MR Materials Credits (recycled/reuse/regional/biobased)

Just wanted to chime in here and second what Tom said here, especially combining the credits and keeping the structural in the MR credits. Maybe combining the credits is something that has to be pushed to the next set of revisions, but please find a fair way to keep some of the structural material in the MR credits.

I agree with above as well. I would like to add I do not suggest a prerequisite for recycled material. From the on line webinar it was discussed that the Recycled Content points are always being achieved, the market has transformed itself which is good. So just raise the percentage to continue the market transformation. The MRc 4, 5, 6, 7, points are very time consuming (expensive) for contractors to document and some teams think they are not worth the effort. By making it a prerequisite you force them to do the documentation for what was in the past very few points and again if it is understood almost every project gets this because of market transformation, why are you making the contractors document it? Also changing the way you document certain materials structural vs non structural just adds to complexity and confusion. Keep it consistent. Where would you put structural door frames? Is the block wall a structural shear wall or load bearing wall or just a fire proof partition? I believe, drywallon the underside of trusses adds shear stability.

I agree with above as well. I would like to add I do not suggest a prerequisite for recycled material. From the on line webinar it was discussed that the Recycled Content points are always being achieved, the market has transformed itself which is good. So just raise the percentage to continue the market transformation. The MRc 4, 5, 6, 7, points are very time consuming (expensive) for contractors to document and some teams think they are not worth the effort. By making it a prerequisite you force them to do the documentation for what was in the past very few points and again if it is understood almost every project gets this because of market transformation, why are you making the contractors document it? Also changing the way you document certain materials structural vs non structural just adds to complexity and confusion. Keep it consistent. Where would you put structural door frames? Is the block wall a structural shear wall or load bearing wall or just a fire proof partition? I believe, drywallon the underside of trusses adds shear stability.

I also agree with what Tom Lent has posted above. Combining Credits – If the materials credits are combined then teams would pursue materials with the best attributes instead of what they need to get to a certain percentage and not investigate alternate materials further. Keep Structural Elements – Materials credits should keep some portion of structural material that can count toward the overall percentage. You could consider limiting the amount of structural materials that can count toward the overall percentage rather than eliminating them altogether. For some projects in very remote or island type settings, structural materials may be the only way to achieve regional materials for example. I also agree with Linda Smithe’s comment that it may become very difficult to delineate what materials are structural vs. non-structural and increase the complexity of documentation. Prerequisite – The idea of a prerequisite is good but if it remains just for recycled materials this may actually be difficult for some projects to achieve depending on their geographic location, what materials are readily available, and what the structure and interior consist of.