Preview Newsletter
NI - ACC PM 9/28/2015
-
ICCA Releases Principles for Identifying Endocrine Disruptors
Sep 28, 2015 | IHS Chemical Week
By Michael Ravenscroft
The International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) has released a set of 11 recommendations related to endocrine disruptors. -
(ACC Blog) Had We Been Given the Opportunity, Here’s What We Would Have Offered the NIEHS on its New NTP RoC Handbook
Sep 28, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
By Nancy Beck
One way in which the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) National Toxicology Program (NTP) could demonstrate its commitment to transparency is by seeking public comment on its guidance documents prior to finalizing and implementing them. animal and mechanistic studies, which are often more widely available than data from human studies. Unfortunately, NTP does not consider these information streams as sufficiently informative or important to help inform human health hazards. The current NTP listing criteria can be fulfilled with two positive animal studies, which are assumed to be relevant to humans unless there is compelling evidence otherwise. However, NTP does not explain its standards for what constitutes compelling evidence, and this gap decreases the transparency of their decisions. There is no doubt that NTP’s previous “black box” approach for developing the RoC needed to be changed, and the creation of its Handbook is a step in the right direction. However, it would be premature to view it as complete. It should be treated as a work in progress that could greatly benefit by incorporating review and comments from additional experts. There is broad recognition in the NRC comments and elsewhere of the value of public input and dialogue, and so we strongly encourage NIEHS and other federal agencies that are developing and incorporating systematic review practices into their chemical specific evaluations to ensure that “handbooks,” “guidance documents,” and other important tools benefit from stakeholder input and dialogue. -
TSCA Part 1: Looking Back Before Moving Forward
Sep 28, 2015 | BNA
By Pat Rizzuto
Senior senators are calling for an update of the Toxic Substances Control Act — the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, S. 697 — to reach the Senate floor this fall. It’s timely, then, to look back at why. -
An Important New Reason To Keep Pesticides Away From Children
Sep 28, 2015 | Enviromental Working Group
By Megan Boyle
Despite major improvements in treatment and survival, children’s cancer rates are rising in the United States, leaving parents and scientists alike searching for evidence of what’s behind the trend. A new report sheds light into one avoidable risk: household pesticides. -
Warning of Dangers to Health, Environment, UN Experts Urge Phase-out of Hazardous Pesticides
Sep 28, 2015 | UN News Service
Two independent United Nations human rights experts today called for an immediate worldwide phase-out on use of highly hazardous pesticides that are inflicting significant damage on human health and the environment. -
If Shutdown is Averted, Cyberbill Faces Smooth Sailing
Sep 28, 2015 | Washington Examiner
By Charlie Mitchell
If Congress can get past the threat of a government shutdown this week, the prospects for Senate floor action on cybersecurity legislation would brighten appreciably. -
Limited Progress Seen Even as More Nations Step Up on Climate
Sep 28, 2015 | New York Times
By Justin Gillis and Somini Sengupta
The pledges that countries are making to battleclimate change would still allow the world to heat up by more than 6 degrees Fahrenheit, a new analysis shows, a level that scientists say is likely to produce catastrophes ranging from food shortages to widespread extinctions of plant and animal life. -
Alaska Senator Blames Regulations for Pushing Shell out of Arctic
Sep 28, 2015 |
By Devin Henry
Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) is blaming federal regulations for forcing Royal Dutch Shell to abandon its Arctic drilling plans. -
US Drilling States Guided on Handling Quakes
Sep 28, 2015 | ABC News & Associated Press
By Julie Carr Smyth
A group of U.S. drilling states, seismologists, academics and industry experts issued guidance Monday in a frank new report on handling human-induced earthquakes caused by hydraulic fracturing or the disposal of fracking wastewater -
President Obama Should Do Better Than EPA Standard That Fails to Protect Americans From Harmful Smog Levels
Sep 28, 2015 | National Resources Defense Council
By John Walke
By this Thursday, President Obama has to decide whether to set safe health standards for smog pollution that will safeguard all Americans--or whether he will settle for a weaker, unprotective standard, one that will leave children, the elderly and asthmatics especially vulnerable. -
Mayor De Blasio Builds on NYC Clean Heat Success, Launches Ambitious Building Efficiency Program
Sep 28, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Abbey Brown
Building on the momentum of Climate Week NYC and the Pope’s visit to New York last week, Mayor Bill de Blasio announced today the launch of an ambitious new program called the NYC Retrofit Accelerator. -
Rail Service Threatened as Deadline for Train Safety System Looms
Sep 28, 2015 | New York Times
By Ron Nixon
Even after spending nearly $6 billion, the rail industry says it will not be able to meet its year-end, government-imposed deadline to install a system known as positive train control, which is intended to prevent collisions or derailments caused by excessive speed. -
Pipeline Mergers Trump Drilling M&A As Energy Transfer Offers $37.7B For Williams
Sep 28, 2015 | Forbes
By Antoine Gara
Slumping energy prices are leading to a flurry of deal-making in the oil patch as companies merge in order to combine their resources to weather the market downturn.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
-
ICCA Releases Principles for Identifying Endocrine Disruptors
Sep 28, 2015 | IHS Chemical Week
By Michael Ravenscroft
The International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) has released a set of 11 recommendations related to endocrine disruptors. The organization’s “Principles for Identifying Endocrine-Active and Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals” is aimed at promoting reliability, consistency, and scientific integrity in the screening and testing of chemicals for endocrine activity and endocrine disruption, ICCA says.
Access to full text unavailable – subscription required.
Story can be found here: http://www.chemweek.com/sections/news_briefs/74017.html
-
Sep 28, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
By Nancy Beck
One way in which the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) National Toxicology Program (NTP) could demonstrate its commitment to transparency is by seeking public comment on its guidance documents prior to finalizing and implementing them. Not only would this help NTP to develop a robust approach, but it would also allow outside experts, all with diverse backgrounds and perspectives, to contribute what they have learned over the course of decades of experience.
When the National Research Council (NRC) conducted their review of the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) in 2014, they stressed the importance of ensuring broad and diverse stakeholder engagement in the IRIS process. There is no reason for the NTP program to be held to different standards, especially when developing new approaches that are relevant to multiple agencies and stakeholders.
With the publication earlier this summer of its new “Handbook for Preparing Report on Carcinogens Monographs,” NTP missed a valuable opportunity to increase confidence in the program’s accountability to the public and ensure its approaches and conclusions are based on the best available methodologies and information.
What the Handbook is and why it matters
The Handbook provides guidance and instructions for developing the Report on Carcinogens (RoC)—specifically, preparing monographs (focused evaluations) for substances the NTP considers for listing in the RoC. The monographs are the product of a literature-based review and evaluation. The Handbook is designed to provide a clear and formal process for NTP to follow in creating the RoC.
The Handbook is important because many stakeholders see the RoC as an authoritative body on the state of the science for a particular chemical or substance. RoC listings inform decisions by outside groups, including states and other federal agencies, to help manage the safety of certain chemicals and whether they should be present in products.
While NTP has always described its process for conducting literature reviews, the Handbook is essentially the first of its kind. It describes the actual approach for conducting a scientific evaluation for the RoC and includes sections on identifying and selecting studies, extracting data from studies, and evaluating the quality and utility of individual studies. It essentially spells out a process for NTP to follow that will determine the fate of a specific chemistry.
Although ACC views the current version of the Handbook as a needed addition to the NTP chemical review process, the guidance is not as strong as it should be—or as it could have been, if NIEHS had allowed other experts to offer their feedback first.
Below, there are three areas where NTP delivered improvements with its Handbook and seven significant and impactful areas where it could have delivered more improvements had it taken full advantage of the vast expertise outside of NTP.
What the Handbook deliversStandardized Approach: One important benefit of the new Handbook is that it creates a standardized approach for preparing RoC monographs. In theory, this approach would allow any third party to follow the guidance provided by the Handbook and conduct an independent review. It also enables interested parties to evaluate the monographs against the Handbook’s standards. If the standardized approach falls short, however, the scientific evaluations will suffer.Quality and Utility Discussions: Another benefit the Handbook delivers is its emphasis on the importance of clearly articulating the standards for judging quality and utility of research before beginning an assessment. When conversations about quality and utility take place prior to an assessment, scientists can ensure everyone is on the same page before beginning the hard work of conducting reviews, rather than afterwards.Sound Decisions (potentially): Most importantly, if the guidance provided is sound, the Handbook can help ensure the decisions the NTP makes about RoC candidate chemicals are well-informed, based on a robust evaluation of the scientific evidence, consistent with one another, and relatively simple to evaluate and understand.
What the Handbook missedTransparency: As mentioned earlier, the NTP could have demonstrated its commitment to transparency and accountability to the public by inviting outside comment on the Handbook prior to publishing it. Although the Handbook was subject to review by five individuals, two of them are former NTP board members, and, it appears, none of them specialize in the systematic review approaches NTP is trying to implement. In addition, the five reviewers do not represent a diverse set of stakeholders and scientific perspectives.Weight-of-Evidence: NTP doesn’t explain how negative evidence or conflicting evidence will be considered during the data integration step, nor does NTP emphasize that the highest quality/utility studies should be given the greatest weight. For instance, in NTP’s example of presenting tumor data from animal studies, the figure does not take study quality into account. Thus readers of the figure can come away with a misleading interpretation of the data. Similarly, the evidence-based tables should include the overall quality determination for the study.Mechanistic Data: For mechanistic data (critical information that may explain how chemicals act in animals and in humans), NTP seems to only rely on authoritative and secondary reviews. It is not clear why NTP would discount primary literature that would be extremely helpful. NTP also discusses relying on characteristics of carcinogenesis; however, the publication NTP relies on here is not publicly available, another example of NTP falling short when it comes to transparency. In addition, mechanistic data is useful for more than helping to interpret other studies, yet NTP does not seem to take full advantage of the utility of mechanistic data.Strength of Association: It is disappointing that NTP does not consider the strength of an association to be critically important. The Handbook suggests that for human studies, there could still be causal associations even though the strength of evidence (e.g., relative risk ratio) is weak. It’s not clear how NTP can infer causality if an association is weak.Listing Criteria: The NTP missed an opportunity to update the listing criteria for known and reasonably anticipated carcinogens. The current standards used by NTP do not consider the weight of all the available evidence but follow an incomplete “strength of some evidence” approach. If it is not clear why this is radically incomplete, imagine if a trial judge instructed the jury to follow the same protocol: “Ignore this piece of conflicting evidence and focus instead on whether these bits seem convincing enough—by themselves”!Confounding: When evaluating human studies, it is normal to consider factors that may confound a study result; NTP does not consider confounding as part of the study quality/utility evaluation but treats it separately. As the ability to understand and dissect confounding influences on a study relate directly to the value and quality of a study, these findings should be incorporated into the overall study quality/utility rating.Animal Studies: NTP focuses predominantly on the evaluation of human studies and spends less time discussing animal and mechanistic studies, which are often more widely available than data from human studies. Unfortunately, NTP does not consider these information streams as sufficiently informative or important to help inform human health hazards. The current NTP listing criteria can be fulfilled with two positive animal studies, which are assumed to be relevant to humans unless there is compelling evidence otherwise. However, NTP does not explain its standards for what constitutes compelling evidence, and this gap decreases the transparency of their decisions.
There is no doubt that NTP’s previous “black box” approach for developing the RoC needed to be changed, and the creation of its Handbook is a step in the right direction. However, it would be premature to view it as complete. It should be treated as a work in progress that could greatly benefit by incorporating review and comments from additional experts.
There is broad recognition in the NRC comments and elsewhere of the value of public input and dialogue, and so we strongly encourage NIEHS and other federal agencies that are developing and incorporating systematic review practices into their chemical specific evaluations to ensure that “handbooks,” “guidance documents,” and other important tools benefit from stakeholder input and dialogue.
-
TSCA Part 1: Looking Back Before Moving Forward
Sep 28, 2015 | BNA
By Pat Rizzuto
Senior senators are calling for an update of the Toxic Substances Control Act — the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, S. 697 — to reach the Senate floor this fall. It’s timely, then, to look back at why.
Modernizing TSCA is supported by industry groups, states, nonprofits and the Environmental Protection agency. All of them agree on two key points:
First, the EPA should have the authority to get hazard and exposure data so it can decide when chemicals or particular uses of them present risks that should be managed.
Second, the agency needs the resources and authorities to carry out risk management decisions.
Such concepts seem so basic it’s hard to understand why the 39-year-old statute wouldn’t have given the EPA that authority already.
To help explain, we turned to a 2011 forum organized by the Chemical Heritage Foundation, a group whose mission is to foster dialogue on science and technology in society. The foundation brought together five former EPA officials who oversaw chemicals management at the agency over four decades. The five shared their experiences implementing TSCA.
The former officials —Glenn Schweizer, Charles Elkins, Mark Greenwood, Charles Auer and James Aidala—each offered particular insights. Each agreed, however, on key problems in the law that thwarted Congress’ intention to give the agency oversight over chemicals already in commerce and ones that manufacturers would like to sell.
Here are some of their comments from the Chemical Heritage Foundation’s TSCA Oral History Project. They agreed on these points:
TSCA’s stipulations made it extremely hard for the EPA to obtain from chemical manufacturers toxicity and other data about chemicals in commerce:
“In my view the central failing of TSCA was the inability to create the hazard and exposure information needed to inform decisions.” — Charles Auer, a chemist who worked at EPA for 33 years and directed the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) from 2002 to 2009.
TSCA lacks an agenda or deadlines:
“This is a statute that doesn’t have an agenda. … If you don’t have an agenda it’s very difficult to stay on course.” — Mark Greenwood, an attorney in the Office of General Counsel from 1978 to 1990 and OPPT director from 1990 to 1994.
“Deadlines help you be accountable and compete for resources.”—James Aidala, associate assistant administrator of prevention, pesticides and toxic substances from 1993 to 2000.
Different administrations had different agendas:
“We had a section 6 hit list of a dozen chemicals that should be controlled in some way. … We had a plan. We laid it all out, timetables for each section [of TSCA]. .... When the new administration came in, we were told to forget it.” — Glenn Schweitzer, the first director of the EPA's Office of Toxic Substances (OTS) from 1973 to 1977.
Industry’s views were dominant, while other groups were absent from the discussion:
“The only people the agency heard from were the regulated industry.” —Charles Auer.
“You’re sitting there across from the industry representatives who are telling you how much this will cost them and how they don’t want to do the work, and you’re saying as the director, ‘But we need to do this.’ They’re looking you in the eye and saying, ‘Why? Who’s asking you to?’ And in fact no one is asking you to.” — Charles `Chuck’ Elkins, director of the OTS from 1986 to 1990.
-
An Important New Reason To Keep Pesticides Away From Children
Sep 28, 2015 | Enviromental Working Group
By Megan Boyle
Despite major improvements in treatment and survival, children’s cancer rates arerising in the United States, leaving parents and scientists alike searching for evidence of what’s behind the trend. A new report sheds light into one avoidable risk: household pesticides.
Children exposed to insecticides inside their homes have a 47 percent higher risk of developing certain cancers in childhood, according to the report by Alex Lu and his colleagues at the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health.
The research team examined 16 high-quality studies of children’s risks and found that indoor exposure to insecticides was associated with higher rates of leukemia and lymphoma, the most common cancers diagnosed in children. Exposure to outdoor herbicides (weed killers), but not insecticides (bug killers), was associated with 26 percent higher childhood leukemia risk.
Due to the complexity of studying people in the real world, there aren’t any studies examining whether childhood exposures to pesticides increase the risk of developing cancer in adulthood. But childhood exposure could also be causing health issues that manifest later in life.
What can parents do to protect their children? Stop using pesticides on your lawn and garden. Indoors, use pesticides only as a last resort. Then follow these tips to keep your home pest-free.
Take preventive steps. You can make changes in your home to deter pests like roaches, ants, wasps and rodents from living there in the first place. Schools and daycares should do the same.Reduce pest temptations. Pests are attracted to food and water. Store food securely in airtight bins, containers or the refrigerator. Don’t leave food or liquids out overnight and take out the trash regularly. Remember your pet’s food is just as tempting to a pest as your own.Clean thoroughly and often. Minimize food crumbs by regularly cleaning kitchen counters, tables, ovens and stovetops, and anywhere else crumbs collect, such as cabinet corners. Visit EWG’s Guide to Healthy Cleaningfor product recommendations.Do your kids leave a trail of crumbs throughout the house? Those remnants may be collecting on floors, in carpet fibers and along baseboards. Vacuum often – vacuums equipped with a HEPA filter are best. Bonus: this helps eliminate pest eggs as well.Block their paths. How do pests get into your home in the first place? They commonly enter through small holes or cracks in walls, windows and floors. Block these openings with caulk, paint, screens or other sealants. If you don’t know a pest’s point of entry, look for droppings or track marks, then follow the trail.Stay tidy. Pests look for places to hide, so try to limit clutter and piles. Completely empty and clean your pantry periodically, as well as cabinets under sinks.
Try natural treatment options. If pests still find their way into your home, you should consider a natural treatment option. Some families have success with herbs like rosemary, spices like cinnamon or essential oils like tea tree. You might also use a trap. There are both kill and no-kill choices on the market.
Always follow safety precautions. If your pest problem requires chemical treatment, always exercise caution to reduce harmful exposure to your family. Read product labels and instructions, and follow safety guidelines. Use only the minimum amount of pesticide recommended, wear gloves and open windows and doors for ventilation. Try to keep your children and loved ones out of affected rooms and thoroughly clean the areas after treatment. Here are more tips for safely handling pesticides indoors.
Watch out for pet treatments. Another common source of indoor pesticide exposure is insecticidal treatments for pets, such as flea or tick medication for dogs and cats. Preventive measures can reduce the need for these treatments: frequent baths, brushing and combing fur, avoiding high-risk pest areas (particularly in regions where ticks are common) and vacuuming often to catch both bugs and their eggs.
If you choose to use an insecticidal treatment, pick the least toxic option. Follow safely instructions, wear gloves and wash your hands immediately. Aim to keep children away from pets for 24 hours after treatment, and encourage your pets to lounge away from popular gathering places, like couches or bedspreads. The treatment can rub off on those surfaces, and then onto your kids. Here are othertips from the EPA on how to protect your pets from fleas and ticks.
Consider your diet. Another source of pesticide exposure is diet, particularly produce. The U.S. Department of Agriculture detected pesticide residues in almost two-thirds of the 3,015 produce samples they tested in 2013. Many of those fruits and vegetables include the popular foods kids eat every day, such as apples, peaches and nectarines.
To reduce pesticide exposure in your family’s diet, choose foods that are USDA-certified organic. EWG’s Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce lists the conventionally-grown fruits and vegetables that have the highest amount of pesticide residues in tests. If you have limited access to organic food or are restricted by budget, these fruits and vegetables are a great place to start. And always wash produce before eating.
-
Warning of Dangers to Health, Environment, UN Experts Urge Phase-out of Hazardous Pesticides
Sep 28, 2015 | UN News Service
Two independent United Nations human rights experts today called for an immediate worldwide phase-out on use of highly hazardous pesticides that are inflicting significant damage on human health and the environment.
“Workers, children and others at risk continue to suffer severe impacts from hazardous pesticides,” the Special Rapporteur on human rights and hazardous substance and waste, Baskut Tuncak, said in a news release. “Those living in danger cannot wait several years for the next opportunity. It is imperative that States take collective action now.”
The call for the phase-out by Mr. Tuncak and the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Hilal Elver, comes as States, businesses and other parties from around the world gather in Geneva, Switzerland, for the fourth meeting of the International Conference on Chemicals Management. The week-long gathering is the last of its kind before 2020, the year by which States pledged to achieve sound management of chemicals following the 2002 Earth Summit.
Mr. Tuncak noted that, since the 2002 Earth Summit, coordinated global action to reduce highly hazardous pesticide use has not materialized. “Risks are particularly grave in developing countries, many of who import these highly hazardous pesticides despite having inadequate systems to reduce risks,” he said.
“There are still a significant proportion of pesticides being used around the world which can be considered as highly hazardous,” he warned, “despite international pesticide experts’ claim that there are almost always safer alternatives to highly hazardous pesticides.”
Criteria developed by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) include pesticides with high acute toxicity, with established chronic toxic effects including the ability to cause cancer even at very low exposure levels, or which are very persistent in the environment or in organisms.
“Often, the residues of these hazardous pesticides are found in the food that we consume and this impedes individual’s right to access safe healthy food. The exposure is particularly serious for farmworkers and their families. Children are exposed to highly hazardous pesticides through their mother’s milk,” said Ms. Elver.
“Urgent action is needed. States must reorient their methods of food production towards systems that inflict less harm, are more sustainable, and truly contribute to the realization of all human rights,” she added.
Independent experts or special rapporteurs are appointed by the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council to examine and report back on a country situation or a specific human rights theme. The positions are honorary and the experts are not UN staff, nor are they paid for their work.
-
If Shutdown is Averted, Cyberbill Faces Smooth Sailing
Sep 28, 2015 | Washington Examiner
By Charlie Mitchell
If Congress can get past the threat of a government shutdown this week, the prospects for Senate floor action on cybersecurity legislation would brighten appreciably.
But opponents of the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, which is primed for Senate consideration this fall, are promising to make the process as painful as possible for senators and companies that back the legislation.
A large bipartisan majority in the House has already passed info-sharing legislation, so the Senate is now the focus of intense lobbying efforts.
How painful could opponents make it? A recent show of support for legislation on info-sharing by 13 technology companies prompted a sharp-edged social media campaign denouncing the firms for "betraying" online privacy principles.
By the middle of last week, the digital rights group Fight for the Future was claiming 15,000 "angry emails" had been sent to companies that signed a Sept. 14 letter to congressional leaders calling for action on info-sharing.
The industry letter was orchestrated by BSA/The Software Alliance and signed by Microsoft, Apple, Adobe Systems, IBM, Oracle, Siemens, Symantec, Altium, AutoDesk, CA Technologies, DataStax, MiniTab and Salesforce.
Of note, the industry letter cited the potential benefits of "cyberthreat information sharing legislation" without specifically mentioning the Senate Intelligence Committee-passed cyberbill or similar House-passed measures. Further, it buried the endorsement within a laundry list of tech-sector legislative priorities.
It was a relatively mild call for action, especially in comparison to the pro-cyberbill campaigns undertaken by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other industry groups. The U.S. Chamber has been going toe-to-toe with online privacy activists in the social media battle over the bill.
Many industry groups say improved information sharing among companies and between industry and government is essential to better understanding and responding to a fast-changing cyberthreat environment.
The pending cyberlegislation contains extensive elements to protect "personally identifiable information" within the sharing process, supporters say.
Tech companies risk far greater political blowback for endorsing cyberlegislation than do groups representing the energy or banking sectors, for example.
The digital rights activists were particularly offended by the declaration of support for cyberlegislation by companies like Microsoft, which famously dropped their backing for similar House legislation in previous years over privacy concerns.
Privacy groups announced they would boycott web-hosting and other services provided by companies that endorse CISA.
According to Fight for the Future, "The public backlash has come with a simple message: 'You betrayed us.'"
The group wrote: "Fight for the Future plans to continue exposing companies that support anti-user legislation like CISA, and will work to get every popular website and tech company on the record about this crucial legislation. Many popular companies have opposed bills like CISA including Reddit, Imgur, Namecheap, Wordpress and Mozilla."
Is the social media campaign having an impact?
"Vocal minorities," commented one Senate staffer in an office actively pushing to get the bill to the floor. "It sure hasn't reached the level of a couple of years ago." The source said protests pale in comparison to the online "blackout" organized in 2012 in opposition to the "Stop Online Privacy Act."
And yet, if and when the info-sharing bill makes it to the floor, the digital rights groups' position will be amplified by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who delivered what amounted to a manifesto against info-sharing legislation during an early August floor speech.
Wyden said the "voluntary" info-sharing process in the bill was a sham, because individuals would have no say in whether their personal data was shared between industry and government.
The Oregon Democrat said the liability protection offered under the bill strips citizens of their right to seek legal redress when their personal information is mishandled.
And, Wyden said, leading technologists believe the bill just wouldn't do much to improve cybersecurity.
Despite this determined opposition, it's difficult to see opponents being able to block the bill if it does reach the floor.
Based on past comments and procedural votes, more than a dozen Democrats seem inclined to vote for an info-sharing bill as long as the process is seen as fair and senators have a chance to adjust the measure through amendments.
No more than a handful, and perhaps only two or three, Republicans are seen in the "no" camp. And the White House is encouraging Senate passage, which would lead to negotiations over a final version of the legislation.
The calendar is still probably the biggest obstacle.
The short-term government funding agreement likely to pass this week will probably carry over until Dec. 11, giving lawmakers two months to work on other legislative business as they seek a final deal on funding for the rest of fiscal 2016, which begins on Oct. 1.
The Senate has other priorities, including the defense authorization bill, highway funding, Toxic Substances Control Act reform and the assorted legislative wish-lists of 100 senators.
But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., agreed in August on the basic outlines of a cybersecurity debate, specifying that a total of 22 amendments could be offered for consideration.
The leaders still must reach a time agreement on the overall debate, a procedural step that has consistently foiled efforts to get the measure to the floor. That could involve a tricky effort to get senators on board for paring down the amendment list to a more manageable number.
But if the threat of a government shutdown goes away this week, the possibility of a thorough cybersecurity debate on the Senate floor, the first in three years, seems increasingly likely.
-
Limited Progress Seen Even as More Nations Step Up on Climate
Sep 28, 2015 | New York Times
By Justin Gillis and Somini Sengupta
The pledges that countries are making to battleclimate change would still allow the world to heat up by more than 6 degrees Fahrenheit, a new analysis shows, a level that scientists say is likely to produce catastrophes ranging from food shortages to widespread extinctions of plant and animal life.
Yet, in the world of global climate politics, that counts as progress.
The new figures will be released Monday in New York as a week of events related to climate change comes to an end. The highlight was anurgent moral appeal at the United Nations on Friday from Pope Francis, urging countries to reach “fundamental and effective agreements” when they meet in Paris in December to try to strike a new global climate deal.
For much of this year, countries have been issuing pledges about how much emissions they are willing to cut in coming decades. With a plan announced by Brazil on Sunday, every major country except for India has now made a commitment to take to the Paris conference.
An analysis by researchers at Climate Interactive, a group whose calculations are used by American negotiators and by numerous other governments, is expected to be released Monday and was provided in advance to The New York Times. It shows that the collective pledges would reduce the warming of the planet at century’s end to about 6.3 degrees, if the national commitments are fully honored, from an expected 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit, if emissions continue on their present course.PhotoPresident Dilma Rousseff of Brazil announced a plan that offered an absolute cut in emissions over the next decade. CreditMike Segar/Reuters
That would be the biggest reduction in the history of global climate politics, and a sign that 20 years of disappointing negotiations may be giving way to an era when countries start to move the needle on the projected global temperature.
Yet the analysis also shows that the nations are still a far way from meeting their own shared target, set in 2010, of limiting global warming to about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. That level of warming, while potentially producing dire effects on agriculture, sea level and the natural world, might at least be tolerable, some experts believe.
The pledges countries have made “are a big step forward, but not sufficient — not even close,” said John D. Sterman, a professor of management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Climate Interactive, a Washington organization with extensive ties to M.I.T., receives foundation money to build tools that help governments and the public understand climate policy.
Making any serious pledge has been a political challenge in many countries, including the United States, where President Obama has encountered vociferous opposition in Congress. Governments are unlikely to want to reopen those fights in the remaining two months before the Paris talks. Thus, many analysts expect that any final deal struck in Paris will probably not be enough to forestall dangerous levels of global warming.
“Everyone is now convinced there will be agreement in Paris,” President François Hollande of France said Sunday afternoon at the United Nations. “But the question is, what kind of agreement?”
AdvertisementContinue reading the main storyb?1:0};var h;a:{var p=c.navigator;if(p){var
Last week, China announced plans for a nationwide system that would put a price on emissions of greenhouse gases. Brazil became the latest major country to pledge action, on Sunday, with a plan that makes it the first large developing nation to offer an absolute cut in emissions over the next decade, instead of just restraints on continued growth. Brazil also committed to ending illegal deforestation and to restoring millions of acres of degraded forest.
Bruising fights are still expected at the Paris conference, especially over money. Poor countries that have had little to do with causing global warming, but are likely to suffer the worst effects, are demanding billions from rich countries to help them manage.
Moreover, protests are expected from advocacy groups, island countries threatened with inundation, and many others over the perceived inadequacy of the deal. At a minimum, these groups are likely to demand strong procedures for ratcheting up national commitments over time.
“No one doubts that coming out of Paris, there’s going to be an ambition gap on the table,” said Alden Meyer, who follows climate negotiations for the Union of Concerned Scientists, in Washington. “The question is going to be, what prospect do we have to shrink it, and how quickly?”
-
Alaska Senator Blames Regulations for Pushing Shell out of Arctic
Sep 28, 2015 |
By Devin Henry
Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) is blaming federal regulations for forcing Royal Dutch Shell to abandon its Arctic drilling plans.
Murkowski, the chairwoman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said the Obama administration should look to stabilize federal regulations on Arctic energy production and clear the way for more development in the future.
“What we have here is a case in which a company’s commercial efforts could not overcome a burdensome and often contradictory regulatory environment,” Murkowski said in a statement Monday.
“[The Interior Department] placed significant limits on this season’s activities, which resulted in a drilling rig sitting idle, and is widely expected to issue additional regulations in the coming weeks that will make it even harder to drill,” she added. “Add this all up, and it is clear that the federal regulatory environment — uncertain, ever-changing, and continuing to deteriorate — was a significant factor in Shell’s decision.”
Shell announced Monday that it would stop exploring for oil off the Alaskan coast “for the foreseeable future.” The company blamed a handful of factors for the decision, including uncertainty over federal regulations on drilling there.
Murkowski used Shell’s decision to call for a more “predictable and sensible regulatory system both onshore and offshore” for energy development.
“Continued uncertainty will only further damage our competitiveness and our economy,” she said. “And so today, I call on the administration to work with Alaskans — to develop a legitimate plan, driven by our input and preferences, to ensure the prolific resources in our federal areas are produced.”
Murkowski’s statement is at odds with the reaction from environmental groups, who said Monday that Shell’s decision gives the Obama administration the chance to block further energy development in the Arctic.
The groups, including Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, said Obama should undo plans to offer future energy development leases in the Arctic rather than risk an oil spill or produce more fossil fuels.
Murkowski, though, said federal regulators should offer more leases, both offshore and in the contentious Arctic National Wildlife Refuge area, to help boost the Alaskan energy industry.
“Development in the Arctic is going to happen — if not here, then in Russia and Canada, and by non-Arctic nations,” she said. “I personally believe that America should lead the way.”
-
US Drilling States Guided on Handling Quakes
Sep 28, 2015 | ABC News & Associated Press
By Julie Carr Smyth
A group of U.S. drilling states, seismologists, academics and industry experts issued guidance Monday in a frank new report on handling human-induced earthquakes caused by hydraulic fracturing or the disposal of fracking wastewater.
The 150-page report, produced by the StatesFirst initiative, represents perhaps the most candid discussion on the topic since tremors across the mid-continent — including in Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado and Ohio — began being linked to fracking and deep-injection wastewater disposal around 2009.
It includes descriptions of how states handled various seismic incidents around the country, including their public relations strategies, and matter-of-factly references links between fracking or deep-injection wastewater disposal and earthquakes. Previously, public admissions had been fuzzy in some cases.
The group stopped short of suggesting model regulations, however.
That's because each state's laws and geography are unique, Ohio Oil & Gas Chief Rick Simmers, who co-chaired the effort, told The Associated Press. The report says "a one-size-fits-all approach would not be an effective tool for state regulators."
Simmers said the report is in the form of a primer, providing states with up-to-date scientific and technical data, case studies and several suggested approaches for detecting and managing the quakes.
Fracking involves blasting water and chemicals into shale formations to fracture the rock and release oil, natural gas and natural gas liquids trapped inside. The process involves thousands of gallons of water that becomes contaminated and must be trucked offsite and deposited at special deep-injection facilities.
Both processes have been associated with human-induced tremors, including some easily felt by people.
Simmers said the report conveys a plethora of important information, directing states on such issues as siting, well depth, construction methods, faults present at the site and how to judge an area's seismic history.
"Those two oil-and-gas activities do create some seismicity. It is very rare. If you compare it to the amount of fluid that's injected for disposal or the amount of fluid and the number of jobs that occur for hydraulic fracturing, it's very rare. But it does occur," Simmers said. "It is safe. We monitor the operations very carefully as do our counterparts in other states."
The working group arose after Ohio's discovery in April 2014 of a probable link between fracking and five small tremors in eastern Ohio near Youngstown. It was the first time in the Northeast that the new oil-and-gas drilling technique that had been sweeping the country had been linked to seismic activity, the second time in the U.S. and only the fourth time worldwide.
Earlier, Ohio Gov. John Kasich had halted disposal of fracking wastewater surrounding a well site in the same region after a series of earthquakes later tied to a deep-injection well caused a public outcry.
The StatesFirst coalition partnered with the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission and the Ground Water Protection Council in the effort, which began last year.
The group gathered the most current science on the issue as a service to the 13 participating states: Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming. Many have not experienced any earthquakes induced by fracking or wastewater disposal, but the report urges them to put regulations and procedures in place for dealing with any eventual incidents, including strategies for relaying the information to the public.
"Induced seismicity is a complex issue where the base of knowledge is changing rapidly," said Kansas Geological Survey interim director Rex Buchanan, a working group co-chair. "State regulatory agencies that deal with potential injection-induced seismicity should be prepared to use tools, knowledge, and expertise — many of which are offered in this primer — to prepare for and respond to (any) occurrences."
The report focuses primarily on deep injection wells for drilling wastewater, known as Class II wells. The vast majority of such wells have never been tied to earthquakes, but it is more likely that a tremor would come from one of those wells than from a hydraulically fractured well.
Wastewater containing chemicals, brine, naturally occurring radiation and mud is injected directly into basement rocks or into overlying formations that contain crevices into the basement rock. When this occurs near a sensitive fault, tremors can occur.
-
Sep 28, 2015 | National Resources Defense Council
By John Walke
By this Thursday, President Obama has to decide whether to set safe health standards for smog pollution that will safeguard all Americans--or whether he will settle for a weaker, unprotective standard, one that will leave children, the elderly and asthmatics especially vulnerable. The president's decision will determine whether he leaves behind a positive and fully protective legacy on health standards safeguarding Americans against unsafe smog levels. Whatever he decides on is likely to remain the standard for many years to come, raising the stakes even further.
Widespread reports indicate EPA plans to adopt the worst of the options it proposed for updated smog (ground-level ozone) health standards, 70 parts per billion (ppb). (The agency took comments on a proposed range of 65-70 ppb.) EPA already showed an unwillingness to provide full protection when it decided not even to take comment on a smog standard of 60-64 ppb, even though that was part of the range its independent science advisors have unanimously and consistently recommended since 2006. Former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson did propose the more protective 60-64 ppb range in 2011 when she put forward the full range from 60-70 ppb. But then EPA unaccountably dropped those greater protections from the agency's 2014 proposal, proposing just 65-70.
It's easy to get lost in the numbers, but the effect is easy to understand. The higher the number, the more smog Americans will have to continue to breathe.
As the charts below show in stark relief, any decision by the Obama administration to settle for EPA's worst health option, 70 ppb, would result in thousands more preventable deaths, and hundreds of thousands more avoidable asthma attacks every year, versus setting the health standard at the more protective 65 or even 67 ppb.
There are hopeful reports that some in the White House want to do better than EPA's worst proposal, instead setting a safer health standard at 67 or 68 ppb. The question is whether President Obama will side with these public health proponents who want to do better, or an EPA that appears to be shying away from a fully protective standard. The president has the opportunity this week to make up for the single worst health and environmental decision of his first term, when he personally blocked safe health standards for smog pollution in 2011. The New York Times editorial board rightly called it"A Bad Call on Ozone" and observed "there is still no excuse for compromising on public health and allowing politics to trump science."
From EPA's own materials (Table ES-7), here is a sample of harmful public health consequences that President Obama can make sure will be avoided every year by adopting safer health standards of 65 or 67 ppb and rejecting the unprotective 70 level.
The Clean Air Act has worked--Los Angeles no longer appears as a brown cloud in pictures taken from space, for example--but the law is only as good as its continuing implementation and enforcement. The President should tell EPA that fewer deaths and fewer asthma attacks are better public policy. President Obama should do better than EPA's worst. His decision will affect Americans' health for years to come.
-
Mayor De Blasio Builds on NYC Clean Heat Success, Launches Ambitious Building Efficiency Program
Sep 28, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Abbey Brown
Building on the momentum of Climate Week NYC and the Pope’s visit to New York last week, Mayor Bill de Blasio announced today the launch of an ambitious new program called the NYC Retrofit Accelerator.
Tasked with upgrading 20,000 (or 15 percent) of New York City’s private buildings – 40 percent of which will be low-income housing – the Retrofit Accelerator will provide resources for buildings owners and managers to improve their energy and water efficiency. Addressing energy use in buildings is key to meeting the city’s ambitious carbon reduction goals, as buildings account for roughly 75 percent of the city’s carbon emissions. It is estimated that the Retrofit Accelerator will result in cutting approximately 940,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent annually by 2025. The city has said this is the equivalent of taking 200,000 cars off the road.
If this program sounds familiar, that’s because de Blasio revealed Retrofit Accelerator at Climate Week NYC last year as part of the broader One City Built to Last plan. Today’s announcement marks the formal launch of this program, an exciting expansion of the successful NYC Clean Heat model, which resulted in New York’s cleanest air since the early 1960s.
NYC Clean Heat as a model
Since it was started in 2012, NYC Clean Heat has become a major air quality improvement tool for the city and its residents – all by simply working with building owners to replace dirty heating oils with cleaner fuels. A key component of this program’s success was the diverse coalition of financial, real estate, and non-profit communities that EDF and the city convened to provide insight for the program’s implementation.
Indeed, Mayor de Blasio is using NYC Clean Heat as a blueprint for the Retrofit Accelerator, expanding it from one issue – heating oil – to many. With the Retrofit Accelerator, buildings will receive help for everything from lighting to full-building retrofits, while still receiving help with heating oil conversions if necessary.Mayor De Blasio launches ambitious Retrofit Accelerator #EnergyEfficiency program
CLICK TO TWEET
By connecting building managers with technical experts to help with retrofits, as well as financing opportunities to fund the energy efficiency upgrades, the Retrofit Accelerator stands to be just as effective as NYC Clean Heat.
We are increasingly excited about this model’s potential beyond the five boroughs. As the Retrofit Accelerator takes off, we anticipate further success, and will look to replicate the program model across the U.S., and potentially the world.
-
Rail Service Threatened as Deadline for Train Safety System Looms
Sep 28, 2015 | New York Times
By Ron Nixon
Even after spending nearly $6 billion, the rail industry says it will not be able to meet its year-end, government-imposed deadline to install a system known as positive train control, which is intended to prevent collisions or derailments caused by excessive speed.
The technology is required on about 60,000 miles of railroad tracks by Dec. 31, and if it is not put in place, the result could be a massive disruption in the nation’s rail service.
After a major train accident in California in 2008, Congress gave railroad companies seven years to complete installation of the safety system.
If the deadline is not extended, many railroads say they will not allow passenger trains like Amtrak to use their tracks because of the potential liability and possible fines the federal government could impose. Nor would they be able to carry hazardous chemicals or oil shipments, rail companies said.
Continue reading the main story
RELATED COVERAGE
An Amtrak train traveling from Penn Station in New York to Penn Station in Newark in August. There is a Dec. 31 deadline for railroads to start using positive train control technology, which increases safety.Lawmakers Press Railroad Nominee on Safety DeadlineSEPT. 17, 2015
An Amtrak train derailment in Philadelphia in May that killed eight people and injured more than 200. Congress set a deadline of Dec. 31 for freight and commuter rail companies to install technology that could prevent such accidents.Panel Urges More Time on Train Safety TechnologySEPT. 16, 2015
Congress has not passed an extension, and with a crowded agenda, it is unclear when lawmakers will take up the matter.
Continue reading the main story
Breaking News Alerts
Sign up to receive an email from The New York Times as soon as important news breaks around the world.
“It’s hard to break through everything else that’s going on,” said Edward Hamberger, president and chief executive of the Association of American Railroads, an industry group. “But this needs to get done before the deadline or the industry will have to make some tough decisions.”
The absence of the safety technology on freight and passenger trains came into sharp focus earlier this year when an Amtrak train derailment killed eight people and injured hundreds more in Philadelphia. Investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board said the new technology would have most likely prevented the deadly accident, which is believed to have been caused by human error.
But the impact of failing to extend the deadline for installing the safety system goes well beyond passenger inconvenience.
Each day, millions of tons of goods are moved by rail, from the bulk of coal to heat homes and businesses during the winter to the delivery of grains and produce from farms. Freight rail companies say they also would not be able to haul crude oil or other hazardous chemicals like chlorine or fertilizer.
Some rail customers say they have started looking for other modes of transportation, like trucks or barges, to carry their goods to market, in case of a shutdown.
“But there are no good alternatives,” said Mike Steenhoek, executive director of the Soy Transportation Coalition, an Iowa-based agriculture group. “Neither of the alternatives have the capacity to ship as much as trains and at a cheaper cost.”
Mr. Steenhoek said the impact of a potential railroad shutdown could be felt long before the deadline. For example, he said many farming cooperatives have made plans for fertilizer shipments for the spring 2016 planting season.
“The lack of resolution to the positive train control debate is creating uncertainty in agriculture,” he said. “It’s hard to plan anything at this point.”
But railroads, at this point, say they guarantee that they will be able to haul hazardous goods after the year-end deadline.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
Ann Warner, executive director of the Freight Rail Customers Alliance, a coalition of larger railroad customers, including the auto and chemical industries, said there was similar uncertainty among her members.
“This could all be avoided if Congress extends the deadline now,” Ms. Warner said.
Passenger rail companies have made similar statements. Metra, a commuter rail service in the Chicago area, the fourth busiest system in the country, announced last week that it would have to cut service at the end of the year if the deadline is not extended.
Metra officials said if the company did choose to operate without the technology in place, it would be subject to potential Federal Highway Administration enforcement actions brought by the Justice Department, including substantial civil penalties and injunctions or criminal penalties, according to an analysis by the company’s legal department.
“This board will do all it can to avoid this crisis within the confines of the law as it exists today and continue to work with members of Congress on legislation that is needed to extend this unattainable deadline,” said Martin J. Oberman, chairman of Metra. “In the meantime, on advice of counsel, Metra cannot operate any of its trains under current law as of midnight on Dec. 31, 2015.”
Officials at the Transportation Department insist that only Congress can extend the deadline.
“On Jan. 1, we will enforce the deadline and the law,” Sarah Feinberg, the acting railroad administrator told members of Congress during her recent confirmation hearing. She said the agency would work with the rail companies to help them with technical and financial challenges they face in trying to install the safety technology.
Proponents of an extension have had their arguments bolstered by the release of a Government Accountability Office report earlier this month that recommended Congress pass an extension.
The report said that several problems had contributed to delays installing the system, including that the technology is new and that there are a limited number of suppliers. The report said the government had also contributed to delays. For example, railroads had to stop construction along tracks with radio poles — which make the GPS technology work — because they had not gone through an environmental evaluation process.
Pressure is mounting on Congress to pass an extension.
A Senate bill passed in July would push the deadline to 2018. The bill would increase the Transportation Department’s budget to help the industry with installation of the technology because the equipment is expensive and time-consuming to install. The transportation spending measure in the Senate would require railroads to submit plans to the secretary of transportation that include installation of positive train control by the end of 2018.
The House has yet to consider the measure.
-
Pipeline Mergers Trump Drilling M&A As Energy Transfer Offers $37.7B For Williams
Sep 28, 2015 | Forbes
By Antoine Gara
Slumping energy prices are leading to a flurry of deal-making in the oil patch as companies merge in order to combine their resources to weather the market downturn. But, it’s pipelines and other suppliers to the energy industry, and not drilling firms, where merger activity is heating up.
On Monday morning, billionaire Kelcy L. Warren’s Energy Transfer Equity agreed to a $37.7 billion takeover of competitor The Williams Companies in a cash and stock deal that will instantly transform into one of the largest pipeline operators in the U.S. only to be rivaled by Kinder Morgan KMI -7.41% and Enterprise Products Partners.
Workers continue to install a shale gas pipe line, Friday, Feb. 13, 2015, in Zelienople, Pa. The pipeline is being installed to connect wells in the area to a compressor station. (AP Photo/Keith Srakocic)
The negotiated deal, which values Williams at $43.50 a share, comes months after Energy Transfer’s initial $64 a share offer was rejected in June. A continued slump in commodity prices and a turn in performance among pipeline stocks in the ensuing time, in addition to Energy Transfer’s willingness to include billions in cash in its offer brought Williams to the table.ADVERTISING
There’s good reason behind Energy Transfer’s pursuit of Williams. Pipeline companies have turned into favored stocks among energy investors because they are seen as a good way to bet on the rise in shale drilling in North America without taking commodity price risk. Promising shale oilfields that are prized assets for drillers like Hess HES -4.17%, Devon Energy DVN -5.56% and Chesapeake Energy CHK -16.67% rely on oil and gas pipelines to transport their production to hubs. And volumes from onshore oilfields have grown at a steady clip even as energy prices have gone through booms and busts, minimizing the volatility of pipeline stocks.
In recent years, companies like Energy Transfer have been in a race to expand their footprints across the United States. Shale basins are in traditional energy markets like west Texas and North Dakota, however, big finds in Appalachia have spurred pipeline companies’ expansion plans, pushing transport firms to grow through M&A and capital expenditure.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Add recipients
Suggested