It’s an old story.
But for those who have been following the story, it’s getting a little bit more complex.
The story is complicated because the US has a very different understanding of what constitutes a chemical accident.
When the world’s leading chemical safety company, the American Chemical Society (ACS), reports on the risks of chemical spills, it counts the number of times a chemical can be used, whether the accident occurs in a chemical-sensitive environment, or even if it happens in a non-sensitive setting.
It also reports how often a chemical has been spilled, how much it’s been used, and whether there have been adverse health effects.
So, the ACS doesn’t count all the chemicals used to produce chemicals, but rather the ones that are most likely to be toxic.
And while there are plenty of companies in the US that use the ACS data in a much different way than the other US chemical industry companies, there are some similarities.
There are the huge chemical companies, like BASF and DuPont, that are very big in terms of their market share, and in terms and their investments.
There is the chemical industry that has been relatively small and has a large number of employees.
The US has had more chemical spillings than any other country, but it is still a small chemical industry.
And then there are the chemical companies that are small and have very little to show for their investments in research and development, in manufacturing, in operations, and so on.
That is, there is a huge difference between the chemical manufacturers in the United States and the US chemical suppliers in Europe, and that is one of the reasons why the ACS is not a good indicator of what’s happening in the world of chemical companies.
And that is something that the ACS has been trying to get at, by collecting data on the kinds of accidents that occur in the chemical sector in the U.S. The problems with this problem There are some important problems with the ACS.
One is that the data is not very good.
The ACS does not track all the accidents in the same way.
It does not collect information on how often chemicals are used in the industry and how many people are involved in the accident.
In addition, it does not count the number or types of chemicals that have been used.
In the US, most chemical companies are relatively small companies.
They are owned by small groups of employees, mostly in research labs.
And even if there are large chemicals that are involved, there’s not a lot of transparency.
The problem with data collection The data is also not very comprehensive.
According to the ACS, there were 1.2 million incidents of chemical spillage in the country in 2015.
The most recent report that the organization released in March 2016 did not include all the incidents that occurred in 2015, but did include the incidents in 2015 that were recorded in the previous year.
That report found that the total number of incidents in the total US chemical accident rate was just over 1 million, but that the actual number of spills was far greater.
So even if the ACS reported on all the events that happened in the past year, it still doesn’t tell the whole story.
The fact that the number that it reported was so small and that the information that it included was so incomplete also raises the question of why it has been so difficult for the ACS to track the problem of chemical accidents.
So why isn’t it a useful indicator of the world-wide situation?
It is a problem because it does have some information.
But the data doesn’t show the full picture.
The data does not capture all the types of accidents.
There aren’t all the cases in which a chemical was used in a way that could cause health problems.
And there aren’t the cases that involve a chemical that is toxic.
There isn’t a complete picture of how chemicals are being used, how they’re being stored, and how they are being manufactured, and what the risks are.
But even in those areas, it is clear that the US does have a problem with chemical accident data.
And the ACS needs to get its data right The US Chemical Safety Board (CSB) has been looking into the ACS’s data for some time.
It has been asking for data on all of the chemical accidents that happened that year, and they are collecting that data and trying to make it available for public review.
So far, they’ve been very supportive.
But some of the CSB’s members have been concerned about how the ACS should be used.
For example, the CSO (Science Office) has argued that the way the ACS reports on chemical accidents is misleading, because it is only available for a few weeks, and doesn’t include information about all the other chemical accidents in which there were spills.
They say that the reason that the CSOs data isn’t updated on a regular basis is that they don’t want the CSBs data to be a snapshot of the overall accident rate.
They want the data to reflect the actual events in the year