In keeping with the theme of last weeks’ blog by my co-worker, Mr. Bill Walsh, I have including some more interesting items concerning LEED. This info is not as technical but just as interesting – in my humble opinion.

Rick Fedrizzi, co-founder of the United States Green Building Council and often called the Father of the LEED standard for evaluating buildings’ environmental impact, spoke at Cornell a short time ago about how sustainability initiatives could spur economic growth while creating a healthier global environment. Fedrizzi said that sustainable buildings are at the “center stage” of the planet’s environmental issues, due the fact that the world’s population is increasingly growing around centralized urban areas. This is not a new revelation.

While speaking at Cornell, Fedrizzi compared LEED to the nutritional facts found on food packaging: the certification could be an easy way for individuals and organizations in the construction industry to evaluate a building’s potential for sustainability and show how making a building sustainable could be economically advantageous. “When we look at the idea of sustainability through the lens of green building,” Fedrizzi said, “you build green, it saves energy, it saves money, it creates jobs, it improves infrastructure and basically we grow [the] real estate market in an entirely different way.” According to Fedrizzi, by 2050, America will require almost seventy quadrillion BTUs of energy — approximately seventy-three quintillion joules — to remain sufficiently powered. By focusing exclusively on renewable and nuclear energy, Fedrizzi said that number could be reduced to around sixty quadrillion BTUs.

But Fedrizzi added that the most drastic reduction of energy use would occur by focusing on the potential to reduce energy consumption through creating green retrofitting jobs, which would upgrade existing buildings to make them sustainable.” Such a move toward sustainable building practices has been ramping up at Cornell, where the Board of Trustees, as part of the University’s Green Building Initiative, has required all new buildings on campus that cost more than $5 million to achieve at least LEED silver certification — the third highest rank attainable — since 2011.

Save energy and create jobs at the same time? Sounds too good to be true, but I hope Fedrizzi is correct in his visions. Time and Cornell’s success (I hope) will tell.

The US Green Building Council (USGBC) recently closed the third public comment period for the proposed LEED 2012.  The final draft will be voted on between June 1 and June 30^thby member in good standing of the council.

Of most interest to our audience is the IEQ sections,  Significant changes to the 2009 version that have made it through the third comment period include:

• 
  Minimum IAQ performance still references ASHRE-62.1-2010 and outdoor air monitoring requirements are a prerequisite for all BD&C projects.


• 
  There is enhanced language regulating Environmental Tobacco Smoke.


• 
  The Low Emitting Interiors section has been extensively overhauled and now has seven categories. There are also more stringent regulations for substantiating vendor claims and enhanced standards for testing labs.


• 
  The Construction IAQ Management plan has been renamed The Indoor Air Quality Assessment and is now a credit rather than a prerequisite. The option one building flush out has been downgraded to one point while option two air testing remains two points. Another change is that interior furniture must be in place prior to testing.  Carbon monoxide has been added to the testing panel (it was dropped in the second draft). 4PCH is no longer a testing requirement, but all the chemicals listed in the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Standard Method V1.1-2010 would be required, along with specific testing procedures, such as TO-15.  Particulate concentrations would have to be measured by a gravimetric method rather than a real-time instrument. Finally, testing would have to be performed with ventilation rates at “nominal” settings and the testing would have to be representative of the entire building.

The draft revised from the third period comments can be viewed and comments made at www.usgbc.org/LEED2012.   

Have you ever heard this line – “Hi, I am from the government and I am here to help you”? Most of the time you would consider this to be one of the 3 Great Lies, or at a minimum, an oxymoron. Well not in this case. The governmental agency, the National Institute of Occupational Safety & Health – NIOSH - is trying to help us. However, in order for them to succeed, we need to help them first.

Spray polyurethane foam, or SPF, has become extremely popular lately as an insulation product. With the upswing of wanting to create more energy efficient buildings, SPF has been rushed into use because of its high resistance to heat flow. The problem is, while better insulation means less energy consumption, it is not clear what level of protection workers who are installing the SPF require. SPF is applied in 2 parts. The first chemical in the mixture is methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI). The hazards of MDI are well-documented and their exposure limits have been established However, the known hazards for SPF only take into account the first part of the mixture—the MDI. The other half of the mixture has not been studied for worker safety. It is a chemical question mark with no toxicology or health information. This part contains amines, which act as a catalyst; glycols—blowing agents that react with the foam; and phosphate, a flame retardant.

NIOSH is currently researching the issues associated with the second part of the mix.  In their labs they have completed tracer gas studies that simulate potential exposures to SPF components. This is a good first step, but to make the science useful for SPF installers, NIOSH needs partners to help them collect on-site air samples. This is where you can help. NIOSH is looking for worksites that are using SPF. At the worksite, NIOSH employees will collect personal breathing-zone air samples and set up tripods with air-sampling pumps to obtain readings in a variety of sampling areas. They would gather samples during the spray foam application, and again at intervals afterwards.

Please contact NIOSH to advance the science behind spray polyurethane foam insulation. You reach them by email to cdcinfo@cdc.gov. While foam insulation may be green, with your help, their research can ensure that spray foam is sustainable for your workers as well.

Back in January a discussion started on both the AIHA list serve and the LinkedIn AIHA group regarding unexpected acetonitrile concentrations I buildings being tested for IAQ. The levels ranged up to 600 ppb with no discernable source.  Several other consultants joined the conversation with similar experiences of detecting acetonitrile in environments where none should be expected.

Since Acetonitrile is a commonly used solvent in HPLC analyses, it was logical to suspect laboratory contamination, since other artifacts, such as Methylene chloride from background air in environmental labs are sometimes seen in TO-15 analyses.  This occurs because air from extraction labs has crossed over into the analytical area either because the ventilation is unbalanced or because the vented air has been re-entrained.

I contacted the gentleman who posted the problem only to learn that Galson had performed the suspect analysis.  I then contacted the laboratory manager responsible for TO-15 along with the QA Coordinator to try and figure out what was causing the problem.  We had logged a similar problem earlier but after an exhaustive check had determined that the acetonitrile was not introduced at the lab. The investigation triggered by this occurrence came up with the same results.  We had a lot of evidence showing that the acetonitrile was not a lab artifact, but the client was just as certain that acetonitrile at these levels in this build did not make sense. Eventually after a lot of discussion the acetonitrile was theorized to part of a carpet adhesive, although that explanation was suspect at best.

About two weeks later the client contacted Galson and said that he had heard that acetonitrile was known to off-gas from the DNPH (dinitrophenyl hydrazine) tubes used to collect formaldehyde samples. Acetonitrile is the solvent used during the manufacturing process by both SKC and Supleco to coat the silica gel with DNPH. Although the amount of off-gassing is not a health concern, it could definitely cause problems in an ultra-sensitive method such as TO-15.

We tested this theory at the lab and discovered that in fact, acetonitrile DID off gas from the tubes during sampling and could easily be collected by the mini-can used to collect the TO-15 sample if the entry port of the can was reasonably close to the exit port of the pump used to draw the formaldehyde sample. Based on a suggestion from a customer we tried placing a charcoal trap in line with the DNPH tube, but found that it did not efficiently stop the acetonitrile from exiting the pump.

Because of this, Galson has made a change in its LEED kit, substituting the Assay Technology Five Eighty Passive Monitor. We will be able to achieve the required limit of detection using this badge based on a four hour sampling period.  Since this is a passive sampler, there is no exit stream and the acetonitrile problem will be solved.

This is another example of how the laboratory and the people in the field need to work hand in glove in order to assure that the highest quality data is produced for the end user.  A successful collaboration solved a nagging data issue and improved the quality of  future LEED projects.