Can the water content in paint be considered regional?

This same question came up in the comment string below started by Dianne on March 24. In that string, the general conclusion was that water could count.

Here’s my reasoning:
1. In the MRc5 chapter of the LEED 2009 BD+C Reference Guide, Table 2 shows a “Sample Assembly Percentage Regionally Extracted Calculation for Concrete” that clearly includes water as a regionally extracted component. Therefore, water can count as a regional material, at least in concrete.
2. If water added to a product during manufacture is still there when it is delivered to the jobsite, it should be a part of MR calculations. Therefore, the water in paint should count.
3. If water used during manufacture has evaporated or been removed before the product is sent to the jobsite, it should NOT be a part of MR calculations. For example, most of the water used to make clay for ceramic tile burns off in the kiln, so it should not count.
4. Sometimes, water reacts chemically with other ingredients to become something else, changing state rather than evaporating. For example, in precast concrete or CMU, much of the hydrogen & oxygen from the water used in the “wet” concrete remains even after the concrete has “dried” or cured. In such cases, include the water that remains in the MR calculation.

In practice, it may not matter whether you count the water in paint as “Regional.” Since MRc5 is weighted by cost, and the amount spent on paint is often tiny compared to other major building components, the percentage gained from paint may be minute.
However, if you are teetering on the edge of a Credit threshold, every little bit might help.

Dear Maria,

consider this: in concrete the water is chemicaly binded and is "permanently installed" in the project as part of cocnrete. Water in paint is a solvent, which mostly evaporates from the final product that is applied on site, therefore, it is not "permanently installed".

See comments of Keith Lindemulder in the discussion bellow from April 03-04 2014.

Andrey—As far as I know, USGBC has not issued an official interpretation answering this question. Therefore, our musings on LEEDuser are just that—inconclusive.

Keith L. and several others offered various opinions during the discussion started by Dianne C. on March 24. You may have missed Keith’s most compelling point. His April 4 post (http://www.leeduser.com/comment/redirect/49122) notes that the biggest MR Credit contributions usually come from expensive structural elements. Paint’s value to a project is typically slight. Even if you include regional water content, coatings can contribute little appreciable MRc5 value to an overall project. Therefore, the answer to this question may be that it does not make much difference.

Sometimes, LEED Project Teams go overboard in their effort to gather “complete” documentation. When they require manufacturers to submit detailed regional extraction percentages for EVERY SINGLE PRODUCT used on their projects, they impose unnecessary burdens on manufacturers, on contractors, and, ultimately, on themselves. Experienced LEED teams soon discover that they can achieve their credit goals and reduce paperwork simply by focusing first on “Big-Ticket” products with greatest potential MR credit impact. Teams that use this strategy can avoid dwelling on minutia and focus their attention toward documentation that is TRULY critical to this and other LEED credits.

Streamlining MR documentation will become even more critical as we go forward. LEEDv4 adds new, more relevant reporting requirements, but combines the current MRc3-7 requirements into a single credit point. We will have to be smarter about what documentation we choose to gather.

Less is more.

Jon, sure I've read this comment, since we are at NC forum, the idea not to overcomplicate smth that could be achieved with much less effort is understandable, and you are totally right. But for CI consideration of water in high price paint can be very vital. Or even for NC - in Sweden, as I've heard, becomes common to build 5-7 or more floors wood buildings, so a lot of antiperenes, coatings, paints and so on can be reasonable part of material budget (specially for CS).

You are right. A project team might analyze its budget and determine that expenditures on paint (or some other water-bearing product) represent a significant percentage of overall construction costs—enough to affect MR credit achievement and enough to warrant researching extraction points for product ingredients. Please consider:

The intent of MRc5 is to reduce the environmental impact of transport. The volume, mass, and weight of the water in paint significantly increase this impact. The suggestion is that we should exclude paint’s water content because it evaporates after application. Chemical solvents and VOCs in paints also evaporate or dissipate after application. Should we exclude them too?

The term “Permanently Installed” has been taken out of context. It was never meant to exclude ingredients that evaporate after installation. This term simply distinguishes “Base Building” from “Furnishings” and from “Temporary Construction.” (See LI#10294 http://www.usgbc.org/leed-interpretations?keys=10294.)

The simplest rationale is to evaluate equally all ingredients present when the product arrives at the jobsite. Do not treat water any differently.

As I suggested above, one might be able to justify excluding the water and other solvents in shop-applied coatings and treatments (such as antiperenes). That water dissipates BEFORE shipment, reducing the environmental affect of its transport. Likewise, one could omit the water used to produce ceramics and similar product because that water is not part of the finished product delivered to the jobsite. However, I have never had need to attempt these justifications with LEED review teams.

I think that your interpretaion is the most rational one. Thank you!