2 ms·

That actually is exactly what the court told the EPA to do. >TSCA section 6(b)(4) requires EPA to establish, by rule, a process to conduct risk evaluations. Sp

That actually is exactly what the court told the EPA to do. >TSCA section 6(b)(4) requires EPA to establish, by rule, a process to conduct risk evaluations. Specifically, EPA is directed to use this process to “determine whether a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, without consideration of costs or other non-risk factors, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation identified as relevant to the risk evaluation by the Administrator, under the conditions of use.” https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2023-23428/p-52 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2023-23428/p-52 Also, this was even linked right below the paragraph you cited.

shadowfacts 3y ago
The article says, "However, Peer noted Section 6 states health risks should be weighed “without consideration of costs or other non-risk factors”." Peer is not the court, it's a non-profit involved in the litigation. You can read the opinion, and the court doesn't tell the EPA to use section 6, just that they can't use section 5: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-60620-CV0.pdf https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-60620-CV0.pd...
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  >the court doesn't tell the EPA to use section 6, Yes they do: >Second, the EPA may regulate chemical substances under Section 6. See 15 U.S.C. § 2605. The mandate of Section 6 is broader than Section 5, in that Section 6 applies to all chemical substances, not just new chemical substances or significant new uses of a chemical substance. See id. § 2605(a). However, the rulemaking process under Section 6 is also more rigorous than Section 5: It requires the EPA to conduct a cost-benefit analysis, weighing the negative effects of the chemical substance against the benefits of the substance and the economic consequences of prohibiting or limiting the substance. See id. § 2605(c)(2)(A)–(C). No such analysis is required under Section 5. >We hasten to add that our ruling to this effect does not render the EPA powerless to regulate Inhance’s fluorination process. The agency can properly proceed, abiding the APA’s procedural guardrails, under TSCA’s Section 6 by conducting inter alia the appropriate cost-benefit analysis required for ongoing uses—a proposition even Inhance concedes. The EPA is just not allowed to skirt the framework set by Congress by arbitrarily deeming Inhance’s decades-old fluorination process a “significant new use.” See Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass’n, 575 U.S. 92, 105–06 (2015).

shadowfacts 3y ago

The article says, "However, Peer noted Section 6 states health risks should be weighed “without consideration of costs or other non-risk factors”." Peer is not the court, it's a non-profit involved in the litigation. You can read the opinion, and the court doesn't tell the EPA to use section 6, just that they can't use section 5: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-60620-CV0.pdf https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-60620-CV0.pd...

Dalewyn 3y ago
>the court doesn't tell the EPA to use section 6, Yes they do: >Second, the EPA may regulate chemical substances under Section 6. See 15 U.S.C. § 2605. The mandate of Section 6 is broader than Section 5, in that Section 6 applies to all chemical substances, not just new chemical substances or significant new uses of a chemical substance. See id. § 2605(a). However, the rulemaking process under Section 6 is also more rigorous than Section 5: It requires the EPA to conduct a cost-benefit analysis, weighing the negative effects of the chemical substance against the benefits of the substance and the economic consequences of prohibiting or limiting the substance. See id. § 2605(c)(2)(A)–(C). No such analysis is required under Section 5. >We hasten to add that our ruling to this effect does not render the EPA powerless to regulate Inhance’s fluorination process. The agency can properly proceed, abiding the APA’s procedural guardrails, under TSCA’s Section 6 by conducting inter alia the appropriate cost-benefit analysis required for ongoing uses—a proposition even Inhance concedes. The EPA is just not allowed to skirt the framework set by Congress by arbitrarily deeming Inhance’s decades-old fluorination process a “significant new use.” See Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass’n, 575 U.S. 92, 105–06 (2015).