Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 12/06/18
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC's Dooley Delays Retirement to Tackle Plastics Waste
Jun 12, 2018 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken
The head of the American Chemistry Council, Cal Dooley, is delaying his planned retirement for one year to help the group develop a strategy to reduce plastics waste. -
(ACC Mentioned) Plastics Group Acts to Address Marine Litter Issues
Jun 12, 2018 | Packaging World
By Jim Butschli
On May 17, the American Chemistry Council released the following statement in response to National Geographic’s June 2018 issue discussing the global challenges of dealing with ocean waste: -
Senate Panel Rejects Trump’s Proposed Interior, EPA Cuts
Jun 12, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A Senate subcommittee moved Tuesday to advance a $35.85 billion funding bill for the Interior Department and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), rejecting many of the proposed cuts that the Trump administration sought for both agencies. -
Groups Want More Time to Comment on Cost-Benefit Proposal
Jun 12, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Maxine Joselow
Public interest groups are calling for EPA to extend the comment period on a controversial proposal to alter the way it considers costs and benefits in rulemaking. -
E-Commerce: The Challenges of Enforcing a Chemicals Policy
Jun 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Internet shopping platforms, such as Alibaba, Ebay and Amazon, are growing year-on-year, with their sales outstripping many of their bricks-and-mortar counterparts. -
Ex-Chemours Employee Pleads Guilty in U.S. Trade Secrets Case
Jun 12, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Nate Raymond
A former employee of chemicals firm Chemours Co has pleaded guilty to a U.S. charge that he conspired to steal trade secrets related to its lucrative sodium cyanide business and sell them to Chinese investors, federal prosecutors said on Tuesday. -
Why Scott Pruitt Has Survived an Avalanche of Scandals — and Why His Survival Could Endanger the Trump Administration
Jun 12, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Bryan Craig
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt is engulfed by scandal. -
For Children’s Food, Heavy Metals Require More Attention and Better Standards
Jun 12, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tom Neltner
In June 2017, EDF released Lead in Food: A Hidden Health Threat. The report examined a decade’s worth of data from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and found lead detected in 20% of baby food samples compared to 14% for other foods. -
Housing Authority Reaches $1.2B Settlement With EPA, HUD
Jun 12, 2018 | Reuters (In E&E Greenwire)
By Eric Walsh
New York City and its housing authority have reached a proposed settlement with EPA and the Department of Housing and Urban Development over health and safety violations. -
Something In The Air
Jun 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Rosa Richards
People in Europe and the US spend an average of 90% of their time indoors, exposed to a variety of hazardous chemicals and other pollutants in the air and at risk of major and minor illnesses. -
Small Things Are Finally in REACH
Jun 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Eleven years ago REACH started its quest for data in the chemicals universe with a massive telescope. -
Registration is Over: Now What?
Jun 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Warmington
After a decade of work, the registration phase of REACH concluded on 31 May, with the third and final deadline, for substances manufactured in or imported into the EU and European Economic Area (EEA) market in quantities of 1-100 tonnes/year. -
Food Contact Materials: Challenges and Opportunities of Brexit
Jun 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Ales Bartl
Media coverage and press statements might suggest that the chemicals industry’s concerns over Brexit are focused on the impact on areas of fully harmonised legislation, such as REACH and biocides. -
Amid Oil and Gas Protests, Colo. Considers Protection for Schools
Jun 12, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
Colorado energy regulators will discuss widening the setback between oil wells and schools in response to a request from a coalition of neighborhood groups. -
Company to Open New Sand Mine to Feed Permian Frackers
Jun 12, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
A Texas sand miner is planning to open a new plant near the small West Texas town of Van Horn near the state's Permian Basin oil field. -
Oil Operator Agrees to Pay Royalties Owed to BLM
Jun 12, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
Federal land managers will collect more than $130,000 in unpaid royalties from a Texas-based oil firm, according to a new government report. -
Exxon Mobil, Plains Partner on Permian Pipeline Project
Jun 12, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
Exxon Mobil is joining the race to build out pipeline networks that stretch hundreds of miles across Texas to deliver crude oil from the booming Permian Basin to refining and port hubs near Houston. -
Mariner East Decision Close as Pennsylvania Legislator Calls for Transparency
Jun 12, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
State Sen. Andrew Dinniman has asked the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) to post all public comments to the official online docket as his case against Sunoco Pipeline LP, which has stopped service on Mariner East (ME) 1 and some construction on ME 2 and 2X, advances. -
Deadlines Looming for Goldboro, Canada’s Long Promised East Coast LNG Project
Jun 12, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Gordon Jaremko
After six years of preparations and promises, performance deadlines are looming for a homegrown proposal to build a C$10.8 billion ($8.6 billion) liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal on Canada’s east coast. -
Amtrak Marks PTC Progress on BNSF Lines
Jun 12, 2018 | Railway Age
By William C. Vantuono
Amtrak, working with BNSF, will the week of June 11 implement Positive Train Control (PTC) on BNSF-owned subdivisions that host the Southwest Chief and California Zephyr, marking the first activation on host-owned territory used by Amtrak. -
Metra Apologizes for Crowding on BNSF Line Since Schedule Change
Jun 12, 2018 | Chicago Tribune
By Mary Wisniewski
Some Metra trains on the BNSF Railway line that goes between Union Station to Aurora have been overcrowded since major schedule changes to the commuter railroad’s busiest line took effect Monday. -
Senate GOP Drops 'Poison Pills' From Key Spending Bill
Jun 12, 2018 | AP (In The New York Times, The Washington Post)
Senate Republicans are ridding a key spending bill of controversial environmental provisions opposed by Democrats in an attempt to avoid the annual year-end budget pileup. -
State Department Bill Would Again Cut Climate Programs
Jun 12, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Nick Sobczyk
The House Appropriations Committee has again left international climate programs out of its State Department spending bill. -
Ewire: Republicans Urge Trump to Send HFC Deal to Senate
Jun 12, 2018 | Inside EPA
Thirteen Republican senators are urging President Donald Trump to submit a global deal to phase down the use of refrigerants that act as potent greenhouse gases for ratification, though the lawmakers are eschewing climate change-related arguments from their pitch and are instead framing the effort as bolstering domestic manufacturers.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC's Dooley Delays Retirement to Tackle Plastics Waste
Jun 12, 2018 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken
The head of the American Chemistry Council, Cal Dooley, is delaying his planned retirement for one year to help the group develop a strategy to reduce plastics waste.
The Washington-based association announced June 11 that Dooley, its president and CEO, would retire at the end of 2019, rather than at the end of this year as previously announced.
The group said its board of directors discussed the move at its annual board meeting June 4-6, where members said they agreed that the chemicals and plastics industry "must take a global leadership role to reduce and eliminate plastic waste."
"As ACC members embark on an effort to reduce and eliminate plastic waste in the years to come, the ACC officers felt strongly that Cal's experience and leadership were essential to aligning the global industry around a coordinated strategy," said Bob Patel, ACC Chairman and CEO of LyondellBasell Industries. "With a little arm twisting and agreement from his gracious wife Linda, we were able to convince Cal to stay on to lead the development of this critical effort."
While the ACC statement did not provide more details on the group's strategy, Dooley said plastic waste "is an issue of personal, as well as professional interest, and I am excited to help lay the foundation for a sustained, global industry effort to address it."
"The global chemicals and plastics industry has an imperative to fight the spread of mismanaged plastic waste that is increasingly littering our rivers, oceans and landscapes," Dooley said. "While plastic products provide countless health, safety, lifestyle and sustainability benefits, those benefits cannot be fully realized unless we take swift and aggressive actions to make the most of all resources and leverage technology to dramatically increase rates of reuse, recycling and recovery of all plastic products."
The ACC's plastics division announced a commitment last month to reuse, recycle and recover 100 percent of plastic packaging by 2040, with interim goals by 2030.
Dooley's announcement comes just two days after a majority of G7 nations agreed on a plastics charter to clean up ocean pollution at their June 9 summit in Canada.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20180612/NEWS/180619976/accs-dooley-delays-retirement-to-tackle-plastics-waste
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastics Group Acts to Address Marine Litter Issues
Jun 12, 2018 | Packaging World
By Jim Butschli
On May 17, the American Chemistry Council released the following statement in response to National Geographic’s June 2018 issue discussing the global challenges of dealing with ocean waste:
“Marine litter is a serious global problem, and we appreciate National Geographic’s thoughtful and compelling coverage. Plastic producers agree with the magazine, its readers, and millions of concerned people around the world: Plastics don’t belong on our sidewalks, in our rivers, or in our oceans.
“We and our members are working with governments, NGOs, and our industry peers to deliver sustainable solutions. Through our ‘Global Declaration,’ 75 plastics associations from 40 countries have launched 355 projects that address education, research, public policy, sharing best practices, plastics recycling/recovery, and plastic pellet containment.
“We know there’s more to be done. Last week, America’s plastic resin makers announced an ambitious goal: to recycle or recover all plastic packaging in the United States by 2040.
Achieving a more circular economy for plastics will enable society to continue to harness plastics’ essential benefits, like enhancing the safety and sanitary packaging of food and personal care products, while helping to protect and restore the environment for future generations.”
Packaging World:
What efforts are ACC and its members taking to address ocean waste?
Steve Russell:
We all want clean oceans and we work on solutions with environmental stakeholders and our partners in the value chain. That includes efforts in the Ocean Conservancy and its 2012 launch of the Trash Free Seas Alliance, whose members focus on making continual progress toward eliminating ocean trash. This involves the integration of collection, sortation, and treatment [of the materials] as a system in an economically viable way. We are also developing financial models and working with private-equity firms, development banks, and others to source a mix of risk-tolerant and intolerant capital for the project.
While we look to improve efforts to reduce marine waste here in the U.S., are there other areas around the world that need to be considered in terms of contributing to this problem?
We are looking to identify where the primary sources of inputs into ocean waste exist, and much of this is coming from regions in Southeast Asia, with rapidly growing economies where more and more people have access to consumer goods. We’re looking into the gap between increasing consumption, where people are coming out of poverty, and the ability to capture, recover, and/or recycle waste. Our perspective is to try to turn off the tap by preventing plastics from reaching the ocean in the first place. Once waste gets into the middle of the ocean, the elements tend to break down the plastics, much of which become confetti-like pieces that are difficult to collect. Another primary source of waste is in densely populated areas around rivers that feed the world’s oceans. Many of these are in Asia and Africa, including countries such as Indonesia, the Philippines, and many others, all of which have expressed interest in working to reduce ocean waste. They are working with their local governments to do just that.
Lightweighting of plastic packaging materials and recycling have long been touted as ways to achieve sustainability benefits, but a bottle of plastic in the ocean is a bottle of plastic in the ocean regardless of its weight. And recycling isn’t as effective as it could be, correct?
There is also an important role here for packaging makers and for CPG companies to focus on designing more recyclable packaging. There’s a need to work with partners both up and down the entire supply chain. We recognize there are practical limits to mechanical recycling for some plastic packaging. Our members are focusing on plastic packaging materials that can be recycled and still deliver greater performance attributes. Packaging makers should be congratulated for developing more resource-efficient materials, next-generation packaging that uses less material and can be recovered for recycling or for energy recovery. We need to seek packaging that can be part of a solution after its initial use.
https://www.packworld.com/article/sustainability/strategy/plastics-group-acts-address-marine-litter-issues
-
Senate Panel Rejects Trump’s Proposed Interior, EPA Cuts
Jun 12, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A Senate subcommittee moved Tuesday to advance a $35.85 billion funding bill for the Interior Department and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), rejecting many of the proposed cuts that the Trump administration sought for both agencies.
The total proposed funding level for fiscal 2019 is 26.7 percent higher than what President Trump asked for in his budget proposal earlier this year, which was $28.3 billion. It’s about $600 million higher than the funding Congress gave to the agencies for fiscal 2018.
The proposal gained recent bipartisan support in the Senate Appropriations Committee’s subpanel with responsibility for Interior and EPA.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the subpanel’s chairwoman, said the bill rejects “unwarranted decreases proposed in the budget and [makes] investments in our highest priorities, especially infrastructure investment for the land management agencies, Indian country and wastewater and drinking water improvements.”
Sen. Tom Udall (N.M.), the panel's top Democrat, said he was able to support the bill that he and Murkowski wrote because of the major budget agreement that Congress and Trump reached earlier this year.
“That allowed us to provide targeted but important increases to programs funded by this bill and to reject the administration’s unjustifiable cuts to Indian education and healthcare and EPA’s bedrock environmental enforcement functions, as well as its proposal to eliminate the Land and Water Conservation Fund and hemorrhage many of our national cultural institutions.”
The EPA’s funding would be $8.82 billion, the same as fiscal 2018. Trump had sought a cut to $6.1 billion.
The National Park Service would get $3.2 billion, $513 million higher than what Trump wanted.
Importantly, the bill has no policy provisions, except ones that were in previous legislation that made it through Congress.
“We have assembled a package that both sides can support in committee, with the ultimate goal of taking the bill to the Senate floor,” Murkowski said.
But Udall was not able to insert a provision he wanted to increase penalties for federal employees who violate ethical standards.
“I intend to continue to working on this issue, because I’m frankly appalled at the level of ethics scandals plaguing this administration, especially the EPA,” he said, referring to the string of scandals involving EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, including allegations of improper dealings with lobbyists.
As is the standard practice in the Senate Appropriations Committee, the panel did not release the full text or details of the bill Tuesday; that will likely happen Thursday after the full committee votes on it.
The subcommittee also did not conduct a formal vote on the bill, another standard Appropriations Committee practice.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/391805-senate-panel-rejects-trumps-proposed-interior-epa-cuts
-
Groups Want More Time to Comment on Cost-Benefit Proposal
Jun 12, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Maxine Joselow
Public interest groups are calling for EPA to extend the comment period on a controversial proposal to alter the way it considers costs and benefits in rulemaking.
The agency will take comments on the proposal for 30 days, according to a notice set for publication in tomorrow's Federal Register.
The plan, titled "Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Costs and Benefits in the Rulemaking Process," is still in the early stages of the rulemaking process. It's an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, rather than a proposed rule.
But public interest groups are sounding the alarm that the plan reflects a de-emphasis on the benefits of rules, and they're urging EPA to extend the comment period to 60 days or more.
"Just looking at the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA has opened an enormous Pandora's box with this," said James Goodwin, senior policy analyst with the Center for Progressive Reform. "For their benefit as well as the public's, they really need to allow for a longer comment period so folks can digest this stuff and assemble a set of comments."
Goodwin noted the Natural Resources Defense Council was disinvited from a meeting about the proposal with the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, even though the office had previously met with three industry groups (E&E News PM, June 6).
"The public interest community is already at a disadvantage with this because we were never granted meetings with OIRA," he said. "So at the very least, they need to extend the public comment period so that we can give our side of the story."
Yogin Kothari, Washington representative with the Union of Concerned Scientists' Center for Science and Democracy, said his group was weighing a formal request to lengthen the comment period.
"When you're trying to make these big policy changes at an agency so vital to public health, it's really important to provide for as much stakeholder input as possible," Kothari said. "And I think what we've seen with this EPA is them trying to rush things through without them being vetted."
He added, "I think we would want a minimum of 60 days, even with the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking. For organizations that have resource constraints, it's difficult to turn comments around as quickly as possible."Precedent
While the Administrative Procedure Act doesn't spell out a minimum period for public comments, there's a precedent for EPA extending the period when it gets an earful from concerned stakeholders.
Last year, for instance, the agency extended the deadline for commenting on its proposed rollback of the Clean Power Plan by 32 days (E&E News PM, Nov. 8, 2017).
More recently, EPA added more than two months to the comment period for its "secret science" proposal after receiving a barrage of requests (Greenwire, May 24).
Those requests came from environmental and public health organizations as well as dozens of Democratic lawmakers. Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) and 64 other House Democrats had asked for at least a two-month extension, while Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and 19 other senators had urged the same in their own letter to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt.
"At the EPA, Scott Pruitt is executing industry's wish list to the letter," Whitehouse said in a statement to E&E News. "Rushing this proposal through is another example of prioritizing the voices of his polluting benefactors. And if this proposal to ignore the benefits of key environmental protections goes into effect, it will lead to serious consequences for Americans' health and environment."
Separately, Sens. Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio) are asking the Government Accountability Office to "conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the security and efficacy of the means by which federal agencies receive comments on proposed rulemakings." Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, yesterday joined their request.
EPA didn't respond to a request for comment in time for publication.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/06/12/stories/1060084193
-
E-Commerce: The Challenges of Enforcing a Chemicals Policy
Jun 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Internet shopping platforms, such as Alibaba, Ebay and Amazon, are growing year-on-year, with their sales outstripping many of their bricks-and-mortar counterparts. One of the greatest challenges national authorities have to contend with today is ensuring the safety of those buying and selling goods online.
Monitoring the broad galaxy of products and sellers online is not a simple task. Even in the EU, where regulations are considered stricter than other regions, enforcement teams have struggled to keep on top of the mounting number of hazardous chemicals, materials and products finding their way into the market through online trade.
Last month for example, a project run by Echa’s enforcement forum – which is made of member states competent authorities (MSCAs) – checked 1,314 internet advertisements for hazardous chemical mixtures. Of these, 1,083 (82%) were found to be non-compliant with the EU’s classification, labelling and packaging (CLP) Regulation.
As online sales continue to increase their market share, major retailers in this space are coming under the magnifying glass and questions are being asked about how they conduct their activities. While reports of tax avoidance and data breaches top the headlines, the giants of online retail are starting to face questions on how they monitor and enforce the rules on hazardous chemicals and products being sold through their websites.
Asked what measures it takes to control, monitor and act on hazardous chemicals and the products that contain them, being sold on their sites, a spokesperson for the Chinese e-commerce conglomerate Alibaba says that it enforces a ban on chemicals listed in internationally enforced treaties. This includes the Montreal Protocol, the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the Stockholm, Rotterdam and Basel Conventions. Additionally, it prohibits substances restricted in jurisdictions such as China, Hong Kong, the EU and the US.
The company website states that the posting or sale of "hazardous or dangerous materials (such as explosives, radioactive materials, flammable gases, liquids and solids, and toxic substances)" and of "any products containing toxic or harmful substances (e.g. toys containing lead paint)" is forbidden on the site. This also includes a non-exhaustive list of "some of the many many toxic, flammable, explosive, ozone depleting and otherwise dangerous chemicals" Alibaba prohibits.
Amazon, meanwhile, declined to comment. Its website currently restricts the listing of certain products, but does not specify chemicals of concern. However, the company has been working on a more comprehensive chemicals policy with US NGO Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families (SCHF) and plans to announce it during 2018. According to NGOs, this policy will be the first of its kind in the e-commerce space.
Ebay, like Emota, did not respond in time but the company website states that its hazardous, restricted or regulated materials policy is "extensive and follows government regulations". The company provides guidelines on what can and cannot be sold on its platform, including a number of articles, such as combustible items, fire extinguishers and fire grenades, refrigerants, pesticides and poisons, radioactive materials and "other hazardous materials".
Few specific hazardous chemicals, such as those restricted under regulations like REACH, are mentioned. Instead, Ebay lists items containing a limited number of well-known dangerous substances, such as asbestos, cyanide and many explosive precursors. However, on the UK version of the site, it specifically requires sellers to adhere to the provisions of the REACH and CLP Regulations.
Enforcement
While these companies all have, in some form or another, a policy that restricts the sale of certain dangerous goods including some chemicals of concern, they provide little to no detail on how they monitor policy violations.
Alibaba says that it has "rules and systems in place which assist us in identifying any listings which infringe our policies", and that it works with government agencies and third parties to "maintain an orderly market". "We will investigate notices of infringing listings and will take action according to the penalty rules and policies of our marketplace," the company says.
This action, according to the website, involves a penalty points system. If a seller violates the policy it is given six points, which incurs a warning in the form of an email. A second violation incurs another six points and a seven-day sales restriction. This goes up to 48 points, when the seller’s membership is terminated.
According to Ebay, violating its policies can result in a product listing cancellation, up to suspension of a seller’s account. And Amazon says that failure to comply with the terms of its policies can result in the cancellation of listings, suspension from the use of Amazon tools and reports and the removal of selling privileges.
But are these policies fit for purpose? Pressure from consumers and NGOs is mounting. Amazon, for example, has featured on SCHF’s retailer scorecard, which ranks retailers on their actions to eliminate chemicals in consumer products. After coming bottom of the scorecard in 2016, Amazon began working with the NGO on its soon-to-be-announced policy.
Market power
"As our economy changes and more and more consumers buy products online, it’s important for online retailers to develop systemic safer chemicals policies," says Mike Schade, director of SCHF’s Mind the Store campaign. As companies like Amazon reshape the economy, he adds, they have a "fundamental responsibility to ensure that the products they sell are safe and not laden with toxic chemicals".
While this may be more challenging, given that these retailers may not have the traditional merchant-supplier relationships, they must innovate, according to Mr Schade. "Certainly, if a company can figure out how to mail a package to you in an hour or less, they can figure out how to ensure that dangerous chemicals are not in the products that they sell."
Professor Joel Tickner, director of the Green Chemistry & Commerce Council (GC3), a multi-stakeholder collaborative organisation that drives the adoption of safer alternatives, also acknowledges the extra challenges these companies face, as well as their potential to improve the safety of products being bought and sold around the world.
"It’s generally more difficult for e-commerce companies to control and influence their supply chain, because they don’t have traditional buyer-seller relationships with their supply chain vendors, and their virtual network of suppliers is ever-changing and broad in scope," he says.
"At the same time, as online retailers’ market dominance grows, they have enormous leverage to bring about change to meet consumer demands for chemical transparency and safer ingredients."
Professor Tickner adds that a robust, sustainable chemicals management policy from a major e-commerce retailer can encourage safer chemistry across millions of products – in virtually every type of product category now sold online.
Meanwhile, Boma Brown-West, senior manager of consumer health at NGO the Environmental Defense Fund, says: "The goals on supply chain transparency, enhancing consumer access to information, safer product design and being public about goals and timelines and progress all apply in the online environment as they do with traditional store retailers."
However, she adds, online retailers need to ask some specific questions about their current practices to establish a comprehensive policy:For measurement purposes, what can they gain from providing publicly available information versus what will they need to collect behind the scenes to understand where opportunities lie and to track progress?Do they have an understanding of what they don’t know in their existing model?How will they verify information?What is the responsibility of the retailer compared to the supplier in terms of enhancing product transparency to shoppers in an online environment? andWhat can they leverage in their existing supplier relationship model and what would have to change, especially regarding the communication of expectations and opportunities for improvement with suppliers?
https://chemicalwatch.com/67611/e-commerce-the-challenges-of-enforcing-a-chemicals-policy
-
Ex-Chemours Employee Pleads Guilty in U.S. Trade Secrets Case
Jun 12, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Nate Raymond
A former employee of chemicals firm Chemours Co has pleaded guilty to a U.S. charge that he conspired to steal trade secrets related to its lucrative sodium cyanide business and sell them to Chinese investors, federal prosecutors said on Tuesday.
Jerry Jindong Xu, who moved from China in 2011 and was employed by DuPont before the U.S. conglomerate spun off Chemours in 2015, entered his plea on Friday in federal court in Wilmington, Delaware, prosecutors said.
As part of a plea deal, prosecutors agreed to recommend a sentence of no more than one year in prison for Xu, who has remained in custody since his arrest in August and would receive credit for the time he has already served.
Xu pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to steal trade secrets. Caroline Cinquanto, his lawyer, said she expected Xu, a Canadian citizen, would receive a sentence of time served when he is sentenced on June 27.
"He has taken responsibility for his actions and is looking forward to rejoining his wife and children in Canada," she said.
Xu, 48, was arrested last year amid heightened concern by U.S. authorities about the theft by Chinese of U.S. companies' trade secrets.
According to the indictment, Wilmington-based Chemours is the world's largest producer of sodium cyanide, a chemical used to mine gold, silver and other precious metals.
Prosecutors said Xu had worked for DuPont since 2004 and was involved in marketing sodium cyanide-based products. He was terminated by Chemours in 2016, prosecutors said.
The indictment accused Xu of using his position with Chemours to obtain trade secrets and confidential information, including reports and spreadsheets regarding three different company projects related to cyanide plants and facilities.
Prosecutors said his main goal was to either help investors build a competing sodium cyanide plant or become an import competitor.
He told one potential investor that he wanted to do the project "for himself and not to slave away at this only to benefit someone else," prosecutors said.
Prosecutors said he conducted the scheme with the help of an unidentified longtime former DuPont employee who had left in 2014. They said that during the scheme, he accessed Chemours documents and secretly took pictures of plant system diagrams.
The case is U.S. v. Xu, U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, No. 17-cr-00063.
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2018/06/12/world/americas/12reuters-chemours-court.html
-
Jun 12, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Bryan Craig
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt is engulfed by scandal. Each day seems to bring a new revelation. Last week, as several of his top aides departed the EPA, we learned that he treatedgovernment employees like a concierge-and-chauffeur service and used them to try to get his wife a Chick-fil-A franchise.
And yet Pruitt has so far survived the drip-drip of revelations because, in the mind of President Trump, environmental regulations are choking the economy, and Pruitt — with great effect — has become the principal person to roll them back. The president praised Pruitt as recently as last week.
While some of Pruitt’s methods for abusing his power are new and unique, his tenure is reminiscent of one of the biggest political scandals in American history. In 1920, another Republican president, Warren G. Harding, was elected with a primary goal of reorganizing government to let businesses run unimpeded, part of a purported “return to normalcy.” The result was the Teapot Dome scandal, the biggest presidential scandal until Watergate. It resulted in the first-ever indictment of a Cabinet-level official, Interior Secretary Albert B. Fall.
The Teapot Dome scandal reminds us what can happen when a president is indifferent to the dishonesty of an appointee who is effectively implementing the administration’s agenda. While the administration may score short-term policy victories, not only is it tarnished by the ensuing scandals, but its agenda — in Harding’s case, a vision of bolstering free enterprise by leasing land to major oil companies — also gets destroyed in the process.
Fall, a thin-skinned, ruthlessly partisan Republican senator from New Mexico, got his post because he earned Harding’s trust as a campaign adviser and friend in the U.S. Senate. It proved to be an inauspicious choice.
At the time, the Republican Party was divided into factions. Progressives such as former president Theodore Roosevelt and his trusted ally, U.S. Forest Service Chief Gifford Pinchot, prioritized conservation when it came to public lands and natural resources. They were aligned against Fall’s wing of the party, traditional conservatives who lacked this conservationist impulse and favored business interests.
Fall was a product of the Western frontier, and he made his money as a lawyer representing timber, mining and oil companies. The secretary also hated bureaucrats, because they slapped regulations onto industries that impeded jobs and development. His plan was to open every resource to exploitation, and it was an idea many New Mexicans supported.
With Harding’s support, within months Fall successfully achieved what his predecessor couldn’t: moving control of the U.S. Navy’s oil reserves to the Interior Department.
Almost a year later, Fall took advantage of this new power. He leased the oil reserves at Teapot Dome in Wyoming to Harry Sinclair’s Mammoth Oil Co. and the reserves at Elk Hills in California to Edward Doheny, an acquaintance of more than 30 years, of Pan American Petroleum and Transport Co.
The Harding administration saw this move through a lens of prosperity and national security. By 1920, the United States exported 80 percent of the world’s oil. Domestic demand was growing as well, as the Navy converted its ships’ engines from coal to oil and automobile ownership rose. But experts felt the existing U.S. oil reserves would be depleted in roughly 10 to 20 years, making it vital, both for the economy and national security, to identify new ones, even on public lands.
Conservationists, however, were upset about the leases. Their ranks included senators such as the progressive Robert M. La Follette (R-Wis.), who quickly began to investigate on his own. As controversy kicked up, Harding wrote a letter to the Senate saying he approved the leasing policy. In doing so, the president personally — and unwittingly — linked himself to what would become a burgeoning scandal.
The leases fell under the jurisdiction of the Senate Public Lands and Surveys Committee, which launched an investigation. However, La Follette and the committee’s top Democrat, Sen. John Kendrick (Wyo.), did not trust the Republican committee leaders to thoroughly investigate, so they proposed Sen. Thomas Walsh (D-Mont.) to run it. At this early stage, the Republicans weren’t worried, and they agreed. Seen as a relentless prosecutor, Walsh also had three Republicans on the committee who were willing to defy the president because of previous fights with Harding over farm and labor policies.
The investigation revealed that Sinclair had invested in Fall’s own New Mexico ranch and that Fall had received $100,000 from Doheny. Fall said the money came from Ned McLean, owner of The Washington Post at the time. It was a lie. Then, switching stories, in January 1924, Doheny testified unpersuasively that it was a personal loan, not a bribe.
Echoing today’s concerns about Pruitt, and in a larger sense, the swirling allegations of conflicts of interest surrounding Trump, senators began to wonder whether the loan and the ranch investment gave the oilmen an unfair advantage in securing the leases for the oil reserves. It created an untenable political mess.
Fall lasted less than a year after making the leases before he resigned in March 1923. He would later be convicted of bribery (totaling over $400,000, about $5.8 million in 2018 dollars) in 1931 and sentenced to one year in prison and a $100,000 fine. The fine and lawyer fees bankrupted the former secretary, who felt the trial was a political vendetta.
The oil industry lobbyists also suffered. Sinclair got a six-month sentence for contempt of court. And while Doheny was never convicted, the Supreme Court ruled the leases were fraudulent, resulting in their cancellation, which cost the two men millions.
Although Harding was not personally involved in any facet of the scandal, so zealous was he to achieve his policy goals that he allowed his friends and ideological allies to tarnish his presidency and torpedo his agenda.
Harding died in 1923, and his successor, Calvin Coolidge, played it smart. He distanced himself from the Teapot Dome scandal by reversing the executive order that had handed control of the oil leases to the Interior Department. He also got ahead of the Senate by announcing an independent prosecutor, sending the whole thing to the courts, all before the Senate could act. While the leasing policy was efficient — and fit with the ideology of the Republicans running the government in the 1920s — because of Teapot Dome, it was scrapped for more than 15 years.
Trump should learn from this scandal. Like Harding before him, Trump is apparently willing to accept what critics say is a permissive culture of corruption, allowing his associates to enrich themselves and abuse their power in the name of policy wins. But Teapot Dome reveals that these policy wins may turn into losses if Pruitt crashes and burns, drawing negative attention to his initiatives and the broader effort to deregulate business. Beyond just policy, we must not forget about the need to appoint people with integrity, because it not only damages Trump’s presidency but also our faith in democracy.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/06/12/why-scott-pruitt-has-survived-an-avalanche-of-scandals-and-why-his-survival-could-endanger-the-trump-administration/?utm_term=.3a610073add4
-
For Children’s Food, Heavy Metals Require More Attention and Better Standards
Jun 12, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tom Neltner
In June 2017, EDF released Lead in Food: A Hidden Health Threat. The report examined a decade’s worth of data from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and found lead detected in 20% of baby food samples compared to 14% for other foods. Eight types of baby foods, including fruit juices, root vegetables, and teething biscuits, had detectable lead in more than 40% of the samples. We closed the report with the following recommendation:
In the meantime, parents should consult with their pediatrician to learn about how to reduce lead exposure. They should also check with their favorite brands and ask whether the company regularly tests their products for lead, and ensures that, especially for baby food, there is less than 1 ppb of lead in the food and juices they sell.
As described below, we have reason to believe it will take more focused effort on the part of both FDA and food companies to ensure consistently low levels of heavy metals – lead, arsenic, and cadmium in particular – in infant’s and toddler’s diets.
Unraveling FDA data on infant and toddler foods
While preparing our report on lead in food, we filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with FDA to obtain brand information regarding the agency’s special study of lead and cadmium in 407 infant and toddler foods publicly released in September 2016. We received that information in November 2017 in the form of 102 spreadsheets and 182 MB of data, which included previously unreleased results for total arsenic and inorganic arsenic in those same foods. (Cadmium and total arsenic are measured using the same assay method as lead.)
The information we received proved to be fairly old; the samples were collected in late 2013 and 2014. This was not evident from FDA’s webpage.
In addition, the sample sizes by brand were often very small. It appeared that FDA was building on its previous sampling of baby food rice cereals for arsenic testing by collecting a broad mix of both rice and non-rice infant and toddler foods.[1] For many brands, FDA obtained only one or two product samples. Such limited samples provide an incomplete picture of the potential variation in heavy metal levels that may occur across an individual product line. A single heavy metal level higher or lower than others may have resulted from an odd lot of raw materials, or it could be the norm.
Given the limitations of the data discussed above, the FDA information provided here should only be viewed as a dated snapshot—and cannot be extrapolated or generalized to specific brands.
Despite the shortcomings, we decided it was best to make the data available, including the brand information, in part because it is public information. But across the different product types, the data sometimes showed a range of heavy metal levels from low to high. If consistently low levels indicate successful supply chain management practices—rather than statistical anomalies—then consistently high levels represent opportunities for improvement. At a minimum, that variation demonstrates the need for additional investigation and more up-to-date results – and potentially more work on the part of both FDA and food manufacturers.
Outreach to food companies
To learn more about the different supply chain approaches to managing heavy metals, we reached out to each of the brands sampled.
For the roughly 10 percent of companies where EDF had a contact, we reached out directly. For others, we went to company websites for contact information and either sent an email or submitted a webform. Out of 80 companies, there was only one for which we found no contact information or website. We reached out to each company up to three times. Of the 79 companies to whom EDF reached out, 40 – or roughly half – responded in some way. To date, we have had conversations with 17 (22%), including all but one of the major baby food brands. We recognize that our outreach may have not found the right person at an organization; therefore, a company’s lack of response should not be interpreted as a lack of interest in the issue.
In our outreach, we explained that we had FDA data on lead, arsenic, and cadmium in at least one product that appeared to have been manufactured under the company’s label, and that we planned to publicly release the data. We offered to:Share their company-specific results;Set up a time to review and discuss their results; andProvide our initial observations and recommendations.
For those companies with which we spoke, we asked how they manage their supply chain to address lead, arsenic, and cadmium levels, including testing practices. We also offered to include in our release a link to company information relevant to heavy metals management.
In an unexpected twist, we discovered that FDA had never shared the data with any of the companies, and many expressed disappointment that the information had not been provided to them by the agency. Several companies told us that some of the products analyzed were no longer being made or had been reformulated to such an extent that the product sampled no longer existed.
Corporate action varies for heavy metals
Overall, we learned that there is considerable variation in how companies address potential heavy metal contamination. Some do a bare minimum, such as ensuring compliance with standards set by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CODEX). This is an organization representing 188 countries and the European Union that, as noted in our report on lead in food and other blogs found here and here, does not use health protection as the basis for its lead limits.[2]
A number of companies described ongoing efforts, such as monitoring for and reducing inorganic arsenic in response to previous findings on arsenic or FDA’s draft guidance. PCC Community Markets, a Seattle-based co-op with 11 stores, is a good example of an aspiring leader in this space; they had already reassessed their private label offerings for heavy metals after reading our report last summer. They had also reached out to learn more about how their name-brand suppliers were addressing the issue, but indicated that suppliers weren’t always willing to share details – apparently a frequent challenge.
Another company addressing this issue is Gerber, which described an ongoing and active agricultural and sourcing strategy specifically focused on achieving low contaminant levels. They indicated that efforts had accelerated over the past six years, resulting in changes in suppliers, grower programs, field-level sourcing, and recipes. Noting “considerable resource investment,” Gerber indicated that achieving relationships focused on continuous improvement was worth it. Several companies have expressed interest in continued engagement on the topic, and EDF is following up with those.
For all of the companies with whom we spoke, our recommendations focused on attributes of EDF’s five pillars of leadership. Chief among them was keeping consumers informed:Corporate goals on heavy metals should be public, time-bound, and understandable;Companies should talk about the systems they have in place to attain goals; andProgress should be tracked, preferably reported online, with periodic updates.
We also encouraged companies to increase testing to determine where heavy metals are entering their foods, set targets for heavy metal levels as low as possible, and support stronger federal and international standards that would do the same. While we maintain CODEX’s lead standards are seriously flawed, we do believe that its 2004 Code of Practice for the Prevention and Reduction of Lead Contamination in Foods provides a detailed roadmap for companies to follow. More on this in a future blog.
More action is needed on heavy metals
FDA has recently committed to reducing levels of heavy metals to the greatest extent practicable, publicly acknowledging for the first timethat 1) lead, inorganic arsenic, cadmium and mercury affect children’s brain development, and 2) while levels of a metal in any particular food might be low, the agency will consider the cumulative effect of dietary heavy metals on children’s brain development. FDA can accelerate improvement on lead by promoting Codex’s Code of Practice, referenced above, and investigating high levels when found in samples from the Total Diet Study. More on this to follow.
To succeed in its commitment, FDA will also need companies’ cooperation in figuring out how best to remove heavy metals from the food supply chains. That, in turn, will require companies to determine both where heavy metals are entering food products and effective mitigation strategies, from changing raw material sources to revising processing or packaging as warranted.
Because heavy metals were detected in all food categories tested by the FDA, our advice to parents remains the same: consult with your pediatrician, and ask baby food companies to prioritize heavy metal reductions and share their work and results with you. Consider carefully companies that do not.
We fully recognize that reaching out to companies is time-consuming and can be frustrating at best. We spent almost 200 hours trying to reach 80 companies, with a staff member dedicated to follow up and coordination, and our success rate was 49%. It shouldn’t be this hard.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How to view the spreadsheets:
Click here for a link to the Excel spreadsheets with the data. The first tab provides our explanation of the data. The second is our extract of the FDA’s response to our FOIA. The remaining tabs are FDA’s summary of the data that is online. As you review the data, keep in mind that this is a snapshot of the market approximately four years ago. The data does not necessarily reflect products currently on the market or the levels of heavy metals present in a given brand. Where provided by companies, updated brand information and links to relevant information is included. If you have concerns about a specific brand or product, contact the manufacturer for updated testing information.
[1] EDF asked for but did not receive any indication of FDA’s sampling plan or how they decided a food was for infants or toddlers.
[2] This was made clear when Codex decided to lower the limit for lead in grape juice from 50 ppb to only 40 ppb; it was clearly insufficient.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/06/12/childrens-food-heavy-metals/
-
Housing Authority Reaches $1.2B Settlement With EPA, HUD
Jun 12, 2018 | Reuters (In E&E Greenwire)
By Eric Walsh
New York City and its housing authority have reached a proposed settlement with EPA and the Department of Housing and Urban Development over health and safety violations.
The deal requires the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) to devote an additional $1.2 billion of capital spending over five years to fix lapses including failure to protect children from lead paint.
According to a complaint filed in Manhattan federal court, NYCHA failed to comply with key EPA and HUD safety regulations for years, including by neglecting to inspect apartments for lead hazards.
NYCHA is also accused of making false statements to HUD inspectors about its compliance, and the settlement subjects it to a federal monitor to oversee its activities.
A court must approve the settlement.
"Instead of protecting children from lead poisoning, NYCHA systematically violated EPA and HUD lead paint safety regulations and covered up its noncompliance," EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said in a statement. "Today's landmark settlement puts a stop to that."
HUD Secretary Ben Carson said in the statement, "This historic agreement marks a new era for New York City's public housing, one that puts families and their children first. New York City and New York State are making an unprecedented commitment to put NYCHA on a new path."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/06/12/stories/1060084171
-
Jun 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Rosa Richards
People in Europe and the US spend an average of 90% of their time indoors, exposed to a variety of hazardous chemicals and other pollutants in the air and at risk of major and minor illnesses. Some workers, such as painters, are particularly exposed.
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) originate from many building materials, including coatings, adhesives and sealants. Some contain hazardous substances, such as toluene, benzene, chlorinated paraffins and short-chain hydrocarbons. Others come from products used by the occupants, such as personal care and cleaning products containing odourants and fragrances, and dry cleaning solvents.
According to the US EPA, VOC levels are typically up to ten times higher indoors than outside. High levels are also found in indoor air samples in the UK, with most exceeding the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (Breeam) limit for total VOCs (TVOCs), according to Tim Robinson, director of Waverton Analytics.
Waverton found the most common level of TVOCs to be 1,000 ug/m3 or more, in thousands of indoor air quality (IAQ) measurements taken from homes and buildings in the UK. These results are in line with tens of thousands of similar samples analysed by the Prism Analytical Technologies laboratory in the US.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) has set evidence-based guidance limits for individual hazardous pollutants (HAPs) in indoor air. Although international green building certification schemes, like Breeam and WELL, set limits for TVOCs, there is no WHO-recommended limit, because different compounds have different toxicological profiles, so overall effects cannot easily be determined.
"TVOC gives you an indication of how problematic your air quality might be," says Alice Delia, lab director of Prism. "Almost all indoor air samples share the same basic set of sources. This is true of both homes and commercial spaces, such as offices.
"Although the levels of individual substances may vary between samples, the source signatures are almost always present and sometimes can constitute the majority of them. Most of ours are from buildings in the US but samples from other countries haven’t been that different," Ms Delia says.
Waverton singles out 17 HAPs that are commonly detected in homes and known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health effects. The US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (Niosh) has developed exposure limits for most of these and two are on the REACH substances of very high concern (SVHCs) list: 1,2 dichloroethane and trichloroethene.
The most effective methods of minimising air pollution include source avoidance, good ventilation and air filtration. Using greener products and natural building materials with fewer hazardous chemicals can help to reduce the sources of pollution. Designing in more efficient ventilation systems ensures that filtered fresh air circulates.
Driven by tighter building regulations, clients demanding high performance buildings and an increasing awareness of the pervasiveness of poor IAQ and its effects, there is increasing interest in designing eco-friendly, healthy environments for living and working.
IAQ is therefore a hot topic for architects."The energy efficiency of buildings has improved, but ventilation also needs to be addressed – usually mechanically," says Tom Kyle, associate at Sheppard Robson, an architectural practice which specialises in sustainable design.
Ventilation is often inadequate between the completion or renovation of buildings and their occupation. The systems may not be up and running until long after finishes have dried. This can lead to VOCs that are emitted by drying paint and adhesives being trapped in the building, according to Dr Clare Perkins, a materials scientist at Arup.
"Once the building is conditioned, the VOC concentration in air will be removed pretty quickly," Dr Perkins adds. "Off-gassing is faster from thinner finishes like paint or varnish, so levels approach acceptable faster than from thicker materials like floor finishes."
When specifying building materials and products, architects rely to some extent on market regulations. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), lead, asbestos and mercury are generally banned from new builds, although they may be historically present in refurbishments. There are also regional restrictions on hazardous substances, like formaldehyde in timber board products and VOCs in paints and coatings.
"In Canada, big interior surface materials are for the most part low-VOC," says Simon Richards, principal architect at Cornerstone Architecture in Vancouver.
"I avoid specifying vinyl and use linoleum instead which has some off-gassing, but most clients find that acceptable. Most products are well regulated, but my engineering contacts say that one major scrutiny gap is in the adhesives used in building construction."
Sustainable building certification schemes like WELL go beyond regulatory requirements and give optional credits for toxic material reduction and precautionary materials selection. The WELL standard bans isocyanate-based polyurethane products in interior finishes and sets recommended limits for: perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) in furniture and furnishings; flame retardants in building materials, textiles and furniture; phthalates in flooring, wall coverings, blinds and furniture; andurea formaldehyde in furniture, composite wood products, laminating adhesives and resins, and thermal insulation.
Further optional credits are given if at least 25% of furnishings, built-in furniture, interior finishes and finish materials are accredited with certain ecolabels, such as Living Building Challenge Compliant or Certified Cradle to Cradle Material Health, or by other criteria. Reduction or management plans for other chemicals, like pesticides and cleaning products that are used during occupation of the building, are also prerequisites.
"Large companies which offer private healthcare packages are driving the adoption of the WELL building certification scheme in the UK, as they have an incentive to increase employee well-being and reduce health care bills," Mr Kyle says. "Institutional clients take a long-term view of the design of their buildings. House builders, on the other hand, just aren’t that interested."
In Canada, like the UK, sustainable building design has been largely driven by building regulations – the federal building codes. Vancouver has energy efficiency targets to make buildings net zero by 2032. These are strongly based on the Passivhaus building standard.
Mr Richards says that the government is driving industry. "My practice has moved from the LEED building standard, which tries to be all-encompassing and is too burdensome, to the Passivhaus standard, which has simpler objectives, is therefore more effective and has spin-off benefits, including better ventilation," he adds.
Passivhaus results in the design of ultra-low energy buildings that require little energy for space heating or cooling. The benefits are environmental: comfort, IAQ, noise containment and energy reduction. Continuous mechanical or natural ventilation is currently mandatory in small buildings in Vancouver, but the next building code will make it so for all buildings.
Mr Richards recognises a drawback in moving towards the Passivhaus standard, though. "In moving to Passivhaus, we have lost post-construction testing of IAQ, which verified whether the specification and construction standards were appropriate or successfully executed under LEED. WELL is increasingly referred to in Canada and could be a good complement to Passivhaus," he says.
Some sustainable building certification schemes are stricter than others on minimising the sources of hazardous chemicals in indoor air. In general, WELL addresses indoor air pollution more comprehensively, with a 33 μg/m3 limit on formaldehyde in ambient air. There are also optional credits for toxic materials reduction; precautionary materials selection; strategies for pesticide elimination; and cleaning methods during occupation.
Breeam has a tighter limit on TVOCs (300 μg/m3) than WELL (500 μg/m3). Under the scheme, air quality testing takes place post-completion and before occupation, when the level of VOCs is still high.
Testing for WELL is undertaken up to one year after occupation, by which time VOC levels are likely to be lower. Under LEED, optional IAQ testing takes place before occupancy to ascertain whether recommended limits have been met.
Thus, under LEED and Breeam, there is less incentive to reduce indoor air pollution. Optional credits can be gained by taking measures to address it, but clients may prefer to install water and energy efficiency measures to gain credits, meet or exceed building regulations and make savings on utility bills.
LEED has slightly more lenient standards in terms of IAQ. Although it requires ventilation and a minimum air flow, other measures, like flush-out before occupation and phased flush out or IAQ testing to demonstrate compliance with limits, are part of a voluntary credit.
Under LEED, voluntary credits can be earned for using low VOC materials in set categories. Other chemicals used by occupants, like air fresheners and personal care products, some of which have endocrine disrupting properties, are detected in indoor air but are outside the scope of any of these building schemes.
Domestic customers demand and expect ‘safe’ building materials and products when decorating their homes. Occasional scare stories, such as a recent US study where PCBs were detected in air and traced back to kitchen cabinets containing polymer resin, can make customers wary.
Consumers can use ranking systems, like Mind the Store, to choose the retailer with the best overall score for toxic chemicals. Retailers also have a reputational risk if they sell products containing hazardous substances. Domestic DIY retailers and builders’ merchants have consequently developed policies on sustainable products and safer chemicals.
The Kingfisher Group, which owns DIY retailers in many countries, has a stated "commitment to the responsible use of chemicals in our products and supply chain and by promoting healthy homes and gardens for our customers". This takes a proactive approach, going beyond regulatory requirements and undertaking innovation in sustainable chemistry.
Ikea, which Mind the Store ranked second among furniture and home goods retailers last year, aims to "refrain from the use of chemicals and substances that can be harmful to people and the environment" and takes a "precautionary approach" in line with REACH. If legislation on chemical use is tightened in one region, the company adopts this as a minimum in other countries where it does business.
Many actors in the supply chain keep track of hazardous chemicals in building materials and products. Legislation has reduced the use of the most hazardous of these in construction products.
Engineering firms stay informed to advise clients on specification of materials. Green building certification schemes are updated with newly classified hazardous substances in order to control their use and to set lists of pre-approved products.
Manufacturers and retailers of building materials also monitor chemical regulation in order to keep their products compliant or to go beyond requirements and reduce reputational risk.
IAQ argues for a precautionary approach from the specification and installation of materials, to the use of products, to ventilation and other measures to ensure a healthy environment when a building is in use. WELL, an aspirational evidence-based building standard, is increasingly being adopted around the world to achieve this.
https://chemicalwatch.com/67626/something-in-the-air
-
Small Things Are Finally in REACH
Jun 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Eleven years ago REACH started its quest for data in the chemicals universe with a massive telescope. Following on from the three volume-related registrations of 2010, 2013 and 2018, nanomaterials are now under examination. This is something industry stakeholders have been waiting four years for.
One reason for the delay, the European Commission says, is that some established methods, or the assumptions built into information requirements for substances, require an update to make them work for nanomaterials. In addition, knowledge of specific physico-chemical properties and particular tests is required for reliable safety assessment of them.
For REACH registrants, addressing these challenges "requires efforts and associated costs". And "time was needed to ensure proportionality and enable cost-effective implementation of the proposal", the Commission says.
In April, EU member states backed changes to the annexes of the Regulation. These aim to deal with the current knowledge gap relating to substances registered under REACH and placed on the market as nanomaterials, and the corresponding quantities, broken down in terms of the specific nanoforms.
They will provide information on: basic characteristics; uses; safe handling techniques; potential risks to human health and the environment; and risk control methods.
The draft Commission Regulation, with the revised annexes, is undergoing a three-month scrutiny period by the European Parliament and Council, before final adoption by the Commission. It is due to enter into force in 2020.
Wary welcome
Industry, on the whole, has welcomed this development. The European Chemical Industry Council, Cefic, says that the amendments help to create a more "predictable" regulatory environment for industry to innovate and use nanomaterials. It will ensure they are treated in "a standardised way", the association adds, and will bring more clarity to companies on how to provide adequate information within the REACH framework.
The Nanotechnology Industries Association’s (NIA) director of regulatory affairs, David Carlander, says that its members welcome that nanomaterials are now clearly addressed, but concerns remain. "REACH is to some extent discriminating against certain forms of substances we hadn’t seen before," he says.
The Regulation, Mr Carlander adds, "is moving away a bit" from the one substance, one registration (Osor) rule "because one substance can now be subdivided into so many different forms". All of this adds pressure on already stretched industry resources.
Practical guidelines...
REACH generally relies on the OECD’s agreed international test guidelines. While its information requirements are applicable to most nanomaterials, it has also developed guidance that is specific to them. Echa’s guidance, which contains appendices addressing the registration of nanomaterials, was most recently updated in May last year.
According to a Commission spokesperson, test guidelines are being updated or are under development to ensure they capture the intended scope of the information requirement. This is being driven in particular by member states and its own Joint Research Centre (JRC) - plus industry, coordinated by the Echa nanomaterials expert group - to ensure the resources for test guideline development "are put into priority REACH needs".
For the time being, says Mr Carlander, "there is a lack of approved technical guidelines that industry can now actually use for the 2020 deadline". There are also concerns that the update and validation of test guidelines or guidance documents by the OECD’s Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials will not be ready in time.
This is a long process, Cefic says, "because it takes a long time - years - to find the most appropriate way to test materials and later validate by comparing the results of the implementation in different testing facilities to ensure that the methods are accurate, reliable and universally applicable".
There is a "high probability", the association adds, that this work will not be complete by 2020. Meanwhile, it is working with EU member states and the OECD working party to convey concerns and progress towards a "workable solution" before the annexes enter into force.
After the validation is complete, it will still take time for labs to adapt their process to these new tests guidelines, and create the appropriate setting and calibration. This can also "easily take" several months to complete, Cefic says.
Consequently, Mr Carlander adds, "there is still a bit of uncertainty about what guidelines to follow when performing the tests." Larger companies with some knowledge of the subject can ‘guesstimate’ what is required and do the studies as best as they can. However, finding the labs that can do this in time is likely to be "a bit of an issue"; industry, he notes, has already had an "unfortunate experience" with securing lab tests under REACH in general.
...Or paradoxical guidelines?
According to David Azoulay of the Centre for International Environmental Law (Ciel), industry’s stance on test guidelines is "a little paradoxical". When questioned about the safety of their products, he says, it "is keen to say that they have everything they need to test and guarantee the safety of all the products they have been putting on the market for over a decade".
Conversely, he adds, "they argue that they need more time to comply with the regulation because test guidelines are not ready and cannot be fully implemented, which will lead to delays".
Other commentators feel the changes to the draft annex have omitted some key items. Steffen Foss Hansen, associate professor at the Technical University of Denmark, says that there is very little about exposure assessment. New exposure models, specifically developed for nanomaterials, were published in scientific literature a while ago, he adds.
"It would have been good if the annexes could have also required registrants to provide information that would enable themselves and Echa to use these new modeling approaches, instead of having to rely on models that we know do not work for nanomaterials," he says.
In August last year, Professor Hansen proposed a new EU regulatory framework for nanomaterials called REACT NOW (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, Categorisation and Tools to Evaluate Nanomaterials). At the time, the NIA called it "unclear" and "limited".
Future-proofing
The provision on information requirements was previously placed in Annex IX, for volumes of 100 tonnes/year and above. Prior to April’s vote, NGOs had called for them to be moved to Annex VI, which would have covered all registered nanomaterials. Member states subsequently agreed on
Annex VIII, which concerns substances above ten tonnes. "We know from the registers that have been put in place in France, Belgium and other countries that the vast majority of nanoforms are being produced in much smaller volumes than one tonne," Mr Azoulay says. "We believe that it would have been necessary to adjust the tonnage trigger for nanomaterials in order to truly assess the safety of all nanomaterials that are effectively coming on to the market."
The changes to the draft REACH annex lack "future-proofing", he adds. Currently the nano annexes have a list of characterisation properties that need to be provided for the registration of nanomaterials. These are "generally considered as appropriate" to identify and distinguish the various nanoforms from each other.
However, he continues, this is only true for the relatively simple nanoforms currently on the market. "It does not take into consideration that so far we have little understanding of the future generation of nanoforms that will come on the market in 2020 and what specific characterisation we might need to properly identify and distinguish them."
Acting in good faith
The Commission has faced criticism for not finalising and adopting the changes to the REACH annexes for nanoforms by the REACH 2018 deadline of 31 May. This is a result, Mr Azoulay says, of a well-established delaying tactic and effectively means that all registrants of nanoforms of substances will have to update the dossiers or provide new registrations when they are ready.
He also notes the general reluctance of registrants so far to provide Echa with any source of information on their nanoforms. "If registrants continue to strongly resist information requests, then it will be quite challenging for Echa because they would have to go through active enforcement procedures to collect the requested information - which is something of a weak spot for the agency."
Echa must be "attentive to the implementation", Mr Azoulay adds, suggesting that the agency should scale up its enforcement measures. Successful implementation of the REACH annex changes will largely depend on the good faith of registrants,
in his view. His message to them is "decide to be proactive, transparent and stop interpreting information requirements provisions in a very restrictive way".
Size matters
One key question right now is when the Commission will revise its 2011 Recommendation on the definition of a nanomaterial. This describes a nanomaterial as "a natural or manufactured material containing particles, in an unbound state or as an aggregate or as an agglomerate and where, for 50% or more of the particles in the number size distribution, one or more external dimensions is in the size range 1nm-100nm".
At the time, the Commission said that the definition would be reviewed in 2014 "in the light of technical and scientific progress". This is still not finalised. Its consultation on the roadmap for the definition of nanomaterials ended in October 2017. It says finalising the questionnaire took more time than anticipated but is now ready.
Once translated, the 12-week public consultation "should be published before summer". The Commission will then analyse feedback and decide "if and which of the proposed changes" would be adopted in the revision of the Recommendation.
Industry had asked the Commission to delay changing the annexes until this was agreed. Since this has not happened, Cefic says it prefers to keep the current definition "to give companies sufficient time to prepare the dossiers without further modification of the legal text". Changing the association before 2020 "will make the situation quite challenging for companies", the association added.
Professor Hansen says he does not expect a change in definition to be "problematic", but not knowing whether it will happen "will create regulatory uncertainty". Meanwhile, the Commission says it had "initially planned" to include the revised Recommendation in REACH but given delays to the consultation, the processes were "decoupled" and the existing text of the Recommendation was used in the modification of the REACH Annexes.
"Any ambition to change the REACH text," it says, "will be assessed from the perspective of the impact on the ongoing implementation and only considered if there would be benefits for the registrants of ensuring immediate consistency with the potentially revised Recommendation, such as avoidance of double work further down the line or full use of the associated guidance and tools."
https://chemicalwatch.com/67610/small-things-are-finally-in-reach
-
Registration is Over: Now What?
Jun 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Warmington
After a decade of work, the registration phase of REACH concluded on 31 May, with the third and final deadline, for substances manufactured in or imported into the EU and European Economic Area (EEA) market in quantities of 1-100 tonnes/year. The message that ‘REACH is not over’ should hopefully have got through to everyone by now.
"The ten-year journey stopped yesterday at midnight," Echa executive director Bjørn Hansen said on 1 June. "The next ten years start today." This begins with work on using the data available on chemicals on the market, so that industry can "handle and use chemicals safely in the supply chain to improve product quality and become more sustainable", he added.
Regulators’ and industry’s attention now shifts towards other REACH processes, such as evaluation, authorisation and restriction. Companies, said Echa director of registration Christel Musset, must continue to update their dossiers, including new information in safety data sheets (SDSs), which the agency will soon begin evaluating.
Close to the deadline, Echa said that it saw many indications of companies starting to prepare for registration very late. And it received a high number of enquiries about existing registrations, data sharing and solutions offered by the Directors’ Contact Group (DCG) for companies in ‘exceptional situations’. The agency’s own services remained open right until midnight to assist last-minute registrants.
The number of registrations was also well short of the estimated total of 30,000 cited in the 2001 European Commission white paper; Echa had later revised this figure to 25,000 and then again to 20,000. Industry and regulators are divided over what make of this. In all, Echa received 33,363 dossiers for 11,114 substances in the third phase, bringing the combined totals across all three phases to 88,319 and 21,551 respectively. There were 6,824 substances registered for the first time in 2018.
Ms Musset noted that final figures will not be available until after the completeness checks are finished. "We are convinced that the absolute majority of the substances currently used on the market have been successfully registered," she said.
Of the 2018 registrations, 29% were made by only representatives on behalf of non-EU companies and 48% by importers, some of which may also be manufacturers. The rest were submitted by EU and EEA producers. The proportion submitted by importers was much higher than in the first two rounds, Ms Musset said. The top five importing countries for this deadline were: US (27%), China (15%), Japan (14%), India (12%) and Switzerland 6%.
While the true number of substances that could potentially be registered under REACH was always unknowable, there hasbeen concern in some quarters that a large number of ‘missing’ substances will disappear from the market because no-one registered them. Where have they gone? What is the true extent of the problem, if there is one? Did these substances even exist in the first place?
Both Echa and Cefic have expressed confidence that the chemical industry can go on supplying its markets uninterrupted. Echa added that its initial expectations were based on information collected "before the rules on registering similar substances together were clarified" and that the market has changed considerably since 2001.
However, Ueapme, the trade body for European SMEs, has expressed concerns. Marko Sušnik, adviser to the association, said that the shortfall is not only significant, it may grow further still. Removing most non-phase-in substances and all on-site isolated intermediates might reduce the number to nearer 15,000, he said.
"It is hard to believe that the market has changed so drastically in the last ten to 15 years," Mr Sušnik said. He pointed to the 135,000 individual substances on the classification and labelling (C&L) inventory of 2011 and other lists as better reflecting what is actually on the EU market. More analysis must be done to determine where the ‘missing’ chemicals are ’, in his view.
Moreover, Mr Sušnik said, SMEs accounted for only 17% of the registrants this year. This is actually slightly less than their total contribution over all three deadlines, when a much higher proportion would be expected this time. Considering how accurate the forecast numbers of registrations were in 2010 and 2013, he said, something is wrong somewhere.
Ueapme had been warning industry about the large number of ‘missing’ registrations for over a year. This could lead to "serious and unforeseen impacts on many value chains", the association argued.
One issue to examine is the lead dossiers in Echa’s joint submissions list that have probably been abandoned. This is often because the lead registrant changed the substance identity and created another joint submission, or because companies lowered the production volumes or ceased production.
Echa has identified 855 dossiers that are now ‘missing’ from all three deadlines, although it expects most to be submitted at some point; 78 that pre-date the removal of ‘empty’ joint registrations in June 2016 have almost certainly been abandoned and the number may be much higher. The picture will become clearer by September, when dossier checks should be completed.
The substance information exchange fora (Siefs) that came together to register substances under REACH ceased to exist as of 1 June. It is generally agreed that this was a productive way of working that should continue but it is still unclear how to take this forward.
The European Commission said that Sief members should agree new `discussion platforms` to ensure continuing collaboration on such activities as dossier updates, new Echa information requests, data and cost sharing and the consolidation of single submissions into joint registration. They will need "a platform that will not be called a Sief and for which Sief rules do not apply," a spokesman said.
Meanwhile, just before the deadline the DCG published detailed recommendations urging Sief members to continue working together. Cefic sounded a note of caution about potential antitrust issues and said members should only share specific information for certain agreed tasks.
Brexit did not appear to have any impact on the deadline, though it will clearly be a long-term concern. Ahead of 31 May Mr Hansen revealed that UK companies were the second highest registrants after Germany, accounting for 2,020 substances. This was entirely in line with Echa’s expectations and there has not been "any major effect of any companies moving location".
However, he said, there has been "significant" use of Echa’s Brexit webpage which contains advice and Q&As on post-Brexit implementation of REACH in the EU27. "We’ve received a lot of questions via our help desks so I would say my feeling is UK companies are fully aware that something could happen and they are definitely informing themselves," he said.
https://chemicalwatch.com/67632/registration-is-over-now-what
-
Food Contact Materials: Challenges and Opportunities of Brexit
Jun 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Ales Bartl
Media coverage and press statements might suggest that the chemicals industry’s concerns over Brexit are focused on the impact on areas of fully harmonised legislation, such as REACH and biocides. However, it will also significantly impact those that are not fully harmonised at EU level as yet, such as food contact materials (FCMs).
Only a few types of FCM are harmonised at EU level. For example, the plastic Regulation (10/2011) includes a positive list of monomers, additives and polymer aids that may be used in their manufacture. However, solvents and aids to polymerisation remain subject to national laws. Other harmonised segments include recycled plastic materials, ‘active’ and ‘intelligent’ FCMs, regenerated cellulose films and ceramics.
Such harmonised EU legislation will become part of UK law after Brexit. Directives have already been implemented and Regulations will become part of UK law via the EU Withdrawal Bill, which will transpose thousands of directly applicable pieces of EU legislation. Thus, there will be continuity.
However, most FCMs are not harmonised, including printing inks, adhesives, rubbers, paper and cardboard, silicones, varnishes and coatings. These products may be subject to national regulation. Several member states have specific national legislation here - notably France and the Netherlands - whereas others, including the UK, do not.
Thus, as a primary consequence of Brexit, the UK will be a legal vacuum for non-harmonised FCMs. It will also cease to be covered by the mutual recognition principle, which is key for marketing FCMs in the EU. This might trigger the need for national UK legislation.
Mutual recognition
Any national legislation may create barriers to the free movement of goods in the EU. To tackle this issue, the EU established the principle of mutual recognition through the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) famous Cassis de Dijon ruling.
Based on this principle, FCMs that consist of non-harmonised materials can move freely in the EU if they comply with the national laws of the member state where they were first placed on the market. For example, an operator can market a silicone FCM in France, despite non-compliance with the French positive list, if he proves that the product has already been placed on the market (even once) in Belgium, where there are no specific requirements for silicones.
Of course, the strict use of this principle would render any national legislation meaningless. For this reason, member states may invoke other reasoning, such as protecting human health or the environment. Any member state may in principle prohibit the marketing of an FCM, for instance, because it contains a substance included in a national blacklist, on the grounds of risk to human health.
In practice, however, this does not often happen, because such measures must, in the end, be vetted by the ECJ in case of disputes. This might change in the future if the new European Commission’s 2017 proposal for the new mutual recognition procedure is adopted.
This proposal includes a smoother dispute resolution process. However, the mere possibility of member states taking such measures is often a spur for operators to comply with applicable national laws. Furthermore, conscientious operators comply with selected strict national laws as a ‘gold standard’ that provides certainty that there will be no challenge in other member states.
After Brexit, the mutual recognition principle will no longer apply to the UK. As a result, the common practice of using the UK as a ‘first’ member state in which to market FCMs will cease.
In addition, operators that already rely on UK law to invoke mutual recognition in other member states will become fully subject to the national laws of the states where they market the FCM and vice-versa. Those marketing in the UK that rely on their FCM’s compliance in a member state, will lose this safeguard.
It is possible that the EU and the UK will agree to maintain the mutual recognition principle after Brexit. However, this is not likely. Thus far, the EU’s position has been very firm: no cherry-picking will be allowed and standing outside the EU can never be as good as standing inside.
Opportunities for the UK
UK industry is obviously very vocal in its desire to maintain continuity with existing EU rules and avoid duplication. To reassure the market, Prime Minister Theresa May said during her speech at Mansion House in March, that the priority is to escape the jurisdiction of the ECJ. The UK is, however, prepared to maintain national rules that will be "substantially similar" to those in the EU.
In practice, this means that the UK would have to stay aligned with (at least) harmonised EU law, so that UK operators which also market in the EU need not apply two sets of regulations. This would, among other things, mean that any new EU harmonised legislation after Brexit would apply de facto in the UK, without the UK being able to influence it. Brexiters want to avoid this.
The UK will be able to adopt its national legislation on FCMs, for example to protect health and the environment, protect domestic producers or support innovation in industry. The EU would not be in a position to challenge such rules as impeding the free movement of goods.
For example, the UK will be able to adopt stricter restrictions on bisphenol A than the EU. This could favour UK producers and protect them from EU imports. Whereas UK producers would remain compliant with both sets of laws, EU operators might have to adjust their EU-compliant products to respond to the UK’s specific restrictions. This might persuade them to stop marketing in the UK.
In addition, the UK will be in a position to develop and manufacture new substances, such as smart plastics. In the EU, any such new substance must undergo a lengthy pre-market authorisation procedure before the European Food Safety Authority (Efsa) and the member states committee. The UK procedure could be much faster.
Of course, such a new substance could not be imported into the EU without approval, but it could be used in the UK and exported to third countries. In addition, the UK would be able to overcome the current EU impasse in some areas, such as in nanomaterials.
Finally, after Brexit, the UK would probably not be subject to other harmonised legislation relevant to FCMs, such as REACH. For example, it would not be subject to any future REACH restriction on intentionally added microplastics, as proposed by Echa in January, or could deviate from one.
A separate question is whether the UK will take part in the future EU legislative framework on packaging waste, as outlined in four legislative proposals put forward by the EU in February. These proposals set out some ambitious goals, such as new, legally binding targets for recycling (65% by 2035), a reduction in land filling and stricter requirements for waste collection.
In its white paper of March 2017, the UK government expressed commitment to EU environmental legislation. Thus, it might be expected that the UK will follow any EU packaging waste initiative. However, UK industry needs certainty that still cannot be provided.
Conclusion
After Brexit, harmonised EU law will continue to apply in the UK until amended or repealed. The UK will probably adopt national legislation in non-harmonised segments because, at present, it has none. If any is adopted, neither the UK nor EU operators will be able to invoke the principle of mutual recognition to overcome any restriction.
It is likely that the UK will maintain legislative equivalence with the minimum requirements set out at EU level, so as to avoid duplication in rules. This will also apply to any future EU rules adopted after Brexit.
On the other hand, the UK will be able to adopt new legislation going beyond the EU minimum requirements and that might seek to improve the protection of health and the environment (or domestic producers), or boost innovation. However, these opportunities are currently muted by the uncertainty of industry players, mainly in the UK, with respect to a future, as yet unknown, legislative framework.
The views expressed in this article are those of the expert author and are not necessarily shared by Chemical Watch.
https://chemicalwatch.com/67619/food-contact-materials-challenges-and-opportunities-of-brexit
-
Amid Oil and Gas Protests, Colo. Considers Protection for Schools
Jun 12, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
Colorado energy regulators will discuss widening the setback between oil wells and schools in response to a request from a coalition of neighborhood groups.
The League of Oil and Gas Impacted Coloradans (LOGIC) asked in December for a regulatory change requiring wells to be 1,000 feet from a school or day care center's property line. Under current rules, the distance is measured from school buildings. The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission will discuss the petition at its July 30 meeting and could opt to begin a formal rulemaking process.
Environmentalists and homeowners have been pressing for more protection from oil and gas development as drilling pushes into suburban neighborhoods north of Denver. Dozens of people urged the commission yesterday to reject plans for a multiple-well drill site near a school outside Greeley, along with sites in other communities.
"It's clearly a huge issue in the community, to deal with drilling wells near schools," Commissioner Howard Boigon said during a webcast of the meeting. "I think it's time for the commission to address it."
Proponents say that the wider setback will protect children who are on playgrounds and sports fields, not just inside buildings.
"The individuals who learn, recreate, teach, and work at our state's schools and child care centers deserve a true 1,000-foot buffer," the LOGIC petition says.
The drilling industry has opposed changes to the existing rules, saying there's no evidence that they're needed.
A bill that would have enacted the same change passed the state House of Representatives last year but died in the Senate (Energywire, March 27, 2017).
The petition was inspired in part by Denver-based Extraction Oil and Gas Inc.'s plan to drill 24 wells on a site located about 1,350 feet from Bella Romero Academy, just outside Greeley. Under existing rules, the pad site is outside the required buffer.
The local school board has passed a resolution opposing the site, and the Sierra Club and other groups have sued to block the development, according to local media reports.
A representative from LOGIC didn't respond to requests for comment. The commission discussed the petition during a closed-door session in January, according to the minutes of the meeting. The agency's staff has also held informal meetings about the proposal with various stakeholders.
The seven-member commission agreed without a formal vote to discuss whether to accept the petition in July, a move that wouldn't necessarily trigger the formal rulemaking process.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/06/12/stories/1060084115
-
Company to Open New Sand Mine to Feed Permian Frackers
Jun 12, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
A Texas sand miner is planning to open a new plant near the small West Texas town of Van Horn near the state's Permian Basin oil field.
Alpine Silica, which operates at least one sand mine in Kermit, plans to break ground on the 3 million-ton a year sand plant in Van Horn in the coming months. The mine, which will take about seven months to complete, will supply sand for hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas extraction, the company said.
RELATED: Sand, water and horsepower
The Kermit mine produces 3 million tons of sand annually, the company said.Recommended Video:The Future of Fracking with Silica Holdings
Silica Holdings is celebrating 5 years of trading publicly on the NYSE. The company produces commercial silica, a specialized mineral that is used in oil and gas proppants. More specifically, silica is made into frac sand that is pumped down into wells as an essential ingredient to the fracking process. Bryan Shinn, President and CEO of Silica Holdings joins Cheddar to explain why he is bullish on fracking even with frac sand stocks down around 50%. Shinn also explains that Silica Holdings is currently sold out, and running its oil and gas mines and plants 24/7 to keep up with demand. Overall, Shinn is bullish on the future of fracking, and gives his take on the safety around the process. Hope King pushes Shinn on general concern around fracking, and his take on the future of electric cars.Media: Cheddar TV
Another frac sand plant will be built in Oklahoma near the town of Fay, around 70 miles northwest of Oklahoma City. That plant also will produce 3 million tons of sand annually. The plant will be located near the Sooner Trend, Anadarko, Canadian and Kingfisher (STACK) and the South Central Oklahoma Oil Province (SCOOP) oil regions.
Alpine Silica's new plants are just the latest in a boom of frac sand facilities across the state. In May, Black Mountain Sand of Fort Worth said it would acquire 2,300 acres in Atascosa County, south of San Antonio, for a new sand plant to serve the Eagle Ford Shale field.
When completed the mine is expected to produce 2.2 million tons of sand annually. The plants capacity has already been sold out in long-term contracts.
RELATED: Has fracking reach peak sand?
Texas' oil and gas industry has traditionally relied on sand produced in Wisconsin and Minnesota, but the downturn in the industry that began in 2014 spurred a drive to become more efficient and lower to production costs, leading the industry to find cheaper sources of sand.
Advances in hydraulic fracturing techniques also have vastly increased the amounts of sand to frac oil and gas wells, pushing up demand for locally produced sand.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Company-to-open-new-sand-mine-to-feed-Permian-12987231.php
-
Oil Operator Agrees to Pay Royalties Owed to BLM
Jun 12, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
Federal land managers will collect more than $130,000 in unpaid royalties from a Texas-based oil firm, according to a new government report.
A joint investigation by the Bureau of Land Management's Special Investigations Group and the Interior Department's Office of Inspector General revealed that Sanco Operating Co. and Sanders Oil & Gas LLC had failed to report gas production between August 2010 and December 2016, according to a summary of their findings.
Sanco reached a settlement in February with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Colorado to fulfill $130,752 in unmet royalty obligations.
"Gas companies that cheat on royalty payments are going to get caught," U.S. Attorney Bob Troyer said in a statement following the settlement. "Our office is systematically ensuring that they pay what they owe for resources they take from federal lands. These are resources owned by all Americans, and we won't tolerate the failure to pay for them."
As of May 1, Interior's Office of Natural Resources Revenue had collected $1.4 million in civil penalties from oil and gas companies in fiscal 2018, according to rolling agency records. Sanco is not yet listed among the payers.
Oil and gas producers pay a 12.5 percent royalty on publicly owned minerals. The dollars are split between states and the U.S. Treasury.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/06/12/stories/1060084119
-
Exxon Mobil, Plains Partner on Permian Pipeline Project
Jun 12, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
Exxon Mobil is joining the race to build out pipeline networks that stretch hundreds of miles across Texas to deliver crude oil from the booming Permian Basin to refining and port hubs near Houston.
Exxon Mobil said Tuesday it plans to create a joint venture with Houston's Plains All American Pipeline to construct a multibillion-dollar pipeline stretching from west of Midland to the Houston and Beaumont areas that would carry oil and condensate.
Plains and Oklahoma-based Magellan Midstream Partners recently expanded their BridgeTex oil pipeline, which has served as the major artery from West Texas to the Houston region. Permian oil production, however, is at a record high and rapidly rising and the lack of pipelines are creating bottlenecks that hamper the pace of growth and create discounts to Permian-produced oil.
RELATED: Exxon Mobil plans to triple Permian production, invest $2 billion in west TexasRecommended Video:Why T-Mobile and Sprint Are Merging Now
Now Playing: Why T-Mobile and Sprint Are Merging Now
The CEOs of both networks told Cheddar Monday that now 5G is critical for the U.S. to stay ahead in the global market. "We currently as a nation are behind," said T-Mobile CEO John Legere. The networks announced a plan to merge Sunday, arguing that the combined company will help build out a faster, next-generation network, drive down prices for consumers, and create jobs. They still need the seal of approval from regulators who, in the past, have worried that consolidation in the market will reduce competition.Media: Cheddar TV
Earlier this year, Exxon Mobil said it plans to triple its oil and gas production in the Permian by 2025, while also spending more than $2 billion on transportation and terminal upgrades in west Texas, including expanding its crude oil terminal in Wink.. This joint venture pipeline with Plains would originate in Wink.
Last year, Exxon Mobil agreed to spend up to $6.6 billion to buy the Permian acreage of Fort Worth's prominent Bass family to more than double its Permian acreage holdings.
Houston's Enterprise Products Partners just completed its 416-mile Midland-to-Sealy crude pipeline into the Houston area. Most of the other major crude pipeline projects are directed toward Corpus Christi, where the port is becoming a hub for petroleum exports.
Plains, which currently owns the only major pipeline that runs from the Permian to Corpus Christi, also plans to complete a pipeline system - Cactus II - by late 2019.
As for other projects, San Antonio-based EPIC Midstream Holdings is moving forward with the 730-mile EPIC Crude Oil Pipeline projects to carry oil and natural gas liquids from the Permian to Corpus.
Likewise, Houston's Phillips 66 said it is moving forward with its planned Gray Oak Pipeline to carry crude from West Texas to Corpus Christi, Sweeny and Freeport.
But the Houston company Buckeye Partners recently canceled its proposed South Texas Gateway oil pipeline from West Texas to Corpus and the Houston Ship Channel.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Exxon-Mobil-Plains-partner-on-Permian-pipeline-12987234.php
-
Mariner East Decision Close as Pennsylvania Legislator Calls for Transparency
Jun 12, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
State Sen. Andrew Dinniman has asked the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) to post all public comments to the official online docket as his case against Sunoco Pipeline LP, which has stopped service on Mariner East (ME) 1 and some construction on ME 2 and 2X, advances.
The PUC, Dinniman said, has made a decision that all public comments filed since last month would only be available for public viewing by request in person at the commission’s headquarters. Sunoco has appealed Administrative Law Judge Elizabeth Barnes’ order last month that indefinitely suspended service on ME 1 and stopped construction on a small stretch of ME 2 and 2X in West Whiteland Township.
Dinniman filed his complaint with the PUC earlier this year seeking the emergency order and questioning the safety of the entire ME project. The complaint was filed partly in response to another PUC order in March that shut down ME 1 after three sinkholes formed near it in West Whiteland. That order was eventually lifted and operations were allowed to resume until Barnes again halted operations.
“This is a basic matter of transparency,” Dinniman said in announcing his request. He added that the PUC has “a duty to make all public comments readily available on its website in order to encourage public dialogue and discussions on this issue.”
Dozens of individuals, community organizations, townships, public officials and trade organizations have submitted comments about Barnes’ order. Some of those, including from the Chester County Commissioners and INEOS Group Ltd., have not been posted to the docket. Dinniman said he would post them to his website in the meantime.
In a letter supporting Range Resources Corp.’s opposition to the emergency order and ME 1 stoppage, Ineos said Barnes’ decision has created an “unpredictable and disconcerting regulatory environment for companies like Ineos who have made significant capital investments in Pennsylvania and substantial commitments to Pennsylvania business.”
Ineos is the largest ethane customer served by ME 1, which moves 70,000 b/d of both ethane and propane from Western Pennsylvania to the Marcus Hook Industrial Complex on the other side of the state, where Ineos receives shipments for overseas deliveries to its crackers in Europe.
Range is ME 1’s anchor shipper. The first ME 1 outage stopped Ineos shipments. There’s limited storage available at Marcus Hook and purity ethane must be delivered via pipeline due to its high vapor pressure. ME 1 is currently the only pipeline serving the facility, but ME 2 and 2X would run parallel to it for about 350 miles to move more natural gas liquids from Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia to Marcus Hook.
Sunoco has asked that the emergency order be lifted. The entire PUC is scheduled to meet on Thursday, when a decision could be made.
If the emergency order is allowed to stand, Sunoco would be required to meet a laundry list of stipulations before ME 1 and construction on the other projects in West Whiteland is allowed to resume.
Dinniman, who represents citizens in Chester County living near the system’s right-of-way, has been a vocal critic of the ME project, joining local residents and other protesters on Saturday in a rally outside the Chester County Courthouse to oppose it.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114681-mariner-east-decision-close-as-pennsylvania-legislator-calls-for-transparency
-
Deadlines Looming for Goldboro, Canada’s Long Promised East Coast LNG Project
Jun 12, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Gordon Jaremko
After six years of preparations and promises, performance deadlines are looming for a homegrown proposal to build a C$10.8 billion ($8.6 billion) liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal on Canada’s east coast.
Mandatory spring disclosures by Goldboro LNG sponsor Pieridae Energy Ltd. show that the project risks losing its Nova Scotia environmental approval and site near the provincial capital in Halifax unless construction starts within the next nine months.
In investor presentations and other public appearances, company representatives repeatedly predict a “soft” final investment decision (FID) will be made this year, followed by a “hard” commitment before the end of March 2019.
Strides made by the project include cross-border gas supply permits from Canada’s National Energy Board and the U.S. Department of Energy, agreements with construction unions, an LNG supply deal with German trader Uniper Global Commodities and a tentative sale to a second unidentified European customer.
But formal written corporate disclosures add that the project still has to take big steps, with official deadlines for proceeding into construction requiring brisk progress.
The Nova Scotia government’s Goldboro LNG environmental approval, granted in 2014 and already extended for three years beyond the original expiry date in 2016, runs out as of March 21, 2019, according to documents.
Access to the proposed terminal site, on 265.5 vacant acres in a municipal government-owned industrial park, potentially expires three months earlier. The arrangement enables the municipality to take the property back and refund the C$3.2 million ($2.5 million) purchase price if the construction FID is not made by Dec. 31, Pieridae said.
The company added that gas sources have yet to be nailed down for planned exports of up to 1.4 Bcf/d via two LNG terminal production trains to be built in stages. Supply arrangements are described as essential for raising construction finance.
In corporate disclosures, the Pieridae Group of four subsidiaries for Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and the United States, said it had not yet “entered into a natural gas supply agreement for the Goldboro LNG facility.”
Project investor presentations predicted 73% of the gas would be obtained from Western Canada, where production originates in Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan. The rest of the supplies would originate in the northeastern United States and Eastern Canada.
To seal a western gas deal, Goldboro LNG vowed to secure an east coast copy of a 46% toll discount that TransCanada Corp. granted last fall on its cross-country Mainline for 1.4 Bcf/d flowing to the Dawn eastern storage and trading hub in Ontario.
The plan calls for Western Canadian gas to travel a roundabout route to the Nova Scotia coast via reversed, northbound flow on Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline (M&NE), after traversing U.S. conduits linked to eastern TransCanada export routes.
Gas pricing on offer to prospective western suppliers is a moving target.
Goldboro LNG project director Mark Brown has disclosed that pricing in the overseas sales contracts is an index, tracking the main European gas benchmark known as the National Balancing Point, or NBP, a British concept akin to the Henry Hub and the AECO-NIT in Canada’s top gas-producer jurisdiction, Alberta.
The NBP is the theoretical pricing and delivery point for commodity trading on the ICE Futures Europe exchange. Brown described the NBP as based largely on the overseas Brent price for oil, which is lately higher than the West Texas Intermediate benchmark in North America.
Goldboro LNG’s proposed economic structure includes a European sweetener. The project has obtained a preliminary opinion from two international accounting firms that it would qualify for a US$3 billion loan guarantee from a German energy supply incentive program, provided that agreed gas volumes go to Germany.
Prospects that the project will hit its targets and go ahead raise high hopes in Nova Scotia, where the planned four-year terminal construction program is forecast to employ nearly one-third of the province’s unionized labor force by creating 3,500 jobs.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114680-deadlines-looming-for-goldboro-canadas-long-promised-east-coast-lng-project
-
Amtrak Marks PTC Progress on BNSF Lines
Jun 12, 2018 | Railway Age
By William C. Vantuono
Amtrak, working with BNSF, will the week of June 11 implement Positive Train Control (PTC) on BNSF-owned subdivisions that host the Southwest Chief and California Zephyr, marking the first activation on host-owned territory used by Amtrak. Full PTC activation on BNSF routes that host these two long-distance trains is expected by the end of August.
“This is a great step for Amtrak,” said BNSF Assistant Vice President Network Control Systems Chris Matthews. “We have the infrastructure in place that allows Amtrak to operate on our network. We have partnered with them on the federal mandate and in some cases beyond the federal mandate to install PTC on subdivisions not required of BNSF. We look forward to continuing that partnership as they roll-out PTC along our routes.”
Amtrak said it is “on track to achieve installation and operation of PTC across the network it controls by the year-end deadline, and is working with partners throughout the industry to advance this system on host infrastructure. Where PTC is not implemented and operational, it is expected that nearly all carriers will qualify for an alternative PTC implementation schedule under law. For those carriers and routes operating under an extension or under an FRA-approved exemption, Amtrak is performing risk analyses and developing strategies for enhancing safety on a route-by-route basis to ensure that there is a single level of safety across the Amtrak network by Jan. 1, 2019.”
Amtrak reiterated a position it has taken previously: “For those very limited routes where a host [railroad] may not achieve an alternative schedule by year’s end, Amtrak will suspend service and may seek alternative modes of service until such routes come into compliance.”
Amtrak added it “is also working with tenant railroads that operate over Amtrak’s infrastructure as they work to ensure that they have sufficient PTC-comissioned rolling stock by the deadline to operate normal services.” Among these are regional/commuter rail operators NJ Transit, SEPTA, MBTA and LIRR.
Amtrak PTC implementation as of June 12, 2018 on routes and equipment it controls:380 of 444 Amtrak-owned locomotives are fully equipped and PTC operable (86%)8 of 11 installation/track segments completed (73%).104 of 120 radio towers fully installed and equipped (87%).95% of employees who require training to support PTC operations have completed training.607 of 900 route-miles in PTC operation (67%).
By law, to qualify for an alternative schedule (an extension to Dec. 31, 2020), Class I freight railroads and Amtrak (on the lines it owns, not where it is a tenant operator) must have all PTC hardware installed; all radio spectrum acquired; more than 50% of PTC territory or route-miles implemented (out of about 60,000 miles that need to be equipped; and all required employee training completed.
“Amtrak’s highest priority is ensuring the safety of our passengers, our crews and the communities we serve, and full implementation of PTC will make the entire network safer,” said Amtrak Executive Vice President of Safety Ken Hylander. “While we are excited to achieve this milestone, we must continue to work together to activate PTC and make the national railroad network safer.”
https://www.railwayage.com/cs/ptc/amtrak-marks-ptc-progress-on-bnsf-lines/
-
Metra Apologizes for Crowding on BNSF Line Since Schedule Change
Jun 12, 2018 | Chicago Tribune
By Mary Wisniewski
Some Metra trains on the BNSF Railway line that goes between Union Station to Aurora have been overcrowded since major schedule changes to the commuter railroad’s busiest line took effect Monday.
Metra needed to revise its schedule for the BNSF line to Aurora because of the implementation of new train safety technology. BNSF is the first Metra line to have positive train control, a federally mandated technology designed to automatically stop a train to avoid danger if an engineer fails to do so.
Operating with PTC means a train needs more time to “flip,” or get ready, before it can leave downtown for a return trip to the suburbs, so the schedule had to be changed, Metra said. Changes were also made to relieve overcrowding.
But the new schedule has so far resulted in more crowding on some trains. Metra, which carries about 64,000 riders on an average weekday, asked riders Tuesday for patience. The biggest issues have been on train Nos. 1226, 1230, 1236 and 1240, said Metra spokesman Michael Gillis. On Monday night, Nos. 1255 and 1259 were the most crowded.
“We know with major schedule revisions that changes may be needed as our customers get used to the schedule and adopt new travel patterns,” Metra said in a message apologizing to riders. “This includes adding cars to some trains by subtracting cars from other trains (since we have a finite number of railcars).” Metra said the railroad is monitoring the situation “very closely.”
Metra customer Thomas Deneen, who rides the 7:08 a.m. BNSF train (train No. 1226), from Western Springs to downtown, told the Tribune in an email that on both Monday and Tuesday mornings there were at least 20 commuters standing in his car and the conductor could not walk through and punch tickets. He said he saw about eight people standing on the train home.
He called the crowding a “very stark change of rider experience.”
Metra plans to have PTC installed and tested on all lines by the end of 2019. The complex system, which uses GPS, radios and computers, will cost the railroad about $400 million.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-biz-metra-bnsf-crowding-20180612-story.html
-
Senate GOP Drops 'Poison Pills' From Key Spending Bill
Jun 12, 2018 | AP (In The New York Times, The Washington Post)
Senate Republicans are ridding a key spending bill of controversial environmental provisions opposed by Democrats in an attempt to avoid the annual year-end budget pileup.
Tuesday's move by Sen. Lisa Murkowski extends an olive branch to Democrats and could allow the first floor debate on a key spending bill for the Interior Department and the Environmental Protection Agency since former President Barack Obama's first year in office. It's all part of an effort to avoid a catchall "omnibus" spending bill.
President Donald Trump has signed two such mega-bills since taking office but has vowed he won't do it again.
Republicans dropped a policy provision from previous years, for instance, that would have weakened a new government rule limiting methane waste from gas and oil drilling on public lands. It's one of several "riders" opposed by Democrats and environmental groups that have been included in the measure in past years, only to get stripped-out in end-stage negotiations.
ADVERTISEMENT
By avoiding the fight now, Senate Republicans are speeding up debate on the measure and winning panel approval for the measure for the first time since 2009.
"We have stood down to allow this process to move forward," said Murkowski, R-Alaska.
It's part of a broader effort by old-school senators like Appropriations Committee Chairman Richard Shelby, R-Ala., and top panel Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont to get the chamber back to debating a $1.3 trillion bundle of spending bills more openly and to build greater support for them.
Efforts in recent years have been halting at best, but Majority leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., are on board as well in hopes of repairing relations in the fractured Senate. Spending levels are mostly agreed to under the terms of a two-year budget pact agreed to this February that reversed a painful round of spending cuts.
"Chairman Shelby and Vice-Chairman Leahy have been very strong in saying, 'We're going to the regular order and the way to do that is keep off the poison pills,'" said Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M. "They have worked behind the scenes and empowered us ... to say 'no' to people."
In the House, the appropriations debates have remained partisan and the companion Interior and EPA measure — which is laced with GOP policy prescriptions — may never get a floor vote.EDITORS’ PICKSBlood Will Tell, Part 2: Did Faulty Evidence Doom Joe Bryan?The 25 Best American Plays Since ‘Angels in America’A Coach’s Success Obscured a Secret Pattern of Sex Abuse
ADVERTISEMENT
The measure also rejects huge budget cuts proposed by Trump in this year's budget. It boosts funding to fight western wildfires, freezes the EPA's budget, and reverses Trump's attempt to eliminate federal land acquisition grants.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/06/12/us/politics/ap-us-budget-battle.html
-
State Department Bill Would Again Cut Climate Programs
Jun 12, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Nick Sobczyk
The House Appropriations Committee has again left international climate programs out of its State Department spending bill.
The panel's State and foreign operations proposal for fiscal 2019, released this morning, would prevent funding and grants for the U.N. Green Climate Fund and provide no money for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, just as it has in previous years.
The Obama administration had aimed to pump $3 billion into the Green Climate Fund by 2020, but the Republican summary of the measure includes both on a list of "controversial or unnecessary programs."
Those cuts are in line with the Trump administration's budget request, which has targeted the Green Climate Fund for elimination two years in a row as part of its move away from "soft power" initiatives.
The top-line numbers, however, do break with the White House.
The bill would provide a total of $54 billion, including for discretionary spending and overseas contingency operations. That remains below what Congress doled out in fiscal 2017, but it's even with fiscal 2018 levels and nearly $20 billion over the president's request.
"This bill provides funding to ensure that America remains secure and that our diplomats and allies around the world have the tools they need to increase stability during this volatile time of international threats and unease," House Appropriations Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.) said in a statement.
"It will help advance peaceful and effective solutions to the many rising challenges facing the nation and the globe — including terrorism, threats from nuclear and chemical weapons, and current and emerging humanitarian crisis."
The measure also includes a rider to spurn Obama-era regulations on overseas coal plants at the Overseas Private Investment Corp. and the Export-Import Bank of the United States.
In a repeat of last year's bill, it would allow U.S. companies to finance coal-fired power plants in developing countries. The provision would "bolster U.S. job creation and ensure quality, cost-effective technology for developing and other nations," the GOP summary claims.
The State Department operations would get a $16.2 billion total slice of the bill, a modest $163 million jump over fiscal 2018. The U.S. Agency for International Development would take in $1.6 billion.
Funding for the World Bank's Global Environment Facility, meanwhile, would remain even at about $140 million.
The State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations Subcommittee will mark up the measure tomorrow morning.
"Together with our unmatched Armed Forces, our dedicated public servants and their partners help the United States lead by example and build a foundation for peace all over the world," Subcommittee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) said in a statement.
"This bill prioritizes funding for embassy security, combatting drug trafficking, global health and humanitarian assistance, and countering Russian aggression while maintaining vigilant oversight of every dollar spent."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/06/12/stories/1060084187
-
Ewire: Republicans Urge Trump to Send HFC Deal to Senate
Jun 12, 2018 | Inside EPA
Thirteen Republican senators are urging President Donald Trump to submit a global deal to phase down the use of refrigerants that act as potent greenhouse gases for ratification, though the lawmakers are eschewing climate change-related arguments from their pitch and are instead framing the effort as bolstering domestic manufacturers.
A June 4 letter from the senators to Trump, made public in June 11 in reports by Axios and others, says the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol “is intended to foster a smooth transition to commercially available next generation technologies developed by American industry.”
Unmentioned in the letter is the fact that the Obama administration helped negotiate the international deal with the chief purpose of limiting the use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) for environmental reasons. The chemicals -- which were crafted to replace earlier-generation refrigerants that harmed the stratospheric ozone layer -- are potent GHGs that lead to significant near-term global warming.
Even though the Obama-era global agreement's main purpose is to cut GHGs to avoid climate change, the 13 GOP lawmakers thought it best not to lead with this argument, or discuss it at all.
The deal has the broad support of industry, given that significant growth in refrigeration is expected in the coming years in developing countries, and domestic businesses see HFC replacements as a potential growth area.
And under the terms of Kigali, countries that do not meet its targets eventually might be limited from exporting products to those that are complying.
Signatories to the letter include GOP Sens. John N. Kennedy (LA), Susan Collins (ME), Bill Cassidy (LA), Lindsey Graham (SC), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Johnny Isakson (GA), Lamar Alexander (TN), Marco Rubio (FL), Jerry Moran (KS), Tim Scott (SC), Roy Blunt (MO), John Boozman (AR) and Todd Young (IN).
If those lawmakers were to join the entire 49-member Democratic caucus in voting for ratification, the deal would still be five votes shy of the necessary two-thirds vote.
They cite statistics from a recent analysis from refrigeration sector groups showing that ratifying the deal would increase domestic manufacturing jobs by 33,000, increase exports by $4.8 billion and improve the sector's trade balance.
“The failure to ratify this amendment could transfer our American advantage to other countries, including China, which have been dumping outdated products into the global marketplace and our backyard,” the letter says.
The Trump administration has not yet committed to submit the international pact to the Senate for ratification, and a former White House official has said EPA has been “opposed” to the deal out of concern that it might need new legislation to implement the pact.
Industry attorneys have tried to assuage such concerns, arguing that once Kigali is ratified, existing Clean Air Act language crafted to implement the Montreal Protocol would allow EPA to develop regulations to implement the new HFC deal.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-republicans-urge-trump-send-hfc-deal-senate
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested