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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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”.
Anne;
Thats the first time I saw “obstructive” being used as a synonym for realistic.
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.
Anne,
My label was “disruptive to the process”.
“Process! But what about the quality?”
“Quality indeed!” “Bugger off.”
Wayne
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?
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.
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.
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.
My goodness - bitter much?
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”