Courtney Lorenz
Skanska
more >>
The Pharos Project is a project of the Healthy Building Network. HBN is:
In Vermont:
Bill Walsh, Paul Bogart
In California:
Julie Silas, Tom Lent
In Washington, DC:
Larry Kilroy, Sarah Gilberg, Sarah Pickell, Susan Sabella
In Maine:
Jim Vallette
VIEWS FROM THE INTERN DESK
Greetings from the HBN Pharos interns, Kelsey Poole and Sarah Lott. For the past eight weeks we have been working with HBN staff to expand the Pharos database. Kelsey recently graduated from American University with a BA in Environmental Studies. Sarah is a junior at James Madison University pursuing a degree in Biotechnology. As our internship draws to a close, the HBN staff has invited us to share our thoughts on the Pharos Project and our experience working on it.
There are 0 comments about this post | Post a comment
TRENDS IN TRANSPARENCY
Think “transparency” is an established, maturing theme? You ain’t seen nothing yet.
Trendwatching.com
The news this summer provides more insight into why the assortment of eco-labels and certifications that define green products today is a transitional stage, soon to be eclipsed by an unprecedented convergence of better information and better information technology known as radical transparency.
A new report by the World Resources Institute finds that after more than a decade of refinement, eco-labeling and third party product certifications are not working well. They have become “fragmented and often confusing to institutional buyers as well as individual consumers . . . due to competing claims on what makes a product ‘green,’ especially when there are two or more competing schemes for the same sector or product.”[1] The WRI report, The Global Ecolabel Monitor 2010, analyzes more than 300 eco-labels and third party eco-certifications, including virtually all of the iconic labels of the green building industry. The report identifies stubborn barriers to effective eco-labeling that are also likely to handicap ambitious new corporate sustainability and transparency standards announced this summer.[2] Among the barriers noted by WRI:
- It is difficult to define best practices for ecolabels or standards. (Value judgments are inherent in such standards.)
- Competing standards are inevitable. (Well-funded industry labels routinely compete with independent third party standards, confusing consumers.)
- Sustainability standards are rarely static. (Our Pharos Team recently found that most paints beat eco-label requirements by 50% or more.)
“What if finding out where and how our stuff was made was as easy as finding the lowest price or peer opinions?” asks The New York Times contributing writer Rob Walker in the June 27 installment of his weekly column, Consumed. Walker, an astute observer of consumer trends in the digital age, addresses the gap between the “transparency triumph” that has changed the paradigm of retail marketing completely (think NextTag, Tripadvisor, or Amazon Reviews), and the relative lack of transparency in the “brand/production relationship” which still more often than not “remains murky until bad news pushes it into the open.”
What’s changing, writes Walker, is that “knowing something” about a particular product “resonates with consumers more than an aggregate score or a big-picture summary.” His measured reaction to a lengthy sustainability report published by the Gap mirrors the reaction of many green building professionals to the proliferation of corporate sustainability reports in the building products industry: “On one level, it’s admirable that the company discloses, for instance, that as of 2008, 11.8 percent of its Southeast Asia factories received a “needs improvement” rating. But as a practical matter, how does that relate to your specific T-shirt or the khakis you’re considering?” Or the carpet you are specifying?
The overwhelming volume and complexity of supply chain information makes it unlikely that commercial buyers will base a multimillion dollar contract decision on a Yelp review of a vendor, or a YouTube video documenting chemical hazards of PVC. Walker sees a future, however, where the mere availability of such information is itself the catalyst for positive change. He concludes with a vision that describes the future of radical transparency in the green building industry: “Imagine an open-source effort emerging to make that brand/production relationship much less opaque than it is.” He writes, “I don’t expect that most consumers would actually turn every impulse buy into a research project, but I bet it would change the way brands scrutinize their supply chains if they knew that every thing we buy was really, truly transparent.” We’re betting on it too.
Footnotes
[1] The Global Ecolabel Monitor 2010, p. 3.
[2] Just before Memorial Day, Greenbiz and Underwriters Laboratories announced the creation of a LEED-like global sustainability standard for companies. In late June, Interface, the maker of modular carpet, expanded its program for providing Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) for its products.
There is 1 comment about this post | Post a comment
PHAROS WEBINAR ARCHIVE AND TUTORIALS NOW AVAILABLE
Missed one of our free webinars this summer? Or did you attend one and want to share with colleagues?
There are 0 comments about this post | Post a comment
CONGRESS PASSES CA-BASED FORMALDEHYDE LIMITS FOR COMPOSITE WOOD
The US Congress has approved legislation[1] to limit allowable emissions of formaldehyde from composite wood products, specifically hardwood plywood, particleboard and medium-density fiberboard sold in the United States. The new limits in are based on the levels established for the State of California in 2007 by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
This is good news for reducing the serious toll that this known carcinogen takes on human health through widespread exposures in homes, offices and schools from building materials. The legislation should serve as a strong wake up call to the industry and help increase availability of low-formaldehyde and formaldehyde-free materials for the green designer. It is, however, only one piece of the puzzle in getting formaldehyde out of our buildings.
Although the regulations list emissions standards that kick in as early as July of 2011 and 2012, the EPA has two and a half years – until January 2013 – to promulgate regulations to implement the standards and retailers will be allowed to “sell-through” their inventory even beyond that point. Exemptions abound, including hardboard, structural plywood, structural composite lumber, OSB, glue-lams and wood I-joists, finger-jointed lumber, wood packaging, plus some exceptions for windows, exterior and garage doors, vehicles, boats and aircraft. Other important areas of formaldehyde use in building products, such as insulation and textiles, are not addressed by the legislation.
Finally, the new federal legislation reduces formaldehyde emissions but does not eliminate them. The California Air Resources Board says bluntly that there is no known safe level for this carcinogen and avoidance is the best approach. There is a labeling option in the federal legislation for indicating “no-added formaldehyde-base binder,” but formaldehyde-based binders will still be widespread in products after this legislation goes into effect. So although this legislation will represent an important step for reducing the health impacts of formaldehyde in buildings, smart designers will continue to use Pharos to find and evaluate the increasing number of products available across categories that avoid all added formaldehyde.
------------
[1] S. 1660: Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act
There is 1 comment about this post | Post a comment
HEALTHY PAINTS PART 2: BEYOND VOC CONTENT – GETTING THE TOXICS OUT
Last week we described the major reductions in VOC content we are seeing in paints (Paint Industry Drives Toward Zero VOCs – Will Certifications Catch Up?). But does a low-VOC content number mean these paints are actually safe from the perspective of environmental health? Not necessarily.
As we described in an earlier blog (Sorting Out The VOCs), the total VOC (TVOC) criteria originally was established by the EPA to control product emissions of smog forming compounds into the environment, not to control direct indoor air health impacts. With the focus on smog formation, TVOC is a very incomplete measure of the potential health impact of chemicals of concern in a product. By official EPA definition, TVOC exempts some VOCs from measurement because they don’t contribute to smog formation even though they otherwise may be quite toxic. There is no “safe” level of VOCs, except where products contain absolutely no VOCs including the exempt compounds. Very few paint manufacturers indicate whether the VOC content levels of their products include the non-smog forming, exempt compounds. Setting the Pharos VOC filter at 7 screens out all but those few that have stated clearly that their product contains no VOCs, including exempted VOCs.
Looking only at a product’s VOC content does not tell the whole story of the product’s potential harm from VOCs. As paints cure, they can sometimes create and emit formaldehyde or other VOCs during the curing process. Both the GreenGuard & Scientific Certification Systems (SCS) programs now certify paints, by looking at the potential for long-term VOC emissions. The MPI Extreme Green program also requires emissions testing before certifying the products. The problem is that the standard upon which these programs are based (California 01350) is designed to identify and evaluate only long-term emissions, not the short-term blast of emissions that comes in the first few hours and days after the paint is applied to the wall.
Until good short-term testing protocols are developed for paints (and other wet-applied products), another measure of potential VOC harm for the indoor environment is to look at the VOC content. Pharos gives the highest VOC scores to products that both reduce VOC content to zero (including exempted compounds) and meet the long-term VOC tests embodied in the California 01350 standard. With the new California 01350 higher residential standard in effect, specifiers should require that paint products meet this more rigorous level that we wrote about last month (A New Voc Standard & New Tools From Pharos To Help You Get The VOCs Out).
Finally, VOCs (both content and emissions) are not the only potentially unhealthy chemicals associated with paint. Although lead has long been removed from paint, plenty of other non-volatile, but still toxic chemicals remain in paints. Most of the certification programs have some limits on other toxic content of the paints. The Green Seal chemical screen is by far the most extensive. Green Seal includes a list of 25 chemicals that cannot be in Green Seal-certified paint, but also references authoritative lists of carcinogens, mutagens, reproductive toxins, hazardous air pollutants or ozone-depleting compounds similar to the Pharos Chemical and Material Library lists that we use to create the User Toxicity scores. Click here to see those products that meet the new, rigorous Green Seal Standard. [http://www.greenseal.org/findaproduct/paints_coatings.cfm] Very few paints are certified under the new Green Seal program, but we hope to see more upcoming.
Want healthy paints? You can find them in Pharos. Start with the wide selection of paints now available with VOC content levels at 25 g/l or below (those that score 6 or higher in VOC). Better yet, go for paint containing zero VOCs and ask manufacturers if that zero includes exempt compounds (there are at least 3 in Pharos that meet that high standard). And finally, for the best paints available, don’t stop at VOC content. Look for those that avoid all toxic content by seeking Green Seal certification or a high Pharos User Toxicity score.*
------------
* Note that the Green Seal paint certification program was updated in 2008 and certifications under the previous version are no longer valid. Several paint companies that certified to the previous version, however, have not recertified to the new updated version, yet still claim to "meet Green Seal" or even to be "Green Seal certified." Always confirm that a paint is still certified before accepting a manufacturer Green Seal claim.
There are 0 comments about this post | Post a comment
LOOKING UP: DISCOVERING WHAT’S OVER OUR HEADS
Anyone who finds themselves in a hospital, as a visitor or patient, has plenty of idle time sitting or reclining, looking around – as “islandtime” writes on a poetry discussion board - “thinking about the patient, where the ceiling tiles came from, how hospital sounds can mimic outdoor sounds, the way the techs and nurses are all dressed the same.”
For those who wonder about, and those who specify, ceiling tiles, the Pharos Project is exploring “where the ceiling tiles came from.” This week, our Building Product Library published the first diverse set of ceiling tile evaluations.
Our research into acoustical ceiling tiles indicates a very complex category. The contents and additives in ceiling tiles vary greatly. The primary core materials for acoustical ceiling tiles are mineral wool, fiberglass, or gypsum. Specialty tiles and panels may be made of wood, metal, recycled glass, and even jute. Facing materials range from paper to vinyl to antimicrobial paints. Within each type of tile, the amount of recycled and renewable content differs significantly from product to product.
Moreover, we have identified issues that may concern Pharos users: the widespread use of biocides, flame retardants, and formaldehyde-based binders, some of which are not disclosed in company literature. We have found carcinogenic flame retardants and biocides being released from ceiling tile plants – with no corresponding information about these chemicals on manufacturers’ websites.
Pharos Project subscribers will find several ceiling tiles in the system that use urea phenol formaldehyde and biocides. Some use a lot of recycled material. You will find further information about these and other ingredients in the Chemical and Material Library section of Pharos. We will also detail these and other concerns – as well as the positive attributes – of products in upcoming Signal blogs.
Many of our users, who specify millions of square feet of health care and other facilities per year, understand the importance of any decision on specifying ceiling tiles. Ceilings represent one of the largest surface areas in any interior. Suspended ceiling tiles and panels lie at the intersection of building ventilation systems and occupied space. They are receptors and sources of Volatile Organic Compounds and other toxicants.
Our research and evaluations of ceiling tiles should help users identify which panels use and emit the fewest toxicants and incorporate the most renewable materials. Then, when patients and visitors are staring up at some hospital room ceiling, the view will be healthy.
There are 0 comments about this post | Post a comment
HEALTHY PAINTS PART 1: PAINT INDUSTRY DRIVES TOWARD ZERO VOCS – WILL CERTIFICATIONS CATCH UP?
Low-VOC labels and certifications abound on the paint shelves today. What do they all mean? Not necessarily what you think.
First, let’s look at the certifications. Green Seal, EcoLogo, CRGI GreenWise and MPI Green Performance all base their certifications on VOC content – and 50 grams/liter (g/l) is the magic number. Almost every single one of the certifications sets 50 g/l as the maximum VOC content for flat sheen paints. (Flat sheens are primarily for ceilings and walls, with a matte look and are the least scrubbable of the sheens).
The consensus goes out the window for other sheens, such as semi-gloss, gloss, satin or eggshell (each preferable for different areas/parts of a building, depending on need for moisture resistance, scrubbability, and/or shine). MPI holds its threshold to 50 g/l for all sheens, while GreenSeal and CRGI allow up to 100 g/l for the non-flat sheens. EcoLogo has a more complex set of criteria, limiting interior non-flat paints to 100 g/l, 125 g/l for exterior non-flat sheens and 150 g/l for gloss sheens.
Some of the relevant government standards are running ahead of the third party certification programs. Since 2008, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has mandated a standard maximum VOC content of 50 g/l for flat and non-flat paints/coatings used in buildings in Southern California. The SCAQMD standard is used by the LEED certification system as the standard for credits in its certification program.
Meanwhile, in many cases, the paint industry is ahead of both the certifications and standards. All of the 23 semi-gloss paints (non-flat) Pharos evaluated as of June 8, 2010 have VOC content less than 50 g/l – and hence meet the lowest current standard. But they don’t stop there. Almost three quarters of those paints (17) have less than half the allowed VOC content (that is less than 25 g/l). More than half (13) are close to or at zero VOC content (with 5 g/l or less). Clearly the 50 g/l and higher thresholds of the standards and certifications are needlessly high and the discerning specifier can hold out for much better paint specifications.
You can do better than the certifications and standards by using the Pharos scoring filter to find paint products with lower VOC content in the Pharos Building Products Library. Setting the filter to a minimum VOC score of 6 will only display those products with VOC content of 25 g/l or less. A minimum VOC score of 7 will limit the display to those paints with true zero VOCs.* Despite standards and certification programs, there is no need to accept paint with VOC content even close to 50 g/l anymore.
__________
*“True zero VOCs” here refers to the fact that most VOC disclosures by manufacturers only include the VOCs that contribute to smog formation. Other VOCs are exempt even though they may have health effects. To get a VOC score of 7 a product must be known to have no VOC including these exempt VOCs, See Sorting Out The VOCs for more about this issue.
There are 3 comments about this post | Post a comment
ANTIMICROBIALS IN PAINTS - ADDING COST AND RISK FOR NO KNOWN BENEFIT
Antimicrobial use in building materials, including paints and coatings, has grown rapidly in recent years and is coming under increasing scrutiny as concerns about health impacts and effectiveness rise.
There is a wide range of antimicrobial use in paints and coatings. Most manufacturers, with some exceptions (e.g. epoxy-based paints and coatings), use “in-can preservatives” to prevent mold and fungal growth in the can and keep the paint from spoiling. They claim that because latex is made from starch, it is a good food source for bacteria.[1] Other manufacturers add what they call “biocides” or mildewcides to exterior coatings to prevent algae and mold growth. Additionally, some manufacturers add antimicrobials to their products explicitly to claim antimicrobial protection on the surface of the coating once it has cured, even for interior applications.
Aggressively marketed for enhanced infection control, antimicrobials are used in paint to inhibit mold (as well as in other interior finish products, including carpet, privacy curtains and upholstery fabric, wallcovering, wall protection, and door hardware/handles). In some products, metals, such as silver, are impregnated into the product to provide the antimicrobial properties. In others, products such as Microban are used as antimicrobials, made from the chemical Triclosan, a chemical of concern because of its acute toxicity.
Research indicates that environmental concerns exist from the manufacturing processes associated with antimicrobials (e.g. metals may be released into our water, soil, and air—the same metals that ironically may contribute to antibiotic resistance). Silver, in particular, has been linked with bacterial resistance.[2] Antimicrobials can also lead to what is known as “cross-resistance,” whereby through an intricate process, bacteria become resistant to the antimicrobial itself, as well as to a whole host of other antibiotics.
At the same time, serious questions are being raised as to whether added antimicrobials even serve a measurably useful function in interior finishes. The efficacy of antimicrobials has been called into question by several independent studies. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) concluded a 2003 comprehensive study of infection control practice with the statement that “No evidence is available to suggest that use of these [antimicrobial] products will make consumers and patients healthier or prevent disease. No data support the use of these items as part of a sound infection-control strategy.”[3] Kaiser Permanente similarly concluded in a December 2006 position statement that “[w]e do not recommend environmental surface finishes or fabrics that contain antimicrobials for the purpose of greater infection control and the subsequent prevention of hospital acquired infections.” KP states that there is “no evidence that environmental surface finishes or fabrics containing antimicrobials assist in preventing infections.” Rather, the organization recommends strict hand hygiene and environmental surface cleaning and disinfection.[4]
Meanwhile, more and more products are being introduced with added antimicrobials. Just this week, the Pharos Team received an e-mail announcing a new product from Jamestown Coating Technologies, SurfaGuard.™ The e-mail claims that SurfaGuard™ antimicrobial paints and coatings are designed to “provide an extra defensive shield against bacteria, molds, and fungi. The new product…incorporates silver ions via a new nanotechnology, SmartSilver™ that are proven to work against microbes.”
In light of the fact that the growing market for such added antimicrobials seems to be at odds with the science, Pharos would like to remind our subscribers that when they get claims from manufacturers about added antimicrobials in products, that the experts at the CDC have said, “No evidence is available to suggest that use of these [antimicrobial] products will make consumers and patients healthier or prevent disease. No data support the use of these items as part of a sound infection-control strategy.”[5] The whole added antimicrobial discussion reminds me of my parental role every time my kids come to me after seeing an advertisement for the newest pair of jeans or the most up-to-date PlayStation game - just because the advertiser says you need something, that doesn’t mean you really do!
-------------
[1] Only a very few acrylic paint manufacturers do not add some type of preservative in the can. In the past, mercury was added to paint, which acted both as an in-can preservative and as an antimicrobial additive. For some time in the 1990’s, formaldehyde replaced mercury and was used to provide these protections. In the 21st century, chemical compounds such as benzisothiazolin-3-one (BIT) or methylisothiazolin (MIT) are used as in-can preservatives. Further study beyond the scope of this blog is needed to learn more about these different applications and the chemical compounds associated with them. When manufacturers disclose in-can biocides, we have included them in the product evaluation.
[2] “Antimicrobial Chemicals in Buildings: Hygiene or Harm” Environmental Building News, Volume 16, Number 8. August 2007 p 13.
[3] Centers for Guidelines for Environmental Infection Control in Health-Care Facilities Recommendations of CDC and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC)
(http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/pdf/guidelines/Enviro_guide_03.pdf).
[4] Kaiser Permanente,” Evaluation of Antimicrobial Property Claims in Finishes and Fabrics," December 1, 2006. (http://www.healthybuilding.net/healthcare/KP_Antimicrobial_Position_Paper.pdf)
[5] CDC. Op. cit.
There are 0 comments about this post | Post a comment
Charter Members
