Misapplication of generic hazard-classification schemes for versatile, sustainable building materials: Copper as an example

Decisions regarding the use of building materials are being made based solely on the hazards of chemicals, without conducting risk assessments that account for realistic potential exposures and effects. We present copper as an example of a versatile, sustainable building material for which hazard classification has been misapplied. As a result, copper has been blacklisted for use as an exterior building material. However, its purported human health effects are not relevant for exposure to exterior building materials; furthermore, the potential environmental effects to aquatic life are not considered in appropriate contexts. We recommend evaluating risks of copper in runoff water at the point in temporal, chemical, and physical spaces at which organisms of concern will be exposed, instead of evaluating copper concentrations at the point of runoff from copper roofs, gutters, etc. Instead of banning a building material, appropriate institutional controls and/or best management practices should be required to control the release of related substances, if needed. In the absence of risk and/or life cycle assessments, architects and builders might choose regrettable substitutions in which materials posing unknown but potentially higher risks will replace more completely characterized materials that have lower risk in a given application.