JEM News

Legislation

WFD: friend or foe?

The efficacy of the EU's approach to water quality is called into question in a new study by British researchers. European legislation under the Water Framework Directive (WFD) could have serious consequences for farmers and the sustainability of some rural communities, the researchers warn.

An interdisciplinary team, led by Professor Ian Bateman from the Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment at the University of East Anglia, investigated the implications of the Directive from a number of perspectives. Using sophisticated computer modelling techniques, their research makes it possible to link land use, farm incomes, water quality and recreation value, and highlight how each varies in different areas of the country.

They conclude that policies designed to change agricultural land use – thereby reducing run-off of pollutants into watercourses – could achieve significant improvements in water quality, but at the expense of farm incomes. This could have serious economic consequences for the countryside, while it would be the users of urban waterways for leisure who would benefit most. At the same time, such policies could waste money, they say. The results could enable policymakers to target funding by assessing, in monetary terms, the benefits created by improving rivers in each location. Not surprisingly, those benefits are much greater in highly populated areas. The findings are similar to those of a recent study on nitrogen management, which called for a more integrated approach in protecting rural areas.¹

“We have been able to conclude that the most efficient way of implementing the Water Framework Directive would be to target specific urban rivers that people actually use for leisure purposes, rather than trying to improve all rivers to pristine standard”, noted Professor Bateman. “It is also clear that in any given locality, once a certain level of improvement has been achieved, further measures make little difference to the environment or to the people who make use of it. We have to recognise that those paying the costs of cleaning up rivers may not be the same people that enjoy the resulting benefits.”

These are important messages, particularly at a time of financial austerity and concerns over local communities. The researchers argue that this approach should be applied routinely so as to help decision-makers target environmental investments to provide the greatest gains to society. The Commission has recently indicated that it intends to review the WFD within the next few years.²

Rural Economy and Land Use Programme: http://www.relu.ac.uk/

NGOs welcome Arctic oil pact

Green groups have welcomed a decision to open discussions on a new international agreement on protecting fragile Arctic ecosystems from oil spills. Meeting in Nuuk, Greenland, foreign ministers of Arctic countries and indigenous leaders agreed to set up a task force aimed at a new agreement on oil spill preparedness and response in the region.

With the EU and other parties launching major oil and gas exploration in the Arctic, NGOs such as WWF have long campaigned for more robust environmental protection laws. In a statement, WWF said: “While this will not stop new drilling for oil, it may go some way toward meeting WWF's argument for a halt to drilling until there are proven technologies capable of effectively preventing or responding to spills in Arctic conditions”.

Participants from countries, including the US, Canada and Russia, also agreed to create a group tasked with developing ecosystem-based management for the region. They believe this will lead to better management of resources such as fish stocks.

Delegates received two new studies, one focusing on mercury and the other on persistent organic pollutants (POPs). The first shows that particulates, ground-level ozone and methane may account for up to 40% of observed warming in the Arctic. With this in mind, the countries decided to set up a group that will undertake projects to reduce black carbon and other short-lived climate forcer (SLCF) emissions. Ministers also agreed to support ongoing international talks to conclude a global agreement on mercury.³

Nuuk Declaration: http://arctic-council.org; WWF: http://wwf.panda.org

Commission considers POPs in waste

The European Commission is to propose limits for three types of persistent organic pollutant in waste under new regulations due this autumn. The limits for PBDEs, PFOS and PeCB will be based on a recent consultancy study.

Under international conventions the EU is required to restrict POPs in waste so as to limit releases to the environment. Waste that exceeds the concentration thresholds must be treated to destroy the POP content. The report covers substances banned under the conventions and substances that might be banned in future. It recommends maintaining the same limits as an interim version published last year but expands on the impacts of the limits and their effects on other laws.⁴ These are a 10 ppm limit for PBDEs and PFOS, and 50 ppm for PeCB.

National experts questioned the completeness of the data used by consultancy BiPRO to compile the thresholds. They are concerned that the report is based more on product information from industry than actual POP concentrations in waste. They will supply the Commission with their own data on concentrations over the summer. But the Commission says it has full confidence in the recommended limits.

European Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/pdf/POP_Waste_2011.pdf

Environmental quality

Doing more with less

Resource efficiency looks set to be the ‘next big thing’ in environmental policy, having been the centrepiece of both the EU's Green Week in Brussels and a series of UNEP reports. The message was that the world must learn to do more with less by decoupling natural resource consumption from economic growth.

In Brussels, experts from the European Environment Agency (EEA) presented the latest data on resource efficiency indicators. These will feed into the EU's resource efficiency strategy adopted earlier this year.⁵ Like much of the industrialised world, Europe is faced with a complex problem. Its economy depends on a continuous flow of raw materials which can no longer be taken for granted. In addition, this rapid consumption of resources damages the environment and produces waste. So in an increasingly populated and resource-hungry world, efficient use of limited resources is more important than ever.

Resources under pressure include non-renewable substances, such as metals, fossil fuels, chemicals and other minerals. Although other kinds of resources may be considered ‘renewable’, including clean water, air, animals and plant life, there are limits to the rate at which natural systems can regenerate these materials. In this way, resource efficiency cuts across traditional boundaries between environmental and economic ideas, exposing constraints and opportunities.

On average, Europeans use about 16 tonnes of material resources per year, compared to an average of four tons per person per year in India. UNEP warns that on the current trajectory, by 2050 humanity could consume an estimated 140 billion tons of minerals, ores, fossil fuels and biomass per year – three times its current appetite. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has called for a ‘Green Revolution’ to put the world on a more sustainable path.⁶

With the growth of both population and prosperity, especially in developing countries, the prospect of much higher resource consumption levels is “far beyond what is likely sustainable” if realisable at all given finite world resources, says UNEP's International Resource Panel. Already the world is running out of cheap and high quality sources of some essential materials such as oil, copper and gold, the supplies of which, in turn, require ever-rising volumes of fossil fuels and freshwater to produce.

Improving the rate of resource productivity (“doing more with less”) faster than the economic growth rate is the notion behind “decoupling,” the Panel says. That goal, however, demands an urgent rethink of the links between resource use and economic prosperity, buttressed by a massive investment in technological, financial and social innovation. This could at least freeze per capita consumption in wealthy countries and help developing nations follow a more sustainable path.

The trend towards urbanisation may help as well, experts note, since cities allow for economies of scale and more efficient service provision. Densely populated places consume fewer resources per capita than sparsely populated ones thanks to economies in such areas as water delivery, housing, waste management and recycling, energy use and transportation, they say.

A further report by the Panel focuses on metals. It found less than one-third of some 60 metals studied have an end-of-life recycling rate above 50%; 34 elements are below 1% recycling. The weak performance is especially frustrating because, unlike most other resources, metals are “inherently recyclable,” the study notes. Concern has been expressed about the supply and recycling of rare earth metals, where world prices are rising considerably.⁷

EEA: http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/economy/; UNEP: http://www.unep.org/resourcepanel/

UK backs shale gas

Shale gas drilling in the UK has been given the go-ahead by MPs in a new report looking at the impact it could have on water supplies, energy security and greenhouse gas emissions.

The House of Commons Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change found no evidence that the hydraulic fracturing process involved in shale gas extraction – known as ‘fracking’ – poses a direct risk to underground water aquifers provided the drilling well is constructed properly. The committee concluded that, on balance, a moratorium in the UK is not justified or necessary at present. The MPs, nevertheless, urge the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) to monitor drilling activity extremely closely in its early stages in order to assess its impact on air and water quality.

Tim Yeo MP, Chair of the Committee said: “There appears to be nothing inherently dangerous about the process of ‘fracking’ itself and as long as the integrity of the well is maintained shale gas extraction should be safe”. The conclusion contradicts recent academic advice, which urged the UK government to delay shale gas exploration until the environmental impacts were better understood.⁸

A leading EU advisor believes Europe needs to invest more heavily in shale gas. Oxford economist Dieter Helm told a seminar in Brussels that such exploration in the US had broken the link between oil and gas prices. This in turn is helping to drive down electricity prices and so increase the relative attractiveness of nuclear, coal and renewables. Professor Helm is advising the EU on a 2050 energy roadmap and has gone on record as saying he sees shale gas as an important part of Europe's energy future. The global gas price is dropping, regardless of European actions, he pointed out. The UK report found shale gas extraction could reduce the country's dependence on imported gas, but it is unlikely to have a dramatic effect on domestic gas prices.

However, further concern has been spurred by new results from the US, where scientists have reported methane contamination in drinking water near shale gas drilling sites. Researchers from Duke University in North Carolina tested water samples taken from 68 private wells in five counties in Pennsylvania and New York to explore accusations that fracking has contaminated groundwater. They found methane in 85% of the samples, and at sites within 1 km of active hydraulic-fracturing operations levels were 17 times higher than in wells further away.

Lead author Stephen Osborn emphasised that there was little evidence about the impacts of such exposures on humans or livestock. “There is really no literature that addresses that particular issue – the physiological response; is methane really non-reactive in the body? What are the effects of consuming high concentrations of methane?”

UK Parliament: http://www.parliament.uk; Demos Europa seminar: http://www.demoseuropa.eu

IPCC seeks fresh start

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has revised its governance structure and adopted “a set of forward-looking” management procedures. The changes are intended to boost quality, transparency and rigour in the IPCC, the world's leading forum for climate change science, after the damaging ‘Climategate’ affair.⁹ In particular, they aim to put the organisation on a firmer footing ahead of the IPCC's crucial Fifth Assessment Report.

The reforms, adopted at a recent meeting in Abu Dhabi, mark an important next step in the Panel's review process informed by the recommendations and suggestions of the InterAcademy Council (IAC).¹⁰ The IAC is a consortium of national academies of science and research councils from around the globe which was requested by the UN Secretary-General and the Chair of the IPCC to assess the Panel's policies and procedures last year.

Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC Chair, said: “I feel gratified that the process that the UN Secretary-General and I initiated a little over a year ago requesting IAC to review the IPCC's processes and procedures has culminated in such a successful outcome. The 194 governments which constitute the IPCC have put in enormous efforts to analyze the challenges facing the Panel, study the recommendations carefully and come up with decisions that strengthen its work”.

The Panel also agreed policy and protocols on how to handle scientific uncertainties and corrections of errors in reports while agreeing to establish an Executive Committee to strengthen the overall management structure. “A modern and forward-looking” conflict of interest policy, aimed at maximizing transparency and assuring the credibility of IPCC products and assessments was also adopted.

Efforts to reform the governance of the UN's own environmental body, UNEP, are currently log-jammed.¹¹

IPCC: http://www.ipcc.ch/

Chemical hazards

Firms gear up for REACH Round 2

European chemical producers and importers affected by REACH's 2013 deadline should start preparing now, according to Christel Musset, head of registration at the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).

The next deadline under the EU's chemical regime is for firms making or importing existing substances in annual volumes between 100 and 1000 tonnes. It is more likely to affect small and micro businesses than last year's deadline¹² for high-production volume substances and there will be less data available. Consequently, the preparation of registration dossiers could be more problematic, industry representatives warned at their annual meeting with ECHA in Helsinki. Experience under the first round showed it can take a year to compile chemical safety reports and assessments, so data collection should begin now, Ms Musset stressed.

ECHA's latest estimate suggests there will be 15 000 registrations for 4500 substances in 2013. These figures have been adjusted in light of the 2010 deadline which saw about 1000 fewer substances registered than ECHA had expected.

ECHA has also announced that some 86% of the 400 registration dossiers for chemical intermediates have failed to demonstrate the applicants' eligibility for reduced regulatory requirements. This seems to be because of confusion among companies over the exact definition of an intermediate. Intermediates are subject to slimmed down registration rules and lower registration fees under REACH as long as registrants can show they are produced and used under strictly controlled conditions.¹³

Meanwhile, two environmental groups are challenging the transparency of REACH in the European Court. They want ECHA to release more details from companies' registration dossiers. The challenge by ClientEarth and ChemSec focuses on the substances on ChemSec's SIN list (see separate item below), which NGOs want restricted under REACH. ECHA has released parts of the dossiers, but considers producers' names and addresses and their production volumes to be confidential. ClientEarth says it needs such information to hold companies with poor quality dossiers to account. CEFIC, the European chemicals trade body, has reportedly threatened ECHA with legal action if it discloses the names of chemical producers.

Also, the Agency has warned that staffing cuts made at national level could affect the number of substances the EU is able to evaluate under REACH. “We are really concerned about the lower capacity in some of the Member States,” said Executive Director Geert Dancet. “ECHA pays countries €50 000 for each substance they evaluate so funding is not an issue but some are cutting their technical staff”, he said. “It takes years to build back this sort of capacity,” the ECHA chief added. Substance evaluation is a key part of REACH and is meant to clarify whether the way a substance is used poses a risk to health or the environment.

ECHA: http://echa.europa.eu; ChemSec: http://www.chemsec.org

Noose tightens on cadmium

The EU is to introduce further restrictions on cadmium in products. The use of cadmium in jewellery, plastic and brazing alloys will be banned from December, although there will be exemptions for recycled PVC. These applications will be added to an annex of uses prohibited under the EU's REACH regulation, which already lists various restrictions on cadmium and its compounds.

The EU has banned cadmium from many types of plastic since 1992. It currently allows its use in some rigid PVCs, although EU manufacturers have voluntarily phased out the compound as part of their Vinyl 2010 initiative.¹⁴ Use of recovered PVC with low levels of cadmium in some construction products will continue to be allowed as long as they are labelled appropriately.

Cadmium is linked to liver disease and lung problems. Recent studies have found high levels in jewellery and there are concerns about toxic fumes from brazing. It is one of six toxic substances regulated under the RoHS directive on electrical and electronic equipment, and its use is restricted in batteries.¹⁵ Experts have also called for a tightening of regulations on cadmium in food.¹⁶

European Commission: http://europa.eu/rapid/ (reference: IP/11/620) and http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/chemicals/files/markrestr/study-cadmium_en.pdf

EDC criteria: room for improvement

Definitions and criteria for identifying endocrine disrupters available in existing scientific literature are not satisfactory for regulatory purposes, according to advice received by the European Commission. The work is part of a review into whether the EU's approach matches the state of current science.

An interim consultancy report looks at the scientific work conducted in this area between 2002 and 2010. It presents a non-exhaustive list of chemicals of concern and their associated effects. This includes polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which have been linked to problems with reproductive health and cancer. It also includes phthalates, phytoestrogens and bisphenol-A (BPA).

An official confirmed that the EU executive would come up with a definition for endocrine disrupting properties in the pesticides regulation by December 2013. It may also eventually revise the 1999 endocrine disrupters strategy. The Commission will issue a final report from the study later this year.

Meanwhile, Swedish NGO Chemsec has added 22 substances suspected of having endocrine-disrupting properties to its “substitute it now” (SIN) chemicals blacklist. All are common in consumer products such as toys, food packaging and cosmetics, says ChemSec. It wants EU Member States to nominate the chemicals as substances of very high concern (SVHC) under the REACH regime. The additions include: petrol additive MTBE; dry-cleaning fluid perchloroethylene; propylparaben, which is widely used in cosmetics; the plasticiser dihexyl phthalate; and metam sodium, a biocide used in paints. There are also six UV-filters used in sun screens, taking the total number of chemicals on the SIN list to 378.

New independent research, also from Sweden, highlights the extent to which toxic substances – such as phthalates – leach from plastic products. Delilah Lithner of the University of Gothenburg studied the toxicity of 83 randomly-selected plastic products and synthetic textiles by leaching them in pure (deionised) water for 1–3 days. The acute toxicity of the water was then tested using water fleas (Daphnia magna). “A third of all the 83 plastic products and synthetic chemicals… released substances that were acutely toxic to the water fleas, despite the leaching being mild. Five out of 13 products that were intended for children were toxic, for example bath toys and buoyancy aids such as inflatable armbands,” says Lithner.

European Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/endocrine/documents/studies_en.htm; ChemSec: http://www.chemsec.org; “Environmental and health hazards of chemicals in plastic polymers and products” (thesis), http://hdl.handle.net/2077/24978

Denmark pushes ‘cocktail ban’

The Danish authorities are pushing for an EU-wide ban on four phthalates based on the risks of a cocktail-effect. Papers submitted to the European Chemicals Agency request a ban on the import and sale of the four substances. DEHP, BBP and DBP are already due to be banned across the EU from February 2015 under REACH. Denmark is calling for all four – these plus DIPB – to be considered together in relation to the risks they pose when they are combined.

Denmark has been in the vanguard of campaigning for greater attention to the assessment of mixtures of compounds on the environment and human health – the so-called cocktail effect.¹⁷ After examining the content and release of the phthalates in a wide range of products the Danish Environmental Protection Agency discovered that, when combined, the cocktail effect of these chemicals could create serious health implications, such as impaired fertility.

In an unrelated move, the government will also provide 12 million kroners (€1.6m) over the next five years to support companies producing less environmentally harmful pesticides. If granted, up to 60% of the costs involved will be covered by the scheme.

Danish EPA: http://www.mst.dk/English/

Public & occupational health

Advice on nanomaterials in food

A European agency has published guidance on the risk assessment of engineered nanomaterial (ENM) applications in food and feed. The guidance is the work of the European Food Safety Authority, through its Scientific Committee, and is the first of its kind to give practical guidance for addressing potential risks arising from applications of nanoscience and nanotechnologies in the food and feed chain. The guidance covers risk assessments for food and feed applications including food additives, enzymes, flavourings, food contact materials, novel foods, feed additives and pesticides.

The EFSA guidance, which follows extensive consultation, sets out the considerations for risk assessment of ENM that may arise from their specific characteristics and properties. Importantly, it complements existing guidance documents for substances and products submitted for risk assessment for possible authorisation in food and feed. It stipulates the additional data needed for the physical and chemical characterisation of ENM in comparison with conventional applications and outlines different toxicity testing approaches to be followed by applicants.

Commenting on the publication, Professor Vittorio Silano, Chair of EFSA's Scientific Committee explained, “A thorough characterisation of the engineered nanomaterials followed by adequate toxicity testing is essential for the risk assessment of these applications. Yet we recognise uncertainties related to the suitability of certain existing test methodologies and the availability of data for ENM applications in food and feed. The guidance makes recommendations about how risk assessments should reflect these uncertainties for food and feed applications.”

To assist with the practical use of the guidance, six scenarios are presented which outline different toxicity testing approaches.

EFSA: http://www.efsa.europa.eu

GM crops linked to increased pesticide residues

German researchers are claiming a link between two of Europe's most controversial environmental issues: genetically modified (GM) crops and pesticide residues. Testbiotech, an independent biotechnology research group, says an increasing amount of herbicides and insecticides being used on GM crops is exposing consumers to toxic mixtures.

The group says herbicides like Roundup, which contain glyphosate as the main active compound, are applied to GM crops in greater amounts and in different ways compared with conventional plants. Many GM crop varieties are engineered to be glyphosate tolerant. These herbicides are also often mixed with polyoxyethylene alkylamine (POEA). Both are toxic, Testbiotech says. As a result, GM crops that produce insecticides and those that are resistant to herbicides are resulting in an increased amount of harmful residues ending up in the food chain.

“The cultivation and processing of genetically-engineered plants are exposing the environment to certain herbicides and insecticides as never before. These compounds, their metabolites, their additives and the resulting mixtures become a permanent part of the food chain. Negligence or failures in risk analysis can be hugely damaging to human health and the environment,” warns Christoph Then at Testbiotech.

Germany's food safety authority has advised farmers not to use glyphosate sprays in the cultivation of plants used for feed production. But this does not extend to imports of feed such as genetically engineered soy. Testbiotech wants import of such soybeans banned until the risks posed by pesticide residues are eliminated. Recently, a European Commission report concluded that the EU is lacking good data on the use of GM crops.¹⁸

On a related issue, Greenpeace and the Pesticide Action Network (PAN) have filed a legal challenge against the Commission saying its decision to delay a planned reassessment of glyphosate will endanger human health. This is one of 39 pesticides due to be reassessed by the end of 2012 but now deferred to 2015. The Commission said it needed more time to process reapplications for authorisations of the pesticides first. The NGOs claim that since glyphosate was authorised in Europe in 2001, new evidence of environmental and health effects has emerged, including links to cancer.

Elsewhere, the EU's largest member states show little sign of warming to a Commission proposal allowing national GM bans. France, Germany and the UK are worried about the legality of the proposals, published earlier this year, and are requesting more information.¹⁹

Testbiotech: http://www.testbiotech.de; PAN-Europe: http://www.pan-europe.info

Chlorine and childhood cancer

Portuguese researchers have found a significant positive association between the risk of childhood leukaemia and levels of chlorine-containing chemicals in the atmosphere. They say that potential emissions from the paper, chemicals, and pesticides industries as well as fossil-fuelled power stations and forest fires may lead to higher levels of chlorine-containing carcinogens in the air.

Principal investigator Maria do Carmo Freitas of the Technological and Nuclear Institute in Sacavém, and a US-based colleague investigated the correlation between atmospheric pollution levels of 22 chemical elements, as gleaned from an analysis of lichens, and looked at leukaemia deaths across Portugal. Lichens are excellent biomonitors because they depend largely on atmospheric depositions for their nutrient supply, thus showing elemental compositions which reflect the gaseous, dissolved and/or particulate elements in the atmosphere. Collecting and analysing lichens across a large geographical area thus reveals the elements present in the air across that area and so gives researchers a map of pollutants which can be overlaid with epidemiological data, on leukaemia incidence for example.

“The significant association found of course does not imply causality,” explains Freitas. “More research will be needed to confirm causality and if so the underlying mechanisms.”

Previous work has found no correlation between leukaemia and atmospheric levels of arsenic, mercury, nickel and lead as revealed by lichen surveys. However, chlorine-content has been associated with the incidence of diabetes and there are significant associations with malignant growths and bromine, iodine, nickel, lead, sulphur, antimony and vanadium contents of lichens.

“Investigation of associations between chemical element contents in native lichens and childhood leukaemia”, International Journal of Environment and Health, 2011, 5, 125–133. DOI: 10.1504/IJENVH.2011.039861

Warning on French drinking water quality

The range of chemicals found in drinking water, although in low concentrations, could pose a threat to health, green group WWF-France claim in a recent report.

The findings are based on tests of tap and bottled water carried out in 2009 and 2010. The results, analysed by a laboratory accredited by the French health ministry, detected substances such as BPA and PCBs. Atrazine and PAHs were found in more than 20% of water samples, according to the environmental group.

There are concerns over the combined effect of chemicals on health, even in very low concentrations. WWF says tightening treatment requirements will not solve the problem. It calls for a number of measures including a reduction of subsidies to intensive farming practices and a risk assessment of chemical cocktails.

WWF France: http://www.wwf.fr

Website lifts the lid on water quality

EPA has improved the availability and usability of drinking water data made available to the public. Its Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) tool now allows users to search to see whether drinking water in their community met the standards required under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). It also includes a new feature identifying drinking water systems that have had serious non-compliance. EPA's 2009 National Public Water Systems Compliance Report, a national summary of compliance and enforcement at public drinking water systems is also available.

The move is part of the Obama Administration's commitment to open up public information sources and the latest of a series of improvements to ECHO.²⁰ EPA is currently consulting on revision of the drinking water contaminants list under SDWA.²¹

EPA: http://www.epa-echo.gov/echo/compliance_report_sdwa.html

Research activities

Spain looks to innovate against air pollution

Public authorities in Spain are looking at incorporating photocatalytic materials into the exterior surfaces of urban buildings as a way of tackling air pollution in metropolitan areas. The creation of “photocatalytic islands” in large cities is one of a number of proposals to tackle NO₂ pollution.

One such installation studied in Barcelona would sequester 330 kilos of NO₂ annually, according to trade association Asociacion Iberica de Fotocatalisis. Carles Sala, of the Catalan autonomous government's housing department, said that in the current economic climate public administrations should lead by example and provide incentives to encourage such initiatives.

The scheme is one of a number of proposals being considered by the Spanish environment ministry as a means of tackling persistent excessive levels of pollutants in cities. It wants periodic vehicle inspections to include tests on NO₂ and PM₁₀ emissions. Addressing a Barcelona conference on air quality, senior ministry official Maj-Britt Larka said such inspections would oblige owners to improve maintenance. Concrete measures will be presented in a national air quality improvement plan due to be published in July.

Municipal authorities across Europe are under pressure to improve their performance in combating air pollution²² and several Spanish cities are under investigation for allegedly falsifying the figures.²³

Construmat/Green Data Forum: http://www.construmat.com

A leader in innovative information

EPA's National Library Network has been named Federal Library/Information Centre of the Year by the Library of Congress. The award recognises outstanding, innovative, and sustained achievements during fiscal year 2010 by a federal library or information centre.

EPA says its library network is an essential information partner with its staff and the public to support transparency, decision making, and environmental awareness. In the last year it digitized 7500 Agency publications, adding to the growing inventory of more than 45 000 digital documents available to the public at no cost. Serving as a point of contact for public inquiries, EPA libraries collectively addressed nearly 9000 public reference questions and loaned more than 8000 documents, saving taxpayers an estimated $266 000.

“We are proud to be recognized for our outstanding information services,” said Malcolm D. Jackson, assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Environmental Information. “This award is a testament to EPA's commitment to provide top notch library services to both our staff and the American public.”

EPA: http://www.epa.gov/libraries/

References

1. Mike Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 1524.
2. Mike Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 1123.
3. Mike Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 488.
4. Mike Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2012, 10, 2201.
5. Mike Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 487.
6. Mike Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 488.
7. Mike Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 1387; Mike Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 2203.
8. Mike Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 489.
9. Mike Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 568.
10. Mike Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 1942.
11. Mike Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 780.
12. Mike Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 238.
13. Mike Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 1507.
14. Mike Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 1527.
15. Mike Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 238.
16. Mike Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 784.
17. Mike Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2009, 11, 1450; Mike Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 805.
18. Mike Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 1528.
19. Mike Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 783.
20. Mike Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 1124.
21. Mike Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 1128.
22. Mike Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 1125.
23. Mike Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 782.

---