Composite Wood Documentation

Hi Vanessa, documentation of no added urea-formaldehyde (NAUF) on its own does not meet the LEED v4 requirement. Many NAUF products still have phenol formaldehyde. LEED v4 requires no added formaldehyde (NAF), or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF).  The reference guide is pretty clear, but there is an exception: Reference Guide: Composite Wood Evaluation. Composite wood, as defined by the California Air Resources Board, Airborne Toxic
Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products Regulation, 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. For projects
outside the U.S., composite wood must be documented not to exceed a concentration limit of 0.05 ppm of
formaldehyde. The exception is in USGBC ID# LI 10466 LEM composite wood that states:  Structural wood products are considered compliant if they are made with moisture resistant adhesives meeting ASTM 2559, have no surface treatments with added urea-formaldehyde resins or coatings, and if they are certified according to one of the following industry standards: read more at.... https://www.usgbc.org/leedaddenda/10466. Keith

Vanessa & Keith,  I'm going to respectfully disagree with Keith.  My understanding is that a manufacturer published Product Data Sheet is considered adequate for LEED compliance.  That was certainly true in v3 and I don't see any language in the v4 reference guide that reverses that expectation. I agree with Keith in the sense that the manufacturer is expected to meet the CARB requirements before claiming NAUF.  But I don't think that we need to have a CDPH in order to be compliant with LEED v4. FYI, the LI-10466 language that Keith posted can also be found in the LEED v4.1 reference guide that USGBC published in July of 2019.  On the whole I find the language in the 4.1 RG to be clearer and more achievable than the v4 RG. I hope this helps.  Thanks for sharing.

Hi all, I agree with Gregor. I got an explicit review comment on composite wood. Product data with any kind of claim was insufficient. It was also not sufficient to show that the product was listed on the TPC list of exempt mills. I had to provide the Exemption Letter that CARB issues to the manufacturer that confirms they are using an appropriate process and mill. Please note that CARB compliance is not sufficient. ULEF and NAF products are a subset of CARB compliant products. Hope this helps. 

From our latest v 4.1 review (received last week) COMPOSITE WOOD For future projects, provide the third-party certificate verifying CARB NAF for the TemStock FREE.  

Hi Gregor. My response wasn't about the required documentation, but that Vanessa was asking about products with no added UREA formaldehyde.

Anyone care to share any experieces on how they satisfied these requirements: (Is individual documentation for each item needed and if so what does that look like?)   ID# LI 10466 LEM  Structural wood products are considered compliant if:

1. they are made with moisture resistant adhesives meeting ASTM 2559, (How do you document this?)
2. have no surface treatments with added urea-formaldehyde resins or coatings, (How do you document this?)
3. and if they are certified according to one of the following industry standards: 
   1. Plywood:  compliant in accordance with Voluntary Product Standard ‐ Structural Plywood (PS 1‐09), Voluntary Product Standard – Performance Standard for Wood‐Based Structural‐Use Panels (PS 2‐10), or one of the standards considered by CARB to be equivalent to PS 1 or PS 2: (AS/NZS 2269, EN 636 3S (including CE label), Canadian Standards Association CSA O121 for Douglas fir plywood, CSA O151 for Canadian softwood plywood, for CSA O153 Poplar plywood, or CSAO325 for Construction sheathing)

  If anyone has a list of documents types/names of forms I can referace when talking to manufacturers tech services it would help cut to the chase and filter out generic junk.  

Hi Ryan - Responding to your question on behalf of a manufacturer of these products, we have a certificate from the certifying body (APA) that our products meet this criteria. See example linked here - https:/www.roseburg.com/resource.php?i=15139&t=a