Raw Material Extraction/Harvest Locations

Based on my interpretation as a manufacturer, it is impossible to document extraction location for any raw materials derived from virgin petroleum.
They are excluded from my reporting.

Does water count as regionally raw material?

Lilian, I would be doubtful. What product is the water a part of?

We have been successful counting water as part of concrete mixes on multiple projects. I tend to agree with Dianne's assessment in that if water is part of the raw material mix included in the last point of manufacture prior to the product getting to the job site, it counts - as long as it's an assembly product that you're breaking down into component parts.

Regarding how far back to go in the supply chain, I usually use changes of state/composition as my measuring stick. If a raw material(s) A is combined to create new product B that then goes into the final product C, I use the manufacturing location of product B. If, however, a major raw material such as steel is carried through the supply chain without combining with something else to become something new, I would count the original point of extraction. This has been successful on our LEED projects in terms of review comments, but I'd be interested in hearing other people's experiences as well.

The credit documents products which are "permanently installed" on a project. While I would initially agree with the "change of state" analogy, I would argue that water itself in a concrete mixture is neither 1) permanently installed nor has it 2) changed state in that concrete mixture. It's more of a catalyst to cause the mixture to harden to a certain specification.

Likewise, solvents or added water in products like coatings and paints are similar in that they ultimate evaporate or other wise aren't "installed" on the project.

If ingredients like added water are to be potentially considered "regional" then where is the incentive to REDUCE the amount of water used in the manufacturing process?

Stella, I'm surprise that you've had that success, but if that's how the review comments have been going, I guess that's the word.To me I would ask whether including water is an incentive or disincentive to reduce environmental burden, and I would be quite surprised if counting water toward MRc5 influenced a project's choice of where they are getting their water.It's still problematic to me for reasons given by Keith, but I would feel better about a credit like MRc4 being sought for water, if you are reusing wastewater to reduce demand for potable water, for example.

Dianne,
I completely understand doing what you can to provide as much LEED value as possible to a project. I also understand that your products most likely apply to the IEQ credits so you're already providing significant documentation to a project team.

Another consideration is that the value contributed to this credit is based on mass of the installed product. To be technically accurate (as I read the credit language) the mass of the installed product would be whatever's left after any water or other solvent evaporates. In the scope of a building project, your products would have to be incredibly expensive to provide appreciable value to the project. Even if you use the full weight and price of the product it's not going to make a big difference ultimately.

That said if you can make it so simple (I.e. - "automatic") for a project team to add the entry for your products I suspect the effort to sort all this out is petty much in vain. Generally the larger structural products make or break this credit on most new construction projects.

There may be more value than see (commercial interiors?) and I certainly don't want to sound negative but my advice would be to spend your efforts on the more difficult task of getting solid documentation together for LEED v4 projects.

No problem. I hope I didn't come off sounding like I'm discouraging you from working something out for your customer. But at some point it's about defining the value vs the cost. It's great that you're thinking the way you are and I hope you can find a simple, effective way to make it happen.

Excellent conversation!
It’s great to hear manufacturers’ materials scientists putting so much thought into the documentation of raw material sources. Those of us in the trenches need your expertise to learn more about the materials we specify and track for LEED. This discussion sheds light on what it takes for manufacturers to come up with the data we demand.
Insights:
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. Whether or not the water in a product evaporates should be irrelevant. If water is in the product when it is manufactured, delivered, and installed, it should be a part of MR calculations.
3. MRc5 contributions are weighted by cost. When we build, we spend oodles on concrete, steel, and other major building components. By comparison, coatings & adhesives are a drop in the bucket. When adjusted by cost, whether a sealant is 47% regional or 0% may make a difference of less than 1/1000 % to the overall MRc5 tally.
I applaud your dedication and thoroughness, but we rarely choose coatings or adhesives based on its MRc5 contribution. Under LEEDv4, Environmental Product Declarations, Life Cycle Assessments, & other new forms of disclosure will provide new, more meaningful opportunities to evaluate the environmental impacts of material composition.