Within the last decade, environmental health has become an increasingly important decision making factor for practitioners within the green building community. The USGBC with its LEED Green Building Rating System brought issues surrounding indoor environmental quality and material health to the forefront of design dialogues. Even more so, proposed changes to LEED v4 could bring about greater market transparency if proposed credits on “Material Ingredient Reporting” and “Avoidance of Chemicals of Concern” are accepted after the next round of public comment.
WHY HEALTHY MATERIALS?
The statistics provided by Health Canada and the US Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA] indicate that Canadians and Americans spend 90% of their time indoors exposed to interior environmental conditions of buildings. The US EPA has also found concentrations of indoor pollutants at levels two to five times higher than typical outdoor levels I.Furthermore, there is a growing body of scientific evidence indicating that the air within homes and other buildings can be more seriously polluted than the outdoor air in even the largest and most industrialized cities. Headaches, dizziness, fatigue, respiratory ailments, heart disease, and cancer have all been linked to indoor air pollution.II
There are many sources of indoor pollution, but often the materials used to make buildings are the root of the problem. It is these statistics and research findings, along with the increasing amount of scientific evidence from national governmental and non-governmental organizations that should raise a red flag for the design community to step back and say: we have a responsibility to the best of our ability to seek out and advocate for healthier, less harmful materials, and for manufactures to be transparent about material ingredients.
WHERE IS THE MARKET AT?
Within the last decade, environmental health has become an increasingly important decision making factor for practitioners within the green building community. The USGBC with its LEED Green Building Rating System brought issues surrounding indoor environmental quality and material health to the forefront of design dialogues. Even more so, proposed changes to LEED v4 could bring about greater market transparency if proposed credits on “Material Ingredient Reporting” and “Avoidance of Chemicals of Concern” are accepted after the next round of public comment. The USGBC is not alone in advocating for material disclosure.
“The proposed changes these two credits bring are significant – in line with the general tone of the drafts we have seen for LEED v4, and in particular the Materials and Resources section,” reported Mark Hutchinson, Director of Green Building Programs at the Canada Green Building Council. “It’s important that LEED evolve to reflect current knowledge as to how to best assess environmental and health impacts, and it is equally important that basic principles such as disclosure and avoidance of chemicals of concern be introduced at the right time and in the right way,” he added. “We can all help by actively participating in the public comment process.”
Additional initiatives led by the Healthy Building Network, GreenBuilding Inc., Perkins+Will, International Living Future Institute [ILFI] and the Materials Research Collaborative are deepening the knowledge base of the building industry and raising awareness of substances that are readily found in our building materials.
– Pharos, a web-based building materials database developed by the Healthy Building Network, is an excellent tool for building designers that are interested in transparency and healthy materials. The material ingredients of over 800 building materials as well as detailed life cycle information about more than 20,000 of the substances used in building materials are profiled on the site. Pharos can be used to understand the composition of building materials, and to verify claims made by product manufacturers. The site uses a number of lists identifying health hazards in materials to flag substances of concern.
– BuildingGreen Inc.’s recently released handbook on Avoiding Toxic Chemicals in Commercial Building Projects: A Handbook of Common Hazards and How to Keep Them Out provides good direction on harmful substances, where to find them in building materials, and what should be top priorities for human health effects. In addition, this resource offers guidance about how to make decisions about avoiding toxic substances and includes four project case studies.
– Perkins+Will’s Precautionary List, released in 2009, is a list of 25 substances with supporting evidence of the human health impacts that should be avoided in projects. The Precautionary List includes information, for example, on substances such as Polystyrene, Bisphenol A [BPA], Polyvinyl Chloride [PVC], and Phthalates, and the corresponding specification division and section in which they can be found.
– Building upon its research in this area, Perkins+Will issued an additional public report: Healthy Environments: A Compilation of Substances Linked to Asthma which calls out 374 substances common in buildings that are asthma triggers or asthmagens. More specifically, the study revealed that 75 substances of these 374 substances linked to asthma are found in paints and adhesives – two products found in typical indoor environments III. This report compares publicly available lists of asthma triggers and asthmagens with their presence in building products, and categorizes the triggers by building specification division.
The Material Red List is certainly one of the toughest imperatives to achieve on the Living Building Challenge and the International Living Future Institute is working hard to research Red List compliant building materials. This fall ILFI launched a new program called Declare.
Declare is a voluntary building product self-disclosure program and ingredients label aiming to transform the industry towards product transparency. According to Amanda Sturgeon, Vice President of ILFI, “Declare offers manufacturers an expanded point-of-entry into the most groundbreaking restorative projects in the world. A growing list of teams pursuing the Living Building Challenge will use the Declare database and label to select products that meet the stringent materials criteria of the Living Building Challenge. The declaration on the label aligns with the Red List requirements in the Living Building Challenge, simplifying the process for materials specification and project certification.”
The International Living Future Institute’s Living Building Challenge raises the bar by requiring projects to eliminate 18 substances that it has identified on its material Red List. These substances include:
- – Asbestos
– Cadmium
– Chlorinated Polyethylene and Chlorosulfonated Polyethlene
– Chlorofluorocarbons [CFCs] – Chloroprene [Neoprene] – Formaldehyde [added] – Halogenated Flame Retardants
– Hydrochlorofluorocarbons [HCFCs] – Lead [added] – Mercury
– Petrochemical Fertilizers and Pesticides45
– Phthalates
– Polyvinyl Chloride [PVC] – Wood treatments containing Creosote, and Arsenic or Pentachlorophenol
The program has an initial dozen or more manufacturers piloting their products through this self-disclosure program and it is expected that manufacturers will want to have their products listed in this database as it will streamline documentation requirements for the Red List imperative. Like others in the market place, Amanda Sturgeon and her colleagues at ILFI strongly believe that “transparency is fundamental to a healthy and sustainable building product marketplace and Declare is a catalyst for market transformation.”
In addition, the Materials Research Collaborative is a joint initiative between the Health Building Network and Building Green, Inc., which has been developing the Health Product Declaration [HPD] Open Standard. The HPD Open Standard is “a format for reporting product content and associated health information for individual building products and materials” IV . By creating a consistent format, similar to the concept of a food label, building material ingredients will be reported in a consistent manner, it will help manufacturers standardize information provided to practitioners, and it will also assist practitioners to compare and contrast the performance of building materials.
To date, 48 companies and organizations have endorsed the HPD Open Standard, and 30 manufacturers such as Interface, Forbo, Herman Miller, and Steelcase have committed to participating in the 2012 Health Product Declaration Pilot Project V. Perkins + Will is one of the founding endorsers of the HPD Open Standard and Perkins + Will staff are members of the Steering Committee and the Pilot Project Committee. Over the coming year it will be important to watch this group of 30 pilot manufacturers to see how transparent they become in sharing information about their building material ingredients. Overall the HPD is a good example of how concerned building designers, contractors, specifiers, building owners, end users, and leading material manufacturers are mobilizing jointly to demand and bring about greater transparency in the building product marketplace. Let’s hope this initiative translates into good material disclosure.
According to the Healthy Building Network, since 2000 its efforts for advocating for healthier materials have resulted in the introduction of new, healthier building materials into commercial markets, shifting over $4 billion in materials purchases from toxic materials to healthier alternatives that are comparable in both price and performance to the materials they have replaced VI, and according to Pharos, “over 300 companies use Pharos to make more than 50 million square feet of real estate healthier and more environmentally sound.” VII
The green building industry is not alone in demanding healthier products: BizNGO is one example of where big businesses and NGO’s are collaborating to demand greater transparency from their material suppliers. BizNGO member organizations with significant purchasing power, such as Hewlett Packard, Staples, and Kaiser Permanente, are concerned that they cannot access accurate information about material composition, but would like to purchase cleaner materials for a variety of corporate sustainability and social health goals.
Organizations are mobilizing for varying social, economic and environmental goals and are sharing a common voice in demanding greater transparency in the material supply chain. Large organizations with larger purchasing power like universities, cities, and corporations are particularly well poised to join this call to action.
It is evident now that a serious and deeper dialogue is emerging around healthier materials, and more resources are coming online to support project teams in making informed choices about materials. As there is greater traction with clients and practitioners to demand healthier indoor environments, we will see the market transformation within the building material manufacturing sector unfold.
WHERE TO BEGIN? WHAT ACTIONS TO TAKE?
A reoccurring question we get from clients is where and how to begin the process for selecting healthier materials? Based on our wide range of design and research experience the following actions can form a framework for selecting and advocating for healthier materials.
1. Adopt and apply the precautionary principle to building material selection
An important first step is taking the time to understand the precautionary principle and embrace it as a guiding value in bringing about change in how building materials are selected and procured for a project. The precautionary principle in reference to public and environmental health decision making is simply stated as:
When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. VIII
2. Prioritize the human health priorities for your organization
Additional questions raised by clients are which substance should we prioritize for eliminating from the next project? And how do we begin to prioritize all the substances given the increasing amount of literature and human health evidence available in the marketplace?
A couple of recommendations can be made of where to start. First, the Healthy Building Network suggests that the most important materials to avoid are those with persistent bioaccumulative toxic [PBT] substances such as chlorinated building materials, PBT-based material treatments, and heavy metal additives or components. IX
As defined by the US EPA, PBT substances are of concern because they “are chemicals that are toxic, persist in the environment and bioaccumulate in food chains and, thus, pose risks to human health and ecosystems. The biggest concerns about PBTs are that they transfer rather easily among air, water, and land, and span boundaries of programs, geography, and generations”. X
Alternatively, rather than prioritizing substances, GreenBuilding Inc.’s new handbook provides good direction on what should be top priorities for human health effects and suggests the following: carcinogens; reproductive or developmental toxicant; mutagens; endocrine disrupters; and neurotoxicants. XI
The Living Building Challenge’s Red List, Perkins+Will’s Precautionary List, and Pharos provide supplementary guidance on specific substances, where they are readily found in building materials, and potential alternative materials. With these useful resources now available in the marketplace, you can prioritize:
- substances that are of concern for the organization,
- substances your organization can avoid, and
- projects that will take action in the future.
Our firm recently completed construction of its new office in Atlanta Georgia, 1315 Peachtree. When recently interviewed about the project, Bruce McEvoy, AIA, Associate Principal in charge of Peachtree project indicated that, “As far as “non-negotiable” items, identifying and avoiding those toxic building products is at the top of our list and one we’re very passionate about. Of course we want to reduce energy and water use, but we also want the buildings we design to support the health and well-being of everyone who is connected with them.” XII
The 1315 Peachtree project was an opportunity for the local office to showcase the firm’s commitment to putting its research regarding the Precautionary List into action. For example, the design team worked hard with Interface to source and specify a carpet tile with a non-PVC backing. According to Paula Vaughan, Associate Principal and Co-Director of Perkins+Will’s Sustainable Design Initiative, they sourced this carpet tile for the same cost, warranty, performance, look and appearance as a comparable carpet tile with a PVC backing.
The only difference that the project team experienced was with installation as a low-VOC adhesive was used. According to the team, the product is holding up perfectly well. In the case of this project, the design team spent a great deal of additional research time sourcing other PVC-free products.
3. Seek out impartial sources, trust and verify
We typically rely on Materials Safety Data Sheets [MSDS] for information on products, but the toxicological information in an MSDS is focused on the health risks that exist when a product is applied on a building or its site. Complete or even partial life-cycle information on a building product is often difficult or impossible to obtain. Manufacturers are only required to provide an MSDS for certain building products. The result is that users and purchasers don’t know what is in building products because the research into the health effects of certain substances is not complete and because there is no regulation requiring manufacturers to disclose the ingredients in their products.
The best information about the potential health issues associated with building products comes from independent sources. Using tools such as Pharos has been invaluable in the design of the CIRS building and VanDusen Visitor Centre in Vancouver, and other projects within our building portfolio. On these projects, Pharos and other independent sources of information were used to double check the building material declarations submitted by manufacturers as part of the documentation for the Living Building Challenge. Through this process, we were able to identify a number of substances within standard building materials that do not meet the criteria of the LBC Red List. For our interior design team, “Pharos is the go-to tool for all of our interior projects” says Loren Cavallin Perkins+Will’s Vancouver Interior Design Director. Her teams find that it is a “tangible tool in providing guidance on material safety and environmental impact of materials.”
In addition to sources such as Pharos and the new program Declare, other publicly available and credible sources of information that can verify human health impacts of material substances include:
- The International Agency for Research on Cancer
- National Toxicology Program [NTP]
- Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
- Environment Canada Toxic Substances
- Proposition 65 California [Prop 65]
- UNEP Stockholm Convention
While seeking out impartial sources, take the time to dig deeper, ask questions, and share the knowledge internally within your organization. Phasing out harmful substances from material libraries will not happen overnight but can begin by adopting these first three actions.
4. Demand and advocate for greater transparency from material manufacturers
One of the most important steps that any practitioner can take to encourage a culture of transparency with the building materials industry is to demand that the ingredients and environmental aspects of all products used in a project are disclosed by the manufacturers.
Google Inc., for example, has mandated transparency and disclosure for building products in all of its construction and renovation projects since 2010. Any manufacturer that wishes to have their product used in a Google project must fully disclose their product composition through the Pharos Project, an online database and hazard screening tool for building materials described earlier. Google has stated that if more procurers of building materials were to support transparency, the effort to pursue product health information would be easier as industry would react to demand. XIII
In 2011, Construction Specialties and Perkins+Will revealed a collaborative effort to develop the industry’s first building product transparency label. The label provides information on the product composition, the source of the components, the embodied carbon, water and energy footprints and any certifications that the product carries. Construction Specialties currently provides such labels for 12 products with plans to publish further information on its product lines. Perkins+Will hopes that the rest of the building materials industry will follow the lead of Construction Specialties and publicly support materials transparency.
As we see more and more clients endorse campaigns such as the Health Product Declaration Open Standard; and request that design teams use tools such as Pharos; and/or seek Living Building Challenge certification for their projects, demand for greater transparency will grow and the building material industry will need to respond at a greater rate.
CONCLUSION
Phasing out harmful substances from our material libraries will not happen overnight. But it can begin with a concerted effort to educate ourselves, our clients and our partners about the link between our material choices and the potential human health effects when creating the next project. Together our collective efforts and adoption of these actions can bring about change for greater material transparency.
Source: sabmagazine.com
