The Pharos Project connects you to a network of building professionals and manufacturers committed to transparency as a core value on the path to sustainability. Pharos is not a certification or label, it is information: the critical health and environmental data about the manufacture, use, and end of life of building materials specified and used every day all delivered in an easy to use web based tool.

The Pharos Project is a project of the Healthy Building Network. HBN is:

In Vermont:
Melissa Coffin, Bill Walsh

In California:
Tom Lent

In Washington, DC:
Larry Kilroy, Sarah Gilberg, Sarah Pickell, Susan Sabella

In Maine:
Jim Vallette

PVC BUILDING PRODUCTS MANUFACTURER TOPS DIOXIN DUMPING LIST

 
A manufacturer of PVC pipe, vinyl siding and other building and consumer products is now reportedly the number one source of dioxin releases in the country. A recent assessment of the EPA's Toxics Release Inventory, by the Institute for Southern Studies identified Westlake Vinyls in Calvert City, KY as the worst dioxin polluter in 2010, reporting releases of over 14,000 grams -- more than 31 pounds -- of dioxins and dioxin-like compounds to surface waters in 2010 alone. Dioxins are among the most potent toxicants known to science, very persistent and bioaccumulative with health concerns including cancer and reproductive toxicity. Current European exposure limits range as low as 1 picogram per kilogram of body weight per day - one-trillionth of a gram. The EPA is expected to suggest even lower limits in its long awaited upcoming dioxin reassessment.

There are 0 comments about this post | Post a comment

KAISER PERMANENTE KICKS PVC & PHTHALATES OUT OF MEDICAL EQUIPMENT

 
Kaiser Permanente has made a major step in its program to reduce its use of chemicals of concern, announcing this week that it will switch to IV bags that do not use PVC and DEHP and IV tubing without DEHP. PVC (Polyvinyl chloride) plastic and the phthalate DEHP (di-2-ethyl hexyl phthalate) used to make it flexible are both widely used in medical products and have been shown to have a wide range of harmful effects on health.  Kaiser Permanente, the largest managed care organization in the US, purchases almost 5 million IV tubing sets and over 9 million solution bags each year totaling nearly 100 tons of medical equipment.

There are 0 comments about this post | Post a comment

DIRTY ENERGY CLEANUP SHIFTS BURDEN TO BUILDING MATERIALS

 
The compartmentalization of environmental policies can create escape valves for pollution.  Regulations that do not reduce toxic inputs lead to a transfer of hazards. We have seen this, for example, with solid waste regulations. In the 1980s, when new regulations forced major disposal practice changes, waste generators took advantage of a lack of export controls.  They followed the path of least resistance and tried to ship waste to Africa, Haiti, and Bangladesh.

We are seeing a similar story unfold with pollutants generated by coal-fired power plants. The EPA took a huge, and long-awaited, step toward controlling toxic air emissions from coal power plants last month.  It released rules that, when fully implemented by 2016, will limit the air emissions of toxic contaminants of coal, such as mercury, arsenic, chromium, and sulfur dioxide.

Since coal fired power production is going to continue, these contaminants have to go somewhere.  While one outlet (the smokestack) is under the regulatory gun, another outlet lies wide open: the unregulated commercial use of solid waste captured from pollution control devices.

Many power generators have equipped newer plants with flue gas desulfurization (FGD) units to comply with EPA air rules, existing and forthcoming.  FGD pollution control devices capture and concentrate many of the EPA-targeted air emissions. And wastes from these FGD units are coming to a house, office, hospital, or school near you. In fact, they probably already have.

FGD waste – marketed as “synthetic gypsum” – has become a common ingredient in some building materials, particularly wallboard (also commonly known as drywall). The EPA says it “strongly supports this practice.”

As the new air rules are implemented, we can expect more transfers of air pollutants into building materials. So far, the EPA has declined to regulate this material as “hazardous waste.”

The material flow is as unregulated as when the city of Philadelphia dumped its incinerator ash on a beach in Haiti, back in 1988.  Then, too, waste traders tried to convince residents that ash makes a good “building material.”  

Residues collected from FGD units are now the leading material used in wallboards. Over the past decade, wallboard manufacturers moved most of their production plants from mines to coal-fired power plants.  The lower cost of FGD gypsum[1] compared to mined material, and incentives to incorporate recycled ingredients (including waste products) into building materials, drove the dramatic – and little recognized – transformation of North American-made wallboard.

Commodification disperses contaminants downstream. The first point of dispersal is in building material production processes, where the heating of FGD gypsum can release toxic heavy metals.  For a while, the toxicants may then be contained within the physical structure of the finished material.  But encapsulation lasts only so long. Ultimately, buildings and building materials are demolished and discarded or recycled.   Drywall equals about 15% of all construction and demolition (C&D) debris.  This debris winds up in new drywall, landfills, and even in some agricultural applications.

The subject of coal waste product commodification has been a side issue in coal fired energy debates – so far.  The transfer of toxic coal contaminants into the indoor environment will grow.  As time and mass increase, impacts could too, and we will begin to more fully understand the scope of shifted burdens.   The unregulated experiment has barely begun. 

[1] A 2004 Ohio State University estimate put the price of synthetic gypsum at $7/ton, compared to $12.75/ton for natural gypsum. http://ohioline.osu.edu/anr-fact/0020.html

There are 0 comments about this post | Post a comment

THIRD-PARTY CERTIFICATIONS: FRONT AND CENTER IN PHAROS V2

 
One of the most striking changes in the new version of Pharos (which can be previewed here) is the positioning of third-party certifications and standards used in scoring in a simplified and straightforward way.
 
Pharos considers a product's certification from 48 certifying bodies in the calculation of scores for VOC, User Toxics, and Renewable Materials.

In the original Pharos system these certifications were listed deep within the scoring frameworks for each scoring attribute, and appeared as an admittedly overwhelming list of certifications and their variations: SCS Indoor Advantage Gold (Residential) versus Indoor Advantage Gold (+ Formaldehyde Free), versus Indoor Advantage Gold, for example.

But no more! In v2, all of the certifications and standards used to calculate scores can be found in one place - the Evaluation Framework tab in the navigation bar.  Here the certifications can be browsed as a complete list, browsed by category (Biobased, Recycled Content, etc.), or searched by name or organization.  Certifications can also be sorted by how they score in Pharos impact categories.

Each certification's detailed view includes a description, direct links for more information, an explanation of how the certification impacts product scoring, and a link to view a list of products in the Pharos Building Product Library claiming that certification.  With the imminent release of Pharos team tools, subscribers will also be able to add personal or company tags to certifications to enable easy saving and sharing.

There are 0 comments about this post | Post a comment

BILL WALSH REFLECTS ON POSITIVE TRENDS AT GREENBUILD

 

Bill Walsh, Executive Director of the Healthy Building Network, reflects on positive trends seen at Greenbuild 2011.  Building product manufacturers are getting more involved with disclosure and transparency initiatives, customers are clarifying their demand for product information with the Health Product Declaration Open Standard, and manufacturers are increasingly using Pharos to communicate both with their customers and with their suppliers to create healthier products.

There are 0 comments about this post | Post a comment

PHAROS V2: SHOW US WHAT YOU’RE MADE OF!

 
I think you’re really going to like Pharos v2.

I could talk about how improved user interface and workflow features will save your firm time and money, while increasing your control over your building product specifications throughout the construction schedule.  But you can read about that in our press release.  Or better yet, take a free trial and see for yourself.

What I really want to talk about with Pharos subscribers and blog readers is why these tools really matter, to you and us.  Let’s not confuse the means with the ends.  In the end, Pharos is not just about making you more efficient in your work, it’s about making you more effective in your mission:  transforming the building materials market to be a driver for best environmental, health and social equity practices.  

You have made clear, and we agree, that the best way to achieve the ideal of living buildings and a regenerative industry is through transparency.  And transparency is breaking out all over in the building products industry: from manufacturer-led Environmental Product Disclosures to the customer led Health Product Declaration Open Standard, to a proposed LEED credit that could create incentives for both.  

But transparency alone will be, at the same time, both “not-enough” and “too-much” of a good thing.  There’s a big difference between choking down a crate of organic vegetables, cooking them up into a nourishing meal, and understanding them as the basis for inventing new cuisine.  It might seem like a stretch to suggest a comparison between Pharos and el Bulli, but we think that the data geeks out there – you know who you are, and we know who you are – won’t flinch at the extended metaphor.  

Forward leaning manufacturers have provided us with the finest ingredients: honest data.  We treat that with the respect it deserves. Everyone at the table will be nourished professionally, and some of you will be inspired to co-create a new way to appreciate the bounty.

Pharos v2 gives manufacturers an unsurpassed platform for distinguishing their companies and products to their customers.  It gives customers an unprecedented capability to aggregate and amplify their preferences into clear market signals to their suppliers.  It offers everyone a place at the table, and the tools to participate, communicate, and collaborate on a transformational agenda.  We can’t wait to see what we cook up.  Take a seat & show us what you’re made of!

There are 0 comments about this post | Post a comment

COMING SOON TO PHAROS SUBSCRIBERS: POWERFUL NEW RESEARCH & COLLABORATION TOOLS

 
You spoke; we listened. In the coming weeks, we will be launching Pharos Version 2: the in-depth, transparent product and material information you have come to rely upon, with expanded capabilities and tools.

NEW Team Tools - We have dramatically increased the collaboration capabilities of Pharos for your company and project teams. Pharos users will be able to create product lists, save searches, use tags and share data and preferences within your company or in collaboration with other subscribers on a project team.

The new Pharos team tools will reduce the time and energy you spend communicating your firm's product specifications to clients, colleagues, and others; eliminate redundant research; make it easier to identify multiple qualifying products; and increase your control over substitutions throughout the construction schedule.

Other highlights include:

• Redesigned product profile view - emphasizes the pros and cons of a product at a glance, and compares it to other products in its category; lets you see health hazards of material contents without leaving the product profile page.

• Redesigned chemical profile view - identifies environmental and health hazards ordered by level of concern, as well as restricted substance lists and life cycle impacts (see a sneak peek of part of a profile page here).

• NEW Site-wide text search - enables you to find products, chemicals, blogs and more by name, keyword, manufacturer, etc.

• NEW Certifications library - evaluates over 100 common product certifications; helps you compare them and understand how they affect scores in Pharos.

• And more! - more transparent information about the Pharos team and our research process; redesigned blog; updated and easier-to-read information about our scoring protocols; user administration tools for team and firm subscriptions; and other site improvements.

Pharos V2 is coming your way soon. Stay tuned for further updates.

Not yet subscribed? Visit our signup page.

Also coming soon: new product categories! We are preparing roofing membranes and wood flooring for opening in the coming weeks.

There are 0 comments about this post | Post a comment

LEED 2012 DRAMATICALLY SHIFTS MATERIAL SELECTION CRITERIA – COMMENT BY 9/14

 
With the LEED 2012 draft now open for public comment (through next Wednesday Sept 14) the USGBC is proposing a whole suite of new credits that together propose to radically change how manufacturers assess, disclose and formulate the products with which we build.

As described in our Healthy Building Network newsletter today, one of the most positively transformative could be the "Avoidance of Chemicals of Concern in Building Materials" which rewards disclosure of ingredients and avoidance of chemicals on a red list, proposed to be the California Prop 65 list in the draft. HBN strongly endorses the intent of the credit and welcomes the USGBC effort which we expect to reinforce the advances we have been making with the Pharos Project to encourage full disclosure.

The devil is in the details, however, and it will be critical to get the details right in this credit to avoid it becoming a vehicle for greenwash. There are a number of issues we see as important to the effectiveness of the credit including:

• defining disclosure and picking the right red list of chemicals to avoid;

• focusing on interior products;

• rewarding verification; and

• providing sufficient points to encourage engagement and improvement.

This credit is a good first step in a progression, and we call on the USGBC to signal where it is going with this measure.  Future versions (2014) should both address health impacts elsewhere in the life cycle and should make disclosure of product content a prerequisite.  

I’ve described HBN's suggestions for refining the Chemicals of Concern credit in more detail in LEEDuser. We encourage you to read our proposals and add your comments there. According to the LEEDuser website, "substantive comments posted here during USGBC's second public comment period will be submitted to USGBC and considered 'official' public comment." Of course you are also encouraged to comment on the LEED Public Comment page.

Other Key Issues in LEED 2012

While you are in LEEDuser, participate in some of the other important discussions of material issues in the LEED 2012 draft. The Non-Structural Materials Transparency credit is also aimed at increasing transparency but through Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs). This one warrants engagement as well with significant issues addressing forestry impacts and substantial questions about the proposal to credit generic industry average EPDs.  Join the discussions in LEEDuser here and here and help focus this credit to be most useful. EPDs should become very useful tools as their use increases but they have serious limits in some areas of health and resource extraction and are not at this time a replacement for rigorous third party standards such as FSC.

Speaking of wood, the FSC-SFI debate that has wracked the USGBC for years has taken a new twist in LEED 2012 with the advancement of the LCA/EPD issue and addition of several credits that reward products simply for being biobased.  Knowing from ours and others' assessments that being biobased is no guarantee of sustainability, reduced climate impact or improved health, we recommend seriously considering the issues being raised in LEEDuser here and in this statement endorsed by a variety of NGOs. We agree that the new Responsible Sourcing of Raw Materials credit, while still needing some adjustments, represents a major step forward in addressing the environmental and social impacts of the extraction of non-wood materials.

Finally, there are good materials developments in the EQ section to reinforce as well. Some important criteria developed in LEED for Healthcare are ready to move into the rest of LEED (see LEEDuser discussion here). We are concerned about the proposal to drop VOC content restrictions from indoor wet applied materials (see discussion here), but we are very pleased to see LEED 2012 is following the path first blazed by the GGHC and then LEED for Healthcare to extend VOC emissions testing to all interior finish materials.  

All in all, the draft LEED 2012 proposes some major shifts in how manufacturers are encouraged to assess, disclose and formulate the products with which we build. This is an important comment period in which to engage with some very important elements to support and many needing your input to reshape to be effective and avoid greenwash. Join the discussion and provide your comments by next Wednesday, September 14, 2011.

There are 0 comments about this post | Post a comment

older posts >>