For a LEED for Schools, 2007 project we have provided for the LEED construction documentation reviewers a list of ceiling and wall system components used on the project with the coordinating documentation of Greenguard for Children and schools certificates, a website screenshot or manufacturer documentation listing the product as a CHPS low-emitting material located in the database, or documenation of 3rd party testing of the material to meet the California Department of Health Services Standard Practice for The Testing Of Volatile Organic Emissions From Various Sources Using Small-Scale Environmetnal Chambers, including 2004 Addenda. However, acceptable documentation for this credit as outlined in the LEED for Schools Reference Guide is confirmation that the components comply with the testing and product requirements of the CA Dept of Health Services Standard Practice for the Testing of Volatile Organic Emissions from Various Sources Using Small-Scale Environmental Chambers, including 2004 Addenda.
Under "Potential Technologies and Strategies" in the LEED for Schools, 2007 manual they state "Clearly specify requirements for product testing and/or certification in the construction documents. Some programs that offer verification of the cited standard for Options 1–4 and 6 are Indoor Advantage™ Gold, GREENGUARD™ Children & SchoolsSM, the Resilient Floor Covering Institute’s FloorScore™ program, the
Carpet and Rug Institute’s Green Label Plus™ program and the Collaborative for High Performance Schools product list."
The construction review team has requested. proof of compliance that the components comply with the testing and product requirements of the CA Dept of Health Services Standard Practice for the Testing of Volatile Organic Emissions from Various Sources Using Small-Scale Environmental Chambers, including 2004 Addenda.
We are not understanding as a project team why providing the documentation of Greenguard for Children and schools certificates, a website screenshot or manufacturer documentation listing the product as a CHPS low-emitting material located in the database, or documenation of 3rd party testing of the material to meet the CA Department of Health Services Standard Practice for The Testing Of Volatile Organic Emissions From Various Sources Using Small-Scale Environmetnal Chambers, including 2004 Addenda is not acceptable documentation.
Alison Y Rivenburgh
223 thumbs up
January 21, 2011 - 12:15 pm
I am thinking that maybe providing the testing standards for GREENGUARD for Children and Schools and CHPS low-emitting database that show that the products must be tested to meet the 01350 standard. Do you think that would be sufficient?
Nadav Malin
PresidentBuildingGreen, Inc.
LEEDuser Moderator
839 thumbs up
January 21, 2011 - 1:29 pm
HI Alison,It sounds to me like the review team is off track in rejecting what you submitted. I'd suggest getting back to them with that info from the manual and pushing them to explain what's missing. Also, try to move the conversation up the chain from your initial reviewer to a more senior person if you can...
Josh Jacobs
Technical Information & Public Affairs ManagerUL Environment
515 thumbs up
January 21, 2011 - 2:57 pm
Alison - if you are looking to take that tact with them here are a couple of links that may help:
GREENGUARD C&S Standard: http://www.greenguard.org/Libraries/GG_Documents/GGPS_002_GREENGUARDChil... (this shows that the California CRELs, which are what is covered in CA 01350, are one part of the criteria which has to be passed).
California Dept of Public Health Indoor Air Quality Program page which lists what certification programs to look at for qualifying products: http://www.cal-iaq.org/vocs/voc-links
Alison Y Rivenburgh
223 thumbs up
January 21, 2011 - 3:48 pm
Thanks for your help! We have several other comments on other credits where it does seem like the reviewer does not even understand the standards and is not reviewing the requirements before they request additional information.
Josh Jacobs
Technical Information & Public Affairs ManagerUL Environment
515 thumbs up
January 21, 2011 - 4:22 pm
Unfortunately a more common occurence then I think we would all like. It is an incredible amount of information to retain, but walking through it with you before ruling would certainly be a better policy.