Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 10/8/17
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Clears Chemicals Backlog
Aug 10, 2017 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
The head of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced that the backlog of new chemicals that were stuck in the agency’s review processes has been eliminated. The news has attracted both praise and criticism. -
Vermont Governor Establishes Interagency Committee on Chemicals
Aug 10, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Vermont Governor Phil Scott has issued an executive order establishing an interagency committee on chemical management. -
US CPSC to Hold Hearing on Petition to Ban Flame Retardants
Aug 10, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) will hear presentations on an NGO petition to ban organohalogenated flame retardants in several consumer product categories. -
US FDA Reports Finding Contaminants in Imported Cosmetics
Aug 10, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee has continued his campaign for greater oversight of cosmetics by releasing "troubling" statistics on contaminants found in imports. -
Court Rules That EPA Isn't Permitted to Regulate One of the Planet's Most Powerful Climate Pollutants
Aug 10, 2017 | Alternet
By Bobby Magill
One of the most powerful climate pollutants on earth, hydrofluorocarbons or HFCs, account for a small portion of U.S. climate pollution, but scientists say it’s important for countries to urgently cut them just because they’re so potent—and growing. -
NGOs Call for Product Information System for 'Clean' Circular Economy
Aug 10, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
The European Commission should consider setting up an EU harmonised product information system to improve access to intelligence on substances of concern in products and waste, NGOs say. -
EU Nanomaterial Report Published
Aug 10, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The final report of the EU's Nanoreg project has been published. -
Energy Transfer Partners Gets Go‑Ahead on 2 Blocked Projects
Aug 10, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
Energy Transfer Partners LP won permission yesterday to restart construction on two pipeline projects that state regulators have blocked in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, and company officials said they're optimistic the projects will be finished on time. -
What a West Coast Gas Terminal Could Mean for the Rockies
Aug 10, 2017 | Marketplace
By Dan Boyce
Right before heading out for its August recess, the U.S. Senate confirmed two Trump administration nominees for open seats on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. -
Energy Commission Swears in New Members, Regains Quorum
Aug 10, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has its first quorum in six months after swearing in two newly-confirmed commissioners this week. -
Bullish Storage Build Puts Pressure on $3 Natural Gas
Aug 10, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Alex Steis
Natural gas futures bulls received a dose of supportive fundamentals Thursday morning as the Energy Information Administration reported that a less-than-expected 28 Bcf was injected into underground storage for the week ended Aug. 4. -
Senate EPW Democrats Seek Immediate RMP Implementation
Aug 10, 2017 | Inside EPA
Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee Democrats are urging EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to immediately implement an Obama-era update to the agency's Risk Management Plan (RMP) facility accident prevention rule, arguing that the final rule resulted from an extensive rulemaking process and would save lives. -
Chemical Companies Urged to Update Cyber Defences
Aug 10, 2017 | Chemistry World
By Emma Stoye
The recent WannaCry ransomware attack, which affected hundreds of thousands of computers and caused disruption to major infrastructure including the UK’s National Health Service, has highlighted the vulnerability of outdated industrial control systems used in energy production and chemical manufacturing. -
U.S. Diplomats Take Softer Tone on Paris Than Trump
Aug 10, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
A State Department diplomatic cable made public earlier this week is the latest hint that President Trump's main gripe about the Paris Agreement is things he can fix himself. -
Penalties Assessed by EPA Decline under Trump, Study Finds
Aug 10, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Civil penalties assessed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are 60 percent lower so far under President Trump than at the same point in each of the last three administrations, according to a report released Thursday. -
Pruitt's Inquiry Gives Climate Science the Reality TV Treatment
Aug 10, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Keith Gaby
Like a television executive peddling reality shows, Scott Pruitt has decided to stage an exercise pitting the well-established science of climate change against a grab bag of fringe theories. -
Students, Cities and States Take the Climate Fight to Court
Aug 10, 2017 | The New York Times
By John Schwartz
Several groups and individuals around the United States have gone to court to try to do what the Trump administration has so far declined to do: confront the causes and effects of global warming.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Clears Chemicals Backlog
Aug 10, 2017 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
The head of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced that the backlog of new chemicals that were stuck in the agency’s review processes has been eliminated. The news has attracted both praise and criticism.
The updated Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which regulates new and existing chemicals in the US, mandates that the EPA review chemicals submitted to the agency for approval and make a safety determination prior to them being able to enter the marketplace. There are typically about 300 such reviews ongoing within the EPA at any given time, but the logjam had increased to over 600 when Scott Pruitt took the agency’s helm in February.
‘By the end of 2016, there was a 600-case backlog that was on top of the typical 300 new chemical cases under review at any given time, so we had about 900 cases we had not yet made a determination about,’ explains Jeff Morris, who directs the EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, adding that they receive more than 100 cases each month.
Now, the number of these new chemical safety reviews at the EPA is back to the typical baseline of about 300, mostly due to the agency dedicating more manpower to completing these assessments. Morris says the EPA doubled its scientific staff devoted to the review of new chemicals by temporarily diverting staff working on existing chemicals, and the agency also tripled the number of weekly meetings convened to address new chemical notices.
The American Chemistry Council, the US chemical industry’s trade group, praised the EPA for addressing the logjam as ‘a critical step’ that ‘shows realand deliberate progress,’. The Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA) also applauded the EPA for clearing the backlog. ‘A fully functioning new chemicals programme under [TSCA]…is crucial in helping our members remain competitive in the global market,’ said SOCMA’s managing director of government relations, Robert Helminiak.
However, Richard Dennison, lead senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund, argues that Pruitt’s EPA is trying to circumvent the requirements of the new TSCA law in the name of increasing programme ‘throughput’. He is concerned that the agency is moving away from the law’s clear requirements that the EPA rigorously review both intended and reasonably foreseen uses of new chemicals. But Morris says that new chemical reviews continue to get ‘the same level of rigour’.
Lynn Bergeson, a managing partner with the Washington, DC-based law firm Bergeson & Campbell that advises chemical companies about regulatory compliance, is enthusiastic about the developments. ‘This means that those new chemical notifications that were captured and subjected to the review procedures set out under the new TSCA law have now been cleared,’ she tells Chemistry World.
The 600 or so cases that have now been reviewed were ‘kind of held hostage’ by the updated TSCA, Bergeson says. She applauds the EPA for ‘expending extraordinary effort’ to get them through the system.
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/epa-clears-chemicals-backlog/3007848.article
-
Vermont Governor Establishes Interagency Committee on Chemicals
Aug 10, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Vermont Governor Phil Scott has issued an executive order establishing an interagency committee on chemical management. It is tasked with making recommendations to the governor around reporting processes and regulatory requirements for substances that pose potential risk to human health and the environment.
The committee's membership comprises leadership from several state agencies, including the Department of Health and Agency of Natural Resources.
By 1 July next year, it must make initial recommendations on how the state should strengthen its toxics use reduction and hazardous waste reporting. And by 15 December 2018, and biennially thereafter, it must recommend to the governor "any necessary legislative or regulatory actions to reduce risks to Vermonters from unsafe chemicals".State legislation
The directive follows the legislature’s consideration of a bill (S 103) earlier this year that would have made significant changes to how the state manages toxic substances. Formation of an interagency committee to examine chemicals was one of dozens of items called for in the far-reaching legislation.
The measure – widely opposed by industry groups – failed to pass into law before the end of the legislative session.
William Driscoll, vice president of the Associated Industries of Vermont, said the group supports the governor's creation of the committee. "We are especially hopeful that the committee will be able to find ways to streamline and possibly consolidate existing regulations and find other ways to ease compliance burdens," he said.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) also supported the executive order. It added that the committee should be given time to get up and running before any new legislative action is taken up in Vermont.
But Johanna deGraffenreid, environmental advocate with the Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG), said that far more needs to be done to ensure protection from toxic chemicals, and the executive order is in no ways seen as a replacement to S 103.
The order, she told Chemical Watch, fails to address several areas of the legislation outside of toxics reduction, including those addressing chemicals of concern in children's products (Act 188). In this respect, the bill had called for codifying the requirement to report UPC (bar code) level details on products to give the public clearer information. It would have also given the commissioner of the Department of Health increased authority to propose rules to regulate substances of concern, without the approval of a working group that includes industry participants.
The executive order also limits the focus of the intergovernmental committee on chemical management to reporting on toxics use reduction, rather than on monitoring and developing policy recommendations for all sources of chemicals of concern. And it prescribes that the committee's recommendations go only to the governor, whereas the bill directs these to the legislature.
S 103 passed the Senate and was "strengthened" in the House, said Ms deGraffenreid, but the changes were not coapproved by the Senate before the legislative session expired. However, VPIRG expects the Senate to pass the more comprehensive House version of the bill early next session and to send it to the governor's desk to be signed into law.
And she said that it remains a priority for the organisation to pursue legislation that "addresses chemicals in all consumer products and food packaging" in the coming legislative sessions.
In the meantime, she said the order is "a good first step, but we need bold action from our state legislature and governor to address this pervasive and urgent issue."
https://chemicalwatch.com/58137/vermont-governor-establishes-interagency-committee-on-chemicals
-
US CPSC to Hold Hearing on Petition to Ban Flame Retardants
Aug 10, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) will hear presentations on an NGO petition to ban organohalogenated flame retardants in several consumer product categories. Announcement of the 14 September public hearing came two years after the petition was filed, and just a few weeks after the agency's staff recommended that the commissioners reject it.
The petition, submitted by several NGOs in August 2015, asks the CPSC to name products containing any non-polymeric, additive organohalogen flame retardant as "banned hazardous substances". It would apply to:
· children's products;
· upholstered residential furniture;
· mattresses; and
· electronics devices with external casings containing the substances.
The petition attracted more than 150 comments. Among these were dozens of supporting submissions from non-petitioning NGOs, doctors, governmental bodies and private citizens.
But a coalition of industry groups argued that the petition seeks to eliminate chemicals "that are distinct from one another in their properties, uses and levels of risk, at particular exposure levels", and that a ban of the full class of substances "is inappropriate and flies in the face of sound science".
The CPSC staff agreed with that criticism in a June 2017 briefing package, concluding that "OFRs, in fact, represent several subclasses of chemicals that should be examined separately".
The staff said that the data presented in the petition provides insufficient basis "to conclude that all products defined by the petitioners with OFRs are hazardous substances" as defined by the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA). They said "not all chemicals in this class have the same toxicity under the FHSA or the same exposure potential" and the data presented do not establish any link between the presence of the chemicals and specific products.
In addition, they said, "the mere presence of a chemical (including those that may be considered toxic under the FHSA) in a person's blood or urine is not enough to demonstrate that an adverse health effect or disease may occur because levels may indicate exposures that are too low to cause these effects in humans".
The staff recommendations conclude with a statement that it will continue to monitor flame retardants in children's products and mattresses, and will work closely with voluntary standard setting organisations, as well as with the EPA, "to coordinate activities on FR chemicals, including OFRs".
The five CPSC commissioners can either accept the staff recommendation or reject it and begin a rulemaking process. It is unclear why the CPSC is acting on the petition now, or why the panel has asked for additional presentations beyond those comments already submitted.
The term of one member of the panel's 3-2 Democratic majority will expire in September, and President Trump could shift the balance by appointing a Republican to fill the vacancy. The Trump administration has already indicated it will nominate current acting chair Ann Marie Buerkle to permanently fill the role, and to serve an additional seven-year term.
The CPSC and an attorney from petitioning organisation EarthJustice did not respond to a request for a comment by publication time.
https://chemicalwatch.com/58145/us-cpsc-to-hold-hearing-on-petition-to-ban-flame-retardants
-
US FDA Reports Finding Contaminants in Imported Cosmetics
Aug 10, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee has continued his campaign for greater oversight of cosmetics by releasing "troubling" statistics on contaminants found in imports. And Frank Pallone Jr (D-New Jersey) has also asked a retailer to detail its response to reports that one of its makeup products contains asbestos.
The ranking member wrote to the Food and Drug Administration in December seeking information on imported cosmetics. The agency's response, which Mr Pallone released on 2 August, showed the most common problems found in tested cosmetics were illegal pigments and microbial contamination.
The specific examples the agency gave included:
· skin cream that was found to contain "high" levels of mercury;
· products containing kohl – a traditional cosmetic ingredient that is sometimes made with lead; and
· eye makeup containing banned dyes such as D&C Red #7 or D&C Red #10.
A "large margin" of the findings involved imports from China, said the agency.
The FDA noted that it has the equivalent of just six full-time inspectors to monitor three million shipments of cosmetics per year – an amount that has doubled in the past decade.
Of the shipments that arrived during fiscal year 2016, the FDA inspected about 10,000, or about 0.3%. The letter said 15% of those inspections resulted in what the FDA calls "adverse findings."
The agency noted that because it targets products it believes might have problems, it is unlikely that such a high percentage of products overall are problematic.
"The fact that less than 1% of cosmetics imported into this country are physically examined is startling, and should serve as a wake-up call to Congress to act," Mr Pallone said. "Congress must give FDA the authority and resources necessary to ensure the safety of cosmetics and personal care products, whether they are produced domestically or abroad."
Asbestos contamination
Mr Pallone sent a separate letter on 7 August to speciality retailer Justice Retail raising questions about a cosmetic powder allegedly contaminated by asbestos, according to testing performed for a North Carolina television station.
After the report aired on 14 July, the company pulled the Just Shine Shimmer Powder product and began its own investigation. Its laboratory testing found no asbestos, the company said in a statement posted on five days later.
Mr Pallone asked the company to provide laboratory reports, as well as more information on its investigation, including whether the FDA has issued any adverse findings related to its products.
Legislative action
In 2016, Mr Pallone and Leonard Lance (R-New Jersey) released a discussion draft of legislation intended to strengthen FDA oversight of cosmetics. A similar bill was introduced in the Senate, but the issue went nowhere despite support from industry and NGOs alike.
The Senate bill has been reintroduced this year as the Personal Care Products Safety Act (S 1113). It would give FDA authority to order product recalls, require manufacturers to provide more detailed ingredient information on labels and online, mandate that companies provide the FDA with information on ingredients and designate five chemicals for review by the agency.
The Independent Cosmetic Manufacturers and Distributers (Icmad) and the Professional Beauty Association support a competing bill, the Safe Cosmetics Modernization Act (HR 575). While that bill also would empower the FDA to regulate cosmetics more strictly, the two organisations believe it would create a better regulatory environment for small cosmetic enterprises.
Both measures were referred to committees.
https://chemicalwatch.com/58141/us-fda-reports-finding-contaminants-in-imported-cosmetics
-
Aug 10, 2017 | Alternet
By Bobby Magill
One of the most powerful climate pollutants on earth, hydrofluorocarbons or HFCs, account for a small portion of U.S. climate pollution, but scientists say it’s important for countries to urgently cut them just because they’re so potent—and growing.
Efforts to cut HFCs became more difficult both in the U.S. and globally on Tuesday, when a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency has overstepped its authority in regulating HFCs under the Clean Air Act.
The ruling leaves the U.S. without an immediate legal mechanism to control HFCs, which amount to about percent of U.S. climate pollution.
Though that’s a small part of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, they’re between about 1,000 to 12,000 times as potent as carbon dioxide, depending on the specific chemicals used to make HFCs.
That means that just one kilogram of an HFC is the equivalent of 1.7 tons of carbon dioxide pollution, said Paul Blowers, a chemical engineering professor at the University of Arizona.
HFCs lurk in the leaky refrigerator cases of grocery stores and air conditioners across the globe. Each of those refrigerator cases leaks about 10 percent of its HFCs each year. The EPA expects HFC pollution to triple in the U.S. in the coming decades, and it could grow dramatically here and abroad as more nations adopt air conditioning as the climate warms.
Blowers said HFC emissions are easier to cut than carbon emissions from vehicle tailpipes and other forms of climate pollution because it’s easier to regulate tens of thousands of grocery store refrigerator cases than hundreds of millions of cars on the road.
The ruling, by a three-judge panel, said the EPA was out of bounds when it approved a federal rule in 2015 requiring companies to replace HFCs with another gas as a way to cut America’s greenhouse gas emissions.
The ruling affects an international treaty signed by negotiators from the U.S. and 169 other nations in Kigali, Rwanda, last year to help phase out HFCs globally. The agreement, which must be ratified by the U.S. Senate, amended the 1987 Montreal Protocol to include a ban on HFCs globally. The Montreal Protocol is the international treaty banning chemicals that deplete the ozone layer.
Using the Clean Air Act to comply with the protocol, the EPA chose HFCs to replace ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, in aerosol cans and refrigerators — the main cause of the ozone hole. Without recognizing the climate impact, the agency declared that HFCs do not harm the ozone layer and are a safe replacement for CFCs.
“As we’ve moved away from ozone destroyers, we’ve moved toward climate destroyers,” said Michael Wara, a climate and energy law professor at Stanford University unaffiliated with the case.
The Obama administration tried to fix that problem by helping to negotiate the Kigali agreement and requiring companies in the U.S. to phase out HFCs as part of Obama’s Climate Action Plan. Without the ban, the EPA estimated that HFC pollution would triple by 2030.
The regulation was seen as a way to accomplish the goals of the Kigali agreement without requiring it to be ratified by the Senate, which is unlikely to do so under GOP control, Wara said.
But after the new rule took effect in 2015, two foreign HFC manufacturers operating in the U.S., Mexichem Fluor and Arkema of France, sued the EPA.
The companies said the agency had no authority to use the rule banning chemicals harmful to the ozone layer to also ban chemicals that don’t affect the ozone layer, including HFCs. Mexichem declined to comment. Arkema did not respond to requests for comment.
Major U.S.-based HFC manufacturers support the EPA’s regulation and one of them, Honeywell, intervened in the case along with the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group.
Honeywell said in 2014 that the Obama administration’s efforts to cut HFC pollution would help the company slash its most potent HFCs by 50 percent by 2020. The company planned to spend $880 million on research and development to replace its HFCs.
“Phasing down the use of HFCs is a critical step that the world is taking to encourage the adoption of technologies that radically reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) impact of refrigerants, aerosols, solvents and blowing agents,” Honeywell said in a statement. “We believe the EPA’s regulation was well-supported by the law and was in the best interests of the public, industry and the environment. We are closely reviewing the decision and are likely to pursue an appeal”
In February, the Trump administration defended the EPA’s HFC rule in court — a rare example of Trump’s EPA, which is on record as questioning the legitimacy of established climate science, defending an Obama-era climate regulation.
The ruling calls into question the U.S. ability to control HFCs without congressional action — something unlikely to happen because Trump opposes new regulations and Republicans are not inclined to create new ones, Wara said.
Wara said the court’s decision could be appealed in two ways. The federal government or another intervener in the case, such as NRDC, could appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court. Or, they could ask the full panel of 11 D.C. Circuit Court judges to review the ruling, he said.
Lissa Lynch, an NRDC staff attorney, said the organization is assessing its appeal options, including seeking a rehearing of the case before the full appeals court or urging the EPA to pursue new HFC regulations.
“We’re hopeful that EPA will do the sensible thing and fight for this important rule,” Lynch said.
http://www.alternet.org/environment/court-rules-epa-isnt-permitted-regulate-one-planets-most-powerful-climate-pollutants
-
NGOs Call for Product Information System for 'Clean' Circular Economy
Aug 10, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
The European Commission should consider setting up an EU harmonised product information system to improve access to intelligence on substances of concern in products and waste, NGOs say.
Their comments come in response to a Commission consultation on a roadmap it released earlier this year on the circular economy. This identified insufficient information on substances of concern as a potential obstacle to recycling waste into new products. At present there is no general EU regulatory framework covering this area.
In its comments to the consultation the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) says a harmonised product information system would be an "effective solution". This could combine environmental data from different pieces of legislation – such as the waste electrical and electronic equipment Directive and REACH – in a standard digital format, "making [it] more easily accessible for distinctly defined target groups," it says.
In its consultation response, ClientEarth says that in the long term, this system "must ensure relevant information (including the full chemical composition of the material) is made available to relevant economic operators, including recyclers and manufacturers of products with recycled materials".
All chemicals that meet the criteria for substances of very high concern (SVHCs) must be added to the REACH candidate list, and recyclers "must have the right" to obtain this information, CHEM Trust's response says. It adds that use of "barcodes or other tools" can improve information flow in article supply chains.Article 33
REACH Article 33 is an "important tool" in disseminating information on SVHCs, but it needs further development and improvement, CHEM Trust says. The article requires companies to reply within 45 days, if asked by consumers or their customers about the presence – above 0.1% concentration – of SVHCs in their products.
EU retailers, ClientEarth says, tend to blame the manufacturers of products for not providing information on SVHCs. And retailers are "unwilling to complain" to authorities about their suppliers' failures to comply, "in order to preserve" their business relationships. ClientEarth says this leads to a situation where retailers tend to assume that manufacturers of products are complying with Article 33.
The NGO says it is not aware of any enforcement plans from national authorities, or of any case where a company has been sanctioned for non-compliance. Meanwhile, SME trade body Ueapme has said that Article 33 is unenforceable.'Suitable' alternatives
The Commission should take action to limit the number of hazardous chemicals from entering the material cycle in the first place, NGOs say. This can be done by accelerating the inclusion of SVHCs on REACH restriction or authorisation lists.
ClientEarth has urged the Commission to "clarify and harmonise" the interpretation of a 'suitable alternative' under all relevant legislation restricting the manufacturing, marketing and use of hazardous substances.
Public consultations about the availability of safer alternatives should also be made "more visible" so that those with relevant expertise can contribute, ClientEarth says. The Commission could create a common online platform, it says, which promotes innovation and where stakeholders can share knowledge on alternative substances and technologies.
Another issue the Commission has highlighted is the presence of substances of concern in articles that are imported into the EU and are not regulated under union laws.
At the Chemical Watch Global Business Summit in Amsterdam earlier this year, experts called for a globally harmonised solution on chemicals in products. Achim Halpaap, head of Unep's chemicals and waste branch, said a global system is needed to bring all countries to a high level of chemicals management.
https://chemicalwatch.com/58135/ngos-call-for-product-information-system-for-clean-circular-economy
-
EU Nanomaterial Report Published
Aug 10, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The final report of the EU's Nanoreg project has been published.
The project, which ran from 2013 to February 2017, aimed to improve understanding of the environmental, health and safety aspects of nanomaterials in a regulatory context.
Its objectives were to:
· provide legislators with tools for risk assessment and decision making by gathering data and performing pilot risk assessment, including exposure monitoring and control, for a selected number of nanomaterials used in products;
· develop new long-term testing strategies adapted to a high number of nanomaterials where many factors can affect their environmental and health impact; and
· establish close collaboration among authorities and industry to share knowledge for appropriate risk management.
The Netherlands Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment coordinated the project. It received funding from the EU's seventh framework programme.
In June, Echa launched its EU observatory for nanomaterials (EUON). This is a public website aimed at increasing transparency of information on nanomaterials on the EU market.
https://chemicalwatch.com/58131/eu-nanomaterial-report-published
-
Energy Transfer Partners Gets Go‑Ahead on 2 Blocked Projects
Aug 10, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
Energy Transfer Partners LP won permission yesterday to restart construction on two pipeline projects that state regulators have blocked in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, and company officials said they're optimistic the projects will be finished on time.
Environmental groups in Pennsylvania reached a settlement yesterday that will allow Energy Transfer's Sunoco subsidiary to restart construction of the Mariner East 2 pipeline system, in exchange for concessions aimed at reducing the risk of water pollution and other construction problems.
Separately, the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection lifted a cease-and-desist order it issued last month that stopped work on Energy Transfer's Rover pipeline. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is still blocking work on Rover while it investigates a string of spills at construction sites.
Energy Transfer expects to finish both pipelines by the end of the year, company officials said on a conference call with analysts that was held before the announcements in West Virginia and Pennsylvania.
The Dallas-based company has borrowed heavily to build the Rover and Mariner projects, along with other pipelines around the country, and is counting on revenue from the new lines to pay down debt and pay dividends to its investors.
"We hope you're hearing we're about to get that promise accomplished here," Chief Executive Officer Kelcy Warren said.
The company said in a statement it was "pleased" with the Pennsylvania settlement.
"The agreement will put hundreds of workers back on the job as we complete this transformational infrastructure project," the statement said.
The $4.2 billion, 713-mile Rover project is designed to carry natural gas from the Marcellus and Utica Shale fields to markets in Michigan.
Mariner East 2 is a two-pipeline, $2.5 billion expansion of an existing line that carries natural gas liquids across Pennsylvania from the Marcellus field to Philadelphia.
Both projects have been dogged by complaints of sloppy construction, particularly around creeks and rivers. Pipeline companies typically try to bore horizontally underneath those obstacles, but Energy Transfer has suffered a series of leaks, which caused drilling mud to spill out.
In Ohio, investigators found more than 30 environmental problems, including a 2-million-gallon spill that coated parts of a wetland near the Tuscarawas River with diesel-laced drilling fluid. The Ohio EPA is suing the company, and FERC ordered Energy Transfer to stop horizontal drilling in some areas until a third-party investigation is complete (Energywire, July 11).
The West Virginia DEP inspected the Rover line in April, May, June and July and found problems each time. It ordered the company to stop work until it could ensure that mud and sediment wouldn't run off into local water bodies.
The DEP said yesterday that those problems have been corrected.
In Pennsylvania, the state Environmental Hearing Board temporarily halted horizontal drilling for the Mariner line in July after three environmental groups said Sunoco had 61 spills at its construction sites between April and June (Energywire, July 26).
The board had already allowed some drilling to restart before yesterday's settlement. The agreement requires Sunoco and Energy Transfer to provide a geologist's report outlining ways to prevent future leaks and spills at dozens of horizontal drilling sites.
The company will also have to inform landowners and water supply owners close to its drill sites before it restarts the work, and give them a chance to have their water tested.
The environmental groups — the Clean Air Council, Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Mountain Watershed Association — are still pursuing a lawsuit in front of the Environmental Hearing Board, seeking to have the original permits for the Mariner East 2 project thrown out.
"We still have serious concerns about the safety of the project and its compliance with environmental regulations," said Alex Bomstein, an attorney for the Clean Air Council.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/08/10/stories/1060058618
-
What a West Coast Gas Terminal Could Mean for the Rockies
Aug 10, 2017 | Marketplace
By Dan Boyce
Right before heading out for its August recess, the U.S. Senate confirmed two Trump administration nominees for open seats on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
For the first time in nearly six months, the commission has enough members to vote on permitting major energy infrastructure projects.
A proposed liquefied natural gas export terminal on the Oregon coast — twice denied a permit in 2016 — could have new life under a commission seen as friendlier to oil and gas interests.
“The first thing we’re going to do is we’re going to permit an LNG export facility in the Northwest,” said Gary Cohn, President Trump’s chief economic adviser, during an international finance summit in April.
He was referring to the proposed Jordan Cove terminal in Coos Bay, Oregon. If completed, it would be the only LNG terminal on the West Coast, allowing the U.S. to better compete with exporters like Australia and Qatar for gas-hungry markets in Asia.
“Just think of transport time from the Northwest to Japan versus anywhere else,” Cohn said.
The facility would provide the first direct access to overseas markets for natural gas producers across the interior West, including those in the Mancos Shale in Western Colorado. The U.S. Geological Survey last year announced the formation contained 40 times more natural gas than previous estimates, enough to power the entire U.S. for more than two years. It makes the Mancos the second-largest gas field in the country, behind the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania.
https://www.marketplace.org/2017/08/09/sustainability/what-west-coast-gas-terminal-could-mean-rockies
-
Energy Commission Swears in New Members, Regains Quorum
Aug 10, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has its first quorum in six months after swearing in two newly-confirmed commissioners this week.
Robert Powelson, a former Pennsylvania utilities commissioner, was sworn in as FERC’s third member on Thursday morning. Neil Chatterjee, a policy aide to Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), officially joined the commission on Tuesday.
Chatterjee and Powelson join acting Chairwoman Cheryl LaFleur as FERC commissioners.
The Senate confirmed Powelson and Chatterjee by unanimous consent last week before leaving for a month-long recess. The confirmations were welcomed by the energy industry, which has seen infrastructure projects languish while the commission has been without a three-member quorum.
FERC makes permitting decisions on energy projects such as natural gas pipelines and export terminals. Due to retirements, FERC last had a quorum in February, and it hasn’t held a meeting since President Trump took office.
This was the first time FERC has been without a quorum in its 40-year history. The Electric Reliability Coordinating Council estimates that the lack of quorum held up projects worth $50 billion in private capital.
The Senate has yet to act on two other Trump nominees to FERC: Democratic Senate aide Richard Glick and energy lawyer Kevin McIntyre, Trump’s pick to chair the commission.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/346048-ferc-swears-in-new-members-regains-quorum
-
Bullish Storage Build Puts Pressure on $3 Natural Gas
Aug 10, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Alex Steis
Natural gas futures bulls received a dose of supportive fundamentals Thursday morning as the Energy Information Administration reported that a less-than-expected 28 Bcf was injected into underground storage for the week ended Aug. 4.
Heading into Thursday’s 10:30 a.m. EDT report, September natural gas futures were hovering around $2.895, but in the half hour after the number was revealed, the prompt month contract sprung to a high of $2.989, up 10.6 cents from Wednesday’s regular session close. As of 11:30 a.m. EDT, the September contract was still threatening the psychological $3 price level as it traded at $2.985.
Citi Futures’ Analyst Tim Evans called the storage number “bullish,” noting that it could be a sign of things to come.
“The 28 Bcf net injection was bullish relative to both expectations for a more robust 36 Bcf build and the 53 Bcf five-year average refill,” he said. “The smaller build implies a somewhat tighter balance for the weeks ahead.”
In the days leading up to the storage report, Wells Fargo Securities LLC had been expecting a 35 Bcf injection, while Tradition Energy was looking at a 40 Bcf build, and a Reuters survey of 24 traders revealed an average 36 Bcf increase with a range of injections from 25 Bcf to 49 Bcf. Last year 24 Bcf was injected for the week.
As of Aug. 4, working gas in storage stood at 3,038 Bcf, according to EIA estimates. Stocks are now 275 Bcf less than last year at this time, but still 61 Bcf above the five-year average of 2,977 Bcf.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/111365-bullish-storage-build-puts-pressure-on-3-natural-gas
-
Senate EPW Democrats Seek Immediate RMP Implementation
Aug 10, 2017 | Inside EPA
Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee Democrats are urging EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to immediately implement an Obama-era update to the agency's Risk Management Plan (RMP) facility accident prevention rule, arguing that the final rule resulted from an extensive rulemaking process and would save lives.
In an Aug. 8 letter to Pruitt, Sen. Tom Carper (DE), the committee's ranking member, and Sen. Cory Booker (NJ) lead all EPW Democrats in calling for the Trump administration to reverse a June 14 final rule delaying by nearly two years the Obama EPA's RMP rule that brought new requirements for independent audits, hazard analysis and data disclosure.
“We ask that you immediately implement these critical safeguards to ensure protections for first responders, facility workers, and communities living adjacent to chemical facilities,” the senators say, adding an RMP update is long overdue. “The EPA’s final amendments to the RMP will save lives and create a safer working environment.”
The letter follows months of controversy surrounding Pruitt's 20-month delay and plan to revise the Obama EPA rule that was originally scheduled to take effect in March. The rule sought to implement former President Barack Obama's 2013 Executive Order (EO) 13650 on improving facility safety issued in the wake of an explosion at a fertilizer facility in West, TX, that killed 15 people, including first responders.
The Jan. 12 final update rule has drawn strong opposition from industry groups as well as GOP-state attorneys general (AG), including Pruitt prior to his selection to lead EPA. As Oklahoma AG, Pruitt led a July 2016 letter to former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, arguing proposed requirements for disclosure of facility data would worsen terror threats.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is currently weighing competing arguments on whether to stay, or possibly vacate, Pruitt's June 14 final delay rule, postponing the Obama-era RMP rule's effective date from June 19 to Feb. 19, 2019 to allow time to revise the RMP update rule.
Environmentalists challenging the delay have argued that a 20-month delay is “plainly illegal” under the Clean Air Act, and that the agency failed to adequately vet Pruitt's prior opposition to the rule while serving as Oklahoma's GOP AG before delaying the regulation. Democratic AGs from 11 states have also sued to block the delay.
In the recent letter, Senate Democrats back environmentalists and labor groups' long-standing arguments that the delay rule inappropriately discards the Obama EPA's lengthy rulemaking process and that the continued occurrence of industrial facility accidents shows that the update is needed to protect workers and communities.
“From 2004 to 2013, there were more than 1,500 serious incidents at chemical facilities, resulting in 58 deaths, over 17,000 injuries, and billions of dollars in property damage,” the senators say. “In addition, one out of every three school children attends a school within one mile of a RMP facility.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/senate-epw-democrats-seek-immediate-rmp-implementation
-
Chemical Companies Urged to Update Cyber Defences
Aug 10, 2017 | Chemistry World
By Emma Stoye
The recent WannaCry ransomware attack, which affected hundreds of thousands of computers and caused disruption to major infrastructure including the UK’s National Health Service, has highlighted the vulnerability of outdated industrial control systems used in energy production and chemical manufacturing.
Experts have warned in the past that the computers controlling chemical plants, factories and power stations all have the potential to be compromised. And now there is some indication that cyber criminals are increasingly viewing them as a target. James Scott from the Institute for Critical Infrastructure Technology in the US says over 350 incidents targeting energy company critical infrastructure were reported to the US Department of Homeland Security between 2011 and 2015. Furthermore, in 2016, 108 cyber-espionage attacks were reported against manufacturing facilities.
‘As the antiquated legacy technology supporting chemical and petrochemical systems ages, the networks become exponentially more vulnerable to the hyper-evolving cyber-threat landscape,’ he tells Chemistry World.
Alan Woodward from the University of Surrey, UK, who advises the government on cybersecurity, says the risks, or at least awareness of the risks, have increased in recent months. ‘What WannaCry showed was that ransomware does not just hit a computer on which some unsuspecting person opens a booby-trapped attachment, but is able to “worm” its way around an internal network to affect any vulnerable, attached device.’
Even in plants and factories whose control systems are separated from the internet, Woodward says, this ‘air gap’ can easily be inadvertently bridged by plugging in an infected USB stick, for example.
‘The networks rely on outdated technology that is “Frankensteined” with modern Internet of Things devices,’ says Scott. This can provide a route for hackers to exploit vulnerabilities in the system. In June, for example, ransomware infected a European petrochemical plant’s network via a coffee machine connected to the internet.Potential catastrophe
The consequences of such attacks could range from ‘minor disruption of a process to a major catastrophe’, says Raheem Beyah, a computer scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, US. Recent examples of cyberwarfare have shown that malware can be used to target energy infrastructure and damage equipment. The infamous Stuxnet worm – developed by the US military in the early 2000s to attack an Iranian nuclear power plant – disrupted uranium enrichment by tampering with centrifuges.
And a recent attack on Ukraine’s power grid at the end of 2016 is believed to have used a sophisticated piece of software called Industroyer/Crash Override that Beyah explains is ‘designed in a modular fashion and has the ability to send legitimate industrial control system commands’.
There’s no reason why similar approaches couldn’t be used to target other types of control systems. For example, Beyah’s research group recently used simulations to show how malware could theoretically be used to poison water supplies with chlorine by hijacking a water treatment plant. Although this was just a proof of concept, it highlights the potential consequences if cyber defences fall short.Updating defences
One issue the WannaCry attack drew attention to is the danger of using outdated operating systems, as the ransomware was designed to attack vulnerabilities in historic versions of Windows. The use of outdated systems is rife in industrial control systems, Scott says. ‘Many chemical and petrochemical facilities still rely on Windows XP or earlier versions, which have publically known vulnerabilities and are no longer supported by Microsoft or security applications. These companies lack the technology and skilled Information security personnel to secure systems, detect incidents, or mitigate or remediate breaches.’
Woodward explains that industrial control systems have a particular problem in that they are sometimes not set up to be upgraded. ‘Some manufacturers do not enable embedded systems (even those running standard operating systems like Windows) to be upgraded by end users, [and] the company that built the control systems can take some time to respond,’ he says. To address this, and ensure they are protected against attacks, companies need to invest in modernised systems and make sure they have a strategy to keep them updated.
Close monitoring of their network is also crucial, Beyah says, so that any hint of an attack can be stopped in its tracks. ‘If the networks are monitored, then malicious activity can be detected before a system is compromised or before a catastrophic even is imminent.’
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/chemical-companies-urged-to-update-cyber-defences/3007844.article
-
U.S. Diplomats Take Softer Tone on Paris Than Trump
Aug 10, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
A State Department diplomatic cable made public earlier this week is the latest hint that President Trump's main gripe about the Paris Agreement is things he can fix himself.
The letter from Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to embassies around the world told diplomats to focus on two things when discussing Trump's decision to leave the Paris pact with foreign counterparts: the president's dim view of his predecessor's commitments of carbon cuts, and capital.
"In particular, the President made clear that the United States will not implement the nationally determined contribution (NDC) ... submitted by the previous Administration," states the memo, which was transmitted to embassies Friday and first published by Reuters on Tuesday. "He has also indicated that he believes that prior financial pledges, particularly to the Green Climate Fund were not in the best interest of American taxpayers."
Trump can change both of those things without leaving the pact, according to international legal scholars.
The Obama-era NDC committed to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions between 26 and 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. Earlier this year, during the Trump administration's long back-and-forth over whether to exit the deal, U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt argued that the agreement does not allow the United States to swap its NDC for a weaker commitment. Trump said it would expose the nation to legal challenge.
The Paris deal also does not require parties to pay into the U.N. fund for poor countries, the Green Climate Fund. Trump has already ruled it out.
"These are both things where what the U.S. is going to contribute, and what the U.S.'s national contribution is are very much in the control of the U.S.," said Todd Stern, former U.S. special envoy for climate change under President Obama.
Trump's fiery June speech, on the other hand, proposed to renegotiate Paris or forge a new climate deal. He declared, "If we can, that's great. And if we can't, that's fine, too."
Friday's letter asked embassy staff to tell interlocutors that no such overhaul is currently being proposed.
"Rather, the Administration is considering options for potential re-engagement in the Paris Agreement under different terms," it states.
It's the second time in a week that the administration has walked back Trump's demand for a "renegotiation." The administration's letter to the United Nations on Friday emphasized "re-engagement" over renegotiation and seemed to assign the United States the job of finding more favorable terms for staying in Paris — rather than inviting the world to offer concessions.
Former National Security Council climate chief Paul Bodnar called the diplomatic cable "dovish" — at least when compared with the Rose Garden speech, in which the president said other countries are "laughing at us" for being duped into signing a deal that would inflict so much economic pain.
The cable declares that the "United States respects the efforts of those countries that continue to participate in the Paris Agreement" and touts areas where Trump agrees with foreign leaders.'Position of weakness'
Diplomatic cables tend to take a more conciliatory tone than a political speech by a president. But Bodnar, who is now managing director at the Rocky Mountain Institute, saw a potential power shift since the president's June announcement.
"The international community might have the upper hand," Bodnar said. "If renegotiation is off the table, which it is, and these guys are still going to seek some method of re-engagement, what exactly does that mean?"
Within hours of Trump's withdrawal announcement, the leaders of France, Italy and Germany jointly declared Paris renegotiation off the table. Even Russian President Vladimir Putin criticized the move.
"The Trump administration is kind of in a position of weakness now on this, because they have nothing else to win," Bodnar said.
John Morton, another Obama adviser who succeeded Bodnar in the National Security Council position, now occupied by Dave Banks, called the administration's effort on re-engagement "a classic case of the administration trying to have its cake and eat it, too."
Having scored political points with Trump's electoral base for pulling out of the deal, the administration is now hunting for a way to limit the diplomatic damage, Morton said. But there's little appetite to let it.
"To my mind, the blowback to the administration's announcement was frankly as predicted: fast, clear and rather unanimous," he said.
"To paraphrase, 'It's your loss; don't let the door hit you on the way out, and don't expect to be taken seriously at the negotiating table going forward,'" Morton added.'North Korea of climate change'
Jake Schmidt, international climate director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said Trump's domestic efforts against climate action have left his team with little credibility in the negotiations.
"Trump is turning us into the North Korea of climate change," he said. "It's like negotiating with Kim Jong Un when he's lobbing bombs at you."
The diplomatic guidance stated again that the Trump administration intends to remain actively engaged in Paris negotiations until it formally withdraws in 2020, "to protect ongoing U.S. interests and preserve future policy options." Experts said it remains to be seen whether the U.S. role would be constructive, limited or intentionally obstructive as parties rush to write the rulebook for the Paris Agreement over the next three years.
The guidance did clarify that the State Department would continue to lead U.N. negotiations for the United States. That's significant because some climate advocates feared that Pruitt, having played a leading role in convincing Trump to leave Paris, might seize the reins from an indifferent Tillerson.
"Obviously that creates some opening, as having a climate denier speaking for the U.S. would dramatically change the tenor of the negotiations," said Schmidt.
Stern, who spent seven years as the top U.S. climate negotiator, said the problem would be a lack of diplomatic function, not Pruitt.
"I do not think that it would be a good idea for EPA to be in charge of our negotiations in any administration," he said.
But Bodnar said that Pruitt might yet play an outsize role in an interagency process that gave negotiators their marching orders at this year's summit in Bonn, Germany.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/08/10/stories/1060058622
-
Penalties Assessed by EPA Decline under Trump, Study Finds
Aug 10, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Civil penalties assessed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are 60 percent lower so far under President Trump than at the same point in each of the last three administrations, according to a report released Thursday.
The study, from the Environmental Integrity Project (EIP), shows that through the end of July, Trump’s Justice Department collected $12 million in civil penalties from 26 lawsuits filed against companies for breaking clean air and water laws.
That compares with $36 million in penalties from 34 cases during the same time period under former President Barack Obama; $30 million from 31 cases under former President George W. Bush; and $25 million from 45 cases under former President Bill Clinton.
The analysis is based on federal consent decrees in EPA civil cases referred to the Justice Department for prosecution.
“The early returns show fewer cases with smaller penalties for violations of environmental law,” said EIP executive director Eric Schaeffer, a former EPA director of civil enforcement.
“If this drop-off in environmental enforcement continues, it will leave more people breathing more air pollution or swimming in waterways with more waste.”
EIP called its report a “snapshot,” and said a broader assessment of the EPA’s enforcement activity will take more time.
“The actions that Justice Department and EPA take over the next year will indicate whether the disappointing results so far are all we can expect,” Schaeffer said.
In a statement, Patrick Traylor, deputy assistant administrator of the EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, said the figures “say much more about enforcement actions commenced in the later years of the Obama administration than it does about actions taken in the beginning of the Trump administration.”
He added that “despite this unfair report, EPA is committed to enforcing environmental laws to correct noncompliance and promote cleanup of contaminated sites.”
President Trump has nominated Susan Bodine to lead the EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, which includes the civil enforcement office. Bodine’s nomination is pending in the Senate.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/346058-penalties-assessed-by-epa-decline-under-trump-study-finds
-
Pruitt's Inquiry Gives Climate Science the Reality TV Treatment
Aug 10, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Keith Gaby
Like a television executive peddling reality shows, Scott Pruitt has decided to stage an exercise pitting the well-established science of climate change against a grab bag of fringe theories.
It will be marketed by the Trump administration as an effort in the best traditions of scientific inquiry, but the real goal is to confuse the public and distract from the serious damage Pruitt is doing to our air, water and health.
Here’s the first red flag for anyone who cares about science: A legitimate climate exercise would be organized by scientific leaders in the field – rather than by officials with a political motivation for seeding doubt.
That’s like Pope Gregory trying Galileo Galilei back in 1633, OJ searching for the real killers, or Trump looking for 3 million illegal votes. Pruitt’s “Red Team-Blue Team” exercise – for which his agency is now soliciting participants – is a show based on everything but reality.Science: grueling and unglamorous work
Climate science is not speculation devised by a clever professor alone in his study; it’s based on satellite images, ice core samples, temperatures records, sea level measurements and millions of other data points across the globe since long before we put a man on the moon.
The conclusions drawn from such data have been challenged and refined countless times by the international scientific community. That includes NASA, the National Academies of Sciences and every globally recognized scientific organization.
A new and trust-worthy science inquiry, in other words, would move on to important, still-open questions and not waste everybody’s time with what’s already known.Cigarettes don’t cause lung cancer, after all?
Now you’re thinking, “Okay, if the science is so strong, what’s the harm?”
But just imagine the Federal Drug Administration suddenly holding a public trial to determine whether smoking actually causes lung cancer.
Then consider the FDA letting tobacco companies appoint a team that presents clever-sounding theories “proving” that smoking isn’t so dangerous, after all – just to protect their business. All that would do is sow confusion among non-experts.
It’s even worse in the case of climate change, because the details are less well-known by the general public and the issue is caught up in our partisan divisions.Beware of “alternative facts”
Pruitt is a clever man and will pick “reasonably-sounding” advocates for his position to build excuses for inaction. Growing doubt about whether climate change is real would be a huge victory for the polluting industries that enabledPruitt’s political career.
A real science inquiry would not solicit participation by fringe groups such as the Heartland Institute, known for comparing climate scientists with the Unabomber. It would hear from a range government agencies with deep climate expertise, such as the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA – and, of course, experts at Pruitt’s own agency.2 or 4 degrees? Questions remain.
So is there nothing to debate about climate science? Is every detail settled? No, of course not. Scientists around the world continue to explore the details and impact of climate change, as global decisions evolve and emissions rise or fall.
What year will Earth cross the 1.5-degree centigrade temperature threshold? Exactly what level of global sea rise should we expect by 2100?
Just as public health experts don’t gather to explore whether or not viruses cause disease, climate scientists today are focused on the real questions in their field.
Treating Pruitt’s reality TV show like a legitimate exercise in scientific inquiry would accomplish just two things: Setting back our effort to solve the largest environmental crisis facing us, and create baseless confusion.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2017/08/10/pruitts-inquiry-gives-climate-science-reality-tv-treatment
-
Students, Cities and States Take the Climate Fight to Court
Aug 10, 2017 | The New York Times
By John Schwartz
Can the courts fix climate change?
Several groups and individuals around the United States have gone to court to try to do what the Trump administration has so far declined to do: confront the causes and effects of global warming.
In California, two counties and a city recently sued 37 fossil fuel companies, seeking funds to cover the costs of dealing with a warming world. In Oregon, a federal lawsuit brought on behalf of young people is moving toward a February trial date, though the so-called children’s suit could be tossed out before that. And more than a dozen state attorneys general have sued to block Trump administration moves to roll back environmental regulations.
Efforts in the United States are part of a wave of litigation around the world, including a 2015 decision in which a court in the Netherlands ordered the Dutch government to toughen its climate policies; that case is under appeal. A 2017 report from the United Nations Environment Program found nearly 900 climate litigation suits in more than 20 countries. In Switzerland, a group of nearly 800 older women known as Senior Women for Climate Protection have sued their government over climate change. In New Zealand, a court recently heard a climate casebrought by a law student, Sarah Lorraine Thomson; a decision is pending.
In the United States, however, lawsuits to get American courts to take on the climate fight have until now gone nowhere. In 2011, the Supreme Court threw out a case filed by eight states and New York City against electric power producers. A lawsuit brought by inhabitants of Kivalina, Alaska, against fossil fuel companies over the diminished buffer of sea ice that had protected the town was dismissed by a federal judge in 2009. A federal appeals court and the Supreme Court declined to reinstate the case.
The new California cases resemble the state tobacco lawsuits of the 1990s, which argued that the industry knew and concealed the dangers of smoking, leaving the states with enormous health care bills. In the new suits, Marin and San Mateo Counties and the City of Imperial Beach are accusing the oil companies of knowing that their industry would cause catastrophic climate change and covering up the evidence.
Serge Dedina, the mayor of Imperial Beach, said his community was already dealing with coastal flooding and increasingly heavy rains, and sees more to come as the sea level rises.
“How do we make sure those responsible pay the costs so that residents of communities like mine don’t have to pay the costs?” he asked.
The supervisor for District 3 of Marin County, Kathrin Sears, said, “It’s time to hold these oil, gas and coal companies accountable for the damage they knew their products would cause.”
Vic Sher, the lawyer whose firm developed the California cases, said the earlier unsuccessful climate cases had relied on federal common law, which the courts decided could not be applied because common law on these issues was displaced by the Clean Air Act. His case, he noted, is grounded instead in state common law, which was unaffected by the prior rulings.
And California, he said, might only be the beginning of this litigation: “Filing these cases has led to a lot of interest in other communities.”
Kent Robertson, a spokesman for Chevron, one of the targets of the case, said that the company recognized the threat of climate change, but that the new lawsuits were not the proper way to address the problem. “Chevron welcomes serious attempts to address the issue of climate change, but these suits do not do that,” he said.
Chevron opposes the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement, as do most major fossil-fuel companies. Fighting climate change is a “global issue,” Mr. Robertson said, but suits filed by counties and cities “will only serve special interests at the expense of broader policy, regulatory and economic priorities.”
The case brought on behalf of young people by the group Our Children’s Trust has broader goals than the California cases: to force the federal government to fight climate change aggressively.
“These children’s lives and their security are threatened by what the government is doing,” said Julia Olson, one of the lead lawyers in the case.
The case began under the Obama administration, which the plaintiffs argue had not taken sufficient steps to avoid the effects of global warming.
“Even the minimal steps that were taken by, for example, the Obama administration are now being reversed by the Trump administration,” Ms. Olson said.
The case has so far survived efforts by the Obama and Trump administrations to have it dismissed, and the lawsuit’s progress led industry groups that had added themselves to the case, in order to oppose the children’s group, to quietly withdraw.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, however, has now asked for new briefs from the parties after the Trump administration asked the court to step in and review decisions by the Federal District Court judge, Ann Aiken. Legal experts said that Judge Aiken’s 2016 decision to let the case move forward had been unexpected and that it was not surprising that the appeals court wanted to take a closer look.
One of the plaintiffs, 17-year-old Xiuhtezcatl Martinez, said, “I’m still confident it will make it to court in February.” The case, he added, “has a lot of opportunity and ability to create some tangible and long-lasting change.”
Michael Burger, the executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, said of the California and Oregon cases: “They are both bold and ambitious litigation strategies that at first blush will raise eyebrows, and will encounter a certain degree of skepticism. But they both have a chance.”
The pressure of litigation could also lead companies to alter their practices or work with lawmakers on a deal, as the tobacco companies did to resolve their litigation.
Perhaps the most effective litigators in the fight against climate change could turn out to be state attorneys general. During the Obama administration, conservative attorneys general like Oklahoma’s Scott Pruitt, who had a particularly close relationship with fossil fuel interests, fought environmental initiatives and often had private-sector players as fellow plaintiffs.
Now Mr. Pruitt heads the Environmental Protection Agency, and progressive attorneys general, especially New York’s Eric T. Schneiderman, are suing just as enthusiastically, along with environmental groups, to counter the administration’s efforts to roll back climate change regulations. Mr. Schneiderman and Massachusetts’s attorney general, Maura Healey, are also spearheading an investigation of Exxon Mobil’s research and actions on climate change.
Their pushback could already be having an effect. Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency reversed itself on a one-year delay it had announced on enforcing a rule regarding ozone — one day after attorneys general filed a lawsuit challenging the delay.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/10/climate/climate-change-lawsuits-courts.html
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested