Lexplug logoLexplug

Environmental Protection Agency v. National Crushed Stone Association et al.

Supreme Court of United States
449 U.S. 64 (1980)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is not required by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to consider an individual polluter's economic capability when granting or denying a variance from the 1977 industry-wide effluent limitations based on the "best practicable control technology currently available" (BPT). A variance from BPT standards is only available for facilities that are fundamentally different from those the EPA considered in setting the general standards.


Facts:

  • In 1977, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued regulations under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to limit water pollution from the coal mining and mineral mining industries.
  • These regulations established industry-wide pollution limits based on the "best practicable control technology currently available" (BPT), representing the first of a two-phase cleanup plan.
  • The regulations included a variance provision, allowing individual dischargers to receive modified limitations if they could show their facilities were 'fundamentally different' from the factors the EPA considered in establishing the general guidelines.
  • The EPA's variance provision expressly stated that a company's economic inability to meet the costs of implementing the BPT standard would not be considered as a basis for granting a variance.
  • The National Crushed Stone Association and other industry groups, representing plant operators, challenged this exclusion, arguing that without economic consideration, some of their members would be forced to shut down.

Procedural Posture:

  • The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated pollution discharge regulations for the coal and mineral mining industries.
  • Respondents, including National Crushed Stone Association and Consolidation Coal Co., filed petitions for review of the regulations in various U.S. Courts of Appeals.
  • All petitions were consolidated and transferred to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
  • The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals set aside the EPA's variance provision, holding that it was 'unduly restrictive' because it did not require the EPA to consider an individual applicant's economic capability.
  • The EPA (petitioner) successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to resolve a circuit split on the issue.

Locked

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 require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to consider an individual company's economic ability to afford compliance costs when granting a variance from the 1977 "best practicable control technology" (BPT) effluent limitations?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice White

No. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act does not require the EPA to consider an individual company's economic capability when granting variances from the 1977 BPT standards. The statute's plain language distinguishes between the 1977 BPT standards and the more stringent 1987 'best available technology economically achievable' (BAT) standards. Section 301(c) of the Act, which allows for variances based on a plant's economic capability, explicitly applies only to the later, more stringent BAT standards. The purpose of BPT standards is to establish a minimum, uniform floor for pollution control across an entire industry, based on the performance of the 'average of the best existing' plants. The EPA already conducts a cost-benefit analysis for the industry as a whole when setting BPT standards. To allow individual variances based on affordability would undermine this statutory goal by permitting the most inefficient and pollution-prone companies to continue operating without meeting the minimum standard, which is the very practice Congress intended to eliminate. The legislative history confirms that Congress anticipated and accepted that uniform BPT standards would cause economic hardship, including plant closures, and chose to address this through small business loans and employee protection provisions rather than by weakening the standards themselves.



Analysis:

This decision solidifies the EPA's authority to enforce uniform, technology-based environmental standards across an entire industry, preventing a 'race to the bottom' where individual economic hardship could be used to justify continued pollution. It establishes a critical distinction between the purposes of the BPT and BAT standards, clarifying that affordability is a factor for the more advanced BAT variances but not for the initial BPT floor. This precedent strengthens the power of regulatory agencies to set and enforce baseline environmental protections, confirming that achieving national environmental goals may sometimes involve accepting the economic consequence of forcing the least efficient operators to either modernize or cease operations. The ruling ensures a level playing field where all competitors in an industry must meet the same minimum environmental performance standards.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Environmental Protection Agency v. National Crushed Stone Association et al. (1980)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"