EPA denies petition for phase out of GHGs through TSCA
Although EPA said it shares the petitioners’ concerns about climate change, the agency denied a petition filed on June 16 pursuant to section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (or TSCA) by several individuals and groups. The petition requested that the agency phase out “the anthropogenic manufacture, processing, distribution, use, and disposal of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, fossil fuels, and fossil fuel emissions.”
Petition took a novel approach
The 112-page petition took a novel approach by basing its request on the agency’s TSCA authorities:
- TSCA section 21 requires petitions to set forth the facts which it claims establish that it is necessary to initiate the proceeding requested; and
- TSCA section 6(a) explains that if EPA determines that the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, and/or disposal of a chemical substance or mixture presents an “unreasonable risk” of injury to health or the environment, then the agency must conduct a rulemaking to the extent necessary so that the chemical substance or mixture no longer presents such risk.
What did the petitioners specifically request?
Following TSCA, the petition first asks EPA to first determine that the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, or disposal of GHG emissions, fossil fuels, and fossil fuel emissions present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. Second, the petitioners request EPA to initiate a proceeding for the issuance of a rule under TSCA section 6(a) to:
- Phase out the manufacture (including import), processing, distribution in commerce, use, or disposal of “subject chemical substances and mixtures”; and
- Remove and sequester, or — in the alternative — establish a pay-in fund for the purpose of removing, such subject chemical substances and mixtures.
The chemical substances or mixtures implicated by the petition include:
- Carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and several halocarbons from all sources;
- Certain fossil fuels that meet the TSCA definition of a chemical substance or chemical mixture; and
- Both GHGs and “other pollutants released or emitted during” the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, and disposal of fossil fuels, “including particulate matter and sulfur and nitrogen dioxides.”
Note that the petitioner requested other actions under the Clean Air Act (CAA); Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); and the Independent Offices Appropriations Act (IOAA). However, EPA said it will consider those requests separately, as appropriate.
Why did EPA reject the TSCA section 21 petition?
In a September 14th letter, EPA says, after careful consideration, the agency has denied the TSCA section 21 petition. In order to be granted, a petition must provide the facts which show that it’s necessary to issue the requested rule. EPA explains that the petition is insufficiently specific and fails to establish that a TSCA rule is necessary.
For EPA to be able to conclude within the statutorily-mandated 90 days of receiving the petition that a TSCA section 6(a) rulemaking is necessary, the petition would need to be “sufficiently clear and robust.” However, EPA argues the petition does not meet that high bar. According to the agency, the petitioners’ request for a rule is insufficient because it lacks specificity, especially in comparison to the magnitude of the request.
Moreover, the agency explains that even assuming the petition were sufficiently specific, and that EPA were to determine that an unreasonable risk is presented for purposes of TSCA section 6(a):
- The petitioners have failed to demonstrate that regulation under TSCA is “necessary” under the unique circumstances presented here; and
- Any final rule under TSCA would be unlikely to achieve emissions reductions more expeditiously or efficiently than those that are already anticipated to be reached through recent, ongoing, or planned federal actions.
Interestingly, EPA admits, “The agency agrees that the climate crisis is an undeniable and urgent threat to human health and the environment.” Yet, the agency justifies its decision to deny the petition because of ongoing and expected federal government actions to address these risks, the relative efficiency of TSCA rulemaking, and lack of TSCA authority to regulate historical GHG emissions.
EPA’s reasons for denial were fully published in a Federal Register notice dated September 21.
What’s next?
The petitioners have the option to sue EPA in a U.S. district court to compel initiation of the requested proceeding. What’s more, the petitioners themselves urge the public to “stay tuned.”
Key to remember
EPA sets a high bar for those who petition the agency to determine if a chemical poses an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment under TSCA. In this case, the agency denied the petition to make that determination for chemicals implicated for GHG and fossil fuel emissions. However, we’ll need to watch to see if this petitioner intends to press the agency on the issue in court.