Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

CPC International, Inc. v. Train

540 F.2d 1329 (1976)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 35,400+ case briefs...

CPC International, Inc. v. Train

United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

540 F.2d 1329 (1976)

Facts

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (defendant) promulgated regulations under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (FWPCA) that a new plant in the corn wet milling industry should achieve an average of daily values for 30 consecutive days of an effluent level that does not exceed 20 pounds of five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) and 10 pounds of the total amount of suspended solids (TSS) per 1,000 standard bushels of corn produced (MSBu). This standard was to be reached using deep bed filtration. The EPA used the Clinton corn plant treatment facility, which used deep bed filtration, to support the new source standards. The EPA synthesized a model corn wet milling plant and corresponding treatment facility using data from the corn wet milling industry and other industries that encounter similar wastewater to base the new BOD5 standard on. The EPA also used data of industry performance results and the Clinton plant’s production of modified starches to consider increased waste loads generated by the production of modified starches. The EPA concluded that the new TSS standard could be met based on the use of deep bed filtration in other industries but lacked support from results within the corn wet milling industry. The EPA asserted that deep bed filtration was a demonstrated technology in other industries and could be transferred to the corn wet milling industry with a similar success rate of BOD5 and TSS effluent level reduction. Representatives of the corn wet milling industry (representatives) (plaintiffs) denied the EPA’s assertions and sought a direct review of the regulations. The representatives argued that the EPA did not properly consider the increased waste loads generated by the production of modified starches when calculating the effect of BOD5 using the model plant. The representatives also argued that results from other industries indicated that deep bed filtration would not remove TSS efficiently or consistently enough to meet the new TSS standard and that data from several other industries was unusable because it was measured on a different scale and unclear whether deep bed filtration was being used or not.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Heaney, 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 617,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  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.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 617,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,400 briefs, keyed to 984 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 617,000 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
  • 35,400 briefs - keyed to 984 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