Puerto Rico Sun Oil Co. v.
United States EPA case brief
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
8 F.3d 73, 37 ERC 1729
(1st Cir. 1993)
CASE SYNOPSIS: Petitioner
oil company sought judicial review of an order of respondent, the
United States Environmental Protection Agency. The order issued a
pollution discharge permit to petitioner oil company that did not
include a mixing zone analysis.
FACTS: Respondent, the Environmental Protection Agency, issued a pollution discharge permit to petitioner oil company that differed from an earlier permit in that it did not include a mixing zone analysis for setting the pollution limits of the company's discharged effluent. Petitioner sought judicial review of the order. The court held that respondent's action in adopting the permit was not flawed by procedural mistake. However, the court held that the agency's action was arbitrary and capricious and contained an element of irrational discrimination because it singled out petitioner and a few other companies whose applications fell into a window between old and new regulations for disparate treatment without setting forth any rationale. The court noted that the mixing zone analysis was available for use in at least 49 states and that its omission from the permit would mean that petitioner could not operate its refinery if the permit limitations were applied. The court vacated respondent's order and remanded the case to respondent for further proceedings in accordance with its opinion.
CONCLUSION: The court vacated the order of respondent Environmental Protection Agency because it held it was arbitrary and capricious and contained an element of irrational discrimination. The court remanded the case to respondent for further proceedings.
FACTS: Respondent, the Environmental Protection Agency, issued a pollution discharge permit to petitioner oil company that differed from an earlier permit in that it did not include a mixing zone analysis for setting the pollution limits of the company's discharged effluent. Petitioner sought judicial review of the order. The court held that respondent's action in adopting the permit was not flawed by procedural mistake. However, the court held that the agency's action was arbitrary and capricious and contained an element of irrational discrimination because it singled out petitioner and a few other companies whose applications fell into a window between old and new regulations for disparate treatment without setting forth any rationale. The court noted that the mixing zone analysis was available for use in at least 49 states and that its omission from the permit would mean that petitioner could not operate its refinery if the permit limitations were applied. The court vacated respondent's order and remanded the case to respondent for further proceedings in accordance with its opinion.
CONCLUSION: The court vacated the order of respondent Environmental Protection Agency because it held it was arbitrary and capricious and contained an element of irrational discrimination. The court remanded the case to respondent for further proceedings.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment