Clean Production Action (CPA) and its red-list allies, once again, are misleading the public about PVC. In a recent “Buyer Beware” report, CPA and its cohorts twist the facts and assert a number of groundless claims challenging the safety of PVC – claims that just aren’t true.
We’ll be specific:
Among the myriad of mischaracterizations, the report questions the safety of PVC water pipes – but the authors omit that PVC pipe is one of the best, most efficient delivery methods used across the country for safe drinking water. And unlike metallic pipes, PVC pipes don’t corrode or leach contaminants into the water system. Recent news reports have praised PVC in this regard -- and NSF International has even certified PVC for safe drinking water delivery. Of course, these facts were predictably missing from CPA’s reflexive, agenda-driven position against PVC.
But wait, there’s more. …The report dishonestly conflates the findings of a 1970s-era PVC workplace exposure study with common, everyday, real world PVC interaction – as if to suggest that both are somehow remotely comparable. Fittingly, it’s no shock the report omitted any reference whatsoever to the 1974 OSHA standards that reduced workplace vinyl chloride exposure by 500 times, and the enormous strides the industry has deployed since to make PVC production safe for its employees.
CPA is flat wrong on the facts about PVC. And given the group’s strident opposition to nearly 13,000 chemicals (you read that correctly), do they honestly expect anyone to take them seriously?
In a recent open letter, Gulfport, MS Mayor Billy Hewes called into question the American Water Works Association’s (AWWA) "opposition to competitive bidding for water and sewer piping materials” that “could save states and municipalities millions of dollars.”
He continued: “When local governments invest in water and sewer infrastructure it’s critical that open and fair competitive bidding practices are utilized in order to get the best value for scarce taxpayer dollars.”
Indeed … Why would anyone, especially the AWWA, support less competition? Why would a non-profit association representing utility engineers be taking a stand against fair and open procurement when it’s the job of engineers as public officials to objectively compare all available piping materials? How can piping materials be objectively compared when they are excluded from even being considered in any projects or bids? And why would AWWA want to deny taxpayers the opportunity to get the best long term solutions for their water infrastructure — at the most competitive price?
We’re curious: Are AWWA’s positions favoring closed procurement policies for municipal water pipe procurement processes being driven by a particular constituency? And more importantly, is AWWA truly looking after the interests of water infrastructure rate payers and the health of Americans, particularly among those in need?
Interestingly, AWWA’s position against open procurement for piping is identical to that of the ductile iron pipe industry which wants to protect its closed iron-only municipal pipe markets.
Maybe it's time to take a hard look at who is influencing the positions of AWWA, and ask: Is there a better way to fix America's deteriorating water infrastructure?
Click here for a copy of Mayor Hewes’ open letter. And click here for the AWWA’s opposition to open procurement.
There’s a saying, one often attributed to Herbert Hoover, that we should never confuse the right to be heard with the right to be taken seriously.
Nowhere is this cautionary view by our 31st president better applied than with the Healthy Building Network – a group that continues to distort the facts and mislead the public about PVC.
We’ll be specific:
In HBN’s latest screed, the group’s “Research” Director, Jim Vallette, claims two chlorine plants in the U.S. cause mercury pollution by continuing to use “mercury cathode cells” in the production of vinyl chloride.
There’s just one problem – he’s wrong.
Neither of the two plants that continue to rely on mercury cathodes in the United States supply vinyl chloride or PVC producers. Production of vinyl consumes just over one-third of the chlorine produced in the U.S. and most PVC producers rely on facilities either on-site or nearby. The two facilities quoted by Mr. Vallette supply water treatment, agricultural, and pharmaceutical applications.
It bears repeating – neither the ASHTA plant in Ashtabula, Ohio plant nor the Axiall plant in Proctor, West Virginia supply the PVC industry in any manner. Vallette incorrectly attributes mercury emissions from these two facilities to PVC in his story.
His inaccuracies don’t stop there… Vallette goes on to claim mercury pollution in the state of New Hampshire is attributable to the PVC industry, referencing this study in his “report” to validate his assertion.
But that’s not what the facts show. The PVC industry has never maintained any operations in New Hampshire at all. And the study he cites to support his claim actually refers to a former paper mill that existed for over a century, and is now a Superfund Site with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Vallette misinforms his readers that the environmental burden of past pulp and paper operations are now attributable to the vinyl industry.
So… The Vinyl Institute’s statement he invokes in his story – the one he stridently positions as being inaccurate – is, indeed, correct: there is no mercury cell chlorine technology used in vinyl production in the U.S.
There’s more: Vallette assails mercury cell use in PVC production in South Africa. But the shutdown of those mercury cell chlorine facilities was completed in 1998. And before their closure, only an estimated 25% of mercury cell use went towards chemicals used in PVC production. Vallette no doubt knows that the Cato Ridge, Natal plant in South Africa was not solely working on chemicals for PVC – or at least he did when he claimed in his 1991 paper the function of the plant was “recovery of exhausted catalyst and electrical equipment…” Vallette again misinforms his readers that the environmental burden from this facility that reclaimed mercury from electrical equipment now is attributed to the PVC industry.
Historically, the PVC industry has been a minor contributor to overall mercury emissions. The EPA itself has identified power plants and metals processing facilities as its primary sources. But Vallette predictably omits these facts, too.
The real concern, of course, is that the Healthy Building Network (HBN), and groups like it, has been spoon-feeding the press with inaccuracies about PVC for some time. And the press has blindly accepted these assertions as fact, without applying any degree of scrutiny or skepticism that is routinely directed at industry. And no one has held these agenda-driven groups accountable – or questioned their own financial fundraising motives when such baseless statements about PVC are made in the public discourse.
No one, that is, until now.
The Center for Public Integrity’s David Heath makes a number of dishonest characterizations about vinyl chloride in his recent report. And since he failed to ask us any specific questions addressing the real angle of his story prior to publication, we’ll set the record straight here:
Heath omits critical facts. The Texas plant at the center of his report produced a number of different chemicals. But Heath makes no mention of this in his story, and instead cites vinyl chloride as the “leading suspect” for the serious workplace health issues that occurred – which deserve accurate and thorough analysis. What’s more, if workplace exposure was an industry-wide problem, as he infers, why is there no other example of a similar cluster at a designated vinyl chloride plant, past or present? Heath sidesteps this important fact in his article.
Heath’s thesis is flawed. His story hinges on the assertion that the vinyl chloride industry withheld cluster data from the Texas facility in a key study. But to meet the rigorous scientific standard for epidemiological studies, records would need to show which workers were exposed to which chemicals produced at the plant, and to what degree. One case involving vinyl chloride met this standard – and it was included in the industry study that was accepted by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). However, the remaining cases could not isolate this data. Had the industry included these cases, IARC likely would have rejected the entire study, as the results would have been unreliable. (Heath fails to point this out for readers, too.)
Heath minimizes contradictory evidence. Heath cites the vinyl industry study as the primary reason IARC reversed its decision associating vinyl chloride and brain cancer. But he downplays the fact that IARC based this reversal on “other” studies as well – where the vast amount of research showed a causal connection was inconclusive. Heath’s suggestion that the industry study somehow unduly influenced the IARC reversal disparages the integrity of this highly regarded organization, and its renowned experts – who stake their reputations on their expertise, and impartiality.
Heath irresponsibly infers that the vinyl chloride industry hasn’t evolved. He spends extraordinary time addressing events that occurred prior to 1974 – yet he makes a fleeting reference to the fact that OSHA regulations, adopted in 1974 and to which industry strictly complies with, reduced the vinyl chloride workplace exposure limit by 500 times. Separately, Heath notes the total amount of ambient vinyl chloride emissions to provoke reader outrage, but conceals the fact these emissions fall within regulatory limits as set by the EPA. And he cites two isolated cases – a New Jersey derailment and an isolated groundwater case in Illinois – to make the broad assertion that “the question of [vinyl chloride’s] health effects remain relevant.” Such statements mischaracterize the enormous efforts by the vinyl industry in recent decades to protect public health by reducing vinyl chloride plant emissions by 83% since 1987 (according to EPA TRI data) while resin production simultaneously increased 82% and the strict monitoring and control to minimize worker exposure levels.
Does CPI Oppose REACH? The Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) has been hailed for strengthening regulations on chemical manufacturers throughout Europe. And a central REACH provision requires industry to fund and conduct its own studies, instead of making governments pay for them. Based on Heath’s skepticism of industry-backed studies, are readers to assume he and CPI oppose this landmark legislation?
Center for Public Integrity is a privately funded ideological organization – not an objective news outlet. CPI is funded by a network of anti-chemical industry donors, including the Adessium Foundation -- which supports initiatives promoting the “use of alternative raw materials instead of plastic.” And the Park Foundation, which gives grants to anti-chemical groups across the country. CPI also receives money from George Soros – who funds a wide number of alarmist groups that have long opposed the vinyl industry, including the Environmental Working Group and Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families. Readers are right to wonder how CPI could possibly cover chemical topics in a fair and objective manner when many of its key donors are ideologically aligned against the entire industry.
If Heath wanted his readers to have the facts, he would have asked us to respond to a list of specific questions that could have provided better balance and perspective for his story. We would have gladly replied to questions seeking information about the way the industry has improved workplace safety measures, how plants have sizably reduced emissions over the years, and the number of steps our industry has taken as part of our commitment to protect public heath.
But he didn’t ask us any of these questions prior to publication. Instead, he only asked if we were familiar with that obscure vinyl industry study, the one he uses to distort the facts and deceive his readership.
Reasonable observers would question whether that’s the work of an objective journalist – or someone in pursuit of a personal or professional agenda.
Green Builder Media is the latest outlet to regurgitate the baseless, alarmist rhetoric against PVC by Perkins & Will and Healthy Building Network (HBN) – claims we have previously debunked on Vinyl Verified. Aside from Green Builder’s lack of originality, the article recklessly promotes the misleading findings of a 2015 HBN flawed paper.
And it conceals the fact that Perkins & Will Principal / HBN Board Chair, Robin Guenther, doubles as a Senior Advisor to the staunch anti-PVC advocacy group Health Care Without Harm. A fact, we believe, readers deserve to know – and one that precludes HBN from being viewed as a credible resource on PVC related issues.
Let’s dissect Green Builder’s most irresponsible claims:
Green Builder Media’s “report” is nothing more than ideological opinion sourced from HBN’s flawed white paper, and the irresponsible promotion of agenda-driven activism.
Hon. Jon Russell with American City County Exchange (ACCE) recently addressed the need for fair and open competition as Flint replaces its aging metallic pipes: "Is the local, state and federal government going to just replace the iron pipes with new iron pipes? Or are they going to open up the bidding process to fair and competitive bidding to include a variety of piping materials, which will allow the best quality and best-priced piping material to replace the old? The ductile iron pipe industry is known for its heavy lobbying and campaign contributions to elected officials and courting of public works directors and utility engineers, which serves to skew the bidding process in their favor in many municipalities in the United States. Given the current crisis in Flint, it is incumbent on every elected official to make sure all industries are considered in the rebuilding of Flint’s water system, and not just the politically connected."
