EPA Will Make Polluters Pay To Clean Up Two 'Forever Chemicals' (nytimes.com) 39
An anonymous reader shares a report: The Biden administration is designating two "forever chemicals," man-made compounds that are linked to serious health risks, as hazardous substances under the Superfund law, shifting responsibility for their cleanup to polluters from taxpayers. The new rule announced on Friday empowers the government to force the many companies that manufacture or use perfluorooctanoic acid, also known as PFOA, and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid, known as PFOS, to monitor any releases into the environment and be responsible for cleaning them up. Those companies could face billions of dollars in liabilities.
[...] The announcement follows an extraordinary move last week from the E.P.A. mandating that water utilities reduce the PFAS in drinking water to near-zero levels. The agency has also proposed to designate seven additional PFAS chemicals as hazardous waste. "President Biden understands the threat that forever chemicals pose to the health of families across the country," Michael S. Regan, the administrator of the E.P.A., said. "Designating these chemicals under our Superfund authority will allow E.P.A. to address more contaminated sites, take earlier action, and expedite cleanups, all while ensuring polluters pay for the costs to clean up pollution threatening the health of communities."
[...] The announcement follows an extraordinary move last week from the E.P.A. mandating that water utilities reduce the PFAS in drinking water to near-zero levels. The agency has also proposed to designate seven additional PFAS chemicals as hazardous waste. "President Biden understands the threat that forever chemicals pose to the health of families across the country," Michael S. Regan, the administrator of the E.P.A., said. "Designating these chemicals under our Superfund authority will allow E.P.A. to address more contaminated sites, take earlier action, and expedite cleanups, all while ensuring polluters pay for the costs to clean up pollution threatening the health of communities."
True trickle down economics. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Or it could price out those chemicals. We'll either do without, or find replacements.
Now I'll take off my rose tinted glasses:
It probably won't, because the costs will be tacked onto water bills, which can't be avoided.
Re:True trickle down economics. (Score:5, Insightful)
It probably won't, because the costs will be tacked onto water bills, which can't be avoided.
This is the downside to private companies providing services as regulated utilities: They have a legally mandated profit percentage.
Higher costs = higher charges = higher profits.
Re: (Score:1)
So does having 3-eyed babies.
Re: True trickle down economics. (Score:1, Insightful)
PFAS are mostly inert and in most cases better than the alternative which are actually harmful. The problem is that this is regulated solely by the EPA without scientific proof or action and investigations from congress. It will drive manufacturers into making really bad choices.
Re: True trickle down economics. (Score:5, Interesting)
They are chemically inert which is why they were used (in fire suppression and as gaskets in chemically aggressive processes) and why they do not easily break down.
The problem is that their shape and charge distribution mimic certain biological molecules, and this turns out to possibly mess with certain hormones in the body.
How much of this is proven and how much is supposition is being argued. A similar problem surfaced a decade or more in the past with a chemical used to fireproof children's pajamas. Chemically inert, biochemically active.
They will be tough to phase out completely as Viton and various similar gaskets are widely used in industry, including the Green ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't decide if you are that ill-informed, or just lying for some reason. C8 Teflon was a PFAS: are you telling me you didn't know it caused cancers?
Re: (Score:1)
Can you conclusively link human exposure to non-industrial levels of this stuff (I'm not talking being exposed as a worker in a factory to some of the product needed to make them) to cancer?
That only applies if there's not competition (Score:4, Insightful)
So I guess it's a good thing we didn't just spend the last 44 years gutting anti-trust law enforcement in favor of getting bogged down on pointless culture war issues & moral panics...
Wait a second...
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
This is what the kids call "jelly".
I retired at 50, bought my 7 figure house in cash, put a 170k solar in, drive a Tesla I bought in cash (actually it's my wife's but yeah) which I pay zero to charge, and here you are, way dumber than me, still working for the man, struggling to pay health insurance, rent on a 2br, car payments for a used corolla, no savings or investments of note and praying to Jesus everyday this isn't your last day at work because you know you're too old to get another job in tech.
I neve
Re: (Score:1)
But, you, the little guys, are practically salivating on yourselves to stick it to "These Big Corporations". Economic activity doesn't take place in a vacuum, you add cost somewhere - anywhere - and it drags down the entire system. And you, the little guys, are the ones that are least able to cope.
You are deluding yourselves, and you are doing it to yourselves. Pick only things that really matter because *you*, and me, and everyone else is going to wind up paying for it.
Re: (Score:2)
The funds will come from increased prices from those companies, so once again trickle down economics pisses all over the little guy.
That's not a bad thing. The little guy should be supported through a social programs or some program that helps elevate them, not at the expense of the wider environment. You can live on super cheap if you want to, just go to India and shit on the sidewalk, throw your garbage in your backyard. No need for taxes or expenses when there's no services to pay for. No need to worry about PFAS when we let companies poison you in countless other ways.
Support your poor, don't support your companies.
Superfund is poorly written (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, the laws are not written to punish the polluters but to absolve the government of having to pay for it.
Usual business plan (Score:1)
1. 'Donate' the polluted land to a conversation non-profit, spun off subsidiary or other entity
2. Move the parent company assets out of the USA by reincorporating in the Bahamas
3. Lease all of plant, property or equipment in the USA
4. Continue selling products and profiting in the USA
Re: (Score:3)
My dad worked at a university that "bought" an old mining site for $1.
No, your dad worked at a university that didn't do its due diligence. There's nothing wrong with the superfund concept or the laws in this case. The university just seemed to be run by absolute suckers. The point isn't "who did the polluting", it is "who owns the pollution". If you bought the risk, it's yours, you can't come crying about it afterwards. Why do you think it was given away for $1. Actual land is worth more than that even if there's nothing else on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. Due diligence in this case would have been doing a risk assessment of the fact that it is an unremediated coal mine. Risk assessments include things such as potential future legislation. They either looked at the risk and accepted it, deemed it worthwhile, and bought it (in which case they have zero right to cry about it), or they didn't do their due diligence.
That's really all there is to it. You can't buy a polluted site and then complain when someone asks you to clean it up. In fact a truly poorly wr
Is it an actual risk? (Score:1)
Do these chemicals pose an actual, realized risk? Or do they only present risk on models or in lab environments, and they're extrapolating?
How many annual deaths can be directly attributed to these chemicals - as in, these chemicals were the root cause of death?
Re: (Score:1)
I think the Dupont workers in the C8 Teflon factory realized the risk, along with the farmers who lived nearby.
Taxpayers pay no matter what (Score:1)
Will this actually happen? (Score:3)
Will this actually happen or will the companies in question simply tie it up in court action long enough to get a more favorable administration?
Re: (Score:2)
YUP. This took like 70? years to finally have this get done... after like a decade after a long court case and massively huge study proving this shit is bad. It'll be maybe 100 years before it finally is all over with and the chemicals will continue to be everywhere.
Stupid voters keep choosing the enablers who take their anger and redirect it at the politicians who are trying to make the system work faster. Republican has become a synonym for fool. We really need to start sticking it to the stupid people wh
Again going after the wrong companies (Score:1)