How have others handled EPA-exempt products that aren't found on the SF list? It seems you can't rely on the label of the product to determine if it has any of the hazards that would indicate Tier 1, 2, or 3 like you would other products that aren't listed on the SF list. For instance: http://www.envincio.com/essentria/product-dload/Essentria_IC3_label.pdf ?
With the discussion below indicating that DE and pyrethrins aren't Tier 3, it is clear you can't make any assumptions.
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium for
Heather DeGrella
Sustainable Design Director, Associate PrincipalOpsis Architecture
71 thumbs up
January 17, 2014 - 7:51 pm
I just found on the Reduced Risk Pesticides the Essentria product listed above, listed as Tier 3. This is the list discussed below that we are not supposed to use for LEED. It does not show up in the SF Pesticide Hazard Screening List. In this case, could I reference the unsanctioned list?
Trista Brown
Project DirectorWSP USA
456 thumbs up
March 9, 2014 - 6:42 pm
Hi Heather,
The Essentria product has the FIFRA 25(b) Exemption per the MSDS because it's so low-risk (http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/regtools/25b_list.htm). It should have no problem passing the LEED review since the ingredients are well-established least-toxic options. I'd provide a copy of the MSDS with the exemption highlighted. The reviewer should be able to see that, scan the ingredients list, and be satisfied that it qualifies as least-toxic.
Thanks!
Trista
Heather DeGrella
Sustainable Design Director, Associate PrincipalOpsis Architecture
71 thumbs up
March 10, 2014 - 11:38 am
That is very informative. Thanks so much Trista!
maria aurora palacio
January 23, 2018 - 11:47 am
Hi, I have earlier concern posted on what is an ipm plan that evaluates non least toxic to least toxic pesticides. Currently the reviewer has pending approval of my plan and advised that the plan I submitted is in references to San Francisco Reduced List of Pesticides rather than San Francisco Hazard Review Process. What’s is the difference on this?
Trista Brown
Project DirectorWSP USA
456 thumbs up
January 23, 2018 - 8:31 pm
Hi Maria, good question. GBCI wants teams to cite the San Francisco Hazard Review Process because it stays up to date. The SF List can change when new research or information becomes available about a given pesticide product. It's also worth mentioning that GBCI has been suggesting that teams use the free online PRI PestSmart tool (http://pesticideresearch.com/site/pestsmart) to determine current hazard tier rankings for pesticides. (The tool gives the results from the SF Hazard Review Process, so it meets the credit requirements). I've found the tool to be really handy, and it's easy to include a link in your updated plan so operations staff and vendors are aware that it's available - if they're not using it already. Hope that helps!
maria aurora palacio
January 23, 2018 - 10:54 pm
Great! I clearly understand it now. I was able to get credits approved in other items - green cleaning high performance etc. This item is my only pending - hope i will be able to make the revision correctly to be able to get a point as well on this credit. Your response is highly appreciated as it helps me understood more of IPM and difference between the two. Cheers!