Fluoride Action Network

TSCA Trial

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976, a group of non-profits and individuals petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2016 to end the addition of fluoridation chemicals into drinking water due to fluoride's neurotoxicity. The EPA rejected the petition. In response, the groups sued the EPA in Federal Court in 2017. A 7-day trial was held in June 2020 and the judge has yet to make his ruling as of December 2021.

Lawsuit Documents

THE DOCUMENTS: 2016-present

Table 1 are the submissions entered into the law suit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Section 21 of the Toxic Control Substances Act (TSCA) by the Fluoride Action Network, Food & Water Watch, and Moms Against Fluoridation, and various individuals.

February 22, 2021

Table 1: Submissions

DATE ABOUT TITLE
October 28, 2022 The Court notes:
“as of today, the circumstances no longer support awaiting the final publication of the NTP review.” While the Court states it may re-assess this based on Dr. Woychik’s answers to his questions, the Court’s comment suggests that the NTP report will now need to have a clear, definite, and timely release in order to be part of the case.
… Since the stay was imposed, one of the Plaintiffs, Jessica Trader, became pregnant with her first child in December 2020 and plans to have several more children. Docket No. 279-1 ¶¶ 40–45. Ms. Trader’s pregnancy satisfies Article III standing. Article III standing requires three elements:
(1) an injury-in-fact that is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent,
(2) a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, and (3) probable redressability. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992). Here, the neurodevelopmental harm from fluoride exposure to Ms. Trader’s child and future children is concrete and imminent; there is a credible causal connection between that neurodevelopmental harm and EPA’s regulation of fluoride exposure or lack thereof; and the harm would likely be redressed if EPA were to pass a rule prohibiting the addition of fluoridation chemicals to public drinking water supplies. Indeed, EPA has not since filed any motion to dismiss for lack of standing and previously conceded that standing would be satisfied by “someone who is an expectant parent who—who could be consuming fluoridated water, and, and—that could have potential effects on the baby she’s carrying in utero. It could be a potential—a parent, someone with very young children.” Docket No. 133 at 14:9–17. FWW has satisfactorily addressed the Court’s questions regarding standing such that a stay is no longer warranted based on standing concerns.”
Court Order granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Lift the Stay and take case Out of Abeyance.
October 11, 2022 According to Defendants:
• First, the parties agree that the Court should lift the abeyance and decide the merits of this case based only on the trial record.
• Second, if the Court is disinclined to decide the merits based only on the trial record now, the Court should keep the case in abeyance until NTP
• Third, Plaintiffs do not meaningfully contest EPA’s demonstration that a second trial would be unfairly prejudicial to EPA.concludes its process with respect to the Systematic Review.
Reply in support of Defendants’ cross-motion to lift stay to decide merits on trial record.
October 3, 2022

According to Plaintiffs: “In considering what course to chart for the remainder of this litigation, the Court should look to the central policy concern that underlies TSCA, i.e., the urgent need to prevent irreversible chemical hazards before they occur. As discussed herein, Congress has made clear that “factual certainty” of harm is not needed to initiate rulemaking under the Act. Given this, the Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court take this case out of abeyance and (A) render a determination based on the current trial record (as EPA proposes), or (B) schedule a phase two trial where the parties’ experts can address the current state of the science, including the NTP’s May 2022 monograph that, as detailed herein, is the most extensively peerreviewed monograph in NTP’s history.”

ARGUMENT
A. The Future Course of This Litigation Should Be Guided, First and Foremost, By the Policy Interests that TSCA Was Enacted to Protect
B. The Facts in Richard Woychik’s Declaration Strongly Counsel Against Waiting for a “Final” NTP Report
C. The Currently Available NTP Reports Have Been More Thoroughly Peer Reviewed Than Any of NTP’s Previous Monographs and Provide a Well-Developed Assessment of the Science
D. The Existence of the NASEM Peer Reviews Provides Further Justification for the Court Considering the Currently Available NTP Reports
E. EPA Fails to Identify Any Persuasive Reason for Not Having a Phase Two Trial on the Current State of the Science
CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs’ Reply in support of their motion to Lift the Stay and take the case out of Abeyance.
October 3, 2022 Plaintiffs’ Exhibits:
Exhibit O is a true and correct excerpt of the “Legislative History of the Toxic Substances Control Act.”
Exhibit P are true and correct excerpts of NTP’s previous 21 monographs
Exhibit Q is a true and correct copy of NTP’s “Handbook for Conducting a
Literature-Based Health Assessment Using OHAT Approach for Systematic review and Evidence Integration”
Exhibit R are true and correct excerpts of Dr. Kristina Thayer’s June 12, 2020
trial testimony in this matter.
Exhibit S are true and correct excerpts of Dr. Tala Henry’s June 16, 2020
trial testimony in this matter.
Exhibit T are true and correct excerpts of NASEM’s report “Review of the
Draft NTP Monograph: Systematic Review of Fluoride Exposure and Neurodevelopmental and Cognitive Health Effects (2020)”
Exhibit U are true and correct excerpts of NASEM’s report “Review of the Revised NTP Monograph on the Systematic Review of Fluoride Exposure and Neurodevelopmental and Cognitive Health Effects: A Letter Report (2021)”
Exhibit V are true and correct excerpts of NASEM’s report “The Use of
Systematic Review in EPA’s Toxic Substances Control Act Risk Evaluations (2021)”
Exhibit W is a true and correct copy of an email exchange I had with EPA’s
counsel in this matter.
Exhibit X is a true and correct copy of a press release issued by Public
Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) https://peer.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/7_2_21-EPA-Scientists-Transmittal-letter.pdf
Exhibit Z is a true and correct copy of an article which I obtained from the
website of the Society for Environmental Journalists: https://www.sej.org/print/headlines/docs-reveal-names-3-epa-officials-who-downplayed-chemicalhazards
Second Declaration of Michael Connett in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Lift the Stay and take the case out of Abeyance.
September 26, 2022

The Defendants state:

2. In July 2022, Dr. Ellen Chang, Defendants’ expert epidemiologist in this case, informed me that she is no longer available as an expert witness.
3. Based on a review of our records, the government has expended nearly $450,000 on expert witnesses (including fees paid to Plaintiffs’ experts) in this case.
4. Exhibit A is a copy of the Testimony of Michal Ilana Freedhoff, Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, on June 22, 2022.

Declaration of Brandon N. Adkins in Support of Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Lift the Stay and take the Case out of Abeyance, and Cross-Motion to Lift Stay to decide merits on trial record.
September 26, 2022 NOTICE OF OPPOSITION AND CROSS-MOTION
Memorandum in Support
Introduction
Background
ARGUMENT
I. The Court Should Lift the Abeyance Only to Decide this Case Based on the Trial Record.
II. If the Court Does Not Decide the Case Now Based Only on the Trial Record, the Court Should Keep the Case in Abeyance Until NTP Finalizes its Systematic Review.
III. Plaintiffs Failed to Support Their Request for Far-Ranging Post-Trial Discovery
Conclusion
Attached Declarations:
Declaration of NTP Director Richard P. Woychik, Ph.D.
Declaration of Brandon N. Adkins
Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Lift the Stay and take the Case out of Abeyance, Cross-Motion to Lift the Stay to decide merits on trial record, and Memorandum in support thereof.
September 12, 2022 According to the Motion: “Plaintiffs Food & Water Watch et al. respectfully request that the Court lift the stay that was entered on August 10, 2020 and take this case out of abeyance. “Courts within the Ninth Circuit have recognized that ‘the court may abandon its imposed stay of litigation if the circumstances that persuaded the court to impose the stay in the first place have changed significantly.’” The Motion notes that “four circumstances that persuaded the Court to stay the case over two years ago have changed significantly…” Plaintiff’s Motion to Lift the Stay and Take the Case Out of Abeyance.
September 12, 2022 1. On February 22, 2022, I was informed by an individual with knowledge of the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) proceedings on fluoride that NTP had received “all” of the peer review comments on its “State of the Science” report, and that “the target for posting the monograph is the first week in April.”
2. On April 11, 2022, I was informed by the aforementioned individual that NTP was now in the “phase” of “compiling comms materials.”
3. On May 11, 2022, I was informed by the aforementioned individual that the NTP’s final report would be released on May 18, 2022, just seven days away.
4. The NTP did not release its final report on May 18, 2022, and still has not released it.
5. In July 2022, I was informed by the aforementioned individual that NTP’s report had been submitted for an “inter agency review,” that the review process had no identified date for completion, and that there was no longer an estimated date for when NTP would release the report. Based on the individual’s description of the inter agency review, I understand it will include the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and National Institutes of Dental & Craniofacial Research (NIDCR).
Attached
Exhibit A is a September 18, 2020 presentation by Dr. Brian Berridge, NTP’s
Scientific Director, that explains the revisions that NTP made to its monograph based on the peer review input from NASEM, and how these revisions further strengthened NTP’s conclusion that fluoride is a neurotoxicant. I obtained this presentation from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
(“NIEHS”) under the Freedom of Information Act.
Exhibit B are true and correct excerpts of the revised systematic review
that the NTP released in September 2020.
Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of a January 4, 2022 email I received from
Debra Carfora, an attorney for the Department of Justice. At the time, Ms. Carfora served as counsel for EPA in this litigation.
Exhibit D are true and correct excerpts of a deposition I took of the Center for
Disease Control’s 30(b)(6) representative, Casey Hannan, on November 6, 2018.
Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of an email that I received from NIDCR
under the Freedom of Information Act.
Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of an email that I received from NIEHS
under the Freedom of Information Act.
Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of an email that I received from NIDCR
under the Freedom of Information Act.
Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of an email that I received from NIEHS
Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of an email that I received from NIDCR
under the Freedom of Information Act.
Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of an email that I received from NIDCR
under the Freedom of Information Act.
Exhibit K is a true and correct copy of an email that I received from NIDCR
under the Freedom of Information Act.
Exhibit L is a true and correct copy of a letter that I downloaded from the
American Dental Association’s website.
Exhibit M is a true and correct copy of a FOIA complaint that I filed on behalf
of Plaintiff Kristin Lavelle in the Northern District of California on September 9, 2022. In the civil cover sheet that I filed with this Complaint, as well as in the Declination of the Magistrate Judge, I identified the instant action as a related case due to the overlapping factual issues and the potential for added efficiency
if both actions were consolidated (in whole or in part).
Exhibit N is a true and correct copy of an August 30, 2022 email I received
from Brandon Adkins, an attorney from the Department of Justice who represents EPA in this litigation.
Declaration of Michael Connett in Support of Plaintiffs Motion to Lift the Stay and Take the Case out of Abeyance.
April 21, 2022 Updated EPA website page on “Support documents for fluoride chemicals in drinking water Section 21 Petition.” EPA’s “Support documents for fluoride chemicals in drinking water Section 21 Petition.
June 10, 2021 Plaintiffs filed Notice to the court. They state, “On August 10, 2020, the Court held this case in abeyance pending the publication of additional studies, including the National Toxicology Program’s systematic review of fluoride neurotoxicity and a pooled benchmark dose (BMD) analysis of the NIH-funded ELEMENT and MIREC cohorts. See ECF No. 262 at 4:19-26.
On June 8, 2021, the pooled BMD analysis of the ELEMENT and MIREC data was published in the journal Risk Analysis, which is the official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis. The results of the peer-reviewed, pooled analysis are consistent with, and confirm, Dr. Philippe Grandjean’s earlier benchmark dose analysis that was discussed at trial and “can be used to guide decisions on preventing excess fluoride exposure in pregnant women.” According to the study, which was authored by ten internationally esteemed scientists, including Dr. Grandjean:”These findings provide additional evidence that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxicant (i.e., causing adverse effects on brain development in early life). Given the ubiquity of fluoride exposure, the population impact of adverse effects from fluoride may be even greater than for other toxic elements like lead, mercury, and arsenic.”
LINK: http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/tsca-trial.notice-of-bmd-anaysis.6-10-21.pdf
Notce of the publication of the pooled Benchmark Dose analysis of the Element and MIREC Cohorts.
May 11, 2021 The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to supplement their complaint. Should the EPA seek to challenge Plaintiffs’ standing, it shall file a motion to dismiss within thirty (30) days from the date of this order. The abeyance of this case otherwise remains in place until further ordered. This order disposes of Docket No. 279 Court Order granting Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to supplement complaint
April 22, 2021 Plaintiffs’ reply in support of their motion for leave to amend their complaint with supplemental pleadings. Plainitiff’s Reply in Support of their Motion
February 22, 2021 Defendant’s statement on the the peer review by the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) of the revised National Toxicology Program (NTP) monograph on the systematic review of fluoride’s neurotoxicity and the joint statement by the NIEHS and NTP. Both dated on Feb 9, 2021. Defendant’s submission of two Exhibits
February 22, 2021 EXHIBIT A. Peer-review of the NASEM of the revised NTP monograph on fluoride’s neurotoxicity dated February 9, 2021. Defendant’s Exhibit A, NASEM peer-review.
February 22, 2021 EXHIBIT B. Joint statement of the NIEHS and NTP on the downgrade of the monograph of the systematic review of fluoride’s neurotoxicity dated February 9, 2021. Defendant’s Exhibit B, NIEHS-NTP statement
February 19, 2021 Plaintiffs reinforce their standing by citing legal precedents. Plaintiffs Motion to Amend their Complaint
January 19, 2021 EPA’s 7-page letter denying the Petitioners’ Supplemental Petition
http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/tsca.epa-letter.denial-of-petiiton.jan-19-2021.pdf
EPA’s letter denying the Petitioners’ Supplemental Petition
January 13, 2021 EPA’s Order Denying in Part Petitioners’ Supplemental Petition
http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/tsca.epa-letter.denial-of-petiiton.jan-19-2021.pdf
EPA’s Order Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion for Relief
January 13, 2021 EPA’s response to Petitioners Supplemental Petition of November 4, which the judge requested the Petitioners to submit.
http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/tsca.court-order.jan-13-2021.pdf
Order Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion for Relief
December 30, 2019 TSCA Petition:
Ruling by Edward M. Chen, United States District Judge, Northern District of California
Order denying Plaintiffs’ and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
December 20, 2019 TSCA Petition:
Plaintiff’s theory of the case
Key evidence
Response to anticipated defenses
Standing
Plaintiffs’ Trial Brief
December 19, 2019 TSCA Petition:
Hazard Assessment
Human Studies
NTP’s Assessment of the Epidemiological Literature
Exposure Assessment
Risk Characterization
Absence of Systematic Review
Standing
and more…
Plaintiffs’ Proposed Findings of Fact
December 19, 2019 TSCA Petition:
The Action
Undisputed Facts
Disputed Factual Issues
Disputed Legal Issues
Trial Alternatives and Options
EPA’s position
Defendant’s Joint Pretrial Conference Statement
November 4, 2020 SUPPLEMENT:
Petitioners’ request to EPA to reconsider their denial of their original TSCA Petition of November 24, 2016

LINK:
http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/tsca.supplement.11-4-20.pdf
SUPPLEMENT TO ORIGINAL PETITION
November 4, 2020 Appendix A to Supplement:
Excerpt of Court’s August 10, 2020 Order.

LINK: http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/tsca.supplement.appendix-a.11-4-20.pdf
APPENDIX A
to Supplement of Nov 4, 2020
November 4, 2020 Appendix B to Supplement:
Petitioners’ Summary of the Trial Record. Food & Water Watch, et al. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Case No. 17-cv-02162.

LINK: http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/tsca.supplement.appendix-b.11-4-20.pdf
APPENDIX B
to Supplement of Nov 4, 2020
November 4, 2020 Appendix C to Supplement:
The NIH-funded Studies (Bashash et al. 2017 and 2018; Till et al. 2018 and 2020; Green et al. 2019).

LINK: http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/tsca.supplement.appendix-c.11-4-20.pdf
APPENDIX C
to Supplement of Nov 4, 2020
November 4, 2020 Appendix D to Supplement:
National Toxicology Program’s Revised Monograph on Fluoride Neurotoxicity.

LINK: http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/tsca.supplement.appendix-d.11-4-20.pdf
APPENDIX D
to Supplement of Nov 4, 2020
November 4, 2020 Appendix E to Supplement:
Dr. Linda Birnbaum’s Statement on the NTP Report.

LINK: http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/tsca.supplement.appendix-e.11-4-20.pdf
APPENDIX E
to Supplement of Nov 4, 2020
November 4, 2020 Appendix F to Supplement:
Additional Details on the Limitations of the NTP Review.

LINK: http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/tsca.supplement.appendix-f.11-4-20.pdf
APPENDIX F
to Supplement of Nov 4, 2020
November 4, 2020 Appendix G to Supplement:
Pooled BMD Analysis of the ELEMENT and MIREC Datasets.

LINK: http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/tsca.supplement.appendix-g.11-4-20.pdf
APPENDIX G
to Supplement of Nov 4, 2020
November 4, 2020 Appendix H to Supplement:
Undisputed Material Facts from Trial and Court’s Ruling on Dental Benefits.

LINK: http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/tsca.supplement.appendix-h.11-4-20.pdf
APPENDIX  H
to Supplement of Nov 4, 2020
November 4, 2020 Appendix I to Supplement:
The Court’s Order Dismissing EPA’s Order to Dismiss.

LINK: http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/tsca.supplement.appendix-i.11-4-20.pdf
APPENDIX I
to Supplement of Nov 4, 2020
October 24, 2019 TSCA Petiion:
INTRODUCTION: Plaintiffs agree with EPA that “this case is about dose.” Opp. Br. at 1:4. It is a case about a chemical (fluoride) that is added to U.S. public water supplies at a concentration that produces doses repeatedly associated (in high-quality prospective studies) with neurotoxic effects that rival the impact of lead. It is a case about a chemical shown to cause neurotoxic effects in animals at doses much closer to the doses that humans receive than the margins that EPA has found to be unreasonably dangerous for other chemicals. Most importantly, it is a case about a chemical that that poses an unreasonable risk of neurotoxicity when added to water if judged according to EPA’s own risk assessment procedures.In its Opposition, EPA concedes that conclusive proof of harm is not a pre-requisite to a finding of risk, which vitiates EPA’s experts’ opinions on causation. Further, EPA’s reliance on the Framework for Metals Risk Assessment to support consideration of health benefits is fundamentally flawed because the Framework is clear that only “essentiality” can be considered in risk assessment, and EPA has admitted that fluoride is not essential. Finally, EPA has failed to proffer any evidence on the relative risk of the chemicals it is handling under TSCA, thus confirming that the Agency will not be able to carry its burden for relief under Section 21(b)(4)(B)(ii).
Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
October 24, 2019 TSCA Petition:
EPA presents arguments as to why the court should not proceed with this case.
Defendant’s Reply in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment
October 18, 2019 TSCA Petition:
Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s Motion of October 9.
Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
October 18, 2019 TSCA Petition:
Defendant’s (EPA) response to Plaintiff’s Motion of October 9.
Defendant’s  Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Partial Summary Judgment
October 9, 2019 TSCA Petition:
CONCLUSION: Congress enacted Section 21 to “ensure that bureaucratic lethargy does not prevent the appropriate administration of [TSCA’s] vital authority.” Environmental Defense Fund v. Reilly, 909 F.2d 1497, 1499 (D.C. Cir. 1990). This is precisely why Plaintiffs filed their Citizen Petition, because EPA has failed to protect the public from the dangers posed by fluoride in drinking water. EPA’s current “safe” drinking water standard for fluoride is so high that its own scientists sought to file an amicus brief to support an environmental organization’s challenge to it. Ex. 6 at 79:20-81:12, 81:25-82:8. EPA’s current lead scientist on fluoride admits that EPA’s fluoride standard is “out of date,” and the National Research Council told the EPA 13 years ago that this standard is unsafe and needs to be lowed. Ex. 4 at 88:7-10, 90:15-21. And yet EPA has done nothing. Id. at 88:2-6. It was thus left to citizen groups to compel the Agency to take action by exercising the authority that Congress invested in the citizenry for this very purpose. Now, after two years of litigation, Plaintiffs respectfully request—for the reasons stated above—that the Court grant their Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Partial Motion for Summary Judgment.
Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion & Motion for Summary Judgment and Partial Summary Judgment
October 9, 2019 TSCA Petition:
Most of the arguments in this Motion have been responded to in the Plaintiffs’ Motion above.
Defendants’ Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment
September 25, 2019 TSCA Petition:
Judge’s decision to deny Defendants’ (EPA) Motion to extend discovery.
Order denying defendants’ motion for extension of time
September 23, 2019 TSCA Petition:
Plaintiffs oppose EPA’s motion to derail the entire schedule of this case (which EPA stipulated to just one week before its motion) based on a draft review that EPA has known about for years, and an unjustified, last-minute disclosure of an expert whom EPA knew about since at least June 27, 2019.
Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to enlarge time for limited expert discovery
September 19, 2019 TSCA Petition:
… EPA seeks an extension of time for limited expert discovery to minimize the inefficiency and/or confusion that could otherwise result from proceeding with litigation prior to public disclosure of the NTP Monograph. The public release of the NTP Monograph will likely necessitate supplementation of either parties’ expert disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e). Delay and inefficiency would occur if the parties were forced to begin dispositive motions briefing prior to the record being complete. The more efficient approach is to amend the current Scheduling Order to ensure a complete record prior to the filing of dispositive motions.
EPA seeks an additional 65 days, until November 22, 2019, to conduct additional expert discovery that is limited to (1) supplementing current expert reports/disclosures regarding the forthcoming NTP Monograph; and (2) to allow the parties an opportunity to depose the expert witness identified in EPA’s supplemental disclosure and to re-depose witnesses whose expert reports are amended to reflect the NTP Monograph. Further, EPA seeks a temporary stay of the remaining deadlines in this case to allow the parties time to negotiate a revised schedule, which may include seeking a new trial date. EPA proposes that the parties be required to file a joint case management statement in 45 days…
Defendants’ Motion to enlarge time for limited expert discovery
October 4, 2018 TSCA Petition:
Plaintiffs’ request for an order compelling the Environmental Protection Agency to produce documents responsive to requests 10 – 29 and 33 – 34 is GRANTED…

The EPA’s documents and correspondence relating to the specified studies are relevant to the ultimate issue the Court must decide — whether the ingestion of fluoride in drinking water causes neurotoxic harm. To the extent that the EPA asserts the deliberative process privilege over any responsive documents, it shall provide a privilege log within 14 days of this Order detailing: (1) the date of the document, (2) the author, (3) the recipient, (4) the subject matter, and (4) the basis for asserting the privilege.
Order Re First Joint Discovery Dispute Letter
February 7, 2018 TSCA Petition:
The court ruled: “The EPA moves for a protective order limiting the scope of review in this litigation to the administrative record1, a request that would effectively foreclose Plaintiffs from introducing any evidence in this litigation that was not attached to their administrative petition. The text of the TSCA, its structure, its purpose, and the legislative history make clear that Congress did not intend to impose such a limitation in judicial review of Section 21 citizen petitions. The Court therefore DENIES the EPA’s motion.”
Order Denying Defendant’s (EPA) Motion to Limit Review to the Administrative Record
January 18, 2018 TSCA Petition:
EPA response to each (107) paragraph in FAN et al’s “Complaint” of April 18, 2017, concluding: “Except as expressly admitted or otherwise stated herein, EPA denies each and every allegation in Plaintiff’s Complaint.”
The Defendant, EPA, “Answer” to FAN et al’s “Complaint of Fluoride’s harm submitted April 18, 2017.
January 15, 2018 TSCA Petition:
EPA’s “further support of their motion for a protective order limiting review to the administrative record.”
Federal Defendant’s Reply in Further Support of Motion to Limit Review to Administrative Record.
January 5, 2018 TSCA Petition:
FAN et al’s opposition to EPA’s motion to the court for a sweeping order that would exempt this “civil action” from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) and deny Plaintiffs their right to discovery.
Plaintiffs’ Opposition to the Federal Defendants’ Motion to Limit Review to the Administrative Record and to Strike Plaintiffs’ Jury Demand
January 5, 2018 TSCA Petition:
NRDC opposes EPA’s motion to limit petitioner’s right to discovery. They state, “To the contrary, the language, structure, and history of section 21 all support the district court’s consideration of new evidence.”
[Proposed] Amicus Curiae Brief of Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., and Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families in Response to EPA’s Motion to Limit Review (Supporting Neither Party on the Merits)
December 21, 2017 TSCA Petition:
Court rules in our favor and denies EPA’s Motion to Dismiss.
U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS Docket No. 28
December 14, 2017 TSCA PETITION:
EPA requests court for “a protective order limiting review to the administrative record and an order striking Plaintiffs’ Jury Demand.”
Federal Defendants’ Notice of Motion and Motion to Limit Review to the Administrative Record and to Strike Plaintiffs’ Jury Demand
October 25, 2017 TSCA Petition:
NRDC Amicus Curiae Brief in support of FAN et al’s challenge to EPA on Section 21 of TSCA.
[Proposed] Amicus Curiae Brief of Natural Resources Defense Council and Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families in Support of Neither Party
October 25, 2017 TSCA Petition:
FAN et al. response to EPA’s rejection of Petition.
Plaintiffs’ Opposition to the Environmental Protection Agency’s Motion to Dismiss
September 25, 2017 TSCA Petition:
Motion to Dismiss FAN et al. Petition by the Department of Justice, on behalf of the EPA.
Federal Defendants’ Noticice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss.
April 18, 2017 TSCA Petition: Response to  U.S. EPA’s rejection of Petition

Complaint to United States District Court for the Northerv District of California at San Francisco

Searchable version

February 27, 2017 TSCA Petition:
EPA’s Rejection of FAN et al. Petition. Federal Register. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2016–0763; FRL–9959–74]
TSCA Section 21 Petition; Reasons for
Agency Response.
November 22, 2016 TSCA Petition:
Petition to the U.S. EPA to ban fluoridation due to fluoride’s neurotoxicity, submitted by Fluoride Action Network, Food & Water Watch, Organic Consumers Association, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, Moms Against Fluoridation, and undersigned individuals.
Petition under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”), 15 U.S.C. § 2620, to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy.

 

 

back to top