Prop 65 Restrictions in IEQ 4 Group 1

Bruce, thanks for clearing a path on this. We have not gotten to changing our specifications to meet these LEED HC credits. Have you gotten any where with the manufacturers? What does the scorecard look like? Can you drop an MR credit in favor of the IEQ credit? Disclaimer: I opposed this as well.

Prop 65 is the California Department of Health Services 01350 chamber testing standard. It is onerous, expensive, and serves no purpose in LEED. You can forget about trying to earn EQc4 for adhesives and sealants. You cannot construct a building using the limited number of products that have been tested.

I was the vice-chair of the USGBC's IEQ Technical Advisory Group (EQ TAG) when there were numerous attempts to force CA 01350 (Prop 65) into LEED. The then EQ TAG chair and I successfully stopped that from happening for several years. Both of use left the EQ TAG at about the same time while the one person trying to force feed 01350 into LEED remained.

With the IAQ product expertise down to one person from three, the remaining "expert" was able to get 01350 shoved into LEED. It is mostly dead in LEED other than Healthcare.

01350 is an unfortunate standard. Rather than encourage use of low-emitting products it does the opposite.

As a strategy, use the LEED BD&C EQc4.1 requirements in your project specifications. Do the right thing and use low-VOC products. Accept you will not earn a LEED credit.

I wonder if a CIR or LI wouldn't be a good idea. The titanium dioxide one is especially annoying. The FDA lets you eat it (whitener - tooth paste and candy canes) but California won't let you paint it on the walls. It makes no sense.

I'm sure we'll be discussing this in the next comment period for LEED v4.

Bruce, you are correct in your assertion that Proposition 65 was designed as a tool to inform consumers; not a chemical ban or avoidance mechanism. While labeling should theoretically shame manufacturers into eliminating listed chemicals, the bounty hunter provision provides incentive to over warn. After all, every hotel in the state has a brass plaque stating the presence of Prop 65 chemicals.

The Prop 65 list includes over 700 chemicals, some of which are genuinely nasty at multiple levels of the production and value chain and need to go away. There are others where the hazard is only relevant to the potential for exposure. Such is the case with titanium dioxide and crystalline silica. However, there is also an ongoing discussion on what is meant by the precautionary principle. Do we mandate avoidance of 700 chemicals at every level, or do we use the REACH ECHA approach of evaluating each chemical in each product use pattern with a bias towards precaution?

As for the CalGreen defaults you mentioned, LEED V4 references both the CARB 2007 SCM and SCAQMD Rule 1113 as the regulatory floor for interior coatings and the CARB 2007 SCM for Healthcare exteriors. The CARB 2007 SCM reference is consistent with CALGreen and the IgCC. We're trying to make sure specifiers don't get stuck in a situation where a LEED credit requirement would not conform to local code.

Disclosure: I represent a coating and sealant manufacturer, PROSOCO, and am the current subject matter expert for related topics in the LEED IEQ TAG. I've participated in discussions with NGOs on TSCA reform through the Consumer Specialty Products Association Chemicals Management Policy Team. I've also had the good fortune to represent my employer in helping pilot the Health Product Declaration.

Thanks Dwayne. Your post is informed and informative as always. It still sounds like an LI needs to be issued to clarify the good intentions of LEED HC as it pertains to some items on the Prop 65 standard. The SIN list, Pharos and other lists may give some weight to alternative quantities for some items in Prop 65.