CMRA Responds to Proposed LEED Changes

Editor’s Note: Recently the U.S. Green Building Council announced a new version of its popular Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program, including a revision of the credits for C&D recycling. Those changes would have required at least a 75% recycling rate on a project for one point, and 95% for two points, and would no longer count C&D fines as alternative daily cover as recycling. The USGBC invited comments on its proposed new standard. In response, the CMRA formed an ad hoc committee made up of Ryan O’Gara, SKB Environmental, chair; Jason Haus, Dem-Con; Michael Gross, Zanker Road Resource Management; Jonathan Hixon, ERRCO; John Adelman, CPRC Group; and Gary Sondermeyer, Bayshore Recycling. Below are the comments the group prepared and submitted to the USGBC.

Opening Statement: The Construc-tion Materials Recycling Association (CMRA) represents a diverse group of member companies and agencies from the many construction and demolition (C&D) materials recycling disciplines and industry specialties active in the United States and other countries. The CMRA promotes the safe and economically feasible recycling of the more than 325 million tons of recoverable C&D materials that are generated in the United States annually.  These materials include aggregates such as concrete, asphalt, asphalt shingles, gypsum wallboard, wood and metals. Among other things, the CMRA provides positive support and representation to industry members in legislative, rule making and policy venues, such as commenting on the proposed changes to the LEED criteria for the award of points for C&D recycling.  

In its draft revision document, the USGBC indicates changes are needed given the fact that a high number of projects have received materials recovery points—in essence, the current system is “too easy” to achieve. The CMRA submits that current recover targets have only been met following extraordinary investment from our industry. Conservatively, at least $250 million has been invested by the 183 known mechanized materials recovery facilities across the United States through capital improvements. These facilities have added thousands of jobs to our economy, not to mention recovering significant quantities of debris not related to LEED projects, but which help achieve ambitious recycling rates in all 50 states. Mechanized materials recovery facilities also provide a needed alternative to customers to mix commodities in a single container, particularly in urban areas where space limitations make it literally impossible to adhere to strict source separation by material. Our industry has met the goals of the USGBC on many projects and feels strongly that we should not be penalized for our success.  

The CMRA is greatly concerned with the proposed changes to the “Waste Diversion—Projects with Demolition” criteria for LEED points, which would raise the bar to 75% recycling for one point and 95% for two points. In addition, as proposed, no credit would be given to use of alternative daily cover (ADC) of C&D fines at landfills or brownfield redevelopment sites. Finally, we completely disagree with the arbitrary cap of 75% of “heavy material” being counted toward the recovery total.

The CMRA and its members feel strongly the above changes will effectively take recycling out of the mix for points awarded to project owners to recycle and will ultimately result in the landfilling of more C&D waste. Not a single legitimate C&D recycler will be able to meet the 95% recovery target and most will be unable to even meet the 75% target in the absence of ADC and with the reduced credit for heavy materials.  

The industry understands the LEED Materials & Resources Technical Assistance Group (TAG) has concern with the historic 50% (1 LEED point) and 75% (2 LEED points) benchmarks from both an ease of achievement and materials accounting integrity standpoint. The industry would like to submit an alternative to the proposed, unachievable standard that will bring a higher level of integrity into the system, while simultaneously raising the bar on achievement of LEED points. We too are staunchly opposed to “sham recycling” practices and wish to raise the bar within our industry. We propose the following alternative and respectfully request an opportunity to work with the Materials & Resources TAG to further refine this proposal. We also would respectfully request membership on the TAG be expanded to include additional representatives from the highly diverse C&D recycling community.  

Alternative Daily Cover: C&D recyclers receive material from new construction activities, renovations and demolition projects. The United States Environmental Protection Agency estimates approximately 47% of building related debris is generated through construction and renovation activities and 53% from demolition. The composition of these generation streams is significantly different with demolition debris containing an unavoidably high percentage of fines, which consist of sand, dirt and other materials too small to effectively be recovered for traditional recycling markets. Most legitimate mechanized C&D recyclers will generate approximately 30%-35% fines through material screening practices prior to any grinding or shredding activity. In many states, fines may be used as alternative daily cover at permitted landfills or as part of brownfield remediation projects. Rigorous structural and chemical testing is required prior to states authorizing fines to be used as ADC, most generally under “beneficial use determination” or BUD regulatory standards.  

We submit that ADC should not be discounted in all circumstances. In states where regulatory agencies have an approval process in place to authorize use of ADC, we believe it should still be counted toward overall LEED credit for recycling. At a minimum, state regulatory requirements for both screen size of ADC and analytical testing (chemical and structural) must be in place. Regulatory oversight and approval demonstrates facially that the ADC in question has market value and integrity in the marketplace.  

Even where these standards are in place, the CMRA feels the amount of ADC counted for LEED point credit should be capped. We submit that an appropriate percentage by weight would be 25%, recognizing that most facilities will generate 30%-35% through screening. The CMRA also submits the 25% should only count where front end mechanized materials recovery (with or without positive picking of materials thereafter) takes place prior to material grinding or shredding. Simple manual removal of larger recyclables followed by front end grinding and shredding constitutes sham recycling and is not supported by the CMRA for LEED credit (as further outlined in the following C&D Recycler Certifi-cation section).  

C&D Recycler Certification: We believe the best way to bring a higher degree of integrity into the C&D
recycling industry is to develop and administer a certification process. A subcommittee of the CMRA has completed a draft set of criteria and plans to move forward with a certification process in 2011. It is anticipated the certification criteria could be adopted as soon as March 2011. We believe a condition precedent to awarding any LEED points should be use of a certified C&D recycler for any off-site materials recovery that takes place.  

Construction and Waste Manage-ment Plans: We understand the USGBC is considering adding, as a prerequisite to awarding any LEED points, the preparation of a “Construction and Waste Management Plan” (CWMP). The CMRA supports such a requirement. Under the existing program, waste audits are routinely conducted to serve as a benchmark of the materials available for a specific project. Preparation of a “Recovery Plan” becomes a logical and appropriate expanded use of the existing waste audit requirement.

Recovery Targets: As part of the CWMP, a project sponsor must identify recovery targets, by material and in total for the demolition project. A critical element of this process is the manner and uniformity of measurement. The CMRA submits that calculations must be done by weight through certified scales data.  However, if a reasonable effort to weight materials is not available, volume can be used, but the conversion from cubic yards to tons must be done in an equal and uniform manner. For instance, 1 cubic yard of mixed C&D debris should uniformly be recorded as .3 of a ton, where 1 yard of demolition materials would equal .75 of a ton. We recommend these targets apply to all recovered materials across the board and the CMRA would volunteer member time to help USGBC and the TAG to create a uniform
conversion table. We further recommend a conversion table could be established either within the MR Credit standard itself or within guidance associated with the new prerequisite “Construction and Waste Management Plan.”

Arbitrary Cap on Heavy Materials: The CMRA is vehemently opposed to the totally arbitrary cap of 75% credit for “heavy material,” referenced in the MR Credit draft document as “asphalt, brick and block.” From a philosophical perspective, all materials that are recovered and which have market value should count toward LEED points. Having what amounts to a penalty for certain materials is inappropriate and counter productive. While facially inappropriate, such a criteria would also result in a regional disincentive to recycling from LEED projects. For example, C&D recyclers in the northeast and in densely populated cities should not be penalized for having a historic building stock made up primarily of concrete, brick and block, especially if the end product replaces virgin quarry product.  

Third Party Certification: The final component of a revised points assessment program will involve third party certification. This will include a review of the CWMP and associated recovery targets, verification that a certified C&D recycler was used to process
all material brought off-site for recycling and verification the recovery
percentages were actually achieved in the field.  

Conclusion: C&D recycling of construction, remodeling and demolition materials has long been a key component of LEED certification. The CMRA, on behalf of its members, strongly supports a continuation in use of the historic 50% (1 LEED point) and 75% (2 LEED points) benchmarks in LEED projects. At the same time, the industry shares the concern of the USGBC that sham recycling activities should not count. As an alternative we believe the above steps will raise the bar, yet keep point targets within range of achievement by legitimate C&D recyclers to meet the needs of their customers.

| More...