[Greenbuilding] Landfill is counted as waste management

[Mcumber, Guy]

Using CD as cover in some states may be considered "recycling", but I
take exception for its use in the LEED process. To me, LEED is supposed
to be about being smarter and better. Using CD as cover is merely
rearranging landfill waste. To define this activity as "recycling", when
no product and related societal value is gained, is not valid. I suppose
one could make the case this could reduce soil cover, but why should we
bury perfectly good dirt, anyway? It also allows the facility to avoid
the fees and regulations associated with conventional wastes, which is
the motivation for many landfills. I am glad that someone is looking at
this issue from a "better and smarter" perspective. Recycling should be
about finding ways to keep things out of landfills, or better yet,
making them obsolete. 

Guy Gmcumber
Sustainability Coordinator 
PA DEP


-----Original Message-----
From: greenbuilding-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:greenbuilding-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of JAY WALSH
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 10:15 AM
To: greenbuilding at listserv.repp.org
Subject: [Greenbuilding] Landfill is counted as waste management


I thank you for bringing up the issue of how materials we are sending to
recycling are being used in some cases for purposes which may not be
keeping them out of the landfill. But, I wouldn't point to LEED and the
associated points assigned to this credit as an issue. How this
recycling waste is being dealth with is an issue for the recycling
industry and municipalities to address.

The typical home built in the US produces on average 4 pounds of waste
per square foot of house built (NAHB study). Raw wood, sheetrock,
plastic, cardboard glass etc.  In an average year we build about a
million homes in the US with an average home size of 2,400 square feet.
Let's do the math, 4 lbs per sf times 2,400 sf = 9,600 (or 4.8 tons per
home), 4.8 tons times 1 million homes/yr =  4.8 million tons to land
fills each year. This amount of waste is the real issue here, material
of which a high percentage COULD be recycled but is going straight to
the landfill. 

The larger POINT in the LEED points system as I see it is to get
developers, contractors and sub contractors to consider jobsite
recycling and develop methods and on site systems to separate and
recycle. For anyone who has worked in the building industry you know
that "change" comes slowly here. The adoption and use of new materials
and methods does not happen overnight in this industry and until
recycling on the typical jobsite becomes a "standard of practice", any
effort to change the course of this waste stream is important. 
 
Sincerely,


Jay Walsh
Energy Analyst
Energy Star Homes and LEED-H Rater
Center for Ecological Technology (CET)
112 Elm Street
Pittsfield, MA 01201
413-445-4556 x23
jayw at cetonline.org

> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 13:17:01 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Brad Guy <guy_brad at yahoo.com>
> Subject: [Greenbuilding] Landfill is counted as waste management
> To: greenbuilding at listserv.repp.org
> Message-ID: <475673.86448.qm at web30303.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> 
> By lack of distinguishing among reuse, and recycling
> levels of quality, LEED allows the counting of
> construction and demolition debris that goes to
> alternative daily cover towards the MR Credit 2
> Construction Waste Management.
> 
> Alternative daily cover is what landfills put on the
> open face of the waste each day to cover it. Mulch is
> also a ADC.
> 
> To be clear, LEED MR Credit 2 does not explcitly state
> that alternative daily cover is recycling, but the
> fact is that haulers are claiming it as recycling, and
> in fact some states classify it as recycling.
> 
> This is also not to say that, as some will, if not use
> C&D debris then have to get something "new" and that
> local governments are considering this recycling. That
> is fine - the point being should it be rewarded as
> recycling in LEED.
> 
> And if being incorporated into the de facto national
> green building standard it seems the intent of the
> credit is made irrelevant and agenda of
> reuse/recycling is being greatly set-up from an ironic corner.
> 
> I was wondering if others have had experience with
> this, what they did with it, and any thoughts on
> better way to address how green standards might define
> C&D recycling to acknowledge that not all C&D
> recycling is the same...
> Thanks,
> Brad
> 
> 
> Brad Guy
> Ph.D. Program
> School of Architecture
> Carnegie Mellon University
> Cell: 814-571-8659
> 



_______________________________________________
Greenbuilding email list
     Environmentally-preferable design, construction, building elements
List info:
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_listserv.repp.or
g
List email: Greenbuilding at listserv.repp.org
Managed by BuildingGreen, Inc. http://www.buildinggreen.com
      publisher of Environmental Building News and GreenSpec Hosted and
archived by REPP / CREST http://www.crest.org To get on the list:
 
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_listserv.repp.or
g
  or mailto:greenbuilding-request at listserv.repp.org?subject=unsubscribe
To get off the list:
 
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_listserv.repp.or
g
  or mailto:greenbuilding-request at listserv.repp.org?subject=unsubscribe