MSDS and SDS in the age of HPD and EPD

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Vivian Volz, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: vivianvolz Post Number: 155 Registered: 06-2004 Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2016 - 04:02 pm:    Just when you thought you might never get sent another MSDS as a sustainable design submittal... apparently one of my clients still gets them a lot. I'm writing them a statement for their Submittals section that states that they're not reviewing them. Right below HPD and EPD definitions, requirements, and actions, this pair of paragraphs occurs (the second is a subparagraph of the first): "Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) and Safety Data Sheets (SDS): MSDS and SDS are for Contractor's use in maintaining safe Project conditions and are not required submittals. As such, they are not reviewed by the Architect. "MSDS and SDS are not acceptable evidence of compliance with sustainable design requirements. Submit Product Data, HPD, EPD, or Manufacturer Certificates for sustainable design data." Is there any reason we shouldn't say this, or say it differently? Thanks, all! Edward J Dueppen, RA, CSI, CCS, LEED AP Senior Member Username: edueppen Post Number: 22 Registered: 08-2013 Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2016 - 04:19 pm:    I actually go a big step further in my specs. I state the following in "Submittal Procedures": 3. Prohibited Submittals: The following items shall not be submitted; if submitted the entire submittal will be rejected. a. Environmental Product Declarations (EPD). b. Health Product Declarations (HPD). c. Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS). The text above varies depending upon whether the project needs EPDs or HPDs, but we never accept MSDS. I was advised nearly 10 years ago by a liability insurance carrier that it would be better for the Architect to never approve a product that via the MSDS clearly showed the product was hazardous. Their reasoning was that just by having the MSDS and similar information in our files, they were smoking guns for attorneys. Scott Piper Senior Member Username: spiper Post Number: 31 Registered: 08-2014 Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2016 - 05:17 pm:    In our practice we often allow for MSDS sheets in the submittals. We note that we do not review the MSDS but omitting them can become an issue for our clients. We do primarily public institutional work and they are often asked for a MSDS for the products in their buildings. They can access this information in their submittals easily so we do not specifically exclude their inclusion but we do not review them. I had a similar conversation with our liability carrier about MSDS sheets showing that a product was hazardous. His statement was that if you specified it then the burden of knowing it was hazardous (and any potential liability attached to that hazard)is already part of our job description as an architect. According to our agent the MSDS does nothing to increase our risk and any claims of ignorance of a products hazards would not offer any protection since we are the licensed professionals who are very possibly responsible for knowing such things. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 783 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Friday, April 22, 2016 - 03:59 pm:    There is a difference between something that is clearly hazardous but not specifically identified so by law, something that is prohibited or regulated by law, and something where the risk is more subjective. We must address the situations where something is prohibited or regulated by law. When the contract documents make the contractor responsible for means an methods much of the responsibility is transferred to the contractor. While the contractor and possibly the owner may have an interest in the MSDS the architect and his consultants do not. Those truly hazardous situations that are not regulated by law are rare and I do not believe are typically a real concern. The problem is that what is considered hazardous is often very subjective. In these cases unless their use is regulated or you have a specific contractual obligation you are typically better off if you do not see the EPD, HPD, or MSDS documents. I do not believe we have an obligation to identify all the potential health risks especially since we do not have the technical expertise to undertake such a review. When you refuse to review these documents you are making it clear that your scope of work does not extend to the review of these documents. Walter Broner Junior Member Username: walterbroner Post Number: 2 Registered: 03-2017 Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2017 - 10:21 am:    Here is a potentially helpful document: http://aiad8.prod.acquia-sites.com/sites/default/files/2016-04/Materials-transparency-risk-architects_0.pdf Walter Broner Member Username: walterbroner Post Number: 3 Registered: 03-2017 Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2017 - 10:28 am:    (M)SDS submittals are often required by Owners, for whatever reason. Some specification require these to be submitted under separate cover directly to the Owner. As for physical/chemical content of the materials/ products, the VOC content information is what sustainability design procedures specs usual ask for - not for how these are handled on the project site. So complete product data info should contain this info, no? Most specs out there seem to NOT want (M)SDS to be submitted to the design professional, since handling anything on the project site is "means and methods". What do y'all think? ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 1065 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2017 - 11:18 am:    I think EPDs and HPDs are valuable design tools but I don't want the liability of analyzing something as a submittal when I'm not trained or licensed to do so. On the one hand I'm embracing the idea that manufacturers are finally disclosing what is in their products. On the other hand lots of people found asbestos to be a great insulator until we found out that it's a carcinogen. What happens in 10 years when we find out that products currently thought to be safe turn out to be hazardous? I'm afraid our industry is acting like dogs chasing cars. We won't know what to do with them if we catch them and there's nothing stopping us from being run over.