To join the Learning and Developmental Disabilities Initiative (LDDI), please complete the form at http://www.iceh.org/LDDImembers.html.
July 6-9, 2006
Cass Lake, Minnesota
at Veterans Memorial (Pow-Wow and Camp) Grounds, held within the territories of the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe
This is a traditional gathering with outdoor camping, with a Sacred Fire. Indigenous Peoples and supporters are invited. Plenary Sessions will be on Sacredness of Water, Toxics & Environmental Health, Energy (Nuclear, Fossil Fuel, Dams, Renewable Energy), Climate Justice and Forests
Website: http://www.ienearth.org/
Contact: Simone "Chinoodiniwke" Senogles, 218-751-4967 or simone@ienearth.org
December 4 - 6, 2006
Atlanta, Georgia
Presented by Centers for Disease Control's National Center for Environmental Health, The 2006 Environmental Public Health Conference has a theme of "Advancing Environmental Public Health: Science, Practice, New Frontiers." The conference committee is now accepting submission forms for abstracts for workshops, posters, and exhibits. The deadline is August 1, 2006.
Website: http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/conference/abstract_submission.htm
LDDI is pleased to welcome the following new members.
Organizational Members:
Individual Members:
A full list of members is posted at http://www.iceh.org/LDDImembers.html
by Tom Yerace, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
June 19, 2006
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news/westmoreland/s_458640.html
When Scott Electric started recycling electrical materials five years ago, the company shipped about six tractor-trailer loads a year to its recycler, including a few computers. Now, the South Greensburg company sends out a tractor-trailer of recyclables once a week, and discarded computers increasingly make up more of the load, according to Dick Smith, industrial sales manager. "It just keeps growing," Smith said. The lightning speed of advancing technology, combined with plummeting prices, makes the disposal of outdated and unwanted computers from homes and businesses an increasing problem and has spawned a niche industry.
Environmental risk
As the use of computers in homes and in businesses rapidly expanded in the 1990s, environmentalists began to worry about what would happen to the equipment as it became outdated. A 1997 Carnegie Mellon University study projected that 150 million computers would be recycled by 2005. Only six years before, another study predicted that same number of computers would be sent to landfills. Yet, the 1997 study estimated that 55 million would be sent to landfills by 2005, which still poses an environmental problem.
Recycling appears to be the answer. "Definitely, it's a growing problem due to the rapidly advancing technology," said Charlie Young, a spokesman for the state Department of Environmental Protection. Most waste companies won't accept computers because of the hazardous materials they contain, according to Frank Corleto Jr., Scott's recycling coordinator. A typical computer monitor contains 4 to 7 pounds of lead and, overall, components can contain other hazardous materials such as mercury, silver, chromium and cadmium, according to the DEP.
There is no federal or Pennsylvania law that mandates computer recycling. However, there are laws, such as the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, that regulate the disposal of hazardous wastes found in computers. "As a business, you definitely have to be doing the right thing," Corleto said. "A lot of people just don't know what to do." Businesses and schools do not want any liability if they send computers to a landfill. Nearby groundwater could become contaminated, and the pollutants could be traced to the discarded computers. "What can you do with 17 pallets of computers?" Corleto said, referring to a load Scott recently picked up from a local school district. "You can't throw them in a landfill."
Information security
The disposal of hazardous materials is not the only issue facing computer recyclers. The possibility of compromising confidential personal information left on discarded hard drives is a concern. "Twelve years ago, you were not going to find any patient information on a PC, it was all on a mainframe," said Jim Vellella, who directs the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center's program to update its computer technology. But that changed with the advent of more personal computer-based systems on local area networks and an expanding need for Internet access. "Typically ... what they would do is reformat the hard drive and give it to Goodwill," Vellella said. "They went to charitable organizations, they went to Third World countries. ... Based on the best available technology at the time, we made sure that information was not available."
But reformatting hard drives is no longer a guarantee for eliminating information from outdated or unwanted computers. "The magnetic signature of the old format is still there, so that if you have the right software, that data is still recoverable," said Eric Vorhees, security data manager of Amandi Services, a computer recycling firm based in Hallstead, Susquehanna County. He said the way to get rid of information on a hard drive is to run a program that overwrites the information, replacing it with meaningless numbers. Rita Palmer, vice president of Amandi, said that is part of the package when Amandi recycles computers. "You have to make sure that you are dealing with a reputable, proper organization that is dealing with the information appropriately," she said. "If requested, we supply a certificate of destruction."
The passage of the federal Health Insurance Portability and Privacy Act, which was designed to protect the confidentiality of medical records, made the destruction of data on obsolete or discarded computer hard drives more compelling. "When HIPAA came in, it became at least a more visible thing for people to come in here and offer data disposal services," Vellella said. "They saw us as an untapped market."
Niche industry
Palmer agreed that environmental hazards, combined with the issue of customer security, have fueled the growth. "Both have really fed this (recycling) industry," Palmer said. "We live in a throwaway society. Stuff is being built cheaper and it doesn't hold up, and technology, for a while, it just soared. "Plus, you have organizations that are pushing recycling, trying to make sure that the environment is being taken care of."
Smith said recycling was started as a service to its customers, and company officials view it as a way to attract new patrons who will remember Scott when they need to buy electrical supplies. While the company does not view it as a for-profit activity, Corleto concedes that it is not losing money on recycling. Smith said anyone, including home computer owners, can bring old equipment to Scott for recycling.
Some computer manufacturers have pitched in to recycle computers. Dell, Apple and Gateway offer to take customers' old computers when they buy new ones. The service will be a growth industry as more states follow the lead of California and Washington and pass laws requiring it. "We were actually told that we could just throw them away, but it was obvious to us that is not the right thing to do, which is why we looked for a recycling program," said Chris Sherman, microcomputing and help desk manager for Seton Hill University in Greensburg. He said the university disposes of about 60 computers per year. "The pile we are getting rid of now has been piling up for years, and now we've finally found a recycling program," Sherman said.
The university is under contract with Scott and is charged for the service based on the weight of the materials being disposed. Smith said the ballpark estimate for recycling is about $5 per computer. "The plastic goes through a shredder, the hard drives are melted down, the glass gets melted down into little balls," Smith said. "Everything is completely reused," Corleto said.
by Robert Benzie, Toronto Star
Jun. 19, 2006
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1150672506550&call_pageid=968332188774&col=968350116467
The Ontario government has quietly reneged on a national commitment to reduce the level of mercury in air pollution, the Toronto Star has learned. Sources say the Liberal government's recent decision to break a 2003 cornerstone campaign promise and keep open the province's pollution-spewing coal-fired generating plants well past 2009 is behind the policy U-turn.
Canada's federal, provincial and territorial environment ministers were poised last Friday to announce a reduction in the highly toxic mercury emissions by 50 per cent from 2003-04 levels by 2010. But in a letter to Saskatchewan Environment Minister John Nilson, president of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), Ontario Environment Minister Laurel Broten said the province is unable to keep the commitment.
While Broten claims Ontario is "the champion for mercury and air issues" among the environment ministers' collective, she offers no timetable for when Premier Dalton McGuinty's government could actually abide by standards approved by Ottawa and the other provinces and territories. "As you know, the CWS (Canada-wide standard) for mercury emissions from coal-fired electric power generation plants was approved in principle at the last CCME meeting in June 2005," the minister wrote in a letter dated last Wednesday. "As the champion for discussion on this item at the upcoming June 16, 2006, CCME teleconference, I am writing to request that the final endorsement of the standard be postponed to a future CCME meeting, where a fuller discussion and release of a communiqué would be more appropriate," Broten continued.
Her letter came after Energy Minister Dwight Duncan revealed on June 9 that the Liberals were abandoning their election pledge to close all coal-fired plants by 2007 to reduce emissions. (Last year, they extended that deadline to 2009.) The Lambton station, near Sarnia, will remain open past 2007 and the massive Nanticoke plant on Lake Erie will be churning out pollution long after 2009. Two smaller northern Ontario coal plants are still slated to close next year.
Broten's letter suggests that there is less urgency around reducing dangerous emissions than there is ensuring the lights remain on in the energy-starved province. "I look forward to taking part in discussions at the next face-to-face CCME meeting, particularly related to future CCME and federal government directions on air, and I would prefer that the discussion item on the CWS on mercury be discussed within that broader context."
Government insiders say Broten's missive caught the other environment ministers off-guard because a news release touting the national mercury reduction plan had been prepared to be distributed across Canada last Friday. Ontario's last-second manoeuvre undermined work going on since 2000 that would have dealt with industrial sectors that account for 80 per cent of Canada's mercury emissions. "Ontario has to know that this has been coming down the pipe," said one frustrated official, privy to Friday's conference call.
Environmentalists, already angry at the McGuinty government for announcing last week that at least two new nuclear reactors would be built, will likely be disappointed in this latest development. Writing in the Star last Friday, Sierra Legal Defence Fund lawyer Albert Koehl, a former Liberal candidate, warned that even the "proposed Canada-wide standard is weak (and) falls significantly short even of the low end of the recommended range." Koehl noted mercury from the coal-fired plants pollutes waterways, contaminates fish and poses health risks to pregnant mothers and children.
by Sarah-Kate Templeton, London Times
June 18, 2006
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2230764,00.html
A TEAM of doctors at one of Britain's leading hospitals wants to create the country's first "designer babies" free from autism. They are preparing an application to the fertility watchdog that would allow them to screen out male embryos to reduce significantly the chance of a couple having an autistic child. As boys are four times more likely to be born with autism than girls, couples with a family history of the condition want to ensure they have only girls. Such sex selection is not at present permitted.
The technique, called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), has been used to create babies free from life-threatening illnesses such as Duchenne muscular dystrophy and haemophilia. However, screening embryos to prevent babies being born with autism would prove controversial because children born with the disorder can live long and healthy lives. Critics claim the treatment would be a step closer to creating babies free from all imperfections.
The team at University College Hospital's assisted conception unit in London decided to apply for a licence for the procedure after they were approached by a couple with a history of autism in the family. Joy Delhanty, professor of human genetics at University College London medical school, said couples would undergo the treatment only if autism had inflicted severe suffering on the family.
Couples requesting the procedure would need to go through a gruelling in-vitro fertilisation cycle, even though they had no difficulty conceiving naturally. The technique could be used only to prevent the hereditary form of autism, which affects about 10% of cases. It is not known what causes autism in many children. Delhanty said: "Normally we would not consider this unless there were at least two boys affected in the immediate family. We would be reducing the risk of autism. Couples are not going to undertake this lightly when we explain what they are going to need to go through."
Two other families have previously approached the clinic requesting pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. In both cases they are understood to have had two sons with autism and hoped to have a daughter free from the condition. Delhanty hopes that now that the rules have been relaxed to allow PGD screening for breast cancer the authorities will also consider screening for autism. The team will research the pros and cons of the technique further before submitting an application to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.
The development would be strongly opposed by disabled groups. Simone Aspis, parliamentary and campaigns worker for the British Council of Disabled People, said: "Screening out autism would breed a fear that anyone who is different in any way will not be accepted. Screening for autism would create a society where only perfection is valued."
Tony Blair has called for a new debate on late abortions. At a private meeting he told Cardinal Keith O'Brien, head of the Catholic Church in Scotland, that most MPs might now back lowering the 24-week limit. He said there were "very troubling issues" involved and that the viability of foetuses had changed since the legislation was introduced in 1967.
by Joe Nocera, New York Times
June 18, 2006
excerpted from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/18/magazine/18tobacco.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Despite everything -- the universal knowledge about the dangers of tobacco, the warnings on cigarette packaging, the antismoking public-service ads -- lots of people still smoke, and one of every two long-term smokers will die from the habit. In all, more than 400,000 smokers in the U.S. will succumb this year to heart disease, lung cancer, emphysema or other diseases because they smoked. Although the trend has gone steadily downward over the past two decades, some 20 percent of the adult population smokes -- that's about 48 million people. John Seffrin, C.E.O. of the American Cancer Society, calls tobacco-related diseases "the single-most-preventable cause of death in the world." Who can disagree?
You'll no doubt recall that in the mid-1990's, there was a huge public outcry about the behavior of the tobacco industry, and efforts were made to bring the cigarette companies to heel. State attorneys general sued the big tobacco companies, and private class-action suits were mounted; Congress held hearings excoriating Big Tobacco, while Dr. David Kessler, the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration at the time, tried to claim regulatory authority over the industry; whistle-blowers leaked damning documents to the press. It was a moment when the cigarette companies were exceedingly vulnerable, and serious reform could have been imposed by the federal government. But that didn't happen. A reform effort failed in Congress, and 46 states and the industry wound up settling their litigation with something called the M.S.A. -- the Master Settlement Agreement -- which imposed marketing and advertising restrictions on cigarettes, financed an antismoking ad campaign and transferred a staggering sum of money ($206 billion over 25 years) from the big tobacco companies to the state governments. (Four states settled separately for an additional $40 billion.)
And then the body politic moved on. So, a final stipulation: Cigarettes aren't going away. Nobody is about to ban tobacco, nor is anybody about to put the cigarette companies out of business, much as they might like to. These days, although Philip Morris USA loses the occasional lawsuit, the litigation threat that once seemed so onerous has become quite manageable. And though the M.S.A. has done some very good things -- it's the reason you no longer see cigarette billboards -- it has both limits and unintended consequences. For one, it has resulted in the rise of about 100 small cigarette companies -- with names like Liberty Brands and Virginia Brands -- that now undercut the big boys on price. And it has given the states a rooting interest in the continued prosperity of the tobacco companies, because they now depend on M.S.A. money to balance their budgets. All the while, cigarettes remain exactly what they've always been: the most dangerous unregulated legal product in the country.
When you talk to Steve Parrish about all of this, though, he doesn't use the language tobacco executives once used. He doesn't talk about "individual choice," nor does he pretend that cigarettes aren't addictive. On the contrary: "Cigarettes are addictive and cause the disease and death of hundreds of thousands of people every year," he said in one of our conversations. "When you set tobacco on fire and inhale it into your lungs, bad things happen." In another conversation, he said, "If fewer people died from smoking, that would be good for Altria's shareholders." He says that it is important to keep kids from starting to smoke and freely concedes that tobacco can never be viewed as just another product because it is so deadly. It can be quite startling the first time you hear him say these things.
Most amazing of all, Parrish says that tobacco needs to be regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. The industry has long fought such efforts; it waged legal war, for instance, against Kessler's claim of jurisdiction, finally winning in the Supreme Court, which ruled that only Congress could give the F.D.A. the authority Kessler had sought. Yet since 2000, thanks in large measure to Parrish, Philip Morris USA has been calling for the regulation of cigarettes. Two years ago, Altria made a serious, sustained effort to have such a law enacted, which was strongly backed by the country's leading anti-tobacco lobby, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, as well as all the other big public-health groups, and fiercely opposed by the rest of the industry, including archrival Reynolds American. Although the measure twice passed the Senate, it died in a conference committee.
Among anti-tobacco advocates, Parrish's words are treated with varying degrees of skepticism. "Parrish is different from other tobacco executives in many ways," says Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. "He is exceptionally bright and skillful. He has been the catalyst for Philip Morris taking a number of positions that surprise public-health advocates and that on their surface are consistent with what public-health advocates have long supported. But having said that, the jury is still out on what he really intends." Myers was quick to add, "One can look at the history here and wonder whether what Philip Morris is doing today is nothing more than a sophisticated version of what they've always done."
Read the entire 10-page article at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/18/magazine/18tobacco.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
by Sarah A. Webster, Detroit Free Press
June 18, 2006
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060618/BUSINESS01/606180599
Most consumers probably never stop to think about all the earthly problems being created by their Screaming Yellow Mustang or a Silver Birch Clearcoat Metallic Expedition. But priming, painting and clear coating millions of new cars and trucks every year is a stinky, complicated process that creates millions of pounds of dirty waste at assembly plants around the world.
Around the world, nearly 70 million pounds of paint fumes are collected by automakers and burned in multimillion-dollar incinerators, which devour about 350 kilowatts of energy per hour. Another 44 million pounds of paint overspray, meanwhile, are captured, treated and consolidated into nonhazardous sludge that is eventually dumped in landfills.
Dearborn-based Ford Motor Co., however, is helping to pioneer new, more environmentally friendly ways of dealing with the eco-challenges created by the painting. The automaker has been working with its suppliers to develop a fumes-to-fuel system -- now ready for prime-time use -- that converts the volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, given off by paint fumes into fuel that generates power instead of consuming it. Ford first tested the system in 2004 at its Rouge Center in Dearborn -- a test bed for environmental innovations and the crown jewel of the company's manufacturing facilities. That pilot program proved the fumes-to-fuel concept was possible.
Two years later, Ford is wrapping up another fumes-to-fuel pilot program at its Michigan Truck Plant in Wayne, where the Ford Expedition and Lincoln Navigator are built. That pilot showed how a full-scale fumes-to-fuel concept really worked in day-to-day plant life and allowed engineers to work out the kinks. Now, Ford is preparing to roll out fumes-to-fuel systems at other plants as equipment is updated and replaced. The company's minivan plant in Oakville, Ontario, which builds the Ford Freestar and Mercury Monterey, is scheduled to install a fumes-to-fuel system early next year.
A cost saver
Besides saving energy, the fumes-to-fuel system costs less to install and maintain than existing furnaces. What's more, it enables Ford to use higher-quality, solvent-based paints that usually generate more VOCs. The fumes-to-fuel technology, developed in conjunction with DTE Energy, won an Environmental Protection Agency Clean Air Excellence Award in 2004. Other suppliers, such as Environmental C&C Inc. of Clifton Park, N.Y., and Climate Technologies of Northville, have also played a role in bringing the system to fruition.
Tiny beads of carbon
On the rooftop of the Michigan Truck Plant earlier this month, Aaron Hula, an environmental-control engineer in Ford's Environmental Quality Office, explained how the fumes-to-fuel system works: In the first stage, air and the VOCs from the paint booths at the plant are funneled into a concentrator. The concentrator separates the VOCs from the air -- cleaning it -- by using tiny carbon beads that look like poppy seeds. The dirty air is forced up into a chamber, where it collides with the tiny seeds that are working their way down the chamber. The porous seeds trap the VOCs in their rough little surfaces. The clean air is released into the sky, and the seeds are then scrubbed of their VOCs in another chamber by being heated to more than 600 degrees. The clean seeds are reused to capture more dirty VOCs. But the rich hydrocarbon exhaust created by the VOCs can be used for fuel. (Hydrocarbon is the same component that gives natural gas its punch.)
Ford has been experimenting with different ways of using the fuel created by the process. At the Ford Rouge Center, the hydrocarbons are converted into a hydrogen-rich gas that is turned into power in a fuel cell, where a chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen molecules is used to create electricity. At Michigan Truck, the gas is fed into a regular combustion engine, which uses the fuel to generate about 55 kilowatt-hours of electric power every hour -- enough for an average city block. The power is then put back into the power grid for the plant and could power the massive lighting system in one of the plants' extensive paint lines.
The fumes-to-fuel system scheduled for the Ontario plant will use a fuel-cell generator, as Ford continues to experiment with different modifications of the system. Mark Wherrett, Ford's principal environmental engineer, said the program has been a complete success. "We're very pleased with the results so far," he said. "It's a pollution-control system that uses less energy than the old system."
news release from the World Health Organization
June 16, 2006
http://www.who.int/quantifying_ehimpacts/publications/preventingdisease/en/
GENEVA -- As much as 24% of global disease is caused by environmental exposures which can be averted. Well-targeted interventions can prevent much of this environmental risk, the World Health Organization (WHO) demonstrates in a report issued today. The report further estimates that more than 33% of disease in children under the age of 5 is caused by environmental exposures. Preventing environmental risk could save as many as four million lives a year, mostly in developing countries.
The report, "Preventing disease through healthy environments -- towards an estimate of the environmental burden of disease", is the most comprehensive and systematic study yet undertaken on how preventable environmental hazards contribute to a wide range of diseases and injuries. By focusing on the environmental causes of disease, and how various diseases are influenced by environmental factors, the analysis breaks new ground in understanding the interactions between environment and health. The estimate reflects how much death, illness and disability could be realistically avoided every year as a result of better environmental management.
"The report issued today is a major contribution to ongoing efforts to better define the links between environment and health," said Dr Anders Nordström, Acting WHO Director-General. "We have always known that the environment influences health very profoundly, but these estimates are the best to date. This will help us to demonstrate that wise investment to create a supportive environment can be a successful strategy in improving health and achieving development that is sustainable."
The report estimates that more than 13 million deaths annually are due to preventable environmental causes. Nearly one third of death and disease in the least developed regions is due to environmental causes. Over 40% of deaths from malaria and an estimated 94% of deaths from diarrhoeal diseases, two of the world's biggest childhood killers, could be prevented through better environmental management.
The four main diseases influenced by poor environments are diarrhoea, lower respiratory infections, various forms of unintentional injuries, and malaria. Measures which could be taken now to reduce this environmental disease burden include the promotion of safe household water storage and better hygienic measures; the use of cleaner and safer fuels; increased safety of the built environment, more judicious use and management of toxic substances in the home and workplace; better water resource management.
"For the first time, this new report shows how specific diseases and injuries are influenced by environmental risks and by how much," said Dr Maria Neira, Director of WHO's Department for Public Health and Environment. "It also shows very clearly the gains that would accrue both to public health and to the general environment by a series of straightforward, coordinated investments. We call on ministries of health, environment and other partners to work together to ensure that these environmental and public health gains become a reality."
This research, which involved systematic review of literature as well as surveys of over 100 experts worldwide, identifies specific diseases impacted by certain well-known environmental hazards -- and by how much. "It brings together the best evidence available today on environmental links to health in 85 categories of disease and injury. Since the research focuses strictly on environmental hazards that are amenable to change, we can also see where preventive health measures combined with better environmental management and cleanup can have the biggest impact. In effect, we now have a 'hit list' for problems we need to tackle most urgently in terms of health and the environment," noted Dr Neira.
Diseases with the largest total annual health burden from environmental factors, in terms of death, illness and disability or Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs)1 are:
Most of the same environmentally-triggered diseases also rank as the biggest killers outright -- although they rank somewhat differently in order of lethality. Diseases with the largest absolute number of deaths annually from modifiable environmental factors (these are all parts of the environment amenable to change using available technologies, policies, preventive and public health measure). These diseases include:
The report shows that one way or another, the environment significantly affects more than 80% of these major diseases. Moreover, it looks to quantify only those environmental hazards that are modifiable -- that is, those that are readily amenable to change through policies or technologies that already exist. The report also spells out us how much environment-related disease is preventable.
By acting assertively and setting priorities for measures aimed at curbing the most serious killers, millions of unnecessary deaths can be prevented every year. Working with sectors such as energy, transport, agriculture and industry to ameliorate the root environmental causes of ill health is crucial.
1 DALYs = Disability Adjusted Life Years: The sum of years of potential life lost due to premature mortality and the years of productive life lost due to disability.
The report and executive summary -- Preventing Disease Through Healthy Environments: towards and estimate of the environmental burden of disease can be found on http://www.who.int/quantifying_ehimpacts/publications/preventingdisease/en/index.html
Radio link: http://www.who.int/quantifying_ehimpacts/publications/prevdisradio/en/index.html
Video link: Message by Dr Maria Neira, Director, Public Health & Environment, http://www.who.int/quantifying_ehimpacts/publications/previdsvideo/en/index.html
by Tom Pelton, Baltimore Sun
June 16, 2006
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-md.lawsuit16jun16,0,401369.story
Four environmental groups sent notice to Maryland's largest power plant yesterday that they intend to sue its owner over thousands of air pollution violations linked to heart failure and asthma attacks. The Environmental Integrity Project, the Patuxent Riverkeeper, Environment Maryland and the Chesapeake Climate Action Network said they hope to force the Atlanta-based Mirant company to install pollution-control equipment at its Chalk Point power plant in Prince George's County. The Chalk Point plant was a focus of an investigation by The Sun of Maryland's failure to penalize companies for repeated violations at the state's seven oldest and largest coal-fired power plants.
Eric Schaeffer, director of the Washington-based Environmental Integrity Project, said the groups are taking action because the Maryland Department of the Environment has failed to enforce clean air laws. "We are filing the lawsuit because the state hasn't acted," said Schaeffer, former director of enforcement for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "The soot discharged from this plant does all kinds of bad things for public health, including cause heart attacks, asthma, bronchitis and premature deaths."
Chuck Gates, a spokesman for MDE, said the agency is reviewing Schaeffer's claims and could take enforcement action against the plant if it concludes the complaints have merit. "Eric's group has the same intent that we do, in that they are trying to keep the air clean," Gates said.
The Sun reported last month that Maryland environmental officials have for years been ignoring most air pollution violations at the state's dirtiest power plants and have become less aggressive about imposing penalties under the Ehrlich administration. The environmental organizations said they conducted their own review of Chalk Point's records and found even more violations of opacity limits, which are restrictions on the darkness of smoke allowed to escape from the plant's stacks. The groups also said they discovered releases of toxic metals into the air -- 15,471 pounds of nickel and 8,882 pounds of vanadium, which the groups say can cause lung cancer, sore throats and other illnesses.
A Harvard School of Public Health researcher, Jonathan Levy, estimated in 2002 that the pollution from Chalk Point causes 110 deaths and 4,000 asthma attacks a year. Since then, the total amount of air pollution coming from Chalk Point has risen 26 percent, according to state records. A Mirant spokeswoman would not comment on the allegations. "Mirant is committed to doing its part to protect the environment, while providing reliable electricity for the residents of Maryland," spokeswoman Corry Leigh said in a written statement.
The violations at Chalk Point should have triggered millions of dollars in penalties from the state, Schaeffer said. They were frequent enough to cause enforcement actions under both state and federal policies. The groups pointed to 14,062 violations at the plant -- each representing six-minute periods when smoke from the plant was darker than allowed. They added up to opacity-limit violations almost 9 percent of each quarter since 2002, Schaeffer said. That was almost triple the 3 percent standard for consecutive quarters that the EPA considers a "high priority" violation.
The MDE "just waived the standard and said they weren't going to enforce it," Schaefer said. "It does raise questions about what Maryland is doing." Gates, the MDE spokesman, said the agency hasn't taken action against all opacity violations at power plants "because of the sheer volume" of them. But he said the state, since 1990, has consistently tried to act against plants that have exceeded their opacity limits more than 5 percent of the time in a quarter.
by T. Christian Miller, Los Angeles Times
June 16, 2006
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-toxic16jun16,0,4975357.story
WASHINGTON -- Senate Democrats on Thursday accused the Bush administration of withholding key details about toxic waste sites that present risks of exposure to nearby residents. At a congressional hearing, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said the Environmental Protection Agency had designated as confidential the details of about 140 Superfund sites where toxic exposure remained uncontrolled. Boxer and other Democrats said the secret data included information about how much money and time it would take to clean up the dangerous sites, including one site where the EPA predicted it would take 26 years to close off access to toxics. "This isn't a question of left or right," Boxer said, waving a document marked "Privileged" by EPA officials to prevent its release to the public. "This is a question of right and wrong."
The EPA said that it had blocked only information related to law enforcement and that the public had access to all relevant health-risk data for the sites, seven of which are in California. "There is far more information available for each [high-priority] site than has ever been available before," said Susan Parker Bodine, the assistant administrator responsible for the Superfund program, which was designed to clean up toxic waste sites such as chemical dumping grounds and contaminated factories.
Republicans said Democrats were trying to manufacture a political issue, and noted that Senate tradition had long prevented the release of sensitive information. They also said they feared that Democrats were seeking to reinstate a controversial tax in which chemical manufacturers and other companies were forced to pay a fee to contribute to cleaning up waste sites, even if the firms played no role in creating the mess. "This tax would fall on businesses already paying for their own cleanup or that had never created any kind of a Superfund site," said Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate environment committee. "It would put a burden on those companies."
Democrats have routinely accused the Bush administration of restricting access to information designed to protect the public. One Republican-sponsored bill moving through Congress would limit data available on toxic substances released into communities, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has blocked information on flooding dangers in Florida.
Thursday's hearing of the Superfund and waste management subcommittee was the first in four years. The Superfund program was created almost three decades ago in response to environmental disasters such as Love Canal, a neighborhood in Niagara Falls, N.Y., where chemical contamination forced the removal of 800 families and led to $200 million in remediation costs. The cleanup effort has drawn criticism ever since, from environmentalists who claim it is underfunded and too slow, and from industry officials who say it is costly and punitive.
Bodine said that the agency had made significant progress, but that larger, more costly projects -- including many of the 140 sites at issue at Thursday's hearing -- take more time to remediate. Those sites are areas where the public still faces some possible exposure to toxic substances -- such as a building near buried radioactive waste that was not surrounded by a fence. A skateboard park built over the site, however, was protected by a layer of dirt.
Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.) said he was disturbed by some of the answers from Bodine, who at times appeared flustered and at a loss for words under the Democrats' questions. New Jersey, with 20, has the highest number of sites with uncontrolled exposure. The EPA's decision to withhold information is "nonsense, and everybody knows it's nonsense," Lautenberg said. "It's deceptive."
by John M. Moran, Hartford [Connecticut] Courant
June 15, 2006
http://www.courant.com/business/hc-depot0615.artjun15,0,118447.story?coll=hc-headlines-business
The Home Depot will pay $425,000 and change the way it handles pesticides and fertilizers as part of a settlement of allegations that it violated numerous environmental regulations at stores in Connecticut. The settlement, announced Wednesday by state Environmental Protection Commissioner Gina McCarthy, calls for the company to pay a civil penalty of $99,000. The Home Depot will also contribute $326,000 to a fund that will be used to help educate other state retailers about environmental laws and regulations that govern the handling of hazardous materials. Other elements of the settlement call for Home Depot to establish an environmental management system to avoid future problems and to pay for a third-party audit of compliance.
"Today's announcement reminds retailers that you cannot break the law," McCarthy said. She said the settlement would lead to changes at Home Depot stores nationwide and help change practices at other major retailers. Home Depot released a statement saying it is "committed to compliance" with environmental laws, but would not answer questions about the settlement or the alleged violations.
According to environmental officials, violations found at 13 Home Depot stores included "the improper display, handling and disposal of products -- such as pesticides and fertilizers -- that contain hazardous materials." Violations were cited at stores in West Hartford, Enfield, Middletown, North Haven, Berlin, Norwalk, Fairfield, Southington, Danbury, New Hartford, Lisbon, Derby and Waterbury. The company was also cited for failing to comply with hazardous waste, pesticide and storm water management programs, the DEP said.
Environmental officials noted the settlement's potential to create benefits that extend beyond the state's borders. Home Depot, they said, is working with manufacturers about the possibility of stronger bags that would resist punctures that lead to spills. Curt Johnson, a senior attorney for the Connecticut Fund for the Environment, a nonprofit group, called the settlement "a strong shot across the bow" of other retailers that may not handle hazardous products carefully. McCarthy said her agency was willing to work with retailers to help them comply with laws and regulations designed to protect customers, employees and the environment.
According to the DEP, changes planned for Home Depot under the settlement include:
It was not immediately clear how much the changes would cost Home Depot or whether those additional expenses would affect prices or profits.
by Kellyn Betts, Environmental Science & Technology
June 14, 2006
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2006/jun/science/kb_deca.html
Research published today on ES&T's ASAP website documents that microbes can break down the large molecules of the widely used Deca PBDE (polybrominated diphenyl ether) flame retardant. The paper raises concerns about the Deca flame retardant's safety by showing that various bacteria can work in concert to remove the bromine atoms from the Deca compound to produce the smaller PBDE compounds that have been banned in the EU and discontinued in the U.S.
The Deca mixture is found in electronic products such as computers and televisions, and it is the only PBDE formulation currently in use. Because of the Deca-BDE molecule's large size, it is considered relatively inert, but the smaller PBDE compounds, or congeners, that have been banned and discontinued are persistent and bioaccumulative. The levels of these compounds have been rising throughout the world, especially in North America, and their neurotoxic effects are similar to those of PCBs, which they resemble chemically.
Some of the smaller PBDE compounds are associated with tumors and thyroid hormone imbalances, and some have been shown to impact developing rodent brains and impair male hormones. The PBDE compounds with 5 bromine atoms, which are considered the most toxic, recently have been found to alter the development of male gonads in rats.
In the new paper, Lisa Alvarez-Cohen and her colleagues at the University of California, Berkeley, describe research they conducted with bacteria known to be able to break down large molecules containing chlorine. Sulfurospirillum multivorans are able to break down trichloroethylene, and the different species of Dehalococcoides used in the experiments can attack dioxins and vinyl chloride. The new study firmly establishes that the Dehalococcoides bacteria can break down brominated compounds, says Lorenz Adrian, who is with the Technical University of Berlin's Institute for Biotechnology and who first showed that the bacteria could attack dioxins. Alvarez-Cohen's team documented the S. multivorans bacteria's ability to decompose the Deca-BDE molecules into smaller PBDE compounds containing 8 and 9 bromine atoms.
The Dehalococcoides bacteria could not attack the large Deca-BDE molecules, but they could break down PBDE compounds containing 8 bromines to produce PBDE compounds with 6, 5, and 4 bromines. The breakdown products included BDE-99, which contains 5 bromines and is often found to bioaccumulate in people and animals. Although these tests took place in a laboratory, Alvarez-Cohen says that "it is highly likely that we'll see this kind of sequential transformation in the environment."
Other researchers agree. "We saw this same type of sequential breakdown [by bacteria] with PCBs," points out Linda Birnbaum, director of the experimental toxicology division at the U.S. EPA's National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory. The research raises the question of whether "continued production and use of the Deca may lead to ongoing exposure of wildlife and people to the lower brominated congeners for which we have toxicity concerns," she adds.
Andreas Gerecke, a project leader in the analytical chemistry department of Switzerland's National Materials Science & Technology Laboratory (EMPA), was the first scientist to report that Deca-BDE was being broken down in sewage treatment plants. He says he thinks that it is likely that microbes are breaking down the Deca-BDE molecule in oxygen-free environments such as contaminated underwater sediments. However, he points out that the rates documented in the paper are quite slow. Alvarez-Cohen acknowledges that this is true but says that she is currently involved in studies with additional bacteria showing "much [more rapid] rates of degradation."
However, scientists from the Bromine Science and Environmentalal Forum, an industry group, point out that "no degradation was found without TCE being added as a fuel, along with other substrates. Since TCE is not normally present in the environment at high concentrations (it oxidizes to another substance), the environmental relevance of this study is questionable; i.e., the conditions under which degradation was forced to occur are not likely to be found in the environment."
Even so, scientists interviewed for this article agree that the paper's findings are significant. "High levels of Deca-BDE have been detected in aquatic sediments and anaerobic environments such as Baltimore Harbor," points out Heather Stapleton, an assistant professor of environmental sciences and policy at Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences. Deca-BDE is also "detected at elevated levels in sewage sludge [and] biosolids, which can be home to multiple strains of bacteria. Considering that land application of biosolids and soil amendment is an increasing practice, [this new paper's findings warrant] further investigation."
by Simon Doyle, Ottawa Hill Times
June 12th, 2006
http://www.hilltimes.com/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2006/june/12/carcinogens/&c=1
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act calls on the government to use 'precaution' in its risk management of toxins, but the principle has not been used. As the federal government comes under criticism for failing to properly regulate toxins and carcinogens in consumer products and the environment, the Standing Committee on Environment heard last week that government departments have relied on a faulty approach of using "sound science" to determine the risks associated with toxins.
In recent weeks, pressure has mounted on the government to ban a number of harmful and toxins that do not break down in the environment and that are sold in consumer products, such as flame retardants, found in furniture and carpets, or perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), which is used to make non-stick pans and other non-stick materials. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA, gives regulatory powers to Cabinet to define chemicals as toxic if they are considered to pose significant health risks.
But last week, environmental advocates told the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development that government departments have been influenced by industry groups that have successfully argued that the government needs to use a "false principle" of "sound science" in its decisions to ban substances. A brief submitted last week to the committee by Bruce Lourie, president of the Ivey Foundation, an environmental charitable foundation in Toronto, says that there is no such thing as "sound science" because it implies absolute evidence or consensus when all science contains uncertainty. The brief calls the phrase an invention of industrial stakeholders to slow down and delay the regulatory process toward banning chemicals.
In his appearance before the Environment Committee last week, Mr. Lourie said he conducted an informal survey of about 30 sources in the government, manufacturing industry, advocacy groups, and academics, and only government officials viewed "sound science" as a valid phrase. Even the industry officials surveyed acknowledged the term as a strategy for undermining or delaying government action, he said. "We see sound science referenced in federal documents. Sound science, if you read any of the literature on it, was a term created by industry, deliberately, to interject uncertainty, to interject doubt into decision-making. So the fact that we have sound science in our federal documentation suggests that we're really lining ourselves up with the kind of language the industry uses, deliberately, to undermine action. That's problematic," Mr. Lourie said.
The Canadian Cancer Society says that 50 per cent of cancers are preventable, and although most preventable cancers can be attributed to smoking, people can unknowingly accumulate carcinogens and other toxins in their bodies through inhalation, ingestion or skin contact. They can be found in pesticides and weed killers, household cleaners and detergents, personal care products, fruit with traces of pesticides, beef with growth hormones, composite wood products and plastics. In the 1970s, one in five Canadians could expect to develop cancer in their lifetimes, according to Health Canada cancer statistics. Today, the chance for men is one in 2.4 and for women one in 2.7, and the rate is predicted to rise.
CEPA includes a provision mandating that the government use a "precautionary principle" in its approach to determining whether some substances are harmful, but witnesses at the committee said a "sound science" approach does not allow for such precaution. Larry Stoffman, from the Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control, who appeared before the committee with Mr. Lourie, said that in the absence of using the precautionary principle, cancers that could be prevented, are not. Mr. Stoffman and Mr. Lourie pointed to mercury as an example of a well-known toxin with multiple health hazards, but which has not been banned and is still used in thermometers in public school labs. If "sound science" had been applied in the risk management of smoking in public places, Mr. Stoffman said, smoking would still be allowed in the very committee room where they met in West Block.
Mr. Stoffman said the European Union uses an effective precautionary principle, which says that wherever reliable scientific evidence shows there may be adverse health effects from certain substances -- even if there is uncertainty about the extent of the effects -- there is a requirement to use precaution and ban or virtually eliminate the substance.
The House Environment Commons Committee is currently conducting a statutory review of CEPA. Liberal MP John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Ont.), a member of the committee, told The Hill Times that the committee could use the opportunity to look at redefining CEPA's precautionary principle, to ensure that it is properly used. "What happens is that these things become politicized. If there's a substance where a group of stakeholders have some economic interest in defending it, and they don't want this particular substance replaced -- they own the patent on it or whatever else -- if the debate reaches a Cabinet committee, the danger is that the economic interest of the stakeholder trumps the precautionary principle," Mr. Godfrey said.
The issue appears to be gaining some political momentum. Last week, two Liberal MPs, Susan Kadis (Thornhill, Ont.) and Maria Minna (Beaches-East York), held a joint news conference to tout two private members' bills. Ms. Kadis' bill, Bill C-274, would ban brominated flame retardants by adding them to the toxic substances list. Ms. Minna's bill, Bill C-298, would ban PFOS, found in non-stick pans, which is linked to various types of Cancer and can damage the brain and the immune system. Ms. Minna, former minister for International Cooperation under Jean Chrétien, said the issue is becoming increasingly important because, while studies have increasingly shown the health hazards of the chemicals, children are increasingly accumulating them.
However, under the regulatory powers of CEPA, the former Liberal government had several years to ban the substances, and when asked why it did not, Ms. Minna said the regulatory process -- which observers say can become bogged down in consultations -- is slow. "I, quite frankly, think we need to change the regulatory system to make it easier and a little faster, so that these kinds of changes can be made fairly quickly," Ms. Minna said. She said that she hopes to see committee's current review of CEPA come up with a streamlined way to ban substances through regulations. "I think that maybe we should take a look at the regulatory system as we review CEPA, and really change the onerous time that it takes to designate substances. Other countries are doing it much faster," Ms. Minna said. "In the meantime we should pass this through the House of Commons. Let's do it now," she said of the bill she introduced.
Ms. Kadis added that increasing pressure is only now creating awareness about harmful environmental toxins. "The media has played an important role, the public has, we're trying here today, and I think collectively, we're at a point in time that it really begs for that type of action to take place and serious investigation by our officials," Ms. Kadis said. Ms. Minna's bill is at first reading and will be debated on June 15, but she said Minister Ambrose has indicated the government will not be supporting the bill because such matters are the responsibility of the Environment Department.
John Moffet, a director general at the Department of the Environment, also appeared before the committee last week, and when asked why the government has not banned substances such as mercury, Mr. Moffet said CEPA gives the government the power to do so. The issue is really one of political will, he said. "Why haven't we? Fundamentally? I would argue that those are political decisions. On the issue of federal leadership, the act gives us the authority to address a wide range of issues, the extent to which we've chosen to exercise that authority, has been and will continue to be a political decision," Mr. Moffet said. Mr. Moffet said stakeholder consultations on banning substances can become "circular" and slow the process down. "Nothing in CEPA impedes the minister from saying, 'I don't care what that process says, this is the decision,'" he said.
A study released this month by Environmental Defence, an environmental advocacy group in Toronto, tested seven children and six parents to find harmful toxins in all of them, such as stain repellants, flame retardants, mercury, lead, DDT and PCBs. Some children were found to have higher levels of chemicals than their parents. The study tested for 68 chemicals with a 68 per cent success rate. They found eight chemicals linked to reproductive disorders, 38 suspected cancer-causing agents, 23 chemicals dangerous to the hormone system, 19 neurotoxins, and 12 toxins associated with respiratory illnesses.
Last week, Environment Minister Rona Ambrose (Edmonton-Spruce Grove, Alta.) announced an initiative to prevent nearly 10 tonnes of mercury from entering into Canada's air over the next decade. Ms. Ambrose also announced that she would have her blood tested in another study by Environmental Defence to raise awareness of the toxins in the blood of children and families.