Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 7/5/16
-
Greater Regulation of Toxic Chemicals Needed
Jul 5, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Tom Gellhaus, MD
DDT. Asbestos. BPA. These are well-known toxic substances. American consumers recognize these names and, increasingly, the negative impact that they have on our health. -
EPA Releases TSCA Reform Implementation Plan
Jul 5, 2016 | I-Connect007
By IPC
Last week, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act was signed into law by President Obama. This is the first major overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) since it was enacted into law in 1976. -
IG Plans to Audit Chemicals Office
Jul 5, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Colby Bermel
U.S. EPA's chemicals office will be audited by the agency's inspector general to determine its compliance with pesticide regulations. -
EU Commission Criteria on Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals — A Deft Political Compromise?
Jul 5, 2016 | Science 20
By Gregory Bond
On June 15 the EU Commission (EC) issued its highly anticipated “scientific criteria” for identifying Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs). -
EPA's Olden Frustrated With Delay In Efforts To Improve IRIS Program
Jul 5, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
The outgoing director of EPA's National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) appears frustrated with the slow pace of review and approval of his proposals to reform the center's embattled human health risk analysis program, noting at a recent public meeting that his most recent proposal to update the chronically outdated database remains under review. -
US FDA Seeks Data on Hand Sanitisers
Jul 5, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Vanessa Zainzinger
The US FDA has asked manufacturers of antiseptic rubs, such as hand sanitisers, to submit additional data on the safety and efficacy of the active substances alcohol, isopropyl alcohol and benzalkonium chloride. -
How To Mix Your Baby’s Formula With Safe Water
Jul 5, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Megan Boyle
Debating between breast feeding and formula feeding? Healthy Child recommends breastfeeding if possible for at least the first 12 months of life. -
(ACC Mentioned) Speakers Say Appalachian Manufacturing Base In Place to Build Strong Petchem Industry
Jul 5, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
Despite challenges ahead, all the pieces are in place to build a robust petrochemical industry in the Appalachian Basin and strengthen the existing chemical manufacturing base in and around the region, speakers at a recent industry conference argued. -
New Orleans Council Demands Details on Entergy Gas Plant Proposal
Jul 5, 2016 | E&E Energywire
No one is really sure why a natural-gas-fired power plant proposed by Entergy New Orleans Inc. is 15 percent bigger than previously discussed. The New Orleans City Council wants answers. -
Second US LNG Cargo Heads to Europe, Set to Reach Spain July 22: Sources
Jul 5, 2016 | Platts
By Stuart Elliott and Wyatt Wong
A new cargo of US LNG is headed for southwestern Europe, only the second cargo to target the European market since US LNG exports began at the end of February. -
U.S. Leads the World in Reserves -- Report
Jul 5, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Nathanial Gronewold
The United States tops the globe in crude oil reserves, according to an Oslo, Norway-based industry research group. -
Mass. Lawmakers Pursue Ambitious Clean Energy Bill
Jul 5, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
Massachusetts could be on the cusp of a cleaner energy future. -
'Year of the Ransomware' Sets Utilities on Edge
Jul 5, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Utility companies are bracing their computer networks for the second half of 2016, which internet security firm Emsisoft has already declared the "year of the ransomware."
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News - There are no clips to report at this time.
-
Greater Regulation of Toxic Chemicals Needed
Jul 5, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Tom Gellhaus, MD
DDT. Asbestos. BPA. These are well-known toxic substances. American consumers recognize these names and, increasingly, the negative impact that they have on our health. But amidst the tens of thousands of chemicals that are listed on the U.S. Environmental Protecting Agency inventory, only a small minority have been tested for toxic effects – and only a fraction of those have been evaluated for effects on brain development in children.
Now, we have clear evidence that certain chemical compounds inhibit brain development, during both pregnancy and childhood. But many of those chemical compounds remain in consumer products that are used daily across the country. It’s time for our government to improve the ways that chemicals are regulated in this country, and it’s time for companies to stop relying on dangerous compounds – and to stop finding equally dangerous workarounds.
Based on our understanding of the development of a fetus’s brain, we have long known that pregnancy is a “critical window of vulnerability,” meaning that exposure to toxic chemicals can have a long-lasting impact on health. Exposure during pregnancy can significantly interfere with a child’s ability to reach his or her full potential throughout childhood and into adulthood.
Recent data have increasingly shown that certain pesticides, flame retardants, air pollutants, lead, and mercury can contribute to learning behavioral, or intellectual impairment, as well as neurodevelopmental disorders such as ADHD or autism spectrum disorder. In other words, with improved control on the use of these chemicals, some cases of disorders such as ADHD or autism could be prevented.
Admittedly, there are restrictions in place regarding use of these chemicals. For example, the President recently signed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act into law, modernizing the chemical safety and approval process and amending the decades old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Most importantly, new protections were introduced to safeguard pregnant women, infants, and children from the harmful effects of toxic chemicals.
However, work is not done and efforts must continue to ensure that chemicals entering commerce are safe for women and families. After all, decades of exposure have impacted countless Americans. And in many cases, ongoing exposure continues to impact children, as the chemicals are already part of their environments. This is especially true in communities of color and underserved populations, and it only serves to heighten disparities in these children’s futures.
But besides the comparatively few regulated chemicals, there are thousands and thousands of other toxins in our environment. We can be certain that we are missing opportunities to prevent exposure.
As a doctor, I know the importance of evidence-based decision-making, and know the errors that can ensue from hasty action. But when it comes to the health and safety of our children, we need our government to act more swiftly and resolutely to proactively test and, if needed, restrict dangerous chemicals.
Much of the problem also lies in the private sector, which routinely introduces workarounds – referred to as “regrettable solutions” – that bypass regulatory efforts but introduce equivalent levels of harm. For example, when the U.S. government reached a voluntary agreement with manufacturers to stop making flame retardants with proven neurotoxicities, the same manufacturers found substitutes that were similar in structure to the previous iterations, but had not undergone assessment, so were thus not yet subject to regulatory restrictions.
This government loophole only served to put more infants and children at risk of brain development disorders that would impede their neurological abilities throughout their lives.
The data are clear, and that’s why a wide range of experts ranging from obstetrician-gynecologists like me to pediatricians, endocrinologists, toxicologists, epidemiologists, and public health experts have come together to create Project TENDR – Targeting Environmental NeuroDevelopmental Risks – to call for change from the government whose job it is to protect us and from the manufacturers who have the power to do better.
Our regulators need to overhaul their approach to developing and assessing evidence on chemicals that are known to cause interference in brain development, including paying attention to the special vulnerabilities of the fetus and child, the cumulative effects of exposure to multiple chemicals, and the lack of a safety threshold. And they need to focus on addressing and mitigating legacy exposure to chemicals that have already reached the environment.
And the business that make and use these chemicals must eliminate all neurodevelopmental toxins from their products, eschewing the workarounds that continue to put us in danger. They share this world with us, and they have a major role to play in keeping it safe for our families.
We cannot continue to gamble with our children’s health, as their futures represent the future of this country.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/286322-greater-regulation-of-toxic-chemicals-needed
-
EPA Releases TSCA Reform Implementation Plan
Jul 5, 2016 | I-Connect007
By IPC
Last week, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act was signed into law by President Obama. This is the first major overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) since it was enacted into law in 1976.
On the front lines, IPC advocated for TSCA reform and applauded Congress for passing this important legislation that will update our country’s chemical rules. The new law imposes a number of changes to existing responsibilities on the EPA, as well as new ones. Many of these new changes will apply to manufacturers and potentially any company that uses chemicals in its products.
In order to give companies a general timeline of what can be expected regarding the implementation of the new rules and enforcement activity, EPA has posted an Implementation Plan to outline the new chemical rules. The Implementation Plan can be viewed here.
One mandatory action of significant importance to IPC members is the new rulemaking on the reporting of byproducts sent for recycling. IPC specifically led the effort to reduce the burden on the byproducts sent for recycling. The details about this implementation can be found at the end of the Implementation Plan.
As the implementation of the new rules progress, EPA plans to provide opportunities for stakeholders’ involvement. IPC will be actively engaged in the rule making process and continue to update our membership as this process moves forward.
http://pcb.iconnect007.com/index.php/article/98533/epa-releases-tsca-reform-implementation-plan/98536/?skin=pcb
-
IG Plans to Audit Chemicals Office
Jul 5, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Colby Bermel
U.S. EPA's chemicals office will be audited by the agency's inspector general to determine its compliance with pesticide regulations.
Eric Lewis, director of special program reviews for EPA's inspector general, stated in a letter Thursday that his goal is to determine whether the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention is meeting its mandates for human health and environmental risk assessments, for both conditional and unconditional pesticide regulations.
The audit comes at a tough time for EPA, as its chemicals office will be putting a great deal of energy and resources toward writing and enforcing new rules mandated by Congress (Greenwire, July 1).
An IG spokesman said the decision to have the assessment was discretionary. Some audits are requested by Congress, but this one was not.
President Obama two weeks ago signed into law the first overhaul to the nation's chemicals laws in nearly 40 years, a milestone in the history of environmental legislation and a rare bipartisan moment of cooperation in this session of Congress (Greenwire, June 22).
EPA is authorized to register pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act of 1996. If the agency finds that a substance does meet standards but still has missing data, a conditional registration can be granted. EPA would then have to allow that pesticide to continue being used while the agency generates the needed data.
Unconditional refers to every pesticide's criteria being met by EPA.
"The anticipated benefits of this project are improved business practices and accountability," the IG letter states about the audit.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/07/05/stories/1060039795
-
EU Commission Criteria on Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals — A Deft Political Compromise?
Jul 5, 2016 | Science 20
By Gregory Bond
On June 15 the EU Commission (EC) issued its highly anticipated “scientific criteria” for identifying Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs). Now that the dust has settled, and stakeholders around the globe have had a chance to offer their thoughts, the time is ripe to explore to the heart of the criteria – what the EC selected (and what it didn’t select), and the potential impact their choices will have on consumers, industry and the global regulatory arena.
The criteria are outlined in the following separate documents:
Communication From the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on endocrine disruptors
Draft Commission legal acts setting out scientific criteria for their determination in the context of the EU legislation on plant protection products and biocidal products.
An Impact Assessment so as to estimate and understand the potential impact of the proposed four options outlined in the EC Roadmap on endocrine disruptors.
First look – a deft political compromise
Any way you slice the proposed EC “scientific criteria”, they strike those of us who have been steeped in the issue for decades and who have followed the EU debate closely as hugely underwhelming and represent at best a mixed bag for stakeholders.
It’s not hard to interpret the EC “scientific criteria” to be a deft political compromise between the insistence by very vocal health, environmental and consumer focused NGOs that “potency” be ignored when identifying EDCs, and industry’s plea to the Commission to adhere to scientific and risk-based principles and avoid using multiple categories of EDCs (e.g., “suspected”, “endocrine active”) that would only confuse EU consumers and global markets.
After much deliberation, the EC opted for the second of the four potential options they had outlined earlier in their Roadmap on endocrine disruptors— simply using the WHO/IPCS definition of an EDC, something the EC admits EU regulatory agencies have already been applying in the absence of any existing direction on “scientific criteria”. One could legitimately ask “Where is the beef?” as the “criteria” lack any meaningful substance beyond recommending adoption of the approach the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has already been taking to dealing with endocrine disruptors. Although one could highlight a number of potential grievances associated with the proposed EC “scientific criteria” this blog post will focus on three key ones:
(1) The potential for the EU and the US to disagree on which chemicals to label, list and regulate as EDCs leading to potential trade issues and confusion in the marketplace and among consumers.
(2) The EC’s decision to reject the use of categories of EDC’s such as “suspected endocrine disruptors” and “endocrine active” and its rejection of consideration of potency in identifying which EDC chemicals are unlikely to pose a risk to the health of humans and wildlife.
(3) Some stakeholders are criticizing how the EC and its regulatory agencies apply the proposed “scientific criteria”— in particular, how they conduct a weight of the evidence evaluation to assess the likelihood that a chemical agent’s interaction or interference with one or more components of the endocrine system actually causes an adverse effect.
Potential for Disagreement Between the EU and US in Identifying EDC’s
Let’s first consider the potential for disagreement between the EU and the US in labeling specific chemicals as EDC’s. It can easily happen owing to a lack of harmonized approaches between the respective government agencies, and also due to a lack of coordination and communication. The EC’s proposed “scientific criteria” are based on the WHO/IPCS definition of an EDC which requires that a substance act through an endocrine mode of action to cause an adverse effect. To its credit, the EC has proposed conducting a robust systematic review of all relevant scientific evidence, using a weight of an evidence-based approach to make a determination whether a substance meets the WHO/IPCS definition. However, the EC proposal does not mandate collection of any new data for making its weight of evidence determination on individual substances.
By contrast, the US EPA’s EDSP mandates new data collection. Manufacturers of chemicals selected by EPA for screening in the EDSP must submit their chemicals to a battery of 11 validated Tier 1 assays designed to elicit whether they have the potential to interact with estrogen, androgen, or thyroid pathways in mammals or amphibians. EPA then conducts a weight of the evidence evaluation of the results of those assays as well as considering other available data, and determines whether additional Tier 2 testing to determine adverse effects is warranted. In making their determination EPA also evaluates dose-response relationships to consider whether additional testing is likely to yield meaningful data that could change the prevailing EPA risk assessment for that chemical. If they judge it unlikely, then no further testing is required.
Another key difference between approaches is that the US EPA makes no determination whether the endocrine activity detected in Tier I testing is causally-related to any adverse effects observed in Tier 2 bioassays. Thus far, Tier 1 screening and EPA weight of evidence determinations have been completed for 52 chemicals, which are mostly active ingredients in pesticides.
EPA has recently announced a pivot in the EDSP program to substitute high throughput assays for three of the current Tier 1 assays to greatly accelerate the pace of the program and reduce the numbers of laboratory animals used.
Oddly enough, the EC ‘scientific criteria” do not reference the US EDSP or any other regulatory approaches being taken around the world (e.g., Japan, Canada, etc), so one is left to wonder how it will weight the data being generated by the EDSP program. The EC did “field test” its “scientific criteria” by conducting an Impact Assessment. For determining whether an active substance in a Plant Protection Product (PPP) or Biocidal Product (BP) would be identified as EDC under each of the four options outlined in the Roadmap, a screening study was performed by an external contractor. The screening was based on available evidence, no additional testing and was completed under a significant time constraint. The EC cautions that results of the screening “…therefore do not constitute evaluations of individual substances to be carried out under the respective chemical legislation and in no way prejudge future decisions on active substances to be taken pursuant to these two Regulations.” It would thus be erroneous to consider that the substances identified in the screening are considered as endocrine disruptors within the meaning of the EU legislation. Despite those caveats the results of the screening provide us with some insight as to how the EU might apply their “scientific criteria” to identify EDC’s. To estimate the potential for disagreement between the EU and the US, I compared the results of the EC contractor screening with the US EPA’s weight of evidence assessment of the List 1 chemicals. The results are summarized in the following table.
The EC contractor screened 324 PPP and 98 BP actives and identified 26 and 5 of them, respectively as potential EDCs using the proposed “scientific criteria” (note that two of the five BP actives identified as potential EDCs were also considered PPP actives). 29 of the actives screened by the EC contractor were also among the EPA’s List 1 chemicals for which Tier 1 test data and EPA weight of evidence determinations were available. For 11 of the 29 chemicals both the EC contractor and EPA each independently came to the conclusion that they were unlikely to be EDCs. They also concurred in five instances that the chemicals had the potential to be EDCs; however, for four of those five chemicals the US EPA concluded that no Tier 2 testing was required because it would not change the prevailing risk assessment for them. In two instances (2,4-D and Malathion), the EC contractor concluded that the chemicals were potential EDCs whereas EPA found no evidence of potential interaction with the endocrine system and recommended no Tier 2 testing. For a further eleven chemicals, the EC contractor concluded they were not likely to be EDC’s whereas US EPA concluded that there was potential for interaction with the endocrine system; however, EPA argued no Tier 2 testing was required for five of them again because the results would not change EPA’s prevailing risk assessments.
So, what are the key takeaways from this analysis?
Unless the EU and US take concerted action to share data and coordinate and communicate their draft EDCs assessments in an effort to harmonize them, there exists a real possibility that they will come to different determinations on specific chemicals, leading to trade disputes and marketplace and consumer confusion.The differences in EDC assessments go both ways, i.e., it is not a case where one government consistently over- or under-identifies EDCs compared to the other.By considering potency, the US EPA will allow use of some PPP and BP actives that the EU might otherwise ban from commerce. Use of these PPP and BP actives is entirely justified scientifically, however, since the EPA has shown that there are no unacceptable risks to humans or wildlife.
Since hazardous properties are inherent to a substance, and do not vary by jurisdiction, common sense would seem to dictate the need for greater cooperation and coordination between the EU and the US on the identification and characterization of EDCs. As a first step, I would urge the EC to explicitly acknowledge the US EPA’s EDSP program in its “scientific criteria” and pledge to seek international cooperation and coordination in identifying and characterizing EDCs.
EC Rejection of EDC Categories and Potency
The EC rejected the NGOs’ and the ES’ stated preference for Option #3 from their Roadmap which would have placed chemicals into several categories of potential EDCs (“known”, “suspected”, and “endocrine active”) based on some vague strength of evidence arguments. The EC rightly concluded that such categories were not helpful to the process of identifying what an EDC is and that the use of such categories would decrease “legal certainty” for regulators and other stakeholders with no “established benefits” for protecting health or the environment. In making their case for multiple categories, the NGO’s have cited the existence of analogous categories for carcinogens and reproductive toxins in the EU; however, endocrine disruption is a mode of action and is therefore more akin to mutagenesis. The EU doesn’t utilize multiple categories of mutagens, and so by analogy can easily justify not using multiple categories of EDCs.
But the Commission also rejected option #4 from its Roadmap which was the one preferred by industry, farmers and several member states and would have further narrowed the list of chemicals identified as EDCs by discounting those which had only weak potency — weaker than many naturally occurring EDCs found in commonly consumed foods and beverages. In doing so, they claimed that use of potency would have run counter to scientific consensus. They do not cite any specific source to support their claim of scientific consensus, but the implication is that it came from the recently released BfR consensus statement, which itself has come under criticism by several scientists who did not participate in the consensus meeting (see Borgerthttp://www.euractiv.com/section/science-policymaking/opinion/disrupted-the-endocrine-disruptor-debate/; Nancehttp://www.science20.com/risky_business/endocrine_disruption_a_new_strategy-172707 and Bondhttp://www.science20.com/endocrine_policy_perspectives/blog/distinguished_european_scientists_challenge_endocrine_pseudoscience-173159.).
The only way the BfR could coax consensus from the scientists it had convened was to dupe them into thinking that identification of EDCs was merely the hazard identification step in risk assessment. The consensus statement argues that potency is critical to hazard characterization, but not to hazard identification. But it has been pointed out to me (personal communication with Dr. Christine Palermo) that this logic is flat out wrong because the WHO/IPCS definition of an EDC includes mode of action which itself is not usually included in hazard identification, but only in hazard characterization and/or later steps in a risk assessment. Furthermore, as Borgert pointed out in his critique, the BfR consensus statement would allow chemicals to be labelled endocrine hazards in the EU, despite lacking sufficient potency to affect anyone’s endocrine system. By such standards, caffeine or cocoa would be endocrine hazards. This hardly seems helpful to regulators nor would consumers find it credible if it was explained to them in this manner.
How the EC Proposes to Apply its Criteria
The EC rightfully points out that the most difficult determination to make in identifying EDCs is assessing whether the interaction or interference with the components of the endocrine system actually is the cause of any adverse effects that are observed. They again rely on precedent set by EFSA “… a reasonable evidence base for a biologically plausible causal relationship between the [endocrine mode of action] and the adverse effects seen in intact organism studies.” The EC rightfully rejected a much higher standard of conclusive evidence of causality which would require observing direct evidence of harm already in humans and wildlife. Although it would have been useful for the EC to reference existing systematic frameworks for assessing causality such as the nine viewpoints offered by Sir Bradford Hill, the language in the draft legal acts does specifically outline several key decision criteria which explicitly include four of Hill’s nine viewpoints: biological plausibility, consistency of findings across studies, dose-response and coherence of the evidence. It would have been advantageous if they had specifically mentioned the five others, including: strength of the association, specificity between agent and adverse effects, temporality (exposure must precede the adverse effect in time), effects of intervention, and analogy.
Reading the various press releases issued by the NGO community following the release of the EC’s scientific criteria they are claiming that the EC has set the barrier on determining causation too high, but this is pure hyperbole. In my opinion, the EC has struck an appropriate balance between not requiring conclusive proof, yet ensuring that there is reasonable scientific evidence to support classifying a substance as an EDC. Of course, final judgment must await evidence of how the various EU regulatory agencies actually apply the criteria and whether they do so with any amount of consistency. In the meantime, the EC should resist pressures from the NGOs to lower its scientific standards.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the EC’s proposed “scientific criteria” are at worst underwhelming and at best represent a mixed bag for stakeholders. To strengthen them, the EC should explicitly acknowledge the role that the US EPA’s EDSP is playing to assist with identification of EDCs and should commit to efforts at international cooperation and coordination to avoid disagreements on labeling specific chemicals as EDCs that will only lead to trade problems and confusion in the marketplace and among consumers. The EC should also seriously revisit its decision to not incorporate potency in identifying EDCs or it risks losing many useful products and undermining consumer confidence. Finally, the EC should resist efforts by the NGOs to weaken its scientific standards, and maintain and strengthen its criteria for assessing whether endocrine active substances actually cause adverse effects through endocrine mediated pathways.
http://www.science20.com/endocrine_policy_perspectives/blog/eu_commission_criteria_on_endocrine_disrupting_chemicals_a_deft_political_compromise-175870
-
EPA's Olden Frustrated With Delay In Efforts To Improve IRIS Program
Jul 5, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
The outgoing director of EPA's National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) appears frustrated with the slow pace of review and approval of his proposals to reform the center's embattled human health risk analysis program, noting at a recent public meeting that his most recent proposal to update the chronically outdated database remains under review.
Ken Olden, the former director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences who has led NCEA since 2012, announced at a June 29 stakeholders meeting of the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) risk analysis program that he is retiring from the agency. "I made the decision seven or eight months ago or more that four years as director of the program was enough, and I needed to get on with my life," Olden said.
Olden will retire July 31, an agency spokeswoman says. She adds that a "search committee has been established for his replacement."
Olden came to EPA following a series of rebukes of the IRIS program, EPA's most influential risk analysis program, from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Congress, industry and the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Agency program and regional offices can request IRIS assessments, which are often the basis for various agency decisions, ranging from waste site cleanups to drinking water standards.
But NAS in a 2011 critical review of the program's draft assessment of the human health risks of formaldehyde included a rare extra chapter outside the committee's charter, outlining recommendations to improve IRIS assessments generally. Additionally, GAO has called IRIS' database of assessments so outdated and its process for crafting new updates so slow as to be obsolete.
Olden at the meeting expressed his own frustrations with the slow process of trying to put in place changes to improve the program, while acknowledging the need to consult within EPA and with other federal officials. Most recently, he said, he proposed plans to update the IRIS database. The plan, however, proposed some changes to the lengthy seven-step process under which IRIS assessments are adopted. As a result, the changes had to be reviewed and approved by other programs within EPA as well as other federal agencies, Olden said.
The plan has been the subject of two meetings with research office leaders, including deputy administrators, a second agency source says. "They are interested. There's no opposition," but they have yet to sign off on it, the source says.
Olden first proposed to agency research leaders a plan to more quickly update the IRIS database in 2014. In remarks at the Society for Risk Analysis annual meeting in Denver in December 2014, he told attendees that he had proposed "using something like a SWAT team that's absolutely dedicated to dealing with the backlog. We aren't going to use this team to help us with our current assessments, but to look backwards, and go back to the agency and say, of these . . . chemicals remaining, which ones should we reassess sooner than later. . . . We hope to announce that sometime soon." Olden said at the time that he intended to remove some 140 IRIS assessments from the database because they are outdated. And he indicated plans to update about 350 other assessments in the database.
But the agency has yet to adopt a plan.
IRIS Update
Another attempt to update the chemicals in the IRIS database, by removing old pesticide assessments from it, remains incomplete, Olden said, noting that "for the past two years, we've been working with the pesticides office" on the issue. "Every week, I'm told [it'll be done in] two weeks. It's been two years."
A former EPA scientist turned industry consultant wrote Olden last year about the issue, urging him to act. She estimated that "nearly 200 of the 558 entries on IRIS are currently-registered or recently-canceled pesticides."
Olden pointed to another program improvement effort that remains underway, and which he said he does not expect to be released publicly until after his retirement: publication of an IRIS handbook of standard operating procedures. The handbook, which stakeholders have awaited with interest for more than a year, "describes how we do systematic review," and also includes new "descriptors of non-cancer hazards" terminology expected to be similar to EPA's existing system of classifying chemicals' carcinogenic potential.
"We've developed a standard operating procedure, it's described in the draft handbook. I had hoped that it would be released before I retired, but that is unlikely," Olden said. "It's an outstanding handbook, as I think you'll agree when you get to read it."
Olden briefly referenced other improvement projects that took much time, but have been completed during his tenure: the creation of a standing advisory committee tasked with peer reviewing draft IRIS assessments and the publication of a prioritized multi-year plan of assessments that IRIS will undertake next. But here too, Olden noted a frustration -- the limits of finite resources.
"We have 49 [full time employee equivalents], we do not have enough scientists to assign to everything that is on the multi-year plan," Olden said. Olden alluded to the tradeoff between producing more assessments -- a longstanding criticism of the program, which has produced even fewer assessments under his watch -- and making process improvements to the overall program.
"Unfortunately, it takes people, staff time to do the things that I'm going to tell you we've done over the past four years. . . . It's a tradeoff. I accept full responsibility for the tradeoff," Olden said. "My only disappointment is that the culture and organizational structure critical for success was not in place in 2012. We had two choices: We could continue to operate as we were, with the same outcome, the 2011 [NAS] formaldehyde report, or we could reinvent ourselves and we have chosen the latter."
Potential Improvements
Olden also pointed to improvements that could be enacted within the program without external reviews, which made their implementation much faster, he said: the creation of a management council tasked with overseeing the progress of assessments to include assignment and re-assignment of staff and budgets and an executive committee, that reviews all assessments before they are released from the program. The committee assigns primary and secondary reviewers and Olden said that in every case, the process has resulted in recommendations that improved the assessments.
Olden also expressed another disappointment from his tenure as NCEA director, in his "inability to improve the collegiality around interest groups," comparing the battles over some assessments to Congress' inability to problem solve. "With the bickering back and forth that goes on in environmental health risk assessment, are we fulfilling the hopes and aspirations of the American people?" he asked rhetorically. "Not every technology and not every chemical is harmful to the environment or human health. Likewise, not every chemical or technology is safe. Many of us operate as if these two extreme views are the only alternatives and these are the correct views. . . . While we are bickering back and forth, the environment is being harmed and people are suffering and dying."
Olden added that "it takes too long to make risk assessment decisions because everyone wants to have a say, in fact not once but several times, and many of you want to have the final say. You can't make the decisions that way."
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epas-olden-frustrated-delay-efforts-improve-iris-program
-
US FDA Seeks Data on Hand Sanitisers
Jul 5, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Vanessa Zainzinger
The US FDA has asked manufacturers of antiseptic rubs, such as hand sanitisers, to submit additional data on the safety and efficacy of the active substances alcohol, isopropyl alcohol and benzalkonium chloride.
In a proposed rule issued on 29 June, the agency says it aims to fill gaps in scientific data on these actives. However, its request "does not mean the FDA believes [they] are ineffective or unsafe".
Manufacturers must now provide the data in order to continue marketing their products over the counter.
The FDA's response to the industry feedback will be published as a final rule, but the agency has not specified when this will be.
https://chemicalwatch.com/48425/us-fda-seeks-data-on-hand-sanitisers
-
How To Mix Your Baby’s Formula With Safe Water
Jul 5, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Megan Boyle
Debating between breast feeding and formula feeding? Healthy Child recommends breastfeeding if possible for at least the first 12 months of life.
However, there are valid reasons a family might need to use formula. One in every four American newborns consumes formula from birth. Around two-thirds of these babies drink some formula by the time they are three months old.
The good news is, the Food and Drug Administration strictly regulates infant formula sold in the U.S. The agency also enforces safety and quality standards during manufacturing, such as requiring testing for disease-causing bacteria. Formula recalls are very rare.
But unhealthy contaminants could be sneaking into your baby’s formula through an unlikely source: drinking water.
Parents can purchase formula in ready-to-feed, liquid concentrate and powder forms. Since both liquid concentrate and powder formula have to be mixed with water, using safe water is essential for children’s health.
The FDA and American Academy of Pediatrics agree that it’s safe in most cases to use tap water that has been boiled for one minute and cooled to room temperature. (This may be necessary for newborns and medically vulnerable babies.) While boiling is sufficient to kill germs in the water, it won’t remove contaminants than can affect your baby’s health.
Lead, perchlorate, the herbicide atrazine and the Teflon chemical PFOA are among the harmful chemicals that have contaminated some major municipal water supplies in recent years. The AAP recently called for tighter regulations to protect children from lead exposure. Click here to learn more.
Fluoride is another concern. About two thirds of American households drink fluorinated tap water. Although municipal water utilities have added fluoride to public sources for decades to help strengthen children’s teeth, some health experts and parents worry about the amount of fluoride formula-fed babies consume.
Before mixing your baby’s next bottle, learn about the quality of your tap water. Public drinking water utilities regularly test their water and are required to disclose the results. Visit your utility’s website or call its office to request the information. Click here to learn more about investigating your water supply.
Once you know if your water may have harmful contaminants, you may want to invest in a quality water filter. Some filters are more effective than others at removing specific contaminants, so visit EWG’s Water Filter Buying Guide to find the best filter for your needs. A basic carbon filter will reduce chlorine and lead in your water but may not remove other contaminants.
Very few water filters remove fluoride, but we recommend that parents take steps to limit fluoride ingestion for formula-fed babies. Click here to learn how.
On the go, use bottled or distilled water. Choose a BPA-free container to transport water, since chemicals from plastics can leach into the water.
Once you’ve prepared your baby’s bottle, throw away any formula she has not finished within one hour of serving. Store prepared formula for up to 24 hours, then discard. Never warm a bottle in the microwave or add more water to formula than the label instructs. Check the temperature of formula before serving by releasing a drop onto your wrist.
http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2016/07/how-mix-your-baby-s-formula-safe-water
-
Jul 5, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
Despite challenges ahead, all the pieces are in place to build a robust petrochemical industry in the Appalachian Basin and strengthen the existing chemical manufacturing base in and around the region, speakers at a recent industry conference argued.
Royal Dutch Shell plc’s plans to move forward with a multi-billion ethane cracker in Western Pennsylvania that's expected to create 600 permanent jobs and another 6,000 during construction in the coming years have economic development, state and industry officials pushing ahead with efforts to capitalize on the long-awaited opportunity (see Shale Daily, June 7).
"As economic development folks, we compete all the time, we're always looking for the guy that's going to invest in our state, build a factory, employ a lot people and spend a lot of money in our state. And that's really good when you're working toward a facility, a building, but there really isn't much after that that isn't regional," Secretary of the West Virginia Department of Commerce Keith Burdette told attendees at the first Northeast U.S. & Canada Petrochemical Construction Conference.
"The competition is pretty much over. It's over...We're not trying to build a facility anymore, we're trying to build an industry,” he added. “We make perfect sense, the opportunity to extract or process [natural gas], manufacture with it and sell it within the same basic area of the country is real and significant."
Worldwide demand in the industrial sector is poised to grow by 30% by 2040, according to ExxonMobil Corp. Senior Technology Adviser Tahmid Mizan, who reviewed the company's Outlook for Energy report at the conference. Chemicals are the fastest growing segment of industrial demand, given that this part of the sector is projected to use the most fuel and feedstocks. In all, Mizan said, natural gas liquids (NGL) demand is projected to reach 112 million b/d by 2040.
Hearing from some speakers at the conference, it would seem as though the Northeast market is preparing for a petrochemical industry war with the Gulf Coast, but both have distinctive advantages and unique opportunities, others said. Mike Devanney, a retired petrochemical executive that worked in Appalachia, said there are about eight similar facilities either under construction or announced, mostly in Texas, that are scheduled to come on stream before Shell's Northeast cracker does in the early 2020s. Another seven are planned to come online at about the same time or after next decade.
While the Gulf Coast has an established industry with the customers, skilled labor and know-how that provides for lower construction costs, Devanney said, the Northeast is poised to benefit from cost-advantaged feedstock and a domestic market for polyethylene sales to converters that is primarily located within 700 miles of the region. Challenges remain, however, in building a customer base and keeping raw material in the region.
"Many think that this would be a natural advantage for all these crackers and polyethylene units, where they can enjoy lower railcar freight and faster delivery to their customer base," Devanney said of the Northeast market. "Nevertheless, some of the new companies are not particularly familiar with the intricacies of supplying the U.S. polyethylene converters. They don't yet have that long-term relationship, nor the broad product line bundles necessary to build and hold that sales base."
Two other crackers have been proposed by PTT Global Chemical pcl in Belmont County, OH, and by Braskem SA in Wood County, WV (see Shale Daily, Sept. 3, 2015; Nov. 14, 2013). Those companies are still deciding whether to build those facilities, but several panelists agreed that many of the foreign companies preparing to build such plants in the Northeast and along the Gulf Coast are likely to export large volumes of polyethylene and ethylene. Devanney said four million metric tons are headed for export in the first new wave of development in the coming years, with just as much or more expected in the second wave next decade.
But state officials said they're doing everything they can to get more money for workforce development and site preparation for additional facilities in the region.
"Pennsylvania is now a net exporter of natural gas and we know that is going to happen, it will go overseas and we're good with that. We also know that with liquid natural gas, the first shipment has traveled overseas and that's good, but we want to utilize it in Pennsylvania," said Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development Dennis Davin. "We're going to do everything we can to utilize [ethane] here in Pennsylvania."
Last year, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia signed a three-year cooperative agreement aimed at creating policies that would promote the region's prolific shale plays to help generate more economic opportunities (see Shale Daily, Oct. 14, 2015). That effort, state officials at the conference said, is essential going forward in order to help the Appalachian Basin compete with the Gulf Coast. The agreement, Burdette added, is also likely to be bolstered with the possible addition of Kentucky, where Rogersville Shale development has just started and oil and gas volumes have grown in the Berea Sandstone in recent years.
Last month, a group of business leaders in the tri-state region launched another economic development initiative to attract global attention and top energy-consuming businesses to the Mid-Ohio Valley (see Shale Daily, June 9). Philadelphia officials added at the conference that several sites in and around the city are being considered for the petrochemical, storage, refining and other energy-related sectors. Sunoco Logistics Partners LP also has talked in the past about how it could take advantage of its planned Mariner East 2 NGL pipeline to utilize feedstock for a possible propane cracker at its Marcus Hook Industrial Complex near Philadelphia.
The growing list of options would only strengthen the regional chemical manufacturing base. In Pennsylvania, chemicals are the fourth largest manufacturing sector in the state, according to the Pennsylvania Chemical Industry Council. In Ohio, chemicals are the second largest manufacturing sector, which accounts for $34.2 billion in economic output, according to the Ohio Chemistry Technology Council. Chemicals are West Virginia's largest manufacturing sector, with $8.8 billion in economic output, according to the West Virginia Manufacturer's association.
The American Chemistry Council said early last month that 262 chemical industry projects valued at $161 billion are completed, under construction or planned for the United States. The new factories and capacity expansions could create $105 billion in annual chemical industry output and 738,000 permanent jobs throughout the country by 2023.
ACC Chief Economist Kevin Swift said at the Pittsburgh conference that the economic impact of announced chemical investments in the Ohio Valley -- a region near the Ohio River that includes West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio, among others -- would create 8,000 jobs and $11.1 billion in economic output.
"In the long-term horizon, there's enough ethane supply in this country for all the crackers that have been planned or proposed and for the exports that are going to be happening," Swift said. "There's a lot of ethane, it's a great thing; it's a good thing.”
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/106958-speakers-say-appalachian-manufacturing-base-in-place-to-build-strong-petchem-industry
-
New Orleans Council Demands Details on Entergy Gas Plant Proposal
Jul 5, 2016 | E&E Energywire
No one is really sure why a natural-gas-fired power plant proposed by Entergy New Orleans Inc. is 15 percent bigger than previously discussed. The New Orleans City Council wants answers.
The City Council on Thursday demanded that Entergy provide hard data about its proposal to build a $216 million gas-fired plant in New Orleans East. The council gave the utility 30 days to provide more details about a variety of issues, including how the cost of the new plant would compare to renewable energy and energy efficiency programs.
"We're currently at a serious regulatory impasse with Entergy New Orleans that requires immediate correction," said Clint Vince, a longtime utility adviser to the New Orleans City Council, who noted the company's relationship with the City Council has "started to go off the rails" over the proposed power plant.
The utility contends that the 226-megawatt plant is the cheapest way to provide for future power needs. Critics say Entergy is relying on outdated modeling that overprices renewable energy.
Casey DeMoss, CEO of the Alliance for Affordable Energy, noted that Entergy's data are old and do not reflect that solar prices are falling. More accurate data are needed to determine whether the power plant is needed, DeMoss said.
Furthermore, some of the utility's models for the plant take into account the effect of New Orleans' efficiency programs while others do not, said Joe Vumbaco, the council's top technical adviser.
"It's very difficult to make an informed, collective judgment when you have a mixed bag of analyses," Vumbaco said, adding Entergy has not responded to requests for more information.
Entergy New Orleans needs the City Council's full approval before it can start work on the plant. The utility hopes to get that approval for the plant by February 2017 and has warned that a prolonged approval process could drive up the plant's cost.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/07/05/stories/1060039755
-
Second US LNG Cargo Heads to Europe, Set to Reach Spain July 22: Sources
Jul 5, 2016 | Platts
By Stuart Elliott and Wyatt Wong
A new cargo of US LNG is headed for southwestern Europe, only the second cargo to target the European market since US LNG exports began at the end of February.
According to shipping sources and cFlow, Platts trade flow software, the Sestao Knutsen LNG tanker left the Sabine Pass liquefaction facility on Monday and is set to arrive at Spain's Mugardos LNG import terminal at the port of Ferrol on July 22 or earlier.
If the cargo is indeed delivered to Spain, it would be the second to land in Europe after the Creole Spirit offloaded at Portugal's Sines terminal at the end of April.A total of 13 US LNG cargoes have been delivered from Sabine Pass since February, with the majority, nine, sent to the South American countries of Brazil, Argentina and Chile.
Two cargoes were delivered to the Middle East -- Dubai and Kuwait -- while one went to India.
Much industry attention is being focused on how much US LNG will come to Europe given increasing competition for buyers in the oversupplied European market.
The fact that Portugal and Spain are the first European countries to import LNG from the US is telling.
The Iberian peninsula is considered an "island market" with poor interconnection to the rest of Europe, so the delivery of US LNG into the region is not likely to be seen as a sign that US LNG will take hold in the wider European market.
In addition, the biggest suppliers to Europe -- Russia and Norway -- do not supply the Iberian market with their pipeline gas so they are likely to be non-plussed about US LNG headed to southwestern Europe.
ALGERIAN COMPETITION
Algeria, on the other hand, will be keeping a close eye on US LNG exports to Portugal and Spain.
Its exports by pipeline last year totaled around 27 Bcm, with more than half of that headed for Spain and Portugal.
According to Platts analysis, Portugal can account for as much as 12% of Algeria's gas exports by pipeline and Spain some 44%.
Algeria's response to the threat of US LNG imports into southwest Europe seems to have been strong.
So far this year Algerian gas flows to Italy have averaged 45.6 million cu m/d -- more than double the 2015 average of 19 million cu m/d and the 2014 average of 18 million cu m/d, according to data from Platts analytics unit Eclipse Energy.
And Algerian pipeline exports to Spain in the first half averaged 40 million cu m/d, up slightly from 38 million cu m/d in the same period of 2015.
Certainly any US LNG exports to Spain would be seen as a direct threat to Algeria's market share.
US LNG pioneer Cheniere said late last year it expected as much as 50% of its LNG to end up in Europe.
By 2020, it is expected that the US can export as much as 100 Bcm/year of LNG -- enough to supply a quarter of the EU market.
With LNG prices in Asia still in the doldrums, Europe is seen as a market of last resort for US LNG given the strength of the European gas network and its ability to absorb excess LNG.http://www.platts.com/latest-news/natural-gas/london/second-us-lng-cargo-heads-to-europe-set-to-reach-21888018
-
U.S. Leads the World in Reserves -- Report
Jul 5, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Nathanial Gronewold
The United States tops the globe in crude oil reserves, according to an Oslo, Norway-based industry research group.
Rystad Energy declared on Independence Day that the United States is home to more recoverable oil reserves than even Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil producer. U.S. oil reserves are also greater than Russia's, the company announced, based on an "apple to apple" comparison of worldwide oil fields.
Shale oil discoveries in the United States form the basis of Rystad's claims.
"The U.S. now holds more recoverable oil reserves than both Saudi Arabia and Russia," the company said in announcing results of a study. "For [the] U.S., more than 50 percent of remaining oil reserves is unconventional shale oil. Texas alone holds more than 60 billion barrels of shale oil according to this new data."
Rystad achieves these conclusions by calculating together proved reserves, proved and probable existing reserves, estimates of reserves contained in recent discoveries and likely reserves held in as-yet-undiscovered fields. Using only conservative estimates of proved reserves, Russia and Saudi Arabia still overtake the United States by wide margins, while the United States only narrowly edges out Canada.
Combining all estimates for oil and condensate reserves gives the United States a figure of 264 billion barrels. That contrasts with 212 billion barrels for Saudi Arabia and 256 billion barrels for Russia.
U.S. government scientists have been increasing their estimates of recoverable reserves for both oil and natural gas in recent years. But the collapse in oil and gas prices has changed the calculations, and many companies have been forced to drastically reduce their reserve estimates to take account of the weaker economics of shale oil extraction.
Two years ago, the U.S. Energy Information Administration increased its estimate of proved oil reserves held in Texas by 15 percent. Booming shale and tight oil development in West Texas' Permian Basin prompted the increase. Oil prices began sliding lower just a few months afterward.
Back when oil prices were still high, the U.S. Geological Survey reported that Alaska's North Slope was likely home to one of the nation's largest shale oil deposits in a single region. USGS put the figure at about 2 billion barrels of technically recoverable crude (E&ENews PM, Feb. 24, 2012).
The true estimate of total U.S. oil reserves, when taking into account the current down business climate, may be unknown but is likely in decline. Oil and gas companies have essentially ended their usual obsession with reserves replacement ratios as the oil price collapse forced companies to focus instead on paying down debt and slashing their operating costs (EnergyWire, June 15).
New exploration and production has also fallen by the wayside, both in the United States and abroad, leading the International Energy Agency to warn of a potential supply shortfall in coming years as the industry has underinvested in new oil production during the downturn.
Despite the bullish tone, Rystad's newest assessment also agrees that future oil supply may not match demand if demand expands at a higher rate than some analysts are expecting.
"This data confirms that there is a relatively limited amount of recoverable oil left on the planet," the company concluded. "With the global car-park possibly doubling from 1 billion to 2 billion cars over the next 30 years, it becomes very clear that oil alone cannot satisfy the growing need for individual transport."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/07/05/stories/1060039775
-
Mass. Lawmakers Pursue Ambitious Clean Energy Bill
Jul 5, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
Massachusetts could be on the cusp of a cleaner energy future.
Legislation making its way through the State House could raise Massachusetts' renewable energy standard and establish an ambitious clean energy procurement program. House and Senate lawmakers are expected to hash out different versions of the measure before the end of the month.
John Rogers, a senior energy analyst for the Union of Concerned Scientists, called the legislation "impressive" and said it is a "a big deal -- and not just for Massachusetts." It could help make offshore wind development more commonplace in the United States, he argued.
He and other environmentalists described a Senate version that passed unanimously last week as a more aggressive omnibus bill than the House version. It would procure 12.45 terawatt-hours of clean energy and 2,000 megawatts of offshore wind power and double the growth of the state's renewable portfolio standard (RPS) to 39 percent through 2030.
Notably, the Senate bill would count any kind of RPS resources as eligible for the procurement program.
By contrast, the House proposal would procure 9.45 terawatt-hours of clean energy and 1,200 MW of offshore wind power and keep the RPS at 25 percent by 2030. Meanwhile, it would allow only hydropower or RPS resources paired with hydro -- which drew complaints from local clean energy advocates.
They argued the House bill would favor imported Canadian hydropower and offshore wind while bypassing utility-scale solar or onshore wind power (ClimateWire, June 13).
Rogers said he hopes lawmakers will incorporate portions of both bills in their conference report. The House version, for example, includes provisions for property assessed clean energy financing. The Senate bill sets stronger standards and also includes measures to promote energy storage, grid modernization, climate adaptation and electric vehicles.
Rogers said while both Republican Gov. Charlie Baker and the Democratic-controlled House may have been focused on creating incentives for hydropower, the Senate strengthened the competitive nature of the procurement program by allowing renewable power to qualify alone. Projects with hydropower would still get preference, however.
"I'm not sure they're that far apart," Rogers said of the bills, adding that he thinks the chambers should be able to reach consensus in conference and pass a bill that Baker would approve of before the legislative session finishes at the end of the month.
A natural gas dependence 'danger zone'?
State Sen. Ben Downing, a Democrat who chairs the joint committee on energy, said the bill would put Massachusetts closer to leading cleaner energy states like California and New York, which are aiming for 50 percent renewable power by 2030.
If Massachusetts raises its RPS, it would follow in the recent footsteps of neighboring Rhode Island, whose governor last week signed a bill to raise the renewable energy standard to 40 percent by 2035, and Washington, D.C., where the Council of the District of Columbia approved legislation to expand its target to 50 percent by 2032 (ClimateWire, June 23.)
Massachusetts Senate Democrats in an amendment debate that lasted into the evening Thursday warned of the state's high reliance on natural gas and the need for new generation to replace retiring coal and nuclear power. The Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station will shutter in 2019, requiring the state to find new sources for about 15 percent of its electricity. Massachusetts currently gets more than 60 percent of its power from natural gas, Rogers said.
If there is a "danger zone" for overdependence on one fuel, Massachusetts is in it, Downing said.
He said the provisions in the Senate bill would get the state close to levels that both former Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick and Baker have outlined. And they would provide market visibility for developers and create space for job-creating projects that lawmakers' districts have benefited from, he said.
But, Downing said, "Investing in renewables isn't enough. ... [W]e also need to change the way our grid works."
That means moving toward energy storage so that the power system does not have to build out to keep plants on standby to meet peak demand, he said.
Downing emphasized that lawmakers will have to keep revising standards and revisiting the interplay of power production, the environment and climate change.
"Gone are the days when we could do an energy bill and come back 10 years later," he said.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/07/05/stories/1060039747
-
'Year of the Ransomware' Sets Utilities on Edge
Jul 5, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Utility companies are bracing their computer networks for the second half of 2016, which internet security firm Emsisoft has already declared the "year of the ransomware."
Hackers have turned a security asset -- strong encryption -- into a weapon by locking up victims' files and demanding payment for the key. Such ransomware attacks have risen dramatically so far in 2016, according to the FBI, and few see the trend reversing as tens of thousands of dollars flow into anonymous Bitcoin wallets across the globe.
Losing photos, PDF files and Word documents can be bad enough for most businesses targeted by ransomware. But "with an electric utility who is providing critical services to hundreds of thousands of people, the risk certainly jumps up by a couple orders of magnitude," said Del Rodillas, solution lead for industrial control systems at Palo Alto Networks, during a webcast on the threat hosted by the EnergySec nonprofit last week.
The Lansing Board of Water & Light, a municipal utility in Michigan, was hit by ransomware this April in what cybersecurity experts warn could be a harbinger for future targeted attacks against power companies (EnergyWire, May 2).
In 2013, cyber attackers struck a public utility in Kansas with the feared CryptoLocker, an early type of ransomware that has since been succeeded by variants with names like Apocalypse and Jigsaw.
Neither of those cases saw hackers reaching into the industrial control systems that keep the grid running smoothly. But utility operators are warning their peers to stay prepared.
"I'm not going to make any recommendations on whether or not you should pay ransom," said Gavin Worden, manager of the information security operations center at the San Diego-based Sempra Energy. "But I will say that, as part of your planning, you should, as a business, consider that business decision and have an idea of what the business wants to do ahead of time."
A string of hospitals from Maryland to Los Angeles have been hit by ransomware this year so far, with at least one opting to pay a $17,000 ransom rather than risk a sustained period without access to patient files and other key data.
At a conference of utility industry regulators this year, most attendees said they would refuse to pay their attackers if they were hit by ransomware (EnergyWire, March 7). But victims' real-life decisionmaking may not be so principled, according to a recent survey by the cybersecurity firm Radware. While 84 percent of U.S. and U.K. information technology executives in the 205-person survey said they would never pay the ransom if attacked, 43 percent of firms actually infected by ransomware wound up paying, based on the company's findings.
"It's easy to say you won't pay a ransom until your system is actually locked down and inaccessible," Carl Herberger, Radware's vice president of security solutions, said in a statement announcing results of the survey.
Businesses may find themselves in a situation where it's simpler and less expensive to buy out the encryption keys than to try to restore everything from backups (if backups exist), experts say. The threat is particularly acute in the industrial control system space for utilities, where mere minutes of downtime can have costly repercussions or even lead to regulatory trouble.
"If you don't have the proper procedures and you do not train to recover from a massive breakdown in the industrial control systems, you have a problem," said Christopher Ellefsen, senior network engineer at BKK, a regional utility company in Norway. "You need to train regularly on this."
Rapid adoption of "smart" grid technologies could magnify the impact of cyberattacks including ransomware if utilities aren't careful, executives say. The old fallback plan of reverting to "manual mode" and disconnecting everything from the internet may not always be feasible in the 21st century, said Billy Glenn, principal security solution architect for Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
"As we have these more automated and distributed systems, we have to be very mindful of how realistic it is to go 'tech down,' if you will, and have the guy in the substation flip the switch, if there's a bunch of electronic stuff behind that switch that we may not be able to control at this point," Glenn said.
Glenn recommended employee training as one of the best antidotes for ransomware. Most ransomware attacks start via "phishing" emails, where a worker in a targeted organization unwittingly clicks on a malicious link or opens an attachment loaded with malware.
"While your control system operators should not be reading email, you have employees in your corporate network who may have pivot ability to get into your control systems," he said. "Everything we can do to give our end users one more cue that something's not quite right about this [email] is definitely going to improve our posture."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/07/05/stories/1060039754
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Add recipients
Suggested