Chemical Makers Sue Over Rule To Rid Water of 'Forever Chemicals' (thehill.com) 100
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the New York Times: Chemical and manufacturing groups sued the federal government late Monday (Warning: source paywalled; alternative source) over a landmark drinking-water standard that would require cleanup of so-called forever chemicals linked to cancer and other health risks. The industry groups said that the government was exceeding its authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act by requiring that municipal water systems all but remove six synthetic chemicals, known by the acronym PFAS, that are present in the tap water of hundreds of millions of Americans. The Environmental Protection Agency has said that the new standard, put in place in April, will prevent thousands of deaths and reduce tens of thousands of serious illnesses. The E.P.A.'s cleanup standard was also expected to prompt a wave of litigation against chemical manufacturers by water utilities nationwide trying to recoup their cleanup costs. Utilities have also challenged the stringent new standard, questioning the underlying science and citing the cost of filtering the toxic chemicals out of drinking water.
In a joint filing late Monday, the American Chemistry Council and National Association of Manufacturers said the E.P.A. rule was "arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion." The petition was filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. In a separate petition, the American Water Works Association and the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies said the E.P.A. had "significantly underestimated the costs" of the rule. Taxpayers could ultimately foot the bill in the form of increased water rates, they said. PFAS, a vast class of chemicals also called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are widespread in the environment. They are commonly found in people's blood, and a 2023 government study of private wells and public water systems detected PFAS chemicals in nearly half the tap water in the country. Exposure to PFAS has been associated with developmental delays in children, decreased fertility in women and increased risk of some cancers, according to the E.P.A. [...] The E.P.A. estimates that it would cost water utilities about $1.5 billion annually to comply with the rule, though utilities have said the costs could be twice that amount. Further reading: Lawyers To Plastic Makers: Prepare For 'Astronomical' PFAS Lawsuits
In a joint filing late Monday, the American Chemistry Council and National Association of Manufacturers said the E.P.A. rule was "arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion." The petition was filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. In a separate petition, the American Water Works Association and the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies said the E.P.A. had "significantly underestimated the costs" of the rule. Taxpayers could ultimately foot the bill in the form of increased water rates, they said. PFAS, a vast class of chemicals also called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are widespread in the environment. They are commonly found in people's blood, and a 2023 government study of private wells and public water systems detected PFAS chemicals in nearly half the tap water in the country. Exposure to PFAS has been associated with developmental delays in children, decreased fertility in women and increased risk of some cancers, according to the E.P.A. [...] The E.P.A. estimates that it would cost water utilities about $1.5 billion annually to comply with the rule, though utilities have said the costs could be twice that amount. Further reading: Lawyers To Plastic Makers: Prepare For 'Astronomical' PFAS Lawsuits
These costs are too high for us to profit. (Score:5, Insightful)
In a separate petition, the American Water Works Association and the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies said the E.P.A. had "significantly underestimated the costs" of the rule.
Well darn. I guess that's it. It's just not practical to expect chemical companies to clean up the messes they make -- it should just be paid for by the people who want to drink clean water instead. Wont someone think of the poor shareholders?
Re:These costs are too high for us to profit. (Score:5, Informative)
Exactly why we're suddenly seeing legislation to shut up that pesky EPA. https://appropriations.house.g... [house.gov]
You know that agency that's only existed for close to 60 years and approved by noted environmentalist Richard Nixon.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Nixon only cared about foreign policy.
He left domestic affairs to Congress and his advisors.
Other than being a crook and a war criminal, he wasn't such a bad president.
Re: (Score:3)
Obamacare is not too far removed from Nixoncare. Imagine if that had come to fruition back in the day
Re: (Score:3)
Obamacare is not too far removed from Nixoncare. Imagine if that had come to fruition back in the day
NixonCare was killed by Ted Kennedy.
Re: (Score:2)
So what?
Did Ted also kill Hillarycare & Dolecare? Didn't he introduce his own plan? What happened to that?
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure being a croock and a wr criminal distinguish Nixon from any of his successors, except maybe Jimmy Carter.
Re: (Score:2)
Nixon was also a traitor! He made a deal directly with THE ENEMY to continue the war and killing Americans so that the Vietnam war would be worse and not on track to end! Then he got in and betrayed Vietnam to make a bigger mess of the war. Actual treason; declassified much later; Johnson didn't have the guts to go after him and once again-- failure to do the right thing because of politics let the villains get away with even more later on.
Re: (Score:2)
And he and Kissinger also sold Taiwan down the river. There is no forgiveness to that.
Re:These costs are too high for us to profit. (Score:4, Funny)
Nixon was also a traitor!
Fair enough.
Other than being a crook, a war criminal, and a traitor, he wasn't such a bad president.
Re: (Score:1)
Well yeah, war criminal, racist, traitor, crook, animal abuser, homophobe... but not really so bad as far as presidents go.
Re: (Score:2)
But really, previous to the 1980s, who running for President wasn't a racist homophobe?
Applying today's societal standards to people that were born previous to World War 2 isn't really intellectually fair. Retroactive morality is a fun way to make yourself feel superior to guys who lived and died in ages of different sensibilities, but it's not all that useful.
Theodore Roosevelt was a raging racist asshole genocidal war criminal too, but he still got a Nobel Peace Prize and a spot on Rushmore after publicl
Re: These costs are too high for us to profit. (Score:2)
"Applying today's societal standards to people that were born previous to World War 2 isn't really intellectually fair."
There were people against racism and homophobia then, too. And they were right then, too. It's not surprising, but it was still shitty.
Re: (Score:1)
Other than being a crook and a war criminal, he wasn't such a bad president.
I know exactly what you mean but it's so funny that we live in this world.
Untrue, Nixon was the antichrist (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nixon doesn't deserve so much credit for the EPA. He was going with the trends at the time-- he couldn't oppose every single thing the public wanted... The LAW which did it was passed UNANIMOUSLY in the senate and all Nixon really did is create a department to carry out that law so he could get some credit for a law that easily surpassed his veto powers.
Nixon fought the Clean Water Act-- and the HUDSON RIVER CAUGHT ON FIRE! burning water way! The EPA was more damage control for somebody bound for jail.
Re: These costs are too high for us to profit. (Score:2)
Why does this myth keep coming up. Nixon streamlined the existing environmental agencies that were corrupt and useless and created under into the EPA, however the EPA then was not even implemented because Democrats didnâ(TM)t like it. The EPA was not given any authority until much later under Clinton. Similar to how GWB streamlined the FBI, ICE etc into Homeland Security and Obama extended its powers.
Re: (Score:2)
After all, why expect our overlords to clean up their messes when us mere peons have perfectly good livers*
*I have no idea if livers are capable of expelling this junk from the body. I take it that by "forever" chemical, the answer is probably no.
Re: These costs are too high for us to profit. (Score:3)
Even things the liver can filter can bioaccumulate to some degree. I think the real concern is they don't naturally break down past a certain point, the polymers are very resilient. We've kind of got the same situation going as the planet had before fungi and bacteria evolved to break down cellulose, there's nothing in the environment to deal with this stuff. So even if our bodies can filter it slowly, the input dosage is ever increasing. And we don't have a good handle on if they cause health issues. What
Polluter Pays (Score:2)
This is just going to be one more fight in the series of "polluter pays" fights that have been going on for 25 years now.
These companies already externalized the costs of their pollution by dumping this shit into the environment instead of responsibly handling it.
Now they want to externalize the cost of cleaning up their mess. Same as it ever was, same as it ever will be.
Disgusting (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine being a young person interested in the law, hoping to make a decent living and maybe do some good, and then you end up here. Is the paycheck worth knowing that you're actively fighting to allow this company to poison the earth, cause birth defects, cancer, and other terrible harms, not just to your fellow citizens, but to your own friends and family?
Re: (Score:2)
Attorneys live by a different concept of ethics than us normal people. Offering the best defense for a client is considered the point of being a lawyer, and not only does their legal team not lose any sleep over it. They likely are patting themselves on the back for being such great human beings.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately we do need lawyers who are willing to argue on behalf of evil. It's particularly necessary in criminal trials to give us confidence that justice was done, that even the worst people had a fair trial and opportunity to defend their actions.
The way to fix this is to change the law to make it clear that "it costs too much" is not an excuse to ignore other people's right to clean water.
Re: (Score:2)
The adversarial system is a horrible parody of what justice should be. It's explicitly designed to favor the rich and powerful
OTOH, given human nature (and bureaucracy) it's not clear what system would be better.
Re: (Score:3)
Something about the US system seems to be particularly bad. We have an adversarial system in the UK, and in fact almost all developed nations do, but somehow we manage to control costs a bit and ensure that proceedings are at least somewhat fair despite massive wealth disparities.
Don't get me wrong, it's still far from ideal, but it's nothing like the US where being very wealthy gives you a massive and almost insurmountable advantage.
Re:Disgusting (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt if many idealists become lawyers.
Lawyers designed the regulations to consume billions of dollars, not fixing the problem, but suing each other.
The lawyers are not the good guys here.
Re:Disgusting (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right, but have you ever talked to a lawyer? They really do think of themselves as heros - at least the ones I know.
They constantly say that the Law is just, the court system is good, judges are all honorable, the supreme court is to be respected, and any problems you might see are small abberations. The fact that it takes a lot of money to afford legal representation, so that the poor are often unable to properly defend themselves doesn't seem to bother them. The fact that Black people make up almost half of the state prison population but only about 13% of the U.S population doesn't seem to bother them.
I'm sure there are a lot of good lawyers out there too, but it seems to me like they live in a fantasy world.
Re:Disgusting (Score:5, Insightful)
"The fact that Black people make up almost half of the state prison population but only about 13% of the U.S population doesn't seem to bother them."
You know, there may be a reason for that other than legal costs. Plenty of indians, east asians and other peoples emigrated to the US and made a big success of themselves and don't blame historic wrongs for any problems they may encounter in their lives.
Nigerians too. Who have black skin. Their economic situation in the US looks very much like other recent immigrant groups. There might be some difference in the social history of the groups who have black skin and have been living in the US for a long time from the groups which immigrated recently. Can you guess what that is?
To quote the wiki
Re: Disgusting (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
By your logic, Asia should also be doing a lot better than India, but it is trivial to see why this is not the case. (Clue: above average country is above average)
It also makes it clear why this is not a valid or meaningful comparison to make.
Re: (Score:2)
Afghanistan, Cambodia and Nepal are also part of Asia. What's your point, caller?
Re: (Score:2)
National borders has little to do with it, its down to work ethic.
It has more to do with trust. High-trust societies, where citizens generally trust each other, do far better than low-trust societies.
High-trust and low-trust societies [wikipedia.org]
Re:Disgusting (Score:5, Informative)
You're right, it's not slavery. It was the 100+ years of post slavery bias. Not sure how old you are but the town I grew up in Tennessee in the 60s had segregated schools, and living areas. If you were black there was a zero percent chance you were getting a bank loan from the 2 local banks for a house outside of the black part of town. The black part of town being what was locally known as "The Projects" because it was all brick shithouse tract housing with no insulation and fuckall heating and cooling.
The swimming pools were still segregated until 1972. I mean technically they were allowed in the pool that had 'whites only' signs everywhere because the law said they did but they knew better than to go there. They could swim in their own pool but they'd have to bring their own water since the city shut theirs off in '68 for 'reasons'. My best friend was black in 2nd grade, but then it was made pretty clear that wasn't going to fly and we never really spoke much again.
Jobs were plentiful, they could be a custodian, taxi driver or laborer, almost any company would hire and they got to start off at the bottom rung and stay there. That part of middle Tennessee just outside of Nashville had a very polite form of racism. The Negros (as they were politely referred to) were *very* well respected as long as they knew their place.
Things are way way way better now than they were 50 years ago but if you think the 150 years since slavery basically wiped the slate clean you're fucking delusional. And that form of polite middle Tennessee racism 100% still exists in many areas.
Re: (Score:1)
That's very emotionally compelling but it doesn't account for why immigrants (in particular Nigerian immigrants) succeed, if not immediately then by the second generation.
I've heard two convincing theories about why non-immigrant black Americans are in such a rut. One is lack of stable father figures, and the other is black nationalism (separatism).
The Tennessee racism you mentioned may be the explanation in Tennessee, and perhaps the deep South and agricultural communities, but in the North I never heard a
Re: (Score:2)
You conveniently forgot about Jim Crow laws and the lasting economic damage from them that prevented accumulation of generational wealth, that literally every other sub-segment of society didn't have to deal with.
Ok, but the point still applies (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is a clear reason. Those who are poor and frequently discriminated against have little faith or trust in the justice system. So the only reason they honor it's tenets is fear. So the justice system encourages that fear.
It's also true that (relatively) desperate people will make (relatively) unwise choices. And people who are despised by society will tend to despise those who are approved of.
How to fix the problem isn't clear. It can't be solved by changes on only one side.
Prejudice against males? (Score:2)
Males make up about 50% of the population, but the vast majority of the prison population. If you merely point at the disproportionate number of black prisoners, you're ignoring this 800lb gorilla. If you offer a socialisation model for male overrepresentation, then the same logic helps explain the overrepresentation of blacks... ;)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact that Black people make up almost half of the state prison population but only about 13% of the U.S population doesn't seem to bother them.
Why should it? That's in line with how much more crime they do.
I think you're trolling, but I'll bite anyway and point out that no, "that's in line with how much more attention cops pay to black people than to white ones. There's a reason that "driving while black" - or walking down the street while black, or doing 'X' while black - is effectively a crime in some jurisdictions. Lots of 'crime' - as defined by police - doesn't exist in legislation. Other crimes are prosecuted very differently depending on whether the alleged criminal is black or white. And then there's
Re:Disgusting (Score:4, Insightful)
are committedly racist, or just intellectually lazy and/or not too bright.
As if those two don't go hand in hand...
Re: (Score:3)
Congratulations on being part of the problem.
For example, there's inherent racism baked right into the laws:
Federal mandatory sentencing guidelines for distribution of 500 grams of powder cocaine: 5 years
Federal mandatory sentencing guidelines for distribution of 5 grams of crack cocaine: 5 years
White drug users are more likely to use powder cocaine.
Black drug users are more likely to use crack cocaine.
Why is there a 100-to-1 ratio there on punishment for two different forms of the same drug?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Lawyers designed the regulations to consume billions of dollars
The Trans Pacific Partnership allows companies to sue governments that affect their business interests. You will also find that the treaty allow for companies to sue for lost projected profits. In reading a sixth the TPP (it's 6000 pages!) I found it was full of corporate language as opposed to the specifically defined ways lawyers write legislation.
Previously business would have to deal with the legislation as a function of capitalism and evolve their business model as the market demands. This exampl
Re:Disgusting (Score:4, Informative)
The Trans Pacific Partnership allows companies to sue governments
The TPP died eight years ago without ever being ratified.
I have no idea why you think it is relevant to the EPA's regulations on PFAS.
The thread's about the effect of lawyers. (Score:2)
The TPP died eight years ago without ever being ratified.
I have no idea why you think it is relevant to the EPA's regulations on PFAS.
We're now on a thread Multiple other international trade treaties have similar language, including EU treaties and NAFTA. This is one of the standard ways that corporations fight against future environmental improvement. MrKaos seems to be suggesting that the corporate people would get their language into the law even without the lawyers. Right now they are stacking the US supreme court with pro-corporate / anti-people judges by making sure that Democrat presidents can't put in most of their candidates and
Re: (Score:2)
The Trans Pacific Partnership allows companies to sue governments
You're right - my bad and I'm glad. For some reason I thought it was resurrected.
The TPP died eight years ago without ever being ratified.
I have no idea why you think it is relevant to the EPA's regulations on PFAS.
It triggered a memory in me of the worst case consequences of Investor State Dispute Settlement mechanisms [wikipedia.org]. It would seem that reading the TPP has scarred me.
Re: Disgusting (Score:2)
It seems to me that a system of justice so complex that you need special representation just to get through it is fundamentally broken. Just think about the arcane rules followed during a trial that don't make sense to non-lawyers.
Lawyers built the system for themselves, and the worst part is that it has the unlimited power of the State behind it.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt if many idealists become lawyers.
You are way off. There are lots of idealist lawyers, public sector attorney positions are the lowest paying and and also the most competitive.
The ones that the parent is talking about are the rich ones.
Re: Disgusting (Score:2)
And sometimes, your lawyer also successfully sues big Pharma for irreversible injury to your body, and gets you settlements in the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions . Ask me how I know. In private lol.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually many lawyers are rather poor. You don't hear them, though. I'm not sure how many of the actually end up practicing law.
Those companies should be erased for immoral acts (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
This is the result to declaring companies persons. Now a company that pollutes can be treated like a neighbor that let's his dog out at night to bark himself silly at the mailbox, a garbage can, the moon, etc.
Remember when the Heritage Foundation, (Score:3, Funny)
You might not, but your plastic filled ball sack will.
Re:Remember when the Heritage Foundation, (Score:5, Informative)
The right wing has been stacking the courts at every level since Reagan.
Even if the GOP never wins another election, the conservatives will be able to strangle progress via the courts beyond 2050
Re: (Score:2)
Even if the GOP never wins another election, the conservatives will be able to strangle progress via the courts beyond 2050
Yeah. Would that we could arrange for another kind of strangling to occur. You know, the kind that rights institutional wrongs such as the one you just described.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the deal when you join the right wing. You have to obey everyone above you. But you get to shit all over anyone beneath you.
Yes and no (Score:2)
Now we don't spill the blood of kings in this country so they're not going to get punished per se but what will happen is after the election if they still hold the Senate the Democrats will begin investigations. It's kind of hard to keep taking bribes when you're under investigation for bribery and both men are at the end of their lives so they will retire to cash out.
That will give the Democrats a 5
Re: (Score:2)
Dream on. There's no way they retire (unless there's a Republican President and Senate majority), they'll die on the bench. The Senate alone can't touch them and they know it. The "appointed for life" clause was meant to reduce partisanship, but instead has made the court (and appointment process) extremely partisan.
I'll give a million children cancer- (Score:3, Insightful)
this is what a failing legal system looks like (Score:3, Insightful)
These companies are doing this because they can judge shop to get judges appointed by Trump to rule in their favor.
Then after tying it up in court for years when it gets to the supreme court they'll know they're getting the ruling they want.
Tell me again how we're over regulated ?
Small entities may be over regulated but that's only because the laws we pass to try to get big entities to not be fuckheads can fight it in court for years.
The small entities can't.
But why are those regulations passed in the first place, yeah to try, TRY and regulate the Dow chemicals of the world.
Re: this is what a failing legal system looks like (Score:2)
They are "over-regulated" because they had to even bother answering for their actions at all. Look at all the tech bros who are anti-regulation. How dare we stop the from doing a thing just because they can do the thing?
Socialize the losses (Score:4, Insightful)
When the government demands corporations pick-up their 'rubbish', that's "exceeding its authority".
Retrospective crime (Score:3, Interesting)
It is not just to fine me for having driven, five years ago, at 70, down a road that was recently given a 30mph speed limit.
At SOME point it is not fair to punish the shareholders for behaviour that was totally legal and acceptable decades ago.
There is a tension here, and unless you accept that you will be acting unjustly. Having said that - of course big Tobacco should have been hit, probably harder, for its sales of cigarettes, because they knew there was a problem etc etc....
Re: (Score:3)
> of course big Tobacco should have been hit, probably harder, for its sales of cigarettes, because they knew there was a problem etc etc....
These guys knew too.
Re:Retrospective crime (Score:5, Insightful)
Shareholders aren't being punished. They knew upon investing that risk was involved, and they did their due diligence on the risk profile of the company due to their business practices. They also monitored the evolution of that risk. If they are still invested, they have accepted the risk that this may happen.
We need to get away from this concept that all profits made should be entirely private and that all risk taken while generating them should be socialised onto other people.
Thank you - good response (Score:2)
Far too rare!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Define 'dangerous' and 'know'. (Score:2)
Riding a bicycle is dangerous; I do so regularly, and a friend is currently in plaster from a serious accident. Driving a car is dangerous for pedestrians. At some point we have to accept that the risk is worth the benefit.
In that context claiming that a company 'knew' that a product was dangerous is not straight forward. How much evidence do you have to produce? We're not talking the thalidomide disaster where there was a massive spike in the number of children being born with missing limbs or bits of limb
If only there was a way to avoid this expense... (Score:2)
... like not using PFAS at all, or using some kind of closed loop so contaminates don't end up being pumped into rivers, the sea or groundwater.
Re: (Score:2)
This supported by bean counters in companies the world over. When one widget leave manufacturing, they count One. Tying a tether to it and mange it when it comes back screws up their spreadsheets.
Re: If only there was a way to avoid this expense. (Score:2)
Closed loop? The problem with these chemicals (and most others) is that they defy containment. They leach into water, which goes down the drain and ends up in rivers and streams. The same is true for drugs - they are in our wastewater, which ends up in the environment. A closed loop system (yes, technically Earth is a closed loop) would cycle up contaminants even faster so it requires even more filtration.
In this Case, and most others, industry has decided "the solution to pollution is dilution".
Re: (Score:2)
>(yes, technically Earth is a closed loop)
Boy, do I have a technicality to share with you...
Earth gets inputs mostly from the Sun, but is also taking on dust and the occasional rock or comet from the rest of the Solar system. And the Solar wind is blowing off atmosphere all the time. And we get hit with cosmic rays and stuff constantly. And the crust and oceans are moved by lunar and solar tides.
Does this significantly affect the environmental cycle of PFAS? Other than sunlight breaking the stuff dow
Re: (Score:2)
They certainly do leach and industries will piss and moan about regs to capture it. But if nuclear reactors can be held to a certain standard then other producers of hazardous waste should be as well. Nothing is infallible, and accidents / negligence happen but they should be held to the highest standard by law. As for PFAS, they can be decomposed with heat, even while held in water so I would expect that it is viable to capture, decompose and concentrate / recover products in a manner where they are not re
Re: (Score:2)
Closed loops are always difficult. A far better choice is to ATTEMPT a closed loop, knowing it will have only partial success, and simultaneously avoid using anything that is not either biodegradable to something safe or is itself something safe.
Note that this will not always be possible, but durable pollution should be sufficiently expensive that it will be strenuously avoided. (In this sense I do not count it as pollution if it's a normal part of the ecological cycle...e.g. CO2. There are arguments tha
Re: (Score:1)
I don't think it's that difficult at all. I'm old enough to remember when the use of plastics, for *any* purpose, was avoided. It carried a strong stigma of cheapness and shoddy construction. The dominant materials back then were things like glass, metals, wood, rubber, paper, etc etc etc. All of which are easily recycled, and they were.
Ripe for that one Erin Brockovich scene. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a sufficiently low intensity risk that they could safely drink the water. It's chronic exposure that's the problem, not acute exposure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or possibly more familiar to this crowd, when Marge served Blinky the three-eyed fish to Mr. Burns.
Standing (Score:2)
"Profit above all else" (Score:1)
More pee than man now, twisted and evil. (Score:2)
Profit (Score:3)
When the economy is organised around corporations whose only essential purpose is to make profit, what do people expect to happen? If people become ill due to forever chemicals, that is just a sales opportunity for Big Pharma.
You have no right to poison us! (Score:1)
Lawsuit (Score:2)
I've watched a few documentaries on PFA related issues lately. If you feel like being both horrified and livid at the same time, they're a good choice.
This lawsuit is couched in more mundane legal issues, but I still find it very impressive that the lawyers and executives responsible can actually look themselves in the mirror every day knowing the history of what has gone on with these chemicals. Participating in this lawsuit puts you in a group with a truly remarkable group of scumbags and outright crimi
Why won't you let us poison everyone? (Score:2)