Blog

Global professional body issues report calling for wider corporate reporting of water use
James Murray, Business Green 21 May 2009

They may already be under increasing pressure to develop a standard mechanism for measuring the carbon footprint of a company or product, but that has not stopped the global body for accountants, the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA), calling on the profession to also start working on methodologies for measuring water footprints.

ACCA has today released a new report entitled Water: the next carbon? calling on firms and their accountancy departments to better track water use and water risks.

The report follows a recent conference hosted by ACCA and WWF-UK, which saw the global professional body sign a memorandum of understanding with the environmental group to work together on assessment of current UK water accounting and reporting processes.

The partnership could result in the development of water-reporting standards, similar to the global IFRS financial reporting standards that ACCA supports.

Vicky McAllister, sustainability advisor at ACCA, welcomed the new report and urged more firms to embrace water-reporting methodologies. “UK businesses should be addressing and reporting on the importance of water resources and management in their operations as well as upstream and downstream activities, one element of which is calculating the water footprint,” she said. “WWF UK is considered an expert in this field and the resulting research should yield some interesting results for UK organizations to take on board.”

Her comments were echoed by Dave Tickner, head of freshwater programmers at WWF UK, who warned that a failure to address water security issues could undermine firms’ long-term competitiveness.

“The sustainable supply of water to all users, including businesses, underpins economic growth, poverty reduction, food and energy security and adaptation to the effects of climate change,” he said. “Wise management of this critical natural resource is therefore in all our interests.”

Environmental Strategist, between the lines: Under federal law you own your waste from cradle to grave. If a battery recycler does not adhere to government environmental standards the facility could be turned into a superfund site. Anyone/business that sent waste batteries to the recycling facility could be responsible for any required clean up.

When is the last time you inspected your battery recycler to make sure they are meeting government standards?

The article points out this legislation could put some battery recyclers out of business, if that is the case who is going to pay for the cleanup?

Assault and batteries
Despite industry lobbying, EPA toughens lead pollution limits
Posted by Janet Wilson (Guest Contributor) at 10:00 AM on 16 Oct 2008

Federal regulators announced Thursday a sharp reduction in legal levels of lead emissions, rejecting pleas by industrial battery recyclers who told White House officials earlier this month that they could be put out of business by tough new limits.

“Our nation’s air is cleaner today than just a generation ago, and last night I built upon this progress by signing the strongest … air quality standards for lead in our nation’s history. These levels reduce allowable levels of lead exposure by ten times,” said U.S. Environmental Protection Agency administrator Stephen Johnson. “When my children were young, EPA protected them by phasing out lead in … gasoline, and thanks to this standard EPA will protect my grandchildren from remaining sources of lead.”

The lead regulations had not been updated for 30 years. More than 6,000 studies since 1990 have shown that exposure to even tiny amounts can cause childhood retardation, nerve damage, heart disease, and other serious problems. EPA was under court order to act by midnight Wednesday after being sued by a Missouri environmental group.

There were some concessions to industry requests. Polluters will be allowed to average emissions over a three-month period, which critics say could allow regulators to ignore illegally high spikes of lead emissions. Industry representatives were studying the details of the new regulations and had no immediate comment.

On Oct. 2, battery industry consultants met with White House economic and environmental officials to lobby for weaker limits. They said data used by EPA to propose lower legal limits was questionable, and that their industry is a recycling success story that could be put out of business by draconian new limits.

“We’re wearing the green hats here … we have the highest recycling compliance rate of any industry in the world,” said Robert Steinwurtzel, an attorney for the Association of Battery Recyclers, on Tuesday. The group represents a multimillion dollar industry that employs 15,000 workers to strip and melt down 115 million spent car batteries each year. “It’s just remarkable to me that the most successful recycling story in the history of this country is going to be threatened,” said Steinwurtzel.

Johnson said Thursday he was aware of those concerns, but that under the Clean Air Act he was only allowed to consider what levels would protect public health, not costs or financial impacts.

Anticipating that reasoning, Steinwurtzel said Tuesday his group was not arguing on the basis of costs. He said if U.S. plants were forced to shut down, lead batteries could end up being processed illegally, or being shipped overseas to countries with far more lax pollution laws, creating dire health consequences.

After Thursday’s announcement, some environmentalists noted that the new levels were still far higher than what was recommended by EPA’s own children’s health advisory panel.

“It’s clearly better than the current rules, there’s no doubt there,” said Frank O’Donnell of Clean Air Watch. “It’s also clearly weaker than the EPA’s children health advisers had recommended.”

The new regulation tightens the allowable lead level 10 times to 0.15 micrograms of lead per cubic meter of air, falling at the lower end of a range of recommendations by EPA staff and its science advisory panel. The EPA Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee had recommended they be set almost ten times lower than that, to 0.02 micrograms. But one doctor on that panel expressed satisfaction.

“The details of the standard represent a reasonable compromise,” said Dr. John Balbus, Environmental Defense Fund‘s chief health scientist, and a panel member. “While EPA’s own analysis justifies an even lower lead standard, this 10-fold reduction will go a long way to protecting children most at risk from airborne lead.”

Balbus and others had criticized Johnson harshly in the past for not following scientific recommendations in new regulations of ozone and other pollutants. They had feared a repeat of that in the new lead regulation.

“It’s refreshing to see the agency follow the science and the advice of its experts in making this decision,” said Balbus.

Janet Wilson is a veteran journalist based in southern California, who reported on air quality and other environmental issues for the Los Angeles Times. She can be reached at janetwilson66 AT gmail DOT com.

Source: Environmental News Network

An investigation by the Associated Press (AP) has revealed that the drinking water of at least 41 million people in the United States is contaminated with pharmaceutical drugs.

It has long been known that drugs are not wholly absorbed or broken down by the human body. Significant amounts of any medication taken eventually pass out of the body, primarily through the urine.

‘People think that if they take a medication, their body absorbs it and it disappears, but of course that’s not the case,’ EPA scientist Christian Daughton said.

While sewage is treated before being released back into the environment, and water from reservoirs or rivers is also treated before being funneled back into the drinking water supply, these treatments are not able to remove all traces of medications. And so far, the EPA has not regulated the presence of pharmaceuticals in drinking water, meaning that there are no laws in existence today that protect consumers from this increasingly dangerous chemical contaminant of the water supply.

Medications for animals also contaminating the water supply

Drugs given to animals are also entering the water supply. One study found that 10 percent of the steroids given to cattle pass directly through their bodies, while another study found that steroid concentrations in the water downstream of a Nebraska feedlot were four times as high as the water upstream. Male fish downstream of the feedlot were found to have depressed levels of testosterone and smaller than normal heads, most likely due to the pharmaceutical contamination in their water.

‘It brings a question to people’s minds that if the fish were affected … might there be a potential problem for humans?’ said EPA research biologist Vickie Wilson.

While the concentration of drugs in drinking water tends to be low, some medications, such as hormones, are able to operate potently even at concentrations of one part per billion. To make matters worse, there is evidence that the chlorine commonly used to treat drinking water may make some pharmaceutical chemicals more toxic. Thus, the typical claim that ‘pharmaceuticals are only present in very low concentrations, and therefore could not be dangerous’ holds no water (pardon the pun). Not only are some chemicals potentiated (made more toxic) by other chemicals in the water, but to date, there have been absolutely no studies looking at the increased danger posed by combinations of pharmaceuticals now being found.

In other words, nobody knows the level of risk that may be associated with the chemical cocktail of pharmaceuticals now being found in the water supply. No one can say with any degree of honesty that the drug contamination is safe, meaning that the real risks to human remain entirely unknown.

56 different drug chemicals in the drinking water

To determine the extent of drinking water contamination, an Associated Press investigative team surveyed the water providers of the 50 largest cities in the United States and 52 smaller communities, analyzed federal databases and scientific reports, and interviewed government and corporate officials.

The investigation found widespread evidence of drinking water contaminated with both over-the-counter and prescription drugs, including painkillers, hormones, antibiotics, anti-convulsants, anti-depressants, and drugs for cancer or heart disease. Of the 28 major cities that tested their water supplies for pharmaceuticals, only two said those tests showed no pharmaceutical contamination. In Philadelphia, 56 different drugs and drug byproducts were found in treated drinking water, and 63 were found in the city’s watershed.

Of the 35 watersheds that had been tested, 28 were found to be contaminated. Deep-water aquifers near landfills, feedlots and other contaminant sources in 24 states were also found to contain pharmaceuticals. This means that even in rural areas where people get their water from wells, drinking water might still contain drugs.

According to researcher Anthony Aufdenkampe of the Stroud Water Research Center, watersheds in rural areas can be contaminated when people’s septic tanks malfunction. ‘Septic systems are essentially small treatment plants that are essentially unmanaged and therefore tend to fail,’ he said.

Cities do not test the water for pharmaceutical pollution

Even these numbers do not give the full scale of the problem, the AP suggests, because many water providers simply do not test for this kind of contamination, which is not regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Of the 52 small water providers surveyed by AP, only one screened its water for pharmaceuticals.

Other providers do screen, but they conceal the results from the public. According to a group that represents California water providers, the public ‘doesn’t know how to interpret the information’ from such tests and therefore does not need to hear it! Even companies that test and report their data often screen for only a few chemicals, creating a skewed impression of how contaminated the water actually is.

Water bottling companies also do not screen for pharmaceutical contamination in their water products. It is highly likely, at the same time, that soft drink bottling companies using local tap water supplies to make their beverages are potentially using pharmaceutical-contaminated water.

The EPA sticks its head in the ground over pharmaceutical pollution

According to Shane Snyder, research and development project manager at the Southern Nevada Water Authority, researchers looking into the extent of water contamination are avoiding the important questions.

‘I think it’s a shame that so much money is going into monitoring to figure out if these things are out there, and so little is being spent on human health,’ Snyder said. ‘They need to just accept that these things are everywhere; every chemical and pharmaceutical could be there. It’s time for the EPA to step up to the plate and make a statement about the need to study effects, both human and environmental.’

A total of over 100 pharmaceutical products have been detected in water supplies in North America, Europe and Asia, including remote regions such as Swiss lakes and the North Sea. And bottled or filtered water, the AP report notes, is not necessarily safer, as the filters used in homes or bottling plants are rarely designed to remove pharmaceutical residue.

Drug companies, for their part, have done nothing to accept responsibility for the environmental health impact of their polluting chemicals. In fact, Big Pharma hasn’t even yet acknowledged the fact that their products are ‘pollutants’ in any way. Like most pharmaceutical consumers, the drug companies hope to just flush this issue down the toilet and pretend it never existed.

The health impact of pharmaceutical contaminants in water

Very little research has been conducted on the specific effects of trace drugs in drinking water, but what evidence is there gives cause for alarm. Contamination of environmental water sources has caused male fish to exhibit female traits and led to damaging effects on other wildlife species. Laboratory research indicates that small levels of drugs can cause cancer cells to proliferate faster, slow kidney cell growth and cause inflammation in blood cells. At a time when the American population is suffering from skyrocketing infertility and hormone imbalances, it seems outrageous that health authorities would not be looking more closely at this issue and working on ways to protect the public from pharmaceutical pollution.

Because water is consumed regularly in large quantities over a lifetime, and because humans are exposed to many combinations of dozens of different drugs, the effects on the human body may be significantly greater than those seen in the lab. And unlike most pollutants, drugs are specifically designed to cause changes in the human body, thus they are far less likely to be ‘inert’ than other chemicals that might be found in the water supply.

‘These are chemicals that are designed to have very specific effects at very low concentrations,’ said zoologist John Sumpter of London’s Brunel University. ‘That’s what pharmaceuticals do. So when they get out to the environment, it should not be a shock to people that they have effects.’

June 27, 2008 – Supply chain executives striving to green their operations are finding themselves most hamstrung by difficulties in justifying the cost of implementation, according to a new survey.

The survey of 250 supply chain executives finds that of the 78% who are either currently implementing or evaluating green initiatives, close to two-thirds consider “cost justification” the greatest barrier to implementation. Of those currently implementing a green program, 40% say they have not established a method to measure return on investment.

“Companies clearly need an effective method to identify and quantify high-impact areas throughout their supply chain and ensure their investments are green – especially in cases where these efforts also drive improved profitability,” says Brad Barton of IT services firm CSC, which co-produced the study.

(The lack of useful green metrics isn’t limited to sourcing functions; a survey released in March found that many companies are hesitant to incorporate sustainability into financial strategy without concrete metrics for evaluating the prospective benefits.)

Despite the lack of clear metrics, however, most companies appear to recognize the importance of reducing environmental impact by optimizing supply-chain efficiency, the supply chain survey notes. More than of respondents say they have a documented sustainability strategy at the corporate level, and about the same number say their company has a senior executive dedicated to this effort.

Nearly two-thirds say waste disposal and recycling are the most important environmental issues to address. More than a third are involved in the U.S. EPA’s SmartWay Transport program, and 25% report that their organization is actively involved in other sustainability-related groups, such as the Green Suppliers Network and the Carbon Disclosure Project.

Sustainable Life Media

The developer of the Greenport Commons retail project on Route 9 in the town of Greenport, New York has been slapped with the largest stormwater penalty in the history of New York state.

Widewaters Greenport Co. LLC has agreed to pay a $100,000 settlement to resolve numerous stormwater violations at the development and must also temporarily stop work on the site until state officials approve the company’s stormwater prevention plan.

Widewaters is headquartered in Syracuse. Its $70 million Greenport Commons project is a 500,000 square foot retail center in Columbia County that is expected to be anchored by Lowe’s and a Wal-Mart super center.

The violations at the Greenport development occurred because the company started work without putting in place proper erosion control and sediment control measures, as required by the company’s stormwater pollution prevention plan.

Also, Widewaters had not secured written permission to disturb more than five acres – when, in fact, almost 40 acres of soil had been disturbed and were left exposed and vulnerable to erosion from a rain event.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner Pete Grannis and Region 4 Director Gene Kelly said that as part of the settlement, Widewaters must hire an independent inspector, in addition to the required existing daily inspector, to monitor the construction site at least twice every seven days to ensure compliance with their stormwater pollution prevention plan.

The inspector must compile and submit to the Department of Environmental Conservation a weekly report detailing compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.

environmental Strategist, between the lines: Should you follow Canada’s lead? For several years I have been reading reports on bisphenol A and while the manufacturers mean no harm to their consumers, evidence is building this product may cause harm.

If Canada fells it is worth restricting maybe you should learn more about how bisphenol A may impact you, family, friends, our environment….

OTTAWA, Ontario, Canada, April 22, 2008 (ENS) – The Canadian government is asking for public comment on whether or not to ban the import, sale and advertising of polycarbonate baby bottles than contain the chemical bisphenol A. The chemical has been shown to leach from some plastics, harming human health by disrupting normal hormone and neurological function and altering gene activity.

Some Canadian retailers have already pulled bottles made with the substance off store shelves.

Health Minister Tony Clement and Environment Minister John Baird announced the action Friday and the 60 day public comment period began on Saturday.

“Canada has been the first country in the world to conduct risk assessments on a number of chemicals of concern, as a result of a new initiative announced by the Prime Minister on December 8, 2006 known as the Chemicals Management Plan,” said Clement.

“We have immediately taken action on bisphenol A, because we believe it is our responsibility to ensure families, Canadians and our environment are not exposed to a potentially harmful chemical,” he said.

Health Canada’s screening assessment of bisphenol A primarily focused on its impacts on newborns and infants up to 18 months of age; however, health risks for Canadians of all ages were considered in the screening.

It was determined that the main source of exposure for newborns and infants is through the use of polycarbonate baby bottles when they are exposed to high temperatures and the migration of bisphenol A from cans into infant formula.

The scientists concluded in this assessment that bisphenol A exposure to newborns and infants is below levels that may pose a risk, however, the gap between exposure and effect is not large enough.

“When it comes to Canada’s environment, you can’t put a price on safety,” said Baird. “Not only are we finding out about the health impacts of bisphenol A, but the environmental impacts as well. That’s why our government will be moving forward and will work with the provinces and stakeholders to keep bisphenol A out of our environment, and take the necessary measures to ensure its safe use and disposal.”

The Canadian government is proposing to reduce bisphenol A exposure in infants and newborns by banning polycarbonate baby bottles and developing stringent migration targets for bisphenol A in infant formula cans, which are lined with a material containing the chemical.

The government proposes to work with industry to develop alternative food packaging and develop a code of practice and to list bisphenol A under Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Environment Canada scientists found that at low levels, bisphenol A can harm fish and aquatic organisms over time. Studies indicate that it can currently be found in wastewater and sludge treatment plants.

The top Canadian Green Party official says bisphenol A is found not only in polycarbonate plastic baby bottles and in the lining of canned foods and beverages but also in childrens’ toys, baby bottles, dental sealants, sports helmets, compact discs and other materials made from hard plastics.

Canadians should take appropriate precautions to protect against bisphenol A exposure from all sources, said Green Party leader Elizabeth May.

“Bisphenol A is toxic to humans even at extremely low levels. It is particularly dangerous to children,” said May. “That’s why the safest bet is to avoid, whenever possible, consuming food or beverage that has come into contact with plastic of any type.”

“Consumers can easily switch to non-plastic bottles,” she said, “they can purchase food in glass jars and with a little research, can uncover companies who package food in cans without bisphenol A.”

May said that nonylphenol, another hazardous substance with similar hormone-disrupting properties should be given the same attention as bisphenol A. Nonlyphenol can also be found in plastics, as well as personal care products, commercial and household cleaners and some manufacturing processes.

Nonylphenol and its derivatives have already been banned in the European Union due to concerns over both human health and its effect on aquatic life after entering waterways

“This is a good first step and we urge the government to ban bisphenol A without delay,” said May. “But bisphenol A is only the tip of the toxic iceberg. We need to protect human health by restricting other dangerous chemicals, like nonylphenol, as well.”

In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration has not banned bisphenol A.

Today, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, GMA, released a science policy paper on bisphenol A that attempts to reassure consumers that the chemical is safe.

The GMA paper emphasizes that, “Internationally accepted protocols of reproductive and developmental assays have reported no reproductive toxicity or adverse effects on the fetus at high doses, in the absence of general systemic toxicity.”

Higher doses of bisphenol A are needed to produce effects in humans compared with rodents, the GMA says, in an effort to debunk studies done on mice and rats.

“The reference dose calculated by the EPA to be protective of the public health is more than 100 times greater than estimated human exposure to bisphenol A,” the grocery association says.

“Data purporting to demonstrate ‘low’ dose effects on the male reproductive system by BPA have not been successfully replicated and, therefore, are not credible to estimate human health risks and safety in light of the weight of a large body of evidence to the contrary,” the association says.

And finally, the GMA paper points out that neither the Food and Drug Administration nor the World Health Organization has set any regulatory guidelines for bisphenol A, as they have not deemed any restrictions necessary.

The National Toxicology Program “recently concluded that there is minimal risk associated with the chemical,” the GMA paper says.

But last August, a 12 member panel of government, university and industry scientists convened by the National Toxicology Program’s Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction to evaluate bisphenol A confirmed that the chemical can leach from containers into the food and drinks they hold.

While the panel did not call for a ban on bisphenol A, the members expressed “some concern” that exposure to the chemical while in the womb “causes neural and behavioral effects.”

The panel also expressed concern that exposure to bisphenol A causes neural and behavioral effects in children.

Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2008. All rights reserved.

environmental Strategist, between the lines: In March 2008 the ASTM E 2600-08 Vapor Intrusion was introduced. For property owners, lenders, tenants, realtors, contractors or any others that are involved in real property this is a critical area and vapor intrusion has emerged as a significant environmental issue. ASTM 2600 should now be considered part of proper environmental due diligence.

Vapor intrusion from contaminated soil and groundwater into structures can potentially create significant liability and have a material impact on property value. Because of this, accurately determining whether a property has vapor intrusion issues is a concern for property owners, prospective purchasers and environmental professionals conducting due diligence.

ASTM International Committee E50 on Environmental Assessment has now approved a new standard, E 2600, Practice for Assessment of Vapor Intrusion into Structures on Property Involved in Real Estate Transactions, which will provide guidance for vapor intrusion testing. The standard is under the jurisdiction of Subcommittee E50.02 on Real Estate Assessment and Management.

Anthony J. Buonicore, chair of ASTM Task Group E50.02.06 on Vapor Intrusion, says E 2600 defines good commercial and customary practice for conducting a vapor intrusion assessment on a property parcel involved in real estate transactions.

“The specific intent was to establish a methodology to determine whether or not there is a reasonable probability that vapor intrusion could present an environmental risk and liability,” says Buonicore. For commercial real estate transactions, Buonicore notes that the vapor intrusion investigation, as defined by E 2600, could be used independently of, or as a supplement to, E 1527, Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process.

The evaluation process, as described in E 2600, consists of four tiers. The first two screening tiers are used to assess the potential for a vapor intrusion issue to exist, so that properties with a low risk can be screened out quickly and inexpensively. The third tier provides for more site-specific and comprehensive investigations if the potential for vapor intrusion cannot reasonably be eliminated at the Tier 1/Tier 2 levels while Tier 4 addresses mitigation alternatives.

According to Buonicore, because timeliness may be more important than investigation or mitigation costs during real estate transactions, an E 2600 user does not need to proceed sequentially through the tiers in the standard.

“In most cases, however, it is expected that it would be more cost effective and sufficient time would be available in the real estate transaction to conduct at a minimum a Tier 1 screening evaluation and, if necessary, a Tier 2 screening evaluation before proceeding to a more costly and time-consuming Tier 3 investigation or to Tier 4 mitigation,” says Buonicore. He also notes that the process described in E 2600 is designed to complement existing federal and state vapor intrusion policies or guidance.

“ASTM was selected as the best venue to develop the standard because of ASTM’s internationally recognized consensus-based process that has been used so successfully over the years,” says Buonicore. “ASTM is able to bring together stakeholders representing all sides of an issue and work with them to achieve consensus.”

Chris Bunbury, eS Phone: 231-256-2122 Fax: 231-256-2123 jcbunbury@aol.com www.estrategist.com www.environmentalriskmanagers.com

environmental Strategist between the lines: If the game that introduced all of us to capitalism is going eco-friendly, I would have say the sustainable business environment is here to stay. Environmental issues impact every business operating today. Coming to the realization that sustainability has to be included as part of every business strategy will allow you to drive your growth and profits.
If you are no using today’s sustainable business environment as a way to drive your growth and profits, use your get out of jail free card, pass go and start to collect the money simply by contacting Environmental Risk Managers.

PATRICK WHITE

April 22, 2008

All good Monopoly players have a few things in common: greed, malice and a heart of Pennsylvania Railroad coal.

Now you can add one more trait to the avaricious mix: friend of the environment.

The 73-year-old game is clearing the board of Water Works and Electric Company and replacing them with the more eco-friendly Wind Energy and Solar Energy in its forthcoming Monopoly Here & Now: World Edition.

“We just felt they were a little dated,” Hasbro Canada spokeswoman Marisa Pedatella said.

The celebrated board game has taught the virtues of capitalism to more than 750 million people around the world, according to Hasbro, the game’s maker, and the new ecology emphasis “made sense considering the global initiative to go green,” Ms. Pedatella said.

The news came as a particular surprise to traditional utility workers, who’ve been cornerstones of Monopoly’s mock society since Charles Darrow patented the game in 1935. “It just goes to show you that people take us for granted,” said Mark Butler, chairman of the Atlantic Canada Water Works Association.

The two new green utilities will cost $1.5-million each, considerably higher than the inflation-defying $150 sticker price of Water Works or Electric Company. In the new game, a player who lands on an owned utility has to pay 10,000 times their dice roll.

For Monopoly purists, Hasbro will continue to sell its original No. 9 edition, based on the streets of Atlantic City, N.J.