From Green Right Now Reports

Star Market at Chestnut Hill in Newton, Mass., recently became the first grocery store in the nation to receive US Environmental Protection Agency’s GreenChill Partnership platinum store award. The advanced refrigeration technology in the new store, which is part of the Shaw’s line of supermarkets, significantly reduces its impact on climate change and the stratospheric ozone layer by cutting the use of refrigerants by 85 percent compared with the typical supermarket.

Gina McCarthy, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, called the store’s efforts “wicked cool.”

“This store shows that smart design and advanced technologies help us right now to better protect our climate, the ozone layer, and our health,” McCarthy said in a statement.

The GreenChill Advanced Refrigeration Partnership is an EPA cooperative alliance with the supermarket industry to promote advanced technologies, strategies, and practices that reduce refrigerant charges and emissions of ozone-depleting substances and greenhouse gases.

GreenChill partners emit about 50 percent less emissions than the industry average, and have pledged to continually lower them as part of the program. EPA estimates that if every supermarket in the nation joined GreenChill and reduced emissions to the current GreenChill average, the U.S. would prevent 22 million metric tons of carbon dioxide and 240 tons of ozone-depleting substances annually, and save $108 million in refrigerant costs each year. GreenChill has 46 partners, with more than 6,500 retail food stores in 47 states.

Under the program, GreenChill Partner stores agree to:

• Transition to non-ozone-depleting refrigerants;
• Reduce refrigerant charges;
• Reduce both ozone-depleting and greenhouse gas refrigerant emissions; and
• Promote supermarkets’ adoption of advanced refrigeration technologies

Earlier this year, the EPA honored a handful of supermarkets for reducing their use of greenhouse gas refrigerants that deplete the Earth’s ozone layer and contribute to climate change. Awardees included  Sprouts Farmers Market, Whole Foods, and Hill Phoenix.

Sprouts Farmers Market, which owns stores across California, Arizona, Colorado, and Texas, received a New Partner Award.

New partners pledge to go above and beyond regulatory requirements by measuring and tracking refrigerant emissions that affect climate change and the Earth’s ozone layer, and then setting reduction targets for these emissions. Partners also agree to use only ozone-friendly alternatives in all new and remodeled stores.

“We look forward to a productive and mutually beneficial partnership with Sprouts Farmers Market,” Keilly Witman, GreenChill Program Manager, said in a statement. “The public wants to do business with companies that share their environmental values. By joining GreenChill, Sprouts Farmers Market is proving to consumers that they care about the Earth’s ozone layer and climate system.”

Whole Foods Market’s newest store in the North Atlantic Region, located at Legacy Place in Dedham, Mass., was recognized for its environmentally friendly design, construction, and operations with the Green Building Initiative’s (GBI) Green Globes certification and the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) GreenChill certification.

For the Green Globes certification, the Dedham store was evaluated in six categories, including energy, water, resources, emissions, indoor environment and environmental management systems, and received a three out of four “Green Globes” rating. The EPA’s GreenChill certification program promotes advanced technologies, strategies, and practices that reduce refrigerant charges and emissions of ozone-depleting substances and greenhouse gases.

“With the combined power generated from our fuel cell and solar panels, the Dedham store is essentially able to generate almost 100 percent of its power needs on-site with clean energy resources,” Kathy Loftus, global leader of sustainable engineering, maintenance, and energy for Austin-based Whole Foods, said in a statement. “We are the first supermarket to use fuel cell technology in the state.”

By generating most of its power on-site with a fuel cell, Whole Foods’ Dedham store will prevent the release of more than 764 metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere annually, the equivalent of planting more than 175 acres of trees and removing over 90 cars from the road, according to the natural foods grocer. The peak power generated from the photovoltaic (PV) solar energy system is enough to meet the store’s entire lighting power needs.

To achieve a Green Globes rating, Whole Foods used Green Globes’ online and interactive program to monitor the environmentally friendly building upgrades. A GBI-authorized third-party building science expert was engaged to review the building documents, conduct an on-site inspection and assess an official Green Globes rating.

Squint and you can’t see them. Try a standard microscope. They’re still not there.

And yet, they’re everywhere. Nanoparticles are in hundreds, if not thousands, of consumer products, from sunscreen to child car seats to sports socks.

So the EPA has decided to take a closer look at these eensy particles, to investigate their potential to harm humans and the environment.

Nanos, which are about 1/100,000 of the width of a human hair and have been aggregating in consumer goods faster than E coli at a feed lot, have raised concerns among environmentalists, public health officials and others. These guardians of the environment want to know more about how nanos act in water, air and soil, and also whether they can invade and damage human tissue.

Nanoparticles are many times smaller than even a blood cell, and therefore can cross cellular barriers in the human body. Questions remain about whether and how much nanos can damage human tissue.

The study of nanos and their effects has often been done behind closed doors in the private labs of consumer companies. A European survey of companies making products using nanoparticles (done by the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work) found that only 8 percent had conducted testing to examine the potential effects on workers.

In the US, the EPA wants more information about using nanos safely in consumer products, and also about the positive prospects for using nanoparticles to clean up the environment.

Rice University, for instance, has been studying using nanoparticles to clean up oil spills by capturing oil particles in water droplets.

The EPA notes that some studies show sunscreens with nanoparticles “provide superior protection against UV radiation.”

Some environmentalists dispute that claim, saying that nanos in sunscreens are dangerous and may actually have the opposite of the desired effect, aging skin instead of protecting it by introducing free radicals. (See our story Don’t get burned, use sunscreens without nanoparticles, which contains a list of  cosmetic makers who have so far kept nanos out of their sunscreen.)

The EPA wants to sort out the good and the bad, identifying any hazards presented by nanos and promoting steps to minimize risks, according to a press release this week.

Researchers are investigating “widely used nanomaterials, such as carbon nanotubes” that are used in vehicles, sports equipment, electronics and titanium dioxide, the key ingredient in many sunscreens as well as skin cosmetics.

• See the EPA’s nanotechnology website for more information.

• The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health also maintains a nanoparticle info site, with archived articles and research about the potential occupational exposure to, and health effects of, nanos.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Here’s a little cautionary tale about how bigger is not always better — and about the inter-connectedness of our energy and food systems, specifically how coal-fired power plants affect your diet.

Say you were camping with friends and caught a really BIG fish. This monster would give you bragging rights for a year. Now say you caught a smaller fish, suitable for pan frying but not Kodak-worthy.

What do you do? If you’re Daniel Boone, you toss the little guy back. It’s a no brainer. But if you’re a post-industrial age sportsperson, you must consider this: That big fish fillet could be disproportionately loaded with mercury; keeping the little fishy could be safer.

According to recent sampling studies by our federal government, ALL of our freshwater fish are contaminated, to some extent, with mercury. And the way mercury works its way through the food chain is that it builds momentum, so that those higher on the food chain are more contaminated — a process called “biomagnification”. And some of those big fish contain a mercury that’s become more toxic, too, after the mercury has been acted on by bacteria found in wetlands and swamps and converted to the more dangerous methylmercury.

The science is complicated, but you don’t need a biology degree to get the gist of things, that our fish are coming to us in less than pristine condition.

Fishy Findings

The US Geological Survey study tested fish from 291 streams across the country and found that all tested positive for traces of mercury, demonstrating how widespread mercury pollution has become. But scientists also reported that only about one-quarter had mercury levels exceeding the EPA’s safe guidelines for people eating “average amounts of fish.”

Still. ALL of the fish tested in the US showed some levels of mercury contamination. (The levels of mercury ranged from .008 to 1.95 parts per million – or micrograms per gram of wet tissue.)

This left us to wonder: Are we supposed to be alarmed? What can we now safely eat? Must we forfeit fresh fish along with all those ocean varieties that are endangered?

The answers: Yes and no. Some fish. No, but sometimes yes – can be confusing.

The government’s FAQs on this topic only left us feeling more uneasy about our future meals and also more than a little helpless about the air pollution at the root of it all. They explain that mercury is a “potent neurotoxin” in fish, wildlife and humans, yet they note that fish are “important part of a healthy diet.” We did know that: Fish are high in protein and healthy oils.

So officials are advising us to continue to eat fish, but with caution. The public should:

• Make “informed decisions” based on EPA and FDA guidelines.
• Check our state advisoriesUSDA guidelines to find out which freshwater fish are most affected and where.
• Kids and women of child-bearing age need to take special care because mercury can be harmful to developing bodies, and especially minds. They should eat no more than two meals a week that contain fish that are “lower in mercury,” according to the

“We don’t want to scare people away from eating fish, because they’re a healthy source of protein, but they should pay attention to state fish consumption advisories and also the EPA and FDA guidance for consumption of commercial fish,” says Mark E. Brigham, a hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, a leader on the study and an expert in mercury in biological systems.

Isn’t that a lot to ask of consumers who are already busy reading food labels, trying to shop “the outside aisles” of the grocery store, searching for information on how livestock was fed and trying to find the hormone-free milk?

Pause…. “We want informed consumers,” says Brigham.

In case you think freshwater fish present a minor culinary concern, you should know that the federal government estimates about 34 million people fish for sport and food. No doubt many more fancy catfish at the neighborhood fish fry and patronize lakeside restaurants looking for walleye and perch.

To be fair, though, Brigham isn’t on the food side of this issue, but the fact-finding science side. He understands that his team’s discovery -  that every last fish tested had some traces of mercury – is not a comfort to the fish-eating public. But it was not surprising.

Mercury, he points out, “is a pervasive contaminant in the environment.” It is the second leading cause of “impaired” water systems – the first is pathogenic contamination, such as bacterial infections – and has been tracked for many years. Forty-eight of the 50 states issue advisories on mercury in fish.

In addition, “there’s always been a natural component to the mercury cycle. It does get emitted from volcanoes and is “degassed from the earth” and rained back down into waterways.
That’s the good news within the bad news.

A human-made problem

The really bad news, though, is that historical sampling of lake beds shows that mercury contamination from natural sources was slight compared with the rapid accumulation from post-industrial activities.

Knowingly and inadvertently, humans have spewed significant mercury into the earth’s biological systems, waterways and atmosphere as we’ve developed cement plants, mercury and gold mines, metal smelting and coal-burning power plants.

Some of that pollution has been cleaned up as we’ve realized that dumping industrial waste directly into streams and lakes, no matter how giant (think: Lake Erie) is not a good idea.

But the main contributor to the global “mercury cycle’” is coal power plants of which there are 491 in the US and hundreds more around the world, such as in China, which is building coal plants faster than anyone.

Coal-fired power plants account for 40 percent of all mercury emissions in the US, according to the EPA.

The top 50 most-polluting US coal-burning power plants emitted 20 tons of toxic mercury into the air in 2007, according to a study by the nonprofit Environmental Integrity Project.

All US coal plants collectively emit some 48 tons of mercury annually, according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, preliminarily released in July.

That mercury gets emitted as oxidized, elemental or particulate-bonded forms. The oxidized or particulate-bonded mercury falls to the earth relatively quickly, contaminating the local region and watersheds — but it can also be captured more easily. The elemental mercury, though, can ride in the atmosphere, joining mercury emissions from around the world, Brigham said, which explains why his study group found mercury in fish in areas distant from known sources of mercury.

Furthermore, certain natural conditions, present in wetland environments and forests, enhance a process that converts mercury into methylmercury, which is easily taken up by aquatic life. This leads to the seeming paradox of some fish in relatively undeveloped watersheds and pristine areas having some of the highest elevated levels of mercury (in the rural South and wild wetlands of the Pacific Northwest and Midwest); and complicates the matter of knowing what is safe to eat.

The best way to help save our freshwater fish, and their ocean cousins, from further injury, Brigham, among others, have concluded, would be to reduce those mercury emissions at their source.

(Though remember, some fish is safe to eat all the time, and other fish is safe to eat some of the time, like once a week, if it’s the right type…Check your advisories.)

Dialing back mercury emissions

The EPA first tried to reduce mercury emissions from coal plants with a 2005 regulation called the Clean Air Mercury Rule. But it was thrown out by the courts, which advised the agency to employ the Clean Air Act to set mercury emission guidelines.

The EPA is in the midst of trying to make this change, but a new rule must meet certain tests. The Clean Air Act requires, for instance, that standards for other pollutants in the same category, known as “Hazardous Air Pollutants” (lead, toxic gases and dioxin) be set simultaneously.

Once a rule is written and approved, coal-fired plants will be required to use the latest technological advances to cleanse mercury from their admissions. It can be done: Some coal plants in the US have already added scrubbing technology, required by more stringent state guidelines, proving that removing the mercury is possible.

Furthermore, according to the July GAO report technology to remove mercury is effective and affordable.

Coal plants with the technology already in place are removing 80 to 90 percent of the mercury in air emissions.

Coal’s CO2 emissions, blamed for rising carbon in the atmosphere, will not be affected by this new rule

Resources:

• GAO Testimony to the US Senate committees and subcommittees concerned with food and environmental health.
• EPA list of State Fish Advisories
• Effects of Mercury on People on the EPA

(Photos of: Fish in a Pan by ZKruger/dreamstime.com; brook trout by Eric Engbretson, US FWS; boy fishing by Ronald Laubenstein, US FWS.)

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

By Karina Rusk

SAN LEANDRO, CA (KGO) — This week it will be 200 days since President Barack Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, a massive federal program to create jobs by infusing cash into local communities. Some of that stimulus money is being used to clean up an environmental hazard in the Bay Area. >> Read the full story

Your kids may be working on their ABCs, but is their school working on its IPM?

That’s Integrated Pest Management, an increasingly requested – or required – method of fighting pests without using potentially harmful pesticides. (Or using minimal pesticides.)

For decades, schools liberally applied toxic pesticides on their grounds and in their classrooms to beat back bugs and rodents. Exterminators or the school janitor might have sprayed DDT, diazinon or chlordane. If things got bad enough, teachers would (and still could) take matters into their own hands with a can of Raid.

But study after study has made it painfully clear that children are especially sensitive to pesticide exposure. All of their touching, crawling and putting little fingers into mouths makes a bad situation worse. Neurotoxins in pesticides can attack immune systems, organs, brains and nervous systems. Experts point to pesticides’ links to cancer, birth defects or neurological problems.

Letting the bugs or rodents run rampant isn’t an option. Pests also threaten kids’ health.  German cockroach feces have been linked to asthma in children, as has pesticide residue.

So, what is IPM? Common sense, basically. It means taking practical, relatively simple steps to pest control before thinking about hauling out the heavy pesticides.

With an IPM program, there will be scrutiny of all parts of the school, indoors and out. Part of the plan involves looking for and sealing cracks, crevices or gaps where pests can enter or hide.

Those involved in the IPM plan will search for pests’ food sources, such as students’ or staff’s dirty dishes or utensils. Cleaning garbage cans and dumpsters on a regular basis is another element. Checking for sources of water is another.

Planting landscape elements that are pest-resistant and suggestions of care for grass and athletic fields is part of the program.

Only after exhausting all the “natural” steps does pesticide become an option. IPM schools are urges to use pesticides that have minimal impact on people. Limited,  targeted use – in areas where students or staff aren’t likely to put their hands —  is the goal. Biopesticides can stop roaches from reproducing without creating hazardous conditions. Bait traps, removing weeds and moving plants away from buildings can help. Boric acid, a relatively harmless compound, can be used in gel form to deter ants.

An added bonus: Integrated Pest Management is probably going to cost less than all that hazardous spraying.

There are more than 53 million kids and six million adults in more than 120,000 public and private schools today, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). If it’s such a no-brainer, why hasn’t every state and school district signed on with IPM plans?

A new cancer study from India suggests that fluoride is a contributing factor to osteosarcoma, or bone cancer – but just how much fluoride intake causes the uncommon disease is not clear.

Fluoride in Americans’ tap water has spurred controversy since its introduction in 1945. Anti-fluoride activists say the risks are too high to add “medication” to the water, while government officials cite scientific studies that prove fewer cavities and no serious risk.

In Europe, most countries refuse to treat their water with fluoride with the exception of the United Kingdom. According to the British Medical Journal, fluoridation was introduced in 1963, and the Department of Health reports that rates of dental decay have been reduced 70 percent. But experts remain divided over epidemiological research that has suggested that water fluoridation might be linked to osteoporosis, dental fluorosis, irritable bowel syndrome, and other health problems.

The latest cancer study indicates blood fluoride levels were significantly higher in patients with osteosarcoma than in control groups, according to research published in Biological Trace Element Research (April 2009).

Osteosarcoma occurs mostly in children and young adults. According to the study, status of fluoride levels in the serum of osteosarcoma is still not clear. Other reports have also indicated that there is a link between fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma.

“The more studies that we have which talk about osteosarcoma with fluoride, the more the scientific community will take notice and eventually blind politicians will do the same,” said Paul Beeber, president of the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation.

GOVERNMENT REACTION

So far U.S. government health officials don’t agree.

The American Dental Association issued a statement that community water fluoridation is a safe, effective public health measure for preventing tooth decay after a similar study appeared in 2006.

After more than 60 years of rigorous scientific study of water fluoridation, ADA officials said “the overwhelming weight of scientific evidences does not show an association with osteosarcoma.”

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention spokeswoman Janis Winogradsky said they don’t comment on outside studies. But she referred to a National Research Study done for the Environmental Protection Agency in 2006 in which researchers reviewed the literature on fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma. The report states that the literature does not clearly indicate that fluoride is carcinogenic in humans.

According to the American Cancer Society, osteosarcoma is a rare cancer, which means it can be hard to gather enough cases to do large studies. Smaller studies can usually detect large differences in cancer rates between two groups, but they may not be able to detect a smaller difference.

Nearly 70 percent of U.S. residents who get water from public water systems now have fluoridated water, according to the CDC. The rationale: Water fluoridation is a low-cost way to bring the benefits of fluoride to all residents.

How do cars pollute? In two main ways, through inefficient mileage (guzzling a gallon of gas every eight or 10 or 14 miles) and through tailpipe emissions.

There’s the pollution associated with manufacturing, also, but to keep it simple let’s stick with emissions and mileage. Obviously, both affect the air. Think of mileage as a measure of your car’s pollution volume over time – if a gallon of gas doesn’t take you very far, you have to burn a lot more gas — and emissions as the chemistry of that pollution; if the mix is particularly noxious, your car will be a bigger offender than one with better tailpipe controls.

So if you want to buy the cleanest car you can — in the price range you need — you’ll look at both factors. Fortunately, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has already done this work, assigning a  “greenhouse gas” score to most models. Find it at the EPA’s Green Vehicles website.

The EPA’s “greenhouse gas” score considers how much a vehicle contributes to global warming via its full lifecycle emissions of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (NO2), and hydroflurocarbons (HFCs). The rating is mainly a function of a car’s gas mileage, but the analysis also looks at the fuel a car uses (gasoline, natural gas, diesel, ethanol) to factor in emissions.

Cars are given a score between 1 and 10, with 10 being the highest (the Prius solos at this rating) and 5 being not so hot (the Lincoln Town Car) and 3 (the GMC Sierra 15 gasoline model) being about as low as it goes. (The Sierra 15 jumps to a 6 on ethanol though.)

At the same site, the EPA chart also breaks out a column that considers just regulated tailpipe emissions — which doesn’t capture all the greenhouse gases and considers some outputs that aren’t greenhouse gases — giving each model an “air pollution score” as well. A diesel, say, might not score as well on this scale as it would on the greenhouse gas scale.

Interested in seeing just the EPA’s gas mileage ratings? Look to fueleconomy.gov, courtesy of the Department of Energy.

The glass can be greener on the other side, if you recycle it.

Everyone knows that paper and plastic can be recycled. But sadly many people forget to recycle their glass. All glass containers or jars should be recycled.

Glass is 100% recyclable which means nothing will be wasted. When glass is recycled over and over again, there is no loss in quality and no waste or by-products. When glass manufacturers use recyclable materials to make new glass products, they are using less energy, cutting raw materials and CO2 emissions.

The glass manufacturing industry has a goal of using 50% recycled content for containers by 2013, according to Joseph Cattaneo, president of the Glass Packaging Institute in Alexandria, Va..  So, the industry needs your glass recycling; they can’t do it without you.

According to studies released by the EPA, glass recycling has been growing in popularity (and accessibility; not all cities collect it). In 2007, the EPA estimates 28.1 percent of glass was recycled, compared with 25.3 percent in 2006, and about 19 percent in 2003.

Once you recycle your glass, it can be on the shelves again in as little as 30 days. The glass is typically sorted through by color and for non-glass contaminants, then sent to a glass manufacturer. Then its back on to store shelves. Chances are the glass containers that you use at home are made up of some recycled glass according to Cattaneo.

For the do’s (rinse it out) and don’t’s (do not include the metal lid) of glass recycling see the GPI’s guide.

The glass industry has received a boost in popularity as an alternative to plastic containing Bisphenol A, or BPA, a plastic additive that’s a hormone disruptor linked to fertility and developmental health issues.

Glass is made up of only natural materials such as sand, soda ash, and limestone. There are no synthetic chemicals to be passed on to the consumer.  Glass is the only packaging material certified by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration as “generally regarded as safe”.

The key downside with glass is that it’s heavier to ship than plastic, an argument against glass packaging that’s been leveled by the plastics industry as it endeavors to keep a competitive edge in packaging.

As the popularity of glass manufacturing increases, so does the demand for your recycled glass. So, take the glass to the curb — safely inside your recycling bin.

(Photo credit: Glass Packaging Institute)

Copyright C 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Just days before President Obama pledged to restore science to its rightful place in public policy, the Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies released a report addressing environmental changes some political appointees have preferred to ignore: Sea levels are rising, and coastal communities, along with governments responsible for the species that depend on coastal environments, are going to have to take measures to deal with it.

“The primary causes of global sea-level rise are the expansion of ocean water due to warming and the melting of glaciers and ice sheets,” explains the press release accompanying the report (the full document can be found here), which further declares that, yes, human-induced factors are part of the cause.

This report focuses on the Mid-Atlantic region, where high populations not only mean the prospects for impact on cities is high — the density of human-built environments can also impede the natural expansion of wetlands, which would otherwise creep higher as sea levels rose. Many scientists have predicted at least a two-foot rise in sea level by 2100; if levels were to rise by a meter in that period, the report says, most wetlands in the region studied would not survive.

Accepting that these changes are underway, the paper’s authors focus on possible efforts to cope, which “include seawalls, bulkheads, and other shoreline armoring; elevating buildings and land surfaces (including beaches and wetlands); and allowing shorelines to change and moving structures out of harm’s way.”

Time is of the essence, according to a summary that says “preparing now can reduce the eventual environmental and economic impacts of sea level rise.”

This and many other federal studies on climate change can be found at the U.S. Climate Change Science Program.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Economic turmoil has convinced many Americans to put off large discretionary purchases, but those intent on upgrading the home theater this holiday season (or those finally replacing ancient TVs before next year’s digital switchover) should consider changes made in the marketplace this weekend.

On November 1, new standards by the Environmental Protection Agency’s Energy Star program took effect. “Turning the channel on energy guzzling sets,” to use the colorful imagery of EPA’s Stephen L. Johnson, the new specs apply to models that are up to 30 percent more energy efficient than conventional TVs.

According to the agency, if all the nation’s TVs met the new standards, America would realize about $1 billion in energy savings — the greenhouse gas equivalent of taking a million cars off the road.

Some manufacturers complain that the new standards don’t account for the wide variations in current TV technology, essentially throwing new big-screen plasmas and LCDs into the same arena as Jurassic-vintage picture-tube displays. But it’s hard to argue that they aren’t at least a step in the right direction: The previous guidelines didn’t even measure the electricity a TV used when it was in use; they focused exclusively on power drained during “standby” mode, as this story explains.

The story goes on to show how even the same model can use far more or less energy depending on its picture settings, and to reference an extensive chart comparing the power consumption of over 100 high-def TVs. Keep that guide handy as a supplement to the EPA’s own buying guide, which lists about 250 Energy Star-qualified models from over a dozen brands.

Copyright © 2008 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

When David Kilbourne picked up his 8-year-old son from Lake Travis Elementary in spring 2007, he noticed smoke billowing from idling buses parked in queue behind the school. The exhaust fumes his son was breathing each day as he waited to be picked up, he says, were contributing to his son’s migraine headaches. “My son is the quarterback for his youth football team,” said Kilbourne. “Because there’s only one quarterback, when he gets these headaches, it affects the team.”

Kilbourne remembers noticing the bus exhaust during the school’s bus safety week. “They were talking about how buses are safe when it comes to traffic accidents,” he said, “but there’s more to a bus’s safety than traffic accidents, like having air that’s safe to breathe.”

The coincidence spurred Kilbourne to take action. Not only did he write several letters to his local newspaper, but Kilbourne approached the head of his district’s transportation department to discuss air quality in and around its buses. After he spoke to Rick Walterscheid, the transportation director at the Lake Travis Independent School District, the school system put a no-idling policy into effect.

Walterscheid didn’t stop there, either. Later that year the 79th Texas Legislature adopted House Bill 3469, which established and authorized the formation of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to administer a statewide clean school bus program.

With the goal of reducing diesel exhaust emissions, TCEQ offers grants to all Texas public school districts and charter schools that operate at least one diesel-fueled school bus. The TCEQ’s grants offset the cost of school district’s sometimes daunting costs to retrofit school buses, as well as other projects that reduce emissions of diesel exhaust.

Lake Travis ISD, located in a Hill Country suburb of Austin, Texas, was among more than 50 Texas school districts that were eligible for TCEQ’s funding in 2007. That year, Walterscheid’s district applied for and received more than $80,000 in grant money to retrofit a portion of its fleet of buses.

Walterscheid, who manages a fleet of 76 buses that shuttle about 2,500 students each day, said the district’s students are all breathing a little easier these days with help from the TCEQ and its grant program.

“Looking back, the process wasn’t that difficult,” he says, explaining that the district put diesel particulate filters on nine of its buses last year, resulting in “a 90% improvement (in emissions).”

Lake Travis ISD is certainly among the trend setters; one of several districts nationwide that have made firm commitments to clean the air its students and others breathe. This growing national trend includes school districts adopting no-idling policies and those moving to alternative fuels as well.

Nationally, several large city school systems have retrofitted many of their school buses to reduce harmful emissions, according to the Environmental Defense Fund, which is leading a campaign to clean up school buses nationwide.

The non-profit environmental group reports that the entire fleet of New York City’s 4,070 large buses is scheduled to be retrofitted by 2008; Atlanta has installed passive filters on 353 long school buses and Boston has retrofitted 328 school buses.

Environmental Defense points to the NYC plan and Texas’ program, which is better funded than many, as model projects. Parents and educators can get up to speed on the basic steps to take at ED’s Four Steps to Cleaner Buses.

FIXING THE PROBLEM

In recent years, several environmental groups have documented that exhaust from diesel-fueled buses make the safe ride to school a truly unhealthy one. Diesel exhaust comprises a cauldron of cancer-causing agents: particulate matter (or soot), smog-forming nitrogen oxides, and a complex mixture of gases. Studies have found that those gases don’t stay outside the bus, either, but permeate the interior.

This “indoor pollution” problem has wide implications: An estimated 24 million children get to class by riding school buses in the United States.

In Texas, with some 1.3 million children hopping on its more than 36,000 buses each school day, the pollution problem for the children is compounded by their sometimes lengthy commutes.

Many school buses in Texas haven’t been making the grade. More than a third of the school buses in the state are more than 10 years old. Not only do these older buses emit more pollution than newer models but they expose children unnecessarily to diesel exhaust, which has been found to make breathing even harder for children with asthma and other respiratory problems.

“Mr. Kilbourne raised my awareness of how we can affect a student,” said Walterscheid. “Talking to him brought to the forefront the issues that we needed to address and made the decision to apply for retrofit funding with the TCEQ that much easier.” <!–nextpage–>

“The school buses we run are the only mode of transportation for many students whose parents both work,” says Walterschied. “So, some parents don’t have a choice of whether or not to put their children on the bus. We are here to serve and we have the duty to improve the situation that students have to be in.”

A handful of organizations fund the effort of retrofitting school buses to make the drive to and from school healthier for children. The TCEQ is the primary organization that heads up bus retrofitting in Texas. The Texas Parent Teachers Association, through its Supplemental Environment Program, helps fund retrofitting, as well, but at a lesser extent.

The Texas Emissions Reduction Plan (TERP) has set aside money for retrofitting expenses, but the organization is primarily focused on funding replacement of school buses, which can cost up to $85,000 apiece.

“It’s ideal for school districts to ask for and get as many new buses as they can,” says Hazel Barbour, program manager for Clean School Bus Program of Central Texas, which is run through a partnership with Clean Air Force and the Capital Area Council of Governments. Barbour’s program assists several Texas counties, including Travis, Williamson, Hayes, Caldwell, Bastrop, and others. As part of her role with the Clean School Bus Program she assists districts in filling out the necessary forms to apply for retrofitting grants and getting the necessary bids for the work to be done.

Retrofitting work is bid on and performed by contractors approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board, which together ensure that retrofitters meet certain standards.

Four retrofitting options have been approved for funding through the TCEQ. These include:

• Diesel particulate filters, which can cost from $6,500 to $8,250, are ceramic devices that collect particulate matter in the exhaust system and require a high temperature to break down the matter in the exhaust system. These filters must be used in conjunction with ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel. The combination of particulate filters and ULSD fuel can reduce emissions of particulates, organic compounds, and carbon monoxide in the exhaust gases by 60 to 90 percent. They work best on engines built after 1994.

• Closed crankcase filtration systems, allow a diesel engine’s crankcase to be closed and use an air filter to trap blow-by aerosols consisting mainly of oil droplets with some carbon and traces of “wear debris” and all particles that are smaller than 10 micrometers in diameter. These particles are considered “inhalable”, because they are small enough to pass into the lower airways. Blow-by gas emissions can be as much as 25 percent of the total emissions from a diesel engine. The filtration efficiency of crankcase filters averages between 80 and 97 percent, but the crankcase filter must be changed at every lube oil change or every 500 hours of operation. Crankcase filters are inexpensive and are best used in conjunction with some type of filtration system in the exhaust stream. These systems may be more effective at reducing children’s in-cabin exposures to pollutants than control systems fitted into the exhaust systems alone. The devices are reimbursed at $800 per bus.

• Diesel oxidation catalysts, which cost from $600 to $1,500, chemically break down pollutants in the exhaust stream to reduce particulate matter in emissions. Diesel oxidation catalysts can reduce emissions of particulates by 20 to 40 percent, hydrocarbons by 50 percent and carbon monoxide by 40 percent and can be used with regular diesel fuel.

• Partial flow-through filters comprise a fitting on tailpipes that uses a two-stage filter to accumulate and reduce particulate matter emissions by 70 to 75 percent. This type of retrofit can also reduce total vehicle emissions by up to 80 percent when paired with a closed crankcase filtration system. It is designed to be maintenance-free and can be used with ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel. This type of retrofit costs $5,000 to $6,000.

Costs for retrofitting can be daunting for school districts without the help. However, emissions from school buses drop by as much as 90% when engines and exhaust systems are retrofitted. <!–nextpage–>

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency maintains a list of vendors who sell retrofit devices. Companies the likes of Caterpillar, Clean Diesel Technologies, and PUREM North America supply school districts with diesel particulate filters, for example.

In Texas, about $8 million worth of grant money is available for the 2008 application period, according to TCEQ officials. Districts have through November 14 to apply and until March 31, 2009 to complete retrofits. School districts can make as many grant requests as they like up to $250,000 per grant request. For more info see the TCEQ FAQ.

Walterscheid’s Lake Travis Independent School District applied for $99,700 in ‘08 grant money to retrofit 20 of its buses with partial flow-through filters. When this next retrofitting is completed, Lake Travis will boast 29 retrofitted buses district-wide that will exceed state and federal requirements for environmental standards.

“When this grant funding was announced, there was hesitance with the technology,” said Walterscheid. “We had concerns that the engine wouldn’t get hot enough to burn diesel particulates, so we’ve put those (retrofitted) buses on our longer routes.”

BREATHING DIESEL FUMES

A study conducted jointly by the Environmental Defense, The Clean Air Task Force, and The Conroe Independent School District at The Woodlands, north of Houston, in Texas shines some light on the real culprits of the diesel exhaust systems.

Published in March 2007, Measuring Pollution Levels Inside Texas School Buses points to the bus’s tailpipe and open crankcase as the primary sources of air pollution. (See also this page on the study’s findings.)

The bus’s crankcase is located a few feet from the bus’s front door and vents to the air. When the door opens and closes, exhaust re-enters the vehicle during the course of a daily route.

“Several studies show that air pollution levels inside the school buses can be up to five times greater than levels outside the bus,” the report states.

Children, particularly those with asthma or respiratory problems, are at a greater risk because they breathe more rapidly than adults, they inhale more pollutants per pound of body weight, and their bodies aren’t equipped with a strong defense system. Even if for short periods of time, exposure to diesel exhaust pollution is linked to dizziness, coughing, chronic bronchitis, and increased incidence and severity of asthma attacks.

According to The Burden of Asthma in Texas report, published in May 2007 by the Texas Department of State Health Services and the Asthma Coalition of Texas, “asthma remains one of the most prevalent chronic diseases and growing health concerns in Texas and is one of the most frequent reasons for hospital admissions among children.”

Reports estimate that some 390,000 to as many as 600,000 children in Texas have asthma. (For more info, see this Burden of Asthma in Texas report.)

Multiply that across the nation, and it is easy to understand why there’s a growing trend across the U.S. to retrofit buses to clean up emissions and also to use alternative, cleaner-burning forms of fuel.

Many U.S. schools have transitioned to other forms of less-polluting fuels for their bus fleets. Compressed natural gas (CNG) is used widely in Europe and South America and in the US, this fossil fuel substitute for gasoline and diesel is becoming more widely available, particularly in California, where it’s used to power city and county bus fleets, and now school buses.

Biodiesel, mostly a plant-based fuel, also is growing in popularity. According to the July-August 2007 issue of The Futurist magazine, biodiesel should experience explosive growth within the next 10 years because it can be used in diesel engines without any modifications to the engine: “More than 80% of all commercial trucks and city buses run on diesel gas. This suggests a huge potential market for biodiesel in the U.S.”

The Clark County school district in Nevada has been making inroads into clean-burning buses for several years. The fifth-largest school district in the nation., it serves the cities of Las Vegas, Henderson, North Las Vegas, Boulder City, and Mesquite, and is believed to have the largest fleet of school buses fueled by biodiesel.

The district fuels its buses with recycled cooking oil, sourced from area restaurants. And since Las Vegas is a popular tourist town that never sleeps, the area generates six gallons of oil per resident each year – twice the national average. This clean fleet of school buses saves the environment from untold carbon emissions, according to the Las Vegas Regional Clean Cities Coalition, leaving only a whiff of fumes whose worst offense would be to cause hunger pangs.

Yes, the buses in Clark County smell like french fries.

(Clark County Buses, above. Photo Credit: Catherine Colbert.)

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media