E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Train
430 U.S. 112, 97 S. Ct. 965, 1977 U.S. LEXIS 13 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) grants the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to issue industry-wide effluent limitation regulations for existing point sources, and these regulations, along with new source performance standards, are directly reviewable by federal courts of appeals, with no statutory provision for variances from new source standards for individual plants.
Facts:
- Eight petitioners, who operate inorganic chemical manufacturing plants, discharge various pollutants into the Nation’s waters, classifying their operations as "point sources" under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) Amendments of 1972.
- The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated industry-wide regulations imposing three sets of precise limitations on these discharges: progressively higher levels of pollution control for existing point sources after July 1, 1977, and after July 1, 1983, and limits for "new sources" constructed in the future.
- The FWPCA, enacted on October 18, 1972, set a goal of eliminating all discharges of pollutants into the Nation’s waters by 1985.
- EPA began its regulatory process by engaging a private contractor to prepare a Development Document, a detailed technical study of pollution control within the inorganic chemical industry.
- Based on this technical study and economic information, EPA issued "effluent limitation guideline" regulations that divided the industry into 22 subcategories and set precise numerical limits for various pollutants within each.
- The regulations for existing sources (1977 limitations) included a variance clause, allowing for modifications if factors for a specific discharger were fundamentally different from those considered in establishing the limitations.
- The regulations establishing national standards of performance for new sources under § 306 contained no provision for exceptions or variances for individual plants.
Procedural Posture:
- The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated industry-wide regulations establishing effluent limitations for inorganic chemical manufacturing plants.
- Eight chemical companies filed petitions in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit seeking review of these regulations.
- Some of these companies also filed suit in federal District Court challenging the regulations.
- The District Court held that EPA had the authority to issue the regulations and that exclusive jurisdiction for their review lay with the Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Du Pont I, affirmed the District Court's dismissal, agreeing that it had exclusive jurisdiction to consider the validity of the regulations.
- In a separate opinion, Du Pont II, the Fourth Circuit rejected the companies' challenge to EPA's authority to issue precise effluent limitations for existing sources but held that both these limitations and the new source standards were only "presumptively applicable" to individual plants.
- The chemical companies (appellants) filed petitions for certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States to consider the scope of EPA's authority to issue existing-source regulations.
- The Government (appellee) filed a cross-petition for review of the Fourth Circuit's ruling that new-source standards are only presumptively applicable.
- The Supreme Court granted both the companies' petitions for certiorari and the Government's cross-petition, consolidating them for argument.
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 the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) grant the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to issue industry-wide effluent limitation regulations for existing point sources under § 301, provide appellate courts with jurisdiction under § 509 to directly review these regulations, and prohibit individual variances from national performance standards for new sources under § 306?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stevens
Yes, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to issue industry-wide effluent limitation regulations for existing point sources under § 301, appellate courts have jurisdiction under § 509 to directly review these regulations, and the Act prohibits individual variances from national performance standards for new sources under § 306. First, concerning EPA's authority to issue industry-wide regulations for existing sources, the Court found that § 301 unambiguously provides for the use of regulations to establish effluent limitations. The language of § 301(b)(2)(A) for the 1983 limitations refers to "effluent limitations for categories and classes of point sources," indicating class-wide determinations typically made by regulation. Although the 1977 limitations use different language, nothing suggests a different mechanism. The Court emphasized that § 304(b) requires the Administrator to issue guideline regulations "[f]or the purpose of adopting or revising effluent limitations," and § 101(d) directs resolving ambiguities in favor of the Administrator. Legislative history supports this, with the Senate and Conference Reports stressing uniformity and class-based determinations to avoid an "impossible burden" on EPA of individual consideration for over 42,000 dischargers. The Court noted that EPA's inclusion of a variance clause for the 1977 limitations, which allows for variations in individual plants, further supports this interpretation. Second, regarding jurisdiction, the Court held that its finding on EPA's authority to promulgate § 301 limitations for classes of existing point sources necessarily resolves the jurisdictional issue. Section 509(b)(1) explicitly provides for review of the "Administrator’s action . . . in approving or promulgating any effluent limitation . . . under section 301" in the courts of appeals. The Court rejected the argument that § 301 review was only for individual variances under § 301(c), finding that such a construction would create a "truly perverse situation" where basic regulations governing permits would not be directly reviewable in the same forum as individual permit actions or new source standards (which are reviewable in appeals courts). Third, on the issue of new-source variances, the Court concluded that new source standards issued under § 306 must be absolute prohibitions and do not allow for variances for individual plants. The statutory language in § 306 uses the word "standards," describes the preferred standard as "permitting no discharge of pollutants," and makes it "unlawful for any owner or operator of any new source to operate such source in violation of any standard of performance." Unlike § 301(c), there is no statutory provision for variances in § 306. The Court found a variance provision inappropriate for standards intended to ensure national uniformity and "maximum feasible control of new sources."
Analysis:
This landmark decision significantly solidified the Environmental Protection Agency's power under the Clean Water Act, establishing that EPA has broad authority to set uniform, industry-wide effluent limitations rather than being confined to issuing plant-specific permits. By confirming appellate court jurisdiction over these regulations, the ruling streamlined judicial review and promoted consistent interpretation of environmental standards. The absolute prohibition on variances for new sources signaled a strong congressional intent for strict pollution control at the outset of new industrial development, profoundly impacting industrial planning and environmental engineering for future facilities.
