Low Emitting Material Documentation

Thank you for your response. I should have specified that we are asking for the California Department of Public Health General Emissions Evaluation Standard Method v1.1-2010 including TVOC, although the contractors on several of our LEEDv4 projects are having difficulty getting this documentation even for materials that are far below the required VOC limits per the other National 3rd party standards (e.g. SCAQMD Rules, Green Seal, GreenGuard, etc.). Currently, I am the LEED Project Administrator on over a billion dollars of LEEDv4 work, and this is clearly called out in the specifications, and our Green Building Integrative Management "GBIM" tools that clearly request compliance in the submittal process. It's a trend that despite these efforts, across the board experienced GC's, sub-contractors, and suppliers are having difficulty with this issue. LEEDv3 had to evolve to deal with these types of practical issues as the market took time to transform. These are not necessarily non-compliant materials, the emissions are negligible the root of the problem is manufacturers are still playing catch up to deliver the proper documentation, and the budget will be blown with these primarily public projects (mandated by policy to be LEED Gold) if only suppliers that have the new required documentation ready to go. We have a large public project seeking Platinum with no room for additional budget from change orders, making every credit critical. This credit is also a priority to the public agency. The cardinal rule with LEED at least from my 12 years of experience is it is the credit intent that is critical. I think it is important that we look at this topic more broadly to assess practical, thoroughly vetted options to prove equivalent or more stringent compliance paths. These are internationally renowned general contractors with hundreds of LEED projects under their belts who have successfully used our GBIM tools to get proper documentation the first time from subs until this issue, meaning it is probably more prolific of a problem than known at this time due to contractors not very well represented in the conversation. Health and wellness were a crucial factors in the development of LEEDv4 (one of our projects is pursuing Well Building also meeting the even more stringent air requirements), which means it would be counter productive if these credits were not fully pursued due to documentation requirements even when performance criteria is met. I agree with the value of the CDPH Standard Method being required, but from lessons learned with LEEDv3 it seems like alternative compliance paths of equal or greater scrutiny will need to be considered. Does anyone have any recommendations to consider for a CIR? I look forward to more feedback, and continuing this conversation.

I was taking a deeper dive into the LEEDv4 IEQ credit 2 low-emitting material credit requirements in the refernce manual, and in the step by step guidance portion on page 662 it seems to allow for self-declared emissions testing with the following language: In most cases, turning to third-party certification to recognized guidelines, such as California Department
of Public Health (CDPH) Standard Method v1.1, is the easiest way to find and specify products; in other
cases, self-declared compliance to a standard, such as South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) Rule 1113, is widespread and sufficient.