Justice Department Secures Case Dismissal Where Groups Sought to Force EPA to Initiate Rulemaking to Ban a Chemical Used to Create High-Octane Gas

Justice Department Secures Case Dismissal Where Groups Sought to Force EPA to Initiate Rulemaking to Ban a Chemical Used to Create High-Octane Gas
In an order issued last week, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted the Justice Department’s motion — on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) — to dismiss a suit filed by several groups to compel the EPA to initiate a rulemaking to ban the use of hydrogen fluoride in oil refining. The plaintiffs filed their suit after EPA denied an administrative petition seeking the same ban.
Hydrogen fluoride is a chemical used in a wide variety of manufacturing operations. At oil refineries, it is used to produce high-octane gasoline necessary for the performance of high-powered engines.
“We are pleased the court declined plaintiffs’ attempt to ban a chemical needed for the fuel that powers American transportation,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Adam Gustafson of the Justice Department’s Energy and Natural Resources Division (ENRD). “Although the court rightly dismissed the case on standing grounds, we also explained in our motion that plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the Toxic Substances Control Act and did not demonstrate unreasonable risk to human health and the environment from refineries’ use of hydrogen fluoride.”
In its decision, the court agreed with EPA that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that their members face a “credible threat” of harm from an accidental release of hydrogen fluoride from a refinery near where members of the plaintiff groups live. The court found that plaintiffs’ complaint was conclusory and lacked detail sufficient to establish actual or imminent injury for Article III standing purposes. The court noted that allegations of incidents at refineries did not suffice to show that community members outside of refineries would be injured. The court granted plaintiffs “one more chance” to amend their complaint to address the standing issues but was skeptical that they could demonstrate injury in fact.
Attorneys from ENRD’s Environmental Defense Section are handling the matter.