Most likely you'll want to treat this as an exceptional calculation measure. Energyplus has better capability for modeling natural ventilation than most other 90.1 approved simulation tools. If using another program, modelers will typically model this by treating it as scheduled infiltration. The schedule would be developed using a spreadsheet and hourly weather data.

If you use the economizer function in your modeling program, you'll be hit with a penalty for fan energy use that doesn't really occur with natural ventilation. Another approach is to still use the economizer function and manually subtract out fan energy.

I encourage others on this forum to comment on their approaches. Please also try the BLDG-SIM forum for additional feedback.

Since the SCAQMD 1113 definitions state "a coating is applied to beautify, protect, or provide a barrier to a surface" it would appear that that's the standard to apply here, although the particular coating type is far from clear. Since 68 g/L is far below most of the coating type limits, seems like your professional judgment as to the closest match should suffice here. There's always the "Other" category...

Note that in another thread on VOC limits, someone reported a LEED reviewer advising them to only use the limits listed in the first four columns of Table 1 on pg 483 of the BDC Reference Guide - those that went into effect on or before 1-1-2004.

Kelly, it is possible, although it may cost you an addtional review fee depending on how you've structured your review (see GBCI fee info for more). You may want to check with GBCI on specifics.
I would also suggest posting this over on the EAc6 forum page—you may get a more specific response there since you're not the first project to do this.

I would agree that the LEED Green Associate credential should be fairly open, although I think some limits like those in place make sense. So far I haven't heard specific cases of individuals being unfairly denied.
Shriram, can you explain why the individuals you're referring do don't qualify? If they're in the building industry and have anything to do with sustainability (and it sounds like they do) they should be fine. Have they actually been denied by GBCI?
By the way, we have a webinar recording that discusses LEED GA exam prep and eligiblity.

I am happy that consistency in LEED credit rulings and interpretations will come in the future. Is there any advice for projects that are currently going through the review process that find themselves in the midst of questionable reviewer interpretations of LEED credits?

The release of Standard 189 and its possible future role relative to LEED are explored very well in this series of articles from Environmental Building News.
I think it's possible that Standard 189 (and/or the IGCC) could become a new lowest threshold that the most basic green buildings are required by code to pass. LEED will continue to exceed the threshold set by 189 and may increase its stringency. The other ASHRAE standards are likely to continue to be relevant.

My current project is an addition to an existing building in a campus setting. The addition is on the southwest side of the existing building. Only the newq addition will be certified. Currently the LEED boundary is drawn through the where the addition will be the existing building. However, additional parking is required per the project and will be located to the North of the new addition on the other side of existing parking. The new parking is no where near the addition. It is unclear to me how to draw a LEED boundary to include this parking area without hurting our chances for credits such as SSC7.1 Heat Island Effect - Non-roof. Is it possible to separate the LEED boundary or must I include everything?

Thanks,

I've also not read the final version, but I read the draft. As far as I can tell it does not substitute these standards, but references them and raises the minimum performance requirements.

For example, you still do the energy simulation measured against a baseline building as per 90.1 appendix G, but now the minimum performance improvement must be 30% (cost based).

Another example is that some of the tables for insulation have been corrected or may have raised the minimum insulation requirements.

The standard aims to address other aspects like water usage previously not covered in other standards in this way.

Future versions of LEED may reference parts of this standard, but as far as I know this is only forseen to happen every 3-4 years, by which time the next ashrae standards has also been released, e.g. 90.1-2010.

I agree with Tristan: LEED for Homes is not applicable if the units (or the building) do not have bathrooms or kitchen facilities. If the building has a central kitchen accessible to the occupants and some bathroom facilities, that building can be certified under Homes.