Republic Steel Corp. v. Costle
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
581 F.2d 1228, 8 ELR 20686 (1978)

- Written by Solveig Singleton, JD
Facts
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) required the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to pass regulations describing the best discharge-control technologies for industrial dischargers of pollutants by October 1973. The FWPCA required dischargers, including Republic Steel Corporation (Republic) (plaintiff), to apply these technologies to meet federal standards for point-source discharge by July 1977. As the 1977 compliance deadline approached, the EPA still had not published a description of the best control technologies. The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) issued a permit to Republic allowing discharge of pollutants from a point source even though Republic had not met the July 1977 compliance deadline. The EPA sued, arguing that the OEPA’s permit was improperly issued. The Sixth Circuit ruled that the EPA could not fairly insist on the July 1977 deadline because publication of the technology rules was a precondition of compliance. After this ruling, Congress passed the Clean Water Act of 1977 (CWA), which amended the FWPCA. CWA § 309(a)(5)(B) (the time-extension provision) empowered the EPA to extend the time dischargers were given to comply to April 1979. To qualify for an extension, the discharger must have filed for its permits by December 1974, must have acted in good faith, must have committed to compliance by April 1979, and must have begun construction of the necessary facilities. The CWA’s legislative history stated that the Sixth Circuit’s first case involving Republic was incorrect and clarified that the new time-extension provision was the only way a discharger could obtain an extension. The legislative history noted that the EPA’s time-extension rulings were not subject to appeal. The United States Supreme Court remanded the case involving Republic to the Sixth Circuit for reconsideration. Republic maintained the suit against EPA administrator Douglas Costle (defendant), arguing that the time-extension provision should not change interpretation of the FWPCA deadlines.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Celebrezze, 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.