Epoxy for walls

The credit intent is to protect building occupants by controlling VOCs in interior use products. Yes, the product should be covered. However, properly categorizing it for review purposes could be tricky. The credit language provides three conformance paths depending on the product description and manufacturer’s marketing claims: the 1993 edition of GS-11 for wall paints, GC-03 for anti-corrosive or anti-rust paint, or SCAQMD Rule 1113 as it existed on January 1, 2004. From my personal perspective, it would be unlikely for an epoxy to be marketed against commodity wall paint. That should eliminate GS-11. GC-03 does not appear on GreenSeal’s website. This leaves a limited range of Rule 1113 categories cited in the credit language and the addenda table another LEEDUser commenter thoughtfully provided: https://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=8608 The original credit language and addenda do not list all regulatory product categories; in particular they are missing the Industrial Maintenance category where most high performance epoxy coatings fall in AIM VOC regulations like Rule 1113. Since regulations are legally enforceable, manufacturers market first to AIM VOC categories and secondly to voluntary programs like LEED. To give you an idea of the stakes, SCAQMD recently proposed a $40,000 penalty for a mom-and-pop paint store for a single gallon of non-compliant product on the shelf. Categorization depends on marketing claims and category definitions. The vast majority of high-performance epoxy coatings are marketed in the Rule 1113 Industrial Maintenance category (2004 limit = 250 g/L) which includes products you would find in hospitals, locker rooms, swimming pool and spa areas (because of the chlorine and disinfectant use), and non-sacrificial anti-graffiti coatings. Yes, IM coatings are also used for industrial, food and water/waste processing applications as well. This leaves you with several choices: decide the credit is not worth the hassle, pick the closest category and defend its inclusion towards a credit, or request a formal interpretation. The first option seems an unnecessary sacrifice for what should be an easy credit. The second might be viable if you have clear product marketing claims to work with and a cooperative relationship with the project reviewer. The latter option could be helpful to other project teams as LEED 2009 projects start working through the review process. Caveat: I’m speaking from the perspective of a manufacturer. Any input from project team members?

Can anyone else weigh in on this? I am trying to determine if 250 g/L is acceptable for a block wall semi-gloss epoxy. The product doesn't fit well into any of the established categories. It's more heavy duty than wall paint but isn't really a waterproofing sealer. Can anyone recommend a 150 g/L semi-gloss epoxy for block walls? Thanks!

A 2 part architectural epoxy for walls and ceilings is a coating. The major paint manufacturers have compliant epoxies.