Environmental Protection Agency v. National Crushed Stone Association
United States Supreme Court
449 U.S. 64 (1980)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Pursuant to the Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (plaintiff) set nation-wide 1977 Best Practicable Control Standard (BPT) and 1987 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable Standard (BAT) effluent-pollution discharge limits for the coal-mining industry and for the mineral mining and processing industry. For the 1977 BPT standard, the EPA included a variance provision that did not take the economic ability of an individual discharger into account but did allow for a variance if the discharger could show that the cost to implement the BPT standard would be substantially greater than what the EPA had considered in setting the national standard. However, for the 1987 BAT standard, as per Section 301(c) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the EPA allowed variances based on the economic ability of an individual discharger to meet the BAT standard. The National Crushed Stone Association (NCSA) (defendant) challenged the BPT variance provision, arguing that an individual discharger’s economic ability to meet the BPT standard must be considered. The court of appeals ruled in favor of NCSA and held that Section 301(c) must also be applied to BPT variances, and that the EPA’s BPT variance language was too restrictive. The EPA appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (White, J.)
What to do next…
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.
