CS-2009 MRc4: Recycled Content 1-2 points

Please provide clarification on documentation of recycled content claims and FSC certified claims for woods products such as particleboard, MDF and other composites.

Our project is located in Los Angeles, California. Construction waste is sorted at the jobsite into various boxes i.e. wood, metal, concrete/inert material, drywall/gypsum, co-mingled recycled waste (small wood scraps, wire cuttings, conduit, metal stud cut offs, etc.), and general trash boxes. A contracted hauler regularly collects these boxes. General trash is taken directly to the landfill where it is weighed and then buried. Separated recycling materials are taken to various certified City of Los Angeles recycling facilities where they are weighed and processed. Co-mingled recycled waste is taken to special certified recycling facilities where the co-mingled mix is weighed and then the recyclable materials are removed from the mix and sent to appropriate facilities for processing. This process does not allow for each recyclable material type from the co-mingled load to be weighed separately. The City of Los Angeles\' Department of Sanitation audits all of the co-mingled sorting facilities on a regular basis and establishes a yearly average recycling percentage rate for "each" facility. The certification recycling percentage rates vary. When calculating the construction waste recycling percentage for MRc2.1, will the USGBC accept the City of Los Angeles\' annual recycling percentage rate for the "specific" facility that accepts this LEED project\'s co-mingled component of the project\'s waste stream?

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.

A CS project is inheriting an existing building that still has furniture from the previous tenant. The project team is seeking clarification on how to account for this furniture in MRc2 and how to document the selling of this furniture to a re-seller.

When removing petroleum contaminated soils there are two options for disposal. One would be to haul the contaminated soils to a hazardous materials landfill. The other option is to incinerate the soil to burn off the petroleum and remediate the soil into a environmentally safe product. In the case of Biomed project we elected to have the contaminated soils recycled (incinerated). During the site cleanup WT removed 787.4 TONS of contaminated soils from the project site. We are currently applying for the "Brownfield Credit" which all of this documentation will be sent to document the cleanup. Also LEED specifically says that land clearing waste (soils) cannot be included in the waste management plan, but for this case we feel that because of the soils were recycled from a hazardous material that we should be able to apply the tonnage to our waste management calculations. Can we use this toward this credit too?

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?

We are performing a comparative analysis for fiberglass insulation regarding MR Credit 4: Recycled Content. Depending on the manufacturer, recycled content is reported either a plant- and product-specific average, or a country-wide average (various plants and products). We have contacted a manufacturer using North American average recycled content claims, and they state that the recycled content across their facilities and product lines can range from 0-70%. Are country-wide recycled content averages acceptable as documentation for MR Credit 4: Recycled Content? If country-wide averages are not acceptable, what level of specificity is acceptable?

Methodology #1 Each co-mingled load of construction debris is weighted at the MRF and visually inspected then the percentage of each recyclable material is tallied. The recyclable materials are then processed for sale on the secondary market. The tallied data is documented in a running monthly report created by either the MRF or the Hauler and is submitted to the contractor for the project. Methodology #2 The MRF\'s self-reported recycling percentage rate (for the entire facility) is applied toward specific LEED projects\' delivered co-mingled tonnage brought to that facility. We are aware of the CIR ruling dated 12.2.05 stating that a project can use this methodology if a facility has government oversight over a facility\'s recycling rate calculations. In our case we have government oversight of the MRFs overall recovery rates but the reporting methodology required by the oversight agency doesn\'t account for C&D debris - asphalt, gypsum wallboard, and concrete tonnage which is processed through those facilities. LEED NC v2.2 accepts and credits concrete towards MRc2 but this disconnect between how the oversight agency tracks materials versus what is actually processed in a facility doesn\'t allow for accurate reporting and subsequent award of LEED credit in our local market. Please let us know if one or both methods are acceptable for tracking and documenting co-mingled boxes for MRc2.

This project has contracted with the construction waste hauling company Richard S. Burns and Company, Inc. (here after known as RSBCO) who will take all construction waste from our project and recycle about 90% of it through a patented process that produce several products. These recycled construction waste products are unconventional and one of the products is sold for use in landfill operations. We would like the USGBC to confirm that these products made from construction waste meet the intent of the MR Credit 2 - the diversion of construction waste into the commercial products stream - thereby qualifying our project for MR credits 2.1 and 2.2. RSBCO has developed and patented a specific process of receiving, sorting, grinding, and blending construction waste materials to recover recyclable materials and produce desired products from the rest of the waste. The process begins with screening out fine particles for later use. The material then moves through a positive sorting process where individually recyclable materials like ferrous and non-ferrous metals, cardboard, masonry, and wood are recovered. RSBCO sells ferrous and non-ferrous metals and cardboard to secondary processing markets. On-site, RSBCO processes masonry and wood into a clean fill product used around pipes, in drainage trenches, or as substrate for road construction. We think the recovered recyclable materials and the clean fill product both clearly meet the intent of the MR credit 2.The process continues with negatively sorting the remaining construction material to remove undesirable materials such as plastic trash bags and clothing. This undesirable material represents less than 10% of total materials received and is continuously scrutinized for further recycling opportunities. The remaining material is then ground, screened again for metal recovery, and sized. The ground and crushed aggregate from all stages of the process are then blended in specific proportion to create a product called Barrier

Is a campus-like approach for MRc2 acceptable for two LEED-NC v2009 registered projects each pursuing one-off certification? Space is limited on the urban site for recycling dumpsters, therefore the best approach for CWM may mean that waste and recycling for all LEED registered projects will need to be aggregated and tracked together. AGMBC Master Site / Campus is not utilized, yet we propose using the AGMBC precedent for MRc2 documentation. We propose to track together all demolition, construction waste/diverted, & land clearing material for the project and then apply a weighted average based on GSF to each LEED project.

Due to late incorporation of construction waste recycling during the construction process, meeting the minimum recycled waste threshold of 50% would not be feasible even if all waste was recycled from now until project completion. This situation accounts solely for the core and shell portion of the structure as this is the portion of the project included in the scope of LEED-CS certification. The project team is interested in providing recycling containers for what remains of core and shell construction, as well as for the tenants during their fit out construction, which has not yet begun. Is there an opportunity for the project to obtain the MRc2.1 point if they can demonstrate that 50% of the remaining core and shell construction waste as well as tenant fit out construction waste is recycled? If this proposed compliance path diverges too far from the original credit structure, would it be possible to merit an ID point for this effort?

Intent: "Increase demand for building products that incorporate recycled content materials, thereby reducing impacts resulting from extraction and processing of virgin materials." The project targeting LEED-CS certification is located in Ontario, Canada. The LEED-CS Reference Guide requires that "SCMs as a percentage of total cementitious materials" and the "Dollar value of all cementitious materials" are provided by the manufacturer. The Redimix Concrete Association of Ontario states that concrete mixes are confidential, and as such will not divest the "Dollar value of all cementitious materials" as required by the LEED-CS Reference Guide. (For LEED Canada-NC projects, it is standard practice in Ontario for concrete suppliers to provide the overall recycled content of concrete in a signed letter.) To accommodate this situation, we propose the following documentation approach to the LEED-CS version of the SCM calculation. Following these steps will mathematically yield the same result as the procedure outlined in the LEED-CS Reference Guide: 1) The supplier determines the recycled content value due to SCMs for the entire project by multiplying the "SCMs as a percentage of total cementitious materials" and the "Dollar value of all cementitious materials". 2) The supplier provides a signed letter indicating the recycled content value due to SCMs for the entire project. 3) When completing the letter template, instead of providing the value of all cementitious materials and the recycled content, we provide the recycled content value due to SCMs, and indicate that the recycled content is 100% (pre-consumer). Please confirm if this approach is acceptable.