Environmental Defense Fund v. Environmental Protection Agency

598 F.2d 62 (1978)

From our private database of 46,400+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Environmental Defense Fund v. Environmental Protection Agency

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
598 F.2d 62 (1978)

Facts

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were a group of toxic chemicals used in many industrial processes, most often in electrical devices to aid in the storage of electrical charge without creating a fire hazard. Beginning in the mid-1960s, the presence of leaked PCBs in the environment and the harm PCBs caused to living organisms began to be known. In the early 1970s, manufacturers began to take steps to reduce the dangers presented by PCBs by moving from more chlorinated PCBs to less chlorinated PCBs. Section 307 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) enunciated the considerations and procedures that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (defendant) was required to use in arriving at standards for toxic chemicals, including that the standard be set at a level that provided an ample margin of safety. With the passage of the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA), Congress included a special provision directing the EPA to publish a list of toxic substances within 90 days, propose effluent standards for the listed substances within 180 days after listing, and promulgate final effluent standards within six months after the proposed standards were issued. The TSCA specifically addressed PCBs, providing for a gradual phasing out of PCBs over a two-and-a-half-year period, with limited exemptions. Pursuant to this authority, the EPA issued final standards prohibiting any PCBs in discharges by manufacturers of electrical equipment. The EPA relied on a variety of studies and types of evidence to determine that no safe level of PCBs could be determined. The evidence included consideration of PCBs’ effects on aquatic organisms, effects on human health, and the special quality of carcinogenicity. Industry members (plaintiffs) argued that the TSCA preempted the EPA’s authority under the CWA to issue effluent standards for PCBs. The industry members further argued that the EPA lacked a reasonable basis for the regulations because of the incomplete scientific knowledge concerning any dangerous effects of less chlorinated PCBs.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Tamm, 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. 46,400 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
  • 46,400 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