Hi LEED user,
I am reviweing an HPD V2.2 for a suspended ceiling system and it is declared only at 100ppm threshold level for Basic Method reporting format. Everything else is checked at YES. That leads me to think Option 1 is already out of the question. On the Benchmark or List Translator Score, it has "LT-1" that I thought is NOT eligble for credit. However, the mfr. said that the ingredient Titanium Oxide that receives the "LT-1" score is a bound product within the coating and not inhalable in the final product per the substance notes. Hence, it is excluded from regulatory harzard list and can still be used for Option 2 credit pursuit. Please advise.
Thanks!
Daniel
Paula Melton
Editorial DirectorBuildingGreen, Inc.
LEEDuser Moderator
180 thumbs up
April 21, 2021 - 8:58 am
Hi, Daniel! Can't speak to the TiO2 issue, but 100ppm is (counterintuitively) actually MORE disclosure than 1,000.
Daniel Chung
Project ArchitectsHMC Architects
April 21, 2021 - 1:00 pm
Hi Paula,
You are right! 100ppm is reported to a finer, more granular level. Hence, more disclosure. Thanks! I am new to V4 system.
Daniel Chung
Project ArchitectsHMC Architects
April 22, 2021 - 12:32 pm
Hi Paula, a follow-up question. If a HPD is declared at a higher level 100ppm rather than the minimum 1000ppm and all other requirements are met, I assume it is still qualified to earn a point under MRc4 Option 1, isn't it? Thanks!
Tristan Roberts
RepresentativeVermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
11474 thumbs up
April 23, 2021 - 2:40 pm
Daniel, yes, it is.
Regarding TiO2, the manufacturer statement is completely fair and is supported by the Form-Specific hazards policy which has been approved by HPDC. However, implementation of this policy is not yet automated in the HPD Builder and I don't think GBCI reviewers are familiar with it. I would not expect an HPD like this to qualify for Option 2 until this occurs, so hang tight on that!