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. Full disclosure is located elsewhere on this forum. While I am a member of the American Coatings Association AIM VOC Committee, these comments are from my perspective. However, my overall emphasis on the use of the California Air Resources Board Suggested Control Measure reflects general consensus policy within the American Coatings Association.

This comment addresses primary issues relevant to the treatment of paints and coatings within the Pilot Credit 21 for Low-Emitting Interiors. It covers the regulatory standards for mass VOC limits, the technical basis for utilizing both regulatory limits and emission testing, and provides end recommendations for elements I believe should be part of the Credit. I have addressed the technical use of TVOC and concerns with the potential EU approach elsewhere in the LEEDUser Forum for Pilot Credit 21.

REGULATORY VOC STANDARDS FOR PAINTS AND COATINGS – ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON

Historically, LEED EQ Credits for interior paints and coatings have used iterations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1113 incorporated by reference. Given the now effective California Air Resources Board 2007 Suggested Control Measure (CARB SCM), this is an outdated approach.

SUMMARY OF REASONS

Potential Legal Jeopardy in California:

The CARB 2007 SCM has been incorporated by reference into the California Green Building Standard Code (CALGreen). This creates potential legal jeopardy for specifiers using Rule 1113 outside the geographical SCAQMD area. The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) recently issued a series of verification forms including the “PC 7 – Paints and Coatings Declaration Statement”. http://www.hcd.ca.gov/CALGreen.html This requires an individual with oversight responsibility for the project to sign a certification for a product’s conformance with the CARB SCM under penalty of law of the State of California. The CARB SCM features different category names and definitions than Rule 1113. Some category limits are lower. LEED project architectural specifiers, general contractors and architects of record would be well served by having consistency with legally enforceable code requirements.

Conflict with the International Green Construction Code (IGCC) Public Version 2.0:

The IGCC was developed with CALGreen as a partial template to provide consistency. It incorporates by reference the CARB 2007 SCM. As jurisdictions adopt the IGCC, LEED practitioners would be faced with an additional conformance and documentation hurdle. It is entirely likely that municipalities and states will utilize similar legal documentation as California code enforcement agencies.

Conformant Product Geographic Availability:

The CARB SCM covers the entire State of California outside of South Coast. More importantly, the 2007 revision referenced in CALGreen and the IGCC also serves as the model rule for the Northeast Ozone Transport Commission’s (NEOTC) AIM VOC regulation. Comprised of the thirteen Northeastern states and the District of Columbia, the NEOTC adopted a new model rule based on the CARB 2007 SCM with individual states coming on line 2014-2017. Canada utilized the previous iteration of the CARB SCM as the basis for its national regulation effective in 2010.

Product availability based on geography is important for various reasons beyond climate considerations addressed later. LEED also attempts to minimize transportation impacts and includes a credit to that effect. From a market perspective, the SCAQMD is an island inhabited by a relatively small subset of paints and coatings manufacturers. Certainly, conformant mass market flat and non-flat paints are available nationwide as some national manufacturers formulate to one market. However, specialty coatings, comprising the other 41 categories in Rule 1113, are represented by a small segment of manufacturers. The numbers from the 2007 Economic Census and the SCAQMD Rule 314 registration program bear this out:

SCAQMD Rule 1113 manufacturers registered under Rule 314: around 200

Total U.S. Paint and Coatings Manufacturers West of Continental Divide: 265

Total U.S. Paint and Coatings Manufacturers East of Continental Divide: 1,105

Continued use of Rule 1113 creates an artificial incentive to ship compliant specialty products across the country solely to help with gaining credit. On the other hand, use of the CARB 2007 SCM significantly broadens specialty product general and geographic availability; especially in population dense east coast states.

Climate Considerations:

The SCAQMD Rule 1113 reflects the Los Angeles Basin’s unique geographic setting and climate. It is the only Mediterranean climate in the country and has 330 precipitation free days per year and a temperature range ideal for applying coatings and sealants. The built infrastructure is never exposed to road salt since it never freezes. There are no special storage requirements for water carried products in South Coast.

Contrast these conditions with any temperate zone city in the U.S. The Midwest and Northeast have freezing weather and more rainy days than Los Angeles. Salt and sand are routinely tracked into buildings after use on sidewalks and parking lots. The ideal temperature and humidity ranges for applying coatings and sealants may be fleeting at best.

Why are climate conditions relevant to interior applications? Simply put, the interior building conditions in unfinished construction often mirror exterior weather conditions. Look no further for evidence than the “EQ Prerequisite: Construction Indoor Air Quality Management Plan – During Construction”. This perquisite prohibits operation of central air handlers during construction. By design, a LEED building is as humid, hot or cold inside as it is outside.

While not a factor in Los Angeles, Southeastern heat and humidity plays a role in film-formation for a variety of specialty coatings. Interior concrete work starts with form releases and curing compounds placed when the slab is poured. This often happens in temperate climate winter as the lower temperature helps assure a controlled cure rate and a quality slab. Interior concrete finishing including hardening, dustproofing and application of decorative stains and protective top coats occurs in buildings without functional HVAC systems.

The SCAQMD coatings program staff has stated on multiple occasions that Rule 1113 category limits are specific to their climate conditions and needs. By contrast, the California Air Resources Board creates their Suggested Control Measure for use in every climate condition in the State of California. This makes the SCM the clear choice for national policies.

South Coast Rule 1113 Safety Valve Exemptions:

Outside of the manufacturers operating in South Coast, the safety valves built into Rule 1113 are largely unknown. Here is the simple fact: many of the Rule 1113 category limits could not exist if not for small container exemptions and the corporate averaging program. In addition, South Coast has a high level Hearing Board that adjudicates technical issues, variances and regulatory missteps made by District staff during rulemaking. This is not common practice in districts or states outside of South Coast.

The corporate averaging program is a feature unique to Rule 1113 and does not exist in any other district, state or federal coatings VOC regulation or jurisdiction. Essentially, it’s like having a speed limit without having an actual speed limit. It is remarkably similar to Corporate Average Fuel Economy in the automotive industry. If a company sells a whole bunch of fuel efficient cars they can transfer the excess fuel efficiency savings to larger vehicles. In the coatings industry, that means selling millions of gallons of flat and non-flat wall paint with VOC content well below the Rule 1113 limits. The excess grams of VOC are then used to legally market specialty coatings with VOC contents above the category limit.

In 2007, before the recession hit, 10 high-volume coatings manufacturers used Rule 1113 averaging to offset the sale of roughly 4,000,000 gallons of coatings that did not comply with published category limits.

Yes, that’s a lot of specialty coatings. The sad truth is that even without considering climate or any other consideration germane to the construction of actual buildings outside of South Coast, the Rule 1113 category limits are, in a word, illusionary.

By contrast, the CARB 2007 SCM ended the State of California’s use of corporate averaging for architectural coatings VOC content. The category limits are real and enforceable without gimmicks or tricks.

THE CASE FOR THE CARB 2007 SCM

For all of the reasons stated above, continued use of Rule 1113 in a national standard is simply poor public policy. The contradictions and burdens of tracking multiple compliance options - code and Rule 1113 - are excessive in light of all of the other responsibilities inherent to the architect of record.

Having stated my case for not using Rule 1113, can I make a case for the CARB 2007 SCM? Consider the following:

The CARB 2007 SCM creates stringent and legally enforceable mass VOC limits. In the coatings and sealants world, legal enforcement is a fundamental part of our day-to-day existence. To put this in perspective, as a regulatory representative for a manufacturer, if I were to intentionally mislead USEPA on AIM VOC technical compliance issues I personally could be subject to criminal penalties under the Clean Air Act.

The CARB 2007 SCM category limits are real and created for all temperature conditions:

The CARB 2007 SCM is progressive in that it is a primary driver for regulatory policy across the U.S. However, LEED can push it out further and faster. It will take the Northeast until 2017 for wide implementation of the model rule based on the CARB 2007 SCM. It will not be adopted by states in the Southeast, Northwest and lower Midwestern states. There are currently 34 states that do not have their own AIM VOC rule that
operate under the 1999 USEPA rule which features high VOC limits.

There is one caveat to the CARB SCM: while it was created for all climate conditions it does not perfectly reflect the age of commercial and institutional buildings or dominant substrates used in other parts of the country. As an example, the extensive use of carbonate stone in the Northeast coupled with building age and acid rain creates special needs for historic building renovation. The Northeast Ozone Transport Commission adopted additional niche categories beyond those in CARB 2007 SCM for this reason.

BUT THE CARB 2007 SCM HAS HIGHER LIMITS THAN THE 2007 RULE 1113…

This is a true statement and as far as I know this is the primary reason why Rule 1113 continues to be incorporated by reference. For all of the reasons I stated at the beginning of this analysis, Rule 1113 remains poor public policy for national use. The CARB 2007 SCM indeed has some higher category limits. This is a side effect of intellectual honesty in having hard limits without corporate averaging or a Hearing Board to adjudicate agency missteps.

The real question is whether these higher mass VOC limits have the potential to cause harm. Having spent significant time addressing questions and concerns from architects I could turn this question around: who actually chooses coatings with VOC contents at the high end of their category limits?

When given a choice, the vast majority of architects and specifiers will pick the competitive coating with the lowest VOC content. There are issues with this approach I have addressed in a white paper on VOC marketing. That doesn’t change the fact that it is common practice.

So, why would an architect pick a product at the high end of the category limit? Being all inclusive, CARB 2007 SCM category limits must cover the continuum from the highest performance zero VOC wall paint to the highest performance 250 g/L Industrial Maintenance floor coating for use in food processing and industrial environments. If the substrate, setting and performance requirements demand a higher VOC content material to provide an assembly that will last as long as the building, the architect or specifier may make that choice. They also know full well that they will have to justify their choices to the owner; especially when it involves a politically incorrect VOC content.

HOW DO WE REWARD POSITIVE BEHAVIOR IN A MEANINGFUL WAY?

As a leadership standard, LEED can and should reward positive behavior. I agree that use of mass VOC limits are an imperfect way to go about this. That doesn’t change the fact that it is a legacy system dating back to the mid-1970s. It is the primary market driver for 1,370 manufacturers. That is not going to change. We’ll be lucky if it we ever get to the point where AIM VOC regulations are based on actual ozone forming potential of each chemical species. That is currently a binary system; in reality there is a continuum.

Some argue that the emission testing legacy system should be applied to all containerized products and the only path to Credit conformance. This ignores market reality as I addressed in another LEEDUser Forum Pilot Credit 21 forum posting on TVOC. As of today, a total of 19 coatings manufacturers have coatings certified to SCS Indoor Advantage Gold or GREENGUARD’s Children and Schools. That leaves 1,351 manufacturers largely outside the system with various degrees of resources and sophistication. Over 60% of these companies are SBA defined small businesses with fewer than 100 employees. Their daily business driver is regulatory compliance for products and operations.

We can collectively try to figure out the best way to reward choice. As we’ve seen in other comments on this forum, chamber emission testing is twenty years along and still has many issues to be worked out. Rewarding manufacturers who utilize emission testing is still sound policy as is rewarding architects who pick their products. Higher proportional credit is a valid means to reward and stimulate the market. However, we should seriously consider the market dynamics that have so far introduced only 19 coatings manufacturers to emission testing and additional third-party certification.

Should we reward architects and project teams that pick the lowest VOC content for paints and coatings? From my perspective, this is a harder question. That’s like asking whether we should we reward project teams for selecting the lightest door hardware or the toilet with the least porcelain mass.

That last rhetorical statement may sound irrelevant, but project teams make their selections based on a number of criteria including intended purpose, function, aesthetics and durability. Mass VOC limits provide a limited range of degrees of freedom to make that choice. Wall paints typically have the lowest actual cross-market VOC content. However, a project team may choose a zero g/L flat for a classroom wall with no special performance requirements and a 100 g/L non-flat for the locker room walls since they will periodically be washed down with bleach. It is then incumbent on the team to sequence installation and pre-occupancy ventilation in a manner that provides protection for future building users. This is addressed in the “EQ Prerequisite: Construction Indoor Air Quality Management Plan”.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Given the imperfect nature of logical VOC limiting approaches on containerized products, I think there are some elements that can be added to LEED to enhance the system. I believe the EQ Credit should include the following elements:

1. Utilize the CARB 2007 SCM as the basis for mass VOC conformance.

2. Utilize the current CDPH emission protocol without an additional prescriptive TVOC limit. My concerns regarding TVOC are discussed on another LEEDUser Forum Pilot Credit 21 thread.

3. Adopt the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s Regulation 8, Rule 3 exclusion of California toxic VOC exempt solvents. http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/Rules-and-Regulati...

264.1Except as provided in Section 8-3-264.2, for the purpose of calculating VOC
content of a coating, any water or the following non-precursor organic
compounds:
acetone
methyl acetate
parachlorobenzotrifluoride (PCBTF)
cyclic, branched or linear, completely methylated siloxanes (VMS)
shall not be considered to be part of the coating.

This passage is a little confusing as often is the case in the regulatory world. While this language does not specifically call out toxic exempt solvents (methylene chloride and perchloroethylene) for exclusion, this is the end effect of the limited list of exempt solvents cited above. Actual credit language should be drafted with further consultation from coatings industry stakeholders.

4. Provide higher proportional credit for emissions testing to stimulate the market while continuing to reward use of stringent mass VOC limits. The proposed balance approach is appropriate for this iteration of LEED. Future iterations should start ramping down the percentage of credit available for complying with regulatory VOC limits without emission testing.

5. Specifically restrict the use of coatings products labeled and marketed solely for exterior use from use in building interiors. Interior and dual use labeled products can then be evaluated on their overall merits.

6. Provide better educational resources on the meaning behind VOC content numbers and CDPH conformance. The math behind VOC content is tricky – the lowest VOC number may not mean the lowest actual VOC mass content. Similarly, conformance with the CDPH requires math in the background to verify room scenarios.

7. Require the manufacturer and their third-party certifier to clearly divulge which room model is used in their first, second or third party statement of conformance with the CDPH protocol. This provides a level playing field and provides the project team with important information on where a product is appropriate for specification. If a product is tested and modeled with school ventilation rates, it should not be represented as conformant for office or residential applications.

I make these recommendations with full knowledge that they change existing precedent regarding use of Rule 1113. Precedents should only be changed with good reason; in this case the goal is to create sound national policy that best assists design teams in reconciling LEED and legally binding code requirements.

As a client of one third-party certifier, I am mindful that shifting precedent in LEED will require changes for the third-party certifiers serving this market including GREENGUARD, Scientific Certification Systems and GREEN SEAL. I can’t comment on their business models, but it would seem prudent that they include verification of conformance with code; that being based on the CARB 2007 SCM. If they opt to utilize alternative conformance thresholds of their choosing, that is certainly their prerogative. I believe this would be the opportune moment to shift the regulatory conformance basis as other third-party certifiers draft their coatings sustainability standards and prepare to enter the market.

I also realize this credit is far from perfect. The same can be said for the majority of credits in LEED. As long as we construct buildings, there will be some environmental impact. We must collectively work to minimize heath effects of coatings on building occupants. Members of the coatings industry are willing to participate as stakeholders in this process. Direct stakeholder engagement within the USGBC structure is necessary for the creation of technically sound credit language.

We need to realize that even mass VOC approaches create issues in LEED projects. Niche products for specialized purposes are generally manufactured by small companies that do not have the resources to be present during regulatory stakeholder negotiations. Many have pulled out of the California market altogether to focus their efforts on the rest of the country. I am reluctant to recommend allowance of VOC budgeting as we want to move LEED further down the leadership path. However, I do want readers to realize that there will be substrates that go without protective coatings and/or pragmatic project teams that decide to use coatings that don’t meet CARB 2007 SCM standards.