January, 22 2024, 01:31pm EDT

EPA Proposes to Exempt Most Slaughterhouses from Updated Water Pollution Control Rules
Environmental Groups Urge EPA to Require Meat Processing Plants to Comply with Modern Technology Standards for Nitrogen and Phosphorus Pollution
The federal government tomorrow is scheduled to publish proposed EPA rules that would require pollution reductions from fewer than half of the 3,879 slaughterhouses and meat processing plants that discharge waste to U.S. rivers, lakes, and streams.
The regulations would cut pollution significantly from the largest plants that pipe their waste directly into waterways, but largely ignore the far more numerous meat processing plants that send their effluent first to municipal sewage treatment plants, which are often overwhelmed and not equipped to treat the industrial waste.
Clean water organizations are responding by urging the agency to do more to crack down on slaughterhouses, which are the largest industrial source of phosphorus and nitrogen pollution (so-called “nutrients”) that feeds algal outbreaks and fish-killing “dead zones” in America’s waterways. EPA plans to hold an online public hearing on its proposed rules on Wednesday and a hearing at agency headquarters on January 31.
Dani Replogle, Food & Water Watch Staff Attorney, said: “Slaughterhouses have spent decades polluting our nation’s waters with abandon, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill. EPA must seize this opportunity to rein in this dirty industry by enacting the most environmentally protective regulatory option without further delay.”
"It is well past time for slaughterhouses to put in place modern pollution controls that EPA acknowledges are widely available," said Sarah Kula, Environmental Integrity Project attorney. "EPA proposes significant reductions in nitrogen and phosphorus dischargers from big slaughterhouses that pipe their wastes into public waterways, and that is welcome news. But its preferred option would allow thousands of slaughterhouses to continue to dump nutrients into public sewage treatment plants that aren't prepared to handle them. All communities deserve relief from the slaughterhouse industry's harmful nutrient pollution."
Earthjustice attorney Alexis Andiman said: “EPA admits that pollution from slaughterhouses and meat processing plants disproportionately harms under-resourced communities, low-income communities, and communities of color. We applaud EPA for taking action to strengthen the outdated and under-protective water pollution control standards that govern this industry—but we urge the agency to ensure that its new standards protect the people most at risk.”
A coalition of 13 environmental organizations sued the EPA in 2019 and 2022 demanding that the agency follow the requirements of the Clean Water Act and modernize badly outdated technology standards for water pollution control systems for slaughterhouses and meat processing plants, which have not been updated in two decades.
In response to lawsuits, EPA released proposed rules scheduled for publication in the Federal Register tomorrow that include three options for cleaning up wastewater from slaughterhouses. EPA’s “preferred option” would strengthen nitrogen pollution limits and, for the first time, limit phosphorus discharges from an estimated 126 facilities that directly discharge into waterways. The new standards, if adopted, would eliminate nine million pounds of nitrogen per year from these direct dischargers, as well as eight million pounds of phosphorus.
However, EPA’s preferred option is the weakest of the three alternatives it has proposed because it would require no nutrient controls from the 3,708 slaughterhouses and meat processing plants that send their wastewater to municipal treatment facilities, which often lack the necessary technology to treat this pollution. Instead, EPA’s preferred option would only control oil and grease, total suspended solids, and biochemical oxygen demand from about 719 of these indirect dischargers. These indirect dischargers have gotten a free pass for decades.
“Many municipal wastewater treatment plants cannot handle the slaughterhouse and rendering facility waste they receive, likely contributing to 73% of these treatment plants violating their clean water permit limits,” said Kelly Hunter Foster, Waterkeeper Alliance Senior Attorney. “EPA must establish pretreatment pollution limits for this industry rather than allowing it to either pollute waterways or pass their treatment expenses off to impacted communities and citizens that cannot, and should not, bear those costs.”
Fortunately, EPA’s proposal includes a more protective alternative that would require over 40 percent of these indirect dischargers to remove nutrients from the wastes they dump into public sewer systems. EPA estimates that this option would eliminate another 67 million tons of nitrogen and 20 million tons of phosphorus every year. EPA has also publicly acknowledged that nutrient contamination is the most significant contributor to the contamination that keeps so many rivers, streams, lakes, and estuaries from meeting the “fishable and swimmable” standards the Clean Water Act promised more than half a century ago.
The coalition of groups is demanding that EPA do more and, at a minimum, adopt the most environmentally protective alternative among the three that EPA has proposed to keep slaughterhouse wastes from overwhelming public sewer systems.
Background: The federal Clean Water Act requires the EPA to set water pollution standards for all industries and to review those standards each year to determine whether updates are appropriate to keep pace with advances in pollution-control technology. Despite this mandate, the EPA has failed to revise standards for slaughterhouses and meat processing plants for at least 19 years. Some slaughterhouses and rendering facilities are still subject to standards established in the mid-1970s. And the EPA has never published national standards applicable to the vast majority of slaughterhouses and meat processing facilities, which discharge polluted wastewater indirectly through publicly-owned treatment works.
In response to this failure of EPA to update its standards, the Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice sued the agency on behalf of Cape Fear River Watch, Rural Empowerment Association for Community Help, Waterkeepers Chesapeake, Waterkeeper Alliance, Humane Society of the United States, Food & Water Watch, Environment America, Comite Civico del Valle, Center for Biological Diversity, and Animal Legal Defense Fund.
This coalition initially challenged the Trump Administration’s decision not to update water pollution control standards for slaughterhouses and meat processing plants in 2019. In response to that challenge, the EPA pledged to strengthen its regulations, but it did not commit to a timeline for doing so. The coalition then filed a second lawsuit in December 2022 to press the EPA to act promptly, resulting in an agreement that committed the EPA to propose new standards by December 2023 and publish final standards by August 2025.
EPA now plans to conduct public hearings on the proposed rule, including an online-only hearing on January 24, 2024, and an in-person hearing at EPA Headquarters on January 31, 2024. To provide comment during the January 24 virtual hearing, participants must register here by 5 pm EST on January 22. To provide comment at the January 31 in-person hearing, participants are encouraged to register here before 5pm EST on January 26.
Supporting materials for the rulemaking can be found at EPA's docket at regulations.govs.gov.
QUOTES FROM ALLIED GROUPS:
John Rumpler, Clean Water Director for Environment America, said: "If the price of a slightly cheaper chicken nugget is dead fish, toxic algae or people getting sick from pollution, I think most Americans would say no thank you. The EPA should strengthen its proposed rule to keep more than 300 million pounds of slaughterhouse pollution out of our rivers and streams, as current technology allows."
Robin Broder, Deputy Director of Waterkeepers Chesapeake, said: “We are disappointed that EPA has chosen the least protective option, which is bad news for the Chesapeake region since we have far more indirect discharging slaughterhouses and rendering facilities than direct dischargers. In our region that is already suffering from nutrient pollution, the lack of limits on nitrogen and phosphorus for the majority of our plants is incredibly short sighted, especially given that the technology to do this exists.”
Rebecca Cary, special counsel for the Humane Society of the United States, said: “We are heartened that the EPA has begun the long overdue process of curbing the daily discharge of blood, fat, nitrogen and other pollutants from industrial slaughter and rendering facilities into our waters. Limiting pollution from inhumane factory farming systems will be an important step toward protecting both people and animals from this pollution.”
Larissa Liebmann, senior staff attorney for the Animal Legal Defense Fund, said: "Lax regulations allow industrial animal agriculture to profit while burdening communities with pollution and causing animals immense suffering. With these updated pollution standards, EPA is making slaughterhouses account for some of the costs of addressing their unsustainable business model."
For a copy of the proposed regulations, click here.
Food & Water Watch mobilizes regular people to build political power to move bold and uncompromised solutions to the most pressing food, water, and climate problems of our time. We work to protect people's health, communities, and democracy from the growing destructive power of the most powerful economic interests.
(202) 683-2500LATEST NEWS
Trump Regulators Ripped for 'Rushed' Approval of Bill Gates' Nuclear Reactor in Wyoming
"Make no mistake, this type of reactor has major safety flaws compared to conventional nuclear reactors that comprise the operating fleet," said one expert.
Dec 03, 2025
A leading nuclear safety expert sounded the alarm Tuesday over the Trump administration's expedited safety review of an experimental nuclear reactor in Wyoming designed by a company co-founded by tech billionaire Bill Gates and derided as a "Cowboy Chernobyl."
On Monday, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) announced that it has "completed its final safety evaluation" for Power Station Unit 1 of TerraPower's Natrium reactor in Kemmerer, Wyoming, adding that it found "no safety aspects that would preclude issuing the construction permit."
Co-founded by Microsoft's Gates, TerraPower received a 50-50 cost-share grant for up to $2 billion from the US Department of Energy’s Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program. The 345-megawatt sodium-cooled small modular reactor (SMR) relies upon so-called passive safety features that experts argue could potentially make nuclear accidents worse.
However, federal regulators "are loosening safety and security requirements for SMRs in ways which could cancel out any safety benefits from passive features," according to Union of Concerned Scientists nuclear power safety director Edwin Lyman.
"The only way they could pull this off is by sweeping difficult safety issues under the rug."
The reactor’s construction permit application—which was submitted in March 2024—was originally scheduled for August 2026 completion but was expedited amid political pressure from the Trump administration and Congress in order to comply with an 18-month timeline established in President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14300.
“The NRC’s rush to complete the Kemmerer plant’s safety evaluation to meet the recklessly abbreviated schedule dictated by President Trump represents a complete abandonment of its obligation to protect public health, safety, and the environment from catastrophic nuclear power plant accidents or terrorist attacks," Lyman said in a statement Tuesday.
Lyman continued:
The only way the staff could finish its review on such a short timeline is by sweeping serious unresolved safety issues under the rug or deferring consideration of them until TerraPower applies for an operating license, at which point it may be too late to correct any problems. Make no mistake, this type of reactor has major safety flaws compared to conventional nuclear reactors that comprise the operating fleet. Its liquid sodium coolant can catch fire, and the reactor has inherent instabilities that could lead to a rapid and uncontrolled increase in power, causing damage to the reactor’s hot and highly radioactive nuclear fuel.
Of particular concern, NRC staff has assented to a design that lacks a physical containment structure to reduce the release of radioactive materials into the environment if a core melt occurs. TerraPower argues that the reactor has a so-called "functional" containment that eliminates the need for a real containment structure. But the NRC staff plainly states that it "did not come to a final determination of the adequacy and acceptability of functional containment performance due to the preliminary nature of the design and analysis."
"Even if the NRC determines later that the functional containment is inadequate, it would be utterly impractical to retrofit the design and build a physical containment after construction has begun," Lyman added. "The potential for rapid power excursions and the lack of a real containment make the Kemmerer plant a true ‘Cowboy Chernobyl.’”
The proposed reactor still faces additional hurdles before construction can begin, including a final environmental impact assessment. However, given the Trump administration's dramatic regulatory rollback, approval and construction are highly likely.
Former NRC officials have voiced alarm over the Trump administration's tightened control over the agency, which include compelling it to send proposed reactor safety rules to the White House for review and possible editing.
Allison Macfarlane, who was nominated to head the NRC during the Obama administration, said earlier this year that Trump's approach marks “the end of independence of the agency.”
“If you aren’t independent of political and industry influence, then you are at risk of an accident,” she warned.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Report Shows How Recycling Is Largely a 'Toxic Lie' Pushed by Plastics Industry
"These corporations and their partners continue to sell the public a comforting lie to hide the hard truth: that we simply have to stop producing so much plastic," said one campaigner.
Dec 03, 2025
A report published Wednesday by Greenpeace exposes the plastics industry as "merchants of myth" still peddling the false promise of recycling as a solution to the global pollution crisis, even as the vast bulk of commonly produced plastics remain unrecyclable.
"After decades of meager investments accompanied by misleading claims and a very well-funded industry public relations campaign aimed at persuading people that recycling can make plastic use sustainable, plastic recycling remains a failed enterprise that is economically and technically unviable and environmentally unjustifiable," the report begins.
"The latest US government data indicates that just 5% of US plastic waste is recycled annually, down from a high of 9.5% in 2014," the publication continues. "Meanwhile, the amount of single-use plastics produced every year continues to grow, driving the generation of ever greater amounts of plastic waste and pollution."
Among the report's findings:
- Only a fifth of the 8.8 million tons of the most commonly produced types of plastics—found in items like bottles, jugs, food containers, and caps—are actually recyclable;
- Major brands like Coca-Cola, Unilever, and Nestlé have been quietly retracting sustainability commitments while continuing to rely on single-use plastic packaging; and
- The US plastic industry is undermining meaningful plastic regulation by making false claims about the recyclability of their products to avoid bans and reduce public backlash.
"Recycling is a toxic lie pushed by the plastics industry that is now being propped up by a pro-plastic narrative emanating from the White House," Greenpeace USA oceans campaign director John Hocevar said in a statement. "These corporations and their partners continue to sell the public a comforting lie to hide the hard truth: that we simply have to stop producing so much plastic."
"Instead of investing in real solutions, they’ve poured billions into public relations campaigns that keep us hooked on single-use plastic while our communities, oceans, and bodies pay the price," he added.
Greenpeace is among the many climate and environmental groups supporting a global plastics treaty, an accord that remains elusive after six rounds of talks due to opposition from the United States, Saudi Arabia, and other nations that produce the petroleum products from which almost all plastics are made.
Honed from decades of funding and promoting dubious research aimed at casting doubts about the climate crisis caused by its products, the petrochemical industry has sent a small army of lobbyists to influence global treaty negotiations.
In addition to environmental and climate harms, plastics—whose chemicals often leach into the food and water people eat and drink—are linked to a wide range of health risks, including infertility, developmental issues, metabolic disorders, and certain cancers.
Plastics also break down into tiny particles found almost everywhere on Earth—including in human bodies—called microplastics, which cause ailments such as inflammation, immune dysfunction, and possibly cardiovascular disease and gut biome imbalance.
A study published earlier this year in the British medical journal The Lancet estimated that plastics are responsible for more than $1.5 trillion in health-related economic losses worldwide annually—impacts that disproportionately affect low-income and at-risk populations.
As Jo Banner, executive director of the Descendants Project—a Louisiana advocacy group dedicated to fighting environmental racism in frontline communities—said in response to the new Greenpeace report, "It’s the same story everywhere: poor, Black, Brown, and Indigenous communities turned into sacrifice zones so oil companies and big brands can keep making money."
"They call it development—but it’s exploitation, plain and simple," Banner added. "There’s nothing acceptable about poisoning our air, water, and food to sell more throwaway plastic. Our communities are not sacrifice zones, and we are not disposable people.”
Writing for Time this week, Judith Enck, a former regional administrator at the US Environmental Protection Agency and current president of the environmental justice group Beyond Plastics, said that "throwing your plastic bottles in the recycling bin may make you feel good about yourself, or ease your guilt about your climate impact. But recycling plastic will not address the plastic pollution crisis—and it is time we stop pretending as such."
"So what can we do?" Enck continued. "First, companies need to stop producing so much plastic and shift to reusable and refillable systems. If reducing packaging or using reusable packaging is not possible, companies should at least shift to paper, cardboard, glass, or metal."
"Companies are not going to do this on their own, which is why policymakers—the officials we elected to protect us—need to require them to do so," she added.
Although lawmakers in the 119th US Congress have introduced a handful of bills aimed at tackling plastic pollution, such proposals are all but sure to fail given Republican control of both the House of Representatives and Senate and the Trump administration's pro-petroleum policies.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Platner 20 Points Ahead of Mills in Maine Senate Race as Critics Spotlight Her Anti-Worker Veto Record
The new poll, said the progressive candidate, “lays clear what our theory is, which is that we are not going to defeat Susan Collins running the same exact kind of playbook that we’ve run in the past."
Dec 03, 2025
It's been more than a month since a media firestorm over old Reddit posts and a tattoo thrust US Senate candidate Graham Platner into the national spotlight, just as Maine Gov. Janet Mills was entering the Democratic primary race in hopes of challenging Republican Sen. Susan Collins—a controversy that did not appear at the time to make a dent in political newcomer Platner's chances in the election.
On Wednesday, the latest polling showed that the progressive combat veteran and oyster farmer has maintained the lead that was reported in a number of surveys just after the national media descended on the New England state to report on his past online comments and a tattoo that some said resembled a Nazi symbol, which he subsequently had covered up.
The Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), which endorsed Platner on Wednesday, commissioned the new poll, which showed him polling at 58% compared to Mills' 38%.
Nancy Zdunkewicz, a pollster with Z to A Polling, which conducted the survey on behalf of the PCCC, said the poll represented "really impressive early consolidation" for Platner, with the primary election still six months away.
“Platner isn’t just leading in the Democratic primary. He’s leading by a lot, 20 points—58% are supporting him,” Zdunkewicz told Zeteo. “Only 38% are supporting Mills. There are very few undecided voters or weak supporters for Mills to win over at this point in the race."
Platner has consistently spoken to packed rooms across Maine since launching his campaign in August, promoting a platform that is unapologetically focused on delivering affordability and a better quality of life for Mainers.
He supports expanding the popular Medicare program to all Americans; drew raucous applause at an early rally by declaring, “Our taxpayer dollars can build schools and hospitals in America, not bombs to destroy them in Gaza"; and has spoken in support of breaking up tech giants and a federal war crimes investigation into Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth over his deadly boat strikes in the Caribbean.
Mills entered the race after Democratic leaders including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) urged her to. She garnered national attention earlier this year for standing up to President Donald Trump when he threatened federal funding for Maine over the state's policy of allowing students to play on school athletic teams that correspond with their gender.
But the PCCC survey found that when respondents learned details about each candidate, negative critiques of Mills were more damaging to her than Platner's old Reddit posts and tattoo.
Zdunkewicz disclosed Platner's recent controversy to the voters she surveyed, as well as his statements about how his views have shifted in recent years, and found that 21% of voters were more likely to back him after learning about his background. Thirty-nine percent said they were less likely to support him.
The pollster also talked to respondents about the fact that establishment Democrats pushed Mills, who is 77, to enter the race, and about a number of bills she has vetoed as governor, including a tax on the wealthy, a bill to set up a tracking system for rape kits, two bills to reduce prescription drug costs, and several bills promoting workers' rights.
Only 14% of Mainers said they were more likely to vote for Mills after learning those details, while 50% said they were less likely to support her.
At The Lever, Luke Goldstein on Wednesday reported that Mills' vetoes have left many with the "perception that she’s mostly concerned with business interests," as former Democratic Maine state lawmaker Andy O'Brien said. Corporate interests gave more than $200,000 to Mills' two gubernatorial campaigns.
Earlier this year, Mills struck down a labor-backed bill to allow farm workers to discuss their pay with one another without fear of retaliation. Last year, she blocked a bill to set a minimum wage for farm laborers, opposing a provision that would have allowed workers to sue their employers.
She also vetoed a bill banning noncompete agreements and one that would have banned anti-union tactics by corporations.
"In previous years," Goldstein reported, "she blocked efforts to stop employers from punishing employees who took state-guaranteed paid time off, killed a permitting reform bill to streamline offshore wind developments because it included a provision mandating union jobs, and vetoed a modest labor bill that would have required the state government to merely study the issue of paper mill workers being forced to work overtime without adequate compensation."
Speaking to PCCC supporters on Wednesday, Platner suggested the new polling shows that many Mainers agree with the central argument of his campaign: "We need to build power again for working people, both in Maine and nationally.”
The survey, he said, “lays clear what our theory is, which is that we are not going to defeat Susan Collins running the same exact kind of playbook that we’ve run in the past—which is an establishment politician supported by the power structures, supported by Washington, DC, coming up to Maine and trying to run a kind of standard race... We are really trying to build a grassroots movement up here."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


