3 ms·
> The rule requires companies to alert the EPA if a new industrial process creates hazardous chemicals. Inhance has produced the containers for decades and argu
by calgarymicro 3y ago
> 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.
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 'new' so that substantial new use rules won't apply to them? I'm sure there's no way this could go wrong.
- thaumasiotes 3y agoWell, at that point they'd be in direct violation of the requirement you just quoted: > The rule requires companies to alert the EPA if a new industrial process creates hazardous chemicals. Which seems unlikely to help them.
- calgarymicro 3y agoThat requirement only exists once the EPA has created the rule. What the 5th Circuit has just said is that if you've been using a hazardous process for a while by the time the EPA creates such a rule, even if the EPA and public did not know about it, then SNURs can't be applied. In this case, the EPA tried to regulate PFAS in 2020, but since Inhance had been using them since the 80s (without anyone knowing), the rule was struck down. So any company that begins using a hazardous process is incentivized to keep that secret for long enough that the EPA can no longer create an SNUR regulating it.