Day: June 10, 2013

New GAO report on U.S. EPA chemical assessments

Chemical Assessments: An Agencywide Strategy May Help EPA Address Unmet Needs for Integrated Risk Information System Assessments. GAO-13-369, May 10.
Highlights –

What GAO Found

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not conducted a recent evaluation of demand for Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) toxicity assessments with input from users inside and outside EPA. Specifically, EPA issued a needs assessment report in 2003, which estimated that 50 new or updated IRIS toxicity assessments were needed each year to meet users’ needs. However, GAO did not find sufficient support for the estimate. In addition, IRIS Program officials recognize that the 2003 estimate does not reflect current conditions, but the agency does not plan to perform another evaluation of demand. Without a clear understanding of current demand for IRIS toxicity assessments, EPA cannot adequately measure the program’s performance; effectively determine the number of IRIS toxicity assessments required to meet the needs of IRIS users; or know the extent of unmet demand.

The IRIS Program’s chemical nomination and selection process, which the agency uses to gauge interest in the IRIS Program from users inside and outside of EPA, may not accurately reflect current demand for IRIS toxicity assessments. The 75 chemicals that were nominated in response to EPA’s most recent 2011 nomination period may not reflect demand for a number of reasons. For example, given the long-standing challenges the IRIS Program has had in routinely starting new assessments, according to some EPA IRIS users, they chose not to nominate new chemicals for assessment. Also, EPA has not clearly articulated how the IRIS Program applies the criteria it uses to prioritize the selection of chemicals for IRIS toxicity assessment–including how it determines the circumstances under which an IRIS toxicity assessment is or is not needed. Consequently, for chemicals that were nominated but not selected for assessment, it is not clear how many, if any, were excluded from consideration because they did not meet the IRIS Program’s selection criteria because the IRIS Program determined that an IRIS toxicity assessment was not needed–or, alternatively, if they were not selected due to resource constraints or other reasons.

EPA has not implemented an agencywide strategy for addressing the unmet needs of EPA program offices and regions when IRIS toxicity assessments are not available, applicable, or current. Specifically, EPA does not have a strategy for identifying and filling data gaps that would enable it to conduct IRIS toxicity assessments for nominated chemicals that are not selected for assessment because sufficient data from health studies are not available. IRIS Program officials stated that no agencywide mechanism exists for EPA to ensure that chemicals without sufficient scientific data during one nomination period will have such information by the next nomination period or even the one after that. These officials acknowledged that better coordination across EPA and with other federal agencies could help address the issue. EPA also does not have agencywide guidance for addressing unmet needs when IRIS toxicity assessments are not available, applicable, or current. In the absence of agencywide guidance, officials from select EPA offices stated that they used a variety of alternatives to IRIS toxicity assessments to meet their needs, including using toxicity information from other EPA offices or other federal agencies.

Why GAO Did This Study

EPA created the IRIS database in 1985 to help develop consensus opinions within the agency about the health effects from chronic exposure to chemicals. The health effects information in IRIS–referred to as IRIS toxicity assessments–provides fundamental scientific information EPA needs to develop human health risk assessments. GAO was asked to review the effectiveness of EPA’s implementation of its IRIS toxicity assessment process. This report determines the extent to which (1) EPA has evaluated demand for IRIS toxicity assessments from users inside and outside EPA; (2) EPA’s process for nominating and selecting chemicals for IRIS toxicity assessment accurately reflects demand; and (3) EPA has implemented a strategy for addressing any unmet agency needs when IRIS toxicity assessments are not available, applicable, or current. To do this work, GAO reviewed and analyzed IRIS nomination data, among other things, and interviewed EPA officials. GAO did not evaluate the scientific content or quality of IRIS toxicity assessments.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that EPA evaluate demand for IRIS assessments; document how the agency applies its selection criteria, including the circumstances under which an IRIS toxicity assessment is or is not needed and; develop an agencywide strategy including, at a minimum, coordination across EPA offices, as well as with other federal agencies, to identify and fill data gaps, and providing guidance that describes alternative sources of toxicity information. EPA agreed with the first two recommendations and partially agreed with the third.

Is this plant the key to sustainable drinking water?

Read the full story at SmartPlanet.

“Access to water cannot be a luxury,” said Pedro Tomás Delgado, founder of Agua Inc. “Our philosophy is water for everyone.”

About a billion people don’t have access to clean drinking water. Agua — formerly known as Aquaphytex — looks to use macrophyte plants to provide accessible, clean water to all the corners of the earth. This chemical-free, sustainable solution utilizes these plants that grow on or in water to attract bacteria to the roots and up into the plant, while the potable water filters out in about five days.

Al Gore, Google search for a greener Internet

Read the full story at GreenBiz.

How green is the Internet? Al Gore, Eric Schmidt and other experts packed a room at Google headquarters Thursday to explore the Internet’s environmental impacts. With a crowd of about 100 people, it was the third event Google has hosted on this topic since 2009.

full agenda, Gore’s star power, and scores of sustainability and cloud services gurus led to plenty of  stimulating discussions. Overall, Jonathan Koomey, research fellow at Stanford’s Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance, was particularly insightful.

Fiber testing reveals dirty secrets of office paper

Read the full story at GreenBiz.

At WRI, we are working to understand and minimize our environmental impacts. Using research and expertise from around the Institute to guide us, WRI is committed to limiting the resources we use and purchasing products that reflect our environmental and social mission.

Our guidelines at our Washington, D.C. office require paper products to be certified and have high recycled fiber content. However, we had not identified other requirements beyond product certification, nor had we effectively communicated these guidelines or any paper purchasing standards with our non-D.C. offices. We also found that we were not maintaining records on all our offices’ paper purchases.

Considering our ongoing work to help companies comply with U.S. Lacey Act requirements, we decided it was time to examine the paper products in our own offices. We wanted to better understand our supply chains and use fiber analysis to test the paper content.

Sustainia100 and the politics of positivity

Read the full story at GreenBiz.

Despite the doom and gloom of the mainstream media narrative around sustainability, there is more positive activity — and business opportunity — than is typically reported. If you’re curious what an oasis of practical solutions in a desert of dreary projections might look like, you can find one in the just-released Sustainia100 guide.

In anticipation of Sustainia100’s 2013 edition (download), published yesterday, I spoke with Christopher Sveen, Director of Business Development for Sustainia, the Denmark-based nonprofit behind the publication. Sustainia’s mission is to work across sectors to promote a tangible approach to sustainability.

2014 Climate Leadership Awards

State and local entities are invited to apply for the third annual Climate Leadership Awards. The application period runs from June 24 to September 13, 2013.
The Climate Leadership Awards recognize and incentivize exemplary corporate, organizational, and individual leadership in response to climate change. The awards ceremony takes place during the Climate Leadership Conference, which will be held in San Diego, California, on February 25, 2014. EPA co-sponsors the Climate Leadership Awards with three NGO partners: The Association of Climate Change Officers, the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, and The Climate Registry.
Here are some key dates to remember:
  • June 11, 2013, 12:00-1:00 PM EDT: Webinar on Navigating the 2014 Climate Leadership Awards Application Process. In this webinar, EPA and NGO partners will present on each of the award categories and answer your questions about evaluation criteria—including new elements this year—as well as the application process and timeline. Register for this free webinar.
  • June 24, 2013: Award application period opens
  • September 13, 2013: Award application period closes
  • February 25, 2014: 2014 Climate Leadership Awards Dinner, Hyatt Regency Mission Bay, San Diego, California
In February 2013, the second annual awards were presented to two individuals and 21 organizations from across the United States who are leading the way in the management and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The 2013 winners included the following local and regional governments and agencies:

Rare Earth Elements and Recycling Possibilities

Via Docuticker.

Source: Library of the European Parliament

From Summary:

Rare earth elements (REEs) are a group of 17 metallic elements mined in ores containing low quantities of REEs. They have particular properties essential to many industries. REEs are key components of clean energy and high-tech growth industries, and are therefore considered a critical raw material.

REEs are imported into the European Union (EU) from a very limited number of producers. Until recently, China has been almost the sole supplier of REEs to the rest of the world. Demand for REEs is high and steadily growing, since more and more products include REEs. The REE market is therefore of economic and geopolitical importance.

Alternatives to the primary supply of REEs from mined ores are being developed to bring relief to the REE market. Recycling of REEs, from materials used in spent products, provides a secondary supply. However, closing the REE “life-cycle” is a technological challenge, due to the specific uses and properties of the elements. Recycling REEs is still at an early stage.