By Corydon Ireland Democrat and Chronicle MAX SCHULTE Rochester is No. 1 in nation for cancer-causing releases of industrial chemicals, it was announced at a press conference called Wednesday by two environmental groups. Here, Jason Brady of the Citizens’ Environmental Coalition hangs a banner before the press conference while Sue Milhalyi of the Kandid Coalition (seated) gets a hug from Amy Liberatore of CEC. [Day in Photos] (January 22, 2003) — Rochester is No. 1 in nation for cancer-causing releases of industrial chemicals, according to a new national analysis of 13 years of data on toxics. During an 11 a.m. press conference Wednesday, called by two New York environmental groups, activists said the 1987 to 2000 data showed that about 64.4 million pounds of toxic chemicals linked to cancer were released in the city of Rochester. They pointed to Eastman Kodak Co. as one of the most-polluting companies in America, saying the company ranked No. 9 among the country’s worst polluters in 2000. In the past, Kodak has denied its emissions cause cancer. The report was released by the New York Public Interest Group (NYPIRG) and the Citizens’ Environmental Coalition (CEC) and was assembled from federal chemical reporting data from 1987 to 2000. It outlines the health effects of toxic chemicals by zip code nationally and found that only a small number of communities receive most of the pollution in America. The report states that 10 U.S. zip codes in the year 2000 got more than three-quarters of all air and water releases of toxins that are thought to adversely affect reproduction. Michael DaVoli, the Western New York coordinator for NYPIRG called the report the first comprehensive review of the health-effects of Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) chemicals ever. Most large U.S. industries are required to annually report their pollution to land, water and air with the data being published in the Toxic Release Inventory. Among other recommendations the groups called on federal officials to set up a nationwide health-tracking network for chronic diseases like asthma, cancer and birth defects. They also asked for monitoring of human exposure to toxic chemicals that might cause disease. E-mail address: cireland@DemocratandChronicle.com
Has anyone done a study to see how much polution is released by Kodak into the Genesee River ? Its hard to breathe in lower Maplewood Park after dark where their "Treatment Plant" is located. Dave Kaspersin President Dynamic Recording Studios email@example.com Hi Dave, Thanks for writing. Yes there is a good amount of information on how much Kodak is discharging into the Genesee River. You mentioned the treatment plant, also known as Kings Landing. This is their wastewater treatment plant, and their discharge site into the Genesee. Every year, Kodak reports the amounts of chemicals they discharge into the water. For example, in 2000, Kodak discharged 8,993 pounds of carcinogenic chemicals into the Genesee River, out of over 681,000 pounds of chemicals discharged to water. From 1998 to 2000, total water releases have increased by 88%. Here is a listing of the chemicals and amounts that were discharged to water in 2000. Here is a listing of the chemicals and amounts that were discharged to water in 2000. Chemical Name Sorted by Surface Water Releases NITRATE COMPOUNDS 570,000 METHANOL 25,000 AMMONIA 23,039 ZINC COMPOUNDS 12,160 ETHYLENE GLYCOL 9,200 SILVER COMPOUNDS 6,053 BARIUM COMPOUNDS 6,000 METHYL ETHYL KETONE 5,200 1,4-DIOXANE 5,000 ANTIMONY COMPOUNDS 4,900 GLYCOL ETHERS 4,000 ACETONITRILE 2,900 DICHLOROMETHANE 2,700 METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE 1,700 CHROMIUM COMPOUNDS 936 N,N-DIMETHYLANILINE 670 TOLUENE 540 CRESOL (MIXED ISOMERS) 210 PYRIDINE 200 STYRENE 140 XYLENE (MIXED ISOMERS) 140 N-BUTYL ALCOHOL 140 HYDROQUINONE 120 N,N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE 95 1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE 81 PHENOL 49 DIBUTYL PHTHALATE 47 BUTYL ACRYLATE 19 CHLOROPHENOLS 16 CATECHOL 9 ANILINE 6 METHYL METHACRYLATE 5 MERCURY COMPOUNDS 4 DIETHANOLAMINE 3 ACRYLAMIDE 3 POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC COMPOUNDS 2 FORMALDEHYDE 1 Dioxin Compounds 2.68 grams. We also have information of when they have violated their water permits, and information about water releases in years past. When you say that it is hard to breathe in this park, is it because of odor problems or? That is not surprising to me, as I have heard similar stories from other people. Others have also said that the smell gets worse at night and sometimes even on weekends. As Robin said, there is also serious groundwater contamination in certain areas of Kodak. I would be happy to supply you with more information regarding that if you are interested. I encourage you to check out our website at www.kodakstoxiccolors.org and www.kandidcoalition.org which has more information on Kodak's pollution. We have started a bucket brigade in Rochester, where we monitor air pollution in the Kodak Park neighborhood. We can use more help with this effort. If you are interested, I'd be happy to send you more information on what this entails. Take care, Mike Schade Western New York Director Citizens' Environmental Coalition 543 Franklin Street, Suite 2 Buffalo, NY 14202-1109 (716) 885-6848 (716) 885-6845 fax firstname.lastname@example.org www.cectoxic.org www.kodakstoxiccolors.org www.ecothreatny.org
More here: www.kodakstoxiccolors.org www.kandidcoalition.org www.epa.gov/triexplorer www.scorecard.org
Kodak says area breathes easier. It meets 7 of 8 environmental goals, launches another strategy By Corydon Ireland Staff writer (April 14, 2004) — Eastman Kodak Co. on Tuesday had good news and more good news for the Rochester region. The company said its five-year global plan to reduce emissions and conserve energy, started in 1999, met seven out of eight environmental goals. Kodak also announced a second five-year plan, designed to reduce energy and water consumption even more, along with emissions, by the end of 2008. ”This is indeed a great moment for Kodak,” said company Chairman and CEO Daniel A. Carp, who joined state and local dignitaries at Kodak Park’s Theater on the Ridge for the announcements. “You could call it a Kodak moment.” The eighth goal in the 1999 plan, a pledge to reduce greenhouse gases by 20 percent, fell short by 3 percentage points. Kodak’s chief greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide, a byproduct of burning coal for energy. Other Kodak goals were exceeded by margins of 4 to 22 percentage points. Meeting the 1999 goals cost Kodak about $20 million in the last five years, said R. Hays Bell, who oversees the company’s health, safety and environment programs. In the past 15 years, Kodak’s total expenditures for environmental programs, including cleanups, upgrades and fines, have exceeded $1 billion. Federal and state penalties at Kodak Park in 2003 were about $450,000. Rochester was the sole beneficiary of one of the 1999 goals — to reduce emissions of the solvent methylene chloride by 50 percent. Kodak Park, where acetate film base is manufactured, is the only Kodak operation where the chemical is heavily used. Levels over five years dropped 69 percent. In 1999, the company also pledged to have all its worldwide operations meet an international environmental management standard called ISO 14001. The target was met, with 29 Kodak plants worldwide making the grade. Emissions of heavy metals were reduced 85 percent, including most cadmium and chromium, both toxic. This is a moment to celebrate, said Charles S. Brown, Kodak’s director of global manufacturing and logistics, but “our work is far from done.” By the end of 2008, the company plans to reduce global emissions of 28 targeted chemicals by 15 percent; reduce use of energy and water by 10 percent and 20 percent, respectively; reduce manufacturing waste by 20 percent; eliminate most heavy metals; and improve worker accident rates by 50 percent. ”I’m sure everything they have announced is a legitimate accomplishment,” said Sue Mihalyi of Rochester, a member of the Kandid Coalition, which meets once a month to discuss Kodak issues. “But were they the best goals?” The group of 30 has suggested adding at least a few more goals, including the elimination of Kodak Park’s two hazardous waste incinerators and installing real-time air monitoring systems that track more than the two air pollutants measured now. Bell could not estimate what the costs would be for the next five-year set of goals. In 1999, Kodak estimated it might have to spend up to $100 million. But setting such goals, he said, “helps focus our activities and accelerate our progress.” Arriving at the latest goals, Bell said, required deliberation within Kodak all throughout 2003. Erin Crotty, commissioner of the state Department of Environmental Conservation, praised Kodak for its goals, which are a voluntary program of reductions and energy savings. Meeting the 2008 water goal alone, she said, would save 2 billion gallons a year enough to supply 70,000 American households annually. ”You can’t have a strong economy without a protected environment,” said Crotty. Brown said the new goals had nothing to do with reducing production or the size of the Kodak payroll in Rochester, and that the emerging digital age held its own environmental challenges. ”We are very mindful of our environmental responsibilities,” he said. CIRELAND@DemocratandChronicle.com But I really don't believe them ! Do You ??? Dave
Click To Learn About Kodak Execs Being WAY overpaid.
Click To Learn About Kodak sending jobs overseas.