Cost of Dealing With PFAS Problem Sites 'Frightening', Says Environment Agency (theguardian.com)
(Tuesday October 15, 2024 @11:21AM (msmash)
from the sad-state-of-affairs dept.)
- Reference: 0175257857
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/24/10/15/153247/cost-of-dealing-with-pfas-problem-sites-frightening-says-environment-agency
- Source link: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/15/cost-dealing-pfas-problem-sites-frightening-environment-agency-england
The number of sites identified as potentially having been polluted with banned cancer-causing "forever chemicals" in England is on the rise, and the Environment Agency (EA) says it [1]does not have the budget to deal with them . From a report:
> A former RAF airfield in Cambridgeshire and a fire service college in the Cotswolds have joined a chemicals plant in Lancashire and a fire protection equipment supplier in North Yorkshire on the agency's list of "problem sites" for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). In total, according to a report compiled for the agency, there could be more than 10,000 locations in England contaminated with PFAS -- substances that have been linked to a wide range of diseases including cancers, and which do not break down in the environment, earning them the nickname "forever chemicals." But to date the agency is only taking action on four sites.
>
> [...] In an email sent to Defra in May, the agency says there are "funding pressures this year to take on all the inspection work we have been asked to do" relating to "PFAS and the two new potential site inspection requests we have accepted for AGC and Duxford." "These are the first requests we have had for many years and the very high cost of analysing for PFAS is beginning to get frightening,รข the agency wrote. The "ballpark estimate of costs to carry out ... investigations on four PFAS problem sites ... has just come out at between $2.3m-$3.5m. We aren't planning to spend anything like [that], certainly not immediately but it does put the total value of our contaminated land budget of $392k plus $262k from [the chemicals funding stream] into context."
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/15/cost-dealing-pfas-problem-sites-frightening-environment-agency-england
> A former RAF airfield in Cambridgeshire and a fire service college in the Cotswolds have joined a chemicals plant in Lancashire and a fire protection equipment supplier in North Yorkshire on the agency's list of "problem sites" for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). In total, according to a report compiled for the agency, there could be more than 10,000 locations in England contaminated with PFAS -- substances that have been linked to a wide range of diseases including cancers, and which do not break down in the environment, earning them the nickname "forever chemicals." But to date the agency is only taking action on four sites.
>
> [...] In an email sent to Defra in May, the agency says there are "funding pressures this year to take on all the inspection work we have been asked to do" relating to "PFAS and the two new potential site inspection requests we have accepted for AGC and Duxford." "These are the first requests we have had for many years and the very high cost of analysing for PFAS is beginning to get frightening,รข the agency wrote. The "ballpark estimate of costs to carry out ... investigations on four PFAS problem sites ... has just come out at between $2.3m-$3.5m. We aren't planning to spend anything like [that], certainly not immediately but it does put the total value of our contaminated land budget of $392k plus $262k from [the chemicals funding stream] into context."
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/15/cost-dealing-pfas-problem-sites-frightening-environment-agency-england
we be guinea pigs (Score:2)
by Tablizer ( 95088 )
We're all guinea pigs of capitalism, say Oink!
Oink you guinea pigs, say oink oink!
What? You say guinea pigs squeak but don't oink? Thanks to pollution they now Oink! So say it! Oink Oink Squeal Oink!
Pay a lot now or a more later (Score:2)
by bhcompy ( 1877290 )
Nobody wants to pay for cleanup, but the costs only grow. The only way to truly defer the costs is for the environment to die, and us with it.
From clamshells to Chlorox... (Score:2)
I humbly submit that anything that doesn't automatically break down in the environment should not be introduced into the environment, and certainly not without a detailed, fully-funded, and stably-staffed plan to remove it afterwards.