The Increased Risk of “Green” Building

Law & Regulatory — By Mark Rabkin on June 22, 2009 at 3:50 pm

Among the many claims made by advocates of sustainable buildings is the potential for the reduced risk from electrical, HVAC and water-related losses because of the advanced technologies meant to closely monitor the performance of these systems. However, as the industry accelerates at breakneck speed, heightened awareness is essential to minimize the havoc that could be wrought through processes hastily labeled as “green” or “environmentally friendly.”

The team at Liberty Building Forensics Group drafted a comprehensive study entitled “The Hidden Risks of Green Buildings: Avoiding Moisture & Mold Problems.” The paper was presented as part of the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards Mini-Monograph series. J. David Odom, Richard Scott & George Dubose carefully summarize 13 LEED Prerequisites and Credits that increase the potential for mold and water damage to a structure.

For example, the use of building commissioning & enhanced commissioning (EA PreReq 1 and EA Credit 3) is not likely to include a technical peer review in either the design or construction phase. As such, these reviews are not required to incorporate an analysis of the building envelope’s performance. They state that “…for this analysis to be successful, the review team must be very savvy about what combination of design choices create a high risk of causing problems and what other choices are lower risks.”

New materials are quick to catch a prospective designer’s or developer’s eye and they may want to include such alternative materials within the scope of construction. However, the lack of conclusive testing and analysis of the durability of new products that may have achieved a LEED-approved label may also lack evidence related to the product’s interaction with other adjacent components.

The team at Liberty Building Forensics Group have done an excellent job highlighting several other areas of concern, including the increased ventilation (EQ 3), IAQ Management & flush-out (EQ Credits 3.1 & 3.2) and Indoor Chemical & Pollutant Source Control (EQ Credit 5).

The summary provided within the report of the 13 LEED Prerequisites and Credits that increase the potential for mold & water loss is essential to any risk management professional advising in the construction, operation and maintenance of a LEED-Certified building.

Tags: , , , ,
  • Share on FacebookFacebook
  • Share on LinkedInLinkedIn
  • Digg it!Digg This
  • Subscribe by RSSRSS Feed
  • I agree that LEED the enhanced commissioning credit does not give an incentive to reduce mold potential, but this is something you should do on your own and not because LEED is forcing you to do. Although LEED does have other mold prevention measures like the requirement to cover materials during construction that could collect mold.

    I just don't think you can state that there are risks associated with green building because one particular LEED credit doesn't force you to do something that would prevent mold.
  • Mark Rabkin
    Although I am not a building scientist, the team at Liberty Building Forensics (www.libertybuilding.com) highlights a total of 13 LEED-related credits that increase the potential for mold and moisture-related issues. The purpose of my commentary is to address the need to do things within the construction process that contribute to the overall health of the building and its occupants. As you point out, there are things that "you should do on your own and not because LEED is forcing you to."
  • Mark Rabkin
    John -

    I appreciate your comments. In referring to the peer review component, I believe the point the authors of the study were trying to make was that the EA prereq 1 (fundamental commissioning) and EA Cred 3 (enhanced commissioning) may not adequately address reducing the risk for potential mold and moisture issues.
    "1. The design process is not likely to be a "standard of care" technical peer review, but is more often a review intended to determine if the constructed building, once built, can be commissioned and if the design meets the Owner's intent. In our experience, the typical design review will not predict the potential for moisture and mold problems. Without this prediction, it cannot offer specific solutions to avoid them.
    2. These reviews are not required to incorporate an analysis of the building envelope's performance - the acknowledged component that fails the most frequently and usually the most dramatically."

    Also, do you believe that the recent developments on Credit Interpretation Requests will no longer be applicable to all projects (as reported by RealLifeLEED and Chris Cheatham at www.greenbuildinglawupdate.com):

    "Effective June 26, 2009, credit interpretation requests (CIRs) submitted by any registered project will no longer be vetted by USGBC or its LEED Technical Advisory Groups. As a result, CIR rulings will now be applicable only to the project that submitted them. For LEED version 2 projects, rulings on CIRs submitted prior to June 26, 2009, will be honored until they are retired by USGBC or incorporated into general USGBC-issued project guidance, such as through errata or addenda."

    Will this be a good thing as CIR's are now project specific or a bad thing as it will create additional cost to verify credits?
  • RichCartlidge
    John,
    You are right peer review can be done even though not required but how often do people do things, especially things that cost money and time, without actually being required to do them. I am not sure what your area of expertise is but in construction if you are taking extra time you are spending a great deal of money to do so. I think the point of that quotation was that absent peer review individuals need to make design decisions with a full appreciation of their potential impacts on the building as a cohesive unit rather than just their benefit in one compartmentalized area.
  • Just because peer review is not required to get the LEED credit doesn't mean you can't do it. This seems like kind of a joke to me.
blog comments powered by Disqus