[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