Filling out the C&D waste Calculator

Hi Jenelle - Good questions! Here's my response on your two issues:
1. I don't see any definitions for the terms you are asking about; however, the pull-down menu for Material Type is pretty straightforward (wood, plastic, concrete, etc.). I would use the Material Description to provide any additional or clarifying details you want your reviewer to have. For instance, "Dimensional Lumber" could be a material description for some wood and "Composite Lumber" could be a description for other wood. In your situation, you could use the Material Description column to describe any differences between your two wood streams.
2. In the scenario you describe - at first I thought - yes use two lines - if some wood is source separated and some is commingled; however, I see that the calculator is adding the number of streams and you want to ensure you have the right quantity. Yet looking at the definition for materials streams and the informative video on Defining Waste Streams (part of the v4 online Reference Guide), I concluded that two lines is correct - assuming that your wood went to two separate facilities.* (The video includes a slide that states: "Waste Stream = defined by where the waste goes.") *Please note that if all of your wood went to the same facility then I think it would be a single stream and entered on one line only.
It's unfortunate that the example in the Reference Guide(and how it shows material streams) doesn't really jive with the C&D Waste Calculator, which could be adding to confusion on how to document waste streams.

As noted under What are Material Streams? above, commingled waste is only a single material stream if the facility cannot provide diversion rates (project-specific or average for a facility that is regulated by an authority) for the specific materials.
If you have those diversion rates, then you should list each material as its own stream.

This response is misleading. Having the average facility diversion rates only allows you to use comingled as a single stream. It does NOT allow you to count the various materials as multiple streams. This is very unclear in the LEED Reference Guide as they keep using "material specific" rates and "project-specific" rates interchangeably, but according to our CIR response they only allow "project-specific" rates to be counted as multiple streams. All other comingled waste, even with audited annual recycling rates by material, count as a single stream. See below. Note this was not a LEED Interpretation, though we made the request. They indicated they would try to clarify the language but it didn't deserve an interpretation.
Our CIR Response (10/27): The project is asking if it is acceptable to use the facility annual diversion rate for specific materials as a way to document multiple different material streams. No, the project team may not use a facility annual diversion rate for a specific material to create as separate material streams. Commingled waste may only be counted as one material stream unless each load and material is weighed and tracked so that the facility can provide project specific diversion rates for each the materials diverted. Project specific diversion rates may be used to document multiple different material streams. Materials used toward alternative daily cover are considered waste but not diverted waste.
This is further complicated by the fact that LEED reviewers are accepting annual diversion rates as multiple waste streams. I've confirmed this with multiple certified projects and two of the larger waste haulers in our area. I believe the problem is waste haulers provide a spreadsheet with load-by-load material recycling rates that looks like they're load-specific, but they're actually just the average annual rate applied to each load. I'm assuming the reviewers just haven't been trained to pick up the error. There is not a facility in Massachusetts that actually provides load-by-load (or project-specific) diversion rates except for a few that do visual inspections (also not allowed by LEED officially, but accepted by a lot of LEED reviewers).
One last FYI - taking out ADC usually drops the comingled recycling rate in our area 20 to 40% from what they were reporting before. Facilities are still allowed to use landfill road base, which has a beneficial use determination, in their recycling rates, so another 20 to 40% plus is being "recycled" at the landfill.

Hi Michelle,
I have a question about this also. In Seattle, we have very robust waste diversion but everything is commingled. So in filling out the new spreadsheet, I don't understand how to deal with the multiple wastestream issue either. The note in the calculator says "commingled counts as 1 waste stream unless itemized by the sorting facility".
We use monthly diversion rates from the receivers, and they do itemize the diversion of each type of waste stream for that month. So the diversion is waste stream specific each month, but not project specific.
It makes no sense to me that we would now get 0 credit for all of our waste diversion because it happens to be commingled. So how do we enter the waste stream information that is relevant to our project's waste streams that is itemized and provided by the receiver on a monthly basis?

Hi - Based on Nathan's post, I reached out to USGBC in mid-December asking to be connected with the Materials and Resources Subject Matter Expert. (I e-mailed this to Nathan but did not post it here.)
I am hoping the MR SME can tell me if the project CIR mentioned by Nathan is really going to not become a LEED Interpretation or when the Reference Guide Language will be clarified. (FYI: If it will be part of the January 2017 Quarterly Update, that won't be available until 1/16/17.) I haven't gotten a response yet on my connection request but will re-e-mail them and post more here when I have more information.
I can't really answer your specific questions now until I get in touch with USGBC; however, I will say that you won't get zero credit for the commingled waste - it might be that it is just counted as a single stream.

In addition to concerns from Massachusetts and Seattle, I have been approached by a team in New York City that is also frustrated by this situation.
I am not sure how to proceed because I was told by a GBCI Certification Reviewer that the only way to reach the MR TAG was a formal inquiry but Nathan has already done that. The response he got indicates that it is only for his project (Project CIR) and will not become an LEED Interpretation, which is unfortunate for all of us as we try to interpret the new issues with LEED v4. As there was nothing in the January 2017 Quarterly Update on this issue - http://www.usgbc.org/articles/leed-addenda-update-january-2017 - we can only hope that something may be clarified in the next one in April 2017 or later ones this year.
My last thought is that people concerned with this issue reach out to the chair and/or vice-chair of the MR TAG - http://www.usgbc.org/sites/default/files/mr-tag-members.pdf - and voice their concerns. I recognize LEED is a leadership standard but this change warrants the MR TAG taking a new look at this issue and its impacts.

Hello Michelle,

Please confirm if there was any resolution to this issue of commingled/ single stream recycling and multiple material types tracking in the LEED form.

Thank you,

Debra

Debra - Unfortunately no. I had hoped we would get some movement via the MR TAG but I have not heard anything since our initial contact earlier this year. I am not sure if this is on USGBC's radar for LEED v4.1 and/or the January 2018 quarterly addenda - but I'm hopeful. If I get any news, I will post it.

Thank you for your reply Michelle and for all of your work & dedication to assisting users with LEED.

Cheers,

Debra

I'm working on a project and trying to understand all of this!  If I have my waste hauler towing commingled recycling and they can provide project-specific diversion rates, can I count this as recycling-single source?

Kristin - You posted a similar but more detailed question on this same subject at https://leeduser.buildinggreen.com/forum/regulation-commingled-recycling-facilities#comment-53854. Please look on that forum for an answer.

I wanted readers of this thread to know that we have updated LEEDuser's Viewpoint for MRp2 and MRc5 (MRc6 for ID+C) to reflect the issues teams have experienced with LEED v4 and commingled waste. 

New/revised MRc5 language states: "If the commingled recycling facility can track and produce documentation of specific materials recycled for your project, you can count commingled waste as multiple waste streams. Otherwise, commingled waste that is the average diversion rate for a regulated facility is counted as a single waste stream regardless of how many different materials are included. The average recycling rate for the facility must exclude ADC." 

In addition, we added a LEED v4 resource for converting volume-to-weight for construction and demolition debris to LEEDuser's Viewpoint - https://www.usgbc.org/node/2695214?return=/credits/mid-rise/v4.