Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 4/3/18
-
(ACC Mentioned) Scott Pruitt Loads Schedule with Speeches to Fossil Fuel and Big Ag Industry Groups
Apr 3, 2018 | ThinkProgress
By Mark Hand
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt has triggered a wave of controversy in recent weeks for his extravagant travel, lobbyist-connected apartment, and favors to allies. -
(ACC Mentioned) Heed the Sustainability Call
Apr 3, 2018 | Packaging World
By Ben Miyares
Bill Carteaux, president and CEO of the Plastics Industry Association (PIA), does it in his impassioned defense of single-use plastics in a recent Plastic News opinion piece (pwgo.to/3438). -
Trump Offers Support to Embattled EPA Head
Apr 3, 2018 | AP ( In The New York Times)
By Jonathan Lemire and Catherine Lucey
President Donald Trump is offering strong support for Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency who is at the center of swirling ethics questions, the White House said Tuesday. -
Acting Deputy Leaves Today
Apr 3, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
Mike Flynn, U.S. EPA's acting deputy administrator, finishes his decadeslong tenure at the agency today. -
Pruitt's EPA Plans to Systematically Deconstruct the Expanded Authority a Bipartisan Congress Gave It Less Than Two Years Ago
Apr 3, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
EDF has learned from sources across the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that its political appointees are taking steps to systematically dismantle the agency’s ability to conduct broad risk reviews of chemicals and effectively address identified risks under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). -
Environmentalist Resigns Seat on TSCA Advisory Panel
Apr 3, 2018 | Inside EPA
An environmentalist has resigned from a new EPA advisory committee for the agency's toxics office, one week after the administration announced her appointment along with ten other new panelists, citing in part Administrator Scott Pruitt's controversial plans to limit the data EPA uses to craft its rules and limits it has placed on its advisers. -
LIES from UPSTREAM: Documentary Draws Parallels Between WV and NC
Apr 3, 2018 | encore Online
The documentary deals with the chemical MCHM, a detergent used for cleaning coal, and the aftermath of the discovery that tanks holding the chemical, owned by Freedom Industries, were found to have leaked around 7,500 gallons into the Elk River in Charleston, WV. -
Bill to expand chemical regulation passes Legislature
Apr 3, 2018 | Vermont Digger (In E&E Greenwire)
By Elizabeth Gribkoff
The Vermont House of Representatives has passed a bill to tighten the state's standards for toxic substances. -
EU Approves Sodium Dichromate Authorisation Application
Apr 3, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission has approved an application for a use of sodium dichromate. -
EPA and PHMSA Clashed on Enbridge Spill Penalty
Apr 3, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
Federal pipeline regulators touted a "record" penalty — $3.7 million — when they fined Enbridge Energy Partners in 2012 for spilling hundreds of thousands of gallons of crude oil into Michigan's Kalamazoo River. -
BLM Greenlights Fracking in Colorado's Whitewater Basin
Apr 3, 2018 | Daily Sentinel (In E&E Energywire)
By Gary Harmon
Bureau of Land Management officials have approved an oil driller's plans to carry out hydraulic fracturing operations in Colorado's Whitewater Basin. -
Cyberattack Hits Major Pipeline Service Provider
Apr 3, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Dallas-based pipeline giant Energy Transfer Partners LP had to play cyber defense yesterday after hackers brought down the networks of an outside service provider, sources say. -
Hackers Gaining Access to U.S. Energy Systems 'to Test Our Response'
Apr 3, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Collin Eaton
Cyberattacks targeting computer control operators at U.S. energy facilities have risen sharply over the past two years, as a sophisticated hacking group attempted to gain a foothold in networks that run the nation's critical infrastructure, a recent cybersecurity analysis shows. -
IG Probing Accuracy of Emissions Data from Large Sources
Apr 3, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA's inspector general is taking a look at the accuracy of the numbers produced by continuous emissions monitoring systems used by power plants and other large stationary pollution sources. -
Parks Officials Scrubbed Climate Report
Apr 3, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Adam Aton
Federal officials scrubbed references to humans' contribution to climate change from a National Park Service study, according to an unpublished draft that has been withheld for at least 10 months.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Scott Pruitt Loads Schedule with Speeches to Fossil Fuel and Big Ag Industry Groups
Apr 3, 2018 | ThinkProgress
By Mark Hand
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt has triggered a wave of controversy in recent weeks for his extravagant travel, lobbyist-connected apartment, and favors to allies. But his problematic approach to the job, marked by an unabashed favoritism toward industry, stretches back much further.
This favoritism is starkly evident in Pruitt’s speaking schedule. He spent a substantial part of 2017 giving speeches to industry groups whose member companies are regulated by the federal agency he oversees. Officials with oil and gas companies and big agriculture — two of the most polluting industries in the nation — were Pruitt’s most frequent audiences.
During his first 10 months as administrator, Pruitt gave more than 30 speeches to industry groups and companies regulated by the EPA. Nine of the speeches were delivered to oil and gas companies and trade groups and seven were given to industrial farming groups, according to a ThinkProgress analysis of documentsobtained by the Environmental Integrity Project.
From February to November 2017, Pruitt, the nation’s top environmental official, did not give a single speech to an environmental or public health group during that 10-month period.
Through his choice of speaking engagements, Pruitt has demonstrated his policy and political priorities: undermining environmental law and promoting far-right politics. By speaking at an event where opposing viewpoints are not permitted, Pruitt intrinsically offers his stamp of approval on that group’s agenda.
His handful of meetings with environmental, conservation, and public health groups have been private affairs where he can simply listen to their concerns and is not bound to express an opinion or face public embarrassment from experts who disagree with his tenure at the EPA.
The polluting industries represented at his speaking engagements are the “stakeholders” Pruitt often mentions in speeches and testimony. During his time as Oklahoma’s attorney general, Pruitt enjoyed a close relationship with fossil fuel companies and other polluting industries.
In 2014, The New York Times broke a story showing that Pruitt had taken a letter written by Devon Energy lawyers and sent it to the EPA on state letterhead, essentially acting as an official voice for one of his state’s biggest polluters.
Pruitt has only strengthened those industry ties since becoming EPA administrator. For example, his relationship with an energy lobbyist from his days in Oklahoma — Steven Hart, chairman and CEO of Williams and Jensen PLLC — carried over to his time as EPA administrator, raising potential ethics violations. In 2017, Pruitt rented a luxury apartment near the U.S. Capitol, co-owned by the lobbyist’s wife, at a below-market rate.
“Pruitt meets and speaks frequently with industry groups — but not public health or environmental advocates — and then makes decisions that benefit only industry, while ignoring the broader American public he’s supposed to serve,” Mary Greene, deputy director of the Environmental Integrity Project, said in a statement.
Pruitt often describes the rules and precautionary measures demanded by environmental and public health groups as unnecessary because they are akin to “putting up fences” around the areas where natural resources could be harvested. His opinion of environmental groups as one-dimensional in their goals has virtually disqualified them from discussions at the EPA under the Trump administration.
Pruitt’s belief in the decency of industry is evident in his schedule of speeches.
It’s not unusual for an EPA administrator’s schedule to have a partisan bent; administrators are, after all, political appointees, and their priorities are bound to reflect those of the president. Under the Obama administration, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy often took meetings with environmental advocacy groups.
But unlike Pruitt, McCarthy also took meetings with industry groups that weren’t supportive of proposed regulations. In the lead-up to the release of the final Clean Power Plan rule, for instance, the EPA conducted meetings with industry stakeholders, like the American Public Power Association, to solicit their input.
“She was very conscious of making sure she was hearing from all sides because that’s the only way you can effectively do your job as administrator,” Liz Purchia, who was head of communications for the EPA under McCarthy, said in an email to ThinkProgress.
Pruitt has yet to give an official speech to a public health, conservation, or environmental group. The only such groups with which he has officially met are the American Academy of Pediatrics, Trout Unlimited, and the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. Unofficially, he met with representatives from the Nature Conservancy and the Audubon Society following remarks he gave at an annual Earth Day event in Texas.
Pruitt’s industry audiences cover the gamut of polluters, from coal to big agriculture and fossil fuel companies. Along with the dozens of speeches to industry groups, he also addressed far right policy groups in 2017, including the socially conservative Council for National Policy and the Federalist Society, which espouses an “originalist” interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.
Pruitt brands his own philosophy as “EPA originalism” and is carrying out his pledge to fight back against what he views as Obama-era “regulatory assault.”
The Trump administration has made U.S. “energy dominance” one of its slogans. To fulfill this policy priority, Pruitt regularly meets with oil and gas groups, along with coal industry interests. In many cases, he has followed up those meetings by seeking to roll back regulations affecting those companies.
Another major polluting industry Pruitt has promised to regulate with a lighter touch is industrial agriculture, which is as much of a threat to the environment as fossil fuels.
Agriculture is a huge contributor to water pollution. The majority of American farmland is dominated by industrial agriculture, with its system of chemically intensive food production, featuring enormous single-crop farms and animal production facilities.
Herbicides and insecticides commonly used in agriculture have been associated with long-term chronic illness. Water pollution from fertilizer runoff contaminates drinking water supplies. Industrial farming also exhausts soil fertility, requiring costly applications of chemical fertilizers.
“This EPA is not interested in protecting people from harmful pesticides,” Karen Perry, senior analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said. “It’s more interested in bowing to the wishes of Dow [Agrochemical].”
Pesticides like chlorpyrifos are manufactured by Dow Agrosciences, a division of Dow Chemical, which donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration. A year ago, Pruitt sided with the pesticide lobby over EPA scientists in a decision to abort the agency’s proposal to ban chlorpyrifos from use on food crops.
In 2017, officials with big agriculture were one of Pruitt’s most frequent audiences. He reminds industrial farming groups that the days of treating them as adversaries who need to be closely regulated are over.
“They’re our first conservationists. They’re our first environmentalists,” Pruitt saysof farmers and ranchers.
Obama administration officials also focused on agriculture. But instead of making promises of fewer regulations, Obama officials made a concerted effort to engage farmers in reducing harmful emissions.
Following Obama’s re-election in 2012, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) started to address climate change more directly. In 2014, the agency expanded its commitment to helping farmers manage climate impacts by launching a series of Climate Hubs, aimed at providing coordination between USDA, land grant universities and extension schools, and farmers.
In his speeches, Pruitt tells industry officials that the EPA’s primary goal now is not to “penalize our economy,” a statement that, when translated into action, means making sure polluting industries are not held accountable for the environmental impact of their activity.
In December, The New York Times published an analysis of enforcement data that showed the Trump administration has adopted a more lenient approach than the previous two administrations — Democratic and Republican — toward polluters
During the first nine months under Pruitt’s leadership, the EPA started about 1,900 enforcement cases, about one-third fewer than the number under Obama’s first EPA director and about one-quarter fewer than under President George W. Bush’s over the same time period.
In April 2017, Pruitt traveled to the Harvey Mine in Pennsylvania, owned by coal and natural gas producer Consol Energy, to declare that the agency was adopting a “back to basics” philosophy. During his visit, Pruitt made sure to pose with coal miners with a white hard hat in his hand for the photographers at the event.
After his visit to Pennsylvania, Pruitt gave at least four other speeches to coal companies and industry trade groups through November, including speaking at the National Mining Association’s board meeting at a Ritz Carlton Golf Resort in Florida on April 24, and meeting with leaders of Alliance Resource Partners, a major coal company, for dinner at a restaurant in the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C. on April 26.
The Trump International Hotel also was the venue for a speech Pruitt gave to the American Petroleum Institute’s (API) board of directors on March 22, 2017. API was fond of Pruitt when he served as Oklahoma attorney general prior to joining the Trump administration and remains extremely encouraged by the direction Pruitt is taking the agency.
Last May, API highlighted eight changes it wanted to ease the regulation of air and water pollution. An analysis by The Guardian, published last December, showed that the EPA had either partially or wholly delivered on six out of these eight key demands.
From February through November 2017, Pruitt gave speeches at two chemical industry events: a meeting of the Louisiana Chemical Association and Louisiana Chemical Industry Alliance in New Orleans on October 27 and a meeting of the American Chemistry Council on Kiawah Island, South Carolina on November 9.
Even though the Environmental Integrity Project has been able to track the industry groups Pruitt has addressed, it has had no luck getting copies of the speeches. In December, the group filed a lawsuit in federal court against the EPA over its refusal to turn over speeches made by Pruitt.
While former administrations routinely posted speeches and public presentations made by the agency’s administrator on its website, Pruitt’s EPA has declined to do so. The agency also failed to respond to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the Environmental Integrity Project on October 24 for speeches and other prepared remarks he has given to third parties in his role as EPA administrator.
“When you look at who Administrator Pruitt is meeting and having conversations with, it is clear that average citizens do not have his ear — it’s big business and the fossil fuels industry,” the Environmental Integrity Project’s Greene said. “We think that American citizens — who are Mr. Pruitt’s boss — have a right to know what their employee is promising to these groups.”
https://thinkprogress.org/scott-pruitt-only-speaks-to-industry-groups-1a4a7696f05b/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Heed the Sustainability Call
Apr 3, 2018 | Packaging World
By Ben Miyares
Bill Carteaux, president and CEO of the Plastics Industry Association (PIA), does it in his impassioned defense of single-use plastics in a recent Plastic News opinion piece (pwgo.to/3438).
Carteaux’s not just preaching to the choir. He’s issuing a call to action. “We need to do a better job explaining our products, why they are useful and needed, and how they are produced, managed, and recycled,” he says. “Even if your company isn’t involved in straws or bottle manufacturing, you need to be involved in the discussion.”
Does he mean you need to get actively involved in discussions about bans of such products, even if you’re a packaged goods manufacturer? How about a machinery maker or a converter? I believe he does. Packaging professionals have remained uncomfortably silent for too long in the face of their critics.
It is ironic that the principal weapon aimed against packaging these days is the materials ban–the antithesis of packaging resource sustainability. Much that extends and replenishes the utility of packaging resources is dismissed or derided by our critics as self-serving. Perhaps that’s because the critics fail to understand that making the maximum number of functional items or achieving the most efficient production cycles from the available (material, energy, labor, financial) resources is a fundamental tenet of all manufacturing, including packaging.
Packaging has much to contribute in a discussion of sustainability, as the following examples–just tiny slices of what’s going on–show.
Recycled, recyclable, compostable beauty product packaging
L’Oréal’s Seed Phytonutrients shampoo is currently debuting in recycled, recyclable, and compostable “shower-safe” molded fiber bottles that are sure to win sustainability accolades, if they haven’t already. The bottles are a collaborative development of Seed Phytonutrients and Ecologic Brands, a molded fiber packaging converter.“We use post-consumer paper now,” says Scott Schienvar, head of supply chain operations at L’Oréal. “But soon, we’ll be making these containers from our own waste paper and cardboard boxes.”
Treated with an unspecified mineral to withstand hot shower water exposure while still being recyclable, bottles are formed of two semi-cylindrical shells held together without glue via a slot-and-tab locking design. Suspended from the throat of each bottle is a food-grade recycled plastic bladder fitted with a pump-action dispenser for the shampoo. In addition to the bladder, each bottle includes a packet of organic heirloom seeds, which consumers can retrieve by opening the slot and tab lock that holds the bottle walls in place.
Becoming a net collector/reclaimer
Coca-Cola, the company that in 2009 developed the first PET bottles made from up to 30% plant-based materials and has subsequently distributed more than 45 billion of them around the world, has launched a “World without Waste” initiative to collect and recycle the equivalent of every bottle and can it sells globally by 2030. Coke’s 100% collection and recycling goal will primarily focus on bottles, cans, and caps made from glass, PET, or aluminum, which represent approximately 85% of its packaging. But it also includes packages made by other companies.“We believe every package–regardless of where it comes from–has value and life beyond its initial use,” says James Quincey, president/CEO of Coke. “If something can be recycled, it should be recycled.”
Recycling “unrecyclables”
S.C. Johnson & Co. Inc. is processing Ziploc® bags and other post-consumer flexible plastic packaging into garbage bags to prove that it can be done commercially and sustainably.“We wanted to show that there is an opportunity for curb side film to go into something else and be a sustainable business,” says Pamela Oksiuta, Senior Director of Global Sustainability. For the last year and a half, the project washed, flaked, and pelletized the PCR and extruded it into garbage bags.
SCJ is not alone in scavenging flexible packaging waste in quest of commercial second lives for used flexible packaging. Materials Recovery for the Future (MRFF), for instance, is a research alliance established by the American Chemistry Council (ACC) that includes several plastic resin and film developers along with Nestle Purina Petcare, Nestle USA, PepsiCo, Plum Organics, Procter & Gamble, SC Johnson, retailer Target Stores to find better ways to collect and reprocess spent flexible packaging back into commercial products for the domestic market. Nor is MRFF ACC’s only post-consumer film interest.
According to ACC’s annual National Post Consumer Plastic Bag and Film Recycling Report, (pwgo.to/3439), approximately 1.3 billion pounds of post-consumer film was recovered for recycling in 2016, a 10% increase over the previous year. ACC has been quietly tracking recycling since 2005 and reports that post-consumer film recycling has more than doubled in that period. Fully 47% of the recovered film is recycled, the rest was exported.
There are many more positive packaging sustainability stories like these. Heed the call and tell them.
https://www.packworld.com/article/heed-sustainability-call
-
Trump Offers Support to Embattled EPA Head
Apr 3, 2018 | AP ( In The New York Times)
By Jonathan Lemire and Catherine Lucey
President Donald Trump is offering strong support for Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency who is at the center of swirling ethics questions, the White House said Tuesday.
The president called Pruitt on Monday and told him that "we've got your back" and urged him to "keep his head up" and "keep fighting," according to two administration officials. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss private conversations.
White House chief of staff John Kelly reiterated those sentiments in a call to Pruitt Tuesday morning, according to the officials.
Pruitt has come under intense scrutiny for his use of a Capitol Hill condominium linked to a prominent Washington lobbyist whose firm represents fossil fuel companies. An agency ethics official at the EPA has insisted that Pruitt's lease didn't violate federal ethics rules.
A memo signed by Kevin Minoli contends that Pruitt's $50-a-night rental payments constitute a fair market rate. Pruitt's lease, however, required him to pay just for nights he occupied in the unit. Pruitt actually paid a total of $6,100 over the six month period he leased the property, an average of about $1,000 a month.
But current rental listings for two-bedroom apartments in the neighborhood show they typically go for far more than what Pruitt paid. A two bedroom townhome on the same block as the one leased by Pruitt was advertised for rent on Monday at $3,750 a month.
Pruitt also has come under increasing scrutiny for his extensive use of bodyguards and frequent taxpayer-funded travel, which has included first-class airline tickets. Though federal regulations typically require federal officials to fly in coach, the EPA chief has said he needed to sit in premium seats due to security concerns.
A Republican who previously served as the state attorney general of Oklahoma, Pruitt has long been a champion of the oil and gas industry. In the year he has served as the Trump administration's top environmental official, Pruitt has moved to scrap, gut or replace numerous environmental regulations opposed by the industry while boosting the continued burning of fossil fuels, which is the primary cause of climate change.
Trump is said to be fond of Pruitt and has cheered his moves to rollback regulations and do battle with environmental groups, according to a White House official.
The president's call to Pruitt comes just days after another Cabinet official, Veterans Affairs head David Shulkin, was dismissed amid ongoing ethics concerns. An inspector general's report concluded that Shulkin had inappropriately accepted travel and Wimbledon tickets, a charge the secretary denied.
Other Trump Cabinet members, including Secretary for Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson and Interior head Ryan Zinke have also faced questions about their expenditures.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/04/03/us/politics/ap-us-trump-epa-.html
-
Apr 3, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
Mike Flynn, U.S. EPA's acting deputy administrator, finishes his decadeslong tenure at the agency today.
Flynn said in an internal email obtained by E&E News that today will be his last day at the agency.
"I've had the great privilege and honor to serve alongside you for many years. I leave with mixed emotions, for I will miss my EPA family and the important work we do. But I take great comfort in knowing that you will continue to do all you can to protect our public health and the nation's environment," Flynn said in the email sent to EPA employees yesterday.
It's not clear who will replace Flynn as acting deputy. EPA press officials didn't respond to questions from E&E News on the agency's plans for the job.
The EPA deputy's departure also coincides with Administrator Scott Pruitt's mounting struggles with ethics allegations, raising speculation that the agency chief may soon be gone, too (see related story).
Flynn, a top career official, had announced in February his retirement today. Flynn joined EPA in 1980 and served in several of its program offices before being picked by the Obama administration to hold the deputy administrator position on an acting basis until President Trump nominated his replacement (E&E News PM, Feb. 21).
Before the two-week congressional recess, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) filed cloture on a number of pending nominations, including Andrew Wheeler, Trump's pick to be EPA deputy administrator.
A McConnell spokesman said today the Senate will vote on pending nominees in the order in which the leader filed cloture to end debate. Wheeler, a former longtime Republican aide to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee who has lobbied for coal giant Murray Energy Corp., has three nominees pending before him.
If Democrats agree to yield back debate time on any of the nominees, Wheeler could be confirmed as early as next week. However, the growing controversies surrounding Pruitt may represent new hurdles for Wheeler's quick confirmation.
With no deputy chief after Pruitt, Matt Leopold as EPA's general counsel would be the next in line to take charge of the agency if the administrator was unable to perform his duties under an executive order signed by President Obama in January last year. Various assistant administrators then follow Leopold in EPA's order of succession under the measure (Greenwire, Jan. 16, 2017).
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/04/03/stories/1060078049
-
Apr 3, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
EDF has learned from sources across the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that its political appointees are taking steps to systematically dismantle the agency’s ability to conduct broad risk reviews of chemicals and effectively address identified risks under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
The assault is taking the form of methodically excising from the scopes of the agency’s chemical reviews any uses of, or exposures to, chemicals that fall under TSCA’s jurisdiction, if those uses or exposures also touch on the jurisdiction of another office at EPA or another Federal agency.
Under the Lautenberg Act’s 2016 amendments to TSCA, Congress directed EPA to identify the first 10 chemicals to undergo risk evaluations; EPA did so in December 2016. After the transition to the new Administration, EPA scrambled to produce documents that set forth the “scopes” of those evaluations in order to meet the law’s deadline of June 2017; EPA acknowledged, however, that its scope documents were rushed and incomplete, and promised to update them in the form of so-called “problem formulations” that would be issued within six months. Those documents are now months late.
We now are learning why: Political appointees at EPA are engaged in an intra-agency process intended to dramatically narrow the scopes of those first 10 reviews. They are seeking to shed from those reviews any use of or exposure to a chemical that touches on another office’s jurisdiction, apparently regardless of whether or what action has been or can or will be taken by that office to identify, assess or address the relevant potential risks of that chemical. Reports indicate that leadership in some offices are welcoming this move, while others are resisting it.
This new assault on TSCA implementation:is illegal and would make TSCA even weaker than it was before the 2016 reforms;flies in the face of the science that informs what we know about how chemicals can affect our health and that of our environment;exposes the charade that Pruitt was serious about strong TSCA implementation; andis counter to the bipartisan efforts that led to Congress overwhelmingly supporting an updated TSCA that broadened and deepened the TSCA office’s authorities.
What the law requires
Congress intentionally gave TSCA a very broad reach, evident even in the original law passed in 1976. EPA was authorized then, and is required now, to address under TSCA the full lifecycles – from manufacture to processing to distribution to use to disposal – of chemicals and chemical mixtures and products containing them. The new law expressly mandates that EPA identify and evaluate risks resulting from all intended and reasonably foreseen, as well as known, circumstances under which each of those activities takes place. Under this mandate, EPA is to make a determination on the chemical substance as a whole as to whether or not it presents an unreasonable risk, which may be due to a single or any combination of those activities. If such risk is found, TSCA provides EPA with a broad set of authorities and a mandate to deploy actions that fully eliminate the unreasonable risk.
In finalizing its “framework rule” that laid out the details of how EPA will conduct chemical risk evaluations under TSCA, Pruitt’s EPA asserted that it could simply ignore chemical uses and exposures on numerous grounds. This assertion, which was a wholesale reversal of EPA’s stance in the pending rule proposed by the prior EPA, closely mirrored the demands of the chemical industry. EPA’s assertion of authority to ignore known uses and exposures violates the law and is currently being challenged in the courts.
Among the ways EPA asserted this authority was to state in the preamble to the final rule that it can simply choose not to consider uses or exposure that also fall under other statutory authorities. We now are hearing that is exactly what EPA plans to do – on steroids – for the first 10 chemicals undergoing risk evaluations.
To be sure, TSCA anticipates the possibility that another part of EPA or another agency might be able to effectively address an identified risk, and it requires EPA to consider that possibility. But that step is triggered only after EPA has undertaken its risk evaluation of the chemical and made its risk determination, not before the agency even understands the nature, extent and magnitude of the risk.
The approach EPA now plans to take would put the cart miles ahead of the horse, moving to the very front of the risk evaluation process a step that Congress intended not be undertaken until the very end. Instead, EPA will from the outset lop off from its risk evaluations potential sources of risk it has yet to evaluate at all; and this based on at best a hypothetical argument that another office or agency can and will adequately address a risk it too has yet to evaluate even in isolation, let alone through the broad, integrated risk evaluation TSCA demands of EPA.
Why this matters
The Pruitt EPA’s attempt to atomize the evaluation of chemical risks has one purpose: to make it far less likely that risks needing to be controlled will be identified.
This has long been the aim of much of the chemical industry: if each activity that leads to a chemical exposure is looked at in isolation, it will be far more likely that such activity will be deemed safe.
This is why the industry lobbied so hard that companies be able to request EPA to conduct risk evaluations only on narrow uses of a chemical the company chooses (and Pruitt’s EPA now allows this). This is why the industry has fought so hard to have EPA focus its risk reviews of a new chemical only on a company’s intended use (and Pruitt’s EPA will now do so), when the law requires new chemical risk reviews also to consider reasonably foreseen uses of a new chemical. This is why industry lawyers have pushed EPA to ignore risks to workers posed by new chemicals, and instead just toss them over to OSHA to deal with – despite the latter’s decimated authorities, weakened by decades of sustained industry assault. (It’s not yet clear how EPA will respond to this industry demand.)
Yet the science that informs our modern understanding of chemical exposures points us precisely in the opposite direction. This science tells us that the combined, long-term, even low-level exposures resulting from multiple uses and sources of a chemical are what matter. This science tells us that the timing, frequency, context, location and duration of exposures, as well as their magnitude at a given point in time and space, are what matter. This science is reflected in the steady push in risk assessment science toward the need to consider combined exposures from all sources, and to consider differential vulnerabilities of particular subpopulations such as infants, pregnant women, workers, the elderly and disproportionately exposed communities.
Congress embedded these concepts into the new TSCA, which is why it called for comprehensive risk evaluations of chemicals under the law. The approach being pursued by Pruitt’s EPA appears hell-bent on turning back the clock on this science.
The new approach mirrors the Pruitt EPA’s broader effort to weaken the agency
Pruitt has repeatedly claimed he is serious about strong implementation of the new TSCA. The TSCA office’s budget was excluded from the drastic budget cuts Pruitt and the Administration sought across the rest of the agency. And Pruitt has touted as “major milestones” meeting deadlines under the law for various rules and other required actions, even as he has sought to delay and roll back such actions in other EPA offices. We have blogged earlier about the illusory nature of such claims. An EDF colleague summed it up in a single sentence: “You can’t burn down my house, and then expect me to cook you dinner because the kitchen is still standing.”
Now it appears the kitchen, too, is to be set on fire.
The Pruitt EPA now intends to weaken the implementation of a new law Congress made stronger, by breaking it up into pieces and distributing the pieces to other parts of the agency the authorities of which Pruitt is relentlessly working to dismantle. And to other agencies that are under comparable assault by this administration. And this, even when there is no statutory obligation for other EPA offices or federal agencies to do anything about the discarded pieces they’ve been given.
Congress should be livid
Nothing less than the remarkable achievement of the 114th Congress in passing the first major environmental legislation in more than two decades is now in peril under Pruitt’s EPA. The strengthening of a failed law was seen as essential to restore public confidence and business certainty.
But now that an EPA leadership that routinely defies the law and ignores science is in the driver’s seat on TSCA implementation, the guard rails are being disassembled and the car itself is teetering on two wheels. And the cliff it’s heading toward is implementation of the law in a manner that will make it even weaker than the one Congress finally fixed less than two years ago.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/04/03/pruitts-epa-plans-to-systematically-deconstruct-the-expanded-authority-a-bipartisan-congress-gave-it-less-than-two-years-ago/#more-7648
-
Environmentalist Resigns Seat on TSCA Advisory Panel
Apr 3, 2018 | Inside EPA
An environmentalist has resigned from a new EPA advisory committee for the agency's toxics office, one week after the administration announced her appointment along with ten other new panelists, citing in part Administrator Scott Pruitt's controversial plans to limit the data EPA uses to craft its rules and limits it has placed on its advisers.
Jennifer McPartland, a senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), says she has “decided to decline the invitation to serve on” EPA's Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC), according to a statement she provided to Inside EPA.
“A number of factors informed my decision including the bandwidth to comment on issues in front of the committee as a member of the SACC and also in my capacity as a scientist at EDF,” McPartland's statement says.
She says one factor driving her decision was Pruitt's pending policy requiring the agency to base all rules on scientific information that is publicly available.
“This directive, coming on the heels of [Pruitt's] directive barring EPA grantees from serving on agency advisory committees, will undoubtedly cast a shadow over the work of SACC. Committees members will need to remain vigilant in ensuring that all scientific evidence is considered in assessing the potential risks of chemicals.”
McPartland was one of three scientists from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that EPA announced March 22 it was adding to the SACC to “increase the balance of scientific perspectives and add experts with experience in labor, public interest, animal protection and chemical manufacturing and processing to the committee,” according to an EPA statement announcing the new members.
Ruthann Rudel, research director at the Silent Spring Institute and Michael Green of the BlueGreen Alliance were named to the committee along with McPartland, whose name remains on the SACC website.
The trio joined another NGO member, Catherine Willett, director of science policy at the Humane Society of the U.S., who was one of the original SACC members.
The new members expanded the panel's roster to 29, after the Obama EPA in its final days appointed the original 18 members of SACC.
The committee's name and creation are mandated by Congress' 2016 reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act. Section 26(o) of the revised TSCA requires EPA to establish the SACC, whose members are to be “representatives of such science, government, labor, public health, public interest, animal protection, industry, and other groups as the Administrator determines to be advisable, including representatives that have specific scientific expertise in the relationship of chemical exposures to women, children, and other potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/environmentalist-resigns-seat-tsca-advisory-panel
-
LIES from UPSTREAM: Documentary Draws Parallels Between WV and NC
Apr 3, 2018 | encore Online
The documentary deals with the chemical MCHM, a detergent used for cleaning coal, and the aftermath of the discovery that tanks holding the chemical, owned by Freedom Industries, were found to have leaked around 7,500 gallons into the Elk River in Charleston, WV. In January of 2014, residents of Charleston were alerted to the spill but not by the company’s report; they noticed a smell, sweet like licorice, in their water. Parallels can be drawn for what happened next between our own situation last summer: public outrage, silence from the company, differing reports on what amount is safe from governmental organizations, the crisis dragging on and on while people remained uncertain about the safety of what was pouring from their taps.
In a scene that might be humorous in a context where it didn’t affect people’s lives, Hoback takes a sample of the water to a “Best Drinking Water” competition elsewhere in the state and presents it to the panel of judges. Not only do they all refuse to drink it, but one, whose grandmother survived World War II in Europe, tells him she got through the war because she knew not to drink water that had a smell to it. That judge bought the sample from Hoback and promptly threw it in the garbage.
The fact the chemical had an odor is significant. “Without the smell,” Hoback says in the film, “the chemical would have gone unnoticed.” Hoback jumps to Flint, Michigan, later in the film, and points out how lead has no odor. Thus, “officials could cover it up for two years.” The EPA in Flint didn’t fire or dismiss anyone, even after the news broke. Through a series of horrifying internal memos released to the public by whistleblowers, Hoback reveals the EPA had (has?) a culture of “don’t find anything bad”; their inaction in Flint was due in a large part to the fact “they weren’t sure Flint was the kind of community they wanted to go out on a limb for.” A Reuters report revealed over 3,000 areas in the United States had lead levels higher than those found in Flint.
Back in Charleston, Hoback works with an independent water-quality specialist, Dr. Andy Welton, to test the toxicity of the chemical. Dr. Welton finds the lab which did initial testing and had worked for many other chemical companies, outright fabricated the results of the toxicity test—meaning the chemical was twice as toxic as initially thought.
The climax of the documentary comes when Hoback ventures out into the river and collects samples near the discharge pipes of the companies in Chemical Valley. When the results are analyzed, Hoback is puzzled to find no large peaks of the few major chemicals he expected—instead, he finds many smaller peaks of unidentified chemicals. It is revealed to be because many companies are no longer dumping their waste into rivers; they’re pouring it down the drains, where it ends up settling in with the solids at a wastewater treatment facility. Many fertilizer companies use the sludge to make their products, so when it gets spread out on people’s lawns and gardens, it carries the chemicals with it. When it rains, the runoff ends up, as all runoff does, in the river. The film does a terrific job of illustrating just how difficult it is to escape the consequences of such actions.
After the film, Cape Fear Riverkeeper Kemp Burdette and River Watch Assistant Project Manager Madi Polera answered questions from the crowd. The first part focused on fluorochemicals. Burdette spoke about the Toxic Substances Control Act, the legislation meant to protect us from chemicals, which he says is “fairly weak.” The Trump EPA has done very little to implement an overhaul of the act which Congress voted on; River Watch has sued the EPA to take action. Polera reminded us “these companies don’t do a lot by accident.” They often discharge chemicals when they know regulators aren’t looking, so they stay within their permit.
After a question from encore, the discussion shifted to focus on the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, or CAFOs, upstream in Sampson and Duplin counties. The Cape Fear River basin is home to the highest concentration of these factory farms in the world. On the river’s banks in Tar Heel, NC, is the largest slaughterhouse, operated by Smithfield. The main issue with the operations is the staggering amount of sewage they produce: a total of 15,700 tons of hog waste daily in Duplin County alone, twice the amount produced by the human population of New York City. The waste is left untreated and held in open, unlined “lagoons,” or sprayed onto farmer’s fields, where the excess runoff ends up in our rivers. The Chinese corporation behind the process (the WH Group, which purchased Smithfield two years ago) contracts the work of raising the pigs out to NC farmers. The contracts are worded such that WH owns the feed, the animal and all the profit, while the farmer is left owning (and liable for) the land and, more importantly, the waste.
Polera reminds us the farms are directly responsible for about half of the nitrogen found in the Cape Fear. Excessive amounts of the nutrient can lead to harmful blue-green algae blooms and fish kills. “There are 10 million people in NC,” Burdette tells. “There are 10 million hogs in NC east of I-95, and none of their waste gets treated.”
Additionally, the NC House passed legislation making it more difficult for people who live near the farms to sue for nuisance violations (just imagine the smell … the flies … the rodents!). House Bill 467, co-sponsored by Rep. Jimmy Dixon from Duplin County and passed last year, makes it so property owners can only collect the rental value of their property when suing an adjacent farm, which in rural communities rarely equals the property’s full value.
Between the factory hog farms and coal ash pits and fluorochemical manufacturers, Wilmington finds itself downstream from much to be concerned about. It is unfortunate but necessary that we become extra-aware of similar situations around the world. Only through education can we learn how to protect the health of our waters and ourselves in the future.
http://www.encorepub.com/lies-from-upstream-documentary-draws-parallels-between-wv-and-nc/
-
Bill to expand chemical regulation passes Legislature
Apr 3, 2018 | Vermont Digger (In E&E Greenwire)
By Elizabeth Gribkoff
The Vermont House of Representatives has passed a bill to tighten the state's standards for toxic substances.
"The bottom line is that Vermonters deserve to know what toxic substances they are exposing themselves and their families to," state House Speaker Mitzi Johnson (D) said in a statement. "This bill takes a modest but important step to better protect Vermonters, especially our children, from toxic chemicals."
The final bill approved by the House last week is a pared-down version of a measure originally introduced in the state Senate.
The legislation was introduced last year after officials discovered perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) contamination in drinking water wells in the town of Bennington.
The bill would create an Interagency Committee on Chemical Management to come up with better ways to assess Vermont's "chemical inventories."
It would also update reporting on the state's existing list of toxic substances and require new sources of drinking water to be tested before use.
The measure now moves to Gov. Phil Scott (R), but he may have some reservations. Scott spokeswoman Rebecca Kelley said that while he supports "clear and robust regulations," he also has some concerns about the bill.
"He'll have to take a look at a final bill when it comes to his desk," Kelley said (Elizabeth Gribkoff, Vermont Digger, April 2). — NS
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/04/03/stories/1060078023
-
EU Approves Sodium Dichromate Authorisation Application
Apr 3, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission has approved an application for a use of sodium dichromate.
It is for the substance's use as a corrosion inhibitor in ammonia absorption deep cooling systems as applied in the industrial production of freeze-dried products such as coffee, herbs, spices and comparable products.
The companies Jacobs Douwe Egberts, Dr Otto Suwelack Nachf and Européenne de Lyophilisation made the application. The recommended review period expires on 21 September 2029.
Sodium dichromate is on REACH Annex XIV – the authorisation list – owing to its carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic properties.
In related news, at the end of February, the EU executive granted authorisation to Total Raffinerie Mitteldeutschland to use the substance as a corrosion inhibitor in the ammonia absorption deep cooling system of a methanol synthesis plant. It has the same recommended review period.
https://chemicalwatch.com/65629/eu-approves-sodium-dichromate-authorisation-application
-
EPA and PHMSA Clashed on Enbridge Spill Penalty
Apr 3, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
Federal pipeline regulators touted a "record" penalty — $3.7 million — when they fined Enbridge Energy Partners in 2012 for spilling hundreds of thousands of gallons of crude oil into Michigan's Kalamazoo River.
But U.S. EPA's top enforcer, blindsided by their announcement, complained privately to them that the amount was "very small."
The clash, laid out in terse emails obtained by E&E News under the Freedom of Information Act, highlights the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's reputation for leniency, which existed even before President Trump's era of regulatory rollbacks.
It also displays some of the aggressiveness on the part of former President Obama's EPA that has rankled industry, congressional Republicans and Trump.
EPA and Enbridge later negotiated a $61 million fine.
"It sounds on the face of it as though PHMSA went very, very light," said Joel Mintz, a former EPA official who is now a law professor at Nova Southeastern University. "There are plenty of agencies captured by the industries they regulate, and this may be one of them."
But industry representatives scoff at the idea that the pipeline agency is unduly influenced by the companies it regulates. John Stoody, an executive with the Association of Oil Pipe Lines, says member companies often chafe at frequent, lengthy inspections and far-reaching enforcement actions.
"Operators who undergo PHMSA's lengthy and detailed inspections certainly do not feel like they are being inspected by anything other than a vigorous regulator," Stoody said.
The interagency exchange took place the morning after PHMSA announced its penalty in July 2012, about two years after the spill. PHMSA and EPA officials had discussed a "referral" — taking the case to the Justice Department to file an enforcement case in court — and were surprised to learn that PHMSA had reached a deal.
"We thought we had been working collaboratively on a joint federal enforcement response," EPA's then-enforcement chief, Cynthia Giles, wrote in July 2012, "and were surprised by the unilateral and very small penalty action PHMSA took yesterday, with no notice or discussion with EPA or DOJ."
But Cynthia Quarterman, then the Obama administration's PHMSA chief, wrote back within hours to defend her agency's actions.
"The associated civil penalties were at the maximum level of our authority for all except 3 violations," Quarterman replied to Giles.
A few days after that, the National Transportation Safety Board upbraided PHMSA for "inadequate" oversight of Enbridge before the spill. NTSB, which also criticized Enbridge, said PHMSA had failed to verify that Enbridge's spill response was accurate for a worst-case scenario of more than 1 million gallons.
The NTSB report said PHMSA had the equivalent of only 1 ½ employees overseeing 450 spill response plans (E&E News PM, July 10, 2012).The incident
Enbridge's 63-year-old Line 6B ruptured in July 2010 near Marshall, Mich., sending more than 800,000 gallons of crude oil through a wetland and a creek and into the Kalamazoo River. The line leaked crude oil for about 17 hours before the company took action.
There were no fatalities, but about 320 people reported symptoms consistent with crude oil exposure.
The rupture in the pipeline was caused by stress corrosion cracking on the pipeline, control room misinterpretations and other problems.
The oil traveled 35 miles downstream before it was contained. The spill triggered a massive cleanup effort that has cost Calgary, Alberta-based Enbridge more than $1 billion and kept the river closed for nearly two years.
As the Kalamazoo River reopened in the spring of 2012, federal officials turned to enforcement. EPA officials said they thought they were working together with PHMSA and other agencies on building a case against Enbridge. Records show they were expecting to jointly develop a case to refer to the Department of Justice, a process known as a referral.
In March 2012, Jim Pates, assistant chief counsel for pipeline safety, wrote to an EPA attorney saying, "We are finally at the point where we are in a position to seriously consider a referral."
But about three months later, PHMSA announced its "record" penalty and 24 actions related to violations of federal pipeline regulations.
"We will hold pipeline operators accountable if they do not follow proper safety procedures to protect the environment and local communities," then-Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood stated in an accompanying press release.
The release added that a new pipeline law "gives PHMSA even more ways to hold pipeline operators accountable as well as the ability to issue civil penalties double that of previous statutory amounts for operators that violate pipeline safety laws."
Giles complained to Quarterman the next morning, shortly before 8 a.m., setting off a flurry of calls and emails. Pates wrote to tell Giles he hadn't meant to say there would be a referral to DOJ.
"It appears that there was some miscommunication between Region 5 and our office back in the spring on the status of PHMSA's case and how we would be moving forward," Pates wrote. "I certainly never meant to convey the impression that a DOJ referral on our part was imminent or even likely."
Enbridge didn't contest PHMSA's fine. The company paid up within two months. But a company executive did send a 12-page letter to "take issue" with some of PHMSA's allegations.The settlement
The quick settlement left a bad taste for some at EPA. EPA's then-regional counsel, Robert Kaplan, suggested that PHMSA reject the company's payment. PHMSA officials wrote back to tell him that wasn't possible.
"We are disappointed by the lack of coordination, despite assurances, as well as by various substantive aspects," Kaplan replied. "I am hopeful that we might yet be able to coordinate our actions better in the future."
In addition to the $61 million fine for the Michigan spill, Enbridge agreed in a settlement with EPA that it would reimburse the government for $5.4 billion in costs. The company also agreed to spend at least $110 million on spill prevention safeguards and other improvements to its 2,000-mile pipeline system in the Great Lakes.
Kaplan has since become the deputy regional administrator, then acting regional administrator during the Obama-Trump transition and is now the acting director of the region's Superfund Division.
In later correspondence, EPA's Giles thanks Quarterman "for agreeing to join the federal complaint." But when the Justice Department's complaint came out in 2016, it included only EPA and the Coast Guard.
A PHMSA spokesman did not respond to questions about the Enbridge case, including PHMSA's interactions with EPA and DOJ.
An Enbridge spokesman issued this statement to E&E News: "Enbridge participated with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), during which the DOJ represented both the EPA and PHMSA in the settlement talks. We are not aware of internal discussions or negotiations between the two agencies. We did not have separate negotiation talks with PHMSA and the EPA."
Giles is now executive fellow and director of strategic initiatives at the University of Chicago's Energy & Environment Lab. She declined to comment. Quarterman is now a nonresident senior fellow with the Global Energy Center at the Atlantic Council.'As strong as we could be'
In an interview, Quarterman said PHMSA was as tough as the law allowed it to be. Though LaHood had said in 2012 that the agency would "hold pipeline operators accountable," Quarterman said the problem was that PHMSA didn't have the authority to hit Enbridge any harder.
"I think we were as strong as we could be under the requirements of the law," Quarterman said, adding that EPA had stronger authority under the Clean Water Act.
Sara Rollet Gosman, a University of Arkansas law professor, questions whether PHMSA really employed its full authority. She noted that one of the violations — "failure to obtain sufficient information to determine whether a condition presents a potential threat to the integrity of the pipeline" — continued for 462 days. But PHMSA issued a one-day penalty for it.
"PHMSA had a great deal of discretion to determine the penalties," Gosman said. "PHMSA had the authority to set a penalty above $3.7 million."
Gosman is a board member of the Pipeline Safety Trust, a safety advocacy group. She is also a member of PHMSA's Gas Pipeline Advisory Committee, representing the public.
Quarterman had represented Enbridge and was recused from dealing with the company at the time of the spill. But her recusal had expired by the time the fine was announced.
Rebecca Craven of the Pipeline Safety Trust said she was troubled that Quarterman was involved in the Enbridge fine when she had represented the company as an attorney before joining PHMSA. She recused herself from Enbridge matters for two years after taking over at the agency in November 2009, but that recusal had expired by the time the penalty was issued.
"It's troubling that her recusal expired in time that she was allowed to be involved in enforcement for something that occurred during her recusal," Craven said. "It's important for people in Michigan to know that decisions weren't tainted by her firm's previous representation of Enbridge."
Quarterman did not respond to a follow-up email about her recusal.
In her interview, Quarterman said PHMSA later negotiated a "rigorous" consent order with Enbridge, ostensibly for a different spill, which required the company to look at its entire Great Lakes system, "soup-to-nuts."
"Nothing of that sort had ever been done," she said. "A lot was going on behind the scenes."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/04/03/stories/1060077949
-
BLM Greenlights Fracking in Colorado's Whitewater Basin
Apr 3, 2018 | Daily Sentinel (In E&E Energywire)
By Gary Harmon
Bureau of Land Management officials have approved an oil driller's plans to carry out hydraulic fracturing operations in Colorado's Whitewater Basin.
The decision caps a contentious process that dates back to 2013, when opponents appealed a previous approval on the grounds that BLM had not adequately considered fracking's potential effects on local water and air quality. State officials determined that BLM had to conduct a review of those questions.
The driller, Fram Operating LLC, will now have to obtain permits for the wells included under the project plans.
Opponents are considering alternative routes for legal challenge.
"I can tell you we're not thrilled," said Emily Hornback, interim executive director of the Western Colorado Congress, a civic watchdog for energy, public lands and agricultural issues. "The concerns we keep bringing up have not been addressed" (Gary Harmon, Daily Sentinel, March 30). — DI
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/04/03/stories/1060077945
-
Cyberattack Hits Major Pipeline Service Provider
Apr 3, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Dallas-based pipeline giant Energy Transfer Partners LP had to play cyber defense yesterday after hackers brought down the networks of an outside service provider, sources say.
ETP spokeswoman Alexis Daniel confirmed in an email that "there was an attack on a third-party service provider," adding that the situation has not affected pipeline operations.
"We are handling all scheduling in house during this time," she said.
Bloomberg first reported yesterday afternoon that Energy Services Group LLC, which offers billing and logistical support to major oil and gas companies, saw a widely used electronic data interchange (EDI) crippled by a cyberattack.
Energy Services subsidiary Latitude Technologies, based in Plano, Texas, reported data interchange outages early yesterday, before noting in the afternoon that its systems were back online.
"While we believe things to be fully restored, we will continue to monitor for gaps in functionality," the company said on a status website.
Energy Services did not respond to requests for comment through contact forms and phone messages, but one of its affiliated sites claims to provide services to over 100 natural gas pipelines in the U.S.
Jim Guinn, global managing director for cybersecurity in energy, chemicals, utilities and mining at Accenture, said it's "concerning" to see hackers apparently target EDI services, which can help manage equipment purchases, payroll and various complex orders in a variety of sectors.
"This is yet another attack surface that a bad actor could leverage to get to an end result, where this might not be the end target," he said, noting that he could not speak to ETP's specific case or security practices.
Guinn said that while operational networks — such as those managing the flow of natural gas — are normally isolated from information technology or business computers, "a human mistake" could leave control systems exposed.
Recent government alerts have shown that hackers are willing and able to exploit such pathways, he noted. "There's a lot of activity in the energy sector that has everyone's attention that should be of concern."
Last month, the Department of Homeland Security and FBI warned that Russian hackers had launched a series of intrusions into U.S. energy companies, including the corporate networks of nuclear power plant operators and critical manufacturing facilities (Energywire, March 16).
So far, there is no evidence to link those "ongoing" cyberattacks to yesterday's outages.
Lisa Farbstein, a spokeswoman for DHS's Transportation Security Administration, which is responsible for monitoring and enforcing pipeline cybersecurity, said the agency "is aware of and continues to monitor the reported cyberattack impacting pipeline business operations."
She noted that TSA will continue to "provide information and assistance to federal partners and industry, as necessary and appropriate."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/04/03/stories/1060077983
-
Hackers Gaining Access to U.S. Energy Systems 'to Test Our Response'
Apr 3, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Collin Eaton
Cyberattacks targeting computer control operators at U.S. energy facilities have risen sharply over the past two years, as a sophisticated hacking group attempted to gain a foothold in networks that run the nation's critical infrastructure, a recent cybersecurity analysis shows.
A highly skilled and likely well-funded group of hackers has launched an ongoing campaign of online attacks against U.S. energy, nuclear, water, aviation and manufacturing operations since at least March 2016, primarily using spear-phishing emails and watering-hole attacks against administrators and engineers with access to industrial control systems, according to an analysis by iDefense, the cyber-threat intelligence division of Accenture Security.
The nature of the attacks implies the group, which iDefense calls "Black Ghost Knifefish," has tried to figure out how to manipulate vital control systems and test the response of federal authorities if they were to launch an attack aimed at disrupting operations or damaging facilities, said Jim Guinn, global lead of Accenture's natural resources cybersecurity practice.
"They're gaining access to our systems," Guinn said. "They're able to test our response."
For the U.S. energy industry, vital assets include refineries, power plants, petrochemical facilities, pipelines and drilling rigs.
In private reports prepared for cybersecurity clients and shared with the Houston Chronicle, iDefense, which has tracked the sophisticated hacking group for about two years, said the online assaults against U.S. companies were almost certainly successful because of operators' lack of proper security segmenting networks and basic firewall implementations, among other common lapses.
The firm said the hacking group has gained access to U.S. systems with increasing frequency and is "very likely to continue" prying into operational networks. The hacking campaign, it said, is likely an attempt to establish a "backdoor" into industrial controls "with the intended goal of having the capability to disrupt, degrade or destroy the production of those" critical infrastructure and key resources assets, "at will."
iDefense hasn't said who it believes may be behind the attacks. But U.S. federal agencies last month said hackers backed by the Russian government have targeted U.S. energy and other industries in a new wave of attacks since March 2016. That report marked the first time U.S. agencies blamed the Kremlin for the attacks.
Last year, cybersecurity experts learned of two new families of malware targeting industrial control systems, in addition to the three others discovered in prior years. They identified two major attacks aimed at disrupting industrial operations and five separate threat actor groups – findings that imply hacker groups targeting industrial controls are far more numerous than previously believed, cybersecurity firm Dragos said in a recent report.
"The number of adversaries targeting control systems and their investment in ICS-specific capabilities is only growing," Dragos said. "There are now five current active groups targeting ICS systems – far more than our current biases with respect to the skill, dedication and resources required for ICS operations would have us believe possible."
Last year, Dragos estimated computer controls at industrial facilities, including in the oil business, get infected by non-targeted malware at least 3,000 times a year. It arrived at what it believes is a conservative estimate after studying 30,000 samples of infected control system files submitted over the past decade and a half to a publicly available database owned by Google.
"While any of these infections could cause issues in operational environments, none represented the type of disruption that would come from the latest generation of ransomware worms," the firm said.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Hackers-gaining-access-to-U-S-energy-systems-to-12801159.php
-
IG Probing Accuracy of Emissions Data from Large Sources
Apr 3, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA's inspector general is taking a look at the accuracy of the numbers produced by continuous emissions monitoring systems used by power plants and other large stationary pollution sources.
The systems, often known by their acronym as CEMS, are critical to gauging compliance with air pollution standards and permitting requirements. The review's goal is to determine whether the data "meet applicable quality assurance and quality control criteria," Jim Hatfield, head of the air directorate at the inspector general's audit division, wrote in a memo late last week.
The expected benefits "are to improve any identified data quality weaknesses so that the EPA can better assess facility compliance and estimate air quality impacts based on facility-reported data," Hatfield said in the memo to Bill Wehrum, assistant administrator of EPA's Office of Air and Radiation.
In advance of a kickoff meeting with EPA staff, Hatfield asked for access to any EPA databases that hold continuous emissions monitoring numbers, including those for the Acid Rain Program, Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, as well as the New Source Performance Standards and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. He also sought information on how EPA verifies the quality of CEMS data and expressed particular interest in any areas of concern that Wehrum and other EPA officials might have.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/04/03/stories/1060078031
-
Parks Officials Scrubbed Climate Report
Apr 3, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Adam Aton
Federal officials scrubbed references to humans' contribution to climate change from a National Park Service study, according to an unpublished draft that has been withheld for at least 10 months.
In a 87-page report on how sea-level rise could affect national parks, a career official cut sentences that attributed climate change to "human activities" and removed the word "anthropogenic," which means caused by humans. The study was drafted in 2016, but its lead author told E&E News she's still not sure if or when the government will publish it.
The altered study was first reported yesterday by the Center for Investigative Reporting's Reveal, which obtained hundreds of documents on the report from a Colorado public records request. Delaying the report's publication has kept park managers from receiving the most recent data on flooding and storm surges as the country emerges from its most destructive year of disasters in history.
Questions of scientific censorship were already simmering at the Interior Department, where researchers have resigned, citing Secretary Ryan Zinke's demand to review studies prior to publication.
Zinke said, "I don't know of any document we've changed," when senators last month pressed him on whether his reviews violated Interior's scientific integrity policy. "I read them all. I don't change a comma on them," he said (Climatewire, March 14).
The draft climate study's editing notes indicate many of the changes came from Larry Perez, a career official and communications coordinator of the National Park Service's Climate Change Response Program in Fort Collins, Colo. His tenure with the agency dates back to 1999, according to his LinkedIn profile.
Many career officials at agencies across the federal government have reportedly engaged in self-censorship when it comes to discussing climate change, given the Trump administration's efforts to roll back climate regulations and defund climate programs.
Internal emails suggest the Interior Department has relied on career staffers to frame the Trump administration's climate agenda for the public. Another longtime employee, Indur Goklany, has played a lead role in stripping climate change from the department's websites and public documents Climatewire, March 8).
Burying a study is a step up from altering government websites, some watchdogs say.
"From what I understand about how this report was treated, this is actual censorship," said Joel Clement, a top climate official in Interior who resigned and filed a whistleblower complaint after the Trump administration demoted him.
"It means that not only will the federal government be considered a risky partner in scientific endeavors, but that the rules and regulations that protect American health and safety may not be informed by the best science, but rather by the political impulses of nonexperts," said Clement, who now works for the Stockholm Environment Institute.
The study may still see the light of day, regardless of what the government decides to do.
Interior in 2013 contracted the study from the University of Colorado, Boulder. If the department and the university cannot agree on how to interpret the results or how to publish them, the contract allows the lead author, geological sciences research associate Maria Caffrey, to take them to an academic journal.
Caffrey would have to give the department 60 days' notice, which she hasn't done yet, a university spokesperson said.
Interior did not respond to E&E News' request for comment, and a spokesperson declined to comment to Reveal.
Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) said there should be an investigation into whether the department is altering scientific research for political purposes.
"The public should be able to rely on federal agencies to make policies based on rigorous analysis of scientific data, not to tell the story that the fossil fuel industry wants it to tell," she said in a statement to E&E News.
"This is a serious breach of the public trust, and the American people deserve a thorough, unbiased investigation of this matter," she said.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/04/03/stories/1060077989
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested