Dear LEEDers,
Question : We would like to monitor & manage the construction waste for the whole site and then pro-rata by surface area the recycling percentage for each building office & hotel. Is using pro-rate surface logic possible for LEED and still be awarded the credits for MRc2?
Scenario : The building is under triple certification : HQE, BREEAM & LEED. Both HQE & BREEAM accept the pro-rating system of monitor & management of construction waste for the total whole site and then pro-rata by surface for each building. One single project, consisting of an office building & hotel building in a very built up area with limited space. Both buildings are on the same site, have the same project owner, the same management team, the same general contractor, the same waste hauler company etc.... Note: The waste will by weighed and sorted off-site by a national reorganized waste sorting / recycling facilities. Both buildings, and construction methods and materials are similar for the buildings. HQE and BREEAM have accepted the pro-rata logic.
If the pro-rata is not acceptable it mean we need to separate the waste into to two waste management systems on a single site. This is virtually impossible due to space restrictions. It would also add significant cost and logistic implications as the project is located in one of the most dense sites in Europe.
Regards,
Ian
RETIRED
LEEDuser Expert
623 thumbs up
June 16, 2015 - 1:34 pm
Ian - LI ID #10265 (see second FAQ above) is the best guidance we have in this type of situation. Please review it - http://www.usgbc.org/leed-interpretations?keys=10265. It is based on building gross floor area vs. surface area.
Here's what I would do. Just use LI ID #10265 from the beginning and do the necessary calculation to prorate the waste from surface area to gross floor area.
Or stick to your methodology and cite HQE and BREEAM. If GBCI balks, then you can easily invoke LI ID #10265 and prorate by square footage.
Either way, this should be a simple calculation at the end of the job and will not affect logistics on the job site.
See also our discussion on NC Forum - http://www.leeduser.com/credit/NC-2009/MRc2?all-comments=true#comment-57828.
Let us know if you go with the surface area methodology and you are successful.
Ian McCall
Environmental Engineer13 thumbs up
June 17, 2015 - 3:51 am
Thank-you for your reply.
The response I got from USGBC was, "The waste from both projects should be separated before it leaves the site. While diverting waste from the total site is laudable, and pro-rating would be somewhat accurate, there is sure to be different quantities and types of materials, and thus, differing quantities and types of waste generated from the two buildings. Therefore, the project team should separate the waste before it is removed from the site."
The verb “should be” and not “has to be”was used. “Should” to us means that separate waste treatment systems for each building is a good idea but not obligatory for the LEED certification.
regards,
Ian
RETIRED
LEEDuser Expert
623 thumbs up
June 17, 2015 - 10:45 am
Ian - Was this a review comment? Or a response to an inquiry that you submitted outside the review process? There is a chance that whoever responded to your inquiry was not aware of this LI, which (as I read it) clearly allows BD+C projects to prorate CWM by floor area between two LEED-seeking projects on the same site. You might want to (gently) cite the LI.
Ian McCall
Environmental Engineer13 thumbs up
June 17, 2015 - 12:39 pm
Hi Michelle,
This is the response from a LEED inquiry submitted outside of the review process. You may be correct that the person who responded was not aware of the LI. Note that one building is LEED (HQE & BREEAM) certified but the other is not LEED certified (only HQE & BREEAM). However i do not this this should matter as the waste management system is nationally recognized and certified ISO 9001 & 14001.
Regards,
Ian