In the IEQ: Low-Emitting Materials credit, under the heading Emissions and Content Requirements, section on General emissions evaluation, it says that “building products must be tested and determined compliant in accordance with CDPH Standard Method c1.1-2010, etc.”
Then in the section on Composite Wood Evaluation, it says that “composite wood... must be documented to have low formaldehyde emissions that meet the CARB ACTM for formaldehyde requirements for ULEF resins or no added formaldehyde resins.”
Question: If you have an engineered wood flooring product containing composite wood (e.g. w/ a plywood platform), in order to comply with the requirements of this credit, does the product need to undergo both evaluations, or does it only need to comply with the second one?
Comment & Related Question: The part of the CARB regulation that relates to ULEF and NAF resins doesn’t stipulate any limit to formaldehyde emissions. Rather, manufacturers that use these resins can be designated “CARB exempt” if they pass several tests that meet the CARB 2 emissions limits (there’s a table in the regulation that lays out the ppm limits for different categories of composite wood products). CARB exempt manufacturers don’t need to be audited and certified on an ongoing, annual basis. Both CARB exempt manufacturers and those that don’t use ULEF/NAF resins — but have been audited and are certified — can invoice their products as “CARB compliant.” This is the documentation that one uses to verify that a product meets CARB 2 formaldehyde emissions limits.
The question is whether compliant products are those that meet CARB 2 limits (in which case USGBC screwed this up pretty badly) or whether compliant products are only those that come from CARB exempt manufacturers (in which case USGBC still screwed up since this eliminates many, many manufacturers who are not using ULEF/NAF resins but whose formaldehyde emissions still meet CARB 2 — the most stringent formaldehyde regulation in the world).
As an aside, I am inquiring on behalf of a large flooring distributor/importer that regularly tests samples of products for formaldehyde emissions, and they have found that some products that use ULEF/NAF resins have higher emissions than those that don’t. They think this is because the former are made using cold-press methods, and the latter use hot-press methods that cause the release of the natural formaldehyde contained in the wood or bamboo itself.
Reinhard Oppl
Independent consultant on VOC issuesformerly with Eurofins Product Testing A/S
329 thumbs up
March 15, 2016 - 1:06 pm
In my understanding, an engineered wood flooring product, even if containing composite wood, falls under the General emissions evaluation with the CDPH Standard Method. The Composite Wood Evaluation applies only to composite wood panels, not to products that are further engineered.
Jason Grant
PrincipalJason Grant Consulting
LEEDuser Expert
164 thumbs up
March 15, 2016 - 1:50 pm
Thanks very much for your comment, Reinhard.
Are you saying that a product that does fall under the composite wood evaluation does not have to comply with the requirements of the general emissions evaluation?
Also, how certain are you that engineered wood flooring that contains a composite wood product only falls under the general emissions evaluation and not the composite wood evaluation? This would be confusing, since CARB requirements definitely apply to manufacturers of flooring containing composite wood (e.g. plywood, HDF) as well as to the manufacturers of the composite wood products themselves -- not to mention manufactures of multiply engineered flooring that is constructed the same as plywood. This is because engineered flooring manufacturers are using adhesive systems to glue wear layers to the underlying platforms, and these adhesives could off gas formaldehyde at levels that exceed the limits of the regulation.
Finally, I am wondering if Michelle Halle Stern or anyone else on this forum is in a position to provide definitive guidance on these questions, or if any comments provided are simply the opinion of the commenter.
Mike Miller
Director of Environmental and Engineering ServicesEggers Division - VT Industries
36 thumbs up
March 15, 2016 - 1:54 pm
If a composite wood based product does not fall into one of the other categories it is then evaluated under the composite wood criteria i.e., CARB ULEF or NAF.
Jason Grant
PrincipalJason Grant Consulting
LEEDuser Expert
164 thumbs up
March 15, 2016 - 2:14 pm
Thank you, Mike!
But I'm afraid I'm still confused. In the reference guide, at the top of the overall section immediately under the heading Emissions and Content Requirements, it says "To demonstrate compliance, a product or layer must meet all of the following requirements, as applicable." And then the language in the General Emissions Evaluation category states that "Building products must be tested and determined compliant..." It's a blanket statement.
Given the first statement, and since all composite wood based products are building products per the second statement, it's seeming to me that all composite wood products would have to be evaluated under both categories. Do you agree with this interpretation?
Reinhard Oppl
Independent consultant on VOC issuesformerly with Eurofins Product Testing A/S
329 thumbs up
March 16, 2016 - 3:42 am
Hi Jason, You may want to search this forum for the key words "composite wood". Then you will see an earlier reply by Michelle. Several earlier discussions ended in that you apply only one of the two sets of requirements - the General emissions evaluation with the CDPH Standard Method applies to final products such as flooring that are made from composite wood, but also contains a floor specific wear layer etc. The Composite Wood Evaluation applies to composite wood panels; in my time in the EQ TAG we thought of that as being engineered wood products used for construction, for walls, etc..
Jason Grant
PrincipalJason Grant Consulting
LEEDuser Expert
164 thumbs up
March 16, 2016 - 12:05 pm
ah hah! Sorry to duplicate effort, and thank you very much!
Michelle Halle Stern
Senior Sustainability ConsultantGreenwood Consulting Group
121 thumbs up
March 17, 2016 - 9:36 am
I was away for a couple of days. It looks like you are all cleared up. I just wanted to acknowledge that I agree. If you can apply the General Emissions Evaluation, that is your first choice. The Composite Wood Evaluation is for products that don't fall under one of the other categories.
Jason Grant
PrincipalJason Grant Consulting
LEEDuser Expert
164 thumbs up
March 17, 2016 - 11:54 am
Thanks very much for this confirmation, Michelle
Barry Reid
Building Envelope Technical ManagerGeorgia-Pacific LLC
6 thumbs up
May 9, 2016 - 2:14 pm
If the composite wood definition includes typical OSB (PS 2) and softwood plywood (PS 1) (which I think it does) how can they contribute to the credit if evaluated by CARB ATCM for formaldehyde requirements for ultra-low-emitting formaldehyde (ULEE) when they are exempt? Does CARB exemption mean they can contribute?
Also, In LEED 2009, PS2 and PS1 panels could contribute to the LEM credit because of the no "added Urea Formaldehyde" language. But v4 language just writes no "added Formaldehyde" language. So it is unclear to me how PS2 and PS1 panels contribute in v4 vs LEED 2009. I just want to make sure I understand correctly. Thanks
Michelle Halle Stern
Senior Sustainability ConsultantGreenwood Consulting Group
121 thumbs up
May 9, 2016 - 3:14 pm
It's an either-or thing. From the credit language.
"must be documented to have low formaldehyde emissions that meet the California Air Resources Board ATCM for formaldehyde requirements for ultra-low-emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins OR no added formaldehyde resins."
The CARB ULEF chart includes particleboard and MDF. So I would say if they are exempt they must have no added formaldehyde to contribute, since OSB and plywood are certainly composite wood.
Erin Holdenried
Sustainable Design DirectorBell Architects
45 thumbs up
October 25, 2017 - 4:52 pm
Hi Michelle - So, CARB exempt products (plywood, particleboard, MDF), meet the requirements? They have somehow demonstrated that they have no added formaldehyde and don't require testing to confirm?
Nathan Gauthier
Director of FM Integration and SustainabilityShawmut Design and Construction
22 thumbs up
January 16, 2018 - 4:51 pm
Trying to figure out what to do with OSB. There seems to be a logical error and/or inconsistency with the LEED language in Michelle's final comment above (May 9, 2016). She states it is an either or option - CARB ULEF or no added formaldehyde, but she ignores the beginning of this sentence which states, "Composite wood, as defined by the California Air Resources Board, Airborne Toxic Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Regulations...
The CARB ATCM gives a very clear definition of what constitutes composite wood as well as a definition of what is not composite wood.
93120.1 Definitions
(a) For the purposes of this Airborne Toxic Control Measure, the following definitions shall apply:
(8) “Composite wood products” means hardwood plywood, particleboard, and medium density fiberboard. “Composite wood products” does not include hardboard, structural plywood…, structural panels…, structural composite lumber, oriented strand board (OSB), glued laminated timber, prefabricated wood I-joists, finger-jointed lumber, or “composite wood products” used inside of new vehicles…
Michelle ends her post with "...since OSB and plywood are certainly composite wood" but this isn't true according to the reference standard used in LEED. OSB and lots of other products are clearly called out as not being composite wood in the reference standard. CARB 93120 ATCM is the only emissions and content requirement for composite wood in Table 1 and the "further explanation" section again calls out that "This credit uses CARB 93120 ATCM for formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products."
The OSB manufacturer's tell me (correctly) they aren't considered composite wood by CARB ATCM and they cannot be ULEF. From an objective / strict reading of the credit language, reference guide, and reference standard, OSB and other products would just be ignored as they are not defined as composite wood. That said, now that I've written this reply I notice the USGBC posted a CIR from 10/17 that gives special requirements for OSB and other products despite their not meeting this definition. Here's the link for anybody with the same question who came here first instead of checking CIR's: https://www.usgbc.org/leedaddenda/10466