Chemical Manufacturers Ass'n v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
84 L. Ed. 2d 90, 1985 U.S. LEXIS 54, 470 U.S. 116 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may issue "fundamentally different factor" (FDF) variances from toxic pollutant effluent limitations under the Clean Water Act, as Section 301(l)'s prohibition on "modifying" requirements for toxics does not clearly apply to such variances and EPA’s rational interpretation of the ambiguous statutory language is entitled to deference.
Facts:
- The Clean Water Act established a two-phase program for direct dischargers of waste, requiring compliance with best practicable control technology (BPT) by 1977 and best available technology economically achievable (BAT) thereafter.
- The Act also required indirect dischargers (those sending wastewater to publicly owned treatment plants) to meet pretreatment standards for pollutants not treatable by or interfering with sewage systems.
- The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed "fundamentally different factor" (FDF) variances to adjust uniform discharge limitations for plants that were fundamentally different from others within their assigned industrial categories.
- The 1977 amendments to the Clean Water Act introduced Section 301(l), which prohibited the Administrator from modifying any requirement of that section as it applied to specific pollutants on the toxic pollutant list.
- Despite Section 301(l), EPA continued its practice of granting FDF variances and promulgated regulations explicitly allowing them for pretreatment standards and BAT requirements, including for toxic pollutants.
Procedural Posture:
- Respondent Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), as part of a consolidated lawsuit, sought a declaration that Section 301(l) of the Clean Water Act prohibited EPA from issuing "fundamentally different factor" (FDF) variances for pollutants listed as toxic under the Act.
- In an earlier, unrelated case (Appalachian Power Co. v. Train), the Fourth Circuit had rejected a similar argument, finding Section 301(l) ambiguous and deferring to EPA's interpretation that such variances were permitted.
- The Third Circuit, in the present case (National Assn. of Metal Finishers v. EPA), ruled in favor of NRDC and against petitioners EPA and Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA), holding that Section 301(l) forbids the issuance of FDF variances for toxic pollutants.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the conflict between the Courts of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Section 301(l) of the Clean Water Act, which prohibits the modification of requirements for toxic pollutants, preclude the Environmental Protection Agency from issuing "fundamentally different factor" (FDF) variances to individual dischargers of toxic pollutants?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
No, Section 301(l) of the Clean Water Act does not prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from issuing Fundamentally Different Factor (FDF) variances for toxic pollutants. The term "modify" in Section 301(l) lacks plain meaning, as interpreting it broadly to forbid any change would conflict with other statutory provisions requiring EPA to "revise" standards. EPA's interpretation, which confines Section 301(l) to prohibiting only those modifications explicitly allowed by Sections 301(c) and (g) (economic and water-quality waivers), is a rational construction of a complex statute and is therefore entitled to considerable deference. The legislative history of Section 301(l) does not clearly evince a congressional intention to forbid all FDF variances, and Congress was aware of the Court's prior decision in E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Train upholding the availability of FDF waivers. FDF variances are not exceptions to compliance, but rather a "fine-tuned application" of the standard-setting process, designed to remedy categories that were not accurately drawn and ensure that atypical plants are not unfairly burdened. These variances are fundamentally different from Section 301(c) and (g) modifications, as they are not granted for economic hardship or water quality impact, but rather for inherent differences in plant factors. Allowing FDF variances also makes bearable EPA’s enormous burden of promulgating accurate categorical standards under stringent deadlines.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
Yes, Section 301(l) of the Clean Water Act clearly prohibits the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from issuing Fundamentally Different Factor (FDF) variances for toxic pollutants. The plain meaning of "may not modify any requirement" is an unqualified prohibition that encompasses all modifications, not just those authorized by Sections 301(c) and (g). The legislative history demonstrates a clear congressional intent in the 1977 amendments to deal vigorously and comprehensively with toxic pollutants, ensuring no weakening of standards through exceptions, even at high cost to industry. The changes made in conference, particularly the broad wording of Section 301(l) to apply to "any requirement of this section" rather than just specific subsections, further support a broad ban on modifications. The majority's reliance on E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Train is misplaced, as that case concerned BPT standards for "point sources," not categorical BAT or pretreatment standards for "categories or classes" of dischargers, which toxic pollutants fall under. FDF variances are not permissible alternatives to the statutory mechanism for "revising" standards through rulemaking, because Congress specifically intended that pollution control requirements be set for categories of dischargers, not on a plant-by-plant basis, to foster technological innovation. FDF variances undermine this goal by being less protective of the environment and less effective in spurring new technology.
Dissenting - Justice O’Connor
Yes, Section 301(l) of the Clean Water Act prohibits the issuance of FDF variances from toxic pollutant standards. Justice O’Connor joins Parts I, II, and III of Justice Marshall’s dissent, agreeing that the Court’s interpretation of Section 301(l) is inconsistent with both the language and the legislative history of the statute, which provides sufficient grounds for affirming the Court of Appeals' judgment. Justice O'Connor expresses no view as to Part IV of Justice Marshall's dissent, deeming it unnecessary for the disposition of the case.
Analysis:
This decision significantly shapes the balance between strict environmental regulation and administrative flexibility under the Clean Water Act. By affirming EPA’s authority to grant FDF variances for toxic pollutants, the Court reinforced the principle of Chevron deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. The ruling acknowledges the practical difficulties EPA faces in setting uniform categorical standards for diverse industries and permits a "safety valve" for unique circumstances. However, it also introduces a potential tension with Congress's strong intent to eliminate all exceptions for toxic pollutants, as articulated by the dissent, and could lead to more individualized, potentially less stringent, pollution controls for certain facilities.
