Connect with us

News

GM’s Ultium Cells battery plant under investigation over chemical spill

Credit: Ultium Cells LLC

Published

on

General Motors’ Ultium Cells LLC battery plant in Warren, Ohio, is currently under investigation by federal regulators following a chemical spill at the facility. Ultium has noted that no employees were exposed or injured due to the incident.  

The chemical spill was reported to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) on Monday. An investigation is underway, with OHSA set to collect details of the incident, such as Ultium Cells’ response to the spill and whether the plant’s employees are still at risk. OHSA is investigating the extent of any exposure from the spill as well. 

As per a report from The Detroit News, the slurry that spilled on the ground and around equipment in the Ultium Cells plant contained n-Methylpyrrolidone (NMP). NMP is typically used for cathode production to create a polymer that holds active and conductive battery materials. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has noted that NMP presents an “unreasonable risk” to human health, though there is no federal permissible exposure limit for the chemical under OSHA.

Greg Less, technical director at the University of Michigan Battery Lab, noted that NMP can be quite dangerous. “That stuff is pretty nasty. It’s got a lot of safety concerns with it,” he said. 

Ultium Cells has noted that mixing operations have been halted at the facility for now. The company also used a third-party company to help clean up and contain the spill. Operations at the area of the plant where the spill happened remain paused, at least until the area has been inspected and deemed safe

Advertisement
-->

Ultium spokesperson Katie Burdette, for her part, noted that the incident shows that the company has the right safety and reporting procedures in place. “We believe this incident demonstrates that we have the right safety and reporting procedures in place and our teams are sufficiently trained to follow them. We are grateful to our team members for their swift and responsive action,” Burdette said. 

The United Auto Workers (UAW), however, has expressed its disdain at the incident. In a statement about the chemical spill, UAW President Shawn Fain criticized General Motors for prioritizing Ultium Cells’ bottom line instead of its workers’ safety. 

“This is the latest in a long line of serious health and safety hazards our members have had to endure at Ultium and underscores why it is critically important that Ultium adopt the health and safety standards that generations of auto workers have fought for and won at General Motors. These accidents are preventable and manageable. Sadly, Ultium is choosing to prioritize their bottom line over human safety,” Fain said. 

Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads-up. 

Advertisement
-->

Simon is an experienced automotive reporter with a passion for electric cars and clean energy. Fascinated by the world envisioned by Elon Musk, he hopes to make it to Mars (at least as a tourist) someday. For stories or tips--or even to just say a simple hello--send a message to his email, simon@teslarati.com or his handle on X, @ResidentSponge.

Advertisement
Comments

Elon Musk

Tesla CEO Elon Musk sends rivals dire warning about Full Self-Driving

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla CEO Elon Musk revealed today on the social media platform X that legacy automakers, such as Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis, do not want to license the company’s Full Self-Driving suite, at least not without a long list of their own terms.

“I’ve tried to warn them and even offered to license Tesla FSD, but they don’t want it! Crazy,” Musk said on X. “When legacy auto does occasionally reach out, they tepidly discuss implementing FSD for a tiny program in 5 years with unworkable requirements for Tesla, so pointless.”

Musk made the remark in response to a note we wrote about earlier today from Melius Research, in which analyst Rob Wertheimer said, “Our point is not that Tesla is at risk, it’s that everybody else is,” in terms of autonomy and self-driving development.

Wertheimer believes there are hundreds of billions of dollars in value headed toward Tesla’s way because of its prowess with FSD.

A few years ago, Musk first remarked that Tesla was in early talks with one legacy automaker regarding licensing Full Self-Driving for its vehicles. Tesla never confirmed which company it was, but given Musk’s ongoing talks with Ford CEO Jim Farley at the time, it seemed the Detroit-based automaker was the likely suspect.

Tesla’s Elon Musk reiterates FSD licensing offer for other automakers

Ford has been perhaps the most aggressive legacy automaker in terms of its EV efforts, but it recently scaled back its electric offensive due to profitability issues and weak demand. It simply was not making enough vehicles, nor selling the volume needed to turn a profit.

Musk truly believes that many of the companies that turn their backs on FSD now will suffer in the future, especially considering the increased chance it could be a parallel to what has happened with EV efforts for many of these companies.

Unfortunately, they got started too late and are now playing catch-up with Tesla, XPeng, BYD, and the other dominating forces in EVs across the globe.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla backtracks on strange Nav feature after numerous complaints

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla is backtracking on a strange adjustment it made to its in-car Navigation feature after numerous complaints from owners convinced the company to make a change.

Tesla’s in-car Navigation is catered to its vehicles, as it routes Supercharging stops and preps your vehicle for charging with preconditioning. It is also very intuitive, and features other things like weather radar and a detailed map outlining points of interest.

However, a recent change to the Navigation by Tesla did not go unnoticed, and owners were really upset about it.

Tesla’s Navigation gets huge improvement with simple update

For trips that required multiple Supercharger stops, Tesla decided to implement a naming change, which did not show the city or state of each charging stop. Instead, it just showed the business where the Supercharger was located, giving many owners an unwelcome surprise.

However, Tesla’s Director of Supercharging, Max de Zegher, admitted the update was a “big mistake on our end,” and made a change that rolled out within 24 hours:

The lack of a name for the city where a Supercharging stop would be made caused some confusion for owners in the short term. Some drivers argued that it was more difficult to make stops at some familiar locations that were special to them. Others were not too keen on not knowing where they were going to be along their trip.

Tesla was quick to scramble to resolve this issue, and it did a great job of rolling it out in an expedited manner, as de Zegher said that most in-car touch screens would notice the fix within one day of the change being rolled out.

Additionally, there will be even more improvements in December, as Tesla plans to show the common name/amenity below the site name as well, which will give people a better idea of what to expect when they arrive at a Supercharger.

Continue Reading

News

Dutch regulator RDW confirms Tesla FSD February 2026 target

The regulator emphasized that safety, not public pressure, will decide whether FSD receives authorization for use in Europe.

Published

on

The Dutch vehicle authority RDW responded to Tesla’s recent updates about its efforts to bring Full Self-Driving (Supervised) in Europe, confirming that February 2026 remains the target month for Tesla to demonstrate regulatory compliance. 

While acknowledging the tentative schedule with Tesla, the regulator emphasized that safety, not public pressure, will decide whether FSD receives authorization for use in Europe.

RDW confirms 2026 target, warns Feb 2026 timeline is not guaranteed

In its response, which was posted on its official website, the RDW clarified that it does not disclose details about ongoing manufacturer applications due to competitive sensitivity. However, the agency confirmed that both parties have agreed on a February 2026 window during which Tesla is expected to show that FSD (Supervised) can meet required safety and compliance standards. Whether Tesla can satisfy those conditions within the timeline “remains to be seen,” RDW added.

RDW also directly addressed Tesla’s social media request encouraging drivers to contact the regulator to express support. While thanking those who already reached out, RDW asked the public to stop contacting them, noting these messages burden customer-service resources and have no influence on the approval process. 

“In the message on X, Tesla calls on Tesla drivers to thank the RDW and to express their enthusiasm about this planning to us by contacting us. We thank everyone who has already done so, and would like to ask everyone not to contact us about this. It takes up unnecessary time for our customer service. Moreover, this will have no influence on whether or not the planning is met,” the RDW wrote. 

Advertisement
-->

The RDW shares insights on EU approval requirements

The RDW further outlined how new technology enters the European market when no existing legislation directly covers it. Under EU Regulation 2018/858, a manufacturer may seek an exemption for unregulated features such as advanced driver assistance systems. The process requires a Member State, in this case the Netherlands, to submit a formal request to the European Commission on the manufacturer’s behalf.

Approval then moves to a committee vote. A majority in favor would grant EU-wide authorization, allowing the technology across all Member States. If the vote fails, the exemption is valid only within the Netherlands, and individual countries must decide whether to accept it independently.

Before any exemption request can be filed, Tesla must complete a comprehensive type-approval process with the RDW, including controlled on-road testing. Provided that FSD Supervised passes these regulatory evaluations, the exemption could be submitted for broader EU consideration.

Continue Reading