National Lime Association v. Environmental Protection Agency

627 F.2d 416 (1980)

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

National Lime Association v. Environmental Protection Agency

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
627 F.2d 416 (1980)

Facts

Pursuant to its obligations under § 111 of the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (defendant) set new source performance standards (NSPS) regulating emissions from lime kilns. NSPS were technology-based standards for new air-pollution sources. Before determining appropriate standards, the EPA visited 39 plants that manufactured or hydrated lime and conducted testing of emissions at six of those sites. Based on this testing, the EPA set NSPS that limited the mass of particulate that could be emitted and the permitted visibility of exhaust gas emissions from all lime-hydrating and certain lime-manufacturing facilities. Section 111 required that the emission-control system specified in the NSPS be adequately demonstrated and the emission standards themselves be achievable using the specified system. Factors such as variations in feedstock, gas velocity in the kiln, level of capacity at which a plant was operating, particle size, and the amount of dust generated impacted the effectiveness of emissions-control systems. The EPA acknowledged that the standards must be able to be met in all operating conditions nationwide but did not establish in the record that the six sites that formed the basis of its conclusions as to achievable limits were a representative sampling of all the types of facilities that would be covered by the NSPS. Of the six test sites, three could consistently meet the standards the EPA set. National Lime Association (NLA) (plaintiff), a trade group representing 90 percent of the industry, challenged the NSPS, arguing that the administrative record contained inadequate factual support that the specified standard was achievable. The court of appeals had original jurisdiction over the petition.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Wald, 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