There just arent 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.
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?
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!
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.
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!
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!
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
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.
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?
It would be interesting to know what percentage of all building related construction projects employ a licensed architect using AIA documents. 5%? 10% maybe?
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.
“…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 
?
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.