By Tom Schuster, Director, Sierra Club Pennsylvania Chapter; Jen Quinn, Legislative and Political Director, Sierra Club Pennsylvania Chapter; and Cathy Myers, Conservation Chair (Policy Advisor)
On April 8, the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) withdrew a controversial regulatory proposal to weaken reporting requirements for spills of chemicals or other pollutants, citing “competing perspectives from a diverse group of commentators.” Sierra Club members and supporters submitted hundreds of comments in opposition to this proposal last spring, and some provided oral testimony at a public hearing on May 15, 2025. This development is evidence that your participation in government decision-making can make a difference!
Why does this matter?
Pennsylvania’s 89-year-old Clean Streams Law is one of our bedrock environmental laws that protects the drinking water supplies of all 13 million Pennsylvanians. This proposal would have weakened a fundamental principle of the law, which places the responsibility on the polluter and promotes robust spill prevention efforts. The current notification process requires immediate notice to DEP in the event of a spill or discharge and has been used to alert downstream users of threats to their drinking water in cases like the Ashland Oil spill, the Trinseo Altuglas spill, and countless other spills across the commonwealth.
The proposed rulemaking would have allowed a discharger to delay notification, or even not file a notification, while they determine, in their opinion, whether the discharge is or is not pollution. This gives time for evidence of the discharge to be destroyed. Evidence of the quantity and constituents of the spill is hard or impossible to determine if the discharge has been diluted by stream flow, or if the discharge has migrated underground to mix with older pollution. This would make it much harder for companies to be held accountable if the spill was the result of negligence, and over time this would lead to more negligent behavior. Perhaps most importantly, people downstream of the spill would be much more likely to be exposed to potentially toxic pollution in the absence of an early warning.
Certainly, some spills are more dangerous or consequential than others. However, even small spills can cause major problems if the causes are not addressed and are repeated over time. Furthermore, most businesses or individuals responsible for spills do not have the kind of expertise required to do the type of analysis outlined in the proposal to determine whether reporting was necessary.
Why was this even considered?
The driving force behind this ill-conceived plan seems to be the pharmaceutical company Merck, which has a manufacturing facility in West Point, Montgomery County. In 2007, the company paid a $20 million fine for a chemical spill in Wissahickon Creek, which caused the Philadelphia Water Department to shut off its drinking water intakes from the Schuylkill River, and led to a nearly month-long closure of the river to all recreational usage.
A decade later, the company was reportedly “unhappy with an April 17, 2017, settlement with DEP over an appeal of a stormwater pollution prevention permit” and got legislators to introduce bills in the PA House and Senate that would let companies decide when to report spills. We fought versions of these bills for years and were successful in preventing their passage. It appears that Merck attempted another line of attack by pushing for this regulatory change, as the provisions in the proposal were very similar, and representatives from Merck were nearly alone in advocating for it at the public hearing.
What comes next?
In announcing this withdrawal, the EQB said it would instead move forward with the adoption of “guidelines” on the subject that were previously proposed, but never finalized. The guidelines would not carry the force of law as the proposed regulation would have, but they do provide the basis for decision-making by the Department of Environmental Protection. If DEP staff were to deviate from the guidelines, they would need to justify their decision and show that it isn’t arbitrary.
The previously proposed guidelines were more protective than the withdrawn regulation. In fact, we cited a long passage from the guidelines that contradicted the proposed regulation in our formal opposition comments. However, this could change, so we’ll need to engage in the process for guideline adoption to make sure there are no giveaways to industry. We also need to be vigilant during the annual state budget negotiations to prevent any deal that could revive the stalled legislation.
But for now, we can celebrate this victory for our rivers, streams, and drinking water. Thank you for your help in making this happen!
This blog was included as part of the May 2026 Sylvanian newsletter. Please click here to check out more articles from this edition!