CI-2009 MRc2: Construction Waste Management 1-2 points

Is it possible to achieve MR credits 2.1-2.2 by way of a construction management plan that utilizes a nearby waste recovery facility with a very high recycling rate that sorts and distributes wholly co-mingled debris from the construction site? Our project intends to work with a nearby waste recovery company, Taylor Recycling Facility, LLC, where a single container is provided for all the construction waste on site. Each full container is transported to their New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Part 360 Permitted Construction & Demolition processing facility in which it is initially weighed by a certified NYS weigh master. The co-mingled debris is then screened, processed, and sorted manually into the various recycled product categories; if further processing is required at other facilities, names will be identified on the supplied monthly waste management reporting form. Any non recyclable materials are transported to a solid waste transfer station or landfill for legal disposal. The facility will intermittently provide a total weight of the removed co-mingled debris specific to our project, as well as general facility percentage rates of all waste that is recycled, reused, salvaged, or landfilled, based on the facility\'s monthly Construction and Demolition Plan. The intent of this credit is to "divert construction, demolition, and land-clearing debris from disposal in landfills; to redirect recyclable recovered resources back to the manufacturing process." By redirecting all of the waste created by our project to a facility that has made it their business and mission to transform the waste management industry into a sustainable process, it is made certain that the intent of this credit is performed correctly and efficiently. Furthermore, Taylor Recycling Facility, LLC has a very high recycling rate, typically greater than 97%: if the DEC documents this facility as attaining a 95% or higher salvage rate, does this also merit an additional ID credit? This is in reference to a previous CIR ruling dated January 11, 2005 which stated that the threshold for diverting construction waste is set at 95%.

Our LEED NC v2.2 registered project includes pursuit of MRc2 - Construction Waste Management credits and we would like to know if our strategy for compliance is acceptable. We have been actively sorting and recycling wood, concrete/masonry, metals, cardboard, paper and plastic in a region of the country which has severely limited available CDL recycling facilities, due primarily to the negative impacts of hurricane Katrina in 2005. To date, approximately 16,000CY of excavated soil from our project site has been removed and donated to a non-profit, private school to assist in preparing their site on campus facility expansions. The school site is located approximately 500 feet from our project site. If the excavated soil were to have been hauled off to a landfill, the travel distance would have been greater than 25 miles one-way. It is projected that an additional 1,000CY of excavated soil from the project site will also be made available to the school as our project progresses. We are aware the LEED NC v2.2 MRc2 - Construction Waste Management credit requirements indicate excavated soil does not contribute to this credit, however the excavated soil was donated to a neighboring school which the credit requirements make special note that ".diversion may include donation of materials to charitable organizations.". We believe we are meeting the intent of the credit by diverting construction and demolition debris from disposal in area landfills and in addition, we are significantly reducing environmental impact from transportation vehicle emissions and providing a non-profit organization with materials to provide site expansion.

Our major renovation project is a high-rise building in Germany. One of the recycling methods we apply is underground waste disposal, also called mine backfill (Bergversatz), a method which, in Germany, is governed by statutory provisions. Since with our project, a relatively large amount of material (gypsum waste, sheet glass, gypsum fiberboard panels, etc.) is disposed of in this manner, we would like to make sure that this way of recycling is acceptable in line with the Credit Intent. Underground waste disposal or mine backfill means that exploited deep mines are backfilled with liquid or solid mining or non-mining materials. Depending on their nature, the filling materials are stored in barrels or packed in big bags and their storage is controlled. The backfill may also consist of bulk material. Under the German Closed Substance Cycle and Waste Management Act (Kreislaufwirtschafts- und Abfallgesetz) and, in addition, under the German ordinance on the underground disposal of waste (Bergversatzverordnung) it is specified that if this disposal serves an economic purpose, e.g. if it prevents a mine from collapsing by filling it air-free, it is not considered as waste disposal but rather as waste recycling. Furthermore, for every 500 metric tons, analyses must be performed and submitted which confirm that the underground waste material is recognized as safe. As under the applicable German laws and regulations, underground waste disposal is recognized as recycling, we would like to know whether this recycling method complies with the requirements of the LEED Credit Intent and whether LEED also recognizes underground waste disposal as a means of recycling?

Within a LEED-ND Pilot registered neighborhood project, two buildings come into question: a LEED NCv2.2 registered hotel and a LEED CS registered mixed-use office building. The site is currently diverting over 50% of construction waste for the entire neighborhood and we feel that it would be wasteful to use additional independent dumpsters to individually collect and document 50% diversion of construction waste for these two specific buildings. In order to reduce the environmental effects of having multiple dumpsters and associated truck traffic for documenting diverted waste for each building, we propose using a combined recycling program and consolidated documentation for the entire site. Can these projects be eligible for the MRc2.1 point if the consolidated neighborhood debris diverted is above 50%? The project is currently diverting between 65-70% for the entire neighborhood and we anticipate this to continue for these two buildings as well.

The proposed project site is located on a military base that has potentially unexploded ordnance on-site.Protection from potential detonation during construction is required by the federal government to shield pedestrians and existing housing across the street from the project site. As a part of the project, a detonation barrier is to be constructed prior to start of excavation. This barrier can be built using various material but must have substantial foundations and structural strength to withstand large explosion forces. After construction is completed, the detonation barriers would be deconstructed to allow access to the site.The project team is proposing to incorporate salvaged local material into the design of these barrier walls. May the salvaged material qualify for MR credit 2 Construction Waste Managementif recycled after deconstruction?

This CIR asks for further clarification of the ruling dated 3/23/2004 that states "Incineration cannot be used as an alternative method for diverting waste from the landfill for purposes of credit achievement." Our recycling facility processes construction and demolition (C&D) debris into numerous commodities. One of these products is Wood Derived Fuel (WDF) which is sold to local paper mills to replace virgin wood, natural gas and oil. While the product is burned, it is not incinerated. The USEPA has recently provided a category for such materials and defined them as Biofuel: A gaseous, liquid, or solid fuel that contains an energy content derived from a biological source. WDF has an energy content value of 8,500 Btus per pound of fuel and is derived from the collection, sorting and processing of C&D waste. The LEED Reference Guide defines recycling as "the collection, reprocessing, marketing and use of materials that are diverted or recovered from the solid waste stream." Before accepting co-mingled C&D debris for processing, the recycler we use demands that we provide Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (A.H.E.R.A.) documentation proving the C&D loads have been inspected and abated. In addition, they maintain on-site testing equipment to detect lead & asbestos (such as XRF for lead and a polarized light microscope for asbestos). C&D debris that passes these tests is then accepted and sent through an elaborate sorting system where commodities ranging from LDPE plastic to Steel are separated and sold. Wood represents the largest volume of material they accept and is processed into 4-different commodities including WDF, Colorized Mulch, Pulp Furnish and Alternate Daily Cover. Facilities that purchase WDF have boiler permits that meet the requirements of 40 CFR Part 63 of the USEPA National Emission Standards (http://www.epa.gov/epacfr40/chapt-I.info/). Prior to the development of recycled WDF, most C&D wood waste was land filled and lumber mill saw dust was used as WDF. As the market for recycled WDF has developed, its use has resulted in lumber mill wood waste residuals traditionally consumed as fuel to be up-cycled into particle board, pulp and MDF, which is currently the highest use of this resource. . When C&D wood waste is land filled, the anaerobic conditions present in a landfill result in wood waste generating large quantities of methane gas. Methane gas has a global warming potential that is 23 times more hazardous than CO2 (http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid1215.php, November 08, 2006), where as consuming WDF in a modern industrial boiler is considered carbon neutral. The CIR ruling dated 3/23/2004 specifically denies diversion credit for C&D debris delivered to a mass-burn incinerator that uses excess heat to generate electricity, (Waste to Energy, WTE). The CIR recognized that the primary function of a WTE incinerator is to reduce the volume of waste placed in a landfill. The incinerator accepts everything that could be delivered to the landfill and they charge as much or more than is typically charged for landfill disposal. In contrast, our permitted recycling facility creates a recycled content commodity that is sold for profit. They manufacture WDF from a portion of the C&D debris they receive and they sell the WDF to paper mills that operate USEPA permitted industrial boilers to produce the heat energy needed to manufacture and recycle paper. Use of this product as a commodity is consistent with the LEED Reference Guides definition of recycling and with CIR dated 5/17/2004 for the production of Alternative Daily Cover. Audit documentation, such as receipts of sale of WDF to USEPA permitted facilities, can provide evidence of material diversion as WDF. For these reasons, we believe producing Wood Derived Fuel (WDF) meets the intent of the credit and seek to gain a ruling as such from the USGBC materials TAG.

Our confidential client is seeking LEED-CI Gold for an office space in San Francisco. The contractor will be recycling construction waste in their NEW space and we will be seeking 2 credits (or 75% of the construction waste). Specifically, this CIR is for an Innovation credit for their recycling and salvaging at their OLD space, the one they will be vacating to in order to occupy their NEW office space. AS the USGBC knows, most building owners do not concern themselves with the afterlife of the spaces they vacate. However, this confidential client is concerned and has implemented many measures to lessen the environmental impact as the result of churn from one tenant to another. We\'re wondering if recycling and salvaging most of the construction waste, office and pantry equipment, architectural features (walls) and more at their OLD space qualifies for an innovation credit considering under LEED-CI this is not required, nor is there a credit that applies to it. Our confidential client (to be referred to as CC) will vacate their existing space (13,000 sq. ft.) in March 2008. Both the new and old offices are (or will be) located in downtown San Francisco. For the last few months they have been coordinating their move with their landlord and the new tenant; this includes retaining many architectural areas that in most remodels would be demolished. The entire elevator lobby area which includes the existing ceiling, wall and flooring details as well as the main entry glass doors and emergency exit doors will remain as is. The Men\'s and Women\'s restrooms will also remain as is, even though they were slated for demo as they are not base building. The IDF room will also remain as is except the raised floor and UPS system; the UPS system has reached its maximum life expectancy and will be recycled locally as it contains a heavy load of batteries. A satellite dish on the top of a nearby hotel feeds all of CC\'s video feeds and will be retained and transferred to the landlord for full ownership as well as the cable fed thru the riser of the hotel. The existing VAV boxes that were relocated as part of the current office configuration will now remain where installed, thus eliminating the labor and resources required to relocate. Three existing heat pumps installed by CC will be removed (per landlord request) and recycled locally. The desktop equipment will be decommissioned by CC\'s asset management team. All equipment that is labeled with CC\'s identity (proprietary equipment) will be recycled locally. (In the past it was shipped back to New York headquarters for resale or reuse in another CC office location.) This policy has been changed to a more environmentally appropriate practice (eliminate pollution generated from shipping equipment across country). Specifically 169 pieces of outdated equipment (AV Equipment, Computer Equipment , Printer and Fax Equipment, Monitors and Broadcast Equipment) will be recycled to local vendors that specializes in PC, monitor and computer equipment. All pantry equipment (refrigerators, microwaves, toasters, etc.) will be moved to the new site at Pier 3 or donated locally to a charitable organization in conjunction with CC\'s philanthropy group. The furniture will be liquidated through a local furniture liquidator. Some furniture will be reused at new office space including 24 workstation chairs, several folding tables and other minor furniture items. All security equipment will be removed and shipped to new office space for stock and supply of future needs. The raised floor will be removed and sold to a local flooring vendor that specializes in reclaimed flooring. All cabling and electrical components will be separated and recycled locally. Ceiling tile will be recycled at Armstrong\'s St. Helen\'s plant. Carpeting will be shipped to Georgia recycling plant. All other construction waste will be recycled locally. We intend to document the tonnage and/or quantity of all construction waste, equipment, furniture, etc. This confidential client frequently remodels office space but for this location they\'ve been more aggressive and intend to duplicate their recycling efforts in San Francisco at future locations.

The project team is seeking direction regarding Construction Waste Management. In order to minimize the environmental impact associated with construction waste, consistent with the Credit requirements, the team plans to prevent concrete washout waste from being transported to landfill by means of diversion to an on-site washout pit. This waste will be deposited on top of existing bedrock and then covered with soil from the project site. The existing bedrock in the area that we are proposing is 6\' to 8\' below the surface, and is under the new parking lot we are constructing. No future construction is planned in this area. By utilizing this method of diversion, the project team would eliminate the environmental impacts associated with fracturing, loading and transporting the concrete waste to a facility off-site for recycling. Additionally, in order to divert this material by means of removal to an off-site facility, the team would need to utilize heavy construction equipment to dig the hardened concrete material out of the pit. This method would consume a significant amount of energy and negatively impact the carbon footprint associated with this material and the project. In summary, the team is attempting to meet intent of this Credit in a manner that causes the least environmental impact by diverting construction waste on-site. Therefore, the construction team would like to measure the cubic yardage of concrete to be left in the wash-out pit and convert this volume to weight by using a solid waste conversion factor of 146 lbs/cubic foot as provided by the concrete supplier. The weight of this material, which will ultimately be diverted from the landfill in the most sustainable way possible, would then be applied toward the diverted material quantity for MRc2. We are requesting clarification as to whether USGBC believes this methodology is in compliance with the requirements of this Credit.

In the waste diversion process many questions have come up regarding utilizing Waste-to-Energy as a landfill diverstion strategy. Can Waste-to-Energy be utilized as a landfill diversion strategy if; this effort ran parallel to sorting recyclable and reusable materials, and the power plant proposed has approved EPA pollution control devices. Alternatively, can paying additional cost to transport non recyclable trash to a Waste-to Energy power plant to be incinerated and converted into electrical energy count as diverted waste?