医学博士贝塞斯达 - 粘合剂和密封剂委员会（ASC）再次向美国绿色建筑委员会提出问题（USGBC）LEED 2012 V.4建筑评级系统修订版，包括关注流程，材料信用筛选工具的评论以及最新草案中添加的新验证过程。

在这一轮评论中，ASC询问了与LEED信用选择方式有关的直接问题。其中包括请求有关谁正在阅读和发展对最新USGBC提案的行业问题和评论的信息，以及为什么选择不使用ANSI-认可的过程来开发最新的LEED建议，尽管USGBC是ANSI-认可的组织。

“Since 2006, USGBC has been an approved ANSI-accredited Standards Development Organization (SDO) with an approved ANSI process that allows for a broad, consensus-oriented development process that requires formal responses to all comments submitted,” noted Mark Collatz, ASC’s Director of Regulatory Affairs. “Yet, despite being accredited and using the power of the ANSI brand to gain credibility when the LEED program was new, the USGBC has never followed the ANSI process. USGBC’s responses to ASC’s earlier comments and questions lacked specificity and exhibited a cookie-cutter approach that ignored legitimate questions, because the draft is incredibly complex and introduces tools that were never developed for use by a SDO.”

与对LEED v.4提案的回应一样，ASC质疑USGBC对摇篮的依赖和Greenscreen工具，以评估成品建筑材料产品中的危害。

Collat​​z说：“尽管Greenscreen仅开发出来评估产品成分并评估R＆D环境中的替代方法，但USGBC仍将Greenscreen作为行业可以用来获得信贷的工具。”“试图利用它来表征成品并因此获得信用，这是对合法研究工具的完全歪曲。The fact that it continues to remain within the drafts is indicative of the USGBC either not understanding how the tool works, or not caring to entertain the concept that the process they follow simply doesn’t work, as the question ASC has with this tool remains – the tool does not adequately address how anyone should use the tool to evaluate finished goods.”

最后，ASC承认，这是一个新的第三种选择的鼓励，该选项似乎为产品制造商提供了机会，可以通过目前使用的某些相同方法来优化和验证更强大的健康和基于安全的计划，以证明产品改进的努力。

理事会的确表明，通过这些验证计划验证的成分百分比进行估计将是一种更好的方法，该方法比目前的提案要更好，该提议需要99％的成分才能经过资格验证过程。