FacilityCare November/December 2009 : Page 21
FOCUS ON DESIGN facilities were first electrified in the early part of the 20th century, energy was relatively cheap. Electronic equipment was, for the most part, a non-factor, and the little energy that a hospital or clinic used went mainly for lighting. With time came an increasing reliance on technology, and little by little the energy used by medical equipment increased. And while it’s hard to pinpoint exactly how much energy med- ical equipment uses, sev- eral studies over the years have pointed to between 20 and 25 percent of a given facility’s overall load. It’s safe to say that with every passing year, as technolo- gy advances, the energy used by medical equipment—and the energy bills paid by healthcare facilities—will increase. What Can Be Done? Until now, most of the work to reduce the energy use in medical facili- ties has been focused on retrofits and changes to the building itself or changes to more efficient systems and lighting. Today, however, medical equipment is finally coming under the kind of scrutiny that will lead to more efficiency. Mazzetti Nash Lipsey Burch, for example, is leading a study with the cooperation of the Department of Energy (DOE) that will track and compare the energy use of different kinds of medical equipment. The study will test and verify the energy nameplate data that man- performance of their equipment and supplies. As with consumer electronics, pressure is also growing for manu- “” When consumers have access to energy informa- tion, it generally leads to better sales of the most efficient equipment. ufacturers provide, and then compare these numbers across equip- ment types. This kind of information will provide healthcare compa- nies with more accurate data about how much a particular piece of equipment will cost to run over its life cycle—something that is rarely considered when a piece of equipment is purchased. As the data from this study is published, and as plans for labeling of equipment become firmer, manufacturers are expected to start pay- ing more attention to how much energy is used by the equipment they produce. When consumers have access to energy information, it gen- erally leads to better sales of the most efficient equipment. Hopefully, many manufacturers will see the business case for providing both effi- cient and effective medical equipment. Last, good data on the energy use of medical equipment will allow the EPA and the DOE to extend the very popular ENERGY STAR rating to various kinds of medical equipment. Healthcare facilities will be able to compare the energy use of various kinds of equipment and will be able to choose ENERGY STAR models, which will drive manufacturers to pro- duce ever more efficient equipment—thus transforming the marketplace. Next on the Horizon: Life Cycle Analyses, Toxin Reduction and Recycling Greening medical equipment isn’t just about energy use. Medical equipment has a lifespan, and forward-thinking facilities are begin- ning to think about reducing the impacts of disposal of that equip- ment. Unfortunately, just as with consumer devices like laptop com- puters, televisions and microwave ovens, medical equipment contains many substances that are known carcinogens, reproductive toxins and persistent bioaccumulative toxins. Mazzetti Nash Lipsey Burch recently partnered with Kaiser Permanente to help the company create a strategy for toxics reduc- tion, part of which directs Kaiser staff to ask vendors for environmen- tal impact information for their products, much as Wal-Mart has done with its suppliers in a retail environment. Kaiser continues to work with its vendors and encourage them to improve the environmental See Advertiser Index on Page 39 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2009 facilitycare.com FACILITYCARE | 21 facturers to consider the end of their product’s life cycle. In the future, I believe that medical equipment manufacturers will consider the end of their product’s life cycle as part of the design process, with equipment designed for easy disas- sembly. Viable and func- tioning parts could be used to create new equip- ment; other parts that cannot be reused will be recycled. At some point in the future, manufacturers may even be required to take back the equipment themselves for reuse and recycling. Leading healthcare companies and medical equipment manufactur- ers are probably already preparing for the day when “green” medical equipment is the norm; the question remains as to how quickly the rest of the market will catch up. Next time your facility is comparing costs on medical equipment, it might be wise to factor in the cost of energy and operations as well as the environmental cost. F J.D. Thompson is associate principal at Mazzetti Nash Lipsey Burch, a full-service mechani- cal, electrical, plumbing, and technology consulting and design firm, providing value-added services in medical/laboratory equipment planning and procurement and commissioning. M+NLB was one of the first engineering firms in the U.S. to add a climate change consulting practice to its list of client services, and is a three-time winner of the Champions for Change Award from Practice Greenhealth and the first-ever winner of the BEST Business Center’s Portland [Ore] Climate Champion award. www.mazzetti.com.
