|
|
|
|
|
|
by shadowfacts
814 days 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.pd... |
|
|
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).