United States v. House of Raeford Farms, Inc.
| Decision Date | 10 August 2012 |
| Docket Number | 1:12CR248-2,1:12CR248-1 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. HOUSE OF RAEFORD FARMS, INC. and GREGORY STEENBLOCK |
This matter is before the Court on several pretrial Motions including the following: (1) Motions to Dismiss the Indictment [Doc. #15 & #21] filed by Defendant House of Raeford Farms, Inc. ("Defendant House of Raeford") and Defendant Gregory Steenblock ("Defendant Steenblock"), (collectively, "Defendants"); (2) Motions for a Bill of Particulars [Doc. #24 & #28] filed by the Defendants; (3) a Motion to Suppress [Doc. #25] filed by Defendant House of Raeford; (4) a Motion in Limine to Prohibit Evidence of or Jury Argument Regarding the "Responsible Corporate Officer" Doctrine [Doc. #30] filed by Defendant Steenblock; (5) a Motion to Compel Discovery [Doc. #35] filed by the Defendants; (6) a Motion in Limine [Doc. #33] to exclude certain evidence filed by the Government; and (7) a Joint Motion to Authorize Use of Juror Questionnaire [Doc #26] filed by the Defendants. The Court held a hearing on these Motions on August 6, 2012, wherein the Court ruled from the bench on certain Motions,and reserved ruling on others.1 The Court now issues the present Order to memorialize its rulings made during the August 6, 2012, hearing.
As a matter of procedure, Defendants were previously charged with fourteen (14) Counts of violating the Clean Water Act ("the Act" or "CWA") under a Superseding Indictment in case number 1:09CR395 ("the Prior Case"). However, by Order dated February 29, 2012, this Court dismissed without prejudice the Superseding Indictment in the Prior Case due to a violation of the Speedy Trial Act. Thereafter, on June 26, 2012, the Government filed an Indictment under case number 1:12CR248 ("the Present Case"), charging Defendants with the same 14 Counts of violating the CWA. As a result of this procedural posture, the parties raise some of the same or similar arguments as were raised in the Prior Case throughout the Motions currently before the Court. Therefore, where applicable, the Court will make reference to the Prior Case herein.
To better understand the context of the present Motions, the Court will provide a brief overview of the statutory framework.2 Congress enacted the CWA to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological quality of the nation's waters by eliminating water pollution and protecting and ensuring the propagation of fish, aquatic life, and wildlife in the United States. See 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a). The CWA regulates the discharge of pollutants into municipal sewage treatment plants that release into United States waters. 33 U.S.C. § 1317. The municipal sewage treatment plants are known as publicly-owned treatment works ("POTWs"). 40 C.F.R. § 403.3(q).3 The CWA prohibits the discharge of pollutants without a permit issued under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES"). 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1342. Under the CWA, the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") may delegate to the states the authority to implement and enforce NPDES permits. 33 U.S.C. § 1342(b). North Carolina was delegated such authority during the times relevant herein. Under the NPDES, a POTW must establish pretreatment programs setting forth requirements for industrial users who discharge pollutants to the POTW. 33 U.S.C. § 1342(b)(8); see 40 C.F.R. § 403.3(j).4 National standards specify the maximum levels of pollutants that can be discharged. 40 C.F.R. § 403.5. A POTW may impose substantive or procedural pretreatment requirementson an industrial user, in addition to any national pretreatment standards, that relate to discharges to a POTW. 33 U.S.C. § 1342(b)(8); 40 C.F.R. § 403.3(t).5 The CWA provides for criminal penalties for persons who knowingly violate any requirement imposed by an approved pretreatment program. 33 U.S.C. § 1319(c)(2)(A).
With regard to this case specifically, the Indictment alleges the following:
The City of Raeford ("the City") owns and operates a POTW in Raeford, North Carolina, pursuant to an NPDES permit issued by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources ("DENR"). The City is permitted to discharge treated wastewater from the POTW into Rockfish Creek, a tributary of the Cape Fear River. Industrial users such as Defendant House of Raeford, which are issued permits through a POTW, are required to comply with the CWA, general pretreatment regulations, and the City's pretreatment program. See 33 U.S.C. § 1342. The City's pretreatment program, which includes a Sewer Use Ordinance ("SUO" or "Ordinance") and Industrial User Pretreatment Permits ("IUPs"), was approved by DENR on May 31, 1983.
The Indictment further alleges that around July 17, 2000, the City reissued to Defendant House of Raeford IUP No. 5161 ("IUP #5161" or "the Permit"), allowing Defendant House of Raeford to discharge pretreated wastewater from its facility to the City's POTW. Defendant House of Raeford is a North Carolina corporation that owns and operates a poultry processing plant in Raeford, North Carolina, and Defendant Steenblock was its plant manager. At all timesrelevant, Defendant House of Raeford slaughtered approximately 30,000 turkeys a day. The untreated wastewater generated by this processing contained numerous wastes, including feathers, blood, animal grease, fats, and anatomical parts, all of which constituted "pollutants" as defined by the Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C. § 1362(6). The Permit issued to Defendant House of Raeford restricted discharge of pretreated wastewater to specific parameters, known as total suspended solids, biological oxygen demand, chemical oxygen demand, and acidity and caustic properties. The Permit was re-issued on July 1, 2005, and modified on June 15, 2006, but all versions prohibited discharges that bypassed Defendant House of Raeford's treatment facilities unless approved in advance. On an average day, Defendant House of Raeford generated approximately 1 million gallons of wastewater. The wastewater was processed at the plant as follows: Untreated wastewater would initially be discharged into an "offal" area, where it was to be held before proceeding into the facility's pretreatment process. From the offal area, the wastewater would be sent to a flow equalization basin ("FEB"), which was a large pit holding approximately 37,000 gallons of wastewater. The untreated wastewater would then be pumped from the FEB to two dissolved air flotation units ("DAF units"), each with a capacity of 40,000 gallons. Once in the DAF units, the water would be treated to skim grease from it and the treated wastewater would then be pumped to the City's POTW.
The Indictment alleges that on a routine and regular basis from no later than February 2005 until no earlier than August 2006, Defendants discharged thousands of gallons of untreated wastewater from the offal pit to the FEB, causing it to overflow. The Indictment also alleges that from about January 2005 until August 2006, Defendants bypassed pretreatment atthe DAF units and discharged the untreated wastewater from the FEB directly to the sewer (and thus to the POTW). The Indictment alleges that all versions of the Permit prohibit bypass of the treatment facilities except when approved in advance. Based on these allegations, each of the 14 counts in the Indictment alleges that, on the date set forth in the individual count, Defendants
As noted above, the parties discussed several Motions at the August 6, 2012, hearing. Each such Motion will be addressed in turn.
Defendants raise a number of arguments in support of their Motions to Dismiss the Indictment. Except as discussed herein, Defendants raise the same arguments, based on the same facts, as they raised in the Prior Case. Specifically, in the Present Case, as in the Prior Case, Defendants seek dismissal on the following bases: (1) that the EPA exceeded Congressional authority by extending the scope of federal criminal law to discharges that do not impact the waters of the United States; (2) that the CWA and the City's pretreatment program are unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous with regard to whether the conduct alleged in the Indictment was prohibited; (3) that the City's pretreatment program failed to enumerate federal criminal penalties, in violation of the federal regulations; and (4) that because the City hasalready imposed punitive fines, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars the subsequent prosecution by the Government in this case. In a detailed and thorough Memorandum Opinion and Order [Doc. #66, case number 1:09CR395], Judge Thomas D. Schroeder denied Defendants' Motions to Dismiss filed in the Prior Case as to each of the arguments noted above.
Based on the briefing presented in the Present Case, and the parties' presentations at the August 6, 2012, hearing, the Court finds that the analysis set forth in Judge Schroeder's Memorandum Opinion and Order remains legally sound and factually applicable to the Present Case with regard to Defendants' arguments noted above.6 Therefore, the Court hereby fully adopts and incorporates herein Judge Schroeder's Memorandum Opinion and Order, and, based on the analysis therein, denies Defendants' Motions to Dismiss the Indictment with regard to the arguments discussed above.7
In addition to the arguments raised in the Prior Case, Defendants raise new arguments in the Present Case, which the Court will address herein. First, Defendants contend that its...
To continue reading
Request your trial