LEED TSAC PVC Study Database > Comments on Draft Report > View Comment

View Comment

[<] | [>]

Page(s) Lines(s)
 
Author Eric Ridenour
Architect

ericr@serapdx.com

 
Comment
The analysis of this Draft submitted by the Healthy Building Network is both compelling and thorough in its critique. I would like to endorse that critique and ask that all points made there be responded to by a new study.
The Council should reject this Draft due to its narrow focus and omissions of major issues which are linked at core to PVC’s life cycle. The Vinyl Institute is already using this Draft report in its PR efforts to improve its environmental image. If this were to be fully released by the USGBC, the organization’s credibility would suffer tremendously.
However, the Council should not set aside the issue of PVC from LEED. The single biggest weakness of LEED to date has been its lack of consideration for ‘embodied toxicity’. LEED has always looked at energy impacts of all building design decisions, not just energy use by the structure itself. But toxicity has only been addressed to date as an indoor air quality issue. This omission needs to be addressed.
While a holistic treatment of toxicity is desirable in the long term, there is plenty of evidence currently to warrant a credit (if not a prerequisite in cases where alternatives are in place) for PVC avoidance. The material’s linkage to four of the dirty dozen POP’s alone is sufficient.
LEED’s stated goal is market transformation toward environmentally preferable building systems, yet this report paves the way for continued status quo usage of one of the most toxic materials known to humanity.