To join the Learning and Developmental Disabilities Initiative (LDDI), please complete the form at http://www.iceh.org/LDDImembers.html.
May 29 - 31, 2006
Stockholm, Sweden
at the Stockholm City Conference Centre
The activities of healthcare facilities have a significant impact on the environment that contributes to the destruction of our natural ecosystems. And an unhealthy natural environment is a danger to human health. As healthcare professionals pledge an oath of "First, do no harm", all aspects of healthcare should be carried out in a way that is not damaging to public health and the environment. Forward-thinking healthcare systems must therefore be ecologically sustainable. CleanMed Europe will show you how to achieve this.
Website: http://www.cleanmed.org/europe/2006/home.html
Contact: cleanmedeurope@congrex.se
June 9 - 11, 2006
Baltimore, Maryland
Join with groups across America who are applying the precautionary approach to environmental hazards by shifting the focus to "how can we prevent harm?", instead of asking "what level of harm is acceptable?" This national event will bring together people working on conservation, disease prevention, environmental justice, environmental health, green purchasing, precautionary business practices, toxic and nuclear pollution prevention, worker safety and more to build a stronger movement to protect our health and environment. The conference will include sessions on 1) model policies and successful campaigns from Europe and U.S. national, state and local initiatives; 2) precautionary tools like assessments of safer alternatives and full cost-accounting on pollution's hidden costs; 3) crafting effective messaging, countering the critics and building a broader movement for precaution; 4) collaborative opportunities, with sessions on water, land use and ecosystems, trade, energy, and a cross-fertilization session with groups working on children's health, environmental justice, health professionals, chemical, nuclear and pesticide reforms; and 5) skills trainings on organizing, campaign strategies, media outreach, partnering with tribes and more.
Website: http://www.besafenet.com/
Contact: Anne Rabe, CHEJ, 518-732-4538 or annerabe@msn.com
from the Provo [Utah] Daily Herald
May 21, 2006
http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/179300/3/
They are in our homes, our schools, our places of work, even our pockets -- devices that contain a slumbering toxic menace. They have high concentrations of materials that are pollutants and carcinogens, and they're even visiting environmental catastrophes upon some parts of the world. In short, they're the electrical goodies we think we can't live without -- our beloved televisions, coveted iPods, cherished DVD players, prized computers and more -- and as they're replaced with higher-end models, they're making their way to our garbage dumps.
The problem is, this waste -- electronic waste -- requires special and sometimes expensive handling to ensure that devices made to enrich our quality of life don't end up degrading the quality of the world in which we live. "Take a CRT, for example," said Recycling Coalition of Utah's Brad Mertz, referring to the cathode ray tube that provides the picture on television screens and computer monitors. "It has 4 to 8 pounds of lead in it. It's got chromium. It's got arsenic. It's got heavy metals that in and of themselves are nasty. It can contaminate groundwater. "Sitting on your desk, it's fine. Once it's broken, that's a different matter."
As the amount of e-waste increases, some states have taken steps to ensure that old electronics are recycled or disposed of properly, and there's an effort under way to stop the export of e-waste to places where environmental controls are nonexistent. Utah lawmakers are expected to spend time studying the issue this summer. "There are several models out there," said state Sen. Scott McCoy, D-Salt Lake City, who proposed an electronic waste task force during this year's legislative session. "It's just a matter of finding which one fits best with our state." Lawmakers decided not to spend limited task force funds on this subject, but McCoy said he was promised that the Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environment Interim Committee would spend time on the issue.
By the truckload
Reports compiled by the Environmental Protection Agency estimate that 1 percent to 4 percent of municipal waste consists of old electronics. Utahns throw out about 280 million pounds of municipal garbage a year, Mertz said. That means as much as 11.2 million pounds of electronic waste -- enough to fill 560 garbage trucks -- is being tossed out annually. "That's just households," Mertz added. "When you factor in commercial, that's a lot more tonnage."
Not all of that ends up in landfills, however. Intermountain Health Care, Brigham Young University and Utah Valley State College, for example, all have surplus programs that offer electronics no longer needed by the institutions to employees, nonprofit groups and the public. BYU and UVSC work with recyclers on items that aren't usable anymore. IHC throws away such items, hospital spokeswoman Janet Frank said, unless they contain substances like refrigerants that must be handled a certain way. The South Utah County Solid Waste District accepts televisions, computers and mobile phones for recycling for a small fee, and works with a recycling company in Ogden to handle the waste.
Not everyone in waste management thinks that electronics are a disposal danger -- the Solid Waste Association of North America, for example, has said that modern landfills are sealed well enough to prevent toxic leaching. The trade association also opposed some North Carolina electronics recycling legislation in 2003, in part because of what they called a lack of support for the claim that lead and other metals could leach into groundwater. "We would assume that the cumulative totals of lead over time would have been detectable in statistically significant amounts by facility groundwater monitoring procedures by now," says a position statement from the organization. "While there may be some future potential for lead to impact groundwater, we are not able to verify an existing problem when these devices are properly disposed."
SWANA still supports electronics recycling because it reduces waste. Richard Henry, manager of the south Utah County waste district, said that's the district's policy too. "We're trying to recycle as much as possible -- just in case there is a problem, and just so there's more space," he said. It's processed 17 tons of e-waste in the last year and had another 4.5 tons waiting for pickup recently, Henry said. "If the word got out and everybody started bringing, it would be a lot more than that, especially if we started getting stuff from companies," he said.
That's why it's important to work on electronic recycling options now, Mertz and McCoy said, before existing recycling resources are overwhelmed. "As of right now, we don't quite have the infrastructure. But it is coming," Mertz said.
Other states have taken different approaches to help that infrastructure arrive. In Washington, for example, electronics manufacturers have to set up a takeback program or pay into a state takeback program. In that scenario, McCoy said, the responsibility is on the manufacturer to provide for recycling, which could also encourage products that are designed to be more easily recyclable. Other states collect a fee from consumers when the electronics are purchased, which goes into a fund to cover the costs of recycling that item at the end of its life. Utah already has a version of this in place for used tires and waste motor oil, McCoy noted. If all goes well, he added, a proposal could be ready for the 2007 legislative session.
Many electronics manufacturers -- including Apple, Dell, IBM, Xerox, Canon USA, Gateway, Hewlett-Packard and Nokia -- already provide some type of recycling or takeback program. Customers usually must pay a fee or shipping costs. Contact your manufacturer or electronics retailer for more information.
by Erin Kelly, Gannett News Service, Indianapolis Star
May 21, 2006
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060521/NEWS06/605210466/1012
WASHINGTON -- When big salmon farms sent fish waste, pesticides and antibiotics into the bays near his Maine home, 72-year-old toymaker Charles FitzGerald fought to stop the flow of toxic gunk. FitzGerald joined with other community activists to sue the three big companies that raised salmon in coastal pens along the Atlantic Ocean. The residents won the 2003 case, and the fish farms had to abide by court orders to obey the Clean Water Act and reduce the pollution they create. "It felt good to know that citizens can win," said FitzGerald, a backwoodsman who loves to go canoeing on rivers that are home to wild Atlantic salmon. "So many times you just feel like a tiny mosquito trying to sting these big companies."
The lawsuit was just one of dozens of "citizen suits" filed throughout the nation each year to try to stop polluters from dirtying the air or water and government officials from weakening federal environmental laws. Citizen suits -- created more than 30 years ago as part of such landmark laws as the Clean Water and Clean Air acts -- have become more important than ever to environmentalists, who often have been thwarted by the Bush administration and Congress but have won big victories in federal courts.
In the past two months alone, federal courts have overturned the Bush administration's attempt to ease clean air regulations for aging power plants and factories and upheld the right of citizens to have a say in how national forests will be used. But now environmentalists complain that federal agencies are increasingly limiting the public's access to information that could help citizens win their cases. Critics say the law encourages groundless lawsuits because the people who sue don't have to show direct harm the way they would in a personal injury suit.
In the salmon farm case, for example, FitzGerald did not have to prove that his health had been harmed by the fish waste and chemicals used in farming. It was enough that he was a resident of the area and lived along a river where wild salmon spawn. "I think it's a good idea to require tangible injuries so you don't have suits over imaginary or speculative risks tying up courts instead of cases that involve real injuries," said Hans Bader, counsel for special projects with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.
But the whole point of citizen suits is to stop a polluter before the dirty air or water gets so bad that people contract diseases, environmental attorneys say. And they are quick to point out that their clients do not collect any money the way plaintiffs do when they win personal injury cases. "The best thing that came out of our lawsuit was that it woke people up to the problem and got them involved," FitzGerald said. One of the salmon farm companies also agreed to a settlement that included giving money to nonprofit groups to help restore the habitat of wild salmon, which were declared endangered in 2000.
Despite criticism of citizen suits by some conservatives and industry groups, the federal courts have consistently upheld their constitutionality. The U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that position in 2000 by a vote of 7-2, and most observers don't expect that to change, even though there are two new justices. Instead, the threat to citizen suits has come in more subtle ways, environmental lawyers say. Federal agencies are scaling back the amount of information they give citizens when people file Freedom of Information Act requests for documents, said Trip Van Noppen, vice president for litigation for Earthjustice, which has 50 attorneys throughout the nation representing environmental and community groups in court. "Round one of every case has become fighting to get the documents we're entitled to," he said.
by Rob Stein, Washington Post
May 20, 2006
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901702.html
More and more babies each year are being born just shy of spending a full pregnancy in their mothers' wombs, putting more infants at risk of health and possibly developmental problems because they enter the world before they are ready. The percentage of babies born slightly early has been increasing steadily for more than a decade and is now at an all-time high. So many babies are being born a few weeks early -- more than 350,000 annually -- that the average U.S. pregnancy has shortened from 40 weeks to 39.
The increase is driven by a combination of social and medical trends, including the older age of many mothers, the rising use of fertility treatments and the decision by more women to choose when they will deliver. At the same time, medical advances are enabling doctors to detect problem pregnancies earlier and to improve care for premature babies, prompting them to deliver more babies early when something threatens their lives or those of their mothers.
Many obstetricians argue that the trend is positive overall because they are preventing thousands of stillbirths and avoiding potentially serious risks for mothers. But other experts worry because these babies are prone to a long list of serious, potentially life-threatening complications, which often require intensive, costly treatment. Moreover, growing evidence suggests that their long-term development may be more problematic. "We should be concerned about these babies," said Tonse N.K. Raju of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. "They have more short-term problems, and there is evolving evidence that they have long-term risks as well."
Although most of these babies fare well and face far less risk than very premature infants, researchers have begun to realize that they are nevertheless more prone to short-term complications, such as problems breathing and feeding, and jaundice. And because so many are being born each year, even a small increased risk translates into thousands of sick babies. Studies are also starting to suggest that these children may tend to not develop as well as full-term babies, leading to behavioral, learning and other difficulties. "There's no question these babies tend to have more [immediate] problems compared to full-term babies," said Richard E. Behrman of the Federation of Pediatric Organizations, who chairs a panel assembled by the National Academy of Sciences that will issue recommendations on the rising late-preterm birth rate next month. "The concern is about whether there is some adverse impact on their long-term development."
For years, most of the attention focused on the earliest, smallest "preemies" -- those born before 32 weeks -- because they face the greatest risks of dying or having permanent disabilities, such as cerebral palsy, deafness and blindness. But the proportion of babies born that early has leveled off, while the rate of "near-term" or "late-preterm" births -- between 34 and 36 weeks -- continues to rise. They now account for about two-thirds of all preterm births. "These kids have been below the radar screen," said Marie C. McCormick of the Harvard School of Public Health. "They're just starting to get our attention."
Nearly 9 percent of all babies delivered in the United States were born late-preterm in 2003, according to the most recent federal data. That is up from 7.6 percent a decade earlier and the highest since the government started tracking such births -- and translates into about 50,000 more of these babies each year. "It's a huge increase," said Mary E. D'Alton of Columbia University. "The question is: Are we doing too many of these deliveries?"
While the precise cause of the increase is unclear, one reason is that more women are delaying childbearing until their thirties, when they are prone to complications, including premature labor. Older women are also more likely to need fertility treatments, which increase the chances of having twins and triplets -- which tend to be born early. The obesity epidemic may also play a role -- obese women have more complications, such as high blood pressure and diabetes, that can make it necessary to end a pregnancy early.
Medical advances are making it easier to spot babies who are in distress or developing poorly, prompting doctors to deliver them early -- either by Caesarean section or by inducing labor with drugs -- to prevent stillbirths. Techniques for caring for premature babies have also improved, giving physicians more confidence that a baby will survive if delivered early. That makes them more likely to suggest an early delivery at any hint of a problem that might endanger the mother or baby -- or risk a lawsuit. "In the past they wouldn't have dared -- they would have tried to wait it out," McCormick said. "Now they know what the neonatal intensive-care unit can do. That's been a very powerful, powerful change."
So powerful, obstetricians say, that the rate of stillbirths has dropped and the chances that a premature baby will survive have risen sharply. "We shouldn't be worried," said Charles J. Lockwood of the Yale University School of Medicine. "We're doing a good job of avoiding stillbirths and subsequent infant mortality. When you have a fetus with no growth or insufficient food, the better place for that fetus is outside the womb."
But some specialists question whether the increase in Caesareans and inductions is the reason for the drop in stillbirths. And they worry that too much of the increase may be due to women hastening delivery for nonmedical reasons -- they want to make sure their mother will be in town, their husband has a business trip pending, or they are just fed up with being pregnant. "It's a common request," said Mark Lollar, an obstetrician in San Ramon, Calif., who routinely honors such requests for the wives of professional athletes so their husbands can be present. "I have no problem arranging that for them." Lollar and other obstetricians insist that they make sure that the fetus is at least 38 weeks old. "We never compromise the mother or the baby's safety," Lollar said. Other experts, however, say it can be difficult to calculate the precise gestational age of a fetus. "If a woman comes in late in the pregnancy and only has one ultrasound, you can have an error of up to two weeks, which can be significant," Tonse said.
After losing her first baby three days before her due date, Becky Veduccio and her doctor decided to induce labor in March just before her 37th week. Her daughter, Sophie, spent several days in intensive care getting breathing help, antibiotics and intravenous fluids. Less than a week later she was readmitted to the hospital for jaundice, and she has had digestive problems ever since. "I thought 36 1/2 weeks would be okay," said Veduccio of Bloomfield, N.J. "But it's been just torturous. Every time we thought we could relax, something else would happen."
The lungs, brains and other organs of babies born even a week or two early are often underdeveloped, making the infants much more likely to have problems breathing, maintaining their body temperature and feeding. They are also vulnerable to infections and jaundice, which can be life-threatening or cause brain damage.
Such complications often require them to be sustained in the hospital for a week or two until they are fit to go home, adding thousands of dollars to the cost of their care. Often, they end up being readmitted once doctors realize they are not quite fully formed. "These babies often masquerade as term babies," said Elizabeth A. Catlin of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. "They look like full-term babies -- they are chubby, they have a head of hair. But they just don't have the maturity and development of full-term babies."
In addition to the added cost and anxiety the complications cause, late-preterm babies are about five times as likely to die in the first week of life and about three times as likely to die in the first year than full-term babies, studies show. "Doctors ought to be aware that there's no free lunch," said Michael Kramer of McGill University in Montreal. "There are a lot more babies out there who are getting sick and dying."
Although very little research has been done on these babies' long-term well-being, researchers suspect they may also be at increased risk for behavioral problems such as hyperactivity and possibly cerebral palsy and mental retardation. "Could this group of babies be contributing significantly to the total burden of mental retardation in the United States and the world?" asked Gabriel J. Escobar of Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program in Oakland, Calif. "I would say yes. We don't know how much, but it's not trivial."
Some studies have found evidence that these babies are more likely to have subtle problems with speech development and coordination and behavioral and learning difficulties. "The thinking had been that these babies were basically the same as term babies," said Steven B. Morse of the University of Florida. "Now it looks like they really are different."
Morse presented a study at a conference in San Francisco this month that found late-preterm babies were significantly more likely to fall behind in reaching language, coordination and developmental benchmarks at age 3, were less likely to be ready to start preschool at age 4, and were more likely to need special-education classes, have behavioral problems and be held back in kindergarten. "A lot of brain maturation occurs in those last few weeks," he said. "How the brain develops when the baby is still inside the mother may be different than how it develops when it is outside. If these kinds of development problems persist for these children, that is a concern from a societal standpoint."
by James Bruggers, Louisville Courier-Journal
May 20, 2006
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060520/NEWS01/605200367
The U.S. House has voted to block a Bush administration plan that would make it harder for the members of the public to learn about industrial pollution in their communities, including Louisville and across Kentucky and Indiana. An amendment to a federal appropriations bill, approved 231-187 late Thursday, would block the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from spending any money in the next fiscal year to weaken the granddaddy of its public pollution databases -- the Toxics Release Inventory.
The EPA's plan would let companies report pollution every other year instead of annually. The agency also wants to raise the reporting thresholds for smaller releases of certain chemicals, giving the public less information about pollution from thousands of facilities across the country.
One Louisville resident, Betty Jarboe, who lives near industries in southwestern Jefferson County, said she was pleased to learn of the House action. "Almost anyone interested in air pollution and the environment would be in favor of more information released, not less," she said. "The right to know is central."
Among Kentucky's House members, only U.S. Rep. Ben Chandler, D-6th District, voted to block the EPA's plan. The Senate still must weigh in. But open-government advocates in Washington, D.C., as well as Louisville were celebrating yesterday. They called the vote in the Republican-controlled House a victory for the public's right to know. "The EPA is really going to have to look hard at their proposal now that a legislative body has said, 'We don't want you to do this,'" said Clay Northouse, a policy analyst with the group OMB Watch, which fought the proposed changes. He also said that the Republican-controlled Senate, where the margin between the two parties is smaller, would likely be even more receptive to preserving the Toxics Release Inventory.
The EPA said last fall it wanted to reduce the regulatory burden on industries. Jennifer Wood, an EPA spokeswoman, called the House's move "unfortunate." She said it closed a dialogue aimed at finding incentives for reducing pollution "while meeting the important information needs of American communities." The toxics release database lets people use the Internet to determine the sources and quantities of air, water and hazardous waste pollution anywhere in the United States.
Neighborhood advocates in Louisville have used it to better understand pollution from businesses, including western Louisville chemical plants and two LG&E coal-fired power plants. Chandler called his vote an easy one. "Louisville has seen firsthand how toxic pollutants can affect individuals, communities and the environment," he said.
Forty-eight Republicans joined Democrats in blocking the plan, but not any of the Kentucky Republicans, nor Southern Indiana's Mike Sodrel. Rep. Anne Northup, R-3rd, said in a written statement that "the common-sense reform I supported would have reduced, but not eliminated costly regulations for small businesses." John Yarmuth, Northup's Democratic opponent in this year's congressional race, said he would "want as much information (on industrial emissions) as possible. It's certainly important in Louisville."
Some local environmental managers who work for large companies have told The Courier-Journal that the EPA reporting is not much of a burden. But the environmental director for one smaller company that would benefit from the EPA plans said he was disappointed. Shawn Wiram, who oversees environmental programs at seven Ulrich Chemical distribution facilities, said he spends as much as three months collecting information and filling out forms for the facilities, even though some release only small amounts of pollution and others release none. "Our reports really don't tell you a whole lot," he said.
The EPA received comments from more than 100,000 people or organizations, including the Louisville group Rubbertown Emergency Action, which opposed changes to the inventory. "This is a good example of what it means to participate in the political process," said member Eboni Cochran, who has noted that the toxics release database helped her group and others press Louisville officials for a new toxic air reduction program. She said she was disappointed by Northup's vote but said it was predictable because the congresswoman has opposed the city's toxic air program. Northup's staff has called the program a deterrent to economic development.
A check yesterday of Jefferson County's data on the EPA Web site showed that businesses covered by the EPA program reported releasing 9.1 million pounds of pollution in 2000, down from 14 million four years earlier.
by Cheryl Hogue, Chemical & Engineering News
May 19, 2006
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/84/i21/8421pops.html
A House of Representatives panel on May 18 approved a bill allowing the U.S. to become a partner in three international treaties controlling chemicals. The action by the House Energy & Commerce Subcommittee on Environment &Hazardous Materials marks the first legislative action on the treaties. The accords enjoy support from Republicans, Democrats, environmental groups, and the chemical industry.
Democrats and environmental groups, however, strongly oppose the version of the bill, H.R. 4591, adopted by the subcommittee. The panel's 15-to-10 vote in favor of the measure fell along party lines. The bill would amend the Toxic Substances Control Act so the U.S. could become a partner to the treaties. One is the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), which initially banned or severely restricted a dozen substances globally. Another is a second POPs pact that covers only North America and Europe. The third is the 1998 Rotterdam convention, which requires exporters to notify a developing country before shipping listed commercial chemicals or pesticides to that nation.
Partners in the two POPs pacts are considering the addition of more chemicals to the agreements. The U.S. will not have an official voice at those gatherings until Congress passes legislation conforming U.S. laws to the provisions of these deals. Rep. Paul E. Gillmor (R-Ohio), chairman of the Environment &Hazardous Materials Subcommittee and sponsor of H.R. 4591, said the panel's adoption of the bill was important to prevent "congressional inertia" from stalling U.S. participation in the three agreements. Michael P. Walls, American Chemistry Council managing director for regulatory and technical affairs, agreed, telling C&EN, "We're very pleased the subcommittee has taken this action."
But Democrats, led by Rep. Hilda Solis (D-Calif.), ranking minority member of the subcommittee, oppose several provisions of Gillmor's bill. They say the measure would make it difficult, if not impossible, for EPA to regulate chemicals added to the Stockholm convention. For instance, the bill would allow the agency to control a POP only through a regulation that "achieves a reasonable balance of social, environmental, and economic costs and benefits." Democrats say that although EPA should consider costs of regulating POPs, the agency's rules should give primacy to the protection of human health. "The Gillmor bill is designed to tie EPA up in knots and block the regulation of new POPs in the future," says Daryl Ditz, senior policy adviser at the Center for International Environmental Law, which opposes H.R. 4591.
Attorneys general from 11 states are also concerned that H.R. 4591 will prevent states from adopting controls on POPs that are tighter than EPA regulations. The bill now moves to the full Energy &Commerce Committee. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), chairman of that panel, supports Gillmor's bill.
by Shia Levitt, Marketplace
May 17, 2006
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2006/05/17/PM200605177.html
KAI RYSSDAL: Hospitals are businesses. Some of them for profit. Some not. But all of them are in the business of saving lives. To do that, they often use equipment and materials that contain toxic chemicals. Deadly ones. Which pose their own health risks. So increasingly, hospitals are rethinking the way they work. From the Marketplace Sustainability Desk, Shia Levitt has more.
SHIA LEVITT: At the site of a future Kaiser Permanente facility in Modesto, California, construction supervisor Mike Hrast walks underneath scaffolding covered in protective plastic sheets into what will soon be a hospital hallway.
MIKE HROST: "Directly above us would be the ICU rooms, above that would be the labor and delivery rooms . . .
It may seem like an ordinary construction site, but Kaiser is trying something new here. The company is adopting health-conscious standards that are forcing them to rethink nearly every aspect of hospital design, construction, and operations.
MIKE HROST: "People are coming there, they trust you to be providing them with the best health care you can. Anything that even has a suspicion about carcinogens or dioxins in it, you should be removing from your building."
Take mercury for example. The stuff in old fashioned thermometers and in a lot of blood pressure cuffs. Doctor Ted Schettler is the science advisor for the group Health Care without Harm. He says mercury products are hard to dispose of and often end up in the environment.
DR. TED SCHETTLER: "If a pregnant woman eats fish that are contaminated with mercury, that fish will get into the developing brain of her fetus and will cause damage. So, choices made with regard to materials in hospitals can have public health impacts that may then come back into the hospital as a sick patient."
That's why Kaiser is trying to get rid of mercury, along with other harmful chemicals, in everything from its medical equipment to the electrical switches in its boiler rooms and chillers. And they're not the only ones making changes. More than 80 other hospitals have launched similar projects using a manual called the Green Guide for Health Care. Some are revamping existing hospitals, while others are building new facilities from the ground up. Architect Robin Guenther is co-author of the guide.
ROBIN GUENTHER: "It seemed to us that if we wanted health care to take on green building, we had to frame it in a way that it was good for human health as much as it's good for the environment."
Construction workers are smoothing out the welding on iron pipes at the Modesto site. Hrast says Kaiser is testing strategies and products in Modesto that they are hoping to make national standards. Kaiser has also flexed its muscles to push suppliers to offer so-called "green" alternatives where none exist.
MIKE HROST: "Kaiser has a $20 billion appetite over the next 10 years in construction. We're telling vendors, here's what we want from you, don't tell us what you're going to give us. If you can provide what we want, then you get the contract with Kaiser."
For example, the backing on carpet is often made from polyvinyl chloride, or PVC plastic. Hrast says it can leak chemicals into the hospital air that trigger asthma. And the manufacturing process for PVC releases dioxin, a known carcinogen. So Kaiser asked its vendors to develop a PVC-free carpet. The company that did so won an exclusive contract to carpet all new Kaiser buildings for the next 3 years. Hrast says Kaiser also benefits financially from making these changes.
MIKE HROST: "We saved, at a minimum, $238,000 in this project, just by implementing green.
Hrast says the new environmentally safe paving he used in the parking lot will save Kaiser's maintenance dollars. And although some upfront expenses may be higher, the design and architecture plans should also reduce water, heating and air conditioning costs.
MIKE HROST: "Green has that stigmatism to a lot of contractors and architects out there that it costs more money. And we like to be the example out here that it doesn't, it saves you money if it's done right and it's well-thought out and it's integrated into your design process."
Kaiser's Modesto facility is expected to be completed by late 2007.
Listen to this story at http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2006/05/17/PM200605177.html
by T. Christian Miller, Los Angeles Times
May 17, 2006
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-pesticide17may17,0,4146100.story
WASHINGTON -- The EPA has tentatively agreed to new restrictions that will allow a Southern California pesticide maker to keep a controversial insecticide on the market, the agency announced Tuesday. Newport Beach-based Amvac volunteered to cancel some uses and add restrictions to others for a pesticide known as DDVP, which is commonly used to kill mosquitoes, fleas and other insects in households and businesses, the EPA said.
Amvac acted after EPA officials provided the firm with the results of an ongoing health assessment that raised questions about the risks associated with exposure to the chemical, which is related to World War II era nerve agents. DDVP is listed by California as a known carcinogen and is part of a class of chemicals that has been linked to developmental damage in children. Exposure to DDVP can cause flu-like symptoms, including headaches, nausea and vomiting. In large doses, the chemical is fatal. "If these changes [in usage] do occur, these products can be used safely," said James Jones, EPA's director of Office of Pesticide Programs.
Environmental groups, which consider DDVP one of the most dangerous pesticides on the market, said that the proposed restrictions do not go far enough. They noted that the EPA previously considered banning most residential uses of DDVP, and accused agency officials of "illegal" meetings with Amvac that did not allow adequate public participation. "All of these uses inside the home are dangerous things. That's what is of most concern," said Aaron Colangelo, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. "They're allowing them to stay on the market." There was no immediate coment from Amvac.
DDVP is used in numerous products, including pet collars, pest strips and aerosol sprays. It is sold under a number of names, including Alco No-Pest Strip, Amvac Insect Strip, and Swat Pest Strip. The chemical has both residential and commercial uses, mostly in niche areas such as the fumigation of food storage areas for peanuts and pistachios, and mushroom farms. Under Amvac's proposal, consumers will continue to be able to purchase pest strips, which release minute quantities of DDVP for months, killing insects by attacking the nervous system. The size of some strips will be reduced. Labels will be modified to warn that larger strips should not be used in homes, except in garages, attics and crawl spaces occupied for less than 4 hours per day. Smaller strips will be limited for use in closets and cupboards, so long as children or the elderly are not present. In addition, Amvac will cancel DDVP products used as home foggers, on the lawn and for treating cracks and crevices.
Once the EPA finalizes the proposal in coming months, the products will be allowed to remain on the shelves of stores for another 18 months. Jones said the EPA did not believe there was an immediate threat from using the products. "We don't think people will be exposed in a way that will cause harm," Jones said.
DDVP has a long and contentious regulatory history. The EPA raised concerns about it as far back as 1982, and it has been undergoing a special safety review since 1988.
Amvac officials have fiercely defended the safety of their product, saying that DDVP has caused no long term damage to humans and that the product plays an important public health role in killing disease-carrying pests. The company was at the center of a controversy in the late 1990s when it proposed demonstrating the safety of its product by testing human, rather than animal, subjects. Environmental groups raised ethical concerns over the tests. After a drawn-out court battle, the EPA finalized a rule this year allowing limited consideration of human test data. Last month, the EPA's Human Studies Review Board delivered a mixed verdict for DDVP, saying that the tests allowed the EPA to loosen safety standards for short and medium term exposure, but not for chronic exposure, which is possible with pest strips, which remain potent for up to four months.
by Susan Moran, New York Times
May 17, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/17/business/businessspecial2/17ewaste.html
RENEE ST. DENIS is prospecting. Scanning the rows of the latest arrivals of discarded computers and other electronic products at Hewlett-Packard's 200,000-square-foot recycling plant, she searches for precious metals. A co-worker calls out, "Renee, check this out -- an arcade console!" Ms. St. Denis, who directs Hewlett's recycling operations in the Americas, dashes to the game station towering above boxes of computers, keyboards and other junk.
Ms. St. Denis points out that this plant, which is in Roseville, Calif., and Hewlett's other recycling operation, in Nashville, process 1.5 million pounds of electronics a month. The materials that they sort through are richer in precious metals than ore from a mine. Hewlett collects 8 to 10 ounces of gold, silver, palladium and other precious metals per ton of "ore," compared with 6 ounces per ton in a typical extractive mine. "We all want these valuable resources put back into the economy in some way, shape or form," she said.
Ms. St. Denis is at the forefront of a major behavioral shift among electronics manufacturers. Many of them are taking more financial responsibility for the recovery and recycling of the goods they make and sell. They are also creating products with fewer toxic materials, and in some cases with biomass-based materials, so that the equipment can be more easily reused, recycled or decomposed in landfills.
Companies contend that the upfront investment in greener product design and recycling can pay off down the road -- by avoiding regulatory fines, averting shareholder complaints and lawsuits, and catering to the demands of customers who want to use greener products. Necessity is behind much of the invention. The European Union passed several environmental directives in recent years. One mandate, which takes effect in July, severely restricts the six deadliest materials used in making most electronic equipment: lead, mercury, a carcinogenic form of chromium, cadmium and two polybrominated flame retardants (PBB and PBDE).
The mandate applies to products sold in the European Union. But many multinational manufacturers anticipate that other countries will soon follow suit with equally strict laws, so they are rolling out products to meet the most rigorous standards. "The trend is for more and more regulations," said Mark Newton, the head of Dell's environmental affairs group on product design. "When you're a global company, you need to have a global solution. And if you wait to make changes in your products it can be extremely expensive."
For Dell, redesigning products to be more ecological has been a "net gain," Mr. Newton said. Lead, for example, is used in cathode-ray-tube monitors for TV's and older computers to protect users from exposure to X-rays. Most companies have already eliminated or reduced lead in computer monitors. Sony has replaced lead solder with a tin-silver-copper alloy. Sony, Panasonic, Apple, Hewlett-Packard and others have phased out lead in some cases by replacing cathode-ray tubes with liquid-crystal displays. Matching the properties of lead and other toxic materials, however, is no minor challenge. Lead has a higher melting temperature than most alternatives, which means it can withstand more heat. Mark Small, senior vice president for environmental safety and health at Sony, said it took six years to master lead-free solder. "In the short term, it's more expensive and more difficult to work with than lead solder," he said. "But we're motivated by the long-term environmental benefits and compliance issues."
Most major manufacturers banned polybrominated flame retardants -- some have been linked to damage in the hormonal and skeletal systems in people -- from their products several years ago, well ahead of the European Union's directive. Some companies are starting to use recycled polyethylene. Hewlett-Packard reuses polyethylene (from its inkjet printers and from water and soda bottles) in the carriage covers of some of its Scanjet scanners.
One of the most intriguing areas of green design is what some call the hydrocarbon-to-carbohydrate revolution: substituting petroleum-based plastics with biopolymers made from corn and other plants. The Japanese companies NEC Corporation, Unikita and NTT DoCoMo have developed cellphones with casings from bio-based plastics like polylactic acid reinforced with kenaf fiber. While biomass-based alternatives easily meet standards in cold-food packaging, making the grade for electronics housings is much more difficult. John Dorgan, a professor of chemical engineering at the Colorado School of Mines who specializes in polymers, said that many of the bio-based acids are brittle. And some compounds that are added to strengthen the biopolymers negate their ecological benefits.
Another problem with biopolymers is their heat intolerance. Case in point: A group of Hewlett's scientists developed a prototype printer with a polylactic acid shell. Last summer, John Frey, Hewlett's manager for corporate environment strategies, showed the printer at a meeting in Texas. He put it in the car trunk and drove to a meeting on a hot afternoon. When he arrived, he found the printer's shell had collapsed. While Hewlett continues to develop products with some parts made of recycled plastics, for now it has shelved its biomass-based product research and development. "We must have a valid business reason for doing things, not just an environmental reason," Mr. Frey said.
Manufacturers are also focusing their greening efforts on reducing the electronic waste they produce and that consumers discard. Electronic products make up the fastest-growing portion of the waste stream. Last year alone, more than 63 million computers in the United States were traded in for replacements or thrown out. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that more than two million tons of electronic waste ends up in landfills each year. TV's and computers are not harmful, but when burned or dumped, toxins in the products -- like lead, mercury and cadmium -- endanger health as well as air and water quality.
While a combination of United States laws and regulations ban dumping electronic waste in domestic landfills, many recyclers and brokers export e-waste to mostly unregulated markets overseas. About 80 percent of computers and other electronics collected for recycling are dumped in landfills in developing countries, according to watchdog organizations and industry groups. Electronics manufacturers are getting little prodding from the United States government; it is the only industrialized nation that did not ratify the Basel Convention, which prohibits richer nations from exporting hazardous waste to poorer countries.
Barbara Kyle, coordinator of the Silicon Valley Toxic Coalition's computer take-back campaign, said that until the United States signs on to the Basel treaty, e-waste will continue polluting communities overseas. "All these efforts to do more recycling, if not accompanied by closing the door to exporting e-waste to the third world, will mean we're just adding to the problem of other countries that are in no position to deal with our waste," Ms. Kyle said.
Another European order, which requires all electronics manufacturers to pay for the collection, disposal and recycling of their products sold within the European Union, has lately been echoed by several state laws in the United States. Together, they have provided an impetus for manufacturers to control their e-waste. Another reason for the greening trend among manufacturers is feisty shareholders. At Apple Computer, a shareholders' group drafted a resolution before the company's April 27 annual meeting demanding that the company extend its free iPod recycling program to all Apple products. The board, and ultimately the majority of shareholders, voted no. But a few days before the meeting, the company said in a press release that, starting in June, it would take back old computers, at no cost, when customers buy a new Apple computer online or at an Apple retailer.
by Michael Hawthorne, Chicago Tribune
May 17, 2006
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0605170222may17,1,6574250.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
Allowing utilities to trade the right to release mercury could make it difficult to reduce high amounts of the toxic metal found in parts of the nation, according to a new report from the Environmental Protection Agency's inspector general. The independent review is the latest criticism of the Bush administration's approach to regulating the nation's largest source of mercury, which can cause neurological and developmental problems, particularly in fetuses and young children.
Among other things, the report found that the fine print of the administration's rules would make it tougher to require power plants to take action if "hot spots" -- areas with large amounts of mercury -- were discovered in nearby lakes and rivers. Top EPA officials also have failed to follow through on promises to improve a network of monitoring equipment to track mercury pollution throughout the country, the report concluded.
The rules could end up preventing the agency from taking steps to cut the amount of mercury falling in already-polluted areas, acting EPA Inspector General Bill Roderick wrote in the 24-page report. He noted that Illinois and 43 other states warn people to limit eating fish caught in local waters because of mercury contamination. Under the EPA's rules, which will take effect unless court action stops them, coal-fired power plants would have until at least 2018 to cut mercury emissions industrywide by 70 percent. Utilities would be able to trade among themselves the right to keep releasing mercury into the air at some coal plants as long as overall emissions decline.
The system is patterned after a successful effort to reduce sulfur dioxide pollution, but many scientists say it shouldn't be used for mercury, a toxic substance that accumulates in the body. They also say that mercury is more likely than other airborne pollutants to fall back to earth close to its source. The agency disagrees, releasing a statement Tuesday that asserts there is "no reason to believe that there will be utility-attributable hot spots anywhere in the country" once the new rules take effect.
Some of the EPA's own researchers, however, have contradicted the agency's official statements. One study, to be published this summer in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, found that 70 percent of the mercury in Steubenville, Ohio, came from nearby coal plants. Another EPA study identified Chicago as a hot spot, with about two-thirds of the mercury that falls locally coming from coal plants and other sources within Illinois.
The inspector general's report said uncertainties remain about how mercury travels in the atmosphere and how the metal is converted into a potent form that becomes more dangerous as it moves up the food chain from fish to people. There also are questions about the scientific model the EPA used to support its mercury trading system, according to the report. Some scientists have found the model vastly underestimates the amount of mercury falling into lakes and rivers. Illinois and several other states have moved to impose their own mercury rules that would be far tougher than the federal effort.
Critics of the administration's approach said the new report highlighted how the federal mercury rules would fail to protect Americans. "If you let a plant buy its way out of controlling mercury pollution, the people living near that plant are likely to suffer," said Illinois Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan, who is challenging the federal rules along with her counterparts in 14 other states. "Instead of taking a hard look at this problem, the [EPA] turned a blind eye."
by Charles Lane, Washington Post
May 16, 2006
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR2006051501532.html
The Supreme Court announced yesterday that it will review a controversial federal court ruling that environmentalists had said would weaken pollution-control requirements for aging power stations across the country. In a one-line order, the justices said they will hear Environmental Defense's appeal of a June 2005 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, based in Richmond, which said that Duke Energy Corp., a North Carolina utility, could operate refurbished power plants even though their total annual emissions would go up.
The court's decision injects the justices into a half-decade-old battle between environmentalists and the Bush administration, which has sought to ease what it says is an excessive regulatory burden on the nation's utilities. Lightening the industry's environmental load was a key component of the administration policy adopted by Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001.
In the case the court agreed to hear yesterday, Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corp., No. 05-848, the specific question is how to measure utilities' compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency's "new source review" rules, which govern emissions from plants that have been modernized or expanded. Environmental Defense says that about 17,000 facilities are covered by the rules, and it cites studies that show 20,000 premature deaths per year traceable to pollution from coal-fired plants. The EPA's position traditionally has been that the Clean Air Act requires modified plants to reduce their total annual emissions, and Environmental Defense says that interpretation is correct. But the 4th Circuit disagreed and said that plants should only have to show a reduction in their hourly rate of emissions. This was a victory for utilities because they could run their updated plants for many more hours than previously.
The case against Duke Energy was one of many initiated by the EPA across the country in the waning days of the Clinton administration. The Clinton crackdown was bitterly opposed by utilities, and the Bush administration promised to change EPA enforcement policy. But the EPA continued to press cases that were already pending when the administration took office in 2001, so the Bush EPA and Environmental Defense had been on the same side of the Duke Energy case until the 4th Circuit's ruling.
After the 4th Circuit ruled, the administration proposed new clean air regulations that incorporated the 4th Circuit's decision and would have applied it across the country. Then the administration asked the Supreme Court not to intervene in the case. The court's decision to take the case over the administration's objection was a surprise; since the adoption of modern environmental legislation in 1970, the court had agreed to hear just two previous cases in which an environmental group was the petitioner. "The court's decision to grant review despite the administration's request that review be denied constitutes a significant rebuff and places the administration in an awkward position before the court," said Richard Lazarus, professor of environmental law at Georgetown University Law Center.
Environmental Defense, backed by a friend-of-the-court brief from the District, Maryland and 13 other states, argued that the 4th Circuit had acted outside its jurisdiction under the Clean Air Act, and that its ruling clashed with a 2005 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which said that emissions had to be measured on an annual basis.
Though the high court's decision to grant review yesterday was a defeat for Duke Energy, which had urged it to let the 4th Circuit ruling stand, Scott Segal, director of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, said in a statement that industry was looking forward to the case. "Clarity regarding these concepts is essential to improved efficiency, reduced emissions, enhanced workplace safety, and electric reliability," he said. "This Supreme Court has a good track record in support of a reasoned approach to administrative law. We believe the makeup of the court is well positioned to render judgment in a sensible and fair way."
Oral argument will take place in the fall, and a decision is expected by July 2007.