3 ms·

Note that the court told the EPA to use the correct law, not that the basis for their actions was wrong: >the conservative fifth circuit court of appeals court

Note that the court told the EPA to use the correct law, not that the basis for their actions was wrong: >the conservative fifth circuit court of appeals court overturned the ban. The judges did not deny the containers’ health risks, but said the EPA could not regulate the buckets under the statute it used. >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. >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. I agree with this ruling, laws should be enforced as-written by Executive Branch departments and agencies such as the EPA. Rewriting laws is the job of the Legislative Branch.

czig 3y ago
I’m not sure if I agree with this. If the EPA didn’t become aware of PFOA being used due to their negligence, then I would say the fault is on them. However, if they didn’t find out about it due to subversion on behalf of Inhance to hide them using PFOAs, then I would disagree with the ruling. I wish the article provided more information about the specific arguments
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  >PFOA being used I think you're misunderstanding something. Inhance used (and uses) their fluorination process "for decades", but the fact it generated PFOA only became known in 2020 (edit: article is wrong; was cited by EPA in 2022). Because the law states "new" use, the court threw out the EPA's "we found PFOA coming out of this in 2020 (edit: 2022, see above edit), this is new use" argument as hogwash. I agree with this ruling, because I presume this is all English.
  - galleywest200 3y ago
    Wouldn't this incentivize companies to just hide emissions like this, then cry "it is not new" when eventually found out?
    - Ekaros 3y ago
      It makes some sense for companies to be protected from governmental over reach. Like activist agency could ban any process and destroy companies if some of their processes generate something that might be carcinogenic. Even if this process had gone on for millennia. If government wants to ban something there should be reasonable path followed.
      - mdp2021 3y ago
        That a damaging «process had gone on for millennia» is not grounds for protracting it.
      - FireBeyond 3y ago
        Where in the constitution is your right to a profitable or successful business?
        Dalewyn 3y ago
        From the Declaration of Independence, which doesn't have legal authority per se but is revered as one of the country's foundational documents together with the Constitution: >We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Pursuit of happiness includes having the right to try running a business and making it successful. And from the Constitution, its preamble: >We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. The establishment of justice, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty by the people for the people means the government cannot prohibit someone from running a business without following due process and citing due causes. And as a catch-all, from the Ninth Amendment: >The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

czig 3y ago

I’m not sure if I agree with this. If the EPA didn’t become aware of PFOA being used due to their negligence, then I would say the fault is on them. However, if they didn’t find out about it due to subversion on behalf of Inhance to hide them using PFOAs, then I would disagree with the ruling. I wish the article provided more information about the specific arguments

Dalewyn 3y ago
>PFOA being used I think you're misunderstanding something. Inhance used (and uses) their fluorination process "for decades", but the fact it generated PFOA only became known in 2020 (edit: article is wrong; was cited by EPA in 2022). Because the law states "new" use, the court threw out the EPA's "we found PFOA coming out of this in 2020 (edit: 2022, see above edit), this is new use" argument as hogwash. I agree with this ruling, because I presume this is all English.
- galleywest200 3y ago
  Wouldn't this incentivize companies to just hide emissions like this, then cry "it is not new" when eventually found out?
  - Ekaros 3y ago
    It makes some sense for companies to be protected from governmental over reach. Like activist agency could ban any process and destroy companies if some of their processes generate something that might be carcinogenic. Even if this process had gone on for millennia. If government wants to ban something there should be reasonable path followed.
    - mdp2021 3y ago
      That a damaging «process had gone on for millennia» is not grounds for protracting it.
    - FireBeyond 3y ago
      Where in the constitution is your right to a profitable or successful business?
      - Dalewyn 3y ago
        From the Declaration of Independence, which doesn't have legal authority per se but is revered as one of the country's foundational documents together with the Constitution: >We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Pursuit of happiness includes having the right to try running a business and making it successful. And from the Constitution, its preamble: >We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. The establishment of justice, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty by the people for the people means the government cannot prohibit someone from running a business without following due process and citing due causes. And as a catch-all, from the Ninth Amendment: >The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.