Industrial Maintenance Coatings

I would utilize the OTHER category.

Hi Catherine, Always frustrating when entry is more of an issue than compliance. These sound like floor coatings to me, which is supposed to mean they are represented in both EQ4.2 and EQ4.3. So in EQ4.2 I would use the floor coating category. In EQ4.3, things are not so neat. For some reason, the adhesive/sealant side is neatly distinguished and crosses well with EQ4.1. But the coatings get commingled with the hard surfaces, and the two tables for compliance have very different options depending on whether you are in the FloorScore 4.3-1 or CA 4.3-2 table. The latter has a ton of more appropriate options but they all still reference the flooring standard not the VOC standard you are actually meeting. Since you have to enter them in one of the tables and they don't meet either of the reference standards used for these, I'd put them in the 4.3-2 table, use floor coatings again and explain in Special Circumstances. The standard you are actually meeting in these cases is the SCAQMD standard represented in EQ4.2 and not the FloorScore/CA 1350 standards referenced in these tables.

When you say VOC budget, I'm thinking you mean using the VOC limits as your standard. A VOC budget is a heinous exercise of tracking every ounce of product so that you can accommodate something you need to use that is too high to meet the VOC limit. Sort of a cap and trade scenario. I completely understand wanting to be confident about what is going to be approved when you are giving guidance to your client. Boy do I. However, please note that the EQ4.3 requirement for the coating products is SCAQMD not FloorScore or CA1350. In other words, it's the same animal as EQ4.2 (just included in two different places). Your issue appears to be simply with filling out the EQ4.3 form, not with compliance. Credit forms can be wrong and can malfunction. That's why they are updated frequently. If you are uncomfortable using floor coatings as the category because of the industrial maintenance exclusion, then you'll have to find a better fit. You are obviously using the definitions in the standard. The specific language in your product data is the key to the category. So it's hard to advise further without knowing what you are looking at. Your waterproofing sealer should not be a problem. Perhaps the other can be defined as a sealer also? We have had epic problems with primers that don't fit the categories or the limits, so I do sympathize. If you are still uncomfortable, you could try a Feedback request asking them why no IM Coatings option in the form. Perhaps it was simply missed.

Michelle, I haven't understood the VOC budget method to be such a pain. You can only track the quantity of product you need to offset. Our FAQ on IEQc4.2 discusses this. Have you had a different experience?

The VOC budget was never approved by the USGBC IEQ Technical Advisory Committee. It was added by the Reference Guide authors, evidently to cover themselves for LEED VOC specs that less than complete. Incomplete specs allow consultants who don't know how to clean-up project specifications properly to continue earning VOC points. VOC budget is a huge pain. It is nothing more than a gaming of the credit. Quantities used is a wild guess by subcontractors. Asking for quantities of products used is simply not unreliable.

Hi Tristan, Are you really monitoring all of these concurrent streams in such a timely fashion or do you have some kind of trigger for words like "heinous"? Sorry couldn't resist. If you can in fact still just track one "good" product in the impacted category to offset the "not so good" product in 2009 as you could in the previous rating systems, then I amend my statement to be just unpleasant rather than heinous. I have to admit we have been under the impression with the new LEED 2009 forms that you had to track the whole impacted category. I stick with unpleasant however not because the entry is difficult but because the onsite information is. If the product is caught early, it can most usually be substituted and the issue goes away. If it's caught on-site as was my last situation, the materials may already have been applied and tracking of usage is not feasible. I also feel less confident about this tracking data when I receive it because I can't apply any QC sensibility about how much volume of what kind of material is reasonable for a specific project. It becomes a numbers game.

"I also feel less confident about this tracking data when I receive it because I can't apply any QC sensibility about how much volume of what kind of material is reasonable for a specific project. It becomes a numbers game." This is exactly the reason the IEQ TAG was against allowing the VOC budget game. We removed it for LEED v2, and it was reinserted at the insistence of the Reference Guide authors. Not the "consensus" volunteer TAG, but a private consultant paid by the USGBC to write the Reference Guide. There was absolutely no consensus on the VOC budget game.