LEED Action Alert: Ask USGBC to Reinstate PBT Credits

Reston, VA — Action Alert: Needs Immediate Attention Omission of Persistent Bio-accumulative Toxins Source Reduction Credits, especially Phthalates, Dioxin and other PBT's raises concern. LEED for Healthcare (LEED-HC) released for 2nd Public Comment Period Public Comment period ends May 18, 2010 at 5 PM ET!

To find the comment page, search on, “LEED Draft Ballot and Comments”
(How-to instructions below)

“Please reinstate the PBT credits. Otherwise LEED-HC will fail to prevent major harm from phthalates, halogenated compounds and other PBT’s. Moving them to an unstaffed, undeveloped, too restrictive Pilot Credit Library is unacceptable, and sends the wrong message.”

*****************
We have serious concerns with revisions to the LEED-HC public comment draft. Three credits that were included in the LEED-HC first public comment draft have been removed from the just-released second public comment draft.

They have been moved to a not-yet-established, unstaffed, poorly defined, overly restricted "Pilot Credit Library" for credit testing and refinement. They are:
1. Persistent Bio-accumulative Toxin (PBT) Source Reduction: Dioxin, Phthalates, etc.
2. Innovative Ventilation,
3. Medical and Process Equipment Efficiency.

This notice focuses on the first item, the removed PBT phthalate and halogenated compound toxicity credits, and the establishment of the Pilot Credit Library. [While time and space limit us here, we urge you to also check out unfortunate changes to ground breaking energy, ventilation and integrated design LEED-HC credits.]

The first public comment draft of LEED for Healthcare did a good job of building on the foundational work of the Green Guide for Health Care to bring important issues around toxics in building materials into the LEED system for rating buildings. The LEED for Healthcare (LEED-HC) 2nd Public Comment period draft removes PBT Source Reduction credits for phthalates and halogenated compounds and puts them in the largely un-established, too restrictive Pilot Credit Library. This means LEED-HC will fall short of our communities' need for guidance on reducing toxic materials. Hundreds of professionals and institutions who have already worked hard to avoid putting these dangerous materials in their buildings will find LEED-HC fails to value their efforts.

Removing key toxicity language from LEED for Healthcare sends the wrong message to the supply chain, the market and will slow transformation to safer materials and responsible vendors. Without a specific credit (or better yet, a prerequisite) on phthalate toxicity, this issue will tend to fall off user's radar screen, especially for facilities trying to adhere to a point-based system, and anxious about doing anything different. It sends a message that the toxicity of these materials is not an issue in health care.

We doubt this Pilot Library Program is designed to successfully address these important issues. More than a year after the Pilot Library was publicly announced there has been very little apparent progress putting it into motion or answering the many questions about it. There has still been no public announcement of a working committee to run it, a starting date for the program, an ending date, rules for getting a project into the Program or guidelines for how a credit being tested in the program gets accepted into LEED afterward.

Furthermore, what little has been announced of the Pilot Library Program only raises more concerns. Projects that registered under LEED 2.2 cannot participate. Projects can only get credit for a maximum of one of the health care credits that are proposed to be moved to the Pilot. The Pilot will only be available for a limited number of projects. [More details below.]

All of this leads us to question whether the USGBC has the capacity or commitment to make the Pilot Library work. We ask the USGBC restore the removed language to LEED-HC, at least until a fully functional Pilot Library Program is operational with:

• Full staffing,
• A clear timeline and guidelines for entry, and clear standards on how successful credits will move rapidly back into LEED-HC
• Be open to all projects, regardless of whether registered under LEED 2.2 or LEED 2009, and
• Allow points for all credits undertaken.

In any event, project teams that have been tracking these credits as possible Innovation points should register for the LEED Pilot Credit Library process.

*********
To find the comment page, search on, “LEED Draft Ballot and Comments”

1. Scroll down and click on the "Expand" button next to "LEED for Healthcare"
2. Scroll down & click on "Comment"
3. Sign in (if needed, click on "create a site user account")
4. Click on "General Comments" and then on "Comment."
5. Insert a response to: “Do you have any general comments..?”

*************
Detailed concerns with the LEED-HC and LEED Pilot Library

• Lack of Operational Pilot Working Group: Without a functioning Pilot Program, it is difficult to support the elimination of important material toxics credits from LEED-HC. The Pilot Program needs a Pilot Working Group with significant staff support empanelled to

• Prepare and disseminate procedures;
• Accept projects;
• Develop guidance for projects on the credit;
• Track and shepherd the projects through the pilot process; and
• Gather the necessary information for evaluating and making final recommendations on the disposition of the credit at the conclusion.

Our understanding is that just in the last few weeks - more than a year and a half after the proposal to create a Pilot Library was announced - the working group may have finally been empanelled, although there has yet to be any public announcement of that action. This pace does not bode well for a timely execution of the many tasks of establishing all the rules and procedures for operation and initiating the steps needed in order for projects to avail themselves of the Pilot Library.

• No starting date for the Pilot Library: Although a registration form is available online, there is still no indication of any timeline commitment for the program – no indication of how and when projects will actually get the instructions and the go ahead to participate. Given the lack of a functional Working Group (see above) it appears as if this could be a long time yet to come.

• Limitation to LEED 2009 projects: Many health care projects registered with LEED 2.2 have been tracking the progress LEED-HC and attempting to stay in alignment with it during the years of development expecting to be able to better represent their projects on its release. Many of those projects have been moving forward assuming they will be able to avail themselves of the 4 proposed pilot credits in order to meet their Innovation credit achievements. A number of projects that have been most patiently waiting the longest must remain registered with LEED 2.2, due to energy modeling benchmark commitments made in the design process before LEED 2009 was released. There is serious concern now that new Pilot Library regulations mandating participation in LEED 2009 will disallow all of these projects from participating.

• Restriction to a single credit from the Pilot Library: The Pilot Credit Library Project Registration Form currently states that, “Projects may pursue more than 1 pilot credit, however, a maximum of 1 point will be awarded per project.” Given that 4 of the 5 credits initially placed in the Pilot Library originated in LEED-HC, which anticipated all of the credits being available to all projects, this is a highly restrictive and detrimental constraint. If forced to choose just one credit, Pilot Projects that have worked diligently to avoid materials containing toxics will not get credit for those important sustainability initiatives. Additionally, as with the LEED 2009 constraint, the restriction penalizes those projects that have been most loyal in trying to stay aligned with the LEED-HC tool over the many years of development.

• Limitations on Pilot participation: Although the numbers are not clearly spelled out anywhere in writing, it is clear from the “Pilot Credits Closed” section of the Pilot Credit Library webpage, that participation in the Pilot will be limited and not all projects will be able to avail themselves of the Pilot Library credits. If the same percentage of LEED-registered health care projects are interested in the material toxics credits as were interested during the GGHC pilots, we calculate upwards of 500 projects may be interested in using these credits.

• Lack of clarity on rules for the conclusion of the Pilot process. During the past eighteen months, there have been no parameters established for the Pilot Library. There are still no clear rules to respond to the following questions:

• How long a Pilot may continue before it must be considered for moving to the regular project library?
• What the criteria are for decision making to accept, change or reject the credit?
• What will be the appeals process, if any, to protest any decision not to move a credit forward?
• Where will the credit actually move to once it becomes part of the larger LEED system. Although nothing is published on this, our understanding from verbal communication with USGBC staff is a vision of three pathways forward:
o into LEED 2012;
o into a pre-approved Innovation Credit Library; or
o rejected from rating system inclusion.
• If the credit will go into LEED 2012, will these credits be subjected to balloting for inclusion in LEED 2012 or be rolled directly into a pre-approved Library?
• What will make the situation at any future point any different with regard to industry pressure than the current position that has resulted in these credits being forced out of the LEED-HC tool? Or is this move just another deferral of the ultimate? Under what criteria would a credit ultimately be “rejected”? Who will determine this?

*********
Specific criteria necessary for a successful Pilot Library Program:

1. Pilot process begins, with full operational guidelines published for any preregistered projects accepted into the Pilot no later than a date concurrent with LEED-HC release, or September 1, 2010, whichever comes first and concludes for the first set of credits no longer than 24 months later (not later than August 31, 2012). All of the criteria that follow must be in place before the Pilot begins.

2. Pilot Program Working Group is fully populated and a regular meeting schedule established by July 1, 2010 or sooner, if necessary, to meet the LEED-HC release date and with full staff support.

3. Pilot Credit availability is extended to registered LEED 2.2 projects, at least for health care.

4. Pilot Credit single credit allowance is eliminated.

5. The 4 credits points originating in LEED-HC are made available to all health care projects as possible Innovation Points.

6. A phthalate credit be established in the Pilot Library, based solely on the criteria removed from LEED-HC, pending development of a more comprehensive chemicals of concern credit.

7. Develop clear criteria for what constitutes success for a Pilot credit to move it to the regular Credit Library after the Pilot period. These criteria should be developed with the consensus of the current LEED-HC Committee.

Heath Care without Harm, an international coalition of more than 500 organizations in 53 countries, is working to transform the health care sector, without compromising patient safety or care, so that it is ecologically sustainable and no longer a source of harm to public health and the environment. To learn more about HCWH's work, visit our website at www.noharm.org, our YouTube channel at HCwithoutharm, and our twitter feed at hcwithoutharm.