<story><title>US appeals court kills ban on plastic containers contaminated with PFAS</title><url>https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/30/pfas-ban-plastic-containers-court</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>unglaublich</author><text>&amp;quot;The fifth circuit judges wrote that the EPA would have to regulate the containers under Section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which the judges and Inhance claim would require the EPA to take into account the economic impact on Inhance. The company has said a ban on its fluorination process would put it out of business.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;With that mindset we would still have Asbestos factories around. The economic situation of polluters should be completely outweighed by the health and environmental concerns of the population.</text></comment>
<story><title>US appeals court kills ban on plastic containers contaminated with PFAS</title><url>https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/30/pfas-ban-plastic-containers-court</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>pakyr</author><text>&amp;gt; The rule requires companies to alert the EPA if a new industrial process creates hazardous chemicals. Inhance has produced the containers for decades and argued that its process is not new, so it is not subject to the regulations. The EPA argued that it only became aware that Inhance’s process created PFOA in 2020, so it could be regulated as a new use, but the court disagreed.&lt;p&gt;So basically, any company that begins using a process that produces large quantities of hazardous chemicals is now incentivized to hide it until that process is no longer &amp;#x27;new&amp;#x27; so that substantial new use rules won&amp;#x27;t apply to them? I&amp;#x27;m sure there&amp;#x27;s no way this could go wrong.</text></comment>