A contractor is choosing to seal glulam beams in place (during framing and prior to sheathing a new construction project) with a product slightly exceeding LEED VOC limits. It will be months before the project is closed in (and at least several weeks before sheathed). This seems equivalent to shop-applied, meaning the product is not subject to the credit. Thoughts?
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium for
Mara Baum
Partner, Architecture & SustainabilityDIALOG
674 thumbs up
January 19, 2010 - 12:38 pm
I don't think this argument is likely to pass muster with GBCI, although you can always try. Instead I recommend the VOC budget process discussed above. In fact, I recommend this process regardless of whether or not there is a higher-VOC product anticipated, to allow for accidental use of non-compliant products. You are required to track quantities of paints/coatings used to prove that you are installing no more than a baseline quantity of VOCs.
Although most products offgas in a straight forward way -- mostly after application, with significant decreases over time -- this isn't universally true, and offgassing can be impacted by other factors.
Also, it sounds like this product would fall under EQ 4.2, not 4.1.
James Weiner
PrincipalCollaborative Project Consulting
52 thumbs up
January 20, 2010 - 1:03 pm
Thank you for your interesting interpretation (and we are in the 4.2 thread here). I think we all appreciate that many painted and coated materials on a construction project have offgassing products that will continue to emit within a space regardless of when and where the material was applied.
The question is a bit more nuanced and is specific to the application of this LEED credit which, as written, is intended to track products applied explicitly BOTH "inside of the weatherproofing system AND applied on site".
The questions are:
When is the weather envelope is established?
Is inside the weatherproofing system a matter of location, time or a combination of the two? and
How do projects in LEED define the intent of shop- or field- applied?
We've had more conversations out here ...
Our thoughts:
In the case of glu-lams and other structural exposed appearance wood, it's common that a sealer is required to be applied when the glu-lams are cut to size in the field (on the entire length as well as the cut ends). This is done to protect them while they are exposed to the weather. This is sometimes done on the ground and sometimes done with the beams placed. This is all well before a weather envelope is established (usually months) and so seems analogous to shop applying finishes (similar to what happens with cabinets where the coatings are not tracked in LEED even though these might be finished within days of installation in the finished space). Sometimes the same beams may have another (interior) finish applied later (which clearly need to be compliant).
The conversation probably applies to other materials used before there is a weatherproofing system established and these products might be applied to materials that will ultimately have parts both in and outside of the weatherproofing once the building is closed in (true of the beams).
VOC budgets are not a LEED requirement for every project and are more work than tracking submittals. VOC budgets, while ideal, are a burden on GCs and their subs on smaller projects (especially low-bid) and the preference is to avoid creating additional work for these projects that is solely related to LEED credit accounting.
How have other teams handled this with their submittals? Anyone want to weigh in?
Mara Baum
Partner, Architecture & SustainabilityDIALOG
674 thumbs up
January 21, 2010 - 1:48 pm
You raise good points, for which I don't have definitive answers.
In terms of LEED, I think the question of shop vs. field applied is very clear. Your situation is definitely in the field. The arguments I have heard in favor of shop-applied finishes is that there is usually a more controlled environment (as dictated by OSHA and/or Cal-OSHA) and that products are often actually installed much later than fabrication -- however LEED has no specific requirements for this time frame. Although I understand your frustration, I don't think that comparing your situation to a potentially unhealthy shop-applied situation is the way to go.
The question of whether the product is applied inside the weatherproofing barrier is trickier. If the definitive factor is when the product is applied with respect to the waterproofing barrier, then the products in question would not need to comply. If the definitive factor is where the product is applied with respect to the ultimate location of the weatherproofing barrier, then the products would need to comply.
This sounds like a GBCI issue -- has anyone ever received a ruling on this topic?
I still stand by the VOC budget method, unless the contractor (including GC, CM, subs, etc. for larger projects) is very savvy and not likely to accidentally use the wrong products. It's too easy to let something slip through the cracks. As you say, things change for smaller projects, especially if there are relatively few different product types.