Industry groups said the E.P.A. had exceeded its authority in requiring the drinking-water cleanup. The chemicals, known as PFAS, are linked to cancer and health risks.
The fact that they’re leaning on the “arbitrary and capricious” argument means that they don’t have another grounded legal theory for why it’s an exceedance of EPA’s authority. They’re throwing A&C at the wall to see if it sticks because the alternative is willingly take on a liability that’s going to potentially peek into the billions of dollars. It’s a hail mary, plain and simple.
Yeah it’s potentially a much higher cost, depending on how class-action lawsuits play out, but that study doesn’t necessarily say it’s coating the surface of the ocean. It’s diluted into the ocean itself, and because it likes to stick to foam it tends to accumulate at higher concentrations close to the surface. That study is documenting that air particles have a much higher concentration than what’s typically seen diluted in sea water, so it’s essentially congregating in the air-water interface zone.
But yes, your point is well taken that they’re facing catastrophic liability costs from a combination of past health impacts and future cleanup/removal.
the contaminant may have an adverse effect on the health of persons;
the contaminant is known to occur or there is a substantial likelihood that the contaminant will occur in public water systems with a frequency and at levels of public health concern; and
in the sole judgment of the Administrator, regulation of such contaminant presents a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons served by public water systems.
If so, then:
the Administrator shall publish maximum contaminant level goals and promulgate, by rule, national primary drinking water regulations under this subsection.
They had decades to prepare their legal team for this. I don’t expect them to just roll over and accept responsibility.
The fact that they’re leaning on the “arbitrary and capricious” argument means that they don’t have another grounded legal theory for why it’s an exceedance of EPA’s authority. They’re throwing A&C at the wall to see if it sticks because the alternative is willingly take on a liability that’s going to potentially peek into the billions of dollars. It’s a hail mary, plain and simple.
There’s no way this one ends up being only billions; they literally coated the entire surface of the ocean.
Yeah it’s potentially a much higher cost, depending on how class-action lawsuits play out, but that study doesn’t necessarily say it’s coating the surface of the ocean. It’s diluted into the ocean itself, and because it likes to stick to foam it tends to accumulate at higher concentrations close to the surface. That study is documenting that air particles have a much higher concentration than what’s typically seen diluted in sea water, so it’s essentially congregating in the air-water interface zone.
But yes, your point is well taken that they’re facing catastrophic liability costs from a combination of past health impacts and future cleanup/removal.
Wonderful. I bet bivalve creatures are bioaccumulating tons of PFAS on the beach. Not to mention near-shore fish.
Happy 1-year anniversary on Lemmy! Mine’s coming up in a couple of weeks.
😁
That’s somewhat reassuring. Thanks!
Yeah it’s pretty squarely in their wheelhouse.
Does it do the following?
the contaminant may have an adverse effect on the health of persons;
the contaminant is known to occur or there is a substantial likelihood that the contaminant will occur in public water systems with a frequency and at levels of public health concern; and
in the sole judgment of the Administrator, regulation of such contaminant presents a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons served by public water systems.
If so, then:
Wham, bam, thank you ma’am.