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:
Tom Lent
In Washington, DC:
Larry Kilroy, Sarah Gilberg, Sarah Pickell, Susan Sabella
In Maine:
Jim Vallette
PHAROS HELPS EPA WITH INSULATION STUDY
Pharos is partnering with the EPA to insure that the insulation used in federal stimulus funded home weatherization programs is healthy and low in environmental impact. In a special project with EPA Region 9 and StopWaste, Pharos is surveying cellulose, fiberglass and cotton products to understand the current state of the industry on a variety of key parameters set by the EPA, including recycled content, indoor air quality, including application of the new residential emissions standards, and toxic content. Manufacturers interested in participating in the program are submitting information to Pharos which the EPA will use to evaluate products and modify standards.
Recent improvements in products are starting to show up in Pharos listings. For example, UltraTouch cotton insulation is now being made with 100% post-consumer recycled cotton. Watch for more news of the evolving state of blanket insulation as this project progresses.
There are 0 comments about this post | Post a comment
PHAROS CUTS THROUGH ENDANGERED WOOD CONFUSION
Use of biobased materials whether from agricultural plants or from trees is appealing in green building due to their renewable nature. However, overharvesting, plantation farming, chemical use and other problems threaten many species of trees with extinction as well as threatening entire forest habitats and the animals and humans that depend upon them.
In order to help green building professionals avoid inadvertently using endangered species in green building projects, the Pharos team has just added a section to the Pharos Chemical and Material Library (CML) that deals specifically with trees and other biobased materials. The CML now includes over 800 entries for tree species or groups of species with reference to any applicable warnings of threats to their survival or their habitats. Species warnings indicate the Pharos system's prioritization of concern based upon the degree of the threat to the species. One of the most widely accepted criteria sets for rating the threat to endangered species is the Red List Categories and Criteria prepared by the Species Survival Commission of the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources). Pharos structures its prioritization of the relative significance of threats based upon the IUCN categories.
Warnings are categorized using a colored-flag system, similar to the one used in the CML for chemical warnings:
- Black – Extinct (EX) or Critically Endangered (CE) - species is extinct or facing an extremely high risk of extinction. Species that have been listed as extirpated in a US state (locally extinct) are also included in this category.
- Red – Endangered (EN) - species is facing a facing a very high risk of extinction. Pharos also places most endangered species warnings from organizations that do not use the IUCN classification system into this category.
- Orange – Vulnerable (VU) - species is facing a high risk of extinction. Frequently referred to as Threatened.
- Yellow – Near Threatened (NT) - species is not yet considered vulnerable or endangered, but is close to qualifying for or is likely to qualify for a threatened category in the near future. Species not yet evaluated (NE) are included here. Data deficient species (DD) are also included in this category where more information is required and the possibility that future research will show that threatened classification is appropriate.
- Green – Least Concern (LC) – species is still widespread and abundant
The CML’s current 800+ entries are drawn from US federal and state threatened and endangered species listings, species listed by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and species identified by the World Wildlife Fund and Rainforest Relief. This is a work in progress with more lists in the queue for addition over the coming months. Currently, the species warning listings are available as a stand-alone search in the CML. Shortly, we will be integrating them into the Pharos product listings as well.
Since most Pharos users will rarely know the actual scientific name – the genus and species – of the wood products you are considering, we are adding common trade names and synonyms for each species. If you can’t find the wood name that you are seeking, let us know by using the comment link in the upper right hand corner and we will do our best to link it to a species in the CML and let you know what we find out about its status.
We hope you find this new Pharos feature useful and we look forward to hearing your opinions as we further expand our analysis of biobased materials.
There are 0 comments about this post | Post a comment
PEER HITS COAL WASTE IN BUILDING PRODUCTS
If you have been working to eliminate mercury exposure and contamination, it is well worth reading the comments filed yesterday by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (http://www.peer.org) objecting to EPA's proposal to promote the beneficial use of coal ash wastes in a wide array of products from cement to cosmetics.
As a PEER website catalogues, "coal ash is everywhere." In the built environment, coal ash is present in a wide array of materials, from carpet backing to acoustical ceiling tiles.
The concern is that the ubiquitous use of 60 million tons of coal ash annually as "recycled content" violates the precautionary principle because the environmental and health consequences of the mercury content of the ash being mixed into so many products are unknown and largely have not been investigated. Not incidentally, PEER argues that by promoting the beneficial use of coal ash wastes the federal government is also undermining efforts to reduce the amount of coal burned for energy in the US. The comments cite (beginning at p.12) research by Jim Vallette from our Pharos Project documenting mercury emissions from factories manufacturing gypsum wallboard, a.k.a. "sheetrock," using ash wastes generated by the stack desulfurization process at coal burning power plants.
---------------
Earthbeat Radio is broadcasting an encore edition of a talk with Pharos senior researcher Jim Vallette. "As the 5th anniversary of Hurrance Katrina and Hurricane Rita approaches, Jim explains how imported toxic drywall poses health risks for Gulf Coast survivors as they attempt to rebuild their homes and lives."
There are 3 comments about this post | Post a comment
CARPETS: HELP US ROLL THEM OUT
The Pharos Project is in the process of opening a new product category, carpets. This category is particularly complex.
Carpets are really multi-component assemblies of backing, binder, fiber, and treatments. Typically, these components are manufactured by upstream suppliers, then assembled in the carpet factories. Carpet manufacturers sell hundreds of styles, which in turn have many color options. And, to make matters even more confusing, manufacturers frequently change the name of styles, making product names obsolete.
In order to provide evaluations that inform Pharos users’ selection practices, we need to know how you go about selecting carpets. We also would like you to identify backings, fibers, and other components in which you are most interested.
Your feedback will help us determine how best to collect and display the data that are most important to you.
Please click here to take the survey.
Many large carpet manufacturers have expressed a willingness to submit product data for Pharos evaluation. If you represent a carpet manufacturer and have not been contacted by us yet, please send us an email and we’ll get the process started.
Whether you are a purchaser or a manufacturer, we look forward to hearing from you. Thanks!
There are 0 comments about this post | Post a comment
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 4 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 are 2 comments about this post | Post a comment
Charter Members
