3 ms·

What constitutes new? New knowledge? or can we construe that PFAS are a New product as they weren't identified earlier. If we have to get pedantic, in these cas

What constitutes new? New knowledge? or can we construe that PFAS are a New product as they weren't identified earlier. If we have to get pedantic, in these cases we should, because that is what the law intends.

fngjdflmdflg 3y ago
From the ruling: >Inhance asserts that “new” means “having recently come into existence,” or “not previously existing.” >the EPA argues that a “significant new use” is any use “not previously known to the EPA.”[0] Lots of commenters seem outraged by the court's decision here but to me EPA's claim is outrageous. [0] https://peer.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/3_22_24-Fifth-Circuit-Opinion.pdf https://peer.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/3_22_24-Fifth-Ci...
Dalewyn 3y ago
By the EPA's own definition, as cited in the ruling: Any uses that do not have an ongoing use as of and after 2015. >In response to growing concerns about PFAS, the EPA proposed a new SNUR in January 2015, “designating as a significant new use manufacturing . . . or processing of an identified subset of [PFAS] for any use that will not be ongoing after December 31, 2015, and all other [PFAS] for which there are currently no ongoing uses.” >... The proposed rule also made clear that the SNUR would apply only to “any use not ongoing as of the date on which this proposed rule is published.” Id. https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-60620-CV0.pdf https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-60620-CV0.pd... Emphasis mine.
rayiner 3y ago
If you look at the context of the statute, it’s clearly distinguishing between stuff companies already make versus new stuff companies intend to make. For example, it requires giving notice to the EPA of “such person’s intention to manufacture or process such substance.”

3 ms·

What constitutes new? New knowledge? or can we construe that PFAS are a New product as they weren't identified earlier. If we have to get pedantic, in these cas

by downrightmike 3y ago

fngjdflmdflg 3y ago
From the ruling: >Inhance asserts that “new” means “having recently come into existence,” or “not previously existing.” >the EPA argues that a “significant new use” is any use “not previously known to the EPA.”[0] Lots of commenters seem outraged by the court's decision here but to me EPA's claim is outrageous. [0] https://peer.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/3_22_24-Fifth-Circuit-Opinion.pdf https://peer.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/3_22_24-Fifth-Ci...
Dalewyn 3y ago
By the EPA's own definition, as cited in the ruling: Any uses that do not have an ongoing use as of and after 2015. >In response to growing concerns about PFAS, the EPA proposed a new SNUR in January 2015, “designating as a significant new use manufacturing . . . or processing of an identified subset of [PFAS] for any use that will not be ongoing after December 31, 2015, and all other [PFAS] for which there are currently no ongoing uses.” >... The proposed rule also made clear that the SNUR would apply only to “any use not ongoing as of the date on which this proposed rule is published.” Id. https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-60620-CV0.pdf https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-60620-CV0.pd... Emphasis mine.
rayiner 3y ago
If you look at the context of the statute, it’s clearly distinguishing between stuff companies already make versus new stuff companies intend to make. For example, it requires giving notice to the EPA of “such person’s intention to manufacture or process such substance.”