WASHINGTON — The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took the next step with its revised wastewater discharge standards for meat and poultry facilities by publishing the other details in the Federal Register on Jan. 23.

In its summary, the agency said the proposed rule would improve water quality and protect human health and the environment by reducing the discharge of nutrients and other pollutants onto surfaces.

The EPA added that its preferred option is estimated to cost $232 million annually and reduce pollutant discharges by approximately 100 million lbs per year.

For the rulemaking, the agency will look at options for more stringent effluent limitations on total nitrogen, new effluent limitations on total phosphorus, updated limitations for other pollutants, new pretreatment standards for indirect dischargers and revised production thresholds for some subcategories in the existing rule.

The new rules would also request comment on potential effluent limitations on chlorides for high chloride waste streams, establishing effluent limitations for E. coli for direct dischargers and including conditional limits for indirect dischargers that discharge to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs).

Comments for the proposed rule must be received on or before March 25, 2024.

Following the Federal Register publication, The North American Meat Institute asked for an extension of the comment period for the industry stakeholders to assess the three highly technical options presented by the EPA.

“USDA and the White House have poured over $1 billion in taxpayer dollars into the expansion of meat and poultry processing capacity with a focus on small processors,” said Julie Anna Potts, president and chief executive officer of the Meat Institute. “EPA’s own analysis found that its revisions to the guidelines will close 16-53 facilities and place a heavy financial burden on as many as 1,600 more.”

Under the facility closure analysis, the EPA estimated that 16 facilities would potentially close under its first preferred option. Under Option 2, EPA estimated 22 facilities would potentially close, and under Option 3, 53 facilities would potentially close.

Potts also noted that many of these small companies operate in rural communities whose “Main Streets” rely on jobs sustained by meat and poultry processors.

“Closing these facilities makes it difficult for those up and down the value chain in the region, especially livestock producers,” she said.

Potts added that small and medium-sized companies would face huge obstacles in finding the expertise to purchase and operate the systems needed to meet the proposed guidelines.

“Our members say EPA’s analysis has grossly underestimated the costs to comply,” she said.

On Jan. 24, the EPA will hold an online-only hearing on the proposal to hear testimony, or participants can register to “listen only” to the hearing.

Then, on Jan. 31, an in-person hearing will take place at the EPA headquarters.