Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Animal Feeding Operations

Court Denies Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in
CERCLA Case Based on Reporting Requirements

Eric H. Foy
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Sierra Club v. Seaboard Farms, No. Civ.00-997-C, 2002 WL 32443305 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 5, 2002), the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma denied defendant farmer's motion for partial summary judgment on the pleadings with regards to environmental organization's Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) cause of action against the farmer.

Background

The organization alleged that the farmer operated sow farm in violation of CERCLA by releasing excessive levels of ammonia without complying with CERCLA's reporting requirements. Id. at *1. The farmer filed a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings. Id.

Arguments

The organization alleged that the sow farm, when viewed in its entirety, released over 100 pounds of ammonia per day-an amount which require reporting under CERCLA. Id. To reach the 100 pounds per day of ammonia threshold, the organization argued that the sow farm should be considered as one "facility" for the purposes of CERCLA. Id.

The farmer alleged that following organization's satisfaction of CERCLA's 60-day notification prior to suit requirement, the sow farm subsequently complied with CERCLA's reporting requirements. Id. Additionally, the farmer charged that the organization failed to give the proper 60-day notification of intent to sue with specific regard to farmer's sow barns and to treat the entire sow operation as a single facility. Id.

Analysis and Holdings

The court stated that "facility means any buildings, not all buildings" and noted that the organization's interpretation was different that the one adopted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Id. at *3. The court deferred to the EPA's interpretations; however, it noted that adopting the agency's interpretation did not settle the issue. Id. at *4. According to the court,

[d]efendants are correct that they may list their barns and buildings and lagoons as separate facilities, each with different sources of ammonia. But the [c]ourt finds that the defendants must then aggregate the amount of ammonia being released at the Dorman Sow Farm in order to ascertain if they are required to report the emissions under CERCLA.
Id.

The court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment. Id.

The case was decided on February 5, 2002.