The case of Environmental Protection Agency v. National Crushed Stone Association et al., 1980, revolved around the interpretation and application of the Clean Water Act by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The National Crushed Stone Association challenged EPA's regulations that required existing industrial plants to adopt best available technology economically achievable to reduce water pollution. They argued that these standards were too stringent and did not consider economic impact on industries as mandated by Congress in the Clean Water Act. However, Supreme Court upheld EPA’s authority stating it had reasonably interpreted its mandate under the law. The court ruled that while cost-benefit analysis was a factor for consideration, it was not necessary for costs to be less than benefits when setting effluent limitations based on best available technologies.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Environmental Protection Agency v. National Crushed Stone Association, Justice Powell argued that the majority's interpretation of Section 301(b)(1)(A) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments was incorrect. He believed that this section did not require existing point sources to meet effluent limitations based on "the best practicable control technology currently available" by July 1, 1977. Instead, he interpreted it as requiring these sources to apply such technology only when achievable and economically viable. Furthermore, he disagreed with how they read Section 304(b), arguing it should be seen as a guideline rather than a strict rule for setting effluent standards under Section 301(b). Lastly, Justice Powell expressed concern over potential economic impacts if industries were forced to comply with unachievable or costly pollution controls without considering their financial capabilities or technological feasibility.