[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 37 (Monday, February 25, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8582-8669]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-2838]



[[Page 8581]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



40 CFR Part 432



Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards 
for the Meat and Poultry Products Point Source Category; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 67 , No. 37 / Monday, February 25, 2002 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 8582]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 432

[FRL-7137-9]
RIN 2040-AD56


Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance 
Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Point Source Category

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action presents the Agency's proposed effluent 
limitations guidelines and standards for wastewater discharges from 
meat and poultry processing facilities. The proposed regulation revises 
technology-based effluent limitations guidelines and standards for 
wastewater discharges associated with the operation of new and existing 
meat processing and independent rendering facilities, proposes new 
effluent limitations guidelines for poultry slaughtering and poultry 
further processing facilities that discharge wastewater, and revises 
the name of the regulation.
    EPA estimates that compliance with this regulation as proposed 
would reduce the discharge of nutrients by at least 53 million pounds 
per year and would cost an estimated $80 million (year 1999 $, pre-tax) 
on an annual basis. In addition, EPA expects that discharges of 
conventional pollutants would be reduced by at least 32 million pounds 
per year. EPA has estimated that the annual quantifiable benefits of 
the proposal would be approximately $37 million.

DATES: EPA must receive comments on the proposal by midnight of April 
26, 2002. EPA will conduct two public hearings on March 14, 2002 at 1 
p.m. (Kansas City, MO) and April 9, 2002 at 9 a.m. (Washington, DC). 
For information on the location of the public hearings, see ADDRESSES.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to Ms. Samantha Lewis, Office of 
Water, Engineering and Analysis Division (4303T), U.S. EPA, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. For hand-deliveries or 
Federal Express, please send comments to Ms. Samantha Lewis, Office of 
Water, Engineering and Analysis Division, Room 6233L, 1201 Constitution 
Avenue, NW., 6th Floor, Connecting Wing, Washington, DC 20460. Comments 
may be sent by e-mail to the following e-mail address: 
``[email protected]''. For additional information on how to 
submit comments, see Supplementary Information, How to Submit Comments.
    The first public hearing on this proposal will be held at the 
Hilton KCI Airport Hotel, 8801 NW 112th Street, Kansas City, Missouri. 
The second public hearing on this proposal will be held at the U.S. EPA 
auditorium, Waterside Mall, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC.
    The public record for this proposed rulemaking has been established 
under docket number W-01-06 and is located in the Water Docket East 
Tower Basement, Room EB57, 401 M St. SW., Washington, DC 20460. The 
record is available for inspection from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. For access to the docket 
materials, call (202) 260-3027 to schedule an appointment. You may have 
to pay a reasonable fee for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information concerning 
today's proposed rule, contact Ms. Samantha Lewis at (202) 566-1058. 
For economic information contact Dr. William Wheeler at (202) 566-1078.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

    Entities potentially regulated by this action include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Examples of regulated
      Category              entities         Primary SIC and NAICS codes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...........  Facilities engaged in
                      first processing,
                      further processing,
                      or rendering of meat
                      and poultry products,
                      which may include the
                      following sectors:
                     Meat Packing Plants...  2011 (SIC).
                     Animal (except          311611 (NAICS).
                      Poultry) Slaughtering.
                     Meat Processed from     311612 (NAICS).
                      Carcasses.
                     Sausages and Other      2013 (SIC).
                      Prepared Meat
                      Products.
                     Poultry Slaughtering    2015 (SIC).
                      and Processing.
                     Poultry Processing....  311615 (NAICS).
                     Rendering and Meat By-  311613 (NAICS).
                      Product Processing.
                     Support Activities for  11521 (NAICS).
                      Animal Production.
                     Prepared Feed and Feed  2048 (SIC).
                      Ingredients for
                      Animals and Fowls,
                      Except Dogs and Cats.
                     Dog and Cat Food......  2047 (SIC).
                     Dog and Cat Food        311111 (NAICS).
                      Manufacturing.
                     Other Animal Food       311119 (NAICS).
                      Manufacturing.
                     All Other               311999 (NAICS).
                      Miscellaneous Food
                      Manufacturing.
                     Animal and Marine Fats  2077 (SIC).
                      and Oils.
                     Poultry Hatcheries and  11234 (NAICS).
                     Livestock Services,     0751 (SIC).
                      Except Veterinary.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The preceding table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 
provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated 
by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now 
aware could potentially be regulated by promulgation of this proposed 
rule. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be 
regulated. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by 
promulgation of this proposed rule, you should carefully examine the 
applicability subsection of each proposed subpart of part 432. You 
should also examine the description of the proposed scope of each 
subpart in Section VI.B of this document. If you have questions 
regarding the applicability of this proposed action to a particular 
entity, please contact the person listed for technical information in 
the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

How To Submit Comments

    EPA requests an original and three copies of your comments and 
enclosures (including references). Commenters who want EPA to 
acknowledge receipt of their comments should enclose a self-addressed, 
stamped envelope. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.

[[Page 8583]]

Please submit any references cited in your comments.
    Comments may also be sent via e-mail, see ADDRESSES. Electronic 
comments must specify docket number W-01-06 and must be submitted as an 
ASCII, Word, or WordPerfect file avoiding the use of special characters 
and any form of encryption. Electronic comments on this proposal may be 
filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries. No confidential 
business information (CBI) should be sent via e-mail.

Protection of Confidential Business Information (CBI)

    EPA notes that certain information and data in the record 
supporting the proposed rule have been claimed as CBI and, therefore, 
are not included in the record that is available to the public in the 
Water Docket. Pursuant to EPA regulations at 40 CFR 2.203 and 2.211, 
EPA treats all information for which a claim of confidentiality is made 
as confidential unless and until it makes a determination to the 
contrary under 40 CFR 2.205. Further, the Agency has not included in 
the docket some data not claimed as CBI because release of this 
information would indirectly reveal information claimed to be 
confidential. To provide the public with as much information as 
possible in support of the proposed rulemaking, EPA is presenting in 
the public record certain information in aggregated form or, 
alternatively, is masking facility identities or employing other 
strategies in order to preserve confidentiality claims. This approach 
ensures that the information in the public record both explains the 
basis for today's proposal and allows for a meaningful opportunity for 
public comment, without compromising CBI claims.
    Some tabulations and analyses of facility-specific data claimed as 
CBI are available to the company that submitted the information. To 
ensure that all data or information claimed as CBI is protected in 
accordance with EPA regulations, any requests for release of such 
company-specific data should be submitted to EPA on company letterhead 
and signed by a responsible official authorized to receive such data. 
The request must list the specific data requested and include the 
following statement, ``I certify that EPA is authorized to transfer 
confidential business information submitted by my company, and that I 
am authorized to receive it.''

Supporting Documentation

    The rules proposed today are supported by several documents:
    1. ``Economic Analysis of Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines 
and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Industry Point Source 
Category'' (EPA-821-B-01-006). Hereafter referred to as the MPP 
Economic Analysis, this document presents the analysis of compliance 
costs; facility, firm, small business and market impacts; and benefits. 
In addition, this document presents an analysis of cost-effectiveness.
    2. ``Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations 
Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Industry 
Point Source Category'' (EPA-821-B-01-007). Hereafter referred to as 
the MPP Development Document, the document presents EPA's technical 
conclusions concerning the MPP proposal. This document describes, among 
other things, the data collection activities, the wastewater treatment 
technology options, effluent characterization, effluent reduction of 
the wastewater treatment technology options, estimate of costs to the 
industry, and estimate of effects on non-water quality environmental 
impacts.
    3. ``Environmental Assessment of Proposed Effluent Limitations 
Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Industry 
Point Source Category'' (EPA-821-B-01-008). Hereafter referred to as 
the MPP Environmental Assessment, the document presents the analysis of 
water quality impacts and potential benefits for each regulatory 
option.

How to Obtain Supporting Documents

    All documents are available from the National Service Center for 
Environmental Publications, P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419, 
(800) 490-9198 and the EPA Water Docket. The supporting technical 
documentation (e.g., MPP Development Document, Economic Analysis and 
Environmental Assessment) can be obtained on the Internet, located at 
http://www.epa.gov/ost/guide/meatproducts/. This website also links to 
an electronic version of today's proposed rule.

Overview

    The preamble describes the legal authority for the proposal; a 
summary of the proposal; background information; the technical and 
economic methodologies used by the Agency to develop these proposed 
regulations and, in an appendix, the definitions, acronyms, and 
abbreviations used in this document. This preamble also solicits 
comment and data generally, and on specific areas of interest.

Table of Contents

I. Legal Authority
II. Legislative Background
    A. Clean Water Act
    B. Section 304(m) Consent Decree
III. Scope/Applicability of Proposed Regulation
    A. Facilities Subject to 40 CFR Part 432
    B. Poultry Slaughtering and Further Processing Facilities
IV. Rulemaking History and Industry Profile
    A. Meat Products Effluent Guideline Rulemaking History
    B. Industry Profile
V. Summary of Data Collection
    A. Secondary Sources of Data and Information
    B. Industry Surveys
    C. Site Visits and Wastewater Sampling
    D. Pollutants Sampled and Analytical Methods
    E. Other Data Collection
    F. Summary of Public Participation
VI. Subcategorization
    A. Factors Considered in Developing Proposed Subcategories
    B. Proposed Subcategories
VII. Technology Options, Costs, Wastewater Characteristics, and 
Pollutant Reductions
    A. Wastewater Treatment Technologies in the MPP Industry
    B. Wastewater Sources, Water Use, and Wastewater Characteristics
    C. Pollutants of Concern
    D. Approach to Estimating Compliance Costs
    E. Approach to Estimating Pollutant Reductions
VIII. Economic Analysis
    A. Introduction
    B. Economic Data Collection Activities
    C. Annualized Compliance Cost Estimates
    D. Economic Impact Methodologies
    E. Costs and Impacts of BPT/BCT/BAT Options
    F. Results of BCT Cost Test
    G. Costs and Economic Impacts of PSES Options
    H. Economic Impacts for New Sources
    I. Firm Level Impacts
    J. Community Impacts
    K. Market and Foreign Trade Impacts
    L. Cost-Reasonableness and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
    M. Small Business Analysis.
IX. Water Quality Analysis and Environmental Benefits
    A. Qualitative Description of Water Quality Benefits
    B. Facilities Modeled
    C. Pollutants of Concern
    D. Benefits Modeling Methodology
    E. Modeled Technology Option Scenarios
    F. Documented Impacts and Permit Violations
    G. Modeled Water Quality Impacts
    H. Monetized Water Quality Benefits
X. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts
    A. Energy Requirements
    B. Air Emissions Impacts
    C. Solid Waste Generation
XI. Options Selected for Proposal
    A. Introduction
    B. Pretreatment Standards
    C. Meat Facilities (Subcategories A, B, C, D, F, G, H and I)

[[Page 8584]]

    D. Independent Rendering Facilities (Subcategory J)
    E. Poultry Facilities (Subcategories K and L)
    F. Regulatory Alternatives for Meat and Poultry Products 
Industry
XII. Regulatory Implementation
    A. Implementation of Part 432 through the NPDES Permit Program 
and the National Pretreatment Program
    B. Upset and Bypass Provisions
    C. Variances and Modifications
    D. Production Basis for Calculation of Permit Limitations
    E. Best Management Practices
XIII. Administrative Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866: ``Regulatory Planning and Review''
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 
U.S.C. 601 et seq.
    C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    D. Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks''
    E. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    F. Paperwork Reduction Act
    G. Executive Order 13132: ``Federalism''
    H. Executive Order 12898: ``Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations''
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 13211: ``Energy Effects''
    K. Plain Language
XIV. Solicitation of Data and Comments
    A. General and Specific Comment Solicitation
    B. Regulatory Alternative to Potential Numerical Pretreatment 
Standards
XV. Guidelines for Submission of Analytical Data
    A. Types of Data Requested
    B. Analytes Requested
    C. Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Requirements

Appendix A: Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations Used in This 
Document

I. Legal Authority

    These regulations are proposed under the authority of sections 301, 
304, 306, 307, 308, 402, and 501 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 
1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342, and 1361.

II. Legislative Background

A. Clean Water Act

    Congress adopted the Clean Water Act (CWA) to ``restore and 
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the 
Nation's waters.'' Section 101(a), 33 U.S.C. 1251(a). To achieve this 
goal, the CWA prohibits the discharge of pollutants into navigable 
waters except in compliance with the statute. The Clean Water Act 
confronts the problem of water pollution on a number of different 
fronts. Its primary reliance, however, is on establishing restrictions 
on the types and amounts of pollutants discharged from various 
industrial, commercial, and public sources of wastewater.
    Direct dischargers must comply with effluent limitations in 
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits; 
indirect dischargers must comply with pretreatment standards. Effluent 
limitations in NPDES permits are derived from effluent limitations 
guidelines and new source performance standards promulgated by EPA, as 
well as from water quality standards. The effluent limitations 
guidelines and standards are established by regulation for categories 
of industrial dischargers and are based on the degree of control that 
can be achieved using various levels of pollution control technology.
    Congress recognized that regulating only those sources that 
discharge effluent directly into the nation's waters would not be 
sufficient to achieve the CWA's goals. Consequently, the CWA requires 
EPA to promulgate nationally applicable pretreatment standards that 
restrict pollutant discharges from facilities that discharge wastewater 
indirectly through sewers flowing to publicly owned treatment works 
(POTWs). See section 307(b) and (c), 33 U.S.C. 1317(b) and (c). 
National pretreatment standards are established for those pollutants in 
wastewater from indirect dischargers that may pass through, interfere 
with or are otherwise incompatible with POTW operations. Generally, 
pretreatment standards are designed to ensure that wastewaters from 
direct and indirect industrial dischargers are subject to similar 
levels of treatment. In addition, POTWs are required to implement local 
treatment limits applicable to their industrial indirect dischargers to 
satisfy any local requirements. See 40 CFR 403.5.
1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)--Sec. 
304(b)(1) of the CWA
    EPA may promulgate BPT effluent limits for conventional, toxic, and 
non-conventional pollutants. For toxic pollutants, EPA typically 
regulates priority pollutants which consist of a specified list of 
toxic pollutants. In specifying BPT, EPA looks at a number of factors. 
EPA first considers the cost of achieving effluent reductions in 
relation to the effluent reduction benefits. The Agency also considers 
the age of the equipment and facilities, the processes employed, 
engineering aspects of the control technologies, any required process 
changes, non-water quality environmental impacts (including energy 
requirements), and such other factors as the Administrator deems 
appropriate. See CWA 304(b)(1)(B). Traditionally, EPA establishes BPT 
effluent limitations based on the average of the best performances of 
facilities within the industry, grouped to reflect various ages, sizes, 
processes, or other common characteristics. Where, however, existing 
performance is uniformly inadequate, EPA may establish limitations 
based on higher levels of control than currently in place in an 
industrial category if the Agency determines that the technology is 
available in another category or subcategory, and can be practically 
applied.
2. Best Control Technology for Conventional Pollutants (BCT)--Sec. 
304(b)(4) of the CWA
    The 1977 amendments to the CWA required EPA to identify additional 
levels of effluent reduction for conventional pollutants associated 
with BCT technology for discharges from existing industrial point 
sources. In addition to other factors specified in section 
304(b)(4)(B), the CWA requires that EPA establish BCT limitations after 
consideration of a two part ``cost-reasonableness'' test. EPA explained 
its methodology for the development of BCT limitations in July 1986 (51 
FR 24974).
    Section 304(a)(4) designates the following as conventional 
pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), total 
suspended solids (TSS), fecal coliform, pH, and any additional 
pollutants defined by the Administrator as conventional. The 
Administrator designated oil and grease as an additional conventional 
pollutant on July 30, 1979 (44 FR 44501).
3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)--Sec. 
304(b)(2) of the CWA
    In general, BAT effluent limitations guidelines represent the best 
economically achievable performance of facilities in the industrial 
subcategory or category. The CWA establishes BAT as a principal 
national means of controlling the direct discharge of toxic and 
nonconventional pollutants. The factors considered in assessing BAT 
include the cost of achieving BAT effluent reductions, the age of 
equipment and facilities involved, the process employed, potential 
process changes, and non-water quality environmental impacts including 
energy requirements, and such other factors as the Administrator deems 
appropriate. The Agency retains considerable

[[Page 8585]]

discretion in assigning the weight to be accorded these factors. An 
additional statutory factor considered in setting BAT is economic 
achievability. Generally, EPA determines economic achievability on the 
basis of total costs to the industry and the effect of compliance with 
BAT limitations on overall industry and subcategory financial 
conditions. As with BPT, where existing performance is uniformly 
inadequate, BAT may reflect a higher level of performance than is 
currently being achieved based on technology transferred from a 
different subcategory or category. BAT may be based upon process 
changes or internal controls, even when these technologies are not 
common industry practice.
4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)--Sec. 306 of the CWA
    New Source Performance Standards reflect effluent reductions that 
are achievable based on the best available demonstrated control 
technology. New facilities have the opportunity to install the best and 
most efficient production processes and wastewater treatment 
technologies. As a result, NSPS should represent the most stringent 
controls attainable through the application of the best available 
demonstrated control technology for all pollutants (that is, 
conventional, nonconventional, and priority pollutants). In 
establishing NSPS, EPA is directed to take into consideration the cost 
of achieving the effluent reduction and any non-water quality 
environmental impacts and energy requirements.
5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)--Sec. 307(b) of 
the CWA
    Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources are designed to prevent 
the discharge of pollutants that pass through, interfere with, or are 
otherwise incompatible with the operation of publicly owned treatment 
works (POTW). Categorical pretreatment standards are technology-based 
and are analogous to BAT effluent limitations guidelines.
    The General Pretreatment Regulations, which set forth the framework 
for the implementation of categorical pretreatment standards, are found 
at 40 CFR part 403. These regulations establish pretreatment standards 
that apply to all non-domestic dischargers. See 52 FR 1586 (Jan. 14, 
1987).
6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)--Sec. 307(c) of the 
CWA
    Section 307(c) of the Act requires EPA to promulgate pretreatment 
standards for new sources at the same time it promulgates new source 
performance standards. Such pretreatment standards must prevent the 
discharge of any pollutant into a POTW that may interfere with, pass 
through, or may otherwise be incompatible with the POTW. EPA 
promulgates categorical pretreatment standards for existing sources 
based principally on BAT technology for existing sources. EPA 
promulgates pretreatment standards for new sources based on best 
available demonstrated technology for new sources. New indirect 
dischargers have the opportunity to incorporate into their facilities 
the best available demonstrated technologies. The Agency considers the 
same factors in promulgating PSNS as it considers in promulgating NSPS.

B. Section 304(m) Consent Decree

    Section 304(m) requires EPA to publish a plan every two years that 
consists of three elements. First, under section 304(m)(1)(A), EPA is 
required to establish a schedule for the annual review and revision of 
existing effluent guidelines in accordance with section 304(b). Section 
304(b) applies to effluent limitations guidelines for direct 
dischargers and requires EPA to revise such regulations as appropriate. 
Second, under Section 304(m)(1)(B), EPA must identify categories of 
sources discharging toxic or nonconventional pollutants for which EPA 
has not published BAT effluent limitations guidelines under 304(b)(2) 
or new source performance standards under section 306. Finally, under 
304(m)(1)(C), EPA must establish a schedule for the promulgation of BAT 
and NSPS for the categories identified under subparagraph (B) not later 
than three years after being identified in the 304(m) plan. Section 
304(m) does not apply to pretreatment standards for indirect 
dischargers, which EPA promulgates pursuant to Sections 307(b) and 
307(c) of the Clean Water Act.
    On October 30, 1989, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., and 
Public Citizen, Inc., filed an action against EPA in which they 
alleged, among other things, that EPA had failed to comply with CWA 
Section 304(m). Plaintiffs and EPA agreed to a settlement of that 
action in a consent decree entered on January 31, 1992. The consent 
decree, which has been modified several times, established a schedule 
by which EPA is to propose and take final action for eleven point 
source categories identified by name in the decree and for eight other 
point source categories identified only as new or revised rules, 
numbered 5 through 12. EPA selected the meat and poultry products 
industry as the subject for New or Revised Rule #11. Under the decree, 
as modified, the Administrator was required to sign a proposed rule for 
the meat and poultry products industry no later than January 30, 2002, 
and must take final action on that proposal no later than December 31, 
2003.

III. Scope/Applicability of Proposed Regulation

    EPA solicits comments on various issues specifically identified in 
the preamble as well as any other applicability issues that are not 
specifically addressed in today's notice. The following discussion of 
applicability begins with the proposed revisions to the existing 
subcategories. Section III.B presents the applicability for two new 
subcategories for poultry facilities.

A. Facilities Subject to 40 CFR Part 432

    EPA is proposing new or revised effluent limitations guidelines and 
standards for nine of the ten subcategories of the meat and poultry 
products industry including: simple slaughterhouse, complex 
slaughterhouse, low processing packinghouse, high processing 
packinghouse, meat cutter, sausage and luncheon meats processor, ham 
processor, canned meats processor, and renderer. EPA is also proposing 
to change the name of the category since poultry processing facilities 
are covered by the proposed requirements. No new or revised effluent 
limitations guidelines or pretreatment standards are being proposed for 
the small processor category.
    The technology options which serve as the basis for the proposed 
effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the meat 
subcategories are summarized in Table III.A-1. For descriptions and 
discussion of the subcategories, see Section VI; for the technologies, 
see Section VII.D; and for a discussion of the process wastewater 
generated by these subcategories, see Section VII.B.

[[Page 8586]]



 Table III.A-1.--Summary of Revisions to Meat and Poultry Products Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Subcategory                 Regulatory level       Technology option \1\    Technical components \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart A: Simple Slaughterhouse;   BPT.....................  2......................  Equalization, dissolved
 Subpart B: Complex                                                                     air flotation, secondary
 Slaughterhouse; Subpart C: Low-                                                        biological treatment
 Processing Packinghouse; and                                                           with nitrification.
 Subpart D: High-Processing
 Packinghouse.
                                    BAT; NSPS...............  3......................  Equalization, dissolved
                                                                                        air flotation, secondary
                                                                                        biological treatment
                                                                                        with nitrification and
                                                                                        denitrification.
                                    BCT.....................  No Action..............  No revised limitations
                                                                                        are proposed.
                                    PSES; PSNS..............  No Action..............  No pretreatment standards
                                                                                        are proposed.
Subpart E: Small Processors.......  BPT; BCT; BAT; NSPS.....  No Action..............  No revised limitations or
                                                                                        standards are proposed.
                                    PSES;PSNS...............  No Action..............  No pretreatment standards
                                                                                        are proposed.
Subpart F: Meat Cutter; Subpart G:  BPT.....................  2......................  Equalization, dissolved
 Sausage and Luncheon Meats                                                             air flotation, secondary
 Processor; Subpart H: Ham                                                              biological treatment
 Processor; and Subpart I: Canned                                                       with nitrification.
 Meats Processor.
                                    BAT; NSPS...............  3......................  Equalization, dissolved
                                                                                        air flotation, secondary
                                                                                        biological treatment
                                                                                        with nitrification and
                                                                                        denitrification.
                                    BCT.....................  No Action..............  No revised limitations
                                                                                        are proposed.
                                    PSES; PSNS..............  No Action..............  No pretreatment standards
                                                                                        are proposed.
Subpart J: Renderer...............  BPT; BCT................  2......................  Equalization, dissolved
                                                                                        air flotation, secondary
                                                                                        biological treatment
                                                                                        with nitrification.
                                    BAT; NSPS...............  2......................  Equalization, dissolved
                                                                                        air flotation, secondary
                                                                                        biological treatment
                                                                                        with nitrification.
                                    PSES; PSNS..............  No Action..............  No pretreatment standards
                                                                                        are proposed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Section VII.D for a discussion of the technology options.
\2\ See Section XI.C and XI.D for a discussion of the Agency's rationale on selecting options.

1. Meat (or Red Meat) Facilities
    EPA established regulations which apply to the meat (or red meat) 
slaughterhouses and packinghouses (40 CFR part 432 subcategories A 
through D) in 1974. EPA established regulations which apply to meat 
further processing facilities (40 CFR part 432 subcategories E through 
I) in 1975. Although there is no definition of ``red meat'' or ``meat'' 
in the existing 40 CFR part 432 regulations, EPA defined these terms in 
the previous technical development documents associated with these 
prior rules as all animal products from cattle, calves, hogs, sheep, 
and lambs and any meat that is not listed under the definition of 
poultry. EPA is using the term ``meat'' as synonymous with the term 
``red meat.'' EPA proposes to include a similar definition in the 
revised regulations (see Appendix A of this document).
    The current regulations for meat cover all aspects of producing 
meat products from the slaughter of the animal to producing final 
consumer products (e.g. cooked, seasoned or smoked products, such as 
luncheon meat or hams.) For subparts F, G, H and I of the existing 
regulations, EPA established a production rate threshold of greater 
than 6,000 pounds of finished product per day, below which the 
regulations do not apply. Subpart E of the existing regulations (Small 
Processors) applies to meat further processors that produce up to 6,000 
pounds of finished product per day.
    EPA is not proposing to change the existing production rate 
thresholds in subparts E through I in this proposed rule for existing 
limitations and standards. Also, EPA is proposing new production rate 
thresholds in Subparts A through D and F through I for the proposed 
limitations and standards based on current data collected for this 
rulemaking (see Section III of the MPP Development Document). These new 
production rate thresholds do not affect subpart E (Small Processors) 
meat facilities as these proposed new production rate thresholds are 
all higher than the subpart E production rate threshold (i.e., 6,000 
pounds of finished product per day). EPA defines the following 
facilities which are currently covered under 40 CFR part 432 as small:
     Facilities in Subcategories A, B, C and D that slaughter 
less than 50 million pounds (LWK) per year;
     All facilities in Subcategory E;
     Facilities in Subcategories F, G, H and I that produce 
less than 50 million pounds of finished product per year; and
     Facilities in Subcategory J that render less than 10 
million pounds per year of raw material (see Section III.A.2).
    EPA developed these new production rate thresholds based on current 
screener survey data available prior to proposal. EPA ordered the 
annual production screener survey data from highest to lowest annual 
production for each of the regulatory groupings (e.g., A-D, F-I, J, K, 
and L), then divided each of the regulatory groupings into four size 
classifications (e.g., small, medium, large, and very large) based on 
employment and annual production data. EPA performed this size 
classification task in order to more accurately estimate costs, 
loadings, NWQIs, and economic impacts of the proposed limitations and 
standards on this industry. That is, rather than assume one model 
facility for each of the five regulatory groupings, EPA used four model 
facilities for each of the five regulatory groupings for better 
accuracy in its analyses (see also MPP Development Document for further 
details on how these production based thresholds were developed). In 
evaluating the screener data related to facility annual production, 
several variables were identified. These were meat and poultry type 
processed, type of facility operation (i.e., first processing 
(slaughtering), further processing, or rendering), number of facility 
employees, annual wastewater generation, and type of wastewater 
management (e.g., direct discharger,

[[Page 8587]]

indirect discharger, land applied on site). Because EPA had only a 
limited amount of detailed information on facilities, the number of 
facility employees was selected as an indicator of facility size for 
modeling (e.g., costs, loads, economic impacts, NWQIs). EPA identified 
facilities with 100 employees or less as small and then identified the 
corresponding annual production thresholds. It is important to note for 
the purposes of estimating costs, loads, economic impacts and NWQIs, 
EPA used facility level employment data for developing one threshold 
between ``small'' and ``non-small'' facilities. The SBA size standard 
for these industries is 500 employees at the company level. EPA divided 
the remaining non-small facilities (i.e., medium, large, and very 
large) into equal thirds based on annual production.
    EPA is using the results of the revised production rate thresholds 
to exclude most smaller MPP facilities from today's proposed revisions 
to 40 CFR part 432 because the technologies on which the options were 
based are not cost-effective for the facilities with the lowest 
production threshold (i.e., the smallest facilities). However, these 
production based thresholds for the proposal are based on available 
screener survey data. A more detailed evaluation of these thresholds, 
along with the model facility identification will be made following 
evaluation of the detailed survey responses and may warrant a change in 
the production based thresholds. Most smaller MPP facilities are 
excluded from the scope of today's proposal for a number of reasons: 
(1) Small MPP facilities as group discharge less than 3% of the 
conventional pollutants (or 35 million lbs/year), 1% of the toxic 
pollutants (or 1.3 million lbs/year), 4% of the nutrients (or 7.5 
million lbs/year), and less than 1.5% of the pathogens (or 47 x 
109 CFU/year) as compared to all discharges from the entire 
MPP industry; (2) EPA determined that only a limited amount of loadings 
removal would be accomplished by improved treatment; and (3) EPA 
determined that ``small'' MPP facilities would discharge a very small 
portion of the total industry discharge. Therefore, EPA is not revising 
current limitations and standards for small meat facilities. The 
existing regulations, however, will continue to apply to those 
facilities. EPA is, however, setting limitations and standards for 
small poultry direct discharging facilities (for whom there are no 
existing standards) based on current performance (see Section III.B). 
As explained above, EPA's proposed definition of `small' facility is 
based on the screener data available for this proposal. EPA will be re-
evaluating this data in preparation for the NODA. EPA is also 
soliciting comment on alternative definitions of small facilities at 
higher production levels (representing facilities with more than 100 
employees). A supplemental analysis in the record (Docket No. W-01-06, 
Record No. 25010) compares the alternative definitions in terms of 
costs, pollutant removals, and economic impacts on the affected 
facilities. For example, in Subpart K, there are no ``small'' 
facilities, as defined by EPA, whereas there are 35 medium facilities 
and 60 large and very large facilities (using currently available 
data). Thirty-one of the 35 facilities defined as ``medium'' facilities 
are owned by small businesses (defined as firms with less than 500 
employees). EPA specifically is requesting comment on whether the 
medium facilities in the various Subparts should be included in the 
``small'' facility category, particularly in Subpart K which has no 
``small facilities.'' In assessing alternate small facility 
definitions, EPA shall consider the same factors discussed above (e.g. 
economic impact, small pollutant loadings, etc.) and requests comment 
on how alternative thresholds might be justified using these factors.
    The existing regulations apply to all sizes of meat direct 
dischargers (except for renderers processing less than 75,000 pound raw 
material per day--see Section III.A.2). The revisions to 40 CFR part 
432 being proposed today apply to meat facilities (see Section III.A.1) 
above the new production based thresholds and all poultry facilities 
that discharge directly to a receiving stream or other waters of the 
United States (see Section III.B for a discussion of poultry 
facilities).
2. Rendering
    In 1975, EPA established regulations (40 CFR part 432, Subcategory 
J) which apply to independent renderers, defined as independent or off-
site operations that manufacture meat meal, dried animal by-product 
residues (tankage), animal fats or oils, grease and tallow, perhaps 
including hide curing, by a renderer. The existing regulations 
establish a size threshold of 75,000 pounds of raw material per day 
processed. Facilities which process less than this amount are not 
subject to the existing regulations. EPA is proposing to lower this 
production threshold so that subpart J applies to facilities that 
render more than 10 million pounds per year of raw material (or 
approximately 27,000 pounds per day for a facility that operates 365 
days per year). EPA is lowering this production threshold based on data 
collected for this rulemaking. See Section III.A.1 for a description of 
EPA's reasons for setting production thresholds and exempting most 
small MPP facilities (including small rendering facilities that render 
less than 10 million pounds per year of raw material) from today's 
revisions to 40 CFR part 432.
    Subpart J applies to the rendering of any meat or poultry raw 
material. When rendering is done in conjunction with a meat 
slaughterhouse or packinghouse, the rendering wastewater is regulated 
under the limitations for the appropriate meat slaughtering or 
packinghouse subcategory (i.e., under subpart A, B, C, or D).

B. Poultry Slaughtering and Further Processing Facilities

    EPA is proposing to establish effluent limitations guidelines and 
new source performance standards for the poultry first processing (i.e. 
slaughtering) and further processing subcategories, and to revise the 
category title accordingly. Poultry includes broilers, other young 
chickens, hens, fowl, mature chickens, turkeys, capons, geese, ducks, 
exotic poultry (e.g., ostriches), and small game such as quail, 
pheasants, and rabbits (see Appendix A of this document).
    EPA proposed regulations for this segment of the meat and poultry 
products industry in 1975, but did not finalize them. EPA has 
reanalyzed this segment of the meat and poultry products industry and 
is proposing today to establish BPT, BCT, and BAT limitations for 
existing facilities and new source performance standards. EPA proposes 
to create two new subcategories which would apply to poultry processing 
facilities. The first new poultry subcategory is the ``poultry first 
processing'' subcategory which includes the slaughtering and 
evisceration of the bird or animal and dressing the carcass for 
shipment either whole or in parts, such as leg, quarters, breasts and 
boneless pieces. These facilities are commonly known as ``ice pack 
facilities.'' The second new poultry subcategory is the ``poultry 
further processing'' subcategory which includes additional preparation 
of the meat including further cutting, cooking, seasoning and smoking 
to produce ready to be eaten or reheated servings. The additions to 40 
CFR part 432 for poultry being proposed today apply to facilities that 
discharge directly to a receiving stream and other waters of the United 
States. EPA is proposing to set less stringent effluent limitations 
guidelines for direct dischargers slaughtering up to 10 million pounds

[[Page 8588]]

per year than on facilities which slaughter over 10 million pounds per 
year and for further processors producing 7 million pounds per year 
than on facilities which produce over 7 million pounds per year. See 
Section III.A.1 for a description of EPA's reasons for setting 
production thresholds. The treatment options proposed for larger 
poultry slaughtering and further processing facilities are economically 
unachievable for small poultry slaughtering and further processing 
facilities. Rendering performed in conjunction with a poultry first 
processing facility would be subject to the appropriate regulations 
under the poultry slaughtering (Subpart K).
    The technology options which serve as the basis for the proposed 
effluent limitations guidelines and standards being for the poultry 
portion of the industry are summarized in Table III.B-1. For 
descriptions and discussion of the subcategories, see Section VI.D; for 
the technologies, see Section VII.D; and for a discussion of the 
process wastewater generated by these subcategories, see section VII.B.

             Table III.B-1.--Summary of Regulatory Options for Poultry First and Further Processors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Subcategory                 Regulatory level        Technology option\1\    Technical components \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart K: Poultry First            BPT; BCT................  1......................  Equalization, dissolved
 Processing (facilities which                                                           air flotation, secondary
 slaughter up to 10 million pounds                                                      biological treatment
 per year); and, Subpart L:                                                             with less efficient
 Poultry Further Processing                                                             nitrification.
 (facilities which produce up to
 7,000 pounds per year of finished
 product).
                                    BAT; NSPS...............  1......................  Equalization, dissolved
                                                                                        air flotation, secondary
                                                                                        biological treatment
                                                                                        with less efficient
                                                                                        nitrification.
                                    PSES; PSNS..............  No Action..............  No pretreatment standards
                                                                                        are proposed.
Subpart K: Poultry First            BPT; BCT................  3......................  Equalization, dissolved
 Processing (facilities which                                                           air flotation, secondary
 slaughter more than 10 million                                                         biological treatment
 pounds per year); and, Subpart L:                                                      with nitrification and
 Poultry Further Processing                                                             denitrification.
 (facilities which produce more
 than 7,000 pounds per year of
 finished product).
                                    BAT; NSPS...............  3......................  Equalization, dissolved
                                                                                        air flotation, secondary
                                                                                        biological treatment
                                                                                        with nitrification and
                                                                                        denitirification.
                                    PSES; PSNS..............  No Action..............  No pretreatment standards
                                                                                        are proposed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Section VII.D for a discussion of the technology options.
\2\ See Section XI.E for a discussion of the Agency's rationale on selecting options.

IV. Rulemaking History and Industry Profile

A. Meat Products Effluent Guideline Rulemaking History

    The effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the meat 
products industry were developed and promulgated in the 1970's. The 
existing regulations for the meat slaughtering and processing 
subcategories and independent rendering were issued in phases and are 
grouped together under 40 CFR part 432.
    EPA promulgated BPT, BAT, NSPS limitations and standards for 
existing and new meat slaughterhouses and packinghouses on February 28, 
1974 (39 FR 7894). The 1974 regulation established effluent limitations 
and standards for existing and new sources for four types of meat 
slaughterhouses and packinghouses: Simple Slaughterhouse, Complex 
Slaughterhouse, Low Processing Packinghouse, and High Processing 
Packinghouse (40 CFR part 432, Subcategories A-D).
    EPA promulgated BPT, BAT, NSPS limitations and standards for 
existing and new meat further processing subcategories and the 
independent rendering subcategory on January 3, 1975 (40 FR 902). The 
1975 regulation established effluent limitations and standards for 
existing and new sources for six additional types of facilities: Small 
Processor, Meat Cutter, Sausage and Luncheon Meats Processor, Ham 
Processor, Canned Meats Processor, and Independent Renderer (40 CFR 
part 432, Subcategories E-J).
    BCT limitations were promulgated on August 29, 1979 (44 FR 50732) 
for all meat subcategories and independent rendering (40 CFR part 432, 
Subcategories A-J).
    EPA did not establish pretreatment standards (neither PSES nor 
PSNS) for any of meat subcategories and independent rendering (40 CFR 
part 432, Subcategories A-J) in the 1974 or 1975 regulations.
    The BPT and BAT limitations established in the February 28, 1974 
notice were the subject of litigation in American Meat Institute v. 
EPA, 526 F.2d 442 (7th Cir. 1975). The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals 
reviewed the effluent limitations and remanded selected portions of 
those regulations. The BPT and BAT regulations remanded by the court 
were subsequently revised or withdrawn (see 44 FR 50732, August 29, 
1979; 45 FR 82253, December 15, 1980).
    The regulations in the independent rendering subcategory were also 
the subject of litigation in National Renderers Association et al., v. 
EPA, et al., 541 F. 2d 1281 (8th Cir. 1976). The Court remanded the 
regulations to the Agency to reconsider the economic impact of the 
costs associated with these requirements. The BAT limitations for 
independent renderers were not remanded, but EPA reevaluated these 
limitations nonetheless. On October 6, 1977 (42 FR 54417), EPA 
promulgated a final rule which revised the BAT limitations and new 
source performance standards for this subcategory. In that final rule, 
the BAT limitations for ammonia, BOD5, and TSS are less 
stringent than the original BAT limitations; however, the NSPS are more 
stringent than the original NSPS standards. In the final rule, EPA 
retained an exclusion for small facilities (less than 75,000 pounds of 
raw material per day) from BPT, BAT, and NSPS.
    EPA proposed BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSNS limitations and standards for 
existing and new poultry slaughterers and processors on April 24, 1975 
(40 FR 18150). EPA proposed to subcategorize the poultry processing 
sector into five subcategories, distinguished by the animal or bird 
being processed and an additional subcategory which applied to further 
processing. These regulations were never finalized as the 1977

[[Page 8589]]

amendments to the Clean Water Act re-focused the Agency's attention on 
establishing effluent limitations guidelines for industry sectors with 
effluents containing toxic metals and organics.

B. Industry Profile

    The meat and poultry products industry includes facilities which 
slaughter livestock (e.g., cattle, calves, hogs, sheep and lambs) and/
or poultry or process meat and/or poultry into products for further 
processing or sale to consumers. The industry is often described in 
terms of three categories: (1) Meat slaughtering and processing; (2) 
poultry slaughtering and processing; (3) and rendering. Facilities may 
perform slaughtering operations, processing operations from carcasses 
slaughtered at other facilities, or both. Companies that own meat or 
poultry product facilities may also own facilities that either raise 
the animals or further process the meat or poultry products into final 
consumer products. These other enterprises are not covered by the meat 
and poultry products industry effluent limitations guidelines.
    Since the 1970's when EPA issued the existing regulations for meat 
and rendering industry sectors, the meat and poultry products industry 
has become increasingly concentrated or vertically integrated through 
alliances, acquisitions, mergers, and other relationships. This 
vertical integration is particularly pronounced in the broiler sector 
of the poultry industry. Most of the broiler and other chicken products 
which reach the consumer have been under the control of the same 
company from the hatching of the flocks through the processing of the 
birds. Vertical integration is not seen to the same extent in the meat 
sector, although there is increasing vertical integration, particularly 
in the hog sector.
    The meat and poultry products industry encompasses four North 
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes which are 
developed by the Department of Commerce. These NAICS codes include: 
Animal Slaughtering (Except Poultry) (NAICS 311611); Meat Processed 
from Carcasses (NAICS 311612); Poultry Processing (NAICS 311615); and 
Rendering and Meat Byproduct Processing (NAICS 311613).
    Animal Slaughtering (Except Poultry) (NAICS 311611), includes meat 
first processing facilities which slaughter cattle, hogs, sheep, lambs, 
calves, horses, goats, and exotic livestock (e.g., elk, deer, buffalo) 
for human consumption. Slaughtering is the first step in the processing 
of meat animals into consumer products (i.e., calves, hogs, sheep, and 
lambs). Slaughterhouse operations typically encompass the following 
steps: (1) Receiving and holding of live animals for slaughter; (2) 
stunning of animals prior to slaughter; (3) slaughter (exsanguination) 
of animals; and (4) initial processing of animals. Slaughterhouse 
facilities are designed to accommodate the multi-step process of 
slaughtering. In most slaughterhouses, the major steps are carried out 
in separate rooms.
    In addition, many first processing facilities further process 
carcasses on-site and/or perform rendering operations. These facilities 
may also process meat products into prepared foods and feed ingredients 
for animals (except dog and cat food). Otherwise the carcasses are 
shipped to other facilities for further processing into finished 
products such as hams, sausages, ground meat, and canned products.
    Based on the 1997 U.S. Census of Manufactures, the animal 
slaughtering industry sector includes 1,300 companies which operate 
approximately 1,400 facilities. The industry sector employs 142,000 
people and generates a total value of shipments of $54 billion. Twelve 
States reported shipments in excess of $1 billion, with Texas, 
California, Illinois, Iowa and Wisconsin containing the largest number 
of slaughtering establishments (at least 60 establishments in each 
State). Nebraska ranks seventh in the number of facilities located in 
the State, but has the highest number of employees engaged in animal 
slaughtering of any State. Nebraska accounts for almost 17 percent of 
the value added and 16 percent of total shipments in this industry 
sector. Industry activity is most heavily concentrated in Nebraska, 
Kansas, Iowa and Texas.
    The Animal Slaughtering sector is comprised of a large number of 
facilities (72 percent of the sector) which have fewer than twenty 
employees. These facilities employ less than 5 percent of the sector 
workforce and contribute an even smaller percentage of value added and 
value of shipments. Thirty-nine facilities employ between 1,000 and 
2,500 employees and while comprising only 3 percent of the total number 
of establishments, provide 43 percent of the industry employment and 46 
percent of the value of shipments.
    Meat Processed from Carcasses (NAICS 311612) includes facilities 
engaged in processing or preserving meat and meat by-products (but not 
poultry or small game) from purchased meats. These facilities do not 
slaughter animals or perform any initial processing (e.g., de-fleshing, 
de-feathering).
    The meat further processing industry sector includes 1,164 
companies, which own and operate about 1,300 facilities. This sector 
employs about 88,000 people, and the value of shipments is more than 
$25 billion, of which $9 billion is value added by manufacture.
    California, Illinois, New York and Texas have the highest 
concentration of meat further processing facilities, each with more 
than 90 meat further processing facilities. However the highest levels 
of employment are found in Illinois, Pennsylvania, Texas and Wisconsin, 
which together generate one-third of the meat further processing 
employment. In Wisconsin more than half of the meat further processing 
facilities employ more than 20 workers, and the State also accounts for 
the largest share of both total shipments and value added in the 
industry.
    As with the animal slaughtering sector, more than half of the meat 
further processing facilities employ fewer than 20 workers. The bulk of 
the employment (54 percent), value added (55 percent) and total 
shipments (57 percent) is accounted for by meat further processing 
facilities employing between 100 and 500 workers. The difference 
between the animal slaughtering sector and the meat further processing 
sector is that while the value of shipments in the animal slaughtering 
industry sector is heavily concentrated in the largest facilities, the 
value of shipments in the meat further processing sector is more evenly 
distributed across meat further processing facilities of all different 
sizes.
    Poultry Processing (NAICS 311615) includes the slaughter of 
poultry, small game animals (e.g., quails, pheasants, and rabbits), and 
exotic poultry (e.g., ostriches) and the processing and preparing of 
these products and their byproducts. The 1997 U.S. Census of 
Manufactures reported 260 companies engaged in poultry slaughtering. 
These companies own or operate 470 facilities, employ 224,000 
employees, and produces about $32 billion in value of shipments.
    The poultry slaughtering sector has relatively few facilities with 
less than 20 employees but like the meat sectors it is dominated by a 
few very large facilities. Almost 50 percent of the sector employment 
and over 40 percent of the value of shipments were accounted for by 75 
facilities which employ more than 1,000 workers each. Eighty percent of 
employment and 74 percent of total shipments are produced by facilities 
that employ more than 500 workers. Yet

[[Page 8590]]

these facilities comprise only 36 percent of the poultry processing 
industry.
    Products produced by the poultry processing sector can be divided 
into two major categories: broilers and turkeys. Broilers comprise more 
than half of the industry's shipments. Processed poultry accounts for 
about 30 percent of this sectors shipments and turkey products accounts 
for about 12 percent.
    Poultry processing is largely concentrated in the southeastern 
States with Arkansas and Georgia having the largest number of 
facilities, employment and value of shipments. Alabama and North 
Carolina rank third and fourth in all of these measures. California is 
the only State in the top ten poultry producing States which is not in 
the southeast. California ranks tenth in terms of employment and value 
of shipments and ranks eighth in number of facilities.
    The Rendering and Meat Byproduct Processing (NAICS 311613) sector 
includes facilities engaged in the rendering of inedible stearin, 
grease, and tallow from animal fat, bones and meat scraps and the 
manufacturing of animal oils, including fish oil, and fish and animal 
meal. Many facilities not classified as rendering facilities perform 
rendering operations but are not classified as such because they are 
also engaged in slaughtering (these are often on-site rendering 
facilities that are part of an animal or poultry slaughtering 
facility).
    The rendering sector consists of 137 companies that own or operate 
240 facilities. The sector employs 8,800 workers and generates $2.6 
billion in shipments. Texas and California have the largest number of 
rendering facilities. Unlike the meat or poultry industry sectors, the 
rendering industry sector includes few large facilities (i.e., only 11 
rendering facilities employed more than 100 workers per facility in 
1997). The 132 rendering facilities which employ between 20 and 99 
workers account for the largest share of the industry shipments (66 
percent).
    Because the meat and poultry products industry produces products 
for human consumption (with the exception of rendering), the industry 
as a whole is very conscious of cleanliness and hygiene. Meat and 
poultry processing facilities use disinfectants to clean and sanitize 
equipment between production. The industry reports avoiding the use of 
pesticides which could contaminate their products, although EPA 
sampling data did detect several pesticides in raw wastewaters. Water 
is a very important part of meat products manufacturing as meat 
products and meat product equipment require acceptable levels of 
cleanliness. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and 
Inspection Service (USDA FSIS) is responsible for regulating and 
inspecting meat and poultry slaughtering and processing facilities and 
facilities engaged in edible rendering (i.e., suitable for human 
consumption) to ensure food safety. The U.S. Food and Drug 
Administration (FDA) covers inedible rendering operations which produce 
products suitable for pet food, animal feed, chemical products, and 
fuel blending.
    Water is used to clean the product, clean and sanitize the 
production equipment and as a transport mechanism for carrying the 
waste away from the production area. Water can also be used as a part 
of the process such as scalding birds to facilitate feather removal or 
chilling the animal or meat to reduce its temperature. The meat and 
poultry processing industry (excluding rendering) uses an estimated 150 
billion gallons of water per year. The meat and poultry products 
industry ranks in the top third of all three digit SIC manufacturing 
sectors with regard to overall water consumption (Docket No. W-01-06, 
Record No. 10025).
    Industry sources have estimated that the implementation of USDA's 
Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) program has 
increased water usage by 20 to 25 percent (Docket No. W-01-06, Record 
No. 10021). USDA FSIS disagrees with industry's assertion that 
implementation of HACCP has necessarily required greater use of water 
(Docket No. W-01-06, Record No.10027). Furthermore, USDA FSIS asserts 
that its regulatory performance standards provide for numerous water 
reuse opportunities (see 9 CFR 416.2(g)).
    Many facilities in the meat and poultry processing sector have 
employed water reuse programs for many years. Some large facilities 
even have installed onsite advanced wastewater treatment systems which 
treat facility effluent allowing this water to be reused for some 
applications within the facility. Other facilities have changed 
sanitation practices to reduce water use and effluence in general. For 
example, one independent renderer noted during an EPA site visit that 
his facility fully converted from a wet cleaning method to a dry 
cleaning method in the product shipment area in order to minimize water 
pollution (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 10042). EPA solicits comment 
on the potential of MPP facilities to reduce water consumption and new 
technologies or practices that can effectively reuse water.
    The majority of facilities in the meat and poultry products 
industry are indirect dischargers (an estimated 5,298 facilities). 
There are an estimated 359 facilities which discharge directly to 
waters of the U.S. and 242 of these are larger facilities which often 
will have a variety of further processing operations on-site. There are 
1,113 facilities which report storing water in on-site lagoons or land 
applying their wastewater (see MPP Development Document).
    The untreated wastewater contains high concentrations of 
BOD5, TSS, oil and grease, pathogens, especially fecal 
coliforms and nutrients, including nitrogen (including ammonia) and 
phosphorus. EPA's sampling data collected from meat and poultry 
products facilities found treatable concentrations of some metals 
(e.g., copper and zinc). Some of these metals are fed to the animals as 
feed additives, which therefore is assumed to be the source for these 
pollutants in the wastewater.
    Treatment for meat and poultry processing wastewater varies 
depending on whether the facility is a direct or indirect discharger. 
Direct dischargers generally have biological treatment-in-place; most 
facilities use a combination of anaerobic and aerobic treatment, they 
also have nitrification to reduce ammonia concentrations in the 
effluent. Some facilities have denitrification to reduce nitrogen 
(nitrate) concentrations, although some facilities have a polishing 
filter to achieve additional reductions of other suspended pollutants. 
All facilities use some form of disinfection (e.g., chlorine contact 
tank, ultraviolet radiation) to destroy or render pathogens inactive. 
Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) is also commonly used to reduce oil and 
grease prior to the biological treatment. The indirect dischargers are 
mostly removing solids from their effluent through the use of screens 
or settling basins. Many of the indirect discharge facilities surveyed 
also report using an equalization basin and DAF to reduce the oil and 
grease concentrations in their effluent. Industry representatives have 
indicated that facilities avoid adding flocculants or treatment aids to 
their wastewaters prior to DAF or settling, because these additives 
prevent them from sending the sludge to a renderer. EPA identified that 
raw materials with high concentrations of ferric chloride are also 
often rejected by independent renderers due to their corrosive nature. 
EPA solicits comment on other types of flocculants or treatment aids 
and their concentrations that are commonly not accepted by independent 
renderers.

[[Page 8591]]

    EPA also examined the impact of different religious meat and 
poultry production (e.g., kosher, halal, Buddhist) on raw wastewater 
characteristics in terms of wastewater flow and pollutant 
concentrations (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No.10028; Record No. 10029). 
EPA identified that kosher and halal poultry producers pack the birds 
(inside and out) in salt for one hour to absorb any residual blood or 
juices. The birds are then rinsed and shipped to kosher/halal meat 
distributers. An industry representative reported that on an average 
day a kosher poultry facility would use 80,000 pounds of salt in their 
operations with a wastewater generation of approximately 2 million 
gallons wastewater per day. The industry representative stated that the 
use of salt makes the kosher poultry wastewaters very different from 
non-kosher poultry wastewaters with kosher poultry wastewaters having 
an increased total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration. The industry 
representative also stated that most kosher operations (meat and 
poultry) are located in urban areas with sewer connections. EPA also 
identified that Buddhist and Confucian poultry facilities probably do 
not exhibit wastewater characteristics that differ from non-religious 
poultry facilities (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 10029). Finally, 
industry representatives identified that there should be no 
differences, other than salt content, in MPP wastewater characteristics 
between kosher or halal and other meat facilities because the main 
difference between religious and non-religious meat production is the 
method of slaughter (exsanguination) (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 
Record No. 10031). EPA solicits comment on any other differences in 
production and wastewater generation and characteristics between non-
religious and religious meat and poultry facilities.

V. Summary of Data Collection

A. Secondary Sources of Data and Information

    The Agency evaluated the following databases online to locate data 
and information to support regulatory development: The Agency's PCS 
database, USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service's HACCP Databases, 
USDA's Packers and Stockyards Statistical Report, SEC's EDGAR Database, 
the 1997 U.S. Census of Manufactures, Dun & Bradstreet Million Dollar 
Directory and Hoover's database. In addition, the Agency conducted a 
thorough collection and review of secondary sources, which include 
data, reports, and analyses published by government agencies; reports 
and analyses published by the meat and poultry products industry and 
its associated organizations; and publicly available financial 
information compiled by both government and private organizations.
    EPA used the listings of beef processing facilities from Cattle-
Fax, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Iowa State University, 
and North Dakota State University to identify the location of 
individual beef slaughtering facilities, their parent corporation, and, 
in some cases, the operational capacity of the individual facility. EPA 
used the National Pork Producers Council publication to identify the 
location of hog slaughtering facilities, the name of their parent 
corporation, and the operational capacity of the facility. EPA used 
WATT PoultryUSA's publications to locate individual poultry 
slaughtering facilities, the types of processes at those facilities, 
and the name of their parent corporation. EPA consulted the American 
Meat Institute, the National Renderers Association and the U.S. Poultry 
& Egg Association for lists of all member companies and facilities. The 
Urner Barry Meat and Poultry Directory 2000 provided information on 
location, parent company, and types of processes at the facility for 
all three sectors (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 25001).
    The documents cited above were all used by EPA in developing the 
industry profile, a survey sampling frame, and for stratifying the 
survey sampling frame. In addition to these publications, EPA examined 
many other documents that provided useful overviews and analysis of the 
meat processing industry. EPA also conducted general Internet searches 
by company name.

B. Industry Surveys

    EPA developed two survey questionnaires to collect site-specific 
technical and economic information as the above mentioned sources of 
information did not have sufficiently detailed technical and economic 
information required for the development of regulatory options.
    EPA published a notice in the Federal Register on May 1, 2000 (65 
FR 25325) announcing the Agency's intent to submit the meat and poultry 
products industry Survey Information Collection Request (ICR) to OMB. 
The May 1, 2000 notice requested comment on the draft ICR and the 
survey questionnaires. EPA received five sets of comments during the 60 
day public comment period. Commentors on the ICR included: National 
Chicken Council, National Renderers Association, American Meat 
Institute, BCR Foods, and U.S. Poultry and Egg Association. EPA made 
minor clarifying revisions to the survey methodology and questionnaires 
as a result of public comments.
    EPA made every reasonable attempt to ensure that the meat and 
poultry products industry ICR did not request data and information 
currently available through less burdensome mechanisms. Prior to 
publishing the May 1, 2000 notice, EPA met with and distributed draft 
copies of the survey questionnaires to three trade associations 
representing the meat and poultry products industry (American Meat 
Institute, National Chicken Council, National Renderers Association). 
EPA obtained approval from OMB for the use and distribution of two 
survey questionnaires: a short screener survey and a more detailed 
survey.
1. Description of the Surveys
    In February 2001, EPA mailed a short screener survey, entitled 
``2001 Meat Products Industry Screener Survey'' to 1,650 meat and 
poultry products facilities. A copy of the screener is included in the 
record (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 00178). The screener survey 
consisted of seven questions that elicited site-specific information 
such as type of animal processed and processing operation, wastewater 
disposal method, and the number of full-time employees at the site and 
company. EPA used the information collected from the screener survey to 
describe industry operations, wastewater generation rates, and 
wastewater disposal practices. EPA also used the responses to the site 
employment question for classifying each facility as small or not-small 
according to the Small Business Administration regulations at 13 CFR 
part 121.
    EPA designed the second survey to collect detailed site-specific 
technical and financial information. In March 2001, EPA mailed the 
second survey, entitled ``2001 Meat Products Industry Survey,'' to 350 
meat and poultry products facilities. A copy of the detailed survey is 
included in the record (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 00179). The 
detailed survey is divided into five parts. The first four parts 
collect general facility and technical data. The first set of questions 
request general facility site information. The general facility 
information questions asked the site to identify itself, characterize 
itself by certain parameters (including meat and poultry products 
operations, age, and location), and confirm that it was engaged in meat 
and/or poultry processing operations.

[[Page 8592]]

Respondents also indicated whether they use trisodium phosphate (TSP) 
as a biocide. Substituting other non-phosphorus based biocides with TSP 
has the potential to lower overall phosphorus concentrations in the raw 
wastewater and treated effluent. The second set of questions requested 
analytical and production data including: (1) Detailed daily analytical 
and flow rate data for selected sampling points; (2) monthly production 
data; and (3) operating hours for selected manufacturing operations. 
Survey respondents were required to provide already obtained sampling 
data and information. The Agency used the analytical data to estimate 
baseline pollutant loadings and pollutant removals from facilities with 
treatment-in-place resembling projected regulatory options and to 
evaluate the variability associated with meat and poultry products 
industry discharges. The Agency used the production data collected to 
evaluate the production basis for applying today's proposed rule in 
NPDES permits.
    The next two sections focus on wastewater characteristics and 
current treatment practices, respectively. Questions regarding 
wastewater and treatment were designed to gather: (1) Information on 
the wastewater treatment systems (including diagrams) and discharge 
flow rates; (2) analytical monitoring data; and (3) operating and 
maintenance cost data (including treatment chemical usage). The outfall 
information questions covered permit information such as: (1) Discharge 
location; (2) wastewater sources to the outfall; (3) flow rates; (4) 
regulated parameters and limits; and (5) permit monitoring data. The 
Agency used this information to calculate the effluent limitations 
guidelines and standards and pollutant loadings associated with the 
regulatory options that EPA considered for this proposal. The Agency 
also used data received in response to these questions to identify 
treatment technologies in place, to determine the feasibility of 
regulatory options and potential future subcategorization of the meat 
and poultry products industry, and to estimate compliance costs, the 
pollutant reductions associated with the likely technology-based 
options, and potential environmental impacts associated with the 
regulatory options EPA considered for this proposal.
    The fifth part of the detailed survey elicited site-specific 
financial and economic data. EPA used this information to characterize 
the economic status of the industry and to estimate potential economic 
impacts of wastewater regulations. The financial and economic 
information collected in the survey was necessary to complete the 
economic analysis of the proposed effluent limitations guidelines and 
standards for the meat and poultry products industry. EPA requested 
financial and economic information for the fiscal years ending 1997, 
1998, and 1999-- the most recent years for which data are available.
2. Development of Survey Mailing List
    EPA sent the two meat and poultry products industry survey 
questionnaires to a random sample of facilities from the USDA Food 
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) Hazard Analysis and Critical 
Control Points (HACCP) database and a list of renderers provided by the 
National Renderers Association (NRA). The HACCP database provided a 
list of 7,981 federally or State-inspected meat and poultry facilities. 
The HACCP database is dated March 9, 2000 for the federally inspected 
facilities and May 10, 2000 for the State-inspected facilities. The 
entire HACCP database is classified into Large, Small, and Very Small 
facilities, corresponding to more than 500 employees, 10-500 employees, 
and less than 10 employees at the facility level, respectively. The 236 
renderers from the NRA list were not classified by size. The Urner 
Barry Meat and Poultry Directory 2000 identified production information 
(i.e., whether a facility was a slaughterer or further processor) for 
at least 240 of the 292 large facilities (82 percent) and 1,120 of the 
2,381 small facilities (47 percent). No such information was available 
for the remaining large and small facilities or for any of the 5,308 
very small facilities.
3. Sample Selection
    EPA grouped the facilities into seven strata by the size and the 
type of meat and poultry processing operation that takes place in each 
facility so that each stratum would encompass facilities with similar 
operations. This grouping (also known as stratification) increases 
precision (reducing one source of uncertainty) for estimates of costs, 
benefits and other quantities. Table V.B-1 lists the stratification of 
the meat and poultry products industry which is based on employment and 
other information from USDA's HACCP program, Urner Barry Meat and 
Poultry Directory 2000, and the National Renderers Association.

                             Table V.B-1.--Meat and Poultry Products Industry Strata
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of       Screener        Detailed
                   Stratum  (No. of employees)                     facilities in   survey sample   survey sample
                                                                      stratum          size            size
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certainty.......................................................              65               0              65
Large Processor (500)................................              43              31               3
Large Slaughterer (500)..............................             190             100              52
Small Processor (10-499)........................................           1,878             688              62
Small Slaughterer (10-499)......................................             498             130              69
Very Small Processor (10).......................................           5,308             649              57
Renderer........................................................             235              52              42
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................           8,217           1,650             350
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Various meat and poultry processors were randomly selected within 
each grouping. EPA weighted each survey response to account for 
facilities not surveyed and to develop national estimates from the 
survey responses. EPA deliberately selected the 65 ``certainty'' 
facilities to obtain site-specific information on the top producers for 
all types of meat and poultry products as well as facilities identified 
as good performers by State and Regional environmental personnel. EPA 
focused much of its analysis on the characteristics of larger 
facilities because indirect and direct small facilities as a group (see 
Section III.A.1 for descriptions of ``small facilities'') discharge 
less than 3% of the conventional pollutants, 1% of the toxic 
pollutants, 4% of the nutrients, and less

[[Page 8593]]

than 1.5% of the pathogens as compared to all discharges from all 
indirect and direct MPP facilities. Moreover, most of these small 
facilities are discharging small volumes of wastewater into large urban 
POTW systems which process significantly higher wastewater volumes, 
which helps minimize impacts. Thus, there is minimal impact on POTW 
operations or the passing of MPP pollutants of concern through POTWs 
into waters of the United States. Consequently, larger facilities were 
oversampled in the sample design. The oversampling rate is 
approximately 6:3:1, meaning that the large facilities were sampled at 
6 times the rate of the very small facilities, and the small facilities 
at 3 times the rate of the very small. In addition, many of the very 
small facilities were not eligible for the survey as they were no 
longer in operation.
4. Survey Response
    Of the 8,217 meat and poultry products facilities generating 
wastewater, 2,000 facilities were mailed either a detailed survey or a 
screener survey. As of October 4, 2001, 1,365 of the 1,650 screener 
surveys and 300 of the 350 detailed surveys were returned to EPA. EPA 
used 961 of the screener surveys (those received before April 24, 2001) 
and 241 of the detailed surveys (those received before May 29, 2001) 
for the development of regulatory options. EPA chose the cut-off dates 
in order to process, synthesize, and analyze the collected data and 
develop regulatory options in a timely fashion and still use as much 
data as possible. EPA will use all surveys, including those collected 
after the deadlines, in upcoming analyses for the forthcoming Notice of 
Data Availability (NODA) and final rule.

C. Site Visits and Wastewater Sampling

    During 2000 and 2001, EPA conducted site visits at 15 MPP 
facilities. Six of these site visits were conducted at meat facilities, 
seven at poultry facilities, and two at rendering-only facilities. The 
purposes of these site visits were to: (1) Collect information on meat 
and poultry processing operations; (2) collect information on 
wastewater generation and waste management practices used by the MPP 
facilities; and (3) evaluate each facility as a candidate for multi-day 
sampling. In addition, EPA conducted limited sampling during several of 
the site visits to screen for potential contaminants that may be found 
in wastewaters from the different types of meat and poultry processing 
operations.
    In selecting candidates for site visits, EPA attempted to identify 
facilities representative of various MPP processing operations, as well 
as both direct and indirect dischargers. EPA specifically considered 
the type of meat and poultry processing operations, age of the 
facility, size of facility (in terms of production), wastewater 
treatment processes employed, and best management practices/pollution 
prevention techniques used. EPA also solicited recommendations for 
good-performing facilities (e.g. facilities with advanced wastewater 
treatment technologies) from EPA Regional offices and State agencies. 
The site-specific selection criteria are discussed in site visit 
reports prepared for each site visited by EPA (Docket No. W-01-06, 
Record No.00156).
    During each site visit, EPA collected information on the facility 
and its operations, including: (1) General production data and 
information; (2) the types of meat and poultry processing wastewaters 
generated and treated on-site; (3) water source and use; (4) wastewater 
treatment and disposal operations; (5) potential sampling locations for 
wastewater (raw influent, within the treatment system, and final 
effluent); and (6) other information necessary for developing a 
sampling plan for possible multi-day sampling episodes. EPA also 
collected wastewater samples of influent and effluent at 7 of the 15 
facilities for screening purposes only.
    Based on data collected from the site visits, EPA selected 11 
facilities for multi-day sampling. The purpose of the multi-day 
sampling was to characterize pollutants in raw wastewaters prior to 
treatment as well as document wastewater treatment plant performance 
(including selected unit processes). Selection of facilities for multi-
day sampling was based on an analysis of information collected during 
the site visits as well as the following criteria:
     The facility performed meat and/or poultry slaughtering 
and/or further processing operations representative of MPP facilities;
     The facility utilized in-process treatment and/or end-of-
pipe treatment technologies that EPA was considering for technology 
option selection; and
     Compliance monitoring data for the facility indicated that 
it was among the better performing treatment systems or that it 
employed wastewater treatment process for which EPA sought data for 
option selection.
    Multi-day sampling occurred at six meat facilities and five poultry 
facilities. EPA performed multi-day sampling at two facilities, and 
nine facilities performed the multi-day sampling on behalf of EPA. For 
the nine facilities that performed the sampling, EPA developed sampling 
plans that detailed the procedures for sample collection, including the 
pollutants to be sampled, location of sampling points, and sample 
collection, preservation, and shipment techniques. EPA assisted the 
nine facilities as necessary (e.g., provided sample bottle labels, 
provided assistance in shipping, and in one instance, provided on-site 
contractor support during the sampling event).
    During each multi-day sampling episode, facility influent and 
effluent wastestreams were sampled. EPA did not collect source water 
information but will collect additional source water data after 
proposal. EPA will use the post-proposal source water data to better 
characterize wastewater characteristics for each of the facilities 
sampled. At some facilities, samples were also collected at 
intermediate points throughout the wastewater treatment system to 
assess the performance of individual treatment units. Some of the 
facilities chosen for sampling perform rendering and/or further 
processing operations in addition to meat and/or poultry processing. 
For facilities that also performed rendering operations or further 
processing, wastewater from the rendering and/or further processing 
operations was sampled separately, when possible.
    Sampling episodes were conducted over either a 3-day or 5-day 
period. Samples were obtained using a combination of 24-hour composite 
and grab samples, depending upon the pollutant parameter to be 
analyzed. Depending on the type of wastewater processed and the 
treatment technology being evaluated, EPA analyzed wastewater for up to 
53 parameters including conventional (BOD5, TSS, oil and 
grease, fecal coliforms, and pH), toxic (selected metals and 
pesticides), and nonconventional (e.g., nutrients, microbiologicals) 
pollutants. When possible for a given parameter, EPA collected 24-hour 
composite samples in order to capture the variability in the waste 
streams generated throughout the day (e.g. production wastewater versus 
clean-up wastewater.)
    Data collected from the influent samples contributed to 
characterization of the industry, development of the list of pollutants 
of concern, and development of raw wastewater characteristics. EPA used 
the data collected from the influent, intermediate, and effluent points 
to analyze the efficacy of treatment at the facilities, and to develop 
current discharge concentrations, loadings, and

[[Page 8594]]

the treatment technology options for the meat and poultry products 
industry. EPA used effluent data to calculate the long-term averages 
(LTAs) and limitations for each of the proposed regulatory options. EPA 
also used industry-provided data from the MPP Survey to complement the 
sampling data for these calculations. During each sampling episode, EPA 
also collected flow rate data corresponding to each sample collected 
and production information from each associated manufacturing operation 
for use in calculating pollutant loadings and production-normalized 
flow rates. EPA has included in the public record all information 
collected for which the facility has not asserted a claim of 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or which would indirectly 
reveal information claimed to be CBI.
    EPA used the site visit reports to prepare multi-day sampling and 
analysis plans (SAPs) for each facility that would undergo multi-day 
sampling. The Agency collected the following types of information 
during each sampling episode:
     Dates and times of sample collection;
     Flow data corresponding to each sample;
     Production data corresponding to each sample;
     Design and operating parameters for source reduction, 
recycling, and treatment; technologies characterized during sampling;
     Information about site operations that had changed since 
the site visit or that were not included in the Site visit report; and
     Temperature, pH, and dissolved oxygen (DO) of the sampled 
wastestreams.
    After the conclusion of the sampling episodes, EPA prepared 
sampling episode reports for each facility which included descriptions 
of the wastewater treatment processes, sampling procedures, and 
analytical results. EPA documented all data collected during sampling 
episodes in the sampling episode report for each sampled site which are 
located in the MPP Administrative Record. Non-confidential business 
information from these reports is available in the public record for 
this proposal. For detailed information on sampling and preservation 
procedures, analytical methods, and quality assurance/quality control 
procedures see the MPP Development Document for today's proposed rule.

D. Pollutants Sampled and Analytical Methods

    The Agency (or facilities, as directed by the Agency) collected, 
preserved, and transported all samples according to EPA protocols as 
specified in EPA's Sampling and Analysis Procedures for Screening of 
Industrial Effluents for Priority Pollutants and in the MPP QAPP.
    EPA collected composite samples for most parameters because the 
Agency expected the wastewater composition to vary over the course of a 
day. The Agency collected grab samples from unit operations for oil and 
grease and microbiologicals. Composite samples were collected either 
manually or by using an automated sampler. Individual aliquots for the 
composite samples were collected at a minimum of once every four hours 
over each 24-hour period. Oil and grease samples were collected every 
four hours and microbiologicals were collected once a day.
    Table V.D-1 lists the parameters sampled at the majority of the 
facilities, some of which have not been identified as pollutants of 
concern.

Table V.D-1. MPP Sampled Parameters

Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)
Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD5)
Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand (DBOD5)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total volatile solids (TVS)
Chloride
Total residual chlorine (TRC)
Ammonia as nitrogen
Nitrate/nitrite
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total phosphorus (TP)
Total dissolved phosphorus (TDP)
Orthophosphate
Oil and grease
Metals (e.g., arsenic, chromium, copper, mercury, zinc)
Carbamate pesticide (carbaryl)
Permethrin (cis-and trans-)
Malathion
Stirofos
Dichlorvos
Total coliform
Fecal coliform
Escherichia coli
Fecal streptococci
Salmonella
Aeromonas
Cryptosporidium (meat facilities only)

    All wastewater sample analyses, except for the field measurements 
of temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH were completed by EPA contract 
laboratories. EPA or facility staff collected field measurements of 
temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH at the sampling site. The 
analytical chemistry methods used, as well as the sample volume 
requirements, detection limits, and holding times, were consistent with 
the laboratory's quality assurance and quality control plan. 
Laboratories contracted for MPP sample analysis followed EPA approved 
analysis methods for all parameters.
    The EPA contract laboratories reported data on their standard 
report sheet and submitted them to EPA's sample control center (SCC). 
The SCC reviewed the report sheets for completeness and reasonableness. 
EPA reviewed all reports from the laboratory to verify that the data 
were consistent with requirements, reported in the proper units, and 
the data are in compliance with the applicable protocol.
    Quality control measures used in performing all analyses complied 
with the guidelines specified in the analytical methods and in the MPP 
Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). EPA reviewed all analytical data 
to ensure that these measures were followed and that the resulting data 
were within the QAPP-specified acceptance criteria for accuracy and 
precision.
    Section 304(h) of the Clean Water Act directs EPA to promulgate 
guidelines establishing test procedures (methods) for the analysis of 
pollutants. These methods allow the analyst to determine the presence 
and concentration of pollutants in wastewater, and are used for 
compliance monitoring and for filing applications for the NPDES program 
under 40 CFR 122.21, 122.41, 122.44, and 123.25, and for the 
implementation of the pretreatment standards under 40 CFR 403.10 and 
403.12. To date, EPA has promulgated methods for all conventional and 
toxic pollutants and for several nonconventional pollutants. Table 1-B 
at 40 CFR 136.3 lists the analytical methods approved for four of the 
five conventional pollutants and Table 1-A at 40 CFR 136.3 lists the 
fifth, fecal coliform. Part 136 also sets forth the analytical methods 
for toxic pollutants. EPA has listed, pursuant to Section 307(a)(1) of 
the Act, 65 metals and organic pollutants and classes of pollutants as 
``toxic pollutants'' at 40 CFR 401.15. From the list of 65 classes of 
toxic pollutants, EPA identified a list of 126 ``Priority Pollutants.'' 
This list of Priority Pollutants is shown at 40 CFR part 423, appendix 
A. The list includes non-pesticide organic pollutants, metal 
pollutants, cyanides, asbestos, and pesticide pollutants.

[[Page 8595]]

    Currently approved methods for metals and cyanides are included in 
the table of approved inorganic test procedures at 40 CFR 136.3, Table 
I-B. Table I-C at 40 CFR 136.3 lists approved methods for measurement 
of non-pesticide organic pollutants, and Table I-D lists approved 
methods for the toxic pesticide pollutants and for other pesticide 
pollutants. Direct and indirect dischargers must use the test methods 
approved under 40 CFR 136.3, where available, to monitor pollutant 
discharges from the meat and poultry products industry, unless 
specified otherwise in part 432 or by the permitting authority. See 40 
CFR 401.13 and 403.12(b)(5)(vi). Sometimes, methods in part 136 apply 
to only waste streams from specified point source categories. For 
pollutants with no methods approved under 40 CFR part 136, the 
discharger must use the test procedure specified in the permit or, in 
the case of indirect dischargers, other validated methods or applicable 
procedures. See 40 CFR 122.44(i)(1)(iv) and 403.12(b)(5)(vi).
    Table V.D-2 provides a list of analytes from EPA MPP sampling that 
were analyzed by methods that were not approved at 40 CFR part 136.

                      Table V.D-2: Methods for MPP Analytes Not Approved at 40 CFR Part 136
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Analyte                       Method                                Frequency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chloride........................  300.0                    77 samples out of 217 samples.
Nitrate/Nitrite.................  300.0                    62 samples out of 217 samples.
Total Orthophosphate............  300.0                    77 samples out of 217 samples.
Carbaryl........................  632                      all samples.
Dichlorvos......................  1657                     all samples.
Malathion.......................  1657                     all samples.
Tetrachlorvinphos (stirofos)....  1657                     all samples.
cis-Permethrin..................  1660                     all samples.
trans-Permethrin................  1660                     all samples.
E. coli.........................  9221F                    all samples.
Aeromonas.......................  9260L                    all samples.
Salmonella......................  FDA-BAM                  all samples.
Metals..........................  1620                     all samples.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The use of Method 300.0 for chloride, nitrate/nitrite, and total 
orthophosphate was necessary because the analytical methods normally 
used for these analytes are subject to interferences such as color, 
turbidity, and/or particulates. These interferences were sometimes 
present in the samples, given the difficult matrices associated with 
the meat and poultry products industry (samples that contain blood, 
animal tissue, and/or other particulates). Laboratories used Method 
300.0 for those samples that contained the interferents, which were a 
subset of the samples collected, as shown in the table above under the 
``Frequency'' column.
    The pesticides carbaryl, cis-permethrin, trans-permethrin, 
dichlorvos, and tetrachlorvinphos (stirofos) are not included in Table 
1D-List of Approved Test Procedures for Pesticides at 40 CFR Part 136. 
Therefore, there are no 40 CFR Part 136-approved methods for these 
analytes. However, the methods are approved for compliance monitoring 
of these pollutants in the Pesticide Chemicals Point Source Category 
(see Table 7 in 40 CFR part 455). [Note: Method 1660 is approved for 
permethrin; however, cis-permethrin and trans-permethrin are 
structurally similar to permethrin.] There is one approved method for 
malathion at 40 CFR part 136: Standard Method 6630C. EPA Method 1657 
was selected for analysis of malathion instead, for a couple of 
reasons, including:
     EPA 1600-series methods were developed specifically for 
the effluent guidelines program; therefore, they have more stringent 
quality control requirements than Standard Methods; and
     Method 1657 is approved for compliance monitoring of 
malathion in the pesticide chemical point source category (see Table 7 
in 40 CFR part 455).
     Two other parameters were analyzed using EPA Method 1657 
in addition to malathion [dichlorvos and tetrachlorvinphos (stirofos)]. 
Performance of one method for three analytes was the most economical 
approach.
    The biological parameters E.coli, Aeromonas, and Salmonella are not 
listed at 40 CFR part 136. Therefore, there are no 40 CFR part 136-
approved methods for these analytes, however, EPA proposed methods for 
E.coli on August 30, 2001 (66 FR 169, pages 45811-45829). Metals were 
analyzed using EPA Method 1620 because this method was developed 
specifically for the effluent guidelines program and contains more 
stringent quality control requirements than other 40 CFR part 136-
approved methods.

E. Other Data Collection

    EPA conducted a number of other data collection efforts to 
supplement information gathered through the survey process, facility 
sampling activities, site visits, and meetings with industry experts 
and the general public. The main purpose of these other data collection 
efforts was to obtain information on documented environmental impacts 
of meat and poultry processing industry facilities, additional data on 
animal processing waste characteristics, pollution prevention 
practices, wastewater treatment technology innovation, and facility 
management practices. These other data collection activities included a 
literature search, a review of current NPDES permits, and NPDES 
Discharge Monitoring Reports.
1. Literature Search on Environmental Impacts
    EPA conducted a literature search to obtain information on various 
aspects of the animal processing industry, including documented 
environmental impacts, wastewater treatment technology, waste 
generation and facility management, and pollution prevention. EPA 
performed extensive internet and library searches for applicable 
information. The Agency used the resources of its own environmental 
library and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Research 
Library to obtain technical articles on environmental issues relating 
to the animal processing industry. Several university libraries and 
industry experts were also consulted during the literature search. As a 
result, EPA was able to compile a list of environmental impacts 
associated with the meat and

[[Page 8596]]

poultry processing industry. The scope of the literature search 
included government reports of permit violations and any associated 
environmental impacts. EPA also compiled technical studies on 
innovative treatment technologies for meat and poultry processing 
wastewater. EPA has included a summary of the case studies in the 
public docket (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 00167) associated with 
today's proposal. The primary sources for the case studies include 
newspaper and technical journal articles, government reports, and 
papers included in industry and academic conference proceedings.
2. Current NPDES Permits
    EPA extracted information from the Agency's Permit Compliance 
System (PCS) to identify meat and poultry processing industry point 
source dischargers with NPDES permits. This initial extraction was 
performed by searching the PCS using reported Standard Industrial 
Classification (SIC) codes used to describe the primary activities 
occurring at the site. Specifically, the following SIC Codes were used:
     2011 Meat Packing Facilities.
     2013 Sausages and Other Prepared Meats.
     2015 Poultry Slaughtering and Processing.
     2077 Animal and Marine Fats and Oils.
    EPA identified 359 active meat and poultry product facilities with 
NPDES permits in the PCS database. The PCS estimate of MPP direct 
dischargers is approximately equivalent to the screener survey estimate 
of direct dischargers. EPA will refine its estimates of direct 
dischargers to incorporate information from both the PCS database and 
the screener survey.
    EPA selected a sample from this universe of dischargers. The Agency 
then reviewed NPDES permits and permit applications to obtain 
information on treatment technologies and wastewater characteristics 
for each of the animal processing and rendering sectors. EPA used this 
information as part of its initial screening process to identify the 
universe of processing facilities that would be covered under the 
proposal. In addition, this information was used to better define the 
scope of the information collection requests and to supplement other 
information collected on meat and poultry processing waste management 
practices.
3. Discharge Monitoring Reports
    In addition, the Agency collected long-term effluent data from 
facility Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) via the PCS database in an 
effort to perform a ``real world'' check on the achievability of 
today's proposed limits. DMRs summarize the quality and volume of 
wastewater discharged from a facility under a National Pollution 
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. DMRs are critical for 
monitoring compliance with NPDES permit provisions and for generating 
national trends on Clean Water Act compliance. DMRs may be submitted 
monthly, quarterly, or annually depending on the requirements of the 
NPDES permit.
    EPA extracted discharge data and permit limits from these DMRs (via 
the PCS database) and from the MPP surveys to help identify regulated 
pollutants, to identify better performing facilities, and to set 
limitations in a few cases where sampling data was not available. 
Specifically, EPA identified the amount of discharged ammonia in 
relation to the respective permit limits. EPA conducted this analysis 
in part to identify potential facilities for future sampling as well as 
to assist in identifying a selection of facilities for the certainty 
component of the detailed survey exercise, and limitations were set for 
TSS, Oil and Grease(HEM) and COD based on DMR data from the MPP 
surveys.
    EPA was able to collect DMR information on a total of 176 
facilities from four MPP sectors: 77 meat packing facilities; 17 
facilities producing sausages and other prepared meat products; 65 
poultry slaughtering and processing facilities; and 17 animal and 
marine fat and oils facilities. EPA collected 31,311 data points on 83 
separate pollutant parameters.
    Indirect dischargers file compliance monitoring reports with their 
control authority (e.g., POTW) at least twice per year as required 
under the General Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR 403) while direct 
dischargers file discharge monitoring reports with their permitting 
authority at least once per year. EPA did not collect compliance 
monitoring reports for MPP facilities that are indirect dischargers as: 
(1) A vast majority of MPP indirect dischargers are small facilities 
(i.e., small volumes of wastewater); and (2) this information is less 
centralized and harder to collect.
    Because DMR and indirect discharger compliance monitoring reports 
do not provide information about processes and production, EPA was not 
able to use these data directly in calculating the limitations and 
standards. Instead, in the detailed survey, EPA requested that 
facilities provide the individual daily measurements from their 
monitoring (for DMR or the control authority) with detailed information 
about their treatment systems and processes. After further evaluation 
of the detailed surveys, EPA intends to use the self-monitoring data 
corresponding to the proposed treatment options to calculate the final 
limits and to reassess the achievability of the limits by well-operated 
BAT systems. In cases where EPA determines that improved system 
operation will allow the limits to be consistently achieved it will 
include additional treatment costs for the facility in its cost 
estimations for the final rule where EPA has not already done so. EPA 
concludes, in following the approach described above, that it will 
address issues related to the achievability of the numerical limits by 
well-operated and economically achievable treatment systems. EPA 
solicits comments on this method of performing a ``real world'' check 
on the achievability of its proposed limits.

F. Summary of Public Participation

    EPA encouraged the participation of all interested parties 
throughout the development of the proposed meat and poultry products 
effluent limitations guidelines and standards. EPA conducted outreach 
to the following trade associations (which represent the vast majority 
of the facilities that will be affected by this guideline): American 
Meat Institute (AMI), American Association of Meat Processors (AAMP), 
National Renderers Association (NRA), U.S. Poultry and Egg Association, 
and National Chicken Council. EPA met on several occasions with various 
industry representatives to discuss aspects of the regulation 
development. EPA also participated in industry meetings and gave 
presentations on the status of the regulation development. EPA also met 
with environmental groups including the Natural Resources Defense 
Council concerning this proposal.
    EPA met with the industry associations and environmental groups and 
representatives from State and local governments when this industry was 
first identified as a candidate for rulemaking to seek their opinions 
on the issues that the Agency should consider as it moved forward for 
rulemaking.
    In the development of the surveys which were used to gather 
facility specific information on this industry, EPA consulted with the 
industry groups and several of their members to ensure that the 
information being requested was asked for in such a way as to be

[[Page 8597]]

understandable and that it would be available in the form requested.
    EPA conducted site visits to 15 facilities: 6 meat processors, 7 
poultry processors and 2 independent rendering facilities and conducted 
sampling at 11 facilities which provided samples from slaughtering 
operations, first and further processing and rendering. The facilities 
visited and sampled were identified by industry experts and State or 
EPA regional personnel as exemplifying the best performance and 
treatment in the industry.
    EPA also met with representatives from USDA to discuss this 
regulation and how it might be affected or affect requirements on the 
meat and poultry processing industry implemented by the Food Safety and 
Inspection Service of USDA. EPA has met with representatives from State 
and local governments to discuss their concerns with meat and poultry 
processing facilities and how EPA should approach these facilities in 
regulation.

VI. Subcategorization

A. Factors Considered in Developing Proposed Subcategories

    The CWA requires EPA, when developing effluent limitations 
guidelines and pretreatment standards, to consider a number of 
different factors. For example, when developing limitations that 
represent the best available technology economically achievable for a 
particular industry category, EPA must consider, among other factors, 
the age of the equipment and facilities in the category, location, 
manufacturing processes employed, types of treatment technology to 
reduce effluent discharges, the cost of effluent reductions and non-
water quality environmental impacts. See Section 304(b)(2)(B) of the 
CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1314(b)(2)(B). The statute also authorizes EPA to take 
into account other factors that the Administrator deems appropriate and 
requires the BAT model technology chosen by EPA to be economically 
achievable, which generally involves consideration of both compliance 
costs and the overall financial condition of the industry. EPA took 
these factors into account in considering whether to establish 
subcategories and found that dividing the industry into subcategories 
leads to better tailored regulatory standards, thereby increasing 
regulatory predictability and diminishing the need to address 
variations among facilities through a variance process. See 
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1053 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
    EPA used industry survey data and EPA sampling data for the 
subcategorization analysis. Various subcategorization criteria were 
analyzed for trends in discharge flow rates, pollutant concentrations, 
and treatability to determine where subcategorization was warranted. 
Equipment and facility age and facility location were not found to 
impact wastewater generation or wastewater characteristics; therefore, 
age and location were not used as a basis for subcategorization. An 
analysis of non-water quality environmental characteristics (e.g., 
solid waste and air emission effects) showed that these characteristics 
also did not constitute a basis for subcategorization (see Section X).
    Even though size (e.g., acreage, number of employees, production 
rates) of a facility does not have an influence on production-
normalized wastewater flow rates or pollutant loadings, size was used 
as a basis for subcategorization because more stringent limitations 
would not be cost effective for smaller poultry facilities (see 
Sections III.A.1 and III.B for definition of ``small'' and ``non-
small'' facilities for each subcategory). See Section III.A.1 for a 
description on how and why EPA established production based standards 
for small MPP facilities.
    EPA also identified types of meat products manufacturing processes 
(e.g., slaughtering, further processing, rendering) as a determinative 
factor for subcategorization due to variations in production-normalized 
wastewater flow rates (PNFs) and estimated pollutant loadings. For meat 
facilities: the PNF for slaughtering is 322.8 gal/1000 lb. Live Weight 
Killed; the PNF for further processing 555.4 gal/1000 lb. Finished 
Product; the PNF for meat cutters in subcategory F only is 130.4 gal/
1000 lb. Finished Product; and the PNF for rendering is 346.0 gal/1000 
lb. Raw Material. For Poultry facilities: the PNF for slaughtering is 
1,289 gal/1000 lb. Live Weight Killed; the PNF for further processing 
is 315.7 gal/1000 lb. Finished Product; and, the PNF for rendering is 
346.0 gal/1000 lb. Raw Material.
    Most slaughtering operations utilize significant amounts of water 
to process an animal. Slaughtering operations generally involve taking 
the live animal and producing whole or cut-up meat carcasses (which are 
then further processed). Wastewaters from slaughtering operations are 
generated from a variety of sources that generally include the areas 
where animals are killed and bled, hides or feathers are removed, 
animals are eviscerated, carcasses are washed and chilled, and areas 
where carcasses are trimmed and cut to produce the whole carcasses or 
carcass parts. As a result of these operations, wastewaters are 
generated that contain varying levels of blood, animals parts, viscera, 
fats, bones, etc. In addition, federal food safety concerns require 
frequent and extensive clean-up of slaughtering operations, which also 
contributes to wastewater generation. These clean-up wastewaters will 
contain not only slaughtering residues and particulate matter, but also 
contain products used for cleaning and disinfection (detergents and 
sanitizing agents).
    Alternatively, most further processing operations generate 
wastewaters from sources different than slaughtering operations. These 
sources, and the resulting wastewater characteristics, are highly 
dependent on the type of finished product desired. Further operations 
can include, but are not limited to, cutting and deboning, cooking, 
seasoning, smoking, canning, grinding, chopping, dicing, forming or 
breading. Unlike slaughtering operations, most further processing 
operations, except for clean-up, do not utilize significant amounts of 
water. Wastewaters generated from further processing operations will 
contain some further processing residues and particulate matter (e.g., 
breading, spices, etc.), as well as products used for cleaning and 
disinfection (detergents and sanitizing agents).
    Rendering operations are used primarily to process slaughtering by-
products (e.g., animal fat, bone, blood, hair, feathers, dead animals, 
etc.). The amount of water used and the characteristics of wastewater 
generated by rendering operations are highly dependent on a number of 
factors, including the type of product desired (e.g., edible v. 
inedible), the rendering process used (batch v. continuous; wet process 
v. dry process), and the source and type of raw materials used (e.g., 
poultry processors, slaughterhouses, butcher shops, supermarkets, 
restaurants, fast-food chains, farms, ranches, feedlots, animal 
shelters, etc.). In general, rendering operations involve cooking the 
raw materials to recover fats, oil, and grease; remaining residue is 
dried and then granulated or ground into a meal. A significant portion 
of wastewater pollutant loadings generated from rendering operations is 
condensed steam from cooking operations. Unlike slaughtering and 
further processing operations, rendering clean-up operations are 
generally less rigorous, generating a smaller proportion of the total 
expected wastewater flow.

[[Page 8598]]

    The following section describes the proposed meat and poultry 
products industry subcategorization.

B. Proposed Subcategories

    In today's notice, EPA proposes to keep the current 
subcategorization scheme for small facilities, but for larger 
facilities, we are proposing new limitations and collapsing the 
existing subcategories. Specifically, EPA proposes new limitations and 
standards that are the same for facilities in the following MPP 
subcategories: Simple Slaughterhouses (subpart A); Complex 
Slaughterhouses (subpart B); Low-Processing Packinghouses (subpart C); 
and High-Processing Packinghouses (subpart D). Also, EPA proposes new 
limitations and standards that are the same for facilities in the 
following MPP subcategories: Meat Cutters (subpart F); Sausage and 
Luncheon Meats Processors (subpart G); Ham Processors (subpart H); and 
Canned Meats Processors (subpart I). EPA is also retaining the 
Renderers (subpart J) subcategory and proposing new limitations and 
standards for facilities in this subcategory. This proposal does not 
revise the existing limitations and standards for smaller facilities in 
subparts A-J (see Section III.A.1). Finally, EPA proposes adding two 
MPP subcategories in 40 CFR part 432: Poultry First Processing (subpart 
K) and Poultry Further Processing (subpart L). These two new 
subcategories will cover both small and larger poultry processing 
facilities, although, the smaller facilities in each of the 
subcategories are required to meet less stringent requirements than 
larger poultry facilities (see Section III.B and Table III.B-1). EPA 
chose less stringent limitations for smaller poultry processing 
facilities because more stringent limits would not be cost effective 
for smaller poultry facilities (see Section III.A.1).
    Each subcategory is described in more detail immediately below in 
terms of its manufacturing processes and wastewater characteristics. 
All subcategories are further segmented based on the amount of meat and 
poultry products they slaughter, further process or render.
1. Meat Slaughterhouses and Packinghouses--Subparts A, B, C and D
    EPA is proposing to retain the existing subcategories. EPA is not 
proposing to revise the existing BPT requirements for facilities which 
slaughter 50 million pounds per year or less for the reasons described 
in Section III.A.1. of this notice. Since the existing limitations for 
smaller meat facilities (which EPA believes should be maintained) are 
different for each of the subcategories, the subcategories themselves 
are being maintained. EPA believes that retaining the existing 
subcategorization scheme will simplify implementation for the permit 
writers as well as generate appropriate limitations and standards for 
the facilities. EPA requests comments on this approach.
    The proposed regulation would require all meat direct dischargers 
that slaughter more than 50 million pounds live weight per year to 
achieve the same production-based effluent limitations. EPA finds that 
the slaughtering and initial processing operations found in all four of 
these subcategories are the key factors in determining wastewater 
characteristics and treatability. Moreover, EPA believes there are no 
significant differences between these four subcategories in terms of 
age, location, and size of facilities. In addition to slaughtering and 
initial processing, EPA is proposing to establish allowances to account 
for the additional processes that may also occur on-site. The proposed 
effluent limitations guidelines would provide allowances for discharges 
from each of the following processes: slaughtering (which includes 
initial processing), further processing, and rendering. These 
allowances would be the same for all four subcategories and are related 
to the volume of production as follows: The amount of live weight 
killed for the slaughtering process, the amount of finished product 
that is further processed on site, and the amount of raw material that 
is rendered on-site.
    Because of the similarities in wastewater characteristics across 
all meat slaughter and packinghouses, EPA also requests comment on an 
alternate approach to subcategorizing the meat slaughtering sector. 
This alternative would incorporate all meat slaughtering activities in 
one subcategory. This subcategory would retain the individual BPT 
allowances for simple and complex slaughterhouses and low and high 
processing packinghouses for facilities which slaughter 50 million 
pounds or less per year.
2. Meat Further Processing--Subparts F, G, H and I
    The proposed subcategorization scheme requires all facilities that 
generate more than 50 million pounds per year of meat finished products 
without performing slaughtering to be regulated by the same production-
based effluent limitations guidelines (see Section III). The 
limitations guidelines allow discharges based on the amount of finished 
product that is further processed on site. The wastewater 
characteristics and treatability for three of the four subcategories 
are sufficiently similar to group them together for the purpose of 
revising or setting new limitations and standards. However, subpart F 
limitations will be based on a lower production-normalized flow than 
subpart G, H and I limitations because subpart F facilities generate 
substantially less water per pound of finished product than the other 
three subparts. Moreover, EPA believes there are no significant 
differences between these four subcategories in terms of age, location, 
and size of these MPP facilities. EPA believes that this 
subcategorization scheme will simplify implementation for the permit 
writers as well as generate appropriate limitations and standards for 
the facilities.
3. Renderers--Subpart J
    Subpart J applies to independent rendering facilities which are 
facilities that only render raw materials and process hides and do no 
first or further processing. The proposed subcategorization scheme 
requires all independent rendering facilities that render more than 10 
million pounds per year of raw material to be regulated by the same 
production-based effluent limitations guidelines. This is a change from 
the current guidelines, which only apply to independent renderers that 
render more than approximately 27.4 million pounds raw material per 
year (or 75,000 pounds raw material per day for a facility that 
operates 365 days per year). See Section III.A.1 for a description on 
how and why EPA established production based standards for small MPP 
facilities. The limitations and standards allow discharges based on the 
amount of raw material that is rendered on site.
4. Poultry First Processing--Subpart K
    EPA divided the poultry first processors into two segments: Small 
and not-small (see Table III.B-1). Small poultry first processors 
slaughter 10 million pounds of poultry per year or less while non-small 
poultry first processors slaughter more than 10 million pounds of 
poultry per year. See Section III.B for a description on how and why 
EPA established production based standards for small poultry processing 
facilities. EPA is proposing that the technology-based effluent 
limitations guidelines for small poultry first processors (both new and 
existing) be based on the less efficient nitrification technology 
option (Direct Option 1). EPA is proposing that the technology-based 
effluent limitations guidelines for non-small poultry first processors 
(both new and existing) be

[[Page 8599]]

based on the nitrification/denitrification technology option (Direct 
Option 3). See Section VII.D for a discussion of the technology 
options. See the MPP Development Document and MPP Economic Analysis for 
more details on how EPA developed the two segments and specific 
requirements for each segment.
    The effluent limitations guidelines allow discharges for all 
activities that may be performed on-site including further processing 
and rendering based on: (1) The amount of live weight killed; (2) the 
amount of finished product that is further processed on site; and (3) 
the amount of raw material that is rendered on site.
5. Poultry Further Processing--Subpart L
    EPA divided the poultry further processors into two segments: small 
and non-small. Small poultry further processors generate 7 million 
pounds of finished product per year or less while non-small poultry 
further processors generate more than 7 million pounds of finished 
product per year. See Section III.B for a description on how and why 
EPA established production based standards for small poultry processing 
facilities. EPA is proposing that the technology-based effluent 
limitations guidelines for small poultry further processors (both new 
and existing) be based on a less efficient nitrification technology 
option (Direct Option 1). EPA is proposing that the technology-based 
effluent limitations guidelines for non-small poultry further 
processors (both new and existing) be based on the nitrification/
denitrification technology option (Direct Option 3). See Section VII.D 
for a discussion of the technology options. See the MPP Development 
Document and MPP Economic Analysis for more details on how EPA 
developed the two segments and specific requirements for each segment. 
The effluent limitations guidelines allow discharges based on the 
amount of finished product that is produced on site and also include 
provisions for those poultry further processors that perform on-site 
rendering operations.

VII. Technology Options, Costs, Wastewater Characteristics, and 
Pollutant Reductions

A. Wastewater Treatment Technologies in the MPP Industry

    EPA developed a series of technology option alternatives for the 
proposed rule based on the volumes and characteristics of wastewater 
generated at MPP facilities and the types of treatment technologies 
currently used by the industry to treat these wastewaters. Evaluation 
and selection of technology options was based primarily on information 
provided in the MPP detailed surveys (see Section V.B for a description 
of the MPP detailed survey.) The detailed surveys requested extensive 
data on wastewater characteristics, including both raw and treated 
wastewasters, treatment-in-place technologies, as well as information 
on production processes. The technology options presented in today's 
proposal are based on various factors including, but not limited to, 
the frequency of occurrence, technical performance of unit processes in 
reducing pollutant loads, and economic achievability.
    Because of the similarities in the physical and chemical 
characteristics of the wastewaters, there are virtually no differences 
between the meat and poultry sectors in the types of treatment 
technologies used. The unit processes that are used in treatment of 
meat and poultry processing wastewater are also similar to that 
normally used in the treatment of domestic wastewater. The wastewater 
treatment falls into three main categories: primary treatment, 
secondary treatment, and tertiary treatment. Primary treatment focuses 
on the removal of floating and settleable solids; secondary treatment 
provides removal of most organic matter; and tertiary treatment is used 
for the removal of nitrogen and/or phosphorus and/or suspended solids. 
Meat and poultry processing facilities that discharge to a publicly 
owned treatment works (POTW) typically employ only primary treatment; 
however, some facilities also provide secondary treatment. Facilities 
that discharge directly to navigable waters under the authority of a 
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, at a 
minimum apply both primary and secondary treatment. Many direct 
dischargers also apply tertiary treatment to wastewater discharged 
under the NPDES permit system.
    A variety of unit processes are used by MPP facilities to provide 
primary, secondary, and tertiary wastewater treatment. Table VII.A-1 
summarizes the relative frequency of treatment units used in the 
industry, based on a preliminary assessment of information provided in 
the detailed survey. The unit processes most commonly used for the 
treatment of meat and poultry processing wastewater are described 
below.

                   Table VII.A-1.--Distribution of Wastewater Treatment Units In MPP Industry
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Percent of direct/indirect
                                                                                   discharging facilities having
                                                                                    the treatment unit in place
         Treatment category                         Treatment unit               -------------------------------
                                                                                      Direct         Indirect
                                                                                    Discharger      Discharger
                                                                                     (percent)       (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary treatment..................  Screen.....................................              98              64
                                     Oil and Grease Removal.....................              83              77
                                     Dissolved Air Floatation...................              81              46
                                     Flow Equalization..........................              75              34
Secondary and Tertiary Treatment...  Biological Treatment \1\...................             100              13
                                     Filtration.................................              23               0
                                     Disinfection...............................              92              0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1: Biological Treatment includes any combination of the following: aerobic lagoon, anaerobic lagoon,
  facultative lagoon, any activated sludge process, and/or other biological treatment processes (e.g., trickling
  filter).
Source: Detailed Survey Data.

1. Primary Treatment
    MPP industry raw wastewaters have high levels of suspended solids 
and high concentrations of BOD. Most MPP facilities, whether they are 
direct or indirect dischargers employ some sort of primary treatment to 
remove floating and settleable solids. The typical unit processes used 
for primary treatment are

[[Page 8600]]

screens followed by dissolved air flotation (DAF) and flow equalization 
tanks. Some facilities use chemicals to improve suspended solids and 
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) removal. Primary treatment serves to 
reduce suspended solids and BOD loads to subsequent unit processes. 
Primary treatment can also be used to recover materials that can be 
converted into marketable products through rendering.
    Screening is typically the first and most inexpensive form of 
primary treatment. Screening removes large solid particles from the 
waste stream that could otherwise damage or interfere with downstream 
equipment and treatment processes. Generally all wastewater generated 
in meat and poultry processing facilities is screened before discharge 
to subsequent treatment processes. In poultry processing facilities, 
use of screens aids in recovery of both feathers and offal (viscera and 
meat particles), that are valuable by-products for the poultry 
rendering industry. In meat processing facilities, screening is 
generally limited to processing and cleanup water since viscera 
(usually) is not transported hydraulically.
    Dissolved air flotation (DAF) is also used extensively in the 
primary treatment of meat and poultry processing wastewater to remove 
suspended solids. The principal advantage of DAF over gravity settling 
is the ability to remove very small or light particles including grease 
more completely and in a shorter period of time. Once particles have 
been floated to the surface, removal is done by skimming. Chemicals, 
including, aluminum or iron salts or synthetic organic polymers are 
often added to improve the performance of DAF units.
    Most meat and poultry processing facilities operate on a five-day 
per week schedule, resulting in a weekly variation of wastewater flow 
(and load). Also, during the operation of the facilities, daily 
fluctuation in the wastewater flow (and load) is very common. Flow 
equalization tanks are used to eliminate the need for sizing subsequent 
treatment units to handle peak flows and to provide continuous constant 
flow (and load) to the subsequent treatment units, in-line flow.
2. Secondary Biological Treatment
    Because MPP wastewaters have a high organic content, it is not 
usually possible for a direct discharger to meet permit limits without 
employing secondary treatment. Although effective primary treatment can 
significantly reduce the BOD load of a MPP facility, typically more 
organic removal is necessary prior to discharge into a receiving water 
body. This additional removal can be accomplished through secondary 
biological treatment. Commonly used systems secondary biological 
treatment of wastewater include activated sludge systems, lagoons, 
oxidation ditch, extended aeration, and sequencing batch reactors. In 
addition, a sequence of anaerobic and aerobic biological processes is 
commonly used for secondary treatment.
    Anaerobic lagoons are the most commonly used anaerobic unit 
processes. Five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) 
reductions by anaerobic lagoons can be as high as 90 percent.
    In the treatment of meat and poultry processing wastewaters, 
aerobic treatment may directly follow primary treatment or more 
typically follow some form of anaerobic treatment to reduce BOD and 
suspended solids concentrations to levels required for direct 
discharge. Aerobic processes can also remove more than 90 percent of 
the influent BOD5. In addition, the aerobic systems 
partially nitrify the wastewater by converting ammonia to nitrates. 
Based on detailed survey responses all the direct discharging MPP 
facilities employ at least some kind of aerobic treatment prior to 
discharging the final effluent. The most common aerobic treatments 
units used by MPP facilities are activated sludge, aerated lagoons, 
oxidation ditch, extended aeration, and sequencing batch reactors.
3. Tertiary Treatment
    Some MPP facilities also employ tertiary treatment to obtain 
further removal of suspended solids and to reduce nutrient loadings, 
especially nitrogen and phosphorus levels. Although, primary and 
secondary treatment significantly reduce BOD, suspended solids, and 
nitrogen compounds (e.g., ammonia), tertiary treatment can provide 
significant further removals of nitrogen (conversion of nitrates to 
nitrogen gas) and especially phosphorus, which is not significantly 
addressed by most secondary biological treatment systems.
    Nitrogen can be largely eliminated from the wastewater by the 
combined nitrification and denitrification process. Nitrates formed 
during the nitrification process in secondary treatment are converted 
to nitrogen gas in the anoxic denitrification unit. Normally, the 
denitrification unit is placed before the nitrification unit to utilize 
the influent BOD as the carbon source for denitrification. The nitrates 
formed in the nitrification unit are recycled to the denitrification 
unit. Bardenpho process, sequencing batch reactors, extended aeration, 
and oxidation ditch are commonly used for denitrification. Very few 
facilities in the industry have biological phosphorous removal systems. 
A biological phosphorous removal system consists of an anaerobic tank 
before the nitrification and denitrification system. The system can 
achieve a very low effluent concentration of phosphorous.
    Simple clarification after secondary wastewater treatment may not 
reduce the concentration of suspended solids to the desired level. 
Therefore, filtration systems are used to reduce the effluent 
concentration of suspended solids. During the filtration cycle, 
wastewater is passed through a bed of granular media which traps the 
suspended solids thus producing high quality effluent. The filtration 
unit is regenerated periodically by backwashing. Filtration units use 
various types of media as filter bed. The sand filtration systems are 
most commonly found in the industry.
    The final step in the treatment of meat and poultry processing 
wastewaters is disinfection with the objective of destroying remaining 
pathogenic microorganisms. Disinfection systems are found in the 
majority of the direct dischargers; very few (if any) indirect 
dischargers disinfect their wastewater because of additional treatment 
at the POTW accomplishes the pathogen destruction.

B. Wastewater Sources, Water Use, and Wastewater Characteristics

1. Meat Products Facilities
a. Wastewater Sources and Water Use
    Most steps in the slaughtering process generate pollutants that 
flow into wastewater. Animal urine and fecal matter, and hair, which 
accumulate in the animal holding pens are washed down into floor 
drains, and subsequently enter the wastewater stream. Significant 
amounts of blood are generated in the stunning and killing areas. 
Although it is usually saved for rendering purposes, some blood often 
enters wastewater. Blood, in addition to other meat and tissue waste 
and hide particles, is generated during cattle de-hiding. These 
particles also can contaminate water if they are not collected 
properly. Wastewater from both the scalding tub and the de-hairing 
machine can contain hair, soil, mineral oil and manure. BOD levels from 
these areas can be as high as 3,000 mg/L. Additional blood and tissue 
pieces can be produced during the evisceration process. Large amounts 
of wastewater typically come from washing carcasses. This water 
contains high levels of

[[Page 8601]]

grease, and small amounts of blood, tissue solids, and other fluids. As 
carcasses are cut into smaller pieces, small pieces of tissues and 
fluids can enter wastewater. At the end of each day, equipment is 
cleaned and sanitized. This washdown contains bone dust and other 
fluids such as blood and cleaning fluids (Docket No. W-01-06, Record 
No. 00132).
    Facility clean up and sanitation can contribute significantly to 
the overall volume and pollutant load for meat first and further 
processing facilities. The volume and pollutant load of this wastewater 
varies significantly from facility to facility, and is dependent on 
several factors including efficiency of processing facility, 
housekeeping practices, the extent to which dry cleaning processes are 
used, and the volume of water used in washing facility equipment. 
Improper use of water hoses, for example, could lead to unnecessary use 
of water and result in the production of excess wastewater.
    Industrial practices within the meat further processing industry 
sector are diverse and produce variable waste loads. Meat further 
processing facilities purchase animal carcasses, meat parts, and other 
materials and produce sausages, cooked meats, cured meats, smoked 
meats, canned meats, frozen and fresh meat cuts, natural sausage 
casings, and other prepared meats and meat specialties. None of these 
facilities engage in any slaughtering on the same premises as the 
processing activity.
    The product mix of these facilities includes many combinations of 
products. There are facilities that specialize in one or two types of 
processed meats products, such as hams, fresh sausages, canned meat 
products, or meat cuts, and facilities that produce a number of 
products up to the full line of processed meat products. Meat further 
processing operations include:
     Raw material storage, shipping, receiving, and thawing 
(wet, dry, chipping);
     Carcass/meat handling and preparation (breaking, trimming, 
cutting, boning, tempering, skinning, slicing);
     Seasoning, spicing, and sauce preparation;
     Weighing and batching;
     Grinding, mixing, emulsifying;
     Extruding, stuffing, molding, linking, casing peeling;
     Pickling, smoking, cooking;
     Can preparation, filling, covering, and retorting; and
     Cleanup operations.
    Many of these operations contribute to the raw waste load of a meat 
further processor. Wastewater from these operations generally contain 
meat, fat, and bone particles as well as soluble constituents such as 
salts, blood, and pickling, preserving, and preparation materials 
(e.g., sugar, sodium nitrite and nitrate, spices). Current MPP effluent 
guidelines divide the meat further processors into five separate 
industry groups: Small Processors (40 CFR part 432, subpart E); Meat 
Cutters (40 CFR part 432, subpart F); Sausage and Luncheon Meat 
Processors (40 CFR part 432, subpart G); Ham Processors (40 CFR part 
432, subpart H); and Meat Canners (40 CFR part 432, subpart I).
    Small processors, defined as operations producing up to 2730 
kilograms (6000 pounds) per day of any type or combination of meat 
product, are currently regulated under subpart E of 40 CFR part 432. 
They may produce a wide range of products but most of the these 
facilities prepare fresh meat cuts, sausage and wieners, and hams. The 
wastewater source for this subcategory is generally from cleanup and 
sanitation operations (approximately 50-90 percent of total wastewater 
flow). The scale of production and the typically limited finished 
product mix preclude the need for substantial quantities of water 
during the production day.
    Further processors that produce more than 6,000 pounds of meat cuts 
as finished products per day (i.e., non-small processors) are currently 
regulated under subpart F of 40 CFR part 432. These facilities require 
virtually no process water but do generate wastewaters during cleanup 
and sanitation operations. Facilities in this industry grouping 
generally break, trim, and cut the large meat parts into single-portion 
meat cuts. Very little equipment (other than saws, knives and work 
surfaces) comes in contact with the meat products. The relative 
simplicity of operation and equipment results in small quantities of 
process water and a small waste load in the cleanup water.
    Sausage and luncheon meat processors that produce more than 6,000 
pounds of finished product per day (i.e., non-small processors) are 
currently regulated under subpart G of 40 CFR part 432. These 
facilities have an extensive product mix and tend to require more 
intensive meat processing (e.g., seasoning, cuttings, molding, packing) 
than meat cutters. Wastewater sources include meat processing and 
cleanup operations.
    Ham processors that produce more than 6,000 pounds of finished 
product per day (i.e., non-small processors) are currently regulated 
under subpart H of 40 CFR part 432. These facilities produce hams and 
other ham-related products. The operations involved in ham production 
use more water than the typical meat processing operations; and because 
of the direct water-ham contact, the wastewater load is increased. Ham 
processors rely on pickling, preserving, and preparation materials 
(e.g., sugar, sodium nitrite and nitrate, spices) to cure and prepare 
the ham products. The production operations and cleanup in the rest of 
the ham processing facility is fairly comparable in both practice and 
resulting waste load to that of the sausage and luncheon meat 
processors.
    Meat canners that produce more than 6,000 pounds of finished 
product per day (i.e., non-small processors) are currently regulated 
under subpart I of 40 CFR part 432. These facilities generally require 
a number of processing steps such as size reduction, mixing and 
blending, and cooking. These operations require special equipment and 
generate more wastewater flows and pollutant loading than other meat 
further processors per pound of finished product. Meat canners also use 
pickling, preserving, and preparation materials (e.g., sugar, sodium 
nitrite and nitrate, spices) to cure and prepare the canned meat 
products.
b. Wastewater Characterization
    Organic materials are the primary sources of pollutants in meat 
first and further processing wastewater. These substances cause a 
reduction in oxygen levels as microorganisms consume oxygen for 
decomposition processes. For this reason these organic substances are 
evaluated by biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), which measures the amount 
of oxygen required by bacteria and other microorganisms to decompose 
the organic matter, and BOD5, which calculates the amount of 
oxygen used in the first five days of decomposition. Although levels 
vary between facilities, typical BOD5 values in the raw 
wastewater influent to be treated range from 1,600 mg/L to 3,000 mg/L 
(Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 00128). Primary sources of high 
BOD5 levels include blood, stomach contents, greases and 
fats, and pickling, preserving, and cooking materials.
    Bacteria are also present in meat first and further processing 
wastewater in quantities of between 2 to 4 million fecal coliform 
colony forming units per 100 mL based on the most probable number (MPN) 
technique for estimating microbial populations. There is also the 
potential for viruses and parasite eggs to be present in the water. The 
amounts and types of pollutants that slaughterhouses generate greatly 
depends upon the particular step

[[Page 8602]]

considered in the slaughter process. Tables VII.B-1 and VII.B-2 give 
characteristics of raw wastewaters at meat product facilities.
    Wastewater generated from meat further processors (e.g., meat 
cutters, sausage producers, ham processors, meat canners) are also 
dominated by organic materials originating from blood, meat, fatty 
tissue, and meat extracts. These organic materials also are sources of 
biochemical oxygen demand, nitrogen, and phosphorus. Other contaminants 
that can directly enter the wastewater from further processing 
facilities include salts, pickling, preserving, and preparation 
materials (e.g., sugar, sodium nitrite and nitrate, spices), 
lubricating oils, and cleaning compounds. Both slaughterhouses and 
further processors can generate significant quantities of oil and 
grease. Characteristics of first processing and further processing 
wastewaters are shown in Tables VII.B-1 and VII.B-2. Hog and cattle 
operations are presented separately to highlight differences in 
generation rates of pollutants of concern.

                                            Table VII.B-1.--Characteristics of Hog Processing Raw Wastewater
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Raw waste characteristics
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Meat operations                Daily flow                       Suspended                                                    Fecal coliform
                                                MGD         BOD5  mg/L     solids  mg/L    Grease  mg/L      TKN  mg/L       TP  mg/L        CFU/100 ml
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Processing and Rendering:
    Average.............................            1.95           2,220           3,314             674             229              73           1.6E6
    Range, low-high.....................       0.43-4.21     2,014-2,462     2,896-3,732         406-941              NA           67-78              NA
Further Processing:
    Average.............................            0.30           1,492             363             162              24              82         1.38E6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Source: Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 00176


                                           Table VII.B-2.--Characteristics of Cattle Processing Raw Wastewater
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Raw waste characteristics
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Meat operations                Daily flow                       Suspended                                                    Fecal coliform
                                                MGD         BOD5  mg/L     solids  mg/L    Grease  mg/L      TKN  mg/L       TP  mg/L        CFU/100 ml
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Processing and Rendering and Hide
 Processing:
    Average.............................            1.60           5,771           1,998           1,262             150              41           1.2E6
Range, low-high.........................       0.74-2.18     3,673-7,237     1,153-3,332       146-3,021          67-306           30-58    7.3E5-1.6E6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Source: Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 00177

2. Poultry Facilities
a. Wastewater Sources and Water Use
    As with the meat processing sector, poultry first and further 
processing facilities are significant consumers of water and generators 
of wastewaters. Poultry first processing (slaughtering) wastewaters are 
generated at each stage of the process, beginning with waste generated 
at the bird reception area from crate cleaning and ending with wastes 
generated from equipment cleaning during the grading and packing stage. 
The poultry first processing wastewaters generated at each stage of 
poultry first processing differ in volume and pollutant loads.
    The principal sources of wastes in poultry processing are from live 
bird holding (reception area) and receiving, killing, defeathering, 
eviscerating, carcass washing, chilling, cut-up, and cleanup 
operations. When present, further processing and rendering operations 
also are significant sources of wastes. These wastes include blood not 
collected, feathers, viscera, soft tissue removed during trimming and 
cutting, bone, urine and feces, soil from feathers, and a variety of 
cleaning and sanitizing compounds. Further processing and rendering can 
be additional sources of fat and other soft tissue as well as 
substances such as cooking oils.
    The poultry first processing volume and pollutant load from the 
reception area depends on several factors including bird throughput and 
extent of dry cleaning employed to sanitize transport vehicles, crates, 
and unloading areas. Minimizing the wait period prior to slaughter 
reduces manure production and ultimately the volume of water needed to 
clean the crates and unloading areas.
    The first processing (slaughtering) of poultry generates blood, 
grease, and cleaning water. Similar to meat facilities, the blood is 
collected and removed for processing as a by-product for use in feed or 
fertilizer.
    Scalding is performed to loosen the feathers from the slaughtered 
birds. Scalding also results in the removal of some suspended solids, 
blood, and grit. The pollutant load generated from this step is 
dependent on the cleanliness of the birds, the effectiveness of blood 
recovery, the type of scalding process, and the quantity of water used. 
The scalded birds are then defeathered by plucking machines. The 
feathers, typically collected on screens, contain soil particles, grit, 
and some blood. Feathers, like blood, are treated as a valuable by-
product and are cooked, and grounded to form a high protein meal.
    The evisceration process involves the removal of both edible offal 
(e.g., heart, gizzard, and liver) and inedible offal (head, guts) 
either by a vacuum conveyor or by a water mediated transport (flow-
away) system in larger facilities, or by hand (edible offal such as 
feet which are captured for Asian markets) and flow-away (inedible 
offal) in small facilities. Screens are used in the flow away system to 
separate out solids. After evisceration, the carcasses are usually 
washed to remove any remaining blood and extraneous tissue. Viscera are 
captured for inedible

[[Page 8603]]

rendering. Evisceration is estimated to contribute about a third of the 
total pollutant load (Docket No. W-01-06, Record Nos. 00133-00137).
    In a wet chilling process, carcasses are immersed in cold water or 
unstatic slush ice to retard bacterial growth and thus spoiling of the 
meat. The primary pollutants generated in this process are organic 
matter, body fluids, and fats and grease. Pollutant loads are 
relatively small and the wastewater can be reused in the chilling 
process or in other poultry processing operations (e.g., scalding tank) 
after treatment. USDA FSIS regulations govern water re-use practices 
from a food safety perspective. USDA FSIS provides an online 
``Sanitation Performance Standards Compliance Guide'' as suggested 
means or examples by which water can be safely re-used in various 
applications, meeting all regulatory requirements (Docket No. W-01-06, 
Record No. 10029). These USDA FSIS sanitation guidelines are not 
regulatory but are intended for didactic purposes only.
    Clean up and sanitation can contribute significantly to the overall 
volume and pollutant load of a poultry first processing facility. The 
volume and pollutant load of this wastewater varies significantly from 
facility to facility, and is dependent on several factors including, 
efficiency of the processing facility, housekeeping practices, the 
extent to which dry cleaning processes are used, and the volume of 
water used in washing facility equipment. Improper use of water hoses, 
for example, could lead to unnecessary use of water and the resulting 
production of excess wastewater.
    The main poultry further processing operations contribute in 
varying degrees to the raw waste load and flow. These poultry further 
processing operations include:
     Receiving, storage, thawing;
     Cutting, deboning, dicing, grinding, and chopping;
     Cooking, batter, breading; mixing and blending; and
     Stuffing and canning.
    Poultry further processors do no slaughtering but instead produce 
finished poultry products. Many of the operations performed in poultry 
further processing facilities are similar to those of meat further 
processing operations; therefore, sources of wastewater are similar for 
both meat and poultry further processors. Cooking is involved in almost 
all poultry further processing operations. These poultry processing 
operations remove specific parts of the birds, such as wings and legs, 
and then remove the remaining meat from the skeletal structure of the 
birds. Cooking may precede or follow this cutting operation. The meat 
is used in large pieces or reduced in size by using special equipment. 
Various ingredients are mixed with the poultry meat and the numerous 
types of finished products are formed, cooked, breaded, packaged, and 
usually frozen. The relative quantities of water and waste load are 
substantially less in these further processing facilities than in 
poultry first processing (slaughtering) facilities.
b. Wastewater Characterization
    The principal constituents of poultry processing wastewaters are a 
variety of readily biodegradable organic compounds, primarily fats and 
proteins, present in both particulate and dissolved forms. To reduce 
wastewater treatment requirements, poultry processing wastewaters also 
are screened to reduce concentrations of particulate matter before 
treatment. An added benefit of this practice again is increased 
production of rendered by-products. Because feathers are not rendered 
with soft tissue, wastewater-containing feathers is not commingled with 
other wastewater; instead, it is screened separately and then combined 
with wastewater screened to recover soft tissue before treatment.
    Poultry processing wastewaters remain high strength wastes even 
after screening in comparison to domestic wastewaters based on 
concentrations of BOD, COD, TSS, nitrogen, and phosphorus. Blood not 
collected, solubilized fat, and urine and feces are the principal 
sources of BOD in poultry processing wastewaters. As with meat 
processing wastewaters, the efficacy of blood collection is a 
significant factor in determining BOD concentration in poultry 
processing wastewaters.
    Another significant factor in determining the BOD5 of 
poultry processing wastewaters is the degree that manure (urine and 
feces), especially from receiving areas, is handled separately as a 
solid waste. Chicken and turkey manures have BOD5 in excess 
of 40,000 mg/kg on an as excreted basis (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 
00160). Although the cages and trucks used to transport broilers to 
processing facilities usually are not washed, cages and trucks used to 
transport live turkeys to processing facilities are washed to prevent 
disease transmission from farm to farm. Thus, manure probably is a more 
significant source of wastewater BOD for turkey processing operations 
than for broiler processing operations.
    Primarily because of immersion chilling, fat is a more significant 
source of BOD in poultry processing in comparison to meat processing 
wastewaters. Additional sources of BOD in poultry processing 
wastewaters are the feather and skin oils desorbed during scalding for 
feather removal. Thus, the oil and grease content of poultry processing 
wastewaters typically is higher than that in meat processing 
wastewaters.
    Blood not collected as well as urine and feces also are significant 
sources of nitrogen in poultry processing wastewaters. The principal 
form of nitrogen in these wastewaters before treatment is organic 
nitrogen with some ammonia nitrogen produced by the microbially 
mediated mineralization of organic nitrogen during collection. Nitrite 
and nitrate nitrogen generally are present only in trace 
concentrations, less than 1 mg/L. The phosphorus in poultry processing 
wastewaters also is primarily from blood, manure, and cleaning and 
sanitizing compounds.
    Due to the presence of manure in poultry processing wastewaters, 
densities of the total and fecal coliform and fecal streptococcus 
groups of bacteria generally are on the order of several million colony 
forming units per 100 mL. Members of these groups of microorganisms 
generally are not pathogenic; but they do indicate the possible 
presence of pathogens of enteric origin such as Salmonella ssp. and 
Campylobacter jejuni, gastrointestinal parasites, and pathogenic 
enteric viruses. Giardia lamblia, and Cryptosporidium parvum are not of 
concern in poultry processing wastewaters.
    Poultry processing wastewaters also contain a variety of mineral 
elements, some of which are present in the potable water used. Water 
supply systems and mechanical equipment may be significant sources of 
metals including copper, chromium, molybdenum, nickel, titanium, and 
vanadium. In addition, manure is a significant source of arsenic and 
zinc. Although pesticides also are commonly used in the production of 
poultry to control external parasites, mandated withdrawal periods 
before slaughter typically should limit concentrations in wastewater to 
non-detectable or trace levels. Table VII.B-3 gives characteristics of 
poultry processing raw wastewaters.

[[Page 8604]]



                                          Table VII.B-3.--Characteristics of Poultry Processing Raw Wastewater
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Raw waste characteristics
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Poultry meat operations            Daily flow                       Suspended                                                    Fecal coliform
                                                MGD         BOD5  mg/L     solids  mg/L    Grease  mg/L      TKN  mg/L       TP  mg/L        CFU/100 ml
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Processing:
    Average.............................            0.89           1,662             760             665              54              12           9.8E5
    Range, low-high.....................       0.60-1.10       948-2,166       510-1,040       243-1,501          14-102            6-17    2.6E5--1.6E6
Further Processing and Rendering:
    Average.............................            1.10           3,293           1,657             793              80              72          8.6E5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 00161.

3. Independent Rendering Facilities
a. Wastewater Sources and Water Use
    Rendering operations are intensive users of water and significant 
generators of wastewater. Water is used throughout the rendering 
process, for raw material sterilization, condensing cooking vapors, 
facility cleanup, truck and barrel washing, odor control and boiler 
makeup (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 00141). Most of these activities 
also generate wastewater. Rendering facilities produce approximately 
one-half ton (120 gallons) of water for each ton of rendered material 
(Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 00122). Variations in wastewater flow 
per unit of raw material processed are largely attributable to the type 
of condensers used for condensing the cooking vapors and, to a lesser 
extent, to the initial moisture content of the raw material.
    The National Rendering Association (NRA) collected data from its 
membership to provide a general characterization of rendering 
wastewaters. Results from an NRA survey of its members indicates that 
the average rendering facility (in terms of production) generates about 
215,000 gallons/day of process wastewater and an average of 34,000 
gallons/day from other sources (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 00122). 
The NRA estimates that the average sized facility discharges about 
243,300 gallons/day or 169 gallons per minute (Docket No. W-01-06, 
Record No. 00122).
    Condensates resulting from cooking and drying are the largest 
contributors to the total wastewater in terms of volume and pollutant 
load (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 00127). At those rendering 
facilities where hide curing is also performed as an ancillary 
operation, additional wastewater flow is generated. Wastewaters from 
these operations are high in pollutant concentrations, but relatively 
low in volume, particularly when the curing solution is only dumped a 
few times each year (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 00141).
    Water scrubbers commonly are used to control emissions of noxious 
odors from the condensation of evaporated moisture produced during 
cooking and drying. These scrubbers can contribute up to 75 percent of 
the volume of wastewater discharged from these cooking and drying 
operations (Docket W-01-06, Record No. 00141). Condensates recovered 
from cooking and drying processes contain high concentrations of 
volatile organic acids, amines, and mercaptans, and other malodorous 
compounds. Thus, rendering facility condensers can be sources of 
significant emissions of noxious odors to the atmosphere without water 
scrubbing for emission control. Recycled final effluent is used for the 
scrubber operation; therefore, little increase in final effluent volume 
is produced by the scrubber operation.
    Liquid drainage from raw material receiving areas can contribute 
significantly to the total raw waste load (Docket W-01-06, Record No. 
00141). Large amounts of raw materials commonly accumulate in receiving 
areas (in bins or on floors). Fluids from these raw materials drain off 
and enter the internal facility sewers (Docket W-01-06, Record No. 
00141). At rendering facilities that process poultry, drainage of 
liquids can be significant because of the use of fluming to transport 
feathers and viscera in the processing facility. In such facilities, 
liquid drainage may account for approximately 20 percent of the 
original raw material weight.
    The other important source of wastewater from rendering operations 
is water used for cleaning equipment and interior building surfaces, 
the cleanup of spills, and trucks when materials are received from off-
site locations for rendering. Cleanup of rendering equipment and 
facilities is less intensive than for processing facilities and usually 
occurs only once per day, even though rendering usually is a 24-hour 
operation and commonly occurs on a seven day per week schedule. The 
wastewater generated during cleanup operations usually accounts for 
about 30 percent of total rendering facility wastewater flow (Docket W-
01-06, Record No. 00141).
b. Wastewater Characterization
    Although a rendering facility's wastewater pollutant concentration 
can vary with the quantity and state of the animal material delivered 
to the facility (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 00126), the wastewater 
constituents are generally the same for all facilities (Docket No. W-
01-06, Record No. 00141). For example, a 1975 EPA survey found that the 
average and range of BOD5 wastewater values for facilities 
processing greater than 50 percent poultry by-products could not be 
differentiated from those facilities processing less than 50 percent 
poultry by-products or from those for the total industry. Additionally, 
the study found that facility size did not have an effect on the levels 
of pollutants in the waste stream. Facility practices are the 
determining factor for raw wasteload (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 
00141). During the summer, if raw materials are received by the 
rendering operation in an advanced state of decay, ammonium levels in 
the effluents could increase.
    In a typical rendering facility the raw materials that are 
processed include body fluids (including blood), fat, manure, hide 
curing solutions, tallow and grease, and animal tissue (including meal 
products such as meat, meat and bone, blood, feathers, hair and poultry 
meal) (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 00126; Record No. 00141). All of 
these products can enter the wastewater, and as a result, the 
wastewater typically contains organic materials such as protein 
(soluble and insoluble), grease, suspended solids, which are sources of 
biochemical oxygen demand, nitrogenous compounds, phosphorus, salts.

[[Page 8605]]

    As mentioned above, wastewater is generated at each step of the 
rendering process. Condensates formed during the cooking/drying process 
are extremely polluted and contain high concentrations of volatile 
organic acids, amines, mercaptans, and other noxious compounds. Most of 
the organic compounds detected in rendering wastewater are volatile 
fatty acids (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 00127).
    Washdown in inedible rendering facilities is less intensive than in 
meat and poultry processing facilities because the same degree of 
sanitation is not required (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 00141). 
Washdown, the process of cleaning the areas for receiving, grinding and 
cooking of raw materials and product separation with water, usually 
occurs at the end of a day's operation when rendering has been 
completed. The volume of water used for cleanup can be a significant 
portion of the flow per unit of raw material processed; usually, clean 
up water accounts for 30 percent of the total wastewater flow (Docket 
No. W-01-06, Record No. 00141). Other areas are typically dry cleaned. 
Washdown can also follow an accidental spill, further contributing to 
the wastewater load.
    Each step in the rendering process contributes to the overall 
pollutant load and volume of wastewater. The relative contributions of 
each step in the process can be seen in Table VII.B-4. The table 
presents the pollutant concentrations found in samples collected from a 
continuous dry rendering facility in Columbus, Ohio (Docket No. W-01-
06, Record No. 00126). Samples from cooker condensate, raw blood, and 
washdown water were analyzed. The cooker condensate was mostly composed 
of condensed volatile fats and oils with some ammonia. The washdown 
water was facility clean-up water mixed with drainage from the raw 
product storage hopper (the relative proportions were not measured). 
Although the blood accounted for only a small percentage of the total 
volume of wastewater, it was very high in chemical oxygen demand (COD).

                   Table VII.B-4.--Pollutant Loadings for a Dry Continuous Rendering Facility
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Cooker       Wash-up water
                            Parameter                              Raw blood \1\  condensate 1,2    \3\  (mg/l)
                                                                      (mg/l)           (mg/l)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total COD.......................................................         150,000     2,400-6,000           7,600
Soluble COD.....................................................         136,000     2,400-6,000           3,200
Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN-N).......................................          16,500         430-740             270
Crude Protein (Org-N*6.25)......................................          81,250               0           1,440
Ammonia Nitrogen................................................           3,500         430-740              40
COD: TKN........................................................             9.1         5.6-8.1            28.1
Total Phosphorus (P)............................................             183               4            15.1
COD:P...........................................................             820           >1500             503
Freon Extractables (Fats, Oils, and Grease).....................             620         110-260              35
Potassium.......................................................             798               6            20.9
Calcium.........................................................              55               1            26.4
Magnesium.......................................................              27               1             7.3
Iron............................................................             164               2             9.4
Sodium..........................................................             818             0.1            37.1
Copper..........................................................             0.7             0.2             0.1
Zinc............................................................             1.3            0.15            0.46
Manganese.......................................................            0.05            0.05            0.01
Lead............................................................             0.6               3             1.3
Chromium........................................................             0.3             0.2            0.12
Cadmium.........................................................            0.05            0.01            0.04
Nickel..........................................................             0.2               1             0.4
Cobalt..........................................................            0.02            0.01            0.04
Sulfate (SO4-S).................................................             300               2             4.6
Total Chloride..................................................            1700               2             86
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 00126.
Note 1: Each point is the mean of three samples analyzed in duplicate.
Note 2: Two batches of influent were used in the research. A range in concentration levels is shown for some
  cooker condensate parameters because of variability in strength between winter and summer batches. Cold
  ambient temperatures around the forced air condensers affected the COD strength of the cooker condensate. The
  COD strength of the blood and wash-up water was similar for both batches, so only one concentration level is
  presented.
Note 3: ``  '' and `` > '' symbols both indicate the limits of the analyses were exceeded.

    The National Rendering Association (NRA) collected data from its 
membership to provide a general characterization of rendering 
wastewaters. Table VII.B-5 presents the results of this survey. The 
data represent only wastewater generated and final effluent loadings, 
and do not identify specific sources of generated wastewater. The final 
effluent data represent pollutant loads after treatment has been 
applied. The NRA did not collect data on nutrients or metals. Fecal 
coliform bacteria were detected at bacterial counts of 250,000,000 
colony forming units per milliliter for generated wastewaters and 
45,000 colony forming units per milliliter for discharged wastewaters.

[[Page 8606]]



  Table VII.B-5.--Wastewater Characterization of ``Typical'' NRA Member
                             Render Facility
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Generated      Discharged
                                            wastewater      wastewater
                Parameter                  concentration   concentration
                                              (mg/L)          (mg/L)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)............         123,000           8,000
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD).........          80,000           5,100
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)............           8,400             268
Fats, Oils, and Greases (FOG)...........           3,200             116
Metals (Average Zinc)...................              NA           0.68
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NRA, 2000.

C. Pollutants of Concern

    EPA determined pollutants of concern for the meat and poultry 
products industry by assessing EPA sampling data. To establish the 
pollutant of concern, EPA reviewed the analytical data from influent 
wastewater samples to determine the pollutants which were detected at 
treatable levels. EPA set treatable levels at five times the baseline 
value to ensure that pollutants detected at only trace amounts would 
not be selected. EPA obtained the pollutants of concern by establishing 
which parameters were detected at treatable levels in at least 10 
percent of all the influent wastewater samples. Tables VII.C-1 and 
VII.C-2 show the result of this analysis. EPA did not sample at 
independent rendering facilities but instead transferred data from on-
site rendering facilities. Consequently, EPA is using all the 
pollutants of concern from Tables VII.C-1 and VII.C-2 for independent 
rendering facilities. EPA is planning further sampling at independent 
rendering facilities after proposal to better refine the list of 
pollutants of concern list for independent renderers.

                      Table VII.C-1.--Pollutants of Concern for Meat Processing Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Number of
               Pollutant group                          Pollutant            CAS No.       times      Number of
                                                                                          analyzed     detects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Classicals or Biologicals....................  Aeromonas.................        C2101           36           36
                                               Ammonia as Nitrogen.......      7664417           46           46
                                               Biochemical Oxygen Demand.         C003           46           45
                                               BOD 5-day (Carbonaceous)..         C002           46           46
                                               Chemical Oxygen Demand             C004           46           46
                                                (COD).
                                               Chloride..................     16887006           46           46
                                               Cryptosporidium...........    137259508            6            6
                                               Dissolved Biochemical             C003D           46           41
                                                Oxygen Demand.
                                               Dissolved Phosphorus......    14265442D           46           46
                                               E. Coli...................         C050           36           36
                                               Fecal Coliform............        C2106           46           46
                                               Fecal Streptococcus.......        C2107           46           46
                                               Hexane Extractable                 C036           46           46
                                                Material.
                                               Nitrate/Nitrite...........         C005           46           33
                                               Total Coliform............       E10606           46           46
                                               Total Dissolved Solids....         C010           46           46
                                               Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen...         C021           36           36
                                               Total Organic Carbon (TOC)         C012           46           46
                                               Total Orthophosphate......         C034           46           45
                                               Total Phosphorus..........     14265442           46           46
                                               Total Suspended Solids....         C009           46           46
                                               Volatile Residue..........         C030           46           46
Metals.......................................  Chromium..................      7440473           46           46
                                               Copper....................      7440508           46           46
                                               Manganese.................      7439965           46           46
                                               Titanium..................      7440326           46           46
                                               Zinc......................      7440666           46           46
Pesticides...................................  Carbaryl..................        63252           12            5
                                               Cis-permethrin............     61949766           12            6
                                               Trans-permethrin..........     61949777           12            7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                     Table VII.C-2.--Pollutants of Concern for Poultry Processing Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Number of
               Pollutant group                          Pollutant            CAS No.       times      Number of
                                                                                          analyzed     detects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Classicals or Biologicals....................  Aeromonas.................        C2101           17           17
                                               Ammonia as Nitrogen.......      7664417           48           47
                                               Biochemical Oxygen Demand.         C003           48           48
                                               BOD 5-day (Carbonaceous)..         C002           48           48
                                               Chemical Oxygen Demand             C004           48           48
                                                (COD).

[[Page 8607]]

 
                                               Chloride..................     16887006           48           48
                                               Dissolved Biochemical             C003D           48           47
                                                Oxygen Demand.
                                               Dissolved Phosphorus......    14265442D           48           48
                                               E. Coli...................         C050           17           17
                                               Fecal Coliform............        C2106           23           23
                                               Fecal Streptococcus.......        C2107           23           23
                                               Hexane Extractable                 C036           48           48
                                                Material.
                                               Nitrate/Nitrite...........         C005           48           28
                                               Salmonella................     68583357           17            3
                                               Total Coliform............       E10606           23           23
                                               Total Dissolved Solids....         C010           48           48
                                               Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen...         C021           47           47
                                               Total Organic Carbon (TOC)         C012           48           46
                                               Total Orthophosphate......         C034           48           44
                                               Total Phosphorus..........     14265442           48           48
                                               Total Residual Chlorine...      7782505           48           14
                                               Total Suspended Solids....         C009           48           48
                                               Volatile Residue..........         C030           48           48
Metals.......................................  Copper....................      7440508           48           48
                                               Manganese.................      7439965           48           47
                                               Zinc......................      7440666           48           48
Pesticides...................................  Carbaryl..................        63252           21           12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Approach to Estimating Compliance Costs

1. Overview
    This section describes EPA's methodology for estimating engineering 
compliance costs and pollutant loading reductions associated with the 
regulatory options proposed for the meat and poultry products industry. 
Costs and pollutant loading reductions were estimated for each class of 
MPP facilities, including meat, poultry, and meat and poultry (mixed) 
facilities. A description of each of the technology options is provided 
below and the rationale for selecting the proposed BAT and NSPS options 
are provided in Section XI. Detailed information on estimated 
compliance costs are provided in the MPP Development Document (see 
Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 00168).
2. Methods for Estimating Compliance Costs
a. Overview
    This section presents EPA's estimates of industry-wide compliance 
costs associated with the proposed rule. EPA separated MPP facilities 
into groups based on the type of meat and poultry processed (e.g., 
meat, poultry, or both meat and poultry). To ensure all facilities are 
accounted for, and variation in raw wastewater characteristics are 
considered, EPA classified all meat and poultry processing operations 
as either first processing (e.g., slaughtering, carcass preparation and 
quartering), further processing (e.g., deboning, cooking, sausage 
making), or rendering (wet or dry) and all possible combinations of 
these processes. These classifications produced 19 groupings. Table 
VII.D-1 details the 19 different groupings. Finally, EPA divided each 
of the 19 groupings into four size classes (small, medium, large, and 
very large) based on annual total production. These groupings allow EPA 
to consider variations in: (1) Raw wastewater characteristics as 
determined by meat type and processes performed; and (2) size, which 
can determine wastewater volumes generated and thus the size of 
required treatment technology. EPA used these MPP operations, meat or 
poultry product types, and size classifications to develop 76 model 
facilities (= 19 groupings x 4 size classes) in order to describe the 
broad range of potential MPP facilities in current operation.

                          Table VII.D-1.--Definition of 19 MPP Model Facility Groupings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Processes performed
                                                    Model facility     -----------------------------------------
       Number               Product type             grouping code          First        Further
                                                                         processing    processing     Rendering
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................  Meat....................  R1                                X   ............  ............
2...................  Meat....................  R2                      ............            X   ............
3...................  Meat....................  R12                               X             X   ............
4...................  Meat....................  R13                               X   ............            X
5...................  Meat....................  R23                     ............            X             X
6...................  Meat....................  R123                              X             X             X
7...................  Poultry.................  P1                                X   ............  ............
8...................  Poultry.................  P2                      ............            X   ............
9...................  Poultry.................  P12                               X             X   ............
10..................  Poultry.................  P13                               X   ............            X
11..................  Poultry.................  P23                     ............            X             X
12..................  Poultry.................  P123                              X             X             X
13..................  Mixed (Meat & Poultry)..  M1                                X   ............  ............

[[Page 8608]]

 
14..................  Mixed (Meat & Poultry)..  M2                      ............            X   ............
15..................  Mixed (Meat & Poultry)..  M12                               X             X   ............
16..................  Mixed (Meat & Poultry)..  M13                               X   ............            X
17..................  Mixed (Meat & Poultry)..  M23                     ............            X             X
18..................  Mixed (Meat & Poultry)..  M123                              X             X             X
19..................  Meat and/or Poultry.....  Render                  ............  ............            X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA developed characteristics for each model facility based on the 
MPP Screener Survey, the MPP Detailed Survey, and EPA's sampling data. 
EPA used Computer Assisted Procedure For Design And Evaluation Of 
Wastewater Treatment Systems (CAPDET), a computerized cost model, for 
developing construction cost and annual costs of a treatment unit 
(Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 00129). The capital cost of a treatment 
unit was calculated using the construction costs obtained from CAPDET.
    The step-by-step method for calculating the incremental cost for 
each regulatory option is summarized below:
     Use the MPP Screener Survey data to establish production 
levels for each of the 76 model facilities;
     Use the MPP Screener Survey data to identify the median 
wastewater flow (model facility flow) and to estimate the number of MPP 
facilities nationally represented by each of the 76 model facilities;
     Use the MPP Detailed Survey data to determine frequency of 
occurrence for treatment units in each of the 76 model facilities;
     Develop construction costs and annual costs of treatment 
units from CAPDET using model facility wastewater flows and typical 
influent and effluent pollutant concentrations;
     Estimate capital costs of treatment units from 
construction costs;
     Estimate capital and annual costs for each regulatory 
option of the 76 model facilities using capital and annual costs of 
treatment units, frequency of occurrence, and national estimate of MPP 
facilities for each of the 76 model facilities; and
     Estimate the regulatory cost for each subcategory based on 
the model facility costs.
    The Agency has developed a regulatory subcategorization scheme for 
the proposed rule, based on various combinations of the 76 model 
facility costs. Table VII.D-2 defines the 10 regulatory groupings based 
on facility type and size. See section 11 of the MPP Development 
Document for more details on how EPA developed size classifications for 
each of the 19 groupings.

                                                                    Table VII.D-2.--Definition of 10 MPP Regulatory Groupings
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         40 CFR  subcategory                            Facility size                                       Facility type                              Model facility grouping code \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A, B, C, D..........................  Medium, large, very large........................  Meat first.........................................  R1, R12, R13, R123.
                                      Small............................................  Meat first processors..............................  R1, R12, R13, R123.
F, G, H, I..........................  Medium, large, very large........................  Meat further processors............................  R2, R23, 0.61 *M2.
                                      Small \2\........................................  Meat further processors............................  R2, R23, 0.59*M2, 0.5*M23.
J...................................  Medium, large, very large........................  Independent Renderers..............................  Render.
                                      Small............................................  Independent Renderers..............................  Render.
K...................................  Medium, large, very large........................  Poultry first processors...........................  P1, P12, P13, P123.
                                      Small............................................  Poultry further processors.........................  P1, P12, P13, P123.
L...................................  Medium, large, very large........................  Poultry further processors.........................  P2, P23, 0.39*M2.
                                      Small............................................  Poultry further processors.........................  P2, P23, 0.41*M2, 0.5*M23.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Note 1: The following abbreviations apply: R = Meat facilities; P = Poultry facilities; M = Facilities producing both meat and poultry products; 1 = First Processors; 2 = Further Processors;
  and 3 = Meat or Poultry facilities performing on-site rendering.
 Note 2: This group of small meat further processors includes all meat facilities that annually produce less than 50 million pounds of finished product and also includes all facilities
  currently covered under Subpart E (Small Processors) (see Section III.A.1).

    The MPP Screener Survey only identified medium sized facilities 
performing further processing on both meat and poultry (Model Facility 
Grouping Code = M2 and M23) and small facilities performing further 
processing, and further processing and rendering on both meat and 
poultry (Model Facility Grouping Code = M23). EPA allocated the costs 
for facilities that produce both meat and poultry products into the 
meat further processors regulatory grouping (40 CFR part 432, 
Subcategory E through I) and poultry further processors regulatory 
grouping (40 CFR part 432, Subcategory L) based on total annual 
production. EPA allocated the costs equally between the two groupings 
if production data were not available.
b. Available Technologies
    Although EPA is proposing limitations and standards based on the 
performance of specific processes and treatment technologies in 
reducing pollutant loadings, the Agency is not proposing to require a 
discharger to use those processes or technologies in treating the 
wastewater. Rather, the processes and technologies that would be used 
to treat meat and poultry processing wastewater are left to the 
discretion of individual facilities; the proposed rule requires only 
the numerical discharge limits be achieved. In establishing these 
limits, however, EPA evaluated a range of technology options that a 
facility could implement to achieve the proposed limitations and 
standards. The technology options evaluated for existing direct 
dischargers

[[Page 8609]]

(BPT/BCT/BAT) and Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) 
were selected based on an analysis of treatment units in-place 
according to the data supplied in the detailed surveys. A summary of 
these technology options are shown in the Table VII.D-3.

                        Table VII.D-3.--BPT/BCT/BAT/PSES Technology Options Considered for the Meat and Poultry Processing Industry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Technology options \1\
                        Treatment units                        -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    1         2         3         4         5      PSES  1   PSES  2   PSES  3   PSES  4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Screen........................................................        X         X         X         X         X         X         X         X         X
Dissolved air floatation (DAF)................................        X         X         X         X         X         X         X         X         X
Equalization tank.............................................                                                          X         X         X         X
Anaerobic lagoon..............................................        X         X         X         X         X
Biological treatment with nitrification.......................    X \1\         X         X         X         X                   X         X         X
Biological treatment with nitrification and denitrification...                            X         X         X                             X         X
Biological treatment with nitrification and denitrification                                         X         X                                       X
 and phosphorous removal......................................
Filter........................................................                                                X
Disinfection..................................................        X         X         X         X         X
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
X: treatment unit is required for that option.
\1\ Nitrification is limited for Option 1.
Note 1: EPA only considered Option5 for poultry facilities.

c. Treatment-in-Place Frequency of Occurrence
    The frequency of occurrence for specific treatment units was an 
important factor in EPA's cost estimates. To evaluate treatment-in-
place, EPA categorized MPP Detailed Survey responses into two size 
groups: small and non-small (medium, large, very large). Data provided 
in the MPP Detailed Survey were not sufficiently detailed to allow 
further subdividing the non-small grouping into individual groupings 
for medium, large, and very large facilities. EPA also considered 
frequency of treatment units by discharge status (direct or indirect).
    The Agency evaluated the wastewater treatment systems of all the 
facilities currently in the MPP Detailed Survey database. To determine 
the wastewater treatment upgrades necessary for the facilities to be in 
compliance with each regulatory option, the Agency compared the 
existing treatment system of the facility to the list of treatment 
units for each regulatory option (Table VII.D-3). EPA determined the 
treatment unit frequency of occurrence for each of the 76 model 
facilities. Treatment unit frequency of occurrence is defined as the 
ratio of the number of facilities that have the treatment unit in place 
(or other treatment units that can perform the same function) to the 
total number of facilities in that subcategory. The frequency of 
occurrence distribution across medium, large, and very large facilities 
was assumed to be identical. Facilities that do not have the treatment 
unit require upgrading costs to achieve the performance of the proposed 
technology options.
d. CAPDET Computer Model
    The Computer Assisted Procedure For Design And Evaluation Of 
Wastewater Treatment Systems (CAPDET) computer model requires design 
specifications and pollutant wastewater concentrations as its input. 
Data collected through survey responses, site visits, sampling 
episodes, and literature were used to run the CAPDET model. The input 
wastewater flow for a particular subcategory was taken equal to the 
model flow of that subcategory. Although default influent concentration 
values are provided in CAPDET, EPA used sampling and survey data from 
MPP facilities to extent available for purposes of running the cost 
model. The influent concentrations for a particular subcategory were 
determined through the use of EPA sampling data. In general, data from 
sampling locations that represent influent concentrations of the 
wastewater treatment system for each regulatory option were selected. 
When data from multiple facilities were identified for a regulatory 
option, an average of the concentrations was derived. EPA excluded a 
limited amount of sampling and survey data that were considered 
outliers based on engineering judgement. If data were not available, 
EPA derived data from similar operating facilities having similar 
wastewater characteristics. Default values provided in CAPDET were used 
for several parameters for which no sampling value was available (e.g., 
percent volatile solids, cations, anions, non-degradable fraction of 
VSS). Soluble COD and settleable solids concentrations were derived 
based on literature. Desired effluent concentrations for a particular 
subcategory for each option were determined from EPA sampling episodes 
and from detailed survey responses. EPA selected data from best 
performing red meat, poultry, rendering, and mixed facilities for each 
option based on effluent concentrations and the treatment scheme the 
facilities had in-place. If data were not available, EPA derived data 
from similar operating facilities having similar wastewater 
characteristics. Remaining design specifications were determined from 
literature, survey responses, site visits, and sampling episodes.
e. Cost Components
    Capital cost, annual cost, performance cost, and retrofit costs are 
the four major components of costs used for estimating the incremental 
industry-wide cost for the proposed regulation.
    The construction costs of treatment units for each subcategory were 
obtained as an output from CAPDET model runs. Based on the cost 
information obtained from the costing document for centralized waste 
treatment industry (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 00138), the direct 
(excluding construction cost) and indirect costs were estimated to be 
69 percent of the construction cost of the treatment units. The break 
up of the direct and indirect costs are provided in Table VII.D-4. The 
capital cost for a treatment unit was obtained by using the following 
equation:
    Capital Cost of a treatment unit = 1.69  x  Construction cost of 
the treatment unit

[[Page 8610]]



       Table VII.D-4.--Cost Factors Used to Estimate Capital Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Cost  factor
                                                                (% of
              Cost item                     Cost type       construction
                                                                cost)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction cost...................  Direct..............        100
Piping..............................  Direct..............         17
Instrumentation and controls........  Direct..............         13
Engineering.........................  Indirect............         19.5
Contingency.........................  Indirect............         19.5
                                     -----------------------------------
  Total capital cost................  ....................        169
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The annual (operations and maintenance) costs of the treatment 
units for each subcategory were obtained from the CAPDET model. The 
incremental annual costs were associated with the following cost items:
     Labor (operation, maintenance, laboratory, administrative 
and general),
     Maintenance (materials and vendors),
     Chemical Costs,
     Energy Costs, and
     Sludge disposal costs.
f. Incremental Costs Calculation
    EPA estimated the incremental cost for each regulatory option by 
comparing the existing treatment system of the facility identified in 
the MPP Detailed Survey with that of the proposed regulatory option 
(see Table VII.D-3) and costed for the additional treatment units 
needed to meet the regulatory option. Therefore, a facility identified 
by the MPP Detailed Survey that has a treatment train similar to a 
regulatory treatment option does not accrue any additional cost for 
that regulatory option. It is expected that the facilities with a 
technology-in-place (TIP) comparable to an option should be able to 
meet the proposed effluent limits of that option. However, in reality, 
some of these facilities with TIP may not be able to meet the proposed 
effluent limits because of inadequate operational practices compared to 
the proposed treatment unit. Therefore, to calculate the cost of 
improving performance, the Agency assumed a 10 percent increase in the 
annual costs of all the facilities with TIP as performance cost.
    Since many of the existing treatment units in the facilities could 
be retrofitted to meet stricter regulatory options, EPA investigated 
the costs required to upgrade such systems. The Agency found that all 
nitrification systems (Option2 and PSES2) could be retrofitted to a 
nitrification and denitrification system (Option3, PSES3). Similarly, 
all nitrification and denitrification systems could be retrofitted to a 
nitrification, denitrification, and phosphorous removal (Option4, 
Option5, PSES4) system. Based on information provided by industry 
experts, EPA estimated that facilities with a nitrification system in 
place would incur 33 percent of the capital cost of a new nitrification 
system to upgrade the system to a nitrification and denitrification 
system (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 00130). Retrofit capital costs 
to convert a nitrification system to a nitrification and 
denitrification and phosphorous removal system were estimated to be 54 
percent of the capital cost of a new nitrification system (ibid). For 
direct dischargers, the Agency assumed that the retrofit costs to 
convert a nitrification system to: (1) A nitrification and 
denitrification system; and (2) a nitrification and denitrification and 
phosphorous removal system are 45 percent and 65 percent respectively 
of the cost of a nitrification and denitrification system. See the MPP 
Development Document for more information on what assumptions EPA used 
in estimating retrofit costs.
g. Summary of Annualized Engineering Costs
    The recommended options with annualized costs for the non-small 
size category are shown in Table VII.D-5. These costs include the 
estimated capital investment costs annualized as described in Section 
VIII of this notice. EPA used the retrofit costs to estimate the total 
compliance cost for this industry ($80 million). EPA notes that 
retrofit options are available to MPP facilities and are less costly 
than construction of new treatment units (e.g. tanks, piping) (Docket 
W-01-06, Record No. 00166.) EPA's basis for selecting the retrofit 
costs is that operators will choose the less costly compliance option 
and retrofit their WWTP when the retrofit option is available. EPA 
solicits comment on which costs (i.e., retrofit or upper bound) is most 
appropriate to consider for the final rule.

          Table VII.D-5.--Annualized Costs (1999$) of the Recommended Options for Non-Small Size Class
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Annualized
                                                                                                         cost
       Regulatory subcategory  (RS)               Discharge type                   Option             (millions
                                                                                                      per year)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A, B, C, D...............................  Direct.....................  BAT3.......................         42.2
F, G, H, I...............................  Direct.....................  BAT3.......................          0.5
J........................................  Direct.....................  BAT2.......................          0.6
K........................................  Direct.....................  BAT3.......................         34.5
L........................................  Direct.....................  BAT3.......................          2.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Approach to Estimating Pollutant Reductions

1. Sources and Use of Available Data
    EPA used analytical data provided by the industry in the detailed 
surveys and analytical data from facilities sampled to estimate 
baseline and post-compliance pollutant concentrations. Detailed Surveys 
for 48 direct dischargers and 103 indirect dischargers were used in the 
analysis. In addition, EPA used data from the sampling efforts 
conducted at 11 MPP facilities. As previously stated, two facilities 
were sampled by EPA and nine facilities carried out self-sampling with 
technical oversight provided by EPA.
2. Calculation of Average Concentrations from Analytical Data
    For each facility that provided analytical data as part of their 
detailed survey, EPA used the average concentrations provided in the 
detailed survey for each pollutant of concern in the baseline loading 
analysis. When a facility did not provide average concentrations but 
instead provided non-averaged, self-monitoring data, EPA calculated an 
average value to use as the baseline concentration. In calculating 
proposal average baseline concentrations, EPA did not edit any 
analytical data provided in the detailed survey. In addition, EPA did 
not use sample detection limits or the maximum and minimum 
concentration values when average values were not available

[[Page 8611]]

in the survey. However, for EPA sampling episodes where concentrations 
of pollutants were reported below the sample detection limit, EPA used 
the reported sample detection limit as the concentration. Analytical 
data from the sampling episodes used for both baseline and regulatory 
options loading calculations were averaged on a daily basis for each 
sample location.
3. Establishment of Baseline Concentration Data
    EPA derived baseline concentrations for each POC for each of the 
151 (= 48 direct + 103 indirect) facilities used to generate pollutant 
load reduction estimates. EPA used the following hierarchy of methods 
to calculate baseline concentrations for each of the 151 facilities:
     When a facility provided concentration data (average 
values provided in the detailed survey and averages calculated by EPA 
as described previously) for any of the 37 POCs, EPA used this average 
concentration.
     In the absence of any baseline concentration data in the 
detailed survey, EPA transferred analytical data from EPA sampling 
episodes for similar meat and poultry processors and similar treatment 
in-place. When such sampling data were available for more than one 
episode, EPA used an average concentration value of these episodes.
     For POCs where EPA sampling episode data were not 
available to transfer concentration data, the Agency used average 
concentrations from both detailed survey and EPA sampling episode data 
from facilities with the same processing category and treatment option 
to calculate an average baseline concentration for each pollutant in a 
subcategory.
     When data from facilities in the same meat and poultry 
processing category were not available, an average concentration of 
facilities in similar meat and poultry processing categories was used 
instead.
     When all of the above imputation methods failed to derive 
pollutant concentrations, then facility data from other, similar 
treatment options were used. The size of the facility (small or non-
small) was not considered in transferring data within similar meat and 
poultry processing categories and treatment options.
    After pollutant data were estimated for each facility, EPA 
calculated average baseline concentrations from the individual 
facilities, separating indirect dischargers from direct dischargers and 
small facilities from non-small facilities. This process yielded a 
total of four averages for each meat and poultry processing category: 
(1) Direct, small; (2) direct, non-small; (3) indirect, small; and (4) 
indirect non-small. When a particular meat and poultry processing 
category was not represented by the facilities in the detailed survey, 
EPA used available data from similar meat and poultry processing 
categories in the detailed survey to derive average pollutant 
concentrations for the missing meat and poultry processing category. 
Averages were comprised of meat subcategory averages that best 
represent the subcategory without facilities. This calculation used 
both small and non-small facilities. These estimates were then used to 
generate baseline pollutant concentrations for each of the 19 meat and 
poultry processing categories (see Table VII.D-1) being analyzed by 
EPA.
4. Derivation Average Effluent Concentrations Representing 
Implementation of Regulatory Options
    For each regulatory option being considered, EPA calculated average 
effluent concentrations for effluent pollutant concentrations that 
represent the best performing facilities (from the respective of types 
of treatment in-place and degree of expected pollutant removals). For 
purposes of proposal, EPA relied on both EPA sampling episode data and 
facility-submitted data to calculate average effluent concentrations. 
Average effluent concentrations were calculated for the following six 
meat and poultry processes:
     first processing (meat);
     further processing (meat);
     rendering (meat);
     first processing (poultry);
     further processing (poultry); and
     rendering (poultry).
    Average effluent concentrations were derived for each of the above 
six meat and poultry processes from effluent concentration data 
collected during the sampling episodes. Specifically, for each 
regulatory option, effluent concentration data from representative 
facilities were used to derive average effluent concentrations for each 
POC. In the absence of data for a particular meat and poultry process 
at a facility, pollutant concentration data from another facility 
within the same grouping as well as applicable performance data (i.e., 
pollutant removal efficiencies from a facility representative of the 
regulatory option) were used to derive appropriate concentration data. 
These average effluent concentrations were derived irrespective of 
facility size.
    In order to derive average effluent concentrations for the other 13 
meat groupings (other than the six above), EPA used typical flow values 
provided in the detailed survey to determine the percentage of flow 
attributable to each of the three processes (first, further and 
rendering). The Agency used these flow values and pollutant 
concentrations from the above six subcategories to derive average 
effluent concentrations for the various combinations of processes such 
as first and further, first and render, etc. Average effluent 
concentrations for the rendering subcategory (meat and poultry 
combined) were derived by averaging poultry rendering average effluent 
concentrations with meat rendering average effluent concentrations. 
Likewise, average effluent concentrations for further processing mixed 
subcategory were derived by averaging average effluent concentrations 
from poultry further processing with average effluent concentrations 
from meat further processing. For regulatory option BAT1, average 
effluent concentrations were based on those developed for regulatory 
option BAT2 for all pollutants except ammonia, nitrite-nitrate, and 
TKN. Because under regulatory option BAT1 EPA assumed less efficient 
nitrification was occurring and all of the sampled facilities were 
categorized as operating at levels at least equivalent to BAT2, EPA 
estimated average effluent concentrations for ammonia, nitrite-nitrate, 
and TKN. These estimates were generally derived by calculating the 
average ammonia effluent concentrations from facilities that submitted 
analytical data as part of their detailed survey and that listed their 
treatment system type as conventional (EPA assumed that these 
facilities are not operating their treatment systems to specifically 
achieve nitrification, and therefore would be representative of 
performance of the BAT1 regulatory option). EPA also assumed that the 
total nitrogen for regulatory option BAT1 would be equal to the total 
nitrogen for regulatory option BAT2 (i.e., the total and organic 
nitrogen would not change from BAT1 to BAT2, just the form that the 
nitrogen was in). Based on the total nitrogen and ammonia 
concentrations, EPA then derived nitrite-nitrate and TKN concentrations 
based on theoretical relationships between the forms of nitrogen.
5. Calculation of Pollutant Loadings
    EPA estimated baseline and regulatory option pollutant loadings for 
all 37 POCs using the average concentrations for each subcategory and 
national flow (average) values derived from the screener survey for 
small and non-small facilities. The following

[[Page 8612]]

equation was used for conventional pollutants, nutrients, metals and 
pesticides:
    Load = Flow x Conc. x 8.345
where:
    Load = Pollutant loading, lbs/day
    Flow = Flow rate, million gallons per day
    Conc. = Average pollutant concentration, mg/L
    8.345 = Conversion factor, lbs/gal and mg/L.

    For microbiological pollutants, the loads were computed using the 
following equation:

    Load = Flow x Conc. x 37.8
where:
    Load = Pollutant loading, Million cfu/day
    Flow = Flow rate, million gallons per day
    Conc. = Average pollutant concentration, cfu/100 mL
    37.8 = Conversion factor, L/gal and mL/L.

    For Cryptosporidium, the loads were computed using the following 
equation by the following equation:

    Load = Flow x Conc. x 3.78
where:
    Load = Pollutant loading, Million/day
    Flow = Flow rate, million gallons per day
    Conc. = Pollutant concentration, per L
    3.78 = Conversion factor, L/gal.

    EPA estimated pollutant loading for the entire industry using the 
national estimates of the number of facilities in each meat subcategory 
multiplied by the subcategory loadings.

VIII. Economic Analysis

A. Introduction

    EPA's economic analysis assesses the costs and a variety of impacts 
of this proposal. This section reviews that analysis while the record 
for the proposal contains the detailed results of this analysis. In 
particular, the MPP Economic Analysis (EA) presents the results of the 
assessment. The MPP EA estimates the economic and financial costs of 
compliance with the proposal on individual facilities and companies. 
The MPP EA also considers impacts on new sources, foreign trade impacts 
and market impacts. The MPP EA also includes an analysis detailing the 
effects on small meat products businesses. Finally, the MPP EA contains 
the results of a cost-effectiveness analysis for the meat and poultry 
products industry.

B. Economic Data Collection Activities

    As noted above (see Section V.B), EPA sent a survey to a 
representative sample of meat and poultry products facilities. However, 
that data has not been fully processed and, with some exceptions, is 
generally not available for use in the analysis for today's proposal. 
EPA has thus relied on secondary data sources, most importantly on data 
from the 1997 U.S. Census of Manufacturers.
a. Census of Manufacturers Data
    For the economic analysis used in today's proposal, EPA primarily 
used data taken from the 1997 Census of Manufacturers published by the 
U.S. Census Bureau. These data are published according to four NAICS 
codes applicable to the meat and poultry products industry: 311611 
Animal (except Poultry) Slaughtering, 311612 Meat Processed from 
Carcasses, 311613 Rendering and Meat Byproduct Processing, and 311615 
Poultry Processing. The Census data contains a large number of 
financial statistics that are aggregated to the NAICS-code level. The 
Census data also contains some information disaggregated by size of 
establishment; this information is employees, payroll, cost of 
materials, value of shipments, and a handful of other statistics. 
Finally, EPA was able to obtain from the Census Bureau the mean, 
standard deviation, covariance, and correlation of value of shipments, 
payroll, and cost of materials disaggregated by size of establishment. 
EPA used this information to create model facilities that were matched 
to the engineering model facilities (see Section VII).
b. MPP Screener and Detailed Survey
    EPA was able to use items from the screener and detailed survey in 
its analysis for the proposal. The questions in both the screener and 
detailed surveys related to amount of production (of various meat types 
and processing operations), employees at the facility, and employees at 
the company that owns the facility are most relevant to the economic 
analysis. The detailed survey collected a large amount of information 
about the individual facilities and companies that own those 
facilities, including general information about the type of ownership, 
facility and company employment, interest and discount rates, and 
income statements for 1997-1999 and balance sheets for 1999 (both 
income statement and balance sheet information were collected for the 
facility and the company). EPA utilized all of the information from the 
screener survey in this proposal but was only able to use selected 
items from the detailed survey due to the additional complexity and 
time required to process the detailed surveys. This data will be used 
in EPA's post-proposal analyses and presented in its forthcoming NODA.
c. Other Data Sources
    Although EPA relied primarily on its two surveys and the Census of 
Manufacturers, other data sources informed the analysis where 
appropriate. These other sources include numerous journals, academic 
publications, data and reports from USDA and other government agencies, 
and industry publications such as Meat & Poultry and Meat Processing.

C. Annualized Compliance Cost Estimates

    EPA estimates that 246 direct discharging meat and poultry products 
facilities would be regulated by this proposal. EPA also considered 
regulating the 731 largest indirect discharging facilities. EPA 
calculated the economic impact on each of the facilities based on the 
cost of compliance using the technology basis for each of the options 
considered for the proposal. For direct dischargers, EPA calculated 
impacts for compliance with BPT/BCT/BAT; for indirect dischargers, EPA 
calculated impacts for compliance with PSES. As detailed in Section XI, 
EPA based the proposed standards for direct discharges on Option 3 
(except for the Rendering Subcategory, which are based on Option 2) and 
EPA is proposing no limitations or standards for indirect dischargers. 
EPA also calculated costs and impacts for the 4670 smallest facilities; 
these results are presented in the EA. These small facilities are not 
included in the estimates discussed in this section unless specifically 
noted.
    The technologies that are the basis for today's proposal are 
estimated to have a total pre-tax annualized cost of $80.0 million and 
a total post-tax annualized cost of $50.5 million. The pre-tax 
annualized costs are the most complete estimates of annualized control 
costs, but the post-tax costs more accurately reflect the costs 
businesses will incur because they net out tax savings. For that 
reason, both pre-tax or post-tax costs are used in the economic impact 
analysis. Pre-tax costs, however, more accurately reflect the total 
cost to society of the rule and are used in the EO 12866 analysis, the 
cost-effectiveness analysis, and elsewhere.

D. Economic Impact Methodologies

    EPA's analysis of the economic impacts of the proposed guidelines 
and standards for the meat and poultry products industry examines the 
costs of the proposed regulations on the economic viability of 
facilities and firms

[[Page 8613]]

using relatively standard financial analysis tools. A MPP firm is a 
business unit or enterprise that owns or operates a collection of MPP 
facilities. Since the costs are estimated for model facilities, the 
economic impact analysis is also performed on analogously constructed 
economic model facilities. This section describes the construction of 
those facilities and the impact analysis itself as well as a 
description of what the analysis will look like when the detailed 
survey data is available.
1. Economic Model Facilities
    EPA based its economic model facilities on the U.S. Census Bureau's 
1997 Economic Census of the four NAICS codes for meat and poultry 
product industries (NAICS 311611, 311612, 311613, and 311615). EPA used 
Census revenue and cost information at both the employment class (that 
is, disaggregated into size groupings based on annual production) and 
the industry level. At the employment class level, EPA used the Census' 
value of total shipments (a proxy for total revenues), payroll and 
material costs data. (In some cases, value of total shipments may be 
understated or overstated if survey respondents do not receive the full 
value for their shipments, as may be the case if one facility ships to 
another facility owned by the same company. EPA did not, however, 
adjust these values.) EPA used industry level data on benefits, 
depreciation, rent, and purchased services and attributed it to the 
employment class level using a small number of reasonable assumptions 
(e.g., employment benefits are proportionate to payroll, refuse removal 
costs are proportionate to material costs). EPA divided each component 
of facility income by the number of establishments in the employment 
class to calculate the average for that class. EPA then estimated model 
facility earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) in each class as the 
average value of shipments minus payroll, material costs, benefits, 
depreciation, rent, and purchased services. Because revenues, payroll 
and cost of materials are the most significant components of EBIT, the 
relative error introduced by attributing industry level data to the 
employment class level should be small.
    EPA used data from Census' Annual Survey of Manufacturers (ASM), 
1997 Economic Census, and the Internal Revenue Service code combined 
with additional assumptions to estimate model facility net income and 
cash flow from EBIT. EPA assumed model facility EBIT is equal to 
business entity taxable income as the basis for calculating tax 
payments; EPA then applied 1999 federal and an average of state 
corporate tax rates to EBIT. EPA estimated industry level interest 
payments using a combination of ASM data on past investment by 
industry, Census data on relative investment in buildings and 
equipment, and assumptions about investment behavior (e.g., all 
investment in each year was funded through bank loans, the interest 
rate on those loans was equal to the nominal prime rate for that year 
plus 1 percent). Interest payments were then attributed to each 
employment class based on the percentage of industry investment 
accounted for by that employment class in the 1997 Census. EPA 
estimated net income as EBIT less estimated tax and interest payments 
for each model facility. Cash flow was then calculated as net income 
plus depreciation. EPA inflated all model income measures from the 
Census year, 1997, to the baseline year, 1999, using the implicit price 
deflator for the meat and poultry products industry.
    However, the model facility in reality represents a distribution of 
facility incomes around the mean. Therefore, EPA estimated this 
distribution of income around the model facility mean by obtaining from 
Census a special tabulation of the variances and covariances for value 
of shipments, material costs, and payroll in each employment class. EPA 
assumed that the distribution of each variable is normal; given the 
relatively large number of observations within each employment class, 
this assumption is reasonable. Because model facility EBIT is 
calculated as a linear function of the means of its components, the 
variance of EBIT for each employment class can be calculated as a 
linear function of the variances and covariances of the components 
using well established formulae. Because the actual income measures 
differed from the approximate income measure (EBIT) on which variance 
was estimated, EPA adjusted the variance of each income measure using 
standard rules concerning the expected value of mean and variance.
    In order to perform the economic impact analysis, EPA matched its 
economic model facilities to the engineering model facilities used to 
estimate costs. All red meat (or meat) facilities that perform animal 
slaughter, whether alone or in combination with other processes, were 
assigned economic model facilities from NAICS 311611. Red meat 
facilities that perform further processing but no slaughtering 
activities processes were assigned economic model facilities from NAICS 
311612, as were facilities that process a mix of both red meat and 
poultry (approximately 70 percent of their production is red meat). 
Facilities that process poultry, with or without slaughter, were 
assigned economic model facilities from NAICS 311615. Finally, 
facilities that only perform rendering operations were classified as 
NAICS 311613. The model economic facilities were further matched to the 
model engineering facilities by size. EPA used production from each 
engineering model, combined with representative meat product prices for 
1999, to estimate model facility revenues. The engineering model was 
then assigned an economic model that most closely matched its estimated 
revenues.
    The economic analysis is based on a wide variety of sources 
including the screener survey and publicly available data. However, the 
facility counts in each class and subcategory are based on estimates 
derived from the stratified random sampling procedure used to determine 
survey recipients. Sixty-five facilities were specifically selected to 
receive surveys (``certainty facilities''). Information on these 65 
certainty facilities was not available in time to complete 
subcategorization and analysis of these facilities because information 
on these facilities was collected in the detailed survey and it could 
not be processed as quickly as the screener survey. Therefore, to 
project potential impacts to these 65 certainty facilities, EPA totaled 
impacts by subcategory (or class) and discharge type, then inflated 
these impacts by 8 percent. EPA is thus implicitly assuming that the 65 
certainty facilities are similar to the model facilities used in the 
remainder of the analysis, and impacts are therefore proportionate to 
impacts projected for other facilities. However, EPA could not identify 
the subcategories or classes in which these impacts may occur in time 
to include precise estimates for all aspects of the analysis. Instances 
where the certainty facilities are excluded from the analysis are 
indicated clearly.
2. Methodology for Calculating Impacts
    EPA calculated economic impacts of facilities and firms incurring 
the costs of compliance with the proposal. EPA estimated impacts at the 
facility-level in several ways: using four financial ratios and by 
estimating closures in two different ways. EPA also estimated firm 
impacts using return on assets (ROA) and Altman's Z'. EPA also 
estimated costs in two different ways (see Section VII): one estimate 
assumes that facilities must install each individual technology 
included in a given option, another option assumes that facilities 
would be

[[Page 8614]]

able to meet the limitations with some fraction of this full cost. More 
specifically, facilities with nitrification (option 2) already in place 
would be able to upgrade their existing systems to denitrification and 
phosphorus removal without incurring the full capital cost of those 
technologies. These cost estimates are referred to as retrofit costs.
    EPA used four financial ratios to estimate impacts. Each of these 
is a ratio of annualized compliance cost to another measure: revenues, 
earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT), cash flow, and net income. 
(EPA used pretax costs for the revenue and EBIT ratios and used the 
post-tax costs for the net income and cash flow ratios.) These measures 
are listed in decreasing order and their respective ratios will 
correspondingly increase for a given cost level. EPA found that these 
four cost ratios are highly correlated and do not individually provide 
unique information. That is, for all model facilities EPA found that 
the cost/revenue ratio is smaller than the cost/EBIT ratio, which is 
smaller than the cost/cash flow ratio. (This correlation could be a 
factor of the highly aggregated data on which model facilities are 
based because this aggregated data masks variability across 
facilities.) In order to simplify the presentation, EPA chose the ratio 
of cost/net income as its preferred (central) measure of economic 
achievability (the results for all of the ratios are presented in the 
MPP EA).
    EPA also estimated the probability that a facility would close, 
because the cost of compliance exceeded one of the other financial 
measures. In the analysis, EPA used both cash flow and net income. EPA 
estimated these probabilities by using the variance and covariance 
information provided by the Census Bureau to derive the variance of 
both cash flow and net income. The probability that annualized 
compliance costs are greater than either of these measures provides a 
rough estimate of the probability of that facility closing. While EPA 
believes this approach is promising, EPA has less confidence in these 
closures estimates for several reasons which are discussed in detail in 
the MPP EA. Primarily, these estimates predict that improbably large 
percentages of facilities have negative net income at the baseline. 
Because EPA has less confidence in these closure numbers, they are not 
relied upon for economic achievability determinations, but the 
estimates are presented in the MPP EA.
    EPA notes that the use of average ratios could mask considerable 
variability in economic impacts. This is a shortcoming of the use of 
model facilities. EPA has attempted to ameliorate this shortcoming to a 
practicable extent by using multiple model facilities within each 
subcategory and by being relatively conservative in its choice of 
average ratios that are deemed economically achievable. EPA also 
considered using the probability estimates discussed in the previous 
paragraph but is not relying on them for its economic achievability 
determinations. EPA is considering, however, refined probability 
estimates.
    As EPA continues to process the data from the detailed survey, we 
intend to use that data in the economic analysis for the final rule. 
The use of this more detailed economic data will allow the use of more 
facilities that better represent financial conditions across the 
industry and more sophisticated financial techniques such as discounted 
cash flow models. These models are fully documented in the MPP EA. A 
discounted cash flow model compares the present value of forecasted 
cash flow (or, alternatively, net income) with the present value of the 
regulatory option. If the present value of the regulatory costs exceeds 
that of the projected cash flow, it does not make financial sense to 
upgrade the facility. That is, if the present value of projected cash 
flow is positive before, but negative after, the incurrence of 
regulatory costs, the facility is presumed to close. For the analysis, 
cash flow at the facility-level is defined as the sum of net income and 
depreciation. Cash flow is widely used within industry in evaluating 
capital investment decisions because both net income and depreciation 
(which is an accounting offset against income, but not an actual cash 
expenditure) are potentially available to finance future investment. 
However, assuming that total cash flow is available over an extended 
time horizon to finance investments related to environmental compliance 
could overstate a facility's ability to comply because depreciation is 
the facility's way of accounting for the cost of replacing existing 
capital. The facility may not be able to afford this replacement if 
depreciation is instead allocated to environmental compliance. EPA 
solicits comment on the economic analysis in this proposal and the 
methods it is considering for subsequent analyses, particularly the use 
of cash flow as a measure of resources available to finance 
environmental compliance and suggestions for alternative methodologies.
    EPA also estimated firm-level impacts to take into account the 
aggregate impacts on firms that own multiple facilities. These impacts 
could be especially important in a concentrated industry such as the 
meat and poultry products industry, in which some firms own dozens of 
facilities. To examine firm-level impacts, EPA employed an Altman Z'-
score analysis, which employs a statistical technique called multiple 
discriminant analysis to predict company bankruptcy based on a weighted 
combination of financial ratios. The Altman Z'-score is a widely-used 
tool used to predict firm ``financial distress'' or bankruptcy. It 
takes into account a company's total assets, total liabilities and 
earnings, which are influenced by total compliance capital costs 
incurred by a company because of the proposal as well as pre-tax 
annualized compliance costs.
    The score places firms into three levels of financial health: where 
financial distress is unlikely, where financial distress is 
indeterminate, and where financial distress is likely. EPA considered 
firms that move from an indeterminate or unlikely distress prediction 
to a likely distress prediction to be at risk of bankruptcy or other 
serious financial disruption. The actual effects of financial distress 
are inherently unpredictable and a firm may avoid legal bankruptcy by 
taking other measures such as laying off employees, closing facilities, 
or selling assets. These firms still may incur very significant impacts 
even if they do not file for bankruptcy.
    EPA developed a market model to examine the impacts of the proposal 
on the price and output of various meat and poultry products. The 
market analysis for each product depends not only on the compliance 
costs for that product but also on the impact of costs on the prices of 
the other three meat and poultry products because as prices for one 
product rise, consumers will purchase less of that product and more of 
the other three products. EPA selected a perfectly competitive 
structure for the meat and poultry products market model after 
performing an extensive literature search. EPA developed standard 
domestic supply, domestic demand, import supply, and export demand 
equations for each meat and poultry product. Domestic demand for each 
meat and poultry product is specified as a function of the price of the 
other three meat and poultry products in addition to its own price. EPA 
used USDA data to determine baseline market prices and quantities. Key 
model parameters (e.g., price elasticities) were selected from existing 
published sources after an extensive search. For each meat and poultry 
product market to be in equilibrium, U.S. domestic demand plus foreign

[[Page 8615]]

demand (exports) must equal U.S. domestic supply plus foreign sales 
(imports) at its current market price.
    Compliance costs shift the supply curve for each meat and poultry 
product by the average per-unit compliance cost for that product. Given 
the supply shift for each product, EPA solves for the post-regulatory 
set of meat prices that results in equilibrium in all four markets. 
This solution provides estimates of post-regulatory impacts. Finally, 
the post-regulatory prices are substituted back into the individual 
component equations domestic supply, domestic demand, import supply, 
and export demand for each meat and poultry product. Changes in prices 
and these quantities for each meat and poultry product measure the 
market-level impacts of today's proposal.

E. Costs and Impacts of BPT/BCT/BAT Options

    Tables VIII.E-1 through VIII.E-5 present the cost and cost/net 
income results for the options considered by EPA for BPT, BCT, and BAT. 
These are options 2 through 4 for subcategories A-D, F-I, and J, and 
options 2 through 5 for subcategories K and L. EPA was unable to 
identify any direct dischargers that did not have at least option 1 in 
current use. Costs for this option are therefore zero for direct 
dischargers and are not presented.
    EPA is required to determine economic achievability for individual 
subcategories and the industry as a whole. Thus, impacts are presented 
by subcategory. This presentation necessarily masks variability in 
costs and impacts across different types and sizes of facilities in 
each subcategory. More detail on these results is presented in Chapters 
5 and 6 of the MPP EA. The MPP EA also presents results for the other 
measures of economic impact discussed in Section IV.E. The following 5 
tables exclude the 65 certainty facilities from both costs and facility 
counts.

                   Table VIII.E-1.--Cost and Impacts for Subcategory A-D, BPT/BCT/BAT Options
                                         [$1999 millions--66 facilities]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Retrofit costs                 Upper-bound costs
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Post-tax                        Post-tax
                     Option                         annualized       Cost/net       annualized       Cost/net
                                                    compliance      income  (%)     compliance      income  (%)
                                                       cost                            cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2...............................................            4.86            0.25            5.49            0.28
3...............................................           24.7             1.30           36.3             1.90
4...............................................           42.4             2.38           72.3             4.11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                   Table VIII.E-2.--Cost and Impacts for Subcategory F-I, BPT/BCT/BAT Options
                                         [$1999 millions--19 facilities]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Retrofit costs                 Upper-bound costs
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Post-tax                        Post-tax
                     Option                         annualized       Cost/net       annualized       Cost/net
                                                    compliance      income  (%)     compliance      income  (%)
                                                       cost                            cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2...............................................           0.210            0.13           0.221            0.14
3...............................................           0.310            0.29           0.415            0.4
4...............................................           1.94             1.36           4.28             2.91
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                    Table VIII.E-3.--Cost and Impacts for Subcategory J, BPT/BCT/BAT Options
                                         [$1999 millions--21 facilities]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Retrofit costs                 Upper-bound costs
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Post-tax                        Post-tax
                     Option                         annualized       Cost/net       annualized       Cost/net
                                                    compliance      income  (%)     compliance      income  (%)
                                                       cost                            cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2...............................................           0.304            0.68           0.304            0.68
3...............................................           2.51             5.70           3.55             8.03
4...............................................           2.97             6.74           3.87             8.78
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                    Table VIII.E-4.--Cost and Impacts for Subcategory K, BPT/BCT/BAT Options
                                         [$1999 millions--88 facilities]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Retrofit costs                 Upper-bound costs
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Post-tax                        Post-tax
                     Option                         annualized       Cost/net       annualized       Cost/net
                                                    compliance      income  (%)     compliance      income  (%)
                                                       cost                            cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2...............................................            2.52            0.32            2.63            0.34
3...............................................           20.1             2.73           29.5             3.98
4...............................................           26.1             3.56           37.5             5.14
5...............................................           15.5             2.15           40.7             5.61
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 8616]]


                    Table VIII.E-5.--Cost and Impacts for Subcategory L, BPT/BCT/BAT Options
                                         [$1999 millions--15 facilities]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Retrofit costs                 Upper-bound costs
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Post-tax
                     Option                          Post-tax        Cost/net       annualized       Cost/net
                                                    annualized      income  (%)     compliance      income  (%)
                                                  ompliance cost                       cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2...............................................           0.156            0.36            0.17            0.39
3...............................................           1.28             3.01            1.79            4.23
4...............................................           1.78             4.12            2.65            6.04
5...............................................           1.00             2.83            2.37            6.71
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Results of BCT Cost Test

    In July 1986, EPA explained how it developed its methodology for 
setting effluent limitations based on BCT (51 FR 24974). EPA evaluates 
the reasonableness of BCT candidate technologies--those that remove 
more conventional pollutants than BPT--by applying a two-part cost 
test: A POTW test and an industry cost-effectiveness test.
    EPA first calculates the cost per pound of conventional pollutant 
removed by industrial dischargers in upgrading from BPT to a BCT 
candidate technology, and then compares this cost to the cost per pound 
of conventional pollutants removed in upgrading POTWs to advanced 
secondary treatment (i.e., ``the POTW test''). The upgrade cost to 
industry must be less than the POTW benchmark of $0.25 per pound (in 
1976 dollars) or $0.63 per pound (in 1999 dollars). In the industry 
cost-effectiveness test, the ratio of the cost per pound to go from BPT 
to BCT divided by the cost per pound to go from raw wastewater to BPT 
for the industry must be less than 1.29 (that is, the cost increase 
must be less than 29 percent).
    For purposes of this analysis, EPA is assuming that for 
subcategories A-D, F-I, and J the existing BPT limits are equivalent to 
the baseline. Thus, EPA is considering only options 2 through 4 as BCT 
candidate options. All BCT analyses include the 65 certainty 
facilities.
    Table VIII.F-1 presents the calculations for the BCT cost test 
using both the retrofit and upper-bound costs for subcategories A-D, F-
I, and J (those subcategories with existing BPT limits). Option 2 
passes the POTW test in subcategories A-D and J, while no other option 
does in those subcategories, nor do any of the options in subcategory 
F-I. Options 3 and 4 therefore do not pass the BCT cost test and it is 
not necessary to perform the industry cost-effectiveness test for these 
options, nor is it necessary to perform the industry cost-effectiveness 
test for subcategory F-I. The choice of retrofit versus upper-bound 
costs does not affect the result of the test (these two costs are 
identical for option 2, so the cost test result is the same for either 
set of costs).

                                             Table VIII.F-1.--POTW Cost Test Calculations, Subcategories A-J
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Retrofit costs                                 Upper-bound cost
                                           Conventional  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             pollutant     Pre-tax total                                   Pre-tax total
                 Option                    removals  (M     annualized    Ratio of costs     Pass POTW      annualized    Ratio of costs     Pass POTW
                                               lbs)        costs  ($1999    to removals        test?       costs  ($1999    to removals        test?
                                                                M)            ($/lb.)                           M)           ($/ lb.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Subcategory A-D
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.......................................          22.5             9.93             0.44               Y           9.93             0.44               Y
3.......................................          23.7            42.3              1.78               N          59.5              2.51               N
4.......................................          25.6            73.5              2.87               N         118                4.60               N
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Subcategory F-I
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.......................................           0.461           0.404            0.88               N           0.404            0.88               N
3.......................................           0.503           0.537            1.07               N           0.692            1.38               N
4.......................................           0.545           3.53             6.47               N           7.01            12.86               N
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Subcategory J
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.......................................           5.94            0.552            0.09               Y           0.552            0.09               Y
3.......................................           6.16            4.28             0.70               N           5.80             0.94               N
4.......................................           6.62            4.98             0.75               N           6.31             0.95               N
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table VIII.F-2 presents the industry cost-effectiveness test for 
option 2 for subcategories A-D and J. This option fails the test for 
subcategories A-D but passes the test for Subcategory J. Thus, BCT is 
not revised for subcategories A-D or F-I, but BCT is set equal to 
option 2 for subcategory J.

[[Page 8617]]



                                 Table VIII.F-2.--Industry Cost-Effectiveness Test Calculations, Subcategories A-D and J
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              RAW-BPT      RAW-BPT pre-                    BPT-BCT ratio
                                           conventional      tax total     RAW-BPT ratio    of costs to    BPT-BCT raw-
               BCT option                    pollutant      annualized      of costs to      removals     BPT ratio  [B]/       Pass industry cost-
                                           removals  (M    costs  (1999$     removals      (1999$/ lb.)         [A]             effectivenss test?
                                               lbs)             M)         (1999$ M) [A]        [B]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Subcategory A-D
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.......................................           1,521     270,240,482           0.178            0.40            2.25  No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Subcategory J
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.......................................           19.63      10,001,886           0.509            0.12            0.24  Yes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table VIII.F-3 presents the calculations for the BCT cost test 
using both the retrofit and upper-bound costs for subcategories K and 
L. The test is calculated from the proposed BPT option, which is option 
3. (If the test were to be conducted from a less stringent option the 
outcome would not change. These calculations are presented in the MPP 
EA.) Neither option 4 or option 5, the only options more stringent than 
BPT for these subcategories, passes the POTW test. These options 
therefore do not pass the BCT cost test and it is not necessary to 
perform the industry cost-effectiveness test in these subcategories. 
Thus, BCT is set equal to BPT for these subcategories. More detail on 
the calculation and inputs of the BCT tests is contained in the record 
(Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 25,002--BCT Analysis for Meat and 
Poultry Products Point Source Category).

                                           Table VIII.F-3.--POTW Cost Test Calculations, Subcategories K and L
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Retrofit costs                                 Upper-bound costs
                                           Conventional  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             pollutant     Pre-tax total                                   Pre-tax total
                 Option                    removals  (M     annualized    Ratio of costs     Pass POTW      annualized    Ratio of costs     Pass POTW
                                               lbs)        costs  ($1999    to removals        test?       costs  ($1999    to removals        test?
                                                                M)           ($/ lb.)                           M)           ($/ lb.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Subcategory K
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.......................................           2.44            34.5              N/A             N/A           48.4              N/A             N/A
4.......................................           3.95            44.2            11.20               N           61.3            15.52               N
5.......................................           4.79            66.1            13.80               N           66.1            13.80               N
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Subcategory L
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.......................................           0.136            2.18             N/A             N/A            2.95             N/A             N/A
4.......................................           0.196            3.03           15.48               N            4.32           22.06               N
5.......................................           0.230            3.85           16.72               N            3.85           16.72               N
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Costs and Economic Impacts of PSES Options

    Tables VIII.G-1 through VIII.G-5 present the cost/net income 
results for the options considered by EPA for PSES. These are options 1 
through 4 for subcategories A-D, F-I, and J, and options 1 through 54 
for subcategories K and L. EPA is required to determine economic 
achievability for individual subcategories and the industry as a whole. 
Thus, impacts are presented by subcategory. This presentation 
necessarily masks variability in costs and impacts across different 
types and sizes of facilities in each subcategory. More detail on these 
results is presented in Chapters 5 and 6 of the MPP EA. The MPP EA also 
presents results for the other measures of economic impact discussed in 
Section IV.E. All figures in the following five tables exclude the 65 
certainty facilities.

                       Table VIII.G-1.--Cost and Impacts for Subcategory A-D, PSES Options
                                         [$1999 millions--60 facilities]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Retrofit costs                 Upper-bound costs
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Post-tax                        Post-Tax
                     Option                         annualized       Cost/net       annualized       Cost/net
                                                    compliance      income  (%)     compliance      income  (%)
                                                       cost                            cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................            1.83            0.27            4.30            0.57
2...............................................           43.3             5.28           91.3            10.4
3...............................................           52.4             6.53           59.0             7.21
4...............................................           64.4             7.36           74.3             8.14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 8618]]


                       Table VIII.G-2.--Cost and Impacts for Subcategory F-I, PSES Options
                                        [$1999 millions--234 facilities]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Retrofit costs                 Upper-bound costs
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Post-Tax                        Post-tax
                     Option                         annualized       Cost/net       annualized       Cost/net
                                                    compliance      income  (%)     compliance      income  (%)
                                                       cost                            cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................            6.37            0.46            11.1            0.80
2...............................................           31.4             2.32            61.4            4.53
3...............................................           50.6             3.71            50.9            3.72
4...............................................           67.6             5.05            67.8            5.06
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                        Table VIII.G-3.--Cost and Impacts for Subcategory J, PSES Options
                                         [$1999 millions--75 facilities]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Retrofit costs                 Upper-bound costs
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Post-tax
                     Option                         annualized       Cost/net        Post-tax        Cost/net
                                                    compliance      income  (%)     annualized      income  (%)
                                                       cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................           0.511            0.33            0.78            0.50
2...............................................           7.59             4.77           14.0             8.78
3...............................................          13.9              8.74           17.1            10.79
4...............................................          15.0              9.47           18.0            11.36
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                        Table VIII.G-4.--Cost and Impacts for Subcategory K, PSES Options
                                        [$1999 millions--138 facilities]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Retrofit costs                 Upper-bound costs
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Post-tax                        Post-tax
                     Option                         annualized       Cost/net       annualized       Cost/net
                                                    compliance      income  (%)     compliance      income  (%)
                                                       cost                            cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................            3.24            0.28            6.50            0.55
2...............................................           54.5             4.20          114               8.71
3...............................................           76.8             6.16           81.5             6.53
4...............................................           80.5             6.52           83.9             6.80
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                        Table VIII.G-5.--Cost and Impacts for Subcategory L, PSES Options
                                        [$1999 millions--208 facilities]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Retrofit costs                 Upper-bound costs
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Post-tax                        Post-tax
                     Option                         annualized       Cost/net       annualized       Cost/net
                                                    compliance      income  (%)     compliance      income  (%)
                                                       cost                            cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................            5.17            0.87            9.12            1.50
2...............................................           34.2             5.23           63.3             9.63
3...............................................           45.4             6.99           45.6             7.00
4...............................................           58.0             8.95           58.1             8.96
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Economic Impacts for New Sources

    EPA is proposing NSPS limitations equivalent to the limitations 
that are established for BPT/BCT/BAT for all subcategories. These 
limitations are economically achievable for existing sources. In 
general, EPA concludes that new sources will be able to comply at costs 
that are similar to, or less than, the costs for existing sources. They 
may be able to comply at lower cost since new sources can apply control 
technologies more efficiently than sources that need to retrofit for 
those technologies. Therefore, NSPS limitations will not present a 
barrier to entry for new facilities.
    EPA is not proposing to establish PSES or PSNS limitations for 
indirect dischargers, so there will be no impacts on new indirect 
dischargers. EPA solicits comment on whether EPA should set more 
stringent standards for either direct or indirect new sources.

I. Firm-Level Impacts

    For those firms with available data, EPA estimated a baseline Z'-
score and a corresponding score after the firm incurred the costs of 
complying with the proposal. EPA examined the company-level financial 
data in the detailed survey for the companies with complete and 
consistent data. This effort yielded 20 companies with appropriate 
data. These firms include most of the largest beef, pork, and poultry 
processing companies. These firms own 421

[[Page 8619]]

facilities, or an average of 21 facilities each. EPA estimated the 
number of facilities owned by each company using publicly available 
information such as trade publications and web sites as well as 
information from the detailed survey.
    Because EPA does not have an exact accounting of the type and size 
of the facilities owned by each company, EPA estimated total compliance 
costs for each of these companies by constructing a production-weighted 
average facility compliance cost for red meat, poultry and rendering 
facilities. This average was constructed by multiplying the compliance 
cost for each model facility by its production amount, summing across a 
given product type (meat or poultry), and dividing by total production 
in that product type. This average was then multiplied by the number of 
facilities owned by a company to estimate the total costs for a given 
company. The costs for the proposed option do not move any companies 
from unlikely or indeterminate distress to likely distress.
    EPA notes that in its recent proposed rules concerning concentrated 
animal feeding operations (CAFOs), EPA analyzed the potential impacts 
from costs passed on from the CAFO to the processor (66 FR 3092-30923). 
Many of these processors are the same companies that are considered in 
this proposal and EPA estimated that from $34 million to $306 million 
could be passed from the CAFO to the processor as a result of the CAFO 
proposal, but EPA was unable to apportion these costs among specific 
companies. EPA intends to fully account for the potential costs of the 
final CAFO rule when the MPP guidelines are promulgated. EPA solicits 
comment on the most accurate method to include these potential costs in 
the MPP economic analysis.

J. Community Impacts

    The communities where the meat products facilities are located may 
be affected by the proposed regulation if facilities cut back 
operations, local employment and income may fall, sending ripple 
effects throughout the local community. Facility-level changes in 
employment could be used to calculate total employment changes. 
However, the model facilities used by EPA are not tied to any specific 
location and thus EPA does not have enough information to estimate 
community impacts with any level of confidence. EPA plans to conduct an 
analysis of community-level impacts as part of its post-proposal 
activities and present these results in a subsequent NODA.

K. Market and Foreign Trade Impacts

    Foreign trade impacts are difficult to predict, since agricultural 
exports are determined by economic conditions in foreign markets and 
changes in the international exchange rate for the U.S. dollar. 
However, EPA predicts small projected changes in overall supply and 
demand for these products and a slight increase in market prices. Thus, 
foreign trade impacts as a result of the proposed regulations will be 
minor. Using the market model for meat and poultry products, EPA 
estimates that the domestic supply and demand for beef, pork, chicken, 
and turkey all decrease by very slight amounts (all less than 0.1 
percent). The decrease in domestic supply ranges from 0.02 percent to 
0.05 percent and the decrease in domestic demand ranges from 0.02 
percent to 0.04 percent.
    Despite its position as one of the largest agricultural producers 
in the world, historically the U.S. has not been a major player in 
world markets for red meat (beef and pork) or poultry products. In 
fact, until recently, the U.S. was a net importer of these products. 
The presence of a large domestic market for meat and poultry products 
has limited U.S. reliance on developing export markets for its 
products. As the U.S. has taken steps to expand export markets for red 
meat and poultry products, one major obstacle has been that it remains 
a relatively high cost producer of these products compared to other net 
exporters, such as New Zealand, Australia, and Latin American 
countries, as well as other more established and government-subsidized 
exporting countries, including Canada and the countries in the European 
Union. Increasingly, however, continued efficiency gains and low-cost 
feed are making the U.S. more competitive in world markets for these 
products, particularly for red meat. While today's proposed regulations 
may raise production costs and potentially reduce production quantities 
that would otherwise be available for export, EPA believes that any 
quantity and price changes resulting from the proposed requirements 
will not significantly alter the competitiveness of U.S. export markets 
for red meat.
    In contrast, U.S. poultry products now account for a controlling 
share of world trade and exports account for a sizable and growing 
share of annual U.S. production. Given the established presence of the 
U.S. in world poultry markets and the relative strength in export 
demand for these products, EPA does not expect that the predicted 
quantity and price changes resulting from today's proposed regulations 
will have a significant impact on the competitiveness of U.S. poultry 
exports.
    As part of its market analysis, EPA evaluated the potential for 
changes in traded volumes, such as increases in imports and decreases 
in exports, and concluded that volume trade will not be significantly 
impacts by today's proposed regulations. EPA estimates that imports of 
beef will increase by 0.01 percent or less compared to baseline (pre-
regulation) levels. In no other sector is there a measurable change in 
imports. EPA estimates that exports decline by 0.14 percent in the 
chicken sector, 0.12 percent in the pork sector, 0.09 in the beef 
sector, and 0.05 percent in the turkey sector. None of these decreases 
in exports are considered to be significant.

L. Cost-Reasonableness and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

    EPA compared the compliance costs for the proposal against the 
following three different metrics: Removal of all pollutants in pounds, 
removal of only toxic pollutants in toxic pound-equivalents, and 
removal of only nutrients in pounds. Although in recently promulgated 
effluent guidelines, EPA has relied primarily on the toxic pollutant 
cost-effectiveness measure for evaluating BAT, that measure is less 
appropriate for comparing the relative cost-effectiveness of options to 
control pollutants from the meat and poultry products industry because 
it discharges relatively more conventional pollutants and nutrients 
than toxic pollutants. Furthermore, the BCT cost test evaluates the 
cost-reasonableness of the removal of conventional pollutants (see 
Section VIII.G) a description of the methodology, data, and results of 
these analyses in more detail is contained in the EA.
a. BPT Cost-reasonableness
    Tables VIII.L-1 and VIII.L-2 present the results of the BPT cost-
reasonableness analysis for direct dischargers in subcategories A-J and 
K&L, respectively. These results are presented separately because while 
the cost-reasonableness test is useful for evaluating the options in 
subcategories A-J, it is also a statutory criteria for evaluating the 
BPT options under consideration for subcategories K and L. EPA has 
historically considered cost/reasonableness ratios as high as $37/lb to 
be reasonable for BPT. Results are presented using both the retrofit 
and upper-bound costs.

[[Page 8620]]



                        Table VIII.L-1.--Cost-Reasonableness Estimates, Subcategories A-J
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Retrofit costs          Upper-bound costs
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Pre-tax                  Pre-tax
                      Option                         Removals      total    Ave. cost/      total     Ave. cost/
                                                      (M lbs)   annualized      lb.      annualized       lb.
                                                                   costs      removal       costs       removal
                                                                 ($1999 M)    ($/lb.)     ($1999 M)     ($/lb.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Subcategory A-D
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.................................................        12.3         9.9        0.81           9.9        0.81
3.................................................        38.7        42.2        1.09          59.5        1.54
4.................................................        41.0        73.5        1.79         118          2.88
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Subcategory F-I
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.................................................        0.25         0.4        1.59           0.4        1.59
3.................................................        2.01         0.5        0.27           0.7        0.34
4.................................................        2.02         3.5        1.74           7.0        3.47
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Subcategory J
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.................................................        18.3         0.6        0.03           0.6        0.03
3.................................................        18.3         4.3        0.23           5.8        0.32
4.................................................        18.1         5.0        0.27           6.3        0.35
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                      Table VIII.L-2.--Cost-Reasonableness Estimates, Subcategories K and L
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Retrofit costs         Upper-bound costs
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                    Pre-tax                 Pre-tax
                       Option                          Removals      total    Ave. cost/     total    Ave. cost/
                                                        (M lbs)   annualized      lb.     annualized      lb.
                                                                     costs      removal      costs      removal
                                                                   ($1999 M)    ($/lb.)    ($1999 M)    ($/lb.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Subcategory K
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2...................................................        1.63         4.8        2.95         4.8        2.95
3...................................................        7.32        34.5        4.71        48.4        6.61
4...................................................         8.1        44.2        5.46        61.3        7.56
5...................................................         8.0        66.1        8.23        66.1        8.23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Subcategory L
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2...................................................         .09         0.3        3.28         0.3        3.28
3...................................................        0.31         2.2        7.11         2.9        9.60
4...................................................        0.32         3.0        9.54         4.3       13.59
5...................................................        0.32         3.9       11.97         3.9       11.97
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For subcategories A-J, no option has a cost-reasonableness greater 
than $ 3.47/lb using upper-bound costs, or greater than $ 1.79 using 
retrofit costs. Subcategories K and L show similar magnitudes. The 
least cost-reasonable option for subcategory K is the most stringent 
option, option 5, with a cost-reasonableness of $ 8.23. The cost-
reasonableness for all of the other options for subcategory K are less 
than $ 8.00/lb. The cost-reasonableness of the options for subcategory 
L are slightly higher, the least cost-reasonable is option 4 with 
upper-bound costs, at $ 14/lb. All of these figures are well within the 
cost-reasonableness of previously promulgated BPT standards.
b. Toxic Cost-Effectiveness
    The results of the toxic cost-effectiveness analysis are expressed 
in terms of the costs (in 1981 dollars) per pound-equivalent removed, 
where pounds-equivalent removed for a particular pollutant is 
determined by multiplying the number of pounds of a pollutant removed 
by each option by a toxic weighting factor. The toxic weighting factors 
account for the differences in toxicity among pollutants and are 
derived using ambient water quality criteria. Cost effectiveness 
results are presented in 1981 dollars as a reporting convention. Cost-
effectiveness is calculated as the ratio of pre-tax annualized costs of 
an option to the annual pounds-equivalent (lb-eq) removed by that 
option, and can be expressed as the average or incremental cost-
effectiveness for an option.
    Average cost-effectiveness can be thought of as the ``increment'' 
between no regulation and the selected option for any given rule. 
Incremental cost-effectiveness measures the relative cost-effectiveness 
for two options and is the appropriate measure for comparing one 
regulatory option to another regulatory option for the same 
subcategory. Toxic cost-effectiveness results by subcategory and option 
are presented for direct dischargers in Table VIII.L-3 and indirect 
dischargers in Table VIII.L-4. The options are listed in order of 
increasing removals. Toxic cost-effectiveness is presented using both 
retrofit and upper-bound costs.

[[Page 8621]]



                                              Table VIII.L-3.--Toxic Cost-Effectiveness, Direct Dischargers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Retrofit costs                                 Upper bound costs
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Pretax                                          Pretax                        Incremental
                 Option                    Total pounds     annualized     Average cost     Incremental     annualized     Average cost        cost
                                              removed          cost        effectiveness       cost            cost        effectiveness   effectiveness
                                                           (millions of    ($1981/pounds   effectiveness   (millions of    ($1981/pounds   ($1981/pounds
                                                              $1999)        equivalent)                       $1999)        equivalent)     equivalent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Subcategory A Through D
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAT 2...................................          93,586              NA              NA              NA           $9.93             $62             $62
BAT 3...................................          93,687          $42.25            $263              NA          $59.52            $371        $286,414
BAT 4...................................          94,195          $73.53            $455       $35,930.0         $117.98            $731         $67,154
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Subcategory E Through I
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAT 2...................................           2,609              NA              NA              NA           $0.40             $90             $90
BAT 3...................................           2,618           $0.54            $120              NA           $0.69            $154         $18,512
BAT 4...................................           2,615           $3.53            $787    ($597,188.0)           $7.01          $1,564    ($1,216,372)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Subcategory J
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAT 2...................................           1,550              NA              NA              NA           $0.55            $208            $208
BAT 3...................................           1,621           $4.28          $1,540              NA           $5.80          $2,089         $43,028
BAT 4...................................           1,553           $4.98          $1,871       (5,991.0)           $6.31          $2,370        ($4,333)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Subcategory K
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAT 2...................................          63,192              NA              NA              NA           $4.82             $45             $45
BAT 3...................................          64,094          $34.46            $314              NA          $48.37            $440         $28,181
BAT 4...................................          64,029          $44.21            $403    ($87,773.00)          $61.25            $558      ($115,860)
BAT 4...................................          65,169          $66.09            $592              NA          $66.09            $592         $2,479
                                                                      Subcategory L
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAT 2...................................             373              NA              NA              NA           $0.30            $472            $472
BAT 3...................................             383           $2.18          $3,329              NA           $2.95          $4,494        $160,314
BAT 4...................................             371           $3.03          $4,769    ($43,685.00)           $4.32          $6,796       ($70,689)
BAT 5...................................             398           $3.85          $5,645              NA           $3.85          $5,645       ($10,190)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                             Table VIII.L-4.--Toxic Cost-Effectiveness, Indirect Dischargers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Retrofit costs                                 Upper bound costs
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Pretax                        Incremental       Pretax                        Incremental
                 Option                    Total pounds     annualized     Average cost        cost         annualized     Average cost        cost
                                              removed          cost        effectiveness   effectiveness       cost        effectiveness   effectiveness
                                                           (Millions of    ($1981/pounds   ($1981/pounds   (millions of    ($1981/pounds   ($1981/pounds
                                                              $1999)        equivalent)     equivalent)       $1999)        equivalent)     equivalent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Subcategory A through D
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PSES1...................................         240,421              NA              NA              NA           $7.05             $17             $17
PSES2...................................         310,768              NA              NA              NA         $151.49            $284          $1,198
PSES3...................................         309,081          $86.42            $163              NA          $96.25            $182         $19,107
PSES4...................................         309,541         $105.86            $200         $24,671         $120.64            $227         $30,955
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Subcategory E through I
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PSES1...................................          76,890              NA              NA              NA          $18.79            $143            $143
PSES2...................................          78,831              NA              NA              NA         $102.09            $756         $25,036
PSES3...................................          78,855          $83.25            $616              NA          $83.68            $619      ($440,522)
PSES4...................................          78,813         $109.82            $813      ($368,189)         $110.20            $816      ($367,437)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Subcategory J
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PSES1...................................           3,918              NA              NA              NA           $1.33            $198            $198
PSES2...................................           4,983              NA              NA              NA          $23.25          $2,723         $12,011
PSES3...................................           5,112          $23.09          $2,635              NA          $27.91          $3,185         $21,075
PSES4...................................           4,951          $24.78          $2,920        ($6,157)          $29.22          $3,443        ($4,757)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Subcategory K
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PSES1...................................         377,651              NA              NA              NA          $10.84             $17             $17
PSES2...................................         382,550              NA              NA              NA         $188.95            $288         $21,212
PSES3...................................         382,735         $126.00            $192              NA         $133.01            $203      ($176,292)

[[Page 8622]]

 
PSES4...................................         381,751         $131.39            $201        ($3,196)         $136.54            $209        ($2,093)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Subcategory L
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PSES1...................................          49,950              NA              NA              NA          $15.26            $178            $178
PSES2...................................          51,257              NA              NA              NA         $105.33          $1,199         $40,224
PSES3...................................          51,367          $74.25            $843              NA          $74.56            $847      ($162,814)
PSES4...................................          51,237          $93.89          $1,069       ($88,323)          $94.11          $1,072       ($87,885)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The average toxic cost-effectiveness values for the selected 
options generally range from $120/lb-eq to $400/lb-eq. The average 
toxic cost-effectiveness values for subcategory L are an exception, and 
are estimated at $3,329/lb-eq or $4,494/lb-eq. For all subcategories 
except J, the incremental toxic cost-effectiveness is extremely high by 
historic standards (see Appendix B of the EA for a comparison) however, 
control of toxic pollutants is not the main goal of the proposal. 
Rather, EPA focused primarily on cost-reasonableness (for total pounds) 
and nutrient cost-effectiveness in selecting among options.
c. Nutrient Cost-Effectiveness
    EPA also has calculated the cost-effectiveness of the removal of 
nutrients for the options considered in today's proposal. As a basis of 
comparison, EPA has estimated that the average cost-effectiveness of 
nutrient removal by POTWs with biological nutrient removal is $4/lb for 
nitrogen and $10/lb for phosphorus.
    Tables VIII.L-5 and VIII.L-6 present the results of the nutrient 
cost-effectiveness analysis for direct and indirect dischargers, 
respectively. The options are listed in order of increasing removals. 
Toxic cost-effectiveness is presented using both retrofit and upper-
bound costs.

                                            Table VIII.L-5.--Nutrient Cost-Effectiveness, Direct Dischargers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Retrofit costs                                 Upper bound costs
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Pretax                        Incremental       Pretax                        Incremental
                 Option                    Total pounds     annualized     Average cost        cost         annualized     Average cost        cost
                                              removed          cost        effectiveness   effectiveness       cost        effectiveness   effectiveness
                                                           (millions of    ($1999/pounds   ($1999/pounds   (millions of    ($1999/pounds   ($1999/pounds
                                                              $1999)        eqivalent)      equivalent)       $1999)        equivalent)     equivalent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Subcategory A Through D
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAT 2...................................       1,972,012              NA              NA              NA           $9.93            $5.0            $5.0
BAT 3...................................      42,818,320          $42.25            $1.0              NA          $59.52            $1.4            $1.2
BAT 4...................................      44,916,551          $73.53            $1.6           $14.9         $117.98            $2.6           $27.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Subcategory E through I
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAT 2...................................          35,700              NA              NA              NA           $0.40           $11.3           $11.3
BAT 3...................................       2,115,639           $0.54            $0.3              NA           $0.69            $0.3            $0.1
BAT 4...................................       2,120,199           $3.53            $1.7          $656.1           $7.01            $3.3        $1,385.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Subcategory J
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAT 2...................................          86,772              NA              NA              NA           $0.55            $6.4            $6.4
BAT 3...................................         482,224           $4.28            $8.9              NA           $5.80           $12.0           $13.3
BAT 4...................................         531,196           $4.98            $9.4           $14.3           $6.31           $11.9           $10.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Subcategory K
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAT 2...................................         809,883              NA              NA              NA           $4.82            $6.0            $6.0
BAT 3...................................       8,371,827          $34.46            $4.1              NA          $48.37            $5.8            $5.8
BAT 4...................................       8,870,390          $44.21            $5.0           $19.6          $61.25            $6.9           $25.8
BAT 5...................................       8,856,078          $66.09            $7.5              NA          $66.09            $7.5        ($338.4)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Subcategory L
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAT 2...................................               0              NA              NA              NA           $0.30              NA              NA
BAT 3...................................         320,160           $2.18            $6.8              NA           $2.95            $9.2            $8.3
BAT 4...................................         318,194           $3.03            $9.5        ($432.9)           $4.32           $13.6        ($700.6)
BAT 5...................................         334,187           $3.85           $11.5              NA           $3.85           $11.5           $29.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 8623]]


                                           Table VIII.L-6.--Nutrient Cost-Effectiveness, Indirect Dischargers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Retrofit costs                                 Upper bound costs
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Incremental                                     Incremental
                 Option                    Total pounds       Pretax       Average cost        cost           Pretax       Average cost        cost
                                              removed       annualized     effectiveness   effectiveness    annualized      effectivess    effectiveness
                                                          cost (millions   ($1999/pounds   ($1999/pounds  cost (millions   ($1999/pounds   ($1999/pounds
                                                             of $1999)      equivalent)     equivalent)      of $1999)      equivalent)     equivalent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Subcategory A Through D
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PSES1...................................         907,327              NA              NA              NA           $7.05           $7.77           $7.77
PSES2...................................       1,573,317              NA              NA              NA         $151.49          $96.29         $216.88
PSES3...................................      33,837,795          $86.42           $2.55              NA          $96.25           $2.84         ($1.71)
PSES4...................................      35,215,559         $105.86           $3.01          $14.11         $120.64           $3.43          $17.70
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Subcategory E Through I
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PSES1...................................       1,997,640              NA              NA              NA          $18.79           $9.41           $9.41
PSES2...................................       1,510,007              NA              NA              NA         $102.09          $67.61       ($170.82)
PSES3...................................       4,616,635          $83.25          $18.03              NA          $83.68          $18.13         ($5.93)
PSES4...................................       4,603,357         $109.82          $23.86     ($2,001.07)         $110.20          $23.94     ($1,996.98)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Subcategory J
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PSES1...................................       8,233,864              NA              NA              NA           $1.33           $0.16           $0.16
PSES2...................................         146,708              NA              NA              NA          $23.25         $158.51         ($2.71)
PSES3...................................      10,194,886          $23.09           $2.26              NA          $27.91           $2.74           $0.46
PSES4...................................      10,379,498          $24.78           $2.39           $9.18          $29.22           $2.82           $7.09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Subcategory K
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PSES1...................................       5,468,191              NA              NA              NA          $10.84           $1.98           $1.98
PSES2...................................       2,827,350              NA              NA              NA         $188.95          $66.83        ($67.45)
PSES3...................................      18,404,976         $126.00           $6.85              NA         $133.01           $7.23         ($3.59)
PSES4...................................      19,217,341         $131.39           $6.84           $6.63         $136.54           $7.11           $4.34
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Subcategory L
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PSES1...................................       2,715,456              NA              NA              NA          $15.26           $5.62           $5.62
PSES2...................................       1,893,734              NA              NA              NA         $105.33          $55.62       ($109.61)
PSES3...................................       5,911,953          $74.25          $12.56              NA          $74.56          $12.61         ($7.66)
PSES4...................................       5,936,000          $93.89          $15.82         $769.90          $94.11          $15.85         $792.95
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The nutrient cost-effectiveness for the selected options varies by 
subcategory from $0.10/lb to $8.30/lb. These values are all within the 
approximate benchmarks determined by EPA for phosphorus. In fact, for 
Subcategories A-I, Option 3 is more cost-effective (in terms of 
nutrients) than Option 2 and is well within the benchmark for nitrogen 
as well. For subcategories J, K, and L, the nutrient cost-effectiveness 
numbers for the proposed options range from $5.80 to $9.20 per pound. 
These exceed the benchmark for nitrogen. When broken out by nitrogen 
and phosphorus, Option 2 meets the individual benchmarks, but option 3 
does not for subcategories K and L. These options thus may not be cost-
effective for nutrient removal.

M. Small Business Analysis

    EPA analyzed the economic impacts on small businesses in order to 
comply with its obligations under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. 
The RFA provides that the default definitions for small businesses are 
based on size standards determined by the Small Business Administration 
(SBA). The standards are for firms, not facilities, and are based on 
NAICS codes. The size standard for all of the NAICS codes in the meat 
and poultry products industry is 500 employees.
    The first step in the analysis was determining how many facilities 
in the industry are owned by small businesses and how many are owned by 
large businesses. EPA took two separate approaches to make this 
determination and compared the estimates to information from other 
sources on the number of facilities owned by large businesses to 
determine which was more accurate. The first approach relied on data 
from the SBA website on the number of firms and facilities of a certain 
size; this data was provided under a special contract with the Census 
Bureau and matches the employment classes used in the Census of 
Manufacturers. The second approach relied on data from the screener 
survey.
    Using the SBA/Census data, EPA first checked the employment class 
for each model facility. If the model facility was in an employment 
class exceeding 500, then all facilities controlled by the same firm 
were assumed to be large business owned. If not, then EPA assigned to 
that model facility the ratio of facilities to establishments for the 
corresponding employment class in the SBA/Census special study. 
Multiplying that ratio by the number of facilities represented by the 
model facility resulted in our estimate of small business owned 
facilities.
    For example, suppose the model facility for R12, medium was in the 
100-249 employee class, and the SBA/Census special study tells us that 
for NAICS 311611, there are 200 firms and 210 facilities with 100-500 
employees. In that case, we assumed 95% of R12, medium facilities were 
stand alone small businesses, and 5% of R12,

[[Page 8624]]

medium facilities were large business owned.
    As an alternative to the estimates from the SBA/Census data, EPA 
also examined responses from the screener survey, which asks for 
facility and company employment for each facility. EPA then compared 
the resulting estimates of the numbers of businesses from each 
alternative approach to information from the various sources in the 
industry profile on the number of facilities owned by large businesses. 
For all the subcategories except rendering, the SBA/Census data 
appeared to provide more accurate comparative estimates and was used to 
generate the numbers of small and large businesses. EPA used the 
screener survey to generate this data for rendering facilities. EPA 
determined that none of the certainty facilities are owned by small 
businesses.
    EPA estimates the 73 facilities owned by small businesses will be 
affected by this regulation: 69 nonsmall facilities in subcategories A-
K with new BPT/BCT/BAT requirements and 4 small facilities in 
Subcategory L subject to new BPT requirements. Average cost/sales 
ratios for facilities owned by small businesses are presented in Table 
VIII.M-1 as well as the range of cost/sales ratios calculated for those 
facilities. Average cost/net income ratios for facilities owned by 
small businesses are presented in Table VIII.M-2 with the range of 
cost/net income ratios calculated for those facilities. The ranges are 
generated by calculating the ratios for each of the model facilities 
that make up each subcategory. The average ratio is thus a weighted 
average of the ratios for the model facilities. Therefore, this average 
ratio may vary from the ratio for the subcategory as a whole.

            Table VIII.M-1.--Cost/Sales Ratios for Small Business-Owned Facilities, Selected Options
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of                  Cost/net income (%)
                                                  small business------------------------------------------------
                   Subcategory                         owned
                                                    facilities        Average           Low            High
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A-D.............................................               5            0.02            0.25            0.25
F-I.............................................              10            0.07            0.01            0.27
J...............................................              12            0.17            0.17            0.17
K...............................................              28            0.58            0.37            1.00
L (nonsmall)....................................              12            0.55            0.27            0.59
L (small).......................................               4            0.20            0.20            0.20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


          Table VIII.M-2.--Cost/Net Income Ratios for Small Business-Owned Facilities, Selected Options
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of                  Cost/net income (%)
                                                  small business------------------------------------------------
                   Subcategory                         owned
                                                    facilities        Average           Low            High
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A-D.............................................               5            0.25            0.25            0.25
F-I.............................................              10            0.55            0.09            2.03
J...............................................              12            0.68            0.68            0.68
K...............................................              28            6.82            5.03            8.94
L (nonsmall)....................................              12            4.87            2.03            5.31
L (small).......................................               4            2.44            2.44            2.44
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IX. Water Quality Analysis and Environmental Benefits

A. Qualitative Description of Water Quality Benefits

    EPA evaluated the environmental benefits of controlling the 
discharges of conventional pollutants from meat and poultry production 
industry (MPP) facilities to surface waters in national analyses of 
direct and indirect discharges. EPA used the National Water Pollution 
Control Assessment Model (NWPCAM version 1.1) to model the instream 
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) concentration, as influenced by pollutant 
reductions of BOD5, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN), Total 
Suspended Solids (TSS) and Fecal Coliform (FC). Based upon each reach 
mile concentration of DO, BOD5, FC and TSS, EPA estimated 
the change in each reaches' use category. The use categories ladder is 
as follows, from poorest to best: No use, boatable, fishable, and 
swimmable; where swimmable waters are most desirable.
    EPA modeled a sample set of 97 facilities. EPA estimates that the 
proposed rule will improve overall use of 17 to 28 reach miles for the 
sample set. Scaling these results to represent the nation level of 246 
facilities, EPA estimates the national improvement in overall use to be 
29 to 49 reach miles. The national monetized benefits for this overall 
use improvement range from $15.5 million to $16.1 million.

B. Facilities Modeled

    EPA estimates that 246 red meat, poultry, and rendering facilities 
are covered under this proposed rule. EPA mailed out 350 detailed 
surveys to generate both environmental and economic data. EPA received 
241 detailed surveys in time for data analysis of this proposed rule 
making (see Section V.B). Of the 241 detailed surveys, EPA was able to 
model the environmental impacts of 97 facilities (36 direct dischargers 
and 61 indirect dischargers). EPA did not evaluate: (1) 79 facilities 
which report storing water in on-site lagoons or land applying their 
wastewater; or (2) 65 facilities for which EPA had insufficient data to 
conduct the water quality analysis.

C. Pollutants of Concern

    EPA identified 30 pollutants of concern for the meat processing 
segment of the industry and 27 pollutants of concern for the poultry 
processing segment of the industry (see Section V.C). This list 
includes Ammonia as Nitrogen, Carbonaceous BOD5, Chemical 
Oxygen Demand (COD), Nitrate +Nitrite (as Nitrogen), Hexane Extractable 
Method (HEM), Oil and Grease, Total Recoverable Oil and Grease, pH, 
Temperature, Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorous (as PO4).
    Discharges of these pollutants of concern into freshwater and 
estuarine

[[Page 8625]]

ecosystems may alter aquatic habitats and adversely affect aquatic 
biota. For example, habitat degradation can result from increased 
suspended particulate matter that reduces light penetration, and thus 
primary productivity, or from accumulation of suspended particles that 
alter benthic spawning grounds and feeding habitats. Nutrients, 
including phosphorus and nitrogen are the primary causes of surface 
water eutrophication, which can reduce dissolved oxygen content of 
waterbodies to levels insufficient to support fish and invertebrates. 
Eutrophication may also increase the incidence of harmful algal blooms 
which release toxins as they die and can severely affect wildlife as 
well as humans.
    BOD5 and COD are important measures of the organic 
content of an effluent. When effluents with high BOD5 or COD 
are discharged to surface waters, the process of microbial degradation 
of organic compounds can, under certain conditions, reduce dissolved 
oxygen levels in receiving water bodies below the threshold necessary 
to support aquatic life. Additionally, meat and poultry processing raw 
wastewaters contain significant amounts of organic nitrogen which 
rapidly breaks down into ammonia which, if left untreated, are a direct 
toxicant to aquatic communities. Oil and grease are known to produce 
toxic effects on aquatic organisms (i.e., fish, crustacea, larvae and 
eggs, gastropods, bivalves, invertebrates, and flora). Pathogens are 
known to impact a variety of water uses including recreation, drinking 
water sources, and aquatic life and fisheries (Docket No. W-01-06, 
Record No. 10024).

D. Benefits Modeling Methodology

    EPA chose to use the National Water Pollution Control Assessment 
Model (NWPCAM) version 1.1 to estimate environmental impacts to surface 
water quality resulting from implementation of various scenarios for 
regulating MPP facilities. Specifically, EPA developed NWPCAM v1.1 to 
model instream Dissolved Oxygen (DO) concentration, as influenced by 
pollutant reductions of BOD5, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN), 
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and Fecal Coliform (FC). Based upon each 
reach mile concentration of DO, BOD5, FC and TSS, EPA 
estimates the change in each reaches' use category. The use categories 
ladder is as follows, from poorest to best: 0 = no use; 1 = boatable; 2 
= fishable; and 3 = swimmable (where swimmable waters are most 
desirable).
    The NWPCAM is a national-scale water quality model that 
characterizes water quality conditions for the Nation's network of 
river and streams. As of present, the NWPCAM v1.1 only models DO, 
BOD5, Fecal Coliform, TKN and TSS. EPA is presently working 
to modify the model to include the following: (1) Modeling of nutrients 
for an eutrophication analysis of ponds and lakes; and (2) modeling of 
other pollutants for rivers and streams. This model update should be 
completed in time for the final rule.
    Since the meat and poultry processing industry waste streams are 
mostly non-toxic organic pollutants, EPA is satisfied that NWPCAM v1.1 
models the majority of pollutant pounds generated by the 97 MPP 
facilities included in this rule making. However, for this reason, EPA 
acknowledges that the environmental impacts and benefits are probably 
underestimated.
    In addition, EPA did not evaluate the impact on receiving waters 
from conventional pollutants (BOD5, TSS, Oil and Grease and 
Fecal Coliform) and other pollutants (metals, nutrients) which pass 
through the POTW (see Section XI.B). EPA is, however, soliciting 
comment on whether pretreatment standards are necessary for this 
industry and how EPA should model these potential benefits from 
controls on MPP indirect dischargers.

E. Modeled Technology Option Scenarios

    EPA estimated the benefits from the improvements in water quality 
expected for 8 different scenarios of the various regulatory options.

                Table IX.E-1.--Benefits Scenarios Modeled
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Scenario                      Regulatory options \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................  BAT2
2...................................  BAT3
3...................................  BAT4
4...................................  BAT2 + PSES1
5...................................  BAT3 + PSES1
6...................................  BAT4 + PSES1
7...................................  BAT3 (meat, poultry), BAT2
                                       (rendering)
8...................................  BAT3 (meat, poultry), BAT2
                                       (rendering) + PSES1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1: BAT options apply to within scope direct dischargers and PSES
  options apply to within scope indirect dischargers (see Section III).

    The regulatory options evaluated for direct dischargers were:
BAT2: Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) (advanced oil/water separation), 
Lagoon, and Disinfection (Oil and Grease, BOD5, TSS, 
Pathogen removal) + Nitrification (Ammonia (NH3) removal)
BAT3: BAT2 + Denitrification (Nitrogen removal)
BAT4: BAT3 + (Phosphorus removal)

    The regulatory Options evaluated for indirect dischargers were:
PSES1: DAF, Equalization (Oil and Grease, TSS, removal)

F. Documented Impacts and Permit Violations

    EPA identified 10 articles documenting environmental impacts due to 
meat and poultry processing facilities. Documented impacts include 4 
reaches with nutrient loadings, 2 sites with contaminated well water, 1 
site with contaminated ground water, and 1 lake threatened by nutrient 
loadings. EPA also documented 20 permit violations by meat and poultry 
processing facilities. The permit levels mostly violated are 
NH3-N, PO4, and TSS.
    EPA identified 18 articles which document legal action in criminal 
cases taken against meat and poultry processing facilities. Documented 
legal action includes: (1) Conspiracy of 5 facilities to violate the 
CWA; (2) one case of illegal dumping of waste; and (3) five cases of 
falsifying records, diluting waste samples and or destroying records. 
These legal actions resulting in 3 possible cases of incarceration and 
fines ranging from $0.25 million to $12.6 million. All of these 
articles and permit violations are documented in the record (Docket No. 
W-01-06, Record No. 10033).

G. Modeled Water Quality Impacts

    The environmental analysis for 97 meat and poultry processing 
facilities is presented in Table IX.G-1. EPA estimates that the 
proposed rule would decrease end-of-pipe pollutant loadings 10 percent 
for all subcategories. The baseline load of 49.9 million lbs/yr 
(BOD5, TSS, Nitrogen, Phosphorus and TKN) would be reduced 
to 45.1 million lbs/yr. The recommended treatment option would result 
in the over-all use improvement of 21 river miles at the sample set, 
and approximately 36 miles at the national level.

[[Page 8626]]



                          Table IX.G-1.--Modeled Environmental Benefits (97 Facilities)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Overall use improvement \2\
                                                   Pollutant \1\     Pollutant             (reach miles)
        Scenario            Regulatory options    Load  (million     Reduction   -------------------------------
                                                      lbs/yr)        (percent)        Sample         National
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline................  ......................            49.9  ..............  ..............  ..............
1.......................  BAT2..................            47.5               5              17              29
2.......................  BAT3..................            45.0              10              21              36
3.......................  BAT4..................            44.8              10              21              36
4.......................  BAT2 + PSES1..........            36.2              27              24              41
5.......................  BAT3 + PSES1..........            33.7              32              28              48
6.......................  BAT4 + PSES1..........            33.5              33              21              36
7.......................  BAT3 (meat, poultry),             45.1              10              21              36
                           BAT2 (Rendering).
8.......................  BAT3 (meat, poultry),             33.7              32              28             48
                           BAT2 (Rendering) +
                           PSES1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1: Baseline = 49.9 Million lbs/yr. Pound totals include BOD, TSS, Nitrogen, Phosphorus and TKN from 97
  facilities. Some overlap between categories may be occurring
Note 2: Sample set represents 97 facilities. National set represents 246 facilities. Of the 246 facilities
  represented, 79 facilities are zero dischargers, and therefore do not contribute to these modeled water
  quality impacts/improvements.

H. Monetized Water Quality Benefits

    Economic benefits associated with the meat and poultry products 
scenarios are based on incremental changes in water quality use-support 
(i.e., boatable, fishable, swimmable) and the population benefitting 
from the changes. Benefits are calculated state-by-state at the State 
(local) scale as well as at the national level. For each State, 
benefits at the local-scale represent the value that the State 
population is willing to pay for improvements to waters within the 
State or adjoining the State. For each State, benefits at the national-
scale represent the value that the State population is willing to pay 
for improvements to waters in all other states in the continental 
United States. EPA solicits comment on additional methods for 
estimating and monetizing benefits.
    Table IX.H-1 summarizes the resulting estimates of economic 
benefits for each of the six regulatory scenarios analyzed. Based on 
the subset of facilities included in the NWPCAM analysis, the total 
national willingness-to-pay (WTP) benefits at the local-scale for all 
water quality use-supports ranged from approximately $15.5 million for 
BAT2 to $16.1 million for BAT4 + PSES1. EPA estimates that the annual 
benefits of the proposed regulatory action (i.e., Scenario 7) is $15.6 
million per year. Since these benefits are for a subset of the 
facilities regulated by the proposal, they should not be compared to 
the total costs of the rule. EPA estimates that the costs for Scenario 
7 for the facilities included in the benefits analysis are $33.7 
million. If the ratio of costs to benefits for these facilities is the 
same as the ratio of costs to benefits for all facilities, the total 
benefits of the rule would be $37.0 million.

      Table IX.H-1.--Modeled Environmental Benefits (97 Facilities)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Monetized
                                                               benefits
          Scenario                 Regulatory  options          ($1999
                                                               million)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..........................  BAT2..........................         15.5
2..........................  BAT3..........................         15.6
3..........................  BAT4..........................         15.6
4..........................  BAT2 + PSES1..................         15.9
5..........................  BAT3 + PSES1..................         16.0
6..........................  BAT4 + PSES1..................         16.1
7..........................  BAT3 (meat, poultry), BAT2             15.6
                              (Rendering).
8..........................  BAT3 (meat, poultry), BAT2             16.0
                              (Rendering) + PSES1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

X. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts

    Sections 304(b) and 306(b) of the Clean Water Act require EPA to 
consider non-water quality environmental impacts (including energy 
requirements) associated with effluent limitations guidelines and 
standards. To comply with these requirements, EPA considered the 
potential impact of the proposed MPP rule on energy consumption, air 
emissions, and solid waste generation. A discussion of the proposed 
technology options is given in Section VII of this preamble. 
Considering energy use and environmental impacts across all media, the 
Agency has determined that the impacts identified in this section are 
justified by the benefits associated with compliance with the proposed 
limitations and standards. Section X.A discusses the energy 
requirements for implementing wastewater treatment technologies at MPP 
facilities. Section X.B presents the impact of the proposed 
technologies on air emissions, and section X.C discusses the impact on 
wastewater treatment sludge generation.

A. Energy Requirements

    EPA estimates that compliance with this rule will result in a small 
net decrease in energy consumption at non-small MPP facilities that are 
direct dischargers and no change in energy consumption at all MPP 
facilities that are indirect dischargers (as EPA is proposing no PSES 
and PSNS for all MPP subcategories) (see Section III.A.1 for EPA's 
definition of small and non-small facilities). EPA did, however, 
estimate the energy consumption at non-small MPP facilities that are 
indirect dischargers and noted a small net increase in energy 
consumption. Table X.A-1 and X.A-2 present estimates of energy usage by 
technology option for both non-small direct and indirect dischargers, 
respectively. For the selected proposal technology options, EPA 
estimates that there will be a reduction in total annual energy use 
across all non-small direct dischargers (a net reduction of 144 million 
KWH/yr). This is a relatively small net reduction in comparison with 
the total annual amount of energy purchased by non-small direct 
facilities (2,929 million KWH/yr). There are no incremental energy use 
impacts for direct dischargers that are small poultry slaughterers 
(subpart K) or small poultry further processors (subpart L) as all of 
these small facilities are currently implementing the proposed 
limitations and standards (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 00168).

[[Page 8627]]



         Table X.A-1.--Incremental Energy Use for Existing Non-Small MPP Facilities, Direct Dischargers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Total Energy    Incremental MPP WWTP energy use per non-small MPP facility in
                                   purchased per    units of million KWH/fac.-yr and total energy usage percent
   40 CFR part 432 subcategory     non-small MPP         Increase per non-small MPP facility [% increase]
          groupings \1\              facility    ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                   (million KWH/
                                     fac.-yr)          BAT2            BAT3            BAT4            BAT5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A, B, C, D......................           11.42          0.0221         -0.9324         -1.0759              NA
                                                         [0.19%]        [-8.89%]       [-10.40%]
F, G, H, I......................           13.46          0.0017         -0.0239         -0.0354              NA
                                                         [0.01%]        [-0.18%]        [-0.26%]
J...............................            5.47               0         -0.2415          -0.261              NA
                                                         [0.00%]        [-4.62%]        [-5.01%]
K...............................           13.53          0.0031          -0.627         -0.6076         -0.6033
                                                         [0.02%]        [-4.86%]        [-4.70%]        [-4.67%]
L...............................           13.46          0.0021         -0.1088         -0.1094         -0.1519
                                                         [0.02%]        [-0.81%]        [-0.82%]       [-1.14%]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1: Small Processors (Subpart E) are not covered under the proposal (see Section III.A.1) and do not have
  any net incremental NWQIs (including energy usage).


        Table X.A-2.--Incremental Energy Use for Existing Non-Small MPP Facilities, Indirect Dischargers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Total energy    Incremental MPP WWTP energy use per non-small MPP facility in
                                   purchased per    units of million KWH/fac.-yr and total energy usage percent
   40 CFR part 432 subcategory     non-small MPP         increase per non-small MPP facility  [% Increase]
          groupings\1\               facility    ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                   (million KWH/
                                     fac.-yr)          PSES1           PSES2           PSES3           PSES4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A, B, C, D......................           11.42          0.2644          4.5467          2.0473          1.6061
                                                         [2.26%]        [28.48%]        [15.20%]        [12.33%]
F, G, H, I......................           13.46          0.1227          0.6021          0.3404          0.3137
                                                         [0.90%]         [4.28%]         [2.47%]         [2.28%]
J...............................            5.47          0.0243          0.4617          0.0061         -0.0547
                                                         [0.44%]         [7.78%]         [0.11%]        [-1.01%]
K...............................           13.53          0.1423          2.6724          0.9385          0.8078
                                                         [1.04%]        [16.49%]         [6.49%]         [5.63%]
L...............................           13.46          0.0995          0.6519          0.3194          0.2933
                                                         [0.73%]         [4.62%]         [2.32%]        [2.13%]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1: Small Processors (Subpart E) are not covered under the proposal (see Section III.A.1) and do not have
  any net incremental NWQIs (including energy usage).

    The Direct Option BAT3 results in a net decrease in energy use. 
This is a result of the nitrification/denitrification process (BAT3) 
utilizing less oxygen and less mixing than the nitrification process 
(BAT2). Oxygen transfer and mixing operations require energy to run 
blowers and mixers, respectively. The electrical energy costs of a 
fully nitrifying wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) can typically be 
reduced by approximately 20% by implementation of denitrification with 
influent BOD as the necessary organic carbon source (Docket No. W-01-
06, Record No. 00166).
    EPA used facility count, wastewater flow, and treatment-in-place 
data from the Screener Survey and Detailed Survey to develop the 
previous energy use estimations. The MPP Development Document provides 
more detailed information on the development of these energy use 
estimations.

B. Air Emissions Impacts

    The Agency believes that the end-of-pipe technologies included in 
the technology options for this rule do not generate significant 
incremental air emissions either directly from the facility or 
indirectly through increased air emissions impact from the electric 
power generation facilities providing the additional energy.
    Odors are the only significant air pollution problem associated 
with MPP facility wastewater treatment. Malodorous conditions usually 
occur in anaerobic waste treatment processes or localized anaerobic 
environments within aerobic systems. However, it is generally agreed 
that anaerobic tanks and ponds will not create serious odor problems 
unless the process water has a high sulfate content. The proposed 
technology options will not significantly increase odors as the 
proposed technology options do not create additional amounts of 
methane.
    The anaerobic contact tank or pond odor is unpredictable as 
evidenced by the few facilities that have odor problems without sulfate 
waters (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 00162). Facilities generally 
utilized a scum layer on the anaerobic contact tank or pond to minimize 
odors (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 10034). Additionally, covers and 
collectors of off-gases from tanks or ponds may also control odors. If 
the off-gas has sufficient methane content it can then be recovered for 
energy or burned in a flare. Dissolved air flotation systems can also 
generate localized odors if facilities do not: (1) Properly remove the 
skimmings or grease-containing solids; or (2) provide sufficient 
ventilation around the treatment system if it is located indoors. Odors 
can best be controlled by elimination, at the source, in preference to 
treatment for odor control.
    EPA visited several MPP facilities that EPA considered to be 
operating the selected proposal technology options. None of these BAT 
facilities had odor control problems. One MPP WWTP operator noted that 
his facility, which

[[Page 8628]]

operates BAT5 technology (biological nutrient removal with disc 
filter), has had no odor control problem since the installation of his 
new WWTP even with private residences located within \1/4\ mile of the 
WWTP (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 00154).
    As previously stated, EPA estimates an annual net energy reduction 
of 144 million KWH for the selected proposal technology options. EPA is 
proposing no PSES or PSNS regulatory controls for indirect dischargers. 
This annual net energy reduction, however, is small compared with the 
amount of energy used by MPP direct dischargers (2,929 million KWH/yr) 
and trivial when compared with the total electricity used by the entire 
United States in 1999 (3,501 billion KWH) (Docket No. W-01-06, Record 
No. 00139).

C. Solid Waste Generation

    The most significant non-water quality environmental impact (NWQI) 
is the generation of additional solids from MPP WWTP. These additional 
solids are generally nonhazardous. Some solids are recovered for 
additional processing (rendering) and are not considered solid wastes 
or NWQIs. Screening devices of various design and operating principles 
are used primarily for removal of large-scale solids (e.g., feathers, 
large animal particles) from the meat and poultry processing facility 
raw water before the raw water reaches the headworks of the WWTP. These 
large-scale solids have economic value as inedible rendering raw 
material.
    The organic and inorganic solid material separated from the MPP 
wastewater, including chemicals added to aid solids separation, is 
called sludge. Typically, this sludge contains 95 to 98 percent water 
before dewatering. The raw sludge can be concentrated, digested, 
dewatered, dried, incinerated, land-filled, or spread in sludge holding 
ponds. Facilities may use combinations of these sludge management 
options for different periods of the year. A WWTP operator for a 
poultry slaughtering facility, which utilizes BAT5 technology, noted 
that sludges from his facility are used as a soil amendments via spray 
irrigation for crops raised on the facility's property, while during 
the off-growing season (July through March) these sludges are kept in a 
lagoon. The operator pays a fee for land application of the WWTP 
sludge. EPA noted during site visits to two independent rendering 
operations that sludges from dissolved air floatation units which use 
chemical additions to promote solids separation are rendered, however, 
the chemical bond between the organic matter and the polymers requires 
that the sludges be processed (rendered) at higher temperatures (260 
deg.F) and longer retention times (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 
10042). EPA estimates that compliance with this proposed rule will 
result in a decrease in wastewater treatment sludges at MPP facilities.
    For the selected proposal technology options, EPA estimates that 
there will be a 3.4% reduction in total annual sludge production across 
all non-small direct dischargers (a net reduction of approximately 
16,500 tons/yr). This is a relatively small net reduction in comparison 
with the current total annual amount of sludge production by non-small 
direct facilities (approximately 500,000 tons/yr). Tables X.C-1 and 
X.C-2 present the amount of wastewater treatment sludge expected to be 
reduced at non-small facilities as a result of implementing each of the 
technology options. There are no incremental sludge generation impacts 
for direct dischargers that are small poultry slaughterers (subpart K) 
or small poultry further processors (subpart L) as all of these small 
facilities are currently implementing the proposed limitations and 
standards (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 00168).
    EPA is proposing no PSES and PSNS for all indirect dischargers in 
all MPP subcategories. EPA did, however, estimate the sludge generation 
at non-small MPP facilities that are indirect dischargers and noted a 
small net increase in sludge generation.

      Table X.C-1.--Incremental Sludge Generation for Existing Non-Small MPP Facilities, Direct Dischargers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Baseline total   Incremental Sludge Generated--tons/yr and percent increase [%
                                      sludge        Increase] for non-small MPP facilities, direct dischargers
                                   generated at  ---------------------------------------------------------------
   40 CFR part 432 subcategory     non-small MPP
          groupings\1\              facilities,
                                      direct           BAT2            BAT3            BAT4            BAT5
                                    dischargers
                                    (tons/year)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A, B, C, D......................         353,794               0          -5,976          -5,334              NA
                                                          [0.0%]         [-1.7%]         [-1.5%]
F, G, H, I......................           6,564               0             -45             -26              NA
                                                          [0.0%]         [-0.7%]         [-0.4%]
J...............................           3,655               0            -124            -124              NA
                                                          [0.0%]         [-3.4%]         [-3.4%]
K...............................         129,917               0         -10,353           8,533           8,533
                                                          [0.0%]         [-8.0%]          [6.6%]          [6.6%]
L...............................           3,326               0            -146            -137            -909
                                                          [0.0%]          -4.4%]         [-4.1%]       [-27.3%]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Note 1: Small Processors (Subpart E) are not covered under the proposal (see Section III.A.1) and do not have
  any net incremental NWQIs (including sludge generation).


     Table X.C-2.--Incremental Sludge Generation for Existing Non-Small MPP Facilities, Indirect Dischargers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Baseline total   Incremental sludge generated--tons/yr and percent increase [%
                                      sludge       Increase] for non-small MPP facilities, indirect dischargers
                                   generated at  ---------------------------------------------------------------
   40 CFR part 432 subcategory     non-small MPP
          groupings\1\              facilities,
                                     indirect          PSES1           PSES2           PSES3           PSES4
                                    dischargers
                                    (tons/year)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A, B, C, D......................          63,466               0         227,567         187,011         189,695
                                                          [0.0%]        [358.6%]        [294.7%]        [298.9%]

[[Page 8629]]

 
F, G, H, I......................           2,599             302          58,071          48,598          50,046
                                                         [11.6%]       [2234.6%]       [1870.1%]       [1925.8%]
J...............................           9,520              32          11,259           9,212           9,522
                                                          [0.3%]        [118.3%]         [96.8%]        [100.0%]
K...............................          38,422              97         188,012         162,621         162,589
                                                          [0.3%]        [489.3%]        [423.3%]        [423.2%]
L...............................           2,360             228          61,213          53,794          54,233
                                                          [9.6%]       [2593.6%]       [2279.2%]      [2297.8%]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Note 1: Small Processors (Subpart E) are not covered under the proposal (see Section III.A.1) and do not have
  any net incremental NWQIs (including sludge generation).

    As shown in Table X.C-1, Direct Option BAT3 results in a net 
decrease in sludge generation for non-small direct dischargers. This is 
a result of the nitrification/denitrification (BAT3) metabolism which 
reduces sludge production as compared with nitrification (BAT2) 
metabolism for the same solids retention time (Docket No. W-01-06, 
Record No.00166). Full-scale domestic WWTP have shown a 5 to 15% 
reduction in waste sludge production after the inclusion of the 
nitrification/denitrification process (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 
10035).
    EPA also expects that water conservation and pollution prevention 
technologies may result in a greater sludge reduction. EPA expects 
these technologies to reduce sludge generation for the following 
reasons:
     Water conservation technologies reduce the amount of 
source water used and thus mass of pollutants in the source water which 
reduces the amount of sludge generated during treatment.
     Pollution prevention practices reduce the mass of 
pollutants in treatment system influent streams which reduces the 
amount of WWTP sludge.
    EPA used facility count, wastewater flow, and treatment-in-place 
data from the MPP Screener Survey and Detailed Survey to develop the 
previous sludge generation estimations. The MPP Development Document 
provides more detailed information on the development of these sludge 
generation estimations.

XI. Options Selected for Proposal

A. Introduction

1. Methodology for Proposed Selection of Regulated Pollutants
    EPA selects the pollutants for regulation based on the pollutants 
of concern (POCs) identified for each subcategory.
    EPA selected a subset of pollutants for which to establish 
numerical effluent limitations from the list of POCs for each regulated 
subcategory. Section VII.C. discusses EPA's methodology for selecting 
POCs and identifies on a subcategory basis the POCs relevant to this 
proposal. Generally, a chemical is considered a POC if it was detected 
in the untreated process wastewater at 5 times the minimum level (ML) 
in more than 10 percent of samples.
    Monitoring for all POCs is not necessary to ensure that Meat and 
Poultry Products wastewater pollution is adequately controlled, since 
many of the pollutants originate from similar sources, have similar 
treatabilities, are removed by similar mechanisms, and are treated to 
similar levels. Therefore, it may be sufficient to monitor for one 
pollutant as a surrogate or indicator of several others.
    Regulated pollutants are pollutants for which the EPA would 
establish numerical effluent limitations and standards. EPA selected a 
POC for regulation in a subcategory if it meets all the following 
criteria:

--Chemical is not used as a treatment chemical in the selected 
technology option.
--Chemical is not considered a volatile compound.
--Chemical is effectively treated by the selected treatment technology 
option.
--Chemical is detected in the untreated wastewater at treatable levels 
in a significant number of samples, e.g., generally 5 times the minimum 
level at more than 10 percent of the raw wastewater samples.
--Chemicals whose control through treatment processes would lead to 
control of a wide range of pollutants with similar properties; these 
chemicals are generally good indicators of overall wastewater treatment 
performance.

    Based on the methodology described above, EPA proposes to regulate 
pollutants in each subcategory that will ensure adequate control of a 
range of pollutants.
2. Selection of Proposed Regulated Pollutants for Existing and New 
Direct Dischargers
    The current regulation requires facilities to maintain the pH 
between 6.0 and 9.0 at all times. EPA intends to retain this limitation 
and proposes to codify identical pH limitations for previously 
unregulated subcategories. The pH shall be monitored at the point of 
discharge from the wastewater treatment facility to which effluent 
limitations derived from this part apply.
    In addition, EPA is proposing to establish effluent limitations for 
MPP facilities for the following pollutants of concern: BOD, COD, TSS, 
oil and grease, fecal coliforms, ammonia, total nitrogen, and total 
phosphorus. The specific justifications for the pollutants to be 
regulated for each subcategory are provided below. In general, EPA 
selected these pollutants because they are representative of the 
characteristics of meat processing wastewaters generated in the 
industry, and are key indicators of the performance of treatment 
processes that serve as the basis for the proposed effluent 
limitations.
    A number of POCs evaluated by EPA are parameters that identify the 
quantity of material in an effluent that is likely to consume oxygen as 
it breaks down in surface waters after it has been discharged. These 
parameters include total organic carbon, BOD, COD and dissolved BOD. 
Values for these POCs

[[Page 8630]]

in meat poultry processing wastes are typically very high due to the 
wastewaters generated from killing, evisceration, further processing, 
and rendering processes. EPA is proposing to regulate BOD and COD, 
which will be used as indicators of the performance of biological 
treatment systems to remove all oxygen-demanding pollutants.
    Total suspended solids (TSS), total dissolved solids (TDS), and 
total volatile solids are parameters that measure the quantity of 
solids in a wastewater. Meat processing facilities typically produce 
wastewaters high in organic solids including blood, carcass, feathers, 
and feces. These solids cause a high oxygen demand (both chemical and 
biochemical) and are high in protein and nitrogen content. Because some 
nutrients bind to solids, and solids often include oxygen-demanding 
organic material, limiting the loading of solids will prevent 
degradation of surface waters. EPA proposes to regulate TSS as an 
indicator of performance of biological treatment systems to remove 
solids. EPA considered regulation of TDS, however, as organic matter is 
broken down in a biological system, levels of TDS may increase, which 
makes regulation of TDS not feasible. EPA is considering setting TDS 
direct and/or indirect limitations and standards for certain meat and 
poultry further processors (e.g., ham processors) that use significant 
amounts of brine or pickling solutions for the final rule. EPA solicits 
comment on whether such TDS limitations and standards are necessary, 
what technologies would be appropriate for this industry for TDS 
removal, and which industry subcategories (if any) should be subject to 
these potential limitations and standards.
    Wastewaters from meat processing facilities have high 
concentrations of nutrients associated primarily with solids from feces 
wastes and facility cleaning processes. In addition, those facilities 
employing advanced biological treatment systems to remove ammonia 
convert organic nitrogen to nitrate and nitrites. Due to the potential 
degrading impacts to surface waters associated with the discharge of 
nutrients (e.g., eutrophication), EPA proposes to regulate total 
nitrogen and total phosphorus. In regulating total nitrogen and total 
phosphorus, EPA will ensure that biological treatment systems used by 
facilities are effectively removing all forms of these nutrients 
including total kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), nitrate/nitrite, ammonia as 
nitrogen, orthophosphate, and dissolved phosphorus. EPA proposes to 
regulate total nitrogen to ensure that the relationship between organic 
nitrogen (estimated by the pollutant TKN) and inorganic nitrogen 
(estimated by nitrate/nitrite) is maintained, thus EPA is defining 
``total nitrogen'' to be the sum of nitrate/nitrite and TKN. EPA is 
also proposing to specifically regulate ammonia as nitrogen because of 
the significant oxygen demand it exerts, as well as its relatively high 
toxicity to aquatic life. In conjunction with the proposed regulations 
for total nitrogen, EPA proposes to approve EPA Method 300.0 at 40 CFR 
part 432. Alternatively, EPA may amend 40 CFR part 136 to include 
Method 300.0 for determination of nitrate/nitrite from wastewaters in 
the meat and poultry products point source category. The analytical 
methods for nitrite/nitrate that are currently approved at 40 CFR part 
136 include many that are based on colorimetric techniques (i.e., 
adding reagents to a sample that form a colored product when they react 
with the nitrate/nitrite and measuring the intensity of the colored 
product). Such methods can be subject to interferences in the difficult 
matrices associated with this industry where samples may contain blood, 
animal tissue, and/or other particulates which affect both the color 
development and ability to pass light through the sample to measure the 
intensity of the colored product. In contrast, Method 300.0 employs the 
technique known as ion chromatography to measure 10 inorganic anions, 
including nitrate and nitrite. Ion chromatography permits the various 
inorganic anions to be separated from one another, as well as from 
other materials and contaminants present in the sample. Each anion can 
be identified on the basis of its characteristic retention time (the 
time required to pass through the instrumentation). After separation, 
the anions are measured by a conductivity detector that responds to 
changes in the effluent from the ion chromatograph that occur when the 
negatively charged anions (analytes) elute at characteristic retention 
times, thereby changing the conductivity of the solution. Thus, Method 
300.0 offers better specificity for nitrate and nitrite in the presence 
of interferences compared to the approved colorimetric methods. Method 
300.0 is located in the rulemaking record (Docket No. W-01-06, Record 
No. 10036). EPA requests comment on the use of this method for the meat 
and poultry point source category and whether the method should be 
approved at 40 CFR part 432 or at 40 CFR part 136 or both.
    Oil and grease (as n-hexane-extractable material) is a parameter 
that measures oil and grease concentrations in effluents. Oil and 
grease is contained in many of the meat processing operations. EPA is 
proposing the control of oil and grease is necessary to ensure that 
treatment systems are effective in removing oil and grease. Excessive 
oil and grease concentrations can be associated with high BOD demand in 
a surface water and present other nuisance problems. In the proposed 
rule, these limitations and standards are listed as ``O&G (HEM)'' to 
indicate that the parameter should be measured as hexane extractable 
material (HEM). In contrast, EPA has retained the previous notation of 
``O&G'' for the existing BPT limitations, but has included footnotes 
that indicate it can be measured as HEM. EPA has used the two different 
notations because the existing BPT limitations and today's proposed 
limitations were based upon analytical testing methods that used two 
different extraction solvents: freon and n-hexane, respectively. EPA 
has determined that the two methods are comparable (see ``Approval of 
EPA Methods 1664, Revision A, and 9071B for Determination of Oil and 
Grease and Non-polar Material in EPA's Wastewater and Hazardous Waste 
Programs'' (EPA-821-F-98-005, February 23, 1999, located at 
www.epa.gov/ost/methods/1664fs.html) and Analytical Method Guidance for 
EPA Method 1664A Implementation and Use (EPA-821-R-00-003, February 
2000, located at www.epa.gov/ost/methods/1664guide.pdf)). Because freon 
is an ozone-depleting agent and becoming more expensive, EPA believes 
that facilities will prefer to measure oil and grease as HEM for the 
existing BPT limitations. EPA solicits comments on its notation for the 
two types of oil and grease limitations and standards in the proposed 
rule.
    Chlorides measure the quantity of chloride ion dissolved in 
solution. In the meat processing industry, salts may be used for 
cleaning and antimicrobial purposes. The presence of chloride in 
discharges to surface waters may impact aquatic organisms because of 
their sensitivity to concentrations of salt. Although EPA determined 
that chlorides are a pollutant of concern, EPA is not proposing to 
regulate chlorides because biological systems are not specifically 
designed and operated to treat chlorides. In fact, EPA observed in some 
instances an increase in chlorides within the biological treatment 
system (i.e., from the influent to the effluent) at several facilities. 
As a result, EPA believes that a facility will not be able to manage a 
biological treatment process to consistently

[[Page 8631]]

achieve effluent limitations for chlorides.
    Total coliform, fecal coliform, E. coli, fecal streptococci, 
Salmonella, and Aeromonas were considered POCs because they provide 
information on concentrations of potential bacterial and other 
pathogens in meat processing wastewaters. Meat processing wastewaters 
are typically high in pathogens as they are associated with the organic 
solids such as feces, blood, and internal organ wastes that are 
produced in many of the processes. The control of pathogens is 
important to ensure efficient treatment to prevent impairment of 
surface water uses such as a drinking water source or as a recreation 
water. EPA is proposing to regulate fecal coliform as an indicator of 
the efficacy of treatment processes to control pathogens. Because 
analytical methods require that fecal coliforms be measured within 
eight hours of sample collection, EPA is currently conducting a study 
to determine if longer holding times affect the number of viable 
bacteria remaining in the sample during the eight hour holding time 
period. A number of organisms are being tested for, including fecal and 
total coliforms, Escherichia coli, Aeromonas species, fecal 
streptococci, Salmonella species and Enterococcus faecium. In addition, 
in developing the proposed limitations and standards, EPA measured 
fecal coliform counts in samples that had been retained longer than 
eight hours. The EPA study is testing for viable organisms between 8 
and 48 hours holding time. Thus, EPA will conduct this holding time 
study for two purposes: to evaluate the use of data in developing the 
limitations and standards; and for possible revisions to currently 
approved methods. In the forthcoming NODA, EPA will provide the data 
collected during the study and its evaluation of the results.
    In many instances, EPA found meat processing facilities utilizing 
chlorine to disinfect treated wastewaters. As a disinfectant, chlorine 
is highly toxic to aquatic life. In light of the fact that EPA is 
proposing to regulate fecal coliform, EPA is also considering 
regulating total residual chlorine as means to control the amount of 
chlorine that is discharged to surface waters for the final rule. 
However, EPA is not proposing to regulate total residual chlorine at 
this time. EPA solicits comment on this issue (see discussion on 
disinfection techniques in Section XI.A.3).
    Metals may be present in meat processing wastewaters due to a 
variety of reasons. They are used as feed additives, they may be 
contained in sanitation products, or they may result from deterioration 
of meat processing machinery and equipment. Many metals are toxic to 
algae, aquatic invertebrates, and/or fish. Although metals may serve 
useful purposes in meat processing operations, most metals retain their 
toxicity once they are discharged into receiving waters. Although EPA 
observed that many of the biological treatment systems used within the 
meat processing industry provide substantial reductions of most metals, 
biological systems are not specifically designed and operated to remove 
metals. As a result, EPA believes that a facility will not be able to 
manage a biological treatment process to consistently achieve effluent 
limitations. Therefore, EPA is not proposing to regulate metals.
    Pesticides are used for controlling animal parasites and may be 
present in wastewaters from initial animal wash and processing 
operations. Some pesticides are bioaccumulative and retain their 
toxicity once they are discharged into receiving waters. Similar to 
metals, although EPA observed that many of the biological treatment 
systems used within the meat processing industry provide adequate 
reductions of pesticides, most biological systems are not specifically 
designed and operated to remove pesticides. As a result, EPA believes 
that a facility will not be able to manage a biological treatment 
process to consistently achieve effluent limitations for pesticides. 
Therefore, EPA is not proposing to regulate pesticides.
3. Approach to Determining Long Term Averages, Variability Factors, and 
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
    This subsection describes the statistical methodology used to 
develop long-term averages, variability factors, and limitations for 
BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS. The same basic procedures apply to the 
calculation of all effluent limitations guidelines and standards for 
this industry, regardless of whether the technology is BPT, BCT, BAT, 
or NSPS. For simplicity, the following discussion refers only to 
effluent limitations guidelines; however, the discussion also applies 
to new source standards.
    The proposed limitations for pollutants for each option, as 
presented in today's notice, are provided as maximum daily discharge 
limitations and maximum monthly average discharge limitations. 
Definitions provided in 40 CFR 122.2 state that the ``maximum daily 
discharge limitation'' is the ``highest allowable `daily discharge' '' 
and the ``maximum average for monthly discharge limitation'' is the 
``highest allowable average of `daily discharges' over a calendar 
month, calculated as the sum of all `daily discharges' measured during 
a calendar month divided by the number of `daily discharges' measured 
during that month.'' Daily discharge is defined as the `discharge of a 
pollutant' measured during a calendar day or any 24-hour period that 
reasonably represents the calendar day for purposes of sampling.''
    EPA calculates the limitations based upon percentiles chosen with 
the intention, on one hand, to accommodate reasonably anticipated 
variability within the control of the facility and, on the other hand, 
to reflect a level of performance consistent with the Clean Water Act 
requirement that these effluent limitations be based on the ``best'' 
technologies properly operated and maintained. The daily maximum 
limitation is an estimate of the 99th percentile of the distribution of 
the daily measurements. The maximum monthly average limitation is an 
estimate of the 95th percentile of the distribution of the monthly 
averages of the daily measurements. The percentiles for both types of 
limitations are estimated using the products of long-term averages and 
variability factors.
    In the first of two steps in estimating both types of limitations, 
EPA determines an average performance level (the ``long-term average'') 
that a facility with well-designed and operated model technologies 
(which reflect the appropriate level of control) is capable of 
achieving. This long-term average is calculated from the data from the 
facilities using the model technologies for the option. EPA expects 
that all facilities subject to the limitations will design and operate 
their treatment systems to achieve the long-term average performance 
level on a consistent basis because facilities with well-designed and 
operated model technologies have demonstrated that this can be done. In 
the second step of developing a limitation, EPA determines an allowance 
for the variation in pollutant concentrations when processed through 
well designed and operated treatment systems. This allowance for 
variance incorporates all components of variability including process 
and wastewater generation, sample collection, shipping, storage, and 
analytical variability. This allowance is incorporated into the 
limitations through the use of the variability factors, which are 
calculated from the data from the facilities using the model 
technologies. If a facility operates its treatment system to meet the 
relevant long-term average, EPA expects the facility to be able to meet 
the limitations. Variability factors assure

[[Page 8632]]

that normal fluctuations in a facility's treatment are accounted for in 
the limitations. By accounting for these reasonable excursions above 
the long-term average, EPA's use of variability factors results in 
limitations that are generally well above the actual long-term 
averages.
    EPA recognizes that, as a result of modifications to 40 CFR part 
432, some dischargers may need to improve treatment systems, process 
controls, and/or treatment system operations in order to consistently 
meet effluent limitations based on revised effluent limitations 
guidelines and standards. EPA believes that this consequence is 
consistent with the Clean Water Act statutory framework, which requires 
that discharge limitations reflect the best available technology.
    While the actual monitoring requirements will be determined by the 
permitting authority, the Agency has assumed thirty samples per month 
(i.e., daily monitoring) in determining the proposed maximum monthly 
average limitations. EPA recognizes that small poultry facilities are 
unlikely to operate on weekends and is soliciting comment on whether 
their monthly limitations should be based upon 20 days. Increasing or 
decreasing monitoring frequency does not affect the statistical 
properties of the underlying distribution of the data used to derive 
the limitations. However, monitoring less frequently theoretically 
results in average values that are more variable. As a consequence, 
average values based on 20 monitoring samples per month from small 
poultry facilities theoretically could be numerically larger than 
average values based upon 30 monitoring samples from non-small 
facilities. Thus, operators of small poultry facilities may find they 
need to design treatment systems to achieve an average below the long 
term average basis of the proposed limitations and/or more control over 
variability of the discharges in order to maintain compliance with the 
limitations. The MPP Development Document provides a list of both the 
proposed limitations and those derived using a 20-day monitoring 
assumption.
    The long-term averages, variability factors, and limitations were 
based upon pollutant concentrations collected from two data sources: 
EPA sampling episodes and data submitted by industry. When the data 
from the EPA sampling episodes at a facility met the data editing 
criteria, EPA used the sampling data and any monitoring data provided 
by the facility. In the absence of transferable data, data received in 
the detailed surveys was used to develop LTAs. In particular for 
regulatory option2 for poultry:

     The further processing portion for TSS is estimated at 
9.76 mg/L, which is the largest value in survey data for poultry 
facilities with further processing operations that has Option2 
treatment in place, and
     The rendering portion for Oil and Grease(HEM) is estimated 
at 19.5 mg/L, which is the largest value in survey data for poultry 
facilities with rendering operations that has Option2 treatment in 
place.

     For one conventional pollutant, fecal coliform, the EPA 
sampling data show that chlorine disinfection followed by 
dechlorination is extremely effective treatment, and very low long-term 
averages were calculated for fecal coliform based on chlorine 
disinfection. However, EPA has decided not to use the long-term 
averages as calculated based on the fact that ultraviolet disinfection 
(or other types of disinfection) may overall be better for the 
environment than chlorine disinfection because they don't produce a 
residual effect that can be harmful to humans or aquatic life. Since 
ultraviolet disinfection (or other types of disinfection) are not 
always as effective as chlorine disinfection, EPA has decided to 
propose fecal coliform limitations equal to the existing ones, which 
are currently being met by MPP facilities with varying types of 
disinfection. EPA intends to further assess ultraviolet and other 
disinfection technologies following proposal and may set revised 
limitations for the final rule. EPA solicits data on disinfection 
technologies and comments on this decision. See MPP Development 
Document Section 11 for more information.
4. BPT
    In general, the BPT technology level represents the average of the 
best existing performances of plants of various processes, ages, sizes 
or other common characteristics. Where existing performance is 
considered uniformly inadequate, BPT may be transferred from a 
different subcategory or industry. Limitations based upon transfer of 
technology must be supported by a conclusion that the technology is 
indeed transferable and a reasonable prediction that it will be capable 
of meeting the prescribed effluent limits. See Tanners' Council of 
America v. Train, 540 F.2nd 1188 (4th Cir. 1976). BPT focuses on end-
of-pipe treatment rather than process changes or internal controls, 
except where the process changes or internal controls are common 
industry practice.
    The cost-benefit inquiry for BPT is a limited balancing, committed 
to EPA's discretion, which does not require the Agency to quantify the 
benefits in monetary terms. In balancing costs in relation to effluent 
reduction benefits, EPA considers the volume and nature of existing 
discharges expected after the application of BPT, the general 
environmental effects of the pollutants, and the cost and economic 
impact of the required pollution controls. When setting BPT 
limitations, EPA is required under Section 304(b) to perform a limited 
cost-benefit balancing to ensure the costs are not wholly out of 
proportion to the benefits achieved. See Weyerhaeuser Company v. 
Costle, 590 F.2d 1011 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
    a. New Subcategories/Segments. EPA proposes BPT limitations for 
conventional pollutants (BOD, TSS, fecal coliform, pH, and oil and 
grease) and non-conventional pollutants (ammonia as nitrogen, total 
nitrogen and total phosphorus) for the following subcategories or 
segments that have not previously been regulated under part 432: 
Poultry First Processing and Poultry Further Processing. There are no 
BPT limitations in the current regulation applicable to these types of 
facilities.
    b. Existing Subcategories/Segments. EPA is retaining the existing 
BPT limitations (BOD, TSS, fecal coliform, pH and oil and grease) for 
all facilities currently covered under 40 CFR part 432. In addition, 
EPA proposes new BPT limitations for larger MPP facilities. 
Specifically,
     For facilities in Subcategories A, B, C and D that 
slaughter more than 50 million pounds (LWK) per year, EPA proposes to 
add BPT limitations for one non-conventional pollutant (COD) to reflect 
the better design and operation of the existing BPT treatment 
technology. The Agency is proposing the same COD BPT limitation for 
each of these subcategories (Subcategories A, B, C and D).
     For facilities in Subcategories F, G, H and I that produce 
more than 50 million pounds of finished product per year, EPA proposes 
to add BPT limitations for one non-conventional pollutant (COD) to 
reflect the better design and operation of the existing BPT treatment 
technology. The Agency is proposing the same COD BPT limitation for 
each of these subcategories (Subcategories F, G, H and I).
     For facilities in Subcategory J that render more than 10 
million pounds per year of raw material, EPA proposes to add a BPT 
limitation for one non-

[[Page 8633]]

conventional pollutant (COD) to reflect the better design and operation 
of the existing BPT treatment technology.
    EPA is proposing the addition of COD to reflect the average of the 
best existing performances based on new information collected for this 
proposal (see Section V). Further, EPA has determined to revise BPT for 
COD because the biological treatment technology used as a basis for the 
limitations really represents BPT technology and is widely used in the 
industry. EPA considers the control of COD as the most appropriate 
parameter to represent the BPT level of control for non-conventional 
and conventional pollutants. The bulk parameter and nonconventional 
pollutant COD is an indicator of organic matter in the wastestream that 
is susceptible to strong oxidation, and as such would also measure 
organic material susceptible to biochemical oxidation, as well as some 
that is more difficult to oxidize biochemically. While it is EPA's view 
that it can revise BPT limitations for conventional pollutants without 
passing the BCT cost test (where the BPT effluent reduction ratio is 
favorable), the Agency is not generally inclined to do so unless the 
removals achieved by the existing BPT limitations are significantly 
fewer than would be achieved through revision of BPT. That was not the 
case here. Revising BPT to incorporate COD will not only remove large 
amounts of COD, but also achieve significant incidental removals of 
BOD5 and TSS. For this reason, EPA has determined that it is 
not necessary to separately revise the BPT limits for BOD5 
and TSS in this case.
    EPA is retaining the existing BPT limitations and proposing no new 
BPT limitations for ``small'' facilities. EPA used production based 
thresholds to subcategorized these small facilities (see Section III). 
EPA defines small MPP facilities as MPP facilities that produce less 
then the production based thresholds defined above (and in Section 
III). See also Section III.A.1 for a description of why and how EPA 
developed these production based thresholds.
5. BCT
    The BCT methodology, promulgated in 1986 (51 FR 24974), discusses 
the Agency's consideration of costs in establishing BCT effluent 
limitations guidelines. EPA evaluates the reasonableness of BCT 
candidate technologies (those that are technologically feasible) by 
applying a two-part cost test:
    (1) The POTW test; and
    (2) The industry cost-effectiveness test.
    In the POTW test, EPA calculates the cost per pound of conventional 
pollutant removed by industrial discharges in upgrading from BPT to a 
BCT candidate technology and then compares this cost to the cost per 
pound of conventional pollutant removed in upgrading POTWs from 
secondary treatment. The upgrade cost to industry must be less than the 
POTW benchmark of $0.25 per pound (in 1976 dollars).
    In the industry cost-effectiveness test, the ratio of the 
incremental BPT to BCT cost divided by the BPT cost for the industry 
must be less than 1.29 (i.e., the cost increase must be less than 29 
percent). See Section VIII.F for details on the calculation of the BCT 
cost tests.
    In developing BCT limits, EPA considered whether there are 
technologies that achieve greater removals of conventional pollutants 
than proposed for BPT, and whether those technologies are cost-
reasonable according to the prescribed BCT tests. For subcategories A-
D, E-I, K and L, EPA identified no technologies that can achieve 
greater removals of conventional pollutants than the BPT standards that 
also pass the BCT. Accordingly, EPA proposes to establish BCT effluent 
limitations equal to the current BPT limitations for these 
subcategories. In the Rendering subcategory (subcategory J), EPA found 
that Option 2 would achieve greater removal of conventional pollutants 
and was cost-reasonable under the BCT cost tests and therefore proposes 
this technology as BCT.
6. Consideration of Statutory Factors for BAT and NSPS Technology 
Options Selection
    Based on the record before it, EPA has determined that each 
proposed model technology is technically available. EPA is also 
proposing that each is economically achievable for the segment to which 
it applies. Further, EPA has determined, for the reasons set forth in 
Section X, that none of the proposed technology options has 
unacceptable adverse non-water quality environmental impacts. EPA also 
considered the age, size, processes, and other engineering factors 
pertinent to facilities in the proposed segments for the purpose of 
evaluating the technology options. EPA is proposing to establish 
separate limits for facilities on the basis of size. As discussed in 
more detail in Section III.A.1 above, EPA is not proposing to establish 
more stringent limitations to small meat slaughterers nor is the Agency 
proposing to revise the limitations for the small meat processors 
subcategory (Subpart E). EPA survey data indicate that there are 
approximately 107 small meat processing facilities that would have been 
subject to any new limitations. EPA estimates that the additional 
pollutant reductions achieved by establishing more stringent 
limitations for these small facilities would be minimal. For example, 
under regulatory option BAT 3, pollutant load reductions attributable 
to small facilities is less than 0.1 percent of the total expected 
pollutants load reductions.
    In selecting its proposed NSPS technology for these segments and 
subcategories, EPA considered all of the factors specified in CWA 
Section 306, including the costs of achieving effluent reductions and 
the effect of costs on new projects (barrier-to-entry). The Agency also 
considered energy requirements and other non-water quality 
environmental impacts for the proposed NSPS options and concluded that 
these impacts were no greater than for the proposed BAT technology 
options and are acceptable. EPA therefore concluded that the NSPS 
technology basis proposed constitutes the best available demonstrated 
control technology for those segments.

B. Pretreatment Standards

    National pretreatment standards are established for those 
pollutants in wastewater from indirect dischargers that may pass 
through, interfere with or are otherwise incompatible with POTW 
operations. Generally, pretreatment standards are designed to ensure 
that wastewaters from direct and indirect industrial dischargers are 
subject to similar levels of treatment. In addition, many POTWs are 
required to develop and implement local treatment limits applicable to 
their industrial indirect dischargers to satisfy any local requirements 
(see 40 CFR 403.5). POTWs that are not required to implement approved 
programs, and have not had interference or pass through issues are not 
required to develop and implement local limits. There are approximately 
1,500 POTWs with approved Pretreatment Programs and 13,500 small POTWs 
that are not required to develop and implement approved Pretreatment 
Programs.
    National pretreatment standards have three principal objectives: 
(1) Prevent the wide-scale introduction of pollutants into publicly 
owned treatment works (POTWs) that will interfere with POTW operations, 
including use or disposal of municipal sludge; (2) prevent the 
introduction of pollutants into POTWs which will pass through the 
treatment works or will

[[Page 8634]]

otherwise be incompatible with the treatment works; and (3) improve 
opportunities to recycle and reclaim municipal and industrial 
wastewaters and sludges.
    Currently there are no categorical pretreatment standards for the 
MPP point source category. EPA is not proposing new pretreatment 
standards for existing or new MPP indirect dischargers. While EPA has 
some information regarding effluents from MPP indirect dischargers that 
may pass through, interfere with, or otherwise be incompatible with 
POTW operations, it is not clear that it justifies categorical 
pretreatment standards for this industry. The following sections 
discuss the information EPA was able to collect and what information 
EPA is soliciting in this proposal and planning to collect after 
proposal.
1. POTW Interference
    As noted above, there are no categorical pretreatment standards for 
MPP indirect dischargers, however, the national pretreatment standards 
prohibit the discharge of, ``Any pollutant, including oxygen demanding 
pollutants (BOD, etc.) released in a Discharge at a flow rate and/or 
pollutant concentration which will cause Interference with the POTW ,'' 
(see 40 CFR 403.5(b)(4)). All indirect dischargers are prohibited from 
introducing into a POTW any pollutant(s) which cause pass through or 
interference whether or not categorical pretreatment standards or any 
national, State, or local pretreatment requirements apply (see 40 CFR 
403.5(a)(1)). POTWs are required to develop and enforce Pretreatment 
Programs and/or set local limits to ensure renewed and continued 
compliance with the POTW's NPDES permit or sludge use or disposal 
practices (see 40 CFR 403.5(c)). According to data provided in the 
detailed surveys, approximately one-third of the MPP facilities 
discharge to POTWs which discharge less than 5 MGD. These POTWs are 
often not required through their NPDES permits to implement 
Pretreatment Programs.
    EPA typically does not establish pretreatment standards for 
conventional pollutants (e.g., BOD5, TSS, Oil and Grease) 
since POTWs are designed to treat these pollutants, but EPA has 
exercised its authority to establish categorical pretreatment standards 
for conventional pollutants. For example, EPA established categorical 
pretreatment standards for new and existing sources with a one day 
maximum concentration of 100 mg/L oil and grease in the Petroleum 
Refining Point Source Category (40 CFR 419). This standard is based on 
the performance of either of two technologies (primary oil removal or 
DAF). EPA identified this pretreatment standard as necessary to 
``minimize the possibility of slug loadings of oil and grease being 
discharged to POTW,'' (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 00167). EPA notes 
that oil and grease from Petroleum Refineries is not the same material 
as oil and grease from MPP facilities. EPA solicits comment on the use 
of the 100 mg/L standard for preventing POTW interference by vegetable/
animal oil and grease discharges.
    EPA previously identified that high organic loadings and grease 
remaining in the MPP facility effluent may cause difficulty in the POTW 
treatment system and that the performance of trickling filters appear 
to be particularly sensitive (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No.00162; 
Record No.00140). High loadings of oil and grease can also clog pipes 
and promote the growth of filamentous bacteria which can inhibit the 
performance of the POTW (especially trickling filters which are more 
often used at smaller POTWs) (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 00085). A 
concentration of 100 
mg/L for Oil and Grease is often cited as a local limit and compliance 
with this limit may require an effective dissolved air floatation 
device in addition to a catch basin and other primary treatment system 
(Docket No. W-01-06, Record No.00162; Record No.00140). EPA recognizes 
that much of this data was developed in the 1970s but believes that it 
is still relevant today.
    EPA also previously identified that oil and grease of petroleum 
origin has been reported to interfere with the aerobic processes of 
POTWs (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 00167). It is believed that the 
principal interference is caused by the attachment of oil and grease of 
petroleum origin onto floc particles, resulting in a slower settling 
rate, loss of solids by carryover out of the settling basin, and 
excessive release of BOD from the POTW to the environment. 
Additionally, EPA identified that oil and grease of petroleum origin 
may coat the biomass in activated sludge treatment units, thereby 
interfering with oxygen transfer and reducing treatment efficiency.
    EPA Regional and State permit writers and pretreatment coordinators 
identified approximately twenty cases where MPP indirect dischargers 
interfered with POTW operations (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 10037). 
While some specific details are lacking, these cases generally describe 
how overloadings of various parameters (e.g., BOD5, Oil and 
Grease, TSS, Ammonia) and unequalized flows from MPP indirect 
dischargers have resulted in POTW interference incidents and POTW NPDES 
permit violations.
    It is not clear, however, whether these identified interference 
incidents represent an industry-wide problem or if they are site 
specific and more appropriately addressed by the general pretreatment 
prohibitions and local limits, or by POTW upgrades. Some of these 
instances do involve violations of local limits or were resolved by 
POTW upgrades, and therefore the general pretreatment prohibitions and 
local limits did work. However, EPA does not know how frequently this 
was the case. More detailed information will be gathered to determine 
whether these facilities were in violation of the local limits, POTWs 
have upgraded since the incident, or these were one-time problems. EPA 
solicits more detailed information on these identified interference 
incidents and other POTW interference and pass through incidents. EPA 
will collect more information from EPA and State pretreatment program 
coordinators, POTWs, and MPP indirect dischargers after proposal to: 
(1) Understand whether the general pretreatment prohibition is 
sufficient to address POTW interference and pass through incidents for 
this industry; and (2) determine if reoccurrences of these POTW 
interference and pass through incidents necessitate categorical 
pretreatment standards at the time of the final rule for non-small 
facilities.
    Many POTWs are capable of controlling MPP indirect discharges 
through local limits or sufficient dilution with domestic wastewaters. 
Most of the approximately 1,500 POTWs with approved Pretreatment 
Programs have numeric oil and grease limits and many POTWs without 
approved Pretreatment Programs also have oil and grease limits. For 
example, EPA identified approximately two dozen Pretreatment Programs 
with local limits on oil and grease (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 
10037). Oil and grease limits were most often in the range of 50 mg/L 
to 450 mg/L with 100 mg/L as the most common reported limit. Other 
Pretreatment Programs use descriptive requirements to limit 
interference from high oil and grease concentrations.
    While most POTWs are not significantly affected by MPP indirect 
discharges, EPA notes that some, primarily smaller POTWs, including 
those not required to implement approved Pretreatment Programs, may 
have difficulty in properly treating MPP indirect discharges or in 
setting local

[[Page 8635]]

limits. Some POTWs may be particularly susceptible to high and variable 
organic and oil and grease loadings. If MPP indirect dischargers are 
unable to reduce or equalize their high organic and oil and grease 
concentrations, some small POTWs receiving these discharges may be 
unable to dampen the peak loadings or equalize high organic and oil and 
grease concentrations from MPP indirect dischargers with domestic 
wastewater. MPP indirect discharges range from 3 to 20 times in organic 
concentrations than typical domestic wastewater (Docket No. W-01-06, 
Record No. 10038). Small POTW facilities are generally more susceptible 
to high and variable loadings from large MPP indirect dischargers. 
Small POTWs often use less sophisticated wastewater treatment systems 
(e.g., trickling filters, simple anaerobic lagoons) which may not be 
able to operate properly during periods of high flow or handle slug 
loads discharged by MPP facilities after a shut-down period (e.g., no 
or low MPP indirect loadings during weekend operations when there are 
no or limited MPP operations taking place). Trickling filters at small 
POTW facilities may be unable to effectively process high organic and 
oil and grease concentrations and may allow unacceptable amounts of BOD 
and oil and grease concentrations to pass through if MPP indirect 
dischargers are not properly controlled. Anaerobic lagoons at small 
POTW facilities may be unable to convert ammonia to nitrate (a less 
toxic form of nitrogen) and are therefore unsuitable as a treatment 
step to ensure that the receiving water doesn't receive toxic amounts 
of ammonia. In one such instance, a MPP facility was directed to 
establish biological pretreatment (by installing a biological 
sequencing batch reactor) in order to discharge to the local POTW which 
has a simple anaerobic lagoon system (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 
10039).
    Industry and the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies 
(AMSA) stated to EPA that cases of POTW interference from MPP indirect 
dischargers are relatively infrequent occurrences and that they are 
best handled through local limits and proper enforcement (Docket No. W-
01-06, Record No. 10040). AMSA is a membership organization that 
represents approximately 10% of the largest POTWs in the United States 
(about 150 of the 1,500 POTWs with Pretreatment Programs) and some 
small POTWs. However, none of the approximately 20 cases of 
interference incidents identified in the record involve AMSA members. 
EPA solicits information on other potential positive and negative 
impacts on POTW operations if EPA were to set national categorical 
pretreatment standards for the prevention of interference of POTW 
operations. AMSA has stated that any attempt to reduce organic loadings 
from MPP facilities would also reduce the amount of revenue collected 
by their POTW and have a detrimental effect on its operations. (Docket 
No. W-01-06, Record No. 10040). EPA also solicits information on 
whether MPP indirect dischargers are causing interference issues on a 
national, on-going basis and whether POTWs are addressing these 
interference issues in a timely manner once they are identified. 
Finally, EPA also solicits information on whether increased attention 
from Federal and State Pretreatment Programs and/or Total Maximum Daily 
Load (TMDL) programs would sufficiently deal with MPP indirect 
discharges that may cause POTW interference in lieu of national 
categorical pretreatment standards.
2. POTW Pass Through
    As noted above, Federal categorical pretreatment standards are also 
designed to prevent the introduction of pollutants into POTWs which 
will pass through the treatment works or will otherwise be incompatible 
with the treatment works. Generally, to determine if pollutants pass 
through POTWs, EPA compares the percentage of the pollutant removed by 
well-operated POTWs achieving secondary treatment with the percentage 
of the pollutant removed by each of the indirect technology options. 
EPA identified the following MPP pollutants, based on EPA sampling 
efforts, that EPA would normally determine to pass through using EPA's 
standard methodology (i.e., indirect technology option has a percent 
removal higher than the POTW percent removal).

                         Table XI.B-1.--Meat Pollutants of Concern Removal Efficiencies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   PSES indirect
                                                                                     option 1     POTW treatment
                    MPP pollutant of concern                        CAS number       treatment    efficiency \1\
                                                                                    efficiency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oil and Grease..................................................            C036              95              86
Copper..........................................................         7440508              91              84
Molybdenum......................................................         7439987              82              19
Zinc............................................................         7440666              91             79
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1: These POTW removal efficiencies are from the 50-POTW study (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 00180).


                        Table XI.B-2.--Poultry Pollutants of Concern Removal Efficiencies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   PSES indirect
                                                                                      option      POTW treatment
                    MPP pollutant of concern                        CAS number       treatment    efficiency \1\
                                                                                    efficiency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oil and Grease..................................................            C036              90              87
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)...................................            C021              73              57
Total Phosphorus................................................        14265442              67              57
Barium..........................................................         7440393              78              16
Manganese.......................................................         7439965              60              36
Nickel..........................................................         7440020              65              51
Zinc............................................................         7440666              53             79
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1: These POTW removal efficiencies are from the 50-POTW study (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 00180).


[[Page 8636]]

    PSES Indirect Option 1 (PSES1) is a physical-chemical treatment 
system [dissolved air floatation (DAF) with chemical flocculant 
addition, equalization tank] that primarily targets conventional 
pollutants including oil and grease. As the tables above indicate, 
PSES1 shows some metal and nutrient removals but it is not clear why a 
technology designed to control conventional pollutants also affects the 
level of other pollutants. EPA notes that many of these pollutants of 
concern that would normally be determined to exhibit pass through do so 
in low concentrations. For example metal concentrations in MPP indirect 
dischargers are relatively low in comparison with conventional 
pollutants concentrations (e.g., BOD, TSS, and oil and grease). EPA 
will further investigate the data and potential mechanisms behind the 
removals of metals and nutrients by PSES1 to confirm the PSES1 
treatment efficiencies and at the final regulation may issue 
pretreatment standards based on pass through for all or a sub-set of 
these pollutants.
    Further, EPA has received comments from AMSA that the database used 
to characterize POTW removal efficiencies is outdated and current POTW 
performance has improved. EPA is considering different options on how 
to examine current POTW performance. One option is to evaluate removal 
efficiencies based on a subset of the 50-POTW database that mainly 
includes those POTWs that receive large amounts of industrial and/or 
MPP indirect discharges. EPA solicits comment on how to examine current 
POTW performance for all pollutants including those pollutants in 
Tables XI.B-1 and XI.B-2. EPA will publish its revised analysis of 
PSES1 treatment efficiencies, loadings removals, and POTW removal 
efficiencies in the forthcoming NODA for public comment. EPA also 
solicits data regarding the POTW removal efficiencies for all 
pollutants identified in Tables VII.C-1 and VII.C-2 (see also Section 
XV for data submission instructions).
    EPA seeks information on any cases of significant pass through from 
MPP indirect dischargers where the local limits were not set or 
exceeded and comments on whether EPA should promulgate pretreatment 
standards for certain parameters (e.g., nutrients, TDS) based on their 
potential pass through of POTWs into receiving waters.
    Although some pollutants may pass through POTWs following fairly 
limited treatment, current information available to EPA suggests that 
the overall levels of these pollutants in MPP raw wastewater does not 
justify establishing numeric categorical pretreatment standards. EPA is 
not proposing to establish pretreatment standards based on the 
difference between MPP pretreatment options and POTW removal 
efficiencies because the Agency is uncertain that it accurately 
reflects the incidences of pass through for this industry as a whole. 
MPP Development Document details the national estimates of pollutants 
of concern that have greater removal efficiencies under each indirect 
technology option than POTWs for each of the MPP subcategories.
3. MPP Pretreatment Options Considered
    Before determining no pass through or interference that justifies 
proposing additional regulations, EPA considered four pretreatment 
options for both existing and new sources. Table XI.B-3 details the 
summary of EPA's economic analysis of the PSES1 pretreatment option for 
the various MPP subcategories. EPA includes this information here for 
public comment. If information presented during the comment period 
following proposal or the NODA shows that there is sufficient 
interference or pass through to justify categorical pretreatment 
standards for this industry, EPA will rely on the information provided 
here and in the record of this rulemaking to promulgate pretreatment 
standards. The public is encouraged to comment fully on the following 
information. With respect to preventing interference incidents, after 
proposal EPA will evaluate comments and additional information to 
determine whether another annual production size cut-off for MPP 
indirect dischargers should be established. Additionally, EPA is 
soliciting comment on whether it should exempt from categorical 
pretreatment standards MPP indirect discharges who are below 5% of POTW 
dry weather hydraulic or organic capacity of the POTW treatment or 
another percentage level that is appropriate to prevent interference 
incidents if EPA decides to set categorical pretreatment standards for 
non-small facilities in the final rule.

     Table XI.B-3.--Economic Impacts and Toxic Cost-Effectiveness Summary Table for PSES Option 1, Non-Small
                                                   Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    PSES option 1 toxic  cost-
                                                     Cost/net         Pre-tax              effectiveness
      MPP industry sector (40 CFR part 432,         income  (in     annualized   -------------------------------
                  subcategory)                       percent)      cost  ($1999   Removals  (lb-
                                                                        M)              eq)         $1981/lb-eq
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Red Meat First Processors (A-D).................            0.57            $7.0         240,421              17
Red Meat Further Processors (F-I)...............            0.80           $18.8          76,890             143
Independent Renderers (J).......................            0.50            $1.3           3,918             198
Poultry First Processors (K)....................            0.55           $10.8         377,651              17
Poultry Further Processors (L)..................            1.50           $15.3          49,950             178
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA notes that the PSES1 pretreatment option cost is generally at 
or below 1% of the facility's net income (profit). Also, based on 
detailed surveys received in time for EPA's analysis, EPA notes that 
PSES1 is widely used in non-small MPP pretreatment operations to reduce 
BOD and oil and grease concentrations. Results from the MPP Detailed 
Survey used in estimating compliance costs indicate that 26 of the 103 
indirect MPP facilities utilize PSES1. The MPP Detailed Survey also 
identified the following breakdown of treatment-in-place: (1) 64 
facilities utilize no pretreatment or pretreatment less effective than 
PSES1 (e.g., catch basins); (2) 12 facilities utilize PSES2; (3) 1 
facility utilize PSES3; and (4) no facilities utilize PSES4. Based on 
MPP Detailed Survey data, the average oil and grease concentration from 
MPP indirect facilities employing PSES1 technology (equalization basin, 
DAF) is 99.5 mg/L.
    As previously stated, EPA is not proposing new pretreatment 
standards for existing or new MPP indirect dischargers because EPA did 
not have sufficient information to demonstrate that effluents from MPP 
indirect dischargers interfere with, are incompatible with, or pass 
through

[[Page 8637]]

POTW operations on enough of a wide-scale basis to justify national 
categorical pretreatment standards. Further, EPA has received comments 
from AMSA that the database used to characterize POTW removal 
efficiencies is outdated and current POTW performance has improved. EPA 
will work with States and pretreatment control authorities to collect 
additional data on a more systematic basis to determine whether or not 
national categorical pretreatment standards are necessary. If the 
additional and existing data indicate that MPP indirect dischargers 
interfere with or pass through POTW operations, one or more of the 
following options may be used to establish national categorical 
pretreatment standards in the final rule for non-small indirect 
dischargers.
     Establish numeric pretreatment standards for oil and 
grease and/or ammonia as nitrogen based on PSES1 (equalization and DAF) 
to prevent POTW interference;
     Establish numeric pretreatment standards for oil and 
grease and/or ammonia based on equalization alone to reduce MPP 
indirect discharge variable loads which can, in some cases, prevent 
POTW interference;
     Establish numeric pretreatment standards to prevent POTW 
pass through (e.g., oil and grease, nutrients, and/or metals);
     Establish narrative pretreatment standards for oil and 
grease and/or ammonia as nitrogen based on PSES1 (equalization and DAF) 
or equalization along to prevent POTW interference;
     Allow POTWs to waive national categorical pretreatment 
standards for MPP indirect dischargers that do not interfere with POTW 
operation (e.g., MPP indirect discharger below 5% of POTW dry weather 
hydraulic or organic capacity of the POTW treatment plant);
     Allow a POTW to waive national categorical pretreatment 
standards for ammonia for any MPP indirect discharges it receives when 
that POTW has nitrification capability (see 40 CFR 439 as an example of 
this type of waiver);
     Allow MPP indirect dischargers to demonstrate compliance 
with either numeric pretreatment standards or with EMS/BMP voluntary 
alternatives (see Section XI.F);
     Establish national categorical pretreatment standards for 
MPP indirect dischargers based on compliance with BMPs or a regulatory 
BMP alternative.
    EPA is soliciting comment on 100 mg/L as a potential pretreatment 
maximum daily standards for oil and grease and/or ammonia as nitrogen. 
EPA notes that this is not completely a parallel case and EPA solicits 
comment on how EPA should consider setting pretreatment standards for 
ammonia as nitrogen to prevent interference. EPA is basing the 100 mg/L 
potential pretreatment maximum daily standards on the Petroleum 
Refining Industry oil and grease and ammonia standards because those 
standards were designed to prevent POTW interference, which may be a 
problem for the meat and poultry products industry as well. The 
Petroleum Refining Industry oil and grease pretreatment standard of 100 
mg/L is based on the necessity to minimize POTW interference by 
minimizing the possibility of slug loadings of oil and grease being 
discharged to POTWs. (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 00167). Ammonia as 
nitrogen concentrations above 100 mg/L can exhibit inhibitory effects 
on the activated sludge process and cause POTW interference (Docket No. 
W-01-06, Record No. 00167). EPA is also soliciting comment on potential 
concentration pretreatment maximum daily standards for oil and grease 
and ammonia as nitrogen, respectively based on the performance of PSES1 
technology (DAF with chemical flocculant addition, equalization tank). 
These PSES1 concentration based standards are all below 100 mg/L for 
oil and grease with the exception of one limit for poultry facilities 
that do slaughtering and rendering operations (see MPP Development 
Document). EPA solicits comment on whether these potential pretreatment 
maximum daily standards for oil and grease and ammonia as nitrogen 
would sufficiently prevent POTW interference. EPA is also soliciting 
comment whether these standards should be presented as production based 
standards (e.g., lb-pollutant/1000 lb-LWK) (see MPP Development 
Document).

C. Meat Facilities (Subcategories A, B, C, D, F, G, H and I)

    After considering all of the technology options described in 
Section VII.A, in light of the factors specified in Section 
304(b)(2)(B) and 306 of the Clean Water Act, as appropriate, EPA 
proposed to select the technology options identified below as BPT, BAT, 
BCT, and NSPS for Subcategories A, B, C, D, F, G, H and I of the 
proposed rule. The proposed effluent limitations apply only to meat 
facilities that slaughter more than 50 million pounds per year (for 
Subcategories A, B, C and D) or produce more than 50 million pounds per 
year of finished products (for Subcategories F, G, H and I). EPA is not 
revising limitations and standards for meat facilities in Subpart E as 
all of these facilities are small facilities (see Section III.A.1).
1. Subcategories A through D (Meat Slaughtering Facilities)
    a. Regulated Pollutants. i. BPT EPA proposes establishing BPT 
limitations for COD. These pollutants are characteristic of meat 
slaughtering wastewater. These proposed regulated pollutants are key 
indicators of the performance of the secondary biological treatment 
process, which is the key component of the model BPT treatment systems 
for these subcategories.
    ii. BAT. EPA proposes establishing BAT limitations for ammonia-N, 
total nitrogen and total phosphorus. These pollutants are 
characteristic of meat slaughtering wastewater. These proposed 
regulated pollutants are key indicators of the performance of the 
tertiary biological treatment process, which is the technology basis 
for the BAT and NSPS requirements for these subcategories.
    iii. NSPS. EPA proposes to regulate the same pollutants for NSPS as 
those for BAT, with the addition of BOD, TSS, oil and grease (measured 
as HEM) and fecal coliform.
    b. Technology Selected. i. BPT. The Agency is proposing effluent 
limitations guidelines based on BPT-2 for Subcategories A through D. 
The treatment technologies that serve as the basis for the development 
of the proposed BPT limits are: equalization, dissolved air flotation, 
secondary biological treatment including some degree of nitrification 
and chlorination/dechlorination. BPT-2 represents an improved version 
of the existing BPT technology. EPA has determined that the cost and 
removal comparison for this option is reasonable.
    As presented in Section VII, three BPT options were considered. EPA 
estimated the costs and pollutant reductions that would be achieved if 
these options were applied to all 71 facilities subject to today's 
proposal. Limitations based on BPT-2 remove at least 12.3 million 
pounds of pollutants over current discharge at an annualized compliance 
cost of $9.9 million ($1999). Limitations based on BPT-2 results in a 
cost to net income ratio of 0.28%, which means that approximately 0.28% 
of a facility's profits would be spent on compliance if they were to 
implement this option. Also, the results of the BPT cost to effluent 
reductions benefits is $0.81 ($1999/pound). Thus, this option is 
considered cost-reasonable.
    EPA also evaluated option 3 and option 4 as basis for establishing 
BPT limitations that would be more stringent than the level of control 
being proposed

[[Page 8638]]

today. However, EPA believes that Option 2 represent BPT (or ``average 
of the best'') treatment for this industry subcategory. These options 
were evaluated in the BCT analysis.
    ii. BAT. The Agency is proposing effluent limitations guidelines 
based on BAT-3 for Subcategories A through D. The treatment 
technologies that serve as the basis for the development of the 
proposed BAT limits are: equalization, dissolved air flotation and 
secondary biological treatment with nitrification and denitrification. 
EPA has determined that the cost for nutrient removal for this 
subcategory is cost effective; i.e. is less than the cost for nutrient 
removal performed at a POTW. The Economic Analysis Section (see Section 
VIII) presents the methodology for evaluating cost effectiveness for 
nutrient pollutants. As presented in Section VII.A, three BAT options 
were under consideration. Effluent limitations based on BAT-2 remove 
approximately 2.0 million pounds of phosphorus over current discharge 
at an annualized compliance cost of $9.9 million ($1999). BAT-3 removes 
an additional 40 million pounds of nitrogen and phosphorus over BAT-2 
at an additional annualized compliance cost of $32.3 million ($1999). 
Both of these options result in a cost to net income ratio of less than 
1.5%, so both are considered economically achievable. However, since 
BAT-3 removes more pounds of nutrients at a cost that is economically 
achievable, EPA has chosen to propose effluent limitations based on 
BAT-3.
    EPA also evaluated BAT-4 as a basis for establishing BAT more 
stringent than the level of control being proposed today. As was the 
case for BAT-3, the cost to net income of less than 2.4% shows that the 
option is economically achievable. However, EPA is not proposing to 
establish limits based on BAT-4 because BAT-3 achieves nearly 
equivalent reductions in nitrogen and phosphorus for much less cost. 
EPA has determined that BAT-3 would remove 42.8 million pounds of 
nitrogen and phosphorus per year at a total annualized cost of $42.2 
million ($1999). In contrast, BAT-4 would remove 44.9 million pounds of 
nitrogen and phosphorus per year at a total annualized cost of $73.5 
million ($1999). In view of the fact that BAT-4 appears to achieve an 
increase in removals of only 5.0% and yet would prompt annualized costs 
to increase by 74%, EPA has determined that BAT-3, not BAT-4 is the 
``best available'' technology economically achievable for Subcategories 
A, B, C and D.
    iii. NSPS. The treatment technologies that serve as the basis for 
the development of the proposed NSPS limits are the same as the BAT for 
these subcategories. As was the case for BAT, EPA did not pursue 
additional, more stringent, options for NSPS because as with existing 
sources Option 4 is not expected to achieve significant incremental 
pollutant reductions. Further EPA does not expect the cost to construct 
the treatment system to achieve Option 4 performance would be 
significantly less for a new source than if would be for an existing 
source to retrofit their existing system. Therefore, EPA proposes BAT-3 
as the technology basis for NSPS for subcategories A-D because EPA 
believes it represents the best demonstrated technology for this 
subcategory.
2. Subcategories F through I (Meat Further Processing Facilities)
    a. Regulated Pollutants.
    i. BPT EPA proposes establishing BPT limitations for COD. These 
pollutants are characteristic of meat further processing wastewater. 
These proposed regulated pollutants are key indicators of the 
performance of the secondary biological treatment process, which is the 
key component of the model BPT treatment systems for these 
subcategories.
    ii. BAT. EPA proposes establishing BAT limitations for ammonia-N, 
total nitrogen and total phosphorus. These pollutants are 
characteristic of meat further processing wastewater. These proposed 
regulated pollutants are key indicators of the performance of the 
tertiary biological treatment process, which is the key component of 
the model BAT and NSPS treatment system for these subcategories.
    iii. NSPS EPA proposes to regulate the same pollutants for NSPS as 
those for BAT, with the addition of BOD, TSS, oil and grease (measured 
as HEM) and fecal coliform.
    b. Technology Selected. i. BPT The Agency is proposing to establish 
effluent limitations based on BPT-2 for Subcategories F through I. The 
treatment technologies that serve as the basis for the development of 
the proposed BPT limits are: Equalization, dissolved air flotation, 
secondary biological treatment and chlorination/dechlorination. As 
discussed above, the proposed BPT-2 limits for COD reflects average of 
the best performance of the existing technology in place at meat 
processing facilities, which also calls for secondary biological 
treatment. EPA has determined that the cost and removal comparison for 
this option is reasonable.
    As presented in Section VII.A, three BPT options were under 
consideration. BPT-2 removes at least 0.25 million pounds of pollutants 
over current discharge at an annualized compliance cost of $0.4 million 
($1999). Option 2 results in a cost to net income ratio of 0.14%, which 
means that approximately 0.14% of a facility's profits would be spent 
on compliance if they were to implement this option. Also, the results 
of the BPT cost to effluent reductions benefits is $1.59 ($1999/pound). 
Thus, this option is considered cost-reasonable.
    EPA also evaluated option 3 and option 4 as basis for establishing 
BPT more stringent than the level of control being proposed today. 
However, EPA believes that Option 2 represent BPT (or ``average of the 
best'') treatment for this industry subcategory. These options are 
considered in the evaluation of BCT controls.
    ii. BAT. The Agency is proposing to establish effluent limitations 
based on BAT-3 for Subcategories F, G, H and I. The treatment 
technologies that serve as the basis for the development of the 
proposed BAT limits are: equalization, dissolved air flotation and 
secondary biological treatment with nitrification and denitrification. 
EPA has determined that the cost for nutrient removal for this 
subcategory is cost effective and less than the cost for nutrient 
removal performed at a POTW. As presented in Section VII.A, three BAT 
options were under consideration. EPA estimates that the 20 facilities 
in Subparts F through I would achieve a removal approximately 0.04 
million pounds of phosphorus over current discharge at an annualized 
compliance cost of $0.4 million ($1999) with BAT-2. BAT-3 removes an 
additional 2.08 million pounds of nitrogen and phosphorus over BAT-2 at 
an additional annualized compliance cost of $0.1 million ($1999). Both 
of these options result in a cost to net income ratio of less than 
0.5%, so both are considered economically achievable. However, since 
BAT-3 removes more pounds of nutrients at a cost that is economically 
achievable, EPA has chosen to propose effluent limitations based on 
BAT-3.
    EPA also evaluated BAT-4 as a basis for establishing BAT more 
stringent than the level of control being proposed today. As was the 
case for BAT-3, the cost to net income of less than 1.4% shows that the 
option is economically achievable. However, EPA is not proposing to 
establish limits based on BAT-4 because it determined that BAT-3 
achieves nearly equivalent reductions in nitrogen and phosphorus for 
much less cost. EPA has determined that

[[Page 8639]]

BAT-3 would remove 2.12 million pounds of nitrogen and phosphorus per 
year at a total annualized cost of $0.5 million ($1999). In contrast, 
BAT-4 would remove only 4,530 additional pounds of nitrogen and 
phosphorus per year at a total annualized cost of $3.5 million ($1999). 
In view of the fact that BAT-4 appears to achieve an increase in 
removals of only 0.2% and yet would prompt annualized costs to increase 
by 600%, EPA has determined that BAT-3, not BAT-4 is the ``best 
available'' technology economically achievable for Subcategories F, G, 
H and I.
    iii. NSPS. As was the case for BAT, EPA did not pursue additional, 
more stringent, options for NSPS because as with existing sources 
Option 4 is not expected to achieve significant incremental pollutant 
reductions. Further EPA does not expect the cost to construct the 
treatment system to achieve Option 4 performance would be significantly 
less for a new source than if would be for an existing source to 
retrofit their existing system. Therefore, EPA proposes BAT-3 as the 
technology basis for NSPS for Subcategories F-I because EPA believes it 
represents the best demonstrated technology for this subcategory.

D. Independent Rendering Facilities (Subcategory J)

    After considering all of the technology options described in 
Section VII.A, in light of the factors specified in section 
304(b)(2)(B) and 306 of the Clean Water Act, as appropriate, EPA 
proposed to select the technology options identified below as BPT, BAT, 
BCT, and NSPS for Subcategory J of the proposed rule.
    1. Regulated Pollutants. a. BPT. EPA proposes establishing BPT 
limitations for COD. These pollutants are characteristic of meat 
rendering wastewater. These proposed regulated pollutants are key 
indicators of the performance of the secondary biological treatment 
process, which is the key component of the model BPT treatment systems 
for these subcategories.
    b. BAT. EPA proposes to revise BAT limitations for ammonia-N. This 
pollutant is characteristic of meat rendering wastewater. The proposed 
regulated pollutant is a key indicator of the performance of the 
secondary biological treatment process, which is the key component of 
the model BPT, BAT and NSPS treatment system for this subcategory.
    c. NSPS. EPA proposes to revise the new source performance 
standards for BOD, TSS, oil and grease (measured as HEM), fecal 
coliform and ammonia.
2. Technology Selected
    a. BPT. The Agency is proposing to establish effluent limitations 
based on BPT-2 for Subcategory J. The treatment technologies that serve 
as the basis for the development of the proposed BPT limits are: 
Equalization, dissolved air flotation and secondary biological 
treatment with nitrification. Since secondary biological treatment 
already accomplishes some nitrification, EPA believes that the proposed 
BPT is an improved version of the existing BPT technology basis which 
calls for secondary biological treatment. Option 2 results in a cost to 
net income ratio of 0.68%, which means that approximately 0.68% of a 
facility's profits would be spent on compliance if they were to 
implement this option. Also, the results of the BPT cost to effluent 
reductions benefits is $0.03 ($1999/pound). Thus, this option is 
considered cost-reasonable.
    EPA also evaluated option 3 and option 4 as basis for establishing 
BPT more stringent than the level of control being proposed today. 
However, EPA believes that Option 2 represent BPT (or ``average of the 
best'') treatment for this industry subcategory. These options were 
considered as possible options for revising the BCT limitations.
    b. BAT. The Agency is proposing to establish effluent limitations 
based on BAT-2 for Subcategory J. The treatment technologies that serve 
as the basis for the development of the proposed BPT limits are: 
Equalization, dissolved air flotation and secondary biological 
treatment with nitrification. EPA has determined that this option is 
cost-effective and economically achievable. As presented in Section 
VII.A, three BAT options were under consideration. EPA estimates that 
the 23 existing facilities that would be subject to today's proposal 
would achieve removals of approximately 87,000 pounds of nitrogen and 
phosphorus over current levels discharged at an annualized compliance 
cost of $0.6 million ($1999) under BAT-2. BAT-3 removes an additional 
396,000 pounds of phosphorus over BAT-2 at an additional annualized 
compliance cost of $3.7 million ($1999). BAT-2 results in a cost to net 
income ratio of less than 0.7%, so this option is considered 
economically achievable. BAT-3 results in a cost to net income ratio of 
greater than 5.5%, which is also considered economically achievable. 
However, since EPA has determined that the cost for nutrient removal 
for BAT-3 is not cost effective and is more than the cost for nutrient 
removal performed at a POTW, EPA has chosen to propose effluent 
limitations based on BAT-2 for Subcategory J.
    EPA also evaluated BAT-4 as a basis for establishing BAT more 
stringent than the level of control being proposed today. The cost to 
net income of more than 6.7% for BAT-4 is even greater than the ratio 
for Option 3. Since the Agency is not proposing Option 3 on the basis 
of the potential economic impact, EPA is not proposing Option 4 which 
has a greater potential impact. Thus, EPA has determined that BAT-2 is 
the ``best available'' technology economically achievable for 
Subcategory J.
    c. NSPS. The treatment technologies that serve as the basis for the 
development of the proposed NSPS limits are the same as the BAT and BPT 
for this subcategory. EPA does not expect a substantial cost savings 
for new facilities to design and construct a treatment system to 
achieve more stringent effluent standards consistent with either Option 
3 or 4. Thus, EPA believes Options 3 and 4 could pose a barrier to 
entry for new sources in this Subcategory. Therefore, EPA proposes BAT-
2 as the technology basis for NSPS for Subcategory J because EPA 
believes it represents the best demonstrated technology economically 
achievable for this subcategory.

E. Poultry Facilities (Subcategories K and L)

    EPA is proposing to establish different effluent limitations to 
apply only to Poultry facilities that slaughter more than 10 million 
pounds per year (for Subcategory K) or produce more than 7 million 
pounds per year of finished products (for Subcategory L).
1. Poultry First Processing Facilities (Subcategory K)
    After considering all of the technology options described in 
Section VII.A, in light of the factors specified in section 
304(b)(2)(B) and 306 of the Clean Water Act, as appropriate, EPA 
proposes to select the technology options identified below as BPT, BAT, 
BCT, and NSPS for Subcategory K of the proposed rule.
    a. Regulated Pollutants. i. BPT. EPA proposes establishing BPT 
limitations for BOD, TSS , Oil and Grease (measured as HEM), and 
ammonia as N for facilities that slaughter no more than 10 million 
pounds per year (small facilities). EPA proposes establishing BPT 
limitations for BOD, TSS, Oil and Grease (measured as HEM), fecal 
coliform, ammonia as N, total nitrogen and total phosphorus for 
facilities that slaughter more than 10 million pounds per year (large 
facilities). These pollutants are characteristic of poultry

[[Page 8640]]

slaughtering wastewater. These proposed regulated pollutants are key 
indicators of the performance of the secondary and tertiary biological 
treatment process, which are the key components of the model BPT 
treatment systems for the small and large facilities, respectively.
    ii. BAT. EPA proposes to regulate the same pollutants for BAT as 
those for BPT.
    iii. NSPS. EPA proposes to regulate the same pollutants for NSPS as 
those for BAT.
    b. Technology Selected. i. BPT. The Agency is proposing to 
establish effluent limitations based on BPT-1 for small facilities in 
Subcategory K. This option is based on the current practices in place 
at facilities as reported to EPA through the detailed surveys. Option 1 
assumes a less aggressive nitrification treatment than Option 2. Based 
on the survey responses the Agency has reviewed to date we do not 
believe that there are any small poultry first processors, however, in 
the event that a small number of facilities exist which were not 
captured through EPA's survey efforts, EPA is proposing to establish 
BPT limits.
    The Agency is proposing to establish effluent limitations based on 
BPT-3 for large facilities in Subcategory K. The treatment technologies 
that serve as the basis for the development of the proposed BPT limits 
are: Equalization, dissolved air flotation and secondary biological 
treatment with nitrification and denitrification. As presented in 
Section VII.A, three BPT options were under consideration. EPA has 
estimated the costs and pollutant reductions associated with each 
technology option as it would apply to the 95 facilities that would be 
subject to these proposed requirements. BPT-2 removes at least 1.63 
million pounds of pollutants over current discharge at an annualized 
cost of $4.8 million ($1999). BPT-3 removes at least an additional 5.7 
million pounds of pollutants over BPT-2, at an additional annualized 
compliance cost of $29.7 million. BPT Option 2 results in a cost to net 
income ratio of 0.34%, which means that approximately 0.34% of a 
facility's profits would be spent on compliance if they were to 
implement this option. Also, the results of the BPT cost to effluent 
reductions benefits is $2.95 ($1999/pound). Option 3 results in a cost 
to net income of 2.73%, and the results of the BPT cost to effluent 
reduction benefits is $4.71 ($1999/pound). Thus, both of these options 
are considered cost-reasonable. However, since Option 3 removes more 
pollutants at a cost that is reasonable, BPT-3 was selected for this 
subcategory.
    EPA also evaluated option 4 as basis for establishing BPT more 
stringent than the level of control being proposed today. EPA estimates 
that BPT-4 results in a cost to net income ratio of 3.56% and the ratio 
of cost to effluent reduction benefits is 5.46. However, EPA is not 
proposing to establish BPT limits based on BPT-4 because it determined 
that BPT-3 achieves nearly equivalent pollutant reductions at less 
cost. EPA has determined that BPT-3 would remove at least 7.32 million 
pounds of pollutants per year at a total annualized cost of $34.5 
million ($1999). In contrast BPT-4 would remove an additional 10.7% of 
pollutants at an additional cost of 28%. In view of the fact that BPT-4 
appears to achieve minimal additional pollutant removals and yet would 
prompt additional total annualized costs of $9.7 million ($1999), EPA 
has selected BPT-3, not BPT-4, for this Subcategory.
    ii. BAT. The Agency is proposing to set BAT equal to BPT for small 
facilities in Subcategory K EPA was unable to determine whether or not 
there is an economically achievable BAT treatment technology more 
stringent than proposed for BPT because no small poultry first 
processors were identified. EPA based it's decision on the fact that 
there is no economically achievable BAT treatment technology more 
stringent than proposed for BPT for poultry further processors.
    The Agency is proposing to set BAT equal to BPT for large 
facilities in Subcategory K because EPA has determined that there is no 
economically achievable BAT treatment technology more stringent than 
the proposed BPT treatments. Also, EPA has determined that the cost for 
nutrient removal for this subcategory is cost effective; it is less 
than the cost for nutrient removal performed at a POTW. As presented in 
Section VII.A, three BAT options were under consideration. BAT-2 
removes approximately 810,000 pounds of phosphorus over current 
discharge at an annualized compliance cost of $4.8 million ($1999). 
BAT-3 removes an additional 7.7 million pounds of nitrogen and 
phosphorus over BAT-2 at an additional annualized compliance cost of 
$29.7 million ($1999). BAT-2 results in a cost to net income ratio of 
less than 0.4%, so this option is considered economically achievable. 
Since BAT-3 results in a cost to net income ratio of less than 2.8%, 
which is also economically achievable, EPA has chosen to set BAT equal 
to BPT for Subcategory K.
    EPA also evaluated BAT-4 as a basis for establishing BAT more 
stringent than the level of control being proposed today. The cost to 
net income of more than 3.6% for BAT-4 shows that the option is 
economically achievable. However, EPA is not proposing to establish BAT 
limits based on BPT-4 because it determined that BPT-3 achieves nearly 
equivalent pollutant reductions at less cost. EPA has determined that 
BPT-3 would remove at least 8.37 million pounds of total nitrogen and 
total phosphorus per year at a total annualized cost of $34.5 million 
($1999). In contrast BPT-4 would remove only 8.87 pounds of total 
nitrogen and total phosphorus at an additional cost of 28%. In view of 
the fact that BPT-4 achieves similar pollutant removals and yet would 
prompt additional total annualized costs of $9.7 million ($1999), EPA 
has selected BPT-3, not BPT-4, for this Subcategory. Thus, EPA has 
determined that BAT-3, not BAT-4 is the ``best available'' technology 
economically achievable for large facilities in Subcategory K.
    iii. NSPS. EPA did not pursue additional, more stringent, options 
for small facilities in Subcategory K for NSPS because EPA does not 
expect the cost to construct the treatment system to achieve Option 2 
performance would be significantly less for a new source than if would 
be for an existing source to retrofit their existing system. Therefore, 
EPA proposes BAT-1 as the technology basis for NSPS for small 
facilities in Subcategory K because EPA believes it represents the best 
demonstrated technology for this subcategory.
    As was the case for BAT, EPA did not pursue additional, more 
stringent, options for large facilities in Subcategory K for NSPS 
because, as with existing sources, Option 4 is not expected to achieve 
significant incremental pollutant reductions. Further EPA does not 
expect the cost to construct the treatment system to achieve Option 4 
performance would be significantly less for a new source than it would 
be for an existing source to retrofit their existing system. Therefore, 
EPA proposes BAT-3 as the technology basis for NSPS for large 
facilities in Subcategory K because EPA believes it represents the best 
demonstrated technology for this subcategory.
2. Poultry Further Processing Facilities (Subcategory L)
    After considering all of the technology options described in 
Section VII.A, in light of the factors specified in Section 
304(b)(2)(B) and 306 of the Clean Water Act, as appropriate, EPA 
proposed to select the technology options identified below as BPT, BAT, 
BCT and NSPS for Subcategory L of the proposed rule.

[[Page 8641]]

    a. Regulated Pollutants. i. BPT. EPA proposes establishing BPT 
limitations for BOD, TSS , Oil and Grease (measured as HEM), and 
ammonia as N for facilities that slaughter no more than 7 million 
pounds per year (small facilities). EPA proposes establishing BPT 
limitations for BOD, TSS, Oil and Grease (measured as HEM), fecal 
coliform, ammonia as N, total nitrogen and total phosphorus for 
facilities that slaughter more than 7 million pounds per year (large 
facilities). These pollutants are characteristic of poultry further 
processing wastewater. These proposed regulated pollutants are key 
indicators of the performance of the secondary and tertiary biological 
treatment process, which are the key components of the model BPT 
treatment systems for the small and large facilities, respectively.
    ii. BAT. EPA proposes to regulate the same pollutants for BAT as 
those for BPT.
    iii. NSPS. EPA proposes to regulate the same pollutants for NSPS as 
those for BAT.
    b. Technology Selected. i. BPT. The Agency is proposing to 
establish BPT-1 for small facilities in Subcategory L. This is the same 
technology as described above for Subcategoy K. EPA estimates that 
there are four small facilities that could be affected by these 
proposed requirements and these requirements could cost $2,600.
    The Agency is proposing to establish BPT-3 for large facilities in 
Subcategory L. The treatment technologies that serve as the basis for 
the development of the proposed BPT limits are: equalization, dissolved 
air flotation and secondary biological treatment with nitrification and 
denitrification. As presented in Section VII.A, three BPT options were 
under consideration. For the sixteen facilities that would be subject 
to these proposed requirements EPA estimates that BPT-2 removes at 
least 0.09 million pounds of pollutants over current discharge at an 
annualized cost of $0.3 million ($1999). BPT-3 removes at least an 
additional 0.22 million pounds of pollutants over BPT-2, at an 
additional annualized compliance cost of $1.9 million. BPT Option 2 
results in a cost to net income ratio of 0.39%, which means that 
approximately 0.39% of a facility's profits would be spent on 
compliance if they were to implement this option. Also, the results of 
the BPT cost to effluent reductions benefits is $3.28 ($1999/pound). 
Option 3 results in a cost to net income of 4.23%, and the results of 
the BPT cost to effluent reduction benefits is $7.11 ($1999/pound). 
Thus, both of these options are considered cost-reasonable. However, 
since Option 3 removes more pollutants at a cost that is reasonable, 
BPT-3 was selected for this subcategory.
    EPA also evaluated option 4 as basis for establishing BPT more 
stringent than the level of control being proposed today. EPA estimates 
that BPT-4 results in a cost to net income ratio of 6.04% and the ratio 
of cost to effluent reduction benefits is 9.54. EPA is not proposing to 
establish BPT limits based on BPT-4 because it determined that BPT-3 
achieves nearly equivalent pollutant reductions at less cost. EPA has 
determined that BPT-3 would remove at least 0.31 million pounds of 
pollutants per year at a total annualized cost of $2.2 million ($1999). 
In contrast BPT-4 would remove at least 0.32 million pounds of 
pollutants at an additional cost of 36%. In view of the fact that BPT-4 
appears to achieve less pollutant removals and yet would prompt 
additional total annualized costs of $1.9 million ($1999), EPA has 
selected BPT-3, not BPT-4, for this Subcategory.
    ii. BAT. The Agency is proposing to set BAT equal to BPT for small 
facilities in Subcategory L because EPA has determined that there is no 
economically achievable BAT treatment technology more stringent than 
the proposed BPT treatment. BAT-2 results in a cost to net income ratio 
of greater than 20%, which would cause significant economic impacts for 
these facilities, so EPA has chosen to set BAT equal to BPT for small 
facilities in Subcategory L.
    The Agency is proposing to establish effluent limitations based on 
BAT-3 for large facilities in Subcategory L. The treatment technologies 
that serve as the basis for the development of the proposed BAT limits 
are: equalization, dissolved air flotation and secondary biological 
treatment with nitrification and denitrification. EPA has determined 
that there is no economically achievable BAT treatment technology more 
stringent than the proposed BPT treatment. As presented in Section 
VII.A, three BAT options were under consideration. BAT-2 removes 
approximately zero pounds of phosphorus over current discharge at an 
annualized compliance cost of $0.3 million ($1999). BAT-3 removes an 
additional 0.32 million pounds of nitrogen and phosphorus over BAT-2 at 
an additional annualized compliance cost of $1.9 million ($1999). BAT-2 
results in a cost to net income ratio of less than 0.4%, so this option 
is considered economically achievable. BAT-3 results in a cost to net 
income ratio of less than 4.25%, which is also economically achievable, 
so EPA has chosen to set BAT equal to BPT for Subcategory L.
    EPA also evaluated BAT-4 as a basis for establishing BAT more 
stringent than the level of control being proposed today. The cost to 
net income of more than 6% for BAT-4 shows that the option would cause 
significant economic impacts. Also, EPA is not proposing to establish 
BAT limits based on BPT-4 because it determined that BAT-3 achieves 
nearly equivalent pollutant reductions at less cost. EPA has determined 
that BAT-3 would remove at least 0.32 million pounds of total nitrogen 
and total phosphorus per year at a total annualized cost of $2.2 
million ($1999). In contrast BPT-4 would remove only 0.318 pounds of 
total nitrogen and total phosphorus at an additional cost of 36%. In 
view of the fact that BPT-4 appears to achieve reduced pollutant 
removals and yet would prompt additional total annualized costs of $0.8 
million ($1999), EPA has selected BPT-3, not BPT-4, for this 
Subcategory. Thus, EPA has determined that BAT-3, not BAT-4 is the 
``best available'' technology economically achievable for large 
facilities in Subcategory L.
    iii. NSPS. EPA did not pursue additional, more stringent, options 
for small facilities in Subcategory L for NSPS because EPA does not 
expect the cost to construct the treatment system to achieve Option 2 
performance would be significantly less for a new source than if would 
be for an existing source to retrofit their existing system. Therefore, 
EPA proposes BAT-1 as the technology basis for NSPS for small 
facilities in Subcategory L because EPA believes it represents the best 
demonstrated technology for this subcategory.
    The treatment technologies that serve as the basis for the 
development of the proposed NSPS limits are the same as the BAT for 
this subcategory. As was the case for BAT, EPA did not pursue 
additional, more stringent, options for NSPS because, as with existing 
sources, Option 4 is not expected to achieve significant incremental 
pollutant reductions. Further, EPA does not expect the cost to 
construct the treatment system to achieve Option 4 performance would be 
significantly less for a new source than it would be for and existing 
source to retrofit their system. Therefore, EPA proposes BAT-3 as the 
technology basis for NSPS for subcategory L because EPA believes it 
represents the best demonstrated technology for this subcategory.

[[Page 8642]]

F. Regulatory Alternatives for Meat and Poultry Products Industry

    EPA is soliciting comment on alternative approaches that the Agency 
is considering for the meat and poultry products industry. EPA 
primarily considered these approaches as alternatives to potential 
numeric pretreatment standards before the Agency determined that it did 
not have enough information necessary to establish categorical 
pretreatment standards for this industry (see Section XI.B). The 
purpose of any alternative would be to help facilities in this industry 
comply with regulations or foster voluntary adoption of environmental 
management systems that could help organizations reduce environmental 
impacts from unregulated activities through pollution prevention and 
other approaches. Specifically, the Agency is considering the following 
two options.
    Under the first option, EPA would not issue pretreatment standards 
for indirect dischargers in the final rule. Rather, EPA would work with 
the industry to develop and implement voluntary environmental 
management systems (EMSs). In a few years, EPA would plan to evaluate 
the performance of the voluntary program and either conclude that the 
voluntary program is sufficient, revisit the issue of pretreatment 
standards for indirect dischargers, and/or consider other appropriate 
steps.
    Under the second option, EPA would promulgate pretreatment 
standards for non-small indirect dischargers. However, indirect 
dischargers would also receive the option of meeting regulatory 
obligations by implementing EMSs that include environmental audit 
programs (EAPs). Each of these options is discussed below.
    EPA is also considering whether an EMS-based compliance alternative 
similar to the second option could be applied also to direct 
dischargers. This option is also discussed further below.
1. Application of Regulatory or EMS Alternatives to Meat and Poultry 
Processors
    EPA believes these EMS-based alternatives would be attractive to 
many meat and poultry processors that discharge wastewater to Publicly 
Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) if EPA establishes categorical 
pretreatment standards. The majority of the meat and poultry products 
facilities are discharging wastewater indirectly through POTWs and 
besides the use of Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) or other types of oil 
and grease treatment and equalization, few of these facilities reported 
having any significant amount of wastewater treatment to reduce 
nutrient pollutants. Although the Agency is not proposing to establish 
nutrient standards for indirect dischargers, the Agency believes that a 
significant reduction of nutrients can be achieved through the 
implementation of an EMS or an EAP and the implementation of specific 
BMPs. Each of these (EMS, EAP and specific BMPs) will be described in 
more detail in subsequent discussions. Implementation of an EMS or EAP 
by meat and poultry products facilities could also result in a range of 
other environmental benefits (e.g., reduced odor, noise, energy and or 
water consumption). Given the potential benefits of an EMS, EPA is 
considering an approach in which no pretreatment standards would be 
developed for meat and poultry products indirect dischargers rather, 
EPA would initiate an expanded program to work in partnerships with 
meat industry facilities, organizations, and other interested parties 
to promote the adoption and implementation of EMSs by these facilities. 
EPA would develop guidance on how to develop EMSs for meat and poultry 
product indirect dischargers and then work with our partners at the 
State Permitting and Control Authorities to inform them and the meat 
and poultry processors about the potential benefits of implementing an 
EMS. EPA would monitor actions toward the development of EMSs by meat 
and poultry processors and evaluate the improvements to water quality 
and the environment that result. Not later than five years after 
promulgation of this regulation, EPA would issue a report providing a 
comprehensive evaluation of the EMS initiative. The EMS or EAP 
alternatives EPA is considering would allow indirect dischargers the 
opportunity to avoid installing wastewater treatment and could, 
therefore, be less costly.
    EPA notes that allowing operators the use of an EMS to demonstrate 
compliance with potential pretreatment standards assumes that the POTW 
or the controlling authority is knowledgeable and available. EPA also 
notes that the MPP indirect dischargers of greatest concern are 
frequently in smaller communities where the POTW typically operates 
without an approved pretreatment program or the POTW is typically a 
small-scale operation. EPA solicits comment on whether these rural or 
small POTW operations are in a position to adequately assess compliance 
with the EMS regulatory option and to effectively respond to 
significant deficiencies. EPA also solicits comment on whether the 
burden for ensuring compliance with this EMS regulatory alternative 
would fall on the States or EPA Regions as control authorities and 
whether such evaluations would be much more difficult to perform on a 
national basis than a numeric standard. EPA also solicits comment on 
what requirements can prevent facilities, which use the EMS regulatory 
alternative and still cause pass through or interference at a POTW, 
from causing such pass through or interference again. EPA also solicits 
comments on implementation of a voluntary EMS, perhaps as part of the 
Performance Partnership (see below).
    EPA also solicits comment on how this compliance alternative can be 
applied to direct dischargers. Most direct dischargers have already 
installed wastewater treatment to comply with their NPDES Permits. 
Depending on the effectiveness of the BMPs, EPA may consider offering 
reduced requirements for monitoring wastewater requirements for direct 
dischargers which implement an EMS. This could include reduction in the 
frequency of monitoring, or monitoring for a reduced list of specific 
pollutants. EPA solicits comments on how an EMS compliance alternative 
could be applied to direct dischargers and whether EPA should consider 
this as a compliance alternative for direct dischargers.
2. Performance Improvement Partnership With the Meat and Poultry 
Processing Industry
    In parallel with the development of the MPP ELGS proposal, EPA is 
working in partnership with the meat and poultry processing industry, 
State and local government agencies, USDA, and other stakeholders to 
promote improved environmental performance in the meat and poultry 
products industry. This partnership has been developed under the 
Agency's Sustainable Industries Partnership Program. Through the 
Sustainable Industries program, part of the Agency's overall 
innovations agenda, EPA works with selected industry sectors to 
voluntarily set industry-wide performance improvement objectives, 
develop the right tools and incentives to beneficially affect facility 
performance, address sector-specific regulatory reform needs, and 
measure results.
    The voluntary partnership program for the meat and poultry 
processing industry is still under development as of the date of this 
proposed rule. The purpose of the program is to bring environmental 
improvements that will benefit meat and poultry processing facilities 
and their surrounding

[[Page 8643]]

communities while maintaining extremely high levels of food safety. The 
program has industry-generated performance objectives, plus four 
project elements that were identified as important actions to assist 
and promote better environmental performance by meat and poultry 
processing facilities and others.
    Participants in developing this program include the American Meat 
Institute (AMI), the American Association of Meat Processors (AAMP), 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), several State agencies, EPA 
programs and regions, and other interested constituent groups. 
Combined, the AMI and AAMP membership totals approximately 2,500 
members and represents more than 75% of the total production volume for 
the meat and poultry processing industry.
    Although the elements of the voluntary partnership are under 
development, AMI and AAMP have stated their commitment to the pursuit 
of continuous environmental improvement and compliance with 
environmental regulations at the facility level and in the industry at 
large. Elements of this commitment may include the following, 
performance-related actions:
    (1) To work in partnership with Federal and State government 
agencies to promote nationwide industry compliance;
    (2) To expand education on best practices, including the promotion 
of appropriate environmental management systems (EMS);
    (3) To reduce environmental impacts, including wastewater 
discharges and solid waste, associated with facility operations;
    (4) To work with suppliers and customers to identify and promote 
pollution prevention practices to achieve cleaner production and 
reduced waste;
    (5) To develop guidance for communicating with employees, 
suppliers, customers, and the public about the environmental impacts of 
the industry; and
    (6) To conserve and protect natural resources.
    In support of the voluntary performance objectives, the Meat and 
Poultry Processing Partnership Program includes a set of four projects, 
currently underway, that will help to enable the meat industry as a 
whole to achieve the voluntary performance objectives. The projects are 
described briefly.
    a. Environmental Management System (EMS). Program partners drafted 
guidance materials and a training program for the meat industry to 
broadly implement corporate/facility-appropriate EMSs. The project team 
has drafted an EMS Guide for the Meat and Poultry Processing Industry, 
on the plan-do-check-act continuous improvement model. This EMS Guide 
consists of 10 modules covering policy, planning, implementation and 
operation, checking and corrective action, and management review.
    This voluntary EMS tailored for meat and poultry processors can be 
used by both small and large meat and poultry processors to implement 
an EMS. Currently, EPA is partnering with the Iowa Waste Reduction 
Center (IWRC) and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) to 
pilot test the Guide with five companies. IWRC and IDNR are providing 
technical assistance and implementation consulting to the five 
companies. The pilot will be completed in July 2002 and then EPA will 
evaluate the pilot and incorporate lessons learned into the final draft 
of the EMS Guide for Meat and Poultry Processors. The final guide is 
expected to be completed by September 2002, at which point this tool 
will be widely marketed throughout the meat and poultry processing 
industry with the direct involvement of the industry's two major trade 
groups.
    This EMS project is strictly a voluntary approach that is part of 
the larger partnership program with the meat and poultry processing 
industry. The project is designed to develop and market a tool tailored 
to the needs of this specific industry, to be used by the industry 
itself to promote improved performance by individual facilities. The 
Agency is also seeking comment on the option of using a standardized 
EMS as a stand-alone alternative to the setting of national numeric 
pretreatment standards (see Section XI.B).
    b. Customer-oriented'' compliance assistance tools. Program 
partners are developing tools to assist meat and poultry processors in 
maintaining compliance with Federal, State and local environmental 
requirements. Many meat and poultry processors have indicated that they 
have difficulty in keeping up with the many environmental regulations 
surrounding their facilities. Currently, the project team is developing 
a custom checklist of regulatory requirements, designed specifically 
for meat and poultry processing facilities. Guidance is also being 
developed to help small processors dispose of solid waste and 
biosolids.
    The Office of Compliance in EPA's Office of Enforcement and 
Compliance Assurance, in partnership with industry, academic 
institutions, environmental groups, and other Federal and State 
agencies, has established a ``virtual'' (web-based) national Compliance 
Assistance Center known as the National Agriculture Compliance 
Assistance Center (Ag Center: http://es.epa.gov/oeca/ag/). The Ag 
Center offers comprehensive, easy-to-understand information on 
environmentally protective and agriculturally sound approaches to 
compliance. EPA will use the Ag Center as one of its tools for 
publicizing the final Effluent Limitation Guideline and related 
voluntary approaches.
    c. External stewardship program with livestock suppliers. Nutrient 
management by livestock producers is the most important environmental 
issue facing the overall industry. EPA is developing a replicable 
external stewardship program for meat and poultry processors to work 
with their suppliers on pilot projects to test and measure the impact 
of environmental best management practices (BMPs), with a focus on 
nutrient management. Project teams in Iowa and other midwest States are 
working to design and voluntarily implement BMPs and nutrient 
management plans for livestock producers, building on existing 
processor-supplier relationships. The goal of this project is to 
demonstrate that voluntary environmental stewardship by livestock 
producers can be defined, documented, measured, and progress achieved. 
Project results will help demonstrate whether voluntary programs can be 
used to augment existing regulations and eliminate the need for 
expanded regulatory actions.
    d. Best management practice tools. Reducing, chloride, nitrogen and 
phosphorus pollutants in meat and poultry processing wastewater while 
maintaining high food quality standards poses a challenge to many meat 
and poultry processors. In addition, the disposal of meat and poultry 
processing biosolids and renderable materials such as offal poses a 
serious threat to the economic viability of small meat and poultry 
processors. To address these environmental impacts through non-
regulatory means, EPA and its partners are developing BMP guidance 
materials for handling and disposal of rendering materials, and for 
chloride, nitrogen, and phosphorus discharges. The project team will 
evaluate these management practices and develop measures of their 
effectiveness. Long-term deployment of the final tools will occur 
through the active leadership of the industry's trade associations.
    The Meat and Poultry Processing Partnership Program is intended to 
help improve the environmental performance

[[Page 8644]]

of meat and poultry processors across the entire industry and, in the 
case of the external stewardship project, the performance of livestock 
suppliers as well. This innovative, non-regulatory program has the 
potential to affect the practices of all 6,000-plus meat and poultry 
products facilities, thereby fostering environmental improvement among 
facilities that are excluded from the proposed ELGS standards. In that 
regard, it is a reflection of EPA's commitment, along with its 
partners, to achieve continuous performance improvement and 
environmental stewardship on an industry-wide scale, above and beyond 
what is intended to be accomplished with this rule.
    This voluntary program was not intended, when designed, 
specifically as a regulatory alternative to the proposed ELGS, but 
rather as a complement to the proposed standards. Nevertheless, EPA 
solicits public comment on whether this program would be an adequate 
replacement for any potential national numeric pretreatment standards 
and, if so, whether specific program modifications or enhancements 
should be adopted in response to the issues discussed in this preamble. 
That determination would be based, in part, on results that are yet to 
be achieved by the voluntary partnership. EPA and its partners 
therefore will evaluate and share publicly the environmental results 
achieved to date, and during the time period preceding promulgation of 
the final rule, by the meat and poultry processing industry through its 
participation in this program, to help determine whether this voluntary 
performance-based approach should be considered a viable alternative to 
national numeric pretreatment standards. Information is available at 
www.SectorStar.org. 
3. Environmental Management Systems (EMSs)
    A simple definition of an EMS is ``a continual cycle of planning, 
implementing, reviewing, and improving the actions an organization 
takes to meet its environmental obligations.'' These obligations 
include, but are in no way limited to regulated activities. EMSs are a 
potentially powerful tool to reduce the range of environmental impacts 
that may not be amenable to regulation (e.g., odor, noise, energy 
consumption, or water consumption). In conjunction with reducing 
environmental impacts, EMSs offer other benefits including cost 
savings, increased operational efficiency, risk reduction, improved 
internal communication, and improved relations with external parties.
    The use of environmental management systems is increasing 
throughout the world, especially since the publication of the ISO 14001 
International EMS Standard in 1996. ISO standards are developed by an 
International Body with the goal of establishing standardized product 
goals. ISO 14001 established a standardized procedure for developing 
Environmental Management Systems. Approximately 16,000 organizations, 
including approximately 1,500 organizations in the U.S. have adopted 
EMSs based on ISO 14001, including certification to the standard 
through independent third party audits, and the rate of adoption is 
increasing rapidly. A much larger number of organizations have adopted 
EMSs consistent with the overall approach embodied in ISO 14001, but 
tailored to their own particular operations. Implementation of an EMS, 
while it has the potential to enhance compliance with regulatory 
requirements, does not expressly constitute or ensure compliance with 
legal requirements. Compliance assurance, however, is an express public 
policy and regulatory goal.
    In addition, concerns have been expressed that ISO 14001 may not be 
appropriate for certain industries or certain small and medium-sized 
organizations. Several industry groups have developed, or are in the 
process of developing, voluntary programs which use EMSs. These 
include, but are not limited to, egg production, biosolids management, 
and water/wastewater utilities. Other industry groups, such as the 
American Chemical Council (formerly the Chemical Manufacturer's 
Association), have had similar programs in place for a number of years.
    EPA has been involved in strategically promoting the voluntary 
adoption of EMSs for several years. The Agency's policy in this area 
was clearly described in our 1999 Report entitled ``Aiming for 
Excellence''. This report states that ``we will encourage organizations 
to use EMSs that improve compliance, pollution prevention, and other 
measures of environmental performance''. Copies of this report are 
available at www.epa.gov/reinvent/taskforce/report99. EPA has also 
developed an action plan that identifies a wide range of activities the 
Agency is or expects to undertake to follow up on the recommendations 
of the Aiming for Excellence Report dealing with EMSs.
    Some of the key EMS-based programs EPA is supporting, in 
partnership with industry and others, are the National Environmental 
Performance Track (NEPT), the United Egg Producers XL Project, and the 
National Biosolids Partnership EMS program. As described previously 
under the Sustainable Industries Programs, EPA is partnering with IWRC 
and IDNR and five meat and poultry companies to pilot test the ``EMS 
Guide for the Meat and Poultry Processing Industry.''

Contents of an EMS

    The factors described in more detail below would be included in 
EMSs developed voluntarily under the alternative being considered by 
the Agency:
    Environmental Policy--a written statement of policy, defined by top 
facility management that includes commitments to: Compliance with both 
legal requirements and voluntary commitments; pollution prevention, and 
continual improvement of environmental performance in order to reduce 
negative impacts on the environment over time; involving the public in 
an appropriate fashion in EMS development and implementation, and 
sharing information about environmental performance of the EMS with the 
community and sharing information about environmental performance of 
the EMS with the public.
    Environmental Planning--identify and document all environmental 
aspects and impacts of the facility and determine which of these are 
most significant.
     Document both applicable environmental legal requirements 
and voluntary commitments.
     Set and document measurable objectives and measurable 
targets to meet policy commitments and legal requirements and to reduce 
the facility's significant environmental impacts.
     Describe and document programs to achieve the objectives, 
targets and commitments in the EMS, including the means and time frames 
for their completion.
    Implementation of Policy and Plan--The following actions provide 
mechanisms for implementing and maintaining the EMS policy and plan.
     Establish roles and responsibilities for meeting 
objectives and targets of the overall EMS and compliance with legal 
requirements, including a top management representative with authority 
and responsibility for the EMS.
     Define procedures for: (1) Communicating relevant 
information regarding the EMS, including the facility's environmental 
performance, throughout the organization; (2) providing appropriate 
incentives for personnel to meet the EMS requirements; and (3) document 
and

[[Page 8645]]

record control, including where documents related to the EMS will be 
located and who will maintain them.
     Provide for general environmental training programs for 
all employees, and specific training for those whose jobs and 
responsibilities involve activities directly related to achieving 
objectives and targets and to compliance with legal requirements.
     Establish operation and maintenance programs for equipment 
and for other operations that are related to legal compliance and other 
significant environmental aspects.
     Develop a documented emergency preparedness and response 
program.
    Community Involvement/External Communications--The following 
actions provide mechanisms for incorporating community involvement and 
external communications.
     Ensure that interested community members and others are 
given the opportunity to provide input to the facility as it sets 
objectives and targets in its EMS
     Maintain regular communications with these stakeholders on 
the performance of the EMS as it is implemented and address relevant 
issues raised by these stakeholders.
     Report publicly on EMS performance by, for example, making 
information from self and third party audits available to the public. 
EPA solicits comment on the most appropriate method of sharing the 
audit results, including website publication, as well as their content 
and frequency.
    Corrective Action--The following actions provide mechanisms for 
identifying and correcting operation controls and procedures to ensure 
EMS effectiveness.
     Adoption of necessary operational controls and procedures 
to ensure that the EMS is effectively implemented.
     Implementation of an active program for assessing 
performance and preventing and detecting non-conformance with legal and 
other requirements (including regulatory compliance) of the EMS
     Maintain records that document EMS implementation and 
compliance
    Management Review--Operators should document management review of 
performance against the established objectives and targets and the 
effectiveness of the EMS in meeting policy commitments.

Environmental Management System and Audit Program

    As discussed earlier in this proposal, EPA is interested in 
considering the possible use of EMSs in various aspects of its 
relationships with the meat and poultry processing industry. EMSs can 
provide significant internal benefits to organizations such as improved 
internal communication and better integration of environmental 
considerations into business decisions. However, EPA is also interested 
in considering whether EMSs could serve as method of promoting overall 
environmental accountability to ensure real pollution reductions 
external. One potential method of ensuring greater accountability and 
confidence is to include independent third party auditing as a 
component of an EMS program. Third party auditing is designed to 
provide facilities with an independent evaluation of their EMSs, based 
on a particular set of EMS elements or standards.
    While third party EMS audits are primarily designed to evaluate the 
overall suitability of a management system, as opposed to particular 
metrics related to regulatory compliance or environmental performance, 
they do examine how and if an organization is meeting the environmental 
objectives it has set for its own operations, including compliance and 
reduced impacts from unregulated activities.
    Therefore, EPA is also considering establishing in the final 
regulation an option that would allow the meat and poultry products 
industry to develop an Environmental Management System (EMS) program 
that would also include independent third party audits by a qualified 
organization. Indirect dischargers would have the option of meeting 
potential pretreatment standards or agreeing to participate in the EMS/
Audit Program. Third party auditing could substitute for a review by 
the control authority. Facilities participating in the program would 
develop EMSs with the elements described above.
Eligibility Criteria
    EPA could offer the EMS regulatory alternative to all facilities. 
Alternatively, EPA could limit the alternative's availability to 
facilities meeting certain criteria. EPA solicits comment on 
eligibility criteria for determining whether facilities should be 
allowed to adopt EMSs in lieu of installing otherwise required 
wastewater treatment. The purpose of the criteria would be to screen 
the facilities to ensure they can demonstrate an appropriate compliance 
history and commitment. For example, EPA could specify in the final 
rule that if the facility has had a particular type of violation within 
a certain number of years (e.g., five) the owner/operator would have to 
demonstrate that the violation was corrected and steps taken to prevent 
recurrence. EPA may also wish to specify that persons whose compliance 
history includes certain types of serious violations (e.g., criminal 
violations) must comply with numeric effluent limits. The regulatory 
authority may be in the best position to determine at the outset 
whether a facility's compliance history should exclude it from 
participation. EPA solicits comments on whether all facilities should 
be allowed to participate or on other potentially appropriate criteria, 
as well as on the timing of the screening. EPA also wants to know 
whether the regulatory authority has the time and resources to research 
these facilities and whether the need for the review merits the 
resources required.
Frequency of Third Party Auditing
    EPA is considering requiring facilities to complete an initial and 
follow up audits in the range from each year to every three years, but 
solicits comment on other frequencies. EPA is also seeking comment on 
whether a facility's internal audit might substitute for a third party 
audit in certain years if the previous third party audit indicated that 
the facility was making good progress on implementing its EMS. EPA also 
solicits comment on how to define `making good progress' in such 
situations. Finally, at some point, each facility would need to 
complete a full reaudit of its environmental management plan by an 
independent third party. EPA solicits comment on the frequency of these 
full reaudits.
Qualifications of Third Party Auditors
    For any third party EMS auditing program to be successful, all 
parties must have confidence in the individuals conducting the audits. 
Under this proposal, third party auditors could be certified by EPA or 
another organization as lead auditors under the relevant ISO guidelines 
with sufficient additional experience in the field of food safety or 
wastewater management to enable the auditors to, among other things, 
competently assess facility conformance with objectives and 
requirements and applicable BMPs. A similar approach is being used in 
the biosolids industry, where third party auditors must hold 
credentials as an ISO 14001 lead auditor and have a minimum of 5 years 
experience in biosolids and wastewater management.
    Alternatively, EPA could develop a separate set of qualifications 
for auditors. We are seeking comment on the relevant qualifications for 
third party auditors and suggestions for existing organizations that 
might be in

[[Page 8646]]

a position to manage an auditing program.
Content of Audit Reports and Sharing of Information
    Third party audit information is essential to maintain ongoing 
communications with the community and other key stakeholders. However, 
EPA recognizes the burden that providing this information may pose to 
individual facilities. EPA also recognizes that some of the information 
in the audit may be considered CBI by the facility. Therefore, we are 
seeking comment on the most efficient way to make this information 
available to the public and on what limits if any should be placed on 
this information. For example, the information could be made available 
through the web site of the control authority or State regulatory 
agency, as opposed to requiring the facility to make it available. The 
content of this information is also an important consideration. EPA 
proposes to limit the scope of this information to information derived 
from the EMS audit, including that which relates to the BMPs designed 
to control pollutants discharged in wastewater, and not necessarily 
information about all aspects of facility operations. Some of the 
information that is contained in actual audit reports may be of little 
interest to the community. In contrast, information that focuses on the 
areas of strength and needed improvement as a result of the audit may 
be quite useful. EPA solicits comment on the specific information from 
audits that should be publicly available as well as the most efficient 
and effective way of accomplishing this.
Ensuring Auditor Consistency and Integrity
    Ensuring that auditors perform their duties in a consistent and 
objective manner is essential. A May 2001 National Academy of Public 
Administrators (NAPA) report on third party auditing of EMS under ISO 
14001, for example, noted that, given public policy implications, it is 
important to ensure credible and consistent results so that all who 
rely on the EMSs, including the public, have appropriate expectations 
of what it represents (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 10041). EPA 
believes there should be a mechanism for periodically evaluating the 
effectiveness of the third party audit program and considering appeals 
to auditor decisions. The Agency solicits comment on how this can best 
be accomplished and the roles that various parties, including States, 
should play.
Correction of Nonconformance/Return to Regulatory Coverage
    EPA assumes that facilities wishing to take advantage of this 
alternative will make a good faith effort to successfully implement 
their environmental management programs. However, some facilities will 
inevitably experience serious nonconformance, potentially including 
noncompliance with meeting the goals of the EMS including BMPs to 
control pollutant discharges. Such problems can range from minor 
deficiencies with implementation of environmental management programs 
that have minimal environmental impact and can be easily corrected to 
serious problems which lead to imminent and substantial endangerments, 
have significant environmental impacts, or reflect criminal conduct.
    EPA's intent is to balance the need to provide facilities with 
incentives to seek the third party alternative described in this 
proposal with the need to ensure that regulatory authorities can react 
promptly and effectively to serious problems that may result in a 
facility being returned to regulatory coverage. There are a number of 
options EPA could consider to address this issue. These are not 
mutually exclusive and include (1) allowing facilities with minor audit 
nonconformance and/or noncompliance to correct these problems in lieu 
of returning to regulatory coverage, (2) requiring facilities with 
major nonconformance and/or noncompliance to address the issue within a 
specified period of time and have the corrective action reviewed by the 
auditor or regulatory agency, or (3) requiring that any major 
noncompliance with the EMS result in a return to regulatory coverage. 
EPA solicits comment on the best approach or combination of approaches 
from those listed above or any other approach for addressing 
nonconformance and noncompliance with regulatory requirements, 
including, for example, determining who is responsible for 
noncompliance when there are actual discharges, and when such 
discharges will be treated as violations of the Clean Water Act. EPA 
also solicits comment on whether, when, and how related information 
should be shared with the public.
Reporting and Recordkeeping
    To assure compliance with regulatory alternatives to numerical 
effluent limits, EPA believes it must be able to monitor EMS/EAP 
implementation and performance. EPA's preferred approach would be to 
maintain records on-site for 3 years. EPA solicits comment on types of 
records and reports that might be appropriate for this purpose and 
where and how long they would be maintained, including their 
availability to regulators and/or the public.
Best Management Practices
    Both the EMS and EAP alternative approaches include commitments to 
meeting effluent standards through treatment or commitments to 
implementation of BMPs. EPA has identified several BMPs that are 
believed to be effective at reducing the pollutant loads discharged in 
process wastewater from meat and poultry products facilities. 
Implementation of these BMPs would be a mandatory component of the EAP 
when it serves as a compliance alternative to potential pretreatment 
standards. The BMPs that are described below are currently being used 
at meat and poultry processing facilities and were identified by 
industry representatives as having the greatest potential to reduce 
nutrient pollutants from the effluent at meat and poultry processing 
facilities.
    Many of these best management practices simply prevent raw 
materials or by-products from coming in contact with wastewater, thus 
reducing the pollutant load which reaches the water stream. All meat 
and poultry processing and rendering facilities must use water to clean 
their equipment and facilities to maintain a clean, hygienic 
environment and keep food safe from bacterial contamination. Prior to 
the disinfecting water cleaning, collecting as much of the solid by-
products that may have accumulated around work areas will reduce the 
pollutants that reach water. Many of these by-products have value as 
rendered product and, thus, should not become a solid waste requiring 
disposal to land.
    EPA believes that preventing solid raw materials and byproducts 
such as offal from entering the wastewater stream has the potential to 
greatly reduce the loading of nitrogen that is discharged from meat and 
poultry products facilities. The nitrogen is still in organic form and 
does not have the opportunity to begin the biochemical breakdown that 
occurs in wastewater which releases ammonia. Once the nitrogen has been 
converted to ammonia it is much more difficult to remove from the 
wastewater stream. Likewise phosphorus loadings in wastewater should 
also be reduced when solid materials are kept out of the wastewater.
    The implementation of some of the BMPs described herein may require 
reconfiguring equipment or work areas within the facility to facilitate 
dry clean-

[[Page 8647]]

up methods. These reconfigurations can probably be done over time as 
there will be some trade-off between labor requirements necessary to 
conduct the dry clean-up in the more difficult areas and the costs 
associated with retrofitting these areas with equipment that 
facilitates this dry clean-up. However, as a compliance alternative to 
potential pretreatment standards, the regulation would specify that the 
facility operator must be able to demonstrate implementation of the 
required BMPs in order to be eligible for this EAP alternative.
    Some of the BMPs identified by EPA are specific to a particular 
aspect of the production, such as slaughtering. Slaughtering facilities 
can accomplish reductions in the nutrient pollutants discharged by 
maximizing blood collection and using dry clean-up techniques prior to 
sanitation. Dry collection and handling of other offal and by-products 
are also effective practices. Some meat and poultry processing 
facilities use water to transport offal and other by-products away from 
the processing area either to the on-site rendering facility or to 
trucks for transport to an off-site renderer. This can result in loss 
of these by-products when the material is separated from the wastewater 
and promote chemical break down of these by-products which converts 
organic nitrogen to water soluble ammonia.
    Manure management can also be a consideration at slaughter 
facilities. Facilities should ensure that manure is properly handled 
and when possible handled as a solid waste rather than adding it to the 
facilities wastewater stream. Practices would include dry cleaning of 
pens and trucks prior to wet cleaning and sanitizing. In addition, 
there may be pollution prevention practices that can be implemented in 
association with manure management involving removing the animals from 
feed at some point prior to shipping them to the slaughterhouse.
    Facilities that do not slaughter animals, but do further processing 
of meat and poultry products should also maximize the use of dry 
collection and cleaning of the facilities prior to sanitation. There 
are also concerns with some of the specific processes such as pickling, 
spicing and marinating which are used to make meat and poultry 
products. These processes involve preparing a solution containing 
salts, sugars, phosphates and nitrites among other things. These 
solutions should be managed to minimize waste and loss. Some of the 
practices that EPA is considering include using multiple, smaller 
batches of these solutions to reduce the volume and pollutant loads 
when a batch requires disposal. These practices include collection, 
screening, and reuse of spent pickle from injection or tumbler 
machines. EPA is also considering ways that the product could be 
removed and packaged following this process in such a way as to 
minimize the loss of the solution. Facilities would also be asked to 
develop a protocol for determining when a solution requires disposal to 
maximize the usefulness of these solutions and reduce the overall 
volume disposed. Facilities should also examine and maintain the 
equipment used in these processes to minimize spills and leaks.
    Finally, specific best management practices that are being 
considered for the rendering sector include managing the raw materials 
to prevent leaks and spills especially for materials that may be 
entering the rendering facility as a liquid such as blood or oil and 
grease. Losses of rendered product following the cooking process should 
be avoided by providing and maintaining traps in the cooking vapor 
lines and controlling pressure reduction and agitation after cooking.
    All meat and poultry products facilities should minimize water 
usage and employ water conservation practices including installing 
operator controlled nozzles on hoses and other sources of water. 
Facilities should also examine the chemicals used to sanitize 
equipment. Whenever possible the use of sanitizers containing 
phosphorus should be avoided.
    EPA will continue to evaluate these management practices and work 
with stakeholders to identify measures, monitoring or recordkeeping 
that EPA could use to ensure the proper implementation of these BMPs. 
EPA expects to fully describe these measures in a subsequent notice and 
seek public comment on them.

Assessment of Alternatives

    To assess the extent to which an EMS or an EAP alternative can 
achieve comparable pollutant reduction performance as the end-of-pipe 
effluent standard, EPA needs data which document the pollutant 
reductions achieved by implementing the BMPs. The specific performance 
data that EPA is seeking includes effluent concentrations taken from 
wastewater discharges prior to and after implementing the BMPs for 
nutrient pollutants. The nutrient pollutants should be analyzed using 
EPA's approved methods, found at 40 CFR part 136 for Total Kjeldahl 
Nitrogen (TKN), Ammonia, Nitrates, Dissolved Phosphorus and Total 
Phosphorus. EPA also solicits concentration information on Hexane 
Extractable Material which measures oil and grease (HEM method for oil 
and grease), 5-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5), 
Biochemical Oxygen Demand and Total Suspended Solids (TSS). In addition 
to the concentration information, EPA needs to know the production 
practices, the wastewater flow and production rates associated with the 
concentration measurements. The longer the time period during which 
data is collected both before and after implementation of BMPs the more 
helpful the data will be to EPA.
    EPA will also need to evaluate the costs associated with 
implementing the BMPs and the EMS or EAP to determine whether they are 
comparable to costs estimated for compliance with today's wastewater 
treatment that are being considered for possible pretreatment 
standards. EPA encourages the industry and the public to provide 
information on the costs associated with implementing an EMS or EAP, 
including costs to hire consultants and staff time necessary to develop 
and implement an EMS or EAP. EPA has included some cost and estimates 
of labor requirements for the implementation of EMS that were provided 
to EPA and reflect the implementation of EMSs to manage biosolids. EPA 
is also interested in data that documents materials necessary to 
implement the BMPs. Facilities are asked to also provide data which 
documents cost savings such as reduced water usage resulting in lower 
water bills.
    EPA would also welcome any data on the actual performance of EMSs. 
This could include data that demonstrates other environmental benefits 
associated with implementing EMSs or EAPs such as reductions in energy 
or water usage, improvements in food safety or reductions in odor or 
air emissions, or data on EMS limitations. EPA is also interested in 
knowing about other BMPs that would be as effective as those identified 
in today's notice.
    In summary, EPA is soliciting comment on a variety of alternative 
approaches that can be implemented in the meat and poultry products 
industry to beneficially affect industry-wide and facility performance 
and measure results. Through the Sustainable Industries Program, 
stakeholders will identify and test the best methodologies and 
approaches to collecting information and data to measure environmental 
results of various voluntary concepts (i.e. BMP's, EAP's and EMS). This 
effort will begin during the initial period immediately following

[[Page 8648]]

proposal of this regulation. The results and an evaluation of various 
alternative approaches will be included in a subsequent Notice of Data 
Availability (NODA), which will also describe in detail an alternative 
approach and solicit comment.

XII. Regulatory Implementation

A. Implementation of Part 432 Through the NPDES Permit Program and the 
National Pretreatment Program

    Under sections 301, 304, 306 and 307 of the CWA, EPA promulgates 
national effluent limitations guidelines and standards of performance 
for major industrial categories for three classes of pollutants: (1) 
Conventional pollutants (i.e., total suspended solids, oil and grease, 
biochemical oxygen demand, fecal coliform, and pH); (2) toxic 
pollutants (e.g., toxic metals such as chromium, lead, nickel, and 
zinc; toxic organic pollutants such as benzene, benzo-a-pyrene, and 
naphthalene); and (3) non-conventional pollutants (e.g., ammonia-N, 
fluoride, iron, total phenols, and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran).
    As discussed in Section II, EPA considers development of six types 
of effluent limitations guidelines and standards for each major 
industrial category, as appropriate:

Abbreviation/Effluent Limitation Guideline or Standard

BPT--Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available
BAT--Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
BCT--Best Control Technology for Conventional Pollutants
NSPS--New Source Performance Standards
PSES--Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources
PSNS--Pretreatment Standards for New Sources

    Pretreatment standards apply to industrial facilities with 
wastewater discharges to POTWs. The effluent limitations guidelines and 
new source performance standards apply to industrial facilities with 
direct discharges to navigable waters.
1. NPDES Permit Program
    Section 402 of the CWA establishes the National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. The NPDES permit program is 
designed to limit the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters of 
the United States through a combination of various requirements 
including technology-based and water quality-based effluent 
limitations. This proposed regulation contains the technology-based 
effluent limitations guidelines and standards applicable to the meat 
and poultry processing industry to be used by permit writers to derive 
NPDES permit technology-based effluent limitations. Water quality-based 
effluent limitations (WQBELs) are based on receiving water 
characteristics and ambient water quality standards, including 
designated water uses. They are derived independently from the 
technology-based effluent limitations set out in this proposed 
regulation. The CWA requires that NPDES permits must contain for a 
given discharge, the more stringent of the applicable technology-based 
and water quality-based effluent limitations.
    Section 402(a)(1) of the CWA provides that in the absence of 
promulgated effluent limitations guidelines or standards, the 
Administrator, or her designee, may establish technology-based effluent 
limitations for specific dischargers on a case-by-case basis. Federal 
NPDES permit regulations provide that these limits may be established 
using ``best professional judgment'' (BPJ) taking into account any 
proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards and other 
relevant scientific, technical and economic information.
    Section 301 of the CWA, as amended by the Water Quality Act of 
1987, requires that BAT effluent limitations for toxic pollutants are 
to have been achieved as expeditiously as possible, but not later than 
three years from date of promulgation of such limitations and in no 
case later than March 31, 1989. See 301(b)(2). Because the proposed 
revisions to 40 CFR part 432 will be promulgated after March 31, 1989, 
NPDES permit effluent limitations based on the revised effluent 
limitations guidelines must be included in the next NPDES permit issued 
after promulgation of the regulation and the permit must require 
immediate compliance.
2. New Source Performance Standards
    New sources must comply with the new source performance standards 
and limitations of the MPP rule (once it is finalized) at the time they 
commence discharging MPP process wastewater. Because the final rule is 
not expected within 120 days of the proposed rule, the Agency considers 
a discharger a new source if construction of the source begins after 
promulgation of the final rule (40 CFR 122.2; 40 CFR 403.3). EPA 
expects to take final action on this proposal in December 2003.
    However, the currently codified NSPS continue to have force and 
effect for a limited universe of new sources. Specifically, following 
promulgation of any revised NSPS, the existing NSPS would continue to 
apply for a limited period of time to new sources that commenced 
discharging MPP process wastewater within the time period beginning ten 
years before the effective date of a final rule revising part 432. 
Thus, if EPA promulgates revised NSPS for part 432 in December 2003, 
and those regulations take effect in January 2004, any direct 
discharging new source that commenced discharge after January 1994 but 
before February 2004 would be subject to the currently codified NSPS 
for ten years from the date it commenced discharge or during the period 
of depreciation or amortization of such facility, whichever comes 
first. See CWA section 306(d). After that ten year period expires, any 
new or revised BAT limitations would apply with respect to toxics and 
nonconventional pollutants. Limitations on conventional pollutants 
would be based on the current NSPS for conventional pollutants unless 
EPA promulgates revisions to BPT/BCT for conventional pollutants that 
are more stringent than these NSPS requirements. EPA is reproducing in 
the MPP Development Document the NSPS codified in the 2001 edition of 
the Code of Federal Regulations for use during the applicable ten-year 
period.
3. National Pretreatment Standards
    40 CFR Part 403 sets out national pretreatment standards which have 
three principal objectives: (1) To prevent the introduction of 
pollutants into publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) that will 
interfere with POTW operations, including use or disposal of municipal 
sludge; (2) to prevent the introduction of pollutants into POTWs which 
will pass through the treatment works or will otherwise be incompatible 
with the treatment works; and (3) to improve opportunities to recycle 
and reclaim municipal and industrial wastewaters and sludges.
    The national pretreatment and categorical standards comprise a 
series of prohibited discharges to prevent the discharge of ``any 
pollutant(s) which cause Pass Through or Interference.'' (see 40 CFR 
403.5(a)(1)) Local control authorities are required to implement the 
national pretreatment program including application of the federal 
categorical pretreatment standards to their industrial users that are 
subject to such categorical pretreatment standards, as well as any 
pretreatment standards derived locally (i.e., local limits) that are 
more restrictive than the federal standards. This proposed regulation

[[Page 8649]]

does not revise federal categorical pretreatment standards (PSES and 
PSNS) applicable to meat and poultry processing facilities regulated by 
40 CFR part 432.
    The federal categorical pretreatment standards for existing sources 
must be achieved not later than three years following the date of 
publication of the final standards. If EPA were to promulgate PSNS in 
the final rule, MPP new sources would be required to comply with the 
new source performance standards of the MPP rule (once it is finalized) 
at the time they commence discharging MPP process wastewater. Because 
the final rule is not expected within 120 days of the proposed rule, 
the Agency considers an indirect discharger a new source if its 
construction commences following promulgation of the final rule (40 CFR 
122.2; 40 CFR 403.3). EPA expects to take final action on this proposal 
in December 2003.
    In addition, Sec. 403.7 of the Clean Water Act provides the 
criteria and procedures to be used by a Control Authority to grant a 
categorical industrial user (CIU) variance from a pollutant limit 
specified in a categorical pretreatment standard to reflect removal by 
the POTW treatment plant of the pollutant. Procedures for granting 
removal credits are specified in 40 CFR 403.11.

B. Upset and Bypass Provisions

    A ``bypass'' is an intentional diversion of the streams from any 
portion of a treatment facility. An ``upset'' is an exceptional 
incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance 
with technology-based permit effluent limitations because of factors 
beyond the reasonable control of the permittee. EPA's regulations 
concerning bypasses and upsets for direct dischargers are set forth at 
40 CFR 122.41(m) and (n) and for indirect dischargers at 40 CFR 403.16 
and 403.17.

C. Variances and Modifications

    The CWA requires application of effluent limitations established 
pursuant to section 301 or pretreatment standards of section 307 to all 
direct and indirect dischargers. However, the statute provides for the 
modification of these national requirements in a limited number of 
circumstances. Moreover, the Agency has established administrative 
mechanisms to provide an opportunity for relief from the application of 
the national effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards 
for categories of existing sources for toxic, conventional, and 
nonconventional pollutants.
1. Fundamentally Different Factors Variances
    EPA will develop effluent limitations or standards different from 
the otherwise applicable requirements if an individual discharging 
facility is fundamentally different with respect to factors considered 
in establishing the limitation of standards applicable to the 
individual facility. Such a modification is known as a ``fundamentally 
different factors'' (FDF) variance.
    Early on, EPA, by regulation provided for the FDF modifications 
from the BPT effluent limitations, BAT limitations for toxic and 
nonconventional pollutants and BPT limitations for conventional 
pollutants for direct dischargers. For indirect dischargers, EPA 
provide for modifications from pretreatment standards. FDF variances 
for toxic pollutants were challenged judicially and ultimately 
sustained by the Supreme Court. (Chemical Manufacturers Assn v. NRDC, 
479 U.S. 116 (1985)).
    Subsequently, in the Water Quality Act of 1987, Congress added new 
section 301(n) of the Act explicitly to authorize modifications of the 
otherwise applicable BAT effluent limitations or categorical 
pretreatment standards for existing sources if a facility is 
fundamentally different with respect to the factors specified in 
section 304 (other than costs) from those considered by EPA in 
establishing the effluent limitations or pretreatment standard. Section 
301(n) also defined the conditions under which EPA may establish 
alternative requirements. Under Section 301(n), an application for 
approval of a FDF variance must be based solely on (1) information 
submitted during rulemaking raising the factors that are fundamentally 
different or (2) information the applicant did not have an opportunity 
to submit. The alternate limitation or standard must be no less 
stringent than justified by the difference and must not result in 
markedly more adverse non-water quality environmental impacts than the 
national limitation or standard.
    EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 125, subpart D, authorizing the 
Regional Administrators to establish alternative limitations and 
standards, further detail the substantive criteria used to evaluate FDF 
variance requests for direct dischargers. Thus, 40 CFR 125.31(d) 
identifies six factors (e.g., volume of process wastewater, age and 
size of a discharger's facility) that may be considered in determining 
if a facility is fundamentally different. The Agency must determine 
whether, on the basis of one or more of these factors, the facility in 
question is fundamentally different from the facilities and factors 
considered by EPA in developing the nationally applicable effluent 
guidelines. The regulation also lists four other factors (e.g., 
infeasibility of installation within the time allowed or a discharger's 
ability to pay) that may not provide a basis for an FDF variance. In 
addition, under 40 CFR 125.31(b) (3), a request for limitations less 
stringent than the national limitation may be approved only if 
compliance with the national limitations would result in either (a) a 
removal cost wholly out of proportion to the removal cost considered 
during development of the national limitations, or (b) a non-water 
quality environmental impact (including energy requirements) 
fundamentally more adverse than the impact considered during 
development of the national limits. EPA regulations provide for an FDF 
variance for indirect dischargers at 40 CFR 403.13. The conditions for 
approval of a request to modify applicable pretreatment standards and 
factors considered are the same as those for direct dischargers.
    The legislative history of section 301(n) underscores the necessity 
for the FDF variance applicant to establish eligibility for the 
variance. EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 125.32(b)(1) are explicit in 
imposing this burden upon the applicant. The applicant must show that 
the factors relating to the discharge controlled by the applicant's 
permit which are claimed to be fundamentally different are, in fact, 
fundamentally different from those factors considered by EPA in 
establishing the applicable guidelines. The criteria for applying for 
and evaluating applications for variances from categorical pretreatment 
standards are included in the pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR 
403.13(h)(9). An FDF variance is not available to a new source 
performance subject to NSPS or PSNS.
2. Economic Variances
    Section 301(c) of the CWA authorizes a variance from the otherwise 
applicable BAT effluent guidelines for nonconventional pollutants due 
to economic factors. The request for a variance from effluent 
limitations developed from BAT guidelines must normally be filed by the 
discharger during the public notice period for the draft permit. Other 
filing time periods may apply, as specified in 40 CFR 122.21(1)(2). 
Specific guidance for this type of variance is available from EPA's 
Office of Wastewater Management.

[[Page 8650]]

3. Water Quality Variances
    Section 301(g) of the CWA authorizes a variance from BAT effluent 
guidelines for certain nonconventional pollutants due to localized 
environmental factors. These pollutants include ammonia, chlorine, 
color, iron, and total phenols.

D. Production Basis for Calculation of Permit Limitations

1. Background
    The effluent limitations guidelines and standards for BPT, BAT, and 
NSPS proposed today are expressed as mass limitations in pounds (of 
pollutant) per 1000 pounds (of production unit). EPA is soliciting 
comment on PSES and PSNS numeric standards that are concentration-
based. The NPDES regulations (40 CFR 122.45(f)) require permit writers 
to implement mass-based limitations for direct dischargers, but allows 
an exception when the limits are expressed in terms of other units of 
measurement (e.g., concentration) and the General Pretreatment 
Standards (40 CFR 403.6(d)) provide that the control authority may 
impose mass limitations on industrial users which are using dilution to 
meet applicable pretreatment requirements or where mass limitations are 
appropriate. EPA believes that MPP facilities that have been using the 
best pollution prevention and water conservation practices may also 
request that the permit writer or POTW use mass-based limits in their 
permits or control mechanism. The Agency is providing detailed 
information on water use levels for specific unit operations in Section 
6 of the MPP Development Document for today's proposal. EPA believes 
this information will be useful to permit writers and control 
authorities in those instances where they deem it appropriate to set 
mass-based limits.
2. Mass-Based Limitations and Standards
    The effluent limitations guidelines and standards for BPT, BAT, and 
NSPS proposed today are expressed as mass limitations in pounds (of 
pollutant) per 1000 pounds (of production unit). Production units 
include Live Weight Killed (LWK), Equivalent Live Weight Killed (ELWK), 
Finished Product (FP) and Raw Material (RM). The mass limitation is 
derived by multiplying an effluent concentration (determined from the 
analysis of treatment system performance) by an appropriate wastewater 
volume (``production-normalized flow'') determined for each MPP 
operation expressed in gallons/1000 pounds of product. EPA developed 
the production normalized flows used to develop the limits in the 
proposed rule from survey questionnaire responses from MPP facilities. 
(The production-normalized flows are provided in Section VI.A.)
    A facility subject to today's proposed regulation can use a 
combination of various treatment alternatives and/or water conservation 
practices to achieve a particular effluent limitation or standard. The 
model treatment systems (see Section XI) illustrate at least one means 
available to achieve the proposed effluent limitations guidelines and 
standards.
    As discussed above in Section XII.D.1, both the NPDES permit 
regulations and the General Pretreatment Regulations discuss the use of 
mass-based limitations and standards. In order to convert the proposed 
effluent limitations and standards expressed as pounds/1,000 pounds of 
product to a monthly average or daily maximum permit limit, the 
permitting or control authority would use a production rate with units 
of 1,000 pounds/day. The NPDES permit regulations (40 CFR 122.45(b)(2)) 
require that NPDES permit limits be based on a ``* * * reasonable 
measure of actual production.'' A similar requirement is found in the 
General Pretreatment regulations (40 CFR 403.6(c)(3)). The production 
rates used for NPDES permitting for the MPP industry have commonly been 
the highest annual average production from the prior five year period 
prorated to a daily basis.
    The objective in determining a production estimate for a facility 
is to develop a measure of production which can reasonably be expected 
to prevail during the next term of the permit. This is used in 
combination with the production-based limitations to establish a 
maximum mass of pollutant that may be discharged each day and month. 
However, if the permit production rate is based on the maximum month, 
then the permit could allow excessive discharges of pollutants during 
significant portions of the life of the permit. These excessive 
allowances may discourage facilities from ensuring optimal waste 
management, water conservation, and wastewater treatment practices 
during lower production periods. On the other hand, if the average 
permit production rate is based on an average derived from the highest 
year of production over the past five years, then facilities may have 
trouble ensuring that their waste management, water conservation, and 
wastewater treatment practices can accommodate shorter periods of 
higher production. This might require facilities to target a more 
stringent treatment level than that on which the limits were based 
during these periods of high production. To accomplish this, facilities 
would likely have to develop more efficient treatment systems and 
better water conservation and waste management practices during these 
periods. The Agency solicits comments on related costs and any 
technical difficulties that meat and poultry processing facilities 
might have in meeting limits during short periods of high production. 
EPA also solicits other options for consideration.
    The proposed limitations neither require the installation of any 
specific control technology nor the attainment of any specific flow 
rate or effluent concentration. A facility subject to today's proposed 
regulation can use various treatment alternatives or water conservation 
practices to achieve a particular effluent limitation or standard. The 
model treatment systems described here illustrate at least one means 
available to achieve the proposed effluent limitations guidelines and 
standards.

E. Best Management Practices

    Sections 304(e), 308(a), 402(a), and 501(a) of the CWA authorize 
the Administrator to prescribe BMPs as part of effluent limitations 
guidelines and standards or as part of a permit. EPA's BMP regulations 
are found at 40 CFR 122.44(k). Section 304(e) of the CWA authorizes EPA 
to include BMPs in effluent limitations guidelines for certain toxic or 
hazardous pollutants for the purpose of controlling ``plant site 
runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, and drainage from 
raw material storage.'' Section 402(a)(1) and NPDES regulations (40 CFR 
122.44(k)) also provide for best management practices to control or 
abate the discharge of pollutants when numeric limitations and 
standards are infeasible. In addition, Section 402(a)(2), read in 
concert with Section 501(a), authorizes EPA to prescribe as wide a 
range of permit conditions as the Administrator deems appropriate in 
order to ensure compliance with applicable effluent limitations and 
standards and such other requirements as the Administrator deems 
appropriate.
    Dikes, curbs, and other control measures are being used at some MPP 
facilities to contain leaks and spills as part of good ``housekeeping'' 
practices.'' However, on a facility-by-facility basis a permit writer 
may choose to incorporate BMPs into the permit. See MPP Development 
Document for this proposed rule for a detailed discussion of pollution 
prevention and best management practices used in the MPP industry.

[[Page 8651]]

    As described elsewhere in today's notice, EPA is considering an 
alternative to potential numeric pretreatment limitations and standards 
that would involve implementing BMPs as part of an Environmental 
Management System (EMS) (see Section XI.B).

XIII. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866: ``Regulatory Planning and Review''

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the 
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as 
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    It has been determined that this proposed rule is a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866. As such, 
this action was submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in response 
to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the public 
record.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis for any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any 
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business based on 
full time employees (FTEs) or annual revenues established by SBA; (2) a 
small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, 
town, school district or special district with a population of less 
than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit 
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 
dominant in its field.
    The definitions of small business for the meat products industries 
are in SBA's regulations at 13 CFR 121.201. These size standards were 
updated effective October 1, 2000. SBA size standards for the meat and 
poultry products industry (that is, for NAICS codes 311611, 311612, 
311613, and 311615) define a ``small business'' as one which has 500 or 
fewer employees.
    EPA estimates that small businesses own 71 facilities out of 246 
facilities that would be regulated under the rule as proposed. EPA 
based this estimate on information from the screener survey and SBA as 
described in Section VIII.M. EPA assumes that it is unlikely that any 
small company owns more than one facility. EPA has fully evaluated the 
economic impact of the proposed rule on the affected small companies. 
None of the facilities owned by small companies have a cost/sales ratio 
greater than one percent. For this proposal, EPA is using the ratio of 
annualized compliance costs to net income as its central measure of 
economic achievability (see Section VIII.E for a definition of this 
measure). EPA estimates that, based on its model facilities, 38 of the 
71 facilities owned by small companies have cost/net income ratios 
between five and nine percent, eight facilities have cost/net income 
ratios between two and three percent, while the other 25 facilities 
owned by small companies have cost/net income ratios less than one 
percent. EPA also calculated the ratio of cost to sales as a supplement 
to the cost/net income ratio. (More detail on these estimates is 
provided in the EA.) After considering the economic impact of today's 
proposed rule on small entities, including consideration of alternative 
regulatory approaches being proposed, I certify that this action will 
not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has 
tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. EPA is not 
proposing any new requirements on 5411 (or the vast majority of) 
facilities. Most of these are owned by small businesses and many of the 
smallest could likely experience serious economic impacts if 
requirements were imposed. EPA considered regulating an additional 
subset of this group of 5411 facilities, the 731 largest indirect 
discharging facilities, 462 of which are owned by small businesses. If 
the costs of Option 1 for PSES standards were imposed on these 
facilities, EPA estimates that 235 of the 462 facilities owned by small 
companies would have a cost/net income ratio between one and two 
percent while the other 227 facilities owned by small companies would 
have a cost/net income ratio of less than one percent. Thus, even if 
EPA had proposed Option 1 PSES standards for indirect dischargers the 
combined proposal would not have had a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    EPA has held several teleconferences with representatives of the 
American Association of Meat Processors (AAMP) which has almost a third 
of its association members with less than 10 FTE at the company level. 
We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed 
rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such 
impacts.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.L. 
104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year.
    Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is 
needed, Section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and 
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the 
least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that 
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do 
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative, if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted.
    Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments,

[[Page 8652]]

including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 
of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for 
notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of 
affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the 
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal 
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising 
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal 
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for 
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private 
sector in any one year. The total annual cost of this rule is estimated 
to be $80 million. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the 
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. The facilities which 
are affected by today's proposal are direct dischargers engaged in the 
slaughtering or processing of meat and poultry and the rendering of by-
products resulting from these activities. These facilities would be 
subject to today's proposed requirements through the issuance or 
renewal of an NPDES permit either from the Federal EPA or authorized 
State governments. These facilities should already have NPDES permits 
as the Clean Water Act requires a permit be held by any point source 
discharger before that facility may discharge wastewater pollutants 
into surface waters. Therefore, today's proposal could require these 
permits to be revised to comply with revised federal standards, but 
should not require a new permit program be implemented.
    EPA is not proposing to establish pretreatment standards for this 
point source category which are applied to indirect dischargers and 
overseen by Control Authorities. Local governments are frequently the 
Control Authority but since this regulation proposes no pretreatment 
standards, there would be no impact imposed on local governments. Thus, 
today's rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA.

D. Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks''

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or 
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate 
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the 
Agency must evaluate the environmental health and safety effects of the 
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is 
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible 
alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This proposed rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not 
economically significant under E.O. 12866, nor does it concern an 
environmental health or safety risk that may have a disproportionate 
effect on children.

E. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not 
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This 
proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal 
governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and 
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to 
this rule.
    EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule 
from tribal officials.
    EPA has compared 492 tribal zip codes obtained from EPA's America 
Indian Environmental Office (AIEO) to the 5,270 zip codes from EPA's 
Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) database. EPA 
identified approximately 64 MPP facilities located in 36 tribal zip 
codes. Of these 64 MPP facilities, 50 are classified as very small (10 
employees), 13 as small (10-499 employees), and only one facility as 
large (500 employees). EPA expects the proposed rule would 
not affect any of the very small facilities. It would only cover some 
of the facilities employing 10 to 499 employees and the one facility 
employing greater than or equal to 500 employees. (EPA cannot determine 
from the HACCP database which of these facilities are indirect 
dischargers and which are direct dischargers, although the large 
majority of these facilities are indirect dischargers.)

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule contains no new information collection 
requirements. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the Paperwork 
Reduction Act. OMB has previously approved information collection 
requirements for CWA direct dischargers to comply with their NPDES 
permits and for indirect dischargers to comply with pretreatment 
requirements. Burden estimates for direct dischargers to comply with 
this rule are contained in the ``National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System (NPDES)/Compliance Assessment/Certification 
Information'' ICR (OMB control no. 2040-0110). Burden estimates for 
indirect discharging facilities to comply with 40 CFR Part 403 are 
included in the ``National Pretreatment Program (40 CFR part 403)'' ICR 
(OMB control no. 2040-0009).
    Copies of the ICR document(s) may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, by 
mail at the Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies 
Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822); 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at 
[email protected], or by calling (202) 260-2740. A copy may also be 
downloaded off the internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr. Include the ICR 
and /or OMB number in any correspondence.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    However, should EPA proceed with the Regulatory Alternative for 
indirect dischargers there could be new information collection 
requirements. The Agency will develop an Information Collection Request 
seeking clearance for any additional information collection 
requirements when we have fully evaluated and developed this 
alternative.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations are listed

[[Page 8653]]

in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

G. Executive Order 13132: ``Federalism''

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This proposed rule does not have Federalism implications. It will 
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. EPA estimates that, when 
promulgated, these revised effluent guidelines and standards will be 
incorporated into NPDES permits without any additional costs to 
authorized States.
    Further, the revised regulations would not alter the basic State-
Federal scheme established in the Clean Water Act under which EPA 
authorizes States to carry out the NPDES permitting program. EPA 
expects the revised regulations to have little effect, if any, on the 
relationship between, or the distribution of power and responsibilities 
among, the Federal, State and local governments. Thus, Executive Order 
13132 does not apply to this rule.

H. Executive Order 12898: ``Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations''

    The requirements of the Environmental Justice Executive Order are 
that EPA will review the environmental effects of major Federal actions 
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. For such 
actions, EPA reviewers will focus on the spatial distribution of human 
health, social and economic effects to ensure that agency decision 
makers are aware of the extent to which those impacts fall 
disproportionately on covered communities.'' This is not a major 
action. Further, EPA does not believe this rulemaking will have a 
disproportionate effect on minority or low income communities because 
the technology-based effluent limitations guidelines are uniformly 
applied nationally irrespective of geographic location. The proposed 
regulation will reduce the negative effects of meat and poultry 
products industry waste in our nation's waters to benefit all of 
society, including minority and low-income communities. The cost 
impacts of the rule should likewise not disproportionately affect low-
income communities given the relatively low economic impacts of the 
rule.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub L. 104-113 Sec. 12(d) 15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory 
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standard bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide 
Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 
explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and 
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This rulemaking involves technical standards. The proposed rule 
requires certain facilities that produce meat or poultry products to 
monitor for fecal coliform, COD, BOD5, TSS, oil & grease, 
ammonia, total phosphorus, and total nitrogen (sum of nitrate/nitrite 
and Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)). EPA performed a search to identify 
potentially voluntary consensus standards that could be used to measure 
the parameters in today's proposed guideline. EPA's search revealed 
that consensus standards for these paramenters exist and are already 
specified in the tables at 40 CFR 136.3. In addition, EPA is proposing 
to add a voluntary consensus standard (Method 300.0) for measuring 
nitrate/nitrite. EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed 
rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to identify 
potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why 
such standards should be used in this regulation.

J. Executive Order 13211: ``Energy Effects''

    This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. As part 
of the Agency's consideration of Non-Water Quality Impacts, EPA has 
estimated the energy consumption associated with today's proposed 
requirements. EPA estimates that meat and poultry processing facilities 
will decrease their energy consumption by 144 million KWH/yr which is 
approximately 6 percent of current energy used by this industrial 
sector. The decrease is associated with the proposed BAT technologies 
for the poultry and meat subcategories, which would result in treatment 
to remove nitrogen prior to discharge. Denitrification, following 
nitrification, which most direct discharging facilities currently have 
in place, will reduce energy usage. To remove the nitrates and nitrites 
generated by nitrifying ammonia, a typical facility is likely to use 
the oxygen attached to the nitrogen compounds to further break down the 
BOD, which means that the facility can actually reduce the need to add 
oxygen to the system through aeration of the wastewater. Shutting off 
the aeration equipment will reduce the energy used in operating the 
treatment system. EPA estimates that there will be no change in the 
energy requirements to operate the treatment system for the rendering 
subcategory as a result of today's proposed rule as the proposed rule 
does not change the technology basis (nitrification) for rendering 
facilities. See Section X.A of today's notice for more discussion of 
how these energy usages were determined. Therefore, we have concluded 
that this rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects.

K. Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in 
plain language. We invite your comments on how to make this proposed 
rule easier to understand. For example, have we organized the material 
to suit your needs? Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? 
Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear? 
Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of 
headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand? Would more 
(but shorter) sections be better? Could we improve clarity by adding 
tables, lists, or diagrams? What else could we do to make the rule 
easier to understand?

[[Page 8654]]

XIV. Solicitation of Data and Comments

A. General and Specific Comment Solicitation

    EPA solicits comments on various issues specifically identified in 
the preamble as well as any other issues that are not specifically 
addressed in today's notice. Specifically, EPA solicits information, 
data, and comment on the following topics:
     Additional information and data on the performance and 
associated costs of all wastewater treatment technologies currently or 
potentially capable of treating MPP wastewaters;
     EPA's intended use of data (e.g, monitoring data) to 
perform a ``real-world'' check on the achievability of the limitations 
and standards;
     The potential of MPP facilities to reduce water 
consumption and new technologies or practices that can effectively 
reuse water;
     Description of all types of flocculants or treatment aids 
used in MPP WWTP and their concentrations that are commonly not 
accepted by independent renderers;
     Differences in production and wastewater generation and 
characteristics between non-religious and religious meat and poultry 
facilities;
     Whether EPA should approve the use of Method 300.0 for the 
meat and poultry industry;
     EPA's notation for oil and grease limitations and 
standards in the proposed rule;
     Whether EPA should regulate total residual chlorine;
     EPA's methodology for determining LTAs and variability 
factors used in this proposal;
     Need for a different monthly average limitations for small 
and non-small facilities;
     Whether EPA should set more stringent standards for either 
direct or indirect new sources;
     Additional methods for estimating and monetizing benefits 
associated with the proposed rule;
     The economic analysis in this proposal and the methods it 
is considering for subsequent analyses, particularly the use of cash 
flow as a measure of resources available to finance environmental 
compliance and suggestions for alternative methodologies;
     Whether TDS limitations and standards are necessary and 
which industry subcategories (if any) should be subject to these 
potential limitations and standards;
     Additional data and information related to instances of 
MPP indirect dischargers causing POTW interference or pass through (see 
Section XI.B);
     Information on whether or not EPA should regulate indirect 
dischargers (see Section XI.B);
     Additional data and information related to MPP facilities 
implementing EMSs or BMPs (see Section XI.F);
     Information on whether or not EPA should establish 
regulatory alternatives to potential pretreatment standards for 
indirect dischargers (see Section XI.F).
     Additional data and information on exotic and other meat 
and poultry product facilities (e.g., horse, goats, elk, deer, buffalo, 
ostriches, quail, pheasants, rabbits, and other small game). EPA is 
soliciting additional data and information on the industry profile for 
these meat and poultry product facilities including type of operations, 
annual production, number of employees per facility, typical wastewater 
characteristics, typical methods of wastewater management and 
treatment.

B. Regulatory Alternative to Potential Numerical Pretreatment Standards

    EPA is describing a regulatory alternative to numerical 
pretreatment standards which would require meat and poultry products 
facilities to implement specific BMPs as part of a facility-wide 
Environmental Management System. See Section XI.F for the discussion of 
this regulatory alternative. EPA solicits comments on this alternative. 
Would it be a protective of the environment? Would meat and poultry 
products facilities choose this regulatory alternative?
    EPA is also seeking data and information on the costs and burdens 
and even cost savings associated with implementing an EMS and the 
specific BMPs. Environmental improvements associated with implementing 
the BMPs, expressed in terms of pollutant reductions in wastewater 
discharges and other environmental improvements associated with the 
implementation of an EMS.
    EPA solicits comments on the establishment of pretreatment 
standards for oil & grease on the basis of interferences of POTW 
performance. As discussed in Section XI.B, EPA has identified a number 
of instances where the discharge of untreated meat and poultry products 
wastewater has led to interference with a POTW treatment system.

XV. Guidelines for Submission of Analytical Data

    EPA requests that commenters to today's proposed rule submit 
analytical, flow, and production data to supplement data collected by 
the Agency during the regulatory development process. To ensure that 
commenter data may be effectively evaluated by the Agency, EPA has 
developed the following guidelines for submission of data.

A. Types of Data Requested

    EPA requests paired influent and effluent treatment data for each 
of the technologies identified in the technology options (see Section 
VII.A) as well as any additional technologies applicable to the 
treatment of MPP wastewater. EPA prefers paired influent and effluent 
treatment data, but also solicits unpaired data as well. Data from 
systems treating only non-process MPP wastewater (e.g., sanitary 
wastewater or non-contact cooling water) will not be evaluated by EPA.
    For the systems treating MPP process wastewater, EPA requests 
paired influent and effluent treatment data from 24-hour composite 
samples of flowing wastewater streams (except for analyses requiring 
grab samples, such as oil and grease). This includes end-of-pipe 
treatment technologies and in-process treatment, recycling, or water 
reuse. Submission of effluent data alone is acceptable, but the 
commenters should provide evidence that the influent concentrations 
contain treatable levels of the pollutants. If commenters sample their 
wastewaters to respond to this proposal, EPA encourages them to sample 
both the influent and effluent wastestreams.
    EPA prefers that the data be submitted in an electronic format. In 
addition to providing the measurement of the pollutant in each sample, 
EPA requests that sites provide the detection limit (rather than 
specifying zero or `ND') if the pollutant is non-detected in the 
wastestream. Each measurement should be identified with a sample 
collection date, the sampling point location, and the flow rate at that 
location. For each sample or pollutant, EPA requests that the chemical 
analytical method be identified.
    In support of the treatment data, commenters should submit the 
following items if they are available: A process diagram of the 
treatment system that includes the sampling point locations; treatment 
chemical addition rates; laboratory reports; influent and effluent flow 
rates for each treatment unit during the sampling period; production in 
each subcategory (daily values are preferred, but either production or 
estimated production during the sampling period are also acceptable); 
sludge or waste oil generation rates; a brief discussion of the 
treatment technology sampled; and a list of MPP operations contributing 
to

[[Page 8655]]

the sampled wastestream. If available, information on capital cost, 
annual (operation and maintenance) cost, and treatment capacity should 
be included for each treatment unit within the system.

B. Analytes Requested

    EPA considered metal, organic, conventional, and other 
nonconventional pollutant parameters for regulation. Based on 
analytical data collected, EPA initially identified 30 pollutants of 
concern for the meat processing segment of the industry and 27 
pollutants of concern for the poultry processing segment of the 
industry (see Section VII.C and MPP Development Document). The Agency 
requests analytical data for any of the pollutants of concern and for 
any other pollutant parameters that commentors believe are of concern 
in the MPP industry. Of particular interest are BOD5, TSS, 
Ammonia as Nitrogen, and pH data. Commentors should use the methods 
listed in Table XV.C-1 or equivalent methods (generally, those approved 
at 40 CFR 136 for compliance monitoring), and should document the 
method used for all data submissions. The methods are described in more 
detail in the MPP Development Document.

C. Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Requirements

    EPA based today's proposed regulations on analytical data collected 
by EPA using rigorous QA/QC checks specified in the analytical methods 
listed in Table XV.C-1. These QA/QC checks include procedures specified 
in each of the analytical methods, as well as procedures used for the 
MPP sampling program in accordance with EPA sampling and analysis 
protocols. These QA/QC procedures include sample preservation and the 
use of method blanks, matrix spikes, matrix spike duplicates, 
laboratory duplicate samples, and QC standard checks (e.g., continuing 
calibration blanks). Because of these rigorous checks, EPA has high 
confidence in its data. Thus, EPA requests that submissions of 
analytical data include any available documentation of QA/QC 
procedures. However, EPA will still consider data submitted without 
detailed QA/QC information. If commenters sample their wastewaters to 
respond to this proposal, EPA encourages them to provide detailed 
documentation of the QA/QC checks for each sample. EPA also requests 
that sites collect and analyze 10 percent field duplicate samples to 
assess sampling variability, and sites provide data for equipment 
blanks for volatile organic pollutants when automatic compositors are 
used to collect samples.

     Table XV.C-1.--Analytical Methods for Use with MPP Wastewaters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Method used in EPA sampling
                Parameter                      (alternative methods)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aeromonas................................  9260L
Acidity..................................  305.1
Alkalinity...............................  310.1
Ammonia as Nitrogen......................  350.2
BOD 5-Day................................  405.1
BOD 5-Day (Carbonaceous).................  405.1, SM5210
Carbaryl.................................  632
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD).............  410.1
                                           410.2
                                           410.4
                                           5220B
Chloride.................................  300.0
                                           325.3
Dichlorvos...............................  1657
E. coli..................................  9221F
Metals...................................  1620 (200.7, 245.1)
Volatile Organics........................  1624 (624)
Semivolatile Organics....................  1625 (625)
Malathion................................  1657
Nitrate/Nitrite..........................  300.0
                                           353.1
                                           353.2
Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl.................  351.2
                                           351.3
Oil and Grease...........................  413.2
Oil and Grease (as HEM)..................  1664
cis-Permethrin...........................  1660
trans-Permethrin.........................  1660
pH.......................................  150.1 (SM 4500 H+ B)
Phosphorus, Total........................  365.2
                                           365.3
Salmonella...............................  FDA-BAM
Tetrachlorvinphos (stirofos).............  1657
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS).............  160.1
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)...............  415.1
Total Orthophosphate.....................  300.0
                                           365.2
Total Suspended Solids (TSS).............  160.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Standard Method (SM).

Appendix A: Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations Used in This 
Document

AAMP--The American Association of Meat Processors
Administrator--The Administrator of the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency.
Agency--The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
AMI--American Meat Institute
AMSA--Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies
BAT--The best available technology economically achievable, 
applicable to effluent limitations for industrial discharges to 
surface waters, as defined by Section 304(b)(2)(B) of the CWA.
BCT--The best control technology for conventional pollutants, 
applicable to discharges of conventional pollutants from existing 
industrial point sources, as defined by Section 304(b)(4) of the CWA
BOD5--Biochemical Oxygen Demand measured over a five day 
period.
BPJ--Best Professional Judgment
BPT--The best practicable control technology currently available, 
applicable to effluent limitations, for industrial discharges to 
surface waters, as defined by Section 304(b)(1) of the CWA.
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
Clean Water Act (CWA)--The Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
Amendments of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), as amended.
Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 308 Questionnaire--A questionnaire 
sent to facilities under the authority of Section 308 of the CWA, 
which requests information to be used in the development of national 
effluent guidelines and standards.
Conventional Pollutants--Constituents of wastewater as determined by 
section 304(a)(4) of the CWA (and EPA regulations), i.e., pollutants 
classified as biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended solids, oil 
and grease, fecal coliform, and pH.
Daily Discharge--The discharge of a pollutant measured during any 
calendar day or any 24-hour period that reasonably represents a 
calendar day.
Direct Discharger--A facility that discharges or may discharge 
treated or untreated wastewaters into waters of the United States.
DMR--Discharge Monitoring Report.
Effluent Limitation Guideline (ELGS)--Under CWA section 502(11), any 
restriction, including schedules of compliance, established by a 
State or the Administrator on quantities, rates, and concentrations 
of chemical, physical, biological, and other constituents which are 
discharged from point sources into navigable waters, the waters of 
the contiguous zone, or the ocean (CWA sections 301(b) and 304(b)).
Existing Source--For this rule, any facility from which there is or 
may be a discharge of pollutants, the construction of which is 
commenced before the publication of the final regulations 
prescribing a standard of performance under section 306 of the CWA.
Facility--All contiguous property and equipment owned, operated, 
leased, or under the control of the same person or entity.
FDF--Fundamentally Different Factor
Finished Product--The final manufactured product produced on site, 
including products intended for consumption with no additional 
processing as well as products intended for further processing, when 
applicable.
First Processing--Operations which receive live meat animals or 
poultry and produce a raw, dressed meat or poultry product, either 
whole or in parts.
FTE--Full Time Equivalent Employee
Further Processing--Operations which utilize whole carcasses or cut-
up meat or poultry products for the production of fresh or frozen 
products, and may include

[[Page 8656]]

the following types of processing: cutting and deboning, cooking, 
seasoning, smoking, canning, grinding, chopping, dicing, forming or 
breading.
Hazardous Waste--Any waste, including wastewater, defined as 
hazardous under RCRA, TSCA, or any State law.
HEM--A measure of oil and grease in wastewater by mixing the 
wastewater with hexane and measuring the oils and greases that are 
removed from the wastewater with n-hexane. Specifically EPA Method 
1664, see 40 CFR 136.3, Table IB.
Indirect Discharger--A facility that discharges or may discharge 
wastewaters into a publicly-owned treatment works.
LTA (Long-Term Average)--For purposes of the effluent guidelines, 
average pollutant levels achieved over a period of time by a 
facility, subcategory, or technology option. LTAs were used in 
developing the effluent limitations guidelines and standards in 
today's proposed regulation.
Live Weight Killed (LWK)--The total weight of the total number of 
animals slaughtered during a specific time period.
Maximum Monthly Discharge Limitation--The highest allowable average 
of ``daily discharges'' over a calendar month, calculated as the sum 
of all ``daily discharges'' measured during the calendar month 
divided by the number of ``daily discharges'' measured during the 
month.
Meat--The term ``meat'' includes all animal products from cattle, 
calves, hogs, sheep, lambs, horses, goats and exotic livestock (e.g. 
elk, buffalo, deer) etc., except those defined as Poultry for human 
consumption. This category may include certain species not 
classified as ``meat'' by USDA FSIS and that may or may not be under 
USDA FSIS voluntary inspection.
MPP--Meat and Poultry Products
Minimum Level--The level at which an analytical system gives 
recognizable signals and an acceptable calibration point.
NAICS--North American Industry Classification System. NAICS was 
developed jointly by the U.S., Canada, and Mexico to provide new 
comparability in statistics about business activity across North 
America.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit--A 
permit to discharge wastewater into waters of the United States 
issued under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, 
authorized by section 402 of the CWA.
Nitrification Capability--The capability of a POTW treatment system 
to oxidize ammonia or ammonium salts initially to nitrites (via 
Nitrosomonas bacteria) and subsequently to nitrates (via Nitrobacter 
bacteria). Criteria for determining the nitrification capability of 
a POTW treatment system are: bioassays confirming the presence of 
nitrifying bacteria; and analyses of the nitrogen balance 
demonstrating a reduction in the concentration of ammonia or 
ammonium salts and an increase in the concentrations of nitrites and 
nitrates.
Non-Conventional Pollutants--Pollutants that are neither 
conventional pollutants nor priority pollutants listed at 40 CFR 
401.15 and part 423 appendix A.
Non-Water Quality Environmental Impact--Deleterious aspects of 
control and treatment technologies applicable to point source 
category wastes, including, but not limited to air pollution, noise, 
radiation, sludge and solid waste generation, and energy used.
NRA--National Renderers Association
NRDC--Natural Resources Defense Council
NSPS--New Sources Performance Standards, applicable to industrial 
facilities whose construction is begun after the effective date of 
the final regulations (if those regulations are promulgated after 
June 25, 2002). EPA is scheduled to take final action on this 
proposal in December 2003. See 40 CFR 122.2.
NTTA--National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
NWPCAM--The National Water Pollution Control Assessment Model 
(version 1.1) is a computer model to model the instream dissolved 
oxygen concentration, as influenced by pollutant reductions of 
BOD5, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, Total Suspended Solids, 
and Fecal Coliform.
LWK and ELWK--Live Weight Killed and the Equivalent Live Weight 
Killed
Outfall--The mouth of conduit drains and other conduits from which a 
facility effluent discharges into receiving waters.
Pass Through--The term ``Pass Through'' means a Discharge which 
exits the POTW into waters of the United States in quantities or 
concentrations which, alone or in conjunction with a discharge or 
discharges from other sources, is a cause of a violation of any 
requirement of the POTW's NPDES permit (including an increase in the 
magnitude or duration of a violation).
Point Source--Any discernable, confined, and discrete conveyance 
from which pollutants are or may be discharged. See CWA section 
502(14).
Pollutants of Concern (POCs)--Pollutants commonly found in meat and 
poultry processing wastewaters. Generally, a chemical is considered 
as a POC if it was detected in untreated process wastewater at 5 
times a baseline value in more than 10% of the samples.
Poultry--Broilers, other young chickens, hens, fowl, mature 
chickens, turkeys, capons, geese, ducks, exotic poultry (e.g. 
ostriches), and small game such as quail, pheasants, and rabbits. 
This category may include species not classified as ``poultry'' by 
USDA FSIS and that may or may not be under USDA FSIS voluntary 
inspection.
Priority Pollutant--One hundred twenty-six compounds that are a 
subset of the 65 toxic pollutants and classes of pollutants outlined 
pursuant to section 307 of the CWA.
PSES--Pretreatment standards for existing sources of indirect 
discharges, under Section 307(b) of the CWA, applicable (for this 
rule) to indirect dischargers that commenced construction prior to 
promulgation of the final rule.
PSNS--Pretreatment standards for new sources under section 307(c) of 
the CWA.
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW)--A treatment works as defined 
by section 212 of the Clean Water Act, which is owned by a State or 
municipality (as defined by section 502(4) of the Clean Water Act). 
This definition includes any devices and systems used in the 
storage, treatment, recycling and reclamation of municipal sewage or 
industrial wastes of a liquid nature. It also includes sewers, pipes 
and other conveyances only if they convey wastewater to a POTW 
Treatment Plant. The term also means the municipality as defined in 
section 502(4) of the Clean Water Act, which has jurisdiction over 
the Indirect Discharges to and the discharges from such a treatment 
works.
Raw Material--The basic input materials to a renderer composed of 
animal and poultry trimmings, bones, meat scraps, dead animals, 
feathers and related usable by-products.
RCRA--The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) (42 
U.S.C. 6901 et seq.), which regulates the generation, treatment, 
storage, disposal, or recycling of solid and hazardous wastes.
RED MEAT--See the definition for ``MEAT'.
RFA--Regulatory Flexibility Act
SAP--Sampling and Analysis Plan
SBREFA--Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
SCC--Sample Control Center
SER--Small Entity Representative
SIC--Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)--A numerical 
categorization system used by the U.S. Department of Commerce to 
catalogue economic activity. SIC codes refer to the products, or 
group of products, produced or distributed, or to services rendered 
by an operating establishment. SIC codes are used to group 
establishments by the economic activities in which they are engaged. 
SIC codes often denote a facility's primary, secondary, tertiary, 
etc. economic activities.
Stearin--An ester of glycerol and stearic acid found in MPP 
wastewaters.
Total Nitrogen--Sum of nitrate/nitrite and TKN.
TKN--Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
TSS--Total Suspended Solids

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 432

    Environmental protection; Meat and meat products; Poultry and 
poultry products; Waste treatment and disposal; Water pollution 
control.

    Dated: January 30, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set forth in this preamble, 40 CFR part 432 is 
proposed to be revised to read as follows:

PART 432--MEAT AND POULTRY PRODUCTS POINT SOURCE CATEGORY

Sec.
432.1  General applicability.
432.2  General definitions.
432.3  General pretreatment standards.
432.4  General limitation or standard for pH.
Subpart A--Simple Slaughterhouses
432.10  Applicability.

[[Page 8657]]

432.11  Special definitions.
432.12  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
432.13  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
432.15  New source performance standards (NSPS).
432.17  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
Subpart B--Complex Slaughterhouses
432.20  Applicability.
432.21  Special definitions.
432.22  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
432.23  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
432.25  New source performance standards (NSPS).
432.27  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
Subpart C--Low-Processing Packinghouses
432.30  Applicability.
432.31  Special definitions.
432.32  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
432.33  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
432.35  New source performance standards (NSPS).
432.37  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
Subpart D--High-Processing Packinghouses
432.40  Applicability.
432.41  Special definitions.
432.42  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
432.43  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
432.45  New source performance standards (NSPS).
432.47  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
Subpart E--Small Processors
432.50  Applicability.
432.51  Special definitions.
432.52  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
432.55  New source performance standards (NSPS).
432.57  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
Subpart F--Meat Cutters
432.60  Applicability.
432.61  Special definitions.
432.62  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
432.63  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
432.65  New source performance standards (NSPS).
432.67  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
Subpart G--Sausage and Luncheon Meats Processors
432.70  Applicability.
432.71  Special definitions.
432.72  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
432.73  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
432.75  New source performance standards (NSPS).
432.77  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
Subpart H--Ham Processors
432.80  Applicability.
432.81  Special definitions.
432.82  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
432.83  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
432.85  New source performance standards (NSPS).
432.87  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
Subpart I--Canned Meats Processors
432.90  Applicability.
432.91  Special definitions.
432.92  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
432.93  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
432.95  New source performance standards (NSPS).
432.97  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
Subpart J--Renderers
432.100  Applicability.
432.101  Special definitions.
432.102  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
432.103  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
432.105  New source performance standards (NSPS).
432.107  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
Subpart K--Poultry First Processing
432.110  Applicability.
432.111  Special definitions.
432.112  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
432.113  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
432.115  New source performance standards (NSPS).
432.117  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
Subpart L--Poultry Further Processing
432.120  Applicability.
432.121  Special definitions.
432.122  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
432.123  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
432.125  New source performance standards (NSPS).
432.127  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).

    Authority: Secs. 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, 402 and 501 of the 
Clean Water Act, as amended; 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 
1342 and 1361.


Sec. 432.1  General applicability.

    As defined more specifically in each subpart, this part applies to 
discharges of process wastewater resulting from sources engaged in the 
slaughtering, dressing and packing of mammals, including cattle, 
calves, hogs, sheep, lambs, and poultry, including chickens, turkeys, 
fowl and ducks; production of sausages, luncheon meats, cured, smoked 
and canned or other prepared meat and poultry products from

[[Page 8658]]

purchased carcasses and other materials; or production of animal oils, 
meat meal and the rendering of grease and tallow from animal fat, bones 
and meat scraps. These manufacturing activities are generally reported 
under one or more of the following Standard Industrial Classification 
(SIC) codes: 0751, 2011, 2013, 2015, 2047, 2048 and 2077 (1987 Manual) 
and under one or more of the following North American Industry 
Classification System (NAICS) codes: 311611, 311612, 311615, 311613, 
311111, 311119, 311999 and 11234.


Sec. 432.2  General definitions.

    As used in this part:
    (a) The general definitions and abbreviations in 40 CFR part 401 
shall apply.
    (b) ELWK (equivalent live weight killed) means the total weight of 
the total number of animals slaughtered at locations other than the 
slaughterhouse or packinghouse, which animals provide hides, blood, 
viscera or renderable materials for processing at that slaughterhouse, 
in addition to those derived from animals slaughtered on site.
    (c) Fecal coliform means the bacterial count, as determined by 
approved methods of analysis for Parameter 1 in Table 1A at 40 CFR 
136.3.
    (d) Finished Product means the final fresh or frozen products 
resulting from the further processing of meat or poultry whole or cut-
up carcasses.
    (e) Further processing means operations which utilize whole 
carcasses or cut-up meat or poultry products for the production of 
fresh or frozen products, and may include the following types of 
processing: cutting and deboning, cooking, seasoning, smoking, canning, 
grinding, chopping, dicing, forming and/or breading.
    (f) LWK (live weight killed) means the total weight of the total 
number of animals slaughtered during the time period to which the 
limitations or standards apply, i.e. daily or monthly.
    (g) Meat means products derived from the slaughter and processing 
of cattle, calves, hogs, sheep, lambs, and any meat that is not listed 
under the definition of poultry.
    (h) Packinghouse means a plant that both slaughters animals and 
subsequently processes carcasses into cured, smoked, canned or other 
prepared meat products.
    (i) Poultry means products derived from the slaughter and 
processing of broilers, other young chickens, mature chickens, hens, 
turkeys, capons, geese, ducks, small game fowl such as quail or 
pheasants, and small game such as rabbits.
    (j) Raw Material means the basic input materials to a renderer 
composed of animal and poultry trimmings, bones, blood, meat scraps, 
dead animals, feathers and related usable by-products.
    (k) The other parameters regulated in this part are listed with 
approved methods of analysis in Table 1B at 40 CFR 136.3, and are 
defined as follows:
    (1) Ammonia (as N) means ammonia measured as nitrogen.
    (2) BOD5 means 5-day biochemical oxygen demand.
    (3) COD means chemical oxygen demand.
    (4) O&G means total recoverable oil and grease.
    (5) O&G (as HEM) means total recoverable oil and grease measured as 
n-hexane extractable material.
    (6) Total Nitrogen means the total of nitrate/nitrite and total 
kjeldahl nitrogen.
    (7) Total Phosphorus means all of the phosphorus present in the 
sample, regardless of form, as measured by the persulfate digestion 
procedure.
    (8) TSS means total suspended solids.
    (l) Slaughterhouse means a facility that slaughters animals and has 
as its main product fresh meat as whole, half or quarter carcasses or 
small meat cuts.
    (m) The nitrate/nitrite part of total nitrogen may be measured by 
EPA Method 300.0.


Sec. 432.3  General pretreatment standards.

    Any source subject to this part that introduces process wastewater 
pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) must comply 
with 40 CFR part 403.


Sec. 432.4  General limitation or standard for pH.

    The pH must remain within the range 6 to 9 in any discharge subject 
to BPT, BAT, NSPS, or BCT limitations or standards in this part.

Subpart A--Simple Slaughterhouses


Sec. 432.10  Applicability.

    This part applies to discharges of process wastewater resulting 
from the production of meat carcasses, in whole or in part, by simple 
slaughterhouses.


Sec. 432.11  Special definitions.

    For the purpose of this subpart: Simple slaughterhouse means a 
slaughterhouse which accomplishes very limited by-product processing, 
if any, usually no more than two operations such as rendering, paunch 
and viscera handling, or processing of blood, hide or hair.


Sec. 432.12  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the application of BPT:
    (a) Facilities that slaughter no more than 50 million pounds per 
year (in units of LWK). (1) On-site slaughter or subsequent meat, meat 
product or by-product processing of carcasses of animals slaughtered 
on-site:

                       Effluent Limitations (BPT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                Regulated parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                    daily \1\   avg. \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5..............................................       0.24       0.12
Fecal Coliform....................................      (\2\)      (\2\)
O&G \3\...........................................       0.12       0.06
TSS...............................................       0.40      0.20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK.
\2\ Maximum of 400 most probable number (MPN) per 100 ml at any time.
\3\ May be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM).

    (2) Processing (defleshing, washing and curing) of hides derived 
from animals slaughtered at locations off site: The following 
supplemental limitations apply in addition to the corresponding 
limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section:

                      Supplemental Limitations (BPT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                Regulated parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                    daily \1\   avg. \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5..............................................       0.04       0.02
TSS...............................................       0.08      0.04
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) ELWK.

    (3) Processing of blood derived from animals slaughtered at 
locations off site: The same limitations for BOD5 and TSS 
specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section apply in addition to the 
corresponding limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (4) Wet or low-temperature rendering of material derived from 
animals slaughtered at locations off site: The following supplemental 
limitations apply in addition to the corresponding limitation specified 
in paragraph (a)(1) of this section:

                     Supplemental Limitations (BPT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                Regulated parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                    daily \1\   avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5..............................................       0.06       0.03

[[Page 8659]]

 
TSS...............................................       0.12      0.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) ELWK.

    (5) Dry rendering of material derived from animals slaughtered at 
locations off site: The following supplemental limitations apply in 
addition to the corresponding limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) 
of this section:

                     Supplemental Limitations (BPT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                Regulated parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                    daily \1\   avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5..............................................       0.02       0.01
TSS...............................................       0.04      0.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) ELWK.

    (b) Facilities that slaughter more than 50 million pounds per year 
(in units of LWK).
    (1) Animals slaughtered on-site: Limitations for BOD5, 
TSS, O&G and fecal coliform are the same as the corresponding 
limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section; and a 
limitation for COD is as follows:

                       Effluent Limitations (BPT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                Regulated parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                    daily \1\   avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COD...............................................     0.1450    0.1180
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK.

    (2) Processing (defleshing, washing and curing) of hides derived 
from animals slaughtered at locations off site: The supplemental 
limitations for BOD5 and TSS specified in paragraph (a)(2) 
of this section apply in addition to the corresponding limitation 
specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section:
    (3) Processing of blood derived from animals slaughtered at 
locations off site: The same supplemental limitations for 
BOD5 and TSS specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section 
apply in addition to the corresponding limitation specified in 
paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (4) Wet or low-temperature rendering of material derived from 
animals slaughtered at locations off site: The supplemental limitations 
for BOD5 and TSS specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this 
section apply in addition to the corresponding limitation specified in 
paragraph (a)(1) of this section and the following supplemental 
limitation for COD applies in addition to the COD limitation specified 
in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

                     Supplemental Limitations (BPT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                Regulated parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                    daily \1\   avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COD...............................................     0.1550    0.1260
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) raw material.

    (5) Dry rendering of material derived from animals slaughtered at 
locations off site: The supplemental limitations for BOD5 
and TSS specified in paragraph (a)(5) of this section apply in addition 
to the corresponding limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section and the supplemental limitations for COD specified in paragraph 
(b)(4) of this section apply in addition to the COD limitation 
specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
    (6) Further processing of animals slaughtered on site, or at 
locations off site: The following supplemental limitations apply in 
addition to the COD limitation specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this 
section:

                     Supplemental Limitations (BPT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                Regulated parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                    daily \1\   avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COD...............................................      0.278     0.226
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) finished product.

    (7) Rendering of raw materials from animals slaughtered on-site: 
The following supplemental limitations for COD apply in addition to the 
COD limitation specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section:

                     Supplemental Limitations (BPT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                Regulated parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                    daily \1\   avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COD...............................................     0.1550    0.1260
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) raw material.

Sec. 432.13  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart that slaughters more than 50 
million pounds per year (in units of LWK) must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the application of BAT:
    (a) Animals slaughtered on-site:

                       Effluent Limitations (BAT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                Regulated parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                    daily \1\   avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)....................................     0.0655     0.0143
Total Nitrogen....................................     0.0561     0.0230
Total Phosphorus..................................     0.0497    0.0238
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK.

    (b) Further processing of animals slaughtered on site, or at 
locations off site: The following supplemental limitations apply in 
addition to the corresponding limitation specified in paragraph (a) of 
this section:

                     Supplemental Limitations (BAT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                Regulated parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                    daily \1\   avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)....................................     0.0704     0.0153
Total Nitrogen....................................     0.0965     0.0396
Total Phosphorus..................................     0.0917    0.0439
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) finished product.

    (c) Rendering of by-products from animals slaughtered on site, or 
at locations off site: The following supplemental limitations apply in 
addition to the corresponding limitation specified in paragraph (a) of 
this section:

                     Supplemental Limitations (BAT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                Regulated parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                    daily \1\   avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)....................................     0.0438     0.0096
Total Nitrogen....................................     0.0601     0.0247
Total Phosphorus..................................     0.0472    0.0226
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) raw material.

Sec. 432.15  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
performance standards:
    (a) Facilities that slaughter no more than 50 million pounds per 
year (in units of LWK). (1) On-site slaughter or subsequent meat, meat 
product or by-product processing of carcasses of animals slaughtered 
on-site: The standards for BOD5, TSS, O&G and fecal coliform 
are the same as the corresponding limitation specified in 
Sec. 432.12(a)(1); and standards for ammonia (as N) are as follows:

[[Page 8660]]



                      Performance Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                Regulated parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                    daily \1\   avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)....................................       0.34      0.17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK.

    (2) Processing of blood derived from animals slaughtered at 
locations off site: The supplemental standards for BOD5 and 
TSS specified in Sec. 432.12(a)(2) and the following supplemental 
standards for ammonia (as N), apply in addition to the corresponding 
standard specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section:

                      Supplemental Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                Regulated parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                    daily \1\   avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)....................................       0.06      0.03
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) ELWK.

    (3) Wet or low-temperature rendering of material derived from 
animals slaughtered at locations off site: The supplemental standards 
for BOD5 and TSS specified in Sec. 432.12(a)(4) and the 
following supplemental standards for ammonia (as N) apply in addition 
to the corresponding standard specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section:

                      Supplemental Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                Regulated parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                    daily \1\   avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)....................................       0.10      0.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) ELWK.

    (4) Dry rendering of material derived from animals slaughtered at 
locations off site: The supplemental standards for BOD5 and 
TSS specified in Sec. 432.12(a)(5) and the following supplemental 
standards for ammonia (as N) apply in addition to the corresponding 
standard specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section:

                      Supplemental Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                Regulated parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                    daily \1\   avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)....................................       0.04      0.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) ELWK.

    (b) Facilities that slaughter more than 50 million pounds per year 
(in units of LWK)
    (1) Animals slaughtered on-site:

                      Performance Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                Regulated parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                    daily \1\   avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)....................................     0.0655     0.0143
BOD5..............................................     0.0442     0.0208
Fecal Coliform....................................      (\2\)      (\2\)
O&G (as HEM)......................................     0.0835     0.0210
Total Nitrogen....................................     0.0561     0.0230
Total Phosphorus..................................     0.0497     0.0238
TSS...............................................     0.0178    0.0137
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK.
\2\ Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any time.

    (2) Further processing of animals slaughtered on site, or at 
locations off site: The following supplemental standards apply in 
addition to the corresponding standard specified in paragraph (b)(1) of 
this section:

                      Supplemental Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                Regulated parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                    daily \1\   avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)....................................     0.0704     0.0153
BOD5..............................................     0.0520     0.0245
O&G (as HEM)......................................     0.1430     0.0362
Total Nitrogen....................................     0.0965     0.0396
Total Phosphorus..................................     0.0917     0.0439
TSS...............................................     0.0262    0.0201
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) finished product.

    (3) Rendering of by-products from animals slaughtered on site, or 
at locations off site: The following supplemental standards apply in 
addition to the corresponding standard specified in paragraph (b)(1) of 
this section:

                      Supplemental Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                Regulated parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                    daily \1\   avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)....................................     0.0438     0.0096
BOD5..............................................     0.0578     0.0272
O&G (as HEM)......................................     0.1170     0.0297
Total Nitrogen....................................     0.0601     0.0247
Total Phosphorus..................................     0.0472     0.0226
TSS...............................................     0.0163    0.0125
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) raw material.

Sec. 432.17  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the application of BCT: Limitations 
for BOD5, TSS, O&G, O&G (as HEM) and fecal coliform are the 
same as the corresponding limitations specified in Sec. 432.12.

Subpart B--Complex Slaughterhouses


Sec. 432.20  Applicability.

    This part applies to discharges of process wastewater resulting 
from the production of meat carcasses, in whole or in part, by complex 
slaughterhouses.


Sec. 432.21  Special definitions.

    For the purpose of this subpart: Complex slaughterhouse means a 
slaughterhouse which accomplishes extensive by-product processing, 
usually at least three operations such as rendering, paunch and viscera 
handling, or processing of blood, hide or hair.


Sec. 432.22  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the application of BPT:
    (a) Facilities that slaughter no more than 50 million pounds per 
year (in units of LWK). (1) On-site slaughter or subsequent meat, meat 
product or by-product processing of carcasses of animals slaughtered 
on-site:

                       Effluent Limitations (BPT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                Regulated parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                    daily \1\   avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5..............................................       0.42       0.21
Fecal Coliform....................................      (\2\)      (\2\)
O&G \3\...........................................       0.16       0.08
TSS...............................................       0.50      0.25
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK.
\2\ Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any time.
\3\ May be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM).

    (2) Processing (defleshing, washing and curing) of hides derived 
from animals slaughtered at locations off site: The supplemental 
limitations for BOD5 and TSS specified in Sec. 432.12(a)(2) 
apply in addition to the corresponding limitation specified in 
paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (3) Processing of blood derived from animals slaughtered at 
locations off site: The supplemental limitations for BOD5 
and TSS specified in Sec. 432.12(a)(2) apply in addition to the 
corresponding limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (4) Wet or low-temperature rendering of material derived from 
animals slaughtered at locations off site: The supplemental limitations 
for BOD5 and

[[Page 8661]]

TSS specified in Sec. 432.12(a)(4) apply in addition to the 
corresponding limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (5) Dry rendering of material derived from animals slaughtered at 
locations off site: The supplemental limitations for BOD5 
and TSS specified in Sec. 432.12(a)(5) apply in addition to the 
corresponding limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (b) Facilities that slaughter more than 50 million pounds per year 
(in units of LWK). (1) Animals slaughtered on-site: Limitations for 
BOD5, TSS, O&G and fecal coliform are the same as the 
corresponding limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section; 
and the effluent limitations for COD specified in Sec. 432.12(b)(1) 
apply.
    (2) Processing (defleshing, washing and curing) of hides derived 
from animals slaughtered at locations off site: The supplemental 
limitations for BOD5 and TSS specified in Sec. 432.12(a)(2) 
apply in addition to the corresponding limitation specified in 
paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (3) Processing of blood derived from animals slaughtered at 
locations off site: The supplemental limitations for BOD5 
and TSS specified in Sec. 432.12(a)(2) apply in addition to the 
corresponding limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (4) Wet or low-temperature rendering of material derived from 
animals slaughtered at locations off site: The supplemental limitations 
specified in Sec. 432.12(a)(4) apply in addition to the corresponding 
limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section; and the 
supplemental limitations for COD specified in Sec. 432.12(b)(4) apply 
in addition to the corresponding limitation specified in 
Sec. 432.12(b)(1).
    (5) Dry rendering of material derived from animals slaughtered at 
locations off site: The supplemental limitations specified in 
Sec. 432.12(a)(5) apply in addition to the corresponding limitation 
specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section; and the supplemental 
limitations for COD specified in Sec. 432.12(b)(4) apply in addition to 
the corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 432.12(b)(1).
    (6) Further processing of animals slaughtered on site, or at 
locations off site: The supplemental limitations for COD specified in 
Sec. 432.12(b)(6) apply in addition to the corresponding limitation 
specified in Sec. 432.12(b)(1).
    (7) Rendering of raw materials from animals slaughtered on-site: 
supplemental limitations for COD specified in Sec. 432.12(b)(7) apply 
in addition to the corresponding limitation specified in 
Sec. 432.12(b)(1).


Sec. 432.23  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart that slaughters more than 50 
million pounds per year (in units of LWK) must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the application of BAT:
    (a) Animals slaughtered on-site: The effluent limitations for 
Ammonia (as N), Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus specified in 
Sec. 432.13(a) apply.
    (b) Further processing of animals slaughtered on site, or at 
locations off site: The supplemental limitations for Ammonia (as N), 
Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus specified in Sec. 432.13(b) apply 
in addition to the corresponding limitation specified in 
Sec. 432.13(a).
    (c) Rendering of animals slaughtered on site, or at locations off 
site: The supplemental limitations for Ammonia (as N), Total Nitrogen 
and Total Phosphorus specified in Sec. 432.13(c) apply in addition to 
the corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 432.13(a).


Sec. 432.25  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
performance standards:
    (a) Facilities that slaughter no more than 50 million pounds per 
year (in units of LWK). (1) On-site slaughter or subsequent meat, meat 
product or by-product processing of carcasses of animals slaughtered 
on-site: The standards for BOD5, TSS, O&G and fecal coliform 
are the same as the corresponding limitation specified in 
Sec. 432.22(a)(1); and the standards for ammonia (as N) are as follows:

                          Performance Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                Regulated parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                    daily \1\   avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)....................................       0.48      0.24
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK.

    (2) Processing of blood derived from animals slaughtered at 
locations off site: The supplemental limitations for BOD5 
and TSS specified in Sec. 432.12(a)(2) and the supplemental standards 
for ammonia (as N) specified in Sec. 432.15(a)(2), apply in addition to 
the corresponding standard specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section.
    (3) Wet or low-temperature rendering of material derived from 
animals slaughtered at locations off site: The supplemental limitations 
for BOD5 and TSS specified in Sec. 432.12(a)(4) and the 
supplemental standards for ammonia (as N) specified in 
Sec. 432.15(a)(3) apply in addition to the corresponding standard 
specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (4) Dry rendering of material derived from animals slaughtered at 
locations off site: The supplemental limitations for BOD5 
and TSS specified in Sec. 432.12(a)(5) and the supplemental standards 
for ammonia (as N) specified in Sec. 432.15(a)(4) apply in addition to 
the corresponding standard specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section:
    (b) Facilities that slaughter more than 50 million pounds per year 
(in units of LWK). (1) Animals slaughtered on-site, the effluent 
standards for BOD5, TSS, O&G (as HEM), fecal coliform, 
Ammonia (as N), Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus specified in 
Sec. 432.15(b)(1) apply.
    (2) Further processing of animals slaughtered on site, or at 
locations off site: The supplemental standards for BOD5, 
TSS, O&G (as HEM), Ammonia (as N), Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus 
specified in Sec. 432.15(b)(2) apply in addition to the corresponding 
standard specified in Sec. 432.15(b)(1).
    (3) Rendering of by-products from animals slaughtered on site, or 
at locations off site: The supplemental standards for BOD5, 
TSS, O&G (as HEM), Ammonia (as N), Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus 
specified in Sec. 432.15(b)(3) apply in addition to the corresponding 
standard specified in Sec. 432.15(b)(1).


Sec. 432.27  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the application of BCT: The 
limitations for BOD5, TSS, O&G and fecal coliform are the 
same as the corresponding limitations specified in Sec. 432.22.

Subpart C--Low-processing Packinghouses


Sec. 432.30  Applicability.

    This part applies to discharges of process wastewater resulting 
from the production of meat carcasses, in whole or in part, by low-
processing packinghouses.


Sec. 432.31  Special definitions.

    For the purpose of this subpart: Low-processing packinghouse means 
a packinghouse that processes no more, and usually less, that the total 
animals killed at that plant.

[[Page 8662]]

Sec. 432.32  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the application of BPT:
    (a) Facilities that slaughter no more than 50 million pounds per 
year (in units of LWK). (1) On-site slaughter or subsequent meat, meat 
product or by-product processing of carcasses of animals slaughtered 
on-site:

                       Effluent Limitations (BPT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                Regulated parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                    daily \1\   avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5..............................................       0.34       0.17
Fecal Coliform....................................      (\2\)      (\2\)
O&G \3\...........................................       0.16       0.08
TSS...............................................       0.48      0.24
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK.
\2\ Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any time.
\3\ May be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM).

    (2) Processing (defleshing, washing and curing) of hides derived 
from animals slaughtered at locations off site: The supplemental 
limitations for BOD5 and TSS specified in Sec. 432.12(a)(2) 
apply in addition to the corresponding limitation specified in 
paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (3) Processing of blood derived from animals slaughtered at 
locations off site: The supplemental limitations for BOD5 
and TSS specified in Sec. 432.12(a)(2) apply in addition to the 
corresponding limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (4) Wet or low-temperature rendering of material derived from 
animals slaughtered at locations off site: The supplemental limitations 
for BOD5 and TSS specified in Sec. 432.12(a)(4) apply in 
addition to the corresponding limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) 
of this section.
    (5) Dry rendering of material derived from animals slaughtered at 
locations off site: The supplemental limitations for BOD5 
and TSS specified in Sec. 432.12(a)(5) apply in addition to the 
corresponding limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (b) Facilities that slaughter more than 50 million pounds per year 
(in units of LWK). (1) Animals slaughtered on-site: Limitations for 
BOD5, TSS, O&G and fecal coliform are the same as the 
corresponding limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section; 
and the effluent limitations for COD specified in Sec. 432.12(b)(1) 
apply.
    (2) Processing (defleshing, washing and curing) of hides derived 
from animals slaughtered at locations off site: The supplemental 
limitations for BOD5 and TSS specified in Sec. 432.12(a)(2) 
apply in addition to the corresponding limitation specified in 
paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (3) Processing of blood derived from animals slaughtered at 
locations off site: The supplemental limitations for BOD5 
and TSS specified in Sec. 432.12(a)(2) apply in addition to the 
corresponding limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (4) Wet or low-temperature rendering of material derived from 
animals slaughtered at locations off site: The supplemental limitations 
specified in Sec. 432.12(a)(4) apply in addition to the corresponding 
limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section; and the 
supplemental limitations for COD specified in Sec. 432.12(b)(4) apply 
in addition to the corresponding limitation specified in 
Sec. 432.12(b)(1).
    (5) Dry rendering of material derived from animals slaughtered at 
locations off site: The supplemental limitations specified in 
Sec. 432.12(a)(5) apply in addition to the corresponding limitation 
specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section; and the supplemental 
limitations for COD specified in Sec. 432.12(b)(4) apply in addition to 
the corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 432.12(b)(1).
    (6) Further processing of animals slaughtered on site, or at 
locations off site: The supplemental limitations for COD specified in 
Sec. 432.12(b)(6) apply in addition to the corresponding limitation 
specified in Sec. 432.12(b)(1).
    (7) Rendering of raw materials from animals slaughtered on-site: 
supplemental limitations for COD specified in Sec. 432.12(b)(7) apply 
in addition to the corresponding limitation specified in 
Sec. 432.12(b)(1).


Sec. 432.33  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available technology economically achievable (BAT)

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart that slaughters more than 50 
million pounds per year (in units of LWK) must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the application of BAT:
    (a) Animals slaughtered on-site: The effluent limitations for 
Ammonia (as N), Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus specified in 
Sec. 432.13(a) apply.
    (b) Further processing of animals slaughtered on site, or at 
locations off site: The supplemental limitations for Ammonia (as N), 
Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus specified in Sec. 432.13(b) apply 
in addition to the corresponding limitation specified in 
Sec. 432.13(a).
    (c) Rendering of animals slaughtered on site, or at locations off 
site: The supplemental limitations for Ammonia (as N), Total Nitrogen 
and Total Phosphorus specified in Sec. 432.13(c) apply in addition to 
the corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 432.13(a).


Sec. 432.35  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
performance standards:
    (a) Facilities that slaughter no more than 50 million pounds per 
year (in units of LWK). (1) On-site slaughter or subsequent meat, meat 
product or by-product processing of carcasses of animals slaughtered 
on-site: Limitations for BOD5, TSS, O&G and fecal coliform 
are the same as the corresponding limitation specified in 
Sec. 432.32(a)(1); and standards for ammonia (as N) are as follows:

                      Performance Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                Regulated parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                     daily\1\   avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)....................................       0.48      0.24
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK.

    (2) Processing of blood derived from animals slaughtered at 
locations off site: The supplemental limitations for BOD5 
and TSS specified in Sec. 432.12(a)(2) and the supplemental standards 
for ammonia (as N) specified in Sec. 432.15(a)(2), apply in addition to 
the corresponding standard specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section.
    (3) Wet or low-temperature rendering of material derived from 
animals slaughtered at locations off site: The supplemental limitations 
for BOD5 and TSS specified in Sec. 432.12(a)(4) and the 
supplemental standards for ammonia (as N) specified in 
Sec. 432.15(a)(3) apply in addition to the corresponding standard 
specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (4) Dry rendering of material derived from animals slaughtered at 
locations off site: The supplemental limitations for BOD5 
and TSS specified in Sec. 432.12(a)(5) and the supplemental standards 
for ammonia (as N) specified in Sec. 432.15(a)(4) apply in addition to 
the corresponding standard specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section:
    (b) Facilities that slaughter more than 50 million pounds per year 
(in units of LWK). (1) Animals slaughtered on-site:

[[Page 8663]]

The effluent standards for BOD5, TSS, O&G (as HEM), fecal 
coliform, Ammonia (as N), Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus specified 
in Sec. 432.15(b)(1) apply.
    (2) Further processing of animals slaughtered on site, or at 
locations off site: The supplemental standards for BOD5, 
TSS, O&G (as HEM), Ammonia (as N), Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus 
specified in Sec. 432.15(b)(2) apply in addition to the corresponding 
standard specified in Sec. 432.15(b)(1).
    (3) Rendering of by-products from animals slaughtered on site, or 
at locations off site: The supplemental standards for BOD5, 
TSS, O&G (as HEM), Ammonia (as N), Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus 
specified in Sec. 432.15(b)(3) apply in addition to the corresponding 
standard specified in Sec. 432.15(b)(1).


Sec. 432.37  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the application of BCT: Limitations 
for BOD5, TSS, O&G and fecal coliform are the same as the 
corresponding limitations specified in Sec. 433.32.

Subpart D--High-Processing Packinghouse


Sec. 432.40  Applicability.

    This part applies to discharges of process wastewater resulting 
from the production of meat carcasses, in whole or in part, by high-
processing packinghouses.


Sec. 432.41  Special definitions.

    For the purpose of this subpart: High-processing packinghouse means 
a packinghouse which processes both animals slaughtered at the site and 
additional carcasses from outside sources.


Sec. 432.42  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the application of BPT:
    (a) Facilities that slaughter no more than 50 million pounds per 
year (in units of LWK). (1) On-site slaughter or subsequent meat, meat 
product or by-product processing of carcasses of animals slaughtered 
on-site:

                       Effluent Limitations (BPT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                Regulated parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                    daily \1\   avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5..............................................    \2\0.48       0.24
Fecal Coliform....................................        (3)        (3)
O&G \4\...........................................       0.26       0.13
TSS \2\...........................................       0.62      0.31
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK.
\2\ The values for BOD5 and TSS are for average plants, i.e., plants
  where the ratio: avg.wt. of processed meat products/avg. LWK is 0.55.
  Adjustments can be made for high-processing packinghouses operating at
  other such ratios according to the following equations: lbs BOD5/1000
  lbs LWK = 0.21 + 0.23 (v - 0.4) and lbs TSS/1000 lbs LWK = 0.28 + 0.3
  (v - 0.4), where v equals the following ratio: lbs processed meat
  products/lbs LWK.
\3\ Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any time.
\4\ May be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM).

    (2) Processing (defleshing, washing and curing) of hides derived 
from animals slaughtered at locations off site: The supplemental 
limitations for BOD5 and TSS specified in Sec. 432.12(a)(2) 
apply in addition to the corresponding limitation specified in 
paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (3) Processing of blood derived from animals slaughtered at 
locations off site: The supplemental limitations for BOD5 
and TSS specified in Sec. 432.12(a)(2) apply in addition to the 
corresponding limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (4) Wet or low-temperature rendering of material derived from 
animals slaughtered at locations off site: The supplemental limitations 
for BOD5 and TSS specified in Sec. 432.12(a)(4) apply in 
addition to the corresponding limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) 
of this section.
    (5) Dry rendering of material derived from animals slaughtered at 
locations off site: The supplemental limitations for BOD5 
and TSS specified in Sec. 432.12(a)(5) apply in addition to the 
corresponding limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (b) Facilities that slaughter more than 50 million pounds per year 
(in units of LWK). (1) Animals slaughtered on-site: Limitations for 
BOD5, TSS, O&G and fecal coliform are the same as the 
corresponding limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section; 
and the effluent limitations for COD specified in Sec. 432.12(b)(1) 
apply.
    (2) Processing (defleshing, washing and curing) of hides derived 
from animals slaughtered at locations off site: The supplemental 
limitations for BOD5 and TSS specified in Sec. 432.12(a)(2) 
apply in addition to the corresponding limitation specified in 
paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (3) Processing of blood derived from animals slaughtered at 
locations off site: The supplemental limitations for BOD5 
and TSS specified in Sec. 432.12(a)(2) apply in addition to the 
corresponding limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (4) Wet or low-temperature rendering of material derived from 
animals slaughtered at locations off site: The supplemental limitations 
specified in Sec. 432.12(a)(4) apply in addition to the corresponding 
limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section; and the 
supplemental limitations for COD specified in Sec. 432.12(b)(4) apply 
in addition to the corresponding limitation specified in 
Sec. 432.12(b)(1).
    (5) Dry rendering of material derived from animals slaughtered at 
locations off site: The supplemental limitations specified in 
Sec. 432.12(a)(5) apply in addition to the corresponding limitation 
specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section; and the supplemental 
limitations for COD specified in Sec. 432.12(b)(4) apply in addition to 
the corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 432.12(b)(1).
    (6) Further processing of animals slaughtered on site, or at 
locations off site: The supplemental limitations for COD specified in 
Sec. 432.12(b)(6) apply in addition to the corresponding limitation 
specified in Sec. 432.12(b)(1).
    (7) Rendering of raw materials from animals slaughtered on-site: 
The supplemental limitations for COD and specified in Sec. 432.12(b)(7) 
apply in addition to the corresponding limitation specified in 
Sec. 432.12(b)(1).


Sec. 432.43  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart that slaughters more that 50 
million pounds per year (in units of LWK) must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the application of BAT:
    (a) Animals slaughtered on-site: The limitations for Ammonia (as 
N), Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus specified in Sec. 432.13(a).
    (b) Further processing of animals slaughtered on site, or at 
locations off site: The supplemental limitations for Ammonia (as N), 
Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus specified in Sec. 432.13(b) apply 
in addition to the corresponding limitation specified in 
Sec. 432.13(a).
    (c) Rendering of animals slaughtered on site, or at locations off 
site: The

[[Page 8664]]

supplemental limitations for Ammonia (as N), Total Nitrogen and Total 
Phosphorus specified in Sec. 432.13(c) apply in addition to the 
corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 432.13(a).


Sec. 432.45  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
performance standards:
    (a) Facilities that slaughter no more than 50 million pounds per 
year (in units of LWK): (1) On-site slaughter or subsequent meat, meat 
product or by-product processing of carcasses of animals slaughtered 
on-site: The standards for BOD5, TSS, O&G and fecal coliform 
are the same as the corresponding limitation specified in 
Sec. 432.42(a)(1); and standards for ammonia (as N) are as follows:

                      Performance Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                Regulated parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                    daily \1\   avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)....................................       0.80      0.40
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK.

    (2) Processing of blood derived from animals slaughtered at 
locations off site: The supplemental limitations for BOD5 
and TSS specified in Sec. 432.12(a)(2) and the supplemental standards 
for ammonia (as N) specified in Sec. 432.15(a)(2), apply in addition to 
the corresponding standards specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section.
    (3) Wet or low-temperature rendering of material derived from 
animals slaughtered at locations off site: The supplemental limitations 
for BOD5 and TSS specified in Sec. 432.12(a)(4) and the 
supplemental standards for ammonia (as N) specified in 
Sec. 432.15(a)(3) apply in addition to the corresponding standard 
specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (4) Dry rendering of material derived from animals slaughtered at 
locations off site: The supplemental limitations for BOD5 
and TSS specified in Sec. 432.12(a)(5) and the supplemental standards 
for ammonia (as N) specified in Sec. 432.15(a)(4) apply in addition to 
the corresponding standard specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section:
    (b) Facilities that slaughter more than 50 million pounds per year 
(in units of LWK).
    (1) Animals slaughtered on-site, the effluent standards for 
BOD5, TSS, O&G (as HEM), fecal coliform, Ammonia (as N), 
Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus specified in Sec. 432.15(b)(1) 
apply.
    (2) Further processing of animals slaughtered on site, or at 
locations off site: The supplemental standards for BOD5, 
TSS, O&G (as HEM), Ammonia (as N), Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus 
specified in Sec. 432.15(b)(2) apply in addition to the corresponding 
standard specified in Sec. 432.15(b)(1).
    (3) Rendering of of by-products from animals slaughtered on site, 
or at locations off site: The supplemental standards for 
BOD5, TSS, O&G (as HEM), Ammonia (as N), Total Nitrogen and 
Total Phosphorus specified in Sec. 432.15(b)(3) apply in addition to 
the corresponding standard specified in Sec. 432.15(b)(1).


Sec. 432.47  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the application of BCT: The 
limitations for BOD5, TSS, O&G and fecal coliform are the 
same as the corresponding limitations specified in Sec. 432.42.

Subpart E--Small Processors


Sec. 432.50  Applicability.

    This part applies to discharges of process wastewater resulting 
from the production of finished meat products such as fresh meat cuts, 
smoked products, canned products, hams, sausages, luncheon meats, or 
similar products by a small processor.


Sec. 432.51  Special definitions.

    For the purpose of this subpart:
    (a) Finished product means the final product, such as fresh meat 
cuts, hams, bacon or other smoked meats, sausage, luncheon meats, stew, 
canned meats or related products.
    (b) Small processor means an operation that produces up to 6000 lbs 
(2730 kg) per day of any type or combination of finished products.


Sec. 432.52  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the application of BPT:

                       Effluent Limitations (BPT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                Regulated Parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                    daily \1\   avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5..............................................        2.0          1
Fecal Coliform....................................      (\2\)      (\2\)
O&G\3\............................................        1.0        0.5
TSS...............................................        2.4       1.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK.
\2\ Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any time.
\3\ May be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM).

Sec. 432.55  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the following:

                      Performance Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                Regulated parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                    daily \1\   avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5..............................................        1.0        0.5
Fecal Coliform....................................      (\2\)      (\2\)
O&G\3\............................................        0.5       0.25
TSS...............................................        1.2       0.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pound per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK.
\2\ Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any time.
\3\ May be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM).

Sec. 432.57  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the application of BCT: The 
limitations for BOD5, TSS and O&G are the same as the 
corresponding standard specified in Sec. 432.55.

Subpart F--Meat Cutters


Sec. 432.60  Applicability.

    This part applies to discharges of process wastewater resulting 
from the fabrication or production of fresh meat cuts, such as steaks, 
roasts, chops, etc. by a meat cutter.


Sec. 432.61  Special definitions.

    For the purpose of this subpart:
    (a) Finished product means the final product, such as fresh meat 
cuts including, but not limited to, steaks, roasts, chops, or boneless 
meats.
    (b) Meat cutter means an operation which fabricates, cuts, or 
otherwise produces fresh meat cuts and related finished products from 
larger pieces of meat (carcasses or not carcasses), at rates greater 
than 6000 lbs (2730 kg) per day.

[[Page 8665]]

Sec. 432.62  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the application of BPT:
    (a) Facilities that generate no more than 50 million pounds per 
year of finished products:

                       Effluent Limitations (BPT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                Regulated parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                    daily \1\   avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5..............................................      0.036      0.018
Fecal Coliform....................................      (\2\)      (\2\)
O&G \3\...........................................      0.012      0.006
TSS...............................................      0.044     0.022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) of finished product.
\2\ Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any time.
\3\ May be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM).

    (b) Facilities that generate more than 50 million pounds per year 
of finished products: The limitations for BOD5, TSS, O&G and 
fecal coliform are the same as the corresponding limitation specified 
in paragraph (a) of this section; and limitations for COD are as 
follows.

                       Effluent Limitations (BPT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                Regulated parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                    daily \1\   avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COD...............................................     0.0654    0.0531
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) of finished product.

Sec. 432.63  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the application of BAT: (a) 
Facilities that generate no more than 50 million pounds per year of 
finished products:

                       Effluent Limitations (BAT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                Regulated parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                    daily \1\   avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia...........................................        8.0       4.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).

    (b) Facilities that generate more than 50 million pounds per year 
of finished products:

                       Effluent Limitations (BAT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                Regulated parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                    daily \1\   avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia...........................................     0.0165     0.0036
Total Nitrogen....................................     0.0226     0.0093
Total Phosphorus..................................     0.0215    0.0103
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).

Sec. 432.65  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
performance standards: (a) Facilities that generate no more than 50 
million pounds per year of finished products:

                      Performance Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                Regulated parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                    daily \1\   avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5..............................................      0.030      0.015
Fecal Coliform....................................      (\2\)      (\2\)
O&G (as HEM)......................................      0.012      0.006
TSS...............................................      0.036     0.018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) of finished product.
\2\ Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any time.

    (b) Facilities that generate more than 50 million pounds per year 
of finished products:

                      Performance Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                Regulated parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                    daily \1\   avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)....................................     0.0165     0.0036
BOD5..............................................     0.0122     0.0058
Fecal Coliform....................................      (\2\)      (\2\)
O&G (as HEM)......................................     0.0337     0.0085
Total Nitrogen....................................     0.0226     0.0093
Total Phosphorus..................................     0.0215     0.0103
TSS...............................................     0.0062    0.0047
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) of finished product.
\2\ Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any time.

Sec. 432.67  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the application of BCT: The 
limitations for BOD5, TSS, O&G and fecal coliform are the 
same as the corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 432.62.

Subpart G--Sausage and Luncheon Meats Processors


Sec. 432.70  Applicability.

    This part applies to discharges of process wastewater resulting 
from the production of fresh meat cuts, sausage, bologna and other 
luncheon meats by a sausage and luncheon meat processor.


Sec. 432.71  Special definitions.

    For the purpose of this subpart:
    (a) Finished product means the final product as fresh meat cuts, 
which includes steaks, roasts, chops or boneless meat, bacon or other 
smoked meats (except hams) such as sausage, bologna or other luncheon 
meats, or related products (except canned meats).
    (b) Sausage and luncheon meat processor means an operation which 
cuts fresh meats, grinds, mixes, seasons, smokes or otherwise produces 
finished products such as sausage, bologna and luncheon meats at rates 
greater than 6000 lbs (2730 kg) per day.


Sec. 432.72  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the application of BPT:
    (a) Facilities that generate no more than 50 million pounds per 
year of finished products:

                       Effluent Limitations (BPT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                Regulated parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                    daily \1\   avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5..............................................       0.56       0.28
Fecal Coliform....................................      (\2\)      (\2\)
O&G \3\...........................................        0.2       0.10
TSS...............................................       0.68      0.34
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) of finished product.
\2\ Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any time.
\3\ May be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM).

    (b) Facilities that generate more than 50 million pounds per year 
of finished products: The limitations for BOD5, TSS, O&G and 
fecal coliform are the same as the corresponding limitation specified 
in paragraph (a) of this section; and limitations for COD are as 
follows.

[[Page 8666]]



                       Effluent Limitations (BPT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                Regulated parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                    daily \1\   avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COD...............................................     0.2780    0.2260
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) of finished product.

Sec. 432.73  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available technology economically achievable (BAT)

    Except as provided by 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the application of BAT: (a) 
Facilities that generate no more than 50 million pounds per year of 
finished products: The limitations for ammonia (as N) are the same as 
specified in Sec. 432.63(a).
    (b) Facilities that generate more than 50 million pounds per year 
of finished products:

                       Effluent Limitations (BAT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                Regulated parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                    daily \1\   avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia...........................................     0.0704     0.0153
Total Nitrogen....................................     0.0965     0.0396
Total Phosphorus..................................     0.0917    0.0439
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).

Sec. 432.75  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
performance standards: (a) Facilities that generate no more than 50 
million pounds per year of finished products:

                      Performance Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                Regulated parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                    daily \1\   avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5..............................................       0.48       0.24
Fecal Coliform....................................      (\2\)      (\2\)
O&G (as HEM)......................................       0.20       0.10
TSS...............................................       0.58      0.29
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) of finished product.
\2\ Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any time.

    (b) Facilities that generate more than 50 million pounds per year 
of finished products:

                      Performance Standards (NSPS):
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                Regulated parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                    daily \1\   avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)....................................     0.0704     0.0153
BOD5..............................................     0.0520     0.0245
Fecal Coliform....................................      (\2\)      (\2\)
O&G (as HEM)......................................     0.1430     0.0362
Total Nitrogen....................................     0.0965     0.0396
Total Phosphorus..................................     0.0917     0.0439
TSS...............................................     0.0262    0.0201
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) of finished product.
\2\ Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any time.

Sec. 432.77  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the application of BCT: The 
limitations for BOD5, TSS, O&G and fecal coliform are the 
same as the corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 432.72.

Subpart H--Ham Processors


Sec. 432.80  Applicability.

    This part applies to discharges of process wastewater resulting 
from the production of hams, alone or in combination with other 
finished products, by a ham processor.


Sec. 432.81  Special definitions.

    For the purpose of this subpart:
    (a) Finished products means the final product as fresh meat cuts, 
which includes steaks, roasts, chops or boneless meat, smoked or cured 
hams, bacon or other smoked meats, sausage, bologna or other luncheon 
meats (except canned meats).
    (b) Ham processor means an operation producing hams, alone or in 
combination with other finished products, at rates greater than 6000 
lbs (2730 kg) per day.


Sec. 432.82  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the application of BPT: (a) 
Facilities that generate no more than 50 million pounds per year of 
finished products:

                        Effluent Limitation (BPT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                Regulated parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                    daily \1\   avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD 5.............................................       0.62       0.31
Fecal Coliform....................................        (2)        (2)
O&G 3.............................................       0.22       0.11
TSS...............................................       0.74      0.37
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 \1\Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) of finished product.
 \2\ Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any time.
 \3\ May be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM).

    (b) Facilities that generate more than 50 million pounds per year 
of finished products: The limitations for BOD5, TSS, O&G and 
fecal coliform are the same as the corresponding limitation specified 
in paragraph (a) of this section; and limitations for COD are the same 
as the COD limitations specified in Sec. 432.62(b).


Sec. 432.83  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available technology economically achievable (BAT)

    Except as provided by 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the application of BAT:
    (a) Facilities that generate no more than 50 million pounds per 
year of finished products: The limitations for ammonia (as N) are the 
same as specified in Sec. 432.63(a).
    (b) Facilities that generate more than 50 million pounds per year 
of finished products: The limitations for Ammonia (as N), Total 
Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus are the same as specified in 
Sec. 432.73(b).


Sec. 432.85  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
performance standards: (a) Facilities that generate no more than 50 
million pounds per year of finished products: The standards for 
BOD5, TSS, O&G and Fecal Coliform are the same as the 
corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 432.82(a).
    (b) Facilities that generate more than 50 million pounds per year 
of finished products: The standards for BOD5, TSS, O&G (as 
HEM), Fecal Coliform, Ammonia (as N), Total Nitrogen and Total 
Phosphorus are the same as the corresponding standard specified in 
Sec. 432.75(b).

[[Page 8667]]

Sec. 432.87  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the application of BCT: The 
limitations for BOD5, TSS, O&G and fecal coliform are the 
same as the corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 432.82.

Subpart I--Canned Meats Processors


Sec. 432.90  Applicability.

    This part applies to discharges of process wastewater resulting 
from the production of canned meats, alone or in combination with any 
other finished products, by a canned meats processor.


Sec. 432.91  Special definitions.

    For the purpose of this subpart:
    (a) Canned meats processor means an operation which prepares and 
cans meats (stew, sandwich spreads, or similar products), alone or in 
combination with other finished products, at rates greater than 6000 
lbs (2730 kg) per day.
    (b) Finished products means the final product, such as fresh meat 
cuts which includes steaks, roasts, chops or boneless meat, smoked or 
cured hams, bacon or other smoked meats, sausage, bologna or other 
luncheon meats, stews, sandwich spreads or other canned meats.


Sec. 432.92  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the application of BPT: (a) 
Facilities that generate no more than 50 million pounds per year of 
finished products:

                       Effluent Limitations (BPT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                Regulated parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                    daily \1\   avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5..............................................       0.74       0.37
Fecal Coliform....................................        (2)        (2)
O&G 3.............................................       0.26       0.13
TSS...............................................       0.90      0.45
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) of finished product.
\2\ Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any time.
\3\ May be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM).

    (b) Facilities that generate more than 50 million pounds per year 
of finished products: The limitations for BOD5, TSS, O&G and 
fecal coliform are the same as the corresponding limitation specified 
in paragraph (a) of this section; and limitations for COD are the same 
as the COD limitations specified in Sec. 432.62(b).


Sec. 432.93  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available technology economically achievable (BAT)

    Except as provided by 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the application of BAT: (a) 
Facilities that generate no more than 50 million pounds per year of 
finished products: The limitations for ammonia (as N) are the same as 
specified in Sec. 432.63(a).
    (b) Facilities that generate more than 50 million pounds per year 
of finished products: The limitations for Ammonia (as N), Total 
Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus are the same as specified in 
Sec. 432.73(b).


Sec. 432.95  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
performance standards: (a) Facilities that generate no more than 50 
million pounds per year of finished products: The standards for 
BOD5, TSS, O&G and fecal coliform are the same as the 
corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 432.92(a).
    (b) Facilities that generate more than 50 million pounds per year 
of finished products: The standards for BOD5, TSS, O&G (as 
HEM), Fecal Coliform, Ammonia (as N), Total Nitrogen and Total 
Phosphorus are the same as the corresponding standard specified in 
Sec. 432.75(b)


Sec. 432.97  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the application of BCT: The 
limitations for BOD5, TSS, O&G and fecal coliform are the 
same as the corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 432.92.

Subpart J--Renderers


Sec. 432.100  Applicability.

    This part applies to discharges of process wastewater resulting 
from the production of meat meal, dried animal by-product residues 
(tankage), animal oils, grease and tallow, perhaps including hide 
curing, by a renderer.


Sec. 432.101  Special definitions.

    For the purpose of this subpart:
    (a) Raw material (RM) means the basic input materials to a renderer 
composed of animal and poultry trimmings, bones, meat scraps, dead 
animals, feathers and related usable by-products.
    (b) Renderer means an independent or off-site rendering operation, 
which is conducted separate from a slaughterhouse, packinghouse or 
poultry dressing or processing operation, uses raw material at rates 
greater than 10 million pounds per year, produces meat meal, tankage, 
animal fats or oils, grease, and tallow, and may cure cattle hides, but 
excludes marine oils, fish meal, and fish oils.
    (c) Tankage means dried animal by-product residues used in 
feedstuffs.
    (d) Tallow means a product made from beef cattle or sheep fat that 
has a melting point of 40 deg.C or greater.


Sec. 432.102  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).

    (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any 
existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the 
following effluent limitations representing the application of BPT:

                       Effluent Limitations (BPT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                Regulated parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                    daily \1\   avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5..............................................       0.34       0.17
COD...............................................      0.184      0.111
Fecal Coliform....................................      (\2\)      (\2\)
O&G\3\............................................       0.20       0.10
TSS...............................................       0.42      0.21
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) of raw material.
\2\ Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any time.
\3\ May be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM).

    (2) The limitations for BOD5 and TSS specified in 
paragraph (a) of this section were derived for a renderer which does no 
cattle hide curing as part of its operations. If a renderer does 
conduct hide curing, the following empirical formulas should be used to 
derive supplemental limitations for BOD5 and TSS which apply 
in addition to the corresponding limitation specified in paragraph (a) 
of this section:

lbs BOD5/1000 lbs RM = 17.6  x  (no. of hides)/lbs RM
kg BOD5/kkg RM = 8  x  (no. of hides)/kg RM

[[Page 8668]]

lbs TSS/1000 lbs RM = 24.2  x  (no. of hides)/lbs RM
kg TSS/kkg RM = 11  x  (no. of hides)/kg RM


Sec. 432.103  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).

    Except as provided by 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the application of BAT:

                       Effluent Limitations (BAT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                Regulated parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                    daily \1\   avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia...........................................     0.0194    0.0103
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (gm/kg) of raw material (RM).

Sec. 432.105  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    (a) Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the 
following performance standards:

                      Performance Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                Regulated parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                    daily \1\   avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)....................................     0.0194     0.0103
BOD5..............................................     0.0436     0.0209
Fecal coliform....................................      (\2\)      (\2\)
O&G\3\............................................     0.2350     0.0594
TSS...............................................     0.1780    0.0887
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (gm/kg) of raw material (RM).
\2\ Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any time.
\3\ May be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM).

    (b) The standards for BOD5 and TSS specified in 
paragraph (a) of this section were derived for a renderer which does no 
cattle hide curing as part of the plant operations. If a renderer does 
conduct hide curing, the same empirical formulas specified in 
Sec. 432.102(b) should be used to derive supplemental standards for 
BOD5 and TSS which apply in addition to the corresponding 
standard specified in paragraph (a) of this section.


Sec. 432.107  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).

    (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any 
existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the 
following effluent limitations representing the application of BCT: The 
limitations for BOD,5 TSS, O&G and fecal coliform are the 
same as the corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 432.105(a).
    (b) The limitations for BOD5 and TSS specified in 
paragraph (a) of this section were derived for a renderer which does no 
cattle hide curing as part of the plant operations. If a renderer does 
conduct hide curing, the following empirical formulas should be used to 
derive supplemental limitations for BOD5 and TSS which apply 
in addition to the corresponding limitation specified in paragraph (a) 
of this section:

lbs BOD5/1000 lbs RM = 7.9  x  (no. of hides)/lbs RM
kg BOD5/kkg RM = 3.6  x  (no. of hides)/kg RM
lbs TSS/1000 lbs RM = 13.6  x  (no. of hides)/lbs RM
kg TSS/kkg RM = 6.2  x  (no. of hides)/kg RM

Subpart K--Poultry First Processing


Sec. 432.110  Applicability.

    This part applies to discharges of process wastewater resulting 
from the slaughtering of poultry, further processing of poultry and 
rendering of material derived from slaughtered poultry.


Sec. 432.111  Special definitions.

    For the purpose of this subpart: Poultry first processing means 
slaughtering of poultry and producing whole, half, quarter or smaller 
meat cuts. Poultry first processing also includes cutting deboning and 
grinding of poultry when these operations are performed on site at a 
slaughtering facility. However, when cutting, deboning and grinding is 
performed at locations off site, these operations are considered 
further processing operations.


Sec. 432.112  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the application of BPT: (a) 
Facilities that slaughter no more than 10 million pounds per year (in 
units of LWK).
    (1) Poultry first processing:

                       Effluent Limitations (BPT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                Regulated parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                    daily \1\   avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)....................................     0.1630     0.0356
BOD5..............................................     0.1200     0.0568
Fecal Coliform....................................      (\2\)      (\2\)
O&G (as HEM)......................................      1.330      0.335
TSS...............................................     0.2120    0.0991
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK.
\2\ Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any time.

    (2) Further processing of poultry slaughtered on site, or at 
locations off site: The following supplemental limitations apply in 
addition to the corresponding limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) 
of this section:

                     Supplemental Limitations (BPT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                Regulated parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                    daily \1\   avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)....................................     0.0400     0.0087
BOD5..............................................     0.0458     0.0215
O&G (as HEM)......................................     0.5150     0.1290
TSS...............................................     0.0623    0.0290
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) finished product.

    (3) Rendering of by-products from poultry slaughtered on site, or 
at locations off site: The following supplemental limitations apply in 
addition to the corresponding limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) 
of this section:

                     Supplemental Limitations (BPT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                Regulated parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                    daily \1\   avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)....................................     0.0771     0.0168
BOD5..............................................     0.0324     0.0152
O&G (as HEM)......................................     0.2950     0.0745
TSS...............................................     0.2400    0.1120
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) raw material.

    (b) Facilities that slaughter more than 10 million pounds per year 
(in units of LWK) (1) Poultry first processing:

                       Effluent Limitations (BPT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                Regulated parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                    daily \1\   avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)....................................      0.163     0.0356
BOD5..............................................      0.120     0.0568
Fecal Coliform....................................      (\2\)      (\2\)
O&G (as HEM)......................................       1.31       0.33
Total Nitrogen....................................     0.2239     0.0921
Total Phosphorus..................................     0.1760     0.0843
TSS...............................................     0.0609    0.0467
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK.
\2\ Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any time.


[[Page 8669]]

    (2) Further processing of poultry slaughtered on site, or at 
locations off site: The following supplemental limitations apply in 
addition to the corresponding limitation specified in paragraph (b)(1) 
of this section:

                     Supplemental Limitations (BPT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                Regulated parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                    daily \1\   avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)....................................     0.0400     0.0087
BOD5..............................................     0.0453     0.0213
O&G (as HEM)......................................     0.2290     0.0579
Total Nitrogen....................................     0.0548     0.0226
Total Phosphorus..................................     0.0431     0.0206
TSS...............................................     0.0149    0.0114
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) finished product.

    (3) Rendering of by-products from poultry slaughtered on site, or 
at locations off site: The following supplemental limitations apply in 
addition to the corresponding limitation specified in paragraph (b)(1) 
of this section:

                     Supplemental Limitations (BPT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                Regulated parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                    daily \1\   avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)....................................     0.0771     0.0168
BOD5..............................................     0.0324     0.0152
O&G (as HEM)......................................     0.1980     0.0500
Total Nitrogen....................................     0.0601     0.0247
Total Phosphorus..................................     0.0472     0.0226
TSS...............................................     0.0271    0.0208
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) raw material.

Sec. 432.113  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).

    Except as provided by 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the application of BAT: The 
limitations for Ammonia (as N), Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus are 
the same as the corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 432.112.


Sec. 432.115  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
performance standards: The standards for BOD5, TSS, O&G (as 
HEM), Fecal Coliform, Ammonia (as N), Total Nitrogen and Total 
Phosphorus are the same as the corresponding limitation specified in 
Sec. 432.112.


Sec. 432.117  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the application of BCT: The 
limitations for BOD5, TSS, O&G (as HEM) and Fecal Coliform 
are the same as the corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 432.112.

Subpart L--Poultry Further Processing


Sec. 432.120  Applicability

    This part applies to discharges of process wastewater resulting 
from further processing of poultry.


Sec. 432.122  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the application of BPT: (a) 
Facilities that further process no more than 7 million pounds per year 
(in units of finished product):

                       Effluent Limitations (BPT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                Regulated parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                    daily \1\   avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)....................................     0.0400     0.0087
BOD5..............................................     0.0458     0.0215
Fecal Coliform....................................        (2)        (2)
O&G (as HEM)......................................     0.5150     0.1290
TSS...............................................     0.0623    0.0290
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) of finished product.
\2\ Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any time.

    (b) Facilities that further process more than 7 million pounds per 
year (in units of finished product):

                       Effluent Limitations (BPT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                Regulated parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                    daily \1\   avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)....................................     0.0400     0.0087
BOD5..............................................     0.0453     0.0213
Fecal Coliform....................................        (2)        (2)
O&G (as HEM)......................................      0.229     0.0579
Total Nitrogen....................................     0.0548     0.0226
Total Phosphorus..................................     0.0431     0.0206
TSS...............................................     0.0149    0.0114
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) finished product.
\2\ Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any time.

Sec. 432.123  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the application of BCT: The 
limitations for Fecal Coliform, Ammonia (as N), Total Nitrogen and 
Total Phosphorus are the same as the corresponding limitation specified 
in Sec. 432.122.


Sec. 432.125  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
performance standards: The standards for BOD5, TSS, O&G (as 
HEM), Fecal Coliform, Ammonia (as N), Total Nitrogen and Total 
Phosphorus are the same as the corresponding limitation specified in 
Sec. 432.122.


Sec. 432.127  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the application of BCT: The 
limitations for BOD5, TSS, O&G (as HEM) and Fecal Coliform 
are the same as the corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 432.122.

[FR Doc. 02-2838 Filed 2-22-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P