*sensationalism alert*!

Thanks for all the info and links. I have a new PVC alternative for wallcoverings and shower curtains which is so clean it is FDA and Kosher approved for prolonged and direct food contact.
http://www.brentwoodplastics.com/notpvc-wallpaper-wallcoverings.html
Turns out the wallcovering manufacturers who pushed me are complacent and will not switch until their hand is forced. Will v4 de facto make this happen in 2015 ? How do I find out where this fits in ? USGBC says it's not about the points, but architects and other EBOM types only care about the well defined points. Any help or guidance would be appreciated.

Joel, I see your site says the wallcovering you're pitching here is "not PVC," but you don't seem to mention what it IS. Can you tell us what material "notPVC" is made of and share the health profile of any plasticizers/softeners, flame retardants, antimicrobials, PFC coatings, or other additives?

The building blocks are common commodity monomers - ethylene & propylene.
These are strung together to make a copolymer of polyethylene / polypropylene. The resin is pure enough that it is FDA and Kosher approved for prolonged and direct food contact. The white pigment is Titanium Dioxide.

There are no plasticizers, softeners, antimicrobials or coatings.

To say meeting the most demanding standards of E 84 with a plastic which is compressed natural gas is a technical hurdle is a huge understatement, especially if the usual FR's are not acceptable to the greens. It may be a fool's errand to try to develop an FR which has no antimony, halogenated, brominated, etc. but we are going to try anyway. ( We are tweaking the FR additive which did pass E 84. ) Whatever turns out to be the least bad choice we will disclose in an EPD.

Hope this covers it. If not, let me know. Thanks for your interest.

Thanks, Joel. That answers many questions.

I understand that Carnegie uses a clay-based flame retardant on its TPO wallcoverings, so something like that could be worth looking into.

Many of the design professionals you are calling "the greens" hesitate to use persistent, bioaccumulative toxic flame retardants in interior products. These chemicals don't bond to the plastics and can slough off in dust, exposing building occupants to chemicals that are confirmed or probable carcinogens, endocrine disruptors, reproductive toxicants, asthmagens, or asthma triggers.

Most sensible people (not just "the greens") would certainly hesitate to eat even Kosher food off of plastic that contained such chemicals, if they knew they were there.

I think you might have meant your ingredients would be disclosed in an HPD, not an EPD.

If I offended you unintentionally with "the greens" I apologize. I heard this term often at Greenbuild without any derogatory connotation.

The basic plastic is also used in prolonged dermal contact and has been through 4 biotoxicity tests. It does not have any plasticizers, so this is a non-starter.

I was fortunate enough to outgrow asthma, so I'm not keen on adding any triggers or bioaccumulative toxins either.

To make the plastic comply with E 84, one has to extrude FR with the base polymer taking a back seat. The plastic is the tail and the FR is the dog because these monomers are much more highly flammable than PVC.
Not all plastic is PVC. Not all PVC contains the nasty stuff either.

Thanks for the lead on clay. I'm open to suggestions from anywhere at this point.

All we can do is find the least objectionable mix and disclose it in the HPD. If it's not acceptable, we back up 10 and punt.

Joel, I think you would enjoy the February issue of Environmental Building News on our sister site, BuildingGreen.com. The lead article is an analysis of the toxicity of PVC over its life cycle, contextualized with discussions of other plastics. There is also a product review of biobased Xorel, the new gold standard in non-PVC wallcoverings.

http://www.buildinggreen.com/articles/IssueTOC.cfm?Volume=23&Issue=2

Thanks. Plastics has so many subspecies of resins and processes.

The context of other polymers was just a pinky thumbnail. If a common criticism of commodity simple plastics is that they don't break down, why is there a concern about leaching ?

History lessons do help keep the info straight.
Here's one from the moldy oldy video vault:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vq9S6FMSAv8

If the past is prologue, economic realities make for low demand for alternatives to undesirable materials. I could make the same plastic film from biobased sources, but the market does not want to pay up. PVC is still the default choice for wallcovering in Europe.

Here's a decision guide I put together
http://info.brentwoodplastics.com/bioplastics-or-conventional-plastics?&...

Here's a question: Does LEED discourage development of alternatives to products on the red list ?

"Here's a question: Does LEED discourage development of alternatives to products on the red list ?"

LEED is designed to do the exact opposite of that. The point is to drive the market toward more sustainable materials and design choices.

stumbled on this old string while looking for something else on this site. Here's the rest of the fool's errand story - the base polymers were polypropylene and butadiene ( clean polymers, but flammable ). The flame retardant was everything you wanted; hal free, non brominated, no antimony. We achieved class A rating for smoke and fire when adhered to concrete. When the E 84 test was done adhered to gypsum board, the fire separated the wallcovering, the fire got in between resulting in an unacceptable class B rating.

So the industry has tacitly chosen PVC because of the class A rating. Outgassing of mystery ingredients with a class A is better than no outgassing and a class B flame and smoke spread.