Which of the below statements applies to a LEED Interpretation Ruling. The below statements appear to conflict with each other. My question is brought up with the clarification on LI 10250 posted today.
On the USGBC LEED Technical Update just received by e-mail, the following is noted:
“Project teams are required to adhere to rating system addenda and LEED Interpretations based on LEED registration date. It is strongly recommended that project teams follow reference guide addenda.”
Under the Applicability tab of the LI 10250 updated today, the following is noted by the one green check mark:
“Project teams and reviewers may refer to the ruling for projects using this rating system, if reasonable and appropriate.”
In this case, is compliance to the EQ4.4 credit based on the project registration date or can the updated ruling be followed if considered reasonable and appropriate per the second statement?
Tristan Roberts
RepresentativeVermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
11478 thumbs up
April 1, 2013 - 6:51 pm
Judy, in my view this LEED Interpretation is confusing, and this statement you points out only adds to the confusion. (Click here for our full analysis of LI #10250.)I think the way it is checked off on the matrix is a fucntion of the fact that it is an adminstrative ruling that was intended for the formaldehyde policy as whole, and not initially judged for a specific rating system. That being said, the language is remarkably pliable. I think USGBC wants you to do your best to comply with it based on project registration date.I am curious what you make of the ruling, and how it affects your work?
Judy Landwehr
Manager, Sustainability and Technical MarketingMasonite Architectural
65 thumbs up
April 3, 2013 - 12:09 pm
As a product manufacturer, the ruling and updates have been a challenge as each one required additional clarifications. The 4/1/13 update did bring clarity to the ruling, as both melamine urea formaldehyde with urea added as a scavenger and melamine formaldehyde with urea added as a scavenger are now acceptable (in addition to the NAUF), as long as they meet the testing requirements of CARB NAF or CARB ULEF. While this did clarify what resins are acceptable, a major question still exists.
When can this ruling be followed? If it is truly to be based on the registration date of the project, then which of the LI 10250 dates are to be followed; October 2012, January 2013 or April 2013? If not the registration date, what is used for the basis in deciding when this updated ruling is applicable? Clarity is needed from the USGBC.
Distributors of products sign contractual agreements requiring them to furnish products per the specification unless the deviations are specifically signed off on as acceptable by the architect. Regardless of the updated ruling, NAUF may still be required for the project if noted in the specification. As a manufacturer of assemblies utilizing composite wood, we continue to manufacture NAUF products for this reason. The supply chain including vendors of components to the manufacturers, product distributors, end-users and architects may/may not be aware of the LI 10250 update. Not having the specifics on when the ruling can be followed is making things even more challenging.
Across the composite wood industry, millions of dollars have been spent to comply with CARB and LEED requirements. This is not an easy balance, but it is good to have more resin options. The uncertainty that has existed for six months since this ruling first was issued, and that still exists now, has dramatically disrupted business, caused orders to be delayed or cancelled, and created uncertainty as to what will or will not qualify for the credit on any given project.
How does this affect our business? On any given project it can stop it in its tracks.
Kevin Flynn
AIA, LEED FELLOW11 thumbs up
April 3, 2013 - 1:54 pm
Judy -
This is great feedback and very interesting to see thoughts from someone in the industry.
Judy Landwehr
Manager, Sustainability and Technical MarketingMasonite Architectural
65 thumbs up
April 10, 2013 - 2:31 pm
I continue to look for something definitive as to when a LEED Interpretation Ruling can be followed. As noted in my previous comment, this is critical to manufacturers' of composite wood products. If it is truly to be based on the registration date of the project, then which of the LI 10250 dates are to be followed; October 2012, January 2013 or April 2013? If not the registration date, what is used for the basis in deciding when this updated ruling is applicable?
Tristan Roberts
RepresentativeVermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
11478 thumbs up
April 10, 2013 - 2:54 pm
Judy, I would contact GBCI and ask them. In my opinion, you should be able to interpret it in a way that makes the most sense for the project in question. I would say that the 10/1 language should be applicable after 10/1, and the 1/1 language after that, but USGBC doesn't even have a location where those versions are published, so in my opinion someone could even say that the current version is valid after 4/1/13, and that there is no application version prior to that date.
Dori Hauser
Preconstruction ManagerISEC, Inc.
April 22, 2013 - 12:05 pm
Has anyone else noticed that the April 1, 2013 additional comments on LI #10250 have mysteriously disappeard from the USGBC website? What does this mean?
Tristan Roberts
RepresentativeVermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
11478 thumbs up
April 22, 2013 - 12:21 pm
This is a wild guess, but maybe in the transition to the new database, they missed the 4/1/13 updates to existing LI's? I'll ask.
Tristan Roberts
RepresentativeVermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
11478 thumbs up
April 22, 2013 - 4:00 pm
My wild guess wasn't so far off. This should be corrected now.