I STRONGLY urge USGBC to discourage the use of PVC as a green building material. I read the report from the LCA/Risk Assessment commissioned by your committee concerning PVC and other materials rating and found it almost impossible to understand. There are few legal boilerplate documents any more complicated and filled with jargon. While I understand you are attempting to be scientific and suit proof, a more readable document would have been helpful.
I am a LEED AP, have advanced degrees and have been involved with green building and sustainable design for almost 15 years, especially focusing on affordable housing, both single and multifamily. PVC is toxic in its manufacture; dangerous if burned or not properly used, and cannot be recycled and can only be properly disposed of in sealed landfills. You lightly cover the disposal point in the report. Given the quantity of PVC eventually going to landfills (hundreds of millions of pounds), shouldn’t some additional weight be placed on this issue. As far as I know, none of the other products compared to PVC have this danger associated with them for future generations. I know that the gathering of raw materials and the manufacture of competing materials have negative environmental impacts, none of them, to the best of my knowledge have the potential for environmental pollution and damage as PVC.
There aren’t many affordable substitutes for PVC pipe, window frames, wiring and some other uses, but we must seek those substitutes and promote them. I think the most reasonable thing to do is to give points for PVC reduction such as the Green Star program in Australia. This would discourage PVC use while not overly discouraging green building among those of us who work to make affordable housing available to low and moderate income families. The 1 or 2 points for 30 or 60% reduction respectively makes sense to me but there may be other methods as well.
P.S. I am a Vietnam veteran. I receive partial disability for Type 2 diabetes because of exposure to Agent Orange while serving in combat in the Mekong Delta. Exhaustive studies done by the VA demonstrated that diabetes was a direct cause from Agent Orange exposure for soldiers and other military personnel who were stationed in-country Vietnam. Similar military personnel from the period with other diabetes risk factors had significantly lower diabetes rates than in-country military. Of course diabetes is only one of the horrific results of dioxin exposure. Thank God my children were not born with spinal bifida or other genetic dioxin created outcomes as happened to one of my friends. The VA does not lightly give benefits for this kind of thing without overwhelming proof. The dioxin that I picked up in the water and soil from the Agent Orange was only in relatively small amounts, as someone may through the burning of PVC or leaching into water and soil many years from now. Little did I know 30+ years later, tens of thousands of soldiers and civilians in Vietnam would suffer the results of acts that were known to be very dangerous by the manufactures of the products when they were used in the 60's. I served in 1968-69. We know that PVC is a dangerous material, just as the Dow Chemical scientists and executives knew that dioxin was poisonous in the 60’s. My guess is that Dow could have “proven” that dioxin was completely safe had they done a similar LCA/Risk Assessment as you did for your report.
Here is what was reported in National Geographic Magazine, Vol. 157, No.2, February 1980, pp. 181-182:
“Though no one denies its toxicity to laboratory animals, TCDD’s (dioxin) effect on human beings is hotly debated. Avows James H. Hanes, a vice president of Dow U.S.A., “There is not a single Dow scientist I know of who doesn’t think that 2,4,5-T (dioxin) is one of the safest products we make.”
“They interpret limited American and Italian studies and anecdotal reports from Vietnam as evidence that mal-formed fingers and toes are unusually common among these children, a conclusion not shared by most experts. The Air Force pla xz}r€ National Geographic Magazine, Vol. 157, No.2, February 1980, pp. 181-182: ( Ô P~ûwö; . d~ûw`n} ¢o Ô / d~ûw@n} ¢o . Ô 0 / d~ûw€n} ¢o Ô yà øŸ€Ðn€ |