"Better do this or else" letters

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

Author Message Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1342 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - 04:20 pm:    Anyone on this list have an office that has sent out one of those "We're going to require you to list your products on Pharos, send in an HPD, or Declare " and in a few years if you don't, we won't list you in the specs" letters? I've gotten copies of letters from Cannon, SmithGroup and HKS, and my firm is agitating for the same sort of product declaration thing. here's the final line: "our purpose in mandating transparency is to enable the entire design community to make infomred health-minded decisions." To hear our sustainability people talk, "everyone" is concerned about this and pushing their specifications in this direction. That's not what I hear from product reps -- they say "5 to 10%" of their inquiries are HPD oriented. I'm curious how wide spread the product letters are. (and I also note that I've never seen a product information letter like this signed by a Director of Specifications. the signature line is usually a designer and/or sustainability director.) Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 219 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - 07:59 pm:    I've heard those letters are going out too, but not from our firm (yet). I think it's intended to help the architecture firms get out ahead of the LEED version 4 requirements, especially for interior products. Transparency is our trendy word of the month. LEED v 4 will eventually require us to collect data in a whole new way. Some building product groups are ready for this, but many are not. I think gypsum board, resilient flooring, and carpet manufacturers have product category rules (PCRs) and can provide HPDs now. Coincidentally, I am attending CleanMed this week, a conference for greening healthcare environments. Public health and toxicology people are clamoring for more transparency and full disclosure of materials. It's not possible to assess and compare health hazards of materials if you don't know what's in them. Eventually, everyone will have to do this, but I think it's a bit early for most building product manufacturers. - Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1343 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - 08:18 pm:    Lisa: Gyp board does not have a PCR yet, neither does paint, and the carpet PCR reflects Interface pretty exclusively. However, I agree with you -- I think its early for this. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 556 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Thursday, April 25, 2013 - 07:45 am:    CSI Houston Chapter will feature a presentation on LEED 4 at our May meeting (yes, this is a shameless plug). I have asked our presenter to hit the products area hard since we are a "product centric" group. I do agree that this is a game changer, but it is my understanding that the emphasis on energy will continue to grow. It is entirely possible to obtain LEED certification without incorporating documented products. At the same time, the manufacturer reps that I talk to are beginning to hear rumblings about this from the manufacturers as well as from the design community. UL certification is one way to get "papers", but there are other ways to get a product "approved." A few companies are out in front (Interface and CertainTeed), but I expect many more in the next six months. I have been been frustrated over the years by some reps who were less than forthcoming about what was in their products.. "It's proprietary" or "We will assume responsibility" are the two primary responses from such companies, both of which ignore the complexities of integrating various components into a functioning whole. There aren't very many of these guys, but this should help them become more forthcoming. I have a feeling that at the end of the day, such documentation will make the specifier's job easier. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1344 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, April 25, 2013 - 01:15 pm:    Peter: the HPD and EPD have nothing to do with energy. these are health iniatives, and to my mind, are much more subjective than things like energy calculations (carbon footprint et al). Google has given a grant to the USGBC to promote Pharos, and the disclosure we're talking about is content, not energy use. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 582 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Thursday, April 25, 2013 - 01:23 pm:    Questions from a senior citizen. What is HPD and EPD? Honolulu Police Deparment and Edmonton Police Department? What is Pharos? All Greek to me. Lost and disoriented in the woods in the PNW. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1345 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, April 25, 2013 - 05:14 pm:    oh Wayne... EPD: Environmental Product Disclosure (form) (www.environmentalproductdeclarations.com) HPD: Health Product Declaration (form) both are promulgated by a cabal of environmental groups that have interlocking boards. Pharos (www.pharosproject.net) is an environmental rating system that also includes such determiners as social equity as part of the rating. Google (for example) will not use any product that is not listed on Pharos, and has donated a couple million dollars to the USGBC to promote Pharos. the HPD is on www.hpdcollaborative.org and there is a collection of about 50 firms that signed on for the original, beta version. This stuff is coming to the fore in LEED version 4.0, which is still in beta testing. some firms have started sending out letters saying that they will no longer specify products unless they are listed with Pharos, Declare (www.declareproducts.com) or some other specific listing service. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 638 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Thursday, April 25, 2013 - 11:17 pm:    What are you going to do with all that information? I started college as an honors chemistry major, and even though I can pronounce the words, and have some idea of what the chemicals are, I can't figure out what they're saying. I certainly wouldn't tell an owner I know enough to decide what is or is not the environmentally right thing to do. I definitely am not a fan of big government, but this is an area where it would be good to have national standards established by the government. Right or wrong, those standards would relieve architects of the need to know and understand what they are doing. Here's an analogy that is more familiar. When you specify structural steel, you probably refer to ASTM A36. Do you know what it says? Do you know what it means? Do you submit samples of steel to a testing laboratory, or do you use your own testing equipment to verify that the steel on site is, indeed, what you specified? I'm guessing the answer to most, if not all of those questions is no. You don't worry about it, because we've been specifying that steel for many years, because ASTM has established a standard accepted by the industry, and because and there haven't been any problems. What is the equivalent track record for all the things on the red lists? Are you confident you know enough to decide what should or should not be used? Look at the Perkins + Will disclaimers and conditions of use. "The user is to use the information in the Transparency Lists for informational purposes only, and is expected to conduct their own research." Look at what the precautionary principle says - it assumes that what you are doing is the right thing to do, and that anything new must be proven to be better. With that approach, we'd still be using lead pipe. Don't misunderstand me. I was selling solar collectors and composting toilets, and designing earth-sheltered homes and super-insulated homes thirty years ago, and I firmly believe we have to do more to conserve energy, and to do the right thing - whatever that is. The problem is, it's extremely difficult to know what the right thing is. There are no simple solutions. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 557 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Friday, April 26, 2013 - 12:45 am:    By requiring that products be listed with Pharos it appears that we are creating an unregulated monopoly. Monopolies inevitably cause distortions in the market place. These distortions will not necessarily be tied to the use of more sustainable or healthier products. I think that product manufactures as well as designers should be concerned about this. Will the structural steel that I specify have to be listed with Pharos? Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 558 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Friday, April 26, 2013 - 12:55 am:    Consider the liability implications of requiring reporting of HPD information. Many designers do not want to have any involvement with material data sheets because once you require the information you probably have an obligation to review the data. My guess is that similar issues apply. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1348 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, April 26, 2013 - 04:28 pm:    hey guys... I totally am with you on this one. But I'm warning you -- Google's money is pushing "transparency" to the forefront, and its going to be a LEED credit in the next version. And yes, even the structural steel will need it eventually. They want to know where ALL the components came from, in what proportions and how it all gets recycled. I've always liked my job, but this (insert swear word here) stuff makes me want to go do something else to earn an income. Our office sustainability group thinks I'm "obstructive". Ellis C. Whitby, PE, CSI, AIA, LEED® AP Senior Member Username: ecwhitby Post Number: 190 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, April 26, 2013 - 04:38 pm:    Anne; That’s the first time I saw "obstructive" being used as a synonym for realistic. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 560 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Friday, April 26, 2013 - 05:11 pm:    Anne Raise the liability questions with your firms insurance carrier and with corporate counsel. If they have problems then I expect that your sustainability group will be more reasonable. If you request this information you need to be clear what obligation you have to review and act on the information provided. Do you haved the ability to comply with these obligations? If this is a contractually mandated obligation your firm's professional liability insurance will likely not cover any claim associated with this. If your client does not require that you impose this requirement and you do you might have breached a duty to your client. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 584 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Friday, April 26, 2013 - 06:00 pm:    Anne, My label was "disruptive to the process". "Process! But what about the quality?" "Quality indeed!" "Bugger off." Wayne J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 558 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Friday, April 26, 2013 - 06:55 pm:    I had a conversation with a LEED consultant yesterday who is working on several of the same projects that I am. She said that she had had problems getting recycled content from Dietrich on metal studs. I was floored. While the default for steel is 25% without documentation, most of the time it is higher (a lot higher). When manufacturers are non-cooperative on "basic stuff", it drives people to more drastic positions. I don't think that the large architectural firms will be able to steer this ship. While it may seam that they account for a lot of construction dollars, "architectural" construction is about 10 percent of the total construction industry. The big guys are not going to respond to such a demand letter with much more than a snort, a crumple, and a jump shot to the round file. What will happen is a whole bunch of VE and substitution requests where the Owner looks at the Architect and goes. "Really?" So the sustainability people in these firms want to look the CA people look more foolish? ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 508 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, April 29, 2013 - 01:49 pm:    This is distressing, not the fact that we'll finally have access to 'proprietary' information but the fact that the green lunatics have taken over the asylum. I used to play on that team. I didn't like the "Moral Majority" when it was on the 'right' side of the aisle; I have real issues with these folks as well. They're taking an important and necessary activity and making it a destructive crusade. If you can't talk reasonably and rationally about the importance of this issue, you probably don't know what you're talking about. At times like that, it's better to be quiet and thought a fool... Obstructionist by raising real-world questions? They need to step away from the Kool-Aid. These are the same 'Designers' who wont' take on their own real responsibilities to properly design and document but they want to know every chemical going into a structure? So what happens when you still specify a product because it works but has something you don't like? Can you now be sued by a 'green-shirted' wannabee sustainable ex-spurt and be called names or worse when you disagree, even if your points are valid and theirs are not? Archi-torture is over. I'm going to have to find another profession. This is sad, very sad. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1349 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, June 05, 2013 - 04:27 pm:    Mark: as it turns out, our corporate counsel did have an opinion and our board of directors also had an opinion -- it would be a problem with some of our vendor relationships. However, these "or else" letters have been sent out by a lot of firms, and I think we're going to be in the position of apologizing to our product relationships for being so naive. In addition, there isn't any possible way that we're changing our masters firm-wide to accommodate this request. Ujjval Vyas, Ph.D., J.D., CDT (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, June 06, 2013 - 01:16 pm:    I wonder how many architecture firms would be comfortable publicly revealing their proprietary information that allows them to compete effectively and stay in business. Why shouldn't owners demand things like full financials and the names of current and potential client opportunities, all current and prior claims and suits against them, or in Chicago, where I live, whose cousin is the local Alderman or a close friend of the Mayor, etc., etc. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Architects are always demanding of others what they themselves cannot provide or lack the ethical courage to do. They are always demanding equality of the sexes while anyone who has worked at any large firm can tell you the demeaning way that woman are relegated to pretty trinkets (who are also hopefully rich so they may help in getting clients) or into the back room if you are competent. They are always blithering on about collaboration and community while the firm operates autocratically and arbitrarily both in terms of design and business. Finally they are always talking about aesthetic value when the number of architects than can have an intelligent conversation about aesthetics can probably be numbered on one hand. This is one of the easiest ways to spot fundamentalists: they suffer from an inordinate amount of hypocricy which goes unremarked as long as they stay in power or delude themselves. As Richard Feynman once said: "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." Advocates, and especially fundamentalist advocates are aggressively looking to fool themselves, and if they are proselytizers, actively looking for others who want to fool themselves (or are forced to acquiesce if they lack the power). Counter-evidence, reasoned argument, careful admission of inadequacy of knowledge, skepticism are seen as the marks of the weakling or the devil. Bullying the weak and destroying the spawn of the devil are necessary to bring the promised land to fruition. Architects (with notable expections) suffer from being convinced that they are members of the "elect." As the basis for a profession, this is deeply puzzling and leads to some very unfortunate outcomes. HPDs fall into this category. Peggy White, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP BD+C Senior Member Username: peggy Post Number: 60 Registered: 07-2007 Posted on Thursday, June 06, 2013 - 07:31 pm:    My goodness - bitter much? http://www.djc.com/blogs/BuildingGreen/?p=2884 Paul Gerber Senior Member Username: paulgerber Post Number: 150 Registered: 04-2010 Posted on Friday, June 07, 2013 - 11:55 am:    OK I'm caught up on this thread now and agree with MANY of the comments here! All I can say is Thank God the CaGBC is at least a full version behind the USGBC on LEED versions!! You guys can vet all of the issues for us with LEED v.4 before it crosses over the 49th parallel!! I, personally, have always struggled with the whole LEED program. I have seen and heard of many horror stories where green KoolAid-o-holics have been sooooooo intent on chasing a credit that they have made (and continue to make) REALLY BAD decisions for the project! I lost a lot of respect for the whole "certification" process when my nephew (who has since received both his M.Arch and MBA-yes I was a good uncle and tried to talk him out of architorture as a profession but noooooo he wouldn't listen to me) wrote the LEED AP exam and received his designation before he had attained his B.Arch!! Ujjval, you said it so eloquently at the Sustainability Practice Group webinar a few months ago when you commented to the effect (and I am paraphrasing now) on how architects, unless they also have a Ph.D. in chemistry can think they have enough knowledge on the subject of effects of "bad chemicals" on the human body and built environment to determine if their is indeed even a risk when researchers who immerse themselves in this subject can't even quantify what an "acceptable" level exposure is for many of these "red list" products! Talk about taking on liability that you have no education for...puuuuuulease!! I think the majority of designers should get a really firm grip on the knowledge of how to build a building well and how products can and can't be used together before they start worrying about the chemical composition of every individual product in their challenge-to-build-filled buildings! And as far as the aesthetic part of the discussion goes, I'm not even going to go there...as they say "beauty is in the eye of the beer holder" Ride it like you stole it!!! ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 529 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, June 07, 2013 - 01:32 pm:    Well said Paul. My thanks go to Ujjval and Paul. I'm tired of going on tirades about KoolAid drinkers. Conservation of resources is a huge deal. Energy conservation is a huge deal. Healthy buildings is a huge deal. Getting rich on forcing BS down the throats of the masses to push a political agenda is heresy in my green bible. Design well. Build well. Think about what you're doing. Question everything. djwyatt (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, June 07, 2013 - 02:29 pm:    Regarding the comments of Dr. Vyas (Unregistered Guest above), I dismissed them entirely at first, given his vitriolic tone. But, perhaps because of that tone, I couldn't get him entirely out of my mind. After a few searches, I came across an essay he co-wrote with Dr. Susan Ethridge Cannon titled "Shifting the Sustainability Paradigm: From Advocacy to Good Business," published in Volume 3, Number 3 of "Real Estate Issues." You will find it via this link: www.cre.org/publications/33_3.pdf Although this is a significant digression from the title of this thread, I encourage you to read it. If you are always comfortable, you might not be progressing. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1506 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Friday, June 07, 2013 - 03:46 pm:    Unfortunately, Ujjval's ad hominem attack on architects makes his core points weaker, not stronger, and thus fails its polemic intent. There are many architects who have the same unease in delving into and being responsible for health issues (look how long the MSDS discussion has lasted)- even if they generally share an unease with the number of chemicals industrialized societies release into the environment. Like many on this forum, I too have a significant skepticism concerning some tenets of "green" design, while I share the more general goal of more sustainable and healthier design. Specifically, however, I must say that most architects are not demanding, are not cowards, they do not demean women nor connive to use them as sexual conquest, their firms are not autocratic nor arbitrary, and they can certainly can talk about and understand aesthetics. Accusing the majority of architects of being "fundamentalists," given the current meaning of this word politically, is really quite over the top. This post surprises me, quite frankly. Peggy White, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP BD+C Senior Member Username: peggy Post Number: 61 Registered: 07-2007 Posted on Friday, June 07, 2013 - 04:17 pm:    To give you some perspective on Ujjval, while he's not still listed as being on the Board of GBI (the parent of Green Globes), in an article from 5 years ago Ujjval noted "I am also on the Board of Directors of the Green Building Initiative, the Green Globes licensee in the US, and serve on its Audit Committee" In this article, he extols the virtues of Green Globes over LEED: http://www.thegbi.org/webinars/20080624/Green_Sustainable_HighPerformance_AlbertiFinal.pdf If you've been following this issue out in the world, beyond this discussion thread, GBI is currently part of the consortium that is trying mightily to destroy LEED. Ujjval appears to me to be just another flack out there, sowing seeds of negativity regarding sustainable design and those who promote it. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 532 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, June 07, 2013 - 05:15 pm:    Actually I find the Green Building Initiative interesting and I love the idea of competition in the 'green' industry. USGBC, to me, is seeking monopoly status which, to me, is never a good idea. USGBC has proven that even with its so-called consensus system it ignores a large amount of input from people who are also genuinely dedicated to sustainability. If a requirement is never included in LEED, the consensus process can't introduce it even when hundreds of people continually request it. A real test of sustainability, such as longevity of products or buildings, is a good example. USGBC claims that they are going to address this but so far nothing of value has even been hinted at. The LEED program has achieved some very good accomplishments but they shouldn't be the only option. Green Globes needs improvement just as LEED does. I've interacted with Green Building Initiative. If anyone is looking to destroy others, it's USGBC, not GBI. LEED is doing a great job at discrediting itself. As to Ujjval going off against the architectural community, he's not alone. Many owners and builders simply don't go back to the designers they've used, hoping to find someone who meets their needs. They don't pay and they don't say why they've walked away. While some are just thieves, I don't believe that's true of all. Too many designers have no clue as to what they're doing and maybe should look at something other than architecture as a profession. We have all had interaction with designers who have exasperated us. John, I consider you a friend and I know you are a very fair-mined person. Still, for a man to say that architecture as a profession has not been anti-woman is, at least, short-sighted. Equal pay for equal work is NOT the norm in architecture. It wasn't so long ago that I was at firms that expected some of the women architects to fill in for the receptionist in a pinch. How often are women architects still asked to get coffee for clients? What about advancement opportunities? Some firms are great, others still have a long way to go. I'd love to hear from CSI Sisters on this one. Scott Mize Senior Member Username: scott_mize_ccs_csi Post Number: 67 Registered: 02-2009 Posted on Friday, June 07, 2013 - 05:49 pm:    I have mixed feelings about Dr. Vyas' remarks. I know there is a legion of hard-working, knowledgeable, reasonable, fair-minded men and women out there who have "AIA" or "NCARB" after their name. At the same time, I know that many of those same fundamentally decent people labor in the vinyard of some other less-than-decent person's madness, trying to make the "genius" designer's ideas structurally-sound, weather tight, and functional. Some of it has to do with the way architecture is taught: in my day, if you weren't arrogant when you arrived at school, you would be by the time you left - in self-defense, if for no other reason. Your ideas are constantly under attack and you have to learn to defend them, or get out. And when one doesn't have the knowledge or experience to stand on one's merits, then bluster, pretense, logical fallacy and bullsh*t will have to do. Some of it also must have to do with the increasing lack of technical knowledge I've seen in successive generations of interns. People who aren't equipped to evaluate things for themselves turn to authority for guidance. The 'greens' occupy an position of increasing influence in that regard. Some of it must have to do with the 'hollowing out' of the experienced, mid-level people the profession has experienced over the last couple of recessions. To use a military analogy, the architecture profession is suffering a crippling lack of staff officers and senior NCOs. spiper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Saturday, June 08, 2013 - 12:25 pm:    I will stay out of the more deep seeded parts of this discussion but in terms of women in architecture it is still an "old boys club" (IMO). The demographics in architecture schools is approaching 50/50% while the percentage of licensed females is under 20% (if I am not mistaken). The reasons for this disparity are varied and I am sure that the women themselves are no doubt partially responsible. Still the road to licensure is much more difficult for a female and the profession would be well served to attempt to correct this. Jeanne Gang is good for the profession but we really need to get more women licensed not because they are part of the elite (that is a debately title I admit) but rather because they are good architects with a solid understanding of the profession. I also have found that the lack technical knowledge is a big problem. But I have also seen no difference in this regard between the sexes. If anything the females work extra hard to acquire the knowledge that will earn them the respect that a male counterpart might be granted more easily. I don't have a solution but I do think the lack of licensed females is the 800 pound gorilla in the room and AIA needs to attempt to address it. Liz O'Sullivan Senior Member Username: liz_osullivan Post Number: 104 Registered: 10-2011 Posted on Saturday, June 08, 2013 - 02:36 pm:    A CSister weighing in: Following up on the comments directly above, I also see no difference between men and women in the area of technical knowledge, in general. (However, it may be that more women than men are likely to ADMIT TO a lack of knowledge about a particular topic, and therefore more likely to go research it and learn about it.) Lack of women in architecture is not just a tangent to this conversation that started about technical knowledge about green building. I think they're directly related issues. I think the lack of women is just a SYMPTOM OF a main problem with the profession. I think that men get into their careers pretty deeply without ever having to stop and think. Women have more obstacles to the forward progression of their careers than men do. Some come from the workplace (challenges getting all the CA hours they need in order to fulfill IDP requirements in order to take their exams, or the realization that they are not being paid equally). Some come from personal choices, such as deciding to have children. Women stop and think about their careers in architecture more than men do. And sometimes what they realize is that a career in architecture is not all that great - it's the same for men, but fewer men stop and think about it. This main problem - architects are responsible for a whole lot, yet don't always have the technical knowledge to properly do it all, and have an increasingly harder time getting the necessary technical knowledge, BUT are professionally responsible for it. If we stop and think about it, some realize that we are not properly equipped or supported. Some don't stop to think, and go ahead and stamp and sign those drawings that they may or may not have completely understood. "It could be assumed that there should now be more be women in the profession, as there is equal access to training and job opportunities. Yet Greer asks us to consider the supposition that 'it might be construed that women are to help carry the can full of the mess that men have made, it need not be surprising that women have not leapt at the chance.'" ~ from this recent blog post "Women and Architecture": http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2013/05/sarah_beth_3 Related reading on women in architecture: http://www.archiparlour.org/against-work-life-balance/ "Do we only mean that we want more personal and family time as we pursue our careers? Or do we really mean that we aren’t getting paid enough to justify the time we put into work?" ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 533 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, June 10, 2013 - 08:41 am:    "Do we only mean that we want more personal and family time as we pursue our careers? Or do we really mean that we aren’t getting paid enough to justify the time we put into work?" Excellent point. Is architecture able to sustain itself? Creating a sustainable built environment is critical, but perhaps in addition to Scott's military advice we should also take a page from medical practice. "Architecture, heal thyself." John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1507 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, June 10, 2013 - 10:22 am:    Ken, my comment was not meant to imply women are treated equally in the profession. Clearly they are not. Even the most progressive firms I worked for were heavily dominated by men in leadership and important roles. However, none "relegated [women] to pretty trinkets (who are also hopefully rich so they may help in getting clients)." That's what I took issue with. Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1651 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, June 11, 2013 - 06:08 pm:    Ginger Rodgers did everything that Fred Astaire did, only backwards and in heels. Some things are more difficult for women simply because of societal expectations. Liz said it well. (Another CSIster) Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1351 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, June 26, 2013 - 04:01 pm:    I'll pitch in here now... on multiple topics. 1) first of all, since Peggy was part of the group that wrote the HPD standard and wanted to promote the "do this or else " letter, I would have thought she might have defended that position. 2) Women have been 50% of the architecture schooling since I was in school -- back in the early 70's. However, women still fill fewer than 20% of the partner positions in firms of greater than 5 people. (that's the AIA definition of a firm). I will say that I NEVER hear men in architecture discuss "work-life balance". I've read on a forum from the UK that Zaha Hadid is not a good role model because she doesn't have children -- and therefore doesn't embody a balanced life. Well, folks, I don't know anyone at the top of a firm who exhibits work-life balance. The men I've worked with put in regular 60-80 weeks and travel 2 weeks out of the month. If they weren't married, they couldn't even get their dry cleaning without help. (and I know one single male architect who has a full time personal assistant -- I don't know any women like that; I also know a male medical planner who got the firm to pay his dry cleaning bills because he traveled so much). Getting to the top of your profession almost means that you're not going to have much balance in your life until you can pay for help, marry help, or reach the point where you can slow down. I don't think that as architectural professionals, we have any business at all talking about health -- and I've certainly gotten more "carbon footprint" lectures from people with second homes (multiple cars, large houses in the country) than from people who live modestly. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 580 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Wednesday, June 26, 2013 - 04:23 pm:    I hear this discussion of "work-life balance". What does the word life mean? ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 543 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Thursday, June 27, 2013 - 09:12 am:    Mark - Don't know; barely have one. My 10-year old started calling me "Uncle Daddy" awhile ago. Well said Anne. When I used to guest-lecture at archi-torture schools I used to point out that architects have among the highest divorce rates. I'd usually point out that to succeed financially in architecture you either need to be wealthy, marry well, have a wealthy relative who is very ill and loves you very much, be a "Peter Keating" or a "Howard Roark", or be willing to work two jobs in addition to your regular 60-hour a week job in architecture. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 642 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Friday, June 28, 2013 - 02:01 pm:    Ken: When in high school, my son called me "ATM." Consider the male role models in our popular culture who are "unencumbered" by spouses, children, elderly parents and community involvements. Think of McGarrett of Hawai Five-O, John Wayne's movie characters and a myriad of protaginists in television series. What is more boring than a non-dysfunctional family? Yet highly successful tv series have had squeeky-clean families led by fathers who "have a life." Remember Ozzie & Harriet, the Brady Bunch and the Cosby Show (Doctor Huxtuble)? Oh, where have you gone fictional role models whom we strive to measure ourselves against? I checked Wikipedia. The male "head of household" character in the Brady Bunch series, "Mike Brady," was not only an architect, but was elected to the City Council. And he was voted "Man of the Year" in the community. See, you can have a wonderful life and still be an architect. By the way, Mr. Ed's owner, Wilbur, was an architect (Mr. Ed was a talking horse). No one ever figured out what job Ozzie Nelson did since he was home all the time yet not identified as retired. Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 123 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Tuesday, July 02, 2013 - 01:20 pm:    FYI, LEED v4 passed. USGBC approved it. Time to contact those chemists. anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, September 16, 2013 - 02:09 pm:    I found this discussion thread at Building Science very interesting, and refreshing: Red Lists - The Opposite of Green? http://www.buildingscience.com/conversations/red-lists-the-opposite-of-green?utm_source=BSC+Newsletter+Issue+%23+62&utm_campaign=E-newsletter+62&utm_medium=email Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIPa, LEED AP BD+C, MAI, RLA Senior Member Username: tsugaguy Post Number: 292 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Thursday, October 10, 2013 - 11:40 am:    Sorry I did not see this forum thread and comment sooner but I’ve been very busy helping teams specify good buildings AND sustainably too, it is not impossible to do both. Not that I'm claiming to be an expert, but I've attempted to summarize the main questions I'm hearing in this thread and elsewhere on the transparency issue, and answers that have been prevalent in discussions with some of the PROPONENTS of the HPD movement that this thread was looking to hear from. These are not all my ideas, just a summary including the ideas of many on this topic. Q: THIS SURE HAS TURNED INTO A CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC - MAYBE I BETTER STEER CLEAR FOR NOW, HADN'T I? OR PILE ON WITH THE AGRESSORS! A: The dialogue is welcome and it is OK if it's a hot topic. There are certainly many factors in understanding transparency and many rely on manufacturers providing appropriate information. Not only that, owner awareness of this issue is increasing. While some will stand on the sidelines or attack this movement, others will work to better understand and assist the owners' and users' desire to address chemical transparency. Q: HOW DO YOU PLAN TO REMOVE NONCOMPLIANT PRODUCTS FROM SPECIFICATIONS? A: First off, removal of noncompliant products from specifications is a goal, but not an absolute. HPD information is needed so designers and specifiers can make informed decisions. Once there is a pool of compliant products to choose from, it is our belief that the industry at large will be better prepared to design and specify to define that group of products to the exclusion of others. Some product categories will take longer than others. Q: ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTS AS PERCENTAGE ARE NOT THE MAJORITY OF TOTAL CONSTRUCTION, SO WON'T THE MANUFACTURERS JUST SNEER AT US AND MAKE US LOOK BAD TO THE OWNER? A: Transparency is a good thing. As such, the collection of HPD information is a goal to better inform everyone. Each manufacturer is free to decide how they intend to address such transparency. Q: LEED ISN'T THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN...PEOPLE FROM ANOTHER RATING SYSTEM SOUND OPPOSED TO THIS. A: Yes of course there can be multiple rating systems. In time, there may become more agreement about transparency being important. Regardless of any rating system, it is certainly possible to select and specify products with the intent of reducing chemical exposure. Q: WON'T THE DISQUALIFIED MANUFACTURERS ALL COME AFTER US WITH PITCHFORKS AND FLAMING TORCHES? A: As previously stated, transparency is a good thing. As such, the collection of HPD information is a goal to better inform everyone. Each manufacturer is free to decide how they intend to address such transparency. Q: WON'T PRODUCT PERFORMANCE SUFFER? IT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAT BUILDINGS DO NOT LEAK THAN IT IS THAT THEY ARE FREE OF RED-LIST CHEMICALS. A: Products being free of Red-list chemicals is just one over several factors for evaluating the suitability of materials for various reasons. Q: WHO'S TO SAY WHAT A DANGEROUS CHEMICAL IS. MOST ARCHITECTS ARE NOT EXACTLY SCIENTISTS. THE REAL SCIENTISTS DON'T EVEN AGREE YET. CAN'T WE WAIT UNTIL THE GOVERNMENT REGULATES IT AND IF THEY DON'T WE SHOULD NOT BE TO BLAME, RIGHT? A: As previously stated, transparency is a good thing. As such, the collection of HPD information is a goal to better inform everyone. Everyone is free to decide how they intend to address such transparency. Q: IF WE ASK FOR THIS INFO, DON'T WE TAKE ON LIABILITY THAT WE'RE NOT QUALIFIED FOR? ARE THESE FIRM'S CORPORATE LEGAL COUNSELS AWARE THAT THEY ARE ASKING FOR THIS INFO? A: Corporate legal counsels of top firms seeking HPD information have been involved with this topic from the beginning and you can hear from three of them by tuning into today's BuildingGreen webcast at 1:30 PM EST. "Increased Transparency… Increased Liability for Designers? -- A Legal Roundtable for Architects Using HPDs and Other Transparency Tools". http://www2.buildinggreen.com/increased-transparency-webcast. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 612 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Friday, October 11, 2013 - 02:15 am:    The webcast is not free. Definitely the response of a true believer anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, October 11, 2013 - 07:30 pm:    Chris, Can you provide an example of how you have used an HPD to make an evaluation between one product and another that resulted in a greener building or greater occupant health? Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIPa, LEED AP BD+C, MAI, RLA Senior Member Username: tsugaguy Post Number: 294 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Tuesday, November 05, 2013 - 02:21 pm:    There just aren’t enough HPDs yet to make these comparisons possible, although we look forward to that day. In the meantime, we do have many examples of evaluations between products that include chemical disclosure as one factor. An example project is the Brock Environmental Center, where we have organized the information in Smart Sheets. This research would have been immeasurably easier with HPDs. http://www.smithgroup.com/transparency/SmithGroupJJR_Smart_Sheet_Progress.pdf. see column 21. DISCLAIMERS: #1 see the disclaimer on the opening page. #2 this was just one low-rise Virginia Beach project and is in no way comprehensive. #3 it was current to our knowledge at that time but in no way guaranteed to be current in the future. Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 227 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Tuesday, November 05, 2013 - 02:37 pm:    Chris, Wow. Thank you for sharing. - anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, November 05, 2013 - 06:29 pm:    In SmtihGrouop's Transparency and Disclosure of Chemicals of Concern letter it sent to manufacturers, it states: "...we have been evaluating our specifications in order to endeavor to identify and eventually eliminate a select group of chemicals that to our knowledge are known or suspected of being hazardous." My question is, can you provide a specific example of a product or material that was eliminated over another as a result of an evaluation of information you received in an HPD or by some other means? Are there examples that you can point to in the SmartSheet you provided the link for? ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 643 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Wednesday, November 06, 2013 - 11:24 am:    Hi Chris. Thanks for sharing. I was just re-reading your earlier post and wanted to note that I haven't heard anyone disagreeing with the need for transparency. The issue is that our profession seems to be acting like a dog chasing a car; what will they do with it once they catch it? On your Smart Sheet I see that there is a column for MSDS being received. Who is receiving them? Who is analyzing their content? What does that do to your liability? Are the people reviewing the information qualified to do so? What criteria is being used? Who created that criteria and what was it based on? There seems to be a lot of kneejerk reactions going on but I don't know how valid a lot of it is. Glad someone else is willing to step into the fray and clear the way for the rest of us. Good luck! Peggy White (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, November 06, 2013 - 01:43 pm:    Ken et al.... Our desire to understand more about the risks from the chemicals within building products, and translate that understanding into encouraging industry to develop healthier materials, is very, very challenging. I don't see the HPD as a kneejerk reaction to the issue. As we developed the HPD over the past three years, we asked the same questions you pose, and also asked many more as we went through the development process. We have a large, diverse team who are working collaboratively towards our goals. During the pilot project, we had progressive manufacturers who are enthusiastic early adopters, shy manufacturers who are stressed about revealing their 'secrets', and a few who decided not to follow through with their original commitment to prepare an HPD. We listened to their input, we modified the form, and it will be modified more as we adjust it to current reality. To me, the HPD is the first step in the right direction. We just want to understand exactly what the material contents are at this point. I expect it will evolve at a slow pace, but evolve it will - of that I have no doubt. Designers have myriad reasons why they select or don't select products - performance, color, aesthetics, cost, etc., etc. Now we are also thinking about chemical content and building health. David J. Wyatt, CDT Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_cdt Post Number: 38 Registered: 03-2011 Posted on Wednesday, November 06, 2013 - 02:08 pm:    Ken, I was taking a swig when I read your "like a dog chasing a car" comment and blew Pepsi out my nose. Best metaphor I have read in a long, long time! Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIPa, LEED AP BD+C, MAI, RLA Senior Member Username: tsugaguy Post Number: 295 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Wednesday, November 13, 2013 - 01:20 pm:    The discussion brings to mind directives to state "not reviewed" on submittals that include MSDS, and to reassemble and resubmit such packages. http://discus.4specs.com/discus/messages/2195/504.html But isn't that really a different discussion? Job site safety is one thing, which is clearly the GC's duty per AIA A201 General Conditions. The topic we're dealing with now is really another thing, aimed at improving long term conditions for building occupants through established hazard assessments. Manufacturers are finally beginning to disclose those in more detail though it is a topic of at least the last 20 years. Please note this is quite different from risk assessment - that is for those with more chemistry background and those who want to participate in endless debates. But if we focus on hazard assessment it becomes much more straightforward. If chemicals that are believed to potentially cause harm are present in a product, and acceptable alternatives exist when considering all the normal factors as well such as product performance, hazard assessment simply means there is enough doubt to consider going with the alternatives. There are some cases such as glass where the risk is obviously zero even though an ingredient of glass when finely ground up and inhaled can cause harm. But clearly occupants are not exposed to such a hazard. Also note that manufacturers do not necessarily have to disclose their "secret sauce" in order to offer complete hazard assessment information. As this type of information becomes more prevalent, facility Owners may eventually be able to know what chemicals are in their buildings to an extent not unlike the labeling we have on the foods we eat. In this new scenario, we're not talking about approval of submittals and certainly are not taking on the GC's job site safety duty. We're requesting information that, when amassed, can conceivably help determine a better class of products to specify for everyone's well-being including building occupants, and there is an increasing number of facility Owners who want this. Our preferred reporting tool we are asking manufacturers to use is the HPD, available at http://www.hpdcollaborative.org/. ********THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. If you want legal advice about material transparency, consult an attorney who has experience in this area.******** If you have different opinions or experience I sure would like to hear about it! Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 546 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Wednesday, November 13, 2013 - 01:40 pm:    Regarding Chris Grimm's comment: "The discussion brings to mind directives to state "not reviewed" on submittals that include MSDS, and to reassemble and resubmit such packages." I have long been taught this same mentality, of NOT reviewing MSDS's. I was given an example of an architect who was sued (and lost) by the widow of a laborer who was working in a trench joining some piping together with a solvant that was caustic. He was overcome by fumes and died. The architect's liability supposedly was that he approved a submittal provided by that contractor which included the MSDS that showed the product to be harmful in non-ventilated areas, and did not warn anyone of it. I think that IF this is a true story, then it ranks way up there with the story about the school district who lost a personal damages suit to a thief who fell through the skylight he was breaking into, and broke his arm/leg/neck whatever. On LEED projects, and because of ScAQMD, I have found it to be necessary to review MSDS's for VOC's and related content. The old "we don't do that" mentality just doesn't seem possible anymore. However, good contracts should still mitigate risk and liability from lawsuits such as the ones I cited above Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIPa, LEED AP BD+C, MAI, RLA Senior Member Username: tsugaguy Post Number: 296 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Wednesday, November 13, 2013 - 04:50 pm:    Pertaining to jobsite safety if such submittals are returned as "not reviewed" still seems to be a good idea. It is in line with the A201. Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIPa, LEED AP BD+C, MAI, RLA Senior Member Username: tsugaguy Post Number: 297 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Wednesday, November 13, 2013 - 04:59 pm:    By the way, according to the A201 the Architect's submittal review is "only for the limited purpose of checking for conformance with information given and the design concept expressed in the Contract Documents", and "is not conducted for the purpose of determining the accuracy and completeness of other details such as dimensions and quantities, or for substantiating instructions for installation or performance of equipment or systems, all of which remain the responsibility of the Contractor as required by the Contract Documents". Jobsite safety, particulars of installation, would be the GC's unless it can be proven that this was somehow elevated. Am I missing something here, or would you agree that submittal review regardless of approval, if the A201 is in effect, does not elevate the Architect's duty? Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 547 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Wednesday, November 13, 2013 - 05:05 pm:    It would be interesting to know what percentage of all building related construction projects employ a licensed architect using AIA documents. 5%? 10% maybe? Scott Mize Senior Member Username: scott_mize_ccs_csi Post Number: 84 Registered: 02-2009 Posted on Wednesday, November 13, 2013 - 05:44 pm:    "...what percentage of all building related construction projects employ a licensed architect using AIA documents." This *would* be interesting, but we have to define terms (and probably split the 'licensed architect' from 'using AIA documents' - quick; start a spreadsheet!) "...licensed architect...": Don't most states required that an architect licensed in that state stamp/sign all drawings submitted for building permit? Or are there significant exceptions (single family homes, perhaps)? "...using AIA documents...": I know that one can write a contract on the back of an envelope, or even shake hands, but I have a hard time believing that 90% - 95% of construction (in the US, at least) is solicited, performed and paid for with something other than an AIA standard document (or with no 'general conditions' at all). Did I misunderstand the question? Is my overwhelmingly retail/commercial/mixed-use/multifamily experience showing :-) ? Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 548 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Wednesday, November 13, 2013 - 06:01 pm:    "Did I misunderstand the question? Is my overwhelmingly retail/commercial/mixed-use/multifamily experience showing :-) ?" I've done a LOT of those types of project work as well, plus a fair amount of governmental work such as schools and public buildings. VERY few of them used AIA contracts. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 614 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Wednesday, November 13, 2013 - 06:22 pm:    If this information is requested there will be an assumption that the designers will use this information. Failure to do so reasonably will result in liability. Do we have a contractual obligation to make use of the data? In the context of a conventional contract I suggest the answer is no. Do we have the expertise to make use of the data? I suggest that the answer is no. Is there somebody else in the employee of the owner or on the design team that has the knowledge to evaluate the information? Do we have some objective criteria for evaluating the data provided? If so it is not clear what that criteria is. Did the construction documents require that the specified products comply with some objective criteria related to the use of the requested information? If not any change that results from the review of the data will result in a change order. These decisions about what is acceptable should be resolved during the design process not during the construction phase. Unless we can start saying yes to these questions then I suggest the only reasonable response is not to request the information. anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, November 13, 2013 - 05:05 pm:    Still waiting for a specific example of how an HPD is used to evaluate a material or product's "healthiness" over another. You continually fail to provide answers to this basic question, and instead drone on and on about stuff that has nothing to do with your stated objective. It is an absolute fallacy to suggest that using HPDs will in ANY way, shape or form "help determine a better class of products to specify for everyone's well-being including building occupants." Complete bunk. You keep saying it, but offer NOTHING in support of this. By the way, MSDSs are not required by OSHA to report VOC content - this is something some manufacturer's do at their prerogative, so if your first place to go is an MSDS for this information, you're going about it the wrong way. Also, reviewing an MSDS for VOC information is not the same as reviewing it to determine whether or not someone may or may not get sick in using it. VOCs have nothing to do with this - VOCs are regulated due to their contribution to ground level ozone, also known as SMOG. This is an OUTDOOR air quality issue, not an IAQ issue. VOC reporting requirements in the USA exclude all VOCs that do not react with sunlight to create SMOG. All US products that report "ZERO VOC" have VOCs - just not the VOCs that are required to be reported... Totally different issue. Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIPa, LEED AP BD+C, MAI, RLA Senior Member Username: tsugaguy Post Number: 299 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Thursday, November 14, 2013 - 01:24 pm:    Our firm is one of those who sent letters. So in response to the original post, I summarized some things people in the movement are doing and planning, because Anne asked a good question. Also I felt it would be helpful to others preparing for the credit option in LEED v4. Why attack me because you didn't see HPDs in the list of example research? Anne listed several transparency document types, and Anon said an HPD or by some other means. The list included other means. A number of other things have been misconstrued. I see no reason to further defend each point because they are not central to the discussion. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 615 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Thursday, November 14, 2013 - 09:25 pm:    It is not clear what is central to the discussion. It may be desirable to promote an environmental agenda but you will not get a lot of support if those who you are trying to recruit see what they are being asked to do as putting themselves at risk. Raw data will in general not result in changed behaviors or different decisions. On the other hand if there is specific criteria and a reward for compliance with the criteria you will see change. Anne Onimous Junior Member Username: anneo Post Number: 2 Registered: 10-2013 Posted on Friday, November 15, 2013 - 07:40 am:    we have several clients who either require this already or are interested in it. so there's an incentive. i could easily give quite a few specific examples of how transparency helped evaluate products, except the owners standards are confidential information. Peggy White, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP BD+C Senior Member Username: peggy Post Number: 65 Registered: 07-2007 Posted on Friday, November 15, 2013 - 10:29 am:    As Anne Ominous says, transparency helps - it is one of many criteria that go into evaluating materials and making an informed decision. The 'reward for compliance' is the likelihood of selling more product - which is the primary incentive for manufacturers. Win, win, win, win - occupant gets a healthier building, architect gets a better design, manufacturer sells more products, and eventually maybe the worker will work in a less toxic environment because they are not working with so many harmful chemicals. What's not to like? Miles to go, but why not make the effort? anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, November 15, 2013 - 12:38 pm:    There is no evidence provided that occupants get a healthier building, that is poppycock. The staunchest proponents on this forum have not provided even the most basic example of this. Because they can't. Mr. Grimm writes "There are some cases such as glass where the risk is obviously zero even though an ingredient of glass when finely ground up and inhaled can cause harm. But clearly occupants are not exposed to such a hazard." So by that we are to understand that you have some sort of special list of "hazardous ingredients" that, if they show up on a HPD you will simply ignore? I would really like to see that secret list! How random and arbitrary! Who decides that the risk is "obviously zero?" Using your example, PVC is not a risk to the occupant, so do you consider this to be safe for occupants, as you do with glass? There is no evidence provided that architects get a better design. Another empty statement, with nothing to back it up. No evidence is offered that workers will be in a "less toxic" environment and "not working with so many harmful chemicals." Ditto the above - bunk statement - with zero evidence in support. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 642 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Saturday, November 16, 2013 - 12:15 pm:    I just now took a quick look at http://www.archdaily.com/447862/substances-of-concern-why-material-transparency-matters/#!. This article was written by Rand Ekman, AIA, LEED Fellow, the Director of Sustainability at Cannon Design. At first glance, this would seem to be a very commendable effort to encourage transparency across the construction industry. I do, however, share the concerns of the other posters about design firms requesting (or "demanding") such information without the firms' having the expertise to evaluate the potential impact such information. I consider myself to be a realtively educated person, but my degrees in fine arts, architecture, and business together with a course in high school chemestry (based on about 50-year-old information) does not equip me for any more than the most basic evaluation related to product performance, much less long-term health care considerations. For me to review such information and render any sort of opinion about whether or not the product is "safe" would be an exercise in arrogance and hubris beyond any Greek tragedy. I do believe in basic transparency; I want to know if the product is wood or plastic or wood composite; I want to know if it burns, and if the composition compromises its application and finish. I am not, however, qualified to review the information to speculate how it might act or react in 20 months or 20 years or whether such action/reaction might be harmful to anyone at that time. There is a relatively long list of substances (some "natural" like asbestos and some synthetic like thalodimide) which were initially thought to be benovelent, but which turned out to be tragically dangerous. The big problem was that at some point, people became aware that there were problems and chose to conceal that from the public. I can see architects with PHDs tucked away in project files trying to explain to a group of attorneys why they had the information and chose to not act on it in some way to protect the public health and safety. Merely requiring this information be published does nothing to prevent a bad product from being used if the standard of care at the time was to use the product or does it? ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 644 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Saturday, November 16, 2013 - 01:04 pm:    Well said Peter. I was a physical sciences major, never took architecture in school, and sadly have found that if you don't use it, you lose it. I couldn't balance a chemical equation now without a cheat sheet. After almost 40 years of design and construction, I've seen a lot of supposedly good and beneficial products come and go. I recall a horrible process introduced in the composite wood panel industry that seemed to provide benefit to end users but poisoned the communities where they were manufactured. By the same token I've seen too many "green" products used that had the lifespan of a fruit fly. How many years did we hear disparaging remarks about carpet fibers? Now the carpet industry has stepped up to create one of the most effective industry-wide recycling efforts ever seen, keeping incredible quantities out of landfills. The product hasn't changed, just the way it's used and recycled. It's still chemically nasty but it has a cradle-to-cradle mentality. Does that make it good or bad? A note to the nasty Anon. I don't disagree with you about some your rant but I know the people you are being abusive to and would appreciate it if you were to mature to an acceptable level. Think out your position, back it up, and lose the abuse. It will make your arguments more acceptable. The issue I have with HPD is not the transparency, I like that. I don't like LEED requiring that the HPDs and EPDs be submitted for review. Require manufacturers to certify that the products submitted have the correct documentation but don't have the documents submitted. When selecting products I often look at MSDS but I don't want them submitted I'd like the same option with HPDs and EPDs. I'm also going to make a note to talk to our legal department about excluding liability for HPD and EPDS content in our LEED 4 projects. Bruce Maine Senior Member Username: btmaine Post Number: 19 Registered: 03-2011 Posted on Saturday, November 16, 2013 - 01:34 pm:    I don't recall if it's been mentioned but Building Green sponsored a webinar on "Increased Transparency - Increased Liability for Designers". Confess that I missed it but if any one in the office has a subscription to Building Green it may still be available. Bruce Maine CDT LEED AP David J. Wyatt, CDT Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_cdt Post Number: 41 Registered: 03-2011 Posted on Monday, November 18, 2013 - 02:22 pm:    See "LEED v4: The Age of Transparency in the 11/13 issue of Environmental Design + Construction and the survey in "Greenbuild 2013 Report" in the 11/13 issue of Building Design + Construction. While Anon lobs his or her volleys from the safety of anonymity, the movement is gaining support in the form of polite journalism. Character is how you behave when no one can see you. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 670 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Tuesday, November 19, 2013 - 07:59 am:    I also am limited by a 50+ year old education in chemistry. And I'm plagued by expectations from clients to be an omniscient being for all things "technical" such as what's stuff made from. I do notice that our homes and, horrors, the restaurants and lunchrooms we entrust for being sanitary and safe, all contain an unregulated substance composed of deadly chemicals. That substance is composed of chlorine and sodium. Chlorine is a deadly gas. It was used as weapon of mass destruction in World War I and was banned by civilized nations. It is in use for water purification but only under strict controls for safety. Sodium, to quote Wikipedia, "reacts exothermically with water, to the point that sufficiently large pieces melt to a sphere and may explode; this reaction produces caustic sodium hydroxide and flammable hydrogen gas". What should an ethically-charged architect, commissioned to design a restaurant ... a place for human social intercourse and vital nutritional sustenance ... do to mitigate the unregulated proliferation of these two deadly substances? Should warning signs be posted that the facility makes available to its patrons a substance containing sodium and chlorine? That is, sodium chloride or table salt. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 647 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, November 19, 2013 - 08:24 am:    Plus there is the dreaded Universal Solvent. This substance can dissolve virtually anything and IT'S IN OUR DRINKING WATER! Some call it dihydrogen monoxide, some by the more appropriate hydric acid. This stuff is everywhere yet it's not on the Red List. See http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html for more information. I'm going to go change my water filter now, just in case. anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, November 19, 2013 - 01:24 pm:    Piling on here, some of the most "hazardous" ingredients known to man most of us come into intimate contact with EVERY DAY - cell phones (check out the list of ingredients in the interwebs - reads like a chemical cocktail), computers, televisions, etc. Each of us walks the earth with several "hazardous" chemicals in our bodies as well - including chromium and arsenic! Which we need in our bodies to survive! Ask any chemical engineer and they will corroborate! I submit to you that if those folks demanding to see HPDs had one for a human being, a cell phone, and a PVC floor tile - with the name of the "product" blacked out - and were asked to pick the "healthiest" one in a blind test, human beings and cell phones would be barred from getting into the building, but not the PVC floor tile! Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 618 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Tuesday, November 19, 2013 - 01:41 pm:    Anon, Good one. I love it. I know I am off-gassing formaldehyde, methan, etc. Between me and my cell phone I am barred from entering LEED certified or silver or gold or platinum facilities. I admit, I love the new car smell. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 649 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, November 19, 2013 - 04:10 pm:    I've been tossed out of better places too. Frankly, I think we need a new classification system to determine whether a facility provides sufficient fun and entertainment to its users. If it's not fun to be there, it shouldn't be allowed to be built, especially schools, hospitals, and prisons. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 671 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Tuesday, November 19, 2013 - 04:58 pm:    It's our right to be happy. It says so right there in the Constitution: "... the right to life, liberty and the purfuit of happinefs." (sorry, my fonts don't include the archaic "s" character used by the writers of the Constitution. Oh, wait ... that's not the Constitution, it's the Declaration of Independence. Nevertheless, check out Orange County, California, where the "Happiest Place on Earth" is located. Happiness in "the OC" is pursued at breakneck speed when the freeways aren't clogged. It's just like Lake Wobegone, in Minnesota, where the women are strong, the men are good looking and all the children are above average. Yes, we must not forget what the Declaration of Independence says to "[fight the] never-ending battle for truth, justice, and the American way." Or was that in the introduction to the 50's Superman tv series? I'm sorry for mocking those on the sustainable design bandwagon. It's tough to be committed to doing what's right. It's like Kermit the Frog said, "It's not easy to be green." ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 652 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - 10:05 am:    As Lyndon Johnson said "Doing what's right isn't the problem. It is knowing what's right." A whole lot of bad has been done in the name of good. I appreciate the intentions and agree with at least some of the need for transparency. What bothers me is that we all know what road good intentions can lead to. My fear is that we're running before we know what direction we're heading into. Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIPa, LEED AP BD+C, MAI, RLA Senior Member Username: tsugaguy Post Number: 303 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - 12:39 pm:    while we're digressing, has anyone else seen the "Happy Valley" Monty Python sketch? Why are they all so happy? Probably just because it's the law... but it could also be enjoying too much DHMO? Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIPa, LEED AP BD+C, MAI, RLA Senior Member Username: tsugaguy Post Number: 304 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - 12:42 pm:    For some more humor [or not]: http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2007/07/onion-pollutants-people Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIP, LEED AP BD+C, MAI Senior Member Username: chris_grimm_ccs_scip Post Number: 244 Registered: 02-2014 Posted on Tuesday, April 08, 2014 - 08:03 pm:    Peter and Ken as well as others here have wisely pointed out the issue of review of this information. What if it is included in MSDS -- in greater detail perhaps than minimum legal requirements -- but to satisfy the green architect's yearning for red list disclosure? Would this make everyone happy? As most of us here know, MSDS are not [usually] required submittals and front ends often say they will not be reviewed or responded to other than returning with a mark not reviewed. Anyone else from the green design side care to chime in whether that can be as good as an HPD, EPD, etc., if it is organized in a way so that same required information is included? Anyone from the manufacturer side or an expert on MSDS, can you say if this could be a good approach for you too perhaps? Is it good enough that the green designer/specifier COULD satisfy their yearnings by looking for these ultra-MSDS then? Or is this whole topic really a new category of information that has not been well-classified yet? Maybe it needs to be defined and treated much like MSDS yet as it's own new kind of animal. One reason is for various database classification systems to distinguish them. Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIP, LEED AP BD+C, MAI Senior Member Username: chris_grimm_ccs_scip Post Number: 245 Registered: 02-2014 Posted on Tuesday, April 08, 2014 - 08:24 pm:    Another reason is so the submittal procedures can address how this type of information should be handled. One firm might say YES, please send these declarations to design professional as an action [or informational] submittal. Others might not want it at all. This could be tailored in the front end documents, if we knew what to call it generically. For those who want no part of the information, it may come as a surprise that one of the outcomes of the BuildingGreen Round Table mentioned previously was that if the information is readily available, the burden for disclosing it to the client may be the same whether you asked for it or not. (DISCLAIMER none of this is legal advice. If you need legal advice seek an attorney. This is a discussion forum.) That would apply the same with MSDS too, would it not? Already these are information that sometimes are important not only to the Contractor for their normal jobsite safety duties, but also to the Owner for occupant safety, and it would seem that since the design professional is charged with protecting the health, safety and welfare of the public that at least some of this burden is already upon the Architect. The only thing that is changing is that much more data is becoming available and sought by many concerned people, to the point the sustainable rating systems (at least 2) have made it at least a credit (LEED v4) if not a requirement (LBC). anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, April 09, 2014 - 12:50 pm:    Chris, Yes, HPDs are no different that MSD sheets when it comes to what should be stated about them in the Contract Documents, in my opinion. I follow MasterSpec's advice on this for my specifications: Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) are collected and filed on the jobsite by the Contractor as required by OSHA and other authorities. They communicate important information about hazardous materials, such as their chemical and common names; ingredients that have been determined to be health hazards or carcinogens; physical and chemical characteristics; ingredients that have been determined to be physical hazards (potential for fire, explosion, reactivity, etc.); health hazards, including signs and symptoms of exposure; and the OSHA-permissible exposure limit. Also included are precautions for their safe handling and use along with emergency and first-aid procedures to follow in case of exposure. Because this information relates directly to construction safety, which is solely the responsibility of the Contractor, MSDS Contractor submittals are typically not received or reviewed by the Architect. Review of safety-related information could expose the Architect to unwanted liability. If the Ownerrequires that MSDSs be submitted for the Owner's purposes, they should be sent directly to the Owner, without passing through the Architect. You are wrong in stating that an MSD sheet is meant for Owners' use in evaluating for occupant safety. That is not what they are for. The BuildingGreen Round Table has no authority to change things simply by enthusiastically asserting that because "information" is available, an obligation is created. That is laughable. Although LEED v4 mentions submitting HPDs as ONE pathway toward getting available points in ONE credit - LEEDD v4 allows teams to pursue several other pathways AS WELL AS undefined equivalents to HPDs - which could include manufacturer's self-reporting (in whatever form they choose), a PTD, a MSDS, or whatever. HPDs are not the do-all and end-all documents for this particular LEED credit. No one really cares about what the LBC requires because no one is really using it. I think you are still missing the point here. Architect's are not legally, ethically, morally, or professionally required or obligated to evaluate building materials for supposed human health impacts. Further, they do not have the professional education, training, or license to do so, and are actually NOT ALLOWED to undertake such a thing by their insurance carriers. Imagine a plumber offering to do open heart surgery on people. Same thing. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 716 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2014 - 07:40 am:    The previous anon posting makes several good points, but evidentially has forgotten the primary reason for architectural registration/licensing. Protection of public health and safety has always been at the heart of this argument. This has primarily been implemented through requiring knowledge of structural design. Because this mandate is so broad, there is no reason why it could not be extended to "environmental" issues. I do agree that an architect's education does not include adequate exposure to such topics. anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2014 - 01:22 pm:    J. Peter, So you are saying that as an architect I am supposed to just go along with taking on additional liability that I am not licensed for, am not legally required to do, am not being asked by a client to do, am not trained to do, am not insured for, and ultimately cannot even say in the end whether or not I have in actual fact protected the public's health? Nope, nope, nope, nope, and nope. I have not forgotten a thing! In fact, I submit to you that you may be the one that has forgotten what we are obligated to do as architects. Please refer to the current NCARB Rules of Conduct which states, in Rule 1.3, the following: An architect shall undertake to perform professional services only when he/she, together with those whom the architect may engage as consultants, is qualified by education, training, and experience in the specific technical areas involved. That is CRYSTAL CLEAR. The architect's duty to protect the public's health is LIMITED to his/her qualifications, education, training, and experience. Architect's have no such credential when it comes to attempting to evaluate whether or not a building material will have some sort of negative human health impact to occupants because of an ASSUMED toxicity. Nope. Which brings me to the next problem with HPDs - they wrongfully imply and even outright state that because of the presence or contact with a "toxic" ingredient, somehow this equates to potential human health impacts. Ask ANY Chemical Engineer whether or not they agree with this statement (I have personally asked several). None will. Because it is patently erroneous. So how - HOW - is an architect protecting the public's health in attempting to evaluate HPDs? Show me how. Give me specific examples. Can anyone do this? I have asked many times, not one person has even tried. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 654 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2014 - 02:00 pm:    As design professionals we provide advice and assistance to our clients. This does not mean that as a result we are responsible for addressing all potential safety concerns that people could have. Receiving these HHPD's suggests that we have an obligation to look at the documents and take action. To review these documents would be irresponsible since we do not have the knowledge to evaluate the content of the document. Asking for and reviewing these documents would be legally irresponsible since this is not consistent with our professional obligations. Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 242 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2014 - 04:02 pm:    Dear anon, Before you continue ranting in capital letters, you should identify yourself, and remember to behave like a grownup on our forum. Believe it or not, I do have Owners who want their sustainable design goals to include concern for human health. One of the fabulous things about being an Architect is that we always have more to learn. - Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIP, LEED AP BD+C, MAI Senior Member Username: chris_grimm_ccs_scip Post Number: 248 Registered: 02-2014 Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2014 - 05:27 pm:    To anon: Unlike licensed and regulated professions such as architecture and structural engineering, there is not a practice act saying that one cannot develop and apply knowledge of chemistry in their work without a degree in chemistry that I'm aware of anyway. To suggest another possible solution to these concerns, however, firms who are passionate about this could engage someone as a consultant who is an industrial hygienist or chemist, like architects have long done for a great many areas where they want more expertise. Even though many of those are not regulated. Think of door hardware. By the way, I know several chemical engineers all who have worked with coatings and plastics engineering for upwards of 40 years, who certainly believe in human health risks from red list compounds. Their colleagues who did not believe it died at a much younger age from cancer. There are a lot of stories to tell from people who have worked in manufacturing such products for decades and seen the health risks firsthand as well as taking steps to improve formulas. Your glaring generalities are nothing more than hot air. What quantifiable facts have you brought to the table in this discussion? you can't know that 100% of chemical engineers will agree with what you are saying. That, my friend, is what is pure bunk. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 655 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2014 - 05:59 pm:    Let us assume a manufacturer of a product used on the project fully complies with the requirements in the construction documents. This manufacturer submits the HPD information as requested and further assume that this product is fully in compliance with all laws and regulations. The owner's consultant then reviews the content of the HPD and informs the owner that in his opinion certain chemicals are hazardous and the Owner should not allow the use of the product. If the Owner decides not to allow the use of the product the Owner will be exposed to costs due to re-design, paying the manufacture of the rejected project for his costs, and finding another product and paying more for the new product. Will the Owner sue the architect or engineer for these added costs? If the Owner does not decide to reject the product he will be an easy target for litigation for any claim that is related to the product in question. If you have concerns about specific chemicals then place requirements in the project specifications prohibiting these chemicals so it will not be necessary to replace the product during construction. Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIP, LEED AP BD+C, MAI Senior Member Username: chris_grimm_ccs_scip Post Number: 249 Registered: 02-2014 Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2014 - 06:36 pm:    Correct, just like it was when LEED was somewhat new, developers and their architects who thought they could try to slap a LEED rating on a non-LEED design were soon dismayed. I worked with a firm that did a Living Building Challenge project (yeah, the rating system that "no is really using") and the latter sequence you suggested Mark is definitely the one to use. I think the firms who are accepting the material transparency movement will inherently know that is the way. For anyone who ends up trying the other method described, you can straddle a fence only so long and then it gets uncomfortable. Now, how about if you are with a firm that says hell no we won't look at this information and then one day your client says why didn't you tell me about this, now we have to redesign everything. It gets even better than that -- I've actually heard of a large project where chemical disclosure had been a topic of discussion with the client early on and was at least some factor in the award, not the first either. There is reward here for those who believe it is the right thing and are committed. Why shouldn't a large facility owner be interested in trying to do everything they can for their building occupants' well-being? At least two general groups who are opposed, I think, are the people who have a significant part of their lives invested in products they are afraid might contain too much red list compounds, and design firms who are not welcoming change because they are unsure of this territory. But since when has architecture and construction been anything but a dynamic profession? Brian Payne, AIA Senior Member Username: brian_payne Post Number: 35 Registered: 01-2014 Posted on Friday, April 11, 2014 - 11:41 am:    Chris, I am leaning towards the "opposition" side and it's not because I don't embrace change (I do.) or because I have anything invested in any product (I don't). My problem (and many others above) is not that the data is available (that's great), it is the application of having the data. For example: What if I am choosing between products with two different sets of red list compounds? Which one is "better"? How much better? Worth the difference in cost? Durability? I'm not interested in more knowledge as much as more wisdom? Many people above are concerned that knowledge without wisdom may increase liability without a guarantee that our buildings are actually healthier. It is wrong in my opinion to distill this issue down to fear of change or loss of profit. Transparency is great and the availability of HPD information probably will lead to some positive changes in the market, but it will take a while before we even know the effects of many of the chemicals involved and further time to distill that information into actionable advise for firms to follow. I'm with Mark. If we know now what we don't want in our buildings, limit those items. We can be dynamic as the profession learns more, but right now, we have limited knowledge on the best healthiest way forward. David J. Wyatt, CDT Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_cdt Post Number: 74 Registered: 03-2011 Posted on Friday, April 11, 2014 - 12:28 pm:    Product manufacturers will solve this whole problem as it will open up a new layer of marketing potential. Initially there will some who will invest and do it right while the me-toos will benefit from their knowledge. We will accuse some disingenuous marketeers of "health-washing," similar to green-washing. In a few years there we'll unearth some new horror and start the process over again. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 656 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Friday, April 11, 2014 - 06:48 pm:    What is the process by which chemicals are red listed? Will we see manufacturer's consultants working to add chemicals to the red list that are in the manufacturer's competitors products? J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 718 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Sunday, April 13, 2014 - 01:31 pm:    I was a bit taken aback my anon's post a couple of days ago in response to my posting about why architects are registered/licensed. What many of us don't understand is that this process that we take for granted was a long time in coming, more than 100 years in some cases. In Texas, the practice of architecture is governed by the OCCUPATIONS CODE; TITLE 6. REGULATION OF ENGINEERING, ARCHITECTURE, LAND SURVEYING, AND RELATED PRACTICES; SUBTITLE B. REGULATION OF ARCHITECTURE AND RELATED PRACTICES; CHAPTER 1051. TEXAS BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL EXAMINERS; GENERAL PROVISIONS AFFECTING ARCHITECTS, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, AND INTERIOR DESIGNERS; PROVISIONS AFFECTING ONLY ARCHITECTS. Section 1051.0015 is entitle "PURPOSE OF REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT," and states "The purpose of Section 1051.701(a) is to: (1) safeguard life, health, property, and the public welfare; and (2) protect the public against the irresponsible practice of architecture." (see http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/OC/htm/OC.1051.htm#1051.0015). I would be very surprised if every jurisdiction did not have very similar language. While I do agree with anon that architects should not be practicing beyond their the limits of their capabilities/expertise, the fact remains that the professional licensure/registration places a high burden of responsibility of the practicing professional. This burden should include the responsibility to abstain from taking on responsibilities for which he/she is unqualified. While various codes of conduct (AIA, NCARB, CSI) may limit suggest that architect's can limit this responsibility, architects are legally bound only by the laws and regulations under which they practice. Historically, this was limited to structural concerns and then broadened to MEP concerns. Contientious professional practice dictated that architects retain the services of other design professionals who had specialized expertise in these fields. This does not absolve the architect of responsibility, but means that it can be reasonably shared. It is really much too early to tell how much more professional responsibility (and liability) this latest move into product disclosure means for the design professions. I do believe, however, that at some point some attorney is going look at the basic legislation and link environmental quality concerns to the broad responsibility for public health and safety mandated by laws governing architectural licensure/registration. I will close by noting that without this mandate to "safeguard life, health, property, and the public welfare", there really is no legal justification for such laws. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 657 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Sunday, April 13, 2014 - 02:59 pm:    The statement that the purpose of registration requirements is to “…safeguard life, health, property, and the public welfare…” has been misinterpreted. The stated purpose of the law is not an open ended obligation for us to be responsible for all issues related to safeguarding life, health, property and public welfare. More appropriately this language is used to help interpret specific requirements imposed by the statutes and regulations. Thus any obligation derives from specific provisions in the statutes or regulations not from the stated purpose. The building code and other regulations set forth the protections that the public has a right to have. In this context the government has identified certain chemicals that they have either prohibited or limited the use of. The architect or engineer could be liable if he inappropriately specified these specific chemicals but this liability exposure does not extend to any chemical not regulated by the government. With rare exceptions an architect or engineer that specifies a product with non-regulated chemicals has no obligation to limit their use. One clear exception would be if the architect or engineer has clear knowledge that the use of the product was especially hazardous but this exception flows not from the licensing laws but from the general obligation each individual has to not create inherently hazardous situations. The fact that some individuals may have strong feelings about the risk of certain chemicals does not mean that all other members of society have an obligation to share their concerns. If Peter’s interpretation was correct then architects and engineers would be responsible for all problems related to buildings even when the work was outside their scope of work, and they had no authority to address the problem. My sense is that these types of interpretations are driven by a moral agenda as opposed to a clear understanding of the law. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1569 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, April 14, 2014 - 12:37 pm:    Architects and engineers frequently use consultants to provide professional advice in areas that the architect does not have particular expertise in. A simple example would be structural engineering. The architect's licensure does allow her to provide professional engineering, yet by hiring a qualified consultant she is able to provide that service. A more similar comparison would be in other hazardous materials issues, prominently asbestos and lead. In firms I have worked, it was common in renovation projects that we would have a hazardous material consultant on board to provide expertise, specifications and often drawings on abatement. Yes, there are potential concerns regarding risk and insurability, many of which can be handled contractually with the client. And of course, fees should be adjusted (although it may be difficult for designers to actually get them). Finally, there is nothing that says an architect MUST take on projects where HPDs will be required. Don't get me wrong, I am not necessarily in favor of the use of HPDs and the processes they will require, I'm just pointing out that this is part of universal and inexorable trends towards more rigorous health environmental designs, whether we like it or not. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 658 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Monday, April 14, 2014 - 01:22 pm:    "... more rigorous health environmental designs..." by who and how defined. If driven by the Owner who will provide an expert that will develop project criteria and will provide the necessary reviews then it can be managed. If the owner is neutral but the architect decides to implement the use of HPD's and hires a consultant to define criteria and provide technical reviews of products the architect's consultants would be protected but the architect would take on significant liability. Will the HPD consultant have the assets/insurance to protect the architect against the added liability exposure? If there is no HPD Consultant then it is stupidity to require HPDs. As a structural engineer I would deal with them the same as MSDS sheets, namely I would not specify their submission and I would not review the documents if sent to me. spiper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, April 14, 2014 - 04:27 pm:    I personally do not see the benefit of architects making determinations on red list items if we do not have specific training or expertise. This is not due to a reluctance to change on my part but rather an acknowledgement that I don't know enough about the subject to make a qualified determination. Asbestos abatement is a perfect example of this. Our office does abatement plans and specs. We have several licensed inspectors as well as a licensed designer/management planner. There was a project years ago where the Owner insisted that we should first remove the material that was tested to be 6-8% asbestos rather than the material that was 3% asbestos. however the 6-8% material was VAT with 3-5 coats of wax on it while the 3% material was an exposed sprayed on acoustical material that was easily damaged by students, air movement, vibration, etc. We had the expertise to convince the owner that the 3% material was a much greater risk to the students and thus we removed the materials in the correct order and with the correct priority. Do I have the qualifications to make this same decision on a multitude of chemicals that are contained in a multitude of products that could pose a hazard in a multitude of different degrees? Should we trained to make these decisions? Is the Owner and the public served if we attempt to make such decisions without proper training? However, I am not convinced the inclusion of HPD's in the spec has to necessarily increase your liability exposure. We currently list needs for MSDS sheets but we also make it clear that these documents are not for review and approval by the Architect but rather for informational purposes as deemed appropriate by the contractor and/or Owner. Could you not do the same with HPD submittal requirements to allow for their inclusion while deflecting liability? (as well as responsibility) Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 751 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Monday, April 14, 2014 - 05:00 pm:    I keep hearing that architects don't like contractors who sub out everything, saying "they're just brokers" as if that's somehow wrong. Yet here we are, saying architects are just brokers, subbing out everything they don't know, which today is a lot. It took AIA 100 years to convince everyone that architects should be licensed because of their vast responsibilities; they've spent the last fifty reducing the architect's liability, and the schools are more interested in planning and theory and appearance (art) than construction. And now they're supposed to decide which chemicals are bad, or might be bad? May as well hire another consultant. Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1209 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Monday, April 14, 2014 - 06:42 pm:    The owner directing the architect not to use products containing chemicals on a certain "red list" is one thing, but for the architect to decide to only use products that do not contain chemicals on a certain "red list," based solely on the firm's policy, may be assuming more risk than if they didn't observe a restricted list at all. A couple of hypothetical examples... Example 1: The architect, without the owner's knowledge, restricts materials on a project to those that do not contain chemicals on their "red list." On one material the architect looks at performance, but the best performing product contains a chemical on the "red list," so they go down the list of potential products till they find one that doesn't contain any of the restricted chemicals, but also doesn't perform as well. The owner occupies the building and after a period of time the product in question fails and must be replaced at considerable cost. Following an investigation by the owner's third-party consultant, the owner is made aware of the architect's decision on the original product; thus realizing that the problem could have been avoided had the architect specified the better-performing product in the first place. Should the architect be liable? Example 2: An architect specifies only products that do not contain chemicals on their "red list." Due to the volume of products used on the project, one "slips by" the evaluation of the architect. As luck would have it (as they always do in hypotheticals), this product causes injury to a building occupant, and the injured occupant sues everyone, including the architect. During discovery, the plaintiff's attorney finds out about the "red list" and that the product in question contains a chemical on that list--whether or not that chemical had anything to do with the injury is not relevant to the attorney--they will always work it to their favor (e.g. "Had the architect followed their policy thoroughly, this product would not have been installed and, therefore, would not have been able to cause the serious injury to my client."). How does the architect defind itself from this situation? I don't know the answers, but this is just food for thought. Does following a "red list" raise the standard of care for a firm, even though the majority of the firms in the area do not adhere to such as list? Is this something on which professional liability insurers need to weigh in? Personally, following a "red list" is a slippery slope unless the architect has proven expertise in hazardous materials and only after full disclosure to the owner with their approval. Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, April 15, 2014 - 12:30 pm:    Example 3: An Architect gathers HPDs from an arbitrarily selected group of product manufacturer's under threat of pulling said manufacturer's products from specifications. The Architect evaluates the HPDs collected from these manufacturers and determines which are "healthier" to building occupants and writes specifications accordingly. The building is built and occupied. An occupant begins to have respiratory issues and makes a claim against the owner and architect. Lawyers are hired. During discovery, the plaintiff's attorney finds that only a fraction of the building materials used were evaluated by the Architect for the presence of "toxic" ingredients. The attorney also finds that the architect had no education, training, or expertise to make such an evaluation. The attorney finds the threatening letter that the architect sent to manufacturers stating: *"we will only entertain products for our library and inclusion into our buildings and vendors who conduct presentations within our office which demonstrate content transparency through such publicly accessible HPD’s. As we integrate this information into our daily practice, we are committing together towards creating environments which enhance the human experience and preserve the health of building occupants." and: *"we have been evaluating our specifications in order to endeavor to identify and eventually eliminate a select group of chemicals that to our knowledge are known or suspected of being hazardous." The attorney finds that the architect is in full support of and are members of the HPD Collaborative: *"A complete HPD includes accurate product content and related health hazard information in a consistent way, which allows [architect] to make better choices." The attorney finds quotes made by the architect on the HPD collaborative web site: "The HPD allows me to finally specify products with full knowledge of what's in them and how it [sic] will impact a building's environment and occupants." This will never go to court. Why? because it's a slam dunk for the plaintiff. Checks will be written, however. *from actual letters that used to be posted on the HPD web site, since removed Don Harris CSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA Senior Member Username: don_harris Post Number: 277 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2014 - 10:45 am:    The one thing that I am trying to get my firm to consider is holding out on all product credits under LEED 4, unless they are absolutely necessary to attain the certification level desired by the Owner. The liability issues listed in the previous threads is the first issue. In addition, the amount of labor involved in collating and analyzing the product data, HPD's and other documents may not be worth the time that is needed to do the job properly. We certainly will not get a higher fee from an Owner for doing what the Owner feels should be included in our "LEED Services." It would be easier to add a half-inch of insulation all around the building and get additional energy points than to slog through the quagmire created by the product points in LEED 4. Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIP, LEED AP BD+C, MAI Senior Member Username: chris_grimm_ccs_scip Post Number: 250 Registered: 02-2014 Posted on Friday, April 18, 2014 - 09:09 pm:    I've been away from the forum for a bit, let me catch up. Who is saying anything to impose a moral agenda on others? I think some of the responses have just been to the suggestion that architects somehow cannot be qualified or should not be allowed to take any action or concern over product health safety for building occupants. spiper your example is one that IS a licensed and regulated professional service so you are correct there is no way an architect without the license and insurance for that should try to develop abatement plans. That is why it is not a good comparison though for what we are talking about, products that are not regulated with abatement licensing laws (yet) but we are simply given the choice to not use them. Which Example, 1, 2, 3, or maybe a new 4, would this scenario fit into: An Architect discloses to the Owner that PVC flooring may off-gas phthalate plastizers which have possible negative health effects. Linoleum is recommended and the Owner agrees. I think it's not rocket science here. It would seem there is one day going to be more liability in doing nothing when this information becomes readily available, even without a legal mandate. But for now, if a firm out of moral reasoning wants to disclose this information to Owners and use alternatives, it would seem to be a path of less liability, would it not? And I don't recall anyone saying all firms should be coerced into doing this. Unless perhaps it becomes legally interpreted as part of state licensing requirements for protecting the health safety and welfare of the public in the environments we design that they spend 90% of their time in. You don't want to promise that your buildings will be free of all conceivably concerning chemicals, but maybe you can still do what you clearly can about it if you want to. That's all that this is. Gotta start somewhere. The topic is at least 20 years old. We now have more standardized information and a LEED credit to address it. If you don't know just because you haven't looked into it, crack open the new LEED Reference Guide, or the Living Building Challenge requirements. There is good momentum here for those who want to look into it at their own initiative. If not, don't. Some will prefer to wait until the time when it is not optional, if that happens, and catch up. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 660 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Saturday, April 19, 2014 - 11:45 am:    From my perspective the legal argument is weak and what comes through is a moral argument. spiper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Saturday, April 19, 2014 - 07:52 pm:    Chris; your point is well taken about asbestos being a licensed service and as such maybe not a good example. However I was trying to make a point that the training we had in our office in this specific hazard allowed us to make the appropriate decision when a simple comparison of numbers might have led to a different decision by someone with less experience in the specific area. I might have insufficient experience on some 'red list' chemicals, and the products they are in, to make an informed decision on just what the possible negative health effects are, if any. Devoid of the expertise to make an informed decision there is the possibility that I may revert to a simple comparison of the numbers. I agree we need to be cognizant of the chemicals that go into the building we design and I do such on a daily basis but we may want to avoid pushing the discussion beyond our pay grade. I agree this is not rocket science but it is science and I am just a dumb architect. anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, April 21, 2014 - 01:14 pm:    Mr. Grimm's example about scaring an Owner away from PVC flooring using hyperbole instead of even a shred of scientific evidence, and then steering them toward a worse alternative is exactly the problem! I have firsthand experience with a linoleum installation on a project that went horribly wrong. The interior designers convinced the Owner into using this material because it was the more "sustainable" choice. Once installed, the odor that wafted from the linoleum caused occupants to complain. Loudly and often. And this caused the Owner a considerable amount of anxiety, and ultimately required that it be removed and replaced with PVC - and guess what? No more complaints, no problems! I have had a similar experience with recycled rubber flooring - the odor was overpowering, and unpleasant to occupants causing headaches and and respiratory irritation. It was eventually removed and replaced with a different floor covering. In no project that I have ever worked on has PVC flooring ever been a problem for Owners or occupants. What scientific evidence does Mr. Grimm offer in support of his wild claim that phthalates off-gas from PVC flooring causing any sort of human health concern? None. And what scientific evidence does Mr. Grim offer that alternative floor coverings are any better? None. This is simply more of the same sort of scare tactic used to bamboozle the uninformed into believing that something must be done or we're all going to get sick! Meanwhile, all those millions of square feet of PVC flooring installed in hospitals, schools, and offices around the world are performing beautifully - no human health issues linked to this flooring material whatsoever. So, Mr. Grimm - if you actually have some hard evidence about this, why not share it with the group? It would be good if you could also share information about those chemical engineer "colleagues who did not believe [in human health risks from red list ingredients and] died at a much younger age from cancer." Do you have anything to offer in support of this claim? Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIP, LEED AP BD+C, MAI Senior Member Username: chris_grimm_ccs_scip Post Number: 253 Registered: 02-2014 Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2014 - 02:14 am:    If there are no known health concerns at all for PVC flooring, perhaps the red lists are nothing more than a witch hunt composed of compounds found in competitors' products. Then it would follow that something found in linseed oil just needs to be added to the list next. Perhaps there is a short-term health concern there that we have not heard enough about. No specifiers here intend to scare Owners into using a worse product. I sincerely ask, how should designers and specifiers know who or what to believe - so to look into it beyond any assumed experts any of us may know personally, we have the lists of chemicals of concern from the EPA, State of California Prop 65, Healthy Building Network, Living Building Challenge, Cradle to Cradle, (all including phthalates or specifically mentioning PVC), and now reflected in HPD's, EPD's, etc's -- all of this should be considered meaningless I suppose, until what? If this tide of information is not a clear enough answer, perhaps we should still retreat to regarding health disclosures the same way as MSDS. Another class of specialist could arise to develop life cycle assessments that encompass decades of health data for large numbers of populations affected only by exposure to certain products and not others(?), in addition to the usual short- and long-term cost data, but until then we still really know nothing. Is that correct? Plastics Tekkie (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2014 - 10:59 pm:    I compounded my first PVC formula circa 1963. From 1974 through 1980, I was employed as a Senior Research Scientist at a Fortune 500 company. Throughout that employ, my main project was to replace our PVC products because of the residual Vinyl Chloride Monomer that they contained. At that time, all of our PVC extruders were housed in enclosures, and operators were required to wear air packs or gas masks when working inside. I can support Mr. Grimm's statement. The cancer death rate in our shop was abnormally high for men in their 40s and 50s. I developed a lesion on my right ear. Was it coincidental that it was my "telephone" ear, and that I frequently answered pages on phones around the shop floor? Who knows? Fortunately for me, they got it all. PVC has become so universal because it is such a great performer. It is very difficult to find replacements that perform as well or better, but not impossible. Since the mid 1970s, VCM content of PVC has been reduced more than one hundred fold. Nevertheless, some remains, and VCM is a known carcinogen. Resin manufacturers know this; why else would they have worked so diligently in reducing it? VCM is a gas. Although it binds tightly to the PVC polymer, it will slowly out-gas; and, as the PVC ages and some depolymerizes with time, more will be formed, albeit very slowly. I can state all of the above as fact, but there is much that I do not know. I don't know if the architect who specifies it will also specify enough air changes to keep accumulations low. I don't know what else is in the formula e.g. plasticizers, stabilizers, mildewicices, etc. I once was within days of running commercial trials that used a PCB plasticizer and an organolead stabilizer. Fortunately, alarms were sounded about PCBs, and I killed the trial. An ex-boss, working now at a different company, wasn't so lucky. He got a similar formula into production before he was fired. I apologize for the long post. Let me summarize: There are hazardous materials in common use today. It will be difficult to find functional replacements. There are liabilities if you do --or if you fail to-- specify clean materials. Today's heroes may become tomorrow's villains. Do what you feel is best, and pray that you are right. David J. Wyatt, CDT Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_cdt Post Number: 76 Registered: 03-2011 Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2014 - 10:07 am:    Dear Plastics Tekkie, Thank you for your insight. It is refreshing to hear from someone who sees this important issue from another perspective. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 661 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2014 - 02:15 pm:    The issue is not that there are chemicals that need to be regulated but rather that a group of individuals are being forced to accept risks that they are not able to manage. If somebody wants to be out at the bleeding edge on this issue fine but do not impose that on others. If you informally decide not to specify products that contain certain chemicals that is your decision but is it moral to impose your beliefs on others. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1379 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, August 04, 2014 - 08:03 pm:    I wanted to bring up something I heard from a product rep: the HPD is NOT like a "food label" - which is what the marketing hype always says. If it was, your cereal nutrition label would talk about the likelihood of diabetes, heart disease, allergies, obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma (they always talk about asthma) and weight gain. the HPD says that it assess risk -- but this is not the group to do that, the profession to proclaim knowledge about it. Many of us knew a specifier from Canada who got caught up in a 6 year law suit because he specified asbestos fire proofing when it was legal. It bankrupted him financially, ruined his health and he died shortly after the suit was finished up. I doubt that any of us want to be on the hook for predicting what "ingredients" will be health hazards in 2035. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 809 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, August 04, 2014 - 08:28 pm:    Oh goodie. Combine this with the latest State of California Supreme Court ruling against SOM and HKS and what do you think is going to happen to E&O insurance? So who has developed wiggle language to get the manufacturers to accept all blame and liability if they provide products that result in the future death or injury, real or implied, to anyone or anything any time in the future with no statute of limitations protection? Colin Gilboy Senior Member Username: colin Post Number: 376 Registered: 09-2005 Posted on Monday, August 04, 2014 - 08:37 pm:    Here is the reference to the SOM/HKS litigation from the AIA San Diego: http://www.aiasandiego.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/BEACON-SUPREME-COURT-RULING-SJM-DAB.pdf Colin Gilboy Publisher, 4specs.com 435.200.5775 - Utah 800.369.8008 Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 201 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Monday, August 04, 2014 - 08:37 pm:    Ken, that supreme court ruling is a scary one. I am sure the insurance will react to that one. What is real scary is reading the actual court document. It may open this up to multiple building types other than residential. If other states follow suit, then what a mess! ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 810 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, August 04, 2014 - 09:03 pm:    It's all scary at this point Alan. What do we tell people going for their degrees in architecture at this point? What about people who are killing themselves to pass their registration exams? What possible incentive do they have to continue in their current pursuits? Sorry folks, no more architecture to had in the US. You'll have to buy an EPA-approved pre-manufactured home or office created on a 3-D printer. Hey, those IT folks will have their wish; they really will be the new architects. We'll all live in virtual homes. Matrix anyone? Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIP, LEED AP BD+C, MAI Senior Member Username: chris_grimm_ccs_scip Post Number: 276 Registered: 02-2014 Posted on Monday, September 15, 2014 - 01:17 pm:    My takeaways on this from CONSTRUCT2014: Yes it would be good if there were chemists to take on the matter of weighing out the risk, because a material that is "suspect" might not pose actual harm and it does not add value to owners if inferior materials are then used based on suspicion. There may be at least a couple of reasons why firms sent out these letters, and one answer might help a lot to alleviate the concerns of both camps: 1. Since the information is readily available via EPA and others listing compounds that have known serious human health affects, some firms fear that doing nothing could open them up to liability. 2. Whether it is related to that fear or not, some firms feel a moral imperative to do something about it, since the legal system has not done anything to regulate these compounds after many years. I proposed as an answer to both: Often we hear that architects are not qualified to evaluate this information. Let's define who is. While there is no professional licensing (that I'm aware of) to practice chemistry, perhaps it would still help if an official set of qualifications were defined for the type of chemist &/or toxicologist / industrial hygienist / whatever it is / who could properly weight out the risks and LIFE CYCLE and cost impacts for building owners. Then those of us who fear inaction would have something to point to, Mr. Owner, please hire a _________. If/when a case ends up in court perhaps the defense would say Your Honor, my client is not a ___________ and did not market _________ services, so he/she had no duty in this matter, the Owner should have hired a _________. Also those who have the moral imperative to do so, could acquire _____________ training or staffing, and add this level of information management to their services to offer to Owners or others who are so inclined. If this is issue has been a pestilence for some of you, do you agree or disagree this is a way to "clear the air"? On the exhibit hall floor I had a great in-depth conversation with one rep, who had a product that contains PVC and rice hulls and appears to be a very durable product. We studied his product data together, he was quite surprised when we looked at how the EPA has phthalate plasticizers on a watch list, and yes many hospitals use PVC blood bags so they can't be bad right? Well we looked up the news release that Kaiser Permanente has switched to non-PVC blood bags. Though we noticed their critics say they did this without citing specific studies. But Kaiser says there is credible evidence and that's all they needed to make their own decision. This only served to point out that PVC might not be an unquestionable material based solely on the fact that hospitals use it. But we knew we were not done yet. The rep recalled seeing some product test reports, which he found and showed me that the level of off-gassing for their product had been tested, at least according to a German LGA emission test to be <0.05 while the threshold for passing the test was <0.1. So perhaps there is some PVC safer than others? (A minor component of their furniture had 54% though! Noted as rubber, which I have to doubt there would be ANY phthalates in.) Also, should we bank on the thresholds of this test since they are assumedly OK for the German government, being enough better than our government's standard (which may be a lack of a regulation at all here in the US? So what if this LGA threshold is still set at a dangerously high level?) If someone is interested, here is as close as I can get for now: http://bit.ly/1AQNxOB http://bit.ly/1AQNvGL I'm ready to conclude I'm not a chemist, and that I'm glad this manufacturer has one on staff who has studied this out and for what it is worth they have certified it safe, their product literature says so anyway. I don't know how the thresholds are established. Unfortunately it was far too hard to find out even about the test reports of their LGA test. But perhaps this really is a great and safe product. If so, I'm glad, because a few designers I'm specifying for have already selected it for their projects. Once this type of information is known by the [design professional???] [specifier??] [or information manager?], is it then possible to offer basic services without it though? Or would there still be a duty to disclose the info to clients who only want to pay for basic spec drafting services, simply because it is known? Maybe here is where some architecture firms would just rather call it like an MSDS! But isn't the reason those are not reviewed because of jobsite safety which is the Contractor's per A201? I still haven't heard much of a follow-up on whether, since we are now talking about OCCUPANT health, safety, and welfare, this puts it into a different category. I'd like to see a new breed of MSDS so firms who want to return without review can, and firms who want can review them. Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIP, LEED AP BD+C, MAI Senior Member Username: chris_grimm_ccs_scip Post Number: 277 Registered: 02-2014 Posted on Monday, September 15, 2014 - 01:28 pm:    I'm not sure if the LGA test included emission of the Vinyl Chloride Monomer, that Plastics Tekkie pointed out is also at least as harmful as the phthalates. This sort of research can go on and on, and absolutely should be an additional service beyond the traditional roles of architect and specifier. I find more hope in EPDs than HPDs now from having heard both discussed at some length during #CONSTRUCT e.g. the 3rd party review aspect of the EPD.