Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 24/09/18
-
(ACC Mentioned) Lawmakers to Examine 'Man-Made Trash'
Sep 24, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Rob Hotakainen
A Senate panel this week will focus on cleaning up the oceans and looking for ways to reduce the impact of "man-made trash" on the environment. -
(ACC Mentioned) Plastic More Sustainable Than Paper, Study Shows
Sep 24, 2018 | Plastics Today
By Clare Goldsberry
The idea that plastic packaging actually reduces solid waste seems like a contradiction if you look at the numbers put out by the mainstream media. -
(ACC Mentioned) Opinion: Can Natural Rubber Move from Current Surplus to Future Shortage?
Sep 24, 2018 | Rubber & Plastics News
By Prachaya Jumpasut
Natural rubber surplus returned to the picture again last year, making it a constant major threat amid growing global production capacity. -
Congratulations. Your Study Went Nowhere.
Sep 24, 2018 | The New York Times
By Aaron E. Carroll
When we think of biases in research, the one that most often makes the news is a researcher’s financial conflict of interest. -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Backs EPA Discretion to Limit TSCA Reviews
Sep 24, 2018 | Inside EPA
Chemical industry groups are strongly backing EPA's discretion to determine the scope of chemical reviews under the revised toxics law, arguing in a legal filing that environmentalists' claims that the agency must consider all chemical uses is unsupported by law, unworkable, and would grind chemical oversight to a halt. -
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Agency Struggling with Organohalogen Flame Retardants in Consumer Products
Sep 23, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
From laptop computers to babies’ high chairs, hundreds of everyday household goods contain chemicals intentionally added to prevent or slow the items from igniting. -
Big Oil Pledges to Slash Potent Greenhouse Gas Emission
Sep 24, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Ron Bousso and Susanna Twidale
A group of the world's top oil and gas companies pledged on Monday to slash emissions of a potent greenhouse gas by a fifth by 2025 in an effort to battle climate change. -
Crude Oil Top Petroleum Export from U.S. in First Half of 2018
Sep 24, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Rye Druzin
U.S. crude oil exports of nearly 1.8 million barrels a were the top petroleum product export in the first half of 2018. -
Keystone XL Saga Enters Second Decade: Fuel for Thought
Sep 24, 2018 | Platts
By Meghan Gordon
Last week marked a decade since TransCanada first applied to build the Keystone XL heavy oil pipeline from Alberta to the Texas Gulf Coast, and the project’s fate is not much clearer today. -
State Dept. Review Finds Minimal Harm from New Route
Sep 24, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Pamela King
The Keystone XL pipeline's new path through Nebraska would not significantly affect the environment, State Department officials found in their draft review of the mainline alternative route. -
Court Orders EPA to Implement Obama Chemical Plant Rule
Sep 24, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A federal appeals court has ordered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to start enforcing a chemical plant safety rule that the Trump administration tried to delay. -
Court Snubs Latest EPA Bid to Delay Safety Rule
Sep 24, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Corbin Hiar
A federal appeals court has ordered EPA to begin enforcing an Obama-era chemical plant safety standard that was stalled by the Trump administration. -
Governments Are Failing Their Citizens on Climate Change. Here’s How They Can Fix It
Sep 24, 2018 | TIME
By Borge Brende
The world seems to have declared defeat in the war against climate change. -
Big Week for State Climate Policy
Sep 24, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Debra Kahn
California climate policies are moving forward at a furious rate two weeks after Gov. Jerry Brown (D) corralled state governments around the world to accelerate progress in reducing carbon emissions. -
Studies on Emissions' Harm to Babies May Boost Call for Stricter NAAQS
Sep 24, 2018 | Inside EPA
Two new studies on the effects of air pollution on unborn babies are bolstering evidence of harm to human health caused by air pollution including from fine particulate matter (PM2.5), which could boost environmentalists' call for EPA to tighten its national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for PM2.5 and other pollutants.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Lawmakers to Examine 'Man-Made Trash'
Sep 24, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Rob Hotakainen
A Senate panel this week will focus on cleaning up the oceans and looking for ways to reduce the impact of "man-made trash" on the environment.
At a Senate hearing last year, the State Department called marine debris "the real sea monster" and said the oceans could hold more plastic than fish by 2050 if current trends aren't reversed.
NOAA has also called for more research and prevention to stop "a global problem."
Four witnesses are scheduled to testify at the hearing Wednesday before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, including former Rep. Cal Dooley (D-Calif.), who now heads the American Chemistry Council.
Schedule: The hearing is Wednesday, Sept. 26, at 10 a.m. in 406 Dirksen.
Witnesses:Jonathan Baillie, executive vice president and chief scientist, National Geographic Society.Cal Dooley, president and chief executive officer, American Chemistry Council.Bruce Karas, vice president of environment and sustainability, Coca-Cola North America.Kara Lavender Law, research professor of oceanography, Sea Education Association.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/stories/1060099315/search?keyword=%22american+chemistry+council%22
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastic More Sustainable Than Paper, Study Shows
Sep 24, 2018 | Plastics Today
By Clare Goldsberry
The idea that plastic packaging actually reduces solid waste seems like a contradiction if you look at the numbers put out by the mainstream media. However, a new study by the Earth Engineering Center at the City College of New York (EEC|CCNY) finds that plastics are responsible for a decline in Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) generation rates, even as per-capita income and consumption rise.
Historically, the amount of MSW produced by a country or region rises in lockstep with the economy, or personal consumption expenditures (PCE). In the mid-1990s, the rate of MSW generation stopped tracking with rising PCE in the United States and began to show a phenomenon known as “decoupling,” according to a release from the American Chemistry Council (ACC). In 2010, the amount of waste produced in the United States started to decline, despite a continued rise in consumer spending. The study’s authors attribute this decoupling to the increased use of plastic in packaging.
“We knew that the overall amount of plastics in the waste stream increased substantially over time due to increased consumer use,” said Marco J. Castaldi, PhD, Director of the EEC at CCNY. “We extensively studied the potential for energy recovery and have quantified the impact there. We were surprised to learn in this study just how much of an impact plastics had on solid waste weight and volume reduction over the years.”Sponsored Content Brought to you by PLASTEC MinneapolisThe Midwest's Only Plastics Trade Show
PLASTEC Minneapolis is the hub to injection molding, materials and additives, product design, automation, and more. Source new products explore breakthrough technology, and hear innovators reveal their latest discoveries and developments.
EEC|CCNY also looked at scenarios where other types of packaging were used in place of plastic packaging to understand plastics’ potential impact on total U.S. MSW generation. On average, products made with alternatives require 3.2 times more material than plastics. For packaging, specifically, the combined weight of alternative materials is about 4.5 times more than the weight of plastic packaging.
This is not news to those of us in the plastics industry. We’ve known all along that plastic provides lightweight, energy-efficient solutions for plastic packaging, both in its processing and transportation. It’s not rocket science! Weigh a paperboard overnight mailer versus a plastic film overnight mailer and see the weight difference.
If you compare the use of resources in manufacturing paper compared with plastic, in water usage alone, the cost is much higher given that potable water is a resource that is in short supply in many regions of the world. The energy used to transport goods in trucks is much higher when shipping cardboard and paperboard.
For example, a fact sheet provided by the ACC notes that 2,000 plastic retail bags weigh 30 pounds, while 2,000 paper grocery bags weigh 280 pounds. For every seven trucks to deliver paper bags, only one truck is needed for the same amount of plastic bags. Additionally it takes 91% less energy to recycle a pound of plastic than it takes to recycle a pound of paper. Plastic bags generate 80% less waste than paper bags.
Someone needs to inform Kroger Corp.’s CEO about this and call out his misguided decision to get rid of plastic in favor of paper. Of course, consumer education is needed as well.
According to Keith Christman, Managing Director, Plastics Markets, at ACC, “Plastics have an important role to play in delivering sustainable outcomes. By using less material, plastics help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and waste generation, as well as save energy. And our industry is working further to realize plastics’ sustainability benefits through our commitment to recycle or recover all plastic packaging by 2040.”
To accompany the EEC|CCNY study’s release, the ACC has developed a new interactive packaging substitution calculator for packaging professionals to estimate the weight and volume savings, as well as the potential to reduce municipal solid waste.
https://www.plasticstoday.com/packaging/plastic-more-sustainable-paper-study-shows/207518312859524
-
(ACC Mentioned) Opinion: Can Natural Rubber Move from Current Surplus to Future Shortage?
Sep 24, 2018 | Rubber & Plastics News
By Prachaya Jumpasut
Natural rubber surplus returned to the picture again last year, making it a constant major threat amid growing global production capacity.
The sharp increase in the NR acreage has no doubt contributed to the increase in global rubber production, surplus and stocks over recent years.
With increasing production capacity, how can a long-term rubber shortage ever be possible?
Briefly, on the demand side, as income and population both continue to grow in Asia, more tire and general rubber products will be consumed, giving opportunities for end use industries to expand. The rapid growth in Asia is more than balancing out the saturation effect on rubber consumption in North America and Europe, resulting in a continued growth in world rubber demand.
On the supply side, increasing opportunity costs in major producing countries will influence a decline in NR supply.
Even rubber prices will likely return to $6 per kilogram as in early 2011, and/or rubber acreage will continue to expand like what happened over the past 10 years. Despite prospects for a continued increase in output from new and smaller producing countries, there is no guarantee that there will be sufficient NR in coming years.
The decision to plant or to tap rubber trees depends not only on current prices, but on alternative incomes and alternative costs. The land, capital and labor that go into producing rubber means the opportunities to build a factory or industrial complex are lost.
In the early stages of economic development, in a rubber producing country, the opportunity cost of rubber production is quite low. There are few opportunities apart from producing rubber and other commodities and wages in the city are not high enough to attract tappers away from the plantations.
As the country becomes increasingly industrialized, wages in the city increase, attracting workers and making land and capital relatively expensive to produce rubber.
It is inevitable that all producing countries, at one time or another, will reach the point at which the opportunity cost will be higher to continue to produce rubber. This time will come sooner or later.
NR is unique because many major producing countries are amongst the world's fastest growing economies. That is why Malaysia rubber output declined from 1.7 million metric tons in the late 1980s to just over 700,000 ton last year. Soon Thailand, Indonesia and Vietnam will follow the same path.
So as demand continues to increase while supply declines, the NR industry may eventually face shortages.
This likely may lead to increases in the use of alternative materials such as synthetic rubber, guayule and dandelions. There has been news of developments of NR from the latter two materials and trials being carried out by a number of tire manufacturers.
However, to us, it is not certain whether these materials can be a viable source for NR.
The most important question is whether dandelions or guayule can be produced on a large scale and as cheap as rubber? Many people believe that this is unlikely.
The government of Canada, which holds the rotating G7 presidency this year, plans to push the plastics charter in other forums.
Environment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna told Canadian journalists she plans to bring the charter to both the United Nations and the G20 economic bloc.
At the summit, she suggested she's building links with businesses. She told a public session on plastics that she's had "wide-ranging conversations" with Polman and argued that there's significant economic opportunity in finding solutions to plastic waste problems.
"We do need business leaders who are going to step up, who are going to bring folks together, who are going to overcome sometimes old school mentalities that you can't tackle these problems or there isn't a huge economic opportunity moving forward," McKenna said.
Plastics industry groups were also in Halifax. Keith Christman, director of plastics markets for the American Chemistry Council, told the summit that the U.S. industry has committed to having all plastics packaging reused, recyclable or recoverable by 2040.
A trio of polystyrene companies unveiled a depolymerization technology at the summit they said can significantly boost PS recycling, and Nova Chemicals repeated a $2 million commitment to help fund plastic waste cleanup in Indonesia.
Attendees noted the positive roles of plastics in society. Erik Solheim, head of the U.N. Environment Program—which declared "war" on ocean plastics last year—said plastics in automobiles reduce fuel consumption and plastic packaging can reduce food waste.
"Those are good purposes," he said, "but it goes without saying that we can be a lot more innovative."
Solheim called for much better use of plastics, including phasing out applications such as straws or plastic bags that are only used for a very short time but can remain in the environment for many years, and urged companies to pursue better design.
Polman believes public concern will continue to grow, and he made a veiled criticism of the two G7 governments that did not sign the plastics charter, Japan and the United States, without naming them.
"Even though I realize there are some countries here still hesitating to sign I can only tell you, you are out of line with where the consumers are and you're out of line with where the bulk of the industry is," Polman said.
http://www.rubbernews.com/article/20180924/NEWS/180929977/opinion-can-natural-rubber-move-from-current-surplus-to-future
-
Congratulations. Your Study Went Nowhere.
Sep 24, 2018 | The New York Times
By Aaron E. Carroll
When we think of biases in research, the one that most often makes the news is a researcher’s financial conflict of interest. But another bias, one possibly even more pernicious, is how research is published and used in supporting future work.
A recent study in Psychological Medicine examined how four of these types of biases came into play in research on antidepressants. The authors created a data set containing 105 studies of antidepressants that were registered with the Food and Drug Administration. Drug companies are required to register trials before they are done, so the researchers knew they had more complete information than what might appear in the medical literature.
Publication bias refers to the decision on whether to publish results based on the outcomes found. With the 105 studies on antidepressants, half were considered “positive” by the F.D.A., and half were considered “negative.” Ninety-eight percent of the positive trials were published; only 48 percent of the negative ones were.
Outcome reporting bias refers to writing up only the results in a trial that appear positive, while failing to report those that appear negative. In 10 of the 25 negative studies, studies that were considered negative by the F.D.A. were reported as positive by the researchers, by switching a secondary outcome with a primary one, and reporting it as if it were the original intent of the researchers, or just by not reporting negative results.
ADVERTISEMENT
Spin refers to using language, often in the abstract or summary of the study, to make negative results appear positive. Of the 15 remaining “negative” articles, 11 used spin to puff up the results. Some talked about statistically nonsignificant results as if they were positive, by referring only to the numerical outcomes. Others referred to trends in the data, even though they lacked significance. Only four articles reported negative results without spin.
Spin works. A randomized controlled trial found that clinicians who read abstracts in which nonsignificant results for cancer treatments were rewritten with spin were more likely to think the treatment was beneficial and more interested in reading the full-text article.
It gets worse. Research becomes amplified by citation in future papers. The more it’s discussed, the more it’s disseminated both in future work and in practice. Positive studies were cited three times more than negative studies. This is citation bias.
Only half of the research was positive. Almost no one would know that. Even thorough reviews of the literature would find that nearly all studies were positive, and those that were negative were ignored. This is one reason you wind up with 10 percent of Americans on antidepressants when good research shows the efficacy of many of the drugs is far less than believed.
The preregistration of trials is supposed to help control for these biases. It works sporadically. In 2011, researchers examined cohorts of randomized controlled trials to see how well the published research matched what scientists said it was going to do beforehand. In some studies, they found, eligibility criteria for participants differed greatly from what was published.EDITORS’ PICKSA Teacher Made a Hitler Joke in the Classroom. It Tore the School Apart.‘If This Book Is Not Expressing Everything, What Am I Doing With My Life?’Trump Administration Discussed Coup Plans With Rebel Venezuelan Officers
ADVERTISEMENT
In some, they found that procedures had changed for how to conduct analyses. In almost all, the sample size calculations had changed. Almost none reported on all the outcomes that were noted in the protocols or registries. Primary outcomes were changed or dropped in up to half of publications. This isn’t to say secondary outcomes don’t matter; they’re often very important. It’s also possible that some of these decisions were made for legitimate reasons, but, too often, there are no explanations.
In 2012, researchers re-analyzed 42 meta-analyses for nine drugs in six classes that had been approved by the F.D.A. In their re-analyses, they included data from the F.D.A. that was not in the medical literature. The addition of the new data changed the results in more than 90 percent of the studies. In those where efficacy went down, it did so by a median 11 percent. When efficacy went up — about the same rate that it went down — it did so by a median 13 percent.
This problem is worldwide. In 2004 in JAMA, a study reviewed more than 100 trials approved by a scientific-ethical committee in Denmark that resulted in 122 publications and more than 3,700 outcomes. But a great deal went unreported: about half of the outcomes on whether the drugs worked, and about two-thirds of the outcomes on whether the drugs caused harm. Positive outcomes were more likely to be reported. More than 60 percent of trials had at least one primary outcome changed or dropped.
But when the researchers surveyed the scientists who conducted the trials and published the results, 86 percent reported that there were no unpublished outcomes.
There has even been a systematic review of the many studies of these types of biases. It provides empirical evidence that the biases are widespread and cover many domains.
A modeling study published in BMJ Open in 2014 showed that if a publication bias caused positive findings to be published at four times the rate of negative ones for a particular treatment, 90 percent of large meta-analyses would later conclude that the treatment worked when it actually didn’t.
This doesn’t mean we should discount all results from medical trials. It means that we need, more than ever, to reproduce research to make sure it’s robust. Dispassionate third parties who attempt to achieve the same results will fail to do so if the reported findings have been massaged in some way.
Further, there are things we can do to fix this problem. We can demand that trial results be published, regardless of findings. To that end, we can encourage journals to publish negative results as doggedly as positive ones. We can ensure that preregistered protocols and outcomes are the ones that are finally reported in the literature. We can hold authors to more rigorous standards when they publish, so that results are accurately and transparently reported. We can celebrate and elevate negative results, in both our arguments and reporting, as we do positive ones. Unfortunately, getting such research published is harder than it should be.
These actions might make for more boring news and more tempered enthusiasm. But they might also lead to more accurate science.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/24/upshot/publication-bias-threat-to-science.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Backs EPA Discretion to Limit TSCA Reviews
Sep 24, 2018 | Inside EPA
Chemical industry groups are strongly backing EPA's discretion to determine the scope of chemical reviews under the revised toxics law, arguing in a legal filing that environmentalists' claims that the agency must consider all chemical uses is unsupported by law, unworkable, and would grind chemical oversight to a halt.
“Nowhere did Congress require EPA to consider 'all' conditions of use,” a coalition of industry groups, including the American Chemistry Council, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers says in a Sept. 19 brief supporting EPA's defense of an environmentalist lawsuit.
“Rather than providing the review that Congress envisioned, Petitioners’ approach would grind the process to a halt and thwart Congress’ clear goals in amending” the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the intervenors say.
In the case Safer Chemicals Healthy Families et al. v. U.S. EPA et al., environmental and labor groups are challenging the Trump administration's rules for prioritizing and evaluating risks of chemicals in commerce under TSCA, arguing that EPA's claim of authority to exclude chemicals' legacy uses is inconsistent with the revised law.
The case pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit could -- depending on how the court rules -- pose a significant hurdle to EPA's TSCA implementation. Environmentalists have threatened to ramp up calls for state rules, creating a patchwork that industry fears -- if EPA fails to adequately consider chemical risks.
Environmentalist petitioners including the Natural Resources Defense Council, Safer Chemicals Healthy Families, and United Steelworkers have argued that the Trump administration inappropriately narrowed Obama-era proposed rules to exclude consideration of chemicals' legacy uses, which pose ongoing risks.
But in defending against the lawsuit, EPA has argued that TSCA grants the agency broad discretion to determine the conditions of use that it will evaluate in reviews and that recent legislative history supports the agency's focus on the most pressing risks.
In the recent filing, industry intervenors argue that TSCA grants EPA discretion to determine the scope of chemical reviews, including what uses it will consider, and that environmentalists' calls for reviewing all chemical uses seek to hamper the efficient chemical review process that Congress intended.
Although one industry observer has said, that the Chevron doctrine, under which courts defer to agencies' reasonable interpretation of ambiguous statutes, will likely play a significant role in the case, the intervenors decline to cite Chevron, arguing instead that EPA's discretion flows from the revised TSCA.
“EPA properly exercised its discretion to determine that legacy activities are not circumstances of a condition of use of a chemical that should be prioritized and evaluated under TSCA,” intervenors say.
“Congress expressly provided EPA with this discretion, by authorizing EPA to identify those circumstances 'as determined by the Administrator' in defining the conditions of use."
Additionally, industry argues that EPA's interpretation that it may limit the scope of reviews will allow the agency to meet the law's tight deadlines for chemical reviews, while also focusing on the uses that pose the most significant risks.
“Allowing EPA discretion, applied in context-specific basis, to focus its resources on those circumstances of exposure that present the greatest potential concern is a wholly reasonable approach -- and will ensure EPA moves ahead to meet the statutory deadlines established by Congress and avoid bringing the process to a grinding halt,” they say.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/industry-backs-epa-discretion-limit-tsca-reviews
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Agency Struggling with Organohalogen Flame Retardants in Consumer Products
Sep 23, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
From laptop computers to babies’ high chairs, hundreds of everyday household goods contain chemicals intentionally added to prevent or slow the items from igniting. These compounds can end up in a home’s dust and ingested by children and adults. Federal biomonitoring data show that most U.S. residents have measurable quantities of flame-retardant metabolites in their blood. This finding raises red flags because many commonly used flame retardants are linked to health concerns, including endocrine disruption, reproductive problems, cancer, and developmental defects.Flame-retardant manufacturers phased down use of decabromodiphenyl ether because of health concerns and substituted decabromodiphenyl ethane, which has similar physical and chemical traits and potentially similar toxicity.
To protect consumers, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is struggling with whether to ban an entire class of these substances: organohalogen flame retardants. CPSC, a federal agency with fewer than 600 employees, has never before considered regulating an entire category of chemicals. Meanwhile, flame-retardant manufacturers and electronics makers are dead set against a ban of all the dozens of organohalogens used in consumer products.
Now, CPSC is turning to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering & Medicine. The agency wants help determining whether and how to implement a scientifically sound ban on products containing organohalogen flame retardants, a group of chemicals that includes brominated or chlorinated phosphate esters.
The gears of CPSC regulation started rolling last September after a 3-2 vote by the agency’s commissioners, who are appointed by the U.S. president to seven-year terms to direct the agency’s actions. That vote granted a petition seeking a CPSC ban of four types of household goods containing organohalogen flame retardants. Those consumer items are children’s products, except car seats; residential furniture; mattresses and mattress pads; and casings that surround electronics such as home computers.
Sign up for C&EN's must-read weekly newsletterSubscribe »
Contact us to opt out anytime
The petition targets only organohalogens that are simply added to the material, not chemically bound within a product’s polymer structure. These so-called additive flame retardants can migrate from the products they are used in. This leads to human exposure, say the petitioners, who include the American Academy of Pediatrics and advocates for the environment, consumers, industrial workers, firefighters, and those with learning disabilities.
Organohalogen flame retardants are inherently toxic because of their physical, chemical, and biological properties, the petitioners say. At a CPSC hearing on the petition last year, Linda Birnbaum, the director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program, agreed. “Every chemical tested in this class has adverse effects,” she said.
The petitioners argue that the chemicals’ toxicity means regulators should address them in one fell swoop. “It is imperative that CPSC’s regulation cover all organohalogen flame retardants as a class,” the petition says.
Selecting only some of these chemicals for regulation, they contend, won’t prevent manufacturers from switching to other organohalogen flame retardants with similar health effects. This practice happened in the past, the petitioners point out.
For example, concerns rose more than a decade ago about decabromodiphenyl ether because it persists in the environment and is linked to cancer and brain function impairment. The substance was widely used in the housing of televisions and personal computers. After negotiations with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, makers of this flame retardant phased out sales of the substance at the end of 2013.ADVERTISEMENT
In its place, chemical makers substituted a structurally similar compound, decabromodiphenyl ethane.
These ether and ethane flame retardants have similar physical and chemical properties and could pose similar health concerns (Xenobiotica 2016, DOI: 10.1080/00498254.2016.1250180).
As it focuses on a possible ban of all organohalogen flame retardants, CPSC is establishing what’s called a Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel to conduct a detailed review of scientific data on organohalogen toxicity and exposure. This group of outside scientific experts will report to the agency about the risks to consumers’ health and safety from organohalogen flame retardants in the four kinds of items specified in the petition.
Meanwhile, CPSC is asking a newly formed National Academies flame retardants committee to help the agency determine whether it is possible to characterize organohalogen flame retardants clearly enough to address them as a group—or what information the agency would need to do so. “We don’t know whether it is possible to consider these as a class,” CPSC Assistant General Counsel Patricia M. Pollitzer told the committee in August at its first meeting. “It is a new question for us.”
The consumer agency is also seeking advice from the committee on whether it should—or could—break organohalogen flame retardants into subclasses for possible regulation, said George Borlase, head of the CPSC’s Office of Hazard Identification & Reduction.
Manufacturers are arguing against CPSC regulating organohalogen flame retardants as a class. Because of their varying physiochemical properties and toxicity profiles, these chemicals can’t appropriately be lumped together for regulation, said Kimberly W. White, a senior director at the chemical industry group American Chemistry Council. She spoke to the National Academies’ committee on behalf of the industry council’s North American Flame Retardant Alliance.
The hazard and risk of each organohalogen needs to be assessed individually, White argued. These compounds are not all interchangeable among applications, she added. Chris Cleet of the Information Technology Industry Council, an association that includes makers of computers, phones, and printers, backed White’s arguments against a ban of the compounds as a class.
The outcome of the work by the National Academies’ committee and the Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel will have broad repercussions, Eve C. Gartner, director of the toxics program at the environmental group Earthjustice, one of the petitioners, tells C&EN. For instance, the two scientific reports are likely to influence EPA’s ongoing assessments of several types of flame-retardant chemicals under the federal law governing commercial chemicals, she says. In that effort, EPA is determining if these chemicals are safe for their specific uses or whether they need regulation to protect human health.
Determinations reached by CPSC and the National Academies’ committee could also have regulatory ramifications for a subset of organohalogen compounds making headlines this year—per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs)—Gartner predicts. PFAS chemicals are commonly used as surfactants, grease repellents, and wetting agents. These substances, which include perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, are increasingly being detected at levels of health concern in public drinking water supplies across the U.S. and world.
The National Academies’ committee is expected to finalize its advice on organohalogen flame retardants to CPSC in the first half of 2019, says Ellen K. Mantus, staff officer for the project.
https://cen.acs.org/safety/consumer-safety/US-agency-struggling-organohalogen-flame/96/i38
-
Big Oil Pledges to Slash Potent Greenhouse Gas Emission
Sep 24, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Ron Bousso and Susanna Twidale
A group of the world's top oil and gas companies pledged on Monday to slash emissions of a potent greenhouse gas by a fifth by 2025 in an effort to battle climate change.
The Oil and Gas Climate Initiative (OGCI), which U.S. giants Exxon Mobil and Chevron joined recently, committed to cutting methane emissions to an intensity of 0.25 percent of the group's total fossil fuel production, it said in a statement.
Such a reduction would equate to 350,000 tonnes of methane annually. It compares with a baseline intensity of 0.32 percent in 2017, excluding new members.
The pledge, which could be lowered further to 0.20 percent intensity, echoes targets set individually by members BP, Royal Dutch Shell and Exxon to reduce methane emissions.
ADVERTISEMENT
"Our aim is to work towards near zero methane emissions from the full gas value chain in support of achieving the goals of the Paris (Climate) Agreement," the heads of the OGCI members said in a statement, referring to an international agreement aimed at limiting global warming.
The OGCI today represents nearly a third of global oil and gas production. It also includes BP, Royal Dutch Shell, France's Total as well as national oil companies of China, Mexico, Brazil and Saudi Arabia.
The U.S.-based Environment Defense Fund (EDF), a non-governmental organisation, said OGCI needs to adopt more, and transparent, ways of measuring methane emissions to meet the target.
"It will be critical now for companies to follow through on their commitment, reporting on progress with actual measured emissions, fully and publicly disclosed," EDF President Fred Krupp said in a statement.
"A second challenge for OGCI is the risk that laggards in the industry hide behind their efforts, falsely claiming that the actions of an important few represent what all in the industry are doing."EDITORS’ PICKSChina’s Sea Control Is a Done Deal, ‘Short of War With the U.S.’Can Good Teaching Be Taught?The N.F.L. Stiff-Armed Trump. Now He Is Heckling From the White House.
In a separate announcement, timed to coincide with the start of Climate Week in New York, OGCI announced the creation of a $100 million China-focused climate investment fund with China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC).
The group is investing in new technologies, including satellite imagery, to help measure and detect methane leaks from pipelines, wells and other infrastructure, said Pratima Rangarajan, head of OGCI Climate Investments.
"Today there is no global measurement, so what you don't measure you don't fix or operate as well as you should," she told Reuters in an interview.
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2018/09/24/business/24reuters-oil-climatechange.html
-
Crude Oil Top Petroleum Export from U.S. in First Half of 2018
Sep 24, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Rye Druzin
U.S. crude oil exports of nearly 1.8 million barrels a were the top petroleum product export in the first half of 2018.
Crude oil exports surpassed hydrocarbon gas liquids or HGL exports of 1.6 million barrels a day, according to a report by the Department of Energy. HGLs are defined as natural gas liquids like ethane, propane and olefins like ethylene, and propylene used in plastics manufacturing.
U.S. ports and crude oil pipeline and storage companies have been racing to build out pipelines, gathering systems, storage and export terminals along the Texas Gulf Coast to meet the demand for exports.
The largest market for crude oil exports between Jan. and June 2018 was China, which took in 376,000 barrels of oil a day. The second largest importer was Canada at 334,000 barrels a day.
The Asian market was the largest for imported U.S. crude at 744,000 barrels a day, while Europe came in second at 556,000 barrels a day.
In June a new monthly record for U.S. crude oil exports was made when the country exported 2.2 million barrels a day, according to the Energy Department.
Total crude oil and petroleum product exports for the first six months of 2018 hit a record 7.3 million barrels a day.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Crude-oil-top-petroleum-export-from-U-S-in-first-13253210.php
-
Keystone XL Saga Enters Second Decade: Fuel for Thought
Sep 24, 2018 | Platts
By Meghan Gordon
Last week marked a decade since TransCanada first applied to build the Keystone XL heavy oil pipeline from Alberta to the Texas Gulf Coast, and the project’s fate is not much clearer today.
The failure of Keystone XL and other pipeline proposals to overcome regulatory and court challenges continue to pressure Alberta oil prices, with Western Canada Select trading at more than a $30/b discount to WTI this month.
In the 10 years Canadian oil sands producers have waited for Keystone XL and other pipelines to add critical new takeaway capacity, the energy landscape south of the Canada/US border has changed dramatically: surging US light sweet output heading to export markets like Asia, and collapsing Venezuelan production, a chief competitor to Canadian oil sands in supplying US Gulf Coast refineries.
Canadian oil sands producers are counting on three remaining proposals for new takeaway capacity: the 830,000 b/d Keystone XL pipeline, the newly government-owned 590,000 b/d Trans Mountain pipeline expansion to British Columbia, and a 370,000 b/d expansion of Enbridge’s Line 3 into the US Midwest.
Three contenders
“Obstacles for all three projects will persist, including potential regulatory delays, lawsuits and protests,” S&P Global Platts Analytics said in a recent report. “But we expect at least two to be built from late 2019 to late 2022, which will allow a major reduction in more expensive rail service.”
Enbridge’s Line 3 appears to be at the front of the pack, Morningstar Commodities and Energy’s director of oil research Sandy Fielden said.
Trans Mountain, which the Canadian government recently bought from Kinder Morgan, now sits at the back of the pack after a federal court in August overturned its permit approval over flawed consultations with indigenous groups along the route. After the court order, Platts Analytics pushed back its projected in-service to late 2022 at the earliest.
Fielden expects Keystone XL to eventually get built, given that all of its remaining challenges sit on the US side of the border, and the Trump administration supports the project.
“The permit process in Nebraska is still creaking its way through, so it won’t happen until 2020 at least,” he said. “There is, of course, a lot of demand from the Canadian producers who are getting stiffed by discounts as well as from Gulf Coast refiners who might have to handle a complete Venezuela meltdown any minute now.”
TransCanada filed its first Keystone XL application to the US State Department on September 19, 2008, when executives could not have predicted how the proposal would become such a huge symbol for environmentalists, or that the project would dominate energy debates during state and federal elections for years.
A decade later, TransCanada says the project continues to draw strong interest for 20-year shipping contracts. However, given the history of regulatory and court uncertainties, the company has yet to make a final investment decision.Strong interest
TransCanada said in May that it would start clearing land in Montana this autumn in preparation for the start of construction in the second quarter of 2019. However, that timeline may be in question after a US district judge in Montana ordered the State Department to conduct a new environmental impact statement.
The Montana case focused on Nebraska regulators’ decision in late 2017 to deny TransCanada’s preferred route, but approve its “mainline alternative” route. The Montana judge declined to vacate the presidential permit “at this time”, but ordered the State Department to supplement its 2014 environmental review to consider the route approved by Nebraska.
Baird analyst Ethan Bellamy said the chances for Keystone XL to be built remain highest while President Donald Trump is in office, but the path ahead is uncertain regardless.
“If it’s going to happen, Keystone XL needs to get past the point of no return on construction and permitting with Trump in the White House,” he said. “Whatever happens, I’d expect Dakota Access-like protests to consume the route. It will be expensive, troublesome, litigious and politically toxic as it proceeds.”
http://blogs.platts.com/2018/09/24/keystone-xl-saga-enters-second-decade/
-
State Dept. Review Finds Minimal Harm from New Route
Sep 24, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Pamela King
The Keystone XL pipeline's new path through Nebraska would not significantly affect the environment, State Department officials found in their draft review of the mainline alternative route.
Construction is still set to begin in early 2019, the pipeline's developers indicated in court filings last week.
An Aug. 15 order from the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana required the agency to conduct a separate analysis of the updated route through Nebraska. Judge Brian Morris, an Obama appointee, said the additional National Environmental Policy Act analysis was necessary to support the State Department's approval of a permit for the project to cross the U.S.-Canada border.
"[T]here is potential for environmental impacts from the Proposed Action, should an accidental or otherwise unexpected release of crude oil from the Keystone XL pipeline or facilities occur," the department wrote in its draft supplemental environmental impact statement.
When a company wants to build a pipeline, road or other infrastructure, federal agencies are required by the National Environmental Policy Act to review the project's environmental impact. But how does NEPA work, and why is it controversial? E&E News Explains provides a simple overview. Pamela King/E&E News
Those impacts would not be significant because a release is unlikely and developers TransCanada Corp. and TransCanada Keystone Pipeline LP would have monitoring and response systems in place, the State Department found.
"Keystone, in compliance with local, state and federal regulations, would implement prevention and mitigation measures in the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the pipeline and facilities," the draft SEIS says.
The agency released the draft just one week after it formally announced it would complete a new analysis.
The Sierra Club called the document a "sham review."
"We've held off construction of this pipeline for 10 years, and regardless of this administration's attempts to force this dirty tar sands pipeline on the American people, that fight will continue until Keystone XL is stopped once and for all," said Kelly Martin, director of the group's Beyond Dirty Fuels campaign.
Attorneys for TransCanada on Friday filed a response to similar concerns raised by environmental and tribal groups that are challenging the cross-border permit in the Montana court.
If the pipeline developer follows through on its plans to begin construction early next year, the Nebraska section would not be part of the first phase of work, the lawyers wrote.
"As a result, this Court should have ample time to conduct 'appropriate review before TransCanada's planned construction activities' will occur," the response says.
Shortly after taking office, President Trump told TransCanada to reapply for federal permits the Obama administration had previously denied. The pipeline project has weathered scrutiny in the courtroom and in the NEPA review process.
Members of the public have 45 days to comment on the draft SEIS.
The State Department will hold a meeting Oct. 9 in Lincoln, Neb., to hear feedback.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/09/24/stories/1060099445
-
Court Orders EPA to Implement Obama Chemical Plant Rule
Sep 24, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A federal appeals court has ordered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to start enforcing a chemical plant safety rule that the Trump administration tried to delay.
In a brief order late Friday, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted a motion from environmental groups to make the EPA start enforcing the Risk Management Plan rule.
The order comes after the same court in August ruled that the Trump administration unlawfully delayed the rule written in the final days of the Obama administration.
“Because EPA has not engaged in reasoned decisionmaking, its promulgation of the delay rule is arbitrary and capricious,” the court wrote, saying the EPA’s move to delay the rule’s implementation for more than a year and a half “makes a mockery of the statute” and that “there is no textual basis for EPA’s current interpretation” of the law.
Usually the court would allow 52 days for the EPA to consider appealing the order and plan out how to implement the rule, which would have put it on Oct. 8. But the groups supporting the regulation argued that it can’t wait.
“Petitioners and the public have a strong interest in the court’s mandate issuing promptly, due to the serious and irreparable harm and imminent threats to public health and safety that EPA’s Delay Rule is causing,” they wrote in August.
The EPA and industry groups argued there was no compelling case to cut the 52 days short.
The agency said that the part of the rule that would go into effect immediately require “coordination between thousands of regulated parties and the local governments and emergency response entities in their specific locations, many of which require … guidance and clarity regarding their role and obligations in the coordination process.”
The waiting period “allows the agency a short but reasonable time to assess these issues and concerns,” the EPA wrote.
The regulation at issue seeks to prevent or mitigate disasters at chemical plants and similar facilities, through measures like increased communications and preparedness local first responders, more transparency to the public and better investigations of incidents.
The appeals court initially granted the motion for the EPA to immediately enforce the rule earlier in September. But it quickly walked that back, saying the order was an error.
The EPA separately proposed in May to repeal many of the major provisions of the chemical plant rule. The public comment period for that proposal ended in July, but the EPA has not yet made the proposal final.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/408081-court-orders-epa-to-implement-obama-chemical-plant-rule
-
Court Snubs Latest EPA Bid to Delay Safety Rule
Sep 24, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Corbin Hiar
A federal appeals court has ordered EPA to begin enforcing an Obama-era chemical plant safety standard that was stalled by the Trump administration.
Issued just before President Obama left office, the so-called Chemical Disaster Rule aimed to protect emergency responders from chemical exposure, prevent accidents at plants and help facility operators learn from accidents that do occur.
The one-page order to reinstate the rule was issued late Friday by Democratic-appointed Judges Judith Rogers and Robert Wilkins of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Trump's pick to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, also heard the case but didn't participate in Friday's decision.
Rogers and Wilkins first rejected EPA's delay last month (Greenwire, Aug. 17). In their latest move Friday, the judges sided with environmentalists — who wanted swift enforcement of the rule — over the Trump administration, which asked for more time.
The judges were swayed by a motion filed by Emma Cheuse of Earthjustice on behalf of Air Alliance Houston and other community groups. It was supported by several Democratic attorneys general and labor groups.
Cheuse argued that "EPA's unlawful delay has already resulted in the Chemical Disaster Rule being suspended for 14 months."
The rule was supposed to go into effect in March 2017, but then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt sought to delay it for nearly two years while his agency reconsidered the regulation.
Cheuse noted that between 2004 and 2013, "there were at least 2,291 accidental releases" of chemicals covered by the rule. "These accidents killed 59 people, and caused injuries, or required hospitalization or medical treatment, for over 17,000 people, as well as exposing communities, workers, and residents to toxic chemicals, smoke and additional health threats."
Expediting the implementation of the rule "would reduce and avoid further serious consequences for public health and safety," she wrote.
In an opposing motion, the Trump administration requested 52 days to work out any kinks associated with implementing the rule. That would allow "the Agency a short but reasonable time to assess these issues and concerns."
EPA didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on its latest court loss.
While Obama's Chemical Disaster Rule is now set to take effect, it may not last long.
Earlier this year, Pruitt proposed dropping the rule's requirements for companies to take preventive steps and share information about dangerous chemicals they produce, use or store.
Those deregulatory changes could save industry between $87.9 million and $88.4 million annually, according to EPA estimates. Most of the savings would come from eliminating the need for companies to consider safer technology and alternatives when doing safety reviews (E&E News PM, May 17).
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/09/24/stories/1060099455
-
Governments Are Failing Their Citizens on Climate Change. Here’s How They Can Fix It
Sep 24, 2018 | TIME
By Borge Brende
Brende is the President of the World Economic Forum and the former Foreign, Trade and Environment Minister of Norway.The world seems to have declared defeat in the war against climate change. This summer in the U.S., the Trump Administration proposed to lower the “social cost of carbon,” which is an approximation used by businesses in their cost-benefit analyses of how much harm is caused by releasing more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, thus increasing global warming. The Administration also wants to make it easier to release methane — a highly potent greenhouse gas — into the air. Meanwhile, most European nations are set to miss their carbon reduction pledges, too. Has it become impossible to internalize the true cost of climate change?
Not necessarily. A climate comeback story is possible. Whether it was seeing Californian forests turn to cinder or a deadly 106-degree heat spikes in Japan this summer, something is fundamentally changing in the way companies and citizens care about the issue. The price of climate change is no longer a concern for later, but one for right now. It is not the case that our grandchildren alone will bear the costs. We experience the effects, and have to pay for them, right here and right now — to the effect of hundreds of billions dollars, and affecting hundreds of millions of people.
Interestingly, business leaders acknowledge this: they put extreme weather events and failure to adapt to climate change at the top of the World Economic Forum Global Risk Report this year, and an alliance of CEOs leading major companies across the world recently supported regulation that would make them disclose climate-related financial risks.
These two factors — support from both private institutions and the public — should make policymakers more courageous in curbing emissions. They should take away the hesitation politicians had — and I have counted myself among them — in dealing with climate change. These leaders should implement three measures to make emitters pay the social cost of carbon.
First: “Do no harm.” After decades of distorting the market with subsidies for carbon-emitting industries, it’s time we end that practice. Energy, environment and finance policies should no longer include subsidies for fossil fuels.
There are low-hanging fruits. G7 countries continue to give $100 billion in subsidies to the production, and use, of fossil fuels, and globally, a similar amount is spent on forest-destroying agricultural expansion. Dropping those subsidies and investments would make a big difference: In all, 13% of global carbon-dioxide emissions are linked to the use of subsidized fossil fuels for consumption, and forests are a primary source to offset carbon emissions.
Second, introduce carbon-pricing mechanisms. I know firsthand it is difficult, but possible. We did it in Norway with the first ever CO2 tax in 1992. Almost 40 countries followed the example set by Norway and other Scandinavian countries in recent years, including the 27 of the European Union, Canada and Mexico, each of which set up their own carbon “cap-and-trade” mechanisms. And while others, like the U.S., are falling behind, in 2017, China launched the world’s largest such program.
Finally, make emitters pay for the true social cost of carbon. After the financial crisis, European emission allowances dropped to less than 5 euros per ton, rendering them all but useless. But after a reform last year, the tide turned, and they now trade at 18 euros ($21) — an all-time high.
The real challenge is to get this market price even more in line with the actual societal cost: either directly through taxes, or indirectly by further limiting allowances. In Norway, we set the maximum price to $53. MIT researchers have put the costs even higher, at $75.
This is where we should ultimately land — at an effective carbon price in all jurisdictions, that internalizes all costs and is not offset by fossil fuel subsidies.
We can get there — notwithstanding recent setbacks.
At the United Nations General Assembly this week, and the Sustainable Development Impact summit the World Economic Forum organizes at the same time, our political, business and scientific allies will make this case. At our Annual Meeting in Davos come January, we will provide a platform for those who want to “Sprint to 2020.”
We cannot force those that stay behind to join us. But after the last few years of climate fire and fury, we know there is a high price to pay for non-action. With the sprint, we want to provide a viable option to those who want to make a change, and give hope to those that can’t.
http://time.com/5403478/climate-change/
-
Big Week for State Climate Policy
Sep 24, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Debra Kahn
California climate policies are moving forward at a furious rate two weeks after Gov. Jerry Brown (D) corralled state governments around the world to accelerate progress in reducing carbon emissions.
At its monthly meeting this Thursday and Friday, the state's main air and climate agency, the Air Resources Board, is set to approve a bevy of updated and new rules aimed at lowering emissions from transportation fuels, public buses, passenger vehicles and stationary sources.
Regulators are expected to vote on amendments to the state's greenhouse gas rules for light-duty vehicles that would decouple the standards from the Trump administration's. The rule change at CARB would maintain California's authority to enforce the Obama-era rules through 2025 by specifying that automakers can still submit one emissions test for both state and federal compliance, so long as the federal standards remain unchanged.
If the federal standards do change, manufacturers would have to comply with California's rules separately (see related story).
Also on deck is a 10-year extension to the state's low-carbon fuel standard, a trading program designed to lower emissions from transportation fuel 10 percent below 2010 levels by 2020. The program, in place since 2011, sets an average carbon content for fuels that declines annually, above which companies need to either change the balance of fuels they sell or buy credits to offset high-emitting fuels.
The amendments would set a 2030 target of 20 percent reduction in carbon intensity and would allow a wider range of low-carbon activities to generate credits for the program, including alternative jet fuel, carbon capture and sequestration, and the installation of electric-vehicle and hydrogen fueling stations. The state's electric utilities would also be required to use their credit proceeds to fund a point-of-sale rebate program for electric vehicle buyers.
The board will also consider updating a rule that requires local transit agencies to transition to zero-emission buses by 2040. Big transit agencies would need to have zero-emission buses make up a quarter of their new-bus orders by 2023, half by 2026 and all by 2029. Small transit agencies are on a slightly more relaxed schedule.
Another provision, coming into effect two years from now, would forbid large transit agencies from buying diesel or compressed natural gas and would require lower-emission substitutes (Energywire, Aug. 15).
Several transit agencies, though, have raised concerns that battery-electric buses are not as reliable as conventional diesel buses. In comments filed last week, the Napa Valley Transportation Authority's executive director, Kate Miller, cited the agency's purchase of eight hybrid buses in 2009.
"Shortly after delivery, the manufacturer of the drivetrain went bankrupt and the performance and reliability of these vehicles was a miserable failure forcing NVTA to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep the vehicles running — dollars that could have been better spent on expanding transit service," she wrote. "This experience has made NVTA more cautious pursuing new vehicle technologies."
The board is also due to take action on implementing a 2017 law, A.B. 617, aimed at monitoring and eventually reducing conventional air pollution in disadvantaged communities. The measure was key to getting environmental justice-aligned lawmakers on board with A.B. 398, last year's bill to extend the state's cap-and-trade system through 2030.
CARB announced the initial 10 regions that would receive monitoring or emissions reduction programs in August. They include West Oakland, Richmond, south-central Fresno, East Los Angeles, Wilmington and San Bernardino.
Environmental justice activists say the program, targeted at quantifying the effects of disparate pollution sources like refineries, ports, freeway traffic and agricultural operations, is too vague. Local air districts would be in charge of developing the air monitoring plans and emission reduction plans, including a requirement to retrofit industrial facilities with best available pollution control technologies by 2023.
"CARB's blueprint does not show that it will provide any new emissions reductions that were not already required and supposed to happen under existing rules and regulations," the California Environmental Justice Alliance wrote in an evaluation of the proposal earlier this month.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/09/24/stories/1060099357
-
Studies on Emissions' Harm to Babies May Boost Call for Stricter NAAQS
Sep 24, 2018 | Inside EPA
Two new studies on the effects of air pollution on unborn babies are bolstering evidence of harm to human health caused by air pollution including from fine particulate matter (PM2.5), which could boost environmentalists' call for EPA to tighten its national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for PM2.5 and other pollutants.
In one study by Norrice Liu et al., conducted in London, researchers found that fine particulates are passed through the mother's bloodstream into the placenta, where they can adversely affect the health of the developing fetus even if not passed into the fetus' bloodstream. However, researchers say it is possible the particles enter the fetus as well.
Interim results of the new study were recently presented to the European Respiratory Society's international congress in Paris by the research team based at Queen Mary University of London, on the topic of “Do inhaled carbonaceous particles translocate from the lung to the placenta?”
Study author Liu said in a Sept. 16 statement, “Our results provide the first evidence that inhaled pollution particles can move from the lungs into the circulation and then to the placenta.
“We do not know whether the particles we found could also move across into the foetus, but our evidence suggests that this is indeed possible. We also know that the particles do not need to get into the baby’s body to have an adverse effect, because if they have an effect on the placenta, this will have a direct impact on the foetus.”
Particulate pollution is also the focus of a new study by researchers at the University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine. Study authors Breton et al. found that particulate matter, and especially PM2.5, interferes with thyroid development in a fetus.
Although the precise health implications are not clear, study co-author Carrie Breton said in a Sept. 17 statement that, “Thyroid function is important for lots of elements of life and tweaking in utero may have lifelong consequences.”
The findings of both studies may serve to underscore public health advocates' drive for tougher NAAQS. EPA is currently reviewing its NAAQS for ozone and particulate matter, and intends to conclude those reviews in 2020. Environmentalist sources say that there is significant new evidence for harmful effects of PM2.5, even below the level of the NAAQS set by the Obama EPA in 2012 at 12 micrograms per cubic meter.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/studies-emissions-harm-babies-may-boost-call-stricter-naaqs
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested