Austin: Paul Robbins' Web Site
Environmental Activist & Consumer Advocate
On February 15, a live presentation was delivered to Austin’s Resource Management Commission about toxics in building materials. The presentation advocating the incorporation of standards to discourage or mandate elimination of these toxic materials in Austin Energy Green Building programs for Single Family and Multifamily dwellings.
The link to the televised presentation is below. Cue at 2:20.
A copy of the PowerPoint presentation is linked here.
Green buildings are intended to be superior constructions built with environmentally sustainable materials and design. While not required, the city encourages this type of construction on a voluntary basis through Austin Energy’s Green Building Program, which rewards builders for green choices.
Although some baseline prerequisites are required for a development to be eligible for one-star green building status, prohibiting toxic chemicals is not part of these fundamental requirements.
The Environmental Commission, however, unanimously recommends that Austin Energy and other city entities restrict the use of toxic chemicals in construction or redevelopment of projects. The commission additionally recommends that the Green Building Program revise its standards to actively encourage nontoxic and less toxic materials in its guidelines.
“I think it is outrageous that we accept any toxic items in our buildings where people are there,” Commissioner Mary Ann Neely said at the Feb. 19 meeting of the Environmental Commission.
Chair Linda Guerrero agreed that limiting the use of toxic chemicals is important for the health and safety of residents. “There are just chemicals everywhere,” she said.
Heidi Kasper with the Green Building Program said requiring the use of nontoxic building materials as a prerequisite rather than an opportunity for builders to earn points is a nuance that avoids “(setting) us up for a much more adversarial approach with those clients.”
Austin’s voluntary sustainable construction program evaluates single-family, multifamily and commercial buildings across categories, including materials used, energy efficiency, water quality and transportation options. The chemicals used in these products are not considered to be a part of the baseline evaluation.
Texas House Bill 2439, from the 86th Legislature, prohibits cities from regulating building materials if the material is approved for use by a national model code. The result is that Austin Energy may not ban the use of certain materials that are known to be toxic to human health if they are federally legal.
Local environmental activist and researcher Paul Robbins disagreed that Austin Energy cannot preclude these materials under its Green Building Program since the program is voluntary. He said even if the program does not prohibit the use of these materials, “I propose that the program illuminate toxic building materials when there are cost-effective alternatives.”
Kasper told the commission that it can be challenging to identify the chemicals used in construction materials as ingredients vary from product to product. She pointed to formaldehyde, which is no longer used in fiberglass insulation yet is still used in composite wood. Kasper said that while Austin Energy is working to discourage the use of these chemicals, it is difficult because many others remain in widespread use, including phthalates and other plasticizers, and developers are not necessarily aware of their existence.
To educate builders about material selection, Austin Energy tracks a variety of toxic chemicals on a red list developed by the International Living Future Institute. This list allows the utility to keep track of toxins like formaldehyde and volatile organic compounds in paints that the industry is phasing out and provide guidance to builders when selecting materials.
Commissioner Ryan Nill suggested giving builders that use toxic materials a negative score instead of awarding points for not using them. He said this approach offers an option to“quasi ban” the toxic materials.
Kasper explained that while the program does not negatively weigh the use of materials containing toxins, there have been improvements in the industry that limit their use as certain products and materials fall out of favor with builders and the public.
“We are evolving our standard over time; the codes are evolving over time. So they’re committing to building to an unknown, above-code standard years out,” said Kasper. “The two- and three-star projects you are seeing today are not the same as a two- or three-star project built six or 10 years ago.”
The Austin Monitor’s work is made possible by donations from the community. Though our reporting covers donors from time to time, we are careful to keep business and editorial efforts separate while maintaining transparency. A complete list of donors is available here, and our code of ethics is explained here.
About a year ago, I began advocating that Austin’s green building program ban toxic building materials whenever there were cost-effective alternatives. This story covers the issue.
Also see an Audio-Visual presentation made to the City of Austin’s Environmental Commission last November. Here is a link to the online recording. Click on Item 7A. It runs about 15 minutes.
=====
Thursday, January 9, 2020 by Jessi Devenyns, Austin Monitor
Fire unquestionably presents a risk to public safety. However, a less visible risk associated with a burning building are the toxic chemicals used in building materials that can damage the health of first responders and homeowners who inhale the fumes they emit.
According to local environmental activist and researcher Paul Robbins, three of the most harmful chemicals frequently used in the construction of buildings are PVC, perfluorocarbons and antimicrobials. “There are certainly a number of others,” he told the Public Safety Commission at its Jan. 6 meeting. However, those three chemical classes “are so pervasive and, in their own way, so dangerous.”
PVC and perfluorocarbons are particularly detrimental as they can take hundreds of years to biodegrade and have been linked to cancer, high cholesterol and thyroid disorders in humans who have been exposed.
The Austin Fire Department is aware of the risks of these chemicals and has taken measures over the years to better protect its employees. Division Chief Rob Vires told the commission that the department has adjusted the way firefighters remove their gear on-site to minimize exposure to carcinogens. Likewise, the department has made continuous adjustments to protective equipment to protect first responders from the off-gassing materials and contaminated particles left in the wake of a fire.
While they’re a primary population of concern, Commissioner Preston Tyree pointed out that first responders are not the only citizens that the city should consider. Homeowners and individuals who clean up after a fire also risk being exposed. The city should work toward reducing the risk for all parties, he noted. “The toxic gas is being let off by the building materials. We probably ought to know about it, and we probably ought to be working to stop it,” he said.
Kurt Stogdill with Austin Energy said that the utility has not pushed for the codified prevention of materials that become toxic when burned. However, sections in the code enumerate various toxic building materials, including asbestos, that are precluded from use in construction.
The utility has been working with the Fire Department to advise on the Wildland-Urban Interface Code, recommending the use of building materials that are less likely to catch on fire in the first place.
Austin Energy has been regulating materials through its Green Building Program, a rating system used for evaluating the sustainability of buildings based on materials used, energy efficiency, water quality, and transportation options. Heidi Kasper with the Green Building Program told the Austin Monitor, “For ages, we’ve required low VOC (volatile organic compound) paints.” Other parts of the program list preferred materials that are low-VOC or nontoxic, but they are not required. The voluntary program allows for a buffet-style selection of sustainable building practices to reach higher ratings, though Robbins explained that toxic chemicals are just as prevalent in green structures as in conventional construction.
Part of the reason toxic chemicals are used in green building materials is that the industry guards the composition of materials as proprietary information, Kasper told commissioners. “There’s movement right now to get a lot more transparency,” she said.
Austin Energy tracks a variety of toxic chemicals on a “red list” developed by the International Living Future Institute that allows the utility to keep track of toxins like formaldehyde and volatile organic compound paints that the industry is phasing out and provide guidance to builders when selecting materials.
Since the Green Building Program is voluntary, Kasper explained that there are no cash incentives to encourage nontoxic, sustainable construction. However, she did note that there is a continual evolution around what is considered safe for the environment and for human beings. “We’re actively developing innovation guides,” Kasper said, to keep up and encourage builders to use the latest sustainable options, including less toxic materials.
Kasper told the Monitor that when these guides become available they will serve as a menu of ideas for developers and include sustainable new solutions, including a reduction in the use of toxic building materials. “(It’s) a library of ideas,” she said. “And we need somebody to test them out.”
The Austin Monitor’s work is made possible by donations from the community. Though our reporting covers donors from time to time, we are careful to keep business and editorial efforts separate while maintaining transparency. A complete list of donors is available here, and our code of ethics is explained here.