If adopted, the EPA's proposed new rule would limit the levels of certain PFAS compounds in drinking water down to the unimaginably low level of 4 parts per trillion - which is equivalent to just four grains of sand in an Olympic size swimming pool.
The EPA quietly removed several PFAS compounds from its "Safer Choice" list of recommended ingredients for consumer products.
If adopted, the EPA's proposed rule for PFAS in drinking water may be the most expensive rule in the EPA's history.
A much bigger expense is that "The maximum contaminant levels that the EPA sets will become target cleanup levels at Superfund sites and de facto cleanup levels at other sites."
Slide from January 22, 2024 Shubik Lecture to the Toxicology Forum by Dennis Paustenbach Ph.D, DABT, FATS. Even the EPA's own very slanted analysis of costs and benefits shows that the alleged benefits barely exceed the EPA's greatly understated estimates of costs.
The extremely low levels of risk from PFAS in drinking water and consumer products - if indeed there is any real risk at all - could not be the basis for successful personal injury lawsuits against the PFAS manufacturers and companies because plaintiffs would ordinarily have to prove in court that their alleged injuries are more probable than not to result from exposure to PFAS. So how to magically turn extremely low risks that do not meet the "More probable than not" test into a gravy train for lawyers? Get the EPA to regulate on a very precautionary basis and then sue the manufacturers for the additional costs of compliance.
The EPA's proposed PFAS rule is now undergoing final review at OIRA, and most of the needless expense could be avoided by setting a more reasonable limit, such as in the 20-to-40 parts-per-trillion range, while still fully protecting public health.
https://spectator.org/bidens-latest-political-payoff-with-your-money/
No comments:
Post a Comment