European Directive 2011/65/EU (RoHS II) has been accepted as an alternative for the requirements of Feature 11, Parts 5a and 5b, for Europe. Note that high-pressure sodium lamps must still meet the requirements set in LEED v4 PBT source reduction - mercury credit.

OSHA 29 CFR 1926.62 has not been deemed equivalent to EPA 40 CFR Part 745.227 for the requirements of Feature 11, Part 2. Note while the acceptable work practices are similar between the two standards, OSHA 29 CFR 1926.62 does not establish determinations for all lead-related hazards to an occupant beyond the potential exposure of a construction employee.

ProPECC2/97, when used in combination with the Hong Kong EPD’s Code of Practice on Asbestos Control protocol and a post clearance test, has been accepted as an alternative to the requirements of Feature 11 Part 3.

PCB directive NRW- RdErl. d. Ministry of construction and housing v. 3.7.1996 - II B 4 - 476.101 has been accepted as an alternative for the requirements of Feature 11 Part 4a.

Asbestos inspection every three years through an agency/lab accredited by the 'National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL), India' has been accepted as an alternative to the requirements of Feature 11 Part 3a.
An on-site investigation of the commercial space conducted by an agency/lab accredited by the 'National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL), India', has been accepted as an alternative to the requirements of Feature 11 Part 2a. Note that projects must maintain a copy of the records produced by the asbestos investigator/abatement contractor, which should be made available to the building occupants.

The Swedish industry standard ByggaF has been deemed acceptable for the requirements of Feature 12: Moisture Management Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 for Sweden.
Note that the documentation generated upon following the methodology outlined in ByggaF must be submitted in English during the documentation phase.

The UK Building Regulations Part L has been deemed acceptable for the ASHRAE Guideline 0-2005 of Part 1 in the United Kingdom.

CIBSE Guide A is not accepted as an alternative to the requirements of Feature 15 Part 1. Note that the ventilation rates specified are generally not 30% above those required in ASHRAE 62.1-2013.

AS 1668.2 may be used in lieu of ASHRAE 62.1 for Feature 15, Part 1. Note that projects that wish to comply with AS 1668.2 must increase ventilation by 50% rather than the 30% increase required when complying with ASHRAE 62.1.

ASHRAE 55 - Universal Comfort Zone has not been deemed acceptable as an equivalent method for the requirements of Feature 16 Part 1. ASHRAE 55 - Universal Comfort Zone includes a formula to calculate optimal interior relative humidity levels that may fall outside of the range specified in the WELL Building Standard.

The Blue Angel RAL-UZ 219 criteria has been deemed acceptable for the Blue Angel RAL-UZ 171 criteria for Part 1 in Germany.

Low emission criteria of EPEAT has been accepted as an alternative to Ecologo CCD 035, Blue Angel RAL- UZ 171 or Green Star in Feature 17 Part 1.

REHVA Guidebook No. 1 (Displacement Ventilation in non-industrial premises) may be used in lieu of the System Performance Evaluation and ASHRAE Guidelines RP-949 for Feature 21, Part 1.

China's GB 6932-2015 Domestic gas instantaneous water heater, Class 5 has been approved for Feature 24 Part 2.
While the the testing protocols for humidity and oxygen in GB 6932-2015 for humidity and oxygen percentage differ from those in California's South Coast Air Quality Management District rule 1121, Class 5 is currently deemed best within China.
This equivalency may only be used for projects in China.

The following diesel emission standards are acceptable alternatives to the requirements of Feature 24 Part 4:
Bharat Stage III for non-road vehicles (Requirement a).
Bharat Stage III or IV for on-road vehicles (Requirement b).
These equivalencies may be only be used for projects in India.

The following European local emission standards have been approved as an acceptable equivalent for Feature 24, Part 4:
1. European Stage IV standard for non-road diesel engine vehicles or the use of non-road diesel engine vehicles equipped with diesel particulate filters (DPF).
2. Euro VI emission standards for on-road engine vehicles or the use of on-road diesel engine vehicles equipped with diesel particulate filters (DPF).

Global GreenTag Standard v4.0 and PhD Methodology have been accepted as an alternative for the requirements of Feature 25 Part 1.

Global GreenTag Standard v4.0 and PhD Methodology have not been accepted as an alternative for the requirements of Feature 25 Part 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Products certified under the Good Environmental Choice Australia (GECA) Furniture & Fittings (Level B) (FF v3.0-2017) standard are considered to meet the toxic material reduction restrictions of Feature 25 Part 1, 2 and 5.

The Good Environmental Choice Australia (GECA) Furniture & Fittings, Foam & Mattresses (Level A) (FFF&M v3.0-2017) standard has not been accepted as an alternative for the requirements of Feature 26 Part 1. Note that while most LBC Red List substances are prohibited in the GECA Furniture Level A standard, the GECA Furniture Level A standard allows products that contain formaldehyde-based additives subject to a certain air emissions limit, whereas the Red List prohibits the use of added formaldehyde (Section 4.1 Criterion 13).

The Global GreenTag Standard v4.0 and PhD Methodology are accepted as an alternative to the requirements for Feature 26 Part 1.

ISO 7027-1:2016 has been accepted as an alternative for the Performance Verification testing equipment and method requirements of Feature 30, Part 1.
Please note that ISO 7027-compliant devices must be capable of displaying results in NTU and all results must be reported in NTU.
Also note that this equivalency does not authorize project teams to select, request, or dispute the specific testing methodology used during performance testing for a project.

Hong Kong's Code of Practice for Prevention of Legionnaires’ Disease has been accepted as an equivalent for ASHRAE 188-2015 of Feature 36 Part 5.

The Japanese Allergen Labelling regulations (Cabinet Office Ordinance No. 45, 2011; Cabinet Office Ordinance No. 46 of 2011; and Notification No. 71 of the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare in 2001) may be used to comply with the requirements of Feature 40. Please note that projects must label, at minimum, the mandatory allergens for all foods and beverages (packaged and non-packaged). Projects must still submit all applicable documentation to comply with this Feature and will also be subject to a spot check during the Performance Verification to verify compliance.

The Hong Kong Food and Drugs Composition and Labeling Regulations are accepted as an alternative to the requirements of Feature 40. The project will need to label all foods (rather than only cereals) that contain gluten in order to comply with WELL. Note that projects must still submit all applicable documentation to comply with this Feature, and will also be subject to a spot check or visual inspection during the Performance Verification to verify compliance.

The Global GreenTag Standard v4.0 and PhD Methodology are not accepted as alternatives for the requirements of Feature 41 Part 1 because the requirements of GreenTag do not match those of these WELL features.

The EU Regulation No 1169/2011 may be used to comply with the requirements of Feature 43 regarding labeling for artificial colors, flavors and sweeteners. Note that projects must still submit all applicable documentation to comply with this Feature, and will also be subject to a spot check or visual inspection during the Performance Verification to verify compliance. Freshly prepared food also needs to comply with the labelling requirements.

The China Standards ‘General Rules for Pre-packaged Food Labeling’ (GB7718--2011) and ‘Standard for the Use of Food Additives’ (GB2760-2014) have been approved as acceptable alternatives for F43.
Note that projects must provide signage that clearly indicates: "The following additives have not been evaluated - brominated vegetable oil, potassium bromate, monosodium glutamate (MSG), hydrolyzed vegetable protein (HVP), and sulfite.”

The Nutrition Labeling Standard under the Health Promotion Act issued by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare has been accepted as an alternative for the requirements of Feature 44, Part 1 for Japan. Note that projects must still submit all applicable documentation to comply with these Features and will also be subject to a spot check or visual inspection during the Performance Verification to verify compliance. Projects must label the nutritional information outlined in the Nutrition Labeling Standard under the Health Promotion Act for all non-packaged and packaged foods.

The Hong Kong Food and Drugs Composition and Labeling Regulations are accepted as an alternative to the requirements of Feature 44. Note that projects must still submit all applicable documentation to comply with these Features, and will also be subject to a spot check or visual inspection during the Performance Verification to verify compliance.

The EU Regulation No 1169/2011 is an acceptable alternative to the requirements of Feature 44. Note that projects must still submit all applicable documentation to comply with this Feature, and will also be subject to a spot check or visual inspection during the Performance Verification to verify compliance. Freshly prepared food also needs to comply with the labelling requirements.

Organic certifications provided by organizations accepted by UK DEFRA have been accepted as product line certification schemes for Part 1 and Part 2 in the United Kingdom.

Organizations approved by the Australian Department of Agriculture as organic certifying organizations against the National Standard for Organic and Bio-Dynamic Produce are accepted as an equivalent for the Federally Certified Organic program of Feature 49 Part 1a and 2b.

Soil Association Organic Standards Farming and Growing v17.4 August 2016 has been accepted as an alternative to Federally Certified Organic for the requirements of Feature 49, Part 2. Note that this equivalency applies only to projects in the United Kingdom.

"India Organic" certification by the APEDA (Agricultural and Processed Products Export Development Authority) per the National Programme for Organic Production (NPOP) standards has been accepted as an alternative for the requirements of Feature 49 Part 1.

The China standard GB50034-2013 has been approved to meet the requirements of Feature 53 Part 1a.

The Unified Glare Rating (UGR) value may be used in lieu of the requirements of Feature 55 as written. Specifically, the recommendations in EN 12464-1 may be used in place of Part 1.

The Flemish S0C3 Integrale Toegankelijkheid has been deemed acceptable for the requirements of Part 1 for Belgium.

The Italian Code for Accessibility DM 236, 14 June 1989 has been accepted as an equivalent for ISO 21542:2011 of Feature 72 Part 1.

Projects seeking to use this equivalency must meet the following requirements:
-Where present, water fountains must meet ISO guidelines.
-Ramps with a rise over 500 mm should have a slope below 5%.
-Signage must comply with ISO guidelines for universal signage. Visual, audible and tactile signage using familiar symbols should be present in the project.

South Africa's National Building Regulations, Part S: Facilities for persons with disability (SANS 10400-S:2011 Edition 3) has been accepted as an equivalent for ADA Regulations of Feature 72 Part 1.

Buildings without Barriers has been accepted as an alternative for the requirements of Feature 72 Part 1 in Europe.

Code on Accessibility in the Built Environment has been accepted as an alternative for the requirements of Feature 72. Note this is only applicable to projects in Singapore.

The Decree of the Ministry for Regional Development of the Czech Republic No. 398/2009 Coll. on General Technical Requirements for Barrier-Free Usage of Construction has been accepted as an equivalent for ADA Standards for Accessible Design of Feature 72 Part 1.

The Indian codes for accessible design ISO 21542:2011 - Building Construction - Accessibility and Usability of the Built Environment, Appendix B "Anthropometrics and requirements for accessibility in built environment for elders and persons with disabilities" of Part 3, National Building Code of India, 2016, Vol. 1 and "Harmonised Guidelines and Space Standards for Barrier-Free Built Environment for persons with Disability and Elderly Persons, 2016 - Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India" have been accepted as alternatives for the American Disabilities Act (ADA) design regulations. Either code may be used by projects located in India.

The Canadian Standards Association’s (CSA) “Accessible Design for the Built Environment” (CSA B651-12) has been accepted as an alternative for the requirements of Feature 72 Part 1 and 2. This equivalency may be used in Canada.

The German DIN 18040:2010 Construction of accessible buildings - design principles is acceptable for Feature 72 Part 1a. Note, similarly to the application of the Americans with Disabiliites Act (ADA) Standards for Accessible Design to buildings in the US, the German code must apply to all types of buildings. Furthermore, all WELL buildings should be considered "accessible" buildings for the purposes of the code.

The Dutch Standard NEN 1814 is an acceptable equivalent to the American Disabilities Act (ADA) design regulations.

Previously published as an AAP:
The Alberta Building Code - Barrier-Free Design section 3.8 is an acceptable equivalent to the American Disabilities Act (ADA) design regulations.

The Madrid Technical Building Code for Accessibility is an accepted equivalent for the American Disabilities Act (ADA) design regulations. Note, similarly to the application of the ADA to buildings in the US, the Madrid Technical Building Code for Accessibility must apply to all buildings. Furthermore, all WELL buildings should be considered "accessible" building for the purposes of the code.

The Codi d´Accesibilitat de Catalunya is an acceptable equivalent to the American Disabilities Act (ADA) design regulations. Note, similarly to the application of the ADA to buildings in the US, the code must apply to all buildings. Furthermore, all WELL buildings should be considered "accessible" building for the purposes of the law.

The French Law regarding PMRs or 'personnes à mobilité réduite' (French Decree No 2006-555 of 17 May 2006, or the latest adoption in effect at the project's registration date) is an acceptable equivalent to the American Disabilities Act (ADA) design regulations. Note, similarly to the application of the ADA to buildings in the US, the code must apply to all buildings. Furthermore, all WELL buildings should be considered "accessible" building for the purposes of the law.

The UK Part M Volume 2 Standard (Buildings other than dwellings) may be used lieu of the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design as long as the following additional requirements are met:

1. Signage adheres to the requirements of BS 8300: Design of buildings and their approaches to meet the needs of disables people, as referenced within the Part M Volume 2 Standard.
2. Drinking fountains adhere to the requirements of ADA Standards for Accessible Design, Sections 211 and 602 for Drinking Fountains.

Code NPR 1813 has been accepted as an alternative to HFES 100 for the requirements of Feature 73 Part 3.

The European Standard EN-1335 and Dutch Standard NEN 1812, Type A and Type B only, have been approved as acceptable alternatives to HFES 100. Please note EN-1335 Type C has not been approved as an acceptable alternative.

Building Bulletin 93 (BB93) 2015 has been approved as an acceptable method for spaces within education buildings to comply with Feature 74, Part 4 for projects in the United Kingdom. Note that Table 1 of BB93 also includes noise level limits for administration and ancillary spaces and states that “Where a type of room is not listed, the nearest approximation should be used."

Building Bulletin 93 (BB93) 2015 has not been accepted as an equivalent for the requirements of Feature 75, Part 6. Specifically, the requirements are performance-based but do not specifically require compliance with a standard to which BB93 may be compared.