EPA Will Make Polluters Pay To Clean Up Two 'Forever Chemicals' (nytimes.com) 16
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:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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:4, 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)
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: (Score:3)
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. Che
That only applies if there's not competition (Score:3)
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:2)
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.
Superfund is poorly written (Score:3)
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?
Taxpayers pay no matter what (Score:1)
Will this actually happen? (Score:2)
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?