Court vacates manure-related notification exemptions

Kenneth J. Gish, Jr, Stites & Harbison, PLLC
April 18, 2017
By Kenneth J. Gish, Jr, Stites & Harbison, PLLC
April 18, 2017, Lexington, KY – On April 11, 2017, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in Waterkeeper Alliance, et al., v. EPA, vacated a 2008 EPA rule that exempted farms from certain hazardous substance reporting requirements (2008 Rule).

The 2008 Rule exempted farms from the requirement under Section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) to notify the National Response Center following a release of a hazardous substance in excess of a threshold amount (reportable quantity) set by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The 2008 Rule also exempted farms, except for those qualifying as large concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), from the obligation under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) to notify state and local authorities whenever extremely hazardous substances are released into the environment. The court found that the 2008 Rule could not be considered a reasonable interpretation of a statutory ambiguity or a proper application of the de minimis exception and vacated the reporting exemption for farms.

As part of the decomposition process, animal waste emits (among others) ammonia and hydrogen sulfide. The emissions of these substances can be exacerbated during the manure handling process, especially when manure pits are agitated prior to pumping. The EPA has classified both of these substances as "hazardous substances" under CERCLA and as "extremely hazardous substances" under EPCRA and has established a reportable quantity for each at 100 pounds per day. The EPA issued the 2008 Rule, which exempted farms from the reporting requirements, due in part to its conclusion that "reports are unnecessary because, in most cases, a federal response is impractical and unlikely."

In reviewing the 2008 Rule, the court applied the now-familiar two-step Chevron review of agency action. First, the court considers whether Congress directly spoke on the subject of the regulation. If so, the agency's regulation must comport to Congress' directive. Second, if Congress is ambiguous or silent on the subject matter, the court must consider whether the agency interpretation is reasonable. The EPA asserted that other unrelated exemptions and the statutory authority to set reportable quantities created ambiguity as to whether it could create new exemptions like those in the 2008 Rule. The EPA also claimed the "de minimis" doctrine where courts are reluctant "to apply the literal terms of a statute to mandate pointless expenditures of effort" allowed it to create the exemption. The court was not persuaded.

First, they did not find an ambiguity in the statute allowing the exemption thereby ending the need for further analysis. Regardless, the court addressed the EPA's de minimis argument finding that the record presented during rulemaking demonstrated that a federal response to a release of ammonia or hydrogen sulfide would not be "impracticable" as the EPA claimed. The court found that the EPA has the authority to require responses in the event of release as defined under CERCLA, and that those response actions would be practicable. Moreover, the court concluded and that state and local officials could use the release reports to narrow investigations of potential releases. As a result, the court vacated the 2008 Rule eliminating the farm exemption for release notifications under CERCLA and EPCRA.

With this ruling, farms must now comply with the notification requirements of CERCLA and EPCRA if their operations result in the release of ammonia or hydrogen sulfide. CERLA does provide a potential waiver of individual notification requirements for releases that are continuous in nature, and the storage of hazardous substances has been disclosed to the relevant agencies. However, because the exemption had previously been in place, it is unclear how the EPA or state agencies would treat farm releases of hazardous substances under this exemption. It would be prudent for farms with manure handling facilities capable of consistently producing ammonia or hydrogen sulfide in excess of the 100 pounds per day reportable quantity to review any state or local rules regarding the continuous release exemption. READ MORE

Add comment


Security code
Refresh

Subscription Centre

 
New Subscription
 
Already a Subscriber
 
Customer Service
 
View Digital Magazine Renew

Most Popular

Latest Events

Wisconsin Farm Technology Days 2017
Tue Jul 11, 2017 @ 8:00AM - 05:00PM
Manure Science Review 2017
Wed Aug 02, 2017 @ 8:00AM - 05:00PM
Iowa Manure Calibration & Distribution Field Day
Fri Aug 04, 2017 @ 1:00PM - 05:00PM
Empire Farm Days 2017
Tue Aug 08, 2017 @ 8:00AM - 05:00PM
Dakotafest 2017
Tue Aug 15, 2017 @ 8:00AM - 05:00PM