would dump those containers from a specific LEED job onto the processing floor. They would measure volume of materials by filling various containers of known sizes with separate materials. They would record these measured volumes into a spreadsheet and then convert them to weight. I provided that spreadsheet to USGBC. I was never asked for additional information.
FYI: In my experience, I've found that tracking by weight is more advantageous than by volume.
I agree that volume doesn't seem as precise as weight but you cannot do a visual inspection.
I'm really hoping USGBC will address some of the concerns with this credit when it releases v4.1.
Michelle Rosenberger
PartnerArchEcology
522 thumbs up
March 26, 2018 - 4:50 pm
Hi Michelle,
Thanks for the response though I have to admit I'm still confused.
So I'm going to consider the 5% to basically be ignorable. It doesn't seem worthwhile to tailor a whole strategy around a metric that isn't actually a requirement. If we did all the right things in terms of tracking and measuring throughout the project and still fell short, it doesn't sound like reviewers would have a firm rationale to reject the outcome.
On the volume itself, it sounds like your receiver took a project specific approach (which will not be possible here) and then after filling containers for volume measurement, converted the volume into weight. I don't understand the point of the conversion. Couldn't they have just weighed it all in the first place? Are you saying that you got a significantly different outcome by virtue of doing the conversion? Your documentation was still ultimately filled out as tonnage then?
I infer that the key is still the size of the container and that maybe filling various containers of known sizes has to do with making sure they are full. Couldn't you have just reported in cuyds based on the size of the container? This is the crux of the question because all this measuring would need to be managed onsite as waste streams are happening, not stored somewhere and tried out in various sized containers.
And yep, I'd really prefer to just use weight as we always have. But we won't be able to leave 3pts with the RP on the table and achieve our certification goal in v4. Not to mention the discomfort of trying to explain to the GC why the commingled diversion that has always been effective before is now seen by LEED reviewers as no better than taking everything to the landfill.
I hope so too, thanks.
RETIRED
LEEDuser Expert
623 thumbs up
March 29, 2018 - 3:14 pm
Michelle - The answers to your questions in the third paragraph above are: 1) They don't have a scale to weigh it. 2) Yes - when there is brick, block, and concrete waste, I get higher percentages with weight than volume. 3) Yes - tonnage.
In the fourth paragraph: If you get a single material (material stream) hauled in single container, yes you could report based on the size of the container.
And per your e-mail: "If this credit is now entirely about on-site practice, then we kind of need to have ways to handle it reasonably on-site, particularly tight urban sites." I don't believe that this credit is solely about on-site practices. Maybe you could consider Option 2 (Reduction of Total Waste) based solely on on-site practices. Projects will still use MRFs and sorting facilities to sort and recycle materials - whether they are collected as commingled or not.
I hope this helps somewhat. And I hope USGBC is monitoring forums like this to see that teams are taxed by impractical LEED v4 requirements as out outline in your last paragraph.
RETIRED
LEEDuser Expert
623 thumbs up
April 2, 2018 - 12:23 pm
Michelle - USGBC has launched a LEED v4.1 page and is requesting input from users on actual edits to the existing LEED language. I encourage you and all LEEDusers to submit proposals on LEED v4 issues that need to be changed! Visit https://new.usgbc.org/leed-v41 and click Submit your proposal under the heading of Be part of LEED v4.1's development.
Michelle Rosenberger
PartnerArchEcology
522 thumbs up
April 2, 2018 - 12:45 pm
Hi Michelle,
Thanks for the headsup. I would have missed this sandwiched between the v4.1 O&M information. Interesting approach given all that has gone before.
Michelle Bombeck
Associate PrincipalO'Brien360
34 thumbs up
July 27, 2021 - 2:49 pm
Hi Michelle - Were you ever able to solve the 5% mystery? Is it just guidance or truly a requirement? I have a project doing all the right things but will only have the site area to track separate waste streams during demo, not construction so I'm concerned that the demo streams won't hit the 5% mark.
Michelle Rosenberger
PartnerArchEcology
522 thumbs up
July 28, 2021 - 12:37 pm
Hi Michelle,
Yes, I asked about it. It's just guidance. They said they would not reject a waste stream for failing to hit that mark. And since then I've had a few that didn't.
Nicole Keeler
Sustainability Consultant, OwnerClear Green Consulting LLC
February 23, 2023 - 1:03 pm
Hello Michelle, your expertise in these threads is invaluable, thank you! I do have a clarification request I am hoping you can address.
I’ve continued digging in LEED User and elsewhere but haven’t found a crystal-clear clarification.
During demo we used individual haulers for the site streams, ie concrete, asphalt.
During construction, the hauling company now servicing the project is one which takes a comingled container and uses visual inspection for determining stream percentages of these comingled hauls.
My question is regarding onsite sorted waste with with the same hauler.
Thank you again!
Michelle Rosenberger
PartnerArchEcology
522 thumbs up
February 23, 2023 - 2:08 pm
Hi Nicole,
Here's my best shot.
If you sort on-site and the hauler reports it as 100%, then yes it's a waste stream that you can claim.
However, you are right eyeball audits will never work. So yes it does need to be weighed. My assumption with a 100% load reflected on their reporting is that it was hauled off that way and weighed that way. If not, then yes you could weigh it yourself on-site. GBCI does not require any backup for source separated loads. You will just be entering tonnage into the calculator.
Metal is metal for LEED purposes so you don't have to be worried about varied metals in the bin. But yes you do need an actual weight.
Hope this helps.