In early August, a federal court ruled in favor of the agriculture industry in a case challenging air emissions reporting requirements.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Aug. 7 upheld the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) rule that exempts farms and ranches from reporting air emissions from animal waste under two federal environmental laws.
The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) require industries to disclose hazardous substance releases to the EPA.
“CERCLA and EPCRA were intended to address the worst industrial and toxic chemicals, not govern family farms and ranches,” said National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) Executive Director of Natural Resources Kaitlynn Glover. “This decision affirms that family cattle producers should not have to file reports for a natural, biological process under a law meant for significant chemical contaminants.”
NCBA was a n intervenor-defendant in the case, alongside the American Farm Bureau, National Pork Producers Council and U.S. Poultry & Egg Association.
Case details
CERCLA requires facilities to immediately notify EPA of any release of hazardous substances above a certain amount. EPCRA requires facilities to notify state and local authorities whenever extremely hazardous substances are released into the environment. EPCRA’s notification requirements are closely tied to CERCLA’s.
“Unfortunately, these laws have been weaponized by animal rights activists seeking to target family farms and ranches,” NCBA said.
Two provisions require reports if it falls under CERCLA. A third provision says a report must be made if an extremely hazardous substance is released in a way that would normally trigger CERCLA reporting—even if that particular situation isn’t directly covered by CERCLA’s usual reporting requirements.
In 2018, Congress amended CERCLA to exempt “air emissions from animal waste (including decomposing animal waste) at a farm.” Shortly after, EPA issued a final rule exempting the releases from emergency notification under EPCRA. EPA determined the releases no longer occurred in a manner that would require CERCLA reporting.
A coalition of environmental groups, including Food & Water Watch, Humane Society of the United States (now called the Humane World for Animals), Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc., and Center for Biological Diversity filed suit against the EPA, challenging its final rule.
The groups argued the agency violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and misinterpreted EPCRA’s text.
Agricultural industry groups intervened in the suit.
In 2021, the Biden administration directed federal agencies to review actions taken during the first Trump administration and evaluate whether they aligned with President Joe Biden’s national objectives. The EPA moved for a voluntary remand without vacatur, and asked for public comments on developing regulations to reinstate the reporting of animal waste air emissions at farms under EPCRA.
The environmental groups argued EPA erred in three ways regarding the EPA’s 2019 final rule. The district court sided with EPA and the agricultural group intervenors on each point.
The environmental groups said EPA contravened EPCRA by concluding that animal waste air emissions are no longer reportable following their exemption from CERCLA’s notification requirements.
U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly wrote in the order that EPA’s rule does not contravene EPCRA because: “CERCLA’s exemption for air emissions from animal waste at farms … means that such releases do not ‘occur in a manner’ that requires section 103(a) reporting for purposes of EPCRA’s section 304(a)(2).”
For the groups’ argument that EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously, Kelly said EPA explained the 2019 rule responded to Congress passing legislation to exempt the air emissions from animal waste.
Finally, the groups said EPA failed to conduct an environmental impact analysis before enacting the rule even though one was required.
“EPA ‘ha[d] no obligation to gather or consider environmental information’ and thus did not run afoul NEPA,’” Kelly said.
Kelly denied the environmental groups’ motion for summary judgment, and granted EPA and the agriculture groups’ motions for summary judgment.
“NCBA stepped up to protect family farms and ranches through this litigation and we are pleased that the federal district court has brought clarity to this decades-long discussion,” Glover said. — Anna Miller Fortozo, WLJ managing editor
