Clean Water Advocacy - Newsroom - AMSA in the News
Water Pollution
Meat, Poultry Processors Say EPA Proposal Uses Poor Data, Duplicates Existing
Controls
An Environmental Protection Agency proposal to issue effluent limitation
guidelines for meat and poultry processors "is extremely problematic and
disappointing because it would not encourage sound environmental management" and
imposes unnecessary requirements, according to comments submitted by the meat
processing industry.
Meanwhile, environmental advocates generally supported the proposal except for
what they said was the EPA's "presumption of reliance on Environmental
Management Systems" and for its failure to set limits for certain toxic
compounds.
The proposed effluent limitations guidelines for certain subcategories of the
meat and poultry point source category was published Feb. 25 (67 Fed. Reg.
8,582; 38 DEN A-3, 2/26/02 ).
EPA would maintain the current raft of subcategories for smaller meat processing
operations, the agency said. New limits would be set for the larger facilities
in these subcategories, which are defined as facilities that slaughter more than
50 million pounds live weight of meat per year. In addition, two new
subcategories--poultry first processing (subpart K) and poultry further
processing (subpart L)--would be established along with limits and standards.
Existing Regulations Adequate
Comments from Mark D. Dopp, senior vice president for regulatory affairs and
general counsel for the American Meat Institute, said the industry is already
effectively regulated by National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits
issued by EPA or delegated states. In addition, he said, new regulations will be
issued soon to revise the total maximum daily loads program, which will probably
include provisions addressing the meat and poultry industry.
"Local authorities, with a focus on water quality concerns not readily addressed
on a national scale, provide yet another layer of regulations and a safeguard
for [meat and poultry products]-like discharges," Dopp said.
He also indicated his support for comments submitted by the Meat and Poultry
Products Industry Coalition, of which the meat institute is a member.
The MPP coalition comments said EPA should withdraw the proposal and issue a "no
further regulation" decision.
Ken Midkiff, clean water campaign director for the Sierra Club, said he
supported the proposed requirement that best practicable technology (BPT) be
required for the largest slaughterhouses and meat packing plants. However, these
same stringent requirements should also be required for the smaller facilities,
which would only be subject to the less strict best available control technology
(BAT) under the proposal.
He said he recognized that requirements for BPT would be more costly, but that
regulators should ultimately seek the best protections of waters in order to
meet the "fishable, swimmable" goals of the Clean Water Act.
"We are not convinced that BAT is protective of such goals, nor are we convinced
that BPT is cost-prohibitive when such impacts to water quality are considered,"
Midkiff said.
Sampling Errors
The MPP coalition lambasted the proposal saying the agency allowed "egregious
sampling and analytical errors," grossly underestimated the cost of compliance
at about $80 million, and did not credit existing wastewater treatment efforts
in place at many facilities.
"This ... led EPA to grossly overestimate the level of pollutants currently
being discharged from MPP facilities to waters of the U.S.," the comments from
the coalition said.
The coalition estimated the cost of the proposal at about $900 million. The EPA
estimate is low, the coalition comments said, because the agency did not include
accurate estimates of all the treatment needed to meet the stringent proposed
limits.
"When compared to past ELG rulemakings, this proposed rule is neither cost
effective nor cost reasonable," the coalition said.
Midkiff said that while the agency estimated the costs for the various formulas
and methodologies, the analyses do not consider financial resources of the
regulated entities.
"These companies have accumulated those resources by establishing production
systems for which they have all the benefits but few or no liabilities," he
said.
The industry, he said, is dominated by "a few large companies" yet EPA "seems to
ignore the ability of these companies to pay for the benefits derived."
Pretreatment Standards
The proposed rule would not establish pretreatment standards for indirect
dischargers whose effluent is sent to wastewater treatment plants. However, the
agency sought comment on whether the rule should include such standards.
Comments from the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies commended the
agency for backing off its earlier intention to set pretreatment standards.
Pretreatment standards for the meat and poultry processing industry would be
duplicative of the treatment already provided by publicly owned treatment works
(POTWs), the AMSA comments said.
AMSA officials have been critical of the agency's efforts regarding the
establishment or revision of effluent limitation guidelines in general because
they said EPA does not acknowledge the role local limits play in meeting
regional and local water quality issues.
A white paper by the association said EPA should reexamine the ELG program in
light of the gains made in the past 20 years, especially as states and
localities tailor their permitting programs to address local concerns.
The pollutants addressed in the proposed meat and poultry processing effluent
guidelines are the conventional contaminants that POTWs already address
efficiently, AMSA said. The pollutants that would be addressed in the proposal
include biochemical oxygen demand compounds (BOD) and total suspended solids.
"The Agency's supporting materials indicate that these wastes are not causing
widespread problems for the nation's POTWs and AMSA believes that local limits
combined with proper enforcement are more than adequate to address any problems
that may arise," the AMSA comments said.
However, an official in EPA's Region V office in Chicago said in November 2001
that while many large POTWs do not support the rulemaking, smaller ones, which
have had difficulty handling the waste load from meat packers, want the
requirements.
Oil and Grease Limits
The proposal sought comment on a pretreatment limit of 100 milligrams per liter
for oil and grease and/or ammonia as nitrogen. This level is based on the
standard set for the petroleum refining industry point source category. This
standard is "based on the necessity to minimize POTW interference by minimizing
the possibility of ... oil and grease being discharged to POTWs," the proposal
said.
AMSA said these standards should not be adopted because the oil and grease from
meat packers is animal and vegetable fat, which have different characteristics
from the refined products generated by the petroleum industry.
The Meat and Poultry Products Industry Coalition agreed that pretreatment
standards were not needed because existing controls were working.
The agency also sought comment on the possibility of requiring environmental
management systems in place of pretreatment standards.
The industry coalition said EPA does not have the authority under the Clean
Water Act to require management systems.
"While the MPP industry does not oppose the use of EMSs on a voluntary basis,
EPA should not, and cannot, mandate the use of EMSs in this rulemaking," the
industry comments said. "EPA should consider adopting the MPP best management
practices (BMPs) developed as part of its voluntary, cooperative partnership
with the MPP industry."
The Sierra Club's Midkiff said the agency should not rely on management systems
as a pollution control device because they are unproven and have generally been
promoted by industry as a means to get around environmental regulations.
While the Sierra Club does not object to the voluntary adoption of these
standards, Midkiff said, they should not be used in lieu of compliance with
environmental regulations.
"EMS was never designed to attain compliance with environmental laws and
regulations," he said. "All references to 'EMS' should be removed from the final
rule."
Midkiff also said the proposal fell short because it did not address a number of
toxic pollutants, such as total residual chlorine, metals, and pesticides, all
of which, he said, are "found in the majority of samples taken in discharges
from MPPs."
The Sierra Club said the EPA should set zero discharge limits for these
compounds.
By Susan Bruninga