The Urethane Blog
Everchem Updates
VOLUME XXI
September 14, 2023
Everchem’s exclusive Closers Only Club is reserved for only the highest caliber brass-baller salesmen in the chemical industry. Watch the hype video and be introduced to the top of the league: — read more
August 20, 2021
The fines are hefty for non-compliance and ignorance of the rules that no one in government informs you about is no excuse . . .
A sign of the EPA at its building in Washington on Sept. 21, 2017. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP Photo) US News
Environmental Protection Agency’s Reporting on Chemicals Questioned
By Nathan Worcester August 19, 2021 Updated: August 19, 2021 biggersmallerPrint
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has moved to change the way it gathers data on commercial chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), prompting concerns from some environmental activists at a time when the agency is already under scrutiny after whistleblowers’ allegations that it’s fast-tracking dangerous chemicals because of industry pressure.
Three Democratic congressional committee heads have written to the agency seeking a response to the claims.
The TSCA, signed into law by President Gerald Ford in 1976, was most recently revised in 2016 through the bipartisan Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, the House version of which passed 398-1. While the original TSCA had grandfathered in more than 60,000 chemicals that were already on the market, the Lautenberg Act mandated that the EPA assess the safety of chemicals already being sold.
The TSCA’s Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule requires manufacturers, including importers, to report information every four years on chemicals produced and used in commerce.
The changes to the CDR, discussed at a public webinar on July 27, would introduce Tiered Data Reporting (TDR) for chemicals. The EPA’s presentation states that the CDR would collect fewer data from manufacturers, while TDR would introduce three sequential datasets for chemicals identified for prioritization: a dataset for prioritization candidates, a dataset for prioritized chemicals, and a risk evaluation/risk management dataset for those chemicals.
The first two datasets would require reports three months after the date of listing, while the final dataset would require a report four to six months after listing.
“EPA is seeking to ensure that data collection strategies using more of the authorities available to EPA provide timely, relevant, and specific information tailored to better meet the agency’s basic chemical data needs related to TSCA, while minimizing the burden on industry stakeholders,” an EPA spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email.
“By collecting specific data in a timely sequence that is relevant to the current needs of EPA, the agency is ensuring that it has the information necessary to fulfill its mission under TSCA and protect human health and the environment without unduly burdening the information providers.”
On Aug. 5, the EPA met with representatives from the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) to discuss EDF’s concerns with the tiered data collection strategy. According to the EPA’s summary of that meeting, the EDF expressed concerns that the new rule would decrease the amount of information gathered about individual chemicals.
In a donor appeal sent Aug. 13, the EDF wrote that the proposed changes “would significantly reduce what we know about thousands of chemicals in use today, even though this information is crucial for EPA to do its job.”
A spokesperson from the EDF declined to comment on the Chemical Data Reporting rules change or the EDF’s appeal to its supporters.
“While the planned rule would reduce the CDR data collected per chemical, if proposed and finalized, it would not reduce the number of chemicals for which CDR reporting is required, and through the TDR would add additional reporting requirements for selected chemicals,” an EPA spokesperson said in an email.
According to an EPA spokesperson, the proposed TDR rule is still under development, “informed by feedback from the public meeting and comments received.”
The move comes alongside recent allegations from four EPA whistleblowers of corruption in the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, which administers the TSCA. As reported in The Intercept, the whistleblowers offered “detailed evidence of pressure within the agency to minimize or remove evidence of potential adverse effects of the chemicals, including neurological effects, birth defects, and cancer.”
Democratic leaders of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce drafted a letter to the head of the EPA, Michael S. Regan, requesting a response to the allegations.
“The Committee has a longstanding interest in ensuring EPA’s implementation of TSCA is based on sound science,” wrote Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-N.J.), Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chair Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), and Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee Chairman Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.). “We also firmly believe EPA’s scientific staff must be able to perform their work of protecting human health and the environment free from inappropriate interference and retaliation.
“The allegations made by the four whistleblowers are troubling, and, if true, raise serious concerns about EPA’s implementation of TSCA and about protections for EPA employees.”
The EPA spokesperson didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the whistleblowers’ allegations, while Republican and Democratic lawmakers didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment on the proposed TSCA changes or the whistleblowers’ allegations.
August 20, 2021
The fines are hefty for non-compliance and ignorance of the rules that no one in government informs you about is no excuse . . .
A sign of the EPA at its building in Washington on Sept. 21, 2017. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP Photo) US News
Environmental Protection Agency’s Reporting on Chemicals Questioned
By Nathan Worcester August 19, 2021 Updated: August 19, 2021 biggersmallerPrint
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has moved to change the way it gathers data on commercial chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), prompting concerns from some environmental activists at a time when the agency is already under scrutiny after whistleblowers’ allegations that it’s fast-tracking dangerous chemicals because of industry pressure.
Three Democratic congressional committee heads have written to the agency seeking a response to the claims.
The TSCA, signed into law by President Gerald Ford in 1976, was most recently revised in 2016 through the bipartisan Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, the House version of which passed 398-1. While the original TSCA had grandfathered in more than 60,000 chemicals that were already on the market, the Lautenberg Act mandated that the EPA assess the safety of chemicals already being sold.
The TSCA’s Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule requires manufacturers, including importers, to report information every four years on chemicals produced and used in commerce.
The changes to the CDR, discussed at a public webinar on July 27, would introduce Tiered Data Reporting (TDR) for chemicals. The EPA’s presentation states that the CDR would collect fewer data from manufacturers, while TDR would introduce three sequential datasets for chemicals identified for prioritization: a dataset for prioritization candidates, a dataset for prioritized chemicals, and a risk evaluation/risk management dataset for those chemicals.
The first two datasets would require reports three months after the date of listing, while the final dataset would require a report four to six months after listing.
“EPA is seeking to ensure that data collection strategies using more of the authorities available to EPA provide timely, relevant, and specific information tailored to better meet the agency’s basic chemical data needs related to TSCA, while minimizing the burden on industry stakeholders,” an EPA spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email.
“By collecting specific data in a timely sequence that is relevant to the current needs of EPA, the agency is ensuring that it has the information necessary to fulfill its mission under TSCA and protect human health and the environment without unduly burdening the information providers.”
On Aug. 5, the EPA met with representatives from the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) to discuss EDF’s concerns with the tiered data collection strategy. According to the EPA’s summary of that meeting, the EDF expressed concerns that the new rule would decrease the amount of information gathered about individual chemicals.
In a donor appeal sent Aug. 13, the EDF wrote that the proposed changes “would significantly reduce what we know about thousands of chemicals in use today, even though this information is crucial for EPA to do its job.”
A spokesperson from the EDF declined to comment on the Chemical Data Reporting rules change or the EDF’s appeal to its supporters.
“While the planned rule would reduce the CDR data collected per chemical, if proposed and finalized, it would not reduce the number of chemicals for which CDR reporting is required, and through the TDR would add additional reporting requirements for selected chemicals,” an EPA spokesperson said in an email.
According to an EPA spokesperson, the proposed TDR rule is still under development, “informed by feedback from the public meeting and comments received.”
The move comes alongside recent allegations from four EPA whistleblowers of corruption in the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, which administers the TSCA. As reported in The Intercept, the whistleblowers offered “detailed evidence of pressure within the agency to minimize or remove evidence of potential adverse effects of the chemicals, including neurological effects, birth defects, and cancer.”
Democratic leaders of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce drafted a letter to the head of the EPA, Michael S. Regan, requesting a response to the allegations.
“The Committee has a longstanding interest in ensuring EPA’s implementation of TSCA is based on sound science,” wrote Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-N.J.), Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chair Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), and Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee Chairman Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.). “We also firmly believe EPA’s scientific staff must be able to perform their work of protecting human health and the environment free from inappropriate interference and retaliation.
“The allegations made by the four whistleblowers are troubling, and, if true, raise serious concerns about EPA’s implementation of TSCA and about protections for EPA employees.”
The EPA spokesperson didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the whistleblowers’ allegations, while Republican and Democratic lawmakers didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment on the proposed TSCA changes or the whistleblowers’ allegations.
August 19, 2021
Shipping container rates to remain elevated into 2022 as US demand outpaces capacity
Author: Adam Yanelli
2021/07/20
HOUSTON (ICIS)–Shipping container rates have spiked by as much as three or four times since the onset of the pandemic and are likely to remain elevated beyond the Lunar New Year in 2022 as the global demand for goods continues to outpace available capacity.
And even when the demand starts to ease, participants on a webinar hosted by online freight shipping marketplace and platform provider Freightos said that container rates are unlikely to return to their previous levels.
“I have been in this business for 20 years, and $4,500 was the previous high I had seen for a container from Asia to the US West Coast before the pandemic,” said panellist Robert Khachatryan, founder and COO of shipping forwarder Freight Right Global Logistics.
“I think that will be the new floor,” he added. “Maybe even above $5,000. I think that could become the new market rate.”
HOW WE GOT HERE
While most chemicals are liquids and are shipped in tankers, polymers such as polyethylene (PE) and polypropylene (PP), which are shipped in pellets, are moved by container ships.
Container ships also carry a wider scope of cargoes, including consumer products like electrical appliances and automobiles, so demand for that space has risen as economies reopened after lockdown measures because of the pandemic.
The spread of the coronavirus pandemic – and the lockdown measures initiated to help mitigate it – led to a surge in demand for goods.
Consumers who were able to work from home found themselves with extra money since they were limited in how they could spend it.
Judah Levine, research lead at Freightos, said volumes began to increase, peaked in October and have remained elevated.
Container shipping has a peak season for goods from Asia to the US – from about July to October – but the added demand kept volumes above typical peak season levels.
“The impact was that all of these containers overwhelmed the capacity of the ports to process them,” Levine said.
He added that the port backlogs essentially sucked up all of the available capacity in ships and containers.
“All of the world’s container ships are active right now,” Levine said, explaining that shipowners typically have extra capacity that they can bring online for peak times. “In the current situation, there is no extra capacity, which is putting pressure all along the supply chain.”
Source: Freightos – fbx.freightos.com
Rates began to spike in Q4 2020, driven by the shortage of containers, and after some easing, shot up again when the Ever Given became lodged in the Suez Canal.
Rates continued rising recently when an outbreak of COVID-19 infections at the port of Yantian, one of China’s busiest container ports, led to lengthy delays at the port and added additional strain to the network.
IMPACT IN LATIN AMERICA
The increases in container rates have been particularly hard on Latin American markets, where resin producers have seen eroded margins because of the increased costs, which they have been unable to pass through to customers in many cases.
A market participant that imports polyvinyl chloride (PVC) from China to South America told ICIS it was quoted rates for end-July of $6,900/20-foot container from India to Argentina.
A 20-foot container from China to Argentina was quoted $9,000-12,000.
“The freight rates that you have mentioned align with what we are seeing in the market as well,” the market participant said.
“Spot rates are around $9,000-10,000/container, and even then, availability is not confirmed. Freight rates from Europe to US East Coast is also at similar levels,” the market participant said.
DEMAND TO REMAIN ELEVATED ON RESTOCKING
The panellists agreed that because of the various supply chain issues experienced this year, many businesses are running with limited inventory.
Efforts to restock barren warehouses are likely to keep demand elevated beyond this year’s peak season.
Source: US Federal Reserve
Khachatryan said that because of delays in receiving goods this year, some importers and exporters are ordering and scheduling shipments earlier than before.
He said he is seeing Christmas related items already being shipped when previously they would not be on a vessel until August or September.
“Next year we expect to see customers start ordering even earlier,” he said.
Ruthie Amaru, Freightos CEO, said it is more important than ever to look for different options for sourcing goods and to be flexible with the modes of transportation.
For example, while it would have never been cost effective prior to the pandemic to ship goods via air freight, now that container rates have spiked the gap has narrowed.
Add to that demurrage charges (a charge payable to the shipowner for failure to load or unload a ship within the agreed time frame) and the gap between rail and air could make more sense.
LIQUID TANKERS DIRECT OPPOSITE TO CONTAINERS
While container ships are facing severe shortages and price spikes, the liquid chemical tanker market is facing the opposite extreme with quite a slowdown in activity, particularly since the winter storm in February that shut much US Gulf Coast production.
“No one clearly knows what is going to happen for liquid tankers, and the more we think it is coming back, the more it is being pushed further and further away,” said one shipping broker.
After the winter storm, chemical production was at a low, and exports of product from the US slipped further.
For the remainder of Q3 and into Q4, the biggest factor that could cause a similar outcome is hurricanes. While chemical production slowly rebuilds and product becomes more available, even one significant hurricane can cause severe disruptions and declines in the tanker market.
“Other than a hurricane, I don’t think anything else can be bring this to a worse place than where we are currently,” the broker added.
Focus story by Adam Yanelli and Anna Matherne
August 19, 2021
Shipping container rates to remain elevated into 2022 as US demand outpaces capacity
Author: Adam Yanelli
2021/07/20
HOUSTON (ICIS)–Shipping container rates have spiked by as much as three or four times since the onset of the pandemic and are likely to remain elevated beyond the Lunar New Year in 2022 as the global demand for goods continues to outpace available capacity.
And even when the demand starts to ease, participants on a webinar hosted by online freight shipping marketplace and platform provider Freightos said that container rates are unlikely to return to their previous levels.
“I have been in this business for 20 years, and $4,500 was the previous high I had seen for a container from Asia to the US West Coast before the pandemic,” said panellist Robert Khachatryan, founder and COO of shipping forwarder Freight Right Global Logistics.
“I think that will be the new floor,” he added. “Maybe even above $5,000. I think that could become the new market rate.”
HOW WE GOT HERE
While most chemicals are liquids and are shipped in tankers, polymers such as polyethylene (PE) and polypropylene (PP), which are shipped in pellets, are moved by container ships.
Container ships also carry a wider scope of cargoes, including consumer products like electrical appliances and automobiles, so demand for that space has risen as economies reopened after lockdown measures because of the pandemic.
The spread of the coronavirus pandemic – and the lockdown measures initiated to help mitigate it – led to a surge in demand for goods.
Consumers who were able to work from home found themselves with extra money since they were limited in how they could spend it.
Judah Levine, research lead at Freightos, said volumes began to increase, peaked in October and have remained elevated.
Container shipping has a peak season for goods from Asia to the US – from about July to October – but the added demand kept volumes above typical peak season levels.
“The impact was that all of these containers overwhelmed the capacity of the ports to process them,” Levine said.
He added that the port backlogs essentially sucked up all of the available capacity in ships and containers.
“All of the world’s container ships are active right now,” Levine said, explaining that shipowners typically have extra capacity that they can bring online for peak times. “In the current situation, there is no extra capacity, which is putting pressure all along the supply chain.”
Source: Freightos – fbx.freightos.com
Rates began to spike in Q4 2020, driven by the shortage of containers, and after some easing, shot up again when the Ever Given became lodged in the Suez Canal.
Rates continued rising recently when an outbreak of COVID-19 infections at the port of Yantian, one of China’s busiest container ports, led to lengthy delays at the port and added additional strain to the network.
IMPACT IN LATIN AMERICA
The increases in container rates have been particularly hard on Latin American markets, where resin producers have seen eroded margins because of the increased costs, which they have been unable to pass through to customers in many cases.
A market participant that imports polyvinyl chloride (PVC) from China to South America told ICIS it was quoted rates for end-July of $6,900/20-foot container from India to Argentina.
A 20-foot container from China to Argentina was quoted $9,000-12,000.
“The freight rates that you have mentioned align with what we are seeing in the market as well,” the market participant said.
“Spot rates are around $9,000-10,000/container, and even then, availability is not confirmed. Freight rates from Europe to US East Coast is also at similar levels,” the market participant said.
DEMAND TO REMAIN ELEVATED ON RESTOCKING
The panellists agreed that because of the various supply chain issues experienced this year, many businesses are running with limited inventory.
Efforts to restock barren warehouses are likely to keep demand elevated beyond this year’s peak season.
Source: US Federal Reserve
Khachatryan said that because of delays in receiving goods this year, some importers and exporters are ordering and scheduling shipments earlier than before.
He said he is seeing Christmas related items already being shipped when previously they would not be on a vessel until August or September.
“Next year we expect to see customers start ordering even earlier,” he said.
Ruthie Amaru, Freightos CEO, said it is more important than ever to look for different options for sourcing goods and to be flexible with the modes of transportation.
For example, while it would have never been cost effective prior to the pandemic to ship goods via air freight, now that container rates have spiked the gap has narrowed.
Add to that demurrage charges (a charge payable to the shipowner for failure to load or unload a ship within the agreed time frame) and the gap between rail and air could make more sense.
LIQUID TANKERS DIRECT OPPOSITE TO CONTAINERS
While container ships are facing severe shortages and price spikes, the liquid chemical tanker market is facing the opposite extreme with quite a slowdown in activity, particularly since the winter storm in February that shut much US Gulf Coast production.
“No one clearly knows what is going to happen for liquid tankers, and the more we think it is coming back, the more it is being pushed further and further away,” said one shipping broker.
After the winter storm, chemical production was at a low, and exports of product from the US slipped further.
For the remainder of Q3 and into Q4, the biggest factor that could cause a similar outcome is hurricanes. While chemical production slowly rebuilds and product becomes more available, even one significant hurricane can cause severe disruptions and declines in the tanker market.
“Other than a hurricane, I don’t think anything else can be bring this to a worse place than where we are currently,” the broker added.
Focus story by Adam Yanelli and Anna Matherne
August 19, 2021
Pearl Polyurethane: Dubai expected to develop as international PU innovation hub
Pearl Polyurethane, a system house covering the Middle East and North Africa, announced that it has appointed a new CEO as part of an ambitious growth plan to double the size of the Dubai-headquartered company and expand internationally over the coming five years.
Martin Kruczinna (Source: Pearl Polyurethane Systems)
Former Bayer executive, Martin Kruczinna, who took up the CEO’s role in February 2021 recently oversaw a buyout deal which saw Dubai-based parent entity, Pearl Overseas Industries Ltd, sign an agreement to acquire the remaining 51 % shareholding in the company, taking ownership control to 100 %, acquiring the additional shareholding from its former German joint-venture partner, Covestro AG. The deal was completed on 26 July 2021 with Pearl putting a long-term supply and technical service agreement in place with manufacturer Covestro to ensure consistency of supply to existing and new clients. The newly independent company, now known as Pearl Polyurethane Systems LLC, said it is poised to leverage its past successes under the growth plan detailed by Kruczinna. Operating for over 25 years, the company has supplied polyurethane insulation foam systems for several trailblazing projects in the Gulf region, including Palm Jumeirah, Downtown Dubai and Ski Dubai in Mall of the Emirates. Detailing the five-year growth plan, labelled PearlX2, Kruczinna outlined the structured strategy which relies on five main pillars:
• Geographic expansion: Successfully moving beyond Pearl’s established region and gaining significant share of new markets outside the MENA-region, supported by further investment into Pearl’s international footprint to accompany this growth
• Diversification: Entering and growing new business fields to complement the current core business catering to insulation applications
• Strategic partnerships: Forge partnerships with stakeholders at all stages in the value chain to leverage strategic value through international cooperation
Other aspects of the new growth plan focus heavily on people together with a significant investment in R&D:
• R&D initiatives, sustainability & new product development: Focusing on R&D and sustainability as evidenced by the company’s recent R&D initiative launched in May 2021 aimed at improving sandwich panel insulation performance by 20 %. The company also plans to launch a new range of Pearl branded PU products and in doing so increase its market share in existing industries served.
• Talent acquisition and corporate culture: Recruiting and developing talent through ongoing mentoring and training initiatives to further build on the company’s reputation for providing industry-leading technical advice and personalised customer service, while further entrenching the entrepreneurial spirit and solutions driven ethos that Pearl has become known for.
“Key drivers positioning Pearl as market leader in its field has been the company’s ability to combine the best of both worlds: the thoroughness of a global player paired with an unwavering commitment to personalised customer service and the agility of a dynamic, entrepreneurial business to maximise value for our customers. Instead of changing this highly effective formula, we want to roll out our unique and successful business model into new markets, both geographically and also in terms of the scope of activities into new industry sectors,” said Kruczinna. “The newly structured entity of Pearl Polyurethane, combined with the reconfirmed long-term relationship with Covestro, enables us to create win-win solutions for our existing and new customers, suppliers.”
Kruczinna added: “Our new growth plan is aimed at doubling the size of our company over five years. While we plan to further increase our market share in selected MENA countries, the real leverage will come from moving beyond those borders and launching innovative new products. Our advantageous location in Dubai as a regional trading hub puts several attractive markets within easy reach. We expect our unique value proposition of being able to reliably deliver high quality service and products at competitive prices should be valued in new international markets. We intend to capitalise on these growth opportunities and position Pearl as the preferred polyurethane solutions partner for customers in a growing number of industries, not only in the Middle East but also internationally.”
Pearl Polyurethane offers a comprehensive range of polyurethane formulations and prepolymers for the production of high-performance polyurethane foams and elastomers.
Everchem Updates Archive 
Sign Up for Email Updates