"Better do this or else" letters

Specification & Product Discussions Sustainable Design Topics
61

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?

62

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.

63

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.

64

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.

65

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.

66

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.

67

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!

68

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.

69

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.

70

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.”

71

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.

72

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?

73

For some more humor [or not]:
http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2007/07/onion-pollutants-people

74

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.

75

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).

76

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.

77

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.

78

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.

79

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.

80

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.