Lead Industries Association, Inc. v. EPA

647 F.2d 1130 (1980)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Centuries of mining and smelting, and the use of lead in a variety of human activities, have increased the natural background concentration of lead in the environment. Lead is ubiquitous. It is found in almost every medium with which we come into contact food, water, air, soil, dust, and paint. Lead is a poison which attacks the blood, kidneys, and central nervous and other systems and can cause anemia, kidney damage, severe brain damage, and death. In most people, the largest source of lead is from their diet. Another source is the habit of placing hands, objects, and materials in the mouth. The third major source is the ambient air; airborne lead is deposited in the respiratory tract as a person breathes lead-contaminated air and is subsequently absorbed into the bloodstream. D set the air quality standards for lead under sections 108 and 109 of the CAA without consideration of economic or technological feasibility. As required by statute, D had to prepare a Lead Criteria Document. This document was the culmination of a process of rigorous scientific and public review and included the most current scientific information on the subject. The Lead Criteria Document went through three major drafts, and three separate reviews, including public meetings. D reviewed over 280 public comments, most of a sophisticated scientific nature before it issued the final Criteria Document. It was s learning process for D as the first two drafts were patently substandard. With the publication of the Lead Criteria Document, D proposed a national primary ambient air quality standard for lead of 1.5 ug Pb/m 3 monthly average. D proposed that the secondary air quality standard be set at the same level as the primary standard because the welfare effects associated with lead exposure did not warrant imposition of a stricter standard. Ps challenged the standards. The statutory guidance was that the standards be set at a level at which there is 'an absence of adverse effect' on these sensitive individuals. Finally, it specifically directed D to allow an “adequate margin of safety” in setting primary air quality standards in order to provide some protection against effects that research has not yet uncovered. Ps sought review in that their reading of the adequate margin of safety language required Do to consider economic and technological feasibility. Ps claimed that the present standards would economically devastate their industries. According to Ps, Congress only authorized D to set primary air quality standards that are aimed at protecting the public against health effects, which are known to be clearly harmful. They argue that Congress so limited D's authority because it was concerned that excessively stringent air quality standards could cause massive economic dislocation.