Responding in unison can influence process
by David R. Stone
Environmental regulations can be a big headache for renderers-particularly those that are based on assumptions instead of fact.
Industry, however, is working hard to set the record straight in correcting potential regulatory wrongs. There are two approaches renderers can take in addressing burdensome environmental regulations:
-- React to individual regulations on a case-by-case basis.
-- Attack the underlying cause behind the regulation.
One underlying cause behind a recent outbreak of debilitating environmental regulations is the basic assumption by regulators that many meat by-products should be handled as hazardous substances.
Industry officials, however, point out that the leftover trimmings, fat, bone, blood and grease are natural and biodegradable, and can be safely rendered into non-hazardous products, such as soap and pet food.
Regardless, some regulators have assumed the worst about these items. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency has placed meat by-products in the same classification as other inedible fats and oils. It even determined that these meat by-products are subject to many of the same rules as petroleum oils.
Here are some new environmental regulations that renderers face:
-- A detailed oil-spill response plan must be filed for rendering facilities that have total storage of at least 42,000 gallons in an environmentally sensitive area-or 1 million gallons or more anywhere.
According to a Final Rule issued last July, a renderer must be prepared to "remove to the maximum extent practicable" the amount of hazardous substance that might be released in a "worst case discharge."
This rule is designed to complement the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. Because this law was an amendment to the Clean Water Act, the rule mainly affects "onshore facilities" that transfer oil to or from ships-or are located in environmentally sensitive areas near rivers or other sources of public drinking water.
-- Detailed Form R reports must be filed for release of any toxic chemicals into the environment. A coalition of organizations from several industries, including the National Renderers Association and AMI, are backing a proposal that will exempt facilities with low-level releases from having to fill out the full Form R.
As the regulation stands, the reporting requirements are "pretty burdensome," says Bruce Blanton, NRA executive director. And most every rendering facility must file something. The proposed change would still maintain information about low-level releases in the database, but it would substantially reduce paperwork.
Form R reports are required for a range of specified substances that renderers are likely to use or produce, including ammonia (produced as a by-product of rendering) or sulfuric acid (used in air scrubbers at many rendering facilities).
-- New regulations implementing the Clean Air Act could prove very expensive for renderers, according to Robert Frish, corporate vice president and secretary of Standard Tallow. A leading authority on environmental regulations in the rendering industry, Frish lists a number of costs that may be imposed under this law. He says many plants with industrial boilers will need permits, continuous emissions monitors (using expensive technology) may be required in some states, and an expanding number of chemicals are being added to the Toxic Release Inventory that regulators monitor.
-- Many states are developing their own stringent odor emission laws, Frish adds.
Fighting back
NRA's Blanton offers two suggestions on how industry can reduce the burden of so many new environmental regulations:
-- Form coalitions with other affected industries.
-- Conduct research to determine the actual impact of rendering on the environment.
Blanton points out that after issuing its Final Rule on the aforementioned oil spill response, EPA responded to a petition from several agricultural organizations that included the Institute of Shortening and Edible Oils, the National Oilseed Processors Association and others associated with the vegetable oil industry. In its response, the EPA requested public comment to find if there should be different responses to releases of animal fats and vegetable oils.
The EPA also requested research to determine how hazardous these substances are and what the best clean-up strategies would be. Blanton believes this is a good opportunity for the industry, and the NRA Board of Directors agrees. It has approved a strategy of underwriting research to develop an environmental impact study for animal fat products.
Such a study could do much to counteract the trend toward more regulations. If regulators assume these fats, like other oils, harm wildlife, they will continue to regulate them.
"In a scientific way, we don't know the exact impact on the environment" of meat by-products, Blanton says, but "we believe they are safe."
Frish agrees with both strategies, and he believes that building coalitions and research go together. He says that renderers are hoping to convince AMI, poultry industry associations and other groups to help sponsor environmental research. The regulatory attacks "need to be answered with a unified voice," he adds.
Frish also encourages industry members to get involved in the early stages of the regulatory process. It helps to "take a pro-active approach" in helping to write reasonable regulations the industry can live with, he explains.