[Dalewyn]

The EPA themselves defined "new use" with regards to PFAS as any manufacturing or process not ongoing as of and after 2015, as cited in the ruling:

>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.

So not only are the EPA aware of what Section 5's "new use" language means and tried to twist it during enforcement, they ignored their own very specific definition to try and regulate Inhance.

That is what the courts are telling to EPA to stop doing. The courts are ordering the EPA to cite the appropriate law and write appropriate regulations following due process first, otherwise known as Section 6, in order to regulate Inhance and their fluorination process which the court reaffirms is something the EPA can do.

[gamblor956]

No, the issue is that the language you are quoting is a gross misstatement of what the EPA actually did.

They clarified the definition of "new use", but PFAS was already covered by the "new use" as defined in the statute.

Ergo, judicial perjury.