Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Mentioned) Ford to Develop Carbon-Fiber Material for Cars
Apr 17, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By John D. Stoll
Ford Motor Co. is entering into a joint venture with carbon-fiber manufacturer DowAksa, a move aimed at more widely using the costly material to significantly reduce the weight of vehicles that need to meet tougher emissions standards. -
'Revolutionary' System Turns Emissions into Chemical Feedstock
Apr 17, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Katherine Ling
A group of scientists in California has developed a method of artificial photosynthesis using nanowires, bacteria and solar energy to capture and convert carbon emissions into the common chemical building block for plastics, medicine and fuels. -
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Publishes Objections to Phthalate Ban Proposal
Apr 17, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The American Chemistry Council has expressed significant concerns about a proposed ban on the use of five phthalates in children's toys and childcare articles. -
Federal Toxics Law Needs Reform Now
Apr 17, 2015 | OC Register
By John Musella
There are lots of great things about California – amazing beaches, expansive parks, Hollywood and Disneyland. But it’s not all surfing and celebrity-watching. -
Let’s Update Chemical Policy to Reflect Our Times
Apr 17, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Eric Byer
Chemicals are a fact of life in today’s world. They make most aspects of our lives easier, safer, and better. But the prevalence of chemicals in our daily lives means effective management of these substances is critically essential. -
California Issues Final Three-Year Priority Product Work Plan
Apr 17, 2015 | Chemical Watch
California's Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has published the final version of its three-year priority product work plan under the Safer Consumer Products Regulations. -
There Is Nano-WHAT In My Food?
Apr 17, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By David Andrews
Are intentionally engineered nanoparticles being added to our food? We don’t know for sure – and federal food regulators aren’t helping us find out the truth. -
EPA Still Weighing Possible Second Review Of Vanadium IRIS Assessment
Apr 17, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
Managers of EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) have yet to respond to requests from industry and the Department of Defense (DOD) to seek a second peer review of some portion of the pending IRIS assessment of vanadium pentoxide (V2O5), or to set a stopping rule deadline, leaving the timeline for completing the assessment uncertain. -
EPA Urged To Quickly Strengthen Facility Safety Rules
Apr 17, 2015 | InsideEPA
EPA is facing calls from advocates to quickly strengthen regulation of industrial facilities' safety on the two-year anniversary of an explosion at a Texas fertilizer plant that killed 15 people and prompted President Obama to issue an executive order (E.O.) directing agencies to weigh steps to bolster federal regulation of facility safety. -
EPA Advisors Suggest Greater Local Government Input In Oil Spill Responses
Apr 17, 2015 | InsideEPA
An EPA advisory panel of local, state and tribal officials is expressing general support for the agency's proposed revisions to its pending oil spill response rule, but says the agency should increase its engagement with local officials on pre-planning and decisions regarding responses to spills. -
Governors Push Back Against McConnell's Request to Defy EPA Carbon Rule
Apr 17, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
State leaders from some Western states and New England are challenging Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's request for governors to defy U.S. EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan. -
EPA Overreach Too Much Even for Obama's Professor
Apr 17, 2015 | OC Register
By Joseph Perkins
Laurence Tribe is arguably the nation’s foremost liberal legal scholar. -
Letters: The EPA’s Power Grab and the Poor
Apr 17, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
It’s helpful to see the Journal raising objections to the EPA’s Clean Power Plan (“The State Electricity Revolt,” Review & Outlook, April 10). -
Greenwire's Jacobs Discusses Power Plan's Future Following Federal Court Hearing
Apr 17, 2015 | E&E - TV
How does yesterday's U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit hearing on the Clean Power Plan shape the future of the rule and subsequent legal challenges against it? -
2016 GOP Hopefuls Unite to Block EPA Water Rule
Apr 17, 2015 | The Hill - E2
By Timothy Cama
The major Republican presidential candidates have united around a bill to stop the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) controversial rule redefining its jurisdiction over bodies of water. -
Jeb Bush ‘Concerned’ About Climate Change
Apr 17, 2015 | The Hill - Ballot Box
By Jonathan Easley
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush acknowledged on Friday that he’s “concerned” about climate change, but argued that the U.S. has largely addressed carbon emissions through private sector innovation that has led to a natural gas boom. -
Investors Push for Climate Change Disclosures from Companies
Apr 17, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
A group of investors is pushing the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to require that oil and gas companies provide more information about the impact climate change could have on their profitability. -
House to Begin Work on Broad Energy Bill Next Week
Apr 17, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
The House Energy & Commerce Committee has scheduled its first hearing next week on what its leaders hope will become a broad, bipartisan energy trade, infrastructure and efficiency bill.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
-
(ACC Mentioned) Ford to Develop Carbon-Fiber Material for Cars
Apr 17, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By John D. Stoll
Ford Motor Co. is entering into a joint venture with carbon-fiber manufacturer DowAksa, a move aimed at more widely using the costly material to significantly reduce the weight of vehicles that need to meet tougher emissions standards.
The Dearborn, Mich., auto maker took a leadership position in the use of advanced materials when it released an aluminum F-150 pickup truck late last year. Ford’s highest volume and most profitable vehicle, the F-150’s fuel-economy numbers improved as a result of the design change.
DowAksa is a joint venture between Dow Chemical Co. and Aksa AkrilikKimya Sanayii A. Long considered to be an expensive exotic material and hard for car companies to mass produce, auto makers like Ford have been gradually increasing the use of the material. Currently, carbon fiber is most seen as the material for use on sports cars, such as hoods or entire bodies, but higher-volume vehicles are increasingly employing it.READ MORE
Recycling Twist Cuts Ford Truck CostsFord Starts Deliveries of 2015 F-150
A recent survey published by Plastics News estimates carbon fiber for automotive costs $10 to $12 a pound, compared with the publication’s estimate of less than $1 for the same amount of steel. The cost of carbon fiber for automotive is down one-third from the price a decade ago, the publication said, but needs to be cut in about half to be commercially viable for widespread adoption.
Ford has said its next-generation GT supercar will be made largely of carbon fiber. BMW AG is using carbon fiber for the body structure of its small i3 electric car.
The material is 50% lighter than conventional steel and 30% lighter than aluminum, according to the American Chemistry Council. Steve Russell,vice president of plastics for the American Chemistry Council, says use of 3-D printing and other innovations have helped lower the cost of manufacturing with carbon fiber, and reduced the amount of time it takes to develop components made of the material.
Plastics currently compose about 50% of a vehicle’s volume, but only 10% of a vehicle’s weight. Components made from steel, aluminum or other metals often contribute more weight.
Tighter fuel-economy rules scheduled to be phased in over the next decade are forcing car companies to make slimmed-down cars and trucks. Known as “lightweighting,” the process has accelerated the use of smaller engines and other, lighter components.
In a news release issued Friday, Ford said its aim is to “bring carbon fiber components to the broader market.” The companies will develop cheaper grades of carbon fiber and open the door to a potential manufacturing relationship.
The partnership comes on the heels of a widely cited IHS automotive study that said total weight in cars must be reduced by 30% to meet federal fuel-economy standards set for 2025. IHS expects the average car to use 75% more plastic by 2020, and expects the auto industry’s use of carbon fiber to nearly triple by 2030.
-
'Revolutionary' System Turns Emissions into Chemical Feedstock
Apr 17, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Katherine Ling
A group of scientists in California has developed a method of artificial photosynthesis using nanowires, bacteria and solar energy to capture and convert carbon emissions into the common chemical building block for plastics, medicine and fuels.
The new artificial photosynthesis system is a "win-win" by offering a solar-powered green chemistry, as well as sequestering carbon dioxide, according to the researchers from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the University of California, Berkeley.
"We believe our system is a revolutionary leap forward in the field of artificial photosynthesis," Peidong Yang, a chemist with Berkeley Lab's Materials Sciences Division and a leader of the study, said in a statement. "Our system has the potential to fundamentally change the chemical and oil industry in that we can produce chemicals and fuels in a totally renewable way, rather than extracting them from deep below the ground."
The nanowires capture sunlight and deliver electrons to select bacteria that consume the carbon dioxide with water to make acetate, creating a "programmable system of chemical synthesis," the scientists said. The acetate can be "activated" with genetically engineeredEscherichia coli (E. Coli) bacteria and used in biosynthesis to create a variety of complex materials and products.
The silicon and titanium oxide nanowires act as an "artificial forest," or field of grass, that protects Sporomusa ovata bacteria, an anaerobic species that readily accepts electrons directly from the surrounding environment and uses them to reduce carbon dioxide, the scientists said.
The team was able to achieve a 38 percent solar energy conversion efficiency for about 200 hours -- about the same as a leaf. They were also able to create "encouraging" amounts of product from the acetate, including conversion rates of 26 percent for butanol, 25 percent for amorphadiene -- a precursor to an antimalaria drug -- and 52 percent for biodegradable plastic PHB.
The conversion rates are expected to improve with further refinements, and the second-generation system the team is currently working on has a 3 percent solar-to-chemical conversion efficiency, Yang said.
"Once we can reach a conversion efficiency of 10 percent in a cost effective manner, the technology should be commercially viable," he said.
The use of carbon emissions as a feedstock for bacteria or other microorganisms to create new fuels and chemicals has been a field of interest for many years, but only recently have a few companies been able to find a cheaper way to do this in order to scale up to commercialization (Greenwire, April 2, 2014).
LanzaTech has emerged as a leader in this sector with projects ongoing in China with Baosteel and one in India to use its method to produce "fish oil" that has omega-3 nutrients (Greenwire, Nov. 14, 2014).
Another company, Liquid Light, can tweak its technology to convert CO2 to more than 60 different chemicals and started licensing its technology about eight months ago. It actually started off as a company that used solar energy to convert CO2 into chemicals -- hence its name -- but it runs most efficiently off electricity for now.
Det Norske Veritas (DNV), a Norwegian risk management consulting firm, predicts that turning CO2 into fuel, chemicals and non-conversion materials like cement or building stock has the potential to reduce about 10 percent of total current annual CO2 emissions, or about 3.7 gigatons per year, and "much greater reductions are possible through wider adoption of these technologies."
The findings were published in the journal Nano Letters , and the work was primarily funded by the Energy Department's Office of Science.
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Publishes Objections to Phthalate Ban Proposal
Apr 17, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The American Chemistry Council has expressed significant concerns about a proposed ban on the use of five phthalates in children's toys and childcare articles.
In its published comments to a consultation launched by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) earlier this year (CW 12 January 2015), the ACC calls the proposal "scientifically unjustified and therefore, arbitrary and capricious".
The move to permanently ban DIBP, DnPP, DnHP, DHCP and DINP is based on the recommendations of the Commission's Chronic Advisory Panel (CW 22 July 2014).
-
Federal Toxics Law Needs Reform Now
Apr 17, 2015 | OC Register
By John Musella
There are lots of great things about California – amazing beaches, expansive parks, Hollywood and Disneyland. But it’s not all surfing and celebrity-watching. Just like you wouldn’t want California’s earthquakes shaking your hometown, you don’t want California’s ridiculous chemical labeling law wrecking your state’s economy.
Which is why we need a commonsense update to our federal chemical law – and fast.
Back in 1986, California voters passed Proposition 65, which required state regulators to make a list of chemicals that might cause one excess case of cancer in 100,000 people over 70 years and chemicals that might cause reproductive harm. Any business that uses those chemicals is required to post a warning sign or put a label on the chemical-containing product.
Fast forward almost 30 years and the state has listed nearly 900 chemicals, but research shows the law has had no effect on reducing state cancer rates.
Instead, California business owners (along with businesses based around the world) have paid hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements and attorneys’ fees to “bounty hunters” that scour the state looking for products that contain chemicals on the state’s warning list.
The threshold for when a Prop. 65 warning sign is legally required is so low that even coffee chains such as Starbucks are forced to warn customers about cancer risks from coffee. A chemical called acrylamide forms naturally when coffee beans are roasted, and when given in very high doses to rats it may cause cancer.
The signs don’t mention that you’d have to drink around 100 cups of coffee a day before you need to start worrying about acrylamide exposure. Of course, if you’re drinking that much coffee, you’ve got a lot of other health problems to worry about before acrylamide exposure.
So why should non-Californians care about our crazy chemical warning law?
California’s Prop. 65 has been forcing manufacturers to reformulate or place warning labels on their products for decades. Imagine the regulatory nightmare if instead of complying with one federal (or California) standard for products, manufacturers had to comply with a different law in every single state.
Unfortunately, that nightmare could easily become reality.
Since Congress hasn’t updated our federal chemical law – the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 – in nearly four decades, states have increasingly taken chemical regulation into their own hands. They’ve considered roughly 170 different bills to regulate chemicals, following in California’s wandering footsteps.
It’s a truly worrying trend. If our state’s experience is a predictor, businesses will simply stop selling products in states where they have to meet a separate chemical standard. While small businesses will certainly have trouble manufacturing their products to meet various state standards, even some huge companies have suspended selling their products in California because of Prop. 65.
Luckily, there is a way to stem this tide.
New legislation introduced by Sens. David Vitter, R-La., and Tom Udall, D-N.M., is a bipartisan effort to strengthen our national chemical law by giving the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency more tools to regulate chemicals on the federal level. And while the proposal will allow California to keep Prop. 65 in place, it would prevent other states from creating their own wonky chemical laws that conflict with federal standards.
Regulating chemicals is clearly Congress’ job; few manufactured goods are sold only within state lines. As part of its powers under the Interstate Commerce Clause, Congress has the responsibility to set strong federal standards for chemicals in consumer products, ensuring consumers around the country are safe.
Consumers don’t need to see warning labels telling them their morning coffee, evening glass of wine, or even their flip flops might pose a health risk. They need confidence that the products they use and consume every day meet strong federal chemical safety standards that actually keep their families safe.
California has a lot to offer, but a roadmap on smart chemical regulation isn’t one of them.
John Musella is chairman of the California Chapter of Log Cabin Republicans. A version of this piece ran online at The Hill.
-
Let’s Update Chemical Policy to Reflect Our Times
Apr 17, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Eric Byer
Chemicals are a fact of life in today’s world. They make most aspects of our lives easier, safer, and better. But the prevalence of chemicals in our daily lives means effective management of these substances is critically essential. The 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is the regulatory vehicle for federal management of industrial chemicals. That would be the same 1976 when Gerald Ford was president, the first Rocky movie was released, and bell-bottoms were the height of fashion.
Fashion is not timeless, and neither are regulations. In the intervening 39 years, discoveries have been made, research has been conducted, and the world as it relates to chemicals is vastly different. Consumers have more options than ever and incredible discoveries have changed the way we live our lives.
Our outdated regulatory system has not been able to keep up. Many states, believing our nation’s chemical laws are ineffective, have responded by implementing their own state standards or ad hoc bans on certain chemicals or classes of chemicals. Imagine the difficulty small businesses face while trying to innovate and grow their companies in the face of varied state rules and federal regulations that haven’t been updated in nearly 40 years. Fortunately, Congress has a better than ever opportunity to take action on TSCA to create safer, more effective chemical regulation for our families and a more streamlined process for small businesses.
Today, the patchwork of state regulations brings unintended and potentially dangerous consequences for consumers by removing chemicals that may serve important protective, medical, or safety uses from commerce. When a state chooses to ban a certain chemical or class of chemicals, it is often easier for manufacturers to stop making the products containing them than it is to manage the different regulatory schemes on a state-by-state basis. This has a dramatic effect on the economy at large. Chemical distributors – typically small businesses with an average of 26 employees – no longer distribute the product to downstream end users, downstream manufacturers can’t get it and the chemical manufacturers often stop making it altogether.
As a result, that chemical is no longer available for use in important consumer and industrial products. End users often face higher prices or inferior products and the smaller businesses throughout the supply chain that depend on it for significant portions of their revenue are simply out of luck. If assessment of a chemical has a reasonable basis in science, halting production might be considered a self-regulating approach. However, states have different requirements and rigorous scientific assessment is unfortunately not the norm.
The good news is that, after more than a decade of attempts at reform, Congress has an opportunity to modernize chemical management in a way that addresses many of the legal obstacles currently diminishing the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate chemicals, institutes a commonsense approach to chemical prioritization, and creates a more cohesive federal system of chemical regulations.
Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.) have introduced bipartisan legislation that balances the interests of multiple stakeholders while making significant improvements to chemical management. Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) has also introduced a bipartisan discussion draft that complements the effort in the Senate well. During a time when Washington is too often frozen by partisanship, the proposed legislation in both chambers demonstrates solutions can be found, even on complex issues.
A strong, credible federal chemical regulatory program is crucial for the American public and for small businesses, including U.S. chemical distributors, their customers, and the hundreds of thousands of direct and indirect workers they represent. Leaders in Congress should be applauded for their work on this issue and urged to reform TSCA as we know it.
Byer is president of the National Association of Chemical Distributors, an association of more than 440 companies that provide products to more than 750,000 end users in industries as diverse and essential as construction, healthcare, electronics, pulp and paper, water treatment, and many others.
-
California Issues Final Three-Year Priority Product Work Plan
Apr 17, 2015 | Chemical Watch
California's Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has published the final version of its three-year priority product work plan under the Safer Consumer Products Regulations. The document is substantially similar to the draft released last September (CW 15 September 2014).
The 2015-17 plan describes product categories from which the department will select priority products over the next three years. It does not specifically identify priority products or chemicals of concern, and does not impose any regulatory requirements.
Product categories chosen for screening under the work plan last September are: beauty, personal care and hygiene;building materials and furnishing;cleaning;clothing; andfishing and angling equipment.
These categories include hundreds of potential priority products, the DTSC says.
Once a product is selected as a priority it will be adopted into regulation following the state's Administrative Procedure Act. Manufacturers will then follow the alternative analysis process to identify safer designs, or alternative formulations, which meet product requirements. If warranted, the DTSC will issue a regulatory response, such as a ban, restriction or other risk mitigation or reduction measure.
“We believe this plan provides a level of predictability to potential manufacturers, importers, retailers and other stakeholders regarding the types of products that can be considered for evaluation over the next three years,” the agency says. The DTSC expects that manufacturers will consider the product categories in the plan – in conjunction with the candidate chemical list – to evaluate their product portfolios, it adds.
The DTSC issued the first three priority product/substance combinations in March of last year (CW 13 March 2014). This year the number is also likely to be three, the agency says, adding that as "we gain knowledge about the product categories and standardise our product research procedures, we anticipate that we will have the capacity to select more products.”
In 2016 and 2017, the department anticipates selecting more than five products each year.
-
There Is Nano-WHAT In My Food?
Apr 17, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By David Andrews
Are intentionally engineered nanoparticles being added to our food? We don’t know for sure – and federal food regulators aren’t helping us find out the truth.
On April 6 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed a rule to collect basic information on production, processing, exposure and available health and safety data for nanomaterials – chemical particles tens of thousands of times smaller than the width of a human hair. EPA said it would use the information to determine if further action to protect the public is needed under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not proposed any such rules. There is little publicly available information about nanoparticle use in food, although a 2012 investigation by E, The Environmental Magazine concluded that nanoparticles “made a quiet entrance into the nation’s food supply at least a decade ago.” We do know this: FDA’s process for regulating new food additives is woefully inadequate.
Food companies are not required to disclose whether their foods contain nanoparticles. FDA allows food manufacturers to decide if their own additives qualify for a designation called Generally Recognized As Safe, or GRAS, without ever having to notify the agency or seeking an independent evaluation by someone without a financial stake in the outcome. Numerous questionable food additives such as propylparaben and BHT are currently listed as GRAS. On April 13 the Center for Public Integrity published an investigation into how the loopholes in current law allow new additives to be added to food without telling FDA.
The FDA does not require registration or even notification. Instead, it“encourages” companies to consult with the agency in developing new additives. It is not known if any companies have self-determined that an engineered nanoparticle is safe for food, or if a company is already using an engineered nanoparticle without telling FDA.
In nonbinding recommendations published in June 2014, the FDA said it is “not aware of any food substances intentionally engineered on the nanometer scale for which there are generally available safety data sufficient” to determine whether the additive could be generally recognized as safe.
A report in 2010 by the World Health Organization predicted that nanomaterials could become common in food as ingredients in flavors, preservatives, vitamins and nutrients, food storage containers and more applications. The report said:
The very small size of nanomaterials enables dispersion of water-insoluble additives (such as colours, flavours and preservatives) in food products without the need for additional fat or surfactants. Nanosizing of bioactive substances is also claimed to give greater uptake, absorption and bioavailability in the body compared with bulk equivalents. Nanosized and nano-encapsulated ingredients and additives are used for the development of improved or new tastes, flavours and textures, and products with enhanced nutritional value. The advent of nanotechnologies has also enabled the development of innovative packaging materials, nanosensors and intervention technologies that can improve the safety, traceability and shelf life of food products.
On March 12, EWG, As You Sow and seven other advocacy groups published apolicy statement that said that food companies should reveal whether they are using nanomaterials, substantiate the safety of these particles before putting them in food, label their use, and minimize worker exposures and risk. Safety must come first.
-
EPA Still Weighing Possible Second Review Of Vanadium IRIS Assessment
Apr 17, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
Managers of EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) have yet to respond to requests from industry and the Department of Defense (DOD) to seek a second peer review of some portion of the pending IRIS assessment of vanadium pentoxide (V2O5), or to set a stopping rule deadline, leaving the timeline for completing the assessment uncertain.
The V2O5 assessment was expected to be the first that EPA finalizes in calendar year 2015, the second since the fiscal year began. EPA released its long-pending final assessment of Libby amphibole asbestos in December, following fiscal year 2014 when no IRIS assessments were finalized.
The congressional justification document accompanying EPA's proposed FY16 budget states both the Libby asbestos assessment and the V2O5 assessment were "anticipated to be completed in FY14," and adds that V2O5 "is anticipated to be complete early in 2015 . . ."
However, the timeline for completion is uncertain given the departure of key IRIS managers and the lack of a decision about additional peer review or setting the stopping rule deadline, which determines whether all results of an industry-military research program are reviewed by IRIS staff before completing the assessment.
Agency sources confirm the assessment's chemical manager has left the IRIS program and moved to the front office of EPA's research and development office to work with Deputy Assistant Administrator Bob Kavlock. And the chief of the IRIS branch managing the assessment left the agency for an academic post, agency sources say. A new chemical manager has not been assigned because the assessment is "at the end of the process," and so instead, the new branch chief is moving it towards completion, an agency source says.
Meanwhile, the agency has yet to reach decisions on whether to undergo a limited second peer review of part of the assessment, or to set a date for its stopping rule, the agency source says. The stopping rule, implemented last year, is intended to allow IRIS chemical managers to move assessments forward as efficiently and effectively as possible while new research is constantly being published regarding relevant topics.
The Vanadium Producers and Reclaimers Association (VPRA) in a September 2014 letter to EPA requested a meeting with IRIS leaders and urged them to "make a formal on-the-record written determination under the IRIS Stopping Rules that the newly completed research on [V2O5] must be incorporated into a revised IRIS assessment."
IRIS staff perform regular literature searches for new studies on ongoing IRIS subjects until a stopping rule date is reached. After that deadline, the bar for new research to be included in an assessment rises as the assessment gets closer to completion. But the stopping rule was implemented midway through the ongoing V2O5 assessment, so it is unclear how the agency will handle the request.
Industry and DOD requests for EPA to consider a second peer review have also gone unanswered, stakeholder sources say. VPRA in its letter asked EPA to delay the V2O5 assessment to review the new research; inform the interagency committee reviewing the current draft that it is considering new research and request members' comments on it; publicly discuss its determination on the new V2O5 research with the chair of the 2012 peer review panel and if the chair agrees, make the necessary changes to the assessment and submit it for a second peer review.
EPA hosted a private V2O5 stakeholder meeting last December, according to the IRIS program's public calendar.
Draft Assessment
EPA circulated for interagency review a draft of the assessment over the summer, which concluded the chemical is a "likely" carcinogen.
EPA's last public draft, released in September 2011, includes a reference concentration (RfC), or the maximum amount of a substance that EPA estimates can be inhaled daily over a lifetime without associated adverse health effects, of 1x10^-5 milligrams per cubic meter of air and an oral reference dose (RfD), analogous to the RfC for ingestion, of 9x10^-4 milligrams per kilogram body weight per day.
That 2011 draft also included an inhalation unit risk (IUR), or an estimate of cancer potency when inhaled, of 3.4 per milligram per cubic meter of air.
The earlier draft did not contain an oral cancer potency estimate, citing insufficient data to do so. Critics counter that these risk estimates are unnecessarily stringent and ignore data justifying a softer limit. They argue that the new data justify their long-running claims that the agency's risk estimates are orders of magnitude below naturally occurring background levels, and are skewed by flawed data that EPA used in crafting the assessment.
V2O5 is made from the spent catalysts from oil refineries and power plants. It is used as a strengthener in steel and titanium alloys, making the metal lighter and stronger -- qualities that have made the substance attractive to the military. EPA's air office requested the IRIS assessment because the metal is used as a catalyst to reduce nitrogen oxides emissions from power plants and in diesel engines.
The stakeholders presented more of their research at the recent Society of Toxicology meeting in San Diego March 22-26. Two posters outline toxicology studies in rats and mice concluding that it is "unlikely" that lung tumors formed in lab rodents in a 2002 National Toxicology Program study -- the basis for the IRIS assessment -- were caused by a mutagenic mode of action (MOA), or biological mechanism. This information is important, because EPA chooses how it models cancer risk based on MOA.
"Ruling out a genotoxic mode of action removes the basis for the derivation of an inhalation unit risk in the absence of relevant genetic toxicology data," Judith MacGregor, the principal investigator for the vanadium research project says of the studies presented at SOT. She adds that the studies were conducted in the same strain of lab mouse, using the same dosing approach with modern MOA investigatory techniques.
-
EPA Urged To Quickly Strengthen Facility Safety Rules
Apr 17, 2015 | InsideEPA
EPA is facing calls from advocates to quickly strengthen regulation of industrial facilities' safety on the two-year anniversary of an explosion at a Texas fertilizer plant that killed 15 people and prompted President Obama to issue an executive order (E.O.) directing agencies to weigh steps to bolster federal regulation of facility safety.
In an April 16 report, the Center for Effective Government (CEG) argues that thousands of facilities hold large quantities of toxic chemicals that are not covered by EPA's Risk Management Plan (RMP) rule. State and local reporting programs, required under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), are inadequate to ensure communities and first responders are aware of risks, the report claims.
Separately, in an April 15 blog post, Greenpeace's Rick Hind argues that Obama is letting EPA “slow-walk” chemical plant safety and calls for the agency to move up a planned notice of proposed rulemaking updating its requirements RMP from September to June so the rule can be finalized by June 2016.
The CEG report “Chemical Hazards In Your Backyard,” reiterates calls for EPA to expand the RMP list of 140 hazardous chemicals to include additional substances, and to require facilities to use inherently safer technologies (IST), such as alternative chemicals, which advocates say reduce the likelihood or consequences of a disaster.
Advocates in 2012 petitioned EPA to use authority under section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act to require IST, and the agency's RMP program, which currently requires facilities to report holdings of threshold levels of certain chemicals and prepare for their accidental release, is also authorized by the same section.
The renewed push for EPA to strengthen facility safety comes two years after the April 17, 2013 ammonium nitrate explosion at a fertilizer facility in West, TX, that caused more than a dozen deaths.
The accident prompted Obama that August to issue E.O. 13650, seeking to improve the safety and security of industrial plants through better communication and information sharing. The order also directed EPA and other agencies to weigh steps to modernize policies, rules and standards in order to boost facility safety.
EPA plans to give notice of a rule overhauling RMP in September, and late last year accepted public comment on a request for information that suggested potentially sweeping changes to the program, ranging from covering additional chemicals to requiring new process safety analysis and reviews of past near-accidents.
CEG's report focuses on six Midwestern states and finds that more than 1,700 facilities store at least one of nine hazardous chemicals, which like ammonium nitrate do not require reporting under RMP, but still pose hazards. While 85 percent of those facilities report to state agencies that are required to share information with local emergency planners, the data does not always reach first responders, according to the CEG report.
"The state-based reporting program under EPCRA is decentralized and complicated, and local emergency plans are focused on responding to a disaster, rather than preventing one,” Katherine McFate, president and CEO of CEG said in a statement announcing the report. “This continues to leave millions of Americans at risk.”
In addition to reiterating calls for EPA to strengthen RMP, CEG says EPA should make information reported to the program publicly-available online and merge data reported to states into a national database.
-
EPA Advisors Suggest Greater Local Government Input In Oil Spill Responses
Apr 17, 2015 | InsideEPA
An EPA advisory panel of local, state and tribal officials is expressing general support for the agency's proposed revisions to its pending oil spill response rule, but says the agency should increase its engagement with local officials on pre-planning and decisions regarding responses to spills.
At the same time, advocates for citizens are making a significant push to gather larger public involvement in commenting on the draft rule, suggesting 10 key points the public can look to as suggestions for further revising the proposal. The advocates are generally calling for EPA to adopt stricter safety measures. The push is being conducted by The ALERT Project, run by the environmental group Earth Island Institute and by the same advocates who long pushed for the agency to strengthen its rule under the Citizens' Coalition to Ban Toxic Dispersants.
The suggestions respond to EPA's long-awaited proposed revisions to its National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan's Subpart J Product Schedule.
Under the revisions, EPA is proposing to strengthen requirements related to the use of chemical and biological agents, including dispersants, applied in the cleanup of oil spills. The agency is also proposing to add new product toxicity and efficacy test methods and criteria for listing dispersants and other agents on the schedule, require manufacturers to provide more detailed product application information and human health and safety data, tighten the requirements governing authorizations of agent use, and add new monitoring requirements for agents used on certain types of spills, according to the agency.
While EPA is taking public comment on its proposed revisions through April 22, the Local Government Advisory Committee (LGAC), a formal advisory panel to EPA comprised of local, state and tribal officials, gave its suggestions on the rule directly to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy in a March 18 letter.
LGAC has some expertise on oil spill issues, as it previously was charged with providing advice and recommendations on the cleanup and recovery of the Gulf Coast following the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
"The LGAC believes that the EPA proposed Dispersant rule will provide a more streamlined upfront planning process to aid in clean up and recovery of oil spills and other hazardous chemicals," the group says.
Local Resources
It advises that local officials be involved at all levels of pre-planning and response selection as communities will be directly impacted. "In addition, local resources could also be potentially engaged and more closely coordinated."
Specifically, LGAC says that EPA should include locally elected officials when deciding if a dispersant will be authorized for use at the local level, the letter says. Local officials should be informed and consulted at the regional level when making contingency plans to use dispersants and other spill mitigating substances, the letter says.
The use of dispersants or new retrieval technologies has immediate impacts to communities and public health, the letter points out, underscoring the need for engaging local officials in selecting alternatives. Further, "[l]ow income, disadvantaged, minority and rural and small communities may have disproportionate impacts from exposure from the oil or hazardous material and the dispersants used to mitigate the environmental harm," the letter says. Decisions to use or not use a dispersant could negatively affect these communities, it says. They suggest the public health risks of EJ communities be weighed along with the cumulative impacts of spill response chemicals and their toxicity.
EPA's proposed revisions seek to ensure that spill response agents are effective and non-toxic, and that manufacturers provide key use and safety information, it says. Therefore, responders should have proper precautionary information to authorize and use the products safely and effectively, it says.
Further, the group "strongly recommends that an [environmental justice (EJ)] Analysis be conducted to determine what the potential considerations might be for EJ communities and what issues should be balanced and weighed within considerations of a final rule."
The letter concludes with LGAC looking to coordinate with EPA to ensure "response decisions regarding dispersants do as they are intended - minimize the impact and harm to all our citizens and to the environment."
ALERT Project
Meanwhile, the ALERT Project has laid out 10 key points related to EPA's proposed revisions, encouraging the public to become informed on the topic by reviewing what the project has flagged as the most significant changes to the existing rule and submitting comments to the agency.
The ten key points include a call for designating "the right people in charge of decision-making," which the project says means clarifying that EPA has final authority on product use, rather than the Coast Guard or spiller, leaving local people to oversee development of Area Contingency Plans -- which are plans for responding to environmental emergencies in a specific area caused by a discharge -- and preventing the spiller from overseeing environmental monitoring of spill impacts.
Second, the project says another key point is that EPA should expand the scope of Area Contingency Plans to include the protection of public health and welfare and wildlife, including conducting human and ecological risk assessments and monitoring. Third, the project calls for boosting the number of Area Committees and companion Citizens' Advisory Councils to develop Area Contingency Plans in communities at risk for spills, noting that many areas lack such committees despite the Oil Pollution Act's creation of such committees to bring local knowledge to contingency planning.
Fourth, the project says EPA should allow use of only non-toxic products that will not increase harm during spill response. "EPA proposes to retain the ban on sinking agents; however, EPA should revise the definition of sinking agents to include agents and substances that actually sink or act to sink oil," the ALERT Project says under this point. EPA should broaden further its proposal to ban products containing nonylphenol and nonylphenol ethoxylates -- considered extremely toxic -- to also include a ban on neurotoxins, endocrine disruptors, carcinogens, mutagens, teratogens, and chemicals that cause hemolysis, it says.
The agency should also go further in its proposed ban on the use of dispersants in fresh water -- as they are ineffective in such water -- and also bar use of dispersants in diluted seawater as they are also ineffective in such waters, or in any subsurface use, ban bulk form sorbents as they act as sinking agents, and bar the use of burning agents comprised of refined petroleum products, and products untested on unconventional oil and gas.
Fifth, the project says the agency should close loopholes that would negate the planning process. For instance it calls for eliminating a loophole that allows a federal or state agent in charge of oil spill response -- known as the On Scene Coordinator (OSC) -- to permit use of in-situ burning if it is preauthorized, even though such actions are subject to many variables such as wind direction and the proximity of urban populations. Instead, EPA should allow the OSC to authorize burning only on a case-specific basis with concurrence from agencies.
Sixth, the project says EPA should set out general listing, testing and monitoring requirements for all response agents and certain sorbents as a "basic right-to-know if [the] product is non-toxic and effective," for instance requiring more general product information from accredited sources to help promote better decisions on their use.
Seventh, EPA should require site-specific monitoring and testing to decide if a product works as intended and if the product did work as expected during and after use -- which would allow for monitoring, for instance, of the effects of agents even on small spills.
The eighth key point suggests that EPA lower risk to the environment and human health by ensuring the recovery of agent from the environment and the reporting of any agent use on a daily basis, rather than a month after the fact.
Under the ninth point, the project says EPA should adopt criteria for a public process to appeal and remove products that are failing to work.
EPA Definitions
The final point calls for EPA to clarify definitions, including those for agents and substances in general, dispersants, products, sinking agents and oil. During an April 8 webinar held by the ALERT Project, ALERT Director Riki Ott said EPA's proposed definition of sinking agents, -- which it is proposing to ban -- "is a very tortured definition." The definition is "cleverly worded to specifically include (not exclude) agents and substances, such as dispersants and sorbents in bulk form, that are known to act in combination with oil to create oily plumes and increase sedimentation and deposition of oil," the project says on its website. EPA should clarify this to include any product that acts to move oil below the water surface, it says.
In addition, the project is asking EPA to recognize that oil has been found to be more toxic than originally thought in the 1970s, and that it should therefore update its definition of oil. Ott said the agency should recognize that oil acts as a hazardous substance. "Since oil is a hazardous substance," the agency should also in parallel update definitions of "remove" or "removal" for oil, according to the project. For instance, this would mean disposing of recovered oil and oil debris as hazardous waste, rather than in public landfills, "where it continues to make the neighborhood sick," Ott said.
-
Governors Push Back Against McConnell's Request to Defy EPA Carbon Rule
Apr 17, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
State leaders from some Western states and New England are challenging Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's request for governors to defy U.S. EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan.
McConnell (R-Ky.) sent a letter to state leaders in March calling the proposed rule illegal and a potential job killer.
In his response, Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin (D) candidly disagreed.
"Climate change is real," he wrote. "It's a threat to humanity. We should be working harder to address it, not rolling back efforts to do so."
McConnell said states should refuse to submit compliance plans to EPA.
"Don't be complicit in the administration's attack on the middle class," McConnell wrote.
New Hampshire Gov. Maggie Hassan (D) pointed to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) and its success in cutting emissions across the states involved. She urged the Kentucky senator to reconsider his opposition.
"I respectfully disagree with your letter and would ask that states in the Midwest (and Kentucky) follow the science and take a more active effort in reducing harmful emissions, including CO2 emissions -- particularly emissions generated through coal-fired power plants," Hassan wrote.
Aides to Republican governors in Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee and Wyoming say they have not responded to the letter, and some say they will not. The same is true for Democratic governors in California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Montana, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington and West Virginia (Rik Stevens, Associated Press, April 15). -- BP
-
EPA Overreach Too Much Even for Obama's Professor
Apr 17, 2015 | OC Register
By Joseph Perkins
Laurence Tribe is arguably the nation’s foremost liberal legal scholar.
The longtime Harvard Law School professor – whose former students include President Barack Obama and Supreme Court justices John Roberts and Elena Kagan – notes that he taught the nation’s first environmental law class, nearly a half-century ago.
He also stated – in a recent email to the Atlantic’s David A. Graham – that he shares the Obama administration’s “attitude toward climate change and the urgency of meaningful action on that front.”
Tribe appeared Thursday before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in a case challenging the constitutionality of the administration’s so-called Clean Power Plan, which mandates Draconian reductions in carbon emissions by the nation’s coal-fired power plants.
But – to the dismay of the Obama administration and its allies in the environmental community – Tribe’s presentation came not in defense of the Clean Power Plan but on behalf of Peabody Energy, the nation’s largest publicly held coal company, a party to the litigation (along with Murray Energy, the nation’s largest closely held coal company and more than a dozen states).
“Tribe sells his soul to Big Coal,” decried David Roberts, a writer for Grist, an online magazine billed as “‘The Daily Show’ of the environment.” Tribe is “destroying his reputation as one of the most important and thoughtful constitutional scholars in this country,” blogged Ann Carlson, a UCLA environmental law professor.
Tribe is unfazed by such besmirchment of his good name and reputation. “I’m not for sale,” he said. “I’ll say what I believe.”
What he believes is that the Environmental Protection Agency is doing an end run around the Clean Air Act in its zeal to implement Obama’s Clean Power Plan. In so doing, the agency is “asserting executive power far beyond its lawful authority,” Tribe contended.
Indeed, Tribe told the House energy and power subcommittee last month that rules devised by EPA would command every state by next year to develop a package of laws approved by the agency “requiring coal-fired to shut down or reduce operations, consumers and businesses to use less electricity and pay more for it, and utilities to shift from coal to other energy sources.”
Simply put, it would entail “a total overhaul of each (s)tate’s way of life.”
The problem, said Tribe, in an essay published in December by the Wall Street Journal, is that “EPA, like every other administrative agency, is constitutionally forbidden to exercise powers Congress never delegated to it in the first place.”
Yet, he continued, “EPA is acting as though it has the legislative authority anyway to re-engineer the nation’s electric generating system and power grid. It does not.”
Adding weight to Tribe’s conclusion is not only his stature as one of America’s foremost constitutional scholars, but also because he has previously argued in support of Obama’s executive authority to tweak the Affordable Care Act and to effectively suspend U.S. immigration law.
But Obama’s Clean Power Plan goes too far, Tribe told the New York Times. “I’m sure he’s motivated by a deep concern for climate change,” he said, adding that the president “believes he is following the Constitution as he understands it.”
Nevertheless, said Tribe, “I don’t take responsibility for the views of former students that I think are misguided.”
EPA is attempting “an unconstitutional trifecta,” he maintained. The regulatory agency is “usurping the prerogatives of the states, Congress and the federal courts – all at once.”
Obama’s former law professor continues to share the president’s belief that climate change is a clear and present danger to the planet. Indeed, he wrote, in the Wall Street Journal, “As a father and grandfather, I want to leave the Earth in better shape than when I arrived.”
But not by having the EPA make a mockery of the separation of powers. “Burning the Constitution should not become a part of our national energy policy,” said Tribe.
-
Letters: The EPA’s Power Grab and the Poor
Apr 17, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
It’s helpful to see the Journal raising objections to the EPA’s Clean Power Plan (“The State Electricity Revolt,” Review & Outlook, April 10). But in addition to concerns about potential power outages, it should be noted that the EPA rules will lead to higher utility prices. These costs will be passed on to the average consumer and will disproportionately hurt low-income families. And so, objections to this plan must emphasize the toll it will take on struggling households.
Charles Steele Jr.
President and CEO
Southern Christian
Leadership Conference
Atlanta
The EPA chafes at any suggestion that states decline to participate in the federal agency’s plan to reorganize the nation’s electric grid because it knows it is asking the states to do more than the agency can do itself. The EPA lacks the legal authority and technical competence to require building more expensive power sources and mandating households and businesses survive on less electricity.
Left on its own, the EPA would need to “right-size” the costly power plan by adjusting the targets to match the only measure the law authorizes—improving power-plant efficiency where economically and technically possible. Governors forcing the EPA’s hand would strike a blow for state sovereignty and spare their citizens a risky and more expensive energy future.
Hal Quinn
President & CEO
National Mining Association
Washington
I do hope that your printing presses are compliant with the new section 111(d) regulations. Obviously you must cease printing unless you are in compliance. Ditto: your newsprint suppliers’ factory compliance. If coal plants, why not printing plants? Welcome to Venezuela.
Thomas M. Michaels Jr.
Naples, Fla.
-
Greenwire's Jacobs Discusses Power Plan's Future Following Federal Court Hearing
Apr 17, 2015 | E&E - TV
How does yesterday's U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit hearing on the Clean Power Plan shape the future of the rule and subsequent legal challenges against it? On today's The Cutting Edge, Greenwire reporter Jeremy Jacobs discusses his reporting from inside the courtroom and talks about potential outcomes.Transcript
The transcript for this video is currently not available. Please check back later.
-
2016 GOP Hopefuls Unite to Block EPA Water Rule
Apr 17, 2015 | The Hill - E2
By Timothy Cama
The major Republican presidential candidates have united around a bill to stop the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) controversial rule redefining its jurisdiction over bodies of water.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) announced the Defense of Environment and Property Act Friday, with Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) among the original co-sponsors. All three have announced their candidacy for 2016’s presidential election in recent weeks.
The bill would block the “waters of the United States rule,” proposed by the agencies to reassert their power over streams, ponds, wetlands and other small waterways that feed into bigger ones.
“Every year, thousands of property owners across America fall victim to the EPA and Army Corps of Engineer’s bullying tactics,” Paul said in a statement about his bill.
“I firmly believe it is the landowners’ Constitutional rights to do what they please with their own property,” he said. “The time has come to bring common sense back to the federal jurisdiction over navigable waters and place necessary limitations on out-of-control government agencies.”
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) are also co-sponsoring the measure.
In public statements, the presidential candidates have been cordial to one another, but the united front against the EPA rule shows that they are willing to cooperate on some priorities.
Republicans have long lambasted the proposed rule, calling it a massive land grab that would give the federal government authority over large swaths of private and state land, at the expense of property owners, farmers, developers and others.
They say it would give the EPA power over puddles, ditches and areas that are rarely wet, and require permits for any actions that would harm those areas.
But the EPA and Democrats say those concerns are overblown, and that the regulation would not significantly increase the federal government’s jurisdiction.
The agencies sent the final version of the rule to the White House this month for its final review.
-
Jeb Bush ‘Concerned’ About Climate Change
Apr 17, 2015 | The Hill - Ballot Box
By Jonathan Easley
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush acknowledged on Friday that he’s “concerned” about climate change, but argued that the U.S. has largely addressed carbon emissions through private sector innovation that has led to a natural gas boom.
Speaking at the New England Council’s “Politics and Eggs” series in Manchester, New Hampshire, a popular stop for presidential hopefuls, Bush fielded a question about whether his energy policy would take the environment into account.
“The climate is changing and I’m concerned about that,” Bush responded. “But to be honest with you, I’m more concerned about the hollowing out of our country, the hollowing out of our industrial core, the hollowing out of our ability to compete in an increasingly competitive world.”
Bush argued that the U.S. has reduced carbon emissions through conservation and an increased reliance on cheap natural gas.
“We can continue to reduce carbon emissions by taking advantage of the abundance of natural gas,” he said.
The former Florida governor said the U.S. must work with other nations to ensure they do the same.
“We need to restore our competitive posture, which I think our energy revolution will allow us to do, and then simultaneously … be cognizant of the fact that we have this climate change issue and we need to work with the rest of the world to negotiate a way to reduce carbon emissions,” he said.
Bush has in the past expressed skepticism that climate change is man-made.
In a 2011 interview, Bush said that while global warming “may be real,” that “it is not unanimous among scientists that it is disproportionately man-made.”
On Friday, Bush did not say directly that he believed climate change was man-made, but he consistently tied it industry-produced carbon emissions.
“Right now we are one of the counties that has reduced carbon emissions because of the natural gas revolution, converting from coal, and conservation — the two things that have driven a reduction in CO2 emissions,” Bush said.
“We are reducing [carbon emissions],” he added. “The rest of the world is the place, certainly in the emerging world, where you have greatest challenges.” -
Investors Push for Climate Change Disclosures from Companies
Apr 17, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
A group of investors is pushing the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to require that oil and gas companies provide more information about the impact climate change could have on their profitability.
The investors wrote Friday to SEC Chairwoman Mary Jo White saying it is crucial that her staff “closely scrutinize oil and gas companies’ reporting” on risks to their business like the possibility of increased government limits on carbon emissions, reductions in global demand and costly oil and gas exploration projects.
"A growing number of investors are working to integrate climate risk into their investment strategies, and obtaining more information from fossil fuel companies about their capital expenditures and related risks is a critical part of this process," the investors wrote.
The push comes one day after BP shareholders voted overwhelmingly to push for more reports on how climate change will affect the company's operations. Shell shareholders will consider the same approach at their meeting in May.
The investors on Friday's letter, organized by the sustainability group Ceres, suggested the SEC more closely scrutinize annual risk filings from "ExxonMobile, Chevron, Canadian Natural Resources and other oil and gas companies regarding carbon asset risks." -
House to Begin Work on Broad Energy Bill Next Week
Apr 17, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
The House Energy & Commerce Committee has scheduled its first hearing next week on what its leaders hope will become a broad, bipartisan energy trade, infrastructure and efficiency bill.
The committee announced an April 23 hearing that would examine the workforce title of the bill, which also contains titles on infrastructure, energy diplomacy, and efficiency, according to a framework that Energy & Commerce Republicans released in February.
The workforce title would "allow the Department of Energy, along with the national laboratories, community colleges, and public-private partnerships, to better coordinate and leverage existing resources to foster an energy and manufacturing workforce for the 21st century," that framework stated.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Add recipients
Suggested