Preview Newsletter
PM ACC Clips Report - May 22, 2019
-
US EPA Looking to Advance Controversial Science Transparency Rule
May 22, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
The US EPA still hopes to finalise its controversial science transparency rule in the near future, attendees of a recent NGO webinar heard. But despite recent indications that the rule is moving forward, advocates say the goal of a... -
EPA Targets December for Big Nonstick Chemicals Decision
May 22, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
Despite pressure from lawmakers, the EPA said it will not announce until December how it plans to regulate two prevalent, potentially toxic chemicals that are contaminating drinking water supplies in communities across the... -
EPA, Congress Vary on Compelling Nonstick Chemical Reports (1)
May 22, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto and Sylvia Carignan
The EPA is floating the idea of requiring companies to report their emissions, disposal, and other releases of certain nonstick chemicals. A strategy to require companies and federal facilities to report their releases of certain per- and... -
EPA Drops Rules for Cleaning Solvent, Widely Used Chemicals
May 22, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Planned EPA rules to control how companies use a cleaning solvent and a group of chemicals that have kept autos running and airplanes flying were dropped from a list of regulations under development. -
The Energy 202: EPA Blocks a Dozen Products Containing Pesticides Thought Harmful to Bees
May 22, 2019 | Washington Post
By Dino Grandoni
The Environmental Protection Agency is pulling from the market a dozen products containing pesticides known to be toxic to a linchpin of the U.S. food system — the honeybee. The agency announced Monday it has canceled the... -
Alaska to Ship Water to City With PFAs-Contaminated Wells
May 22, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire)
Alaska plans to begin shipping water to a town where chemical contamination was found in area wells, officials said. Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, were found in wells in Yakutat, CoastAlaska reported... -
Barrasso Lays out Guideposts on PFAs Legislation
May 22, 2019 | Politico Pro
By Annie Snider
Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman John Barrasso said he intends to negotiate and advance "a bipartisan legislative package addressing PFAS pollution" this Congress. Speaking at a hearing this morning on six bipartisan... -
From Lipstick to Burgers: How Our Lives Have Become so Chemical Dependent
May 22, 2019 | Guardian
By McKay Jenkins
My students sometimes ask me why in the United States there are cancer-causing ingredients in their cosmetics, or neurotoxins in their mattresses. Or hormone disruptors, and prescription drugs, in their drinking water. -
US Cosmetics Are Full of Chemicals Banned by Europe – Why?
May 22, 2019 | Guardian
By Oliver Milman
A brief but telling piece of legislation was put forward in Connecticut in January. Just three lines in length, the bill calls for any cosmetics in the state to “meet the chemical safety standards established by the European Union”. -
EU Seeks Delegated Act for Titanium Dioxide Classification Proposal
May 22, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
The European Commission has changed tack in its attempt to classify titanium dioxide as a carcinogen and will now try to push through the CLP proposal in the form of a delegated act, sources at the EU executive have said. -
EPA Seeking Input on Managing Oil, Natural Gas Wastewater
May 22, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is accepting public comment on a draft study that examines how onshore oil and natural gas wastewater can be better managed as it continues to increase in basins across the country. -
Oil Giants Eye Novel Portland Harbor Superfund Cleanup Incentive
May 22, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
The city of Portland, state of Oregon, and the EPA have come up with a novel way to encourage companies to clean up Portland Harbor faster: Offer them a $24 million incentive. The approach has drawn praise from former Environmental... -
This Year’s Top U.S. Oil Stock Has No Stake in Permian Basin
May 22, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Adams-Heard
This year’s top-performing U.S. oil producer doesn’t have any operations in the world’s fastest-growing shale play. Unlike a long list of other oil drillers, Hess isn’t staking its name on the prolific Permian Basin, which has seen shale... -
UPS Trucks in Texas to Fuel up With Renewable Natural Gas
May 22, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Marissa Luck
UPS trucks powered by renewable natural gas will soon be zooming around Texas.The multinational shipping giant said Wednesday it is buying 170 million gallon equivalents of renewable natural gas from California-based natural gas... -
Ewire: Trump Says Trade Deal Needed Before Infrastructure Bill
May 22, 2019 | Inside EPA
President Donald Trump is telling Hill Democrats that congressional approval of his overhaul to the North American Free Trade Agreement is a prerequisite for advancing a major infrastructure package covering transportation, water...
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News - There are no clips to report at this time.
-
US EPA Looking to Advance Controversial Science Transparency Rule
May 22, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
The US EPA still hopes to finalise its controversial science transparency rule in the near future, attendees of a recent NGO webinar heard. But despite recent indications that the rule is moving forward, advocates say the goal of a December timeline might be a heavy lift.
The proposal – which would overhaul the EPA’s scientific evaluation process and require studies underlying regulations be publicly available and independently verifiable – was listed on the agency’s long-term regulatory action in October 2018, indicating that it had been delayed until at least early 2020.
However, Administrator Andrew Wheeler seemed to reverse course in a December 2018 interview, saying the agency had plans to finalise the rule before the end of 2019. And on a 9 May Science Response Network webinar, attendees heard that this plan remains in place.
"The staff have been told that [agency leaders] want it to come out by the end of this calendar year," said Tracey Woodruff, professor of reproductive health and the environment at the University of California.
But that timeline, she said, would be "quite the feat", given staff turnover and the complications of the process. The EPA is required by law to review and respond to the more than 597,000 comments received on the proposal before moving forwards with a final version.
Dr Woodruff said that the agency is likely to hire contractors to help them go through the comments.
Recent movement
Despite potential headwinds, EPA leadership is apparently proceeding with the rule.
In a 19 April letter to the agency’s Science Advisory Board (SAB), Mr Wheeler requested the independent body provide "recommendations on existing mechanisms for data access as necessary to implement" it. Discussion of the science transparency is on the agenda for the SAB’s 5 June meeting.
Separately, Dr Woodruff said that a rumour has surfaced that the agency plans to put out a revised version of the rule for public comment. That process, however, remains "unclear".
The EPA would not confirm to Chemical Watch when the rule will be finalised or if a revised proposal is expected. A spokesperson said that the agency "will determine a timeline for a decision after it has more fully assessed the comments".
OMB memo
Meanwhile, the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has issued a memorandum that revises data processes across the executive branch, including for agencies like the EPA and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
The 24 April memo updates the 2002 Information Quality Act (IQA), which sets standards for information used in regulatory functions. And although this action is separate from the science transparency rule, the original proposal of the latter said it was consistent with the 2002 IQA.
The changes set forth by OMB largely apply to "influential information" that could have a substantial impact on "important public policies or important private sector decisions".
The memo includes several changes that are in line with concepts floated under the science transparency proposal, such as: expanding the peer review process; increasing public access to data; ensuring studies can be reproduced; and improving the correction process via increasing agency responsiveness.
The EPA and FDA, among others, have their own information quality guidelines to implement the IQA. The OMB directs agencies to update these internal guidelines within 90 days.
The memo does not constitute a formal rulemaking, so it is not subject to public comment and review.
https://chemicalwatch.com/77724/us-epa-looking-to-advance-controversial-science-transparency-rule
-
EPA Targets December for Big Nonstick Chemicals Decision
May 22, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
Despite pressure from lawmakers, the EPA said it will not announce until December how it plans to regulate two prevalent, potentially toxic chemicals that are contaminating drinking water supplies in communities across the country.
The Environmental Protection Agency released an updated timeline May 22 for establishing new regulations on perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), and said a decision would come in December.
The two chemicals are used frequently in nonstick coatings and in firefighting foam, but have caused major problems for water utilities because they are very resistant to breaking down in the environment.
Water Issues
The EPA now expects to make a draft decision (RIN:2040-AF93) on whether to set nationwide regulations on these two chemicals at the end of this year. If it decides to move forward with these regulations, they won’t be go into effect until December 2020 at the earliest, according to the timeline.
If the agency decides to set regulations, then every water utility in the country will have to monitor for PFOA and PFOS and take corrective actions if they find that levels of these chemicals have exceeded the EPA’s safety threshold.
The two chemicals, along with others in the broader family of nonstick chemicals known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), have been discovered in recent years in the water supplies of dozens of communities countrywide.
Numerous bills now circulating in Congress would force the EPA to issue a decision on PFOA and PFOS sooner than December.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/epa-targets-december-for-big-nonstick-chemicals-decision
-
EPA, Congress Vary on Compelling Nonstick Chemical Reports (1)
May 22, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto and Sylvia Carignan
The EPA is floating the idea of requiring companies to report their emissions, disposal, and other releases of certain nonstick chemicals.
A strategy to require companies and federal facilities to report their releases of certain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) will be released by the Environmental Protection Agency this fall, according to the spring regulatory agendareleased May 22. The agenda lists regulations federal agencies are developing.
It would take years for the agency to decide whether Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Program reports for some PFAS are warranted and adopt a rule mandating reports, if the agency pursues the “advanced notice of proposed rulemaking” process described in the regulatory agenda.
Meanwhile, federal lawmakers are considering bills that would make companies and federal facilities report their air, waste, and other releases of PFAS to the EPA’s toxics program more quickly than the agency’s effort would.
EPA’s Strategy
The EPA is considering adding some PFAS to the list of chemicals covered by the toxics reporting program.
The chemicals are used to produce clothes, carpets, cookware, wires, and other goods that are heat, oil, and water resistant.
The agency’s notice doesn’t say which chemicals it might add to the TRI. But the agency’s chemicals program already has taken several actions to prevent continued production and uses of long-chain perfluoroalkyl carboxylates and long-chain perfluoroalkyl sulfonates, which break down into perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA).
Although PFOS and PFOA are no longer made in the U.S., they don’t degrade and they build up in the food chain. Sufficient exposure to the chemicals may increase the risk of certain cancers and other health problems.
States, water utilities, and local governments are spending millions of dollars to remove the chemicals from drinking water supplies and waste sites.
3M, DuPont, and its spinoff the Chemours Co., which formerly made the chemicals, and companies like Tyco Fire Products LP, Chemguard Inc., and shoe maker Wolverine World Wide Inc., which used the chemicals to make products, are facing multimillion-dollar damage lawsuits.
The extent to which companies may still use stain repellents, water-resistant compounds, or other chemical mixtures that contain PFOS, PFOA, or related chemicals is unknown, as is the amount of specialized firefighting foam remaining in use that historically contained PFOS or PFOA and now contains newer PFAS compounds.
Carper Backs Senate Bill
Sen. Tom Carper (Del.), the top Democrat on the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee urged a speedier process during a PFAS hearing the committee held May 22.
He supported legislation, S. 1507, that Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) introduced May 16.
That bill would immediately add PFOA and PFOS to the list of chemicals that must be reported under the toxics program.
It also would add about 200 of the 602 PFAS chemicals currently in commerce to the TRI. The 200 chemicals that the bill would target are long chain compounds that the agency’s chemicals office already has regulated, according to Capito’s announcementof the legislation.
S. 1507 acknowledges that the EPA has already used its authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act to find that these specific PFAS chemicals pose a risk, Carper said at the hearing.
“Thus, there is no need to do more research or spend more time before adding these chemicals” to the TRI, he said.
The bill also would ensure that in the future, “whenever EPA finds that additional PFAS chemicals pose a risk,” releases of those chemicals also would have to be reported, Carper said.
“TRI is the premier information-based environmental program,” and it’s a “useful, hygenic way” to encourage firms to reduce and prevent pollution,” G. Tracy Mehan III, executive director of the American Water Works Association, said at the hearing.
He cautioned against requiring reporting of all PFAS but said picking a few individual compounds “might be worth a conversation,” he said.
The PFAS class consists of more than 4,700 chemicals, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
House Action
On the other side of Capitol Hill, Rep. Antonio Delgado (D-N.Y.) introduced on May 8 the “PFAS Right-To-Know Act,” H.R. 2577, which would add the PFAS class to the toxics reporting program.
House Energy and Commerce Committee Republican leader Rep. Greg Walden (Ore.) opposed that bill during a recent hearing on 13 PFAS-related bills.
Requiring industry and federal facilities to report releases of nearly 5,000 chemicals and increasing the number of businesses that would be required to report, as H.R. 2577 would do, could place such a burden on facilities that it and other PFAS bills would be fought in courts failing to help the public as intended, Walden said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/epa-may-compel-reports-of-nonstick-chemical-emissions-disposal
-
EPA Drops Rules for Cleaning Solvent, Widely Used Chemicals
May 22, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Planned EPA rules to control how companies use a cleaning solvent and a group of chemicals that have kept autos running and airplanes flying were dropped from a list of regulations under development.
The government released its spring regulatory agenda May 22, which lists regulations federal agencies are developing.
Dropped from the Environmental Protection Agency’s list was a final rule governing how companies can make, import, or use a group of 15 chemicals called nonylphenols and nonylphenol ethoxylates.
The chemicals are used in an array of cleaners, glues, and dyes by the aircraft, automotive, and other industries, according to The Boeing Co., the Association of Global Automakers Inc., Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, and the American Coatings Association.
But the chemicals also don’t degrade and are highly toxic to aquatic organisms, the EPA said when it proposed the rule.
Degreaser Rules Dropped
The EPA also is dropping two final rules that would have restricted a widely used cleaning solvent and machine parts degreaser called trichloroethylene (TCE).
The agency’s action wasn’t unexpected, because both Obama-era proposed regulations were essentially shelved as “long-term” actions soon after the Trump administration entered office.
The agency is expected to release a draft evaluation of TCE’s health and environmental risks this summer. The final risk TCE evaluation is due no later than June 2020.
If EPA concludes that the solvent, which is classified as a human carcinogen, poses an unreasonable risk of injuring people or the environment, the 2016 Toxic Substances Control Act amendments require the agency to regulate it.
The agency didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the rationale for dropping the three rules.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/epa-drops-rules-for-cleaning-solvent-widely-used-chemicals
-
The Energy 202: EPA Blocks a Dozen Products Containing Pesticides Thought Harmful to Bees
May 22, 2019 | Washington Post
By Dino Grandoni
The Environmental Protection Agency is pulling from the market a dozen products containing pesticides known to be toxic to a linchpin of the U.S. food system — the honeybee.
The agency announced Monday it has canceled the registrations of 12 pest-killing products with compounds belonging to a class of chemicals known as neonicotinoids, as part of a legal settlement.
For years, beekeepers and wildlife conversationalists alike have voiced concern that the widespread use of neonics, as the chemicals are commonly called, is imperiling wild and domesticated bees crucial to pollinating commercial fruit, nut and vegetable crops.
The Trump administration's action was welcome news to some environmentalists. “Certainly we have a ways to go,” said George Kimbrell, legal director at the nonprofit advocacy group Center for Food Safety, whose lawsuit prompted the EPA’s action. “But it's an important first step in acknowledging the harm they cause.”
The EPA has pulled other neonics from market before, agency spokesman John Konkus said in an email. But close observers of the agency say such actions are rare.
“For the EPA to pull a previously registered pesticide is a pretty major step,” said Mark Winston, a professor of apiculture and social insects at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, B.C. “It’s not something they do very often.”
The decision follows five years of litigation in which the beekeepers and environmentalists pressed the agency to mount a response to the use of neonics as regulators in Europe and Canada have taken steps toward banning the chemicals.
Finally, at the end of 2018, three agribusinesses — Bayer, Syngenta and Valent — agreed to let the EPA pull from shelves the 12 pesticide products used by growers ranging from large-scale agricultural businesses to home gardeners. The legal settlement also compels the EPA to analyze the impacts of the entire neonic class on endangered species.
Two of the pesticide makers, Bayer and Valent, say their products are tested and safe to use, noting that the environmentalists and beekeepers won their case on the technical grounds that the EPA did not follow the right steps under the Endangered Species Act when registering their products.
“Neonicotinoids are rigorously tested before going to market to ensure they can be used safely and effectively,” said Steve Tatum, a spokesman for Valent, which makes four of the delisted products.
Bayer noted its two products targeted by the EPA action are not sold in the United States. But spokesman Darren Wallis added: “Growers rely on these critical pest-management tools because of their performance against destructive pests, as well as their favorable human and environmental safety profile.”
Concern over neonics has grown since 2006, when beekeepers first started witnessing the sudden and mysterious collapse of honeybee hives across the nation.
Researchers have shown the compounds to be harmful to bees in laboratory tests. But they have had less luck pinning down the pesticides’ effects on beekeepers’ colonies when they go about their work pollinating apple orchards and other farms.
In his second term Barack Obama, who had earlier approved installing a beehive on the South Lawn of the White House, launched an initiative to promote the health of honeybees and other pollinators.
But Rebecca Riley, legal director of the nature program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said that the agency has failed often in the past to adequately consider the potential impact of its pesticide approvals on endangered animals — something every federal agency is supposed to do.
“EPA for years has been ignoring this requirement of the law,” she said.
That has led to a number of lawsuits, such as one the NRDC filed in 2017, asking a federal court to vacate the registrations of nearly 100 products that contain one of several insecticides that are harmful to various bees, butterflies, birds and insects. That case remains unresolved, even as the separate Center for Food Safety case led EPA to pull some pesticides from the market.
“This is a win for both the rule of law and also for bees, birds and other wildlife impacted by these pesticides,” Riley said of the latest case. “But the reality is there are hundreds of pesticide products on the market. So, this is important … but it does not get rid of the danger.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2019/05/22/the-energy-202-epa-blocks-a-dozen-products-containing-pesticides-thought-harmful-to-bees/5ce46c34a7a0a46b92a3fd6a/?utm_term=.f53559b0db95
-
Alaska to Ship Water to City With PFAs-Contaminated Wells
May 22, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire)
Alaska plans to begin shipping water to a town where chemical contamination was found in area wells, officials said.
Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, were found in wells in Yakutat, CoastAlaska reported yesterday.
The Department of Transportation and Public Facilities announced Friday it would begin shipping water to at least one Yakutat property.
Tests of 14 wells near the city's airport indicated five had detectable substance amounts. In Alaska, the compounds have leached into groundwater because firefighting foam required by the Federal Aviation Administration was used during practice drills at state-owned airports.
EPA's website describes the substances as "man-made chemicals" that can lead to "adverse human health effects." EPA reports the chemicals are no longer manufactured in the U.S. but are produced internationally and can be imported into the U.S. in consumer goods.
Yakutat officials said they have not seen full laboratory results from groundwater tests by the state Department of Environmental Conservation.
"I was asking about a level that was dangerous, or at least problematic, and why they hadn't notified us," said Borough Manager Jon Erickson, who requested information May 13. "And I still haven't heard anything from DEC as far as results."
Residents should not drink or cook with contaminated water, said Kristin Bridges, a state toxicologist.
Boiling water will not work as a purifying method because it "can actually concentrate the amount of PFAS in the water as the steam rises off," she said.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/05/22/stories/1060378919
-
Barrasso Lays out Guideposts on PFAs Legislation
May 22, 2019 | Politico Pro
By Annie Snider
Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman John Barrasso said he intends to negotiate and advance "a bipartisan legislative package addressing PFAS pollution" this Congress.
Speaking at a hearing this morning on six bipartisan measures, Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said he didn’t support some of the measures as they are currently written. Among the measures are bills that would require EPA to set a drinking water standard, S. 1473 (116), and Superfund hazardous substance designation for the entire class of chemicals, S. 638 (116).
"I question whether we should treat all PFAS as if they pose the same level of risk to human health and the environment; these chemical substances vary widely," Barrasso said.
He also said he has concerns about imposing Superfund liability on "parties that used these substances in good faith" like airports and refineries.
Ranking member Tom Carper (D-Del.) pointed to a measure he and Sens. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) introduced last week as a potential route to addressing concerns laid out by Barrasso and others relating to the broader regulatory approach. That measure would require EPA to require public reporting on emissions of a subset of PFAS chemicals that the agency has already concluded are dangerous.
Carper said he hopes a partnership between lawmakers, EPA, industry and public health groups like the one that came together around the 2016 overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act can form in support of PFAS legislation.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2019/05/barrasso-lays-out-guideposts-on-pfas-legislation-3303219
-
From Lipstick to Burgers: How Our Lives Have Become so Chemical Dependent
May 22, 2019 | Guardian
By McKay Jenkins
My students sometimes ask me why in the United States there are cancer-causing ingredients in their cosmetics, or neurotoxins in their mattresses. Or hormone disruptors, and prescription drugs, in their drinking water.
I always answer by chalking out a map of the country, and its grid of 48,000 miles of interstate highways that were constructed after the second world war. The roads were initially conceived as a defense against foreign invasion, I tell them. But the unintended consequences include a host of major environmental and health problems we are only now beginning to understand, from climate change and species extinction to cancer.
Follow my logic, I tell my students: before the war, the vast majority of Americans lived in cities, or they lived on farms. Suddenly, with all these bright, shiny new roads, millions of veterans returning from the war discovered they had a third option: they could move their families to new communities built “out in the country”. Developers began the feverish transformation of farms and forests into subdivisions, and the era of suburban sprawl had begun.
The results of this staggering land transformation include the economic devastation of our older cities; the virtual eradication of local food production; and the transformation of forests and farms into ever-expanding subdivisions and shopping malls. Cities such as Detroit and my hometown of Baltimore each lost many hundreds of thousands of residents. And as the changes turned the United States into a nation of suburban consumers, industry – notably the chemical industry – responded by creating products to satisfy our every urge. Petrochemicals, it turned out, could be used to make everything, from lipstick and water bottles to processed food and cheap hamburgers, made with beef reared in concentrated feeding operations on corn partly made of synthetic fertilizers and weedkillers.
Our homes are saturated with chemicals
Inside our homes we have become saturated with the chemicals used to create nonstick cookware and fireproof kids’ pajamas; cosmetics; dry cleaning chemicals and PFASchemicals in some bags of microwave popcorn. In recent years the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and health groups in a number of states have been testing people for the presence of toxic chemicals in their bodies; without exception, these studies find that we are all contaminated with chemicals that cause cancer, endocrine disruption and neurological and reproductive damage.
Here’s the problem: of the tens of thousands of synthetic chemicals in common commercial use, only about 200 have been adequately tested for their effect on human health. Cognitive development experts say learning disabilities rose 191% between 1977 and 1994. The California Department of Developmental Services says it saw a 210% jump in autism rates in the decade following the mid-1990s. Twenty-four million Americans have an auto-immune disease; research indicates this number has been doubling and tripling around the globe. The University of Kentucky has reported a link between trichloroethylene, an industrial solvent known as TCE, and Parkinson’s disease. TCE can be found in more than a third of the nation’s waterways.
And then there’s the waste. Over their lifetimes, the average American will throw away 15 tons of packaging, much of it plastic, and much of which will one day enter the food chain and end up in the bodies of humans and marine animals alike. A whale that recently washed up on the shores of the Philippines was found to have 88lb of plastic inside its stomach before dying of dehydration and starvation.
Outside the home, our food has become chemical-dependent as well. Nationwide, suburban sprawl has meant the loss of 4m family farms, and the migration of our food production to industrial-scale, monoculture farms in the midwest. We now have some 300m acres of industrial corn, wheat and soybeans, most of it genetically modified and virtually all of it dependent on rivers of synthetic fertilizers and industrial-scale weed and bug-killers. Agricultural herbicides have so devastated our native plants (like milkweed) that charismatic creatures like Monarch butterflies and some 40% of pollinators are in grave danger of blinking into extinction. Cornell’s David Pimentel has estimated that 72m birds die each year from exposure to pesticides, a number that does not include those that die because a parent was killed by pesticides, or birds killed by eating contaminated insects or worms. The number is probably closer to 150m .
Among humans, the picture is beginning to look dark indeed. Between 1996 and 2011, the agricultural use of glyphosate – marketed by Monsanto as Roundup – grew by 527m pounds. The World Health Organization has called Roundup – the most popular weedkiller in the world – a “probable human carcinogen”.
Last summer a California jury demanded Monsanto pay a terminally ill man $289m in a landmark case saying it was liable for his cancer (a judge reduced that to $78m, and Monsanto is appealing). Monsanto’s parent company Bayerhas said it is facing thousands more potential similar lawsuits. In the third such case to be ruled on, last week a California jury ordered Monsanto to pay a couple $2bn after they got cancer after using its weedkiller, the largest damages award so far.
Along with 2,4-D (one of two active ingredients, plus kerosene and diesel fuel in Agent Orange), Roundup is available in your local hardware store, and is in common use on much of the 63,000 sq miles of suburban lawn in the United States. By 1999, more than two thirds of America’s home lawns had been treated with chemical fertilizers or pesticides, much of which ends up running off into our drinking water. In 2000, the US General Accounting Office reported that Americans were spraying 67m pounds of synthetic chemicals on their lawns every year, lawns that – like our food, and our plastics, and many of our resulting environmental and physical ills – were dramatically accelerated by a highway system originally built to protect us.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/22/from-lipstick-to-burgers-how-our-lives-have-become-so-chemical-dependent
-
US Cosmetics Are Full of Chemicals Banned by Europe – Why?
May 22, 2019 | Guardian
By Oliver Milman
A brief but telling piece of legislation was put forward in Connecticut in January. Just three lines in length, the bill calls for any cosmetics in the state to “meet the chemical safety standards established by the European Union”.
The move, unlikely to be made law, is the latest signal of mounting anguish over the enfeebled regulation of everyday products in the US compared with European countries. Across a span of cosmetics, including makeup, toothpaste and shampoo, to items ranging from household cleaners to fruit juice to cheese, hundreds of potentially harmful ingredients banned in the EU are legally allowed in the US.
“Many Americans are unaware that they are absorbing untested and unsafe chemicals in their products,” said Alex Bergstein, a state senator who put forward the Connecticut legislation. Bergstein was previously the chair of the Mount Sinai Children’s Environmental health center.
“Generally, the EU has got it right. In the US we have a strong favouritism towards companies and manufacturers, to the extent that public health and the environment is being harmed. The pendulum has swung in an extreme way and it’s really going to take a general awakening by the public.”
The disparity in standards between the EU and US has grown to the extent it touches almost every element of most Americans’ lives. In cosmetics alone, the EU has banned or restricted more than 1,300 chemicals while the US has outlawed or curbed just 11.
It’s possible to find formaldehyde, a known carcinogen banned in EU-sold cosmetics, in US hair-straightening treatments and nail polish. Parabens, linked to reproductive problems, are ruled out in the EU but not the US, where they lurk in skin and hair products. Coal tar dyes can be found in Americans’ eyeshadow, years after they were banned in the EU and Canada.
“In the US it’s really a buyer beware situation,” said Janet Nudelman, director of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. “Cosmetics companies can use any raw material that they like and there’s no way to know if they are safe before they reach the shelves. The contrast with the EU is stark and troubling.”
At the heart of the EU’s approach is what as known as its Reach (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) laws which require manufacturers to prove to regulators that a product is safe before it can be used. The US has similar rules for new chemicals entering the market but no such precautionary principles for the thousands of potential toxins already in use.
This means that certain dyes used in cheese, chocolates and juice are restricted in some European countries such as the UK – where a 2007 studyfound some artificial colors and preservatives are linked to increased hyperactivity in children – but not the US. Atrazine is the most widely used herbicide in the US but has been banned in Europe since 2003 due to concerns it pollutes water. Lead-based paints were banned in much of Europe before the second world war but it took the US until 1978 to follow suit.
Asbestos exposure has long been known to cause deaths and illnesses but the substance is still not banned in the US. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) attempted to do so in 1989 only to be overturned by the federal court following a backlash from manufacturers.
The clout of powerful industry interests, combined with a regulatory system that demands a high level of proof of harm before any action is taken, has led to the American public being routinely exposed to chemicals that have been rubbed out of the lives of people in countries such as the UK, Germany and France.
“When the asbestos ban got overturned the EPA got nervous about banning anything,” said Molly Jacobs, a senior researcher at the Lowell Center for Sustainable Production. “That was the last time the EPA sought very strict restrictions on industrial chemicals. The EU definitely has stronger policies.”
Of the more than 40,000 chemicals on the market in the US, the EPA has only banned six, including polychlorinated biphenyls (known as PCBs) which are linked to cancers, certain aerosol sprays blamed for the hole in the ozone layer and dioxins, used as an ingredient in Agent Orange, which the US sprayed during the Vietnam war.
Under a 1976 law called the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) the EPA has the power to limit chemicals, but critics say it is severely flawed. The act largely focuses on new potential toxins and even then gives the EPA just 90 days to work out if new products pose a risk before they hit the market.
A 1996 amendment known as the Lautenberg Act required the EPA to evaluate all potentially risky chemicals, but progress on this backlog has often appeared painfully slow. “The EPA is playing catchup, and under this administration things aren’t moving very fast at all,” said Jacobs.
The EPA recently listed 40 chemicals to be assessed for review, including asbestos, formaldehyde and trichloroethylene, which is used in refrigeration and can cause damage to the nervous system and liver. Andrew Wheeler, administrator of the EPA, said the agency was committed to the “successful and timely implementation” of the Lautenberg Act.
But while the process has lagged, deaths have mounted. More than 50 deathsin the US since the 1980s have been linked to methylene chloride, a lethalingredient of paint stripper that has been banned in the EU. The EPA recently got around to banning the chemical from consumer use after a group of retailers voluntarily removed it from shelves.
It will still be allowed for commercial use, however. “I am deeply disappointed that the EPA has decided to weaken its proposed ban on methylene chloride,” said Wendy Hartley, whose 21-year-old son Kevin died two years ago while using paint stripper on a bathtub, even after receiving training and wearing a protective mask. Hartley is one of two mothers who are suing the EPA claiming that their sons died while using the paint stripper.
“Workers who use methylene chloride will now be left unprotected and at risk of health issues or death. I will continue my fight until the EPA does its job.”
But even within the Trump administration, characterized by its zeal for deregulation, there is frustration that regulators have not been able to intervene as strongly as their EU counterparts. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently found asbestos in Claire’s cosmetics but could do little when the company refused to recall the products. Claire’s subsequently withdrew the eyeshadows and compact powders voluntarily.
Scott Gottlieb, the departing FDA commissioner, said the episode showed that cosmetics regulations unchanged since 1938 are “outdated” and need to be overhauled to ensure public health.
“To be clear, there are currently no legal requirements for any cosmetic manufacturer marketing products to American consumers to test their products for safety,” Gottlieb said. “This means that ultimately a cosmetic manufacturer can decide if they’d like to test their product for safety and register it with the FDA.”
In lieu of any new laws, consumer advocates want federal agencies to act more aggressively and defy chemical industry lobbyists. They concede, however, a more likely recourse is an upwelling of public outrage at the risks faced in mundanities such as applying makeup or eating lunch.
“I’m hoping for dramatic changes in our politics but there’s little chance of that,” said Bergstein. “The federal government is barely functioning, so consumers have to realize they have the power to become more vocal and demand change. The awareness is still not there, though.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/22/chemicals-in-cosmetics-us-restricted-eu
-
EU Seeks Delegated Act for Titanium Dioxide Classification Proposal
May 22, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
The European Commission has changed tack in its attempt to classify titanium dioxide as a carcinogen and will now try to push through the CLP proposal in the form of a delegated act, sources at the EU executive have said.
The shift in legal course means the Commission will not now be seeking a vote on the classification in the REACH Committee as in previous CLP decisions, "as it will not be competent for CLP anymore", they said.
Instead, it will consult on the draft Regulation that contains titanium dioxide classification with a Commission expert group, most likely the competent authorities for REACH and CLP (Caracal), they added. Discussions are expected in the summer, possibly at the next Caracal meeting set for 1-2 July.
Titanium dioxide has widespread uses, mainly in spray paints and varnishes, but also in cosmetics and spray-on sunscreen products. It is also used as a catalyst in cement.
The decision to bypass the REACH Committee on the issue comes amid changes on the horizon in the EU regulatory procedure due to the alignment 'omnibus act', expected to enter into force in the summer.
This aligns the existing EU legislation to the legal framework introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon and consequently amends the Commission's empowerments.
Once the omnibus act is adopted, CLP and other Commission acts that have so far been subject to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny – the comitology procedure involving a committee vote – will be dealt with through delegated acts, according to the sources.
Bumpy ride
Titanium dioxide's classification as a category 2 carcinogen has been a bumpy ride since the Commission updated its proposal in January to restrict the CLP entry to mixtures in powder form, arguing that the substance's carcinogenicity is only associated with inhalation.
The change sparked a wave of criticism from NGOs accusing the Commission of ignoring scientific advice. It also led to concerns from industry over the handling of waste containing the substance when it can be in powder, solid or liquid forms.
The Commission reacted by announcing plans in March to amend the waste guidance and make room for titanium dioxide, only to be met with further criticism.
The current proposal suggests that mixtures such as concrete in wet state or cement in solid form that may contain titanium dioxide particles will not be classified under CLP, and when discarded will not be classified as hazardous waste as long as they remain in that form or physical state.
The Commission said it would follow an internal process for the adoption of a new version of the technical waste classification guidance, and organise a discussion with the waste expert group.
But resistance to the CLP proposal and waste amendment plan remains strong.
The Titanium Dioxide Manufacturers Association (TDMA) said the proposed waste guidance is not legally binding and is open to interpretation in different member states. "It is insufficient to resolve the issue and avoid negative impacts on the circular economy," a spokesperson said.
Legal steps
The Commission has put the 14th Adaptation to Technical Progress amendment to the CLP regulation, which includes titanium dioxide, before the REACH Committee for a discussion several times. But it has so far refrained from taking a vote on the issue, with a number of EU member states remaining opposed to it.
The Commission may now be able to fast track the proposal through a delegated act in the summer, although it would still face the scrutiny of the European Parliament and Council.
Once the Commission adopts a delegated act, Parliament and Council generally have two months to formulate any objections. If they do not, the delegated act enters into force.
If either Parliament or Council, or both, object, the delegated act is then rejected, but they need to provide a motivation for the objection.
Meanwhile TDMA called for the 14th ATP to continue without titanium dioxide "to allow resolution of the many downstream impacts and to consider other regulatory approaches" for the substance.
https://chemicalwatch.com/77788/eu-seeks-delegated-act-for-titanium-dioxide-classification-proposal
-
EPA Seeking Input on Managing Oil, Natural Gas Wastewater
May 22, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is accepting public comment on a draft study that examines how onshore oil and natural gas wastewater can be better managed as it continues to increase in basins across the country.
The study has so far gathered input from a wide array of stakeholders, including states, industry, academics and public health officials. The effort began one year ago and culminated in the draft study that was developed using feedback the agency received.
Currently, most produced water from conventional and unconventional wells is disposed of in deep underground injection wells, but “the limits of injection are evident in some areas, and new approaches are becoming necessary,” EPA said. The agency added that some stakeholders are asking whether it makes sense to continue wasting the flowback, particularly as unconventional drilling is booming in arid regions such as Texas and New Mexico, versus treating and recycling it.
The draft study determined that while many stakeholders support increasing opportunities for discharging wastewater to surface waters, especially where it could address critical water needs, others expressed concerns that discharges to surface water could potentially impact the environment.
The study comes at a time when midstream and upstream companies are themselves investing in more ways to get water to wells sites for completions and then manage it more effectively downstream. A study released late last year by Duke University showed that the amount of water being used to complete wells increased by 770% between 2011 and 2016, while flowback volumes increased by up to 1,440% over the same time.
Volumes are likely to continue growing, EPA said. The draft study does not announce or discuss any regulatory efforts, but it is to be finalized this summer and should identify any future actions to better address industry wastewater. Public comments will be accepted until July 1 and can be sent to oil-and-gas-study@epa.gov.
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/118440-epa-seeking-input-on-managing-oil-natural-gas-wastewater
-
Oil Giants Eye Novel Portland Harbor Superfund Cleanup Incentive
May 22, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
The city of Portland, state of Oregon, and the EPA have come up with a novel way to encourage companies to clean up Portland Harbor faster: Offer them a $24 million incentive.
The approach has drawn praise from former Environmental Protection Agency officials and a community leader. But a group representing state environmental officials said it’s too early to tell whether the approach could be duplicated elsewhere.
The city and state are both potentially responsible for pollution at the harbor, home of one of the most complex and expensive Superfund cleanups. Their governments have proposed setting up a fund that would not only relieve some of their liability, but offer companies money to tackle the design aspect of the $1 billion cleanup quickly.
Several parts of the Superfund site have “many” parties that are potentially liable, the city’s proposal said, but no party or group of parties have agreed to design the cleanup there. Companies that are potentially liable for contamination include BP West Coast Products LLC., Shell Oil Co., and Exxon Mobil Oil Corp.
None of the companies responded to Bloomberg Environment’s requests for comment.
Portland’s century-long history of shipping, industrial, and commercial activity left a toxic soup behind, contaminating the Willamette River’s water and sediment with pesticides, petroleum, and other chemicals.
The EPA designated a 10-mile stretch of the Willamette River the Portland Harbor Superfund site in 2000. The agency is working on cleaning up the river’s “hot spots,” or sections that have the most pollution.
‘Creative Idea’
Usually the EPA relies on its enforcement authority to get companies to do the work, but “this kind of stands that idea on its head,” said Stan Meiburg, a former EPA deputy regional administrator and acting deputy administrator until 2017. He called the approach a “creative idea.”
Charlie Howland, a former EPA senior assistant counsel for the agency’s mid-Atlantic region, agreed with Meiburg. Howland hasn’t worked on the Portland Harbor site, but handles Superfund matters at Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP.
“This approach could be very useful for prompting cleanup action at typical urban sediment sites, whose contamination often came from many sources, ” Howland said in an email.
The EPA announced the incentive May 10, but the agency, city, and state have yet to officially sign off on it, said Annie Von Burg, environmental policy manager for the city of Portland’s Bureau of Environmental Services.
Portland’s city council will discuss the proposal at a public meeting May 22.
Carrot or Stick
Some aspects of the incentive echo the EPA’s decades-old guidance and recent Superfund task force recommendations, but the overall proposal is unusual, attorneys working with clients on Superfund issues told Bloomberg Environment.
Agency guidance dating back to the 1980s provides a framework for using EPA’s Superfund money as well as company funding to pay for cleanup at a single site, rather than one or the other, but does not simultaneously address financial incentives. In 2017, the EPA’s Superfund task force recommended using incentives to accelerate the cleanup process, but it didn’t note whether the incentives could be funded by potentially responsible parties.
As part of the agreement that the agency, Portland, and Oregon have proposed, the city and state would each contribute $12 million to a fund. The EPA would then take money from that fund to offer companies an incentive to complete cleanup work on the sections for which they’re responsible.
The companies must start negotiations with the EPA by the end of June and finish plans by the end of this year to receive $80,000 per designed acre.
If the companies don’t follow through, they are subject to EPA enforcement action, according to the city.
“We hope all responsible parties will step up to take advantage of this unique funding opportunity,” EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said in an agency press release. Portland Harbor is on the administrator’s list of Superfund sites that need “immediate, intense action.”
Don Welsh, executive director of the Environmental Council of States, said each Superfund site is different, so it’s hard to tell whether this type of agreement could be used elsewhere.
“I do think it’s a good example of EPA and the state working together to navigate a unique situation at Portland Harbor,” he said.
Pooling Funds
The EPA decided in 2017 that 365 acres of contaminated Portland Harbor sediment should be covered with a protective cap or dredged from the Willamette River to reduce human and wildlife exposure to contaminants, including polychlorinated biphenyls and dioxins. The agency estimates total cleanup costs for the site at $1 billion.
The city of Portland “has potential liability scattered throughout the 10-mile site,” the city’s impact statement for the proposal said.
“Rather than enter into numerous agreements to perform remedial design, the City and State find it more efficient and financially advantageous to pool their funds and place them in a trust,” the city’s proposed ordinance said.
The incentive “allows us to play an important role in moving the cleanup design forward while focusing on the harbor as a whole instead of smaller sites,” Kate Kondayen, a spokeswoman for Oregon Governor Kate Brown, said in an email.
Jackie Calder, chair of the Portland Harbor site’s Community Advisory Group, said she’s glad the incentive is being offered. The harbor was declared a Superfund site in 2000, and local residents have been hoping for progress toward cleanup since then.
“It’s time that somebody got things moving,” she said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/oil-giants-eye-novel-portland-harbor-superfund-cleanup-incentive
-
This Year’s Top U.S. Oil Stock Has No Stake in Permian Basin
May 22, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Adams-Heard
This year’s top-performing U.S. oil producer doesn’t have any operations in the world’s fastest-growing shale play.
Unlike a long list of other oil drillers, Hess isn’t staking its name on the prolific Permian Basin, which has seen shale output nearly double in two years.
Instead, the company is tapping a massive discovery more than 3,000 miles away in Guyana and tinkering with techniques to improve results in North Dakota.
“There’s value in portfolio diversity,” said Devin McDermott, an analyst at Morgan Stanley who has a buy rating on the stock. “Hess has an attractive balance of short-cycle shale, which can be flexed up and down with the oil price, and this very attractive longer-cycle development in offshore Guyana.”
New York-based Hess Corp. has climbed about 64% this year to trade above $66 May 21 in New York. The S&P 500 Energy Index, meanwhile, is up just 12% over the same period. Hess is leading the pack with the exception of Anadarko Petroleum Corp., which is being bought by Occidental Petroleum Corp. following a bidding war with Chevron Corp.
Last year’s top performing oil stock was ConocoPhillips, which has operations all over the globe, including some assets in the Permian and several other U.S. basins.
‘Plug and Perf’
Because Hess still outspends cash flow, the producer’s stock price tends to be fairly sensitive, according to McDermott.
At the end of last year, the company saw its shares tumble the most in almost three years, hitting a low of $36.43 on Christmas Eve after work on its Guyana development was halted by a Venezuelan blockade.
But since the company and partner Exxon Mobil Corp. sanctioned the second phase of Guyana development earlier this month, investors have been less concerned about political uncertainty, said McDermott. Now, the project is ahead of schedule, with first oil expected by the end of the year.
“Execution’s been excellent,” McDermott said.
Things are looking up in the U.S., as well. Earlier this year, Chief Executive Officer John Hess said the switch to a new technique for fracking wells, called “plug and perf,” would increase the net present value of the company’s Bakken assets by about $1 billion.
“I know investors have been frustrated with shale,” Hess said last December.
The company now expects production in the Bakken to grow by roughly 20% a year to 200,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day by 2021. If oil prices stay around $60 a barrel, that means about $1 billion a year in free cash flow post-2020, according to Hess.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/this-years-top-u-s-oil-stock-has-no-stake-in-permian-basin
-
UPS Trucks in Texas to Fuel up With Renewable Natural Gas
May 22, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Marissa Luck
UPS trucks powered by renewable natural gas will soon be zooming around Texas.The multinational shipping giant said Wednesday it is buying 170 million gallon equivalents of renewable natural gas from California-based natural gas provider Clean Energy Fuel Corp. by 2026, the largest commitment of any U.S. company to date to use renewable natural gas, according to UPS.
UPS said its fueling stations in San Antonio, El Paso and Fort Worth, and several other stations in 12 states will fuel up UPS delivery trucks with renewable natural gas.
The alternative fuel is produced by taking methane gas released from buried garbage or biomass and processing it into a purified natural gas that can be used as a replacement for traditional transportation fuels. The deal is part of UPS's strategy to have 40 percent of its ground fleet running on alternative fuels by 2025. The company also has a goal of reducing its greenhouse gas emission from its ground fleet by 12 percent by 2025.
UPS has used more than 28 million gallons of renewable natural gas in its ground fleet since 2014.
The company said that by switching from diesel to renewable natural gas, UPS trucks fueling up at 18 stations will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 1 million metric tons over the next seven years. This is equivalent to planting 17,000,000 trees and removing 228,000 cars off the road, according to UPS.
Clean Energy Fuels Corp., which describes itself as the largest natural gas provider in North America, says that its product is the first renewable natural gas commercially available for fleets. Clean Energy builds and operates 530 stations with compressed natural gas and liquefied natural gas in Canada and the U.S.
Renewable natural gas stations are on the rise in North America as trucking companies look to meet government and company mandates on greenhouse gas emissions. There are 98 operational renewable natural gas sites in the U.S. and Canada, plus another 26 under construction, according to RNG Coalition, a Sacramento member-led nonprofit representing the renewable natural gas industry in North America.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Embargoed-UPS-trucks-in-Texas-to-fuel-up-with-13867717.php?cmpid=ffrefining
-
Ewire: Trump Says Trade Deal Needed Before Infrastructure Bill
May 22, 2019 | Inside EPA
President Donald Trump is telling Hill Democrats that congressional approval of his overhaul to the North American Free Trade Agreement is a prerequisite for advancing a major infrastructure package covering transportation, water, energy and other sectors.
“Before we get to infrastructure, it is my strong view that Congress should first pass the important and popular [United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement] trade deal,” Trump writes in a May 21 letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), ahead of their meeting today on infrastructure.
Politico reports that the letter signals trouble for the infrastructure effort, given that Democrats “still have a number of concerns about various provisions of the trade deal.”
In addition, the president also pushed to combine the infrastructure package with a reauthorization of the federal highway trust fund – which is slated to expire in September 2020 – “all but assuring a less ambitious package dedicated to traditional transportation uses, instead of a broad-spectrum vision of funding everything from veterans hospitals to broadband,” the report says.
Trump's letter says he and the Democratic leaders agreed on a number of issues during an April 30 meeting. “There were also areas where we diverged, but the administration believes that energy permitting reforms and energy-related infrastructure investments are important priorities.”
Democrats have said that Trump must take the lead on financing mechanisms for the reportedly $2 trillion package – though Trump's letter does not outline any preferred options. Instead, he urges the Democrats to name their top infrastructure priorities and outline “specifics regarding how much funding you would dedicate to each.”
Nearly all of the Senate Democratic caucus on May 21 detailed a call for major climate-related funding in any infrastructure package, including $500 million annually for electric and hydrogen vehicle fueling stations, $1 billion for “emissions-reducing transportation plans,” and $1.5 billion for building resilient infrastructure.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-trump-says-trade-deal-needed-infrastructure-bill
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Add recipients
Suggested