Disclosure: I am the Regulatory Affairs Director for PROSOCO Incorporated. PROSOCO manufactures a variety of specialty coatings and sealants including third-party certified interior concrete stains and finishes tested under the CDPH protocol. We export concrete finish products to the EU through a private label arrangement. I am a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager with 19 years of experience in corporate EHS management, product labeling, MSDS generation, and production level safety programs and manufacturing platforms. I have written a number of white papers on AIM VOC regulations and related environmental marketing available at http://www.prosoco.com/Green/Green.asp. I am among the 15-20 coatings company representatives that consistently participate as stakeholders in AIM VOC rulemakings at the regional, state and federal level. While I am an active member of the American Coatings Association’s AIM VOC committee, these comments are solely from my perspective.
In reading the credit criteria for projects outside the U.S., I was surprised to see the EU Decopaint Directive utilized on par with U.S. AIM VOC regulatory standards. In my opinion, it is a valid regulatory approach for EU member states; however, in my opinion it does not meet expectations for a technically rigorous approach for EQ credit within LEED.
It appears there is no read across from the EU Decopaint Directive to South Coast Rule 1113 or the CARB SCM for these reasons:
The Decopaint Directive is not all-inclusive and only regulates certain coatings categories. In contrast, U.S. AIM VOC regulations capture every coating applied or impregnated into an architectural substrate for functional or decorative purposes.
Decopaint Directive category definitions are inconsistent with Rule 1113 and CARB category definitions. Lack of consistency will cause difficulties in interpretations and credit rulings as applied by LEED project auditors.
The Decopaint Directive utilizes different definitions for VOC with a high boiling point cutoff. Excerpt:
‘Volatile organic compound (VOC)' means any organic
compound having an initial boiling point less than or
equal to 250°C measured at a standard pressure of 101,3
kPa;
This effectively allows more VOC species to be non-regulated in comparison with U.S. VOC definitions.
The EU Decopaint Directive is a model rule. The member states have some latitude in their legislative language. As an example, the Dutch regulation applies only to professional contractors in their use of products and does not directly regulate the products themselves. Some rules even have differing boiling point cut-offs for VOCs.
The Decopaint Directive VOC content is not calculated less water/exempt compounds as is the case in U.S. coatings regulations; it is instead based on the full formulation. Excerpt:
‘VOC content' means the mass of volatile organic
compounds, expressed in grams/litre (g/l), in the
formulation of the product in its ready to use condition.
The mass of volatile organic compounds in a given
product which react chemically during drying to form part
of the coating shall not be considered part of the VOC
content;
EU Directive limits would generally allow higher VOC content than any comparable U.S. limit; except in the case of water carried Low Solids Coatings in the U.S. which feature VOC determination based on the entire formulation.
I'll use a moderate solids anti-graffiti product as an example. To take a specialty, high durability 15% solids anti-graffiti coating to 400 g/L in the U.S. requires replacement of 95% of the carrier solvent with an exempt solvent such as acetone because VOC determination is less water and exempt solvents – this leaves around 1.5% mineral spirits. A 400 g/L limit in the EU would allow over 40% of the same formulation to be mineral spirits.
The latter portion of the “VOC content” paragraph means that the Decopaint Directive might exclude materials like Texanol which become part of the film matrix. While this remains a topic of discussion in the U.S. regulatory system, materials such as Texanol are counted as VOCs in the U.S.
The Decopaint Directive includes allowance for member states to grant variances for historic buildings. Excerpt:
3. For the purposes of restoration and maintenance of
buildings and vintage vehicles designated by competent
authorities as being of particular historical and cultural value,
Member States may grant individual licences for the sale and
purchase in strictly limited quantities of products which do not
meet the VOC limit values laid down in Annex II.
This has not been uniformly adopted by member states. I think this is one area where the Decopaint Directive got it right. In the U.S., there is a general lack of variance programs for historic preservation purposes – this I know from experience after working with conservators in attempts to get variances for private, state and federal historic buildings on both coasts. Since every coating is captured, manufacturers have to work with the agencies to assure creation of specialty and niche category definitions. Such is the case with several of the broadly criticized higher category limits in the CARB 2007 SCM. CARB only accepted them after demonstration of need, lack of technology alternatives and demonstration that the category definitions and labeling would only allow narrow use in specific applications. This required an intensive, two year stakeholder process.
I’ve stated my case for not using the Decopaint Directive as a primary credit criterion. I’m not sure where this leaves us. The ultimate goal of the credit is improved IEQ. The irony is that some high-VOC coatings actually have quick evaporation rates and would cause no impact on future occupants. A 900 g/L isopropyl alcohol carried concrete stain would be good example – this particular carrier solvent would flash off in a matter of minutes. Application of stringent mass VOC limits only assures minimization of overall solvent content. This can be effective; unfortunately, VOC content minimization is not a primary feature of the Decopaint Directive in its current form.
Some would argue that lack of technical rigor in the Decopaint Directive would point to emissions testing as being the only valid option for credit attainment. However, emissions testing protocols are far from uniform adoption or application in EU member states. In addition, a mandatory emissions testing requirement would ignore market realities as member state regulatory programs have not broadly addressed emissions from paints and coatings. Such is the case with the German “U” mark which currently applies only to floor coverings. There are other technical issues best left to be addressed by the emissions testing experts.
In my opinion, the current EU scenario reflects where we were in the U.S. during LEED V2 development. The use of emissions testing as a credit criteria in LEED for Schools stimulated the market. It also caused issues with availability of niche and specialty coatings. Given the current level of uncertainty in future EU emissions testing protocol development, member state adoption, market penetration and issues with the Decopaint Directive, I suggest that perhaps this credit is not ready for prime time in the EU.
I'm interested in other hearing other perspectives on this topic.
Reinhard Oppl
Independent consultant on VOC issuesformerly with Eurofins Product Testing A/S
333 thumbs up
January 11, 2011 - 3:22 am
Good points.
VOC content limits are in this credit only by history. Some VOC will evaporate within very short time, other VOCs will be emitted into indoor air continuously over a long time. Only if there are no small traces at all of any VOC then there will be no emissions - there is no further correlation between VOC content and indoor air quality.
Both US and EU regulations on VOC content were established for protection of outdoor air against smog and ozone formation. They came into LEED at an earlier time because there was no other low VOC regulation available for coatings, adhesives etc.at that time.
Test methods behind US VOC content limit values are old-fashioned and not applicable to most advanced coatings and adhesives (water-borne, 2-component and other reactive ones). And subtraction of exempt compounds without ozone depletion potential - as done in the USA - is meaningless in the context of indoor air quality. At least outside the USA we need alternative pathways.
Therefore GBC Italy now requires low VOC emissions of adhesives and sealants (referring to EMICODE EC1 product requirements) and low VOC content of paints and coatings referring to EU Decopaint Directive.
Proposed PC 21 language includes EU Decopaint limits as alternative pathway, for including products tested for EU without having to repeat testing these for US limits with partly improper test methods. Reference is made to European Directive only, not to national interpretations.
Yes there are differences between EU Decopaint VOC limits and US VOC limits, and some products passing Decopaint will fail US VOC limits, but also the other way round. Texanol is a good example of the difficulties with EU Decopaint Directive: Pure Texanol will not be considered as VOC in EU (boiling point just higher than 250°C), but technical Texanol has slightly different boiling point and will be inside VOC definition - this can lead to different interpretation, for sure.
The proposed credit language is nothing else than adding a non-perfect European solution to a non-perfect US solution in order to gain more international applicability of LEED.
An environmental leadership solution for IEQ credits would be no longer to require low VOC content but only VOC emissions, as PC 21 does for other products.
Randal Carter
Director, Global Product Safety and ComplianceSteelcase Inc.
91 thumbs up
January 11, 2011 - 9:13 am
As to why VOC content limits were retained for wet-applied products on site, everyone working on the proposed credit agreed VOC chamber emissions requirements were better for improving air quality. However, some felt the VOC content requirements were evolving to provide protection against compounds of concern that may not be readily measured by VOC emissions chamber testing. Thus, the credit was structured to retain content requirements in part for this reason, and in part to allow partial credit for VOC content compliance of wet-applied products while the market transitioned to VOC chamber emissions requirements. Also, for adhesives and sealants that are not applied "full-spread" or across the entire surface of a wall, floor, or ceiling, there was a concern that the current emissions chamber test method does not address how much adhesive or sealant must be applied when determining compliance.
Dwayne Fuhlhage
Sustainability and Environment DirectorPROSOCO, Inc.
169 thumbs up
January 14, 2011 - 5:34 pm
Reinhard,
Your points are well taken. I'm not sure what the best approach for the EU market would be. I agree that LEED should be EU friendly so as to stimulate market acceptance.
The EU market appears to be as fragmented on air quality standards and regulations as the U.S. market. Many of my comments on this forum revolve around which U.S. standard to incorporate by reference. We've collectively come to accept imperfections in the U.S. federalist system because that's how portions of our air quality laws have evolved. Unless Congress preempts states and regions from creating unique regulations, we'll always have multiple regulatory systems for coatings.
With regard to emission testing in the U.S. market, we've been fortunate that the CDPH had an evolutionary course that mirrored LEED. Picking which governmental approach to utilize has not been a primary issue in the U.S.
Do you foresee a point in the near future where EU member states will agree to work under the same emission testing standards and limits and include all construction products?
Perhaps individual member state conformance approaches are a good interim step. It's much harder than a uniform EU approach, but I personally err towards the side of caution when creating precedent.
I've posted comments on the use of mass VOC in conjunction with emission testing. The U.S. is huge geographically and that creates some specific market logistics which are complicated by regional regulatory systems. I fully admit that mass VOC alone is an imperfect metric and support the proposed partial credit draft approach. I can't comment on market dynamics in the EU other than the comparisons I made in the earlier post.
I do have one clarification to make regarding how mass VOC is calculated in the U.S. Except for water carried coatings with less than 1 pound per gallon solids, the VOC contents in g/L is calculated after subtracting out the water and exempt solvent fractions of the formulation.
History: the first U.S. AIM VOC regulations included basic wall paint. The USEPA was concerned that manufacturers would simply water down the paint and then specify application at a higher wet mil thickness. The less water/exempt approach was designed to prevent that practice. Over the years, this legacy approach was applied to each and every new category captured by regulation until we got to the point where we are today.
The less water/exempt calculation creates some really skewed results. PROSOCO has moderate solids, water carried products that are over 80% water and 1% VOC by weight that calculate out to 100 g/L. I have an aqueous dispersed colorant blend where the 1/2% VOC content calculates out to 150 g/L. The VOC is only there because the raw material was protected from freezing in transit. We'll probably work to get that to zero for marketing purposes - that means only taking raw material shipments during the warm months or paying for a heated trailer this time of year.
So, while there are high solids content coatings with a VOC g/L indicative of actual VOC content (200 g/L = 20%), it is more often the case in California where the content g/L is grossly disproportionate to the actual percentage. There aren't many solvent based coatings left in the California market. And, while the numbers look much higher on the CARB table of standards compared to South Coast's, there isn't that much actual difference in formulary VOC percentage.
It seems every system has its own form of legacy baggage.
Adelaida L. Carbo
Environmental Scientist, IAQUL Environment, Inc
5 thumbs up
January 19, 2011 - 8:05 pm
UL Environment has been following comments on the IEQ section over the last few weeks and we appreciate being able to hear all of the points and counterpoints which have been expressed. As many of you know, Underwriters Laboratories has been in the standards development business for over 100 years, and as a company that frequently organizes and moderates these types of discussions, we believe that this open and candid dialogue is healthy and helpful in reaching sound and supportable solutions.
We have reviewed the formal changes being proposed in LEED IEQc4, in addition to the comments being posted on the LEED User Forum, and would like to provide our perspective as well. Before we get into the specifics, it might be helpful for us to share our overall philosophy, which is the basis for many of these comments:
UL Environment supports and will continue to support any changes that will encourage, promote, maintain and ultimately, result in healthier products and indoor environments; especially, when such changes are driven by sound science and data.
In making this statement, we do realize that this may not always be possible given that the science may not yet exist or if it does exist, it may not fully align with the outcomes desired, but we still believe we should strive to make this vision into reality, as we all work together to solve this global problem.
Here are UL Environment’s comments about the changes being proposed in LEED IEQc4:
• We believe that an expanded scope for LEED beyond the US is necessary since improving indoor air quality is a global issue that requires a global solution. As such we support the continued use of the CDPH Standard Method v1.1 until a better method becomes available. We think its practicality, reproducibility and technical foundation is relevant on a global basis and so far has achieved good market acceptance. This is further supported by the fact that The International Construction Council and ASHRAE have referenced only the CDPH Standard Method. In addition, some recent comments from G. Miller, President of the AIA, suggest that the new International green Construction Code, which prescribes CDPH, may be legally enforceable. This is another datapoint that we believe should be considered in this discussion. Attached is the URL of these comments if you are interested: http://featured.matternetwork.com/2010/11/international-green-constructi.... We do understand there are some concerns with CDPH; mainly the number of CREL values currently available (35). However, we also believe that this hurdle can be overcome in a relatively short order with the collective efforts of this group by increasing the number of CRELs.
• At this time, we do not believe that adding more methods, protocols, and approaches to the LEED standard would be productive unless these additions materially improve indoor air quality and human health. There are several reasons for our position. First, we believe that adding more methods at this time would simply increase confusion and complexity for consumers, LEED users (i.e., Architects, Builders, etc.), manufacturers and other key stakeholders. The increased confusion and complexity likely would discourage pursuing the IEQ credit at all. This outcome would be opposite of what we are all trying to achieve, and as such we think keeping things stable until harmonization of methods can occur is the better path. We support harmonization, but think this is a discussion that should occur outside this process and be adopted once agreement is reached. The second reason we would not support these additions at this point relates to the science. As Dwayne Fuhlhage and several others have pointed out, none of the European standards being proposed for inclusion as alternatives are accepted as written by all the member states of the EU. Different EU member states have adopted these standards with material differences. In addition, the EU standards are missing important elements. For example, a volatile chemical emission like formaldehyde, clearly recognized as a concern based on its classification as a carcinogen, is addressed by the AgBB Testing and Evaluation Scheme only through reference to the AFFSET criteria. Similarly, the EU Decopaint Directive lacks equivalency in scope and criteria to the available standards, which in our opinion doesn’t lead us to better human health.
• Outside of what is being proposed, we would also like to offer some suggestions that we believe could advance IAQ in the marketplace. We believe individual speciation and analysis (IVOC) is a good tool and would like to see these continue to be a significant component of how measurements are done. We also support TVOC as a broad monitoring mechanism, but not necessarily as the sole pass-fail determinant for product certification decisions. We think the science has advanced beyond TVOC as a single approach for product emissions evaluation, which is good for human health. Lastly, we believe that chemical listings by product category could offer some unrealized benefit. Logically, there are so many combinations of chemicals and products and processes that contribute to making products, it only points to the fact that there may be some value in characterizing product categories and their emissions characteristics. It’s important, and worth the discussion as we work towards a healthy indoor environment.
We hope you find these comments helpful. We appreciate your time and attention, and look forward to any feedback you have.
Respectfully submitted,
UL Environment, Inc.
Randal Carter
Director, Global Product Safety and ComplianceSteelcase Inc.
91 thumbs up
January 20, 2011 - 1:11 am
I appreciate your thoughtful comments. You raise the issue of whether the European AgBB emissions test method and requirements should be adopted within LEED. This is an issue worthy of discussion that has so far not received much attention in this forum.
Many have noted (under this credit and others) the strong requests for LEED to give credit for international standards, programs and criteria. Inclusion of international criteria will likely expand international use and make it easier to find local materials and products that comply. These benefits are very appealing and in the absence of harmonized requirements, it is very tempting to include multiple optional requirements that are similar, yet also different.
The danger here is that different requirements yield different results. One of the primary reasons people support standards development is to enable harmonization on valid methods and meaningful criteria. When multiple, competing criteria on something like VOC emissions exist, manufacturers and purchasers are often confused. The playing field is not level nor fair, as it is difficult to make meaningful comparisons between products. Considering the entire market, compliance often becomes required for all cited programs. Manufacturers and ultimately customers must pay for multiple tests and evaluations that are similar, yet not identical. Precious time and resources are wasted. This practice is inherently not sustainable. As markets and standards mature, harmonization ultimately ensues because it is essential for market efficiency.
It is important to balance the need for harmonization with the need for easing use internationally. The LEED rating systems have a role to play in market harmonization, and not surprisingly have led to the use of some North American requirements (like CA 01350) in other countries.
The German AgBB program is a well-respected program and while it does not represent a European consensus, it does share common attributes with several other European counterparts. It was included in the proposed credit as a compromise in an effort to facilitate international use of the LEED rating systems. It contains more individual VOC requirements than the CDPH Std Method (as has been discussed in this forum), but it does not always ensure lower VOC emissions from products.
The AgBB requirements use different exposure scenario conditions than the CDPH Standard Method v1.1. VOC emissions from building materials generally decrease over time, thus the time point for determining compliance is critical. Longer times allow for additional off-gassing to occur and are generally easier to meet. The CA Standard Method v1.1 requires compliance at 14 days, while the full AgBB requirements apply at three or 28 days, which the proposed credit does not take into account.
Converting the required emissions limits for the AgBB and CDPH Standard Method into common units (to correct for variations in exposure scenarios), my initial calculations (unchecked by others) show that 10 of the CDPH emissions limits are lower (tougher) than their AgBB counterparts. This is ignoring the difference between 14 and 28 days. Of course the AgBB program includes requirements that the CDPH Std Method does not.
If we are going to include an international program like the AgBB within LEED, shouldn't we require that products using this option must also meet the CDPH Standard Method requirements (where they are tougher) as a consistent baseline? This could be accomplished by requiring additional calculations on AgBB results and/or limiting compliance claims using the AgBB to time points at 14 days or earlier.
Reinhard Oppl
Independent consultant on VOC issuesformerly with Eurofins Product Testing A/S
333 thumbs up
February 10, 2011 - 6:10 am
Randy If you require compliance with both programs (e.g. CA 01350 and AgBB), then you will continue to need increased volume of testing, and then there will be even less products available in the market than before. Most low VOC products have been tested against either CA 01350 or against AgBB. Requiring compliance with both programs would look good for testing labs like our one, by increasing market demand for VOC emissions testing, but it does not really help in making available a larger number of compliant products to LEED projects.
Reinhard Oppl
Independent consultant on VOC issuesformerly with Eurofins Product Testing A/S
333 thumbs up
February 10, 2011 - 6:33 am
One more remark on European low VOC programs. Like Section 01350 in the USA, AgBB can be considered the most widely accepted low VOC program in Europe. Several other low VOC programs are using the AgBB approach, but working with more stringent limit values or shorter testing duration, such as EMICODE, PRODIS/GUT, AFSSET and Blue Angel.
Several contributors stated that there are still a lot of differences between EU member states, but you may see more light in this jungle during next year.
Harmonization of test method foregoes in CEN TC 351 WG2 and is expected to lead to a published testing standard during 2012. A draft document is already available.
Harmonization of performance classes, meaning different levels each with specified limit values, is worked on between European Commission and national regulators. Timeline is not as clear but they make good progress and this could be published also in 2012 as basis for future CE marking. This would even include EU-wide harmonized LCI values.