Hi Omar,

Please the FAQ above:
______________________________

Are throw rugs subject to the credit requirements?

While finding low-emitting throw rugs would be a good idea, they would not be considered "permanently installed" and so would not be subject to credit requirements.

Here is a link to the current "Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions from Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1."

http://www.cal-iaq.org/phocadownload/cdph-iaq_standardmethod_v1_1_2010%2...

This updated Standard was published in February, 2010 and it supercedes California Section 01350.

Hi Sheela,

You would have to test it under Option 2's requirements in order to verify that it complies.

Just a quick clarification as sometimes this is a common misconception from builders and code officials. The builder has not traditionally tested the product. Traditionally manufacturers of products test and certify low-emitting products. That cost is not traditionally taken on by the builder.

Thank You Lauren and Josh. We have received an email from the manufacturer confirming that their "Eco Scorecard confirms that they meet/exceed California Dept. of Health Specifications Section 01350, as well as specification required for South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule #1168".
Can we upload the email confirmation as the supporting documentation?

Catherine, that doesn't seem exactly right, but I'm not sure what else to suggest. How does the manufacturer classify it?

The product is actually made of several components...all of which are listed as an industrial maintenance coatings. Industrial Maintenance coatings are listed under Exterior Coatings and this is an interior application. Also if you read SCAQMD 1113 definition of an industrial maintenance coating (IMC), our application doesn't fit.

Should I log it in as an IMC, if that is what it has been tested under?

Or should it be logged in as a floor coating (FC1. A footcandle (fc) is a measure of light falling on a given surface. One footcandle is defined as the quantity of light falling on a 1-square-foot area from a 1 candela light source at a distance of 1 foot (which equals 1 lumen per square foot). Footcandles can be measured both horizontally and vertically by a footcandle meter or light meter. 2. The non-metric measurement of lumens per square foot, one footcandle is the amount of light that is received one foot from a light source called a candela, which is based on the light output of a standardized candle. A common range for interior lighting is 10 to 100 footcandles, while exterior daytime levels can range from 100 to over 10,000 footcandles. Footcandles decrease with distance from the light source. The metric equivalent of a foot candle is 10.76 lux, or lumens per square meter.)?

Should the whole system get logged as a single coating system (whether IMC or FC)?

Or should the system be broken down into its components and logged by its components?

FloorScore doesn't cover this type of "flooring" per se.

Hi Catherine,

What is the VOC content of the components of your product? Does your products VOC contents fall within all of the options that you list above? If so, I would just try my best to place it in one of the categories.

Often judgement calls are made when working on a LEED project in helping to determine where a product goes and how it is included.

If you have the VOC content information for all of the components my advice would be to list out each component in your documentation so as to play it on the safe side.

Sometimes, manufacturers will provide both: a value as a combined system and also individually.

Hi Hanne,

If there are enclosed rooms on the roof of the building where system engineers and janitors may be how are they not under a weatherproofing system? How are they protected from the elements? EQc4.1, EQc4.2 in the LEED Reference Guide make note of only including materials inside the weatherproofing membrane but actually EQc4.3 does not. Note that there are a few ways to comply with EQc4.3 and not just FloorScore. Please take a look at the Reference Guide for additional details.

The text from the 4/14/2010 Addenda states, "Mineral-based finish flooring products such as tile, masonry, terrazzo, and cut stone without integral organic-based 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. and unfinished/untreated solid wood flooring qualify for credit without any IAQIndoor air quality: The quality and attributes of indoor air affecting the health and comfort building occupants. IAQ encompasses available fresh air, contaminant levels, acoustics and noise levels, lighting quality, and other factors. testing requirements. However, associated site-applied adhesives, grouts, finishes and 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. must be compliant for a mineral-based or unfinished/untreated solid wood flooring system to qualify for credit."

The Addenda text can be found through the resources portion of the new USGBC website. Go to the New Construction Rating System section and at the bottom right it says, "View All Resources." Click on this and then Filter by Addenda. Sort by A-Z and the first file (Building design & construction reference guide addenda - 1st edition) is the one you are looking for. If you download the Addenda for the 1st Edition is compiles all previous Addenda. Found here: http://new.usgbc.org/resources/building-design-amp-construction-referenc...

Additionally, I found this page on LEEDuser which talks about it: http://www.leeduser.com/topic/usgbc-releases-april-2010-leed-addenda-%E2.... I searched on LEEDuser for April 2010 Addenda.

Hope this helps!

Isolda! People have been telling me all my life that we would meet one day. Who know that it would be over a LEED question. Not very tragic, is it.

The answer is no, as C2CA protocol developed by McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry that establishes guidelines for the manufacture of products in ways that harmonize with natural systems. These guidelines require, for example, that products be recyclable indefinitely, contain no hazardous ingredients, and be manufactured using renewable energy. does not address emissions in the way expected under this credit. There is an ID credit path for C2C products if you use enough of them—it's something like 2.5% of the materials budget.

You might want to reference the LEED-CI IDc1.1 CIRCredit Interpretation Ruling. Used by design team members experiencing difficulties in the application of a LEED prerequisite or credit to a project. Typically, difficulties arise when specific issues are not directly addressed by LEED information/guide (4/9/07) Cradle to Cradle Certified Products. The CIR requires Cradle to Cradle Certified building materials and products for 2.5% of the total value of all building materials and products used in the project, based on cost. The "cost value" of products for the purposes of this calculation will be discounted by 50% for Silver level products and those identified only as "technical or biological nutrients", and doubled for products certified at the platinum level.

Ah - Green Building, a modern day fairytale ;-) Nice to (virtually) meet you, Tristan!

Thank you both so much for your reply. I know where not to focus too much attention.

Kind regards,
Isolda

Hi Benj, Yes mortars can be included in the IEQ 4.3 Low Emitting Materials - Flooring Systems credit as long as you are using a mortar product that meets the low-VOC limit followed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1168. You should look into using mortar products that meet these guidelines. A company named Merkrete sells mortar supplies that meet the LEED IEQ 4.3 Low Emitting Material - Flooring Systems guidelines. Please use the following link to research mortar products by Merkrete and see for yourself:

http://www.merkrete.com/p/thin-sets-adhesives

I hope this helps and good luck.

Hanne, yes, you can use a variety of products complying with a variety of standards to meet the credit requirements.

Thank you :)

Alle, the credit language (see above) is clear that "all flooring' is subject to the credit requirements. You'd need to find a way for this installation to comply with the requirements to earn the credit.

I agree. Our designers found this as well and I had to tell them no. But I asked them and I'll ask your team. Can you call the manufacturer and have them test it? They've already lost out on one project and it sounds like they'll lose out on your project. Perhaps they don't realize they are losing business. Besides, it isn't like FloorScore is a particularly tough standard to meet.

Also realize that FloorScore is not the only way to show compliance. There are other certifications that show compliance (GREENGUARD Children & Schools, SCS IAQIndoor air quality: The quality and attributes of indoor air affecting the health and comfort building occupants. IAQ encompasses available fresh air, contaminant levels, acoustics and noise levels, lighting quality, and other factors. Gold are examples) and they could have a CA 01350 test done on the project to show compliance as well.

Hi Jaida,
I would make sure that you're particle board complies with the EQc4.4 requirements as it does not fall within a hard surface flooring material. EQc4.3 is meant to address finished flooring materials.

I probably should have clarified this in my first post.

The particle board even though it is a composite woodComposite wood consists of wood or plant particles or fibers bonded by a synthetic resin or binder. Examples include particleboard, medium-density fiberboard (MDF), plywood, oriented-strand board (OSB), wheatboard, and strawboard. and should comply with the requirements in IEQc4.4. We are procuring it as a finished product. That will come with a laminate applied as the surface finish. Therefore I think it does fall back to being defined as a hard surface flooring as per the definition in the LEED reference manual.

Is this a true assessment?

Also if we wanted to achieve IEQc4.4 would that material component (particle board) need to comply with IEQc4.4 in addition to the complete finished flooring material comply with IEQc4.3?

Hi Jaida,

Oh, I see. It seems like the flooring material is an engineered wood flooring and finished off-site, so it must meet requirements of IEQc4.3. The exemption is for raw wood flooring that is finished on-site. Similarly, since it is a particle core with laminate on top, it would have to meet IEQc4.4. Note that laminating adhesives used off-site must also be included in IEQc4.4.

Does that answer your question?

Allen, I'm seeing Rule 1113 show up, as it should. Perhaps you have an earlier version of the LEED Online form (the latest is v03). If so, you can request GBCI to update it.

Tristan, thank you for the reply. The v03 online form has it as Rule 1113, but v04 and v05 of the online forms have it at floorscore. I am trying to determine if this is an error or a revision to the credit requirements. Thanks again for your time.

From above text:
Should mineral-based finish flooring products (without any integral organic-based 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.) and unfinished/untreated solid wood flooring be documented on the IEQc4.3 LEED Online form, even though they are exempt from certification requirements?
According to LEED InterpretationLEED Interpretations are official answers to technical inquiries about implementing LEED on a project. They help people understand how their projects can meet LEED requirements and provide clarity on existing options. LEED Interpretations are to be used by any project certifying under an applicable rating system. All project teams are required to adhere to all LEED Interpretations posted before their registration date. This also applies to other addenda. Adherence to rulings posted after a project registers is optional, but strongly encouraged. LEED Interpretations are published in a searchable database at usgbc.org. #10267, the project team should mark the form to indicate an Alternative Compliance Path, and include a narrative with a statement that the project is applying the April 14, 2010 addenda, as well as the manufacturer and specific product description of the product claiming the exemption. Manufacturer documentation for each product claiming an exemption is not required.

Thanks, Lindsey, and to make sure that it's clear, Lindsey is quoting from LEEDuser's FAQ section under our Bird's Eye View above.

No, it is not acceptable to use standard AgBB (Blue Angel) test results from the 28 day timepoint. It is also not acceptable to use AgBB test results from an earlier time point (e.g. 3, 7, or 14 days) unless the results are calculated using the exposure scenario parameters from the CDPH Standard Method, as defined in this credit.

Use of standard AgBB (Blue Angel) test results after 14 days or without conversion to the CDPH parameters is not acceptable because it could allow significantly higher emissions to occur (especially as VOC emissions generally decrease over time).

Thank you Randy.
Do I understand you correctly that it must be used test results after 14 days which is in accordance with the CDPH test method and the CDPH parameters?

The reference guide (NC, 2009 edition) refers to CDHS, Section 1350, 2004 + addendum 2004. Is it okey to follow this or do we need to follow the 2010 version (CDPH)?

Thanks!

For this credit you must use the CDHS 2004 version of "01350". You cannot use AgBB test data from time points after 14 days.

The AgBB test method is not equivalent to either the CDHS 2004 version of "01350" nor the CDPH 2010 version. That is to say, a flooring product could comply with AgBB and still fail the CDHS and CDPH standards. The reverse is also true -- a flooring product could pass the CDHS and CDPH standards and could fail to comply with the AgBB method. The California methods (CDHS and CDPH) are simply different in many ways from the AgBB method.

The language added to this credit for projects outside of the U.S. was intended to be helpful for projects in regions (primarily in Europe) where fewer products are available that have already been tested and found compliant to the CDHS and CDPH standards. While this language does NOT simply accept AgBB (or BlueAngel) compliance, it does open the door to allow manufacturers to potentially use existing AgBB test data to determine compliance, IF the AgBB data is re-analyzed subject to the limitations specified in this credit language.

These limitations on AgBB are intended to ensure flooring products used in these projects comply with the requirements in the 2004 CDHS version. Ignoring Caprolactum, which is a semi-volatile compound that behaves differently than typical 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., there are essentially two limitations.

Limitation on AgBB #1

Only data from time points at or between 3 and 14 days are allowed.
The AgBB method normally measures emissions and determines compliance based on the 3 day and 28 day time points. However, the California methods determine compliance based on the 14 day time point. Typically, building material emissions decrease over time. Thus allowing more time before determining compliance can allow a product with emissions that are too high at day 14 to decrease and possibly be compliant by day 28. Therefore, AgBB compliance, which is based on the 28 day timepoint, is not sufficient to demonstrate compliance. AgBB test data from the 28 day timepoint cannot be used to determine compliance to the CA standards.

Limitation on AgBB #2

The emission concentrations in air that are used to determine compliance must be based on the exposure scenarios defined within the CDHS standard. These scenarios define the amount (surface area) of flooring that is present and the amount of "clean" ventilation air that is present. The 2004 CDHS version contains two exposure scenarios -- a school classroom and a private office. These two exposure scenarios remain unchanged for flooring in the 2010 CDPH version. The AgBB method uses a different exposure scenario for flooring, which directly affects the test results. If all else is held constant, reducing the amount of floor surface area will reduce the resulting emission concentrations. Similarly, if all else is held constant, reducing the amount of "clean" air flow ventilation will increase the resulting emission concentrations. Therefore it is important to correct for these variations before using the test results to compare to the emissions limits defined in the California standards used by this credit.

I hope this is helpful.

Thank you very much.

Can we alternatively choose to mulitiply the Blue Angel test results with 0.7 and thereby convert these to California Air consentrations as the credit requirement says (above)?

Hi Ken,
Yes, I believe it does since your on-site finishes will comply. Solid wood is exempted, but the coatings are not. You should plan to provide some product data on the exempted material to support the exclusion.

Thank you Michelle. I agree with you relative to the April 2010 addenda language. I have trouble with the July 2012 LEED addenda that seems to replace the April 2010 language and further seems to longer allow the site applied sealer. I may be misreading things - any thoughts?

Thank you

Hi Ken,

When I took a look at the latest addenda again I still found this language: "Concrete, wood, bamboo and cork floor finishes such as sealer, stain and finish must meet the requirements of
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1113, Architectural Coatings, rules in effect on
January 1, 2004."
Was that what you were looking for? It's on Page 72, 3rd bullet from the bottom.
http://new.usgbc.org/sites/default/files/LEED%202009%20Rating_NC-GLOBAL_...

Marcio, this is covered in the second-to-last FAQ above—check that and post again here with follow up.

Hi Tristan,

I did check the FAQ before writing the question. The reason I posted it anyway is because even though the FAQ mentions that the "ceramic rceives a top coat after it is manufactured", it doesn't mention whether such coating is applied off-site or on-site, which to me makes the difference since the credit is about "Indoor" Environmental Quality, which gives the idea that only coating applied on-site would have to comply with VOC levels. Am I correct on this assumption? However, on the ther hand, we do know that some compounds continue to offgas for a period of time even after appilciation. So what's the criteria? Coatings applied off-site have to comply or not?

Thanks!

Marcio, I am a little surprised that this, but I suppose that if we are being very specific about a finish applied to tile off-site, it falls through a crack in IEQc4 requirements and is exempt. I don't see any IEQc4 credit language that applies to this situation.

Tristan,

The off-site gap for 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. is intentional. Tracking the documentation for all VOCs applied for all materials at all stages is essentially impossible. In most cases the VOCs have off-gasses long enough to not create IEQ issues in a building.

Of course, this not always the case, especially if products are plastic wrapped at a fabrication facility.

The primary VOC contributor in building construction are the materials installed on-site, and products with large number of organics, such as upholstered furniture.

Hernando, I'm not sure that's the case with IEQc4.3 specifically. I only think that off-site tile is exempt because it's not mentioned along with "Concrete, wood, bamboo and cork floor finishes," which do have VOC requirements whether on or offsite, according to the credit language—as best I can interpret it.

When I was vice-chair of the LEED IEQ Technical Advisory Committee (TAGLEED Technical Advisory Group (TAG): Subcommittees that consist of industry experts who assist in developing credit interpretations and technical improvements to the LEED system.) we intentionally excluded general off-site VOC products for the reasons I gave.

The "flooring language" regarding testing of "other floor" products was added after I was no longer involved. The language was added by someone who was a hard-core advocate for the testing for 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., whether organics actually existed in a product or not. What they actually wanted was testing for all chemical components in a product, not just VOCs.

That is why the "flooring language" was originally written to force all floor products to be tested. The USGBC has tried to fix this but hasn't gotten it correct so far.

Remember that with most products the VOC levels drop dramatically after application. At some point it becomes pointless to test a product. For many "other chemicals of concern" the same is true.

The reason the "other chemicals of concern" were added by a testing advocate was that they didn't trust product manufacturers, of the supply lines the manufacturers used. That is the reason the testing was added; lack of trust in manufacturers actually know, for certain, what is going into their products.

Check to see if there is an addenda for this credit language. Essentially, they are saying that there is an alternative compliance path for hard surface flooring that does not carry a FloorScore certification. Certain kinds of linoleum are not FloorScored certified but do qualify through the alternative compliance path. They way it is written sounds like a hold over from v2.2 that was modified in a CIRCredit Interpretation Ruling. Used by design team members experiencing difficulties in the application of a LEED prerequisite or credit to a project. Typically, difficulties arise when specific issues are not directly addressed by LEED information/guide.

Hi Marcio,

I agree that it is confusing. Like Susan suggested, I'd also suggest taking a look at the latest addenda: http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=19222

In that version, the language is clearer for FloorScore products:

"All hard surface flooring installed in the building interior must meet one of the following requirements:  
• Meet the requirements of the FloorScore standard (current as of the date of this rating system, or more stringent version) as shown with testing by an independent third‐party. 
• Demonstrate maximum VOC concentrations less than or equal to those specified in the 
California Department of Health Services Standard Practice for the Testing of Volatile 
Organic Emissions from Various Sources Using Small‐Scale Environmental Chambers, 
including 2004 Addenda, using the office scenario as defined in Table 7.5 within the 
practice.  
• Maximum VOC concentrations meet the California requirements specified above based 
on the following:
o   California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Standard Method V1.1‐2010 using 
test results obtained at the 14 day time point
o  Projects outside the U.S. may use the German AgBB/DIBt testing method and all 
testing methods based on AgBB/DIBt method (GUT, EMICODE, Blue Angel) using 
test results obtained at the 3 day or 7 day or 14 day time point. For caprolactam, if 
test results obtained at the 3 day or 7 day time point is used, the emission 
concentration must be less than ½ of the concentration limit specified above 
because the emission may not have peaked at the measured time points. 
If a European testing method (AgBB/DIBt GUT, EMICODE, Blue Angel) had used parameters for calculating test 
results different from those specified in the referenced California method, then the European test results for 
carpets or floorings need to be converted into California air concentrations by multiplication with 0.7.
Mineral‐based finish flooring products such as tile, masonry, terrazzo, and cut stone without integral organic‐
based coatings and sealants and unfinished/untreated solid wood flooring qualify for credit without any IAQ 
testing requirements. However, associated site‐applied adhesives, grouts, finishes and sealers must be compliant 
for a mineral based or  unfinished/untreated solid wood flooring system to qualify for credit."

Rebekah,

I have actually worked on a project where we lost this credit because of an epoxy spec requirement. It was a veterinary space and we had to use this epoxy flooring throughout our project.

One thing that I do not think has been officially determined by LEED is whether or not you can do a VOC budget for your EQc4.1 referenced coatings/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., etc. listed under EQc4.3. My feeling is that you had one coating that was not in compliance for EQc4.3 you might be able to reference how you comply, overall, through a budget in EQc4.1.

To answer your question, it seems that the product you reference could fall under High Performance and you could list it as such. However, I haven't done so myself.

01350 is not static. Here is a good site describing the history.

http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/greenbuilding/specs/section01350

Make sure you are comparing current requirements when claims are made regarding compliance. Always double check.

I never accept product claims such as, meets California 01350, meets LEED VOC requirements, meets FloorScore, and similar because the claim is not specific about the requirement that is meet.

I have found FSCIndependent, third-party verification that forest products are produced and sold based on a set of criteria for forest management and chain-of-custody controls developed by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), an international nonprofit organization. FSC criteria for certifying forests around the world address forest management, legal issues, indigenous rights, labor rights, multiple benefits, and environmental impacts. and FloorScore claims where the actual certifications expired before the products were purchased. LEED VOC requirements have changed over the years, as have formaldehyde1. Formaldehyde is a naturally occurring VOC found in small amounts in animals and plants but is carcinogenic and an irritant to most people when present in high concentrations, causing headaches, dizziness, mental impairment, and other symptoms. When present in the air at levels above 0.1 ppm, it can cause watery eyes; burning sensations in the eyes, nose, and throat; nausea; coughing; chest tightness; wheezing; skin rashes; and asthmatic and allergic reactions. 2. A known carcinogen with no known safe exposure level. Formaldehyde occurs naturally, but appears in unnaturally high concentra­tions in many buildings because it is an ingredient in binders used in many building materials and furnishings. limits.

If a product has only GREENGUARD Certification it does not show qualification to CA 01350, GREENGUARD Children & Schools is the certification programs that proves compliance.

Matthew,

VOC content minimization is not a compliance pathway for EQ 4.3 - VOC emission minimization is the compliance pathway. TVOCThe sum or total of all volatile organic compounds (VOCs) released from a product or measured in a space under certain defined conditions. (Total Volatile Organic Compounds) is not one of the criteria that is called out in the compliance options. The best bet is to ask if they have certified to CRI Green Label Plus (if carpet), FloorScore or GREENGUARD Children & Schools (if they are other flooring), or have tested the product according to CA 01350. These are the most common ways of showing compliance in this credit.