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.