Author: admin

By: Jonathan Hiskes; Sustainable Industries Magazine

We may need to ditch that aphorism about throwing stones at glass houses.

Two engineering graduate students at the University of Washington have found a way to make bricks out of recycled glass that they say are stronger, lighter and better insulators than conventional building blocks.

Renuka Prabhakar and Grant Marchelli claim their VitroBricks require 80 percent less energy to produce because they’re fired at a much lower temperature for a shorter time. Most promising of all, according to the engineers, their invention can put to work the millions of tons of discarded glass that end up in landfills each year.

Sound too good to be true? It’s still an early-stage technology, and Prabhakar and Marchelli need to prove they can manufacture consistently and cheaply enough to break into the masonry industry.

But the students’ startup, EnVitrum (Latin for “out of glass”), has already drawn interest from UW research funders, brick makers and architects like Perkins+Will. Waste Management says it’ll pay them to take mixed-color waste glass off its hands.

Prabhakar and Marchelli say they were inspired by the surprisingly low level of glass recycling: Only 26 percent of the glass waste stream is actually reused, according to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.  Bottle makers can use only 10 percent to 35 percent recycled material and any impurity, including mixed colors, can render their products useless.

The grad students first tried using finely crushed glass for 3D printing – essentially stacking thin layers of glass– but found that the results resembled a Jell-O salad more than a brick. Then they experimented with sintering, a technique for fusing powderized materials. Prabhakar and Marchelli mixed in a binding agent they developed (they will say only that it’s not toxic or petroleum-based) and created a process for  heating the bricks at multiple temperatures.

“It’s not as simple as making a brick and putting it in the oven,” says Prabhakar.

The resulting product, though, has the heft and gritty texture of a clay brick. A glass brick can be designed to be highly porous, drawing water through capillary action. In hot climates, running water through a wall would produce evaporation, cooling a building.

The glass bricks’ unique porosity may also be useful for so-called living walls. The two engineers have developed prototypes with special cavities for plants, since many living walls so far have relied on felt or plastic containers with limited durability.

Gregg Borchelt, president of the Brick Industry Association, says plenty of would-be inventors try alternative materials for brick before running into, well, a brick wall when it comes to cost or durability.

He says cheap waste glass and lower energy costs for firing could be advantages for Prabhakar and Marchelli – if they can show their products are reliable and they can obtain a lot of glass.

“A typical plant will turn out 40 million bricks per year, so that’s a pretty big pile of material,”  notes Borchelt.

The next hurdles for Prabhakar and Marchelli are verifying their bricks can meet international standards for building materials and gaining independent verification of their manufacturing process. They hope to license the technology rather than go into the brick-making business themselves.

“We don’t really want to be masonry manufacturers,” says Prabhakar. “We’re both engineers and that’s what we love to do. We want to develop and scale and be problem-solvers.”

(New York, N.Y. – May 11, 2011) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regional Administrator Judith Enck today traveled to New York’s Great Swamp in Brewster, N.Y. to discuss the importance of clean water and a draft guidance developed by EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to clarify which waters are subject to protection under the Clean Water Act.

The future status and condition of the Great Swamp is dependent not only on what happens directly within the swamp, but also on activities within its nearly 100-square-mile watershed, which includes the headwaters of the Housatonic River, the Croton River, Long Island Sound and New York Harbor. Part of the Great Swamp lies within the New York City watershed, and the Croton watershed provides about 10 percent of New York City’s drinking water, about 140 million gallons per day. Headwater streams and their adjacent wetlands are where our larger streams, rivers and lakes originate.

“Clean water is our most vital natural resource and its protection is directly tied to preserving wetlands and other bodies of water,” said EPA Regional Administrator Judith Enck. “The new federal guidance will help restore protection to critical waters and provide clearer guidelines for determining which water bodies we can keep safe from pollution and other pressures.”

“Water flows down hill, and you cannot protect one portion of a watershed without protecting all the interconnected waters,” said Joseph Martens, Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. “For nearly 25 years, it was settled policy that wetlands and streams, including smaller and intermittent streams and wetlands, were protected by the Clean Water Act.  I am glad to see that draft federal guidance now seeks to restore clarity concerning that protection.  The Clean Water Act should be interpreted in a manner that protects water quality and habitats, and to mitigate floods by protecting the wetlands that work to absorb flood waters.”

On April 27, EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers released “Draft Guidance on Identifying Waters Protected by the Clean Water Act” for a 60-day public comment period. This draft guidance clarifies how EPA and the Corps will identify “Waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act. It implements the Supreme Court’s decisions in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Rapanos v. United States.

Headwater streams comprise 20 percent of the 3,800 miles of streams in the New York City watershed. Roughly 15 percent of the watershed’s nearly 25,000 acres of wetlands and ponds are linked to downstream reservoirs by streams that flow only part of the year and, as such, are potentially unprotected based on current Clean Water Act guidance. EPA anticipates that the new guidance will enhance protection of these wetlands and headwater streams in most watersheds.

Headwater streams and wetlands feed our rivers and lakes both water and nourishing materials such as aquatic insects and organic matter. Ultimately, this assists biological diversity in these water systems. Headwater streams and their nearby wetlands also play an important role in maintaining the water quality of our streams, lakes and rivers, and the ability of wetlands to store flood water reduces the risk of costly property damage and loss of life. These areas assist in reducing sediment and nutrient loads entering the nation’s waters. They also contribute to the supply of drinking water available to the residents of New York State.

For nearly 40 years, the Clean Water Act, along with other important federal measures, has been a cornerstone of our effort to ensure that Americans have clean and healthy waters. The draft guidance is part of the Obama administration’s national clean water framework, which emphasizes the importance of partnerships and coordination with states, local communities and the public to protect public health and water quality, and promote the nation’s energy and economic security.

The administration’s framework outlines a series of actions underway and planned across federal agencies to ensure the integrity of the waters Americans rely on every day for drinking, swimming, and fishing, and that support farming, recreation, tourism and economic growth. It includes draft federal guidance to clarify which waters are protected by the Clean Water Act nationwide; innovative partnerships and programs to improve water quality and water efficiency; and initiatives to revitalize communities and economies by restoring rivers and critical watersheds.

To read the draft guidance and for information on how to submit a comment, visit http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/CWAwaters.cfm.

 

By: Jonathan Hiskes; Sustainable Industries Magazine

Anthony Ravitz, Google’s project coordinator for real estate and workplace services, opened his talk in Vancouver, B.C., Thursday with an impressive fact: the world’s largest software company is opening 40,000 square feet of office space a week. Talk about fast growth.

And none of those workplaces, he said, would use any of the materials on the red list developed by the Living Building Challenge, which include mercury, asbestos, PVC, formaldehyde and lead. That second fact explained why Ravitz’s was one of the most crowded sessions at Cascadia Green Building Council’s Living Future conference. The conference attracts hundreds of architects, contractors, planners, vendors and others with a say in the materials that make up our homes and workplaces.

And they know that when one of the West Coast’s hottest companies swears off unhealthy products, the effect is sure to ripple outward through their industries.

Ravitz said Google’s decision stems from two principles: “focus on health and vitality” of its employees and “healthcare is costly.” In other words, the company wants to avoid illness from potentially dangerous materials. Sounds simple enough, but it’s difficult to know everything that’s in materials like carpet and paint.

“We need better transparency,” Ravitz said. “We don’t have complete information about what’s in our products. It’s not readily available. Until we have that, it will be difficult to make the best decisions.”

That’s not for a lack of programs addressing building materials. Ravitz spoke alongside Tom Lent of the Health Building Network, which works to promote healthier materials. “There are a lot of product certifications,  Ravitz said. “A whole lot. It’s really confusing, even when you know a lot about this topic.”

He pointed out that the U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act hasn’t substantially changed since 1976. “I used to think that maybe the government was taking care of us,” he said. “I think the EPA would like to, but they don’t have the regulatory authority.”

That’s created the need for other groups to step in. Ravitz said Google relied on the International Living Building Institute and the Healthy Building Network to advise it on what chemicals and materials to avoid. It also drew several off the EPA’s Chemicals of Concern list.

“I don’t want to go out there and say ‘Google thinks these chemicals are bad and we don’t want them in our buildings,” he said. “I’m not a chemist.”

Hence the reliance on the other groups. One of the presenters wrote up a handy list of rules for choosing building materials, inspired by writer Michael Pollan’s food rules:

If they won’t tell you what’s in it, you probably don’t want what’s in it.
Consult your nose – if it stinks, don’t use it.
Just because almost anything can kill you doesn’t mean our building products should.
If it starts as hazardous waste, you probably don’t want it in your house.
If it is cheap it probably has hidden costs.
Question the generation of hazardous waste rather than where to put it your building.
Use materials made from substances you can imagine in their raw or natural state.
Avoid materials that are pretending to be something they are not.
Question materials that make health claims.
Use carbohydrate-based materials when you can.
Pay more, use less.
Regard space-age materials with skepticism.

And here’s the Living Building Challenge’s list of red list materials and chemicals:

Asbestos
Cadmium
Chlorinated Polyethylene and Chlorosulfonated Polyethlene
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)
Chloroprene (Neoprene)
Formaldehyde
Halogenated Flame Retardants
Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs)
Lead
Mercury
Petrochemical Fertilizers and Pesticides
Phthalates
Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC)
Wood treatments containing creosote, arsenic or pentachlorophenol

ByMichal Lenchner

Addressing the enormous environmental challenges that we face, waste management has become a growing field that offers entrepreneurial opportunities, room for innovations and investment prospects. Today, more and more venture investors are looking into waste management and value reclamation.

The panel discussed the challenges around waste management, end-of-life product and material utilization, and how new solutions support the emerging trend towards innovative and sustainable business practices.

How do we know that what we are producing is really eco-friendly? To measure a product’s environmental impact and carbon footprint — a complicated calculation process — companies need to look at the amount of energy consumed, the embodied energy and the CO2 that is released in the extraction, processing and transportation of raw materials, and the manufacture of the finished product.

CalStar Products develops and manufactures sustainable building products that allow architects and builders to dramatically reduce the energy and the carbon footprint of construction projects by incorporating recycled materials. The company’s bricks and pavers have been recognized as outstanding new building products.

Read more:

 

Later this year, ISO will publish a new global standard for energy management. ISO 50001 will establish a framework for industrial plants, LEED green buildings of all types, commercial facilities and utilities to manage energy. Its aim is to help organizations improve their energy performance, increase energy efficiency and reduce the environmental impacts of energy-related consumption. It is estimated that the standard could influence up to 60% of the world’s energy use! Will your company be ready? Join this free webcast to find out.

 

Psychrometers:

Significant New Use, 26225-26232

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-05-06/html/2011-11025.htm

B. Proposed Action

EPA is proposing to designate as significant new uses the use of elemental mercury in barometers, manometers, and hygrometers/psychrometers.  However, use of elemental mercury in these articles when they are in service as of the publication date of this proposed rule would not be covered as a significant new use under this proposed SNUR.  Also, use of mercury in portable battery-powered motor-aspirated psychrometers that contain fewer than seven (7) grams of mercury is an ongoing use and therefore would not be covered by this SNUR. Due to EPA’s concern about use of mercury in products, the Agency may take other action to facilitate the evaluation or control of ongoing uses, as appropriate.

 

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced steps to help reduce the risk of exposure to improperly reprocessed devices that can lead to the transmission of disease.

Medical devices intended for repeated use are commonplace in healthcare settings. They are typically made of durable substances that can withstand reprocessing, a multistep process which includes cleaning, disinfecting, or sterilization to remove debris and biologic materials that may transmit infection between patients. While successful reprocessing of reusable devices occurs routinely in health care settings, there are some devices which present particular challenges to reprocessing.

Based on its access to premarket and postmarket data on reprocessed devices, the FDA identified device design features that reduce the likelihood of retaining debris and that facilitate proper reprocessing. These features include smooth inner surfaces of devices with long, narrow interior channels, clear identification of components that must be discarded after patient use, and designs that take into account how fluid moves through reusable medical devices.

On June 8-9, 2011, the FDA will sponsor a public workshop to discuss these findings and collaborate with representatives from other government agencies, manufacturers, health care providers, and other stakeholders on future device design and scientific advances in reprocessing.

Read the complete article at Infection Control Today

 

The draft guidance by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers aims to delineate which waterways, water bodies and wetlands are protected by the Clean Water Act. This should provide more clarity for businesses, which need permits to discharge pollution into protected waters as well as fill protected waters and wetlands, the EPA said.

The guidance says that small streams are protected by the act if they have a “physical, chemical or biological connection” to larger bodies of water downstream, and could affect the integrity of those downstream waters. “Agencies would be able to evaluate groups of waters holistically rather than the current, piecemeal, stream-by-stream analysis,” the EPA said.

The agency indicated that it intends to expand the definition of “traditional navigable waters”, saying the term may apply under a wider range of circumstances than in previous guidance. This would make more water bodies subject to Clean Water Act protections.

The act will also apply to non-navigable tributaries to traditional navigable waters if the tributaries are relatively permanent, meaning they contain water at least seasonally. Wetlands adjacent to either interstate waters or traditional navigable waters would also be covered, along with wetlands that directly abut relatively permanent waters.

And the EPA said it is clarifying that interstate waters are also protected by the act. Waters that are not regulated by the act include artificial lakes and ponds, many agricultural and roadside ditches, and certain artificially irrigated areas, the EPA said.

Read the complete article at Environmental Leader