I have a letter from a major manufacturer who is indicating that they have performed an emissions test on one of a line of similar chemical products. That they have determined that the product they selected is the worst case scenario for that product line in terms of VOC content and emissions. They declare that the other products in the line are all substantially similar with respect to chemical composition, so they are "self certifying" the remaining products in the line as complying with CDPH v1.2 2017 based on the worst case product having the emissions certification. Is there any reason to think that this would be acceptable to reviewers? As opposed to every product having to have a separate emissions certification?
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium for
David Posada
Integrated Design & LEED SpecialistSERA Architects
LEEDuser Expert
1980 thumbs up
September 24, 2019 - 3:11 pm
Great question> That sounds reasonable - when you see third party certificates such as GreenGuard or SCS Indoor Advantage, they often apply to a product line that has multiple similar product variants within that line. The credit language does provide for manufacturers to self certify:
"The manufacturer’s or third-party certification must state the exposure scenario used to determine compliance. Claims of compliance for wet-applied products must state the amount applied in mass per surface area.
Manufacturers’ claims of compliance with the above requirements must also state the range of total VOCs after 14 days (336 hours), measured as specified in the CDPH Standard Method v1.1..."
So if the manufacturer's claims provide that detailed info on the testing scenario and results, it seems feasible. Let us know if you find out more!
Kristen Magnuson
Stok6 thumbs up
May 28, 2021 - 1:54 pm
Hello,
Can you provide an update on acceptance of the manufacturer documentation?
Thank you!
Bipin Karki
Sustainability Project Manager87 thumbs up
July 22, 2021 - 4:46 pm
Manufacturer documentation with a claim of compliance is acceptable if the product has been tested under the required condition in an accredited lab. The test report must include the measurement of TVOCs (after 14 days) and a declaration that the product was deemed in compliance with CDPH SM v1.1-2010 or CDPH SM v1.2-2017 and documentation should be provided that demonstrates that the laboratory conducting the test is accredited under ISO/IEC 17025 for the test method they used. Generic manufacturer's documentation stating the product meets the requirement is not acceptable.
Denice Staaf
2 thumbs up
July 22, 2021 - 5:22 pm
I agree, this is acceptable.
In accordance with the Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions from Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers Version 1.2 as prepared by the California Department of Public Health, dated January 2017, Section 8.7.1.5
"A range of product models, brands and/or styles with varying characteristics may be grouped together for testing purposes if the products can be expected to have virtually the same performance during testing and use. A test group shall only include models which are made using the same production methods and are comprised of the same product ingredients (formulation). The test sample shall be selected from the model in the group that can be expected to give the worst results for the test taking into consideration special attributes, materials, methods of manufacturing, suppliers, etc."