Judge in C8 case tells DuPont: A deal is a deal

July 10, 2015 by Ken Ward Jr.

successtopphoto

When the C8 Science Panel issued its last set of “probable link” findings nearly three years ago, the next step for Mid-Ohio Valley residents was supposed to be relatively simple: If they felt they had illnesses the panel had linked to C8 exposure, they could sue DuPont, without having to prove again that the illnesses in question could be caused by C8.

But as the first of thousands of lawsuits against DuPont prepares for a mid-September trial in federal court in Ohio, it hasn’t worked out that way. DuPont attorneys have continued to try to re-litigate the Science Panel findings — over and over again.

Now, U.S. District judge Edmund A. Sargus Jr. seems to have had enough. In this ruling issued earlier in the week, Judge Sargus reminded DuPont of its agreement all those years ago in the settlement of the Leach case, in which the parties agreed to live with the Science Panel’s conclusions: In the six instances (kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, high cholesterol, pregnancy-induced hypertension, and preeclampsia) where the panel found a probable link to C8 exposure, DuPont would have to live with those findings in court. In the dozens of other instances where the panel found no link, residents would likewise have to live with those findings.

As Judge Sargus tried to explain in an earlier ruling on this back in December 2014:

…The Court concludes that if the individual plaintiffs prove that they are Leach Class members, and that they suffer or suffered from a Linked Disease, the Probably Link Finding is applicable to them. This means, for example, that the individual plaintiffs are not required to come forward with evidence proving that their individual dosage of C8 is sufficient to permit the Probable Link Finding to be applied to them. Under these circumstances, by agreeing to the Leach settlement, DuPont has contractually agreed to a finding of general causation.

 DuPont, though, insisted that they needed the judge to further clarify things. Company lawyers wanted to be able to argue at trial about dose, and to — in the judge’s words — “re-evaluating” the Science Panel’s reports. Judge Sargus explained:

DuPont’s mistake is focusing on the Science Panel’s reports/evaluations, instead of its findings .. DuPont has received the benefit of the No Probable Link Findings, immunity from lawsuits based on over forty diseases that tens of thousands of members of the Leach Class believe were caused by their ingestion of C8 that was released into their drinking water by DuPont.  None of those class members may engage in any analysis of the No Probable Link reports/evaluations. The conclusions reached in the No Probably Link reports, that is, the No Probable Link Findings, universally apply to the Leach Class.

The judge continued:

By way of further explanation, the Leach Settlement established a novel procedure for dealing with the approximately 80,000 individuals that make up the Leach Class by establishing the Science Panel and directing its work. Unlike the usual situation where epidemiologists start with a chemical exposure and then attempt to define the dose of that chemical which presents a sufficiently increased risk to conclude that such dose is ‘more likely than not’ sufficient to cause a particular disease, the parties directed the Science Panel to follow a very different process. The Science Panel was focused on an identified group of people (the Leach Class) with a defined level of exposure (0.5 ppb or greater of C8 for the period of at least one year) to a particular chemical (C8) and determine not how much of the chemical it might take to cause various diseases in humans generally, but which diseases were linked to the actual C8 exposures in that defined group. the Science Panel’s Probable Link Findings are, by agreement of the parties and by definition, links that exist and are ‘probable’ in the entire Leach Class.

More questions about gas boom’s climate impacts

July 8, 2015 by Ken Ward Jr.

Natural Gas, fracking

We’ve written many times before on this blog about the continuing questions regarding the climate impacts of the boom in natural gas drilling (see here, here, here, here and here). Today, there’s more news on this topic, from a series of studies sponsored by the Environmental Defense Fund. As EDF chief scientist Steven Hamburg explains:

Methane emissions from vast oil and gas operations in the densely populated Barnett Shale region of Texas are 50 percent higher than estimates based on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) greenhouse gas inventory, according to a series of 11 new papers published today in Environmental Science & Technology.

The majority of these emissions are from a small but widespread number of sources across the region’s oil and gas supply chain. These emissions come from the sort of leaks and equipment malfunctions that are relatively easy to prevent with proper and frequent monitoring and repair practices.

Inside Climate news has a great roundup of the studies available here.

So much for Chemical Safety Board transparency

June 17, 2015 by Ken Ward Jr.

When last we left the U.S. Chemical Safety Board, President Obama had pushed out chairman Rafael Moure-Eraso, and some other board members were making a lot of noise about the need for more transparency at the agency.

Fast forward to more recent events, and here’s what Government Executive reports has happened:

The Chemical Safety Board, still struggling with vacancies as it seeks stability following the forced resignation of its chairman in March, divided sharply last Thursday over an unusual procedural move that empowered the interim chairman.

Engler_RichardLRBoard member Rick Engler, Government Executive has learned, on Friday sent the staff a note, saying the board had voted to designate him the “Board Member Delegated Interim Executive and Administrative Authority in accordance with CSB Board Order 003,” and that he looked forward to “working collegially with my fellow board members and staff.”

… But critics, some from labor unions, say Engler’s special board vote to make himself acting chairman violated transparency rules and accords him too much power at a time when all await Senate confirmation of President Obama’s nomination for permanent CSB chairwoman, Vanessa Sutherland. Board member Mark Griffon’s five-year term also expires June 24.

Only two board members participated in Thursday’s vote, and it came in spite of an attempt by board member Manny Ehrlich to postpone it. Ehrlich, whose back ailment prevented his presence at the vote for acting chairman, on June 8 had sent the CSB associate general counsel a proposal for an interim sharing of power between him and Engler, saying the situation was unprecedented.

Ehrlich’s proposal attempted to “calendar” the vote, or delay it for a future public meeting. But sources familiar with the proceedings, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said board members Engler and Griffon, lacking a three-person quorum, conducted an “urgent” vote by email, and, rather than waiting for the required five days, ran it only briefly by the general counsel’s office before announcing results to staff.

The vote also removed a 180-day expiration date that was part of Board Order 003, meaning Engler’s appointment as acting chair now goes “in perpetuity” if the two remaining board members deadlock on any vote.

Read the rest of this entry »

The latest on the government’s MCHM studies

June 15, 2015 by Ken Ward Jr.

Coal Water Pollution

Here’s the latest new information from the federal government’s National Toxicology Program on its ongoing investigation of the Elk River chemical spill:

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) evaluated the potential maternal and prenatal toxicity of MCHM, the primary chemical spilled into the West Virginia Elk River. This update is a follow-­‐up to the December 2014 NTP Update,2 which reported the results of a preliminary study used to design this more comprehensive main study. The main study evaluated the effects of MCHM on maternal health and embryo and fetal development in rats following oral administration of MCHM at doses of 50, 100, 200, and 400 mg/kg/day. NTP found that MCHM decreased fetal weight and induced malformations in fetuses in the highest dose group of 400 mg/kg/day. A small decrease in fetal weight was observed in the 200 mg/kg/day dose group, which is similar to the small decrease in fetal weight observed in the 150 mg/kg/day dose group of the preliminary study.

There’s more:

At these dose levels, exposure to MCHM had no effect on maternal or fetal survival, and minimal effects were observed in maternal clinical pathology. The magnitude of these responses was small and not considered to adversely impact the health of the pregnant rat or the fetuses. Fetal weight was decreased significantly by 15 percent at 400 mg/kg/day, and a small decrease in fetal weight was observed in the 200 mg/kg/day dose group, which is consistent with the decrease in the 150 mg/kg/day dose group of the preliminary study. There were also increases in specific malformations in the 400 mg/kg/day group. The malformations included extra ribs in the lumbar and cervical region of the fetus and decreased fusion of cartilage to the sternum. Although not considered a malformation, increases in unossified (non-­‐mineralized bone) or incomplete ossification (partially mineralized bone) of the sternebrae (bones of the sternum) and vertebrae were observed in fetuses in the 400 mg/kg/day dose group. These effects on ossification are consistent with the decreased fetal weight, indicating delayed fetal growth.

Read the rest of this entry »

About that new EPA ” Clean Water Rule” …

May 28, 2015 by Ken Ward Jr.

Gina McCarthy

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy, left, takes questions from the audience after delivering a speech at Harvard Law School in Cambridge, Mass., Tuesday, July 30, 2013. (AP Photo/Steven Senne)

Yesterday, I posted a brief item about the release by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency of its new “Clean Water Rule” in which I noted that my inbox was filling up with responses about the EPA action.

The responses were pretty predictable, really. Just about every environmental group you could possibly name jumped out there to cheer lead about it. See, for example, this statement from a coalition of citizen groups:

Today the Obama administration closed loopholes that left the drinking water sources for more than 1 in 3 Americans at risk of pollution and destruction with the release of its long-awaited Clean Water Rule. A number of environmental, wildlife, and sportsmen groups praised the rule, which ensures Clean Water Act protections for streams and wetlands across the country, but warned that there are multiple efforts underway in Congress to weaken, undermine, or stop the rule completely.

On the other side of things, all of the industry groups I heard from were complaining strongly about the EPA rule. Here’s the National Mining Association:

We remain deeply concerned that the promised clarity from this rule comes at the steep price of more federal interference with state, local and private land use decisions. The U.S. federal permitting process is among the slowest, most costly and inefficient systems in the world. This rule faces a high hurdle in convincing us that the permitting process will improve now that only the most tenuous connections form the basis for imposing federal requirements on top of existing state protections.

West Virginia political leaders were also pretty predictable. Most said something along the lines of what Sen. Joe Manchin put in his prepared statement:

It is completely unreasonable that our country’s ditches, puddles and other un-navigable waters be subjected to the same regulations as our greatest lakes and rivers, and implementing this rule will certainly have a significant impact on West Virginia’s economy, hindering businesses, manufacturing and energy production.

Pretty much, most of the media coverage I read (see here, here and here for example), confined their story to the narrative that EPA and its friends on the environmental community love the rule, while business and industry — and their friends on Congress — hate it.

But then I came across this statement, issued by the Water Keeper Alliance and the Center for Biological Diversity:

The “Clean Water Rule” issued today by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reduces the agencies’ jurisdiction over waters that have been covered under the Clean Water Act since the 1970s. The final rule fails to protect streams and rivers that have historically been protected under the Clean Water Act, exempting industrial-scale livestock facilities, and allowing streams and rivers to be impounded or filled with toxic coal ash and other waste.

The preamble to the rule states: “The scope of jurisdiction in this rule is narrower than that under the existing regulation. Fewer waters will be defined as ‘waters of the United States’ under the rule than under the existing regulations, in part because the rule puts important qualifiers on some existing categories such as tributaries.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Residents want Supreme Court’s take on pipeline

May 27, 2015 by Ken Ward Jr.

MVP MapWest Virginians who are following pipeline proposal issues might be interested in the latest news out of Kentucky, from WFPL:

The Kentucky Court of Appeals on Friday upheld a lower court’s decision that a natural gas liquids pipeline would not have the right of eminent domain in the commonwealth. The unanimous decision means that only utilities regulated by the Public Service Commission can invoke eminent domain in Kentucky.

Back in March, some residents who are concerned about the Mountain Valley Pipeline filed lawsuits in state court to stop developers of that project from surveying their property without permission. Those cases have been kicked into federal court, and the pipeline developer has also sued residents.

And now, lawyers for the residents are requesting that U.S. District Judge Irene Berger ask the state Supreme Court to provide its guidance on a key legal issue in the case:

Whether, under West Virginia Code § 54-1-1 et seq., a proposed natural gas pipeline is “for public use,” as that term is used in W. Va. Code § 54-1-2(a)(3), when consumers of natural gas in West Virginia will not be served with gas from that pipeline, under reasonable and proper regulations, along the entire line traversed, and for reasonable fixed rates.

EPA issues final water quality rule

May 27, 2015 by Ken Ward Jr.

Gina McCarthy

In this Nov. 19, 2014 file photo, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy speaks in Washington. The Obama administration issued new rules Wednesday to protect the nation’s drinking water and clarify which smaller streams, tributaries and wetlands are covered by anti-pollution and development provisions of the Clean Water Act. McCarthy said the rule will only affect waters that have a “direct and significant” connection to larger bodies of water downstream that are already protected. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta, File)

My inbox is quickly filling up today with statements from the environmental organizations, all eager to get quoted saying something nice about the latest action by the Obama administration’s U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Here’s what EPA said this morning in a press release:

In an historic step for the protection of clean water, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army finalized the Clean Water Rule today to clearly protect from pollution and degredation the streams and wetlands that form the foundation of the nation’s water resources.

The rule ensures that waters protected under the Clean Water Act are more precisely defined and predictably determined, making permitting less costly, easier, and faster for businesses and industry. The rule is grounded in law and the latest science, and is shaped by public input. The rule does not create any new permitting requirements for agriculture and maintains all previous exemptions and exclusions.

The actual language of the final rule is here, and the new definition of “waters of the United States” is here.  There’s a Congressional Research Service report about the issue available here (thanks to the Federation of American Scientists), and a setup story from The New York Times has more background.

Latest DuPont citation mirrors Belle violation

May 14, 2015 by Ken Ward Jr.

dupont627

Gazette photo by Chris Dorst

The inspection results from the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration are in regarding the terrible poison gas leak that killed four workers at DuPont Co.’s plant in LaPorte, Texas, last November.  Here’s the bottom line from the OSHA press release:

Four workers killed by a lethal gas in November 2014 would be alive today had their employer, DuPont, taken steps to protect them, a U.S. Department of Labor investigation found.

The department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration today cited DuPont for 11 safety violations and identified scores of safety upgrades the company must undertake to prevent future accidents at its Lannate/API manufacturing building in La Porte. The company employs 313 workers who manufacture crop protection materials and chemicals there.

“Four people lost their lives and their families lost loved ones because DuPont did not have proper safety procedures in place,” said Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health Dr. David Michaels. “Had the company assessed the dangers involved, or trained their employees on what to do if the ventilation system stopped working, they might have had a chance.”

OSHA continued:

The fatal incident occurred as one worker was overwhelmed when methyl mercaptan gas was unexpectedly released when she opened a drain on a methyl mercaptan vent line. Two co-workers who came to her aid were also overcome. None of the three wore protective respirators. A fourth co-worker — the brother of one of the fallen men — attempted a rescue, but was unsuccessful. All four people died in the building.

Methyl mercaptan is a colorless gas with a strong odor. It is used in pesticides, jet fuels and plastics. At dangerous levels of exposure, the gas depresses the central nervous system and affects the respiratory center, producing death by respiratory paralysis.

Among the citations issued by federal inspectors was one for a “repeat violation” for allegedly “not training employees on using the building’s ventilation system and other safety procedures, such as how to respond if the fans stopped working.” OSHA noted, without further explanation:

In July 2010, DuPont was cited for a similar violation.

Kanawha Valley residents may remember that similar violation. It was issued to DuPont’s Belle plant following a series of incidents in January 2010 that left one worker dead.

In the Belle incident, the OSHA citation in question stated:

Small Lots Manufacturing (SLM) Unit, Phosgene Shed: Employees working in the SLM Unit were not trained to recognize that leaving liquid phosgene in a non-vented flexible transfer hose for an extended period of time could result in the rupture of the flexible hose due to the thermal expansion of the liquid phosgene as determined on January 25, 2010.

Read the rest of this entry »

New study warns of MCHM toxicity

May 12, 2015 by Ken Ward Jr.

Coal Water Pollution

There’s a new study out this week that residents of the Kanawha Valley and surrounding region will want to know about.  It was published online Monday in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Science and Technology and is called Toxicity Assessment of 4-Methyl-1-cyclohexanemethanol and Its Metabolites in Response to a Recent Chemical Spill in West Virginia, USA.

Here’s the abstract:

The large-scale chemical spill on January 9, 2014 from coal processing and cleaning storage tanks of Freedom Industries in Charleston affected the drinking water supply to 300,000 people in Charleston, West Virginia metropolitan, while the short-term and long-term health impacts remain largely unknown and need to be assessed and monitored. There is a lack of publically available toxicological information for the main contaminant 4-methyl-1-cyclohexanemethanol (4-MCHM). Particularly, little is known about 4-MCHM metabolites and their toxicity. This study reports timely and original results of the mechanistic toxicity assessment of 4-MCHM and its metabolites via a newly developed quantitative toxicogenomics approach, employing proteomics analysis in yeast cells and transcriptional analysis in human cells. These results suggested that, although 4-MCHM is considered only moderately toxic based on the previous limited acute toxicity evaluation, 4-MCHM metabolites were likely more toxic than 4-MCHM in both yeast and human cells, with different toxicity profiles and potential mechanisms. In the yeast library, 4-MCHM mainly induced chemical stress related to transmembrane transport and transporter activity, while 4-MCHM metabolites of S9 mainly induced oxidative stress related to antioxidant activity and oxidoreductase activity. With human A549 cells, 4-MCHM mainly induced DNA damage-related biomarkers, which indicates that 4-MCHM is related to genotoxicity due to its DNA damage effect on human cells and therefore warrants further chronic carcinogenesis evaluation.

And here’s the conclusion:

… This study revealed different toxicity and potential mechanisms of 4-MCHM and its metabolites by S9 in yeast and human cells (A549). These results suggested that, although 4-MCHM is considered only moderately toxic based on previous limited acute toxicity evaluation, its metabolites may be more toxic than 4-MCHM and are more relevant to human exposure. Our study at the molecular level revealed some subcytotoxic molecular mechanisms such as DNA damage potential, which indicates that 4-MCHM is related to carcinogenesis and reproductive toxicity due to its DNA damage effect on human cells. Our results suggested that long-term medical monitoring should be considered for the population. It may also provide insights into potential long-term aquatic toxicity issues. The toxicogenomics-based molecular toxicity screening assay employed in this study provides timely information regarding the underlying mechanisms of toxic action of 4-MCHM and its metabolites, especially related to low-dose and chronic exposures, which makes it a useful tool for public health protection and health monitoring needs.

Obama rule includes oil-train secrecy

May 8, 2015 by Ken Ward Jr.

Oil Train Rules

In this Feb. 17, 2015 file photo, crew members walk near the scene of a train derailment near Mount Carbon, W.Va.   (AP Photo/Chris Tilley, File)

 As another community — this one in North Dakota — deals with the aftermath of a crude oil train derailment and fire, it’s worth looking back at the recent announcement of the Obama administration’s new rules aimed at preventing these incidents.

As Curtis Tate at McClatchy explained, there are a lot of questions about the administration’s approach:

… It is far from the final word on efforts to reduce the risk of catastrophic derailments, such as the one that killed 47 people in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, nearly two years ago. And industry and environmental groups are bracing for a court fight over portions of the new regulations that they don’t like.

Most of the current tank car fleet that doesn’t meet the new requirements will be allowed to carry ethanol and some types of crude oil for eight more years. Environmental groups and some lawmakers objected Friday to the extended timeline.

It will be two years before the Energy and Transportation departments complete a study on the properties of crude oil and how they affect the way it reacts in derailments. While the rail industry supports the new tank car standard, it opposes the requirement for an electronic braking system on certain trains.

Also important, though, is another report from Curtis Tate, which detailed how the Obama administration — despite its claims to be transparent with the public and the press — has buried a major secrecy provision in this new rule.

Read the rest of this entry »