We are planning to recyle our construction waste at an off-site materials recovery facility that claims a 67% average annual diversion rate. However, I noticed in they include land clearing debris in their diversion calcualtions. If you take this number out of the equation, the diversion rate falls to 31%. Our project does not inlcude any land clearing debris, so I am wondering if we can use the 67% rate? Thanks,
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
September 28, 2010 - 10:15 pm
Under normal circumstances, monthly reports from sorting facilities showing average diversion rates are acceptable.However in this case it appears that you would have to gloss over some things to justify using the 67% rate.I don't see how it could be justified—do you?
mark peternell
18 thumbs up
September 29, 2010 - 9:35 am
I see it both ways. I also know that our project will have large amounts of concrete and asphalt, so our project specific diversion rate is likely to be much higher than the facilites average. But, the facility will not provide a diversion rate for our project - the facility just does not support this. I wonder how many other facilites include land clearing debris in their calcs and how often this goes unnoticed.
Tom Gray
architectDRS
4 thumbs up
September 29, 2010 - 2:04 pm
I have personally toured two "transfer stations" or "sorting facilities" here in Pgh, PA. We are seeing many projects embrace this easy alternative to on site sorting. Here's the facts: a container leaves your job. Gets weighed in, dumped on sorting floor and weighed out. Now you have a gross weight. Some level of sorting begins, there are no standards, perhaps they just get the good, easy stuff and dump the rest. Or if they are busy, even less sorting is done. The sorted materials get mixed in with all the other previous sorted loads, etc; there is no "re-weighing" of the wood or drywall, etc. just a visual estimate by a staff member. We typically see 4-5 categories on the load ticket, one being landfill, these should add up to 100%. My point is there is very little precision and no effective "watchdog" so be on the lookout for fudged #s!! I think LEED should require a rigorous vetting of these facilities and demand more accountability.
Valerie Walsh
Sustainable Design & Construction ConsultantsWalsh Sustainability Group
219 thumbs up
November 13, 2010 - 1:56 pm
Good points Mark and Tom. I get the impression that in this next wave of LEED building projects and associated services, that the level of “caring” about the sustainable effort actually being successful may be dwindling in some markets. As there are more mandates for LEED buildings, design and construction teams may not have the same motivation or buy-in from the top to drive the commitment in a meaningful way. That said, I can guess that there are services out there that are willing to sign off on LEED forms and data just to move it off the desk and promote how terrific they are. I have seen it.
So in answer to your question Mark, I do imagine that there are off-site recovery facility companies who either don’t look carefully enough at the LEED requirements, or perhaps may not even care enough. If you make the adjustment yourself to omit their land-clearing debris, you can guess that the next guy probably won’t be that conscientious.
Do you have any other options Mark for the waste recycling? On-site? Another off-site facility? Can you bring at least the land-clearing debris issue to the attention of the current company so they can tool up to improve their ‘real’ diversion rates for LEED? If that company can only deliver 31% for LEED projects seeking 50-95%, then they have not really provided the service the market needs. Looks like an opportunity to me.