DOT Revises Hazardous Material Shipping Rules to Harmonize with International Standards

January 08, 2007

These revisions will harmonize the Hazardous Materials Regulations with certain recent changes to the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code, the International Civil Aviation Organization's Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air, and the United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods.


Impact of Europe's e-Waste Rules Felt Worldwide

Recently, the European Union adopted some of the world’s strictest policies on e-waste and potentially hazardous chemicals. Economic and environmental effects of the new regulations will be felt far beyond Europe, says Stacy D. VanDeveer, a visiting fellow at the Watson Institute. 

In particular, three recent E.U. environmental policies are gradually being implemented across the 27 European Union member nations. Two e-waste directives, adopted in 2003, require manufacturers to dispose of consumers’ used electronic equipment free of charge, and prohibit the export of hazardous waste to developing countries for disposal. This week a new regulation, titled REACH (registration, evaluation, and authorization of chemicals) was adopted, requiring registration and selective evaluation of more than 30,000 existing chemical substances, as well as new ones.

The rules affect products including household appliances, toys, computers, and many others. “The e-waste problem has grown dramatically,” said VanDeveer, “as hundreds of millions of cell phones, TVs, computers, and other electronic products containing a host of hazardous substances are consumed and discarded in the United States and around the globe.”

The European Union policies are controversial. On the one hand, the rules address growing concern about the ecological and human health risks posed by discarded chemicals and electrical and electronic products. But critics in U.S. government and industry point to the potential for billions of dollars of costs and jobs lost.

VanDeveer and Selin argue that most firms operate in multiple markets and prefer to produce their products to as few different standards as possible. They often follow the highest regulatory standard, rather than trying to cope with different manufacturing processes for different markets. As a result, if a U.S. company, such as Hewlett-Packard or Dell, needs to redesign its laptops or substitute chemicals used in production to meet E.U. standards, they are likely to make the same changes in laptops made and bought outside the European Union.

The size of the European market (more than 485 million citizens) will push manufacturers in the United States and Asia to meet European standards and will increase the availability of “green” products globally, contend the authors. Additionally, the new toxic risk information generated by REACH may allow environmental advocates in the United States and elsewhere to focus their efforts with specific, supportable data.

In the 1970s and ’80s, the United States effectively set many global product standards for consumer and environmental protection. Today, Europe is playing this role, while U.S. government and industry oppose the resulting standards in Europe and in international arenas. Critics of the European Union’s policies project costs in the billions of dollars, while defenders argue that any increased costs incurred by manufacturers have previously been borne by consumers, the environment, and waste contractors handling thousands of toxic substances.

In this complicated arena, there is even some discrepancy between the European Union’s own economic policies and environmental ones, the article says. VanDeveer and Selin see Europe facing “the critical challenge of formulating and implementing a coherent strategy for promoting economic growth that is socially and environmentally sustainable.” As it does, the authors conclude, the rest of the world should take note.

Changes to Water Quality Management Plan Proposed in Arkansas

The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) proposes to revise the state Water Quality Management Plan (208 Plan) by adding six new wastewater dischargers to the plan, revising the design flow for five facilities currently listed in the plan, and changing the design flow and effluent limits for four current wastewater dischargers. The ADEQ will accept written public comments on the proposals until February 5, 2007.

If no comments justifying a public hearing on the proposals are received during the comment period, the proposed revisions will be added to the Arkansas 208 Plan after final approval by the ADEQ Director and Region 6 of the EPA. If significant comments are received on any proposed change, that particular proposal will be withdrawn from consideration and either revised and resubmitted for written public comments, or a public hearing on the proposal may be scheduled.

The 208 Plan, developed by the ADEQ under provisions of Section 208 of the federal Clean Water Act, is a comprehensive program to work toward achieving federal water goals in Arkansas. The initial 208 Pan, adopted in 1979, provides for annual updates, but can be revised more often if necessary.

Proposed additions to the 208 Plan, their locations and streams which receive their wastewater discharges, include: City of Tinsman, Calhoun County, Watson Creek; Boy Scouts of America, Gus Blass Scout Reservation, Faulkner County, Cove Creek; Star Creek and Star Lake Subdivision, Divisions of ECCI, Faulkner County, Gold Creek; K&S Development Co., d.b.a., Lakeside Gardens Condominiums, Garland County, Lake Hamilton; MWM Development, LLC-Deer Creek Development, Grant County, Kelly Branch; and Hillside Bayou, LLC, Pulaski County, Bayou Meto.

Facilities with proposed new design flows and effluent limits, their locations and receiving streams, include: Village Wastewater Company, Inc., north plant, Benton County, Little Sugar Creek; City of Marion, Crittenden County, Fifteen Mile Bayou; Boggy Bayou Sewer Improvement District, Jefferson County, Boggy Bayou; City of Cabot, Lonoke County, unnamed tributary of Bayou Two Prairie; and City of Mansfield, Sebastian County, Coop Creek.

Facilities with proposed new design flows, their locations and receiving streams, include: City of Rondo, Lee County, unnamed tributary of Big Cypress Creek; City of Huntsville, Madison County, Town Branch; Town of Higginson, White County, Gum Springs Creek; and Reunion Subdivision, Saline County, unnamed tributary of Saline River.

Detailed copies and summaries of the proposals are available for public inspection at the ADEQ’s Building D, 8101 Interstate 30, Little Rock. Summaries and related information on the proposals are available for public inspection at ADEQ information depositories located in public libraries in Arkadelphia Batesville, Blytheville, Camden, Clinton, Crossett, El Dorado, Fayetteville, Forrest City, Fort Smith, Harrison, Helena, Hope, Hot Springs, Jonesboro, Little Rock, Magnolia, Mena, Monticello, Mountain Home, Pocahontas, Russellville, Searcy, Stuttgart, Texarkana, and West Memphis; in campus libraries at the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff and the University of Central Arkansas at Conway; and in the Arkansas State Library located on the State Capitol grounds at Little Rock.

Landfill, Combustion Facility Sweep Finds Excessive Cardboard Disposal in Massachusetts

According to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP), a number of well-known Massachusetts businesses and institutions continue to throw away large volumes of easy-to-recycle cardboard in spite of a state ban on its disposal, savings on disposal costs, and its value as a commodity. For the first time, the agency has taken enforcement actions against waste ban violators.

"Continued disposal of recyclables is a needless waste of money, raw material, and in-state disposal capacity," said MassDEP Acting Commissioner Arleen O'Donnell. "Diverting material from trash dumpsters to recycling bins saves everyone money. Recycling creates feedstock for companies that manufacture products with recycled content and employ thousands of people across the Commonwealth."

MassDEP estimates that over 1.5 million tons of paper products are still being disposed in landfills and incinerators across the state every year at an average cost of $70 per ton–up to $105 million in recycling savings for business and communities.

As part of a statewide campaign to cut down on continued disposal of cardboard and other easy-to-recycle materials, MassDEP sent inspectors to a number of solid waste facilities during the fall to monitor compliance with a state regulation that prohibits throwing those materials away.

One of every five truckloads of solid waste that inspectors observed were found to be in violation of state bans on disposal of large amounts of recyclables. One-third of the violations involved excessive amounts of cardboard–up to 40% of the material being thrown away, in some cases.

MassDEP cited 12 companies and organizations for illegal cardboard disposal from nine locations:

  • Waste hauling companies cited were: Allied Disposal of Quincy, BFI Waste Systems of Revere and Yarmouth, Frade's Disposal of New Bedford, and Waste Management of South Hadley and Stoughton; and,
  • Nine facilities that generated the material: American Red Cross of Dedham, Building 19 of Lynn, Ethan Allen Furniture of Bellingham, Friendly Fruit of New Bedford, Home Depot stores in Hyannis and Wareham, Lindenmeyr Munroe of Franklin, Westfield State College of Westfield, and Wright Line of Worcester.


The violators were continuing to throw cardboard away in spite of MassDEP efforts to educate waste haulers and generators about the disposal bans last spring, and ongoing opportunities for businesses and municipalities to become better acquainted with waste ban requirements.

Each violator was issued a notice of noncompliance with the waste ban regulation and required to draw up a plan to stop the disposal of banned materials and submit the plan to MassDEP for approval.

Resolve to Reduce Your Energy Use

Many people are making resolutions for the new year. Why not make one to cut your energy use in 2007? Reducing your energy use helps keep the environment clean, limits the emission of pollutants associated with climate change, and can save you money, too.

Look for energy efficiency ideas: Home energy audits are a low-cost way to find opportunities to reduce energy use. Call the local utility that supplies heating to your home to schedule an audit. Auditors often recommend simple changes, such as replacing some traditional light bulbs with more efficient compact fluorescent bulbs. You can also check out the Energy Info Center at the Minnesota Department of Commerce for other energy saving ideas. 

Look for the Energy Star label: When buying electronics and appliances, look for ones that are Energy Star-labeled. They'll typically save you about 25 to 50% in energy costs. 

Buy Green Power: Green power is electricity generated from renewable, high-efficiency, or low-pollution energy sources such as wind or solar. Your purchase of green power will replace electricity that would otherwise come primarily from burning coal–one of the dirtiest fuels for producing electricity. Contact your electricity provider (information should be on your electric bill) and ask to sign up for their green power program. The amount you choose to purchase will be added to your future bills.

Take the Minnesota Energy Challenge: The Minnesota Energy Challenge helps you calculate your energy use and carbon emissions. 

 The mission of the MPCA is to work with Minnesotans to protect, conserve and improve the environment and enhance quality of life.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources Certifies First Missouri Electronics Demanufacturer

The Missouri Department of Natural Resources has certified Computer Recycling Center for hazardous waste resource recovery. Computer Recycling Center is the first certified electronics demanufacturer in Missouri.

Computer Recycling Center is located at 1434 N. National Ave. in Springfield and demanufactures more than 3.25 tons of electronic scrap a month; including monitors, televisions, computers, mice, keyboards, printers, scanners, speakers, cell phones, and various other e-scrap items. Computer Recycling Center currently recycles about 97% of its electronic scrap and is aiming for 100% in the near future.

Demanufacturing electronics is not considered a hazardous waste management activity, nor does it require Resource Recovery Certification. However, when cathode ray tubes (CRTs) are broken in order to recover scrap metal, it does require the certification. The Computer Recycling Center has voluntarily requested the certification early. The center has plans to use a crusher to break the CRTs before sending them for recycling. By getting the certification now, Computer Recycling Center can simply request that the department modify its certification to include the crusher once it is installed, but before it is used.

CRTs are found in color computer monitors and televisions. If handled incorrectly, CRT recycling can produce hazardous wastes such as waste leaded glass. When handled correctly, CRTs provide leaded glass, plastic, metal, circuit boards, and other materials for recycling. Safely recycling outdated electronics can promote the safe management of hazardous components and supports the recovery and reuse of valuable materials.

City of Newport, Oregon Fined $61,533 for Long-Term Wastewater Discharge Violations into Ocean Tributary

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has fined the city of Newport $61,533 for repeated illegal discharges of wastewater containing excessive amounts of the toxic chemical chlorine into Anderson Creek, which is a tributary of Big Creek and the Pacific Ocean.

The discharges, which occurred on 108 separate days between December 22, 2005 and September 12, 2006, were of wastewater generated by washing out filters from the city’s drinking water treatment plant. Discharges continued after DEQ warned the city about the illegal discharges in a February 27, 2006 Pre-Enforcement Notice. The city may appeal within 20 days after it receives the penalty.

In assessing the penalty amount, DEQ officials were particularly concerned by the city’s failure to take action to either prevent the discharges or promptly work to reduce or eliminate them once they began. The chemical chlorine, which is used to kill bacteria in drinking water, is highly toxic to fish and other aquatic life. A DEQ survey of aquatic insects in Anderson Creek, conducted in August 2006, found insect numbers and diversity were two thirds lower downstream of the city’s filter backwash discharge point than insect numbers and diversity immediately upstream of the discharge point. The chlorine level in the wastewater was as high as 0.5 milligrams per liter (mg/L), which is above the state water quality standard of 0.019 mg/L for chlorine.

The drinking water treatment plant generates wastewater when plant operators backwash filters used for removing suspended solids in raw water. The plant uses chlorination prior to filtering to kill bacteria. Normally, the backwash wastewater is sent to a settling pond to allow solids to settle out before the wastewater is recycled at the plant. By December 2005, however, the city had allowed solids to accumulate in the pond to the point where adequate settling couldn’t take place and the filter backwash wastewater could not be recycled to the plant. Instead, the city allowed the wastewater to discharge into Anderson Creek. Discharging wastewater to state waters without a permit is a violation of state law.

The city could have prevented any discharge by dredging the settling pond before allowing solids to accumulate to the point where the settling pond was rendered ineffective, according to DEQ. The city also failed to promptly stop the illegal discharges by dredging the pond even after its own sampling found high concentrations of chlorine in its wastewater. In a Dec. 22, 2005 letter, the city first notified DEQ of the discharges and said it would “correct this problem as soon as we can.” DEQ issued the city a pre-enforcement notice in February 2006, advising Newport that the discharges were violating state law. Despite the notice and the city’s own assurance it would promptly correct the problem, the city did not apply for a special permit to conduct the pond dredging until late July, and did not award a dredging contract until mid-August 2006. The harmful discharges ceased Sept. 25, 2006, when dredging was completed.

Record Penalty Imposed for UST Violations

On November 9, 2006, an administrative law judge (ALJ) imposed a $3.1 million penalty on a gas station operator for failing to comply with underground storage tank (UST) regulations. The penalty is the largest ever imposed by an ALJ for a federal environmental law violation.

Euclid of Virginia operated 23 gas stations in Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. Inspections of these facilities were conducted by EPA Region 3 and state and D.C. officials. In 2002, EPA filed an administrative complaint alleging 70 violations of state and federal UST regulations.

The ALJ, Carl C. Charneski, determined that Euclid had failed to comply with UST regulations in respect of 72 tanks at the 23 gas stations. These included regulations governing tank and line release detection; corrosion, overfill, and spill protection; and financial assurance. The size of the penalty reflects the number of facilities and USTs involved, the extended period of the violations, and what the ALJ referred to as Euclid's "high degree of negligence" in failing to bring the facilities into compliance despite numerous warnings. Euclid has appealed the penalty to the Environmental Appeals Board.


EPA May Allow Hexavalent Chromium Wood Preservatives

On January 19, EPA will decide whether or not to allow unrestricted use of the potent human carcinogen chromium-6 in a wood preservative known as ACC (acid copper chromate), for lumber sold at the nation's hardware and home improvement stores.

According to the Environmental Working Group, the decision comes after intense lobbying by the chromium industry, and appears timed to avoid the results of a major cancer study on the chemical expected later this year from the National Toxicology Program (NTP). The NTP study will provide critical information on cancer risks to children who play on play sets, decks, and other structures made with ACC-treated wood.

Four years ago EPA banned nearly all uses of the widely used arsenic and chromium-based wood preservative chromated copper arsenate (CCA), a chemical similar to ACC. In 2006, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) increased health protections for chromium-6 by a factor of ten because of the chemical's potency as a carcinogen.

"Everything known about chromium-6 tells us that it is a highly toxic cancer causing compound", said Richard Wiles, executive eirector of the Environmental Working Group. "But EPA appears ready to ignore the science and rush this carcinogen to market before the cancer risks to children are fully understood. Putting this carcinogen back into the nation's lumber supply would be a giant step backwards in public health protection," Wiles added.

Environmental Working Group sent a letter to Mr. Jim Jones [], director of the EPA's pesticide program, urging the agency not to register ACC until the cancer risks to children who would be exposed to chromium-6 from treated wood, are fully understood.

Paper That Erases Itself Could Minimize Waste

Xerox researchers have developed an experimental printing technology that could someday replace printed pages that are used for just a brief time before being discarded. The project is a collaborative development between the Xerox Research Centre of Canada and PARC (Palo Alto Research Center Inc.).

The experimental Xerox prints images that last only a day, so that the paper can be used again and again. The technology, which is still in a preliminary state, blurs the line between paper documents and digital displays and could ultimately lead to a significant reduction in paper use. Xerox estimates that as many as two out of every five pages printed in the office are for what it calls "daily" use, like e-mails, Web pages and reference materials that have been printed for a single viewing.

"Despite our reliance on computers to share and process information, there is still a strong dependence on the printed page for reading and absorbing content. Of course, we'd all like to use less paper, but we know from talking with customers that many people still prefer to work with information on paper. Self-erasing documents for short-term use offers the best of both worlds," said Paul Smith, manager of XRCC's new materials design and synthesis lab.

Xerox has filed for patents on the technology, which it calls "erasable paper." It is currently part of a laboratory project that focuses on the concept of future dynamic documents. To develop erasable paper, researchers needed to identify ways to create temporary images. The "a-ha" moment came from developing compounds that change color when they absorb a certain wavelength of light but then will gradually disappear. In its present version, the paper self-erases in about 16-24 hours and can be used multiple times.

While scientists at XRCC work on the chemistry of the technology, their counterparts at PARC–the birthplace of the laser printer–are investigating ways to build a device that could write the image onto the special paper. PARC researchers developed a prototype "printer" that creates the image on the paper using a light bar that provides a specific wavelength of light as a writing source. The written image fades naturally over time or can be immediately erased by exposing it to heat.

While potential users have shown interest in transient documents, there is still much to be done if the technology is to be commercialized. "This will remain a research project for some time," said Eric Shrader, PARC area manager, industrial inkjet systems. "Our experiments prove that it can be done, and that is the first step, but not the only one, to developing a system that is commercially viable."

Temporary documents are part of Xerox's ongoing investments in sustainable innovation, or "green products,” that deliver measurable benefits to the environment, such as solid ink printing technology, which generates 90% less waste than comparable laser printers; more energy-efficient printers, copiers and multifunction devices; and other paper-saving innovations.

EU Proposes Greenhouse Gas Requirements for Air Transport

The European Commission has proposed legislation to bring greenhouse gas emissions from civil aviation into the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS). EU emissions from international air transport are increasing faster than from any other sector. This growth threatens to undermine the EU’s progress in cutting overall greenhouse gas emissions. Including civil aviation in the EU ETS is a cost-effective way for the sector to control its emissions and implements an approach endorsed by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). The proposed directive will cover emissions from flights within the EU from 2011 and all flights to and from EU airports from 2012. Both EU and foreign aircraft operators would be covered. Like the industrial companies already covered by the EU ETS, airlines will be able to sell surplus allowances if they reduce their emissions and will need to buy additional allowances if their emissions grow. Any increase in ticket costs resulting from the scheme is expected to be limited and significantly lower than rises due to oil price changes in recent years.

Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said, “Aviation, too, should make a fair contribution to our efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The Commission will continue to work with our international partners to promote the objectives of a global agreement on aviation. Bringing aviation emissions into the EU Emissions Trading Scheme is a cost-effective solution that is good for the environment and treats all airlines equally.”

While emissions from domestic flights are covered by the Kyoto Protocol targets, international aviation is not. Moreover, jet fuel for international flights has historically been exempted from taxation. Bilateral air agreements between EU Member States and third countries are being changed to allow this possibility, but this will take time to implement.

Emissions from aviation currently account for about 3% of total EU greenhouse gas emissions, but they are increasing fast – by 87% since 1990 – as air travel becomes cheaper without its environmental costs being addressed. For example, someone flying from London to New York and back generates roughly the same level of emissions as the average person in the EU does by heating their home for a whole year. The rapid growth in aviation emissions contrasts with the success of many other sectors of the economy in reducing emissions.

Without action, by 2012 the growth in emissions from flights from EU airports will cancel out more than a quarter of the 8% emission reduction the EU-15 must achieve to reach its Kyoto Protocol target. By 2020, aviation emissions are likely to more than double from present levels.

The proposal for a directive follows up on a September 2005 communication which concluded that bringing aviation into the EU ETS was the best approach, from an economic and environmental point of view, to tackling the sector's emissions. This was subsequently supported by the Council and European Parliament. The directive will treat all airlines equally, whether EU-based or foreign. From 2011 all domestic and international flights between EU airports will be covered, and from 2012 the scope will be extended to all international flights arriving at or departing from EU airports. It is estimated that by 2020 CO2 savings of as much as 46%, or 183 million tons, could be achieved each year–equivalent, for example, to twice Austria's annual greenhouse gas emissions from all sources–compared with business as usual.

To limit the rapid growth in aviation emissions, the total number of emission allowances available will be capped at the average emissions level in 2004-2006. Some allowances will be auctioned by Member States, but the overwhelming majority will be issued for free on the basis of a harmonized efficiency benchmark reflecting each operator’s historical share of traffic. To reduce administrative costs, very light aircraft will not be covered, and each operator will be administered by only one Member State. The directive is part of a comprehensive approach to addressing aviation emissions which also includes more research into greener technologies and improvements in air traffic management.

Mercury Thermostat Recycling Available in North Carolina

The N.C. Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance recently announced a new program that encourages recycling of mercury-containing thermostats rather than disposing of them in landfills. The program aims to reduce the amount of mercury that is released into the environment. Mercury-containing thermostats are a safety hazard and improper handling of these devices can contaminate surface water and endanger peoples’ health. Children are especially susceptible to mercury’s toxic effects.

The program is urging heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) wholesalers to recycle thermostats that contain mercury. The Thermostat Recycling Corporation facilitates collection by HVAC wholesalers from contractors of all brands of used, wall-mounted mercury switch thermostats. HVAC contractors will be able to make a positive impact on the environment by recycling these thermostats.

Participating wholesalers in the Thermostat Recycling Corporation in North Carolina are: R.E. Michael Company, statewide; Johnstone Supply in Fayetteville and Jacksonville; C.C. Dickson in New Bern and Hickory; and Lennox Industries in Charlotte. The Thermostat Recycling Corporation is a not-for-profit corporation started by three National Electrical Manufacturers Association member companies.

The thermostat collection service is free, and mercury from recycled thermostats can be reprocessed for safer applications. For additional information, contact the Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance at 919-715-6500 

Diesel Emission Idling Violations

A Boston-based transportation company, Paul Revere Transportation LLC, is facing federal penalties for repeat violations of illegal idling of diesel buses at the company’s Roxbury, Mass. bus yard and at a shuttle bus location on Brookline Ave. in Boston.

The action is the subject of a complaint filed jointly by the U.S. Dept. of Justice and the EPA in federal District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Paul Revere Transportation, LLC (“PRT”). The company maintains approximately 40 motor vehicles at its Roxbury bus yard, and owns and operates a total of approximately 150 vehicles throughout the commonwealth.

“Given the extremely high asthma rates in Roxbury, it is unacceptable that diesel buses and other vehicles are left idling for more than an hour at a time,” said Robert W. Varney, regional administrator of EPA’s New England Office. “Diesel pollution is very harmful, especially for sensitive populations such as the young, elderly, and people who suffer from asthma. It is critical for the health of the surrounding community that companies like PRT comply with the anti-idling law.”

EPA first learned of the violations during weekly inspections in March and April 2006. Follow-up inquiries made by EPA suggest that the violations may have been ongoing at the bus yard for several years. On every day during EPA’s inspections of the bus yard, numerous PRT vehicles, sometimes more than 20 at one time, were seen idling in the very early morning, sometimes for more than an hour, and, in one instance, for more than two hours. During the course of eight separate inspections, EPA witnessed over 100 hours of illegal idling. Massachusetts’ law limits idling to no more than five minutes.

This is not the first time that EPA has discovered idling violations involving PRT’s vehicles. In 2002, EPA fined PRT for illegal idling of its shuttle buses at Boston’s Logan Airport.

 EPA’s inspections of transportation facilities are part of a region-wide effort by EPA, in partnership with the Massachusetts Dept. of Environmental Protection, and the City of Boston, to curb diesel air emissions, particularly in inner city neighborhoods where diesel air pollution and asthma rates are substantially higher than in other parts of Massachusetts.

State and federal authorities are stepping up their enforcement of the Massachusetts idling regulation to reduce pollution from diesel exhaust. The Massachusetts anti-idling regulation prohibits the unnecessary operation of the engine of a motor vehicle while the vehicle is stopped for a foreseeable period of time in excess of five minutes.

In New England, diesel engines are the third largest human-made source of fine particles, contributing more than 20% of fine particle emissions. Children are more sensitive to air pollution because they breathe 50% more air per pound of body weight than adults. Recent studies have found a strong correlation between exposure to diesel exhaust and impaired lung growth in children.

This Newsletter is Free, But. . .

We’d like you to consider joining the National Arbor Day Foundation. If you have reached this far in our newsletter, you’re dedicated to finding solutions to environmental problems.With your membership, the foundation will send you 10 trees to plant wherever you wish.  FYI: Environmental Resource Center is not affiliated with the National Arbor Day Foundation, but we are admirers of their ambitions.