Lead Industries Ass'n v. Environmental Protection Agency
208 U.S. App. D.C. 1, 647 F.2d 1130, 14 ERC 1906 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Section 109 of the Clean Air Act, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency must set national primary ambient air quality standards based exclusively on protecting public health, with an adequate margin of safety, and is not permitted to consider economic or technological feasibility.
Facts:
- Lead is a toxic heavy metal that is pervasive in the environment, with no known beneficial function in the human body.
- The primary source of lead emissions in the United States, accounting for an estimated 88%, is the exhaust from motor vehicles using gasoline with lead additives.
- Human exposure to lead occurs through multiple pathways, including air, food, water, and dust, and can cause serious health problems, including damage to the blood-forming, nervous, and renal systems.
- Children, particularly those between the ages of 1 and 5, are a sensitive sub-group who experience adverse health effects from lead at lower blood lead levels than adults.
- One of the earliest detectable health effects of lead exposure is erythrocyte protoporphyrin (EP) elevation, a subclinical effect that indicates an impairment of heme synthesis, a basic biological function.
- The Lead Industry Association (LIA) is a trade association whose members include the country's major producers and commercial consumers of lead.
Procedural Posture:
- The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) sued the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking to compel the agency to list lead as a pollutant under Section 108 of the Clean Air Act.
- The District Court granted NRDC's request and ordered the EPA Administrator to list lead as a pollutant.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision.
- Pursuant to the court order, the EPA initiated a rulemaking process, preparing a criteria document and publishing proposed national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for lead.
- Following a public comment period, the EPA Administrator promulgated final primary and secondary NAAQS for lead at a level of 1.5 µg/m³, averaged over a calendar quarter.
- Lead Industries Association, Inc. (LIA) and St. Joe Minerals Corporation (petitioners) filed petitions for review of the final regulations in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
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 Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency exceed his statutory authority under the Clean Air Act by setting national primary ambient air quality standards for lead designed to protect sensitive populations against subclinical health effects, without considering the economic and technological feasibility of compliance?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge J. Skelly Wright
No. The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency does not exceed his statutory authority under the Clean Air Act by setting national primary ambient air quality standards for lead based on protecting sensitive populations against subclinical effects without considering economic or technological feasibility. The Act's language and legislative history make clear that Congress intentionally mandated that primary standards be set to protect public health, with an adequate margin of safety, and deliberately excluded economic and technological feasibility from this determination. The statute is designed to be 'technology-forcing,' requiring regulated sources to either develop the necessary pollution controls to meet the standards or cease operations. The Administrator's decision to regulate based on subclinical effects is a reasonable interpretation of his duty to protect against 'adverse health effects' and is consistent with the precautionary nature of the Act, which allows him to act in the face of scientific uncertainty to prevent harm. The EPA's specific factual conclusions, such as selecting 30 µg/dl as the maximum safe blood lead level for children, were based on substantial evidence in the administrative record and reflect a rational exercise of the agency's expert judgment.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that public health is the paramount and sole consideration in setting primary national ambient air quality standards under the Clean Air Act. It firmly rejects industry arguments that the EPA must balance health benefits against compliance costs, thereby reinforcing the 'technology-forcing' nature of the statute. The court's deference to the EPA's scientific judgment in the face of uncertainty and its validation of regulating 'subclinical' effects empower the agency to take a proactive, preventative approach to public health protection. This precedent significantly strengthens the EPA's authority to promulgate stringent air quality standards for other pollutants, even when faced with incomplete scientific data and claims of severe economic impact.
