I’m currently reviewing a HPD v2.1 for LEED v4 Building Product Disclosure and Optimization – Material Ingredient Option 1.
Just about everything on this particular HPD meets the requirements listed on the “Graphic presentation of guidance of Basic Inventory for using HPD 2.1 to meet LEED requirements” document provided on the HPD website (https://www.hpd-collaborative.org/leed-v4-credit-achievement/). The only section I am unsure about is the requirement for the “[s]tatement about Special Conditions when "No" is indicated for Characterized, Screened, or Identified." The HPD under review has selected “No” for the “Identified – Name and Identifier Provided?” section, and noted "Substances representing 99.5% of the product weight meet the 1000 ppm threshold and are screened" in the "Inventory and Screening Notes" section.
Is the note sufficient as the “[s]tatement about Special Conditions when "No" is indicated for Characterized, Screened, or Identified"? I’ve reviewed the relevant sections in the HPD 2.1 Open Standard, but I am still unclear.
The HPD i am reviewing can be accessed here:
https://hpdrepository.hpd-collaborative.org/Pages/Results.aspx#k=dulux
Product name: Dulux Lifemaster Acrylic Latex (59311, 59317, 59425)
Manufacturer: PPG Architectural Finishes
Tristan Roberts
RepresentativeVermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
11477 thumbs up
August 17, 2018 - 4:32 pm
Ashley, I don't think this HPD meets LEED v4 requirements. In stating that 99.5% of the product weight meets the 1,000 ppm threshold, they are excluding 0.5% of the product from that.
The LEED requirement is to "demonstrate the chemical inventory of the product to at least 0.1% (1000 ppm)."
There could be some ambiguity in the wording of the HPD, but as best as I can tell, they are not meeting the threshold. I've sent a note to PPG to suggest they clarify.
Ashley Hu
Jr. Sustainable Building AdvisorPerkins+Will
8 thumbs up
August 17, 2018 - 4:40 pm
Hi Tristan,
thank you for getting back to me. I've contacted the HPD Collaborative about this question and received the following response:
"There aren't Special Conditions materials on this product for which the statement about these is not needed. Identified is No because there are proprietary substances in the product which is perfectly fine as they included the substance notes."
Based on their response, it looks like the section in question does meet the LEED v4 requirements. That is unless I am missing something.
Thanks!
Tristan Roberts
RepresentativeVermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
11477 thumbs up
August 29, 2018 - 8:55 am
Ashley, what I'm puzzled with is the statement "Substances representing 99.5% of the product weight meet the 1000 ppm threshold and are screened." What that says to me is that 0.5% of the product has not been screened.
I agreed with the statement you got from HPDC support on "No" for Identified, as nondisclosed substances are screened. However, I'm am concerned with the statement's implication that 0.5% is not screened at all.
Mike Noon
6 thumbs up
September 7, 2018 - 11:50 am
My understanding based on the HPD LEED Pre-Check document (https://www.hpd-collaborative.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Introducing...) is that to be acceptable for LEED v4 the HPD needs to have:
Characterized = Yes
Screened = Yes or Yes with Special Conditions
Identified = Yes or No
As far as I know, not all of the materials need to be Identified as long as all materials have been Screened (the HPD Builder provides an option to screen a chemical, but to not disclose the name/CAS number in the published HPD). All of those HPDs appear to have passed the "Pre-checked for LEED v4 Material Ingredients, Option 1" so I believe they should be eligible to helping meet the MR credit.
Tristan Roberts
RepresentativeVermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
11477 thumbs up
September 20, 2018 - 10:57 am
Mike, I agree, except that again, the HPD says essentially that 0.5% of the product has not been screened. That's what I wish PPG would clarify.