From the MACLAC Guide to Paint VOC Definitions:

"'Material' VOC is calculated on the entire volume of the coating. It is the ratio of weight of non-exempt solvent VOC to the entire volume

'Coating' V.O.C. is the ratio of weight of nonexempt solvent VOC to the remaining volume (after subtracting the exempt solvents & water). This is the VOC that air quality districts use to determine whether or not a paint is in compliance with the limits set by a rule."

From the BC+C Reference Guide Table 1 IEQc4.2 Applicable VOC Limits:
"VOC Limit (g/L minus water)"

You should compare the "coating VOC" to the Applicable VOC Limits in the Reference Guide.

Thank you, Lindsey that's exactly what I needed to know.

This is correct. The only time 'Material VOC' would apply in SCAQMD Rule 1113 as referenced would be with the Low Solids Coatings category. This category is defined as having less than 1 pound per gallon solids content. The latest CARBThe California Air Resources Board, part of the state government, is charged with maintaining clean air. This agency is unique at the state level: California was the only state that had such an agency before the passage of the federal Clean Air Act, and was allowed to keep it. and SCAQMD inventories and assessments indicate that all of the regulated products are water carried.

One correction to the Reference Guide table for Rule 1113 2004: The Reference Guide erroneously lists the Low Solids category limit in ppbParts per billion. units. The category limit is 120 g/L.

The IEQ TAGLEED Technical Advisory Group (TAG): Subcommittees that consist of industry experts who assist in developing credit interpretations and technical improvements to the LEED system. will attempt to address contradictory and/or confusing interpretations in the near future.

That is a very high VOC content -

First, I would suggest that you look for a more natural pine oil; the one you have seems to have solvents added. There shoul be other options

Otherwise, I would suggest it would be categorized as a Clear Wood Finish under Rule 1113

(10) CLEAR WOOD FINISHES are clear and semi-transparent coatings, including lacquers and varnishes, applied to wood substrates, including floors, decks and porches, to provide a transparent or translucent solid film. Max 350 g/l

or you may attempt to try:

LACQUERS are clear or pigmented wood finishes, including clear lacquer sanding sealersSealers are coatings applied to either block materials from penetrating into or leaching out of a substrate, to prevent subsequent coatings from being absorbed by the substrate, or to prevent harm to subsequent coatings by materials in the substrate., formulated with nitrocellulose or synthetic resins to dry by evaporation without chemical reaction.Max 650 g/l

Thanks John-David!
Yes, I will recommend them to choose something different, definitely. But I think it is hard to categorize the products when they’re not in the list. As you say, the limit could be either 350 and not approved or 650 and approved.

Surface retarders I would put into concrete curing compounds. Cable pulling lubricant isn't a paint or a coating, IMHO. Form release oil, I would recommend a read through the SCAQMD definition section.

SCAQMD has a line item for Form-Release compounds with a100 g/L limit - but we don't have this option to input in the LEED online worksheet - so I was wondering what I should list this under if the SCAQMD Form-Release compound isn't an option?

I think a lot of teams skip the form release oil as it is a temporary coating. Generally the forms are stripped long before anything is remotely closed in so the product is fully off gassed. If you need to enter it, I would find another product with a 100 g/L limit and use that. Explain what you did in the narrative section and cite the SCAQMD definition section for the compound limit.

I agree with Susan. We don't normally include it. If you feel you must, there is always the Other category.

However, you could use a petroleum based form release agent (federal allowable VOC limit - 450 g/L) or a Bio-Based form release agent (VOC 0 g/L). they work fine, are same cost. just ask and / or spec.

Josep, the relevant classifications in LEED are generally based on function of the product, not chemistry. So what is it being used for?

Dear Tristan, thanks for the comment. This paint is usef for painting a concrete pavement of the underground parking's floor (inside the bluiding).
Thank you again!

It is up to the manufacturer to assign the proper regulatory category for the product. Generally, this type of product could fall under Waterproofing Concrete/Masonry Sealer, Floor Coating, or Industrial Maintenance Coatings. The latter category is for high-performance coatings including those subject to frequent abrasion, mechanical wear or requiring chemical resistance.

Hi Erin,
Look further down on this page and you will see a long discussion about the difference between primers, sealersSealers are coatings applied to either block materials from penetrating into or leaching out of a substrate, to prevent subsequent coatings from being absorbed by the substrate, or to prevent harm to subsequent coatings by materials in the substrate. and undercoaters.

If your product is a primer, a product that improves adhesion, it falls under the GS-11 flat or non-flat paint limits. If your product is one which prevents bleed thru from the substrate or provides a smooth surface, then it could be considered a sealer or undercoater, respectively, and use SCAQMD 1113.

Your product is obviously trying to cover all the bases. I'd consider the primary attributes it claims and your use in the field against the VOCsA volatile organic compounds (VOCs) is a carbon compound that vaporizes (becomes a gas) at normal room temperatures. VOCs contribute to air pollution directly and through atmospheric photochemical reactions (excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides and carbonates, and ammonium carbonate) to produce secondary air pollutants, principally ozone and peroxyacetyl nitrate. it contains. You may be able to make a case for either category depending on those things.

Hi Michelle,

Please see my long response to the primer and sealer question in the string you mentioned below. I can't find anything in the 1993 GS-11 edition that indicates primers are part of its scope. Am I missing something?

It appears we're getting an uptick on coatings inquiries as more 2009 system projects come to fruition. I hope to address some of the confusion in conversations with USGBC staff.

Hi Dwayne,
No, GS-11 1993 doesn't address primers, though GS-11 2008 and 2011 do. That's our problem. GBCI has changed the primer requirement for LEED 2009 by addendum to require us to use GS-11 for primers rather than SCAQMD 1113.

V4.0 will fix this when we begin to use a newer GS-11 standard. But for right now, we're all in a painful struggle between definitions. If we can make a manufacturer data based claim for sealer or undercoater, we can likely use the Sealer and Undercoater category in Rule 1113. In other words, we need to see the right words and attributes that speak to the differences in those definitions.

If however it's a primer, it needs to meet the GS-11 flat/non-flat limits. I am seeing a whole lot of primers that are flat but exceed 50 g/l, and that's where it all started for me.

Anybody know the answer to this? I would also like to know how a fire proof type coating would be categorized.

I would suggest that more information would be required - MSDS1. Material safety data sheets (MSDS) are detailed, written instructions documenting a method to achieve uniformity of performance. 2. A report that manufacturers of most products are required to make available to installers and purchasers, informing them of product information on chemicals, chemical compounds, and chemical mixtures, the existence of potentially hazardous ingredients, and providing instructions for the safe handling, storage, and disposal of products, brand name. I would suggest speaking to the supplier/manufacturer....

No. It only deletes the last row. My recommendation would be to revise the row you want to delete to something like 'information removed' and rig the inputs so the form will close. Then explain what you did and why you did it in the comments section. The GBCI is aware that the forms are difficult

Timothy: Before I begin, I need to stress that this is not an official response from USGBC. These are my opinions and observations.

With relation to coatings and sealantsA sealant has adhesive properties and is formulated primarily to fill, seal, or waterproof gaps or joints between 2 surfaces. Sealants include sealant primers and caulks. (SCAQMD Rule 1168. )Sealants are used on wood, fabric, paper, corrugated paperboard, plastic foam and other materials with tiny openings, often microscopic, that may absorb or discharge gas or fluid. for EU LEED 2009/V3 projects, I think it fair to say that LEED is a work in progress. Unfortunately, there is no uniform approach country to country in the regulatory scheme or emerging emissions testing protocols. The Decorative Paint Directive of 2004 is the general template for regulation of coatings, but each country adopts and modifies the regulation as it sees fit. The Directive is available in the language of your choice at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32004L0042:E...

In drafting LEED V4, the EQ TAGLEED Technical Advisory Group (TAG): Subcommittees that consist of industry experts who assist in developing credit interpretations and technical improvements to the LEED system. attempted to introduce the Directive as a floor with emissions testing required to attain the credit. As there is no uniform emission testing scheme in the EU, a reasonable approach has been assigned. The EU test methodology scheme will evolve as we move towards emission testing being required to attain a CE Mark.

As a more direct answer to your question, the Directive expresses VOC limits in g/L for regulated products. Perhaps Sweden changed the limits on adoption or perhaps the manufacturer is not listing the content in the prescribed manner. I suggest requesting the manufacturer to provide a conversion.

The TAG has discussed approaches to better meshing LEED 2009 for international projects. I will certainly mention this topic to staff. I hope other project team members will share their experiences here as well.

Abdulrahman, "less of water" is defined in Rule 1168—see Resources above.

Basically means that the weight of water doesn't count in the calculations.

If a diluent is required for application of the product as specified on the label or other marketing literature, in the U.S. regulatory system it would count towards to VOC regulatory limit for the defined product category.

I assume you are working on LEED 2009 credit criteria. The South Coast Air Quality Management District requires labeling the VOC content as supplied and as thinned on every Rule 1113 product sold in the District. The limit is based on the product as thinned. From my perspective, the diluent cannot be considered to be a separate material and it is not a coating or sealant.

It is possible for a product that is not otherwise compliant to be sold legally in the Los Angeles basin due to regulatory exemptions. However, LEED credit is based on compliance with the limits. The 2004 version of Rule 1113 exempted all containers 1-quart or less in capacity and had an averaging program that allowed some otherwise non-compliant products to be sold. On January 1, 2004 there were a handful of Rule 1113 categories with limits above 600 g/L.

Nereyda, I think you are understanding it correctly.

The requirements for different applications vary based on the standard practices and technical requirements of those areas. What the VOC requirements are telling you here is that you can find products that do better for application to the concrete, but that this may be a decent product in the context of anti-corrosive paints.

Michael, that's correct—referencing the first line of the credit language (see above), the credit only applies to coatings within the weatherproofing system.

I'm not aware of any shortcut to categorizing a flat or nonflat coating absent the manufacturer's declaration. In the U.S., Canada and the EU countries that have adopted the Decopaint Directive, all manufacturers are subject to a stringent regulatory system and would make specific marketing claims for categorization purposes.

You could try going to back to the manufacturers and ask them to work off of the Rule 1113 or GS-11 definitions and limits. LEED is meant to be an incentive system to encourage everyone involved to reduce the impacts of materials. Ideally, they will respond to a perceived market advantage.

Is this project in North America?

Hi Abdulrahman,
I generally look at the product data under Finish where they define the coating in terms of degrees on a meter.

A flat paint will register less than 15 on an 85-degree meter, or less than 5 on a 60-degree meter. If it registers greater than either of those, it's a non-flat.

A comparable definition is somewher in the glossary of the LEED reference manual.

No, certifications are not relevant—only VOC content.

As i understand correctly, there is also a written g/L of VOC on the certification, can i use the VOC content and input to the LEED template?

Yes, that would work.

This is a problem in many LEED forms, you can only delete the bottom row. Without starting over with an upgraded form or deleting information you want to keep, you can just delete entries within the row. This will leave you with blank rows in the table, but the form should still calculate the credit correctly.

However . . . sometimes the bottom of the form will still say "N" for not complete, even if all the information is there, because the tables frequently don't like empty cells. I have added a note for the reviewer stating that even though the form indicates "N", the form is complete and calculating correctly. . . This seems to be acceptable to reviewers.

You will lose any data you have in those forms, but if possible, contact GBCI to request an upgrade of the forms you are working on. Some forms are now in v5, if that gives you any perspective.

I would say that they have to meet the credit requirements if the coatings are applied within the LEED project boundary, because that is the best definition we have of "onsite," per the credit requirements.

Keep in mind that part of the credit intent is to protect installers as well as occupants. Ventilation controls for coating application are generally better in a factory than onsite, so it makes sense to use low-VOC coatings here for everyone's well being.

Yes you are right. But the installers will install the doors when it has been completely dried and cured as if they received it from the factory. In addition, the credit category is concerned with the Indoor Environmental Quality, no? And the painting workshop constructed onsite is outdoor so it will not affect the Indoor Air Quality nor the installers. Does it make sense?

I think you have a case, but I still come down on including it because it's onsite (see credit language), part of the intent of the credit is to protect workers (see credit language intent), it's not in a factory environment where emissions are controlled, and low-VOC coatings are a good option anyway, and common.

Are you refering to GS-11 THIRD EDITION August 17, 2011?

USGBC and LEED 2009 continue to refer to Green Seal Standard GS-11, Paints, 1st Edition, May 20, 1993.

(http://www.greenseal.org/Portals/0/Documents/Standards/GS-11%20Stn%20Dev...)

This references:

VOCsA volatile organic compounds (VOCs) is a carbon compound that vaporizes (becomes a gas) at normal room temperatures. VOCs contribute to air pollution directly and through atmospheric photochemical reactions (excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides and carbonates, and ammonium carbonate) to produce secondary air pollutants, principally ozone and peroxyacetyl nitrate..
The calculation of VOC shall exclude water and tinting color added at the point of sale.
Interior Coatings:
Coating Type VOC weight in grams/liter of product minus water
Non-flat3 150
Flat 50

Hope this helps - good luck!

Thank you for the quick reply. This surely helps. This is just the clarification that I needed.

thanks again,

Laurent

100 g/L is the IEQ 4.2 threshold. Many available products but the question is what performs best for the specific application. Acrylic, Epoxy, Urethane..... I'd get the facilities manager and applicator to give some guidance.

Thank you Bruce for the information. One more question: the contractor wants to see specific documentation with the VOC requirement. Are you referencing the "Primers, SealersSealers are coatings applied to either block materials from penetrating into or leaching out of a substrate, to prevent subsequent coatings from being absorbed by the substrate, or to prevent harm to subsequent coatings by materials in the substrate., and Undercoaters" 100 g/L requirement in the SCAQMD Rule 1113 chart? I want to make sure the documentation I send over is accurate. Thank you very much for the assistance.

Todd, 1113 identifies Floor Coatings as those applied to, among other things, concrete floors which terrazzo certainly is. Primers, sealer and undercoaters are defined more for their ability to promote adhesion to the substrate. Clearly, this is one of those areas where interpretations may be different. However, the USGBC has accepted the Floor Coating definition for terrazzo sealersSealers are coatings applied to either block materials from penetrating into or leaching out of a substrate, to prevent subsequent coatings from being absorbed by the substrate, or to prevent harm to subsequent coatings by materials in the substrate. on several projects I've done. Good luck!

Tood, I incorrectly asumed you're inquiring about cement terrazzo. Even if it epoxy terrazzo the floor coating reference would be correct but not sure why an epoxy terrazzo would need a sealer applied.

All of our epoxy terrazzo submittals come in with a required sealer. Since sealersSealers are coatings applied to either block materials from penetrating into or leaching out of a substrate, to prevent subsequent coatings from being absorbed by the substrate, or to prevent harm to subsequent coatings by materials in the substrate. are 200 g/L, we've allowed them up to that limit. All other portions of the terrazzo need to be below 100 g/L. I think of it like top shield for linoleum.

From a specification point of view, you always marry your primer to your substrate and then to the finish item. So you should be able to understand what the substrate is. Are you documenting the work of the contractor or are you vetting product for specifications?

Hi Susan,
I'm documenting the work of the contractor. When the primer is being applied to steel doors for example (and is a flat that exceeds 50 g/l), I am inferring I can use the SCAQMD limit because it's not being used on a wall or ceiling.

However, I also have a masonry wall primer that is also a flat and doesn't meet the 50 g/l limit. So is it no good because it's being used on a wall and doesn't meet the flat limit? Or can I somehow still resort to the SCAQMD primer because the substrate is masonry and not drywall?

For anyone interested in the answer on Primers from the USGBC:

"A primer is an architectural coating, therefore it must apply GS-11. It is not an undercoater because it is not used to create a smooth surface (see definitions of primer and undercoater in Rule 1113). Specialty primers and floor coatings may still use Rule 1113 as applicable. But the table from the 4/14/10 addenda calls primers to use GS-11 (using the flat, non-flat classifications).

If a project registered after the 4/14/10 addenda, then primers must use the 50/150 g/L VOC limits. The only exception to using this flat/non-flat classification would be when it can be demonstrated that the product meets the definition of specialty primers as per Rule 1113.

Bottomline, projects must always use the flat/non-flat classification for primers and meet GS-11; and only under special circumstances based on the purpose of the primer and supporting manufacturer data which confirms this – they may be classified as specialty primers and use the SCAQMD rule 1113."

Michelle, what is the source of this quote from USGBC? It's very helpful guidance on primers! I have been asked to clarify this recently and I would just point to this quote.

Hi Tristan, I'm not surprised based on the difficulties we're having. The quote is from an email from a reviewer. We asked the question at Greenbuild and subsequenty were encouraged to have an email exchange.with one of our reviewers who provided the clarification. A VOC issue is basically impossible to recover from if you don't find out until review time that the product won't fly, so we spent some extra effort trying to understand the requirement correctly. Please note that it is my belief many manufacturers do not view the requirements in this way and many seem to be using the Undercoater and Sealer category of SCAQMD for their primers. I have seen Sherwin Williams and BASF products that say in writing they comply with LEED 2009 that actually don't unless they are using that category.

Thanks for sharing your insights about the need for clarity in the requirements for IEQc4.2. The reviewer guidance that Michelle posted above is correct. To make this guidance more readily available, we are working with our experts to create an administrative LI. In the meantime, the best source for viewing all of the Addenda and LIs assciated with this (or any) credit is the LI Database (https://old.usgbc.org/Login.aspx?REFERRER=/leedinterpretations/LILanding...).

Please also note that the most convenient place to find the applicable VOC limits for common types of primers, paints and coatings is the table added to the reference guide by the 4/14/2010 Addenda (https://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=8608).