ELR Citation: 50 ELR 20014
No(s). 17-cv-02162-EMC (N.D. Cal. Dec 30, 2019) (Chen, J.)

A district court denied nonprofit groups' and EPA's cross-motions for summary judgment in a challenge to the Agency's denial of a petition to regulate the fluoridation of drinking water supplies under TSCA. The groups argued that the ingestion of fluoride posed an unreasonable risk of neurotoxic harm to humans and thus that EPA should issue a rule under §6(a) of TSCA prohibiting the addition of fluoridation chemicals to drinking water supplies. The court found that the studies and reports the groups presented as evidence that fluoride caused neurotoxic harm were insufficient to establish that no reasonable juror could find EPA entitled to a verdict in its favor, and thus that the groups were not entitled to summary judgment. EPA argued that the groups failed to comply with TSCA's procedural and methodological requirements for risk evaluation and science-based decisions, and that their evidence failed to demonstrate unreasonable risk. The court found that because there was uncertainty about the amount of deference that should be given to the Agency's interpretation of "weight of the scientific evidence" and that the definition of "systematic review" contained in that interpretation was unclear, it was inappropriate to resolve the Agency's claim on summary judgment. It therefore denied both motions for summary judgment.