Coalition of Battery Recyclers Association v. Environmental Protection Agency

604 F.3d 613 (2010)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Coalition of Battery Recyclers Association v. Environmental Protection Agency

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
604 F.3d 613 (2010)

  • Written by Liz Nakamura, JD

Facts

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (defendant) revised the 1978 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for airborne lead concentration from 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) to 0.15 μg/m3 and changed from a static average to a three-month rolling average to better show the momentum of any concentration changes. The 1978 standard focused on blood-lead concentration because it was not scientifically understood then that even low levels of lead caused neurocognitive damage in children. To determine the new standard, the EPA prepared the requisite Criteria Document analyzing all available scientific information on the detrimental health effects of airborne lead. Approximately 6,000 studies found that zero lead was the only harmless blood-lead concentration level for children. The EPA also considered the aggregate results of studies conducted on diverse groups of children under five who had been exposed to varying levels of lead. Based on the evidence, the EPA found a strong link between lead exposure in children and IQ loss. The greatest incremental IQ losses occurred at low blood-lead concentration levels. The EPA’s revised lead NAAQS limit was therefore set to keep the population-level IQ point loss under two points. The Coalition of Battery Recyclers Association (Coalition) (plaintiff) challenged the standard, arguing (1) it was overprotective; (2) there was no evidence to support basing the new NAAQS standard on IQ loss in children; (3) IQ measurements were imprecise; and (4) the 0.15 μg/m3 limit should have been annual.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Rogers, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership