Urge EPA to Approve the Strongest Protections for Slaughterhouse Pollution
EPA Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2021–0736
Meat and poultry processing plants are huge sources of water pollution. For nearly 20 years, and even longer for smaller plants, the EPA has not updated pollution regulations for these facilities. Pollution from slaughterhouse and rendering facilities contributes to toxic algal outbreaks, fish kills, dead zones, drinking water contamination and fecal bacteria that can make swimmers sick. More than 60 million Americans live downstream from where slaughterhouses dump their pollution into our waterways, including millions in our region. EPA’s own analysis shows that these facilities exacerbate environmental injustice by disproportionately harming vulnerable and under-resourced communities and communities of color.
Waterkeepers Chesapeake joined a coalition of groups to file a lawsuit that resulted in the EPA issuing new proposed regulations. Unfortunately, the proposed option falls short of the pollution reductions our rivers and communities deserve and the Clean Water Act demands.
We urge you to take action by March 25 to ask the EPA to adopt the strongest option that would reduce more than three times as much pollution than the option they proposed.
The EPA’s preferred alternative - Option 1 - would leave 78% of facilities unregulated. It would set no limits on nitrogen and phosphorus for facilities that send their waste to sewage treatment plants (called “indirect dischargers”), even though the EPA found that the slaughterhouse and rendering industry discharges the highest phosphorus levels and second highest nitrogen levels of all industrial categories. This is significant for our region since most of the facilities are indirect dischargers.
In contrast, Option 3 would apply pollution controls to roughly twice as many facilities (1620) and limit nitrogen and phosphorus pollution from indirect dischargers. As a result, Option 3 would curb slaughterhouse pollution by 332 million pounds per year - more than three times as much as Option 1. For nitrogen and phosphorus -- key drivers of toxic algal outbreaks and dead zones in our region -- Option 3 would reduce slaughterhouse releases of N and P by 85%, whereas Option 1 would only curb this pollution by 15%.
Option 3 would also require indirect dischargers to pre-treat their waste before sending it to sewage treatment plants. This is crucial because 73% of the treatment plants receiving slaughterhouse pollution had permit violations for pollutants found -- including not only nitrogen and phosphorus but also pathogens, metals and grease.
For far too long, slaughterhouse facilities have shifted their pollution burden to the public by sending their wastewater to sewage plants for treatment. Take action by March 25 to urge the EPA to ensure that the slaughterhouse industry adopts modern pollution controls in Option 3 that safeguard our rivers and our health.
Sponsored by
To:
EPA Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2021–0736
From:
[Your Name]
Meat and poultry processing plants are huge sources of water pollution. For nearly 20 years, and even longer for smaller plants, the EPA has not updated pollution regulations for these facilities. Pollution from slaughterhouse and rendering facilities contributes to toxic algal outbreaks, fish kills, dead zones, drinking water contamination and fecal bacteria that can make swimmers sick. More than 60 million Americans live downstream from where slaughterhouses dump their pollution into our waterways, including millions in our region. EPA’s own analysis shows that these facilities exacerbate environmental injustice by disproportionately harming vulnerable and under-resourced communities and communities of color.
Waterkeepers Chesapeake joined a coalition of groups to file a lawsuit that resulted in the EPA issuing new proposed regulations. Unfortunately, the proposed option falls short of the pollution reductions our rivers and communities deserve and the Clean Water Act demands.
We urge the EPA to adopt the strongest option that would reduce more than three times as much pollution than the option they proposed.
The EPA’s preferred alternative - Option 1 - would leave 78% of facilities unregulated. It would set no limits on nitrogen and phosphorus for facilities that send their waste to sewage treatment plants (called “indirect dischargers”), even though the EPA found that the slaughterhouse and rendering industry discharges the highest phosphorus levels and second highest nitrogen levels of all industrial categories. This is significant for our region since most of the facilities are indirect dischargers.
In contrast, Option 3 would apply pollution controls to roughly twice as many facilities (1620) and limit nitrogen and phosphorus pollution from indirect dischargers. As a result, Option 3 would curb slaughterhouse pollution by 332 million pounds per year - more than three times as much as Option 1. For nitrogen and phosphorus -- key drivers of toxic algal outbreaks and dead zones in our region -- Option 3 would reduce slaughterhouse releases of N and P by 85%, whereas Option 1 would only curb this pollution by 15%.
Option 3 would also require indirect dischargers to pre-treat their waste before sending it to sewage treatment plants. This is crucial because 73% of the treatment plants receiving slaughterhouse pollution had permit violations for pollutants found -- including not only nitrogen and phosphorus but also pathogens, metals and grease.
For far too long, slaughterhouse facilities have shifted their pollution burden to the public by sending their wastewater to sewage plants for treatment. We urge the EPA to ensure that the slaughterhouse industry adopts modern pollution controls in Option 3 that safeguard our rivers and our health.