Task Group on Products & Environments
Draft Meeting Summary
April 12, 2012
This document is part of the NSFInternationaland Underwriters Laboratory process and is for NSF/UL Committee uses only. It shall not be reproduced, or circulated, or quoted, in whole or in part, outside of NSF/UL activities, except with the approval of NSF/UL.
Products and Environments Task Group Chairs:
Stephany Mason (UL AQS), & Stan Wolfersberger (Owens Corning).
NSF/UL Standards Development Staff:
Maureen Sertich (NSF), Tim Corder (UL), Dan Ryan (UL).
Participants:
Kari Allen (Steelcase), Elaine Aye (Green Building Services), Martin Bennett (MAS), Anthony Bernheim (AECOM), Kent Carlson (CPSC), Randy Carter (Steelcase), Wenhao Chen (CA Department of Public Health), Amy Ferryman (Johns Manville), Al Hodgson (Berkeley Analytical), Robert Hupe (Virco Mfg. Corp.), Josh Jacobs (UL), Greg Kuntz (Kimball International), Ann Mason (American Chemistry Council), Nicole Munoz (SCS), ReinhardOppl (Eurofins), Tim Serie (American Coatings Association), & Denise Van Valkenburg (Herman Miller).
Discussion
M.Sertich took roll call and read the anti-trust statement.
S. Wolfersberger welcomed the attendees and briefly mentioned the March 22nd meeting in which R. Carter discussed the work being done by NSF 380 for educational environments and S. Mason introduced a comparison of models that included patient rooms.
This meeting focused on healthcare scenarios. S. Wolfersberger introduced “IAQ_building types.xlsx” shared by A. Bernheim
A. Bernheim put this document together about a year and a half ago to show the range of products in healthcare. This document shows a wide range of products used in a healthcare environment. There appear to be more specialty products in the healthcare environment than the other areas addressed by this group. Since the meeting, A. Bernheimhas provided an updated version of the document “IAQ Analysis of Building Materials by Project Type.xlsx” that reflects current conditions, it is available at:
J. Jacobs asked if there is ever a situation where a custom product for one specific building is tested for CA 1350 or any of the low emitting standards. In response it was noted that custom assembly and cabinet units need to meet CA 1350 requirements in AECOM’s specifications.
If a product is custom built for a specific healthcare environment, what tests are performed to show that it meets section 01350 requirements? This can be a complicated situation but it has been done: California Air Resources Board (CARB) can act as a third party certifier and the testing is performed as described in section 01350. Some additional testing may be required beyond section 01350 for some chemicals. For example, formaldehyde can require additional testing in addition to CARB.Product assemblies as used in custom case work can be assembled and tested in the laboratory to check for compliance with section 01350 for modeled indoor air concentrations for formaldehyde and for individual VOCs. There are third party certifications that manufacturers obtain to indicate compliance with the California Standard Method v1.1 (previously known as section 01350). With regard to Formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has implemented standards that manufacturers must meet and these standards are now incorporated into the International Green Construction Code and ASHRAE 189.1.2009. It is good practice to specify composite wood products that are CARB and California Standard compliant. Some specifiers are asking for testing data beyond the requirements of CARB.
A.Ferryman asked what products are included in the specifications. How far into the building envelope do you go? A. Bernheim answered that they go from the waterproofing layer inward which includes building insulation, acoustical treatments, etc.
A.Bernheimstated that he has not asked for emissions testing for roofing and other building envelope products. There may be other sustainability/environmental issues with these products but they are not assessed from an Indoor Air Quality standpoint at this time.
R. Carter asked what a unit kitchen was as it was listed in the spreadsheet. Unit kitchens are small lunch areas in the employee areas of healthcare facilities. Typically, they contain a small metal pantry with a counter with a cooktop and cabinet. These areas are used by staff to heat their food. They are usually located in lower end buildings.
A. Hodgson asked what specifications are used, BIFMA? AECOM is reviewing and updating specifications and greening them. Currently, AECOM asks their suppliers for third party certifications but they prefer to review the actual emission test reports. They keep a record of the test reports so the architects can find more information if problems occur after occupancy of the buildings.
AHealth Product Declaration (HPD) is currently in development and is in its pilot phase. Manufacturers may voluntarily declare their product chemical content and VOC emissions data using the HPD and may elect to have the HPD verified by a third party. Currently, approximately 30 U.S. manufacturers are participating in the pilot phase to test how the HPD is working. The goal of using the HPD is to provide the design professional with more transparency on the product and its potential health impacts. Will require information about VOC emissions and will ask for third party certification. LEED 2012 is also moving in this direction.
This list illustrates one of the complications we face. If we are really after something that is representative of healthcare facilities across North America, you could do what Randy and BIFMA did: go out and look at the number of square feet of cubicle curtains used and the number of hand and crash rails, etc. for modeling purposes. One approach is to go out and collect data but that data needs to be reliable and backed up by literature or a white paper.
Another alternative would be to use the European model room – may not be a perfect correlation of the product being used but the testing is done in a chamber and then uses the appropriate, or best guess of, products used per volume or area to get at a reasonable modeled concentration to compare to health based limits.
The design industry would prefer a pass/fail model where they would specify the product if it passes and not specify it if the product does not meet the requirements. They don’t want to get into the details or the testing requirements. They want some kind of third party certification that makes it easy for them to choose acceptable products based on industry standards, the standard of care.
A.Bernheim has been reminded by colleagues in another group that healthcare is a very specialized environment. Do we have users who are more sensitive than the general population? Do we need something more rigorous?
A&E industry needs to know that a product meets minimum requirement and that the product does not cause a health impact. A. Bernheim likes the section 01350 approach because it assumes certain things about the product. You can take a small room that is the worst case scenario and if the product meets the requirements in the worst case scenario it will probably be ok in a larger environment.
R. Oppl: The European Union (EU) does not have focus on the healthcare environment. They use a generic small room similar to a private office.
A.Bernheim asked if the small office could be representative of a patient room, which would probably be the worst case scenario in healthcare. In response, it was noted that S. Mason prepared some model examples that included a patient room. To prepare her healthcare model for formaldehyde in the various scenarios, she used the 2010 “Guidelines for Design and Construction of Healthcare Facilities”for the room size and ANSI/ASHRAE/ASHE Standard 170-2008 Table 7-1 “Ventilation Standard for Health Care Facilities” for the ventilation rate. The result is amodel scenario for patient rooms (120 square feet) that is comparable to the size of the CA 01350 private officebut with a higher ventilation rate.
S. Wolfersberger questioned the necessity of gathering data for every product used in North America and Europe. Gathering actual data would take a really long time. If the stakeholder community that is specifying the products does not need this level of detail and they just need to know whether a specific product is likely to affect the health of the users of the products, as long as the product can be tested and compared to a modeled concentration, specifiers can make a decision about whether or not to use a product in a specific environment.
The big difference between a healthcare scenario and the typical office environment is the ventilation. The ventilation rate can make a difference in the concentrations of VOCs in the air and may have something to do with the distribution of VOCs in air. Hospitals and healthcare facilities have higher ventilation rates for disease control, especially in surgical rooms. Air is filtered and ventilated in healthcare environments.
A. Hodgson – If we wanted to gather this information, or at least some baseline information to see where healthcare environments fall in respect to area specific air flow rates, where would wefind information about building specific data?The ventilation rates can be found in specific building codes but also ASHRAE 90.1 and California’s Title 24 for ventilation rates in healthcare. In terms of material loading, are there floorplans of recent construction projects for the group to look at? To model a typical model room with all typical products, we would need to know the square footage of the room and published ventilation rates.
S. Mason asked if it would be appropriate to use the patient room model as developed in her “Model Comparison Examples.xlsx”, available at:
R. Carter – The goal of this group is to identify an appropriate model for each product. How much confidence will we have in the “appropriateness” of the model? R. Carter suggested that the group needs to gather some data. The bar that is set in the marketplace for standards of this type is higher than it ever has been, especially when we take on the goal of it being health based. The legality risks and liabilities make it important to be responsible and make very informed decisions.
A.Bernheimnoted that the USGBC has just formed a Green Buildings and Human Health Working Group and he will be co-chairing that group with Howard Franken. The goal is to get the USGBC to promote the issues of health in buildings. The work for this group can have huge importance and be built upon and supported by the work that USGBC is undertaking. What comes out of this group will likely be included in LEED and other standards.
S. Wolfersberger agreed and noted that we should not let the “perfect” be the enemy of the “good enough.” We could have an optional appendix for an environment if there is not a high degree of confidence but we wanted to get something out to the user community that catered to a specific set of products in a specific environment. Rather than looking at a 5 year data gathering exercise, the group needs to decide what information they need to get the standard to a point that will be useful to specifiers and users of these products.
R. Carter noted that though this project may seem daunting, the BIFMA project was completed in about 6 months.
S. Wolfersberger pointed out that lobbies and other areas that contain the types of products that A. Bernheim mentioned would be bigger and more open than the typical patient room. A patient room of this size is a fairly conservative room size space but there may be other places in a healthcare facility that might be even smaller like an individualexam room.
A.Bernheim noted that an operating room may be bigger than a typical patient room but the ventilation rates are much higher.
R. Carter – If we think about a patient room, for example, the design criteria is an excellent place to start and would give some information about the room contents. He suggested sampling 30 hospital rooms to survey the equipment in the patient rooms. This can be done using floor plans with details about the contents that are used in the room. This could also be done by onsite visits and taking measurements of actual room to see a variation for the types of products used. Sampling a set of rooms allows you to set a 90th percentile for the area specific flow rate. To determine this, need to know the size and quantities of the objects in the room and the ventilation rate.
S. Mason asked if the group needs to be concerned with the age of the building. In response, A.Bernheim noted that there are a number of newer products for the healthcare environment that will be coming out in the next few years (i.e., “intelligent products”). Surveying some of the older products may be interesting but it won’t tell us fully where the market is going.
R. Carter – The scope and intent of the standard will determine the focus. We may need to have two sample sets where the group can assess existing buildings and new construction depending on the scope of the standard.
A.Bernheim suggested that Robin Guenther of Perkins + Will may be a good resource for the group. She has written a book “Sustainable Healthcare Architecture” and is a member of the Green Buildings and Human Health Working Group.
J. Jacobs suggested that Mara Baum may also be a good resource. She leads HoK’s sustainability initiative.
S. Wolfersberger asked if there was a way to narrow down the list of products (i.e., a list of the worst products) to start with as priority products to evaluate in this group.
A.Bernheim agreed to provide a list of the most problematic products in healthcare to the group. Wet products are the top priority because they are applied in the field and there is very little control over the adhesives, sealants, and epoxy floor coverings being used on the project and manufacturers of these products are not involved in human health community. Then, the next priorities would be big things like carpeting, ceiling tiles, paints, etc.
S. Wolfersberger noted that CA 01350 does not have procedures for specialty or non standard products. There may need to be work on the test method side to make sure that the age of the product is properly defined and describes the preparation of the product for testing. That is a piece of the testing and modeling that the group needs to consider. The other piece relates to what the Toxicology group is doing. If acute exposures to installers of a wet product are going to be considered, may need to consider how the product is tested.
In the AE industry, to bid on a large project, the product needs to have third party certification that says it is acceptable because this is the standard of care in the industry. If a company does not meet the standard of care in the industry, they can be held liable. Most of the larger firms have representation on the Health Products Declaration group and want the certification. Smaller firms may not have this requirement at this point. A. Bernheim thinks LEED will soon follow and is watching the development of this project and is likely to use this standard as a basis for the LEED requirements.
S. Wolfersberger questioned 30 samples. Is this reasonable? A. Bernheim thinks that this work would require a full-time staff person because the group members are volunteers and may not able to undertake this project. A. Bernheim did a similar project 20 years ago and it took a great deal of time. He considers this a worthwhile endeavor.
J. Jacobs asked about the time required for a full-time person to complete the analysis for 30 floor plans. For an intermediate architect, it would take approximately 160 hours to take 30 buildings into AutoCAD and pull out the data and analyze the products to come up with a spreadsheet. To complete, it would also need some management time from senior to guide the process. A very rough estimate of the cost to hire someone to do the analysis of 30 room types is $15,000-$20,000.
Action Items.
- A. Bernheim to provide a list of the most problematic products in healthcare to the group