Tag: estrategist

  • Earth’s Degradation Threatens Major Health Gains: Study

    environmental Strategist, between the lines:  Sustainability has become an abused, catch all phrase in today’s business environment.  Regardless of how you want to spin “Sustainability” the bottom line is if we do not take care of our natural resources, our natural resources will not be able to continue taking care of us or future generations.

    The strategy for sharing the attached article is simply to give you some baseline information so as you continue on your sustainable path, you are able to better understand why we all need to be on the same page about better protecting our natural resources, human health and the environment.

    Environmental Economics will assist us in moving out of our current slash and trash economic model.  This transition will have a broad impact in better protecting human health and the environment once the masses get environmentally educated.  www.estrategist.com was developed to educate the masses.

     

    Degradation

    AFP July 15, 2015

    The unprecedented degradation of Earth’s natural resources coupled with climate change could reverse major gains in human health over the last 150 years, according to a sweeping scientific review published late Wednesday.

    “We have been mortgaging the health of future generations to realize economic and development gains in the present,” said the report, written by 15 leading academics and published in the peer-reviewed medical journal The Lancet.

    “By unsustainably exploiting nature’s resources, human civilization has flourished but now risks substantial health effects from the degradation of nature’s life support systems in the future.”

    Climate change, ocean acidification, depleted water sources, polluted land, over-fishing, biodiversity loss — all unintended by-products of humanity’s drive to develop and prosper — “pose serious challenges to the global health gains of the past several decades,” especially in poorer nations, the 60-page report concludes.

    The likely impacts on global health of climate change, ranging from expanded disease vectors to malnourishment, have been examined by the UN’s panel of top climate scientists. But the new report, entitled Safeguarding Human Health in the Anthropocene Epoch, takes an even broader view.

    The “Anthropocene” is the name given by many scientists to the period –- starting with mass industrialisation -– in which human activity has arguably reshaped Earth’s bio-chemical make-up.

    “This is the first time that the global health community has come out in a concerted way to report that we are in real danger of undermining the core ecological systems that support human health,” said Samuel Myers, a scientist at Harvard University and one the authors.

    Danger of Bee Decline 

    A companion study on the worldwide decline of bees and other pollinators, led by Myers and also published in The Lancet, illustrates one way this might happen.

    The dramatic decline of bees has already compromised the quantity and quality of many nutrient-rich crops that depend on the transfer of pollen to bear fruit.

    Pollinators play a key role in 35 percent of global food production, and are directly responsible for up to 40 percent of the world’s supply of micro-nutrients such a vitamin A and folate, both essential for children and pregnant women.

    The complete wipe-out of pollinating creatures, the study concludes, would push a quarter of a billion people in the red-zone of vitamin A or folate deficiency, and cause an increase in heart disease, stroke and some cancers, leading to some 1.4 million additional deaths each year. A 50 percent loss of pollination would result in roughly half that impact, the researchers found.

    Scientist are still debating exactly why pollinators are dying off, but there is no disagreement that all the possible causes— pollution, insecticides, land-loss — are related to human activity.

    A second companion study examines for the first time the impact of decreased zinc levels in staple crops such as wheat, rice, barley and soy caused by higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the main driver of global warming.

    Already, nearly a fifth of the world’s population is at risk of zinc deficiency, which can cause pre-mature delivery, reduce growth and weight-gain in children, and compromise immune functions. By 2050, projected CO2 emissions could place an additional 150 million people at risk, according to the study published in Lancet Global Health.

    “Our civilizations may seem strong and resilient, but history tells us that our societies are fragile and vulnerable,” Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet and a co-author of the main report, said in a statement.

    Introducing the concept of planetary health, the report calls for urgent action, starting with a paradigm shift in the way we understand the relationship between our environment, social or economic progress, and human health.

    The report was released by The Rockefeller Foundation-Lancet Commission on Planetary Health.

  • Are You A Property Owner? How Are You Managing Your Vapor Intrusion Exposure?

    environmental Strategist, between the lines:  Vapor intrusion is such a huge environmental exposure for property owners, that ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials ) the society that developed Phase I and Phase II site assessments has developed ASTM 2600 which deals specifically with vapor intrusion. If you are a property owner you must have a strategy in place to address your exposure to vapor intrusion which can result from both onsite or migrating offsite contamination. Relying on the at fault party/s to make you whole is a very weak strategy. Pollution liability insurance can protect property owners from vapor intrusion.

    What is Vapor Intrusion you ask? In Laymans terms, Vapor Intrusion occurs when volatile chemicals migrate from contamination in the soil or groundwater up into a building’s interior space. Vapor Intrusion can pose a potential health threat to the occupants of the building, especially to sensitive populations such as children. The diagram below is an excellent illustration of how vapor intrusion typically occurs.

    courtesy of www.epa.gov

    Vapor Intrusion: An Emerging Risk that Could Cost Property Owners

    Posted on March 4, 2015 by Eugene Wingert

    Years after property owners thought they had completed the clean-up and environmental remediation of old contaminated sites, vapor intrusion has emerged as a risk that could result in additional clean-up costs and liability exposures.

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines vapor intrusion as the “migration of volatile chemicals from the groundwater or soil into an overlying building.”  Some building owners or managers may not be aware that they have a potential vapor intrusion problem at their property. In urban districts, many buildings are built in areas where soils or groundwater have elevated levels of contaminants.  However, even in areas with newer construction, the subsurface conditions could create bodily injury, remediation, or property damage exposures. In many situations, historical property uses may have impacted soils and groundwater. In a non-industrial setting, common sources of sources of volatile chemicals can include: dry cleaners, service stations or auto body shops, or leaking underground fuel storage tanks. Contaminants that are commonly found at impacted properties include:

    • Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH), including Benzene
    • Chlorinated Volatile Organic Compounds (CVOCs) such as Perchloroethylene (PCE), Trichloroethylene (TCE), 1,1,1 –Trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA) and Vinyl Chloride
    • Landfill gas (methane)

    Volatile chemicals can diffuse and migrate through the subsurface. When the vapors reach an obstruction (such as pavement, concrete foundation, or slab) they can collect.  As cracks develop in these obstructions, the pressure difference between the building and the subsurface allows the vapors to migrate upward into the buildings.  The vapors may accumulate in work spaces or living areas within buildings to levels that pose hazards affecting properties,, acute health effects or odors. In some cases, such as residences with low concentrations of these vapors, chronic, long-term exposure may also present a risk.

    Vapor intrusion first became an issue because of several high profile Superfund cleanups.  While many of the thousands of contaminated sites in the United States have been cleaned up, vapor intrusion issues may emerge when these sites undergo post-remediation inspections. The EPA and state environmental regulatory agencies are required to perform post-remediation inspections on a regular basis to determine whether a site, which had been cleaned up and was granted a “No Further Action” decision, remains within acceptable state.

    In many cases, vapor intrusion was not considered in the original risk assessment and remediation planning. Most states have dozens if not hundreds of sites that will be re-examined.  To add to the concern, there is debate among regulators, including environmental and safety professionals, as to what can be considered safe concentrations of volatile chemicals in breathing spaces.  Inconsistent interpretation of the chemical exposures and response actions creates an uncertainty in a property owner’s risk management strategy.

    A recent development in the enforcement of levels to which a party must cleanup the contaminants highlights the regulatory inconsistency across the country.  For example, in 2014, the EPA in Region 9 (California) recently set strict guidelines for trichloroethylene (TCE) levels in buildings caused by vapor intrusion. The guidelines cover sites that are listed on the National Priorities List (Superfund list) and call for a tiered cleanup and response.  Depending on the concentration of TCE in the building, the stricter requirements could potentially require evacuation of buildings if TCE levels are deemed too high.  Under prior guidance, installation of a vapor instruction remediation system may have been sufficient.   The impact on safety concerns, as well as the costs from loss of use of a building, could have significant effect on property owners and insurers alike.

    In addition to those sites that are monitored by regulators, there are a significant number of properties that may still have undiscovered vapor intrusion conditions. This is common in many commercial buildings where occupants or neighboring properties (past and present) used volatile chemicals as part of their operations.  A common example would be dry cleaners.  Most dry cleaners use tetrachloroethene (PCE).  The PCE and some of its by-products (trichloroethene, dichloroethylene, and vinyl chloride) can contaminate soils and groundwater and accumulate beneath a building foundation.  This accumulation can occur over time, and may not be discovered until years after the dry cleaning operations ceased.

    A recent example of this occurred in a commercial building in New York.  There, a dry cleaner’s antiquated equipment had numerous releases and caused contamination to soil at the building.  Over time, the state regulator determined that the contamination from these releases had spread beneath multiple properties, and was migrating toward several additional commercial and residential properties.  As a result, the regulator is performing environmental studies to determine the extent of the contaminant plume.  The ultimate cleanup cost may become the responsibility of the owner of the property that leased the space to the dry cleaner, but property owners affected by the contaminant plume may also incur costs to ensure the vapors are not impacting their properties.

     

  • The Future of Doing Business and the Impact of Product Life Cycle

    environmental Risk Managers, between the lines:  Environmental Risk Managers assists businesses to manage and transfer their environmental exposures so they are better able to compete in today’s business environment. What is “today’s business environment”?

    Below is one example of “today’s business environment”.  It involves life cycle analysis (cradle to grave) where manufacturers are not just responsible for manufacturing a product, but also responsible for the disposal of the product at the end of its useful life, all designed to better protect human health and the environment.

    The auto industry is another example for life cycle analysis where some state laws mandate the auto manufacturer be responsible for the removal and disposal of mercury switches from their automobiles prior to demolition. Do any of your clients have potential life cycle exposures? Proactive engagement while addressing potential environmental exposures typically leads to the most favorable outcomes for all parties involved.

    The life cycle analysis strategy has been growing for years and will only continue to do so as we transition from our current slash and trash economy to environmental economics with a emphasis on sustainability. Why is the transition to environmental economics taking place?  Because it’s better for human health and the environment. How are your clients managing the life cycle of their waste and products?

    Peggy McQuaid, of Albany, dumps prescriptions into a collection bin during a prescription drug drop-off day event at the Albany Senior Center in Albany on Oct. 29, 2011. (Dean Coppola/Bay Area News Group)

     

    Supreme Court: Big Pharma must pay for prescription drug disposal in Alameda County

    By Doug Oakley

    OAKLAND — A groundbreaking law that forces the pharmaceutical industry to pay for collection and disposal of unused drugs passed its final court test Tuesday, and the Alameda County officials who originated the concept predicted it will now spread across the country.

    Without comment, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider the industry’s challenge of Alameda County’s law, which is intended to keep drugs out of the bay, the groundwater basin and the hands of abusers. A federal appeals court had earlier upheld the ordinance.

    “This was the pharmaceutical industry really trying to put the genie back in the bottle,” said Art Shartsis, an outside attorney who defended a lawsuit filed by the pharmaceutical industry against Alameda County. “This is an innovative ordinance where a county required a particular industry to take responsibility of a post-consumer use that is dangerous to dispose of. I don’t think there was another program like this in the country.”

    Shartsis and Alameda County Supervisor Nate Miley, who authored the law, said similar programs are expected soon in Santa Clara, San Mateo and San Francisco counties and in King County in Washington state. The pharmaceutical industry estimated it will have to pay $1.2 million a year in Alameda County alone to follow the law. The county estimated the cost at about $330,000 a year.

    “But the cost is really insignificant,” Shartsis said. “It will cost one penny for every $10 in drugs they sell in the county. It’s about as minimal as you can get.”

    The plaintiffs in the case, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the Generic Pharmaceutical Association and the Biotechnology Industry Organization, argued that the law interfered with the free flow of goods guaranteed in the Constitution’s Interstate Commerce Clause.

    But they weren’t able to find a court to go along. “We won at every stage,” said Alameda County Counsel Donna Ziegler, who added that legal fees were over $500,000. “We’re ecstatic, and we are looking forward as additional jurisdictions follow the lead of Alameda County.”

    Ziegler said two plans already have been submitted by pharmaceutical industry groups to collect and destroy the drugs. Those plans are being reviewed by the county department of environmental health, which will oversee the program.

    The program run by the pharmaceutical industry in Alameda County will be rolled out over three years, and officials estimate there will be 110 sites for drug collection at police stations, pharmacies and hospitals, funded by the pharmaceutical industry. There are currently 30 drug take-back sites run by the county. For a list of the existing sites, go to http://.

    Miley said he wrote the law at the urging of a now defunct organization that focused on drug abuse. The law also is designed to prevent contamination of the environment when pills and elixirs are flushed down the drain or thrown into garbage cans whose contents end up in landfills. It was modeled on legislation governing the safe disposal of tires, batteries and other potentially harmful goods. It prohibits drug companies from charging fees to pass the costs to local consumers.

    “People hold on to drugs and they don’t know what to do with them,” Miley said. The responsibility to dispose of them should be on business, he said. “Taxpayers should not have to pay for this.”

    Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O’Malley said the need in the county is great. In September, her office participated in a drug take-back event and collected 799 pounds of pills in one day.

    “I have talked to mothers and fathers of children who have become addicted to prescription drugs,” O’Malley said, “and when they run out, they turn to street drugs, and many of those children have died.”

    The plaintiffs in the case issued a joint statement Tuesday that said the industry would “continue to actively work to educate consumers on the appropriate use of medicines, including providing information about safeguarding medicines in the home and promoting safe, secure and effective methods for disposal.”

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • Lumber Liquidators Troubles Deepen As A Result of Their Vendor Stream – Who Are You Doing Business With?

    297774-1425424110-wideenvironmental Strategist, between the lines: Financial business models rarely factor in “Who” a business is doing business with.  Vendors and client’s can create environmental liabilities that suck in unsuspecting businesses.  Lumber Liquidators, Wal-Mart & Home Depot to name a few have experienced multimillion dollar environmental losses from some of their vendors.

    What we know today is every business is impacted by environmental exposures and financial business models not factoring in environmental exposures may not be worth the paper they are written on.  As the chain of articles below points out, financial business models also do not factor in reputational risks associate with environmental liabilities.

    Risk Management Strategy:  environmental Strategist™ (eS) assist in developing and executing a business’s environmental Management Strategy (eMS).  The first question eS ask in developing an eMS is “Who are you doing business with?”

    For more on developing and executing a business’s environmental Management Strategy (eMS) go to www.estrategist.com.  Now available for CE online for insurance professionals through ABEN.

    Read More On This Issue – 

    Lumber Liquidators axing Chinese flooring products:      http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2015/05/07/lumber-liquidators-suspends-sales-of-chinese-made-flooring/70938868/

    Insurers Denying Coverage For Lumber Liquidators:  http://www.cnbc.com/id/102669337

    Lumber Liquidators CEO resigns ‘unexpectedly’:  http://usat.ly/1ShHvSR

    Lumber Liquidators Troubles Deepen:  http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/21/us-lumber-liquidate-ceo-idUSKBN0O62CG20150521

    Lumber Liquidators Has More Trouble:  http://www.4-traders.com/LUMBER-LIQUIDATORS-HOLDIN-66793/news/Lumber-Liquidators–has-more-troubles-20432527/

    Lumber Liquidators To Halt Sales Of Chinese Laminate:  http://www.cnbc.com/id/102656689

     

  • environmental Strategist™ Has Partnered With ABEN To Offer 4 Hours Of Online CE For Insurance Professionals

    environmental Strategist (eS) is pleased to announce we have partnered with ABEN so insurance professionals can earn 4 hours of CE and upon completing an optional online test can also earn their eS certification.  Certified eS will gain access to www.estrategist.com and all of the environmental resources designed to drive your sales while better protecting your E&O exposure.

    Professional eS assist business to manage and transfer their environmental exposures in order to better compete in today’s business environment.  The reason eS services are becoming part of “Best Practices” for insurance professionals is because every business is impacted by environmental exposures.

    Copy the following link to your search engine to learn more:  https://abentv.wordpress.com/

    Roughly 37 states work with ABEN for online CE.

    For eS online CE we have confirmation from the following states they will be offering eS to their members:  Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Utah.

    We are still waiting to hear from the following states if they will be offering eS online for CE for their members:  California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Metropolitan Washington AIIA, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina,  Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming.

    We will keep contacting the states we have not heard back from.  If you would like to become a certified eS and we have not heard back from your state, give your state IIABA a call and let them know you would like them to offer this valuable CE class.

    Please contact me with any questions.

    Thank you

    Chris Bunbury, eS
    Environmental Risk Managers, Inc.
    Email: chris@estrategist.com
    Phone: 231-218-1041
    Fax: 231-256-2123
    Mobile: 231-218-1041

  • FYI on Drinking Water

    environmental Strategist, between the lines:  I am not using the report below to promote a watchdog group, rather we all need to understand the pressure we put on water resources.  Access to clean drinking water has been a world issue for years and in the United States we are being educated about water conservation but not so much about protecting the purity of the resource.

    It really does not matter how much water we have if we can’t use it.  Las Vegas is a perfect example.  Las Vegas sits atop a huge aquifer but the water can’t be used because it is contaminated with nuclear waste from munitions testing.

    Report Finds “Probably Carcinogenic” Chemicals in All Municipal Water Samples Tested

    August 21, 2013

    By Dr. Mercola

    The Environmental Working Group (EWG) has once again released a report that should grab your attention. After analyzing water samples from 201 municipal water systems from 43 states, EWG found chemicals considered “probable human carcinogens” in every single water system they tested.

    The report “Water Treatment Contaminants: Toxic Trash in Drinking Water” was sparked by concerns about water contamination in the wake of Superstorm Sandy, which spilled tens of millions of gallons of sewage into waterways along the East Coast.

    But the results of their analysis clearly indicate a far more widespread and concerning problem that superstorms merely inflame.

    The problem is that chlorine and other water treatment chemicals, in addition to being somewhat toxic in and of themselves, react with ordinary organic particles in the water ( manure from livestock, dead animals, fallen leaves, etc.) to create hundreds of extremely toxic byproducts, which aren’t monitored or regulated at all.

    These toxic byproducts have been labeled “disinfection byproducts,” or “DBPs,” and there are 600 we know about and probably hundreds more that we don’t, says EWG’s senior scientist Renee Sharp.2

    Most people are not aware that DBPs are actually 1,000 times more toxic than chlorine. Just like with ionizing radiation and mercury, any exposure at all in concerning and potentially toxic; there is no safe level.

    The Byproducts of Chlorination May Be Deadly

    Chlorine is the only disinfectant that has been extensively studied, but now many water treatment plants are using another disinfectant called chloramine, the health effects of which are largely unknown. Chloramine is a combination of chlorine and ammonia.3 More than one in five Americans are drinking tap water treated with chloramine.

    Chloramine stays in the water system longer than chlorine and is difficult to remove—it can’t be removed by boiling, distilling, or by standing uncovered. Its vapors can accumulate in indoor air and concentrate in an enclosed area, such as your shower stall, bathroom, kitchen, or apartment.

    Chloramines combine with organic matter in water supplies to create iodoacids and nitrosamines, which are extremely toxic. According to David Sedlak of UC Berkeley:4

    “Nitrosamines are the compounds that people warned you about when they told you shouldn’t be eating those nitrite-cured hot dogs… They’re about a thousand times more carcinogenic than the disinfection byproducts that we’d been worried about with regular old chlorine.”

    There are three principal types of chlorination byproducts, known to produce dangerous health effects:

    • Trihalomethanes (THMs): Found to cause cancer in laboratory animals, and trigger the production of free radicals in your body; chloroform is an example of a trihalomethane; THMs are associated with bladder cancer, gestational and developmental problems
    • Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs): Lead to central nervous system depression and drowsiness, and can irritate your skin and mucous membranes
    • Haloacetic Acids (HAAs): May cause liver disease in test animals at very high levels, and is a class B2 probable human carcinogen associated with neurological problems, growth retardation, low birth weight, and sperm toxicity

    Why I Recommend Filtering Your Tub and Shower Water…

    Scientists now suspect trihalomethanes in your tap water may be responsible for thousands of cases of bladder cancer each year, based on mounting evidence from multiple studies. But the risk to pregnant women and their unborn babies is also very concerning. Trihalomethanes are associated with numerous developmental and reproductive abnormalities, including stillbirth, miscarriage, low birth weight, and neural tube defects. The neural tube refers to the anatomical structure that develops into your baby’s brain and spinal cord.

    Just the simple act of showering in treated water, in which you have absorption through both your skin and lungs, may pose a significant health risk to you—and to your unborn child, if you are pregnant. Numerous studies have shown that showering and bathing are important routes of exposure for trihalomethanes and may actually represent MORE of your total exposure than the water you drink.

    According to EWG:

    “The EPA standard for trihalomethanes is based on preventing bladder cancer, but the agency has noted that these chemicals may present reproductive and developmental risks as well. A spike that lasts three months exposes a pregnant woman and her fetus to excessive trihalomethane for an entire trimester, a critical window of development. Scientific research has shown that such intensive exposure can have serious consequences for the child.”

    Analysts have found that trihalomethane levels in public water systems vary throughout the year, depending on factors such as farming cycles. But the EPA regulates the chemicals based on an annual average, which means that spikes in the byproducts may go undetected.

    EPA-Regulated Chemicals are Just a Drop in the Bucket

    As concerning as trihalomethanes are, they are just the tip of the iceberg—there are hundreds of other chemicals finding their way into your water supply. The EPA regulates only nine pollutants generated by chlorine or chloramine treatment—four trihalomethanes and five haloacetic acids. These nine regulated chemicals represent less than two percent of the more than 600 unwanted chemicals created by the interaction of water treatment disinfectants and pollutants in source water.

    The legal limits for the nine regulated chemicals are not what either the agency or many independent scientists believe is truly safe. Rather, the regulations represent political compromises that take into account the costs and feasibility of treatment.

    When you add up the total chemicals contaminating public drinking water, the number is beyond staggering. According to William Marks, author of Water Voices from Around the World, there are more than 116,000 human-made chemicals now detected in public water systems!

    In much of the country, farming is a major source of organic pollution in drinking water and a contributor to water treatment contamination. However, with the exception of large confined animal feeding operations, farm businesses are exempt from the pollution control requirements of the federal Clean Water Act. Few states have the authority to compel farms to adopt practices that would reduce agricultural pollution reaching rivers, lakes and bays.

    Other Chemicals You Can’t See or Taste

    Besides DBPs, American drinking water has also been found to contain a host of toxic chemicals, many of which are hormonally active in humans. Some of the most common chemical contaminants include:

    • MTBE (Methyl-tert-butyl Ether): A chemical added to fuel to raise octane number; a potential human carcinogen at high doses
    • Atrazine: According to the documentary FLOW, this US herbicide, banned in the European Union, is the most common water contaminant in the US. Atrazine is an endocrine disruptor known to feminize animals, and is linked with numerous reproductive problems, breast and prostate cancer, and impaired immune function in humans
    • Pharmaceutical Drugs: A 2008 report found a multitude of drugs in the drinking water of at least 51 million Americans, including pain relievers, cancer drugs, antidepressants, oral contraceptives, blood pressure and cholesterol drugs
    • Glyphosate (Roundup): This toxic herbicide is carcinogenic in minute amounts and is linked to more than 20 adverse health effects, including cancer, birth defects and infertility; unfortunately, glyphosate is turning up in the bloodstreams of people all over the world
    • Hexavalent Chromium (Chromium-6): Otherwise known as the “Erin Brockovich chemical,” hexavalent chromium is classified as another “probable carcinogen;” EWG found it in the drinking water of 89 percent of the cities sampled

    Don’t Be Duped by Bottled Water!

    Consumers are frequently mislead into thinking bottled water is safer than tap water, but sometimes it’s even MORE contaminated, as bottled water is less regulated than tap water. Studies reveal that about 40 percent of bottled water is actually tap water, possibly with no additional filtering. When testing bottled water, EWG discovered 38 contaminants in 10 brands, including DBPs, nitrates, caffeine, arsenic, Tylenol, bacteria and industrial chemicals.

    Disposable plastic water bottles are massively polluting our planet. According to the Container Recycling Institute, in the US alone more than 67 million plastic water bottles are discarded each day, adding to an enormous plastic garbage patch swirling around in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Bottled water is a serious environmental hazard.

    What is the BEST Water You Can Drink?

    The finest sources of water in the world are gravity-fed mountain springs, accessed directly from where they emerge from the earth. This water is naturally filtered and structured by the earth itself, and even contains beneficial living organisms, like certain types of algae.

    If you’re up to the task, you can collect your own spring water to meet your drinking water needs. There is a Find a Spring website that helps you locate the spring nearest you. The website also allows you to add a spring that is not currently in the database. If you don’t live near a mountain, don’t despair, as just about any spring is better than all other available options.

    Typically, natural springs are monitored for contaminants by local municipalities and, best of all, most of these springs are FREE! You can easily store 10 five-gallon jugs in most cars, which can be purchased online. Glass is best, but it is heavy, so you want to use three-gallon glass jars instead. Just remember to wrap glass bottles with some blankets or towels so they don’t bang against each other in your car, and break.

    Recommendations for In-Home Water Filtration

    If collecting natural spring water is not an option, you can filter your water at home. The best solution is to install a whole housewater filtration system. This not only protects your body (inside and out), but also your appliances. I recommend systems that use at least 60 pounds of filter media and are capable of generating eight or more gallons per minute, which makes it possible to handle multiple water applications simultaneously (showers, laundry, and kitchen). This size serves up to a 3,200 square foot home. Of course, if your home is larger, you may need more than one house filtration system. I also recommend looking for a whole house water filter that has three separate stages of contaminant removal:

    • Stage one removes sediment
    • Stage two removes chlorine and heavy metals
    • Stage three removes hormones, drug residues, chemicals, pesticides, and herbicides with a heavy-duty carbon filter

    In terms of the carbon filter, choose granular carbon, not a solid block of carbon. Granular carbon allows for better water flow, better water pressure and improved filtration overall. Also look for NSF certification, which ensures your water filter is meeting national standards. NSF certification is not granted before a product can prove it removes everything it claims to remove. It’s also good to make sure all particles under 0.8 microns are being filtered out of the water. A lower number is actually better, but I recommend 0.8 microns because that covers most bacteria, viruses and VOCs.

    If you can’t afford a whole-house filtering system, then at least filter your shower water, since that’s going to be your most significant source of contamination, for the reasons already discussed.

    Final Thoughts

    Given the information in the EWG’s latest water report, chances are close to 100 percent that your tap water contains carcinogenic pollutants. In addition to the chemical disinfectants themselves, tap water contains disinfection byproducts that, in some cases, are 1,000 times as toxic as the contaminants they are designed to remove. These contaminants have been associated with bladder cancer, birth defects, miscarriage, and a number of other very serious health problems.

    Showering or bathing in contaminated tap water poses even more of a risk to your health than drinking it, so it isn’t enough to simply filter the water you drink. Optimally, you may opt to install in a whole home water filtration system. If you test your water, you’ll want to do it more than once, as DBPs can fluctuate throughout the year, depending on factors such as farming cycles.

  • Discussion – Cost vs Value of Environmental Insurance for Contractors

    In response to our article last week on Environmental Insurance as an Investment. we received tremendous feedback. Thank you everyone who joined in on the conversation. Here is one of the many responses/questions we received. We thought this was well worth sharing along with our response. Thanks for reading and please keep the questions and comments flowing!

     I believe you make excellent sales points. The client still needs to realize the actual cost of Environmental Insurance vs. the size of the jobs available that require it. I also agree that it’s a nice “value add” when bidding on jobs that do not require it, but it would be hard to measure how often that puts you over the top. How does the cost break out for Environmental Insurance?

    Environmental Risk Managers Response (by Parker Bunbury) –Great points and thank you for the feedback. Minimum premiums for CPL coverage with $1MM limits start at just $2,500 for both annual and project specific policies. Premiums are rated off of revenues and the type of work being done. The premium for a pollution liability insurance policy versus the policies face value costs the insured fractions of a cent on the dollar.

    A situation that I come across too frequently is contractors being reactive with their environmental coverage’s as opposed to proactive, resulting in increased costs for the contractor. Many times by going with an annual policy instead of project specific policies we are able to cut costs substantially for the contractor. Also, while only some of their jobs require coverage, the insured is faced with numerous exposures and potential environmental losses on a daily basis in all of their work (see www.estrategist.com or our ERA for Contractors for more information)

    As you eluded to, contractors are finding CPL coverage requirements in SOME of the contracts they win (This is a trend that is becoming standard practice and only increasing in it’s application nationwide). As a result, when a contractor wins a job requiring CPL coverage they tend to have their agent get them a “Project Specific Policy” for that job. Minimum premiums as I mentioned earlier are $2,500 for $1MM limits, whether the coverage is project specific or annual. Each job the contractor wins that requires coverage, they are getting another “Project Specific Policy” to meet contractual requirements for coverage. If the contractor took a proactive approach there is potential for the contractor to realize substantial savings in terms of premium.

    Here’s a simple example – let’s say a contractor doing $5MM in revenue annually wins 4 contracts annually that require CPL coverage. That’s 4 “Project Specific Policies” at $1m limits, $2,500 a piece if the contractor handles coverage re-actively which results in $10,000 in premium. Interestingly, if the contractor was proactive about their environmental coverage’s, and purchased an annual policy that would cover them for all of their work, they would be paying around $5,000 in premium. In this particular instance, a savings of over 50%. Obviously there are variables involved and each contractor is unique, but my point is when insureds are proactive about their environmental exposures and managing them, there is the opportunity for them to save money while gaining value. The value provided by having coverage in place for all of their work is an essential need for the majority of businesses in our country, as the average environmental loss would put most small businesses out of business. With 98% of U.S. businesses being small businesses (100 employees of less).

  • Join the conversation today!

    In an effort to educate businesses and risk management professionals on environmental exposures and management strategies. We have created educational, open dialogue forums on the social media platforms Facebook and Linkedin. We will be sharing our knowledge, relevant news, changes in the insurance market place, and general discussion topics surrounding environmentally related impacts on business and the economy.  We encourage you to join in on the conversation, ask questions, share your thoughts and ideas. Join the conversation today!

    Environmental Risk Management Strategies on Linkedin – click here

    Environmental Risk Management Strategies on Facebook – click here

    green-environment