Regulatory Policy - RegWatch

RegWatch:

News & Analysis | REG•WATCH Blog | Press Room

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

U.S. Promoting Paralysis by Analysis Worldwide
What's bad for America is being touted as great for the rest of the world:

By year's end, the European Union is expected to adopt REACH, a proposal that would "require manufacturers to test industrial chemicals used in the manufacturing process to gather health and safety data." REACH stands for "Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals." The bill "has prompted a U.S.-led coalition of 13 countries to step up lobbying efforts to make the final measure more amenable to industry," reports the Wall Street Journal. "The diplomatic missions of the U.S., Japan, Australia, India and other countries issues a length joint critique of the proposed law this month, saying certain provisions would disrupt international trade without offering clear environmental benefits." C. Boyden Gray, the U.S. ambassador to the EU and former chair of FreedomWorks and Citizens for a Sound Economy, said European policymakers "never did a proper impact assessment to evaluate the risk-versus-benefit status of this legislation."
Website: Wall Street Journal (sub req'd), June 27, 2006

[Via Center for Media and Democracy - Publishers of PR Watch]

Posted by Robert Shull, 02:25:38 PM

Saturday, June 17, 2006

MSHA Finally Changes Course with Massey Energy?
Many of you have probably seen the NYT clip today about MSHA's decision to file suit against Massey Energy, charging that Massey has failed to cooperate with the investigation into a deadly coal mine fire:

Federal mine safety regulators filed a lawsuit on Friday against one of the largest mining companies in the country in an effort to force its officials to cooperate with the investigation of a deadly fire in January at a West Virginia coal mine.
The civil suit, filed in a Federal District Court in West Virginia, describes a "broad refusal" by the company, Massey Energy, to turn over documents concerning management authority, ventilation, previous fires, construction projects and other matters at the Aracoma mine near Melville, W.Va.
"This is the first time the Mine Safety and Health Administration has been faced with a broad refusal by a mine operator to provide relevant documents in an investigation and, subsequently, the first time that this kind of civil action against a mine operator has been necessary," said David G. Dye, the agency's acting administrator. "The goal of a mine accident investigation is to determine the cause of the accident and whether the mine operator was complying with the law."
A spokeswoman for Massey Energy, Katharine W. Kenny, said the company had not yet reviewed the lawsuit and so could not comment on it.

Interesting change of course, because MSHA did everything in its power to protect Massey Energy from responsibility during the early days of the Bush administration. In the aftermath of the Martin County coal slurry disaster (which was immediately recognized by the federal government as "one of the worst environmental disasters in the southeastern United States," and was about 30 times bigger than the Exxon Valdez oil spill), MSHA engaged in a concerted cover-up to protect both Massey subsidiary Martin County Coal as well as the coal company executives who were brought in to run MHSA (and derail the investigation).

The national news media almost immediately turned away from the Martin County coal slurry disaster, as the 2000 presidential elections dominated the airwaves and the headlines. Martin County disaster is still being felt by the residents of the area, and in the absence of press attention the federal government has continued to fail that community. In the aftermath of Sago, however, the national media and Congress have made it much more difficult for MSHA to fall down on the job for recent disasters like it did in Martin County.

Posted by Robert Shull, 04:33:05 PM