I've been working with a subcontractor regarding the documentation requests for regionally based materials on a Platinum project. As a manufacturer of formulated products, there is not a lot of information I can supply without revealing formulary percentages or revealing information about our suppliers - and thus specific raw materials that may be considered as confidential business information.
The one piece of information I can confidently supply is a percentage range or upper bound concentration of municipal water utilized as a forumulary component. In order to make coatings that emit less into the occupied space and comply with VOC regulations, we have used new resins and active ingredients that allow substituting an organic solvent with water as the carrier solvent.
One problem: the subcontractor has been told that the water cannot be counted.
By a certain logic, a project in Texas could utilize a high build epoxy that contains 20% organic solvent that came from a refinery in Oklahoma can claim credit conformance for that raw material.
Conversely, it would appear that my companies' efforts to simply eliminate the organic solvent will not be rewarded or recognized.
Tristan and Nadav (or anyone): Any comments on this apparent paradox?
Tristan Roberts
RepresentativeVermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
11477 thumbs up
November 7, 2011 - 9:47 pm
Dwayne, first some context: usually projects meet success with MRc5 through big-ticket items like wood, steel, drywall, concrete, etc. I am surprised that a project is in a situation where the regional qualification of a coating, let alone 20% of the coating, is the make-or-break for MRc5. Quite interesting! It also reminds me of EBOM MRc5, where there is a lot of gray area when you get into ingredients of food.It also brings to mind discussion of whether water should count toward MRc4—see the second or third page of comments on MRc4 for that.I would think that in this context, it makes sense to count the water as a regional material as you would any other ingredient. However, to play devil's advocate, the main benefit of using water is to reduce VOC emissions, so it seems like your company will get plenty of recognition for that, no?
Susan Walter
HDRLEEDuser Expert
1296 thumbs up
November 8, 2011 - 9:29 am
I agree that most projects achieve the 20% wiht big ticket items. But if you are trying to get to an Exemplary Performance credit, you sometimes need to eke out everything you can. One project we had was less than one percent from the EP credit.
Dwayne Fuhlhage
Sustainability and Environment DirectorPROSOCO, Inc.
169 thumbs up
November 8, 2011 - 11:31 am
Thanks for your comments.
Tristan: I agree that the credit is primarily derived from the big ticket items. However, that doesn't change the fundamental accounting.
LEED project teams are paranoid for good reason. Given litigation on buildings that have failed to meet specified certification levels they will demand information on every building component. As Susan points out, they may be attempting to get every dollars worth of regional material to gain a credit.
The inquiry to the manufacturer passes through many hands and the intent (making sure the big ticket items gain the credit) is usually lost in the mix. It goes like this:
LEED AP or Specifier => Project team member => GC => Subcontractor => Distributor => Manufacturer Customer Service => Someone like me
By the time the demand for information on speciated percentage of raw materials from within 500 miles (on letterhead) gets to me, I have no idea how important the information is to the LEED AP at the beginning of the chain. Is it simply to fill out a massive spreadsheet? Are they borderline on an EP credit? Are they comparing my product to a competitor's?
Either way, between all the steps involved there is a whole lot of time spent handling documentation. On this particular project, we spent roughly 4 hours of staff time handling the inquiry, looking at formulations and raw materials and writing multiple letters.
Should generating electronic paper be credit worthy activity? Perhaps not, but ideally the LEED AP and GBCI reviewer would consider context when looking at raw materials.
I gave the 20% organic solvent containing product as a fair example of something that could actually conform to EQCr4.2. My three products under consideration for this Platinum project range from 70-85% water. When I started here 20 years ago, the same type of product would have been 60-90% organic solvent.
I appreciate your Devil's advocate question. Yes, I have emissions tested products, however, that isn't even relevant to LEED for Schools since availability issues caused USGBC to allow NC requirements as an out. IEQ Credit 4.2 is worth 1 point and I go beyond simple regulatory conformance.
My Devil's advocate question: Shouldn't plywood manufactures be satisfied with contributing to MR Credit 7? I'm looking at a trade association website promoting contribution to MR 7, MR 4.2 and EQ 4.4.
Note: I harbor no grudges against the plywood industry; this was a random example. I could have used any number of product categories as exhibit A.
As LEED 2012 moves towards emissions testing for IEQc4.2 (3 points total for all combined interior layers), interior finishes manufacturers will be looking for ways to differentiate themselves in the LEED market.
If I were a cynical person, I could suggest designing some coatings with soy oil substituted for water as the carrier solely for the purpose of maximizing biobased credit contributions. But that entails water use (irrigation), contribution to watershed pollution (TSS and pesticides), particulate pollution (PM2.5 from farming operations), energy (transport from field to broker to processor and processing energy inputs) and general air pollution (diesel and processing).
Reformulating to water carried technology is not point grubbing. And yes, I would like a carrot for my employer's efforts.
Tristan Roberts
RepresentativeVermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
11477 thumbs up
November 8, 2011 - 11:48 am
Dwayne, this has been interesting. I don't know how GBCI will see it, but I don't see a reason why water should be treated differently than other ingredients as far as regional calculations go. I think it is more of a stretch when someone tries to get MRc4 credit for water. If anyone can provide verification of how GBCI has ruled on this, or if anyone gets a CIR or Interpretation, please let us know.
Suzanne Robinson
Sustainable Design LeaderR.G. Vanderweil Engineers
14 thumbs up
March 16, 2012 - 4:13 pm
Tristan, I would have agreed with you about water being counted in the MRc5 calculations and not in MRc4. However, we just received review comments back for a NC v2.2 project that stated:
"Water for Redi Mix Concrete was included in the credit calculations. Water is not included in CSI MasterFormat 1995 divisions 2 through 10. The credit requires that only materials found in Divisions 2 through 10 be included in the credit calculation... Please remove the Water for Redi Mix Concrete from the credit calculations."
This was new to me and contradicts the sample assembly percentage calculation in the LEED 2009 Reference Guide.