[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 23, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4474-4537]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28498]



[[Page 4473]]

Vol. 89

Tuesday,

No. 15

January 23, 2024

Part III





 Environmental Protection Agency





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





40 CFR Part 432





Clean Water Act Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the 
Meat and Poultry Products Point Source Category; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 4474]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 432

[EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0736; FRL-8885-01-OW]
RIN 2040-AG22


Clean Water Act Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for 
the Meat and Poultry Products Point Source Category

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of public hearing.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is 
proposing a regulation to revise the technology-based effluent 
limitations guidelines and standards (ELGs) for the meat and poultry 
products (MPP) point source category. The proposed rule would improve 
water quality and protect human health and the environment by reducing 
the discharge of nutrients and other pollutants to the nation's surface 
waters. EPA is proposing several regulatory options, including the 
preferred option discussed in this notice. The preferred option is 
estimated to cost $232 million annually and reduce pollutant discharges 
by approximately 100 million pounds per year.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 25, 2024.
    Public hearing: EPA will hold two public hearings about this 
proposed rule on January 24, 2024 and January 31, 2024. Visit EPA's 
website at https://www.epa.gov/eg/meat-and-poultry-products-effluent-guidelines-2024-proposed-rule for additional information about the 
public hearings and for any potential changes to the public hearing 
schedule.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OW-2021-0736, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/ 
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket 
Center, Office of Water Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: EPA Docket Center, WJC West 
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. 
The Docket Center's hours of operations are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., 
Monday-Friday (except Federal Holidays).
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID 
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change 
to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information 
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Public Participation'' 
heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Whitlock, Engineering and 
Analysis Division, Office of Water (4303T), Environmental Protection 
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone 
number: 202-566-1541; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations. EPA uses multiple acronyms and 
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease 
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, EPA defines 
terms and acronyms used in Appendix A of this preamble.
    Supporting Documentation. The proposed rule is supported by several 
documents, including:
     Technical Development Document for Proposed Effluent 
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products 
Point Source Category (TDD), Document No. 821-R-23-011. This report 
summarizes the technical and engineering analyses supporting the 
proposed rule including cost methodologies, pollutant removal 
estimates, non-water quality environmental impacts, and calculation of 
the proposed effluent limitations.
     Environmental Assessment Analysis for Proposed Effluent 
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products 
Point Source Category (EA Report), Document No. 821-R-23-012. This 
report summarizes the potential environmental and human health impacts 
estimated to result from implementation of the proposed rule. The 
report also describes the environmental justice analysis conducted.
     Benefit and Cost Analysis for Proposed Effluent 
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products 
Point Source Category (BCA Report), Document No. 821-R-23-013. This 
report summarizes the societal benefits and costs estimated to result 
from implementation of the proposed rule.
     Regulatory Impact Analysis for Proposed Effluent 
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products 
Point Source Category (RIA), Document No. 821-R-23-014. This report 
presents a profile of the MPP industry, a summary of estimated costs 
and impacts associated with the proposed rule, and an assessment of the 
potential impacts on employment and small businesses.
     Docket Index for the Proposed Effluent Limitations 
Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Point Source 
Category. This document provides a list of the additional memoranda, 
references, and other information EPA relied on for the proposed 
revisions to the MPP ELGs.

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
    A. Purpose of Rule
    B. Summary of Proposed Rule
II. Public Participation
III. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. What action is the Agency taking?
    C. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?
    D. What are the incremental costs and benefits of this action?
IV. Background
    A. Clean Water Act
    B. Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
    1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)
    2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)
    3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
    4. Best Available Demonstrated Control Technology (BADCT) for 
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
    5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)
    6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)
    C. Actions Leading to Revisions to the Meat and Poultry Products 
Rule
    1. National Review of Nutrient Discharges From Industrial 
Sources
    2. Detailed Study of Meat and Poultry Products
    3. Announcement of Rule in Preliminary Effluent Guidelines Plan 
15
    4. Litigation and Consent Decree
V. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Description
    A. General Description of Industry
    B. Control and Treatment Technologies
    1. Conventional Pollutant Removal
    2. Biological/Organic Pollutant Removal
    3. Phosphorus Removal
    4. Pathogen Removal
    5. Chlorides Removal
    6. Solids Handling
VI. Data Collection
    A. Information From the Meat and Poultry Products Industry
    1. Survey
    2. Stakeholder Meetings and Outreach
    B. Economic Data
    1. Facility and Firm-Level Economic Data
    2. Industry and Sector-Level Economic Data

[[Page 4475]]

    C. Other Data Sources
    1. Site Visits
    2. Wastewater Sampling
VII. Proposed Regulation
    A. Description of the Options
    B. Proposed Changes to Subcategories
    C. Rationale for the Preferred Option (Option 1)
    1. Direct Discharging Facilities (BAT)
    a. Availability of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal Technologies
    b. Economic Achievability of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal
    c. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts of Nitrogen and 
Phosphorus Removal
    2. Indirect Discharging Facilities (PSES/PSNS)
    a. BAT Rationale for PSES/PSNS for Nutrients
    b. BPT/BCT Rationale for PSES/PSNS for Conventional Pollutant
    c. Technological Availability
    d. Costs of Conventional Pollutants Removal (BPT/BCT)
    e. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts (BPT/BCT)
    D. Rationale for Other Regulatory Options Proposed (Options 2 
and 3)
    E. Rationale for Rejecting Options 2 and 3 as the Preferred 
Option
    F. Additional Provisions
    G. Small Business Considerations From the Small Business 
Advocacy Review Panel
VIII. Costs, BPT Wholly Disproportionate Cost Test, Economic 
Achievability, and Other Economic Impacts
    A. BPT Wholly Disproportionate Cost Test
    B. BCT Cost Test
    C. Economic Achievability Analysis for BAT
    1. Facility Closure Analysis (BAT)
    2. BAT Cost-to-Revenue Analyses
    D. Other Economic Analyses
    1. Facility Closure Analysis
    2. Facility and Firm Level Cost-to-Revenue Analyses
    3. Market Effects
    4. Employment Effects
    5. Chlorides Removal Costs and Impacts
IX. Pollutant Loadings
    A. Estimate of Existing Industry Pollutant Discharges
    B. Summary of Incremental Changes of Pollutant Loadings From 
Regulatory Options
X. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts
    A. Energy Requirements
    B. Air Pollution
    C. Solid Waste Generation
XI. Environmental Assessment
    A. Introduction
    B. Summary of Environmental and Human Health Impacts
    C. Environmental Assessment Methodology
    D. Results From the Environmental Assessment
    1. Improvements in Surface Water Quality
    2. Improvements to Vulnerable Species Habitats
    3. Human Health Impact Improvements
XII. Benefits Analysis
    A. Categories of Benefits Analyzed
    B. Quantification and Monetization of Benefits
    1. Human Health Effects From Surface Water Quality Changes
    2. Ecological Condition and Recreational Use Effects From 
Changes in Surface Water Quality Improvements
    3. Changes in Air Quality Related Effects
    4. Other Quantified and/or Monetized Benefits
    C. Total Monetized Benefits
    D. Non-Monetized Benefits
XIII. Environmental Justice Impacts
    A. Literature Review
    B. Screening Analysis
    C. Community Outreach
    D. Distribution of Benefits
    1. Drinking Water Quality
    2. Fisher Population
    E. Results of the Analysis
XIV. Development of Effluent Limitations and Standards
    A. Criteria Used To Select Data as the Basis for the Limitations 
and Standards
    B. Data Selection for Each Technology Option
XV. Regulatory Implementation
    A. Implementation of New Limitations and Standards
    B. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
    C. Applicability of PSNS/NSPS Requirements
XVI. Related Acts of Congress, E.O.s, and Agency Initiatives
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. E.O. 13132: Federalism
    F. E.O. 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal 
Governments
    G. E.O. 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health 
Risks and Safety Risks
    H. E.O. 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. E.O. 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice 
in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations; Executive Order 
14096 Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to Environmental Justice 
for All
Appendix A to the Preamble: Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations 
Used in This Preamble

I. Executive Summary

A. Purpose of Rule

    EPA is proposing revisions to a regulation that would apply to 
wastewater discharges from meat and poultry products (MPP) facilities. 
The MPP industry discharges large quantities of nutrients, such as 
nitrogen and phosphorus, that enter the Nation's waters. Nutrient 
pollution is one of the most widespread, costly, and challenging 
environmental problems impacting water quality in the United States. 
Excessive nitrogen and phosphorus in surface water can lead to a 
variety of problems, including eutrophication and harmful algal blooms, 
that have negative impacts on human health and the environment. EPA 
reported in Preliminary Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 15 
(Preliminary Plan 15. USEPA. 2021. EPA-821-R-21-003) that the MPP 
industry discharges the highest phosphorus levels and second highest 
nitrogen levels of all industrial categories.
    The MPP industry has an estimated 5,055 facilities across the 
country that engage in meat and/or poultry slaughter, further 
processing, and/or rendering. Proposed requirements would reduce the 
amount of nutrients and other pollutants discharged from the MPP 
industry, both directly into waters of the United States under state or 
EPA-issued NPDES permits and indirectly via sanitary sewers or 
transport to and through municipal sewage treatment plants, also known 
as Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs). Importantly, this rule would 
advance progress on environmental justice goals.
    EPA initially promulgated the MPP ELGs in 1974 and amended the 
regulation in 2004. It currently applies only to direct dischargers 
(those that discharge directly to a water of the United States), and 
only to about 150 of the 5,055 MPP facilities in the industry. 
Phosphorus is not regulated under the current ELGs. Pollutants in the 
wastewater from MPP indirect dischargers, which are not currently 
regulated by the ELGs, can interfere with or pass through POTWs. 
Research also shows communities near MPP facilities are likely to 
experience multiple environmental stressors, and in these communities, 
minority and low-income percentiles exceed national averages. 
Additionally, some MPP facilities are already using available and 
affordable technologies that can be used at additional facilities 
nationwide to reduce pollutant discharges from the MPP industry.
    EPA is considering a range of options in this rulemaking. The 
options include more stringent effluent limitations on total nitrogen, 
new effluent limitations on total phosphorus, updated effluent 
limitations for other pollutants, new pretreatment standards for 
indirect dischargers, and revised production thresholds for some of the 
subcategories in the existing rule. EPA is also requesting comment on 
potential effluent limitations on chlorides for high chloride waste 
streams, establishing effluent limitations for E.

[[Page 4476]]

coli for direct dischargers, and including conditional limits for 
indirect dischargers that discharge to POTWs that remove nutrients to 
the extent that would be required under the proposed pretreatment 
standards in certain regulatory options. Each option would result in 
different levels of pollutant reduction and costs.
    EPA is proposing a preferred regulatory option (described in 
section VII below) and seeking comment on the other options. EPA 
estimates the preferred regulatory option (Option 1) would reduce 
pollutant discharges by approximately 100 million pounds per year. EPA 
predicts the preferred regulatory option would result in environmental 
and ecological improvements, including reduced adverse impacts to 
wildlife and human health.
    EPA estimates that the proposed rule based on the preferred 
regulatory option will cost $232 million per year in social costs and 
result in $90 million per year in monetized benefits using a 3 percent 
discount rate and $227 million per year in social costs and result in 
$85 million per year in monetized benefits using a 7 percent discount 
rate. The benefit numbers are based on modeling water quality 
improvements in five regional water basins and then extrapolating the 
benefits results from those basins to remainder of the country.\1\ The 
benefit estimates also include the national effects of increased air 
pollution and greenhouse gas emissions under the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Section 3 of the Benefit and Costs Analysis for 
descriptions of the water quality modeling and monetized benefit 
calculations. See Appendix E of the Benefit and Costs Analysis for 
descriptions of the approach for extrapolating the regional water 
quality benefits to the rest of the country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Not all costs and benefits can be fully quantified and monetized, 
and importantly, EPA anticipates the proposed rule would also generate 
important unquantified benefits (e.g., improved habitat conditions for 
plants, invertebrates, fish, amphibians, and the wildlife that prey on 
aquatic organisms). Furthermore, while some health benefits and 
willingness to pay for water quality improvements have been quantified 
and monetized, those estimates may not fully capture all important 
water quality-related benefits.

B. Summary of Proposed Rule

    EPA proposes to revise the ELGs for the MPP industry based on Best 
Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT), Best 
Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT), Best Available 
Technology Economically Achievable (BAT), Best Available Demonstrated 
Control Technology (BADCT) for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), 
Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES), and Pretreatment 
Standards for New Sources (PSNS). BPT, BCT, and BAT would apply to 
existing facilities that directly discharge to waters of the U.S. 
BADCT/NSPS would apply to new sources that directly discharge to waters 
of the U.S. PSES and PSNS would apply to existing and new sources, 
respectively, that discharge indirectly via POTWs.
    EPA is proposing three regulatory options that build on the current 
MPP ELGs. Option 1, which is EPA's preferred regulatory option in this 
proposed rule, would include new phosphorus limits and revised nitrogen 
limits \2\ for large direct dischargers and new pretreatment standards 
on certain conventional pollutants for large indirect dischargers. 
Here, large refers to the existing production thresholds in the current 
MPP ELGs. Option 2 would include the requirements in Option 1 and add 
nutrient limits for indirect discharging first processors and renderers 
above specified production thresholds. Option 3 would be similar to 
Option 2 but with lower production thresholds for the nutrient limits 
and conventional pollutant limits for both direct and indirect 
dischargers. In contrast to Options 1 and 2, Option 3 would use lower 
production thresholds than those in the existing rule. All three 
options would minimize impacts to small firms, based on the impact 
thresholds described in EPA's Regulatory Flexibility Act guidance for 
assessing impacts to small firms in terms of a cost to revenue ratio. 
While Option 3 includes limits for more facilities than Options 1 and 
2, it is similarly structured to avoid significant impacts to small 
firms. Option 3 would achieve the greatest amount of pollutant 
reductions of the three options. Option 3 would also simplify the 
existing rule by utilizing the same size thresholds for all 
subcategories. For example, total phosphorus limits would apply to 
direct discharging facilities in all subcategories producing greater 
than or equal to 10 million pounds per year under Option 3. Under 
Options 2 and 3, EPA also proposes to include ``conditional limits,'' 
which would allow an exemption from nutrient pretreatment standards for 
indirect dischargers that are discharging to POTWs that have nutrient 
removal capabilities that result in equivalent nutrient removal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The terms nitrogen and phosphorus refer to total nitrogen 
and total phosphorus throughout this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following discussion is organized by discharge type (direct or 
indirect) and by facility status (existing or new):
Direct Discharges From Existing Sources
    Options 1 and 2: BAT would include new phosphorus effluent 
limitations based on chemical removal and more stringent nitrogen 
effluent limitations based on biological treatment to achieve full 
denitrification. BCT and BPT for the conventional pollutants 
(biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), oil & 
grease, pH) limits would remain unchanged from the current MPP ELG. 
These limits would apply to direct discharging facilities based on the 
same production thresholds as the existing rule: 50 million pounds per 
year of finished product produced for meat further processors 
(Subcategories F-I), 50 million pounds per year of live weight killed 
(LWK) for meat slaughtering (Subcategories A-D), 100 million pounds per 
year of LWK for poultry slaughtering (Subcategories K), 7 million 
pounds of finished product per year for poultry further processors 
(Subcategory L), and 10 million pounds per year of raw material 
processed for renderers (Subcategory J). The limits for facilities in 
Subcategory E would not be changed.
    Option 3: BAT would include the same BAT requirements as Option 1, 
with lower production thresholds for applicability. Specifically, BAT 
would include new phosphorus effluent limitations based on chemical 
removal for facilities in all subcategories that are producing greater 
than or equal to 10 million pounds per year. Additionally, BAT would 
include new and/or more stringent nitrogen limits based on biological 
treatment to achieve full denitrification for facilities in all 
subcategories producing greater than or equal to 20 million pounds per 
year. BAT for ammonia as N limits and BCT and BPT limits for 
conventional pollutants (BOD, TSS, oil & grease, fecal coliform, pH) 
limits would remain unchanged from the current MPP ELGs. The limits for 
facilities in Subcategory E would not be changed.
Indirect Discharges to POTWs From Existing Sources
    Option 1: PSES would include new conventional pollutant limits 
based on BPT and BCT limits for BOD, TSS, and oil & grease based on 
screening and dissolved air flotation (DAF) technology. Under this 
option, pretreatment standards would apply to facilities producing 
greater than: 50

[[Page 4477]]

million pounds per year of finished product for meat further processors 
(Subcategories F-I), 50 million pounds per year of LWK for meat 
slaughtering (Subcategories A-D), 100 million pounds per year of LWK 
for poultry slaughtering (Subcategory K), 7 million pounds per year of 
finished product for poultry further processors (Subcategory L), and 10 
million pounds per year of raw material processed by renderers 
(Subcategory J). No new PSES based on pretreatment standards for 
nitrogen and phosphorus would be established under Option 1.
    Option 2: Option 2 would include the same PSES requirements for 
conventional pollutants as Option 1. Additionally, PSES would include 
new pretreatment standards based on BAT for phosphorus based on 
chemical removal and new nitrogen pretreatment standards based on 
biological treatment to achieve full denitrification. The nitrogen and 
phosphorus PSES requirements would include facilities with production 
thresholds greater than or equal to: 200 million pounds per year of LWK 
for meat slaughtering (Subcategories A-D), 200 million pounds per year 
of LWK for poultry slaughtering (Subcategory K), and 350 million pounds 
per year processed by renderers (Subcategory J).
    Option 3: Option 3 would include the same PSES requirements as 
Option 2, with lower production thresholds for applicability. 
Specifically, PSES would include new conventional pollutant 
pretreatment standards based on BPT/BCT for BOD, TSS, and oil & grease 
based on screening and DAF techniques for all indirect MPP facilities 
producing greater than 5 million pounds per year. Additionally, PSES 
would include new phosphorus and nitrogen pretreatment standards based 
on BAT for all indirect MPP facilities producing greater than 30 
million pounds per year.
Direct Discharges From New Sources
    Under all options, NSPS based on BADCT would be equal to BAT, BPT, 
and BCT. Thus, Options 1, 2 and 3 would contain the same requirements 
for existing and new direct discharging facilities.
Indirect Discharges From New Sources
    Under all options, PSNS would be equal to PSES. Thus, Options 1, 2, 
and 3 would contain the same requirements for existing and new indirect 
discharging facilities.
    Additional details about the proposed ELGs are described in Section 
VII of this preamble.

II. Public Participation

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2021-
0736, at https://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or the 
other methods identified in the ADDRESSES section. Once submitted, 
comments cannot be edited or removed from the docket. EPA may publish 
any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit to EPA's 
docket at https://www.regulations.gov any information you consider to 
be Confidential Business Information (CBI), Proprietary Business 
Information (PBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 
accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the 
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish 
to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents 
located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 
other file sharing system). Please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets for additional submission methods; the full EPA 
public comment policy; information about CBI, PBI, or multimedia 
submissions; and general guidance on making effective comments.

III. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities potentially regulated by any final rule following this 
action include:

                               Table III-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         North American
                                                            Industry
           Category              Example of regulated    Classification
                                        entity           System (NAICS)
                                                              Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry......................  Facilities engaged in
                                 slaughtering,
                                 further processing,
                                 or rendering of meat
                                 and poultry
                                 products, which may
                                 include the
                                 following sectors:
                                Meat Packing Plants..              31161
                                Animal (except                    311611
                                 Poultry)
                                 Slaughtering.
                                Meat Processed from               311612
                                 Carcasses.
                                Sausages and Other                311612
                                 Prepared Meat
                                 Products.
                                Poultry Slaughtering              311615
                                 and Processing.
                                Meat & Meat Product               422470
                                 Wholesalers.
                                Poultry Processing...             311615
                                Rendering and Meat By-            311613
                                 Product Processing.
                                Support Activities                 11521
                                 for Animal
                                 Production.
                                Prepared Feed and                 311119
                                 Feed Ingredients for
                                 Animals and Fowls,
                                 Except Dogs and Cats.
                                Dog and Cat Food                  311111
                                 Manufacturing.
                                Other Animal Food                 311119
                                 Manufacturing.
                                All Other                         311999
                                 Miscellaneous Food
                                 Manufacturing.
                                Animal and Marine                 311613
                                 Fats and Oils.
                                Livestock Services,               311611
                                 Except Veterinary.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This 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 includes the types of entities that the EPA is now 
aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of 
entities not included could also be regulated. To determine whether 
your entity is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine 
the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR 432.1, 432.10, 432.20, 
432.30, 432.40, 432.50, 432.60, 432.70, 432.80, 432.90, 432.100, 
432.110, and 432.120 and the definitions in 40 CFR 432.2. If you have 
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular 
entity, consult

[[Page 4478]]

the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. What action is the Agency taking?

    The Agency is proposing to revise the existing MPP ELGs and is 
soliciting comment on possible revisions and additions to the ELGs for 
existing and new sources in the MPP point source category.

C. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    EPA is proposing to promulgate this rule under the authority of 
sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, 402, and 501 of the Clean Water Act 
(CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342, and 1361.

D. What are the incremental costs and benefits of this action?

    This proposed action is estimated to cost $232 million per year in 
social costs and result in $90 million per year in monetized benefits 
using a 3 percent discount rate and $227 million per year in social 
costs and result in $85 million per year in monetized benefits using a 
7 percent discount rate. The current benefit numbers reflect the 
national effects of increased air pollution and greenhouse gas 
emissions under the rule. EPA also expects that there will be 
additional non-monetized benefits that result from the proposed action. 
See the Benefits Cost Analysis for additional information on 
monetization and quantification of health, ecological, market, and 
economic productivity benefits.

IV. Background

A. Clean Water Act

    Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments 
of 1972, also known as the Clean Water Act (``CWA'' or ``the Act''), to 
``restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity 
of the Nation's waters'' (33 U.S.C. 1251(a)). The CWA establishes a 
comprehensive program for protecting our nation's waters. Among its 
core provisions, the CWA prohibits the discharge of pollutants from a 
point source to waters of the United States (WOTUS), except as 
authorized under the CWA. Under section 402 of the CWA, discharges may 
be authorized through a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
(NPDES) permit. The CWA establishes a two-pronged approach for these 
permits: technology-based controls that establish the floor of 
performance for all dischargers, and water quality-based limits where 
the technology-based limits are insufficient for the discharge to meet 
applicable water quality standards. To serve as the basis for the 
technology-based controls, the CWA authorizes EPA to establish 
nationally applicable, technology-based effluent limitations guidelines 
and new source performance standards for discharges from different 
categories of point sources, such as industrial, commercial, and public 
sources.
    Direct dischargers must comply with effluent limitations in NPDES 
permits. Technology-based effluent limitations in NPDES permits are 
derived from effluent limitations guidelines (CWA sections 301(b) and 
304, 33 U.S.C. 1311(b) and 1314) and new source performance standards 
(CWA section 306, 33 U.S.C. 1316) promulgated by EPA, or based on best 
professional judgment (BPJ) where EPA has not promulgated an applicable 
effluent limitations guideline or new source performance standard (CWA 
section 402(a)(1)(B), 33 U.S.C. 1342(a)(1)(B); 40 CFR 125.3(c)). The 
effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance standards 
established by regulation for categories of industrial dischargers are 
based on the degree of control that can be achieved using various 
levels of pollution control technology, as specified in the Act.
    The CWA also authorizes EPA to promulgate nationally applicable 
pretreatment standards that restrict pollutant discharges from 
categories of indirect dischargers (i.e., facilities that introduce 
wastewater to POTWs), as outlined in CWA sections 307(b) and (c), and 
304(g) (33 U.S.C. 1317(b) and (c), and 1314(g)). EPA establishes 
national categorical pretreatment standards for those pollutants in 
wastewater from indirect dischargers that may pass through, interfere 
with, or are otherwise incompatible with POTW operations (CWA section 
307(b), 33 U.S.C. 1317(b)). Generally, in determining whether 
pollutants pass through a POTW when considering the establishment of 
categorical pretreatment standards, EPA compares the percentage of 
pollutant removed by typical POTWs achieving secondary treatment with 
the percentage of the pollutant removed by facilities meeting the 
candidate technology basis (e.g., BPT or BAT) (46 FR 9408, 9416 (Jan. 
28, 1981)). A pollutant is deemed to pass through a POTW when the 
average percentage removed by well-operated POTWs performing secondary 
treatment is less than the average percentage removed by direct 
dischargers operating the BPT/BAT technology basis. Pretreatment 
standards are designed to ensure that wastewaters from direct and 
indirect industrial dischargers are subject to similar levels of 
treatment (CWA section 301(b) and 33 U.S.C. 1311(b). The legislative 
history of the 1977 CWA amendments explains that pretreatment standards 
are technology-based and analogous to technology-based effluent 
limitations for direct dischargers. As further explained in the 
legislative history, the combination of pretreatment and treatment by 
the POTW is intended to achieve the level of treatment that would be 
required if the industrial source were making a direct discharge (Conf. 
Rep. No. 95-830, at 87 (1977), reprinted in U.S. Congress, Senate 
Committee on Public Works (1978), A Legislative History of the CWA of 
1977, Serial No. 95-14 at 271 (1978)). For categorical pretreatment 
standards, EPA's approach for passthrough satisfies two competing 
objectives set by Congress: (1) That standards for indirect dischargers 
be equivalent to standards for direct dischargers; and (2) that the 
treatment capability and performance of the POTWs be recognized and 
taken into account in regulating the discharge of pollutants from 
indirect dischargers (CWA sections 301(b)(1)(A) and 301(b)(1)(E) (33 
U.S.C. 1311(b)(1)(A) and 1311(b)(1)(E)). In addition, POTWs are 
required to implement local treatment limits applicable to their 
industrial indirect dischargers to satisfy any local requirements (40 
CFR 403.5).
    EPA promulgates national ELGs for major industrial categories for 
three classes of pollutants: (1) Conventional pollutants (i.e., BOD, 
TSS, oil & grease, fecal coliform, and pH), as outlined in CWA section 
304(a)(4) (33 U.S.C. 1314(a)(4) and 40 CFR 401.16); (2) toxic 
pollutants (e.g., toxic metals such as arsenic, mercury, selenium, and 
chromium; toxic organic pollutants such as benzene, benzo-a-pyrene, 
phenol, and naphthalene), as outlined in CWA section 307(a) (33 U.S.C. 
1317(a), 40 CFR 401.15, and 40 CFR 423 appendix A); and (3) 
nonconventional pollutants, which are those pollutants that are not 
categorized as conventional or toxic (e.g., ammonia-N, nitrogen, 
phosphorus, and total dissolved solids (TDS)).

B. Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards (ELGs)

    EPA develops ELGs that are technology-based regulations for a 
category of dischargers. EPA bases these regulations on performance of 
control and treatment technologies in light of the factors specified in 
CWA section 304(b) and 306 (33 U.S.C. 1314(b), 1316), but after the 
limitations and standards are established, dischargers may use any 
technology that meets the limitations and standards. The legislative 
history of CWA section 304(b) (33 U.S.C. 1314(b)), which is the heart 
of the effluent guidelines program,

[[Page 4479]]

describes the need to press toward higher levels of control through 
research and development of new processes, modifications, replacement 
of obsolete plants and processes, and other improvements in technology, 
taking into account the cost of controls. Congress has also stated that 
EPA does not consider water quality impacts on individual water bodies 
as the guidelines are developed (Statement of Senator Muskie, October 
4, 1972, reprinted in A Legislative History of the Water Pollution 
Control Act Amendments of 1972, at 170. (U.S. Senate, Committee on 
Public Works, Serial No. 93-1, January 1973); Southwestern Elec. Power 
Co. v. EPA, 920 F.3d at 1005, ``The Administrator must require 
industry, regardless of a discharge's effect on water quality, to 
employ defined levels of technology to meet effluent limitations.'' 
(citations and internal quotations omitted). CWA sections 304(b), 
304(g), and 306(b) (33 U.S.C. 1314(b), 1314(g) and 1316(b)) authorize 
revision of ELGs where appropriate.
    The CWA specifies four types of technology-based ELGs applicable to 
direct dischargers and two types of pretreatment standards applicable 
to indirect dischargers, referred to collectively as ``effluent 
limitations guidelines and standards (ELGs)''. These ELGs are 
summarized below.
1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)
    For existing direct dischargers, the Act specifies two 
increasingly-stringent levels of control. The first level of control, 
BPT, applies to all pollutants (conventional, toxic, and 
nonconventional pollutants). Traditionally, as is consistent with the 
statute, its legislative history and caselaw, EPA defines ``currently 
available'' based on the average of the best performance of facilities 
within the industry, grouped to reflect various ages, sizes, processes, 
or other common characteristics (Chem. Mfrs. Assn. v. EPA, 870 F.2d 
177, 207-208 (1989)). The statute specifies a number of factors for 
consideration in establishing or revising BPT: the cost of achieving 
effluent reductions in relation to the effluent reduction benefits, the 
age of equipment and facilities, the processes employed, the 
engineering aspects of the control technologies, process changes, non-
water quality environmental impacts (including energy requirements), 
and such other factors as the Administrator deems appropriate (CWA 
section 304(b)(1)(B), 33 U.S.C. 1314(b)(1)(B)). If, however, existing 
performance is uniformly inadequate, EPA may establish limitations 
based on higher levels of control than what is currently in place in an 
industrial category, based on an Agency determination that the 
technology is available in another category or subcategory and can be 
practicably applied.
2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)
    BCT represents the second level of stringency for controlling 
discharge of conventional pollutants. In addition to other factors 
specified in CWA section 304(b)(4)(B) (33 U.S.C. 1314(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 (July 
9, 1986)). The Act designates the following as conventional pollutants: 
BOD, TSS, fecal coliform, pH, and any additional pollutants defined by 
the Administrator as conventional (CWA section 304(a)(4); 33 U.S.C. 
1314(a)(4)). The Administrator designated oil & grease as an additional 
conventional pollutant (44 FR 44501 (July 30, 1979) and 40 CFR 401.16).
3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
    BAT represents the second level of stringency for controlling 
discharge of toxic and nonconventional pollutants (including 
nutrients). Courts have referred to this as the CWA's ``gold standard'' 
for controlling discharges from existing sources (Southwestern Elec. 
Power Co. v. EPA, 920 F.3d at 1003). In general, BAT represents the 
best available, economically achievable performance of facilities in 
the industrial subcategory or category, considering the factors 
specified in CWA section 304(b) (33 U.S.C. 1314(b)). As the statutory 
phrase intends, EPA considers the technological availability and 
economic achievability in determining what level of control represents 
BAT (CWA section 301(b)(2)(A), 33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(2)(A)). The statute 
specifies a number of factors for consideration in establishing or 
revising BAT: 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 (CWA Section 304(b)(2)(B), 33 U.S.C. 1314(b)(2)(B)). The 
Agency retains considerable discretion in assigning the weight to be 
accorded these factors (Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1045 
(D.C. Cir. 1978)). EPA usually determines economic achievability based 
on the effect of the cost of compliance with BAT limitations on overall 
industry and subcategory financial conditions (Chem. Mfrs. Assn. v. 
EPA, 870 F.2d 177, 251-52 (5th Cir. 1988)).
    BAT reflects the highest performance in the industry and may 
reflect a higher level of performance than is currently being achieved 
based on technology transferred from a different subcategory or 
category, bench scale or pilot plant studies, or foreign plants 
(Southwestern Elec. Power Co. v. EPA, 920 F.3d at 1006; American Paper 
Inst. v. Train, 543 F.2d 328, 353 (D.C. Cir. 1976); American Frozen 
Food Inst. v. Train, 539 F.2d 107, 132 (D.C. Cir. 1976)). BAT may be 
based upon process changes or internal controls, even when these 
technologies are not common industry practice (American Frozen Foods, 
539 F.2d at 132, 140; Reynolds Metals Co. v. EPA, 760 F.2d 549, 562 
(4th Cir. 1985); California & Hawaiian Sugar Co. v. EPA, 553 F.2d 280, 
285-88 (2nd Cir. 1977)).
4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
    NSPS reflect effluent reductions that are achievable based on 
BADCT. Owners of new sources 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 BADCT for all 
pollutants (that is, conventional, nonconventional, and toxic 
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 (CWA 
section 306(b)(1)(B), 33 U.S.C. 1316(b)(1)(B)).
5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)
    CWA section 307(b) (33 U.S.C. 1317(b)), of the Act calls for EPA to 
issue pretreatment standards for discharges of pollutants to POTWs. 
PSES are designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants that pass 
through, interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the 
operation of POTWs. Categorical pretreatment standards are technology-
based and are analogous to BPT and BAT effluent limitations guidelines, 
and thus, the Agency typically considers the same factors in 
promulgating PSES as it considers in promulgating BPT/BAT. The General 
Pretreatment Regulations,

[[Page 4480]]

which set forth the framework for the implementation of categorical 
pretreatment standards, are found at 40 CFR part 403. These regulations 
establish general pretreatment standards that apply to all non-domestic 
dischargers (52 FR 1586 (January 14, 1987)).
6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)
    CWA section 307(c) (33 U.S.C. 1317(c)) calls for EPA to promulgate 
PSNS. 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 PSNS based on 
BADCT for new sources. New indirect dischargers have the opportunity to 
incorporate into their facilities the best available demonstrated 
technologies. The Agency typically considers the same factors in 
promulgating PSNS as it considers in promulgating NSPS.

C. Actions Leading to Proposed Revisions to the MPP ELGs

1. National Review of Nutrient Discharges From Industrial Sources 
(USEPA. 2019. EPA-821-R-19-005)
    EPA conducted a cross-industry review of publicly available 
discharge monitoring report (DMR) and toxics release inventory (TRI) 
data from 2015 on nutrient discharges from industrial point source 
categories. This review identified industries, based on their 
discharges of nutrients in wastewater and the potential to reduce their 
nutrient discharges, that may be candidates for ELG development or 
revision and prioritized them for further review. EPA then ranked 
industrial categories by the nutrient loads in their wastewater 
discharges, specifically looking at the median facility load and number 
of facilities reporting discharges. The MPP industry ranked as one of 
the highest in the analysis for total nitrogen and total phosphorus, 
leading EPA to focus on this industry (USEPA. 2019. EPA-HQ-OW-2019-
0618).
    To better understand the MPP industry and related nutrient sources, 
discharges, and treatment, EPA reviewed historical documentation 
supporting the development of the existing MPP ELGs, analyzed 2015 DMR 
and TRI data, and contacted several MPP facilities. Many MPP facilities 
discharging high amounts of nutrients are located in EPA Regions 4 and 
5, which provided information on the development of nutrient permit 
limits and current practices for managing wastewater containing 
nutrients at MPP facilities. Many of these facilities had permits with 
water-quality-based ammonia limits more stringent than the existing 
2004 MPP ELGs. More than half of the permits reviewed also included 
water quality-based limits or monitoring requirements for total 
Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), nitrate/nitrite, and/or total phosphorus, 
which are not regulated under the 2004 MPP ELG.
    EPA found that some MPP facilities are performing better than the 
existing 2004 ELG for nutrient discharges (nitrogen and ammonia), as 
well as removing phosphorus, which is not regulated under the existing 
ELG. For nitrogen, the median annual average of 97 direct discharging 
MPP facilities was 32.8 mg/L, which is well below the 2004 ELG monthly 
averages of 103 mg/L for poultry and 132 mg/L for meat processors. For 
ammonia, the median annual average for 119 facilities was approximately 
0.5 mg/L, which is far lower than the 4 mg/L required under the ELG 
regulations. For phosphorus, which is not regulated under the existing 
ELGs, the median annual average of 140 MPP facilities was less than 2 
mg/L indicating that some MPP facilities are meeting water-quality 
based low phosphorus limits of their NPDES permits using current 
treatment technologies. These initial results indicated that revised 
ELGs may be appropriate as the industry is capable of achieving 
effluent limitations well below the current 2004 regulations.
2. Detailed Study of Meat and Poultry Products (USEPA. 2021. EPA-821-R-
21-003)
    As a result of the cross-industry review of nutrients in industrial 
wastewater and the further review of the MPP category, EPA began a 
detailed study of the MPP industry. The goals of the MPP detailed study 
were to gain a better understanding of the industry and evaluate 
whether the ELGs should be revised.
    EPA began by collecting publicly available information about the 
MPP industry. To obtain a list of facilities that may be part of the 
MPP industry, EPA evaluated industry directories from the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS), 
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the National Renderers 
Association (NRA). To further develop this list, EPA evaluated 
information from POTW Annual Reports, EPA's Integrated Compliance 
Information System National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
(ICIS-NPDES) database, and EPA's TRI database. EPA also engaged with 
EPA regions, federal agencies, States, clean water organizations, 
industry stakeholders, environmental groups, and communities in close 
proximity to MPP facilities to understand different perspectives on the 
industry and effects of the industry on communities and to gain 
insights into the industry.
    EPA used the publicly available information to analyze the 
industry. EPA found that the MPP industry discharges the highest 
phosphorus levels and second highest nitrogen levels of all industrial 
categories. EPA found the nutrient discharges are from numerous 
facilities across the country and that the nutrient pollutants are at 
concentrations that can be reduced with current wastewater treatment 
technology. Further, some of the studied facilities were already 
removing nutrients and achieving effluent concentrations well below the 
limitations in the existing MPP ELGs.
    During the detailed study, EPA compiled a list of over 7,000 
facilities from the sources listed above that potentially processed 
meat and poultry products and might be part of the MPP industry. Of 
these, EPA estimated that approximately 300 are likely direct 
dischargers. During the rulemaking process, EPA refined the list to 
5,055 MPP facilities, of which 171 are direct dischargers. As the 
existing ELGs only apply to a subset of the direct dischargers, the 
2004 MPP ELGs cover approximately 150 facilities. As mentioned, the 
wastewater from the direct dischargers has high amounts of nutrients. 
Around 120 of the estimated 150 direct dischargers discharge to waters 
listed as impaired, with much of the MPP total nitrogen and total 
phosphorus load discharging to waters impaired for algal growth, 
ammonia, nutrients, and/or oxygen depletion.
    As the majority of MPP facilities are indirect dischargers, which 
are not currently subject to national categorical pretreatment 
standards, EPA also studied POTWs that receive MPP wastewater. In 
reviewing permits for POTWs that receive MPP wastewater, EPA found the 
majority do not have limits for nitrogen or phosphorus. Thus, many 
POTWs may not be removing much of the nutrient load discharged by MPP 
industrial users because many POTWs do not have tertiary treatment 
designed to remove nutrients. Additionally, many of the POTWs (73%) had 
permit violations for pollutants found in MPP wastewater (analysis 
included BOD, TSS, chlorides, nitrogen, phosphorus, E. coli, total 
residual chlorine (TRC), coliforms, metals, ammonia, and oil & grease). 
The

[[Page 4481]]

collected data thus indicates MPP facilities may be causing or 
contributing to violations of POTW permit limits (EUSEPA. 2021. PA-HQ-
OW-2021-0547-0110).
    National ELGs can help ensure that all people in the vicinity of 
industrial direct and indirect discharges receive the same degree of 
protection from environmental and health hazards, and equal access to 
the decision-making process to have a healthy environment in which to 
live, learn, and work. To assess information related to environmental 
justice, EPA conducted screening analyses of areas with MPP facilities 
and found 82% of MPP facilities that directly discharge wastewater to 
waters of the U.S. are within one mile of census block groups with 
demographic or environmental characteristics of concern. This indicates 
that such facilities may be disproportionately impacting communities of 
concern and therefore revised wastewater regulations may benefit these 
communities.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Characteristics of concern in this analysis are defined as 
demographic or environmental indexes above the 80th percentile in a 
state based on data available in the 2020 release of EJSCREEN. 
Census block groups with one or more indexes above this threshold 
were considered communities of concern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Announcement of Rule in Preliminary Effluent Guidelines Plan 15
    In 2021, in the Preliminary Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 15 
(Preliminary Plan 15), EPA announced a rulemaking to revise the 
existing discharge standards for the MPP industry (USEPA. 2021. EPA-
821-R-21-003).
4. Litigation and Consent Decree
    On December 23, 2022, Plaintiffs Cape Fear River Watch, Rural 
Empowerment Association for Community Help, Waterkeepers Chesapeake, 
Waterkeeper Alliance, Humane Society of the United States, Food & Water 
Watch, Environment America, Comite Civico del Valle, Center for 
Biological Diversity, and Animal Legal Defense Fund filed a complaint 
alleging that EPA's failure to revise ELGs and to promulgate 
pretreatment standards for the MPP category constituted failures to act 
by statutory deadlines in violation of the CWA and Administrative 
Procedures Act (``APA'') (Cape Fear River Watch et al. v. United States 
Environmental Protection Agency, No. 1:22-cv-03809 (D. D.C)).
    Although EPA was in the process of conducting the MPP rulemaking, 
EPA had not publicly announced any specific timeline for completion. 
The parties initiated settlement discussions, resulting in a proposed 
consent decree with deadlines for completion of the rulemaking, which 
EPA entered into after public notice and comment (88 FR 12930 (Mar. 1, 
2023)). Under the consent decree, EPA has obligations to sign a notice 
of proposed rulemaking by December 13, 2023 and to sign a decision 
taking final action on the proposal by August 31, 2025 (Consent Decree, 
Cape Fear River Watch et al. v. EPA, Case No. 1:22-cv-03809-BAH (05/03/
23)).

V. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Description

A. General Description of Industry

    The MPP point source category includes facilities ``engaged in the 
slaughtering, dressing and packing of meat and poultry products for 
human consumption and/or animal food and feeds. Meat and poultry 
products for human consumption include meat and poultry from cattle, 
hogs, sheep, chickens, turkeys, ducks and other fowl as well as 
sausages, luncheon meats and cured, smoked or canned or other prepared 
meat and poultry products from purchased carcasses and other materials. 
Meat and poultry products for animal food and feeds include animal 
oils, meat meal and facilities that render grease and tallow from 
animal fat, bones and meat scraps'' (40 CFR 432.1).
    Based on industry responses to the 2022 MPP Questionnaire, EPA 
estimates there are 5,055 MPP facilities currently in operation. Table 
V-1 shows the estimated number of MPP facilities based on facility 
process based on the 2022 MPP Questionnaire and other publicly 
available data sources. ``Meat First'' refers to facilities that 
slaughter animals excluding poultry. ``Meat Further'' refers to 
facilities that further process animal products excluding poultry. 
``Poultry First'' refers to facilities that slaughter poultry. 
``Poultry Further'' refers to facilities that further process poultry. 
Facilities that process meat and poultry were classified by the type 
which they process the most. ``Render'' refers to facilities that only 
process meat and poultry offcuts, trimmings, bones, dead animals, scrap 
materials, and other related usable by-products. For more information 
on how facilities were classified, see the Meat and Poultry Products 
(MPP) Profile Methodology Memorandum (USEPA. 2023. DCN MP00306).

                  Table V-1--Number of Facilities in MPP Industry by Process and Discharge Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Number of facilities
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                     Process                          Direct         Indirect          Zero
                                                    dischargers     dischargers     dischargers        Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meat First......................................              47             509             270             826
Meat Further....................................              29           2,741             690           3,460
Poultry First...................................              70             168              52             290
Poultry Further.................................               6             169             119             294
Render..........................................              19             121              45             185
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................             171           3,708           1,176           5,055
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: DCNMP00306.

    As shown in Table V-1, there are a large number of MPP facilities 
in each sector. These facilities are located across the country. 
Although first processors/slaughterhouses tend to be larger, there is a 
large range in production volumes across the industry. Based on the 
questionnaire, 171 facilities have NPDES permits and discharge 
wastewater directly to waters of the U.S. An additional 3,708 
facilities discharge wastewater to POTWs, and 1,176 facilities do not 
discharge process wastewater. MPP effluent discharges contain 
pollutants including nitrogen, phosphorus, ammonia, oil & grease, BOD, 
and chlorides.

B. Control and Treatment Technologies

    EPA evaluated technologies available to control and treat 
wastewater

[[Page 4482]]

generated by the MPP industry. EPA has not identified any practical 
difference in types of treatment technologies between meat products and 
poultry products facilities. Some MPP processes result in wastewater 
streams with higher concentrations of pollutants, but facilities across 
the industry generally contain the same pollutants, including nitrogen, 
phosphorus, oil & grease, BOD, TSS, and chlorides.
    The pollutants in MPP wastewaters are similar to those in domestic 
wastewater. POTWs often have similar wastewater treatment technologies 
as direct discharging MPP facilities. However, some indirect MPP 
wastewater discharges have pollutant loads that the receiving POTW 
cannot handle. These indirect discharges may cause passthrough or 
interference as those terms are defined in EPA's general pretreatment 
regulations at 40 CFR 403.3(k) and (p). Also, many POTWs are not 
equipped to effectively treat all pollutants found in MPP wastewater 
such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and chlorides. Thus, indirect discharging 
MPP facilities may need to treat their wastewater before sending it to 
their POTW in order to meet any local limits established by the control 
authority under EPA's general pretreatment regulations (40 CFR part 
403).
    EPA evaluated available technologies that can be used to treat or 
remove MPP pollutants, individually and in treatment trains. This 
section is split into subsections based on type of pollutant removal, 
including conventional pollutants, phosphorus, nitrogen, pathogens, and 
chlorides. As the evaluated technologies result in sludge production, 
technologies for solids handling are also included. Discussions on 
treatment trains are included within applicable sections.
1. Conventional Pollutant Removal
    MPP process wastewater contains oil & grease, TSS, and BOD, which 
are all conventional pollutants. These pollutants can be removed with 
primary treatment, which removes floating and settleable solids. 
Typical treatment technologies include screens and DAF.
    a. Screening: Screens are generally the first treatment unit in a 
wastewater treatment train. Screens are inexpensive and remove large 
solid particles from the wastewater that may otherwise damage or 
interfere with downstream equipment and treatment processes. At some 
facilities, the materials removed by the screens may be used as raw 
material at rendering facilities.
    b. Dissolved air flotation (DAF): DAF is used extensively in the 
primary treatment of MPP wastewaters to remove suspended solids and oil 
& grease. In a DAF unit, air is dissolved into the wastewater, forming 
small bubbles. As the air bubbles float to the surface, solids attach 
to the air bubbles, and rise to the top of the unit forming a layer of 
floating pollutants. A skimmer is used to continuously remove this 
layer of floating solids, while a bottom sludge collector removes any 
solids that settle to the bottom. In some facilities, such as 
renderers, the removed solids can be recycled to the facility as raw 
materials.
    c. Chemical Addition: Polymers, flocculants, and phosphorus 
precipitating chemicals may be added to, or prior to, the DAF. The 
chemical addition increases the removal of pollutants from the 
wastewater. Adding chemicals to remove phosphorus can help facilities 
meet phosphorus effluent limits. For facilities that recycle materials 
from the DAF to the facility, chemicals addition may not be possible as 
this would contaminate the raw material.
2. Biological/Organic Pollutant Removal
    BOD, nitrogen, and phosphorus are removed through biological, 
physical, and chemical processes. Biological processes can be used to 
achieve low levels of BOD and nitrogen and are commonly used at MPP 
facilities. Microorganisms used in biological wastewater treatment 
require phosphorus for cell synthesis and energy transport and 
typically remove 10 to 30 percent of influent phosphorus. Through 
biological treatment, organic compounds are broken down with bacteria 
into products including water, CO2, N2, and 
CH4.
    a. Anaerobic biological treatment: In anaerobic wastewater 
treatment, facultative and anaerobic microorganisms reduce organic 
matter and BOD into gaseous methane and carbon dioxide. The gases may 
be released into the atmosphere, captured and flared, or used as 
biogas. Anaerobic treatment systems have negligible energy requirements 
and can treat high-strength wastewaters. Anaerobic lagoons are a 
typical anaerobic system used at MPP facilities. Due to the detention 
time, these lagoons also equalize wastewater flow. The lagoons are not 
mixed to maintain anaerobic conditions. Anaerobic lagoons can reduce 
BOD by 95 percent and suspended solids by 95 percent (Johns. 1995; \4\ 
USEPA. 1974; \5\ USEPA. 1975).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Johns, M.R. 1995. Developments in wastewater treatment in 
the meat processing industry: A review. Bioresource Technology 54. 
EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0014-2410. DCN 300232.
    \5\ USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1974, 
February. Development Document for Effluent Limitation Guidelines 
and New Source Performance Standards for the Red Meat Processing 
Segment of the Meat Product and Rendering Processing Point Source 
Category. Washington, DC. DCN MP00348.
    \6\ USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1975, April. 
Development Document for Effluent Limitation Guidelines and New 
Source Performance Standards for the Poultry Segment of the Meat 
Product and Rendering Processing Point Source Category. Washington, 
DC. DCN MP00349.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. Aerobic biological treatment: In aerobic wastewater treatment, 
microorganisms require oxygen to degrade organic material into water, 
carbon dioxide, and organic compounds. Aerobic degradation is faster 
than anaerobic degradation. Soluble BOD reductions up to 95 percent are 
possible. Aerated lagoons have fixed, floating, or diffused air systems 
to aerate the water. Aerobic lagoons (naturally aerated systems) use 
algae to aerate the system through photosynthesis.
    c. Anoxic biological treatment: Anoxic wastewater treatment systems 
are oxygen deficient, and bacteria break down nitrogenous compounds 
into oxygen and nitrogen gas.
    d. Activated sludge: This system includes an aeration tank followed 
by a settling tank. Settled solids from the second tank are recycled 
back into the aeration tank. Under optimal conditions, this process can 
achieve 95 percent reductions in BOD, suspended solids, and reductions 
in ammonia nitrogen (Johns. 1995; USEPA. 1974; USEPA. 1975).
    e. Sequencing batch reactor (SBR): An SBR completes the activated 
sludge process in a single reactor. The system first fills with 
wastewater, then the reaction in which bacteria break down organic 
compounds in the presence of oxygen occurs for some time, then the 
system is given time to settle and separate the microorganisms from the 
treated effluent, and then the tank is discharged. SBR systems provide 
high removal rates of BOD and suspended solids, can be designed for 
nitrification, and can remove nitrogen and phosphorus. SBRs are ideal 
for low flow processes as they do not need to run continuously, and the 
systems allow for operational and loading flexibility (Glenn et al. 
1990).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Glenn, S.L., R.T., Norris, Jr., and J.T. Sommerfield. 1990. 
Discrete-event simulation in wastewater treatment. Journal of 
Environmental Science and Health, 25 (4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    f. Multistage biological treatment for nitrogen removal: Nitrogen 
removal is a

[[Page 4483]]

two-step process: nitrification and denitrification.
    i. Nitrification is a two-step aerobic process. First, ammonia is 
oxidized into nitrite by Nitrosomonas bacteria. Then, nitrite is 
oxidized into nitrate by Nitrobacter bacteria (Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 
1991).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1991. Wastewater Engineering: 
Treatment, Disposal, and Reuse. 3rd Edition, McGraw-Hill, Inc. DCN 
MP00334.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ii. Denitrification: Nitrite and nitrate are reduced by 
heterotrophic bacteria into nitrogen gas in anaerobic conditions. A 
carbon source, such as methanol, may need to be added to keep the 
microbes healthy.
    Biological treatment systems are often used in series to achieve 
high rates of nitrogen removal. Wastewater flows from one system to the 
next, with recycle streams and returned activated sludge returning to 
various locations of the system. Some examples include:
    i. Modified Ludzack-Ettinger (MLE): The MLE is a two-stage system 
in which an anoxic stage is followed by an aerobic stage, before 
wastewater goes to a clarifier. Mixed liquor with high levels of 
nitrate is recycled from the aerobic stage back to the influent. 
Activated sludge from the clarifier is also recycled back to the 
influent. The MLE process removes most of the BOD and can achieve a 
nitrogen removal of 80 percent.
    ii. Bardenpho: This is a four-stage process: anoxic, aerobic, 
anoxic, aerobic, followed by a secondary clarifier. Mixed liquor with 
high levels of nitrate is recycled from the first aerobic stage back to 
the first anoxic stage. Activated sludge from the clarifier is recycled 
back to the influent. Nitrification occurs primarily in the second 
stage (aerobic). Denitrification occurs in the first and third stages 
(anoxic). The final aeration stage removes nitrogen gas from the system 
and increases the concentration of dissolved oxygen. The four-stage 
Bardenpho process achieves higher rates of nitrogen removal compared to 
the two-stage MLE process.
    iii. Modified Bardenpho: This is a five-stage process: anaerobic, 
anoxic, aerobic, anoxic, aerobic, followed by a secondary clarifier. As 
in the Bardenpho process, mixed liquor with high levels of nitrate is 
recycled from the first aerobic stage back to the first anoxic stage 
and activated sludge from the clarifier is recycled back to the 
influent. The anaerobic stage at the beginning of the system results in 
biological phosphorus removal. Phosphate-accumulating organisms (PAOs) 
are recycled from the aerobic stage in the mixed liquor to the 
anaerobic stage. In the following aerobic stages, PAOs uptake large 
amounts of phosphorus (USEPA. 2021. EPA 830-R-01-001).
    iv. Other: There are many other processes that use multiple stages 
of treatment to remove nitrogen. These include A2/O, step feed, 
University of Capetown (UCT) processes, oxidation ditches, and the 
Schreiber process, amongst others (USEPA. 2004. EPA-821-R-04-011).
    g. Membrane bioreactor (MBR): MBRs use membranes to separate 
liquids and solids. The liquid stream then passes through anoxic and 
aerobic zones, in similar processes to the biological treatment systems 
described above. As the membranes greatly reduce the suspended solids 
in the liquid stream, MBR removes nitrogen and phosphorus (USEPA. 2009. 
EPA/600/R[hyphen]09/012).
    h. Enhanced Biological Phosphorus Removal: Microorganisms used in 
biological wastewater treatment require phosphorus for cell synthesis 
and energy transport. In the treatment of typical domestic wastewater, 
between 10 and 30 percent of influent phosphorus is removed by 
microbial assimilation, followed by clarification or filtration. 
However, phosphorus assimilation in excess of requirements for cell 
maintenance and growth, known as luxury uptake, can be induced by a 
sequence of anaerobic and aerobic conditions (Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 
1991). As explained above, the modified Bardenpho process removes 
phosphorus biologically.
3. Phosphorus Removal
    As mentioned in the biological/organic pollutant removal section, 
some phosphorus is removed in biological treatment processes. To 
achieve low levels of phosphorus, chemical addition and/or tertiary 
filters can be used.
    a. Chemical addition: Phosphorus can be removed from wastewater by 
precipitation using metal salts [ferric chloride, aluminum sulfate 
(alum)] or lime. Polymers may also be added to increase the removal 
efficiency. The chemicals may be added prior to or in the DAF, in 
primary clarifier effluent, in biological treatment processes prior to 
secondary clarification, or after secondary clarification. The 
precipitated phosphorus is removed with other biosolids (Metcalf & 
Eddy, Inc. 1991).
    b. Tertiary Filters: Filters following chemical phosphorus removal 
can be used to achieve high removal rates of phosphorus. Tertiary 
filtration may include sand filters, ion-exchange, membranes, and 
others.
4. Pathogen Removal
    Disinfection destroys remaining pathogenic microorganisms and is 
generally required for all MPP wastewaters being discharged to surface 
waters. Chlorination/dechlorination, Ultra-Violet (UV), and some 
filters can be used to meet effluent limits for pathogens and to 
inactivate pathogenic microorganisms prior to discharge to surface 
waters.
    a. Chlorination/dechlorination: Chlorine disinfects wastewater 
through oxidation reactions with cellular material which results in the 
destruction of pathogens. Mixing and contact time in a chlorine contact 
chamber are critical factors to ensure proper disinfection. The 
chlorine compounds commonly used for wastewater disinfection are 
chlorine gas, calcium hypochlorite, sodium hypochlorite, and chlorine 
dioxide (Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1991). Chlorine residuals are toxic to 
aquatic life, so dechlorination is often necessary. Sulfur dioxide can 
be added, as it reacts with both free chlorine and chloramines with 
chloride ions, lowering chlorine residuals (USEPA, 1999. EPA 832-F-99-
062).
    b. Ultra-Violet (UV): Radiation emitted from UV light is an 
effective bactericide and virucide and does not generate any toxic 
compounds. Wavelengths between 250 and 270 nm inactivates cells (USEPA, 
1999. EPA 832-F-99-064). UV lamps can be submerged in the wastewater or 
suspended outside the wastewater.
    c. Tertiary Filtration: Filters and membranes with pore sizes 
smaller than pathogens can be used to remove pathogens from wastewater. 
Ultrafiltration, membranes, and reverse osmosis are options.
5. Chlorides Removal
    Some MPP processes, including hides processing, meat and poultry 
koshering, and further processing techniques, such as curing, brining, 
and pickling, commonly produce wastewater streams with high levels of 
chlorides. Some facilities engage in water softening, which can also 
produce high chlorides wastestreams. Wastewater treatment technologies 
commonly found at POTWs and many MPP facilities do not remove 
chlorides. The optimal chlorides treatment technologies for a facility 
depends on wastewater strength, climate, land availability, and cost. 
High chloride wastestreams may be able to be separated from other 
wastestreams, which can reduce costs and energy required for treatment.
    a. Hauling: Facilities may choose to haul high chloride wastewater 
(also

[[Page 4484]]

called brine) offsite in tanker trucks. The wastewater may be taken to 
a renderer where it may be used for production purposes, transported to 
a facility equipped to treat and/or dispose of brine, or taken offsite 
for deep-well injection or other means of disposal. Hauling can be 
costly as compared to other options, especially for large amounts of 
wastewater.
    b. Evaporation ponds: Brine wastewater may be disposed into shallow 
ponds exposed to the sun. The water evaporates, leaving salt. The salt 
will need to be emptied from the ponds occasionally to allow the ponds 
to be reused. This technology relies on solar evaporation and is best 
in dry/semi-dry climates. Land space for the ponds is also necessary. 
Due to the potential for groundwater pollution, the ponds should be 
lined (Panagopoulos et al. 2019).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Panagopoulos, A., Haralambous, K.J., and Loizidou, M. 2019. 
Desalination brine disposal methods and treatment technologies--A 
review. Science of The Total Environment, 693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.351.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    c. Evaporation systems/Crystallizers: Brine water is concentrated 
to near saturation, which results in salt crystallization. Heat is used 
to evaporate the water. The systems are often costly as compared to 
other options and corrosion is common if proper materials of 
construction are not utilized (Zhang et al. 2021).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Zhang, C., Shi, Y., Shi, L., Li, H., Li, R., Hong, S., 
Zhuo, S., Zhang, T., Wang, P. 2021. Designing a next generation 
solar crystallizer for real seawater brine treatment with zero 
liquid discharge. Nature Communications, 12. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-21124-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    d. Deep-well injection: Fluids such as brine/salt water can be 
injected underground into porous geological formations. The well is 
normally 500 to1500 meters deep. Constructing a well can be costly, and 
deep-well injection is not allowed in some parts of the U.S. 
(Panagopoulos et al. 2019).
6. Solids Handling
    Some wastewater treatment technologies produce industrial sludge. 
In the MPP industry, sludge is primarily generated by the DAF and 
clarifiers. The sludge contains oil & grease, organic materials, 
nitrogen, phosphorus, and chemicals/polymers added in the treatment 
system. The sludge may have a high-water content, which can be reduced, 
to reduce volume and save hauling and landfilling costs. Common 
dewatering technologies include gravity thickening units and the belt 
filter press. The sludge may be incinerated, land applied, or 
landfilled, depending on State, local and federal regulations and 
disposal method availability.

VI. Data Collection

A. Information From the Meat and Poultry Products Industry

    The Agency evaluated the following databases online to locate data 
and information to support regulatory development: The Agency's ICIS-
NPDES database, USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service's Hazard 
Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) Databases, the 2020 U.S. 
Census of Manufactures, Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) Hoover's database, and 
Experian's Business TargetIQ 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 MPP industry and its associated 
organizations; and publicly available financial information compiled by 
both government and private organizations.
    EPA met with or consulted the following organizations for industry 
information including facility names, addresses and contact 
information: National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Pork 
Producers Council, North American Meat Institute, the North American 
Renderers Association, and the U.S. Poultry & Egg Association.
    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 
MPP industry. EPA also conducted general internet searches by company 
name.
1. Survey
    Publicly available data on MPP facilities are limited. EPA has 
based the population of MPP facilities on data largely from the USDA 
FSIS. The FSIS dataset compiles information on facility name and 
location, type(s) of meat and poultry processed, and limited details on 
size (both employees and amount processed). USDA FSIS does not report 
details specific to wastewater generation or wastewater treatment. EPA 
also included a list of renderers from the NRA, and MPP facilities in 
the ICIS-NPDES dataset, in developing the list of MPP facilities. These 
data are limited since the NPDES data generally includes only those 
facilities directly discharging wastewater, although some individual 
States require pretreatment permits to also be reported.
    In order to supplement publicly available data sources, EPA 
conducted a survey of the MPP industry. EPA developed two 
questionnaires to collect site-specific technical and economic 
information to provide a more robust record to support developing 
regulatory options and conduct analyses required by statutes and 
executive orders. EPA's Office of Water administered a Census 
Questionnaire and a Detailed Questionnaire to facilities engaging in 
meat and poultry processing, including those currently regulated under 
40 CFR part 432, and facilities that discharge wastewater directly to 
waters of the U.S., indirectly to POTWs, or do not discharge 
wastewater. The Census Questionnaire was administered as a census of 
the industry to confirm the industry population, as well as general 
information on the industry, including:
     Processing details (including type of meat or poultry and 
type of processing),
     Type and size (both production and employees) of the 
facility, and
     Wastewater generation and treatment information.
    EPA used information collected through the Census Questionnaire to 
confirm the list of facilities that fall within the MPP industry and to 
identify which MPP facilities generate, treat, and/or discharge 
wastewater. A statistically representative subset of different types of 
MPP facilities were asked to complete a more detailed set of questions. 
This Detailed Questionnaire collected the same information as the 
Census Questionnaire and additional details on processing operations, 
types and amount of wastewater generated by operation, wastewater 
treatment details, and economic data. In addition, EPA collected and 
analyzed wastewater samples from six MPP facilities that received the 
Detailed Questionnaire to characterize raw waste streams, wastewater 
treatment systems, and treated effluent for pollutants of interest.
    At the outset of EPA's development of the questionnaires, based on 
data primarily from USDA FSIS and ICIS-NPDES, EPA estimated the MPP 
industry had between 7,000 and 8,000 facilities. Because no one data 
source collects information from all MPP facilities, the exact number 
was unclear at the time the questionnaires were developed. EPA refined 
the list of facilities by identifying additional or duplicate 
facilities and working with trade associations to identify facilities 
that do not process meat or poultry. EPA conducted a statistical sample 
of facilities on the list and sent 1,565 unique facilities the Detailed 
Questionnaire and the other facilities were sent the Census 
Questionnaire. EPA stratified the list of facilities (i.e., the 
sampling frame) into groups based

[[Page 4485]]

on the stage of operation (i.e., slaughter, further processor, 
renderer), the meat type (i.e., meat, poultry), and production, to 
increase sample precision. Each facility fell within one or more 
strata. EPA estimated the number of facilities to sample from each 
stratum based on acceptable error, confidence level, and expected 
response rate using Cochran's sample size formula. The target sample 
size was 1,633 and these 1,565 represent the 1,633 facility-strata 
combination as some facilities fell in multiple strata and represent 
multiple strata. The Detailed Questionnaire included all questions in 
the Census Questionnaire. Both questionnaires were issued at the same 
time and requested data for 2021. Data from 2021 represents the most 
recent year for which complete technical and economic data were 
available as EPA administered the survey in 2022. The Detailed 
Questionnaire also asked for some data from 2017 and 2019 to evaluate 
recent trends in industry operation and economics. EPA administered the 
data collection under the authority of section 308 of the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 1318 and in accordance with the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.\11\ The questionnaires 
can be found in Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0736. Additional 
details on the questionnaire methodology can be found in the TDD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ EPA ICR No. 2701.01, OMB Control No. 2040-NEW.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Stakeholder Meetings and Outreach
    EPA encouraged the participation of all interested parties 
throughout the development of the MPP rule. The Agency conducted 
outreach to trade associations that represent the vast majority of the 
facilities that will be affected by the rule. EPA met with various 
stakeholders to discuss aspects of the regulation development. EPA also 
participated in industry meetings and gave presentations on the status 
of the regulation development. A comprehensive list and description of 
these meetings can be found in the TDD. EPA also met with environmental 
groups and Tribal communities and conducted environmental justice 
outreach. For details on these meetings, see the Environmental 
Assessment for the Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and 
Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Point Source Category (U.S. 
EPA, 2023. EPA 821-R-23-012).

B. Economic Data

    EPA analyzed the economic impact of the proposed regulation on both 
discharging facilities and the firms that own them. These analyses form 
the basis of EPA's proposed determination that the regulation is 
economically achievable. EPA also analyzed larger market wide impacts 
on production levels, prices, and employment. EPA relied on existing 
sources of economic data for these analyses and to supplement facility 
and firm information obtained from the industry survey.
1. Facility and Firm-Level Economic Data
    When questionnaire responses were available for a facility and its 
owner, that information was used for the impact analyses, such as the 
closure analyses and the cost-to-revenue screening analyses that are 
described in detail in section VIII. When information from the 
questionnaire was not available, however, EPA relied on two primary 
sources of external data. The first data source was the USDA FSIS 
facility-level information. This information was used to supplement 
facility production and employment estimates. The second data source 
was D&B Hoovers database of business information. This source was used 
to supplement revenue, employment, and ownership information at both 
the firm and facility level.
2. Industry and Sector-Level Economic Data
    After estimating facility and firm level costs, EPA analyzed the 
potential effect on market prices for major industry commodities such 
as, beef, pork, broiler chickens, and turkeys. EPA also analyzed the 
potential for changes to national and regional production-levels for 
these commodities. EPA estimated changes to both short-term and long-
term employment levels. Finally, EPA also estimated potential changes 
to the barriers-to-entry for this industry as well as industry 
consolidation trends.
    The primary data source for the sector and industry-level analyses 
is USDA's Economic Research Service (ERS). The ERS analyzes trends and 
emerging issues in the agricultural sector and regularly publish data 
on farm sector performance and farm households' well-being; farm size 
and concentration; market analysis, data, and projections on commodity 
supply, demand, and prices; and Federal farm policies. EPA also used 
results from agricultural market studies published in peer reviewed 
journals.

C. Other Data Sources

    EPA conducted several data collection activities in support of 
developing the proposed rule. EPA used these data to develop an 
industry profile, evaluate industry subcategorization, determine 
wastewater characteristics and potential pollution control 
technologies, review potential pollutant load reductions and costs 
associated with certain technology options, review environmental 
impacts associated with discharges from this industry, and develop 
pollutant limitations.
1. Site Visits
    During 2022, EPA conducted site visits at nine different MPP 
facilities, specifically three meat facilities, five poultry 
facilities, and one independent rendering facility. In selecting 
candidates for site visits, EPA attempted to identify facilities with 
advanced wastewater treatment technologies across the different types 
of operations performed in the industry. During each visit, EPA 
collected information on facility process operations including recent 
changes and upgrades, wastewater treatment operations, water usage, and 
waste management operations. See the TDD for additional details on site 
visits.
2. Wastewater Sampling
    Between August and November 2022, EPA conducted a sampling program 
at six MPP facilities located throughout the United States to collect 
wastewater characterization data and treatment performance data.
    EPA selected facilities based on nitrogen and phosphorus discharge 
data reported in DMRs and wastewater treatment information obtained 
from permits, permit application data, and site visits. EPA selected 
three meat facilities, two poultry facilities, and one independent 
rendering facility with low discharges of nutrients and/or phosphorus. 
All selected facilities were direct discharge facilities.
    During each sampling episode, EPA collected wastewater samples for 
five consecutive days. Sampling points varied by facility and 
wastewater treatment system, but in general, EPA collected the 
following samples at all selected facilities:
     Treatment system influent (untreated wastewater). Sample 
collected downstream of screening (if present) to ensure large solids 
were removed to facilitate sampling.
     Effluent from primary treatment (or influent to biological 
treatment). Primary treatment typically included a DAF unit or 
anaerobic basin/lagoon.

[[Page 4486]]

     Effluent from biological treatment (or influent to 
tertiary treatment). Biological treatment typically included complete 
nitrification/denitrification.
     Effluent from tertiary treatment (e.g., filters, 
disinfection, and/or chlorination/dechlorination), if tertiary 
treatment was in place.
     Final effluent from the treatment system, if different 
than effluent from last level of treatment (e.g., reaeration basin).
    EPA also collected operations data during the sampling episode to 
allow for an engineering assessment of the design, operation, and 
performance of treatment systems at MPP facilities. Specifically, EPA 
collected system design information, as well as daily operations data 
(e.g., production, wastewater flow, chemical additions, sludge 
generation). See the TDD and facility-specific sampling episode reports 
(USEPA. 2023. DCN MP00326, DCN MP00333, DCN MP00332, DCN MP00317, DCN 
MP00315, DCN MP00311) for details on the sampling points selected for 
each facility and the operational data collected.
    Based on conversations with industry, most MPP facilities use 
drinking water sources (public water supplies or well water) for all 
source water. Furthermore, facilities may treat their source water with 
sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) or water softeners before use as the 
facilities are generating food-grade products (USEPA. 2022. DCN 
MP00123, DCN MP00276, DCN MP00138, DCN MP00142). For these reasons and 
because EPA does not expect drinking water to contain nutrients or 
other pollutants at levels found in MPP wastewater, EPA did not collect 
source water samples.
    EPA identified pollutants of interest in MPP wastewater based on 
data from the previous MPP rulemaking (USEPA, 2004) and literature 
searches. Below is a list of pollutant or pollutant groups chosen by 
EPA for the MPP sampling program.

 Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and carbonaceous biochemical 
oxygen demand (CBOD)
 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
 Inorganic anions
 Oil & grease
 Nitrogen compounds
 Total and ortho-phosphorus
 TSS and TDS
 Total organic carbon (TOC)
 Bacteria (fecal coliform, Escherichia coli (E. coli)) and 
enterococci)
 Metals

    See the Pollutants of Concern (POC) Analysis for the Meat and 
Poultry Products (MPP) Proposed Rule (USEPA. 2023. DCN MP00190), which 
presents a table of the pollutants by analytical method and 
corresponding baseline values. See the Generic Sampling and Analysis 
Plan (GSAP) (USEPA. 2023. DCN MP00136) and the facility-specific 
sampling and analysis plans (SAPs) (USEPA. 2023. DCN MP00149, DCN 
MP00137, DCN MP00150, DCN MP00151, DCN MP00152, DCN MP00153) for more 
information on sampling procedures. EPA has included in the MPP 
Rulemaking Record all information collected for which each facility has 
not asserted a claim of CBI or which would indirectly reveal 
information claimed to be CBI.

VII. Proposed Regulation

A. Description of the Options

    As previously described, EPA's 2019 cross-cutting review of 
nutrient discharges from 59 industrial categories found that the MPP 
point source category discharged some of the highest nitrogen and 
phosphorus levels of all industries. OW initiated a detailed study in 
2020 and announced a rulemaking to revise the ELGs in EPA's Preliminary 
Plan 15 based on information suggesting facilities can do more to 
control nutrients and other pollutants and that revisions could reduce 
discharges affecting underserved and overburdened communities (USEPA. 
2021. EPA-821-R-21-003). EPA identified technologies currently in use 
by MPP facilities that can further reduce nitrogen discharges below the 
levels that are found in the existing ELGs, which were last revised in 
2004. In addition, MPP facilities are currently using technologies to 
remove phosphorus, which is not regulated under the existing MPP ELGs. 
This proposal evaluates three regulatory options as shown in Table VII-
2 of this preamble. While developing these regulatory options, EPA's 
goal was to reduce pollutant discharges to surface waters, reduce and/
or eliminate interference and passthrough at POTWs receiving MPP 
wastewater, and establish effluent limits and pretreatment standards 
based on technologies that are available and economically achievable 
for the industry, while minimizing impacts to small business.
    EPA considered and continues to consider ways to minimize impacts 
to small business when developing the regulatory options consistent 
with the statutory factors. As described in Section V, EPA identified 
5,055 MPP facilities generating process wastewater, and 3,879 of these 
facilities discharge to waters of the U.S. directly or indirectly. EPA 
carefully considered impacts of new or revised effluent limitations and 
pretreatment standards on small business by using facility production 
thresholds to distinguish smaller facilities with lower revenues from 
larger facilities. In developing the options, EPA evaluated differing 
thresholds for applicability of the proposed rule provisions to 
evaluate how impacts to small business would vary as more and smaller 
facilities would be subject to new and/or more stringent effluent 
limitations and pretreatment standards. The record supports that the 
impacts to small business from the preferred option (Option 1) would 
not be significant (see Section XVI.C). Under Option 1, most MPP 
facilities (79 percent) fall below the proposed production thresholds, 
and therefore, would have no new limitations. The proposed new 
limitations under Option 1 would impact 844 facilities, representing 21 
percent of the total number of MPP facilities discharging to waters of 
the U.S. and to POTWs.
    Under the most expansive option proposed (Option 3), new 
limitations would impact 1,618 facilities of the 3,879, or 42 percent 
of facilities discharging to waters of the U.S. and to POTWs. EPA also 
considered minimizing impacts to small businesses by basing effluent 
limitations on lower cost wastewater treatment technologies for 
facilities with lower production. For example, in Option 3, indirect 
discharging facilities producing below 5 million pounds per year would 
have no new requirements and indirect discharging facilities producing 
between 5 and 30 million pounds per year would have effluent 
limitations based on lower cost pretreatment technologies consisting of 
screening and DAF to control conventional pollutants only. Facilities 
producing 30 million pounds per year or greater would have additional 
requirements that include both conventional pollutant removal and 
nitrogen and phosphorus removal, and this would impact only 21 percent 
of indirect discharging facilities.
    Table VII-1 shows the total number of MPP facilities that have 
discharges followed by the number of facilities that EPA estimates 
would incur costs to comply with the requirements of the various 
regulatory options. All options build on the existing MPP ELGs and are 
based on three technologies: conventional pollutant (e.g., BOD, TSS, 
Oil & Grease) removal by screening and DAF, phosphorus removal by 
chemical precipitation, and nitrogen removal by biological treatment to 
achieve full denitrification. Each option

[[Page 4487]]

incrementally increases the subcategories and/or number of facilities 
to which the effluent limitations and pretreatment standards would 
apply. Nitrogen and phosphorus are two primary pollutants to be reduced 
with these regulatory options and the processes involved in removal are 
briefly described next.

 Table VII-1--Number of MPP Facilities--Total Discharging Facilities and Number That Would Incur Costs Under the
                                     Requirements of the Regulatory Options
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Total #
                                                                                 Total #           facilities
             Regulatory option                       Discharge type            dischargers      incurring costs
                                                                                                   under ELG
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1...................................  Directs......................                171                126
                                             Indirects....................              3,708                719
                                                                           -------------------------------------
                                                         Total                          3,879                845
Option 2...................................  Directs......................                171                126
                                             Indirects....................              3,708                719
                                                                           -------------------------------------
                                                         Total                          3,879                845
Option 3...................................  Directs......................                171                135
                                             Indirects....................              3,708               1485
                                                                           -------------------------------------
                                                         Total                          3,879              1,620
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nitrogen removal is carried out through a three-step biological 
process: (1) The conversion of ammonia from organic nitrogen by 
hydrolysis and microbial activities, called ammonification; (2) the 
aerobic conversion of ammonia to nitrate by reacting the ammonia with 
oxygen in a process called nitrification; and (3) the conversion of 
nitrate to nitrogen gas by reacting the nitrate with organic carbon 
under anoxic conditions in a process called denitrification. Phosphorus 
can be removed from wastewater by biological uptake by microorganisms 
and by chemical precipitation with a metal cation. Depending on the 
target concentration, a plant process might employ both technologies. 
Such a combined approach might be of particular benefit if the target 
concentration is very low and the starting concentration is high. In 
such a case, biological removal is used to remove the bulk of the 
phosphorus, and chemical polishing follows to achieve the final 
concentration; such an approach tends to reduce sludge formation from 
denitrification (USEPA. 2008. EPA 832-R-08-006).
    For direct dischargers, all proposed options would establish 
revised effluent limitations that build upon the wastewater treatment 
systems that are the basis of the existing MPP ELGs. The ELGs that 
currently apply to these facilities are based on screens, DAF, 
anaerobic lagoons, biological treatment to achieve nitrification and 
partial denitrification, and chlorination/dechlorination. The effluent 
limitations for direct dischargers in today's proposal are based on 
more complete denitrification. Therefore, large facilities that already 
have denitrification technology for nitrogen removal would likely need 
to add more complete denitrification and chemical phosphorus removal 
technologies to comply with the proposed effluent limitations for total 
nitrogen and phosphorus. Smaller facilities could be subject to 
nutrient limits under the lower production thresholds in Option 3 and 
would presumably need to install this technology for the first time, 
since these facilities are currently below the applicability threshold 
for the existing ELG.
    Since there are no national pretreatment standards applicable to 
the MPP category, indirect discharging facilities are currently only 
subject to any local limits established by the control authority under 
the general pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR part 403. Wastewater 
treatment in place at indirect discharging facilities therefore ranges 
from no treatment to some treatment. Treatment ranges from basic 
treatment, such as screens and oil water separators, or more complex 
treatment such as DAF, anaerobic lagoons, biological treatment to 
achieve nitrification and denitrification, and phosphorus removal. To 
meet the proposed conventional pollutant pretreatment standards under 
the preferred Option 1, which is based on screens and DAF technology, 
existing indirect discharging facilities with no treatment in place now 
would likely need to install similar technologies. To meet the nitrogen 
and phosphorus pretreatment standards contained in Options 2 and 3, 
many indirect dischargers would likely need to add additional treatment 
such as anaerobic lagoons, biological treatment to achieve 
nitrification and full denitrification, and chemical phosphorus removal 
technologies. However, as described later in this preamble, EPA is 
proposing to include ``conditional limits'' under Options 2 and 3 which 
would allow an exemption from nutrient pretreatment standards for 
indirect dischargers that are discharging to POTWs that have nutrient 
removal capabilities that result in equivalent nutrient removal.
    Option 1 is EPA's preferred option and builds on the existing MPP 
ELGs by adding new effluent limitations for large direct and indirect 
dischargers. Option 1 would include new phosphorus limits for large 
direct dischargers based on chemical phosphorus removal technology, 
more stringent nitrogen limits for large direct dischargers based on 
full (not partial) denitrification, and new conventional pollution 
limits (pretreatment standards) for large indirect dischargers based on 
very basic wastewater treatment such as screening and DAF technologies 
to prevent passthrough and interference at POTWs. EPA requests comment 
on the concept of allowing POTWs, control authorities, or permit 
authorities to waive, under certain circumstances, the new conventional 
pollutant limits for large indirect dischargers. Although EPA is 
unclear how this would work in practice, it is possible that POTWs not 
experiencing passthrough and interference may be able to waive these 
pretreatment standards while continuing to prevent passthrough and 
interference. Additionally, POTWs that perform denitrification may want 
to waive BOD limits for their MPP industrial users so they can receive 
more carbon to support bacterial conversion of nitrates to nitrogen 
gas. EPA requests comment both on whether

[[Page 4488]]

such waivers should be allowed, and the demonstration necessary to 
justify such waivers.
    Large refers to the existing rule production thresholds of greater 
than 50 million pounds per year of finished product produced for meat 
further processors (Subcategories F-I) and in terms of LWK for meat 
slaughtering (Subcategories A-D). For poultry slaughtering (Subcategory 
K) large also refers to existing rule production thresholds of greater 
than 100 million pounds per year of LWK, greater than 7 million pounds 
per year of finished product produced for poultry further processors 
(Subcategory L), and 10 million pounds per year of raw material 
processed for renderers (Subcategory J).
    Option 2 builds on (includes all requirements in) Option 1 and 
would add nitrogen and phosphorus pretreatment standards for some large 
indirect discharging slaughterhouses and renderers. Specifically, 
Option 2 would add phosphorus and nitrogen limits for indirect 
discharging slaughterhouses producing greater than or equal to 200 
million pounds per year and indirect discharging renderers producing 
greater than or equal to 350 million pounds per year.
    Option 3 extends the requirements for both direct and indirect 
discharging facilities under Options 1 and 2 to smaller facilities. For 
direct discharging facilities, Option 3 would apply phosphorus and 
nitrogen limits to all subcategories producing greater than or equal to 
10 million pounds per year, and additional more stringent nitrogen 
limits in all subcategories producing greater than or equal to 20 
million pounds per year. For all indirect discharging facilities, 
Option 3 would require conventional pollutant limits for facilities 
producing greater than 5 million pounds per year, and nitrogen and 
phosphorus limits for facilities producing greater than 30 million 
pounds per year.
    Additionally, all options would include stricter fecal coliform 
limits for direct discharging facilities, based on chlorination/
dechlorination and UV disinfection (which is the same technology basis 
for the existing limitations for fecal coliform).
    In addition to the options described above, EPA solicits comment on 
including three additional requirements in any final rule. First, 
limitations on the discharge of chlorides by establishing a zero 
discharge of pollutants requirement for certain high chlorides 
wastestreams. The technology basis for this requirement is segregation 
of these wastestreams from other process wastewater streams and 
management via sidestream evaporation. EPA solicits comment on 
including this provision for all facilities (both direct and indirect) 
producing more than 5 million pounds per year with high chlorides 
processes. Second, EPA solicits comment on conditional limitations for 
phosphorus and nitrogen discharges from indirect dischargers under 
Options 2 and 3. Third, EPA solicits comment on limitations on E. coli 
for direct discharging facilities.

B. Proposed Changes to Subcategories

    As described above, EPA proposes to revise ELGs for facilities in 
the following MPP subcategories: Simple Slaughterhouses (Subcategory 
A), Complex Slaughterhouses (Subcategory B), Low-Processing 
Packinghouses (Subcategory C), and High-Processing Packinghouses 
(Subcategory D). Although the proposed options may establish differing 
production thresholds for applicability under these subcategories, EPA 
proposes to leave the definitions of these subcategories unchanged 
because the definitions are not based on production thresholds and 
effluent limitations in the proposed regulatory options would apply to 
a subset of these subcategories as they are currently defined.
    The Agency is not proposing revised ELGs for the small processor 
category (Subcategory E). Subcategory E is defined based on a size 
threshold of no more than 6,000 pounds per day (2.19M pounds per year) 
of any type or combination of finished product. EPA also proposes to 
leave applicability definitions for Subcategory E unchanged.
    EPA is proposing revised limitations and new pretreatment standards 
for facilities in the following MPP subcategories: Meat Cutters 
(Subcategory F), Sausage and Luncheon Meats Processors (Subcategory G), 
Ham Processors (Subcategory H), and Canned Meats Processors 
(Subcategory I). Subcategories F-I are currently defined based on a 
production rate greater than 6,000 pounds per day (2.19 million pounds 
per year), and EPA proposes to leave the definitions for these 
subcategories unchanged. However, EPA proposes to apply effluent 
limitations to a subset of these subcategories based on production 
thresholds, which could change under the proposed regulatory options.
    EPA is also proposing retaining the Renderer (Subcategory J) 
subcategory and revising the limitations and proposing new pretreatment 
standards for facilities in this subcategory. EPA proposes to leave the 
applicability definitions for Renderers (Subcategory J) unchanged as 
facilities using raw material at rates greater than 10 million pounds 
per year. However, EPA proposes to apply effluent limitations to a 
subset of these subcategories based on production thresholds, which 
could change under the proposed regulatory options.
    EPA is proposing establishing revised limitations and new 
pretreatment standards for facilities in the poultry subcategories. The 
poultry subcategories (Subcategory K, Poultry First Processing and 
Subcategory L, Poultry Further Processing) are not defined based on 
production and EPA proposes to leave the applicability definitions 
unchanged. However, EPA proposes to apply effluent limitations to a 
subset of these subcategories based on production thresholds, which 
could change under the proposed regulatory options.
    In summary, EPA is retaining the existing subcategories and 
proposing revisions to applicable effluent limitations and addition of 
new pretreatment standards for most of these subcategories. The 
proposed ELGs apply to subsets of facilities in each subcategory based 
on production thresholds. In establishing the original ELGs for this 
industry and in the 2004 revisions, EPA broke the industry down into 
subcategories with similar characteristics. This breakdown recognized 
the major differences among companies within the industry, which might 
reflect, for example, different processes or economies of scale. 
Subdividing an industry into subcategories results in more tailored 
regulatory standards, thereby increasing regulatory predictability and 
diminishing the need to address variations among facilities through a 
variance process (Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F. 2d 1011, 1053 
(D.C. Cir. 1978)). EPA proposes to retain the subcategories in the rule 
as they reflect differences in processes and wastewater strength and 
composition and EPA has not identified any additional processes or 
changes in processes since the 2004 rulemaking that would warrant 
revision of the existing subcategories or consideration of any 
additional subcategories.
    In addition to some specific requests for comment included 
throughout this proposal, EPA solicits comment on all aspects of this 
proposal, including the information, data, and assumptions EPA relied 
upon to develop the three regulatory options, as well as the proposed 
effluent limitations and pretreatment standards for existing and new 
facilities, and additional provisions (see Section F below) included in 
this proposal.

[[Page 4489]]



                                   Table VII-2--Summary of Regulatory Options
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Direct dischargers                     Indirect dischargers
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Applicable                              Applicable
                                   Technology basis       facilities       Technology basis       facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1........................  Adds to existing    >50 million lbs/yr  Conventional        >50 million lbs/yr
                                   ELG: full           of finished         pollution limits    of finished
                                   denitrification,    product produced    based on            product produced
                                   chemical            for meat further    screening/grit      for meat further
                                   phosphorus          processors, >50     removal, DAF, and   processors, >50
                                   removal, filter.    million lbs/yr      dewatering/solids   million lbs/yr
                                                       LWK for meat        handling.           LWK for meat
                                                       slaughtering,                           slaughtering,
                                                       >100 million lbs/                       >100 million lbs/
                                                       yr of LWK for                           yr of LWK for
                                                       poultry                                 poultry
                                                       slaughtering, >7                        slaughtering, >7
                                                       million lbs/yr of                       million lbs/yr of
                                                       finished product                        finished product
                                                       produced for                            produced for
                                                       poultry further                         poultry further
                                                       processors, >10                         processors, >10
                                                       million lbs/yr of                       million lbs/yr of
                                                       raw material                            raw material
                                                       processed for                           processed for
                                                       renderers.                              renderers.
Option 2........................  Same technology as  Same facilities as  Same technologies   Option 1
                                   Option 1.           Option 1.           as Option 1 plus    facilities plus
                                                                           anaerobic lagoon    slaughterhouses
                                                                           (BOD                producing >=200
                                                                           pretreatment),      million lbs/yr
                                                                           activated sludge    and renderers
                                                                           (nitrification      processing >=350
                                                                           and full            million lbs/yr
                                                                           denitrification),   raw material.
                                                                           chemical P
                                                                           removal, filter.
Option 3........................  Same technology as  Phosphorus and      Same technology as  Conventional
                                   Option 1.           nitrogen limits     Option 2.           limits for
                                                       for all direct                          facilities
                                                       discharging                             producing >5
                                                       facilities                              million lbs/yr
                                                       producing >= 10                         plus nitrogen and
                                                       million lbs/yr,                         phosphorus limits
                                                       and more                                for all
                                                       stringent                               facilities >30
                                                       nitrogen limits                         million lbs/yr.
                                                       to all facilities
                                                       producing >=20
                                                       million lbs/yr.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Rationale for the Preferred Option (Option 1)

    Considering the statutory criteria and factors described in Section 
IV above, EPA proposes to revise the ELGs based on BPT, BCT, BAT, PSES, 
PSNS, and BADCT (for NSPS) based on the technologies described in its 
preferred Option 1. EPA also solicits comment on the other proposed 
options (Options 2 and 3), and any other permutation of these options, 
although they are not the preferred option in this proposed rule for 
the reasons discussed in section VII. E below.
    As described in section IV, the CWA defines two increasingly 
stringent levels of control to be used for developing limits for 
classes of pollutants and specifies factors that need to be considered. 
BPT is the first level of control and applies to all pollutants 
(Southwestern Electric Power Co. v. EPA, 920 F.3d 999, 1006 (5th Cir. 
2019)). BPT limits are set based on the facilities representing ``the 
average of the best'' wastewater treatment in use by the industry. 
Statutory factors include consideration of total cost in relation to 
benefits; costs cannot be ``wholly disproportionate'' to benefits 
(Chem. Mfrs. Assn. v. EPA, 870 F.2d 177, 205 (5th Cir. 1989)).
    BAT represents the second level of control for toxic and non-
conventional pollutants such as nitrogen and phosphorus. In setting 
BAT, EPA uses not the ``average'' plant, but rather the ``single best 
performing plant'' in the industry (Chem. Mfrs. Assn. v. EPA, 870 F. 2d 
at 226 (5th Cir. 1989)). Unlike BPT, the BAT factors omit a cost-
benefit analysis, and replace it with a requirement to consider only 
the ``cost of achieving such effluent reduction'' (Southwestern Elec. 
Power Co. v. EPA, 920 F.3d at 1006 (5th Cir. 2019)). The CWA requires 
that BAT be ``economically achievable,'' which has been interpreted to 
mean that the costs of controls can be ``reasonably borne'' by the 
industry (Chem. Mfrs. Ass'n, 870 F.2d at 262 (5th Cir. 1989); BP 
Exploration & Oil, 66 F.3d 784, 799-800 (6th Cir. 1996)). BCT 
represents the second level of control for conventional pollutants such 
as oil & grease, BOD, TSS, fecal coliform, and pH. Statutory factors 
for BCT include a cost-reasonableness test.
    Under the preferred Option 1, for direct dischargers, EPA proposes 
to revise BPT/BAT for nitrogen and phosphorus and BPT/BCT for fecal 
coliform. For indirect dischargers, EPA proposes to establish PSES and 
PSNS based on BPT/BCT for TSS, BOD, and oil & grease.
1. Direct Discharging Facilities (BAT)
    For direct dischargers, EPA proposes BAT effluent limitations for 
nitrogen based on biological treatment to achieve full denitrification 
and BAT effluent limitations for phosphorus based on biological 
treatment with chemical precipitation with filtration. After 
considering the factors specified in CWA section 304(b)(2)(B) (33 
U.S.C. 1314(b)(2)(B)), EPA proposes to find that this technology is 
technologically available, economically achievable, and has acceptable 
non-water quality environmental impacts.
(a) Availability of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal Technologies
    ``In setting BAT, EPA uses not the average plant, but the optimally 
operating plant, the pilot plant which acts as a beacon to show what is 
possible'' (Kennecott v. EPA, 780 F.2d 445, 448 (4th Cir. 1985), citing 
A Legislative History of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 
1972, 93d Cong., 1st Sess. (Comm. Print 1973), at 798)). BAT is 
supposed to reflect the highest performance in the industry and may 
reflect a higher level of performance than is currently being achieved 
based on technology transferred from a different subcategory or 
category, bench scale or pilot plant studies, or foreign plants 
(Southwestern Elec. Power Co. v. EPA, 920 F.3d at 1006; Am. Paper Inst. 
v. Train, 543 F.2d 328, 353 (D.C. Cir. 1976); Am. Frozen Food Inst. v. 
Train, 539 F.2d 107, 132 (D.C. Cir. 1976)). BAT may be based upon 
process changes or internal controls, even when these technologies are 
not common industry practice (Am. Frozen Foods, 539 F.2d at 132, 140; 
Reynolds Metals Co. v. EPA, 760 F.2d

[[Page 4490]]

549, 562 (4th Cir. 1985); California & Hawaiian Sugar Co. v. EPA, 553 
F.2d 280, 285-88 (2nd Cir. 1977)). As recently reiterated by the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, ``Under our precedent, a 
technological process can be deemed available for BAT purposes even if 
it is not in use at all, or if it is used in unrelated industries. Such 
an outcome is consistent with Congress'[s] intent to push pollution 
control technology'' (Southwestern Elec. Power Co. v. EPA, 920 F.3d at 
1031, citation and internal quotations omitted). The technology bases 
for BAT are currently in use by MPP facilities across the sector. EPA 
has identified 14 facilities using enhanced nitrogen removal 
technologies and 22 using phosphorus removal technologies in both meat 
and poultry processing and rendering. These technologies are also 
widely used in municipal wastewater treatment in the U.S. and around 
the world. Accordingly, EPA proposes to find that such technologies are 
``available'' within the meaning of the statute.
(b) Economic Achievability of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal
    EPA proposes to find that the proposed BAT effluent limitations for 
total nitrogen and total phosphorus under the preferred Option 1 are 
economically achievable. Courts have interpreted economic achievability 
to mean that the cost of the regulations can be ``reasonably borne'' by 
the industry as a whole (Chem. Mfrs. Ass'n v. EPA, 870 F.2d 177, 262 
(5th Cir. 1989); BP Exploration & Oil v. EPA, 66 F.3d 784, 799-800 (6th 
Cir. 1996); see also Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. EPA, 286 F.3d 554, 570 
(D.C. Cir. 2002); CPC Int'l Inc. v. Train, 540 F.2d 1329, 1341-42 (8th 
Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 966 (1977)). `Congress clearly 
understood that achieving the CWA's goal of eliminating all discharges 
would cause ``some disruption in our economy,'' including plant 
closures and job losses' (Chem. Mfrs. Ass'n v. EPA, 870 F.2d at 252, 
citations omitted; see also id. at 252 n.337, reviewing cases in which 
courts have upheld EPA's regulations that projected up to 50 percent 
closure rates).
    EPA assesses economic achievability using two primary approaches. 
The main approach is to use a discounted cash flow analysis to predict 
the number of possible closures resulting from implementation of the 
regulatory option. The closure analysis compares the future costs of 
compliance to the facility's estimated future earnings during the same 
period. For this analysis, EPA is considering a facility that shows 
positive future earnings without the rule and negative future earnings 
with the rule (regardless of magnitude of the earnings) to be a 
potential closure. EPA often also uses a simple financial screening 
analysis to compare facility compliance cost-to-revenue (CTR), in order 
to assess the relative magnitude of the economic impacts to each 
facility. The higher the ratio of cost to revenue, the greater the 
potential impact on the facility. Facilities experiencing significant 
economic impacts may, among other possibilities, reduce production 
levels, make changes to production and facility operations, forgo 
future expansion, or close. A cost-to-revenue analysis does not predict 
these responses but is a reasonable way to assess the likelihood of 
these types of impacts. On the other hand, some indirect facilities, 
depending on how their utility fees are structured, may incur lower 
payments to the receiving POTW due to lower pollutant loads being sent 
to the POTW.
    EPA proposes to find that the preferred Option 1 is economically 
achievable in terms of affordability to the industry as a whole because 
results from both the BAT analysis of potential closures and the BAT 
CTR analysis show that potential closures and financial impacts are 
limited to a single facility that accounts for approximately one 
percent of discharging facilities and less than one percent (0.02 
percent) of the total universe of MPP facilities. See Section VIII and 
the Cost and Economic Impact Screening Analyses and the Facility 
Closure Analysis sections of the RIA for more detailed results. 
Additionally, EPA also performed a market analysis that estimates the 
proposed Option 1 would change market prices for major meat and poultry 
commodities by less than a tenth of a percent. See the Market Impact 
Analysis section of the RIA for more detailed results.
    The annualized social cost of the preferred option is $232 million 
and $227 million using a three percent and seven percent discount rate 
respectively. The total cost of a rulemaking does not in and of itself 
inform the Agency about its impact to the industry as a whole without 
understanding the economic conditions of that industry. For example, an 
industry with total annual sales of only $20 to $30 billion might 
experience disruptions due to annual costs of this magnitude. However, 
the MPP industry, as classified under NAICS 3116, is a relatively large 
industry. The American Survey of Manufacturers estimates that total 
sales for the industry in 2021 were $267 billion.\12\ Given the size of 
the MPP industry, EPA does not consider the total annual cost of the 
preferred Option 1 to be a determinative factor with respect to 
economic achievability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ U.S. Census Bureau. (2022). 2021 Annual Survey of 
Manufacturers: Summary Statistics for Industry Groups and Industries 
in the U.S.: 2018-2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(c) Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts of Nitrogen and Phosphorus 
Removal
    EPA proposes to find that the non-water quality environmental 
impacts of the preferred Option 1 (full denitrification, chemical 
phosphorus removal, and filtering) are acceptable. For further 
discussion of these impacts, see Section X.
    EPA's preferred Option 1 for direct dischargers, which EPA 
estimates would require 125 of 171 total direct dischargers to install 
additional wastewater controls, would add an estimated additional 
78,989 MWh of demand to the U.S. power grid. This would increase the 
total power demand of the U.S. by 0.0000019 percent, based on the U.S. 
generating 4,108 billion MWh in 2021 nationwide (EIA, 2021).\13\ 
Preferred Option 1 for direct dischargers is also estimated to increase 
the US CO2 emissions by 34,898 tons per year, or an 0.00058 
percent increase of the nationwide total (Climate Change Indicators: 
U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. USEPA. 2023).\14\ In 2020, U.S. 
CO2 greenhouse gas emissions totaled 5,981 million metric 
tons of CO2 equivalents. EPA also estimates that an 
additional 286,685 tons of sludge will be generated under preferred 
Option 1. EPA proposes to find that the additional energy requirements, 
greenhouse gas emissions and sludge production are acceptable under the 
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2021. Electric 
Power Annual Report. www.eia.gov/electricity/annual.
    \14\ https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Indirect Discharging Facilities (PSES/PSNS)
    To control pollutants discharged by indirect discharging 
facilities, EPA establishes categorical pretreatment standards for 
existing sources (PSES) and for new sources (PSNS). Before establishing 
PSES/PSNS for a pollutant, EPA examines whether the pollutant ``passes 
through'' a POTW or interferes with the POTW operation or sludge 
disposal practices. In determining whether a pollutant passes through 
POTWs for these purposes, EPA typically compares the percentage of a 
pollutant removed by well-operated

[[Page 4491]]

POTWs performing secondary treatment to the percentage removed by 
direct dischargers operating the BPT/BAT technology basis. A pollutant 
is determined to pass through POTWs when the average percentage removed 
nationwide by well-operated POTWs performing secondary treatment is 
less than the average percentage removed by direct dischargers 
operating the BPT/BAT technology basis. EPA establishes pretreatment 
standards for those pollutants regulated under BPT/BAT that pass 
through POTWs. In this way, the standards for indirect dischargers are 
equivalent to direct dischargers in that the treatment capability and 
performance of POTWs is recognized and taken into account in regulating 
the pollutants from indirect dischargers.
    The Meat and Poultry Products POTW Passthrough Analysis (the 
Passthrough Analysis) indicates that oil & grease, BOD, TSS, TN and TP 
pass through POTWs (USEPA. 2023. DCN MP00309). EPA did not conduct its 
traditional passthrough analysis for the management of high chloride 
wastestreams that are being included for consideration as an additional 
regulated waste stream under all the proposed regulatory options. 
Rather, for chlorides, because the BAT technology for the proposed 
zero-discharge limitations and standards would achieve 100 percent 
removal of chlorides, and POTWs do not remove chlorides, the record 
supports a finding of passthrough absent this analysis.
(a) BAT Rationale for PSES/PSNS for Nutrients
    After considering all the relevant statutory factors and wastewater 
technologies presented in this preamble and the TDD, EPA is not 
proposing to establish pretreatment standards (PSES/PSNS) for nitrogen 
and phosphorus removal for indirect dischargers under its preferred 
Option 1 for the reasons discussed in Section VII.E below. However, EPA 
is soliciting comment on the other proposed regulatory options (Options 
2 and 3) and any other regulatory options that would include such 
pretreatment standards for nutrients (See Section VII.D below).
(b) BPT/BCT Rationale for PSES/PSNS for Conventional Pollutants
    Under preferred Option 1, EPA proposes to establish PSES based on 
the BPT level of control for conventional pollutants (BOD, TSS, oil & 
grease) based on screening and DAF technologies. After considering all 
the relevant factors and wastewater technologies presented in this 
preamble and in the TDD, EPA proposes to find that this technology is 
available, imposes costs that are not wholly disproportionate to 
effluent reduction benefits, and has acceptable non-water quality 
environmental impacts.
(c) Technological Availability
    Courts have interpreted BPT to represent the ``average of the 
best'' performance (EPA v. National Crushed Stone Assn., 449 U.S. 64, 
76 (1977). See also, Kennecott Copper v. EPA, 612 F.2d 1232, 1238 (10th 
Cir. 1979); Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1059, 1062 (D.C. 
Cir. 1978); American Petroleum Institute v. EPA, 540 F.2d 1023, 1034 
(10th Cir. 1976); American Frozen Food Institute v. Train, 539 F.2d 
107, 117, 119 (D.C. Cir.1976); American Meat Inst. v. EPA, 526 F.2d 
442, 462 (7th Cir. 1975); cert. denied, 430 U.S. 922 (1977); Tanners' 
Council of America, Inc. v. Train, 540 F.2d 1188, 1191 (4th Cir.1976)). 
The technologies forming the bases for the proposed BPT revisions 
represent the average of the best performance as they are in use by MPP 
facilities across the subcategories. EPA has identified 21 indirect 
discharging facilities using screening and DAF technologies in both 
meat and poultry processing and rendering. In addition, these 
technologies are widely used at direct discharging facilities. Most 
facilities use some type of oil & grease removal technology, and DAF is 
the most commonly used by MPP facilities. Furthermore, these 
technologies are widely used by a variety of industrial classes and in 
municipal wastewater treatment for the control of conventional 
pollutants. See the TDD for additional discussion of DAF. DAF 
technologies have a small footprint, and EPA has no data indicating 
that the facilities that would be subject to pretreatment standards for 
conventional pollutants under the preferred Option 1 would not be able 
to implement DAF technologies at existing and new facilities.
(d) Costs of Conventional Pollutants Removal (BPT/BCT)
    Caselaw and the CWA's legislative history indicate that to revise 
BPT, EPA is to employ a limited cost-benefit balancing test, applying 
controls unless the costs are wholly disproportionate to the effluent 
reduction benefits (Chem. Mfrs. Ass'n v. EPA, 870 F.2d 177, 204, 205 
(5th Cir. 1989); Kennecott Copper v. EPA, 612 F.2d 1232, 1238 (10th 
Cir. 1979); American Meat Inst. v. EPA, 526 F.2d 442, 453 (7th Cir. 
1975); cert. denied, 430 U.S. 922 (1977); America Frozen Food v. Train, 
539 F.2d 107, 117, 119 (D.C. Cir. 1976). See also, A Legislative 
History of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 93d 
Cong. 1st Sess. at 169-170 (Comm. Print 1973)). EPA's analysis shows 
that the effluent reduction benefits are not wholly disproportionate to 
the costs of conventional pollutant removal technologies under the 
preferred Option 1 (see Section VIII.A for additional details). The 
costs are $32.84 million, and the effluent reduction is 234 million 
pounds per year of pollutants removed. Additionally, upgrading from the 
candidate BPT to BCT candidate technology (which is screening/grit 
removal, DAF, anaerobic lagoon, and biological treatment) did not pass 
the BCT cost test, and thus, EPA is proposing to set BCT as equal to 
BPT (see Section VIII B.).
(e) Non-Water-Quality Environmental Impacts (BPT/BCT)
    The record supports that removal of conventional pollutants under 
the preferred Option 1 would have acceptable non-water quality 
environmental impacts, including energy requirements (see Section X of 
this preamble).
    EPA's preferred Option 1 includes removal of the conventional 
pollutants BOD, oil & grease, and TSS from the meat and poultry 
facility's discharge before sending it to the POTW for further 
treatment. Under Option 1, 719 out of 3,708 indirect discharging 
facilities would incur an estimated 1,699 MWh of energy demand. 
Although most of this energy demand would be a shift from the POTW to 
the MPP facility, some portion of this could result in an additional 
energy demand to the U.S. power grid. This total power demand under 
preferred Option 1 is 0.000000041 percent of the U.S. power generation 
(based on 4,108 billion MWh in 2021 nationwide), which EPA proposes to 
find is acceptable (EIA, 2021).\15\ EPA also proposes to find that the 
additional GHG increases would be acceptable. Preferred Option 1 for 
indirect dischargers is estimated to increase the U.S. CO2 
emissions by 753 tons per year, or an 0.000013 percent increase of the 
nationwide total (based on U.S. CO2 greenhouse gas emissions 
of 5,981 million metric tons of CO2 equivalents in 2020) 
(Climate Change Indicators: U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. USEPA. 
2023). Similarly preferred Option 1 for indirect dischargers would 
increase the sludge production by an estimated 11,961 tons of sludge 
per year, across 719 indirectly

[[Page 4492]]

discharging facilities, which EPA also proposes to find to be 
acceptable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2021. Electric 
Power Annual Report. www.eia.gov/electricity/annual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Rationale for Other Regulatory Options Proposed (Options 2 and 3)

    EPA also evaluated the applicability of the statutory factors with 
respect to the other regulatory options proposed (Options 2 and 3), 
although EPA is not proposing these as the preferred option for the 
reasons discussed in Section VII.E below. With respect to technological 
availability, the technologies assessed for Options 2 and 3 are widely 
used in municipal wastewater treatment in the U.S. and around the 
world. The record supports that such technologies are available in that 
they effectively remove the pollutants addressed in this rulemaking. 
However, there may be constraints on availability of nutrient removal 
technologies with respect to indirect dischargers (as discussed in 
Section VII.E below), and EPA solicits information about such potential 
constraints. With respect to the statutory cost tests for BPT, BCT and 
BAT for Options 2 and 3, see Section VIII below. EPA's comparison of 
costs to benefits of the proposed BPT/BCT limitations under those 
options would historically support a finding that the costs are not 
``wholly disproportionate'' to the benefits. Similarly, the possible 
facility closures and cost to revenue ratio of the proposed BAT 
limitations are within the range of impacts that EPA has historically 
considered to be economically achievable, as required by CWA section 
301(b)(2)(A) (33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(2)(A)). EPA reasonably considered 
impacts on small businesses in setting production thresholds for 
applicability based on avoiding cost to revenue ratios indicating 
likelihood of economic impacts, as identified in the Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis guidance (CWA section 304(b)(2)(B), authorizing 
consideration of ``such other factors as the Administrator deems 
appropriate'' in establishing BAT). With respect to non-water quality 
environmental impacts of the BPT/BCT and BAT technologies under Options 
2 and 3, see Section X below. EPA solicits comment on whether these 
proposed options--or other regulatory options based on different 
production thresholds or technologies--would meet the applicable 
statutory factors and should form the basis of any final rule.

E. Rationale for Rejecting Options 2 and 3 as the Preferred Option

    As discussed above, EPA considered two proposed options (Options 2 
and 3) that would be more expansive than Option 1. EPA did not select 
these as the preferred option due to several potential concerns. First, 
EPA is concerned that the more expansive options may impede the Biden 
Administration's initiatives to expand independent meat and poultry 
processing capacity and enhance the resilience of the food supply 
chain, as reflected in Executive Order (E.O.) 14036 (July 9, 2021). 
This is a crucial Administration priority to protect against the type 
of supply chain disruptions that arose during the COVID-19 pandemic. In 
issuing the E.O., the Administration explained that without such 
diversification, ``our food supply chains are susceptible to shocks,'' 
and that ``[w]hen COVID-19 or other disasters such as fires or 
cyberattacks shutter a plant, many ranchers have no other place to take 
their animals'' See Fact Sheet: The Biden-Harris Action Plan for a 
Fairer, More Competitive, and More Resilient Meat and Poultry Supply 
Chain (The White House. 2022) (noting that ``our overreliance on just a 
handful of giant processors leaves us all vulnerable, with any 
disruptions at these bottlenecks rippling throughout our food 
system.'').\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/01/03/fact-sheet-the-biden-harris-action-plan-for-a-fairer-more-competitive-and-more-resilient-meat-and-poultry-supply-chain/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Relative to many other industries regulated by ELGs, the MPP 
industry plays a critical role in the nation's food supply chain. The 
supply chain disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the 
problems with the consolidation of the industry over the last 50 years 
and how susceptible it is to shocks. The pandemic disrupted both the 
market supply and demand patterns typically observed. As the demand for 
meat and poultry from restaurants declined dramatically in response to 
the public lock down efforts, the demand for meat from grocery stores 
and on-line sources rose.\17\ At the same time, COVID began to spread 
rapidly through meat and poultry processing facilities. This resulted 
in a significant short-run disruption to supply as facilities 
temporarily closed and many more reduced line speeds due to both worker 
shortages and safety concerns.\18\ These combined changes to demand and 
supply led to shortages and higher prices for many meat and poultry 
commodities (The White House. 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Hobbs J.E. (2021). The Covid-19 pandemic and meat supply 
chains. Meat science, 181, 108459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2021.108459.
    \18\ Whitehead, D., & Brad Kim, Y.H. (2022). The Impact of COVID 
19 on the Meat Supply Chain in the USA: A Review. Food science of 
animal resources, 42(5), 762-774. https://doi.org/10.5851/kosfa.2022.e39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's analysis showed Options 2 and 3 have more potential facility 
closures than Option 1 due to the requirements imposed on additional 
facilities, thus potentially harming the Administration's priority to 
expand and diversify the meat and poultry processing industry. For this 
reason, EPA is selecting Option 1 as the preferred proposed option at 
this time, rather than more expansive options, as it would allow the 
Agency to achieve significant reductions in nutrients and conventional 
pollutants in a way that avoids potential supply chain disruptions in 
the nation's food supply, consistent with the policy direction in the 
E.O. While EPA's analysis shows Option 1 may result in 16 possible 
facility closures, this represents 0.03 percent of total industry 
facilities, and thus, any supply chain disruptions from such possible 
closures would be minimal, temporary and localized. In addition, the 
forecasted change in industry production levels due to the preferred 
Option 1 is estimated to be only 0.01 percent. By comparison, EPA's 
analysis shows that potential facility closures would be 22 under 
Option 2 and 53 under Option 3, supporting EPA's selection of Option 1 
as the preferred proposed option. See the Other Economic Factors 
section of the RIA for a more in-depth discussion of this issue.
    The CWA gives EPA authority to consider these policy concerns in 
determining BAT (CWA section 304(b)(2)(B) (authorizing consideration of 
``such other factors as the Administrator deems appropriate'' in 
assessing BAT); Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1045 (D.C. Cir. 
1978) (Congress intended that EPA have discretion ``to decide how to 
account for the consideration factors, and how much weight to give each 
factor.'')).
    At the same time, EPA intends to consider any impact of federal 
financial assistance on wastewater treatment upgrades at these 
facilities. EPA seeks comment on whether other federal funds or other 
programs could reduce or minimize potential impacts of the more 
expansive options on the Administration's efforts to support the meat 
and poultry supply chain.
    EPA has also heard from small entity representatives (SERs) during 
EPA's SBREFA panel process (Final Panel Report of the Small Business 
Advocacy Review Panel on EPA's Planned Proposed Meat and Poultry 
Products Effluent Limitations Guidelines Rulemaking. USEPA. 2023. DCN 
MP00347) that there are potential

[[Page 4493]]

concerns about the availability of nitrogen removal technologies under 
Options 2 and 3, due to space limitations for such technologies at some 
facilities. Although these technologies are currently in use in the 
industry, these technologies require a greater land area than DAF (the 
conventional pollutant control technology that is the basis for the 
limits on indirect dischargers under Option 1), particularly at 
facilities with high wastewater flows. EPA has heard concerns from SERs 
with respect to facilities located in or near urbanized areas where 
sufficient space may not be available to install certain components of 
nitrification/denitrification technology, such as aerobic and anaerobic 
lagoons. Industry stakeholders have also indicated that zoning 
restrictions may prevent them from acquiring adjacent parcels of land 
that may be needed for installation of such technology. EPA estimates 
that 143 indirect discharging facilities would incur costs to comply 
with nitrogen and phosphorus effluent limits under Option 2 and 777 
such facilities would incur costs to comply with limits under Option 3, 
many of which would need to install nitrogen control technologies for 
the first time. EPA would like additional information about available 
space at such facilities, as well as information on other high rate/
small footprint nutrient removal technologies that might be available 
to treat MPP wastewater.
    EPA also heard from SERs concern about the availability of nutrient 
control technologies for indirect dischargers under Options 2 and 3 due 
to ongoing supply chain issues and labor shortages in the wastewater 
treatment industry. While these technologies are widely available and 
have been used in many industrial and municipal wastewater treatment 
facilities across the country to remove nutrients, SERs have raised 
concerns about the timing of such availability. The amount of a good 
supplied for a market can take time to adjust to a sudden large 
increase in demand. In addition, if there is a temporary spike in 
demand resulting from many facilities needing to come into compliance 
at the same time, there may not be an incentive for the companies that 
make and install these technologies to increase their long-term 
capacity. Given the large number of indirect facilities that would need 
to install new nutrient removing treatment technologies under Options 2 
and 3, there is a potential for implementation delays. These 
implementation delays could result in facilities operating out of 
compliance or temporarily closing until they are able to get the new 
control technology in place. See the Other Economic Factors Section of 
the RIA for a more in-depth discussion of this issue.
    Given the large number of indirect discharging facilities that 
would likely need to install nutrient removal technologies under 
Options 2 and 3, and the ongoing supply chain issues, it is not clear 
whether these technologies will be available in sufficient quantity to 
allow for installation within the three-year statutory timeframe for 
pretreatment standards under CWA section 307(b) (33 U.S.C 1317(b)). EPA 
solicits additional information about production capacity for nutrient 
control technologies in the industry, given that the Nation is 
currently in the process of significant investments in water 
infrastructure as part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
    In addition, EPA is considering whether there are compliance 
flexibilities for indirect discharging facilities that would allow for 
additional time beyond the three-year statutory timeframe in CWA 
section 307(b) (33 U.S.C. 1317(b)), in light of potential concerns 
about availability of technology due to supply chain issues. EPA 
solicits comment on how it could implement new pretreatment standards 
consistent with this provision recognizing that there could be supply 
chain issues preventing facilities from installing the treatment 
technologies. For example, one option could be to allow phased 
implementation based on size thresholds, whereby larger facilities 
would be required to install such technologies within three years of 
the effective date of the rule, while smaller facilities would be 
allowed additional time to install such technologies, based on a 
demonstration that the facility is contractually bound to procure the 
technology within a specified time of the effective date. EPA solicits 
comment on such an approach, or other implementation flexibilities for 
indirect discharging facilities, should the Agency decide to finalize a 
rule based on a more expansive option than the preferred Option 1.
    Should the Agency decide to promulgate a rule based on a more 
expansive option, EPA is considering conditional limits under these 
options (see Section VII.F) to reduce costs and eliminate the need for 
redundant treatment. To better understand the potential use of such 
conditional limits, EPA solicits information about how many POTWs that 
receive MPP wastewater have nitrogen and phosphorus removal 
technologies that could provide an equivalent level of treatment, and 
whether such flexibilities may result in significant cost savings, 
including any relevant data on incremental cost savings or other 
benefits.
    EPA has also heard from industry representatives that since 
nitrification/denitrification technologies also remove organic 
pollutants (as measured by BOD5), there is some concern 
about the ability of POTWs to meet their discharge limitations should 
indirect discharging MPP facilities be required to meet nitrogen 
pretreatment standards. The secondary treatment regulations at 40 CFR 
133.102 require POTWs to achieve a 30-day average percent removal of 
BOD and TSS of not less than 85 percent. If MPP facilities currently 
discharge a significant quantity of organic pollutants to a POTW, that 
load would be reduced after meeting any nitrogen pretreatment 
standards. That may therefore reduce the percent reduction in BOD 
achieved at the POTW since the POTW would be receiving more dilute 
flows. While EPA notes that the secondary treatment regulations at 
133.103(d) allow for consideration of less concentrated influent 
wastewater and the substitution of a lower percent removal requirement 
or a mass loading limit for the percent removal requirement by the 
Regional Administrator or State Director, which could address this 
issue, EPA solicits additional comments on this concern from the POTW 
community.

F. Additional Provisions

    In addition to seeking comment on the three proposed regulatory 
options, EPA solicits public comment on three additional provisions 
that would apply with respect to some of these options: First, with 
respect to the pretreatment standards for nitrogen and phosphorus that 
would apply to indirect dischargers under Options 2 and 3, EPA solicits 
comment on a provision that would allow an exemption from these limits 
for indirect discharging MPP facilities discharging to POTWs that 
provide equivalent nutrient removal as would be required under the 
proposed PSES/PSNS. Such ``conditional limits'' have been used in 
previous ELGs, such as the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Effluent 
Guidelines (40 CFR 420.15). EPA is considering including such a 
provision in any final rule that would contain nutrient pretreatment 
standards (such as under Options 2 or 3) because nitrogen and 
phosphorus removal technologies involve more costly, advanced treatment 
than is required for conventional pollutants and some facilities have 
already shared costs to upgrade their receiving POTW to remove 
nutrients to meet Water Quality Based Effluent

[[Page 4494]]

Limits in the POTW's discharge permits. If the receiving POTW is 
providing equivalent nutrient removal, then the MPP facilities may not 
need to pretreat their wastewater to remove nutrients to achieve an 
equivalent environmental outcome. Conditional provisions that allow 
this flexibility, provided the POTW agrees, would reduce costs for 
indirect dischargers where the POTW already has nutrient removal 
technologies and eliminate redundant treatment. For conditional limits 
applied to a MPP facility, EPA solicits comment on how to structure 
such a provision to include factors such as what treatment at the POTW 
could be considered equivalent, whether the POTW permit should contain 
nitrogen and phosphorus effluent limits at least as stringent as the 
pretreatment standards that would be required at the MPP facility, how 
to demonstrate compliance, how to ensure that the POTW has the capacity 
and ability to adequately treat such wastewaters while maintaining its 
design pollutant capacity reserved for the residential population, and 
the process by which the facility would request the conditional limits 
be applied and receive approval from their control authority.
    Second, EPA solicits comment on including E. coli as a regulated 
parameter for direct dischargers because the presence of E. coli is a 
more reliable indicator of pathogen pollution than the presence of 
fecal coliforms. E. coli, a predominate member of normal gut microflora 
in warm blooded animals, has a limited capacity for reproduction 
outside of the intestinal tract, making its presence in environmental 
samples a strong indicator of fecal contamination (Odonkor and Ampofo. 
2013).\19\ Fecal coliforms, a large group of thermotolerant bacteria, 
include some bacterial species of environmental origin and therefore 
can result in false positives for fecal contamination (Doyle and 
Erickson. 2006).\20\ EPA updated its recreational water quality 
standards in 2012 (USEPA. 2012. EPA-820-F-12-058) and the Revised Total 
Coliform Rule in 2013 (USEPA. 2013. EPA 815-B-13-001) to reflect the 
current state of knowledge for indicator bacteria. Given these updates 
in the use of bacterial indicators for water quality, and that current 
disinfection technology can consistently reduce the presence of these 
indicator bacteria below the current MPP ELGs, EPA is soliciting 
comment on more stringent fecal coliform limits for direct dischargers 
based on BCT/BPT as well as limits for E. coli for direct dischargers 
based on BAT as part of the preferred option in this proposed rule. EPA 
also solicits comment on replacing fecal coliform limits with E. coli 
limits in any final rule to reduce redundancy in monitoring and limit 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Odonkor, S.T.; Ampofo, J.K. 2013. Escherichia coli as an 
indicator of bacteriological quality of water: An overview. 
Microbiology Research, 4(1), e2. https://doi.org/10.4081/mr.2013.e2.
    \20\ Doyle, M.P.; Erickson, M.C. 2006. Closing the door on the 
fecal coliform assay. Microbe. 1, 162-163.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, EPA solicits comment on including BAT/NSPS/PSES/PSNS 
chloride limits for certain wastestreams to remove salts from facility 
discharges in any final rule based on BAT. In the meat processing 
industry, salts may be used in further processing and for water 
softening purposes. The presence of chlorides in discharges to surface 
waters can adversely affect aquatic organisms because of their 
sensitivity to concentrations of salt. A review of chlorides data in 
2021 discharge monitoring reports from ICIS-NPDES showed about 70 
percent of MPP facilities are discharging wastewater with chloride 
concentrations exceeding ambient water quality criteria of 230 mg/L and 
secondary drinking water standards of 250 mg/L (the reported 70th 
percentile of these data was 254 mg/L). Although removing salt is 
difficult and can be expensive, and therefore treating the whole 
wastewater effluent may not be the most efficient way to control 
chlorides, some facilities have certain operations with process 
wastewater that is kept separate from the main waste stream. These 
processes include hide processing, water softening regeneration 
wastewater, meat and poultry koshering, and further processing 
operations involving marinating and curing. Segregation and treatment 
of these process wastestreams is currently in place at some MPP 
facilities. Segregation and management of these high chloride 
wastestreams could result in targeted reductions of up to 477 million 
pounds of salt discharges annually at a cost of $172 million annually 
if applied to 466 facilities under Options 1, 2 and 3.
    EPA is considering salt recycle/evaporation systems as the 
technology basis for establishing BAT/NSPS/PSES/PSNS limitations to 
control chlorides discharged in high chlorides waste streams in any 
final rule. EPA is considering effluent limitations for chlorides for 
direct and indirect discharging facilities in any subcategory with 
production greater than 5 million pounds per year with high chlorides 
processes. Analysis indicates that these technologies may be available, 
economically achievable, and have acceptable non-water quality 
environmental impacts. See section 12 of the TDD for additional details 
on the non-water quality environmental impacts of this provision. EPA 
is not including this provision as part of the preferred option in 
today's proposal, but rather is soliciting comment on including such a 
provision in any final rule. In particular, EPA solicits comment on the 
potential costs of such a provision, and specifically on the cost 
methodology and results contained in the TDD.

G. Small Business Considerations From the Small Business Advocacy 
Review Panel

    Although this proposed rule would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has 
tried to reduce the impact of this proposed rule on small entities and 
completed the Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) panel to take input 
from small entities. EPA's proposed preferred option would not expand 
applicability to smaller direct discharging facilities, but it would 
propose first-ever national pretreatment standards for indirect 
discharging facilities. EPA's analysis (see Section VIII) shows that 
Option 1 would apply to 96 small firms. This section discusses the 5 
recommendations from the SBAR panel.
    EPA recognizes that under all options considered some facilities 
will be subject to pretreatment standards and/or categorical discharge 
standards for the first time, and therefore, may not be familiar with 
certain aspects of NPDES permitting and/or pretreatment standards. EPA 
also heard concerns during the SBAR panel outreach meetings with SERs 
specifically related to a lack of familiarity with effluent guidelines 
and pretreatment standards. One of the five recommendations was for EPA 
therefore to solicit comments on what information small facilities 
would find beneficial (e.g., terms to know for determining 
applicability and compliance, information from the POTW or control 
authority, information on the general permitting process, wastewater 
operator requirements, and how to measure annual production) that could 
be addressed through guidance or other materials that EPA could provide 
should any final rule expand applicability to small firms beyond the 
current rule. EPA therefore solicits comment from small entities on 
this topic.
    EPA also heard from SERs about concerns related to production 
thresholds for applicability of the ELGs. While EPA's proposed 
regulatory

[[Page 4495]]

options minimize impacts on small entities, another recommendation that 
EPA also solicits comment on is whether the proposed production 
thresholds could be adjusted to further minimize such impacts, 
particularly with respect to Options 2 and 3 as those options expand 
coverage to additional facilities as compared to Option 1. A third 
recommendation that EPA also solicits comment on is for alternatives to 
production thresholds for determining regulation, such as water usage, 
specifically as a way to minimize impacts to small firms or to provide 
an alternative means of determining applicability to small firms that 
may not track production.
    Under Options 2 and 3, EPA is considering conditional limits for 
facilities that discharge to POTWs with nitrogen and phosphorus limits 
and treatment capabilities equivalent to the treatment that would be 
needed to comply with any new proposed requirements. For these indirect 
discharging facilities, with documentation and approval by the POTW/
control authority, the MPP facilities would not need to treat the 
wastewater for nitrogen and phosphorus before discharging to the POTW. 
A fourth Panel recommendation that EPA also requests comment on is the 
inclusion of conditional limits, and specifically what documentation 
and approval by the POTW/control authority would be sufficient to 
establish conditional limits as a compliance mechanism.
    The fifth recommendation was for EPA to consider and take comment 
on a longer or flexible timeline for small entities to meet proposed 
regulations. EPA requests comment from small entities on what kind of 
timeline flexibilities would be helpful. See the SBREFA panel report 
for additional details regarding these and other considerations that 
were raised by SERs (USEPA. 2023. DCN MP00347).

VIII. Costs, BPT Wholly Disproportionate Cost Test, Economic 
Achievability, and Other Economic Impacts

    This section provides an overview of the methodology EPA used to 
assess the costs and the economic impacts of the three options 
considered in the proposed rule and summarizes the results of these 
analyses. EPA separately assessed the cost and economic impacts of the 
BPT, BCT, and BAT requirements for each regulatory option proposed. 
Then EPA assessed the combined economic effects of all BPT, BCT, and 
BAT requirements for each option for purposes of implementing the 
Regulatory Impact Analysis required by E.O. See the RIA and supporting 
information in the docket for additional detail. The proposed rule 
would revise BPT for conventional pollutants and consider whether more 
stringent BCT limits pass the two-part BCT cost test (51 FR 24974 (July 
9,1986)). For BPT, EPA performed a ``wholly disproportionate'' cost 
test for all direct and indirect discharging facilities that would be 
required to control conventional pollutants under the three proposed 
options. For BCT, EPA evaluated the reasonableness of BCT candidate 
technologies--those that remove more conventional pollutants than BPT--
by applying a two-part cost test. The two-part ``cost reasonableness'' 
test requires: (1) The cost per pound of conventional pollutant removed 
by dischargers in upgrading from BPT limits to the candidate BCT option 
must be less than the cost per pound of conventional pollutant removal 
by upgrading POTWs from secondary treatment to advanced secondary 
treatment (``the POTW test''); and (2) an assessment of industry costs 
per pound removed in upgrading from BPT to BCT relative to the costs 
per pound removed in going from no treatment to BPT, followed by a 
comparison of that ratio to the analogous ratio for POTWs (``the 
industry cost effectiveness test''). The industry ratio must be less 
than the POTW ratio to pass the test.
    The proposed rule would also revise BAT for non-conventional 
pollutants (nitrogen and phosphorus). EPA assessed the economic 
achievability of BAT for all direct and indirect facilities that would 
have requirements for non-conventional pollutants under the proposed 
options. In developing ELGs reflecting BAT, and as required by CWA 
section 301(b)(2)(A) (33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(2)(A)), EPA evaluates the 
economic achievability of the regulatory options to assess the impacts 
of applying the limitations and standards to the industry as a whole, 
which typically includes an assessment of incremental facility closures 
attributable to a regulatory option. As described in more detail below, 
this proposed ELG is expected to result in incremental costs when 
compared to baseline operations for many facilities. The cost and 
economic impact analysis for this proposed rulemaking focuses on 
understanding the magnitude and distribution of compliance costs across 
the industry and the broader market impacts. EPA used indicators to 
assess the impacts of the three regulatory options on the MPP industry. 
EPA considered the total cost to industry and change in the number and 
capacity of specific facilities expected to close under the proposed 
option, as well as the other options considered, compared to baseline. 
EPA also analyzed the ratio of compliance costs to revenue to see how 
the three options would change the number of plants and their owning 
entities that exceed thresholds indicating potential financial strain. 
In addition to the analyses supporting the economic achievability of 
the regulatory options, EPA conducted other analyses to (1) 
characterize other potential impacts of the regulatory options (e.g., 
on market prices) and (2) to meet the requirements of E.O.s or other 
statutes (e.g., E.O. 12866, Regulatory Flexibility Act, Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act).

A. BPT Wholly Disproportionate Cost Test

    EPA estimated facility-specific costs and loads for two levels of 
treatment technology reflected in the regulatory options developed. The 
first level of treatment was the use of DAF technology. This level of 
technology is already in place for direct discharging facilities 
reflecting the existing rule BPT, BCT and BAT requirements but would be 
a new requirement for indirect discharging facilities. The CWA requires 
that the EPA consider ``the total cost of application of technology in 
relation to the effluent reduction benefits to be achieved from such 
application,'' and these costs should not be wholly disproportionate to 
the corresponding effluent reduction benefits. As the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stated, ``The courts of appeal have 
consistently held that Congress intended section 304(b) to give the EPA 
broad discretion in considering the cost of pollution abatement in 
relation to its benefits and to preclude the EPA from giving the cost 
of compliance primary importance'' (Chemical Manufacturers Assn. v. 
U.S. EPA, 870 F.2d 177, 204, (5th Cir. 1989)).
    Table VIII-1 presents the annualized after-tax technology costs and 
associated pollutant load reductions for individual subcategories of 
facilities and the industry as a whole. Although BPT applies to both 
conventional and nonconventional pollutants, DAF technology is 
primarily employed to address conventional pollutants, so only 
conventional pollutant reductions are shown. Load reductions reflect 
the change in pollutants being discharged from regulated facilities to 
their receiving POTWs. The table demonstrates that under BPT, there 
would be significant reductions in conventional pollutant loading for 
each subcategory and the industry as a

[[Page 4496]]

whole, across all three options. Based on these results, EPA proposes 
to find that BPT costs for conventional pollutant reductions under the 
preferred Option 1 are not wholly disproportionate to the corresponding 
effluent reduction benefits. EPA also solicits comment on whether the 
BPT costs of conventional pollutant reductions under regulatory Options 
2 and 3, as reflected in the table below, are also not wholly 
disproportionate to the effluent reduction benefits.

                                                                                          Table VIII-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total
                                                                              annualized
                                                                              BPT costs      Oil &                                  Total        Oil &                                  Total
                Rule option                          Sub- categories             \21\        grease        BOD          TSS       pollutants     grease        BOD          TSS       pollutants
                                                                              (millions
                                                                              of $2022)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       BPT Reductions (M lbs/yr)
                                                                        BPT Ratio lbs/$
                                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1...................................  A-D...........................        $2.00            3            7            3           13        $0.63        $0.31        $0.65        $0.16
                                             F-I...........................         2.46            6            0            0            6         0.43        18.15        36.31         0.41
                                             J.............................         0.74            0            2            1            3         2.91         0.42         0.83         0.26
                                             K.............................         7.08            3           61          100          164         2.65         0.12         0.07         0.04
                                             L.............................         1.66            0            8           13           22         4.60         0.20         0.12         0.08
                                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                All........................        13.93           12           77          118          207         1.14         0.18         0.12         0.07
Option 2...................................  A-D...........................         2.00            3            7            3           13         0.63         0.31         0.65         0.16
                                             F-I...........................         2.46            6            0            0            6         0.43        18.15        36.31         0.41
                                             J.............................         0.74            0            2            1            3         2.91         0.42         0.83         0.26
                                             K.............................         7.08            3           61          100          164         2.65         0.12         0.07         0.04
                                             L.............................         1.66            0            8           13           22         4.60         0.20         0.12         0.08
                                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                All........................        13.93           12           77          118          207         1.14         0.18         0.12         0.07
Option 3...................................  A-D...........................        15.76            7           14            7           28         2.25         1.10         2.32         0.56
                                             F-I...........................         6.89           11            0            0           11         0.64        27.30        54.60         0.62
                                             J.............................         0.79            0            2            1            3         3.10         0.45         0.88         0.27
                                             K.............................         7.75            3           63          104          170         2.78         0.12         0.07         0.05
                                             L.............................         1.66            0            8           13           22         4.60         0.20         0.12         0.08
                                                                            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                All........................        32.84           21           88          126          234         1.55         0.37         0.26         0.14
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ All BPT and BAT costs were annualized using the weighted 
average cost of capital (WACC) for facilities. The WACC was derived 
based on facility responses to Industry Survey. See Section 5.2.3 of 
the Regulatory Impact Analysis for a detailed explanation of how the 
WACC was derived.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 $1.48 per pound (in 2022 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, for the preferred Option 1, EPA 
compared the cost of upgrading from the candidate BPT (based on screens 
followed with DAF technology for 720 large indirect facilities) to BCT 
(based on biological treatment to achieve full denitrification and 
chemical precipitation with filtration as described for BAT in Section 
VII C.1). The cost for these 719 facilities to upgrade from candidate 
BPT to candidate BCT would range from $0.26 to $1.32 per pound of 
pollutant removed depending on the subcategory. Option 2 involves the 
same 719 facilities receiving conventional pollutant removal 
technology; thus, the cost and results of this test would be the same 
as Option 1. Option 3 would require 1,485 indirect facilities to 
implement conventional pollutant removal technology, and the cost for 
these facilities to upgrade from candidate BPT to candidate BCT would 
range from $0.30 to $1.03 per pound of pollutant removed depending on 
the subcategory. The section 9 of the TDD provides more details on the 
calculations of the BCT cost tests.
    In developing BCT limits, EPA considered whether there are 
technologies that achieve greater removals of conventional pollutants 
than the candidate for BPT, and whether those technologies are cost-
reasonable according to the prescribed BCT tests. For Subcategories A 
through D, F through J, K, and L, EPA identified technologies that can 
achieve greater removals of conventional pollutants than the candidate 
BPT standards; however, this technology is full treatment (based on 
screening/grit removal, DAF, anaerobic lagoon, biological treatment, 
chemical phosphorus removal, sand filter, and solids handling), and EPA 
proposes to find that it does not pass the BCT cost test under any of 
the proposed options. Furthermore, since these limits are for indirect 
dischargers that send their wastewater to POTWs, and POTWs are designed 
to remove BOD, TSS, and oil & grease, EPA considers screens with DAF 
treatment an appropriate pretreatment technology for PSES/PSNS. 
Accordingly, EPA proposes to establish BCT effluent limitations equal 
to the candidate BPT limitations based on screens followed with DAF for 
indirect dischargers in these subcategories.

C. Economic Achievability Analysis for BAT

    For the second level of treatment for toxic and non-conventional 
pollutants, direct dischargers must meet BAT, and

[[Page 4497]]

indirect dischargers must meet pretreatment standards based on BAT. In 
setting BAT, EPA is required to evaluate costs and determine if they 
can be reasonably borne by the industry. EPA considers not only 
technology cost but also engineering and process changes as well as 
energy requirements of implementing the new technology. The cost 
estimates developed by EPA for the technologies considered for BPT, 
BCT, and BAT incorporate these factors as additional cost elements.
1. Facility Closure Analysis (BAT)
    Estimates of possible facility closures are the traditional way EPA 
considers economic achievability. A discounted cash-flow analysis was 
performed on detailed questionnaire respondents and the results were 
then extrapolated to all facilities incurring costs under each option. 
For more information on this approach, see the RIA. Table VIII-2 shows 
the number of facilities with BAT costs and the estimated possible 
closures by production subcategory for each option. The table also 
shows the relative percentage of facilities with costs and total 
discharging facilities that are estimated to close. EPA estimated that 
the preferred Option 1 would have only a single possible closure and 
proposes to find that this would be considered economically achievable 
under any reasonable measure of impacts. Under Options 2 and 3 EPA 
estimated that there are 19 and 29 total possible closures, 
respectively. This equates to 7 percent of the 269 facilities with BAT 
costs under Option 2, and 3 percent of the 913 facilities with BAT 
costs under Option 3. However, to understand the economic impact of 
these options on the industry it is necessary to consider these 
possible closures within the context of the total number of industry 
facilities. Neither Options 2 nor 3 have estimated potential closures 
that exceed 1 percent of the 3,897 discharging facilities. If the zero 
discharge facilities were also factored in, these percentages would be 
smaller still. These two options were developed to limit BAT 
requirements to just the larger discharging facilities that tend to be 
better able to afford the nutrient reduction technologies. EPA solicits 
comment on whether Options 2 and 3 would be economically achievable for 
the industry as a whole, based on the level of possible facility 
closures reflected in the table below.

                                     Table VIII-2--Possible Facility Closures due to BAT Costs by Regulatory Option
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Production sub-categories
                                                         --------------------------------------------------------------------------------      Total
                       Rule option                                                                            Poultry                       facilities
                                                            Meat first     Meat further    Poultry first      further        Rendering
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1:
    Facilities with BAT Costs...........................              30               9              64               5              18             126
    Estimated Possible Closures.........................               0               0               1               0               0               1
    % of facilities with costs..........................             0.0             0.0             1.6             0.0             0.0             0.8
    % of all Discharging facilities.....................             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0
2:
    Facilities with BAT Costs...........................              85               9             142               5              28             269
    Estimated Possible Closures.........................              10               0               8               0               1              19
    % of facilities with costs..........................            11.8             0.0             5.6             0.0             3.6             7.1
    % of all Discharging facilities.....................             0.3             0.0             0.2             0.0             0.0             0.5
3:
    Facilities with BAT Costs...........................             137             371             190             100             115             913
    Estimated Possible Closures.........................              11               3              11               1               3              29
    % of facilities with costs..........................             8.0             0.8             5.8             1.0             2.6             3.2
    % of all Discharging facilities.....................             0.3             0.1             0.3             0.0             0.1             0.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To assess the economic achievability of BAT technologies, EPA also 
compared facility level costs to estimated revenue to screen for 
potential financial impacts to facilities. EPA considered total 
facility costs relative to industry sales, the number of facilities 
that have costs greater than 1 percent and 3 percent of revenue, and 
the number of potential facility closures. The next level of control 
beyond BPT is not feasible for facilities unless the BPT technology is 
in place, so EPA conservatively assessed both the costs of BAT assuming 
BPT is in place, called ``incremental,'' and the costs including both 
costs to meet revised BPT and the revised BAT, called ``additive'' 
costs of BAT technologies. Table VIII-3 shows the incremental and 
additive BAT costs for each of the three options and the percentage of 
annual industry sales these costs comprise.

                        Table VIII-3--Total Annualized After-Tax Compliance Costs for BAT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Incremental BAT                      BPT + BAT (additive)
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Regulatory option                              % Industry annual                       % Industry annual
                                   (millions, 2022$)        sales *        (millions, 2022$)        sales *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1........................             $196.39                0.07             $196.39                0.07
Option 2........................              576.49                0.22              583.51                0.22
Option 3........................              962.78                0.36              981.54                0.37
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Based on U.S. Census Annual Survey of Manufacturers, 2021 sales for NAICS 3116.

    The difference between the incremental and Additive (BPT+BAT) costs 
are small, which reflects the relatively small cost of the DAF 
technology compared to the more expensive nutrient removal 
technologies. For assessing economic achievability, EPA is considering 
the additive BAT costs. Table VIII-4 shows these full BAT costs broken 
out by production sub-categories.

[[Page 4498]]



         Table VIII-4--Total Annualized After-Tax BAT Costs by Sub-Category for Rule Options in (2022$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Production sub-category                         Option 1        Option 2        Option 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meat First......................................................          $62.47         $226.76         $255.60
Meat Further....................................................            3.73            3.73          204.91
Poultry First...................................................          114.00          324.51          381.48
Poultry Further.................................................            6.06            6.06           72.21
Renderer........................................................           10.13           22.44           67.32
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total Facility BAT costs....................................          196.39          583.51          981.53
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. BAT Cost-to-Revenue Analyses
    Under the Agency's Regulatory Flexibility Act Guidance for 
assessing impacts of EPA actions on small entities (Final Guidance for 
EPA Rulewriters: Regulatory Flexibility Act as Amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. USEPA 2006), facilities 
incurring costs below one percent of revenue are unlikely to face 
economic impacts, while facilities with costs between 1 percent and 3 
percent of revenue have a higher chance of facing economic impacts, and 
facilities incurring costs above three percent of revenue have a still 
higher probability of economic impact.
    Tables VIII-5, VIII-6, and VIII-7 show the number of facilities 
that have BAT CTR ratios that fall into the three above mentioned 
categories for each option. To provide context for these numbers, the 
tables display the percentage of facilities that fall into each group, 
by all facilities incurring cost and by all discharging facilities. For 
all options, the percentage of discharging facilities with a higher 
probability of financial impacts is less than one. When considering 
subcategories, all production types have less than one percent of 
discharging facilities in the higher-probability category, except for 
poultry slaughter which has 2.1 percent and 2.5 percent of discharging 
facilities in this category under options 2 and 3 respectively.

                                                   Table VIII-5--Facility-Level BAT After-Tax Compliance Cost-to-Revenue Analysis for Option 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Number of facilities  with a ratio     Percentage of facilities        Percent of all discharging
                                                                 Facilities  Facilities                   of                    with BAT costs with ratio        facilities with a ratio of
                         Sub-categories                             that      with BAT  --------------------------------------              of             -------------------------------------
                                                                  discharge     costs                                         -----------------------------
                                                                                            0%      <1%    >=1 to 3%    >=3%     <1%    >=1 to 3%    >=3%      0%      <1%    >=1 to 3%    >=3%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meat First.....................................................         556          30      526       30          0        0    100.0        0.0      0.0     94.6      5.4        0.0      0.0
Meat Further...................................................       2,770           9    2,761        9          0        0    100.0        0.0      0.0     99.7      0.3        0.0      0.0
Poultry First..................................................         238          64      174       61          2        1     95.3        3.1      1.6     73.1     25.6        0.8      0.4
Poultry Further................................................         175           5      170        3          2        0     60.0       40.0      0.0     97.1      1.7        1.1      0.0
Rendering......................................................         140          18      122       17          1        0     94.4        5.6      0.0     87.1     12.1        0.7      0.0
                                                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Number...............................................       3,879         126    3,753      120          5        1     95.2        4.0      0.8     96.8      3.1        0.1      0.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                   Table VIII-6--Facility-Level BAT After-Tax Compliance Cost-to-Revenue Analysis for Option 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Number of facilities  with a ratio     Percentage of facilities        Percent of all discharging
                                                                 Facilities  Facilities                   of                    with BAT costs with ratio        facilities with a ratio of
                         Sub-categories                             that      with BAT  --------------------------------------              of             -------------------------------------
                                                                  discharge     costs                                         -----------------------------
                                                                                            0%      <1%    >=1 to 3%    >=3%     <1%    >=1 to 3%    >=3%      0%      <1%    >=1 to 3%    >=3%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meat First.....................................................         556          85      471       85          0        0    100.0        0.0      0.0     84.7     15.3        0.0      0.0
Meat Further...................................................       2,770           9    2,761        9          0        0    100.0        0.0      0.0     99.7      0.3        0.0      0.0
Poultry First..................................................         238         142       96      130          7        5     91.5        4.9      3.5     40.3     54.6        2.9      2.1
Poultry Further................................................         175           5      170        3          2        0     60.0       40.0      0.0     97.1      1.7        1.1      0.0
Rendering......................................................         140          28      112       26          2        0     92.9        7.1      0.0     80.0     18.6        1.4      0.0
                                                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Number...............................................       3,879         269    3,610      253         11        5     94.1        4.1      1.9     93.1      6.5        0.3      0.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                   Table VIII-7--Facility-Level BAT After-Tax Compliance Cost-to-Revenue Analysis for Option 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Number of facilities  with a ratio     Percentage of facilities        Percent of all discharging
                                                                 Facilities  Facilities                   of                    with BAT costs with ratio        facilities with a ratio of
                         Sub-categories                             that      with BAT  --------------------------------------              of             -------------------------------------
                                                                  discharge     costs                                         -----------------------------
                                                                                            0%      <1%    >=1 to 3%    >=3%     <1%    >=1 to 3%    >=3%      0%      <1%    >=1 to 3%    >=3%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meat First.....................................................         556         137      419      134          1        2     97.8        0.7      1.5     75.4     24.1        0.2      0.4
Meat Further...................................................       2,770         371    2,399      368          1        2     99.2        0.3      0.5     86.6     13.3        0.0      0.1
Poultry First..................................................         238         190       48      173         11        6     91.1        5.8      3.2     20.2     72.7        4.6      2.5
Poultry Further................................................         175         100       75       97          2        1     97.0        2.0      1.0     42.9     55.4        1.1      0.6
Rendering......................................................         140         115       25      103         12        0     89.6       10.4      0.0     17.9     73.6        8.6      0.0
                                                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Number...............................................       3,879         913    2,966      875         27       11     95.8        3.0      1.2     76.5     22.6        0.7      0.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CTR analysis shows that under Option 1 the BAT costs would be 
less than 1 percent of revenue for 99.9 percent of discharging 
facilities, and, per RFA guidance, would be unlikely to face economic 
impacts. Therefore, EPA proposes to find that Option 1 is economically 
achievable for the industry as a whole. Given that the BAT

[[Page 4499]]

CTR results for options 2 and 3 show that 99.6 percent and 99.1 percent 
of discharging facilities would have costs less than 1 percent of 
revenues, respectively, EPA solicits comment on whether these options 
would also be economically achievable.

D. Other Economic Analyses

    Sections A, B, and C above address the CWA requirements for 
determining BPT, BCT, and BAT. Economic effects of each of these 
technology levels was considered in isolation. This section presents 
the aggregate costs and impacts of each of the three options on 
regulated facilities. These analyses cover both facility-level and 
firm-level effects, employment effects, and market-level effects.
1. Facility Closure Analysis
    Estimating the potential closures of existing facilities is the 
traditional way EPA assesses economic achievability under the CWA. This 
analysis is based first on financial data reported in the detailed 
questionnaire, and then extrapolated to the larger universe of 
facilities based on relevant facility financial and production 
characteristics.
    Under the preferred Option 1, EPA estimated that 16 facilities 
would potentially close. Under Option 2, EPA estimated that 22 
facilities would potentially close. Under Option 3, EPA estimated that 
53 facilities would potentially close. This corresponds respectively to 
0.3 percent, 0.4 percent, and 1.0 percent of all facilities (including 
zero discharge facilities). Chapter 5 in the RIA provides more detailed 
results for the three regulatory options EPA analyzed. Table VIII-8 
presents the results of the facility closure analysis.

                                Table VIII-8--Possible Facility Closure Estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Option 1        Option 2        Option 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Possible Facility Closures............................       16 (0.4%)       22 (0.6%)       53 (1.0%)
Number of Facilities with Costs.................................             845             845           1,620
Number of Discharging Facilities................................           3,879           3,879           3,879
% of Facilities with Costs......................................            1.9%            2.6%            3.3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rather than close the facility, some firms may decide to reduce 
facility production levels to be below the production size thresholds 
included in each of the options. Although they would be avoiding 
compliance costs, they would incur the opportunity costs of forgone net 
revenues. Firms may choose this approach if it is seen as less 
economically burdensome than the regulatory cost of compliance. This 
approach is not costed because EPA assumes that it would only be chosen 
by the firm if it is less costly. However, reducing production to avoid 
compliance, if chosen by enough facilities could have a measurable 
effect on industry production. This potential change in quantity 
produced is different than the quantity effects discussed in the 
following market analysis. The potential costs of regulatory compliance 
could also affect future decisions to expand production at those 
existing facilities that currently produce below the threshold 
production levels that are part of each of the regulatory options.
2. Facility and Firm Level Cost-to-Revenue Analyses
    EPA conducted a screening-level analysis of each regulatory 
option's potential impact on discharging MPP facilities and parent 
entities based on cost-to-revenue ratios. For each of the two levels of 
analysis (facility and parent entity), the Agency assumed, for analytic 
convenience and as a worst-case scenario, that none of the compliance 
costs would be passed on to retailers or back to producers (farmers) 
and would instead be absorbed by the processing facilities and their 
parent entities. This assumption overstates the impacts of projected 
compliance expenditures on a facility since it is more realistic to 
assume that a portion of these costs in most all cases may be passed up 
and down the supply chain resulting in small incremental cost increases 
to producers and consumers. It is, however, a reasonable assumption for 
a screening-level estimate of the potential cost impacts.
(a) Facility-Level Cost-to-Revenue Analysis
    EPA used reported revenue estimates in the detailed surveys 
responses. EPA estimated revenue using reported annual production 
multiplied by the average revenue per unit of production from the 
detailed questionnaire for facilities producing the same output type, 
e.g., slaughtered poultry. Otherwise, EPA used external revenue 
estimates from proprietary sources such as Hoovers D&B where available 
or used the mid-point of the production level category assigned to the 
facility in the FSIS database to first estimate their production level, 
and then multiplied this by survey average revenue per unit of 
production, mentioned previously. EPA then calculated the change in the 
annualized after-tax costs of the three regulatory options presented in 
Tables VIII-6, 7 and 8 of this preamble as a percent of baseline annual 
revenues. See Chapter 4 of the RIA for a more detailed discussion of 
the methodology used for the facility-level cost-to-revenue analysis. 
Table VIII-9 presents the facility-level results for each of the three 
options.

                                             Table VIII-9--Facility-Level After-Tax Compliance Cost-to-Revenue Analysis Results by Regulatory Option
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Number of facilities with a ratio of    Percentage of facilities     Percent of all dischargers with a
                                                                                        --------------------------------------   with costs with ratio of                 ratio of
                          Rule option                              Total     Facilities                                       ------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                dischargers  with costs     0%      <1%     >=1 and     >=3%             >=1 and                               >=1 and
                                                                                                               3%                <1%        3%       >=3%      0%      <1%        3%       >=3%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................................................       3,879          845    3,033      838          5        2       99        0.6      0.2     78.2     21.6        0.1      0.1
2.............................................................       3,879          845    3,033      828         12        5       98        1.4      0.6     78.2     21.4        0.3      0.1
3.............................................................       3,879        1,620    2,257    1,576         31       13       97        1.9      0.8     58.2     40.7        0.8      0.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 4500]]

    Under the preferred Option 1, EPA estimated that seven facilities 
(0.18 percent of total dischargers) would incur incremental costs 
greater than or equal to one percent of revenue, including two 
facilities that have costs greater than or equal to three percent of 
revenue, and an additional 838 facilities would incur costs that are 
less than one percent of revenue. Under Option 2, EPA estimated that 17 
(0.44 percent of total dischargers) facilities would incur incremental 
costs greater than or equal to one percent of revenue, including five 
facilities that have costs greater than or equal to three percent of 
revenue, and an additional 828 facilities would incur costs that are 
less than one percent of revenue. Under Option 3, EPA estimated that 44 
facilities (1.13 percent of total dischargers) would incur incremental 
costs greater than or equal to 1 percent of revenue, including 13 
facilities that have costs greater than or equal to three percent of 
revenue, and an additional 1,578 facilities would incur costs that are 
less than 1 percent of revenue. For each of these three options, the 
remaining discharging facilities would incur no costs. Chapter 4 in the 
RIA provides more detailed results for the three regulatory options EPA 
analyzed.
(b) Firm-Level Cost-to-Revenue Analysis
    EPA also assessed the economic impact of the regulatory options at 
the parent entity level. The screening-level cost-to-revenue analysis 
at the parent entity level provides insight on the impact on those 
entities that own one or more MPP facilities. In this analysis, the 
domestic parent entity associated with a given facility is defined as 
the entity with the largest ownership share in the facility. For each 
parent entity or firm, EPA compared the incremental change in the total 
annualized after-tax costs and the total revenue for the entity to 
baseline (see Chapter 4 of the RIA for details). EPA based ownership 
and annual revenues directly on questionnaire responses for those 
facilities that completed detailed questionnaires. Ownership was also 
based on questionnaire responses. Revenue information, however, was 
based on external sources of financial information, mentioned above. 
Where questionnaire responses were not available, ownership and firm 
revenue information were based on matching these facilities with firms 
contained in the external firm data (Hoovers D&B) that have reported 
business activity under NAICS category 3116. For facilities where a 
match could not be made, facilities were assumed to be owned by a firm 
that owned no other businesses and has no other sources of revenue. 
This assumption likely leads to an overestimation of the cost-to 
revenue ratio for many of these entities that may also have additional 
sources of revenue. Table VIII-10 provides firm-level cost-to-revenue 
results.

                                                Table VIII-10--Firm-Level CTR Screening Analysis Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Firms with             Number firms with a ratio of                      Percent of firms with a ratio of
            Rule option                  MPP     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      facilities     0% \a\     >0 and <1%  >=1 and <3%      >=3%        0% \a\     >0 and <1%  >=1 and <3%      >=3%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..................................        4,127        3,730          394            3            0           90           10          0.1          0.0
2..................................        4,127        3,730          393            3            1           90           10          0.1          0.0
3..................................        4,127        3,129          980           14            4           76           24          0.4          0.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ These firms own only facilities that already meet discharge requirements for the wastestreams addressed by a given regulatory option and are
  therefore not estimated to incur any compliance technology costs.

    Like the facility-level analysis above, cost-to-revenue ratios 
provide screening-level indicators of potential economic impacts, this 
time to the owning entities; higher ratios suggest a higher probability 
of economic impacts. EPA estimates that the number of entities owning 
existing MPP facilities to be 4,127 firms. Under the proposed rule 
Option 1, there would be 3,730 firms with no costs and 394 with costs 
less than one percent of revenue. EPA estimates that three firms would 
incur incremental costs greater than or equal to one percent of revenue 
and less than three percent of revenue. No firms are expected to incur 
costs greater than or equal to three percent of revenue. Under Option 
2, there would be 3,730 firms with no costs and 393 with costs less 
than 1 percent of revenue. EPA estimates that four firms would incur 
incremental costs greater than or equal to 1 percent of revenue and 
only one of these would incur costs greater than or equal to 3 percent 
of revenue. Under Option 3, there would be 3,129 firms with no costs 
and 980 with costs less than 1 percent of revenue. EPA estimates that 
18 firms would incur incremental costs greater than or equal to 1 
percent of revenue and, of these, four would incur costs greater than 
or equal to 3 percent of revenue. Chapter 4 in the RIA provides more 
detailed results for the three regulatory options EPA analyzed.
(c) Small Business Impacts
    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) and Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), EPA is required to 
estimate the potential economic impacts of the rule on small 
businesses. The definition of small business varies by NAICS categories 
and for this industrial category the definition is based on employment 
levels provided in Table VIII-11 below. Firm employment levels are 
based on questionnaire responses when available. For non-respondents, 
firm employment estimates from Hoovers D&B are used if the firm was 
matched to one or more facilities. For remaining firms USDA facility 
inspection data employment categories for facilities are used to 
estimate if the owners are a small business. For more information on 
this approach see the SBREFA screening analysis section of the RIA.

    Table VIII-11--Small Business Administration Small Business Size
           Standards for Meat and Poultry Processing Industry
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      NAICS industry       Size standard
           NAICS code                  description        in employee #s
------------------------------------------------------------------------
311611.........................  Animal (except Poultry)           1,150
                                  Slaughtering.
311612.........................  Meat Processed from               1,000
                                  Carcasses.
311613.........................  Rendering and Meat                  750
                                  Byproduct Processing.

[[Page 4501]]

 
311615.........................  Poultry Processing.....           1,250
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For each of the three options, EPA estimated the number of small 
parent entities that incur annual compliance costs that fall into one 
of three categories: less than 1 percent of annual revenue; between 1 
percent and less than 3 percent of annual revenue; and 3 percent or 
more of annual revenue. Table VIII-12 presents the results of the CTR 
test for all small entities that own MPP dischargers. Table VIII-13 
shows aggregate revenue and cost for small firms by process type. EPA 
conservatively assumes that entities with an unidentified size are 
large. While this assumption potentially reduces the number of 
identified small entities, it provides a conservative estimate of the 
percentage of small entities with impacts, since none of the entities 
with an unidentified size have a CTR ratio greater than one percent 
under any of the regulatory options.

                                             Table VIII-12--Small Firm-Level CTR Screening Analysis Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Number small firms with a ratio of                Percent of small firms with a ratio of
            Entity type               Total # of -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     small firms     0% \a\     >0 and <1%  >=1 and <3%      >=3%        0% \a\     >0 and <1%  >=1 and <3%      >=3%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1...........................        3,233        3,137           95            1            0           97            3          0.0          0.0
Option 2...........................        3,233        3,137           94            1            1           97            3          0.0          0.0
Option 3...........................        3,233        2,970          248           11            4           92            8          0.0          0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ These entities own only facilities that already meet discharge requirements for the wastestreams addressed by a given regulatory option and are
  therefore not estimated to incur any compliance technology costs.


                   Table VIII-13--Aggregate Revenue and Costs for Small Firms by Process Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Aggregate       Aggregate
                                                   Total # small   Total # small      revenue          costs
                Process type \a\                    firms with      firms with      (millions,      (millions,
                                                    dischargers        costs          2022$)          2022$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Option 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meat first......................................             372              22         $83,328            $4.5
Meat further....................................           1,799              31          61,517             0.1
Poultry first...................................              55              16          20,008            13.6
Poultry further.................................              47              20           9,363             3.0
Render..........................................              23               7           6,019             1.0
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................           2,296              96         180,235            22.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Option 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meat first......................................             372              22          83,328            32.7
Meat further....................................           1,799              31          61,517             0.1
Poultry first...................................              55              16          20,008            41.6
Poultry further.................................              47              20           9,363             3.0
Render..........................................              23               7           6,019             1.0
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................           2,296              96         180,235            78.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Option 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meat first......................................             372              54          97,768            44.8
Meat further....................................           1,799             149         151,897            38.8
Poultry first...................................              55              25          20,627            63.1
Poultry further.................................              47              25           9,521            11.9
Render..........................................              23               9           6,029            10.0
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................           2,296             262         285,841           168.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Process type assigned to firms based on highest production.

    The results from the Small Firm-Level CTR Screening Analysis 
demonstrate that there is not a significant financial burden on a 
substantial number of small firms that own MPP facilities. Likewise, 
the results also show that small firms do not bear a disproportionate 
financial burden relative to large firms. These results demonstrate 
that the use of facility production size thresholds for each of the 
three options ensures that

[[Page 4502]]

the primary economic burden of the rule is born by large facilities and 
firms.
3. Market Effects
    The analyses thus far have focused either at the individual 
facility or firm level but have not directly addressed the cumulative 
effects of the rule options. EPA examined the effects of the regulatory 
options on the national markets for beef, pork, chicken, and turkey. 
EPA developed linear domestic and trade demand and supply equations for 
each meat product based on price elasticities from USDA data and other 
published sources. To estimate the impacts of the regulatory options, 
the domestic supply curves were adjusted to incorporate the after-tax 
annualized compliance costs incurred by producers in each meat product 
market, causing a shift in each supply curve and a decrease in domestic 
supply. After estimating the post-regulatory equilibrium for each meat 
product market, market-level impacts on prices and quantities were 
estimated. Tables VIII-14 and VIII-15 provide the percentage change in 
quantity and prices respectively for each meat product and rule option 
combination. The overall effects on meat product supplies and prices 
are sufficiently small under all three options that they are unlikely 
to have a noticeable effect on producer or consumer behavior. For more 
information on the market analysis methodology and results see Chapter 
6 of the RIA.

                 Table VIII-14--Post-Compliance Decrease in Meat Market Supplies by Rule Option
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               % Change total supply
                          Meat product                           -----------------------------------------------
                                                                     Option 1        Option 2        Option 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beef............................................................          -0.006          -0.018          -0.027
Pork............................................................          -0.017          -0.051          -0.073
Chicken.........................................................          -0.014          -0.028          -0.086
Turkey..........................................................          -0.010          -0.021          -0.063
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................          -0.012          -0.031          -0.065
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                  Table VIII-15--Post-Compliance Increase in Meat Market Prices by Rule Option
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                % Change in prices
                          Meat product                           -----------------------------------------------
                                                                     Option 1        Option 2        Option 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beef............................................................            0.01            0.02            0.03
Pork............................................................            0.01            0.03            0.05
Chicken.........................................................            0.01            0.02            0.05
Turkey..........................................................            0.00            0.01            0.02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Employment Effects
    In addition to addressing the costs and impacts of the regulatory 
options, EPA estimated the potential impacts of this rulemaking on 
employment. Employment effects can be both positive and negative as 
well as temporary or permanent. The employment analyses performed for 
the proposed rule measure labor changes in terms of full time 
equivalent (FTE) labor inputs. EPA measures the short-term employment 
effects directly due to estimated closures as well as the long-term 
employment effects from changes in production levels at the new market 
equilibrium. Employment loss due to facility closures is considered 
transitory as some of the production that occurred at these facilities 
will quickly move to other facilities with spare capacity. Eventually 
new and expanding existing facilities will take on much of the 
remaining production that would have occurred at the closed facilities. 
As these shifts in production occur so too will employment 
opportunities.
    Closures are not the only rule impact affecting employment. As just 
described in the preceding market analysis section, overall production 
is likely to go down slightly once the markets for meat products reach 
a new equilibrium of supply and demand. Lower production levels would 
likely result in long-term job losses. The number of long-term possible 
job losses across the whole industry due to decreased production are 
65, 161, and 339 for options 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Relative to the 
total industry employment levels, these job losses translate to 0.0002 
percent, 0.001 percent, and 0.0032 percent, respectively. The annual 
operation and maintenance costs for the new treatment technologies 
include labor costs, based on typical dollar per hour wage rates for 
the industry. These labor hours can be used to estimate the additional 
employees necessary to operate and maintain the treatment technologies. 
These new jobs more than offset those lost due to lower production 
levels for all three options, resulting in a net gain of 166, 669, and 
1,603 jobs respectively. Table VIII-16 presents the possible short-term 
and long-term employment impacts of the three regulatory options being 
considered. For more on the employment analyses see Chapter 7 of the 
RIA.

                    Table VIII-16--Possible Employment Impacts Estimated by Regulatory Option
                                                     [FTE *]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Employment impact category                        Option 1        Option 2        Option 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Short-term Employment Losses due to Possible Closures...........         -16,917         -17,461         -20,205
Short-term losses as % of total employment......................          -0.03%          -0.03%          -0.04%
Long-term Employment Losses due to Decreased Production.........             -65            -161            -339
Long-run/labor to Operate Treatment Technology..................             166             669           1,942

[[Page 4503]]

 
Net Long-term Changes in Employment.............................             101             508           1,603
Total long-run as % of total employment.........................         0.0002%          0.001%         0.0032%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* One FTE equivalent to 2,080 hrs/yr.

5. Chlorides Removal Costs and Impacts
    EPA is taking comment on the inclusion of chlorides removal limits. 
EPA is considering establishing a zero discharge of pollutants 
requirement for high chloride waste streams for facilities producing 
more than 5 million pounds per year with high chlorides processes. The 
technology costs considered for this requirement involve segregating 
the high chloride waste streams from other process wastewater and 
managing these high chloride streams through sidestream evaporation. 
Details on the costs and economic impacts of the chlorides removal 
provision can be found in the TDD and the RIA, respectively.

IX. Pollutant Loadings

A. Estimation of Existing Industry Pollutant Discharges

    In developing ELGs, the CWA calls for EPA to identify the effluent 
reduction from each level of control (CWA section 304(b)(2)(A)(BAT), 
(b)(4)(A)(BCT), and (b)(1)(A)(BPT). 33 U.S.C. 1314(b)(2)(A)(BAT); 
1314(b)(4)(A)(BCT), and 1314(b)(1)(A)(BPT)). To estimate effluent 
reduction, or removals, EPA first estimates on an annual, per facility 
basis, the pollutant load discharged today. EPA then estimates 
pollutant discharge loads and removals that would result from the 
proposed regulatory options. As described in section VII, the three 
proposed regulatory options apply different combinations of wastewater 
treatment technology to specific sets of facilities based on facility 
production size thresholds. EPA estimates pollutant discharge loads and 
removals for two MPP waste streams: (1) MPP process wastewater and (2) 
high chlorides wastewater (as a segregated waste stream).
    Supporting analyses and datasets for the MPP loadings calculations 
include the following:
     MPP Industry Profile--identifies the MPP facilities 
impacted by the proposed rule and key inputs for the loadings/removal 
analysis including processing type, discharge status (i.e., direct, 
indirect, zero discharge), and discharge flow rate for both process 
wastewater and high chlorides wastewater (Meat and Poultry Products 
(MPP) Profile Methodology Memorandum. USEPA. DCN MP00306).
     Treatment in Place (TIP) Analysis--identifies existing 
wastewater treatment based on facility-specific data, where possible, 
and assigns existing wastewater treatment to facilities without data 
based on MPP Questionnaire response data and engineering best judgment 
(Treatment in Place (TIP) Analysis for the Meat and Poultry Products 
(MPP) Proposed Rule. USEPA. DCN MP00191).
     Pollutants of Concern (POC) Analysis--identifies the 
pollutants present in untreated MPP process wastewater at treatable 
levels (Pollutants of Concern (POC) Analysis for the Meat and Poultry 
Products (MPP) Proposed Rule. USEPA. DCN MP00190).
     Analytical Database--compilation of all wastewater 
sampling from publicly available sources or collected as part of the 
proposed rule. The database includes facility-specific wastewater 
monitoring data from the MPP Questionnaire, EPA sampling, 2021 
Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) data for select MPP facilities, 
responses to EPA's CWA section 308 data requests, and any other data on 
MPP process wastewater provided to EPA (e.g., from site visits or other 
discussions with industry) (Analytical Database Methodology for the 
Meat and Poultry Products Proposed Rulemaking. USEPA. DCN MP00303).
    For the MPP process waste stream, pollutant loads and removals were 
estimated for the wastewater treatment technology systems described in 
the regulatory options: phosphorus removal by chemical precipitation 
for direct and indirect dischargers, nitrogen removal by biological 
treatment to achieve full denitrification for direct and indirect 
dischargers, select conventional pollutant (e.g., BOD, TSS, Oil & 
Grease) removal by screening and dissolved air flotation (DAF) for 
indirect dischargers, and high chlorides sidestream evaporation for 
direct and indirect dischargers. EPA estimated facility pollutant 
discharge loads and removals that would result from these four 
technology systems.
    For the MPP high chlorides waste stream, pollutant loads and 
removals were estimated based on evaporation technology, and this was 
applied to both direct and indirect facilities with a high chlorides 
waste stream.
    Baseline pollutant loadings and removals were calculated using the 
facility flows and the effluent pollutant concentrations associated 
with the TIP analysis. Using data from the MPP Questionnaire and 
existing data, EPA identified facility-specific details on facility 
operations (type of processing), discharge status, and existing TIP. If 
no relevant treatment is currently in place at a facility, the raw 
process wastewater concentrations were used.
    Effluent loads for each facility were calculated for the POCs for 
the treatment system considered under the regulatory options by 
multiplying the pollutant concentration associated with the wastewater 
treatment technology by the wastewater flow rate. For indirect 
dischargers, (i.e., discharges to a POTW), EPA accounted for pollutant 
removal that occurs at the POTW to calculate the baseline and 
regulatory option loadings. Indirect discharge loads were estimated at 
the POTW effluent (i.e., following treatment at the POTW to account for 
pollutant removal that occurs at the POTW) to represent the pollutant 
load to the receiving water. The pollutant load removals were 
calculated as the difference between the baseline load and the load 
resulting with the treatment technology in place.

B. Summary of Incremental Changes of Pollutant Loadings and Removals 
From Regulatory Options

    Table IX-1 summarizes the net reduction in annual pollutant 
loadings, compared to baseline, associated with each regulatory option. 
Removals for total nitrogen, total phosphorus, chlorides the 
conventional pollutants BOD, TSS, oil & grease are shown here. 
Additional pollutants are also removed by the technologies. More 
information on the pollutant loads is available in the TDD. Compared to 
the existing rule baseline, all proposed regulatory options result in 
decreased pollutant loadings to surface waters.

[[Page 4504]]



                   Table IX-1--Net Reductions in Annual Pollutant Loadings for Key Pollutants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Reductions \c\ in annual pollutant loadings million lb/yr  (%
                                                                            reduction)
                Regulatory option                ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Conventional
                                                     Nitrogen       Phosphorus          \a\        Chlorides \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................         9 (10%)         8 (37%)        80 (31%)       477 (98%)
2...............................................        45 (49%)        16 (78%)       167 (64%)       477 (98%)
3...............................................        76 (83%)        20 (94%)       226 (87%)       477 (98%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Conventional Pollutant Removal includes BOD, O&G, TSS.
\b\ Chlorides has same removal under each option.
\c\ Pollutant reductions include removals by POTWs.

X. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts

    The elimination or reduction of one form of pollution may create or 
aggravate other environmental problems. Therefore, CWA sections 304(b) 
and 306 require EPA to consider non-water quality environmental impacts 
(including energy requirements) associated with ELGs. To consider these 
factors, EPA considered the potential impact of the technology basis on 
energy consumption, air pollution, and solid waste generation. As shown 
below, EPA anticipates that all of the proposed rule options would 
produce minimal non-water quality environmental impacts and as such 
proposes that they are acceptable. Additional information about the 
analysis of these non-water quality impacts is contained in the TDD.

A. Energy Requirements

    MPP Facilities use energy when operating processing equipment, 
operating the facility buildings, and operating wastewater treatment 
systems. For this proposal, EPA considers whether there would be an 
associated change in the incremental energy requirements compared to 
baseline. Energy requirements vary depending on the regulatory option 
evaluated and the current operations of the facility. Therefore, as 
applicable, EPA estimates the increase in energy usage in (megawatt 
hours, MWh) for equipment added to the plant systems or in consumed 
fuel (gallons). EPA sums the estimated increase to calculate the net 
change in energy requirements from baseline for the regulatory options.
    EPA estimates the amount of energy needed to operate the additional 
wastewater treatment systems based on conventional pollutant (e.g., 
BOD, TSS, Oil & Grease) removal by screening and DAF, phosphorus 
removal by chemical precipitation, nitrogen removal by biological 
treatment to achieve full denitrification, and high chlorides removal 
by sidestream evaporation. Table X-1 of this preamble shows the net 
change in annual electrical energy usage associated with the regulatory 
options compared to baseline. The table values assume a zero net 
increase for conventional pollutant treatment of indirect dischargers, 
as the burden of treatment is shifted from the POTW to the MPP 
facility. Table X-1 also does not include the additional energy demand 
for treatment of high chlorides wastewater, which is estimated to be an 
additional 349,000 MWh per year.

  Table X-1--Estimated Incremental Change in Energy Requirements Associated With Regulatory Options Compared to
                                                    Baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Energy use associated with regulatory options
         Non-water quality environmental impact         --------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Option 1           Option 2           Option 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase in Electrical Energy usage (MWh)..............            104,208            386,448            557,538
Increase as % of total US electric power generated in           0.0000025%         0.0000094%         0.0000136%
 2021 \35\.............................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By comparison, electric power generation facilities generated 4,108 
billion MWh of electric power in the United States in 2021 (EIA, 
2021).\22\ All of the proposed options would result in a negligible 
increase in the amount of energy generation required nationwide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/archive/2021/pdf/epa.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Air Pollution

    EPA proposes to find that wastewater treatment processes evaluated 
in this proposed rule would not generate significant air emissions 
above the current emissions, either directly from the facility or 
indirectly from the facilities that provide energy to MPP facilities. 
Possible non-odorous gases that may be emitted from these processes 
include nitrogen and carbon dioxide. EPA expects a slight increase in 
nitrogen gas generated over the current baseline because it would be 
formed during the denitrification process and would escape to the 
atmosphere. Since nitrogen comprises over 78 percent of the Earth's 
atmosphere and is not considered a greenhouse gas, the additional 
generation is not considered to pose an environmental impact. Carbon 
dioxide will be released when BOD is oxidized by oxygen-containing 
compounds. However, the BOD being treated would generally not increase 
but rather just the location of treatment would change (POTW vs MPP 
facility). Therefore, there would generally be no significant 
incremental increase in carbon dioxide over current treatment levels.
    Odors are the only significant air pollution problem associated 
with the treatment of MPP wastewaters and generally are associated with 
anaerobic conditions. Thus, flow equalization basins, DAF units, and 
anaerobic lagoons are possible sources of malodors, especially for 
indirect dischargers who may not currently do pretreatment prior to 
discharging to a POTW. Potential odorous substances associated with MPP 
wastewater include ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and organic compounds. 
Ammonia in MPP wastewaters is typically due to breakdown of more 
complex substances and can be released under certain circumstances. 
However, aerobic nitrifying conditions will favor keeping ammonia in 
solution as it is converted to nitrate, meaning that odors will

[[Page 4505]]

generally be suppressed. In addition, maintenance of pH around neutral 
conditions will disfavor stripping ammonia, leaving it in the 
wastewater to be oxidized or assimilated. Furthermore, denitrification 
processes will favor additional conversion of ammonia. Thus, any 
incremental ammonia generation would be minimal. The chemical 
precipitation process to remove phosphorus is not expected to generate 
any additional odors.
    Hydrogen sulfide can be formed under anaerobic and anoxic 
conditions such as in the denitrification reactors. Hydrogen sulfide 
generation requires the presence of sulfate in the wastewater, which is 
typically low in MPP wastes. (In most cases the source of sulfates in 
MPP wastewater is the source water supply.) In addition, the formation 
of sulfide is less favored than the reduction of nitrate to nitrogen, 
meaning that under most circumstances, sulfide would not be formed to a 
greater degree than is currently the case, especially if the facility 
is well-managed.
    Volatile odorous organic compounds can be generated in anaerobic 
lagoons. If specific facilities have odor difficulties, covers over the 
lagoons can be used to capture odorous substances that are then 
subsequently destroyed by some oxidation or combustion process. Some 
facilities capture anaerobically generated methane for fuel; if that 
gas stream must be scrubbed before use, the waste would be recycled to 
the wastewater treatment plant, resulting in no net environmental 
impact. Such oxidation and combustion processes would potentially 
result in additional carbon dioxide generation; however, that 
generation constitutes minimal incremental generation, since the 
organic substances involved would have gone through oxidation 
naturally. Typically, odorous organic compounds are well-destroyed in 
aerobic systems. Overall, the incremental change in odor problems 
associated with this proposed regulation are expected to be small. Odor 
problems usually are significant only when the sulfur content of MPP 
wastewaters is high, especially when treatment facilities are not well 
managed. Generally, MPP wastewater treatment facilities using anaerobic 
processes for treating wastewater with a low sulfur concentration have 
few odor problems. At such facilities, maintaining a naturally 
occurring layer of floating solids in anaerobic contact basins and 
lagoons generally minimizes odors. Thus, the technology options should 
not increase emissions of odorous compounds from well-managed MPP 
wastewater treatment facilities. If a facility uses nitrification to 
meet the ammonia limitations, then any ammonia odors would be minimal 
because the process keeps the ammonia in solution as it is converted to 
nitrate. However, using anaerobic treatment for initial BOD reduction 
before aerobic treatment would increase emissions of methane and 
volatile organic compounds, but the increases should be negligible 
given today's extensive use of lagoons and other anaerobic processes in 
MPP wastewater treatment. In addition, covering anaerobic lagoons and 
flaring the gas captured can reduce these emissions. If the volume of 
captured gas is sufficient, it can be used as a fuel to produce process 
heat or electricity. EPA observed facilities capturing gas for use as 
fuel during site visits.

C. Solid Waste Generation

    EPA estimates that compliance with the proposed rule would not 
significantly increase the amount of wastewater treatment sludge 
generated for the meat and poultry processing industry. Table X-2 
estimates the incremental sludge production increases for the proposed 
rule.

                         Table X-2--Estimate of Incremental Sludge Production Increases
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Incremental sludge production associated with
                                                                               regulatory options
            Non-water quality environmental impact            --------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Option 1         Option 2         Option 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sludge Production (tons/year)................................         384,359          995,804        1,213,782
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimates of sludge production in Table X-2 are based on the 
concentrations of BOD entering the biological part of the treatment 
system after pretreatment (i.e., screening, DAF). The sludge yield 
coefficient for the denitrification process is lower than the 
coefficient for the aerobic process; therefore, the amount of sludge 
generated per BOD unit would be lower for the denitrification part than 
the nitrification part.
    The values presented in Table X-2 represent the total sludge 
production for the modeled unit processes. The values in Table X-2 
assume a zero net increase in solids production from conventional 
pollutant treatment at affected indirect dischargers, as the burden of 
treatment shifts from the POTW to the MPP facility. Additional solids 
are expected to be generated from chemical phosphorus removal as a 
result of this proposed rule. Generally, a facility will either combine 
the solids generated from this process with other process solids, or it 
may elect to process and resell the reclaimed phosphorus on the private 
market. If a facility selects an aluminum based chemical process for 
precipitation, this may limit the ability of the solids to be land 
applied. EPA also expects that more emphasis on pollution prevention 
(e.g., by increased segregation of waste) could further reduce sludge 
generation, though it is not expected to yield significant reductions. 
Examples of such pollution prevention practices include segregation of 
high chlorides wastewaters from the main treatment stream, allowing the 
solids to be extracted more economically from the waste steam and 
reducing the overall volume of sludge.

XI. Environmental Assessment

A. Introduction

    The environmental assessment for the proposed rule reviewed 
currently available literature on the documented environmental and 
human health impacts of MPP wastewater discharges and conducted 
modeling to estimate impacts of MPP discharge to surface waters and 
downstream environments at both localized and regional scales. EPA's 
review of the scientific literature documents cases of the extensive 
impacts of MPP wastewater discharges on human health and the 
environment and a full description of EPA's modeling methodology and 
results are provided in the Environmental Assessment document. EPA 
modeled the impacts of MPP discharges at baseline conditions (pre-rule 
conditions) and the improvements that may result if the proposed 
options were implemented.
    It is well established that effluent guidelines are not required to 
consider the impacts on receiving water quality See, e.g., Southwestern 
Electrical Power Co. v. United States, 920 F.3d 999, 1005 (5th Cir. 
2019). (The CWA ``requires ELGs to be based on technological

[[Page 4506]]

feasibility rather than on water quality,'' citing E.I. du Pont de 
Nemours & Co. v. Train, 430 U.S. 112, 130-31, (1977)). That is, the 
Administrator must ``require industry, regardless of a discharge's 
effect on water quality, to employ defined levels of technology to meet 
effluent limitations'' Id., citing Am. Petroleum Inst. v. EPA, 661 F.2d 
240, 343-44 (5th Cir. 1981). ELGs are ``technology-based rather than 
harm-based'' insofar as they ``reflect the capabilities of available 
pollution control technologies to prevent or limit different discharges 
rather than the impact that those discharges have on the waters.'' Id., 
citing Tex. Oil and Gas v. EPA, 161 F.3d 923, 927 (5th Cir. 1998). 
Nevertheless, there is great public interest in understanding the 
benefits of EPA's effluent guidelines and E.O. 12866, 12898, and 14096 
require an assessment of the environmental benefits of Federal 
rulemakings.

B. Summary of Environmental and Human Health Impacts

    As discussed in the Environmental Assessment document, current 
scientific literature as well as EPA's own data indicated that MPP 
wastewaters contain large amounts of a wide range of harmful 
pollutants, which contribute to extensive environmental impacts and can 
have detrimental effects on human health through multiple exposure 
routes.
    Nutrient overloading of surface waters is a national issue, and 
this concern extends to surface waters receiving MPP wastewater, with 
36 percent and 37 percent of catchments downstream \23\ of direct and 
indirect dischargers, respectively, are impaired for nutrients and/or 
oxygen demand. Excess nutrients in aquatic environments, or 
eutrophication, is the most documented impact and consequentially can 
result in the accelerated growth of bacteria and/or algae, reducing 
available dissolved oxygen (DO) and limiting the ability of the 
waterbody to support aquatic life. Examples include biodiversity loss, 
impacts to fish development and reproduction, as well as fish kills 
from hypoxic, or deoxygenated, waters. Low DO levels can also release 
toxic metals from sediments, further contaminating aquatic habitat (Li 
et al. 2013).\24\ Often spurred by eutrophication, some algal blooms 
release toxins into the water, which can result in sickness and/or 
death in exposed terrestrial animals and people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Within 25 river miles downstream.
    \24\ Li, H., Shi, A., Li, M., & Zhang, X. 2013. Effect of pH, 
Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, and Flow Rate of Overlying Water on 
Heavy Metals Release from Storm Sewer Sediments. Journal of 
Chemistry, 2013, 434012. doi:10.1155/2013/434012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Excess nutrients can impact human health through several pathways, 
both direct and indirect. High nitrate concentrations in drinking water 
can lead to infant methemoglobinemia (blue baby syndrome), colorectal 
cancer, thyroid disease, and neural tube defects (USEPA. 2000. EPA-822-
B-00-002) (Ward et al. 2018).\25\ High nutrient levels in drinking 
water sources can also lead to objectionable tastes and odors, and 
potentially increase drinking water treatment costs to remove nitrates. 
In terms of indirect health impacts, the growth of harmful algal and 
bacteria due to eutrophication can potentially result in the 
contamination of shellfish with fecal coliform bacteria or algal 
toxins. Adverse health impacts from the consumption of contaminated 
shellfish can include paralytic, diarrhetic, amnesic, and neurotoxic 
shellfish poisoning (USEPA. 2015. EPA-820R15102) (Hoagland et al. 
2002).\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Ward, M.H., Jones, R.R., Brender, J.D., de Kok, T.M., 
Weyer, P.J., Nolan, B.T., van Breda, S.G. 2018. Drinking Water 
Nitrate and Human Health: An Updated Review. International Journal 
of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(7), 1557. 
doi:10.3390/ijerph15071557.
    \26\ Hoagland, P., Anderson, D.M., Kaoru, Y., & White, A.W. 
2002. The Economic Effects of Harmful Algal Blooms in the United 
States: Estimates, Assessment Issues, and Information Needs. 
Estuaries, 25, 819-837.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Drinking water quality can be impacted by several other pollutants 
present in MPP wastewater in addition to nutrients. Consumption of 
water contaminated with pathogenic bacteria can pose serious health 
risks, ranging from gastrointestinal illness like diarrhea, vomiting, 
and fever, to sepsis and toxic shock syndrome in extreme cases (Baskin-
Graves et al. 2019).\27\ High levels of suspended solids can harbor 
bacteria in drinking water sources, making treatment more difficult. 
Arsenic, which is present in some sanitizers, may be introduced to MPP 
wastewater through contact with offal or during nightly equipment 
cleaning operations. Arsenic is both a carcinogen and a toxin and can 
have reproductive impacts if ingested via drinking water (Witkowska et 
al. 2021).\28\ Some heavy metals have been detected in MPP wastewater, 
which if then found at sufficient concentrations in drinking water can 
pose health risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Baskin-Graves, L., Mullen, H., Aber, A., Sinisterra, J., 
Ayub, K., Amaya-Fuentes, R., & Wilson, S. 2019. Rapid Health Impact 
Assessment of a Proposed Poultry Processing Plant in Millsboro, 
Delaware. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public 
Health, 16(18). doi:10.3390/ijerph16183429.
    \28\ Witkowska, D., S[lstrok]owik, J., & Chilicka, K. 2021. 
Heavy Metals and Human Health: Possible Exposure Pathways and the 
Competition for Protein Binding Sites. Molecules, 26(19). 
doi:10.3390/molecules26196060.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pollutants found in MPP wastewater also compromise aquatic and 
terrestrial biota survival and reproduction. For example, biodiversity 
loss can occur when aquatic organisms are exposed to elevated levels of 
chlorides, killing or impairing freshwater species, and allowing for 
the proliferation of more salt tolerant organisms (Weber-Scannell and 
Duffy. 2007).\29\ Suspended solids increase turbidity, blocking light 
infiltration of surface waters and limiting primary production, thereby 
impacting food availability for higher trophic levels. Some metals 
common in MPP wastewater streams, such as zinc and copper, have been 
identified as toxic to crops when biosolids generated from MPP 
wastewater treatment were used as a soil supplement, and these metals 
can similarly limit primary production at low concentrations (Gerber et 
al. 2017) \30\ (Amoatey and Baawain. 2019).\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Weber-Scannell, P., & Duffy, L. 2007. Effects of Total 
Dissolved Solids on Aquatic Organisms: A Review of Literature and 
Recommendation for Salmonid Species. American Journal of 
Environmental Sciences, 3. doi:10.3844/ajessp.2007.1.6.
    \30\ Gerber, M.D., Lucia, T., Correa, L., Neto, J.E.P., & 
Correa, [Eacute]. K. 2017. Phytotoxicity of effluents from swine 
slaughterhouses using lettuce and cucumber seeds as bioindicators. 
Science of The Total Environment, 592, 86-90. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.075.
    \31\ Amoatey, P., & Baawain, M.S. 2019. Effects of pollution on 
freshwater aquatic organisms. Water Environment Research, 91(10), 
1272-1287. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/wer.1221.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Environmental Assessment Methodology

    The environmental assessment for the proposed rule reviewed 
currently available literature on the documented environmental and 
human health impacts of MPP wastewater discharges and conducts modeling 
to estimate the impacts of these discharge to surface waters and 
downstream environments at both localized and regional scales. EPA 
modeled the water quality impacts of MPP discharges at baseline 
conditions (pre-rule conditions) and the improvements that would likely 
result after the implementation of the rule in both a set of smaller 
case study watersheds as well as in larger watersheds that represent 
diverse land areas across the continental U.S.
    To evaluate the potential water quality impacts of the proposed 
rule, EPA developed models of both the selected case study watersheds 
and larger, watersheds using the Hydrologic and Water Quality System 
(HAWQS) 2.0 and the Soil and Water Assessment Tool

[[Page 4507]]

(SWAT) (Neitsch et al. 2011).\32\ The model delineates subbasins and 
reaches at the resolution of 14-digit hydrologic unit codes (HUCs).\33\ 
While these models simulate impacts on eutrophication in receiving 
streams, they are limited to a daily timestep, and EPA is considering a 
more detailed model analysis of algal and DO kinetics. Additional 
details on model setup, including calibration results, can be found in 
Appendix A of the Environmental Assessment document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Neitsch, S.L., Williams, J.R., Arnold, J.G. and Kiniry, 
J.R. 2011. Soil and Water Assessment Tool Theoretical Documentation 
Version 2009. Texas Water Resources Institute, College Station.
    \33\ https://www.usgs.gov/tools/hydrologic-unit-maps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA identified three case study locations to help demonstrate the 
water quality effects of the proposed rule at a fine spatial scale. 
Case study locations were chosen based on the contributions of NPDES-
permitted dischargers, areas of existing impairment(s), and 
availability of observed data to facilitate model calibration. 
Regarding NPDES-permitted discharger contributions, watershed locations 
were considered if they contained one or more discharger with 
significant nutrient loads \34\ and were upstream or headwater 
locations as these areas were less likely to be overwhelmed by baseline 
nonpoint source loads or greatly dilute point source contributions with 
the volume of receiving water. Watersheds with previously documented 
water quality impairments or published Total Maximum Daily Loads \35\ 
were also prioritized, especially if the impairments are due to common 
pollutants from the MPP industry, such as nutrients, pathogens, organic 
enrichment (i.e., BOD), or sediment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ An initial filter for ``significant nutrient loads'' was 
100 kg/day.
    \35\ The maximum amount of a pollutant allowed to enter a 
waterbody so that the waterbody will meet and continue to meet water 
quality standards for that particular pollutant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also modeled larger watersheds to demonstrate the water quality 
impacts of the proposed rule over a greater portion of the nation 
covering a wider variety of land area types than the case studies. 
Three HUC2 watershed \36\ were selected for modeling based on the 
presence of both MPP facilities routing wastewater effluent directly to 
waters of the U.S. (direct dischargers) and facilities discharging 
wastewater to an offsite POTW (indirect dischargers). Watersheds that 
had been previously calibrated and/or had adequate observed data \37\ 
available were prioritized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ HUC2 watersheds are regional divisions and average 177,560 
square miles across the U.S.
    \37\ Adequate observed data refers to in-stream flow, TSS, TN, 
and TP measurements taken within the watershed selected for modeling 
that allowed for calibration to be successfully completed. When 
available data was insufficient, calibration parameters from similar 
watersheds (as identified by a cluster analysis) within the same 
HUC2 region were applied. See Appendix A of the BCA for additional 
details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To further understand the environments and waterbody use types 
which may be impacted by MPP wastewater discharge under baseline 
conditions, EPA conducted a GIS analysis to identify sensitive habitats 
downstream of direct and indirect MPP facility final wastewater 
outfalls across the nation. EPA used publicly available databases to 
identify impaired waters, fisheries (shellfishing, recreational, and 
commercial fishing), threatened and endangered species habitat and 
protected areas, priority waterbodies, and recreational areas within 25 
river miles of a process wastewater outfall. EPA also identified the 
number of each sensitive environment type that would be expected to 
experience improved water quality under proposed rule Options. See 
Chapter 4 and Appendix B of the EA for details regarding datasets used 
and GIS methodologies.

D. Results From the Environmental Assessment

    EPA focused its quantitative analyses on the environmental and 
human health impacts associated with exposure to pollutants via the 
surface water pathway. Both direct and indirect discharge sources were 
considered in these analyses and models. These analyses concentrated on 
improvements in surface water quality; impacts to sensitive 
environments, including wildlife habitat, fisheries, and impaired 
waters; and impacts to human health from consumption of contaminated 
drinking water or exposure to contaminated surface waters via 
recreational activities.
1. Improvements in Surface Water Quality
    EPA estimated that reduced pollutant loadings to surface waters 
will improve water quality by reducing nutrient concentrations in all 
waters immediately downstream of MPP wastewater outfalls under proposed 
rule options in the case study modeling. When the most stringent 
technology options were applied (representing regulatory Option 3) 
nutrient concentrations changed minimally in certain watersheds (less 
than 1 percent reductions), while other receiving waters could on 
average see up to 81 percent and 83 percent reductions in TP and TN, 
respectively.
    The pollutants associated with MPP wastewater causing the greatest 
number of impairments under baseline conditions were pathogens, 
nutrients, and oxygen depletion. EPA estimated that 70 percent and 75 
percent of all stream segments \38\ of direct and indirect wastewater 
outfalls, respectively, are impaired for at least one pollutant found 
in MPP wastewater. EPA estimated that within these impaired stream 
segments, 63 percent and 5.83 percent of impacted river miles 
downstream of direct and indirect dischargers, respectively, would 
benefit from improved upstream water under Options 1 and 2. Because 
nutrient limits are included under Option 2 for indirect discharges, 
however, water quality improvements in these impaired catchments would 
likely be greater. Under proposed Option 3, 66 percent and 29 percent 
of stream segments downstream of directs and indirect dischargers, 
respectively, would benefit from decrease upstream pollutant loadings. 
EPA did not estimate the number of catchments that would no longer be 
considered impaired under each proposed rule option as impairment 
status may be dependent on many factors beyond the scope of this 
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Within 25 river miles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Improvements to Vulnerable Species Habitats
    EPA identified 108 unique vulnerable animal and insect species that 
have habitat located in watersheds potentially impacted by MPP 
wastewater discharge. Species groups included amphibians, birds, clams, 
crustaceans, fishes, insects, mammals, reptiles, and snails. Of these 
species, 26 percent were considered of lower vulnerability, 5 percent 
were moderately vulnerable, and 69 percent were found be of a high 
vulnerability status. EPA estimated that 88 percent and 90 percent of 
downstream waterbodies serving as habitat to these threatened and 
endangered species could see water quality improvements compared to 
baseline conditions, under Options 1 or 2, and 3, respectively.
    EPA's analysis indicated that MPP wastewater discharges to surface 
waters pose the greatest risk to Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica, also 
known as the Rabbitsfoot clam, which is considered threatened, with 358 
stream miles of habitat impacted by MPP discharges. Under all three 
rule options, 15 of the 16 upstream MPP facilities would be required to 
adhere to new limits, and thus improve Q. cylindrica habitat in

[[Page 4508]]

these reaches. EPA estimated that 29 percent of the stream segments 
that serve as habitat to threatened and/or endangered species are also 
impaired for at least one pollutant found in MPP wastewater. 
Nationally, EPA estimated that 75 species with a high vulnerability (69 
percent) to change in water quality currently are found in watersheds 
that are impaired under baseline conditions, and that all of these 
watersheds may experience improvements in water quality under the 
proposed rule Options 2 and 3, and 98 percent under preferred Option 1.
3. Human Health Impact Improvements
    Intentional or accidental consumption of water contaminated with 
pollutants such as pathogens and nitrate can cause health impacts in 
humans, ranging from gastrointestinal illness to thyroid disease. EPA 
estimated that implementation of the proposed rule options would result 
in improvements in source water quality to 121 drinking water service 
areas under Options 1 and 2, and 147 under Option 3. EPA also estimated 
the number of recreational areas that may experience improved water 
conditions under each rule option. For Options 1 or 2, and 3, 58 
percent and 64 percent of recreational areas are expected to improve, 
respectively, the majority of which are classified as local parks.
    Impacts to fisheries and fishing habitat are also of concern to 
human health as the consumption of contaminated shellfish can cause 
illness. Also, some individuals rely on subsistence fishing for 
survival and the reduction of fish populations due to compromised 
habitat can threaten their wellbeing. EPA estimated that 26 unique 
species used in commercial fishing may potentially be impacted by MPP 
wastewater release under baseline conditions, as well as 1 commercial 
oyster bed, and 9 recreational fishing areas. For preferred Option 1, 
96 percent of all commercial fisheries, and 67 percent of recreational 
fishing areas, may benefit from improved water quality. These 
statistics are the same for Options 2 and 3 as this analysis currently 
reflects impacts from direct discharging facilities only. EPA plans to 
expand this analysis to include impacts to fishing areas from indirect 
MPP wastewater discharge to support any final rule.

XII. Benefits Analysis

    This section summarizes EPA's estimates of the changes in national 
environmental benefits expected to result from changes in MPP facility 
wastewater discharges described in Section IX of this preamble, and the 
resultant environmental effects, summarized in Section XI of this 
preamble. The Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) report provides additional 
details on the benefits methodologies and analyses.

A. Categories of Benefits Analyzed

    Table XII-1 of this preamble summarizes benefit categories 
associated with the three regulatory options and notes which categories 
EPA was able to quantify and monetize. Analyzed benefits fall into four 
broad categories: (1) Human health benefits from surface water quality 
improvements, (2) ecological conditions and effects on recreational use 
from surface water quality changes, (3) market and productivity 
benefits, and (4) air-related effects. Within these broad categories, 
EPA assessed the benefits associated with the regulatory options in 
this proposal with varying degrees of completeness and rigor. Where 
possible, EPA quantified the expected changes in effects and estimated 
monetary values. However, data limitations, modeling limitations, and 
gaps in the understanding of how society values certain environmental 
changes prevented EPA from quantifying and/or monetizing some benefit 
categories. EPA notes that all human health and environmental 
improvements discussed in the EA also represent benefits of the 
proposal (whether quantified or unquantified), and the Agency will 
continue to enhance its benefits analysis methods where appropriate 
throughout the rulemaking process.

                              Table XII-1--Summary of Estimated Benefits Categories
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Benefits analysis
                                                                       -----------------------------------------
              Category                  Effect of regulatory options                                 Qualitative
                                                                         Quantified     Monetized    discussion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Human Health Benefits from Surface Water Quality Improvements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in incidence of adverse      Reduced exposure to E. coli and    ............  ............      [check]
 human health effects (e.g., cases    HAB-related illnesses from
 of gastrointestinal illness) from    primary contact recreation and
 exposure to MPP pollutants via       recreationally caught and
 recreational use.                    consumed fish and shellfish.
Changes in incidence of adverse      Reduced exposure to high nitrate   ............  ............      [check]
 human health effects (e.g.,          concentrations, E. coli, and
 developmental effects,               DBPs (which may be generated
 gastrointestinal illness, cancer)    indirectly due to nutrient
 from exposure to MPP pollutants      enrichment and eutrophication)
 via drinking water.                  in drinking water.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Ecological Condition and Recreational Use Effects from Surface Water Quality Changes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits from changes in surface     Improved ambient water quality in      [check]       [check]       [check]
 water quality, including: aquatic    receiving and downstream
 and wildlife habitat,\a\ water-      reaches, resulting in: enhanced
 based recreation,\a\ aesthetic       value of swimming, fishing,
 benefits,\a\ and nonuse values \a\.  boating, and near-water
                                      activities from water quality
                                      changes; improved aesthetics
                                      from shifts in water clarity,
                                      color, odor, including nearby
                                      site amenities for residing,
                                      working, and traveling; and
                                      Improved existence, option, and
                                      bequest values from improved
                                      ecosystem health.
Benefits from the protection of      Improved T&E species habitat and       [check]   ............      [check]
 threatened and endangered species.   potential effects on T&E species
                                      populations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4509]]

 
                                         Market and Productivity Effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in drinking water treatment  Improved quality of source water   ............  ............      [check]
 costs.                               used for drinking.
Changes in wastewater treatment      Reduced wastewater treatment       ............  ............      [check]
 costs.                               costs at POTWs.
Changes in the fees paid by MPP      Reduced (concentration-based)      ............  ............      [check]
 indirect dischargers to POTWs.       fees paid to POTWs by MPP
                                      indirect dischargers for
                                      discharges of TN, TP, BOD, and
                                      TSS.
Livestock watering.................  Improved quality of surface        ............  ............      [check]
                                      waters used for livestock
                                      watering.
Changes in commercial fishing        Improved fisheries yield and           [check]   ............      [check]
 yields.                              harvest quality due to aquatic
                                      habitat changes.
Changes in subsistence harvesting    Improved fisheries yield and       ............  ............      [check]
 yields.                              harvest quality due to aquatic
                                      habitat changes; Reduced risk of
                                      consuming contaminated fish and
                                      shellfish.
Changes in tourism and               Changes in participation in water- ............  ............      [check]
 participation in water recreation.   based recreation, increases in
                                      visitation and purchases from
                                      supporting businesses.
Changes in property values.........  Improved property values from      ............  ............      [check]
                                      changes in water quality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Air Quality-Related Effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in air emissions of PM2.5..  Changes in mortality and               [check]       [check]       [check]
                                      morbidity from exposure to
                                      particulate matter (PM2.5)
                                      emitted directly or linked to
                                      changes in NOX and SO2 emissions
                                      (precursors to PM2.5 and ozone).
Changes in air emissions of NOX and  Changes in ecosystem effects;          [check]       [check]       [check]
 SO2.                                 visibility impairment; and human
                                      health effects from direct
                                      exposure to NOX, SO2, and
                                      hazardous air pollutants.
Changes in air emissions of CO2 and  Changes in climate change              [check]       [check]       [check]
 CH4.                                 effects; Social cost of carbon
                                      and methane.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ These values are implicit in the total WTP for water quality improvements.
Source: Benefit Costs Analysis for Revisions to the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat
  and Poultry Products Point. USEPA. 2023.

B. Quantification and Monetization of Benefits

1. Human Health Effects From Surface Water Quality Changes
    Pollutants present in MPP wastewater discharges (e.g., pathogenic 
bacteria, nitrogen, and phosphorus) can cause a variety of adverse 
human health effects. The regulatory options affect human health risk 
by changing effluent discharges to surface waters and, as a result, 
reducing exposure to MPP pollutants in surface water via three exposure 
pathways: (1) Primary contact recreation in waters affected by MPP 
discharges, (2) consumption of drinking water sourced from surface 
waters affected by MPP discharges, and (3) consumption of shellfish 
taken from waters affected by MPP discharges.
    Due to data limitations and uncertainties, EPA was only able to 
monetize a subset of the health benefits associated with changes in 
pollutant discharges from MPP facilities resulting from the regulatory 
options in this proposal as compared to baseline. EPA anticipates 
monetizing benefits associated with a reduction in illness due to 
primary contact recreation for any final rule making. See the BCA, 
Chapter 3 and Appendix A for more details on the water quality index 
(WQI) used.
2. Ecological Condition and Recreational Use Effects From Changes in 
Surface Water Quality Improvements
    EPA evaluated whether the regulatory options in this proposal would 
alter aquatic habitats and human welfare by changing concentrations of 
pollutants such as ammonia, nitrogen, phosphorus, BOD, DO, fecal 
coliform bacteria, chlorides, and suspended sediment relative to 
baseline. As a result, the usability of some recreational waters 
relative to baseline discharge conditions could improve under each 
option, thereby affecting recreational users. Changes in pollutant 
loadings can also change the attractiveness of recreational waters by 
making recreational trips more or less enjoyable. The regulatory 
options may also change nonuse values stemming from bequest, altruism, 
and existence motivations. Individuals may value water quality 
maintenance, ecosystem protection, and healthy species populations 
independent of any use of those attributes.
    EPA used a WQI to translate water quality measurements, gathered 
for multiple parameters that are indicative of various aspects of water 
quality, into a single numerical indicator that reflects achievement of 
quality consistent with the suitability for certain uses. The WQI 
included six parameters: DO, BOD, E. coli, total nitrogen, total 
phosphorus, and TSS. EPA modeled changes in all parameters, using 
modeled data for inputs for all parameters except E. coli, where 
monitoring data was used. Chapter 3 and Appendix A of the BCA discuss 
the WQI methodology in detail.
    EPA estimated the change in monetized benefit values using an 
updated version of the meta-regressions of surface water valuation 
studies used in the benefit analyses of the 2015 (USEPA. 2015. EPA-821-
R-15-005) and 2020 (USEPA. 2020. EPA-821-R-20-003) rules affecting the 
Steam Electric point source category. The meta-regressions quantify 
average

[[Page 4510]]

household willingness to pay (WTP) for incremental improvements in 
surface water quality. Chapter 4 and Appendix B of the BCA provides 
additional detail on the valuation methodology.
    Table XII-2 presents the main analysis results of WTP estimates, 
based on Model 1 of the meta regression analysis and using 3 percent 
and 7 percent discount rates (USEPA. 2020. EPA-821-R-20-003). The total 
annualized values of water quality improvements from reducing 
nutrients, bacteria and pathogens, conventional pollutants, and other 
pollutants discharges from MPP facilities to affected HUC12s ranged 
from $0.52 million under Option 1 (7 percent discount rate) to $33 
million under Option 3 (3 percent discount rate). These results 
represent only a limited regional assessment of benefits and do not 
reflect national water quality benefits. See the Benefit Cost Analysis 
for a more detailed explanation.

  Table XII-2--Estimated Household and Total Annualized Willingness-To-Pay for Water Quality Improvements Under
                                 the Regulatory Options Mid-Atlantic Region Only
  [Note--Additional water quality modeling results and additional benefits to be completed week of October 23]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Total annualized WTP (millions
                                                     Affected     Average annual            2022$) b c
           Proposed regulatory option               population    WTP per person -------------------------------
                                                  (millions) \a\    (2022$) \b\     3% Discount     7% Discount
                                                                                       rate            rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1........................................            47.2           $0.01           $0.56           $0.52
Option 2........................................            47.2            0.39            18.4            17.4
Option 3........................................            47.2            0.70            33.0            31.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\b\ Estimates based on Model 1, which provides EPA's main estimate of non-market benefits.
\c\ Estimated benefits are regional-level rather than national-level since water quality modeling was limited to
  the Mid-Atlantic Region.
Source: Benefit Cost Analysis for Revisions to the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat
  and Poultry Products Point Source Category. USEPA. 2023. B.

3. Changes in Air Quality Related Effects
    The proposed rule has the potential to affect air pollution through 
three main mechanisms: (1) Indirect changes in CO2, 
NOX, SO2, and PM2.5 emissions 
associated with changes in electricity consumed to power wastewater 
treatment processes at MPP facilities and POTWs; (2) transportation-
related air pollutant emissions (CO2, NOX, and 
SO2) due to changes in the trucking of solid waste for land 
application, landfilling, or composting; and (3) changes in direct 
process-related emissions or capture of methane (CH4) 
generated at MPP facilities and POTWs.
    EPA evaluated potential effects resulting from net changes in air 
emissions of five pollutants: CO2, CH4, 
NOX, SO2, and primary PM2.5. 
CO2 and CH4 are key GHGs that EPA has determined 
endanger public health and welfare through their contribution to 
climate change. NOX and SO2 are precursors to 
fine particles sized 2.5 microns and smaller (PM2.5), which 
are also emitted directly, and NOX is an ozone precursor. 
These air pollutants cause a variety of adverse health effects 
including premature death, nonfatal heart attacks, hospital admissions, 
emergency department visits, upper and lower respiratory symptoms, 
acute bronchitis, aggravated asthma, lost work and school days, and 
acute respiratory symptoms.
    Table XII-3 of this preamble shows the changes in emissions of 
CO2, CH4, NOX, SO2, and 
primary PM2.5 under all proposed rule options relative to 
baseline. The proposed rule would result in a net increase in the 
emissions of CO2, CH4, NOX, and 
SO2 under preferred Option 1. Emissions of these pollutants 
increase incrementally under both Options 2 and 3, with the most 
notable changes estimated for methane, NOX, and 
CO2 emissions. These estimated increases in emissions are 
associated with changes in electricity consumption to power additional 
wastewater treatment processes; transportation-related air emissions 
due to changes in the trucking of solid waste for offsite land 
application, composting, and/or landfilling; and changes in direct 
process-related emissions.

 Table XII-3--Estimated Changes in Air Pollution Emissions Under the Proposed Rule Options Incremental Increase
                                                 from Baseline *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    CO2 (tons/      CH4 (tons/      NOX (tons/      SO2 (tons/
           Proposed regulatory option                  year)           year)           year)           year)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1........................................          27,560            2.25           17.85           16.60
Option 2........................................         100,890            8.30           63.26           61.21
Option 3........................................         145,030           11.89           90.18           88.21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Emissions are not additive between options.

    EPA followed the same methodology used in analyzing the revisions 
to the technology based ELGs for the steam electric generating point 
source category to monetize human health related impacts from changes 
in NOX, SO2, and PM2.5 emissions 
(USEPA. 2015. EPA-821-R-15-005). EPA used the Emissions & Generation 
Resource Integrated Database (eGRID) to estimate changes in the tons of 
NOX and SO2 emissions associated with changes in 
electricity consumed at MPP facilities and POTWs (USEPA. 2023).\39\ The 
eGRID database provides emission factors based on historical 
electricity generation (observed or estimated using 2021 data). It is 
designed to be used to

[[Page 4511]]

estimate the emissions footprint of marginal changes in electricity 
consumption, assuming a constant generation mix. The Integrated Power 
Model (IPM) simulates future electricity generation (and associated 
emissions) to meet projected demand, given market, environmental, and 
other system constraints. Either approach can be used to estimate 
indirect emissions from electricity consumption. The eGRID database 
provides static emission factors, whereas the IPM can provide predicted 
changes in the profile of electricity generation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ USEPA. 2023. Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated 
Database (eGRID). Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/egrid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's use of EGRID values for the proposed rule analysis is 
conservative in that it would tend to overstate emissions associated 
with the increased power consumption to operate MPP wastewater 
treatment systems since emission factors are expected to decline in the 
coming decades (e.g., due to the 2022 IRA). For the final rule, EPA 
plans to account for these changes by using future emission factors 
derived using EPA's IPM model. EPA requests comment on using IPM 
results to estimate future emissions.
4. Other Quantified and/or Monetized Benefits
(a) Benefits to Threatened and Endangered Species
    To assess the potential for the rule to benefit threatened and 
endangered species (both aquatic and terrestrial) relative to the 
baseline, EPA analyzed the overlap between waters expected to see 
reductions in wildlife water quality criteria exceedance status under a 
particular option and the known critical habitat locations of high 
vulnerability threatened and endangered species. EPA examined the life 
history traits of potentially affected threatened and endangered 
species and categorized them by potential for population impacts due to 
surface water quality changes. Chapter 2 of the BCA and Chapter 4 of 
the EA provide additional detail on the methodology. EPA's analysis 
showed that there are 113 species whose known critical habitats overlap 
with surface waters downstream of facilities that may be affected by 
the proposed options. Of these species, 28 were considered to be of 
lower vulnerability status, 5 were considered moderate vulnerable, and 
78 were consider highly vulnerable. Principal sources of uncertainty 
include the specifics of how changes under the regulatory options will 
impact threatened and endangered species, exact spatial distribution of 
the species, and additional species of concern not considered.

C. Total Monetized Benefits

    Using the analysis approach described above, EPA estimated 
annualized benefits of the three regulatory options for all monetized 
categories. Table XII-5 and Table XII-6 of this preamble summarize the 
total annualized benefits using 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates, 
respectively. The preferred option (Option 1) has monetized benefits 
estimated at $90 million using a three percent discount rate and $85 
million using a seven percent discount rate.

             Table XII-5--Summary of Total Estimated Annualized Monetized Benefits at Three Percent
                                          [In millions, 2022$, at 2025]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Benefit category \a\                  Option 1                 Option 2                 Option 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human Health Effects from Water
 Quality Changes:
    Change in gastrointestinal         A......................  A......................  A.
     illness rates from pathogen
     exposure.
Ecological Conditions and
 Recreational Use Changes:
    Use and nonuse values for water    $95.6 + B..............  $166.1 + B.............  $208.4 + B.
     quality improvements (for Mid-
     Atlantic Region only).
Market and Productivity Effects:
    Changes in Drinking Water          C......................  C......................  C.
     Treatment Costs.
Air-Related Effects:
    Changes in CO2 and CH4 air         -$1.9..................  -$7.0..................  -$10.1.
     emissions.
    Changes in human health effects    -$3.5..................  -$12.9.................  -$18.6.
     from Changes in NOX and SO2
     emissions.
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total........................  $90+A+B+C..............  $146+A+B+C.............  $180+A+B+C.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ ``A'' represents unmonetized human health effects from water quality improvements. ``B'' represents the
  additional unquantified non-market water quality benefits. ``C'' represents the unmonetized market and
  productivity effects of improved water quality.


             Table XII-6--Summary of Total Estimated Annualized Monetized Benefits at Seven Percent
                                          [In millions, 2022$, at 2025]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Benefit ctegory \a\                   Option 1                 Option 2                 Option 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human Health Effects from Water
 Quality Changes:
    Change in gastrointestinal         A......................  A......................  A.
     illness rates from pathogen
     exposure.
Ecological Conditions and
 Recreational Use Changes:
    Use and nonuse values for water    $89.0 + B..............  $154.4 + B.............  $193.7 + B.
     quality improvements (for Mid-
     Atlantic Region only).
Market and Productivity Effects:
    Changes in Drinking Water          C......................  C......................  C.
     Treatment Costs.
Air-Related Effects:
    Changes in CO2 and CH4 air         -$1.9..................  -$7.0..................  -$10.1.
     emissions.
    Changes in human health effects    -$2.7..................  -$10.1.................  -$14.5.
     from Changes in NOX and SO2
     emissions.
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4512]]

 
        Total........................  $85+A+B+C..............  $137+A+B+C.............  $179+A+B+C.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ ``A'' represents unmonetized human health effects from water quality improvements. ``B'' represents the
  additional unmonetized non-market water quality benefits. ``C'' represents the unmonetized market and
  productivity effects of improved water quality.

D. Non-Monetized Benefits

    The monetary value of the proposed rule's effects on social welfare 
does not account for all effects of the proposed options because, as 
described above, EPA is currently unable to quantify and/or monetize 
some categories. EPA anticipates the proposed rule Options would also 
generate important unquantified benefits, including but not limited to:

 Reduced incidence of adverse human health effects (e.g., 
developmental effects, gastrointestinal illness, cancer) from exposure 
to MPP pollutants via drinking water
 Protection of threatened and endangered species
 Reduction in wastewater treatment costs at some POTWs
 Changes in fees paid by some MPP indirect discharges based on 
concentration of conventional pollutants
 Improved quality of surface waters used for livestock watering
 Changes in fisheries yield and harvest due to aquatic habitat 
changes, impacting subsistence fishing populations as well as 
commercial fishing operations
 Changes in participation in water-based recreation
 Changes in property values from changes in water quality

    The BCA Report discusses changes in these potentially important 
effects qualitatively, indicating their potential magnitude where 
possible. EPA will continue to seek to enhance its approaches to 
quantify and/or monetize a broader set of benefits for any final rule 
and solicits comment on monetizing some of these additional benefits 
categories.

XIII. Environmental Justice Impacts

    Consistent with EPA's commitment to integrating environmental 
justice (EJ) in the Agency's actions, the Agency analyzed the 
distribution of impacts of this action across all potentially affected 
communities and sought input from stakeholders representing communities 
with potential EJ concerns. EPA prepared this analysis to implement the 
recommendations of the Agency's EJ Technical Guidance (USEPA. 
2016).\40\ For this ELG rulemaking, this analysis was conducted as part 
of the EA alongside other non-statutorily required analyses, such as 
water quality improvements, with the discussion of quantified benefits 
to specific communities and community groups included in the BCA. This 
analysis is intended to inform the public of the distributional effects 
of this proposal and the input EPA received from communities with 
potential EJ concerns. E.O. 12898 and E.O. 14096 are discussed in 
Section XVI.J of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ USEPA. 2016. Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental 
Justice in Regulatory Analysis. https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/technical-guidance-assessing-environmental-justice-regulatory-analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Overall, the analysis showed that communities near MPP facilities, 
surface waters downstream \41\ of MPP wastewater discharge, those 
receiving drinking water from a potentially impacted service area, or 
potentially relying on subsistence fishing have greater proportions of 
low-income individuals and racial/ethnic minorities than the national 
average. Benefits associated with improvements to water quality 
resulting from pollutant reductions in surface water and drinking water 
are expected to accrue to low-income populations and some minorities at 
a marginally higher rate when compared to all impacted communities 
under all proposed regulatory options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Within 25 river miles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Literature Review

    EPA conducted a literature review to identify studies, data, and 
research describing the environmental and human health impacts of MPP 
facilities on low-income individuals and racial/ethnic minorities, 
focusing primarily on facility discharges of pollutants to water. EPA 
identified 21 papers published since 2005 that were relevant to this 
rule making. These sources suggested that MPP facilities are often 
located in rural areas with multiple large facilities in the same 
county or region, and that half of the communities surrounding 
slaughterhouses in the U.S. contain at least 30 percent of residents 
living below the poverty line, which is over twice the national average 
(Winders and Abrell. 2021) \42\ (Burkhart et al. 2018).\43\ The review 
also highlighted the ecological and health impacts of pollutant 
contamination of surface waters from MPP wastewater, such as elevated 
nitrogen discharge contributing to algal bloom occurrence and causing 
methemoglobinemia, or blue baby syndrome, in infants consuming drinking 
water with high nitrate levels (Environment America Center. 2020).\44\ 
These findings suggest that wastewater discharge from MPP facilities 
differentially impacts various communities and population groups. EPA 
solicits comment on additional literature that discusses potential EJ 
concerns related to the specific changes being proposed to MPP 
wastewater discharges. For further discussion of the literature review, 
see Chapter 7 of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Winders, D.J., & Abrell, E. 2021. Slaughterhouse Workers, 
Animals, and the Environment: The Need for a Rights-Centered 
Regulatory Framework in the United States That Recognizes 
Interconnected Interests. Health and Human Rights Journal. Vol. 23: 
No. 2.
    \43\ Burkhart, K., Bernhardt, C., Pelton, T., Schaeffer, E., and 
Phillips, A. 2018. Water Pollution from Slaughterhouses. The 
Environmental Integrity Project. https://earthjustice.org/.
    \44\ Environment America Center. 2020. Slaughterhouses Are 
Polluting Our Waterways. https://environmentamericacenter.org/sites/environment/files/reports/Slaughterhouse%20factsheet%20FINAL.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Proximity Analyses

    EPA performed a set of proximity analyses using the EJSCREENBatch R 
package (USEPA. 2022) \45\ to identify the environmental and 
socioeconomic characteristics of the communities that are expected to 
be impacted by discharges from MPP facilities via relevant exposure 
pathways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ USEPA. March 2022. EJSCREENBatch. V2.0. Available online: 
https://github.com/USEPA/EJSCREENBatch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, EPA analyzed communities located within a 1-mile radius of 
an MPP facility using facility coordinates. EPA found that communities 
within 1 mile of an MPP facility have greater proportions of low-income 
individuals and individuals identifying as Asian, Black, and/or 
Hispanic than the national average. EPA also considered how these

[[Page 4513]]

communities' exposure to relevant environmental indicators \46\ of 
concern may change: PM 2.5, diesel PM, and traffic proximity.\47\ These 
indicators all exceeded the national average, with traffic proximity in 
these communities more than double that of the average person.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Environmental indicator exposures were determined from raw 
indicator scores available in EJSCREEN V2.1. Each CBG score was 
population weighted before averaging across all communities. 
Environmental indicator score definitions are available in the 
EJSCREEN Technical Documentation (U.S. EPA. 2023. EJSCREEN Technical 
Documentation).
    \47\ EPA estimates that PM 2.5 will increase under Options 2 and 
3 due to an increase in emissions from increased wastewater 
treatment. Diesel PM and traffic volume near facilities are 
predicted to rise as industrial sludge generation from treatment 
changes will increase under all proposed options, resulting in 
increased trucking for offsite land application. For further details 
on these estimates, refer to Section X of this document and the 
Section 6 of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, EPA examined the characteristics of communities located 
within a one-mile distance of a surface waterbody downstream of MPP 
facilities.\48\ EPA found that communities downstream of MPP wastewater 
outfalls are on average exposed to higher P.M 2.5 levels and have a 
heighted proximity to traffic compared to national averages. These 
communities also have greater proportions of low-income individuals 
compared to the national average.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ EPA defined downstream surface waterbodies as a segment 25 
miles downstream of the initial common identifiers (COMIDs) 
identified for each direct discharge outfall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, EPA conducted an analysis of communities served by public 
water systems (PWSs) either with a source water intake within 25 miles 
downstream of an MPP wastewater outfall (direct PWS) or buying water 
from a direct PWS (buying PWS). Service areas were determined using a 
multi-tiered approach based on availability, first using service areas 
identified in the Hydroshare (SimpleLab, EPIC.2022),\49\ then 2022 
TIGER zip code tabulated areas, and finally county boundaries. 
Communities served by potentially impacted drinking water service areas 
have a greater proportion of individuals who identify as Black/African 
American when compared to the national average. This trend is most 
prominent in buying PWSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ SimpleLab, EPIC. 2022. U.S. Community Water Systems Service 
Boundaries, v2.4.0, HydroShare, http://www.hydroshare.org/resource/20b908d73a784fc1a097a3b3f2b58bfb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For additional detail on the proximity analysis and drinking water 
service area methodologies, and further results of the screening 
analysis, please refer to Chapter 7 of the EA.

C. Community Outreach

    Due to the large number of potential communities with EJ concerns 
who could be affected, as identified in the results of the screening 
analysis, EPA used a wide-reaching approach to community engagement to 
maximize awareness of the rulemaking and the potential impacts of 
proposed policy options. An overview of the rulemaking and its 
potential interest to communities was presented to the Office of 
Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights management team on May 
30, 2023 to increase national awareness of the proposed rulemaking. 
This team includes EJ National Program and Regional managers, who 
engage directly with communities across the country. EPA also presented 
a rulemaking overview and held a discussion session with participants 
of the National Environmental Justice Community Engagement Call on June 
20th, 2023, which had over 200 attendees.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ A recording of this meeting is available on the National 
Environmental Justice Community Engagement website through the 
``Previous Calls'' link.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Distribution of Benefits

    EPA evaluated the distribution of estimated benefits and costs of 
the proposed regulatory options across the affected population, with 
consideration of their distribution among communities with 
environmental justice concerns. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
Circular A-4, which provides guidance to agencies on the development of 
regulatory analyses as required under E.O. 12866, states that 
regulatory analyses ``should provide a separate description of 
distributional effects (i.e., how both benefits and costs are 
distributed among sub-populations of particular concern).''
    To determine how benefits from pollutant reductions in MPP 
wastewater may be distributed among communities with environmental 
justice concerns, EPA calculated the population-weighted averages of 
these groups for impacted drinking water service areas and communities 
potentially reliant on subsistence fishing from surface waters 
downstream of MPP wastewater outfalls. EPA then compared these 
community characteristics to the subset of these populations who are 
expected to benefit under each proposed regulatory option.
1. Drinking Water Quality
    EPA estimated that 7,595,010 people receive drinking water from a 
Public Water System (PWS) that either directly intakes source water 
from a surface water potentially impacted by MPP wastewater (direct) or 
from a PWS that buys drinking water from a direct PWS (buying). The 
population of these service areas (SAs) receiving potentially impacted 
drinking water has greater proportions of individuals identifying as 
Black/African American than the national average. Under all proposed 
regulatory options, drinking water benefits from improved source water 
are expected to accrue at a higher rate to low-income and Black/African 
American individuals. For Options 1 and 2, which impact the same direct 
discharging facilities and therefore the same service areas, 75.1 
percent of the total receiving population would be impacted, 31.2 
percent and 22.7 percent of which identify as low income and Black/
African American, respectively. For Option 3, 82.7 percent of the total 
receiving population would be impacted, 30.5 percent and 22.1 percent 
of which identify as low income and Black/African American, 
respectively. For further discussion of changes in the distribution of 
drinking water benefits under proposed rule options, refer to section 3 
of Chapter 7 of the EA.
2. Fisher Population
    EPA estimated that 13,244,292 people live within a 50-mile distance 
of a downstream surface water potentially impacted by MPP 
wastewater.\51\ This population is representative of the group of 
people who may travel to these waterbodies for recreational or 
subsistence fishing opportunities. Communities in these areas have on 
average greater proportions of low-income individuals than the national 
average. Under all regulatory options, benefits from improved fish 
habitat are expected to accrue at a higher rate to low-income 
individuals, although a greater number of individuals would potentially 
benefit under Option 3. See section 3 of Chapter 7 of the EA for a 
further discussion of these results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Studies of fishers' behavior and practices have made 
similar observations (e.g., Sohngen, B., Zhang, W., Bruskotter, J., 
& Sheldon, B. 2015. Results from a 2014 Survey of Lake Erie Anglers. 
Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University, Department of Agricultural, 
Environmental and Development Economics and School of Environment & 
Natural Resources; Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant. 2018. Lake Michigan 
Anglers Boost Local Illinois and Indiana Economies.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Results of the Analysis

    The results of EPA's screening analyses found that communities near 
MPP facilities, downstream surface waters, and those using impacted 
surface waters have greater proportions of low-income and/or racial/
ethnic minorities than the national average.

[[Page 4514]]

The results of EPA's distributional analysis of impacts suggested that 
improvements in drinking water quality and to fishing areas will 
differentially accrue to minority and/or low-income populations under 
all proposed regulatory options. Remaining exposures, impacts, costs, 
and benefits analyzed are small enough that EPA could not conclude 
whether changes in differential impacts would occur.

XIV. Development of Effluent Limitations and Standards

    This section describes the statistical methodology used to 
calculate the long-term averages (LTAs), variability factors, and 
limitations for BAT, BPT, new source performance standards and 
pretreatment standards for existing and new sources. EPA's statistical 
methodology is well established and has been upheld by courts Chemical 
Mfrs. Assn. v. EPA, 877 F.2d 177, 211-12 (5th Cir. 1989). The 
methodology is based on LTA effluent values and variability factors 
that account for variation in treatment performance of the model 
technology. The LTAs, variability factors, and limitations were based 
upon pollutant concentrations collected from EPA sampling episodes, DMR 
data, data from State EPA offices, and data submitted by industry.
    The proposed ELGs, collectively referred to in the remainder of 
this section as ``limitations,'' for pollutants for each regulatory 
option, as presented in this preamble, are provided as ``daily 
maximums'' and ``maximums for monthly averages.'' Definitions provided 
in 40 CFR 122.2 state that the daily maximum limitation is the 
``highest allowable `daily discharge,' '' and the maximum for monthly 
average 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 discharges are 
defined to be 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 first 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 LTA is calculated from the data from the 
facilities using the BPT, BCT, and BAT technologies for the regulatory 
option. EPA uses all values and a lognormal distribution to calculate 
the facility LTA, which is then used in calculations for both 
limitations. EPA expects that all facilities subject to the limitations 
will design and operate their treatment systems to achieve the LTA 
performance level on a consistent basis because facilities with well-
designed and operated BAT and BPT/BCT technologies have demonstrated 
that this can be done.
    EPA then calculates the 99th percentile of daily measurements and 
the 95th percentile of monthly averages. The percentiles are chosen 
with the intention to accommodate reasonably anticipated variability 
within the control of the facility while also reflecting a level of 
performance consistent with the CWA requirement that these effluent 
limitations be based on the ``best'' available technologies. The daily 
maximum limitation is based on the 99th percentiles of the distribution 
of the daily measurements. The maximum monthly average limitation is 
based on the 95th percentile of the distribution of the monthly 
averages of the daily measurements and monthly averages. Using the LTA 
and the percentiles, EPA determines the daily and monthly ``variability 
factors'' (VFs), which are allowances for the variation in pollutant 
concentrations when processed through well designed and operated 
treatment systems. The allowance for variance incorporates all 
components of variability including process and wastewater generation, 
sample collection, shipping, storage, and analytical variability. If a 
facility operates its treatment system to meet the relevant LTA, EPA 
expects the facility to be able to meet the limitations. VFs assure 
that normal fluctuations in a facility's treatment are accounted for in 
the limitations. The daily VFs are calculated by dividing the 99th 
percentile of daily measurements by the corresponding LTA. The monthly 
VFs are calculated by dividing the 95th percentile of monthly 
measurements by the corresponding LTA.
    EPA calculates LTAs and VFs for each facility with sufficient daily 
or monthly data. EPA then combines the LTAs and daily and monthly VFs 
across all facilities by calculating their median values.
    To calculate the limitations, the LTAs are multiplied by the 
corresponding VFs. This ensures the limitations account for these 
reasonable excursions above the LTA. EPA's use of VFs results in 
limitations that are generally well above the actual LTA. For direct 
dischargers (BAT, BPT), EPA developed limits for total nitrogen, total 
phosphorus, E. coli, chlorides, and fecal coliform. For indirect 
dischargers (PSES, PSNS), EPA developed limits for oil and grease, BOD, 
TSS, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and chlorides.

A. Criteria Used To Select Data as the Basis for the Limitations and 
Standards

    In developing ELGs for any industry, EPA qualitatively reviews all 
the data before selecting data that represents proper operation of the 
technology that forms the basis for the limitations. EPA typically uses 
four criteria to assess the data. The first criterion requires that the 
facility have the BPT, BCT, or BAT treatment technology and demonstrate 
consistently diligent and optimal operation. Application of this 
criterion typically eliminates any facility with treatment other than 
the candidate technology. EPA generally determines whether a facility 
meets this criterion based upon site visits, discussions with facility 
management, and/or comparison to the characteristics, operation, and 
performance of treatment systems at other facilities. EPA often 
contacts facilities to determine whether data submitted were 
representative of normal operating conditions for the facility and 
equipment. As a result of this review, EPA typically excludes the data 
in developing the limitations when the facility has not optimized the 
performance of its treatment system to the degree that represents the 
appropriate level of control (e.g., BPT, BCT, or BAT).
    A second criterion generally requires that the influents and 
effluents from the treatment components represent typical wastewater 
from the industry, without incompatible wastewater from other sources. 
Application of this criterion results in EPA selecting those facilities 
where the commingled wastewaters did not result in substantial 
dilution, facilities without equalization where slug loads could result 
and cause frequent upsets and/or overloads, more concentrated 
wastewaters, or wastewaters with different types of pollutants than 
those generated by the waste stream for which EPA is proposing effluent 
limitations.
    A third criterion typically ensures that the pollutants are present 
in the influent at sufficient concentrations to evaluate treatment 
effectiveness. To evaluate whether the data meet this criterion for 
inclusion as a basis of the limitations, EPA often uses the long-term 
average test (or LTA test) for facilities where EPA possesses paired 
influent and effluent data (see section 13 of the TDD for details of 
the LTA test). The test measures the influent concentrations to ensure 
a pollutant is present at a sufficient concentration to evaluate 
treatment effectiveness. If a

[[Page 4515]]

dataset for a pollutant fails the test (i.e., pollutant not present at 
a treatable concentration), EPA excludes the data for that pollutant at 
that plant when calculating the limitations.
    A fourth criterion typically requires that the data are valid and 
appropriate for their intended use (e.g., the data must be analyzed 
with a sufficiently sensitive method). Also, EPA does not use data 
associated with periods of treatment upsets because these data would 
not reflect the performance from well-designed and well-operated 
treatment systems. In applying the fourth criterion, EPA may evaluate 
the pollutant concentrations, analytical methods and the associated 
quality control/quality assurance data, flow values, mass loading, 
plant logs, and other available information. As part of this 
evaluation, EPA reviews the process or treatment conditions that may 
have resulted in extreme values (high and low). As a consequence of 
this review, EPA may exclude data associated with certain time periods 
or other data outliers that reflect poor performance or analytical 
anomalies by an otherwise well-operated site.

B. Data Selection for Each Technology

    EPA used specific data sources to derive limitations for pollutants 
for wastewater streams resulting from MPP process wastewater and high 
chlorides processes. The LTAs, VFs, and limitations for each waste 
stream were based on pollutant concentrations collected during EPA 
sampling episodes, DMR data, data provided by EPA Regions and State 
agencies, and data submitted by industry. EPA conducted six sampling 
episodes. Industry discharge data includes data submitted in the MPP 
Questionnaire, data submitted by facilities upon request, and publicly 
available discharge monitoring reports.
    EPA identified facilities that were operating the BAT technology 
for one or more of the proposed pollutants for regulation: total 
nitrogen, total phosphorus, E. coli, oil and grease, TSS, BOD, fecal 
coliforms. EPA calculated the BAT LTA for a given pollutant based on 
the facilities operating the BAT technology basis for that pollutant.
    Limitations may be based on technology transferred from a different 
subcategory within an industry or from another industrial category. 
Limitations based on 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 (Tanners' Council of America v. Train, 540 F.2nd 1188 (4th Cir. 
1976)).
    For the proposed limitations, EPA combined data sets across all MPP 
processes to give a single limit per analyte for the industry. As the 
raw materials for MPP processes are animals/animal products, composed 
of carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus, EPA finds combining data from 
different MPP processes to be reasonable. Additionally, with the 
available data, EPA performed a comparison of influent from the 
different MPP processes and found the wastewater characteristics to be 
comparable. Therefore, EPA proposes to find that the combination is 
reasonable and solicits data to inform this analysis.
    Additional details on the data and methodology used to calculate 
the effluent limitations in today's proposal can be found in TDD 
section 13. In addition, the proposed limitations for each level of 
control for the preferred Option 1 can be found in the proposed 
regulatory text following this preamble.
    In addition to the proposed limitations, as described earlier EPA 
is soliciting comment on including effluent limitations for E. coli in 
addition to, or in place of, limitations for fecal coliform for direct 
discharging facilities. Based on data available to EPA at the time of 
proposal, the monthly average limitation for E. coli would be 9 MPN or 
CFU per 100 mL (see the TDD for additional information). EPA solicits 
comment on this value as well as the data and methodology used to 
calculate the proposed effluent limitations in today's proposal. EPA 
also solicits comment on including effluent limitations for chlorides, 
which are proposed as zero-discharge for high chlorides processes. In 
addition to general comments related to the calculation of proposed 
effluent limitations, EPA also solicits comment on combining data 
across subcategories in developing the proposed limitations. EPA also 
solicits additional daily and monthly data from facilities across the 
industry.

XV. Regulatory Implementation

A. Implementation of New Limitations and Standards

    ELGs act as a primary mechanism to control the discharge of 
pollutants to waters of the United States. This proposed rule would be 
applied to MPP wastewater discharges through incorporation into NPDES 
permits issued by the EPA or States under CWA section 402 (33 U.S.C. 
1342) and through pretreatment program requirements under CWA section 
307 (33 U.S.C. 1317).
    The Agency has developed the limitations and standards for this 
proposed rule to control the discharge of pollutants from the MPP point 
source category. Once promulgated, those permits or control mechanisms 
issued after this rule's effective date would be required to 
incorporate the effluent limitations guidelines and standards, as 
applicable. Also, under section 510 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1370), States 
may require effluent limitations under State law as long as they are no 
less stringent than the requirements of a final rule. Finally, in 
addition to requiring application of the technology-based ELGs 
promulgated in a final rule, CWA section 301(b)(1)(C) (33 U.S.C. 
1311(b)(1)(C)) requires the permitting authority to impose more 
stringent effluent limitations on discharges as necessary to meet 
applicable water quality standards.
    Categorical pretreatment standards for existing indirect 
dischargers, unlike effluent limitations guidelines applicable to 
direct dischargers, are directly enforceable and must specify a time 
for compliance not to exceed three years under CWA section 307(b)(1) 
(33 U.S.C. 1317(b)(1)). Under EPA's General Pretreatment Regulations 
for Existing and New Sources (40 CFR part 403), POTWs with flows in 
excess of 5 million gallons per day (MGD) must develop pretreatment 
programs meeting prescribed conditions. These POTWs have the legal 
authority to require compliance with applicable pretreatment standards 
and control the introduction of pollutants to the POTW through permits, 
orders, or similar means. POTWs with approved pretreatment programs act 
as the control authorities for their industrial users. Among the 
responsibilities of the control authority are the development of the 
specific discharge limitations for the POTW's industrial users. Because 
pollutant discharge limitations in categorical pretreatment standards 
may be expressed as concentrations or mass limitations, in many cases, 
the control authority must convert the pretreatment standards to 
limitations applicable to a specific industrial user and then include 
these in POTW permits or another control instrument.
    New source direct dischargers must comply with the new source 
performance standards (NSPS) of this rule when they commence 
discharging MPP process wastewater. CWA section 306 (33 U.S.C. 1316) 
states that NSPS are effective upon promulgation. While arguably this 
language could mean that they are also enforceable upon

[[Page 4516]]

promulgation, over the decades of CWA implementation, NSPS for direct 
dischargers have been implemented through NPDES permits. For facilities 
that are considered new sources, the CWA provides for a protection 
period from any more stringent technology-based standards. The 
protection period is generally 10 years from the completion of 
construction. See CWA section 306(d) (33 U.S.C. 1316(d) and 40 CFR 
122.29(d)). Thus, any source that commenced construction before 
promulgation of future NSPS will not be subject to any more stringent 
standard of performance until the protection period identified in 40 
CFR 122.29(d) expires.
    Facilities that discharge wastewater from operations from more than 
one category may need to comply with limitations and standards from 
multiple subcategories. For these facilities, permit writers would use 
the ``building block approach'' based on production or wastewater 
discharge flow to combine the sets of limitations into one final 
effluent limitation in the facility's permit. In cases where one part 
of the wastewater comes from operations with no national technology-
based limitations, the permit writer must first establish BPJ 
limitations for this portion of the wastewater, and then combine these 
with any applicable national technology-based limitations using the 
building block approach. However, first processing subcategories 
(subcategories A, B, C, D, and K) are defined to include wastewater 
discharges from further processing and rendering operations at the same 
facility. These facilities will only be regulated by the relevant first 
processing subcategory or subcategories.
    In May 2000, EPA promulgated a regulation streamlining the NPDES 
regulations (Amendments to Streamline the National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System Program Regulations: Round Two. 65 FR 30886; May 15, 
2000) which includes a monitoring waiver for direct dischargers subject 
to effluent guidelines. Direct discharge facilities may request a 
reduction in sampling a guideline-limited pollutant if that discharger 
``has demonstrated through sampling and other technical factors that 
the pollutant is not present in the discharge or is present only at 
background levels from intake water and without any increase in the 
pollutant due to activities of the discharger'' (65 FR 30908; 40 CFR 
122.44). EPA noted in the preamble to the final NPDES streamlining rule 
that the Agency is granting a waiver from monitoring requirements but 
not a waiver from the limit. In addition, the provision does not waive 
monitoring for any pollutants for which there are limits based on water 
quality standards. The waiver for direct dischargers lasts for the term 
of the NPDES permit and is not available during the term of the first 
permit issued to a discharger. Any request for this waiver must be 
submitted with the application for a reissued permit or a request for 
modification of a reissued permit. On receiving authorization from 
their NPDES permitting authority, direct discharge facilities covered 
by any effluent guidelines (including any final rule promulgated for 
this category) may use the monitoring waiver contained in the NPDES 
streamlining final rule.
    The CWA requires application of effluent limitations established 
pursuant to section 301 or the 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. The Agency has established administrative mechanisms to 
provide an opportunity for relief from the application of the national 
effluent limitations guidelines for categories of existing sources for 
toxic, conventional, and nonconventional pollutants.
    EPA may develop, with the concurrence of the State, effluent 
limitations or standards different from the otherwise applicable 
requirements for an individual existing discharger if it is 
fundamentally different with respect to factors considered in 
establishing the effluent limitations or standards applicable to the 
individual discharger. Such a modification is known as a Fundamentally 
Different Factor (FDF) variance. FDF variances are not available for 
new sources (DuPont v. Train, 430 U.S. 112 (1977)).
    EPA, in its initial implementation of the effluent guidelines 
program, provided for the FDF modifications in regulations, which were 
variances from the BPT effluent limitations, BAT limitations for toxic 
and nonconventional pollutants, and BCT limitations for conventional 
pollutants for direct dischargers. FDF variances for toxic pollutants 
were challenged judicially and ultimately sustained by the Supreme 
Court in Chemical Manufacturers Association v. Natural Resources 
Defense Council, 470 U.S. 116, 124 (1985).
    Subsequently, in the Water Quality Act of 1987, Congress added a 
new section to the CWA--section 301(n) (33 U.S.C. 1311(n)). This 
provision explicitly authorizes modifications of the otherwise 
applicable BAT effluent limitations, if a discharger is fundamentally 
different with respect to the factors specified in CWA section 304 
(other than cost) from those considered by EPA in establishing the 
effluent limitations. CWA 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 a reasonable opportunity to submit during the 
rulemaking. The alternate limitation 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.
    EPA regulations further detail the substantive criteria used to 
evaluate FDF variance requests for direct dischargers. 40 CFR 125.31(d) 
and 40 CFR 403.13(d) identify six factors (e.g., volume of process 
wastewater, age and size of a discharger's facility) that may be 
considered in determining if a discharger is fundamentally different. 
The Agency must determine whether, based on one or more of these 
factors, the discharger in question is fundamentally different from the 
dischargers and factors considered by EPA in developing the nationally 
applicable effluent guidelines. The regulation also lists four other 
factors (e.g., inability to install equipment 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(c), 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. 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) and 403.13 impose this burden upon the applicant. The 
applicant must show that the factors relating to the discharge 
controlled by the applicant's permit that are claimed to be 
fundamentally different are, in fact, fundamentally different from 
those factors considered by EPA in establishing the applicable 
guidelines.

[[Page 4517]]

In practice, very few FDF variances have been granted for past ELGs.
    CWA section 301(c) (33 U.S.C. 1311(c)) 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. 40 CFR 122.21(m)(2) specifies that section 301(c) variances 
must be filed within 270 days of promulgation of an ELG. Specific 
guidance for this type of variance is provided in Draft Guidance for 
Application and Review of Section 301(c) Variance Requests (USEPA. 
1984).\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ https://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/OWM0469.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CWA section 307(b)(1) (33 U.S.C. 1317(b)) establishes a 
discretionary program for POTWs to grant ``removal credits'' to their 
indirect dischargers. Removal credits are a regulatory mechanism by 
which industrial users may discharge a pollutant in quantities that 
exceed what would otherwise be allowed under an applicable categorical 
pretreatment standard because it has been determined that the POTW to 
which the industrial user discharges consistently treats the pollutant. 
EPA has promulgated removal credit regulations as part of its 
pretreatment regulations (40 CFR 403.7). These regulations provide that 
a POTW may give removal credits if prescribed requirements are met. The 
POTW must apply to and receive authorization from the Approval 
Authority. To obtain authorization, the POTW must demonstrate 
consistent removal of the pollutant for which approval authority is 
sought. Furthermore, the POTW must have an approved pretreatment 
program. Finally, the POTW must demonstrate that granting removal 
credits will not cause the POTW to violate applicable federal, State, 
or local sewage sludge requirements or the POTW's NPDES permit limits 
and conditions (40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)).
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 
interpreted the CWA as requiring EPA to promulgate the comprehensive 
sewage sludge regulations pursuant to CWA section 405(d)(2)(A)(ii) (33 
U.S.C. 1345(d)(2)(A)(ii)) before any removal credits could be 
authorized (NRDC v. EPA, 790 F.2d 289, 292 (3d Cir., 1986); cert. 
denied., 479 U.S. 1084 (1987)). Congress made this explicit in the 
Water Quality Act of 1987, which provided that EPA could not authorize 
any removal credits until it issued the sewage sludge use and disposal 
regulations. On February 19, 1993, EPA promulgated Standards for the 
Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge, which are codified at 40 CFR part 
503. EPA interprets the Court's decision in NRDC v. EPA as only 
allowing removal credits for a pollutant if EPA has either regulated 
the pollutant in Part 503 or established a concentration of the 
pollutant in sewage sludge below which public health and the 
environment are protected when sewage sludge is used or disposed.
    The 40 CFR part 503 sewage sludge regulations allow four options 
for sewage sludge disposal: (1) Land application for beneficial use, 
(2) placement on a surface disposal unit, (3) firing in a sewage sludge 
incinerator, and (4) disposal in a landfill which complies with the 
municipal solid waste landfill criteria in section 40 CFR 503.4. 
Because pollutants in sewage sludge are regulated differently depending 
upon the use or disposal method selected, under EPA's pretreatment 
regulations the availability of a removal credit for a particular 
pollutant is linked to the POTW's method of using or disposing of its 
sewage sludge. The regulations provide that removal credits may be 
potentially available for the following pollutants:
    (1) If POTW applies its sewage sludge to the land for beneficial 
uses, disposes of it in a surface disposal unit, or incinerates it in a 
sewage sludge incinerator, removal credits may be available for the 
pollutants for which EPA has established limits in 40 CFR part 503. EPA 
has set ceiling limitations for nine metals in sludge that is land 
applied, three metals in sludge that is placed on a surface disposal 
unit, and seven metals and 57 organic pollutants in sludge that is 
incinerated in a sewage sludge incinerator.
    (2) Additional removal credits may be available for sewage sludge 
that is land applied, placed in a surface disposal unit, or incinerated 
in a sewage sludge incinerator, so long as the concentration of these 
pollutants in sludge do not exceed concentration levels established in 
Part 403, Appendix G, Table II. For sewage sludge that is land applied, 
removal credits may be available for an additional two metals and 14 
organic pollutants. For sewage sludge that is placed on a surface 
disposal unit, removal credits may be available for an additional seven 
metals and 13 organic pollutants. For sewage sludge that is incinerated 
in a sewage sludge incinerator, removal credits may be available for 
three other metals (40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)(iv)(B)).
    (3) When a POTW disposes of its sewage sludge in a municipal solid 
waste landfill that meets the criteria of 40 CFR part 258, removal 
credits may be available for any pollutant in the POTW's sewage sludge 
(40 CFR part 403.7(a)(3)(iv)(C)).

B. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

    The proposed effluent limitations include pollutants not previously 
regulated in ELGs for direct and indirect MPP dischargers. NPDES permit 
writers and pretreatment control authorities must establish 
requirements for regulated MPP facilities to monitor their effluent to 
ensure that they are complying with the effluent limitations and 
pretreatment standards. As specified at 40 CFR 122.41, 122.44, and 
122.48, all NPDES permits must specify requirements for using, 
maintaining, and installing (if appropriate) monitoring equipment; 
monitoring type, intervals, and frequencies that will provide 
representative data; analytical methods; and reporting and 
recordkeeping. In addition, 40 CFR 122.42 outlines additional 
conditions applicable to specified categories of NPDES permits. For 
example, during the NPDES permit cycle, POTWs must provide adequate 
notice to the permitting authority of any new introduction of 
pollutants into the POTW from an indirect discharger which otherwise 
would be subject to CWA section 301 or 306 if it were directly 
discharging those pollutants; any substantial change in the volume or 
character of pollutants being introduced into the POTW; and any 
anticipated impact to the POTW final discharge (40 CFR 142.2(b)).
    The NPDES program requires permittees (with certain specific 
exceptions) to monitor for limited pollutants and report data at least 
once a year. 40 CFR 122.44(i)(2). Industrial users and POTWs have 
similar reporting requirements as specified at 40 CFR 403.12. The 
general pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR part 403 require significant 
industrial users (which includes all industrial users subject to 
Categorical Pretreatment Standards, with certain specific exceptions) 
to monitor for limited pollutants and report data in June and December, 
unless required more frequently in the Pretreatment Standard or by the 
control authority or approval authority (40 CFR 403.12(e)). POTW 
control authorities are also required by 40 CFR 403.8(f) to conduct 
annual inspections and sampling to independently assess compliance with 
standards.

[[Page 4518]]

    EPA does not plan to promulgate specific monitoring requirements or 
monitoring frequencies in the MPP rule. Therefore, NPDES permit writers 
may establish monitoring requirements and monitoring frequencies at 
their discretion subject to the requirements of the NPDES regulations. 
Likewise, the control authority for indirect dischargers may establish 
monitoring requirements and monitoring frequencies at their discretion 
subject to the requirements of the pretreatment program regulations and 
in compliance with approved State and POTW program procedures. The 
Agency notes, however, that since the PRA requires it to estimate the 
incremental reporting and recordkeeping burden associated with any new 
regulation, in developing the proposed Part 432 limitations it 
considered a monthly sampling frequency for purposes of estimating this 
burden. EPA expects that facilities properly operating and maintaining 
the wastewater treatment technology system will be able to comply with 
the monthly average limitation/standard when they sample at the assumed 
monthly monitoring frequency, although compliance is required 
regardless of the number of samples analyzed and averaged in a month. 
EPA recommends that permitting authorities require monitoring samples 
at some regular, predetermined frequency. If a facility has difficulty 
complying with the standards on an ongoing basis, the facility should 
improve its equipment, operations, and/or maintenance.
    Facilities are required to use analytical methods specified in or 
approved under 40 CFR part 136 for compliance monitoring (40 CFR 
122.41(j)(4), 403.12(g)(3)). Of note, Part 136 requires facilities to 
collect grab samples for oil & grease. In developing the Part 432 oil & 
grease limitations, EPA generally collected six grab samples in a 24-
hour monitoring day. For pH, sample types can range from a one-time 
grab sample during a monitoring day to continuous sampling throughout a 
monitoring day where pH is a critical aspect of the wastewater treated 
or the wastewater treatment operation.

C. Applicability of PSNS/NSPS Requirements

    In 2004, EPA promulgated NSPS/PSNS for certain discharges from new 
units. Regardless of the outcome of the current rulemaking, those units 
that are currently subject to the 2004 NSPS/PSNS will continue to be 
subject to such standards. In addition, EPA is proposing to clarify in 
the text of the regulation that, assuming the Agency promulgates BAT/
PSES requirements as part of the current rulemaking, units to which the 
2004 NSPS/PSNS apply will also be subject to any newly promulgated BAT/
PSES requirements because they will be existing sources with respect to 
such new requirements.

XVI. Related Acts of Congress, E.O's and Agency Initiatives

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review

    This action is a ``significant regulatory action'', as defined 
under section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866, as amended by E.O. 14094. 
Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to OMB for E.O. 12866 review. 
Documentation of any changes made in response to the E.O. 12866 review 
is available in the docket. The EPA prepared an analysis of the 
potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This 
analysis, ``Benefit and Cost Analysis for Proposed Effluent Limitations 
Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Point Source 
Category'' EPA 821-R-23-013, is also available in the docket and is 
briefly summarized in Section VIII.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document 
that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2701.02. You can 
find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly 
summarized here.
    This Information Collection Request (ICR) seeks approval of the 
information requirements in the Proposed Rule for the Effluent 
Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products (MPP) 
Category. EPA is proposing revisions to Best Available Technology 
Economically Achievable (BAT), as well as new Pretreatment Standards 
for Existing Sources (PSES) and Pretreatment Standards for New Sources 
(PSNS) under the Clean Water Act (CWA) for MPP facilities. Under the 
proposed BAT, certain MPP facilities that discharge wastewater directly 
to waters of the U.S. would be required to monitor for additional 
pollutants, such as phosphorus. Under the proposed PSES/PSNS, certain 
MPP facilities that discharge wastewater into publicly owned treatment 
works (POTWs) would be required to control the discharge of 
conventional pollutants. The proposed rule would require all affected 
direct discharging MPP facilities to meet limits for nitrogen, and 
phosphorus before discharging wastewater to surface waters. These 
facilities are already required to monitor for nitrogen. The proposed 
rule would require all affected indirect MPP facilities to meet limits 
for biological oxygen demand (BOD), oil and grease, and total suspended 
solids (TSS) before discharging wastewater to POTWs through the use of 
wastewater treatment technologies and Best Management Practices (BMPs).
    The users of the data would be MPP facilities, State and local 
regulatory authorities, EPA, and, perhaps most importantly, the general 
public. Specifically for indirect dischargers, the users of the data 
would be MPP facilities and their Control Authorities. By establishing 
categorical pretreatment standards for the MPP category in 40 CFR part 
432, MPP dischargers to POTWs would become subject to certain reporting 
requirements in 40 CFR part 403. These include a requirement to submit 
a baseline monitoring report, 90-day compliance report and on-going 
monitoring and reporting requirements including results of discharge 
sampling. Reports submitted to the Permitting or Control Authority may 
contain confidential business information. However, EPA does not 
consider the specific information being requested by the rule to be 
typical of confidential business or personal information. If a 
respondent does consider this information to be of a confidential 
nature, the respondent may request that such information be treated as 
such. All confidential data will be handled in accordance with 40 CFR 
122.7, 40 CFR part 2, and EPA's Security Manual Part III, Chapter 9, 
dated August 9, 1976.
    Respondents/affected entities: Entities affected by this 
information collection request are Meat and Poultry Products facilities 
and Control Authorities.
    The Meat and Poultry Products (MPP) point source category includes 
facilities ``engaged in the slaughtering, dressing and packing of meat 
and poultry products for human consumption and/or animal food and 
feeds. Meat and poultry products for human consumption include meat and 
poultry from cattle, hogs, sheep, chickens, turkeys, ducks and other 
fowl as well as sausages, luncheon meats and cured, smoked or canned or 
other prepared meat and poultry products from purchased carcasses and 
other materials. Meat and poultry products for animal food and feeds 
include animal oils, meat meal and facilities that render

[[Page 4519]]

grease and tallow from animal fat, bones and meat scraps'' (See 40 CFR 
432.1).
    Control Authorities have regulatory oversight for pollutant 
discharges to POTWs. The ``Control Authority'' refers to the POTW if 
the POTW has an approved pretreatment program, or the Approval 
Authority if it has not been approved, which may be the State or EPA. 
By establishing categorical pretreatment standards for the MPP 
category, control authorities would be subject to certain oversight 
requirements in 40 CFR part 403.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR 122.41, 
122.44 and 122.48, and 40 CFR parts 403 and 432.)
    Estimated number of respondents: 485 meat and poultry product 
facilities and 360 control authorities
    Frequency of response: EPA is assuming a one-time burden per 
facility to develop baseline and 90-day compliance reports and review 
production as well as monthly data reporting.
    Total estimated burden: 15,133 hours (per year). Burden is defined 
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $2,981,260 (per year), includes $1,339,530 
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    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 the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the 
accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for 
minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at 
the beginning of this rule. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related 
comments in the final rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments 
to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs using the 
interface at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular 
information collection by selecting ``Currently under Review--Open for 
Public Comments'' or by using the search function. OMB must receive 
comments no later than February 22, 2024.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The 
small entities subject to the requirements of this action are meat and 
poultry products facilities that engage in meat and/or poultry 
slaughter, further processing, and/or rendering. The proposed rule 
would not affect any current small governmental jurisdictions or not-
for-profit organizations. Only facilities that exceed the subcategory-
specific production thresholds would be subject to this rule. The 
Agency has determined that under the proposed Option 1, of the 
estimated 3,233 small businesses that own MPP facilities, 96 small 
entities may experience an impact. Of the 96 potentially regulated 
small entities, no entities are estimated to incur annualized post-tax 
compliance costs greater than 3 percent of revenues; only one entity is 
estimated to incur compliance costs between 1 to 3 percent of revenues; 
95 small entities are estimated to incur compliance costs of less than 
1 percent of revenues. Under the most stringent option (Option 3), 263 
small entities may experience an impact: 4 entities are estimated to 
incur costs greater than 3 percent of revenues, 11 entities between 1 
to 3 percent, and 248 less than 1 percent. These results are summarized 
in Table XVI-2, below (same as Table VIII-12). Details of this analysis 
are presented in Section VIII and the RIA found in the docket.

                                              Table XVI-2--Small Firm-Level CTR Screening Analysis Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Number small firms with a ratio of                Percent of small firms with a ratio of
            Entity type               Total # of -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     small firms     0% \a\     >0 and <1%  >=1 and <3%      >=3%        0% \a\     >0 and <1%  >=1 and <3%      >=3%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1...........................        3,233        3,137           95            1            0           97            3          0.0          0.0
Option 2...........................        3,233        3,137           94            1            1           97            3          0.0          0.0
Option 3...........................        3,233        2,970          248           11            4           92            8          0.0          0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ These entities own only facilities that already meet discharge requirements for the wastestreams addressed by a given regulatory option and are
  therefore not estimated to incur any compliance technology costs.

    Although this proposed rule would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has 
tried to reduce the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The 
proposed rule includes subcategory-specific production thresholds that 
would have less stringent effluent limitations for smaller production 
facilities. Facilities under certain production thresholds may have no 
national effluent limitations.
    Although not required by the RFA to convene a Small Business 
Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel because the EPA has now determined that 
this proposal would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, the EPA originally convened a 
panel to obtain advice and recommendations from small entity 
representatives potentially subject to this rule's requirements. The 5 
panel recommendations are briefly summarized here, and a copy of the 
SBAR Panel Report is included in the docket for this rulemaking (USEPA. 
2023. DCN MP00347). The Panel recommended EPA: (1) Exclude small and 
very small firms from regulation and take public comment on production 
thresholds so as not to cause substantial economic hardship on small 
entities; (2) Set regulations based on wastewater flows as an 
alternative to production thresholds; (3) Consider and take comment on 
a longer or flexible timeline for small entities to meet proposed 
regulations; (4) Consider and take comment on conditional limits for 
MPP facilities that discharge to POTWs that already have nitrogen and 
phosphorus treatment capabilities equivalent to the proposed rule in 
place; (5) Publish compliance guides to help facilities determine rule 
applicability and requirements and to take comment on what information 
would be beneficial for small entities.
    Although not required by the RFA, the EPA prepared an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) that examines the impact of the 
proposed rule on small entities along with regulatory alternatives that 
could minimize that impact. The IRFA describes why this action is being 
considered, the objectives and legal basis for the proposed rule, the 
small entities to which the proposed rule applies, the compliance 
requirements, other relevant Federal rules, potential economic impacts 
on small entities, how regulatory options developed by EPA served to 
mitigate the impact of the regulatory options on small entities, and 
uncertainties and limitations. The

[[Page 4520]]

complete IRFA is available for review in the docket.
    In accordance with RFA requirements and as it has consistently done 
in developing effluent limitations guidelines and standards, EPA 
subsequently assessed whether the proposed regulatory options would 
have ``a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities'' 
(SISNOSE). EPA performed this assessment for each of the proposed 
options and as described above certified no SISNOSE.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains a federal mandate under UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-
1538, 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. Accordingly, the EPA has prepared a written 
statement required under section 202 of UMRA. The statement is included 
in the docket for this action and briefly summarized here.
    An industrial user (IU) is a nondomestic source of indirect 
discharge into a POTW, and in this rule is the meat and poultry 
products facility discharger. The Control Authority may be the POTW, 
the State, or EPA, depending on whether the POTW or the State is 
approved by EPA to administer the pretreatment program. The Control 
Authority is the POTW in cases where the POTW has an approved 
pretreatment program. The Control Authority is the State, where the 
POTW has not been approved to administer the pretreatment program, but 
the State has been approved. The Control Authority is EPA where neither 
the POTW nor the State have been approved to administer the 
pretreatment program. The Approval Authority is the State (Director) in 
an NPDES authorized State with an approved pretreatment program, the 
EPA regional administrator in a non-NPDES authorized State, or NPDES 
State without an approved State pretreatment program.
    Typically, an IU is responsible for demonstrating compliance with 
pretreatment standards by performing self-monitoring, submitting 
reports and notifications to its Control Authority, and maintaining 
records of activities associated with its discharge to the POTW. The 
Control Authority is the regulating authority responsible for 
implementing and enforcing pretreatment standards. The General 
Pretreatment Regulations require certain minimum oversight of IUs by 
Control Authorities. The required minimum oversight includes receipt 
and analysis of reports and notifications submitted by IUs, random 
sampling and analyzing effluent from IUs, and conducting surveillance 
activities to identify occasional and continuing noncompliance with 
pretreatment standards. The Control Authority is also responsible for 
taking enforcement action as necessary.
    For IUs that are designated as Significant Industrial Users 
(SIUs),\53\ Control Authorities must inspect and sample the SIU 
effluent annually, review the need for a slug control plan, and issue a 
permit or equivalent control mechanism. IUs subject to categorical 
pretreatment standards are referred to as Categorical Industrial Users 
(CIUs) and General Pretreatment Regulations define SIU to include CIUs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ SIUs are defined as Industrial Users subject to Categorical 
Pretreatment Standards, or those that: discharge an average of 
25,000 gallons per day or more of process wastewater to the POTW 
(excluding sanitary, noncontact cooling and boiler blowdown 
wastewater); contributes a process waste stream which makes up 5 
percent or more of the average dry weather hydraulic or organic 
capacity of the POTW Treatment plant; or is designated as such by 
the Control Authority on the basis that the Industrial User has a 
reasonable potential for adversely affecting the POTW's operation or 
for violating any Pretreatment Standard. See 40 CFR 403.3 for 
details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Approval Authority is responsible for ensuring that POTWs 
comply with all applicable pretreatment program requirements. Among 
other things, the Approval Authority receives annual pretreatment 
reports from the Control Authority. These reports must identify which 
IUs are CIUs. In accordance with 40 CFR 122.44(j)(1) all POTWs are 
required to ``identify, in terms of character and volume of pollutants, 
any SIU'' and include them on their NPDES Application form, 
122.21(j)(6). Approved POTW Control Authorities have legal authority 
and procedures to identify and control such IUs (40 CFR 403.8(f)(1) & 
(2)). Therefore, this proposed MPP rule requires little extra burden on 
Control Authorities to identify the subset of SIUs that are subject to 
categorical pretreatment standards and to apply the requirements to 
them.
    This action is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of 
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

E. E.O. 13132: Federalism

    This action 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.

F. E.O. 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal 
Governments

    This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in E.O. 
13175. It would not have substantial direct effects on Tribal 
governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the 
Indian Tribes, or the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes as specified in E.O. 
13175. EPA is not aware of any facility subject to these proposed ELGs 
that is owned by Tribal governments. Thus, E.O. 13175 does not apply to 
this action.
    Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribes, EPA consulted with Tribal officials during the 
development of this action. EPA initiated consultation and coordination 
with federally recognized Tribal governments in January 2023. EPA 
shared information about the Meat and Poultry Products effluent 
guidelines rulemaking (MPP ELG) with all federally recognized Tribes by 
sending a letter and detailed plan describing the rulemaking, the 
potential impact to Tribes, and opportunities for Tribal involvement. 
EPA performed a proximity-based screening analysis to determine which 
Tribes and Tribal lands are the most likely to be impacted by MPP 
industrial activity and/or changes to the MPP ELG. Tribes that were 
identified as being in proximity \54\ to either 10 or more MPP 
facilities or a waterbody potentially impacted by MPP wastewater 
discharge,\55\ were notified of these screening results to promote 
awareness. EPA continued this government-to-government dialogue by 
hosting two identical listening sessions as webinars on February 6th 
and 13th, 2023, where Tribal representatives were invited to 
participate in further discussions about the rulemaking process and 
objectives, with a focus on identifying specific ways the rulemaking 
may affect Tribes. The consultation process ended on March 10th, 2023. 
No Tribal governments requested direct government-to-government 
consultations, and EPA received no written comments from any Tribes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Within 5 miles.
    \55\ Within 50 miles of a 25-mile reach downstream of an MPP 
wastewater outfall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. E.O. 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks 
and Safety Risks

    E.O. 13045 directs federal agencies to include an evaluation of the 
health and safety effects of the planned regulation

[[Page 4521]]

on children in federal health and safety standards and explain why the 
regulation is preferable to potentially effective and reasonably 
feasible alternatives. This action is not subject to E.O. 13045 because 
the EPA does not believe the environmental health risks or safety risks 
addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.
    EPA reviewed epidemiological studies to determine whether exposures 
to pollutants in MPP wastewater are associated with disproportionate 
health risks among children. EPA identified evidence of 
disproportionate health risks among children from exposure to nitrates, 
which can result from the discharge of nitrogen from MPP facilities. 
Research has shown an association between exposure to nitrates in 
drinking water and increased incidence of birth defects and 
methemoglobinemia (``blue baby syndrome'') in children (Fears. 
2021),\56\ (Baskin-) \57\ EPA analyzed changes in total nitrogen (TN) 
loadings from MPP facilities under the proposed regulation and found 
that the regulatory options all result in estimated reductions relative 
to the baseline in TN loadings into downstream receiving waters. 
Additionally, compared to the baseline, EPA found that modeled 
regulatory Option 3 resulted in reductions in average nitrate 
concentrations in all three case study watersheds. This result suggests 
that nitrate levels will decrease in source waters for intakes of 
drinking water systems downstream of MPP wastewater discharge. While 
reducing nitrogen species in source water may reduce the amount and 
cost of treatment needed, EPA does not anticipate changes in nitrate 
and nitrite concentrations in drinking water. This is because public 
water systems must meet the maximum contaminant level (MCL) in water 
for nitrates and nitrite (10 mg/L and 1 mg/L, respectively). These MCLs 
are equal to the Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) and were 
specifically based on levels considered low enough to protect infants 
from methemoglobinemia. The risk to children in households whose water 
supply comes from public water systems is therefore low. Because of 
this as well as data limitations, EPA did not quantify resulting 
changes in birth defects and methemoglobinemia but expects children to 
benefit from a reduced risk of these health impacts from lower nitrogen 
concentrations in source waters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ Fears, Darryl. April 13, 2021. A Poultry Plant, Years of 
Groundwater Contamination And, Finally, A Court Settlement. The 
Washington Post.
    \57\ Leah Baskin-Graves, Haley Mullen, Aaron Aber, Jair 
Sinisterra, Kamran Ayub, Roxana Amaya-Fuentes, and Sacoby Wilson. 
2019. Rapid Health Impact Assessment of A Proposed Poultry 
Processing Plant in Millsboro, Delaware. International Journal of 
Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 16, Issue 3429.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nutrient concentrations in private well water may be impacted by 
any increase in land application of sludges expected to occur under 
proposed rule options. Because land application locations and 
frequencies change over time, EPA was not able to estimate potential 
impacts of this rulemaking on private well water quality, and therefore 
the health of children in affected households. Taken together, it is 
underdetermined how children may be impacted under the implementation 
of this rule.

H. E.O. 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use

    This action is not a significant energy action under E.O. 13211, 
because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 
supply, distribution or use of energy. As discussed in Section X, EPA 
estimates that compliance with this proposed rule would create a small 
increase in nationwide energy consumption for MPP facilities. EPA 
estimates an approximate increase of 104,208 MWh per year for 
wastewater treatment. By comparison, electric power generation 
facilities generated 4,108 billion megawatt hours of electric power in 
the United States in 2021 (EIA. 2021).\58\ Additional energy 
requirements for EPA's selected options are acceptable (i.e., 
significantly less than 0.001 percent of national requirements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2021. Electric 
Power Annual Report. www.eia.gov/electricity/annual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. E.O. 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in 
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations; Executive Order 14096 
Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to Environmental Justice for All

    The EPA believes that the human health or environmental conditions 
that exist prior to this action result in or have the potential to 
result in disproportionate and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on communities with environmental justice (EJ) concerns. 
Literature on the MPP industry showed that facilities are commonly 
(Winders and Abrell. 2021) \59\ in rural areas, often with multiple 
large facilities located in the same county (Burkhart et al. 2018).\60\ 
Exposure to pollutants released by facilities through air, water, and 
solid waste (Baskin-Graves et al. 2019) cause health effects in 
communities near or downstream of facilities (Hall et al. 2021) \61\ 
near MPP facilities have been documented to have greater proportions of 
vulnerable population groups and potential exposures to environmental 
stressors than the average community. The results of EPA's proximity 
analysis support this finding. EPA determined that Census block groups 
(CBGs) located within one mile of an MPP facility had larger 
proportions of people identifying as Asian, Black, and or Hispanic, and 
more low-income individuals than the national average.\62\ Relevant 
indicators of pollution exposures expected to be impacted under 
proposed rule options (PM2.5, diesel PM, and traffic 
proximity) also exceeded the 50th percentile nationally on average for 
these communities. EPA also assessed community demographics along 
downstream receiving waters \63\ of MPP facilities and areas served by 
public drinking water systems sourcing water from receiving waters. 
These analyses showed that CBGs served by impacted drinking water 
systems have greater proportions of Black/African American people than 
the national average, while CBGs within one mile of a downstream 
receiving waters have a larger proportion of low-income individuals 
than the national average.\64\ EPA believes that this action is likely 
to reduce existing disproportionate and adverse effects on communities 
with environmental justice concerns. Under all proposed regulatory 
options, the extent of MPP discharge impacts on

[[Page 4522]]

drinking water sources decreases compared to the baseline, therefore 
reducing impacts to these drinking water distribution systems and the 
people served by them. The drinking water systems predicted to have 
improved intake water quality under the regulatory options evaluated 
serve an increasing fraction of the population identifying as Black/
African American relative to baseline under preferred option 1 and 
option 2, but a decreasing fraction under option 3. However, this 
percentage exceeds the national average under all options. 
Additionally, low-income individuals differentially benefit from 
improved drinking water resources under all regulatory options 
evaluated. When considering other analyses, such as the distribution of 
impacts to communities fishing in downstream receiving waters, the 
regulatory options do not create disproportionate or adverse effects 
relative to the baseline. For information regarding the distribution of 
anticipated benefits and a discussion of outreach and public engagement 
efforts, refer to Section XIII of this preamble. The information 
supporting this Executive Order review is contained in section 7 of the 
Environmental Assessment document, which is available in the public 
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Winders, D.J., & Abrell, E. 2021. Slaughterhouse Workers, 
Animals, and the Environment: The Need for a Rights-Centered 
Regulatory Framework in the United States That Recognizes 
Interconnected Interests. Health and Human Rights Journal. Vol. 23: 
No. 2.
    \60\ Burkhart, K., Bernhardt, C., Pelton, T., Schaeffer, E., and 
Phillips, A. 2018. Water Pollution from Slaughterhouses. The 
Environmental Integrity Project. https://earthjustice.org/.
    \61\ Hall, J., Galarraga, J., Berman, I., Edwards, C., Khanjar, 
N., Kavi, L., Murray, R., Burwell-Naney, K., Jiang, C., & Wilson, S. 
2021. Environmental injustice and industrial chicken farming in 
Maryland. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public 
Health, 18(21). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182111039.
    \62\ The national average of people identifying as Asian, Black, 
and/or Hispanic are 5.6, 12.2, and 18.4 percent, respectively, and 
is 29.8 percent for individuals considered to be of low-income 
status. (ACS 2017-2021).
    \63\ Within 25 river miles of an MPP process wastewater outfall.
    \64\ National averages are derived from the five-year 2017-2021 
American Community Survey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix A to the Preamble: Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations 
Used in This Preamble

    The following acronyms, abbreviations, and terms are used in 
this preamble. These terms are provided for convenience to the 
reader, and they are not regulatory definitions with the force or 
effect of law, nor are they to be used as guidance for 
implementation of this proposed rule.
    Administrator. The Administrator of the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency.
    Agency. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
    BAT. Best Available Technology economically achievable, as 
defined by CWA sections 301(b)(2)(A) and 304(b)(2)(B).
    BCA. Benefit Cost Analysis.
    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.
    Bioaccumulation. General term describing a process by which 
chemicals are taken up by an organism either directly from exposure 
to a contaminated medium or by consumption of food containing the 
chemical, resulting in a net accumulation of the chemical over time 
by the organism.
    BMP. Best management practice.
    BOD5. Biological oxygen demand measured over a five-
day period.
    BPJ. Best Professional Judgement.
    BPT. The best practicable control technology currently 
available, as defined by CWA sections 301(b)(1) and 304(b)(1).
    CBI. Confidential business information.
    CFR. Code of Federal Regulations.
    CWA. Clean Water Act; The Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
Amendments of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), as amended, e.g., by 
the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 95-217) and the Water Quality 
Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 100-4).
    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 limitations guidelines and standards.
    Conventional Pollutants. Section 304(a)(4) designates the 
following as conventional pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand, 
total suspended solids, fecal coliform, and pH, and any additional 
pollutants defined by the Administrator. The Administrator 
designated oil & grease as an additional conventional pollutant on 
July 30, 1979. 40 CFR 401.16.
    DAF. Dissolved Air Flotation.
    Daily Discharge. The discharge of a pollutant measured during 
any calendar day or any 24-hour period that reasonably represents a 
calendar day.
    Denitrification. Nitrite and nitrate are reduced by 
heterotrophic bacteria into nitrogen gas in anaerobic conditions.
    Direct discharge. (1) Any addition of any ``pollutant'' or 
combination of pollutants to ``waters of the United States'' from 
any ``point source'' or (2) any addition of any pollutant or 
combination of pollutant to waters of the ``contiguous zone'' or the 
ocean from any point source other than a vessel or other floating 
craft that is being used as a means of transportation. This 
definition includes additions of pollutants into waters of the 
United States from surface runoff that is collected or channeled by 
man; discharges through pipes, sewers, or other conveyances owned by 
a State, municipality, or other person that do not lead to a 
treatment works; and discharges through pipes, sewers, or other 
conveyances that lead into privately owned treatment works. This 
term does not include addition of pollutants by any ``indirect 
discharger.'' 40 CFR 122.2.
    DMR. Discharge Monitoring Report
    Effluent limitation. 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 that are discharged 
from point sources into navigable waters, the waters of the 
contiguous zone, or the ocean.
    EJA. Environmental Justice Analysis
    ELGs. Effluent limitations guidelines and standards.
    E.O. Executive Order.
    EPA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
    Existing Source. For this rule, any source that is not a new 
source as defined in 40 CFR 122.2.
    Facility. Any NPDES ``point source'' or any other facility or 
activity (including land or appurtenances thereto) that is subject 
to regulation under the CWA.
    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 the following types of processing: 
cutting and deboning, cooking, seasoning, smoking, canning, 
grinding, chopping, dicing, forming or breading.
    Groundwater. Water that is found in the saturated part of the 
ground underneath the land surface.
    Hazardous Waste. Any waste, including wastewater, defined as 
hazardous under RCRA, CERCLA, TSCA, or any State law.
    HEM. A measure of oil & 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, Table IB.
    Indirect discharge. Wastewater discharged or otherwise 
introduced to a POTW.
    Landfill. A disposal facility or part of a facility or plant 
where solid waste, sludges, or other process residuals are placed in 
or on any natural or manmade formation in the earth for disposal and 
which is not a storage pile, a land treatment facility, a surface 
impoundment, an underground injection well, a salt dome or salt bed 
formation, an underground mine, a cave, or a corrective action 
management unit.
    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.
    Mortality. Death rate or proportion of deaths in a population.
    NAICS. North American Industry Classification System.

[[Page 4523]]

    Non-Conventional Pollutants. Pollutants that are neither 
conventional pollutants nor toxic/priority pollutants.
    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.
    NPDES. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
    NSPSs. New Source Performance Standards.
    Outfall. The mouth of conduit drains and other conduits from 
which a facility effluent discharges into receiving waters.
    Point source. Any discernible, confined, and discrete 
conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, 
tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, 
concentrated animal feeding operation, vessel, or other floating 
craft from which pollutants are or may be discharged. The term does 
not include agricultural stormwater discharges or return flows from 
irrigated agriculture. See CWA section 502(14), 33 U.S.C. 1362(14); 
40 CFR 122.2.
    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.
    POTW. Publicly owned treatment works. Any device or system owned 
by a State or municipality that is used in the treatment (including 
recycling and reclamation) of municipal sewage or industrial wastes 
of a liquid nature. These include sewers, pipes, or other 
conveyances only if they convey wastewater to a POTW providing 
treatment. See CWA section 212, 33 U.S.C. 1292; 40 CFR 122.2, and 
403.3.
    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(a) of the CWA. They are listed at 40 CFR 
part 423 Appx A.
    PSES. Pretreatment Standards for existing sources of indirect 
discharges, under section 307(b) of the CWA.
    PSNS. Pretreatment standards for new sources under section 
307(c) of the CWA.
    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, 42 
U.S.C. 6901 et seq.
    RO. Reverse osmosis.
    RFA. Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    SBA. Small Business Administration.
    SBR. Sequencing batch reactor.
    SBREFA. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996.
    Sediment. Particulate matter lying below water.
    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.
    Surface water. All waters of the United States, including 
rivers, streams, lakes, reservoirs, and seas.
    TKN. Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen.
    Total Nitrogen. Sum of nitrate/nitrite and TKN.
    Toxic pollutants. As identified under the CWA, 65 pollutants and 
classes of pollutants, see 40 CFR 401.15, of which 126 specific 
substances have been designated priority toxic pollutants. See 
Appendix A to 40 CFR part 423.
    TSS. Total suspended solids.
    UMRA. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
    USDA. United States Department of Agriculture.
    UV. Ultra-violet light.
    Variability factor. Calculated from the concentration data from 
the facilities using the BAT technologies that incorporates all 
components of variability including process and wastewater 
generation, sample collection, shipping, storage, and analytical 
variability.

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.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental 
Protection Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR part 432 as follows:

PART 432--MEAT AND POULTRY PRODUCTS POINT SOURCE CATEGORY

0
1. The authority for part 432 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342 and 
1361.

0
2. Amend Sec.  432.2 by:
0
a. Removing paragraph (d).
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (c) as (d) and adding new paragraph (c).
0
c. Adding paragraphs (l)(7), (m), (n) and (o).
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  432.2  General definitions.

* * * * *
    (c) E. coli means the bacterial count, as determined by approved 
methods of analysis for Parameter 4 in Table 1A in 40 CFR 136.3.
    (d) Fecal coliform means the bacterial count, as determined by 
approved methods of analysis for Parameter 1 in Table 1A in 40 CFR 
136.3.
* * * * *
    (l)(7) Total Phosphorus means the total of particulate and soluble 
phosphorus
    (m) The term nitrification means oxidation of ammonium salts to 
nitrites (via Nitrosomas bacteria) and the further oxidation of nitrite 
to nitrate via Nitrobacter bacteria.
    (n) The term denitrification means the microbial process of 
reducing nitrate and nitrite to gaseous nitrous oxide, and nitrogen 
gas.
    (o) The term phosphorus removal means removal of particulate and 
soluble phosphorus by biological uptake and solids settling and 
removal.

Subpart A [Amended]

0
3. Amend Sec.  432.12(a)(1) by revising the table ``Effluent 
Limitations [BPT]'' to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *

             Table 1 to Paragraph (a)--Effluent Limitations
                                  [BPT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum
           Regulated parameter             Maximum daily      monthly
                                                \1\           avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5....................................            0.24            0.12
Fecal Coliform..........................          \2\ 50          \2\ 22
O&G \3\.................................            0.12            0.06

[[Page 4524]]

 
TSS.....................................            0.40            0.20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1,000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK.
\2\ MPN or CFU per 100 mL.
\3\ May be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM).

* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec.  432.13 by revising the table ``Effluent Limitations 
[BAT]'' to read as follows:


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

* * * * *

             Table 1 to Sec.   432.13--Effluent Limitations
                                  [BAT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum
           Regulated parameter             Maximum daily      monthly
                                                \1\           avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)..........................             8.0             4.0
Total Nitrogen..........................              20              12
Total Phosphorus........................             1.5             0.8
E. Coli.................................          \2\ 14           \2\ 9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
\2\ MPN or CFU per 100 mL.

0
5. Revise Sec.  432.14 to read as follows:


Sec.  432.14  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source 
subject to this subpart that slaughters more than 50 million pounds per 
year (in units of LWK) that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned 
treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve the 
following pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES):

  Table 1 to Sec.   432.14--Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources
                                 [PSES]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum
           Regulated parameter             Maximum daily      monthly
                                                \1\           avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5....................................           1,945           1,323
TSS.....................................           1,578             925
Oil and grease..........................           1,635           1,393
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L.

0
6. Amend Sec.  432.15 by revising the introductory text and paragraph 
(b)(1), and removing paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  432.15  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    Facilities subject to the 2004 new source performance standards in 
Sec. Sec.  432.15 of this part continue to be subject to those 
standards. These 2004 new sources are also subject to revised BPT and 
BAT effluent limitations specified in Sec.  432.12 and 432.13 of this 
part (for direct dischargers) or the revised pretreatment standards 
specified in Sec.  432.14 of this part (for indirect dischargers). 
Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, any source that is 
a new source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
performance standards:
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) In the case of process wastewater associated with the 
slaughtering of animals on-site or the processing of the carcasses of 
animals slaughtered on-site, the standards for BOD5, fecal 
coliform, O&G, and TSS are the same as the limitations specified in 
Sec.  432.12(a)(1) and the standards for ammonia (as N) total nitrogen, 
total phosphorus, and E. coli are as follows:

           Table 5 to Paragraph (b)(1)--Performance Standards
                                 [NSPS]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum
           Regulated parameter             Maximum daily      monthly
                                                \1\           avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)..........................             8.0             4.0
Total Nitrogen..........................              20              12

[[Page 4525]]

 
Total Phosphorus........................             1.5             0.8
E. Coli.................................          \2\ 14           \2\ 9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
\2\ MPN or CFU per 100 mL.

* * * * *
0
7. Revise Sec.  432.16 to read as follows:


Sec.  432.16  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source 
subject to this subpart that slaughters more than 50 million pounds per 
year (in units of LWK) that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned 
treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve the 
following pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSNS):

    Table 1 to Sec.   432.16--Pretreatment Standards for New Sources
                                 [PSNS]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum
           Regulated parameter             Maximum daily      monthly
                                                \1\           avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5....................................           1,945           1,323
TSS.....................................           1,578             925
Oil and grease..........................            1635            1393
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L.

Subpart B [Amended]

0
8. Amend Sec.  432.22 (a)(1) by revising the table ``Effluent 
Limitations [BPT] table to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *

            Table 1 to Paragraph (a)(1)--Effluent Limitations
                                  [BPT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum
           Regulated parameter             Maximum daily      monthly
                                                \1\           avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5....................................            0.42            0.21
Fecal Coliform..........................          \2\ 50          \2\ 22
O&G \3\.................................            0.16            0.08
TSS.....................................            0.50            0.25
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1,000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK.
\2\ MPN or CFU per 100 mL.
\3\ May be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM).

* * * * *
0
9. Revise Sec.  432.23 to read as follows:


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: Limitations 
for ammonia (as N), total phosphorus, E. coli, and total nitrogen are 
the same as specified in Sec.  432.13.
0
10. Revise Sec.  432.24 to read as follows:


Sec.  432.24  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source 
subject to this subpart that slaughters more than 50 million pounds per 
year (in units of LWK) that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned 
treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve the 
following pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES): 
Limitations for BOD5, TSS, oil and grease are the same as 
specified in Sec.  432.14.
0
11. Amend Sec.  432.25 by revising the introductory text and paragraph 
(b)(1), and removing paragraph (c).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  432.25  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    Facilities subject to the 2004 new source performance standards in 
this section continue to be subject to those standards. These 2004 new 
sources are also subject to revised BPT and BAT effluent limitations 
specified in Sec. Sec.  432.22 and 432.23 (for direct dischargers) or 
the revised pretreatment standards specified in Sec.  432.24 (for 
indirect dischargers). Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this 
section, any source that is a new source subject to this subpart must 
achieve the following performance standards:
* * * * *
    (b) * * *

[[Page 4526]]

    (1) In the case of process wastewater associated with the 
slaughtering of animals on-site or the processing of the carcasses of 
animals slaughtered on-site, the standards for BOD5, fecal 
coliform, O&G, and TSS are the same as the corresponding limitations 
specified in Sec.  432.22(a)(1) and the standards for ammonia (as N), 
total phosphorus, E. coli, and total nitrogen are the same as the 
limitations specified in Sec.  432.15(b)(1).
* * * * *
0
12. Revise Sec.  432.26 to read as follows:


Sec.  432.26  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source 
subject to this subpart that slaughters more than 50 million pounds per 
year (in units of LWK) that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned 
treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve the 
following pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES): 
Limitations for BOD5, TSS, oil and grease are the same as 
specified in Sec.  432.16.

Subpart C [Amended]

0
13. Amend Sec.  432.32 (a)(1) by revising the table ``Effluent 
Limitations [BPT]'' to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *

            Table 1 to Paragraph (a)(1)--Effluent Limitations
                                  [BPT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum
           Regulated parameter             Maximum daily      monthly
                                                \1\           avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5....................................            0.34            0.17
Fecal Coliform..........................          \2\ 50          \2\ 22
O&G \3\.................................            0.16            0.08
TSS.....................................            0.48            0.24
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1,000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK.
\2\ MPN or CFU per 100 mL.
\3\ May be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM).

* * * * *
0
14. Revise Sec.  432.33 to read as follows:


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: the 
limitations for ammonia (as N), total phosphorus, E. coli, and total 
nitrogen are the same as specified in Sec.  432.13.
0
15. Revise Sec.  432.34 to read as follows:


Sec.  432.34  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source 
subject to this subpart that slaughters more than 50 million pounds per 
year (in units of LWK) that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned 
treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve the 
following pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES): 
Limitations for BOD5, TSS, oil and grease are the same as 
specified in Sec.  432.14.
0
16. Amend Sec.  432.35 by revising the introductory text and paragraph 
(b)(1), and removing paragraph (c) to read as follow:


Sec.  432.35  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    Facilities subject to the 2004 new source performance standards in 
Sec. Sec.  432.35 of this part continue to be subject to those 
standards. These 2004 new sources are also subject to revised BPT and 
BAT effluent limitations specified in Sec. Sec.  432.32 and 432.33 (for 
direct dischargers) or the revised pretreatment standards specified in 
Sec.  432.34 (for indirect dischargers). Except as provided in 
paragraph (c) of this section, any source that is a new source subject 
to this subpart must achieve the following performance standards:
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) In the case of process wastewater associated with the 
slaughtering of animals on-site or the processing of the carcasses of 
animals slaughtered on-site, the standards for BOD5, fecal 
coliform, TSS, and O&G are the same as the corresponding limitations 
specified in Sec.  432.32(a)(1) and the standards for ammonia (as N), 
total phosphorus, E. coli, and total nitrogen are the same as the 
limitations specified in Sec.  432.15(b)(1).
* * * * *
0
17. Revise Sec.  432.36 to read as follows:


Sec.  432.36  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source 
subject to this subpart that slaughters more than 50 million pounds per 
year (in units of LWK) that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned 
treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve the 
following pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES): 
Limitations for BOD5, TSS, oil and grease are the same as 
specified in Sec.  432.16.
0
18. Amend Sec.  432.42 (a)(1) by revising the table ``Effluent 
Limitations [BPT]'' to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *

[[Page 4527]]



            Table 1 to Paragraph (a)(1)--Effluent Limitations
                                  [BPT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum
           Regulated parameter             Maximum daily      monthly
                                                \1\           avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5 \2\................................            0.48            0.24
Fecal Coliform..........................          \3\ 50          \3\ 22
O&G \4\.................................            0.26            0.13
TSS \2\.................................            0.62            0.31
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1,000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK.
\2\ The values for BOD5 and TSS are for average plants, i.e., plants
  where the ratio of 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 BOD5/1,000 lbs LWK = 0.21 + 0.23 (v-0.4) and lbs TSS/1,000 lbs LWK
  = 0.28 + 0.3 (v-0.4), where v equals the following ratio: lbs
  processed meat products/lbs LWK.
\3\ MPN or CFU per 100 mL.
\4\ May be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM).

* * * * *
0
19. Revise Sec.  432.43 to read as follows:


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 than 50 
million pounds per year (in units of LWK) must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the application of BAT: Limitations 
for ammonia (as N), total phosphorus, E. coli, and total nitrogen are 
the same as specified in Sec.  432.13.
0
20. Revise Sec.  432.44 to read as follows:


Sec.  432.44  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source 
subject to this subpart that slaughters more than 50 million pounds per 
year (in units of LWK) that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned 
treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve the 
following pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES): 
Limitations for BOD5, TSS, oil and grease are the same as 
specified in Sec.  432.14.
0
21. Amend Sec.  432.45 by revising the introductory text and paragraph 
(b)(1), and removing paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  432.45  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    Facilities subject to the 2004 new source performance standards in 
Sec. Sec.  432.45 of this part continue to be subject to those 
standards. These 2004 new sources are also subject to revised BPT and 
BAT effluent limitations specified in Sec.  432.42 and 432.43 of this 
part (for direct dischargers) or the revised pretreatment standards 
specified in Sec.  432.44 of this part (for indirect dischargers Except 
as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, any source that is a new 
source subject to this subpart must achieve the following performance 
standards:
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) In the case of process wastewater associated with the 
slaughtering of animals on-site or the processing of the carcasses of 
animals slaughtered on-site, the standards for BOD5, fecal 
coliform, O&G, and TSS are the same as the corresponding limitations 
specified in Sec.  432.22(a)(1) and the standards for ammonia (as N), 
total phosphorus, E. coli, and total nitrogen are the same as the 
limitations specified in Sec.  432.15(b)(1).
* * * * *
0
22. Revise Sec.  432.46 to read as follows:


Sec.  432.46  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source 
subject to this subpart that slaughters more than 50 million pounds per 
year (in units of LWK) that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned 
treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve the 
following pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES): 
Limitations for BOD5, TSS, oil and grease are the same as 
specified in Sec.  432.16.

Subpart F [Amended]

0
23. Amend Sec.  432.62 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) Facilities that generate more than 50 million pounds per year 
of finished products must achieve the following effluent limitations:

             Table 2 to Paragraph (b)--Effluent Limitations
                                  [BPT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum
           Regulated parameter             Maximum daily      monthly
                                                \1\           avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5....................................           0.036           0.018
Fecal Coliform..........................          \2\ 50          \2\ 22
O&G \3\.................................           0.012           0.006
TSS.....................................           0.044           0.022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1,000 lbs (or g/kg) of finished product.
\2\ MPN or CFU per 100 mL.
\3\ May be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM).


[[Page 4528]]

* * * * *
0
24. Amend Sec.  432.63 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) Facilities that generate more than 50 million pounds per year 
of finished products must achieve the following effluent limitations:

             Table 2 to Paragraph (b)--Effluent Limitations
                                  [BAT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum
           Regulated parameter             Maximum daily      monthly
                                                \1\           avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)..........................             8.0             4.0
Total Nitrogen..........................              20              12
Total Phosphorus........................             1.5             0.8
E. Coli.................................          \2\ 14           \2\ 9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
\2\ MPN or CFU per 100 mL.

0
25. Revise Sec.  432.64 to read as follows:


Sec.  432.64  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source 
subject to this subpart that processes more than 50 million pounds per 
year that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works 
must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve the following 
pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES):

  Table 1 to Sec.   432.64--Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources
                                 [PSES]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum
           Regulated parameter             Maximum daily      monthly
                                                \1\           avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5....................................           1,945           1,323
TSS.....................................           1,578             925
Oil and grease..........................           1,635           1,393
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L.

0
26. Amend Sec.  432.65 by revising the introductory text and paragraph 
(b), and removing paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  432.65  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    Facilities subject to the 2004 new source performance standards 
specified in Sec.  432.65 continue to be subject to those standards. 
These 2004 new sources are also subject to revised BPT and BAT effluent 
limitations specified in Sec. Sec.  432.62 and 432.63 (for direct 
dischargers) or the revised pretreatment standards in Sec.  432.64 (for 
indirect dischargers). Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this 
section, any source that is a new source subject to this subpart must 
achieve the following performance standards:
* * * * *
    (b) Facilities that generate more than 50 million pounds per year 
of finished products must achieve the limitations for BOD5, 
fecal coliform, O&G, and TSS specified in Sec.  432.62(b) and the 
limitations for ammonia (as N), total phosphorus, E. coli, and total 
nitrogen specified in Sec.  432.63(b).
0
27. Revise Sec.  432.66 to read as follows:


Sec.  432.66  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source 
subject to this subpart that processes more than 50 million pounds per 
year that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works 
must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve the following 
pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS):

    Table 1 to Sec.   432.66--Pretreatment Standards for New Sources
                                 [PSNS]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum
           Regulated parameter             Maximum daily      monthly
                                                \1\           avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5....................................           1,945           1,323
TSS.....................................           1,578             925
Oil and grease..........................           1,635           1,393
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L.

Subpart G--Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources [PSES]

0
28. Amend Sec.  432.72 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) Facilities that generate more than 50 million pounds per year 
of finished products must achieve the following effluent limitations:

[[Page 4529]]



             Table 2 to Paragraph (b)--Effluent Limitations
                                  [BPT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum
           Regulated parameter             Maximum daily      monthly
                                                \1\           avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5....................................            0.56            0.28
Fecal Coliform..........................          \2\ 50          \2\ 22
O&G \3\.................................            0.20            0.10
TSS.....................................            0.68            0.34
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1,000 lbs (or g/kg) of finished product.
\2\ MPN or CFU per 100 mL.
\3\ May be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM).

* * * * *
0
29. Amend Sec.  432.73 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) Facilities that generate more than 50 million pounds per year 
of finished products must achieve the following effluent limitations:

             Table 2 to Paragraph (b)--Effluent Limitations
                                  [BAT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum
           Regulated parameter             Maximum daily      monthly
                                                \1\           avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)..........................             8.0             4.0
Total Nitrogen..........................              20              12
Total Phosphorus........................             1.5             0.8
E. Coli.................................          \2\ 14           \2\ 9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
\2\ MPN or CFU per 100 mL.

0
30. Revise Sec.  432.74 to read as follows:


Sec.  432.74  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source 
subject to this subpart that processes more than 50 million pounds per 
year that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works 
must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve the following 
pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES):

  Table 1 to Sec.   432.74--Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources
                                 [PSES]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum
           Regulated parameter             Maximum daily      monthly
                                                \1\           avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5....................................           1,945           1,323
TSS.....................................           1,578             925
Oil and grease..........................           1,635           1,393
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L.

0
31. Amend Sec.  432.75 by revising the introductory text and paragraphs 
(b), and removing paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  432.75  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    Facilities subject to the 2004 new source performance standards in 
Sec.  432.75 continue to be subject to those standards. These 2004 new 
sources are also subject to revised BPT and BAT effluent limitations 
specified in Sec. Sec.  432.72 and 432.73 (for direct dischargers) or 
the revised pretreatment standards specified in Sec.  432.74 (for 
indirect dischargers). Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this 
section, any source that is a new source subject to this subpart must 
achieve the following performance standards:
* * * * *
    (b) Facilities that generate more than 50 million pounds per year 
of finished products must achieve the limitations for BOD5, 
fecal coliform, O&G, and TSS specified in Sec.  432.72(b) and the 
limitations for ammonia (as N), total phosphorus, E. coli, and total 
nitrogen specified in Sec.  432.73(b).
0
32. Revise Sec.  432.76 to read as follows:


Sec.  432.76  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source 
subject to this subpart that processes more than 50 million pounds per 
year that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works 
must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve the following 
pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS):

[[Page 4530]]



      Table 1 Sec.   432.76--Pretreatment Standards for New Sources
                                 [PSNS]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum
           Regulated parameter             Maximum daily      monthly
                                                \1\           avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5....................................           1,945           1,323
TSS.....................................           1,578             925
Oil and grease..........................           1,635           1,393
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L.

Subpart H [Amended]

0
33. Amend Sec.  432.82 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) Facilities that generate more than 50 million pounds per year 
of finished products must achieve the following effluent limitations:

             Table 1 to Paragraph (b)--Effluent Limitations
                                  [BPT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum
           Regulated parameter             Maximum daily      monthly
                                                \1\           avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5....................................            0.62            0.31
Fecal Coliform..........................          \2\ 50          \2\ 22
O&G \3\.................................            0.22            0.11
TSS.....................................            0.74            0.37
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1,000 lbs (or g/kg) of finished product.
\2\ MPN or CFU per 100 mL.
\3\ May be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM).

0
34. Amend Sec.  432.83 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) Facilities that generate more than 50 million pounds per year 
of finished products must achieve the following effluent limitations:

             Table 2 to Paragraph (b)--Effluent Limitations
                                  [BAT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum
           Regulated parameter             Maximum daily      monthly
                                                \1\           avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)..........................             8.0             4.0
Total Nitrogen..........................              20              12
Total Phosphorus........................             1.5             0.8
E. Coli.................................          \2\ 14           \2\ 9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
\2\ MPN or CFU per 100 mL.

0
35. Revise Sec.  432.84 to read as follows:


Sec.  432.84  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source 
subject to this subpart that processes more than 50 million pounds per 
year that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works 
must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve the following 
pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES):

  Table 1 to Sec.   432.84--Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources
                                 [PSES]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum
           Regulated parameter             Maximum daily      monthly
                                                \1\           avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5....................................           1,945           1,323
TSS.....................................           1,578             925
Oil and grease..........................           1,635           1,393
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L.


[[Page 4531]]

0
36. Amend Sec.  432.85 by revising the introductory text and paragraph 
(b), and removing paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  432.85  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    Facilities subject to the 2004 new source performance standards in 
Sec.  432.85 continue to be subject to those standards. These 2004 new 
sources are also subject to revised BPT and BAT effluent limitations 
specified in Sec. Sec.  432.82 and 432.83 (for direct dischargers) or 
the revised pretreatment standards specified in Sec.  432.84 (for 
indirect dischargers). Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this 
section, any source that is a new source subject to this subpart must 
achieve the following performance standards:
* * * * *
    (b) Facilities that generate more than 50 million pounds per year 
of finished products must achieve the limitations for BOD5, 
fecal coliform, O&G, and TSS specified in Sec.  432.82(b) and the 
limitations for ammonia (as N), total phosphorus, E. coli, and total 
nitrogen specified in Sec.  432.83(b).
0
37. Revise Sec.  432.86 to read as follows:


Sec.  432.86  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source 
subject to this subpart that processes more than 50 million pounds per 
year that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works 
must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve the following 
pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS):

      Table 1 Sec.   432.86--Pretreatment Standards for New Sources
                                 [PSNS]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum
           Regulated parameter             Maximum daily      monthly
                                                \1\           avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5....................................           1,945           1,323
TSS.....................................           1,578             925
Oil and grease..........................           1,635           1,393
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L.

Subpart I [ Amended]

0
38. Amend Sec.  432.92 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) Facilities that generate more than 50 million pounds per year 
of finished products must achieve the following effluent limitations:

             Table 2 to Paragraph (b)--Effluent Limitations
                                  [BPT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum
           Regulated parameter             Maximum daily      monthly
                                                \1\           avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5....................................            0.74            0.37
Fecal Coliform..........................          \2\ 50          \2\ 22
O&G \3\.................................            0.26            0.13
TSS.....................................            0.90            0.45
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) of finished product.
\2\ MPN or CFU per 100 mL.
\3\ May be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM).

* * * * *
0
39. Amend Sec.  432.93 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) Facilities that generate more than 50 million pounds per year 
of finished products must achieve the following effluent limitations:

             Table 2 to Paragraph (b)--Effluent Limitations
                                  [BAT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum
           Regulated parameter             Maximum daily      monthly
                                                \1\           avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)..........................             8.0             4.0
Total Nitrogen..........................              20              12
Total Phosphorus........................             1.5             0.8
E. Coli.................................          \2\ 14           \2\ 9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
\2\ MPN or CFU per 100 mL.


[[Page 4532]]

0
40. Revise Sec.  432.94 to read as follows:


Sec.  432.94  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source 
subject to this subpart that processes more than 50 million pounds per 
year that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works 
must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve the following 
pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES):

  Table 1 to Sec.   432.94--Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources
                                 [PSES]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum
           Regulated parameter             Maximum daily      monthly
                                                \1\           avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5....................................           1,945           1,323
TSS.....................................           1,578             925
Oil and grease..........................           1,635           1,393
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L.

0
41. Amend Sec.  432.95 by revising the introductory text and paragraph 
(b), and removing paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  432.95  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    Facilities subject to the 2004 new source performance standards in 
Sec. Sec.  432.95 of this part continue to be subject to those 
standards. These 2004 new sources are also subject to revised BPT and 
BAT effluent limitations specified in Sec.  432.92 and 432.93 of this 
part (for direct dischargers) or the revised pretreatment standards 
specified in Sec.  432.94 of this part (for indirect dischargers). 
Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, any source that is 
a new source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
performance standards:
* * * * *
    (b) Facilities that generate more than 50 million pounds per year 
of finished products must achieve the limitations for BOD5, 
fecal coliform, O&G, and TSS specified in Sec.  432.92(b) and the 
limitations for ammonia (as N), total phosphorus, E. coli, and total 
nitrogen specified in Sec.  432.93(b).
0
42. Revise Sec.  432.96 to read as follows:


Sec.  432.96  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source 
subject to this subpart that processes more than 50 million pounds per 
year that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works 
must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve the following 
pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS):

    Table 1 to Sec.   432.96--Pretreatment Standards for New Sources
                                 [PSNS]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum
           Regulated parameter             Maximum daily      monthly
                                                \1\           avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5....................................           1,945           1,323
TSS.....................................           1,578             925
Oil and grease..........................           1,635           1,393
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L.

Subpart J [Amended]

0
43. Amend Sec.  432.102 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:


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:

             Table 1 to Paragraph (a)--Effluent Limitations
                                  [BPT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum
           Regulated parameter             Maximum daily      monthly
                                                \1\           avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5....................................            0.34            0.17
Fecal Coliform..........................          \2\ 50          \2\ 22
O&G \3\.................................            0.20            0.10
TSS.....................................            0.42            0.21
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) of raw material.
\2\ MPN or CFU per 100 mL
\3\ May be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM).


[[Page 4533]]

* * * * *
0
44. Revise Sec.  432.103 to read as follows:


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:

             Table 1 to Sec.   432.103--Effluent Limitations
                                  [BAT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum
           Regulated parameter             Maximum daily   monthly avg.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N) \1\......................            0.14            0.07
Total Nitrogen \2\......................              20              12
Total Phosphorus \2\....................             1.5             0.8
E. Coli.................................          \3\ 14           \3\ 9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (g/kg) of raw material (RM).
\2\ mg/L (ppm).
\3\ MPN or CFU per 100 mL

0
45. Revise Sec.  432.104 to read as follows:


Sec.  432.104  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source 
subject to this subpart that uses raw material at rates more than 10 
million pounds per year that introduces pollutants into a publicly 
owned treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve 
the following pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES):

   Table 1 Sec.   432.104--Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources
                                 [PSES]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum
           Regulated parameter             Maximum daily      monthly
                                                \1\           avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5....................................           1,945           1,323
TSS.....................................           1,578             925
Oil and grease..........................           1,635           1,393
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L.

0
46. Amend Sec.  432.105 by revising paragraph (a) and removing 
paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  432.105  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    (a) Facilities subject to the 2004 new source performance standards 
in Sec.  432.105 continue to be subject to those standards. These 2004 
new sources are also subject to revised BPT and BAT effluent 
limitations specified in Sec. Sec.  432.102 and 432.103 (for direct 
dischargers) or the revised pretreatment standards specified in Sec.  
432.104 (for indirect dischargers). Except as provided in paragraph (c) 
of this section, any source that is a new source subject to this 
subpart must achieve the following performance standards:

             Table 1 to Paragraph (a)--Performance Standards
                                 [NSPS]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum
           Regulated parameter             Maximum daily   monthly avg.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N) \1\......................            0.14            0.07
BOD5 \1\................................            0.18            0.09
E. coli.................................          \2\ 14           \2\ 9
Fecal coliform..........................          \2\ 50          \2\ 22
O&G 1 3.................................            0.10            0.05
Total Nitrogen \4\......................              20              12
Total Phosphorus \4\....................             1.5             0.8
TSS \1\.................................            0.22            0.11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) of raw material (RM).
\2\ MPN or CFU per 100 mL..
\3\ May be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM).
\4\ mg/L (ppm).


[[Page 4534]]

* * * * *
0
47. Revise Sec.  432.106 to read as follows:


Sec.  432.106  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source 
subject to this subpart that uses raw material at rates more than 10 
million pounds per year that introduces pollutants into a publicly 
owned treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve 
the following pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS):

    Table 1 to Sec.   432.106--Pretreatment Standards for New Sources
                                 [PSNS]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum
           Regulated parameter             Maximum daily      monthly
                                                \1\           avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5....................................           1,945           1,323
TSS.....................................           1,578             925
Oil and grease..........................           1,635           1,393
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L.

Subpart K [Amended]

0
48. Revise Sec.  432.112 to read as follows:


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 that slaughters more than 100 
million pounds per year (in units of LWK) must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the application of BPT:

             Table 1 to Sec.   432.112--Effluent Limitations
                                  [BPT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum
           Regulated parameter             Maximum daily      monthly
                                                \1\           avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)..........................             8.0             4.0
BOD5....................................              26              16
Fecal Coliform..........................          \2\ 50          \2\ 22
O&G (as HEM)............................              14             8.0
TSS.....................................              30              20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
\2\ MPN or CFU per 100 mL.

0
49. Revise Sec.  432.113 to read as follows:


Sec.  432.113  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 100 
million pounds per year (in units of LWK) must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the application of BAT:

             Table 1 to Sec.   432.113--Effluent Limitations
                                  [BAT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum
           Regulated parameter             Maximum daily      monthly
                                                \1\           avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)..........................             8.0             4.0
Total Nitrogen..........................              20              12
Total Phosphorus........................             1.5             0.8
E. Coli.................................          \2\ 14           \3\ 9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ (mg/L) (ppm).
\2\ MPN or CFU per 100 mL.

0
50. Revise Sec.  432.114 to read as follows:


Sec.  432.114  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source 
subject to this subpart that slaughters more than 100 million pounds 
per year (in units of LWK) that introduces pollutants into a publicly 
owned treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve 
the following pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES):

[[Page 4535]]



 Table 1 to Sec.   432.114--Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources
                                 [PSES]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum
           Regulated parameter             Maximum daily      monthly
                                                \1\           avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5....................................           1,945           1,323
TSS.....................................           1,578             925
Oil and grease..........................           1,635           1,393
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L.

0
51. Amend Sec.  432.115 by revising the introductory text and paragraph 
(b) to read as follows:


Sec.  432.115  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    Facilities subject to the 2004 new source performance standards in 
Sec.  432.115 continue to be subject to those standards. These 2004 new 
sources are also subject to revised BPT and BAT effluent limitations 
specified in Sec. Sec.  432.112 and 432.113 (for direct dischargers) or 
the revised pretreatment standards specified in Sec.  432.114 (for 
indirect dischargers). Any source that is a new source subject to this 
subpart must achieve the following performance standards:
* * * * *
    (b) Facilities that slaughter more than 100 million pounds per year 
(in units of LWK) must achieve the following performance standards:

             Table 2 to Paragraph (b)--Performance Standards
                                 [NSPS]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum
           Regulated parameter             Maximum daily      monthly
                                                \1\           avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)..........................             8.0             4.0
BOD5....................................              26              16
E. coli.................................          \2\ 14           \2\ 9
Fecal Coliform..........................          \2\ 50          \2\ 22
O&G (as HEM)............................              14             8.0
TSS.....................................              30              20
Total Phosphorus........................             1.5             0.8
Total Nitrogen..........................              20              12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
\2\ MPN or CFU per 100 mL.

0
52. Revise Sec.  432.116 to read as follows:


Sec.  432.116  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source 
subject to this subpart that slaughters more than 100 million pounds 
per year (in units of LWK) that introduces pollutants into a publicly 
owned treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve 
the following pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS):

    Table 1 to Sec.   432.116--Pretreatment Standards for New Sources
                                 [PSNS]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum
           Regulated parameter             Maximum daily      monthly
                                                \1\           avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5....................................           1,945           1,323
TSS.....................................           1,578             925
Oil and grease..........................           1,635           1,393
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L.

Subpart L [Amended]

0
53. Revise Sec.  432.122 to read as follows:


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 that further processes more than 7 
million pounds per year (in units of finished product) must achieve the 
following effluent limitations representing the application of BPT:

[[Page 4536]]



             Table 1 to Sec.   432.122--Effluent Limitations
                                  [BPT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum
           Regulated parameter             Maximum daily      monthly
                                                \1\           avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)..........................             8.0             4.0
BOD5....................................              26              16
Fecal Coliform..........................          \2\ 50          \3\ 22
O&G (as HEM)............................              14             8.0
TSS.....................................              30              20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
\2\ MPN or CFU per 100 mL.

0
54. Revise Sec.  432.123 to read as follows:


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 that further processes more than 7 
million pounds per year (in units of finished product) must achieve the 
following effluent limitations representing the application of BAT:

             Table 1 to Sec.   432.123--Effluent Limitations
                                  [BAT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum
           Regulated parameter             Maximum daily      monthly
                                                \1\           avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)..........................             8.0             4.0
Total Nitrogen..........................              20              12
Total Phosphorus........................             1.5             0.8
E. Coli.................................          \2\ 14           \2\ 9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
\2\ MPN or CFU per 100 mL.

0
55. Revise Sec.  432.124 to read as follows:


Sec.  432.124  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source 
subject to this subpart that processes more than 7 million pounds per 
year (in units of LWK) that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned 
treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve the 
following pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES):

 Table 1 to Sec.   432.124--Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources
                                 [PSES]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum
           Regulated parameter             Maximum daily      monthly
                                                \1\           avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5....................................           1,945           1,323
TSS.....................................           1,578             925
Oil and grease..........................           1,635           1,393
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L.

0
56. Amend Sec.  432.125 by revising the introductory text and paragraph 
(b) to read as follows:


Sec.  432.125  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    Facilities subject to the 2004 new source performance standards in 
Sec. Sec.  432.125 of this part continue to be subject to those 
standards. These 2004 new sources are also subject to revised BPT and 
BAT effluent limitations specified in Sec.  432.122 and 432.123 of this 
part (for direct dischargers) or the revised pretreatment standards 
specified in Sec.  432.124 of this part (for indirect dischargers). Any 
source that is a new source subject to this subpart must achieve the 
following performance standards:
* * * * *
    (b) Facilities that further process more than 7 million pounds per 
year (in units of finished product) must achieve the following 
performance standards:

[[Page 4537]]



             Table 2 to Paragraph (b)--Effluent Limitations
                                 [NSPS]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum
           Regulated parameter             Maximum daily    monthly avg
                                                \1\             \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)..........................             8.0             4.0
BOD5....................................              26              16
E. coli.................................          \2\ 14           \2\ 9
Fecal Coliform..........................          \2\ 50          \2\ 22
O&G (as HEM)............................              14             8.0
TSS.....................................              30              20
Total Phosphorus........................             1.5             0.8
Total Nitrogen..........................              20              12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
\2\ MPN or CFU per 100 mL.

0
57. Revise Sec.  432.126 to read as follows:


Sec.  432.126  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source 
subject to this subpart that processes more than 7 million pounds per 
year (in units of LWK) that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned 
treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve the 
following pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS):

 Table 1 to Sec.   432.126--Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources
                                 [PSNS]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum
           Regulated parameter             Maximum daily    monthly avg
                                                \1\             \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5....................................           1,945           1,323
TSS.....................................           1,578             925
Oil and grease..........................           1,635           1,393
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L.


[FR Doc. 2023-28498 Filed 1-22-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P