United States: The Nickel Report: TSCA Citizens' Petition On Asbestos Raises Specter Of Precedent-Setting Litigation

A pending petition for rulemaking under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) could represent the latest test of the scope of TSCA's citizen petition provisions. Denial of this petition would tee up a precedent-setting court battle addressing citizens' ability to force EPA to exercise its TSCA section 8 authority to require chemical data reporting. And while the petition on its face is focused on requiring additional information collection, it could have important implications for EPA's implementation of TSCA's amended provisions regarding regulation of existing chemicals under section 6.

In its September 25, 2018, petition, the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) is requesting that EPA amend its Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule in order to require greater reporting and disclosure of data on the production, importation and processing of asbestos and asbestos-containing products. The CDR rule, promulgated under TSCA section 8(a) and codified at 40 C.F.R. part 711, requires manufacturers and importers of more than threshold amounts of certain chemical substances to submit reports on the volume imported or manufactured, number of workers exposed, site operations information, downstream uses of the substance and potential for downstream exposure. The rule currently does not require reporting for naturally occurring substances (like asbestos) or for the manufacture or import of a chemical as an impurity, byproduct or part of an article. ADAO's petition seeks to carve out asbestos from these exclusions, to lower the applicable reporting threshold for asbestos from 2,500 pounds per year to 10 pounds per year, to require reporting for asbestos processors as well as manufacturers and importers and to make all subsequent reports submitted on asbestos under the CDR rule publicly available regardless of any claims of protection for confidential business information.

ADAO submitted its petition pursuant to section 21 of TSCA, which allows citizens to request EPA action under various provisions of the statute, including section 8's reporting provisions. The law requires EPA to respond to such a petition within 90 days. If EPA grants the petition, it must promptly begin proceedings to carry out the requested action. And if it denies the petition—or fails to respond within the allotted time—the petitioner may file suit in federal district court, where a judge will decide whether to compel EPA to take the requested action. Any such suit must be filed within 60 days after EPA's denial. In the present case, EPA must respond to ADAO's petition by December 24, 2018.

A pending case involving EPA's denial of another petition illustrates the potential breadth of the judicial review afforded by TSCA section 21 where EPA denies a petition. In Food & Water Watch, Inc. v. EPA, a public health group is challenging EPA's denial of a petition to ban the use of drinking water fluoridation chemicals under section 6 of TSCA. That case, filed in the Northern District of California, is the first citizens' petition lawsuit filed after Congress amended TSCA in 2016. The parties have sparred over the correct interpretation of section 21, particularly with respect to the scope of judicial review provided. Section 21(b)(4)(B) states that where EPA denies a petition for issuance of a new rule, the court will consider that petition in a "de novo proceeding." The parties disagreed as to the nature of that proceeding, including what information the court may consider. EPA argued that the court's review in such cases should be limited to de novo consideration (i.e., without deference to EPA's conclusions) of the administrative record before the agency, as is provided by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in some cases. But the court agreed with the petitioners that because TSCA provides a de novo proceeding rather than de novo review, a section 21 challenge involving a petition for a new rule is not limited to the administrative record. As a result, the court opened the door for these cases to include discovery, expert testimony and submission of scientific studies that were not presented to EPA in the underlying citizens' petition, although the court also recognized that there will necessarily be some limitations on the additional evidence that petitioners may develop. The parties are currently engaged in discovery, with expert discovery closing in March 2019 and a bench trial set for August 2019.

If EPA denies ADAO's petition to amend the CDR rule, TSCA's citizen petition provisions may be put to the test again, with the potential for new precedent-setting rulings on important interpretive issues. One major question will be whether denial of ADAO's petition is subject to the same "de novo proceeding" as in Food & Water Watch. Section 21(b)(4)(B) only provides for such a proceeding in cases involving "a petition to initiate a proceeding to issue a rule" under certain TSCA provisions. But ADAO's petition seeks the amendment of a rule, not the issuance of a new one. And in Food & Water Watch, the court stated that petitions to amend or repeal a prior rule are subject to more limited "APA-like" review rather than the special "de novo" proceeding provided in section 21(b)(4)(B). ADAO may attempt to dispute this interpretation in the hopes of broadening the scope of the court's inquiry and minimizing any deference to EPA's conclusions.

Further, if ADAO is successful in extending the special review provisions of section 21(b)(4)(B) to its petition, it could raise additional questions about what standard of review should apply in the case. While most challenges to agency action under TSCA are governed by the APA's standard of review, in cases governed by section 21(b)(4)(B), a different standard governs. No court has ever directly addressed how that standard of review applies to a petition for action under section 8(a) of TSCA. But based on their text alone, they appear to be in conflict.

Under section 21, a petition for rulemaking must "set forth the facts which it is claimed establish that it is necessary to issue, amend, or repeal" a rule. TSCA § 21(b)(1). Presumably this refers to the statutory criteria governing action under section 8. But once the petition is denied, the standard of review that applies in a de novo proceeding is stated differently: the petitioner must "demonstrate[] to the satisfaction of the court by a preponderance of the evidence that ... the chemical substance or mixture to be subject to such rule or order presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, without consideration of costs or other nonrisk factors, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation, under the conditions of use." TSCA § 21(b)(4)(B)(ii). In other words, if the petitioner can show the chemical presents an unreasonable risk, the court can force EPA to take action.

While this standard of review aligns with the criteria for EPA to regulate existing chemicals under section 6, it appears to be inconsistent with section 8(a), which generally grants EPA the discretion to require "such reports[] as the Administrator may reasonably require" without reference to the level of risk from any particular chemical. TSCA does not command EPA to require reporting for every chemical that presents an unreasonable risk. It is also inconsistent with section 14 (ADAO's claimed authority for overriding claims of confidential business information), which, as relevant, only provides exemptions to its confidentiality protections where disclosure is "necessary to protect health or the environment" against an unreasonable risk or is "relevant" to a TSCA proceeding. Put simply, there appears to be a disconnect between the standard governing EPA's implementation of these provisions and the standard by which a court in a special de novo proceeding may force EPA to act under these provisions.

Depending on how a court resolves this conflict, any litigation over ADAO's petition could have important implications for EPA's ongoing risk evaluation for asbestos. If the court holds that section 21(b)(4)(B) does govern its review of ADAO's petition, then it might proceed to determine at trial whether asbestos presents an "unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment" under the conditions of use. But this is precisely the question that EPA is currently attempting to answer in its still-pending risk evaluation for asbestos under section 6, which is not due until at least December 2019. The result could be a bizarre scenario in which there are two parallel proceedings—one before EPA based on information developed through notice-and-comment rulemaking, and another before a district court judge in a "de novo proceeding" based on evidence developed by the parties through discovery and expert testimony—potentially reaching separate conclusions on the risks of asbestos under various conditions of use. Indeed, under that scenario it's possible the court could rule on the "unreasonable risk" question before EPA's statutory deadlines for conducting the risk evaluation have even expired, creating an end run around TSCA's carefully designed regulatory framework.

Of course, this just one potential reading of section 21, and the court's decision in Food & Water Watch indicates that ADAO's petition would most likely be the subject of a more limited APA-like review that better harmonizes TSCA's various provisions. But in light of the significant issues involved, industries affected by TSCA should be closely watching the proceedings involving ADAO's petition in 2019.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Sign Up
Gain free access to lawyers expertise from more than 250 countries.
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Newsalert
Select Topics
Select Regions
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions