Preview Newsletter
AM ACC Clips Report - June 21, 2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemicals Are Caught Up In U.S.-China Trade War
Jun 21, 2018 | Chemical and Engineering News
By Jean-François Tremblay
The chemical industries of the U.S. and China are in the line of fire of the trade war that is heating up between the two countries. -
(ACC Mentooned) Recycling Fallout Uncertain As Tariff Battle Continues
Jun 20, 2018 | Plastics Recycling Update
By Colin Staub
The U.S. will enact tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese products beginning July 6. Vowing retaliation, China released its own list of U.S. products to target in July. -
(ACC Mentioned) Flexible Packaging Project Names Sorting Partner
Jun 20, 2018 | Plastics Recycling Update
By Jared Paben
The Materials Recovery for the Future (MRFF) project will partner with a Pennsylvania sorting facility to generate bales of flexible plastic packaging (FPP). The materials recovery facility (MRF), which is owned by J.P. Mascaro and Sons, will install optical sorters to separate the flexible packaging from the single-stream mix. -
(ACC Mentioned) Toray Plastics Completes Expansion Of Virginia Facility
Jun 20, 2018 | ChemEngOnline
By Scott Jenkins
North Kingstown, Rhode Island—(June 20, 2018) Toray Plastics (America), Inc. (North Kingstown, Rhode Island; www.toraypta.com) has completed a two-year, $40 million expansion at its PEF Division in Front Royal, Virginia. -
(ACC Mentioned) PMA Event Brings Industry Experts Together
Jun 21, 2018 | RubberNews.com
By Kyle Brown
Polyurethane processors and manufacturers came together for more than just sun and surf at the 2018 Polyurethane Manufacturers Association annual meeting, held May 5-8 in Naples, Fla. They were also there to share ideas and build industry relationships. -
(ACC Mentioned) Fire Suppression Market will generate USD 16 billion by 2024
Jun 20, 2018 | The Perfect Investor
Global Fire Suppression Market size will exceed USD 16 billion by 2024, as reported in the latest study by Global Market Insights, Inc.Stringent government regulations towards public safety along with growing consumer awareness will drive the fire suppression market size. -
(ACC Mentioned) Andy Igrejas: 1970-2018
Jun 21, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Campaigner and powerful voice in TSCA negotiations dies aged 47 -
Nova Chemicals Makes Plea to Reduce Patent Charge Lost to Dow
Jun 21, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By James Munson
A global petrochemical company owned by the emirate of Abu Dhabi made a pitch to reduce a C$645 million ($485.5 million) patent charge by more than half in a Canadian court. -
EPA Issues TSCA New Chemicals Submission Guide
Jun 20, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA has issued new guidance to assist chemical manufacturers seeking approval of new chemicals to submit accurate pre-manufacture notices (PMN) for review, part of the agency's effort to speed such reviews, which have slowed as the agency struggles to implement the revised toxics law and faces a suit over its framework review plan. -
(ACC Mentioned) Regulatory Proposal: Don’t Regulate
Jun 21, 2018 | The New York Times
By Coral Davenport
A major chemical spill in a West Virginia river four years ago, which left more than a quarter-million people without safe drinking water for days, led to a lawsuit and a court-ordered deadline for the Environmental Protection Agency: propose rules to regulate the chemical by June 2018. -
New York Sues 3M, Five Others Over Firefighting Foam Residue
Jun 21, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By John Herzfeld
New York sued 3M Co. and five other manufacturers of firefighting foam tied to drinking water contamination near military and civilian airports, seeking at least $39 million for costs of cleaning up residues of toxic fluorochemicals. -
New York Sues 3M, Five Others Over Toxic Chemical Contamination
Jun 21, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Jonathan Stempel
New York state sued 3M Co and five other companies to recover the cost of cleaning up environmental contamination caused by toxic chemicals in firefighting foam that they manufactured. -
New York Sues Manufacturers Over Firefighting Foam Contamination
Jun 21, 2018 | Inside EPA
New York state, in a first-of-its-kind action, is suing under state law six manufacturers of firefighting foam containing perfluorinated chemicals, charging the companies are liable for defective products, public nuisance and restitution in the amount of millions of dollars the state incurred to address contamination caused by the chemicals. -
CDC: Fluorochemicals May Pose Risk at Levels Much Lower than EPA Standard (1)
Jun 21, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Exposure to two fluorochemicals increasingly detected in drinking water across the U.S. may pose health risks at exposure levels lower than those recommended by the EPA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said June 20. -
EPA-Recommended Chemicals Levels in Water Too High: U.S. Report
Jun 21, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Valerie Volcovici
The risk level for exposure in water to common chemicals used in Teflon and firefighting foam should be at least seven to 10 times lower than the threshold recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency, according to a draft report released on Wednesday that the White House and EPA had tried to keep from publication. -
Report Finds Industrial Chemicals More Toxic Than Thought
Jun 20, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Ellen Knickmeyer
-
ATSDR Seeks To Downplay Effect Of PFAS Risk Levels Stricter Than EPA's
Jun 21, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
A federal health agency has released its much-anticipated draft toxicological profile for perfluorinated chemicals that recommends risk values more conservative than EPA's, but the agency is downplaying potential health concerns from exposures above its limits, cautioning the public not to read its levels as cleanup or health effects standards. -
Federal Agency Releases ‘Public Relations Nightmare’ Water Contaminant Study
Jun 20, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A federal health agency released Wednesday a draft study that a White House aide previously warned could be a “public relations nightmare” for the Trump administration. -
California Court Upholds Proposition 65 Lead Limit
Jun 21, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie Miller
A court in California has found that the state "did not abuse its authority" in setting a permissible exposure level for lead, leaving in place the "safe harbour" level used to decide when warnings are required under Proposition 65. -
Paint Industry Frustrated By Rac Limit For Paint Preservative MBIT
Jun 21, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
The European paint industry is "surprised" and disappointed that Echa's Risk Assessment Committee has agreed that the preservative MBIT should have a specific concentration limit (SCL) of 15 parts per million (ppm) for classification as a category 1A skin sensitiser. -
Natural Gas Export Boom Brings Challenges for Top Energy Regulator
Jun 21, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Cunningham
The top U.S. energy regulator is hiring private contractors for the first time to help clear a growing backlog of LNG export applications. -
ICE Launches Updated Cove Point Product Amid Shift to Exports
Jun 20, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jeremiah Shelor
With exports underway at Dominion Energy Inc.’s Cove Point liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal in Lusby, MD, the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) has launched a physical trading product to reflect the changing market dynamics at the facility. -
US Prepares For Next Wave Of LNG Exports
Jun 21, 2018 | Financial Times
By Ed Crooks
When China last week set out a list of US exports threatened with retaliatory tariffs, almost all fossil fuels were covered, including oil, coal and liquefied petroleum gases such as propane. There was, however, one conspicuous exemption: liquefied natural gas. -
EPA Stands Pat on Chemical Spill Regulations, Despite Suit
Jun 21, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
The status quo will likely remain for companies that store chemicals in above-ground tanks. -
EPA Drops Plan For CWA Spill Rule Despite Settlement To Consider Policy
Jun 21, 2018 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
EPA is proposing to formally drop plans for a Clean Water Act (CWA) rule to prevent or contain industrial chemical spills by claiming that current policies already cover all the requirements that a comprehensive spill policy would include, drawing fire from environmentalists who had a settlement with EPA to consider pursuing the new rule. -
EPA Sends Ozone NAAQS 'Good Neighbor' Rule For OMB Review
Jun 20, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA has sent for White House pre-publication review a proposed rule that will determine states' “good neighbor” obligations to reduce ozone-forming emissions to help other states meet the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), though the agency has suggested there may not be a need for additional actions. -
Protectionism to Incentivize Countries to Adopt Carbon Pricing
Jun 21, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mathew Carr
Protectionist politics is increasing the likelihood that more nations will adopt carbon pricing to help safeguard their industry from regions with limited climate policies, according to Equinor ASA’s chief economist. -
Low-Income Residents Forgotten in Climate Resilience Plans: Study
Jun 21, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ayanna Alexander
Growing threats from climate change are putting city dwellers—particularly in low-income areas—at a higher risk of being affected. -
Taxpayer Groups Warm to Coolant Deal, Splitting Conservatives (Corrected)
Jun 21, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
A global deal to limit climate-warming coolants has its newest backers: a team of conservative taxpayer advocacy groups. -
Group Details Carbon Dividend, Limited Liability Plan
Jun 20, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Benjamin Hulac and Hannah Northey,
Former Sens. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and John Breaux (D-La.) announced an effort today to address climate change, which they compared to past national crises, such as world war and economic collapse.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemicals Are Caught Up In U.S.-China Trade War
Jun 21, 2018 | Chemical and Engineering News
By Jean-François Tremblay
The chemical industries of the U.S. and China are in the line of fire of the trade war that is heating up between the two countries.
U.S. President Donald J. Trump initiated the hostilities in April largely to punish China for its “Made in China 2025” industrial policy. At the time, the U.S. published a list of 1,300 goods subject to tariffs, but it went easy on Chinese chemical makers. In contrast, the Chinese response took aim at many big-volume chemicals made in the U.S., including some major plastics.
Now the U.S. has published a revised list that hits Chinese chemical makers harder. Starting on July 6, the U.S. will slap import duties of 25% on $50 billion worth of products made in China. The products are divided into two groups. The second group, which is still subject to a public comment period, targets many basic plastics as well as polyurethane, one of the rare polymers that China exports in large quantities to the U.S.
China retaliated with similar tariffs, also split into two groups. The first group, on which tariffs become effective July 6, contains few chemicals. As was the case for the U.S., chemicals are largely in a second list. Covering more chemicals than announced in April, this second list aims at large-volume items like polyethylene, polyvinyl chloride, and acrylonitrile.
The American Chemistry Council, the main industry group for U.S. chemical producers, issued a statement opposing the tariffs. “China is one of the U.S. chemical industry’s most important trading partners, importing 11%, or $3.2 billion, of all U.S. plastic resins in 2017,” the group noted. “The administration has now pit U.S. chemical manufacturing directly against China at the front lines of this conflict.”
Trade hostilities may worsen. In response to China’s retaliatory tariffs, President Trump instructed the U.S. Trade Representative to identify another $200 billion worth of Chinese goods on which to impose an import tariff of 10%. In a furious response, China’s Ministry of Commerce promised to “fight back forcefully” through “comprehensive measures.”
Chemical companies based in the Middle East will take advantage of Chinese tariffs to sell more ethylene derivatives in China, according to Joel Lindahl, vice president of olefins research at the consulting firm Wood MacKenzie. If U.S. producers try to sell in China, they will earn about $200 less per ton, he added.
https://cen.acs.org/policy/trade/Chemicals-caught-US-China-trade/96/i26
-
(ACC Mentooned) Recycling Fallout Uncertain As Tariff Battle Continues
Jun 20, 2018 | Plastics Recycling Update
By Colin Staub
The U.S. will enact tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese products beginning July 6. Vowing retaliation, China released its own list of U.S. products to target in July.
The revised U.S. tariff proposal contains 818 products to be hit with 25 percent tariffs, down from more than 1,300 that were proposed in April. The changes came after a variety of stakeholders submitted comments to the U.S. Trade Representative’s office in recent weeks.
The Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI) noted in a release that several products related to recycling machinery that were on the proposed list have been removed in the final document.
“As China and the United States continue to spar back and forth with new tariffs being imposed on key imports on goods from each country, the recycling industry has largely been spared,” ISRI stated.
Still, a host of machinery components will be subject to tariffs. For example, machinery for grinding, sanding, polishing, extruding, injection-molding, blow-molding and a variety of other processing activities will be subject to new duties. In addition, virgin resins including PE, PP, PS and PVC will be covered. And magnets, which are commonly used in sortation equipment, were also included in the final tariff list.
Paper manufacturing equipment will also be hit. For instance, the tariffs will cover machinery “for making paper pulp, paper or paperboard,” and a number of components that are included in such equipment.
In comments submitted to the U.S. Trade Representative in May, ISRI noted that recycling companies typically experience high equipment turnover, and that “the vast majority of these parts – up to 85 percent for crushing and grinding parts, for example – are supplied from China.”
The Chinese government on Saturday issued its own list of $50 billion in retaliatory 25 percent tariffs that will take effect the same day as the U.S. tariffs, July 6.
The Chinese tariffs on imports from the U.S. cover a range of materials including chemicals and energy products, as well as medical equipment, soybean and agricultural products, automobiles and more.
The Chinese list includes various types of virgin plastic, according to an online translation.Potential impacts on plastics pricing
Some industry observers have noted tariff ripples could affect virgin plastic manufacturing in the U.S. That fact could have a bearing on the value of both prime and recovered resins.
A recent market report found there will “likely be a dramatic increase in the production of virgin resins during the next three years, leading to lower, possibly much lower, prices.” If virgin plastics supply increases and prices fall, recycled resin producers would likely see the value of their products drop as well.
But the tariffs may swing that market phenomenon, with duties potentially slowing development of major projects planned in the U.S. and making existing operations less profitable.
The American Chemistry Council responded to the Trump Administration tariff announcement with concerns.
“We anticipate significant disruptions to supply chain operations, offshoring of production, and termination of production altogether due the sudden, uneven playing field that duties would create in the global marketplace,” the ACC wrote. “As much as half of $194 billion in planned chemical industry investment could be vulnerable to delay or abandonment.”
Market research firm ICIS analyzed possible changes the tariffs from the Chinese could create in the global flow of resin.
“Rising demand for products such as polyethylene (PE) will have to be met, regardless of tariffs,” the firm wrote. Under one scenario ICIS examined, “Chinese customers would replace U.S. imports with PE shipments from other countries. The U.S. will then export its PE to customers that saw their resin shipments diverted to China.”
https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/2018/06/20/recycling-fallout-uncertain-as-tariff-battle-continues/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Flexible Packaging Project Names Sorting Partner
Jun 20, 2018 | Plastics Recycling Update
By Jared Paben
MRFF has found a MRF.
The Materials Recovery for the Future (MRFF) project will partner with a Pennsylvania sorting facility to generate bales of flexible plastic packaging (FPP). The materials recovery facility (MRF), which is owned by J.P. Mascaro and Sons, will install optical sorters to separate the flexible packaging from the single-stream mix.
“Our company is thrilled to partner with the MRFF partners on this project,” Joseph P. Mascaro, company director of sustainability and general manager of the MRF, stated in a press release. “We are confident that the pilot will be successful and will generate industry data to show FPP generators, municipalities and the recycling industry that FPP can be efficiently and economically recycled and marketed instead of being landfilled.”
MRFF is a years-long industry project to solve challenges holding back recycling of FPP, a category that includes items such as films, wraps, bags and pouches. FPP recycling has been held back by issues related to sorting, contamination and the multi-material makeup of many FPP items. At the same time, FPP is quickly taking over stores shelves, prompting new efforts to find recycling and recovery solutions.
Consulting and research firm Resource Recycling Systems (RRS) is leading the project on behalf of the Foundation for Chemistry Research and Initiatives, a nonprofit organization established by the American Chemistry Council (ACC).How we got here
MRFF is one of a handful of recent efforts exploring recovery of FPP materials. A separate project, called the Hefty EnergyBag program, directs residents to place FPP and other difficult-to-recycle packaging types in orange bags. The bags are then taken to a MRF, pulled off the sorting line, baled and shipped to energy recovery facilities.
Additionally, Recycle BC, the extended producer responsibility group for printed paper and packaging in British Columbia, has begun accepting FPP drop-offs at depots around the province. The goal of the project, which is run in partnership with reclaimer Merlin Plastics, is to see if the materials can be recycled. Any FPP that can’t be recycled will be processed into fuel for burning.
MRFF takes a different approach in that it’s testing how FPP placed in a single-stream cart can be effectively separated at MRFs. And it’s looking at both mechanical recycling and energy recovery options for the bales.
The goal is to generate data on the most efficient and economical ways to recycle FPP, according to the release.
The Pennsylvania pilot project won’t be the first time MRFF has tested the ability of MRFs to sort FPP. In 2015 and 2016, RRS conducted smaller-scale tests at MRFs in San Diego; Surrey, British Columbia and Regina, Saskatchewan. The tests involved adjusting sorting equipment, including screens and optical sorters, to see how well they could separate FPP that had been thrown into the mix. One of the challenges was separating FPP from paper.
In August 2017, RRS also tested sorting at a large, high-tech MRF in North Las Vegas, Nev. According to a recently uploaded test recap, that effort involved planting RFID tags on 3,217 pieces of FPP and dropping them into the sorting system over a 15-minute period. Overall, the FPP made up 3 percent of the weight of material that passed through the single-stream system during that time. RFID readers placed at critical locations in the MRF monitored the FPP flows.
The MRF had a new optical sorter programmed to eject non-fiber materials, including FPP, to clean up paper bales. Part of the study involved seeing how effective it was at separating FPP.
The optical sorter itself was highly effective, missing only 3.4 percent of FPP. But the problem was much of the FPP never got to the optical sorter because, earlier in the system, it had followed newspaper and cardboard through the fiber screens. In fact, 60 percent of the FPP, by count, followed paper through the first newspaper screen into the paper bunker. The good news is the amount of fiber in the recovered FPP appeared to be relatively low, making up roughly 15 percent by weight.
RRS’ Chris King wrote in his report that the results showed additional optical sorters would be needed in any pilot MRF. Specifically, the optical sorters would be needed to capture FPP that followed fiber through the screens. The screens would also need to be adjusted to balance the flow of FPP and ensure they don’t overwhelm an optical sorter with huge volumes of FPP, he wrote.Pennsylvania project
The MRFF project first advertised it was looking for a facility to partner with in early 2017. Recently uploaded documents indicate project partners by May 2017 had preliminarily settled on J.P. Mascaro and Sons’ TotalRecycle MRF in Berks County, Pa. as the best candidate. At that time, they put conversations with other MRF operators on hold.
RRS estimates the TotalRecycle MRF will recover 3,100 tons per year of post-consumer FPP for various end markets. The MRFF project also involves testing end uses for the recovered plastic. End markets for recycled FPP remain underdeveloped in the U.S.
The TotalRecycle MRF will install optical sorters, provided by Van Dyk Recycling Solutions, to target the FPP. The two-year pilot program will begin in late 2018 with the installation of the sorting equipment, followed by an internal testing period. RRS and the project team estimate communities served by TotalRecycle will be able to add FPP to their ‘accepted’ list in 2020.
“We are all committed to the success of this program and look forward to adding recycled flexible packaging into the circular economy,” Steve Sikra, MRFF chairman and associate director of global research and development for Procter & Gamble, stated in the release. “As a side benefit, we expect to see the quality of J.P.’s other recycling streams improve as the flexible plastics are processed.”
The MRFF collaborative members include the following companies and organizations: ACC, Amcor, Association of Plastic Recyclers (APR), Canadian Plastics Industry Association, Dow Chemical, Flexible Packaging Association, LyondellBasell Industries, Nestlé Purina PetCare, Nestlé USA, PepsiCo, Plastics Industry Association, Procter & Gamble, SC Johnson, Sealed Air and Target. Chevron Phillips Chemical recently signed on as a new member.
https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/2018/06/20/flexible-packaging-project-names-sorting-partner/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Toray Plastics Completes Expansion Of Virginia Facility
Jun 20, 2018 | ChemEngOnline
By Scott Jenkins
North Kingstown, Rhode Island—(June 20, 2018) Toray Plastics (America), Inc. (North Kingstown, Rhode Island; www.toraypta.com) has completed a two-year, $40 million expansion at its PEF Division in Front Royal, Virginia. The company officially launched a new extrusion line, a new irradiation unit, and a new salt bath unit with a ribbon cutting on May 22.
Toray’s PEF Division is North America’s and Europe’s premier automotive supplier of blended polypropylene-polyethylene foam that offers consistent thickness and density. The state-of-the-art equipment is housed in two new buildings that cover 74,000 square feet. The new extrusion line provides the company with manufacturing flexibility and the irradiation unit has doubled irradiation capacity. The new salt bath unit, the company’s third, has increased capacity by 170 percent. This will enable PEF to meet the growing demands of the markets it currently serves and to export Toraypef and ToraSoft products to China as well. The investment will also allow the Division to supply unique products to industrial markets. PEF’s third generation of ToraSoft has been under development for the past year and is targeted for commercialization now that the expansion is complete. Toray anticipates that the expansion will create 30 new jobs.
http://www.chemengonline.com/toray-plastics-completes-expansion-of-virginia-facility/?printmode=1
-
(ACC Mentioned) PMA Event Brings Industry Experts Together
Jun 21, 2018 | RubberNews.com
By Kyle Brown
Polyurethane processors and manufacturers came together for more than just sun and surf at the 2018 Polyurethane Manufacturers Association annual meeting, held May 5-8 in Naples, Fla. They were also there to share ideas and build industry relationships.
"The real purpose of us getting together every year, is that we feel like we're stronger together when we collaborate," said Linda Katz, PMA president and Molded Dimensions Inc. owner and CEO. "It's a really great chance for everyone to share best practices and make industry connections."
A record of about 300 attended the event at the Naples Beach Hotel and Golf Club, with training sessions, keynote speakers and a supplier showcase, with time for a golf outing and an evening on the beach networking.
A new addition to the lineup, which also includes technical paper presentations and posters, were roundtable discussions for the first time in recent history, said Katz, who was Rubber & Plastics News' Executive of the Year for 2015.
Building interaction
"In terms of our sharing, we wanted to be more interactive," she said. "We had four topics for roundtables, and those were well-received."
The roundtable discussions included lean processes, hiring practices, automation and disaster preparedness. Being able to come together to share information freely is part of what makes the PMA group and annual meeting special, Katz said.
"We're all really good at what we do, and being able to explain what we do, and going out and digging for new opportunities," she said. "So I think a lot of us look at it as 'The stronger we are together, the bigger our market will be,' so we don't really see each other as competitors. We'll all share across the board."
As a larger organization, PMA members are working with a strong and growing economy, Katz said. But with that growth comes a bigger need to keep tabs on changing regulations worldwide.
"We keep an eye on all of the laws and regulations that are associated with our chemicals," she said. "It's our roots. The networking and growing the industry is our mission, but regulation is how we began."
PMA originally banded together to respond to a regulatory advance on methyl-bischloroaniline (MOCA), Katz said.
"So what we do now, is we look at all of our chemicals, and any sort of laws or regulations that might be changing," she said. "We try to make sure that our industry understands the very best way to handle all of our chemicals safely. We have awesome safe-use documents for every piece."
Starting with MOCA, PMA has compiled training materials that members can use for free, including shop level training and more technical advanced training, she said. The organization designed a poster that can be put up in work areas.
"These materials are free to anyone in the industry," she said. "We feel like we know how to handle our materials well, how to keep our employees safe and that it's our job to make sure everyone in the industry knows that."
PMA also promotes certification with current laws, with four levels, Katz said. The first is a pledge to comply with regulations and best practices. The second level is the achievement of compliance with current standards and regulations. The third level is doing things "above and beyond, sort of a scavenger hunt to say, 'Here are some extra things I'm doing.' " The fourth level is mentoring, or working on a committee that advances best practices in some way.
Katz said recently a step has been added in the second stage, called "PMA Safe and Compliant" verified. In that step, PMA members don't just self-certify that they're following best practices for handling chemicals and environmental health and safety laws. They also have an outside consultant come in and audit the system. The results of that audit are sent to the PMA, and qualifying companies receive a seal to show compliance.
"At my company, we have it displayed right on our way in to manufacturing, and we put it on marketing materials," Katz said. "So we can say we have third-party verification that we are handling all our chemicals safely using the best possible standards out there, and they really appreciate that."
Adding the PMA Safe and Compliant step makes for a good marketing standpoint for the individual companies, Katz said. It also sets a goal for the industry to be able to say that a large percentage of processors and manufacturers are compliant.
"That would be our ideal goal, to say we know safe practices, we share that information, and we can verify that we're actually using them as an industry," Katz said.
Employing self-regulation shows that government regulation isn't necessary, she said.
Industry advocacy
PMA also has established an advocacy committee, working alongside its established regulatory committee, with a goal to make connections in the regulatory world and establish a message to use in talks with legislators.
"We have a ton of industry data that's associated with our chemicals, that might be coming from other countries or older studies, and they're working hard to pull that together, to say there is a lot of data, and make sure we have a strong message in terms of that," Katz said.
The committee is making connections with the American Chemistry Council, partnering to work on best practices for materials such as isocyanates. Earlier this year, the committee led a group of PMA members to Washington where they spoke to lawmakers about the needs of the industry and regulation. They're also working collaboratively with OSHA.
"This is a new development, and we're feeling really good about this as well, being able to say that we have good relationships with these people," Katz said.
As changes come in the regulatory landscape, the committee is charged to be proactive about connecting with lawmakers on the state or federal level, and answer questions to participate in the process if industry chemicals are involved, she said.
After one year in her position as president, Katz said she would like to grow the number of processor members attending the PMA meeting in the future.
"I'd like to get more people around the table," she said. "We're always pushing, but I'm inclined to push even harder to reach out to get more processor members, and also to get processor members who don't attend. We'd like to reach out and say, 'We'd love to see you at our meeting in Vegas or at our meeting in Austin in two years.'"
In addition, she said she'd like to continue moving forward on the education front, including more training materials and workplace posters for industry chemicals.
http://www.rubbernews.com/article/20180620/NEWS/180629991/pma-event-brings-industry-experts-together
-
(ACC Mentioned) Fire Suppression Market will generate USD 16 billion by 2024
Jun 20, 2018 | The Perfect Investor
Global Fire Suppression Market size will exceed USD 16 billion by 2024, as reported in the latest study by Global Market Insights, Inc.Stringent government regulations towards public safety along with growing consumer awareness will drive the fire suppression market size.
Growing commercial floorspace along with introduction of safety codes and standards will stimulate the product penetration. As per American Chemistry Council, the fire codes set by NFPA and IFC states that all areas with upholstered furniture including healthcare facilities and educational institutes must have sprinkler system installed.
U.S. is projected to reach over annual installation of 150 million units by 2024. Upsurge in construction industry along with technological advancement in the product design and development will embellish the U.S. fire suppression market share. Increasing demand for environment friendly, less toxic, automatic and new generation systems will propel the product growth. In 2016, the country construction industry continued its rebound with 5.3% with another 2% expected increase by the end of 2017.
Growing awareness toward the adoption of fire protection systems to mitigate the hazards and accidents will foster the fire suppression market share. Introduction of green buildings in Europe coupled with stringent safety regulations will fuel the business growth. As per European Commission, 70,000 people are hospitalized due to severe injuries caused by fire with an estimated damage of USD 148.6 billion every year.
Rapid industrialization across developing economies along with increasing demand for safety equipment will drive the global fire suppression market. Ongoing investments across Asia-Pacific and Africa towards the expansion of industrial, commercial and residential establishments will boost the product demand. As per Central Banks and Governments’ statistics bureau, investments across Asia Pacific for the development of Industrial sector was USD 10.6 billion in 2016.
Germany fire suppression market is set to experience substantial growth on account of enhancement and improvisation of safety standards. As per European Commission, in Germany, any office or residential building with height of over 60 m must be provided with two stair cases as a safety exit and a sprinkler system must be installed to meet the safety standards.
China fire suppression market is set to witness growth over 3% by 2024. Expansion of industrial and commercial sector along with growing measures to reduce the fire accidents will positively influence the business landscape. In 2015, China surpassed the U.S. as the world’s major safety and security products market with an annual rise of 10.8%.
Saudi Arabia fire suppression market in 2016 was valued over 150 million. Ongoing O&G projects along with expansion and establishment of other available industries will boost the demand for suppression systems. In 2015, number of operating industrial units have reached up to 7,007 with the investment of USD 290 billion.
Notable players in global fire suppression market include TYCO, United Technologies Corporation, Minimax, Lubrizol, Bristol Fire Engineering, Halma PLC, SFFECO, Firetronics, NAFFCO, Master Fire Preventions Ltd., National Fire Equipment Ltd. and Amerex Corporation.
About Global Market Insights:
Global Market Insights, Inc., headquartered in Delaware, U.S., is a global market research and consulting service provider; offering syndicated and custom research reports along with growth consulting services. Our business intelligence and industry research reports offer clients with penetrative insights and actionable market data specially designed and presented to aid strategic decision making. These exhaustive reports are designed via a proprietary research methodology and are available for key industries such as chemicals, advanced materials, technology, renewable energy and biotechnology.
https://theperfectinvestor.com/2018/06/fire-suppression-market/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Andy Igrejas: 1970-2018
Jun 21, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Campaigner and powerful voice in TSCA negotiations dies aged 47
Chemical Watch has learned of the recent passing of US public health advocate Andy Igrejas at the age of 47.
Founder of the NGO Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, Mr Igrejas built a coalition of more than 450 organisations to advocate for stronger chemical safety laws and better protection of consumer health.
He was a powerful voice in the negotiations to reform the US's outdated federal TSCA law. And despite not endorsing the final bill, SCHF says Mr Igrejas "directly wrung more health-protective concessions even up through the final hours of negotiations."
Mr Igrejas also conceived the Mind the Store Campaign which has helped drive retailers to act on chemicals issues where the government has failed to do so. Just this week, the campaign played an instrumental part in convincing Home Depot to halt the sale of paint strippers containing methylene chloride [link], where the EPA has stalled on its own rule.
Beyond his legislative and grassroots efforts, Mr Igrejas will be remembered for his effective communication and sense of humour.
"His humour was infectious, and no one escaped his wit," an SCHF statement says. "Andy could have had a second career in stand-up comedy. But in those moments, he wasn’t simply entertaining. For Andy, it was also a subversive organising technique that endeared him to allies and disarmed our opponents."
"He was a passionate, talented and committed advocate who dedicated his life to protecting children and families from toxic chemicals," said Sarah Vogel, vice president for health at the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). "He will be greatly missed."
And Cal Dooley, president and CEO of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) said: "Over the years and through many hours of dialogue and negotiation, I and other members of the ACC team developed great respect for the commitment and passion Andy brought to his work to promote the safe use of chemicals.
"With Andy’s passing, the environmental community has lost a tireless voice and dedicated advocate."
https://chemicalwatch.com/67899/andy-igrejas-1970-2018
-
Nova Chemicals Makes Plea to Reduce Patent Charge Lost to Dow
Jun 21, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By James Munson
Nova Chemicals wants to reduce award by more than $260 million
No immediate decision expected
A global petrochemical company owned by the emirate of Abu Dhabi made a pitch to reduce a C$645 million ($485.5 million) patent charge by more than half in a Canadian court.
Nova Chemicals Corp., which has its roots in Canada but is owned by the emirate’s International Petroleum Investment Co., told the Federal Court of Appeal in Ottawa June 19 that lower courts failed to properly apply Canadian patent law when they awarded competitor Dow Chemical that sum in July 2017.
The case involves a Dow patent for an ethylene-based product that is used in globally in plastic packaging. The case is the “largest reported award in a Canadian patent infringement case,” according to Dow’s Ottawa-based law firm Smart & Biggar.
Errors in applying patent law caused Federal Court of Canada Justice Simon Fothergill to mistakenly include profits that Nova didn’t accrue through its infringement of that patent, Nova lawyer Sheila Block of Torys LLP said.
Nova is seeking to reduce the award, which has already been paid in cash, by approximately C$350 million ($263.5 million), Block said.
Nova and Dow, two petrochemical giants that formerly ran a joint facility in Joffre, Alberta, are appealing and cross-appealing the patent infringement decision, respectively.
Nova is arguing that some of the profits the company made would have been acquired anyway, a point Dow lawyers disputed, saying the patent infringement allowed Nova to enter a “niche” market in the plastics industry.
No Immediate DecisionJustice David Stratas of the Federal Court of Appeal said the issues in the case are “most difficult” and that he and the other two judges presiding over the case would take the case under reserve, meaning they wouldn’t be making an immediate decision.
Dow has also accused Nova of stealing ethane from the Joffre facility in a separate case before the Alberta Court of the Queen’s Bench.
While one report indicated a draft decision has been made in that case, the lawsuit is still under reserve, court executive legal council Darryl Reuther told Bloomberg Environment June 12.
Nova declined to comment on the reports, while Dow said it was pleased with the process so far.
“Dow’s lawsuit filed against Nova related to E3 ethylene production is proceeding in due course,” Dow spokesman Jarrod Erpelding said in an email to Bloomberg Environment when asked to comment on the case.
“Out of respect for the judicial process, we will not comment further until such a decision is rendered and made public, Erpelding wrote.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/nova-chemicals-makes-plea-to-reduce-patent-charge-lost-to-dow
-
EPA Issues TSCA New Chemicals Submission Guide
Jun 20, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA has issued new guidance to assist chemical manufacturers seeking approval of new chemicals to submit accurate pre-manufacture notices (PMN) for review, part of the agency's effort to speed such reviews, which have slowed as the agency struggles to implement the revised toxics law and faces a suit over its framework review plan.
EPA June 20 released its “Points to Consider When Preparing TSCA New Chemical Notifications” guide, instructing manufacturers on how to prepare PMNs that may quickly pass agency review, and detailing scientific approaches the agency is using in its review process.
“Through early engagement with industry and by being clear and specific about what information we require from them in their new chemical submission, we increase manufacturers’ certainty, improve submissions, and get new, safer chemicals on the market faster and more efficiently,” EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt says in the statement.
EPA says the new guide updates a November draft version based on public input.
The agency statement says that the guide will help companies prepare PMNs, significant new use notices and exemption notices under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
The new guidance is part of the Trump administration's effort to speed reviews of new chemicals despite uncertainty caused in part by terms in the revised TSCA requiring that EPA consider "reasonably foreseeable" uses and determine whethera new chemical is “not likely” to pose an unreasonable risk.
EPA late last year floated a draft "New Chemicals Decision-Making Framework" intended to help speed new chemical reviews but observers say that the agency has backed off implementing that policy after the Natural Resources Defense Council challenged the plan in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.
Industry attorneys have said that while the lawsuit faces hurdles because it challenges a policy that is not yet final, the suit nevertheless appears to have dissuaded the agency from following the novel review process floated last year.
Meanwhile, Jeff Morris, EPA's toxics chief, has said that companies can expedite EPA's new chemical reviews by adhering to the agency's points to consider guidance when preparing submissions and by consulting agency staff prior to submitting new chemicals for review.
In the statement, EPA says the new guidance promotes public understanding of its technical review and analysis of new chemicals. And EPA again urges chemical manufacturers to provide the agency early notice of new chemical applications.
“The pre-submission meeting is an opportunity to discuss the planned new chemical submission and to understand the Agency’s approach to reviewing new chemicals for potential risks early in the process,” the statement says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-issues-tsca-new-chemicals-submission-guide
-
(ACC Mentioned) Regulatory Proposal: Don’t Regulate
Jun 21, 2018 | The New York Times
By Coral Davenport
A major chemical spill in a West Virginia river four years ago, which left more than a quarter-million people without safe drinking water for days, led to a lawsuit and a court-ordered deadline for the Environmental Protection Agency: propose rules to regulate the chemical by June 2018.
This week the E.P.A. published its regulatory proposal, meeting the court’s deadline. However, the proposal concludes that no new rules are needed.
The finding has triggered an outcry by environmental and public health advocates, who have criticized the E.P.A.’s administrator, Scott Pruitt, for his light regulatory touch. The agency “consented to a court order to issue these standards,” said Erik D. Olson of the Natural Resources Defense Council, an advocacy group. “Today, the Pruitt E.P.A. is brazenly refusing to do that.”
The chemical in question, 4-methylcyclohexane methanol, is used in processing coal.
The move comes amid a broader weakening by the E.P.A. of chemical safety laws under the agency’s chief regulator of toxic chemicals, Nancy B. Beck, a former executive at the American Chemistry Council, an industry lobbying group.
“After engaging the public and analyzing the best available data, E.P.A. believes that additional regulatory requirements for hazardous substances discharges would be duplicative and unnecessary,” Mr. Pruitt said in a statement. “If finalized, the proposed rule would give the regulated community the clarity and certainty they need to continue to uphold the law and ensure the nation’s waterways are protected.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/climate/a-climate-policy-even-trump-can-support.html
-
New York Sues 3M, Five Others Over Firefighting Foam Residue
Jun 21, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By John Herzfeld
New York becomes first state to sue manufacturers over firefighting foam
Lawsuit seeks money to clean up fluorochemicals spilled at military, civilian airports
New York sued 3M Co. and five other manufacturers of firefighting foam tied to drinking water contamination near military and civilian airports, seeking at least $39 million for costs of cleaning up residues of toxic fluorochemicals.
The lawsuit follows other legal actions by counties and residents in areas where perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) have been implicated in drinking water contamination, but is the first filed by a state to recover cleanup costs from releases of the fluorochemicals from airports into the environment.
It seeks to hold the companies liable under state law for the contamination, alleging that they manufactured and marketed products with defective designs, provided inadequate warnings of product hazards, and created a public nuisance. The $39 million figure represents costs to date and is likely to continue to grow, New York said.
Contamination of drinking water, soil, and fish, the lawsuit alleged, resulted from foams used in New York for firefighting and firefighting training at Stewart Air National Guard Base in Newburgh, Stewart International Airport in New Windsor, Francis S. Gabreski Airport in Westhampton, Plattsburgh Air Force Base in Plattsburgh, and the former Griffiss Air Force Base in Rome.
“As state experts continue to investigate contamination caused by firefighting foams, New York is working to end the dangerous practices that threaten our natural resources,” Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) said in a statement. “By taking necessary legal action against these companies, we are sending a clear message that we will do everything in our power to protect New Yorkers.”
Cuomo formed a Water Quality Rapid Response Team in 2016, led by the state Environmental Conservation and Health departments, to address PFOS and PFOA contamination from the firefighting foam and plastics manufacturing at sites around the state.
Cites 2006 EPA SettlementThe companies knew, or should have known, by the 1970s of the risks posed by the chemicals, the lawsuit alleged.
3M, which began developing firefighting foams containing PFOS in the early 1960s, agreed to pay a penalty of more than $1.5 million to the Environmental Protection Agency in 2006 for its allegedly failing to disclose studies confirming the chemicals’ potential hazards, the state claimed.
Named with 3M as defendants in the lawsuit were Tyco Fire Products LP, Chemguard Inc., Buckeye Fire Equipment Co., National Foam Inc., and Kidde-Fenwal Inc. Chemguard is owned by Johnson Controls Inc. and Kidde-Fenwal is a unit of United Technologies Co.
In a statement, 3M said it “acted responsibly at all times and will defend its record of stewardship in connection with its manufacturing and sale of” aqueous film-forming foam.
Spokesmen for Johnson Controls and United Technologies said their companies don’t comment on pending litigation. The other companies didn’t immediately respond to Bloomberg Environment requests for comment.
The case is N.Y. v. 3M Co., N.Y. Sup. Ct., 6/19/18.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/new-york-sues-3m-five-others-over-firefighting-foam-residue
-
New York Sues 3M, Five Others Over Toxic Chemical Contamination
Jun 21, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Jonathan Stempel
NEW YORK — New York state sued 3M Co and five other companies to recover the cost of cleaning up environmental contamination caused by toxic chemicals in firefighting foam that they manufactured.
Governor Andrew Cuomo and Attorney General Barbara Underwood said on Wednesday the lawsuit seeks more than $38.8 million plus punitive damages and is the first of its type by a U.S. state.
New York said the use of the foam at five military and civilian airports in the state caused "extensive contamination" to nearby fish, soil and water and increased the risk to people of immune system damage and other health problems.
The companies knew or should have known by the 1970s that the foam, when used as intended, could threaten public health and the environment, the state said.
"New York is working to end the dangerous practices that threaten our natural resources," Cuomo said in a statement.
The lawsuit was filed on Tuesday evening in New York's Supreme Court in Albany, the state capital.
In an email, 3M spokeswoman Donna Fleming Runyon said the St. Paul, Minnesota-based company "acted responsibly at all times and will defend its record of stewardship" in connection with its manufacture and sale of the foam.
Other defendants include Buckeye Fire Equipment Co, Chemguard Inc, Kidde-Fenwal Inc, National Foam Inc and Tyco Fire Products LP.
The five airports are Stewart International Airport in New Windsor, Stewart Air National Guard Base in Newburgh, Francis S. Gabreski Airport in Southampton, Plattsburgh Air Force Base in Plattsburgh and Griffiss Air Force Base in Rome. The Plattsburgh and Griffiss bases have closed.
The case is New York v 3M Co et al, New York State Supreme Court, Albany County, No. 904029-18.
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2018/06/20/us/20reuters-3m-new-york.html
-
New York Sues Manufacturers Over Firefighting Foam Contamination
Jun 21, 2018 | Inside EPA
New York state, in a first-of-its-kind action, is suing under state law six manufacturers of firefighting foam containing perfluorinated chemicals, charging the companies are liable for defective products, public nuisance and restitution in the amount of millions of dollars the state incurred to address contamination caused by the chemicals.
“The conduct of these manufacturers caused widespread contamination of our drinking water and our environment -- and jeopardized the health of tens of thousands of New Yorkers,” New York Attorney General (AG) Barbara D. Underwood said in a June 20 press release from the attorney general's office. “My office will hold these companies accountable for endangering the health of New Yorkers, including forcing them to fully repay the state for cleaning up the toxic mess they created."
The state filed the suit, State of New York v. 3M Company, et al., June 19 in the state Supreme Court for the County of Albany against six manufacturers and marketers of foams containing the per- and polyflouroalkyl substances (PFAS) known as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS). The two chemicals help extinguish flammable liquid fires common in aircraft incidents, the AG's office says.
The suit is against 3M Company; Tyco Fire Products LP; Chemguard, Inc.; Buckeye Fire Equipment Company; National Foam, Inc.; and Kidde-Fenwal, Inc.
Other states have sued manufacturers of the chemicals. For example, Minnesota earlier this year won a $850 million settlement from 3M to address contamination stemming from its manufacture of PFAS chemicals generally.
But the New York AG's office notes that its suit is the first-ever to be brought by a state against manufacturers of firefighting products that contain PFOA and PFOS in order to recover cleanup costs.
Such suits are part of a growing trend among state and local governments seeking to recoup monetary awards from manufacturers to address harmful substances in the absence of federal policy requirements.
The state AG's office says the foams at issue in this case were used to fight fires and to train at various airports in New York, including Stewart Air National Guard Base, Stewart International Airport, Francis S. Gabreski Airport, the former Plattsburgh Air Force Base and the former Griffiss Air Force Base.
The state says the use of firefighting foams at these airports “resulted in extensive contamination of soil, fish, and water” by PFOA and PFOS.
New York is alleging that “the companies are liable under state law for the contamination caused by their products, based on their conduct manufacturing and marketing products with defective designs, inadequate warning of product dangers, and the creation of a public nuisance,” the release says.
The chemicals are part of a ubiquitous class of substances -- widely used for their non-stick properties -- but which are linked to certain cancers and other harms and are turning up in the drinking water of hundreds of community systems. They have long been used in firefighting foam at military and civilian airports across the country, which has led to contaminated drinking water and groundwater.
The state has so far spent about $39 million to clean up PFOA and PFOS contamination from four airports, and it says these costs will likely increase. The suit alleges that the companies by the 1970s “knew or should have known” that the two chemicals were mobile, environmentally persistent, bioaccumulative in fish and wildlife and could be tied to severe human health and environmental harms.
The suit lists the causes of action as: public nuisance, strict products liability for defective design, strict products liability for failure to warn, and restitution.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/new-york-sues-manufacturers-over-firefighting-foam-contamination
-
CDC: Fluorochemicals May Pose Risk at Levels Much Lower than EPA Standard (1)
Jun 21, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
CDC finds two fluorochemicals pose greater risk than EPA found
States setting standards ahead of U.S. EPA
Exposure to two fluorochemicals increasingly detected in drinking water across the U.S. may pose health risks at exposure levels lower than those recommended by the EPA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said June 20.
The CDC’s preliminary analysis said certain exposures to perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) could pose a greater risk at levels much lower than the Environmental Protection Agency said in a 2016 analysis it prepared for those same two chemicals. The EPA’s analysis led it to set a drinking water health advisory for those substances of 70 parts per trillion.
The CDC concluded PFOA and PFOS posed health concerns at levels seven to 10 times lower than the level EPA calculated in 2016 and used for its drinking water advisory, Alexis Temkin, a toxicologist with the Environmental Working Group, told Bloomberg Environment.
The CDC delayed its release of the analysis after one of several emails exchanged among White House, Department of Defense, and EPA officials described the health agency’s conclusions as raising a “potential public relations nightmare.” The Union of Concerned Scientists obtained those emails under the Freedom of Information Act and released them.
The draft Toxicological Profile that CDC’s Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) released reached some different conclusions than those discussed in the federal emails.
Chemicals Linger in EnvironmentThe conclusions about PFOA and PFOS were part of the CDC’s broader analysis of a group of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, chemicals.
Such chemicals have been used to make—or have been released into the environment due to the production and use of—heat-, oil-, stick-, and water-resistant products such as outdoor clothes, nonstick cookware, aircraft brakes, and firefighting foam intended for jet fuel and other particularly dangerous fires.
The chemicals are highly resistant to degradation, meaning they linger in the environment and people’s bodies. Health concerns arising from exposure include increases in cholesterol and hypertension, according to ATSDR. The health agency said, however, the reduced birth weight and altered liver enzyme levels that some human health studies have reported “are small and not likely biologically relevant.”
The increasing detection of per- and polyfluoroalkyls in sources of drinking water and contaminated sites has prompted a wave a litigation against companies such as 3M, Saint-Gobain SA, and what is now DowDuPont Inc.
Water utilities, state health departments, and the Department of Defense have spent millions addressing contaminated soil and water, community health concerns, and other problems stemming from PFAS exposure.
CDC Consistent with Some StatesATSDR’s findings are generally consistent with those of several states including New Jersey, which have proposed lower limits for the chemicals than the EPA had recommended, Temkin said.
“New Jersey has been ahead of the rest of the nation on this issue by moving forward with stringent, health-based formal drinking water standards for PFOA, PFOS, and PFNA,” Lawrence Hajna, a New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection spokesman, told Bloomberg Environment.
New Jersey expects to adopt a formal drinking water standard of 13 parts per trillion for perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) in the near future.
In addition, the state is developing rules to formally adopt a 14 parts per trillion drinking water standard for PFOA and a 13 parts per trillion standard for PFOS, Hajna said. “We expect the formal rules to be proposed in the coming months.”
Analyses DifferThe EPA’s analysis focused on lifetime exposure, but ATSDR said data were insufficient to analyze either very short term or lifelong exposures for most PFAS chemicals.
ATSDR had enough information to set safe exposure levels, or what it terms “minimum risk levels.” The agency provides risk levels for intermediate-duration exposures—15 to 364 days—for PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, and perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS).
The health agency also used a study to reach some of its conclusions that was not available to the EPA when it released its findings in 2016, EWG’s Temkin said.
ATSDR’s analysis is open for public comment through July 23.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/cdc-fluorochemicals-may-pose-risk-at-levels-much-lower-than-epa-standard-1
-
EPA-Recommended Chemicals Levels in Water Too High: U.S. Report
Jun 21, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Valerie Volcovici
WASHINGTON — The risk level for exposure in water to common chemicals used in Teflon and firefighting foam should be at least seven to 10 times lower than the threshold recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency, according to a draft report released on Wednesday that the White House and EPA had tried to keep from publication.
The Department of Health and Human Services' Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry released the draft study of the controversial class of chemicals called PFOA or PFAS for public comment.
Trump administration officials warned in internal emails made public last month by the Union of Concerned Scientists that the report would cause a "public relations nightmare" if released because the risk levels are much lower than those set by the EPA. The Trump administration stopped the publication of the study earlier this year.
The chemicals in question, which have been used for decades in products like Teflon and other non-stick products and firefighting foam, have contaminated water systems. Companies like Dow Chemical and 3M have faced numerous lawsuits from people exposed to the chemicals in their water supply.
More recently, communities around military bases in states including Pennsylvania, Michigan and West Virginia have been exposed to PFAS water contamination because the Defense Department uses foam containing the chemicals for military exercises.
Public water systems, private drinking wells and military water supplies have been treated on a 2016 EPA recommendation that advised people not to drink water if it had more than 70 parts per trillion (ppt) of PFOA and PFOS chemicals, a level that some researchers said was inadequate to protect public health.
The HHS agency said the level should be 7-ppt for PFOS and 11-ppt for PFOA -- the two common PFAS compounds.
The chemicals are linked to cancer, liver and thyroid damage, and other health and fetal effects. Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers in certain states have expressed alarm over exposure to the chemicals.
Environmental and health groups have said the report's findings would be essential for states that need to clean up PFAS-contaminated drinking water.
“After repeatedly pushing the administration to make these findings public, I’m very glad to see it release this study today," said Republican Senator Shelly Moore Capito of West Virginia. "The information contained in the report will help determine potential threats our communities face as a result of certain water contamination issues."
Also known as C8, the chemical was used at companies like DuPont in West Virginia and other states since the 1950s to make Teflon and other nonstick products, and has affected area residents.
“This study confirms that the EPA’s guidelines for PFAS levels in drinking water woefully underestimate risks to human health,” said Olga Naidenko, senior science adviser at the Environmental Working Group, an environmental watchdog group.
She said EPA should use the report's finding and collect and publish all water results showing PFAS contamination at any level, "so Americans across the country can take immediate steps to protect themselves and their families.”
A recent analysis by the Environmental Working Group showed that tap water supplies for an estimated 110 million Americans are contaminated with PFAS chemicals.
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2018/06/20/us/20reuters-usa-epa-chemicals.html
-
Report Finds Industrial Chemicals More Toxic Than Thought
Jun 20, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Ellen Knickmeyer
WASHINGTON — A family of industrial chemicals turning up in public water supplies around the country is even more toxic than previously thought, threatening human health at concentrations seven to 10 times lower than once realized, according to a government report released Wednesday.
The chemicals are called perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl. They were used in such goods as fire-suppressing foam, nonstick pans, fast-food wrappers, and stain-resistant fabric and carpet, but are no longer used in U.S. manufacturing. Water sampling has found contamination in water around military bases, factories and other sites.
Exposure at high levels is linked to liver damage, developmental problems and some forms of cancer, among other risks.
A draft of the report, by the Department of Health and Human Services’ toxicology office, had set off alarms within the Trump administration earlier this year. A January email from a White House official, released under the Freedom of Information Act, referred to the findings as a “potential public relations nightmare.”
The draft went under months of government review before Wednesday’s publication, but the key finding — that the chemicals are dangerous at specific levels much lower than previously stated — was not changed.
The EPA, which scheduled a series of hearings on the chemicals, said last month that it would move toward formally declaring the two most common forms of PFAS as hazardous substances and make recommendations for groundwater cleanup, among other steps.
U.S. manufacturers agreed in 2006 to an EPA-crafted deal to stop using one of the most common forms of the chemical in consumer products.
The findings will likely lead state and local water systems with the contaminant to boost filtering.
“The more we test, the more we find,” Olga Naidenko, a science adviser to the Environmental Working Group nonprofit, said Wednesday.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/science-says-what-makes-something-truly-addictive/2018/06/21/cb1f12cc-7518-11e8-bda1-18e53a448a14_story.html?utm_term=.ca60d94a216f
-
ATSDR Seeks To Downplay Effect Of PFAS Risk Levels Stricter Than EPA's
Jun 21, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
A federal health agency has released its much-anticipated draft toxicological profile for perfluorinated chemicals that recommends risk values more conservative than EPA's, but the agency is downplaying potential health concerns from exposures above its limits, cautioning the public not to read its levels as cleanup or health effects standards.
In a Federal Register notice slated for publication June 21, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) announces the release of its draft tox profile evaluating 14 per- and polyflouroalkyl substances (PFAS).
The document's release comes weeks after Inside EPA and other outlets reported it had been blocked in the face of opposition from EPA and other agencies concerned that its proposed minimal risk levels (MRLs) were stricter than values EPA adopted to address widespread drinking water contamination from two of the four substances covered by the profile.
According to internal emails, the White House blocked the draft document's release because EPA and DOD feared a “public relations nightmare” due to ATSDR's more conservative levels, as compared to EPA's reference doses used in its 2016 health advisories for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) -- two of the most common PFAS.
The chemicals are part of a ubiquitous class of substances -- widely used for their non-stick properties -- but which are linked to certain cancers and other harms and are turning up in the drinking water of hundreds of community systems.
The press reports sparked a storm of criticism, including from Republican lawmakers, who urged the administration to quickly release the document. Patrick Breysse, ATSDR's director, said at a recent EPA summit on PFAS that agencies were working on developing “consistent messaging” for rolling out the document.
The draft profile ATSDR released proposes MRLs -- an estimate of the level of a chemical a person can be exposed to each day without a detectable non-cancer health risk -- that largely mirror the levels in an early 2017 draft profile reviewed by Inside EPA.
But in a supplemental document highlighted on ATSDR's webpage, the agency seeks to downplay potential concerns that may result from exposures above its proposed MRLs, cautioning the public that “If someone is exposed to an amount above the MRLs, it does not mean that health problems will happen."
When health assessors discover exposures above an MRL, the document adds, “it means that they may want to look more closely at a site.”
ATSDR also notes that it “works closely” with EPA at both a national and regional level at sites where exposures are estimated to exceed “health-based values such as MRLs."
And ATSDR also stresses in an appendix to its draft tox profile that MRLs “are not intended to define clean-up or action levels,” but are meant to act as a screening tool to aid public health professionals in further investigating.
Draft Profile
ATSDR's just-released draft levels for “intermediate” duration oral exposures for PFOA and PFOS are between seven and 10 times stricter than EPA risk estimates underlying the agency's 2016 drinking water health advisories for lifetime chronic exposure to the two PFAS.
These numbers are identical to the levels in earlier drafts that stirred opposition from EPA and DOD and led to the delay of its release.
ATSDR is now seeking public comment on what is a third iteration of the draft tox profile. In this case, as in a 2017 unreleased version, the agency is suggesting MRLs for four PFAS for intermediate oral exposures, defined as between 15 and 364 days. While ATSDR's dose is for intermediate exposures, if extrapolated, the level for chronic exposure would presumably be the same or even lower than EPA's.
The draft risk level for PFOS is exactly the same as the 2017 version, setting the MRL at 2x10^-6 milligrams/kilograms/day (mg/kg/day) -- a level that is 10 times more stringent than EPA's reference dose (RfD) of 2x10^-5 mg/kg/day, which EPA used in its 2016 health advisory for lifetime chronic exposure.
ATSDR based it on developmental effects, but added in an additional “modifying factor of 10” to account for immunotoxicity risks, indicating a possibly more sensitive endpoint than developmental toxicity.
In addition, the new draft tox profile suggests an intermediate, oral MRL for PFOA of 3x10^-6 mg/kg/day, a level that is approximately seven times stricter than EPA's RfD of 2x10^-5 mg/kg/day that the agency used in its 2016 health advisory.
EPA translated its PFOA and PFOS values into a health advisory of 70 parts per trillion in drinking water for each chemical alone or combined.
ATSDR derived its draft PFOA level -- which is the same as in the 2017 draft document -- using different studies than EPA relied on, including a 2011 behavioral study by Onishchenko et al. and a 2016 study by Koskela et al. -- which was published after EPA published its risk assessment.
ATSDR is also recommending MRLs for two other PFAS -- one at a level slightly different from what it suggested in 2017.
For perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), ATSDR is suggesting a level of 3x10^-6 mg/kg/day as compared to a level of 4x10^-6 mg/kg/day that was suggested in the 2017 draft risk study. EPA does not have a RfD for this chemical.
The recommended MRL is based on developmental delays effects, and includes an uncertainty factor of 30 as well as a modifying factor of 10 due to database limitations.
For perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), ATSDR is recommending the same risk level as it did in the 2017 draft document: 2x10^-5 mg/kg/day. EPA does not have a reference dose for this chemical.
For the 10 other PFAS considered in the tox profile, ATSDR is not recommending an MRL due to “insufficient data."
ATSDR plans to take public comment on the draft risk levels for 30 days, after publishing notice of the draft tox profile. -
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/atsdr-seeks-downplay-effect-pfas-risk-levels-stricter-epas
-
Federal Agency Releases ‘Public Relations Nightmare’ Water Contaminant Study
Jun 20, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A federal health agency released Wednesday a draft study that a White House aide previously warned could be a “public relations nightmare” for the Trump administration.
The study from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) found that exposure to two key drinking water contaminants could be harmful at levels seven- to 10-times lower than what the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had previously estimated in a health warning.
The substances, both in a category of manmade chemicals known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), have been a hot-button issuelately. They are used in manufacturing certain non-stick and flame-retardant products, and have been used extensively in airport firefighting, leading to leeching and contamination in drinking water.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt hosted a summit with state, industrial and environmental representatives last month on the chemicals and promised to take various actions, such as to formally explore whether to set limits for their concentration in drinking water.
The study released Wednesday attracted attention earlier in May, when an email disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act showed that an unidentified White House staffer warned the EPA that the release of the study could be a “public relations nightmare” for the Trump administration, since it would show health harms at low levels.
The ATSDR's research is meant to inform agencies like the EPA as they consider regulations.
The study found minimal risk levels — an estimate of how much someone could consume safely — at about 7 parts per trillion for perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) and 11 parts per trillion for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA).
The EPA in 2016 published a “health advisory” for PFOS and PFOA that set the combined exposure level for both substances at 70 parts per trillion.
The EPA said Wednesday that it will continue its work on the substances with various stakeholders, including the ATSDR.
“Addressing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) is one of EPA’s top priorities and the agency is committed to continuing to participate in and contribute to a coordinated approach across the federal government,” Peter Grevatt, head of the EPA’s groundwater and drinking water office, said in a statement
“EPA looks forward to continuing to collaborate with ATSDR and all of our federal partners as we work together to protect public health.”
Health advocates said the study should push the EPA into taking strong action.
“This study confirms that the EPA’s guidelines for PFAS levels in drinking water woefully underestimate risks to human health,” Olga Naidenko, senior science adviser at the Environmental Working Group, said in a statement.
“We urge EPA to collect and publish all water results showing PFAS contamination at any level, so Americans across the country can take immediate steps to protect themselves and their families.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/393305-federal-agency-releases-public-relations-nightmare-water
-
California Court Upholds Proposition 65 Lead Limit
Jun 21, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie Miller
Federal judge affirms injunction against glyphosate warning mandate
A court in California has found that the state "did not abuse its authority" in setting a permissible exposure level for lead, leaving in place the "safe harbour" level used to decide when warnings are required under Proposition 65.
In 2015, the NGO Mateel Environmental Justice Foundation sued the state's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha), seeking to invalidate the maximum allowable dose level (Madl) the agency had set for lead in 1989.
The NGO argued that the Madl does not set a standard at which there would be "no observable effect" from lead exposure. This is a requirement under Proposition 65.
However, on 5 June, the California Court of Appeal for the First District agreed with a lower court's decision in favour of Oehha. It said that data presented by the NGO does not prove that the existing Madl is invalid.
If the courts had ordered its repeal, there would have been no "safe harbour" in place. Employees and consumers would have had to be warned about any potential exposure to lead, until Oehha could set a new standard.
Lead and related chemicals are listed under Prop 65 for cancer and reproductive toxicity (male reproductive, female reproductive and developmental toxicity endpoints).
Mateel was one of three NGOs that separately petitioned Oehha to expand the basis for listing lead as a female reproductive toxicant. The agency rejected that petition in 2016.Glyphosate injunction
In a separate 12 June proceeding, a federal judge has refused to change his ruling that temporarily blocks California from requiring labelling of products containing the herbicide glyphosate. This is while a trial continues on the constitutionality of Proposition 65 warning requirements.
District Judge William Shubb issued a preliminary injunction in March. He said Monsanto is likely to win on its claim that requiring a statement on labels that the herbicide is a carcinogen is a violation of the company's free speech rights, if the required warning is not an "undisputed fact".
The injunction does not bar California from listing glyphosate as a carcinogen, but it cannot enforce warning requirements. If Judge Shubb's interpretation sticks, the state could be forced to defend the scientific basis underlying the listing of chemicals under Proposition 65. This would be in lieu of accepting the findings of any one "authoritative body" referenced in the law.
Monsanto is backed by a coalition of industry groups in that case and a separate lawsuit brought under state law. In the latter, two courts have ruled against it on the issue of whether Prop 65 can rely on outside standards.
The state courts have held it is not an "unconstitutional delegation of authority" to list chemicals under Prop 65, based on determinations by the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (Iarc).
Inclusion on the Proposition 65 list triggers requirements that consumers and employees exposed to the substance are warned, primarily through labelling.
https://chemicalwatch.com/67877/california-court-upholds-proposition-65-lead-limit
-
Paint Industry Frustrated By Rac Limit For Paint Preservative MBIT
Jun 21, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
The European paint industry is "surprised" and disappointed that Echa's Risk Assessment Committee has agreed that the preservative MBIT should have a specific concentration limit (SCL) of 15 parts per million (ppm) for classification as a category 1A skin sensitiser.
The preservative is commonly used in cans of water-based products, such as paints, and the aim is to prevent skin sensitisation induction in exposed people.
Industry had hoped for a higher concentration limit for MBIT (2-methyl-1,2-benzisothiazol3(2H)-one), said Didier Leroy, technical director at the European Council of the Paint, Printing and Artists' Colours Industry (Cepe). "It is a concerning development that all isothiazolinones that go through Rac get lower [than expected] thresholds," he added.
In 2016, the committee also decided on a 15ppm specific concentration limit for MIT and a mixture of CMIT and MIT. During its meeting on 4-8 June, Rac decided that MBIT is in the same "bracket of potency" as MIT and CMIT. "We came to the conclusion that it was very similar," said Rac chair Tim Bowmer.
MBIT prevents bacteria, yeast and moulds from growing in products but is not effective at 15ppm, said Mr Leroy. "Should our members want to use it, they would have to classify their paint or printing inks."
"That does not send a good signal to those adventurous biocide suppliers who would still try to get a new biocide substance on the market. Innovation is quasi non-existent and we observe the continuous reduction of availability of efficient preservatives," he said.
MBIT, CMIT and MIT are described as "product-type 6" biocides under the biocidal products Regulation (BPR); MBIT was approved as a new active substance last year.
Industry has long voiced concerns about the "uncertain" availability of active substances. Only a handful of substances can preserve products without affecting performance, it says.
https://chemicalwatch.com/67900/paint-industry-frustrated-by-rac-limit-for-paint-preservative-mbit
-
Natural Gas Export Boom Brings Challenges for Top Energy Regulator
Jun 21, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Cunningham
Federal energy regulator hires contractors to help with permitting backlog
‘The workload is enormous,’ agency chairman says at forum
The top U.S. energy regulator is hiring private contractors for the first time to help clear a growing backlog of LNG export applications.
Nine years ago, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission had four LNG cases pending, Chairman Kevin McIntyre said. Today, it is grappling with 14, each of which generates a tremendous amount of work for the agency.
The surge is testament to the domestic shale gas revolution that spurred the first overseas shipments of liquefied natural gas from the lower 48 states two years ago and has put the U.S. on course to challenge Australia and Qatar for dominance in the global market in the next few years. But that success has created logistical challenges for the agency responsible for approving those projects.
“The workload is enormous,” McIntyre told the Natural Gas Roundtable in Washington June 19. “We have taken some unprecedented steps. For the first time in the commission’s history, to my knowledge, we’ve hired private contractors” to help with the reviews.
In the past month, the agency has taken on third-party contractors to handle non-proprietary work—such as carrying out inspections during the construction stage. It’s also looking to reallocate resources as well as hire more staff.
Expertise on what’s involved in a proper review of a complex pipeline or LNG application is not “as common a skillset as it used to be,” McIntyre said.
©2018 Bloomberg L.P. All rights reserved. Used with permission
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/natural-gas-export-boom-brings-challenges-for-topenergyregulator
-
ICE Launches Updated Cove Point Product Amid Shift to Exports
Jun 20, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jeremiah Shelor
With exports underway at Dominion Energy Inc.’s Cove Point liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal in Lusby, MD, the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) has launched a physical trading product to reflect the changing market dynamics at the facility.
The new “Dominion Energy - Cove Point - on system delivery” product was begun on June 11 to reflect the physical market for deliveries into Dominion’s LNG terminal for liquefaction and export. The prior Cove Point market, which had been set up for receiving natural gas from LNG imports, was delisted simultaneously, officials with ICE confirmed to NGI.
NGI has since updated the Cove Point location in both NGI’s Daily Gas Price Index and NGI’s MidDay Price Alert to reflect the changes to ICE’s Cove Point physical product.
Cove Point was trading 11 cents higher at $3.110/MMBtu on 20,000 MMBtu of reported volume, according to Wednesday’s MidDay Price Alert.
For Tuesday’s trade date in NGI’s Daily Gas Price Index, day-ahead prices at Cove Point averaged $3.00/MMBtu on 390,000 MMBtu of reported volume.
Built in the 1970s to import LNG supplies, Dominion acquired the Cove Point terminal in 2002. Responding to the rapid rise of U.S. onshore gas output over the last decade, Dominion recently finished adding liquefaction and export capabilities at the facility, which is situated along the Chesapeake Bay on the East Coast.
In March, Cove Point became the second U.S. facility to export LNG from the Lower 48 after Cheniere Energy Inc.’s Sabine Pass LNG terminal. A little over a month later in April,, Cove Point officially entered commercial service.
Cove Point's marketed capacity is fully subscribed under 20-year service agreements. Pacific Summit Energy LLC, a U.S. affiliate of Japan's Sumitomo Corp., as well as Gail (India) affiliate Gail Global (USA) LNG LLC, have each contracted for half of the marketed capacity. Sumitomo has agreements to serve Tokyo Gas Co. and Kansai Electric Power Co. Inc.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114786-ice-launches-updated-cove-point-product-amid-shift-to-exports
-
US Prepares For Next Wave Of LNG Exports
Jun 21, 2018 | Financial Times
By Ed Crooks
When China last week set out a list of US exports threatened with retaliatory tariffs, almost all fossil fuels were covered, including oil, coal and liquefied petroleum gases such as propane. There was, however, one conspicuous exemption: liquefied natural gas.
Beijing’s decision not to impose additional tariffs on US LNG shows the critical role that the fuel plays in the Chinese government’s plans as it attempts to curb the country’s reliance on coal. China’s demand for LNG is soaring, and its imports of gas from the US have been rising fast: from nothing in 2015 to 17bn cubic feet in 2016 to 103bn cubic feet last year. By deciding not to restrict imports of US LNG, China has let its energy policy override its trade policy, for the time being at least.That is an encouraging sign for the companies including Venture Global LNG, Qatar Petroleum, LNG Ltd and Tellurian that are hoping to be part of a second wave of investment in US LNG export plants. For any would-be seller of LNG looking for buyers, China is the big prize.
Already last year China was the third-largest destination for US LNG exports, behind Mexico and South Korea. Its demand for gas is expected to continue to grow rapidly, accounting more than a quarter of all global consumption growth between 2015 and 2040 according to the US Energy Information Administration.Rapid demand growth in China and other emerging economies meant 2018 was shaping up to be an exciting year for aspiring US LNG exporters. After three years without a single new plant being given the go-ahead, several companies say they are approaching final investment decisions to build their planned facilities. But the escalating trade dispute between the US and China casts a shadow over those plans.
A first wave of US LNG plants has been under construction along the Gulf of Mexico coast. The earliest, Cheniere Energy’s Sabine Pass in Louisiana, shipped its first cargo in 2016, and the last is expected to be completed in 2020. An expected second wave, however, has been on hold.
There has not been an approval for a new US LNG plant since 2015, because of what seemed to be a looming glut in the market. Then last month Cheniere announced it was going ahead with an expansion at its Corpus Christi plant in Texas. It was a signal that the logjam holding up new investment is starting to break.
Baker Hughes, General Electric’s affiliate that provides products and services for the oil and gas industry, is supplying equipment for the expansion at Corpus Christi, and hoping for more orders. Pablo Avogadri, the company’s LNG platform leader, said it was “excited about the new market conditions”.
A new LNG plant takes about four years to build, so investment decisions now are based on expectations of conditions after 2022, but there seemed to be so much new production coming on to the market, from Australia and the first wave of US plants, that it looked as though there could
Those expectations of excess supply have been eroded, however, because demand for LNG has also been soaring. China increased its imports by 46 per cent last year, overtaking South Korea to become the world’s second-largest LNG buyer.Demand is also growing more widely. The number of importing countries has risen from 35 in 2015 to 40 last year, according to the International Group of Liquefied Natural Gas Importers, and worldwide imports rose 18 per cent over the same two-year period.
“There hasn’t quite been as big a surplus of gas as everyone thought there was going to be,” said Frank Harris, an analyst at Wood Mackenzie. “There is some real momentum now behind the next wave of export projects.”
Other countries, including Russia, Qatar and Mozambique, are also offering increased LNG production in the future, but the US is a highly competitive supplier because of the abundance of low-cost gas unlocked by the shale revolution.
Brian Gilvary, BP’s chief financial officer, told a Financial Times conference last week that the company expected US gas to continue to be “the lowest cost of supply . . . in the world”.Until now, the problem for companies hoping to launch second wave US LNG export projects has been that they could not satisfy both their customers and their financiers simultaneously. To have confidence to provide project financing for a multibillion-dollar plant, lenders have wanted to see 20-year contracts that guarantee revenues. But seeing the expected glut, customers were reluctant to tie themselves down with such long-term commitments. Now attitudes are shifting.
In February Cheniere signed a contract with China National Petroleum Corporation to sell 1.2m tonnes per year until 2043. Venture Global LNG, a privately held company that aims to develop two new LNG plants in Louisiana, in May signed long-term contracts with BP and Galp of Portugal, to add to existing contracts with Royal Dutch Shell and Edison of Italy.Venture Global is using an innovative technology for its proposed plants: rather than constructing the LNG production facilities on site, it is using large modules made by Baker Hughes in northern Italy, which need much less assembly on location.
“The execution risk is much smaller than for any other project,” Michael Sabel, one of Venture’s co-chief executives, said. He added that he was “very confident” about being able to go ahead with the company’s first project to export 10m tonnes per year from Calcasieu Pass, Louisiana, with the first shipments starting in 2022.“It’s no longer about guessing which projects and when they are going to go ahead,” he said. “Ultimately the customer decides, and that’s what they have done.”
Other companies with US projects also say they are making good progress. LNG Ltd, which is developing the Magnolia LNG plant, also in Louisiana, is aiming to make an investment decision by early next year.
Tellurian, where former Cheniere chief executive Charif Souki is chairman, has a different business model but is also making headway. It is looking for equity investors in its plant, who would also be customers for the LNG, and has about 25 companies working through its data room. Meg Gentle, chief executive, said that by the end of the process, Tellurian expected to have “four to eight” investors.
Golden Pass LNG in Texas, a joint venture between Qatar Petroleum and ExxonMobil, is also expected to be given a final investment decision this year.
The biggest threat to all these plans, however, is the trade dispute between the US and China. Even if US LNG exports have been spared for now, the prospect of being shut out of the world’s biggest growth market will hang over the industry until the hostilities are brought to an end.
Jason Bordoff of Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy said: “If you’re thinking about investing in new US LNG export capacity, and you see the potential for an escalating trade conflict to possibly lead to tariffs on US LNG in China, you might think twice and consider investing elsewhere instead.”
Buyers and sellers look to liquid marketAn increasingly significant factor for US LNG exporters is the shift in the global market away from long-term contracts towards flexible short-term sales. Last year 27 per cent of LNG worldwide was sold on a spot basis or on a contract of four years or less, up from 19 per cent in 2010, according to the International Group of Liquefied Natural Gas Importers.
As the market becomes more liquid, buyers such as utilities become more confident that they will be able to secure gas when they need it, and sellers become more confident that they will be able to find a market.
BP for example, is aiming to increase its portfolio of LNG from 15m tonnes per year today to about 25m tonnes per year, from its own plants or by buying from other producers.
This year BP and Royal Dutch Shell have signed contracts with Venture Global LNG to buy gas from its proposed plant in Louisiana, to add to the portfolios of gas that they can sell around the world. They are making a bet that when the gas is available they will be able to find a profitable market for it somewhere.“It is no coincidence that it is four European companies that have signed up to buy gas from Venture Global,” Ira Joseph of S&P Global Platts said.
“They have the ability to sell into European markets, or to divert it elsewhere.”
https://www.ft.com/content/20463408-7094-11e8-92d3-6c13e5c92914
-
EPA Stands Pat on Chemical Spill Regulations, Despite Suit
Jun 21, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
EPA proposal wouldn’t change rules on storage of chemicals near waterbodies
Litigation came in wake of 2014 spill into West Virginia river
The status quo will likely remain for companies that store chemicals in above-ground tanks.
Despite litigation, the EPA doesn’t plan to change its safety regulations around chemical storage near major bodies of water, according to a proposal unveiled June 19.
Prior to the Trump administration taking office, the EPA reached a legal agreementwith several environmental groups that required it to consider new regulations for chemical storage near major bodies of water. The agreement set a deadline of this month to issue a proposal and also requires the EPA to issue a final decision by Aug. 29, 2019.
The EPA says it considered the current chemical safety regulations and determined that no new regulations were necessary.
Erik Olson, health program director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the plaintiffs, said the EPA’s decision not to act will “seriously endanger” people who “live near industrial sites that pollute streams, lakes and drinking water sources.”
Olson also told Bloomberg Environment in an email that the agency is “brazenly refusing” to comply with the legal agreement.
The plaintiffs in this lawsuit—filed in a federal court in Manhattan—argued that new regulations are needed to prevent another incident such as the catastrophic 2014 chemical spill in West Virginia’s Elk River.
The spill resulted from the rupture of an above-ground storage tank belonging to Freedom Industries, a chemical manufacturing company. It left hundreds of thousands of people in the nearby city of Charleston without access to potable water for days afterward.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/epa-stands-pat-on-chemical-spill-regulations-despite-suit
-
EPA Drops Plan For CWA Spill Rule Despite Settlement To Consider Policy
Jun 21, 2018 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
EPA is proposing to formally drop plans for a Clean Water Act (CWA) rule to prevent or contain industrial chemical spills by claiming that current policies already cover all the requirements that a comprehensive spill policy would include, drawing fire from environmentalists who had a settlement with EPA to consider pursuing the new rule.
Environmentalists, who sued the Obama EPA over its failure to produce a CWA spill rule and secured the legal pact setting a June 19 deadline for the agency to at least weigh development of a new spill rule, say the Trump EPA's just-announced decision against launching a new rulemaking is at odds with the water law. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) argues that the original text of the CWA as enacted in 1972 requires the spill rule.
“[Agency Administrator] Scott Pruitt’s action today will seriously endanger Americans because he is refusing to protect communities affected by the hundreds of hazardous spills that happen each year,” Erik Olson, NRDC's senior director of health and food, says in a June 19 release about the agency's decision released that day.
But EPA argues in the proposal that a new rule would do little to prevent spills -- such as the massive 2014 chemical spill that contaminated drinking water in West Virginia and prompted the environmentalists' suit -- because every regulatory mandate that the agency considered as likely to prevent spills of CWA hazardous substances (CWA HS) is already part of at least one rule already in effect.
“Based on the reported frequency and impacts of identified CWA HS discharges, and the Agency’s evaluation of the existing framework of EPA regulatory requirements relevant to preventing CWA HS discharges, EPA has determined that the existing framework of regulatory requirements serves to prevent CWA HS discharges. Additionally, EPA identified relevant requirements in other Federal regulatory programs and determined that they further serve to prevent CWA HS discharges, providing additional support for this proposed action,” the proposal says.
The proposal would not only abandon development of the completely new spill rule that environmentalists sought, but also avoids a mention of potentially adding new measures to the Clean Air Act facility safety Risk Management Plan program, which was state and local emergency response officials' favored alternative.
EPA committed to the rulemaking effort in a 2016 settlement that resolved Environmental Justice Health Alliance (EJHA), et al. v. EPA. The groups argued that EPA has never fulfilled the mandate of CWA section 311(j)(1), which directs the executive branch to issue regulations "as soon as practicable after October 17, 1972" to prevent and contain discharges of oil and hazardous substances from onshore facilities.
But the agency's new proposal asserts that other policies, including some from non-EPA agencies like the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, satisfy the CWA's requirement.
Redundant Mandates
Specifically, the document says EPA identified nine essential mandates for facilities that store hazardous chemicals that would be part of a potential spill prevention rule: gathering and maintaining safety information; conducting hazard reviews; ensuring mechanical integrity at facilities; conducting personnel training; investigating CWA HS releases; performing regular compliance audits; installing secondary containment measures to prevent spills from reaching protected waters; developing emergency response plans and coordinating with state and local authorities on spill response procedures.
But the proposal says any facility that stores CWA HS is already subject to all of those requirements under at least one current rule imposed by EPA or another federal agency.
“In the 40 years since CWA Section 311(j)(1)(C) was enacted by Congress, multiple statutory and regulatory requirements have been established under different Federal authorities that generally serve to, directly and indirectly, prevent CWA HS discharges,” it says.
Further, EPA concludes that those rules are effectively limiting spills, based on data from 2007-2016 that shows 2,491 CWA HS spills but only 117 with “reported impacts” to protected waters.
“This data suggests that the existing framework of regulatory requirements serves to prevent CWA HS discharges,” the proposal says, and later says the fact that some spills still happen is not in itself a reason to enact new rules. “Even a robust regulatory program where none existed before would not be expected to completely eliminate all risk.”
It continues that the agency considered proposing either a comprehensive spill-prevention rule or a more targeted policy including only some of the nine key factors, but determined that neither would have enough benefits to justify their compliance costs.
“EPA believes there would be only minimal incremental value in requiring these provisions in a new regulation. Additionally, the benefits of any of the targeted provisions described above may not justify the associated costs,” it says of one such potential rule.
The proposal still invites comments on either of the alternatives that EPA rejected in favor of a no-action plan, though it says any such comment should include “ways to minimize any regulatory redundancies” as part of the argument in favor of a rule.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-drops-plan-cwa-spill-rule-despite-settlement-consider-policy
-
EPA Sends Ozone NAAQS 'Good Neighbor' Rule For OMB Review
Jun 20, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA has sent for White House pre-publication review a proposed rule that will determine states' “good neighbor” obligations to reduce ozone-forming emissions to help other states meet the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), though the agency has suggested there may not be a need for additional actions.
According to the White House Office of Management & Budget's (OMB) website, the agency submitted the rule for mandatory OMB review on June 18 and is aiming to release it publicly this month. OMB review typically takes 90 days, but can take much more or much less time depending on the rulemaking.
“This action will evaluate and make a determination regarding Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) ('good neighbor') obligations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS” of 75 parts per billion (ppb), says an entry on OMB's website. The air law section at issue requires EPA and states to address and reduce interstate transport of air pollution from upwind states that hinders downwind states' ability to attain NAAQS, such as the ozone limit.
To help states attain the 2008 ozone standard, the Obama administration updated its Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) cap-and-trade emissions program to further reduce ozone-forming air pollution. But that program only applies in 21 eastern states, and EPA has faced calls to take more steps to help reduce ozone.
However, Stephen Page, director of EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, in a policy memo late last year hinted that there might not be a need for any additional steps to meet the good neighbor obligation for the 2008 standard.
In an Oct. 27 policy memo to EPA regional air division directors, Page indicated that by 2023, all areas outside California would attain the 2008 NAAQS. At the time, his finding appeared to largely negate the need for tougher interstate air pollution controls beyond EPA's CSAPR update.
Page wrote that the information in the memo is intended to “assist states' efforts to develop, supplement or resubmit good neighbor” state implementation plans -- air pollution reduction plans states craft detailing how they intend to attain NAAQS. However, Page also wrote that the memo “is not a final determination regarding states' remaining obligations,” suggesting EPA's rule undergoing OMB review will be that final step.
Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states have faulted what they see as EPA's overly optimistic projections that no areas outside California are likely to exceed the 2008 ozone air standard in 2023, and continue to call on the agency to instead pursue a “full remedy” new federal policy to curb interstate ozone transport.
But Page's memo hints that the pending proposal could find that the good neighbor obligation for the 2008 ozone NAAQS has been met, and that no new broad federal rule is necessary.
EPA is pursuing the rulemaking -- with a goal of issuing a final version by December -- at the same time as it works to implement the 2015 ozone NAAQS, which the Obama administration tightened to 70 ppb.
Administrator Scott Pruitt has criticized the decision to tighten the limit and is reconsidering it, but observers have suggested that EPA might make any changes to the standard through the next Clean Air Act-mandated review of the NAAQS which is slated for completion in 2020, rather than an elaborate reconsideration process that could require an extensive new scientific and legal record to defend.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-sends-ozone-naaqs-good-neighbor-rule-omb-review
-
Protectionism to Incentivize Countries to Adopt Carbon Pricing
Jun 21, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mathew Carr
Emissions price at borders seen limiting unfair competition
Some trading partners could be compensated: Equinor economist
Protectionist politics is increasing the likelihood that more nations will adopt carbon pricing to help safeguard their industry from regions with limited climate policies, according to Equinor ASA’s chief economist.
European Union carbon permits have tripled in the past year after lawmakers agreed on a plan to deal with a glut of allowances. Yet, more than 80 percent of the world’s emissions aren’t covered by pricing, according to World Bank data. California and South Korea are among other jurisdictions with prices, and China plans a national program.
The U.S. and China, the world’s two biggest economies, threatened punishing tariffs this week in an escalating trade war. Rivalry between nations, and carbon prices at different levels, may require border taxes to keep a level playing field on trade. Meanwhile, it would give industry incentives to reduce its carbon footprint, said economist Eirik Waerness.
“In a sense it’s a paradox that the EU introduced an emissions trading system without doing something at the border,” Waerness said. “The protectionist political thinking could potentially increase the likelihood of putting a proper price on carbon, because you would introduce it at the border to protect your own industries.”
Tighter TargetsThe Paris climate deal includes a provision requiring countries to make their emissions targets progressively more ambitious over time. The EU may aim for a stricter 2030 emissions target when it publishes a strategy in November, the bloc’s climate chief Miguel Arias Canete said. The current agreement is to cut carbon emissions by at least 40 percent below 1990 levels, and could be tightened to 45 percent.
So far, European lawmakers have rejected border taxes, preferring to protect factories by handing out free carbon allowances.
That may change as regions become more ambitious, fueling the debate about unfair trade, Waerness said. It is likely that there won’t be a clear path to adopting carbon pricing globally. This is even after this year’s planned completion of a rulebook for the Paris deal, which is meant to include all nations after 2020.
In a best-case scenario, countries would agree on a carbon price level to help control the energy transition, he said. But since that’s unlikely, other measures might come into play.
“If the EU is serious about this, put a price on carbon also at the border and start thinking about who do we have to compensate for this cost,” Waerness said. “Because that’s a cost on fossil-fuel exporters, it’s a cost on emerging economies exporting industrial goods to Europe—let’s compensate them through some other means, which of course is extremely difficult.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/protectionism-to-incentivize-countries-to-adopt-carbonpricing
-
Low-Income Residents Forgotten in Climate Resilience Plans: Study
Jun 21, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ayanna Alexander
Environmentalists push for greener solutions in areas hit by natural disasters
Architect trade association releases policy recommendations to promote climate-smart communities
Growing threats from climate change are putting city dwellers—particularly in low-income areas—at a higher risk of being affected.
Cities like Houston and New Orleans, both of which were hit by catastrophic hurricanes in the past 15 years, don’t have access to funding to help constituents adapt, a panel of policy makers and landscape architects said at a June 19 forum in Washington.
But cities rebuilding after climate change-enhanced events like flooding, hurricanes, wildfires, and drought should study the effects that public projects have on low-income residents, according to a June 20 report.
After Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in 2005, the city attempted to designate vacant areas and wetlands to mitigate flooding, Diane Jones Allen, who lived there until the hurricane hit, said at the forum.
“If you’re not factoring in equity and just looking at the environmental issue, that method made sense because all of New Orleans is a swamp,” said Allen, principal landscape architect for DesignJones LLC in New Orleans. “There was an uproar because they actually placed green dots—a lot of the dots were on areas that were low-economic communities.”
More than 20 percent of New Orleans residents lived below the poverty line at the time. The mitigation plan was eventually scrapped, but the city didn’t develop an alternative.
In the future, greater community engagement before launching green solutions, such as those in New Orleans, would prevent vulnerable populations from being pushed out of the city, Allen said.
Growing ThreatThe cost of natural disaster damages is growing with the U.S. paying roughly $306 billion in 2017 to rebuild cities, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The panel, hosted by the American Society of Landscape Architects, alongside the report, said a climate-smart community would restore damages from natural disasters; encourage climate resilience; and promote land, soil, and water conservation, while simultaneously taking vulnerable populations into consideration.
“There are policy makers who are uncomfortable with talking about climate change, but will talk about resilience, because we’ve had some many extreme weather events,” Nancy Somerville, executive vice president and chief executive officer of the American Society of Landscape Architects in Washington, said on the panel. “They realize that work needs to happen there [in their communities] and are willing to look at what we need to do to make people more secure.”
But there’s more than just strengthening resilience. The report also called for better plans to make the relocation, retreat, and evacuation process easier for low-income communities.
“In some cases, relocation is going to be required,” Somerville told Bloomberg Environment. “If not relocation, then retreating and/or evacuation plans are essential in supporting what we need to do for vulnerable communities.”
Creating a BlueprintSomerville hopes the report lands on the desks of other landscape architects, lawmakers, and environmentalists, and serves as a blueprint for to help her association’s members push for climate-smart communities.
“We really want the dialogue to continue because that’s going to foster additional creativity and foster momentum,” she said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/low-income-residents-forgotten-in-climate-resilience-plans-study
-
Taxpayer Groups Warm to Coolant Deal, Splitting Conservatives (Corrected)
Jun 21, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
Americans for Tax Reform leads push to urge Trump support for deal, which limits potent greenhouse gas refrigerants
Deal carries substantial economic benefits for U.S. companies, will build on tax reform success, group tells Trump
A global deal to limit climate-warming coolants has its newest backers: a team of conservative taxpayer advocacy groups.
Support from the groups—Americans for Tax Reform, FreedomWorks, and American Council for Capital Formation—signals a potential political shift for the 2016 global agreement to phase down hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, refrigerant chemicals that are highly potent greenhouse gases. The deal, known as the Kigali amendment, has been hanging in limbo—despite increasing lobbying from the U.S. refrigeration and chemical industries to persuade the Trump administration to publicly back it and send the pact to the Senate for ratification.
The Kigali deal, which amends the 1987 Montreal Protocol, a global deal to protect the ozone layer, to include a phasedown of HFCs, is projected to limit 0.5 degrees Celsius (0.9 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming by the end of the century. Environmental groups have said the pact is one of the most significant steps the world can take in the short term to reduce greenhouse gases.
But the taxpayer groups—all known for promoting lower taxes, free markets, and free trade—laud the Kigali agreement for a different reason: its economic potential.
“Senate ratification of the Kigali amendment will build on the success of deregulation and tax reform and help ensure the economy continues to grow at strong levels,” write Alex Hendrie, director of tax policy for Americans for Tax Reform; George David Banks, executive vice president at American Council for Capital Formation; and Patrick Hedger, director of policy for FreedomWorks, in a June 20 letter to President Donald Trump. “This agreement has our support because it will ensure that U.S. manufacturers are able to thrive in the global economy and create more wealth and jobs in America.”
Political Game-ChangerThe groups’ backing could be a game-changer politically, and their letter comes on the heels of a push by 13 Republican senators, offering strong support for the deal and urging the administration to send it to the chamber for a vote.
That splits the conservative community, as some free market groups such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation have opposed the Kigali pact.
“While some may view this as a climate issue, it’s clear that there’s a very strong positive economic case to be made for how this will strengthen American competitiveness,” Hendrie, with Americans for Tax Reform, told Bloomberg Environment.
He said the group, which coordinated the letter, doesn’t take a position on climate, but looks at all policies through an economic lens.
The group has had problems with other environmental regulations or global agreements because it sees them as problematic for the economy. For example, Americans for Tax Reform, like many other conservative groups, opposed U.S. participation in the Paris climate deal, praising Trump’s June 2017 decision to withdraw from that agreement.
‘America First’ Trade PolicyWith the Kigali deal, potential economic gains are clear cut, Hendrie said.
In the letter, the taxpayer groups point to a recent report showing U.S. ratification of the Kigali deal could grow the country’s product share by 25 percent. The May 3 report, produced by Inforum and JMS Consulting for refrigeration and chemical industry groups, also estimated ratifying the agreement would add 33,000 manufacturing jobs to the industry by 2027 and increase manufacturing output in the sector by $12.5 billion per year.
Backing the deal would be an easy decision for Trump when he sees the persuasiveness of that economic argument, Banks, with the American Council for Capital Formation in Washington, told Bloomberg Environment. Banks served as Trump’s top international energy adviser until February.
“I would argue that this is clearly an ‘America first’ trade policy that has economic development and environmental co-benefits,” Banks said. “And if we don’t ratify, we run the risk of the Chinese just dumping HFCs into the U.S. market and wrecking our U.S. subsector for refrigerants.”
Bipartisan SupportIndustry has long urged the Trump administration to back the Kigali agreement, but officials, including top appointees at the Environmental Protection Agency, have resisted taking a public stance.
The letter from the taxpayer groups shows “whatever you think about climate change, this is really a trade measure that helps protect and expand a market for U.S.-leading industries,” Durwood Zaelke, president of the environmental group Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development, told Bloomberg Environment.
The Kigali deal isn’t just an Obama administration legacy, either, Zaelke added. He noted the Montreal Protocol has enjoyed broad bipartisan support.
The roots of efforts to limit HFCs were in the Bush administration, which first green-lighted work on the amendment and set up an international workshop on the issue, said Banks, who also worked in the Bush White House as a climate adviser.
Trade PenaltiesThe Trump team will look at the HFC deal through the same lens as the Bush administration, filtered through the impact to U.S. businesses, manufacturing and jobs, Banks said.
A failure to ratify the Kigali deal could also shut U.S. companies out of global markets, the taxpayer groups wrote in their letter. The Montreal Protocol imposes trade penalties on countries that don’t ratify and don’t meet the targets of the treaty.
More than 20 countries have ratified the deal so far, and it will take effect Jan. 1, 2019.
“It would be a shame to hesitate and miss out on the next market expansion,” Zaelke said. “If you only look at the jobs and economic benefits, it would be a slam dunk. There is an incidental benefit for the environment, but that should be something to cheer, not to veto something that is so good for industry.”
(Corrects name of American Council for Capital Formation in second paragraph)
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/taxpayer-groups-warm-to-coolant-deal-splitting-conservatives-corrected
-
Group Details Carbon Dividend, Limited Liability Plan
Jun 20, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Benjamin Hulac and Hannah Northey,
Former Sens. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and John Breaux (D-La.) announced an effort today to address climate change, which they compared to past national crises, such as world war and economic collapse.
As leaders of Americans for Carbon Dividends, a group created yesterday, they announced their support for a $40-per-ton carbon tax, charged at the source of emissions, that would return the revenue generated to U.S. citizens through dividend checks.
"Carbon needs to be controlled," Lott said on a phone call with reporters. "I'm convinced that this is something that would be positive for this country," he said, underscoring the importance of the cash payouts. "It's a carbon dividend, and that's the key."
The new group is an offshoot of the Climate Leadership Council, which unveiled this $40 carbon tax plan a year ago.
Support has risen in recent years in the private sector and among conservative leaders that climate change is a severe risk and that addressing it through a tax that returns the revenue to voters is a pragmatic and effective way to curb rising greenhouse gas levels.
Lott and Breaux made that point in an opinion piece in The New York Times today, highlighting a poll that found 73 percent of Americans believe climate change is occurring and 75 percent are concerned about its potential effect on future generations.
The public relations firm Hill+Knowlton Strategies conducted the online survey of 2,000 likely voters June 4-10.
But beyond political opposition from industry groups, there are at least two sticking points for the CLC plan, which oil majors Exxon Mobil Corp., Royal Dutch Shell PLC, BP PLC and Total SA support.
Passing any price on carbon soon is unlikely, as Breaux acknowledged. "We're not trying to do it soon," he said. "This is an educational process that we are embarking upon."
Then there is the matter of climate change damages.
Lawsuits from plaintiffs who argue fossil fuel companies have wronged them by exacerbating the physical damage of climate change — such as drought and sea-level rise — have picked up in recent years. Cities in California, Washington, Colorado and New York have active lawsuits against oil and gas extraction companies.
The CLC plan would insulate companies against such cases through what is known as a "liability shield." "Robust carbon taxes would also make possible an end to federal and state tort liability for emitters," the plan reads.
If a president signed such a document, he or she would likely be protecting companies that have for generations sold products that warmed the planet (Climatewire, June 22, 2017).
In an email, a CLC official confirmed the liability provision is still included. "Part of the CLC plan does include limited liability protections with specific details to be developed in the future," Wynn Tucker said.
"Climate change is one of the great challenges of our generation," Lott and Breaux wrote in the Times. "America has always come together at moments of crisis or opportunity," they explained, likening climate change to global conflict and economic depression. "America must marshal its political will to lead on climate as well."
Ted Halstead, founder of CLC, said the group was on track to release its full plan next year.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/06/20/stories/1060085239
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested