Can Green Buildings Cause Sick Building Syndrome?
.jpg)
Down in Los Altos, California, a green building controversy is brewing. Linda Kincaid, industrial hygienist, has made some serious accusations about high levels of formaldehyde in certified green homes. On September 15, Kincaid, along with Richard Calhoun, held a press conference to discuss her findings. I am particularly interested in Calhoun's reference to "sick buildings" during the press conference:
Calhoun pointed out that commercial buildings were sealed too tightly after the energy crisis of the 1970s. Sick buildings were the result.
Calhoun stated that recent building practices reduce ventilation in homes to the point that people become ill. There is not adequate fresh air to dilute formaldehyde emitted from building materials and furniture. “History is repeating itself,” said Calhoun.
Calhoun himself is a realtor in California. If he has been a realtor for a number of years, he would likely have experienced the previous sick building crisis that he references. So what is this sick building syndrome that occurred in the 1970s?
Much of the history of sick building syndrome can be traced to the energy crisis of the 1970s. Before the mid-1970s, most commercial buildings had only one way of regulating the volume of air transmitted to the occupants, namely the windows which were opened or shut as the occupant desired, while homes had fairly significant airflow even with all doors and windows shut. Energy conservation efforts undertaken following the 1973 OPEC embargo changed all this. Voluntary and involuntary energy consumption reduction efforts required the reduction of heat loss or gain through the exterior of buildings and a reduction in the supply of outside air quantities into buildings. Buildings were made "tight" and commercial buildings became solely dependent upon mechanical ventilation to supply heating, cooling, and humidity. Windows were sealed shut. While many homes did not receive the benefit of such elaborate mechanical ventilation systems, they were nevertheless sealed and insulated.
This is where I am hoping I can tap the immense knowledge of all the readers of this blog. Tell me about sick building syndrome. Do you see the potential for another round of sick building syndrome from the new wave of green buildings? What do you think of Kincaid and Calhoun's findings?
You can email me at ccheatham@crowell.com or post a comment below. If I get some great responses, I will feature them in a follow up post.
Related Links
More on formaldehyde allegations (Examiner)
Sick Building Syndrome: A potpourri analysis (bnet)
Photo: timlovesbrian
I had a chance to dig through the links a bit more this time around. Interesting to see a different rating system involved. Also interesting that the culprit is now tight ventilation rather than some other pointed to issue.
The complaining CIH herself basically suggests opening the windows as a general solution to formaldehyde exposure:
http://bit.ly/ssE8S
Are these simply cases where the homes need to air out a bit from off-gassing of building materials, such as cabinets? If so, this seems like a temporary delivery issue instead of an on-going sick building threat ...
In my first job as a graduate architect, I worked on a big courthouse in Ontario Canada that had to suddenly be redesigned to be more energy efficient. Everything was moved around into a boxy shape, windows were reduced, ventilation cut down and a few solar panels were put on the roof. It became so toxic and mould infested that they moved the judges into school portables and demolished it.
The US Energuide standards are doing the same thing now; tighten up the envelope, but don't require heat recovery ventilators and fresh air. Seal the joint up to prevent heat loss, but don't do anything about vinyl, formaldehyde, toxic cleaners and chemicals. I really believe that an Energuide rated house without proper ventilation management is an invitation to disaster.
I just looked through the report which I linked to from one of the articles linked in your post Chris. No where do I see any reference to the homes having LEED or other green certification. Some info from report abstract and intro: "In 2006-2007 we conducted a multi-season study of ventilation and IAQ in 108 new single-family, detached homes in California" and "In December, 2004 and January, 2005 a questionnaire was mailed to a stratified random sample of 4,972 single-family detached homes built in 2003." Did I miss something? Where did the green homes "thing" come into play? Although one of the articles linked to in the post has one of the researchers stating that some homes were Green Point rated, I don't see this specifically stated in the report, and I think it would be.
Again, maybe I missed it in two quick scan throughs. But it just makes me suspect of the claims as summarized above.
It also depends by what measure we are considering the homes "green." If it's just energy consumption, then there can be a conflict between reducing ventilation to save energy and getting rid of toxic offgassing. However, these days comprehensive green ratings systems are also paying attention to holistic approaches to indoor air quality, providing credits and points for increased (yes, increased) ventilation and outdoor air provision and elimination of products that use formaldehyde and other Volatile Organic Compounds that can have health impacts.
So, yes there is possibility of sick building syndrome-- but since we already had our run-in with this in the '70s, most people are taking a more comprehensive approach to energy reduction and green design that includes issues of indoor air quality. I guess the trick is to know is that "green" design cannot just be about energy reduction.
Is there a potential for sick building syndrome in tight homes? Absolutely. When I built five years ago, we installed a heat recovery system which increased fresh ventilation into the house. The house was an energy star house and was really tight.
You have to take into account your furniture,blinds, cleaning products, fabrics, etc that you put into your home. All these things off-gas. So fresh air intake is important. I agree with Jason's comment as to it depends on what green standards we are talking about.
Thanks to everyone for the great comments. So here's the big question that is starting to emerge: does the Energy Star system account for the necessity to improve ventilation?
@Sara - Please see the previous post on this topic, which discusses the ties between the homes studied by Kincaid and the California green rating system:
http://www.greenbuildinglawupdate.com/2009/09/articles/legal-developments/allegations-emerge-of-high-formaldehyde-levels-in-green-buildings/
Sick Building Syndrome is fundamentally not related to ventilation. Indeed, in the majority of cases, no culprit is ever uncovered. Indoor air, particulates, moulds, volatile substances etc are sampled, but usually nothing is found. I have been developing a theory on what causes this syndrome and my findings so far suggest that it has to do with the cosmology and physics of the space and building. This syndrome may be classed together with Fibromyalgias, Chronic Fatigue Syndromes, Post Traumatic Stress Disorders etc. It is more related to "feng-shui-like" factors rather than industrial types of contamination. The physics and cosmology of these "feng-shui-like" factors is still in its infancy but I am working on it. While Green buildings are good and will contribute to environmental health for different reasons, I do not believe they will address the Sick Building Syndrome.
We should never confuse "green" home and "healthy" home. While there can be some overlap, green homes are typically about using materials and designs that maximize energy efficiency and renewable energy. Green homes also typically feature materials that are (or, more frequently, merely claim to be) sustainable.
In contrast, truly healthy homes feature materials and designs that minimize indoor air pollution issues, mostly through source elimination. Healthy homes are also energy efficient and more comfortable.
Ventilation is important to healthy homes and a recent study released by the California Air Resources Board and California Energy Commission confirmed that fresh air ventilation rates in new homes are typically quite low. The abstract states:
"The median 24-hour outdoor air exchange rate was 0.26 air changes per hour; 67 percent of the homes were below the California building code requirement of 0.35 air changes per hour; and 32 percent of the homes did not use their windows. . . The median indoor formaldehyde concentration was 36 micrograms per cubic meter (range of 4.8 to 136 micrograms per cubic meter). Nearly all homes had formaldehyde concentrations that exceeded guidelines for cancer and chronic irritation, while 59 percent exceeded guidelines for acute irritation. In conclusion, new single-family detached homes in California are built relatively airtight, can have very low outdoor air exchange rates, and can often exceed exposure guidelines for air contaminants with indoor sources, such as formaldehyde and some other volatile organic compounds. Mechanical ventilation systems are needed to provide a dependable, continuous supply of outdoor air to new homes, and reductions of various indoor formaldehyde sources are also needed."
http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/04-310.pdf, at page XV. Emphasis added.
This makes sense if you think about it. Most new homes are built tight to be energy efficient. But tighter homes are more prone to potential indoor air pollution with the many VOC- and formaldehyde-emitting building materials, including ordinary fiber glass batt insulation (i.e., pink or yellow batts). Since most new homes do not have continuous mechanical ventilation like commercial office buildings and classrooms do, new home indoor air pollution can be a potential problem. That’s why it’s important to specify as many non-emitting building materials as possible.
Here’s the full disclosure – I am with Johns Manville, which has the industry’s only full line of certified Formaldehyde-freeTM building insulation. Think of Johns Manville as Warren Buffett’s insulation company since we are part of Berkshire Hathaway.
We switched to a no-added-formaldehyde formulation in 2002 because it seemed like a smart thing to do and because pollution prevention is part of our corporate culture. This has turned out to be a good move, especially given the important agency action last month on formaldehyde hazard.
Our Formaldehyde-freeTM building insulation is also sustainable because we use a lower-energy, lower-carbon, and lower-emitting manufacturing process. In fact, our HERMTM process can meet the EPA Clean Air Act fiber glass NSPS without added abatement equipment and our dedicated HERMTM plants have such low GHG emissions that we will be exempt from both California AB-32 and proposed federal climate change regulatory schemes. Our products are made mostly from recycled glass beverage bottles and sand, a rapidly renewing and widely distributed material.
Bruce Ray
Johns Manville