Citizens Against Refinery’s Effects, Inc. v. U.S. EPA Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 45,900 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 984 casebooks ► www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Citizens Against Refinery’s Effects, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 643 F.2d 183 (1981)
In Citizens Against Refinery’s Effects versus Environmental Protection Agency, we’ll see what standard of review courts should apply when determining whether to overturn an agency’s action.
The Clean Air Act established National Ambient Air Quality Standards, or NAAQS, for certain major pollutants. To measure whether regions in states are meeting NAAQS for each pollutant, the EPA created Air Quality Control Regions known as AQCRs. If an AQCR in a state isn’t meeting NAAQS for a certain pollutant, then the state must create a State Implementation Plan, known as a SIP, to outline how the state will bring the region into attainment. If a region isn’t meeting NAAQS for a certain pollutant, then states can’t approve any new sources that would emit the pollutant until the region meets NAAQS. However, states can allow new sources if the new pollution is offset by reducing pollution at an existing site, thereby creating a positive net air-quality benefit.
In 1975, Hampton Roads Energy Company filed an application with the Virginia State Air Pollution Control Board to build a new petroleum refinery in Portsmouth, Virginia. Refineries release hydrocarbons that eventually create photochemical oxidants. Portsmouth was located in an AQCR that wasn’t in attainment for photochemical oxidants, a NAAQS pollutant. The board proposed that the Virginia Department of Highways would offset the refinery’s photochemical oxidants by replacing cutback asphalt with emulsified asphalt, a type of asphalt that doesn’t produce any hydrocarbons that create photochemical oxidants. The EPA eventually approved Virginia’s offset plan and SIP.
Citizens Against the Refinery’s Effects, or CARE, sued the EPA over the EPA’s decision to approve Virginia’s offset plan and SIP. CARE claimed, among other issues, that the state chose an arbitrary area for the offset. CARE also claimed that the offset plan shouldn’t have been approved because the state was already voluntarily reducing its use of cutback asphalt.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: www.quimbee.com/cases/citizen...
The Quimbee App features over 45,900 case briefs keyed to 984 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: www.quimbee.com/cases/citizen...
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our CZcams Channel ► czcams.com/users/subscription_...
Quimbee Case Brief App ► www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Facebook ► / quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► / quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries