Entry Type ID Date Applicable Rating System Primary Credit Inquiry (LIs) Ruling (LIs) Related Addenda/LIs Related Resources Campus Applicable Internationally Applicable Country Applicability Reference Guide (Addenda) Page (Addenda) Location (Addenda) Description of Change (Addenda) "LEED Interpretation" "10149" "2012-04-01" "New Construction" "When a LEED NC project attempts LEED CI Indoor Environmental Quality credit 4.5: Low Emitting Materials - Systems Furniture and Seating as an Innovation in Design strategy, are they required to include the furniture costs in Materials and Resources credits 3 thru 7?" "No, LEED NC projects are not required to include furniture in their calculations for MR credit 3-7 if using low emitting furniture for an ID strategy. LEED Interpretation #3901 states that although furniture does not have a dedicated credit in the New Construction rating system ""since furniture can have an effect on indoor environmental quality, projects that include furniture in the scope of work are eligible to apply for an innovation credit based on LEED for Commercial Interiors (LEED-CI) IEQ credit 4.5, Low-Emitting Materials - Furniture."" For project teams pursuing this credit as an ID strategy, the cost of the furniture is not required to me included in the total materials cost in Materials and Resources credits 3,4,5,6, or 7. The intention of this ID strategy is to easily reference a set of rigorous Indoor Environmental Quality requirements relating to furniture. While it is not required to include furniture in Materials and Resources credits project teams are encouraged to look for sustainable criteria synergies when purchasing furniture." "3901" "None" "LEED Interpretation" "1569" "2006-09-15" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell" "Our project relocates an existing visitors center building to a nearby site. After relocating the building, an expansion to the building will be constructed equaling approximately 45% of the original building size. The foundation under the original visitors center building has to be abandoned and a new foundation is being provided. The function of the building and the ownership remain the same. A credit interpretation request (MRc32 ruling 11/4/2002) states that the Building Reuse credit is for buildings reused in-situ. This negates our ability to apply the existing building stock to the Building Reuse credit. We ask that you confirm this conclusion. We would like to pursue credits under Materials and Resources-Resource Reuse using the value of the existing building components. The value of the components will be substantial and we will likely pursue an exemplary performance credit as well. Please confirm the validity of applying the existing building\'s component values to the MRc3.1 and 3.2 points." "The project team is requesting confirmation that a building relocated to the LEED project site is ineligible for credit under MRc1 - Building Reuse. Should that ruling be confirmed, the project is requesting to apply the existing building components retained in the relocated project to the reuse materials component in MRc3. Relocated buildings are indeed ineligible for credit under MRc1. Relocation of existing building shell and components is consistent with the reuse of salvaged materials, and application of these reused materials to the MRc3 calculation is acceptable. Applicable Internationally." "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "2052" "2008-03-10" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell" "Materials & Resources credits 3 through 7 state a default percentage of 45% of the total construction hard cost can be used as the Total Materials Cost for a project. We assume this is based on the U.S. construction market. We are working on a project in Europe that is pursuing a Platinum rating, for which the project team believes a more accurate default would be close to 30% of the total construction hard cost attributed to materials cost, while the other 70% is attributed to labor. This is due to the fact that in the European construction market, the labor costs far exceed the material costs, when compared to the United States market. Can we use a different percentage if we provide a letter from a reputable Contractor from Europe stating this fact? If not, what documentation would we need to provide in order to establish a more accurate default percentage for European projects? Please note that in Europe, it is very common to have no submittal process, making it very challenging to collect LEED documentation. The easier we can make it to gain accurate documentation information, while making the real goal to meet the credit requirements and intents, the better experience this project team will have implementing LEED on their project. This will increase the versatility of LEED, making it easier to implement, while still maintaining the same credit requirements and its establishment as a universal metric." "The project team is requesting a lower default percentage of total construction costs to qualify for MR credits 3 through 7. The project team states that due to the increase labor costs in Europe, materials account for a lower percentage of total construction costs. However, European markets vary - similar to the micro-markets in the US. One letter, from one contractor would not provide enough substantial evidence to support altering the default percentage for an entire continent. However in this instance, the project team does not need to use the default percentage. For MR credits 3 through 7 the project team has the option of using EITHER the default percentage (45%) or providing the actual materials costs (excluding labor and equipment). By following the latter approach, the project team will be able to determine if they meet the credit requirements based solely on the cost of materials. Additionally, please note that per MRc5.1 ruling 5/24/2004 and MRc4.1 ruling 8/29/2003 - if any materials outside of Division 2 through 10 are included in the total materials cost, they must be included consistently in all calculations. Applicable Internationally; Europe." "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "2225" "2008-07-02" "New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Schools - New Construction" "Our project team is requesting the ability to contribute Renaissance Specialty Veneer Product, Redwood Veneer towards MRc3.1 credit achievement. The intent of MRc3.1 is to reuse building materials and products in order to reduce demand for virgin materials and to reduce waste, thereby reducing the impacts associated with the extraction and processing of virgin resources. The redwood veneer product is produced from salvaged redwood logs which have been blown down or damaged during natural forest fire. Utilizing salvaged redwoods reduces the degradation associated with the extraction of virgin timber from sensitive forests. Renaissance Specialty Veneer Products has certified the harvesting of redwood trees through the Forest Stewardship Council (SCS-COC-00872). The FSC Chain of Custody number tracks the wood through the production process ensures that the sourcing of the redwood veneer is both socially and environmentally responsible. Our project is requesting recognition for the use of innovative new products which provide environmental benefit and meet the intent of the credit requirements. By salvaging and utilizing downed trees, Renaissance Specialty Veneer is reducing the stress placed on natural forests and demand on virgin resources. As product sourcing and material options continue to grow and become more unique, our project team is interested in selecting products which contribute to the progressions of sustainable principles and environmental stewardship. Please confirm whether our calculation of FSC Certified Salvaged Redwood Veneer towards MRc3.1 credit achievement is acceptable." "The project team is requesting clarification on whether products that contain salvaged logs can be considered a reused material. No, while the materials described likely qualify for MRc7, reused materials are materials that were manufactured, used for their intended purpose, and are being included in a build-out for that same purpose again. Items that were never placed into service, but are being re-sold, are not salvaged material. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "2501" "2009-03-20" "New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Schools - New Construction" "With the recent down turn of the economy there have been many building materials that have been fabricated for buildings that will never be built. On our project, we have sourced structural steel that was already fabricated and ready to be installed in a project that will not be built. This idle steel has been resurrected to be used in a new job. To refurbish the steel, the rust has been grinded off and the ends of each beam are cut off where the old connecting plates were previously attached. The remaining length of each beam will be used in our project when possible. This will prevent the old beams from being scrapped, thus reducing the demand for virgin materials and reducing waste. Please clarify: does this reuse of structural steel contribute to Materials and Resources Credit 3, Material Reuse?" "The project has requested a clarification regarding the reuse of steel beams that were not used for the originally specified project. Page 265 of the LEED NC 2.2 Reference Guide states for materials obtained off-site ""the primary stipulation for qualifying as reused is that they have been previously used."" This upholds the CIR ruling on 8/14/2003 that indicates that ""the intent of the credit is to extend the life-cycle of building materials through re-use, rather than re-manufacture."" This structural steel reuse does not contribute to MRc3. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "3007" "2003-08-14" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction, Core and Shell" "Our project involves the demolition of a three story brick office building and the adaptive reuse of an adjacent and larger manufacturing/warehouse facility. The warehouse will be converted into a 108,000 SF office building with structured parking. The landscape plan includes 100% stormwater retention and native or adapted vegetation.\nThe site plan results in a deficit of 22,000 yards of fill. Our plan is to recycle a substantial portion of the brick office building (slated for demolition), then crush all clean brick, CMU, and concrete from the demolition to help make up the deficit in site fill. We are also obtaining enough used PZ40 sheet pile to complete all of our retaining wall needs.\nIn both cases we are eliminating the need for virgin building material (new retaining wall material and virgin crushed stone fill) that would otherwise have to be purchased new. We want to make sure both used materials, 1) used PZ40 sheet pile, 2) crushed brick/CMU/concrete, can be claimed under MR 3.1 and 3.2 as reused resources." "Although the project has reduced demand for virgin building materials for the construction of the retaining wall and fill material by ""remanufacturing"" materials obtained from the demolition of an existing on-site structure, the intent of the credit is not being achieved. The intent of MRc3.1 is to extend the life cycle of building materials through re-use rather than re-manufacture.\n\nThe project might consider approaching these materials from a construction waste standpoint by including them in the total waste generated. The total weight of the re-manufactured materials could then be counted as diverted from landfill. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "3008" "2002-11-04" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell" "This credit inquiry seeks clarification on how to account for reuse of materials ""harvested"" from an existing building for reuse in the same building. By definition, on page 188 of the Reference Guide: ""Salvaged materials are construction materials recovered from existing buildings and reprocessed for reuse in other buildings."" This seems to imply that materials from an existing building cannot be counted as salvaged materials if they are reinstalled in the same building.\nOur project includes deconstruction of a number of building components with the specific intent of reprocessing them for reinstallation into the building. For example, about 11,000 board-feet of old-growth timbers were harvested from the demolition of existing roof framing. The wood was milled and used throughout the building for architectural millwork features. Clearly, reprocessing was almost total. Also, over two hundred (200) doors were removed, restored to their original finish, fitted for new hardware, and reinstalled. About half were reinstalled into different locations. Some reprocessing was required. A number of other components, such as tack boards, blackboards, and display cases, were harvested, protected and reinstalled into new locations. The only reprocessing was to recondition and reinstall the components.\nWe seek LEEDTM credit for the extensive salvaging work that was accomplished. To exclude the harvesting program we undertook seems an unintended consequence of the definition of salvaged materials. Can we include materials harvested from the building as salvaged materials? We have also considered the potential of applying for an Innovation credit for conducting a ""harvesting"" program. Is that a better approach?" "It is important to make a distinction between salvaged building materials and building reuse. The goal of this credit is to reduce energy and resource impacts associated with production of new building materials, and also to encourage the development of a market in salvaged building materials.\nCredit MR 1; Building Reuse is intended to encourage the reuse of existing building shells and interiors. Components of an existing building which are reused in-situ are considered to apply toward the building reuse credit, not as salvaged materials.\nIn this case, the roof timbers which were removed and reprocessed meet the intent of the salvaged material credit, since they apparently could not have been used for their current function in the existing building, but were salvaged for other valuable building components.\nHowever, the doors represent a component of the building which was reused as the same product, for the same purpose, in the same building. This type of reuse represents the goals of MR Credit 1.3, and thus can contribute to achieving the required 50% threshold for interior component reuse.\nNote that the materials in question cannot be counted simultaneously toward multiple credits (I.e. MR Credits 1,2,3,4,6, and 7). See page 187 of the Reference Guide for this discussion.\n Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "3009" "2004-05-24" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell" "Previous CIRs indicate that the mechanical and electrical components are to be excluded from the calculations for Materials & Resources credits 3, 4, 5 & 6. Please confirm that the total material cost excludes these components as well. The total material cost will either be the actual material costs of the Div 1-10 subcontractors or 45% of the total construction cost of the Division 1-10 subcontractors.\nIf items from division 15 or 16 are assembled locally and can be included in the numerator for the total of the Regional Materials calculation, should the materials cost from division 15 and 16 be added to the denominator as well? Please clarify" "CORRECTION, 10/25/05: To attain the materials cost using the default calculation option: begin with the total subcontractor charges (to the General Contractor) for CSI MasterFormat 1995 Divisions 2 through 10 ONLY (instead of all Divisions, as indicated in the original ruling). Applying 45% to this number (as the Letter Template does) will result in a conservative estimate of the materials costs in those Divisions.\n-----------------------------------------------------\nOriginal ruling:\nTo use the default 45% calculation to generate a total materials value, project teams must enter total subcontractor costs of all MasterFormat Divisions. This is noted in the LEED v2.1 Letter Template. The resulting cost solely represents materials in Divisions 2-10 (currently this is not indicated in the Letter Template, but should be). These Divisions include the principal items that are considered in MR Credits 3 through 6. Materials in Div 11 through 14 are optional (item by item), and if included must be added to the numerator and denominator of the equation.\nIf a project team chooses not to use the 45% default calculation to generate a total materials value, then follow the guidance provided in MR Credit 4.1 CIR ruling dated 8/29/2003: Materials in CSI MasterFormat Divisions 2 through 10 must be included. If a project team chooses to include additional items as part of the base material costs it should do so for all relevant material credits, which include MR Credits 3, 4, 5 and 6. See the MRc4.1 8/29/03 ruling for further details. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "5047" "2007-04-13" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction, Core and Shell" "Kalamazoo College\'s Hicks Student Center is an existing building that houses a number of campus functions. To create a more dynamic Student Center, the building is currently undergoing a significant renovation. The existing food service and dining areas will be relocated from one part of the building to another area within the building. The Materials Reuse credit requires a 5% reuse of salvaged, refurbished or reused materials based on the total material value of the project. The credit does not allow mechanical, electrical and plumbing equipment to be included in the 5% material cost required. There are several new pieces of food service equipment in the renovated kitchen and food service area, but a significant portion of the existing equipment can be refurbished and reused. We do not consider the reused kitchen and serving items to be mechanical or electrical, but necessary equipment that is required for functionality of the space. Rather than simply discarding the existing and purchasing new equipment, we are responsibly reusing existing equipment that has remaining useful life, and would like to confirm your support in their application to MR credit 3.1. The example below is provided to show our calculation methodology: Value of contracts including Food Service Equipment: $5,680,133 + $1,165,000 = $6,945,133 Total material cost based on 45% (including Food Service Equipment): $6,8456,133 x .45 = $3,080,310 5% of material cost (reused materials): $3,080,310 x .05 = $154,016 Estimated Material cost for reused food service equipment = $200,000 (6.5%)" "Consistent with the LEED-NC v2.2 Reference Guide, mechanical, electrical and plumbing components and specialty items such as elevators and equipment cannot be included in calculations for this credit. This credit is primarily for those materials in CSI Divisions 2-10, which is consistent with MRc4 and MRc5. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X"