14 California Buildings News • September/October 2016
On the Brink of a Building Materials Revolution Retrofit and New Building Construction Can Both Benefit from New Information — By Anjanette Green
In the wake of the environmental movement a
paradigm shift is beginning to reveal itself, a heightened awareness of the health of building occupants. Thanks to media coverage, increasing awareness of toxic chemicals Image: Getty Images. and research stemming from renowned universities, these seemingly unrelated events are culminating in a “materials revolution.” A recent study, conducted by the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and the Syracuse Center of Excellence, found that occupants working in an indoor environment with increased ventilation, higher volumes of outdoor air and low-emitting materials had higher cognitive function scores across nine different domains; 101% higher as compared to a conventional building environment. Remarkably, the largest effects were seen for Crisis Response, Information Usage and Strategy, illustrating the impact indoor environmental quality has on occupant performance and health. The documentary “Toxic Hot Seat,” based on the investigative report “Playing With Fire,” blew the whistle on toxic flame retardants used in furniture foam and further shocked the public when it was revealed that these retardants were ineffective against the prevention of fire, but also probable carcinogens. When the houses destroyed by Hurricane Katrina were repaired with contaminated drywall, headlines exclaimed
residents were experiencing difficulty breathing and recurrent headaches. Swiftly, several class action lawsuits were filed in 2009, culminating in a multiple district litigation case in Louisiana. Perhaps one of the most remarkable events occurred just two months ago, when President Obama signed into law the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act. For the first time in 40 years the U.S. has updated its chemical safety control act and begins the arduous task of reviewing over 85,000 chemicals openly used in commerce in our country. Few people realize the magnitude of this act but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been ineffectual for years, having no authority to control the use of chemicals in products—not even asbestos, arsenic or formaldehyde. These highly publicized examples express a unified theme and when a cross-section including government agencies, NGOs, academia and industry associations show alignment, it warrants attention. Not surprisingly, the design and construction community is being called to action to answer the resounding need for healthier materials made from healthier ingredients. To address this, there have been notable changes and additions to our industry’s building certification portfolio. One of the most anticipated centered around this country’s most recognized building certification, the USGBC’s LEED program and within it, the overhaul of the materials and resources credits. For credit compliance, teams must specify a minimum of products having HPDs, Declare, C2C, C2C Material Health, or Green Screen analysis in order to be considered. Despite initial grumblings that the credits were too ambitious, a ripple effect has shot through the industry, pressing manufacturers for information on chemical ingredients at an unprecedented rate. The Living Building Challenge has also played a significant role. Widely regarded as the world’s most rigorous building certification, the Materials Petal prohibits the use of any LBC red list chemicals. Unsurprisingly, the Declare Product (Continued on page 41)