EPA orders packaging firm Inhance to stop making PFAS | Hacker News Reader

EPA orders packaging firm Inhance to stop making PFAS

cen.acs.org

182 pointsgeox50 comments

> 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!"

Our 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".

> The firm says it "will pursue all legal options to protect its customers ..."

Wow.

I 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.

If 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.

One of the key points:

> The EPA first became aware of PFAS impurities created by Inhance’s fluorination process in 2020 after PFAS-tainted mosquitocide contaminated a Massachusetts drinking water supply. The agency determined that PFOA had leached into the mosquitocide from fluorinated HDPE containers treated by Inhance.

Was great to wake up to and learn we had PFAS air dropped on us.

is this mainly used for weird chemical containers for industry or something? i can't imagine too many containers in the grocery store needing to be fluorinated HDPE

edit: just noticed that "2.2 Kg" is used twice in the EPA release [0]...that's either a pretty weird unit of measurement or an error of some kind since 1 kg = 2.2 lb

[0] https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-takes-action-protect-pe...

The waterproof coating for all those “compostsble” paper takeout containers are PFAS.

All? It used to be waxes before the toxins took over. Maybe some still are.

I don't think I've ever seen a wax takeout container. Prior to the current wave of "compostable" containers, takeout containers were either something non-paper backed (eg. styrofoam or plastic), or something that resembled a paper cup (which uses plastic not wax, because wax gets melted by hot food/drinks).

Waxed cups are still sold for cold drink use: https://www.webstaurantstore.com/search/wax-paper-cups.html

I remember them being pretty common. But that has probably changed over the years as you indicate.

Still a thing, but no longer the default. Weird too - wax paper cups were fine. I assume, just more expensive to make. Now it's the red plastic solo cups which are the default.

a quick search shows soy wax being used in some containers still. today i learned that "mosquitocide" is a word, and soy wax is a thing. Thanks HN =)

Soy candles are pretty popular in the USA.

Candles are horrifying for indoor air quality, why would anyone use them?

People also smoke and drink and catch diseases.

They might say there's more to life than trying to live forever.

> why would anyone use them?

They look nice and produce a pleasant, warm light; I would also guess many people aren't aware of their impact on air quality. Surprisingly, different people have different opinions about what matters in a given situation.

AS the great George Strait said, "I'm here for a good time not a long time."

So many things used to be covered in wax before plastics and PFA coatings took over. From rain coats to butcher's paper. The wax versions still exist, but they're often a lot more expensive than the PFA or plastic lined versions.

In my fantasy world these were all covered in beeswax, but I doubt there's enough beeswax for all of those applicatins. I don't suppose anyone knows what the wax is/was made of, and whether it had any health concerns as well?

I would imagine mineral waxes? (ie hydrocarbons)

I wish we could go back. Wax covered paper is way better for the environment

I never really warmed up to these (they were a gift) but they do work reasonably well.

https://www.beeswrap.com/

Yes. Better chemical resistance than regular HDPE, but as you might expect, a higher cost too, so it'll only be used for applications that require it.

One of their customers is the cosmetics industry

https://youtu.be/a-Hu4HQvA_U?si=rOSlIG1pM202AXpB

perfect video, thanks.

second from top comment is this:

"Why not require companies that use fluorinated plastic containers to print a large warning label on them informing consumers of the danger like we do with cigarettes/tobacco? If the EPA can't force their hand, maybe we can try to change consumer behavior."

and i have to admit, that was my very own reaction when i saw this press release

Inhance claims their containers are recyclable, so a number of them probably do get recycled into new HDPE containers. How do you warn consumers about this without turning them off of all recycled plastics?

that's a fair point, but if it was up to me i'd be happy to see labeling on the specifically fluorinated containers. or maybe it's not even necessary to worry about because the containers are just as unhealthy as all the other containers?

It's plausible that broad concern about recycled plastics would be valid.

This study[1] found that the recycled plastics analyzed were fairly toxic. I recall another that found the same for recycled synthetic clothing, but I was unable to find a reference.

1. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/11/231110112511.h...

Egad. We really need to be breaking these back down into oil or syngas and resynthesizing new plastics from that.

We should be doing exactly that.

It's roughly 5lb (2267g)

> just noticed that "2.2 Kg" is used twice in the EPA release

Even better, there’s no such unit of mass as “Kg”. It’s “kg”.

Now do everyone else making paper and cardboard food packaging and straws and takeout containers that are coated in a bunch of different PFASes.

I hope these containers weren't/aren't labeled with a #2 recycle code.

> The company claims the resulting containers are fully recyclable.

But crap, they probably are. Which means everyone using recycled HDPE is potentially exposed to PFAS leachates as well.

> EPA’s order that it has modified its fluorination process over the past 2 years, resulting in a more-than-90% decrease in PFAS impurities. PFAS are undetectable in nearly all of its fluorinated plastic packaging, the company says.

But are they undetectable following the recycling process? Are new PFAS impurities formed in this process?

You mean the resin identification code? Which has nothing to do with recyclability, despite its shape.

Maybe not, but people use it to know what to recycle and what to toss. At least some people do.

Fortunately even the plastic those people designate for recycling is not in fact recycled in the overwhelming number of cases ([0] cites a rate of ~8% dropping to ~5% in 2021).

(/s? I think? I don’t know, this whole domain of waste stream problems seems like bouncing from one sad state of affairs to another)

Adorably, we count exporting the plastics to dump in third countries as “recycling” it, including it as part of that single-digit figure.

[0] [PDF] https://www.lastbeachcleanup.org/_files/ugd/dba7d7_9450ed6b8...

fun tidbit: the standard was updated in 2013 to replace the chasing arrows with a triangle because of this

Is this going to be like BPA free where companies just slightly alter the chemical makeup and it’s back to business like normal?

Probably not. The line between fluorinated and nonflourinated is very clear. For more standard organic molecules like BPA small changes can actually change bio activity significantly.

Yes, PFAS and PFOA is a vast array of chemicals. My understanding is the EPA can only target specific chemicals for regulation. Therefore it is always cat and mouse when a new chain is added to change the chemical slightly in shape, but not function.

PFAS are a class of chemicals, not specific molecules. Depending on your database there are thousands or millions of them. Broadly they are fluorinated carbon chains of an arbitrary length. They are analogous to oils and fatty acids with Fluorine instead of Hydrogen. Banning them bans a wide arrange of industrial processes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_subst...

PFOA is a specific chemical, and probably one of the most widely used. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid. It could be replaced by something like ADONA. So there is the cat and mouse game. But by banning PFAS in general, you can ban pretty much all fluorinated chemistry from consumer goods.

Here what the EPA is doing is banning impurities. Any chemical reaction will have some side products, especially organic chemistry, which are labeled as impurities. No matter the exact fluorinated chemical used in the reaction, it will produce some amount of PFAS as side products. By targeting the PFAS impurities, they don't have to ban a specific input chemical, they can ban large classes of chemicals that produce similar impurities.

    Environmental groups involved in the case welcome the EPA’s decision to essentially ban Inhance’s fluorination process.

https://web.archive.org/web/20231209051107/https://cen.acs.o...

> These orders become effective February 28, 2024.

https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-takes-action-protect-pe...

way too slow

Well, from what I've read, the EPA has been gutted intentionally for quite a while, so that is by design. Starve the beast is a strategy that is currently still in use in the US.

"Small government" helps a certain class of people.

Who is blaming Trump? House Republicans right now are trying to cut the EPA, IRS, etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com