We got the following technical advice for a project:
"VOC emissions evaluation has not been provided for USG Sheet rock All Purpose joint compound. Note that the manufacturers claim of third party certification (Greenguard Gold, in this case) is not sufficient."
The UL Greenguard Gold certificate is not a manufacturer's claim, but issued by UL. Moreover, the July 2019 version of "Low Emitting Third Party Certifications and Labels" published by USGBC list Green Guard Gold as an acceptable certification as long as TVOC levels are reported. Page 2 of the certificate reports the maximum permissible TVOC levels, showing that any product with the certification has TVOC levels within the reported criteria.
My question is aren't Greenguard Gold certificates enough to show compliance. Should we also hunt for the test certificates, and has this rule changed for version 4.1? Looking forward to your thoughts.
DuWayne Baird
PrincipalEA Energy Solutions, LLC
15 thumbs up
June 23, 2020 - 3:55 am
Did you submit the USG cutsheet with the GGG label on it or the actual GGG certificate? The way the review comment reads to me, if you provide the actual GGG certificate, you'll be ok. It's the manufacturer documentation with the GGG label that they are deeming insufficient. I'm not sure if that distinction is very clear, but I would download the GGG certificate from UL Spot, upload to LEED Online, and I believe that will address the review comment.
Good luck!
Elizabeth Kertesz
PresidentResilient Oak Consulting, LLC
9 thumbs up
January 15, 2021 - 10:12 am
Our project team received a similar comment about products for which we submitted the actual Greenguard Gold certificate from UL. I'm incredibly confused.
Cynthia Kaplan
Principalcmk LEED
38 thumbs up
January 15, 2021 - 11:49 am
The UL Greenguard Gold certificate needs to have the relative TVOC testing data to show compliance. This requirement is not part of the LEM calculator for V4 or 4.1, so it is confusing. I have recommended to my teams that we skip the ceiling and wall category, as well as the adhesives and sealants category, because of this requirement. In v 4.1, the threshold for compliance is dropped to 75% of the products, but we can't hit that percentage in most cases even with the change.
Emily Purcell
Sustainable Design LeadCannonDesign
LEEDuser Expert
318 thumbs up
January 15, 2021 - 1:10 pm
I'm still confused about this - if we know Greenguard Gold products are under the VOC limit specified in the LEED credit, why does the certificate need to report the specific range?
I'm seeing the credit language: "The statement of product compliance must include the exposure scenario(s) used, the range of total VOCs, and must follow the product declaration guidelines in CDPH Standard Method v1.2-2017, Section 8. " but I'm struggling with what requiring the range (when it is known that the range is under the limit) adds to a project aside from headaches. Can anyone weigh in on why this matters?
Emily Purcell
Sustainable Design LeadCannonDesign
LEEDuser Expert
318 thumbs up
January 19, 2021 - 2:38 pm
Not to harp on this too much, I've just been spending the last few weeks double and triple checking my documentation for this credit before submitting a project for review so it's on my mind....Greenguard Gold certificates all include this text on p 2: "Maximum allowable predicted TVOC concentrations for GREENGUARD Gold (0.22 mg/m³) fall in the range of 0.5 mg/m³ or less, as specified in CDPH Standard Method v1.2."
Is that not a statement of TVOC? I'm highlighting it on all my documentation, anyway, partly to double check myself and partly to helpfully point the reviewer to all the items needed for compliance :)
Scott Laughlin
Product ManagerUL
10 thumbs up
January 21, 2021 - 1:59 pm
Emily, you are correct. We added the "Maximum allowable predicted TVOC concentrations for GREENGUARD Gold (0.22 mg/m³) fall in the range of 0.5 mg/m³ or less, as specified in CDPH Standard Method v1.2" phrasing to the GREENGUARD Gold certificates specifically to more directly address the TVOC range requirement in the credit language.
Elizabeth, I would be interested in learning more about the products submitted and the response from GBCI. The certificate is formatted such that it should be a pathway for compliance with the credit language. Please feel free to reach out to me (scott.laughlin@ul.com), or reply to this thread and we will do our best to get this resolved.
Jyothsna Giridhar
DES Architects + Engineers Inc6 thumbs up
January 21, 2021 - 2:23 pm
Elizabeth,
In our case, we had uploaded both the Greenguard gold certificates, and the SDS that listed the certification. I guess that caused the confusion. Since then we have been uploading only the relevant certifications or test certificates, if the product does not have to report VOC content in g/l. While I am not sure if that was the issue, I thought I will share this. MR credits and EQC2 does have a lot of uploads.
Emily Purcell
Sustainable Design LeadCannonDesign
LEEDuser Expert
318 thumbs up
January 21, 2021 - 2:32 pm
Thanks Scott, that makes sense! I appreciate the direct language, even if it's still not clear why GBCI would be rejecting a Greenguard Gold certificate that didn't have that specific callout of the range. It certainly makes the application I'm putting together feel a little more airtight.
Mikhail Davis
Director of Technical SustainabilityInterface
28 thumbs up
February 24, 2021 - 7:17 pm
Emily, my understanding of why they included Total VOC in addition to the General Emissions Evaluation testing is that you could have a product that is not offgassing any of the 17 or so specific VOCs tested for under the CDPH 01350 protocol, but still be putting off a lot of other VOCs. While those VOCs might not be particularly toxic (or hopefully they would be included in the testing standard), they could smell up your space, depending on what they are.
Emily Purcell
Sustainable Design LeadCannonDesign
LEEDuser Expert
318 thumbs up
February 25, 2021 - 10:58 am
Thanks Mikhail! Yes, that makes sense for why TVOC matters. I had thought though that for Greenguard Gold specifically, it was an approved standard for the credit because it did test for TVOC within the range. Either way it's nice to see the specific language calling that out on the certificates now, so everyone is on the same page when submitting them!