Consolideck® LS® receives Declare label for materials transparency

As many PROSOCO staff members are gearing up for the International Living Future Institute’s Unconference this week, May 21-23, in Portland, Ore., we’re busy processing a bunch of certifications and registrations that are relevant for the industry’s sustainable, resilient products crowd.

One of those we just got word on is the ILFI’s Declare label for our Consolideck® LS® lithium silicate concrete treatment. We’re extremely proud to say that this is the first-ever concrete finish to achieve this prestigious mark. Among other attributes, this third-party verification means that Consolideck® LS® is free of the Living Building Challenge v2.2 Red List chemicals of concern.

Consolideck® LS® and LS/CS® were also the first products to achieve third-party certification for indoor air quality performance by SCS Global Services, and they were the first concrete finishes to verify ingredient content through use of the Health Product Declaration open standard.

Since 2008, Consolideck® LS® and LS/CS® have been utilized to harden, dustproof, waterproof and beautify more than 400 million square feet of concrete floors.

Are you going to Living Future 2014 this week? Stop by the PROSOCO booth in the Plaza Foyer to learn more about our products and sustainability achievements, or read about our commitment to sustainability and transparency.

Read Full Post »

Four PROSOCO products certified to SCS Indoor Advantage Gold air quality standard

At PROSOCO, we don’t often talk about how we’ve long been a leader in making resilient, high-performing products that leave a minimal impact on the environment. But late last week, we received recognition for some of our efforts that we’re particularly proud of. Four of our high-performance coating and sealant products have been certified by SCS Global Services as conformant with the SCS Indoor Advantage Gold™ standard, one of the most stringent qualifiers of indoor air quality in the industry.

Three of those products reside in the PROSOCO R-GUARD® family of products, which are formulated to prevent unwanted movement of water and air through building envelopes:

• AirDam®
• FastFlash®
• Joint & Seam Filler

And a product in our Consolideck® line of high-performance products for sustainable concrete floors was also certified with the SCS Indoor Advantage Gold standard:

• Concrete Protector

These four newly certified products represent just the latest in a long list of PROSOCO products that have earned this certification over the past six years. Read the entire list of third-party certifications for R-GUARD and Consolideck®.

Read Full Post »

R-GUARD® products help Illinois home earn energy-efficient award

Congratulations to Weiss Building & Development LLC, which came in first place at the Department of Energy’s Challenge Home Builder Awards in the systems builder category. The winning project was a house in River Forest, Ill., which was built to the requirements of the Passive House Institute as well as the DOE’s Challenge Home program.

Four PROSOCO R-GUARD® products helped deliver the energy efficiency that the DOE award aims to recognize – FastFlash®, AirDam, Spray Wrap and Joint & Seam Filler.

Passive House Consultant Tom Bassett-Dilley and Eric Barton of concrete contractor Biltmore Insulated Concrete also made this project possible.

Learn more about the PROSOCO line of R-GUARD® products used on this award-winning home:

• FastFlash®
• AirDam
• Joint & Seam Filler
• Spray Wrap

Read Full Post »

The Year of Living Transparently

Peter Syrett, Chair of the Health Product Declaration Collaborative, announces the launch of the HPD V1.0 from the Greenbuild Expo floor. Dwayne Fuhlhage photo

In this guest post, PROSOCO’s Sustainability and Environment Director Dwayne Fuhlhage offers a look at the state of materials and chemical disclosure and avoidance, and transparency in labeling heading into 2013.

The Year of Living Transparently
by Dwayne Fuhlhage, CHMM; Sustainability and Environment Director

Welcome to 2013! Are you ready for emerging building sustainability trends?

The annual US Green Building Council (USGBC) Greenbuild conference in San Francisco capped off 2012 with a preview of some major trends and memes for this year and beyond:

1. The sustainable building movement is already a prime player in building and community resiliency. USGBC and its partners will be part of the conversation on taking resilience to the next level.

2. What is inside building products matters and the design community will begin scrutinizing content through transparency oriented standards like the Health Product Declaration (HPD). The LEED ratings system will reward transparency and select chemical avoidance by a yet-to-be-finalized mechanism in new Materials and Resources credits in LEED V4 and through new Pilot Credits.

3. Despite rumors to the contrary and aggressive lobbying on the part of some chemical industry players, the LEED ratings system will continue to be a prominent trendsetter in the push towards improved building performance.

As a member of the LEED Indoor Environmental Quality Technical Advisory Group (IEQ TAG) and participant in the Health Product Declaration (HPD) pilot project, I’ve had the privilege of seeing the debate on materials and chemical disclosure and avoidance play out in real time over the last year and a half.

Author Dwayne Fuhlhage (right) takes a minute to smile for the camera with fellow volunteer members of the LEED Indoor Environmental Quality Technical Advisory Group at Greenbuild.

To say this involves a diverse set of stakeholders is an understatement. The discussions were at times loud and fractious, but we collectively had the same goal of improving communication on the presence of hazardous materials in construction products.

The LEED V4 Materials and Resources credit approach will be settled between now and membership balloting later this year. This credit will be a big deal as LEED V4 is phased in project by project through 2015 and it is currently available in the form of a Pilot Credit. In the meantime, I’m going to let you in on a little secret:

Chemical disclosure and avoidance is already here.

Shortly before Greenbuild, the HPD working group incorporated as a non-profit and became the HPD Collaborative of which PROSOCO is a Founding Sponsor.

We’re in good company with design and specification firms including HDR, PERKINS+WILL, Turner, CANNONDESIGN, boora architects, Gensler, SERA, HOK, and SKANSKA among others.

You can see the list and support the Collaborative at http://www.hpdcollaborative.org/support.

These firms have taken a leadership position that will be emulated by others. Google has claimed this project as one of its own through sponsorship of the HPD Collaborative and a grant of $3 million to the USGBC for policy research on chemicals of concern.

Seriously, if any of these decision makers requests Health Product Declarations as a condition for specification, how will manufacturers react? Will they respond by saying “I don’t want your business”? Some might, but I think they would be outliers. The HPD is set to become the new normal in a relatively short time.

This should not imply that HPD preparation will always be easy. Manufacturers must pick apart every component of every raw material to find out what is inside. Communication through the supply chain is a challenge, with many suppliers having their own intellectual property priorities. Supply chains change and some raw materials have component variability.

Intellectual property is a difficult discussion topic between finished product manufacturers and transparency advocates as well. PROSOCO’s default position will be to increase transparency on chemicals of concern while maintaining key bits of information on functional ingredients as intellectual property in accordance with the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. That sounds like legalistic, weasel wording, but pay close attention to the phrase “chemicals of concern”.

The core list of chemicals of concern comes from Clean Production Action’s GreenScreen tool http://www.cleanproduction.org/Green.php.

From my perspective, prioritizing disclosure of chemicals of concern is the right approach as it gives innovative manufacturers some space to create better technologies without losing their competitive edge.

Beyond that, I think it appropriate for coatings and sealants manufacturers to be able to highlight their efforts to eliminate chemicals of concern. As an example, PROSOCO has systematically eliminated California Proposition 65 chemicals whenever possible over the last fifteen years. This has been a priority in creating the Consolideck® finished concrete flooring product line from the ground up.

Prove it — Rick Fedrizzi, Founder of USGBC, shares his perspectives on proving performance and health characteristics of building products at the USGBC 2012 Opening Plenary at Greenbuild.

The policy behind chemical avoidance priorities is a long way from being settled. The debate will continue and it will likely be contentious.

Some common materials, including crystalline silica and titanium dioxide, are listed as chemicals of concern absent the context of only being toxic by inhalation of fine particles. On the other hand, some technologies only exist because of legacy chemicals that are rapidly falling out of favor. Manufacturers dependent on legacy chemicals are putting up a good fight. Regardless, I think the broad usage of Health Product Declarations will help separate the wheat from the chaff.

There are a lot of “green” products on the market that don’t look so green once we strip off the marketing veneer. As an example, I look forward to our competitors openly divulging the need to use solvents to dilute their products before application. We need a level playing field and building professionals and owners deserve accurate information.

Consolideck® products will be the first in PROSOCO’s lineup to received HPD chemical reviews as designers are most concerned with occupied space. This is in conjunction with PROSOCO’s implementation of an enterprise level software tool, the WERCS, for producing new OSHA Globally Harmonized System (GHS) conformant Safety Data Sheets (SDS).

The GHS regulation requires a total revamp of the former MSDS and professional use product labels by June, 2015. You will see the first batch of SDSs in the near future.

This combined effort would be a challenge for manufacturers of any size and has set a high bar for PROSOCO’s staff in its 75th year. We’re committed to making this work because, frankly, we need to live with our specifying customers.

Additional Reading:
Sustainable Industries on trends for 2013: http://sustainableindustries.com/articles/2013/01/green-building-watch

BuildingGreen on the Google grant: http://www.cleanproduction.org/Green.php

LEEDUser forum on LEED V4: http://www.leeduser.com/blogs/leed-v4-public-comment-forum-leed-takes-new-direction

PROSOCO’s coverage of Greenbuild 2012 on Storify: http://storify.com/John_at_PROSOCO/the-building-envelope-at-greenbuild-2012

About the Author

Dwyane Fuhlhage

Dwayne Fuhlhage is the Sustainability and Environment Director for PROSOCO. He is a member of USGBC’s LEED Indoor Environmental Technical Advisory Group (IEQ TAG) where he serves as the coatings and sealants subject matter expert and participates in the drafting and maintenance of LEED standards. He has been involved in AIM VOC rulemaking activities at the district, state and federal level and is an active member of related ACA and CSPA committees. Dwayne is a member of the greener chemistry oriented NSF/GCI 355 ANSI Joint Committee and a Liaison member of the NSF/UL ANSI Health Based Emissions Standard Joint Committee.

HPD Collaborative leaders facilitate a discussion on “Using Your Own Power to Transform the Materials Ecosystem” during a Greenbuild educational session. Dwayne Fuhlhage photo

Read Full Post »

Sustainable construction; what it means to you

A practical perspective by RCI, Inc. and SWRInstitute

Editor’s note
Just got permission to share this Position Paper on sustainability co-authored by representatives from two of the construction industry’s most knowledgeable organizations. These are the experts, and the people who in many cases, the experts consult. The membership of these two groups includes manufacturers, contractors, architects, forensic investigators and more. Their “official” descriptions follow at the paper’s conclusion. Given their high level of experience and expertise, I think their views on sustainability and “green” are must-read for everyone in the business. — Gary

Seven-story apartment complex 901 New Hampshire in Lawrence, Kan., goes up in Spring 2011 with a (tan) vapor permeable primary air & water barrier on Densglass structural walls for energy-efficiency and weatherproofing the building envelope. Click pic for story ~ photo by Stephen Falls

“Sustainable design seeks to reduce negative impacts on the environment, and the health and comfort of building occupants, thereby improving building performance. The basic objectives of sustainability are to reduce consumption of non-renewable resources, minimize waste, and create healthy, productive environments.” — U.S. Department of Energy

Sustainable Construction; What it means to you
A position paper by RCI, Inc. and The Sealant Waterproofing & Restoration Institute (SWR Institute)

Introduction
Over the past decade anyone involved in construction has had reason to question how their work product impacts the environment and the resources future generations will rely upon. Whether compelled to do so by regulators enforcing environmental responsibility, design professionals insisting on “sustainable” construction products, or owners mandating more energy efficient buildings, demand for sustainable construction has increased in an economy that has seen a sharp decline in more traditional building practices.

Today that demand has become a market force in its own right. A rapidly growing number of electronic and print publications now promote differing ways to achieve “sustainable design”, advertise increasingly efficient building systems, and promote a wide range of building materials derived from recycled or renewable resources. Additionally, many building owners have placed a disproportionate emphasis on obtaining accreditation status for their buildings versus emphasizing long-term performance. Too little emphasis, however, has been placed on durability of building systems, the need for proactive maintenance, and benefits of restoring existing buildings as means to achieve sustainability.

RCI, Inc. and SWRInstitute Perspective
To achieve sustainable construction, emphasis must be placed on design and construction of the building envelope systems.

In addition to new construction, we, the members of RCI, Inc., and SWRInstitute devote much of our expertise to the design, repair, maintenance and restoration of building envelopes. Buildings that we work on vary from those in design phase to ones that have survived generations. With experience with older buildings constructed of traditional materials, and newer buildings that incorporate sustainable building materials and energy efficient components, ours is a unique perspective on the truly sustainable nature of modern building envelopes.

Over the last two decades, RCI and SWRInstitute members have been witness to a flurry of premature building system failures that have required us to undertake significant demolition, investigation, re-design and repair of modern structures. When such extreme measures are required on recent buildings, the benefits promoted as part of that building’s original “sustainable” design” are negated. Our clients – the building owners – are justifiably frustrated. They should not have to endure considerable inconvenience and cost to bring their “new” building back into a serviceable condition.

These costly failures and performance shortcomings have led RCI, Inc. and SWRInstitute to conclude that the most important consideration in achieving beneficial sustainability is durability. A durable building (or building system) is one that can achieve its intended service life with only routine maintenance. Without durability, the benefits of sustainable construction quickly vanish. Building systems that are not durable require costly repairs. They will also require new materials and energy for their repairs, adversely impacting our environment.

Numerous RCI and SWRInstitute case studies make clear that the durability of complex building envelopes is often compromised by premature failure of a single, integral component. Many such “weak links” were incorporated by well-meaning design professionals as sustainable alternatives to more proven technology. Their failure starts a chain reaction that fuels progressive decay of entire assemblies.

Durability shortcomings stem from several factors including the following:

1. Inadequate Design: Unless a building system is designed properly, it will not achieve its anticipated service life. Proper design requires a thorough understanding of how that building system will function, how it will integrate with other building systems, and which component can be the weakest link. To avoid design failures, experience with traditional systems and of the in-service strengths and weaknesses of sustainable alternatives is essential.

2. Inadequate Workmanship/Construction: Without skilled workmanship and proper execution, a well-designed building system will not achieve its intended service life. RCI, Inc. and SWRInstitute’s collective experience indicates that use of specialized contractors, and proper quality control/quality assurance, will increase the likelihood of achieving more durable construction.

3. Material/System Shortcomings: Sustainable construction has created a demand for numerous sustainable materials and systems. However, short track records and/or inadequate product development of such new systems can lead to disappointing performance in the real world. Another frequent contributor to premature failure is use of sustainable materials in ways the manufacturer never intended.

4. Inadequate Maintenance: While a durable building system should be able to reach its expected service life without unanticipated repairs, no construction material or system can function indefinitely without periodic inspections and/or routine maintenance. Some performance and service life shortcomings stem from improper maintenance, or lack of maintenance altogether.

What Sustainability Should Mean to Building Owners
With the above in mind, it is RCI, Inc.’s and SWRInstitute’s collective position that building owners should exercise caution when embracing the sustainable construction movement. Although we acknowledge the need to protect our environment and agree that sustainable construction should be integrated into our industry, no building owner can truly benefit from a sustainable building if the building cannot reach its expected service life without the need for unanticipated repairs. To that end, adopting policies that encourage durability is a necessary step towards achieving sustainability.

One final factor that must not be overlooked is the inherent sustainability of preserving and restoring existing buildings. Too often structurally sound older buildings – viable structures that could be restored and retrofitted for future use – are demolished and replaced with new energy- efficient structures. Before such extreme measures are taken in the name of sustainability, consideration needs to be given to the embodied energy and environmental impact of the resultant construction debris, and the costs and resources consumed by new construction.

Final Thoughts
While the sustainability movement promises many good things, we encourage building owners to consider how greater emphasis on building durability – and restoration of existing buildings – impact their financial interests, and the environment.

Sustainable buildings must survive to provide a financial justification for their construction, and benefit the environment.

In the opinion of RCI, Inc. and SWRInstitute members, it is often more environmentally responsible (and financially prudent) to restore an existing building than to build a new one.

# # #

RCI is an international association of building envelope consultants. Their members specialize in design, investigation, repair and management of roofing, exterior wall, and waterproofing systems.

The Sealant Waterproofing & Restoration Institute (SWR Institute) is an international trade association. Their members are some of the most experienced and qualified contractors, manufacturers and design professionals in the industry.

Through their strategic alliance, these organizations have observed, analyzed and compiled opinions of many industry leaders regarding sustainability.

Built in 1904 and abandoned for the last few years, the Poehler Building in East Lawrence is getting a new life as apartments. Occupancy is set for July 2012. Click pic for story. Stephen Falls photo

Read Full Post »

Raising the Bar on Indoor Environmental Quality

PROSOCO’s Director of Regulatory Affairs Dwayne Fuhlhage offers this perspective on proposed revisions to Indoor Environmental Quality requirements in the draft version of LEED 2012.

LEED 2012 Second Public Comment Period

by Dwayne Fuhlhage, CHMM; Regulatory Affairs Director

The US Green Building Council (USGBC) recently released the second draft of LEED 2012 for stakeholder review and comment by Sept. 14, 2011.

With final adoption of the International Green Construction Code (IGCC) on the horizon and the Living Building Challenge nipping at its heels, the USGBC is focused on taking green building to the next level.

The proposed revision substantially increases Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) requirements for coatings, sealants and adhesives by moving from proof of regulatory VOC compliance to passing emissions testing.

If you found this blog entry after the comment deadline, keep reading.

USGBC will be listening to stakeholders well past the deadline. GREENBUILD will feature a LEED 2012 lounge where attendees can talk with USGBC staff and Technical Advisory Groups (TAG) members directly. Each TAG, including the IEQ TAG, will have scheduled times to discuss specific credit areas.

The USGBC was among the first to reward use of small-chamber VOC emissions testing by providing an EQ credit path in LEED for Schools. This was PROSOCO’s primary reason for being an early adopter (in the coatings industry) with our SCS Indoor Advantage Gold certified Consolideck products.

By contrast, LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major Renovation calls out compliance with the 2004 version of SCAQMD Rule 1113 as the path to credit.

The LEED 2012 approach includes a substantive revision and realignment of the EQ credit system, including the EQ Credit for Low-Emitting Interiors as summarized:

• The only path to credit is through independent small chamber emissions testing of products utilized in building interiors. The cited method is the California Department of Public Health’s Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1.

• The credit rolls all interior products into one systems approach.

• The credit provides 1-3 points based on the percentage of combined interior surface area that is tested and demonstrated to be conformant (50% = 1 point, 70% = 2 points, 90% = 3 points).

• Conformance determination includes every layer in the system.

School example
I talked with someone who helped write the draft to better understand how the layer approach works. I’ll use a school floor as an example.

Many schools contain a mixture of finished and decorative concrete and various coverings such as carpet and resilient materials. Throw in a locker room, a wood floored gymnasium and swimming pool and the materials list gets quite a bit longer.

Our theoretical school then has the following materials: carpet, linoleum, recycled rubber tiles, concrete curing compound, concrete stain, concrete hardener, concrete finish, epoxy in the locker rooms and laboratories, control joint sealants, a swimming pool coating, and high-durability wood coating and line striping for the gym.

In order to contribute to credit, every one of these materials would require testing. Any area with multiple layers where any one layer is not tested would not be eligible for credit.

To put that in perspective, a floor might have a general application of a curing compound and a hardener with carpet and adhesive applied over it. Even if every other material is tested, an adhesive that was not CDPH tested would cause that entire area to not count towards the credit thresholds.

Some non-conformant products allowed
The credit’s tiered point approach does allow for some non-conformant products. That’s a good thing from my perspective. I’ve received multiple inquiries from LEED project team members looking for miscellaneous specialty coatings for LEED for Schools projects.

Sometimes we can help; sometimes we can’t. PROSOCO has concrete flatwork pretty well covered, but the volume of anti-graffiti coatings we could sell for the occasional interior CMU specification doesn’t merit the $2,800 outlay for CDPH chamber testing.

From a general perspective, LEED for Schools has proved to be an interesting proving ground for the CDPH emissions approach. Apparently, enough project teams were having problems finding products that the USGBC Executive Committee approved an alternative approach allowing compliance with South Coast Rule 1113 to gain credit (LEED for Schools PIEACP dated July 7, 2008).

Many of the questions posted on the LEEDUser forum on this topic relate to proper regulatory categorization of coatings as opposed to finding conformant CDPH tested products. See LEEDUser Schools IEQc4.2

This leads to fundamental questions: Is the existing LEED for Schools IEQ Credit 4.2 working as intended? Is it a good model for all new construction and major renovations certifying or specifying to LEED standards?

I think conformant specialty coatings will remain difficult to find. Some manufacturers will get out ahead and have the testing done, but for small-volume niche products or formulations adjusted often based on raw materials availability or regulatory drivers, the economics may not work out.

What do you think?

I’d like to hear from readers and USGBC wants to hear from stakeholders. You have two avenues for formal comments. The traditional route is through the USGBC website at LEED Rating System Development

The new, interactive route is through the LEEDUser forums. USGBC will consider substantive comments from the forums. Here’s an overview.

In a recent member’s only webinar on the new MR credit system, USGBC staff reiterated their desire to get LEED 2012 right. There may or may not be a third comment period.

In addition to the LEED 2012 lounge, they are encouraging hallway conversations at GREENBUILD in Toronto to help gain insights in to what moves the bar without breaking it. Assuming my Passport comes in time, maybe I’ll see you there.

I can be contacted at dwayne.fuhlhage@prosoco.com or by toll-free phone at PROSOCO’s corporate office – 800-255-4255.

About the Author: Dwayne Fuhlhage is the corporate regulatory manager for PROSOCO. Dwayne is a member of the USGBC LEED IEQ Technical Advisory Group, ASTM E60 Committee on Sustainability and the ASTM D22.05Committee on Indoor Air Quality. Dwayne serves as PROSOCO’s representative to the American Coatings Association and the Consumer Specialty Products Association where he participates in various VOC, environmental marketing and chemicals management policy committees.
# # #

Read Full Post »

CALGreen notches up specifier responsibility

CALGreen, the nation’s first green building code, went into force Jan. 1 in the world’s eighth-largest economy. PROSOCO’s Regulatory Affairs Director Dwayne Fuhlhage offers this report on how the new code affects specifiers of regulated paints, coatings and sealants.

CALGreen Declarations
by Dwayne Fuhlhage, CHMM
Regulatory Affairs Director

The agencies in charge of implementing CALGreen are gradually putting some meat on its bones.

In the case of the Department of Housing and Community Development, that means putting together certification forms for purposes of determining conformance with CALGreen residential building requirements.

It appears the standard of care for specifying VOC compliant construction materials has gone up a couple of notches. This is an excerpt from the new Declaration Statement form for paints and coatings found in the Pollutant Control Forms section of the website:

PAINTS AND COATINGS – DECLARATION STATEMENT (PC 7)
The following section shall be completed by a person with overall responsibility for the planning and design portion of the project.
DECLARATION STATEMENT
● I certify under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, the information provided is true and correct.
● I certify that the installed measures, materials, components, or manufactured devices identified on this certificate conform to all applicable codes and regulations, and the installation is consistent with the plans and specifications approved by the enforcing agency.

What does this mean for the architect or architectural specifier? To be honest, there has always been legal responsibility involved in the selection of paints and coatings through enforcement of various AIM VOC regulations.

The difference is that nobody outside of the regulated product manufacturers had to sign certifications like the one above. Even that was generally for poorly enforced reporting obligations.

Also, day-to-day AIM VOC regulation enforcement is spotty at best. Even the largest Air Quality Management District staff in the state has only a handful of field inspectors.

Now, every code official will become the de facto enforcement official for AIM VOC compliance and will drive responsibility back to the general contractor and the architect of record.

If you are specifying regulated paints, coatings and sealants, make sure your vendor can demonstrate knowledge on how the new CARB AIM VOC Suggested Control Measure (SCM) applies to their products.

Category definitions and limits have changed effective January 1. The CARB SCM definitions aren’t consistent with South Coast AQMD’s Rule 1113 definitions, either. This is an important factor if you are doing LEED projects as EQ credit criteria (based on South Coast 2004 Rule 1113 compliance) which won’t necessarily match the CARB SCM conformance criteria as defined in CALGreen.

Check out our new white paper on CALGreen for more information on CALGreen in general and how it impacts coatings and sealants.

Questions? dwayne.fuhlhage@prosoco.com

Read Full Post »

The FTC’s Green Guides and the Future of Eco Logos

PROSOCO’s Regulatory Affairs Director, Dwayne Fuhlhage, provides this valuable, personal insight into the Federal Trade Commission’s regulation of “green” marketing.

The FTC’s Green Guides and the Future of Eco Logos
by Dwayne Fuhlhage, CHMM; Regulatory Affairs Director
dwayne.fuhlhage@prosoco.com

It’s not often that I have an opportunity to dine with an enforcement official from a regulatory agency. I’m happy to report that this can actually be a pleasant and informative experience.

In mid-December, the Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA) hosted a number of prominent speakers at the association’s annual meeting and Sustainability Summit. The head of enforcement for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) spent quality time with the Environmental Marketing and Claims Committee (EMCC) in a lively discussion on the FTC Green Guides update and what it means for the formulated products industry.

By pure chance, several outspoken members of the EMCC, myself included, had the opportunity to continue in an informal discussion with him at the closing dinner.

We had a golden opportunity to continue our discussion on the future of the FTC Green Guides and what it means for the formulated products industry.

The FTC Green Guides (common name for Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims) provide a roadmap for what is and is not a legitimate environmental marketing claim. While technically not part of a regulatory program with enforcement, the Green Guides serve as the de facto basis of legal enforcement under other statutory programs.

After a two-year stakeholder dialogue, the FTC published a draft Green Guides revision for public comment. Expect final version publication around June, 2011.

The FTC/EMCC dialogue was constructive.

What became evident to EMCC members is that the FTC did not really understand how our established environmental logo programs work. Third-party eco logo programs and environmental marketing claims for cleaners and coatings generally have a basis in recognized governmental and quasi-governmental (ASTM, ANSI, ISO) standards.

For example, PROSOCO utilizes Scientific Certification Systems to verify indoor environmental quality performance based on testing using a California state standard practice and displays the Indoor Advantage Gold logo in the context of certified products.

The FTC is very concerned about environmental logos and claims that may have no substantiation, or by virtue of irrelevance may be misleading to the average “reasonable consumer.” They recently brought suit against paper plate marketers for misleading biodegradability claims.

While the plates conformed to ASTM biodegradability standards, the FTC asserted that they did not in fact biodegrade in typical landfill conditions. From the FTC’s perspective, conformance with quasi-governmental standards is not a safe harbor and marketing communications must be context sensitive and presented in a manner understandable to a reasonable consumer.

The cleaning products industry uses a variety of ASTM and ISO standards defining the biodegradability of individual ingredients and whole formulations. Through our dialogue, I think the FTC has a better understanding of how standards can play into legitimate marketing claims. Also, I believe they now get the concept that our industry talks to various markets with varying degrees of sophistication and knowledge on eco logos.

An architect or institutional specifier has a different understanding of certain claims than would a general retail consumer.

The FTC made has made clear their expectation that eco logos be qualified and relevant. This should not prove to be a major challenge for third-party and second-party (e.g. trade group) logos. However, logos generated by individual companies will most likely be subjected to a higher degree of scrutiny.

From my perspective, that’s a good thing. Generic logos claiming “green,” “sustainable,” “zero-VOC,” “low-VOC” and “zero VOC” sometimes have a basis in fact; sometimes they are based on unclear, subjective criteria.

Use of self-generated logos dilutes the efficacy of substantive and costly third-party logos.

Self-generated logos can be used in a meaningful way in the future. I welcome an era where the substantiation is included as a statement with the logo.

If you have any doubt that the FTC is serious about logos, watch your favorite environmental e-mail subscriptions for news on probable enforcement action on green logo “mills” – organizations that hand out logos simply by receipt of payment. If the past is any indication of the future, their first enforcement action will be a prelude to a general initiative.

The fallout from the Green Guides revision will take some time to work through the system. It’s clear to me that legitimate third-party logo programs will float to the top in environmental marketing messaging. To date, that’s been the purview of first wave, entrepreneurial for profit and non-profit organizations.

Like everything else in green and sustainable product messaging trends, that market is still sorting itself out. As an example, UL Environment was the 800-pound gorilla in the room at the Sustainability Summit.

They’re already a major presence simply based on the strength of the UL brand even though many of their standards are still in development.

Environmental marketing will evolve rapidly over the next few years. I’m looking forward to seeing who climbs to the top of the heap.

Be careful. Less than reputable "green" claims will sneak up and bite you, says sustainable storyteller Park Howell. Click on the image to visit his post on the 6 deadly sins of Greenwashing.

# # #

Read Full Post »

Report from GreenBuild – Day 2

Dwayne Fuhlhage, PROSOCO’s director of regulatory affairs, is attending GreenBuild. He offers this report from day 2.

GreenBuild Conference: Day 2
by Dwayne Fuhlhage, CHMM; Regulatory Affairs Director

I just completed Day 2 of the GreenBuild conference. My education sessions for the day were focused on green building codes and indoor environmental quality (IEQ).

But first, yesterday I promised photographic proof of the strumming USEPA program manager.

A U.S. EPA program manager provides a musical interlude at GreenBuild, Wednesday. photo by Dwayne Fuhlhage

I think it fair to say that the green building movement is populated by a group of very intelligent and iconoclastic people. And that’s actually the best part of being here for me. Over the last couple of days I met up with people I work with in ASTM and NSF consensus standards.

We had great conversations on how green products and concepts have come along in the last few years and where we think things are headed in the next few years.

Gazing in the crystal ball is a tough exercise. The whole purpose of LEED standards was to create market transformation. In 10 short years, we stand on the edge of the first statewide green building code, CALGreen, and the approach of the first national green building code, the IGCC. The market has indeed transformed.

PROSOCO President David Boyer asked me for a takeaway from the education sessions I’ve attended thus far. Here it is: the definition of green and sustainable construction is being written and rewritten every day by what essentially counts as an insurgency.

Here are a few stories that drive that home for me:

This morning I learned about the new New York City green building codes – total shock on this one. I wouldn’t normally think of NYC as being an insurgent organization, but they took a long look at LEED and the developing ASHRAE 189 standard and decided neither was a good fit. So they did their own stakeholder process and created their own standard. Will they adopt the IGCC in 2012? Sure doesn’t sound like it.

During lunch today with the co-founder of Berkeley Analytical Associates, I learned that the IEQ standard our Consolideck products are tested to was the brainchild of four primary authors that pushed it through. Berkeley Analytical, with all of 12 employees, was a major part of that.

At the Master Speaker’s panel, one of the guys behind the original Dyson bagless vacuum cleaner referred to it as “disruptive technology.”

They rolled the product out to great skepticism – everyone used vacuum cleaners with bags – why would anyone want to make the switch to this strange, unproven technology? The punch line: within 18 months it was the best-selling vacuum cleaner in America. He fully expects the evolution of green products to move along in fits of disruptive technology.

The speakers yesterday promoting energy use labeling for houses – insurgents all. From their perspective, a focus on using cheap off-peak energy just because it is there isn’t good for the environment. Their ultimate goal is to use labeling as a means to let consumers decide how much actual energy they want to use and whether that is a deciding factor in buying a home.

By all accounts, PROSOCO is a participant in the insurgency. Several years ago, we rewrote the specifications for silicate densifiers. Smart consumers picked our lithium silicates because they didn’t require as much work or generate a lot of rinse water. I was pleased to learn that the Consolideck side of our booth was getting a lot of traffic.

Polished concrete was big news in the green product trade journals two years ago and then they moved on. I walked by competitor’s booths that were totally devoid of traffic. Our brand and our message are sticking in an ever shifting market place.

We’ve been working to rewrite the rules on air barriers for several years. It’s crazy that energy modeling doesn’t count air infiltration reductions in the overall building equation. You know what, there’re plenty of forward thinkers in the green building movement who see the sense behind the technology and are moving on regardless of what the models say. They want real energy-use reductions.

Our alignment with BEI is all about moving the bar up yet again. The small-scale chamber in our booth drew lots of attention. When visitors found out we’re collectively set up to test entire wall assemblies they got downright excited. Yes, the highest performance products cost more money and you can’t see them behind the siding material.

In LEED V3, there’s no credit for upping the ante on envelope design. But designers and builders know all about the cost of envelope failure – rotten wood, mold and all.

My last thought for the day comes courtesy of the Chief Building Inspector for San Francisco during the session on CALGreen. He pointed out that he is not part of the design team. When he picks on architects, it’s because he considers his customer to be the building owner 30, 40 or 50 years from now.

He already is seeing failures of green products in buildings put up in the last ten years. He’s seen buildings go through three sets of windows in the span of his 30-year career.

The message to me is that the marketplace is ready for the next steps in high-performance product evolution. I’d say building walls that can weather hurricane-force wind and rain is a good start. Being part of the insurgency is a lot of work, but it’s also a lot of fun.

And what conference blog would be complete without a parting shot:

Author Dwayne Fuhlhage and new friend at GreenBuild.

Read Full Post »

Report from GreenBuild

Dwayne Fuhlhage, PROSOCO’s director of regulatory affairs, is attending GreenBuild. He offers this report from day 1.

GreenBuild Conference: Day 1
by Dwayne Fuhlhage, CHMM; Regulatory Affairs Director

Retired Army general and former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell talks leadership at GreenBuild 2010. photo by Dwayne Fuhlhage

After working PROSOCO’s booth for the last two years at GreenBuild, I am here in Chicago as an attendee. I learned a lot in the conference sessions today and I’ll try to share more before everything winds down Friday afternoon.

The overall vibe is optimistic. There’s a lot going on in the sustainable codes and standards arena and I get a real sense of momentum from the conference session presenters and attendees. Of course, change is only good for companies and individuals that are keeping up on green building technologies and trends. I’m feeling confident about PROSOCO’s efforts. While waiting in line for an Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) session, the architect next to me asked “So what makes your products green?” That’s a question I can answer confidently and without hesitation – I take that as a good sign.

Best stuff from today
The opening Plenary Session featured Retired General Colin Powell talking about his work with green distributed power generating systems and leadership in general. Colin Powell on leadership – cool.

Energy Labeling: A Market Catalyst – This session featured speakers who have been working on innovative energy use calculation modeling and building labeling in the Pacific Northwest. The big idea is that consumers and sellers will be well-served by showing the energy use profile as a simple label much like the fuel economy estimates for cars. One of the presenters does design/build for energy efficient houses including a variety of Passive House projects. There was a good sampling of pushback in the audience, but also a lot of excitement about a labeling approach that they are turning into a regional reality.

Designing for Indoor Air Quality; A Commercial and a Residential Perspective – First off, this session was absolutely full; no getting in without pre-registration. I’ve been doing a lot of standards work on IEQ issues and this reinforced what a hot topic IEQ is in the sustainable building sector. I expected this session to be dry and was surprised by the guitar strumming/singing USEPA program manager. Yes, I have photographic evidence.

I also expected a stock discussion on product VOCs and toxics. While he mentioned these issues in passing, he put much greater emphasis on IEQ issues caused by poor sealant and waterproofing details and installation. He also showed the correlation between air infiltration and IEQ problems caused by the moisture transported into the building due to having a flawed building envelope. I also learned about the benefits of infrared cameras as a diagnostic tool for IEQ issues. Sounds strange, but it goes like this:

IR shows temperature differentials caused by damp insulation and building materials. Damp materials equals mold. Mold equals IEQ problems for building occupants.

I’m not sure if our friends at BEI (Building Envelope Innovations) use IR cameras for their building forensics work, but I’ll share this information with them.

# # #

Read Full Post »