I’m the Guest Expert for several of the EQ4 pages on LEED User, so it seemed like a good idea to comment on this credit. (Disclaimer – I haven’t read the detailed dialog below because I didn’t want to be swayed in one direction or the other, so I apologize if some of this is repetitive.)
First of all, YIKES! This has gotten so complex that I may feel compelled to step down from my Guest Expert post. How many PhDs does it take to calculate this one?
Here’s what I like, in comparison with 2009:
• The categories now more closely reflect the 2009 ones, which makes the change just a little less crazy.
• The thresholds for paints, coatings, adhesives and sealants doesn’t require 100% compliance by volume for emissions criteria. This helps to ease in the transition to this new requirement. However, as per my discussion below I think 90% may be too high of a bar the first time out of the gate.
• Budget method compliance is still available.
What I don’t like:
• Way more documentation for fewer points and not necessarily much (IMHO) improved performance over 2009.
• The standards are very confusing. Most people won’t understand how to even begin pursuing this credit. Please cite compliant standards, as previous versions have done.
• I have concerns that there may be quite a few product types that will have no products available that meet the requirements here, given that some of these requirements are relatively new to the industry. It takes manufacturers a while to catch up with the requirements for testing, even if the products already comply. I’d like to hear the opinions of leading manufacturers in this area, e.g. PPG or Johns Manville.
• Why don’t all projects need to comply with the no added formaldehyde requirement for batt insulation? Formaldehyde is arguably nastier than some of the other things addressed in this credit.
It’s very possible that this uncertainty, combined with the big price tag of documentation, will cause teams to ignore these credits for others that are better understood and/or perceived to be more achievable. I think these credits are extremely important but am concerned that they won’t be easily implementable – or even understandable – as they currently stand.
Mara Baum
Partner, Architecture & SustainabilityDIALOG
674 thumbs up
March 26, 2012 - 8:25 pm
I will add that, even as an expert in this area from the practitioner's perspective, it will take quite a lot of serious research to determine all the ifs, ands and buts involved with the various requirements, standards, calculations, etc. discussed here. I appreciate the comments of my colleagues below - especially Josh, Reinhard, and a few from Nicole.
Dwayne Fuhlhage
Sustainability and Environment DirectorPROSOCO, Inc.
169 thumbs up
March 27, 2012 - 1:18 pm
Mara: I wanted to share some thoughts with you even though this forum is now past the LEED 2012 PC3 formal deadline. In the interest of disclosure, I am the Regulatory Affairs Director for a coatings and sealants manufacturer, PROSOCO. I serve as the primary subject matter expert for coatings and sealants on the EQ TAG. However, these comments are not presented on behalf of the TAG or USGBC.
I had informal discussions with some of the primary coatings producers exhibiting at Green Build last year and follow-up discussions this year with some American Coatings Association member companies. Many of these companies were early adopters of CDPH testing due to LEED for Schools and CHPS credit potential. If I had to summarize the opinions of this snapshot of producers in one word, I would say "conflicted".
In general, this producer sector realizes we are headed down the road towards indoor emissions evaluation as being a primary determinant of suitability for interior use in sustainable construction. Some of the producers are confident in creating large surface area/volume coatings that meet the current CDPH requirements. There is an equal level of concern that the specialty and low volume products may not get there or that the economics don’t add up to support direct testing cost and staff overhead. Improving formulations and driving down mass VOC content is second nature as we approach the 40th anniversary of the first coatings VOC regulations. The point we hit the wall is when formulary technology doesn’t keep up with performance demands. First and foremost, designers and owners expect coatings to fulfill their primary function in protecting building materials from premature degradation.
As a producer sector that has been brought into the emissions testing realm 20 years late, we’re still feeling our way. There are many questions regarding product grouping and space modeling yet to be resolved in ongoing consensus standard work. There are hundreds of coatings companies with tens of thousands of interior use products. The current number of tested products barely scratches the surface of the market as a whole. On the other hand, as PROSOCO approaches its fifth year of having third party tested products, I know that we have brought some of our competitors along. That is the nature of market transformation.
I share your concern on where we set the boundaries for this phase of market transformation. Can coatings and sealants producers help design professionals hit the 90% threshold?
Personally, I am comfortable that certain building types can get there. Offices and standard retail finish out are probably there and competition will bring more producers along. Hospitality might be there depending on how exotic the substrate selection is and whether they need protection. I would be interested in your perspectives on healthcare as those facilities require coatings that have to stand up to sanitization abuse. I am confident that some schools can get there, but others may be problematic due to swimming pool facilities and specialty gymnasium flooring required for conference rule conformance. For high rise buildings, I have concerns about specialized fire resistive coatings for structural steel components. I’ve heard concerns from one major manufacturer about the ability to produce CDPH conformant dry fall coatings for ceilings and steel truss components.
LEED is well beyond office buildings and schools at this point. PROSOCO’s floor finishes are also in hospitals, retail, big box and grocery stores, high rise residential, warehouses, manufacturing plants and data centers – many of which are designed to LEED or “LEED equivalent”. I think we need to be mindful of LEED building diversity as we move the market forward.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments on the credit and feel free to contact me directly as needed.
Mara Baum
Partner, Architecture & SustainabilityDIALOG
674 thumbs up
March 27, 2012 - 7:36 pm
Dwayne, thanks for your comments. That's very interesting and very useful. I especially agree (from my limited info) that the market will move quickly and easily in some sectors and for some product types, but not others. I even occassionally face manufacturers that make specialty products and have a more limited market who say that the cost, time and effort for testing simply isn't worth it. I hope this changes, but in the meantime we're left trying to deal with specifications, contractors, etc. My biggest concern at the moment is that teams will revert to standard practice instead of trying to pursue these complicated points. In hindsight I wish I could have added the comment that LEED could alternatively offer just one point for pursuing three of the four or all of the 2009 requirements (or something like that). That way there's still a little incentive to use low VOC products. Much of LEED 2012 feels like we're destroying the good in search of the perfect.