2 ms·
> Inhance says the EPA’s rule does not apply to its operations because its fluorination process has been in continuous use since 1983. Uses that have been ongoi
by autoexec 3y ago
> Inhance says the EPA’s rule does not apply to its operations because its fluorination process has been in continuous use since 1983. Uses that have been ongoing since before the EPA proposed the rule in 2015 are exempt. The firm says it “will pursue all legal options to protect its customers, suppliers, and employees and to ensure the continued operations of this environmentally critical technology.”
I love this argument. "We've been poisoning people for a very long time so we should be allowed to keep poisoning people without consequence and will fight you in court to protect our ability to poison people indefinitely!"
- renegade-otter 3y agoOur poison is grandfathered in! Some business models and ways of making money just end. I wont get rich selling CRT monitors anymore, and I certainly do not get to keep my job because I got it a long time ago. "Your position is no longer necessary".
- voytec 3y ago> The firm says it "will pursue all legal options to protect its customers ..." Wow.
- batch12 3y agoI agree with you that this is horrible. Devil's advocate- should the rule then not have excluded the exemption? I understand the company crying foul if they've been complying with rule as it's written. I know that the exceptions exist both for operational and political reasons. Can the EPA pass a new rule that includes no exemptions? Also, maybe exemptions should expire or be re-evaluated every n years.
- dexwiz 3y agoIf the EPA could instantly ban chemicals and disable specific verticals then it would be used as a weapon. Just lobby against your competition's process, and kill them the moment the regulation is enacted. Regulations should be strong, but hard won. Also PFAS are legitimately useful in many industrial contexts. But maybe we shouldn't be using them in places like food packaging that people reheat in microwaves.