We manufacture coating and adhesive products. Determining the point of extraction/harvest of our raw materials is becoming more and more difficult to "trace". We may use anywhere from 10-20 raw materials in a specific formulation. Then, some of the raw mateirals we purchase may contain 10+ ingredients or raw materials in "that" product. For an example, I'll use the following: RM 1: Acrylic Emulsion We may purchase" this emulsion from a company who "manufacturers" the acrylic emulsion in Chicago - but we have no idea where "their" raw materials are actually "extracted" from (that are used to manufacture the acrylic emulsion). Do we report the "extraction/harvest" location as "Chicago" - or do we need to break THEIR product down into each of "their" raw material "extraction locations"? Thanks in advance for any help with this one...

Post a reply

Melissa Vernon

Director of Client Engagement

Natural Capital Partners

LEEDuser Basic Member

42 thumbs up

Thu, 03/27/2014 - 19:00

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.

Lilian Seow

Principal

LSDesignworks @ Vancouver, BC Canada

LEEDuser Basic Member

9 thumbs up

Wed, 04/02/2014 - 21:51

Does water count as regionally raw material?

Tristan Roberts

Representative

Vermont House of Representatives

LEEDuser Expert

7780 thumbs up

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 01:54

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

Dianne Carey

Director of Technical Services

W. R. MEADOWS, Inc.

LEEDuser Basic Member

0 thumbs up

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 13:50

Tristan and Lilian, This is something we (as a manufacturer) have wondered about for a few years now. After review/comparison of the older USGBC CIRs (Credit Interpretation Rulings), Credit Addenda and the Credit Interpretation Database, we decided that water "could" contribute as a Regional Materlal; when "water" is added as a raw material to the product at the time it is manufactured; IF the actual manufacturing facility IS less than or = to 500 miles from the project/jobsite location. For example, on the "sealers" we manufacture, water may be added at our manufacturing facility in the amount of 47.0% (by weight) - to a product we manufacture. The remainder of the formula may be comprised of inert fillers, acrylic/urethane emulsions, surfactants, defoamers, etc. The water that IS "counted" as a Regional Matieral is only the water that is added at "our" manufacturing facility, and does not include water that is "already contained" in any of the other raw materials in the formulation; such as water in the acrylic emulsions, urethane emulsions, surfactants, defoamers, etc.; that we purchase from other manufacturers/locations, etc. NOTE: UNLESS their manufacturing locations ALSO just happen to be less than or equal to 500 miles from the project/jobsite location; in those cases, this "water" would also contribute. Sorry for the "dissertation" - Just trying to provide a full explanation of how we arrived at our decision to "count" our local water AS a Regional Material. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions, or need any further clarification.

Stella Hodgkins

Corporate Citizenship Manager

GE Johnson Holding Co

LEEDuser Basic Member

0 thumbs up

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 14:55

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.

Keith Lindemulder

Environmental Business Development- LEED AP BD&C

Nucor Corporation

LEEDuser Basic Member

132 thumbs up

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 15:05

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?

Tristan Roberts

Representative

Vermont House of Representatives

LEEDuser Expert

7780 thumbs up

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 17:32

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 Carey

Director of Technical Services

W. R. MEADOWS, Inc.

LEEDuser Basic Member

0 thumbs up

Thu, 04/03/2014 - 19:06

Stella, Thank you for your comments-very much appreciated !!! Tristan and Keith - thank you as well. You BOTH have brought up excellent points; regarding adding "regional water" to a product or formulation -- as actually INCREASING the environmental burden !! Looking at the credit(s) in that way, had not even occured to me !! (As a R & D Chemist, I sometimes (ok, ALL the time) get WAY too "caught-up" in documenting and reporting "the data", and unfortunately don't always see (or lose sight of) the "big picture". Based on your comments, do you feel that for products such as coatings, sealers, waterproofing sealers, adhesives, bonding agents, caulks, etc.... that the actual "carrier-solvent" for these product (could be water or a petroleum-based, etc. "sovlent") should NOT be "counted" --- as in "theory" -- these "carrier-solvents" will eventually evaporate from the product - once it is applied "in" the structure ?? As a product manufacturer, the Regional Material Credits have always been the most difficult for us to interpret, report and maintain databases for - as often times, one "product" may contain 20+ "raw materials/components". In addition, we often make the same formulation/product at 10 or more of our company's multiple manufacturing locations/facilities. This then requires us to collect/record/maintain raw material/component composition "information" separately; due to the presence of "regional" raw material suppliers, etc. Once again, thank you ALL for your input - it has been extremely informative and helpful !!!

Keith Lindemulder

Environmental Business Development- LEED AP BD&C

Nucor Corporation

LEEDuser Basic Member

132 thumbs up

Fri, 04/04/2014 - 18:26

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.

Dianne Carey

Director of Technical Services

W. R. MEADOWS, Inc.

LEEDuser Basic Member

0 thumbs up

Thu, 04/10/2014 - 22:06

Keith - Thank you for taking the time to further help clarify all of this for me - it is very much appreciated !!!

Keith Lindemulder

Environmental Business Development- LEED AP BD&C

Nucor Corporation

LEEDuser Basic Member

132 thumbs up

Thu, 04/10/2014 - 23:13

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.

Dianne Carey

Director of Technical Services

W. R. MEADOWS, Inc.

LEEDuser Basic Member

0 thumbs up

Fri, 04/11/2014 - 20:00

Not to worry Keith, I didn't take it as "discouraging" at ALL. This is something that I have "struggled with" for quite a while now. With the resources we have, how do we PROPERLY implement and maintain the necessary databases (for all of our products) for the various Green Rating Systems/Requirements; to be able to provide our customers with the data/information they are requesting ... (??) Definately not an easy task; without dedicated personnel, resources, etc. Thank you again !!

Jon Clifford

LEED-AP BD+C

GREENSQUARE

LEEDuser Expert

261 thumbs up

Tue, 04/29/2014 - 15:39

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.

Add new comment

To post a comment, you need to register for a LEEDuser Basic membership (free) or login to your existing profile.

You are currently logged in under an enterprise account

FAQs about MRc5 :

Raw Material Extraction/Harvest Locations

You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?

Add new comment