Article Number : 2719 |
|
Article Detail |
|
 | |
| Date | 11/28/2007 8:25:39 AM |
| Written By | LGM & Associates Technical Flooring Services |
| View this article at: | //floorbiz.com/BizResources/NPViewArticle.asp?ArticleID=2719 |
| Abstract | Chicago—Despite nearly two decades of scientific evidence showing carpet is one for the safest building products to both humans and the natural environment, perception still rules over reality when it comes to using soft floor covering in residential settings... |
| Article | Chicago—Despite nearly two decades of scientific evidence showing carpet is one for the safest building products to both humans and the natural environment, perception still rules over reality when it comes to using soft floor covering in residential settings. The LEED for Homes Rating System from the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), which, at press time, was in the process of being formally adopted by its more than 12,000 members after a two-year pilot program, for reasons unbeknown to manufacturers and associations, actually penalizes using carpeting in the home. The 184-page “LEED for Homes Pilot Rating System,” document awards a “BONUS .5pt for NO carpet in home,” as noted in Exhibit MR2-B in the Environmentally Preferable Products Materials And Resources section, which also points to the fact that a minimum of two points “must be achieved in [this] category.” Despite most carpet mills and the Carpet & Rug Institute (CRI) having a close relationship with USGBC because of its previous rating systems that up until now focused on the commercial sector, the negative listing caught the industry by surprise and has put it in a position of once again having to defend itself. “The carpet industry does not support LEED for Homes in its current form,” said Bob Peoples, executive director of the Carpet America Recovery Effort (CARE) and part of CRI. “The carpet industry is one of the leading industries in the U.S. in terms of environmental stewardship and is ahead of virtually all other building materials. Why the old myths and misinformation continue to be propagated is not defensible when good science tells us otherwise. USGBC decided not to use negative credits for other materials, so it is not clear why such an approach was used in LEED for Homes.” Dumbfounded Bill Gregory, director of sustainable strategies at Milliken Floor Covering, said, “The industry is dumbfounded by the designation. No one in the industry was consulted, or involved in the process.” A number of mill officials said the industry was first made aware of the negative designation following the end of what USGBC said were two public comment periods as the system was making its way through the pilot program. “USGBC says the industry missed two comment periods,” said Steve Bradfield, director of environmental affairs for Shaw Industries. “However, no industry member has any record of being officially notified of these comment periods. We felt the LEED for Homes committee had an obligation to confront the carpet industry with the plan.” Peoples added, “No one in the carpet industry that we are aware of knew about either public comment period that was open for LEED for Homes. We are quite miffed by this observation.” John Bradshaw, Shaw’s environmental marketing manager, noted over the last two or so months, “the CRI and individual industry members, including Shaw, sent letters of protest—after the comment periods were closed as this was when we learned of the situation. The USGBC has been unresponsive to industry outreach. As members of the CRI and USGBC several industry members have joined together to file a formal appeal.” No negatives in commercial What makes the whole matter even more confusing, said James Lesslie, president of Beaulieu Commercial, is that in USGBC’s LEED rating for commercial buildings carpet is not treated negatively. “We were disappointed by the position taken by USGBC with regards to the residential carpet standards. “As a matter of fact,” noted Gregory, when it comes to other LEED ratings, “carpet helps deliver points because of indoor air quality (IAQ), sustainable product designation, recycled content and recyclability.” Which is why Milliken—and the rest of the industry—“believes USGBC did not properly consider the positive impact of carpet in residential applications with LEED for Homes.” Even more confusing as to how this negative rating got passed is in comments made to FCNews by some officials that “several USGBC board members were not aware of the negative positioning of carpet and were supportive of the industry’s concerns once raised.” Everyone contacted by FCNews said overall they still support USGBC and its voluntary LEED rating system, just not the one for homes as it is currently written. Regardless of how or why it happened the carpet sector has rallied together with CRI at the helm to get the policy revised before any significant public damage occurs. “The industry has engaged the USGBC in a formal dialogue to correct the issues identified,” Peoples explained. “We have filed a formal appeal with USGBC and will follow its appeal process hopeful that sound science and logic will prevail.” (Editor’s note: At press time USGBC officials were unavailable to discuss the LEED for Homes issue with FCNews. An ongoing dialogue is taking place, and we will keep readers updated on this important matter.) |