12/21/2023

Wastewater Requirements For Meat Processors – Changes Are Coming

Overview

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has wastewater discharge requirements that apply to meat and poultry processors. These requirements are referred to as the Meat and Poultry Processors Effluent Limitation Guidelines (MPP ELGs or ELGs). Changes to the ELGs are on the horizon.

Regulatory History

The ELGs were originally established in 1974 and amended in 2004. Cape Fear River Watch, and multiple other citizens groups, sued EPA in 2022. They claimed that EPA failed to timely revise the ELGs. The litigation was resolved by a consent decree dated May 3, 2023 (the Consent Decree). The Consent Decree required EPA to issue a proposed rule to update the ELGs by December 13, 2023.

EPA has done legwork to determine what changes to make to the existing rule. This legwork has included:

• Data Collection. EPA sent questionnaires to the universe of meat and poultry processors, conducted site visits at a number of processor facilities, and reviewed wastewater sampling reports from processor facilities.
• Engineering Analysis. This consisted of an assessment of current and alternative technologies, a review of potential compliance costs for use of the technologies, and a review of various facilities and their pollutant loading and removal rates.
• Environmental Assessment. This consisted of a review of impacts from wastewater discharges from meat and poultry facilities, including impacts to water quality, drinking water and sensitive habitat. Also, non-water quality impacts were reviewed.
• Economic Analysis. This included an analysis of the potential costs of the proposed rule and the rule’s potential impact on small businesses.

The Current Rule

The facilities covered by the current rule include both slaughter and further processing facilities (i.e., facilities that produce finished products such as bacon, sausage or chicken nuggets). In some instances, facilities are only covered if they meet a certain size threshold (the threshold is typically based upon the amount processed e.g., on a pounds per day or pounds per year basis). Rendering facilities are also covered. The current rule is broken down into various subcategories (e.g., cattle slaughter facilities, bacon and sausage processing facilities, etc.). The requirements may vary by subcategory. The current rule has requirements for direct dischargers (i.e., facilities that discharge to a river or stream). Generally, the current rule does not have requirements for indirect dischargers (i.e., facilities that discharge to a publicly owned treatment works – POTW). However, other EPA regulations may have pretreatment requirements applicable to indirect dischargers. The current rule has limits for the following pollutants: BOD (biochemical oxygen demand), TSS (total suspended solids), O&G (oil and grease), ammonia, total nitrogen and fecal coliform. These limits may vary from subcategory to subcategory.

Proposed Rule

EPA has issued a proposed rule to revise the ELGs on December 13, 2023. The following is a link to the Prepublication version of the proposed rule https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-12/prepublication-frn_ow_meat-and-poultry-products-elg_nprm_12_13_2023.pdf. The proposed rule is expected to be published soon in the Federal Register. The proposed rule has a 60 day public comment period. There will be two public meetings on the proposed rule – one on January 24, 2024, and one on January 31, 2024.

What’s new under the proposed rule? EPA has proposed some significant changes, including the following:

• Indirect dischargers. The proposed rule would have requirements applicable, in some instances, to certain indirect dischargers.
• Option 1. This is EPA’s preferred option. This applies to large direct and indirect dischargers. For direct dischargers, there would be more stringent limits for nitrogen, and for the first time, limits for phosphorus. For indirect dischargers, there would be pretreatment standards for BOD, TSS and O&G. These may be waived by a POTW in certain circumstances.
• Options 2 and 3. These options are not preferred by EPA. Option 2 includes the same requirements as Option 1. In addition, Option 2 would set nitrogen and phosphorous limits for certain large indirect dischargers. Option 3 would extend the Option 1 and Option 2 requirements to certain smaller facilities.
• Conditional Limits. Pretreatment standards for nitrogen and phosphorous would apply to certain indirect dischargers under Options 2 and 3. A provision would allow an exemption, from these limits, for such facilities that discharge to POTWs that provide an equivalent nutrient removal. The EPA requests comments on this proposed provision.
• E.coli. A provision would include E.coli as a regulated parameter for direct dischargers. Also the provision proposes replacing fecal coliform limits with E.coli limits, to reduce redundancy in monitoring and limit requirements. EPA requests comments on this proposed provision.
• Chloride Limits. In meat processing facilities, salt may be used for many purposes. Some facilities segregate and treat process waste streams with high chloride content. The proposed provision would set chloride limits, for direct and indirect dischargers, with production greater than 5,000,000 pounds per year and with high chlorides processes. EPA requests comments on this proposed provision.
• Subcategories. No new subcategories are included under the proposed rule.

What’s next?

The public comment period on the proposed rule ends 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. Any company that desires to submit comments should do so prior to then. This may be done by the company or through a trade association that the company is a member of. Under the Consent Decree, EPA is supposed to finalize the proposed rule by August 31, 2025. Affected facilities will want to evaluate what action will be needed to comply with the new requirements (e.g. new equipment, treatment modifications, etc.) and estimate a realistic time frame to comply. A direct discharger may want to consider whether its discharge permit will be reopened to incorporate new requirements under the proposed rule. An indirect discharger should review its discharge permit and/or discharge agreement with its POTW and consider beginning discussions/negotiations regarding any potential issues in light of the proposed rule. If the time to comply with the new requirement may be an issue, a discharger may explore whether a compliance schedule is possible.

Stay tuned for further developments.