Hi Ann,
This is a repost from NC, MRc2. I am hoping that you can shed some light on this.
Our Seattle region has a very developed state regulated construction waste diversion infrastructure. Over the past few years as methodology with respect to ADC and IWS has changed, local facilities are vying with each other to capture LEED project business. Some of these facilities, the ones that also accept solid waste, have difficulty maintaining a high enough monthly diversion rate to obtain the LEED points that projects are pursuing.
On several recent projects, the facility selected has been providing "eyeball audits" to substantiate the percentage of waste diversion. This style of reporting simply guesstimates what percentage of each material appears to be in that truckload. Then gets an overall weight for the load. The eyeball percentages are then used as if they represented actual material tonnages diverted.
This type of backup will not work for any NC, CI or EBOM project. Yet the facilities claim they are LEED compliant to project teams because these reports are apparently acceptable on LEED for Homes projects. Once a project has contracted with a hauler, this issue is very difficult to resolve.
Can you clarify whether LEED for Homes actually allows this kind of thing as backup?
Ann Edminster
founder/principalDesign AVEnues LLC
LEEDuser Expert
9 thumbs up
December 31, 2015 - 5:15 pm
Michelle, unfortunately I don't have a definitive response for you -- but I do have a couple of comments and suggestions. First, IMO an "eyeball audit" as you describe it shouldn't suffice as documentation in any LEED program. Second, claims of "LEED-compliant" documentation should be viewed with some skepticism, as there is no 3rd-party process for validating such a claim. Third, review of LEED for Homes projects is done by LEED for Homes "Providers" or "Quality Assurance Designees" selected by USGBC; although a project team can contract with any LH Provider throughout the country, it's likely that projects in your area are working with a Seattle-based Provider. You might check with the Providers in your area to inquire about the basis for their approval of this type of 'verification.' It's possible that they may be unaware that the waste handlers are using this 'audit' method -- and could be very appreciative to learn of this! OTOH, it's also possible that they're aware of it and have gotten official approval. That would seem quite odd to me, but I've heard stranger things. I'm going to check it out with one of the WA providers I have close ties to. Please let me know what else you learn about this. Thanks!
Michelle Rosenberger
PartnerArchEcology
523 thumbs up
December 31, 2015 - 6:04 pm
Hi Ann,
Thanks for the response. I was not aware this was verified by the Provider rather than GBCI but that would certainly explain a lot. I'm quite familiar with our local Provider. I'll query them directly. Happy New Year.