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

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: February 25, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 37)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 8581-8669]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr25fe02-18]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 432
[FRL-7137-9]
RIN 2040-AD56

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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

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

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

Entities potentially regulated by this action include:

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

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

How To Submit Comments

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

[[Page 8583]]

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

Protection of Confidential Business Information (CBI)

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

Supporting Documentation

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

How to Obtain Supporting Documents

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

Overview

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

Table of Contents

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

[[Page 8584]]

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

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

I. Legal Authority

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

II. Legislative Background

A. Clean Water Act

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

[[Page 8585]]

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

B. Section 304(m) Consent Decree

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

III. Scope/Applicability of Proposed Regulation

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

A. Facilities Subject to 40 CFR Part 432

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

[[Page 8586]]

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

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

[[Page 8587]]

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

B. Poultry Slaughtering and Further Processing Facilities

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

[[Page 8588]]

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

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

IV. Rulemaking History and Industry Profile

A. Meat Products Effluent Guideline Rulemaking History

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

[[Page 8589]]

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

B. Industry Profile

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

[[Page 8590]]

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

[[Page 8591]]

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

V. Summary of Data Collection

A. Secondary Sources of Data and Information

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

B. Industry Surveys

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

[[Page 8592]]

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

Table V.B-1.--Meat and Poultry Products Industry Strata
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Screener Detailed
Stratum (No. of employees) facilities in survey sample survey sample
stratum size size
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certainty....................................................... 65 0 65
Large Processor (³500)................................ 43 31 3
Large Slaughterer (³500).............................. 190 100 52
Small Processor (10-499)........................................ 1,878 688 62
Small Slaughterer (10-499)...................................... 498 130 69
Very Small Processor (10)....................................... 5,308 649 57
Renderer........................................................ 235 52 42
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 8,217 1,650 350
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 8593]]

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

C. Site Visits and Wastewater Sampling

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

[[Page 8594]]

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

D. Pollutants Sampled and Analytical Methods

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

Table V.D-1. MPP Sampled Parameters

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

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

[[Page 8595]]

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

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

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

E. Other Data Collection

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

[[Page 8596]]

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

F. Summary of Public Participation

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

[[Page 8597]]

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

VI. Subcategorization

A. Factors Considered in Developing Proposed Subcategories

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

[[Page 8598]]

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

B. Proposed Subcategories

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

[[Page 8599]]

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

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

A. Wastewater Treatment Technologies in the MPP Industry

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

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

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

[[Page 8600]]

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

B. Wastewater Sources, Water Use, and Wastewater Characteristics

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

[[Page 8601]]

grease, and small amounts of blood, tissue solids, and other fluids. As
carcasses are cut into smaller pieces, small pieces of tissues and
fluids can enter wastewater. At the end of each day, equipment is
cleaned and sanitized. This washdown contains bone dust and other
fluids such as blood and cleaning fluids (Docket No. W-01-06, Record
No. 00132).
Facility clean up and sanitation can contribute significantly to
the overall volume and pollutant load for meat first and further
processing facilities. The volume and pollutant load of this wastewater
varies significantly from facility to facility, and is dependent on
several factors including efficiency of processing facility,
housekeeping practices, the extent to which dry cleaning processes are
used, and the volume of water used in washing facility equipment.
Improper use of water hoses, for example, could lead to unnecessary use
of water and result in the production of excess wastewater.
Industrial practices within the meat further processing industry
sector are diverse and produce variable waste loads. Meat further
processing facilities purchase animal carcasses, meat parts, and other
materials and produce sausages, cooked meats, cured meats, smoked
meats, canned meats, frozen and fresh meat cuts, natural sausage
casings, and other prepared meats and meat specialties. None of these
facilities engage in any slaughtering on the same premises as the
processing activity.
The product mix of these facilities includes many combinations of
products. There are facilities that specialize in one or two types of
processed meats products, such as hams, fresh sausages, canned meat
products, or meat cuts, and facilities that produce a number of
products up to the full line of processed meat products. Meat further
processing operations include:
Raw material storage, shipping, receiving, and thawing
(wet, dry, chipping);
Carcass/meat handling and preparation (breaking, trimming,
cutting, boning, tempering, skinning, slicing);
Seasoning, spicing, and sauce preparation;
Weighing and batching;
Grinding, mixing, emulsifying;
Extruding, stuffing, molding, linking, casing peeling;
Pickling, smoking, cooking;
Can preparation, filling, covering, and retorting; and
Cleanup operations.
Many of these operations contribute to the raw waste load of a meat
further processor. Wastewater from these operations generally contain
meat, fat, and bone particles as well as soluble constituents such as
salts, blood, and pickling, preserving, and preparation materials
(e.g., sugar, sodium nitrite and nitrate, spices). Current MPP effluent
guidelines divide the meat further processors into five separate
industry groups: Small Processors (40 CFR part 432, subpart E); Meat
Cutters (40 CFR part 432, subpart F); Sausage and Luncheon Meat
Processors (40 CFR part 432, subpart G); Ham Processors (40 CFR part
432, subpart H); and Meat Canners (40 CFR part 432, subpart I).
Small processors, defined as operations producing up to 2730
kilograms (6000 pounds) per day of any type or combination of meat
product, are currently regulated under subpart E of 40 CFR part 432.
They may produce a wide range of products but most of the these
facilities prepare fresh meat cuts, sausage and wieners, and hams. The
wastewater source for this subcategory is generally from cleanup and
sanitation operations (approximately 50-90 percent of total wastewater
flow). The scale of production and the typically limited finished
product mix preclude the need for substantial quantities of water
during the production day.
Further processors that produce more than 6,000 pounds of meat cuts
as finished products per day (i.e., non-small processors) are currently
regulated under subpart F of 40 CFR part 432. These facilities require
virtually no process water but do generate wastewaters during cleanup
and sanitation operations. Facilities in this industry grouping
generally break, trim, and cut the large meat parts into single-portion
meat cuts. Very little equipment (other than saws, knives and work
surfaces) comes in contact with the meat products. The relative
simplicity of operation and equipment results in small quantities of
process water and a small waste load in the cleanup water.
Sausage and luncheon meat processors that produce more than 6,000
pounds of finished product per day (i.e., non-small processors) are
currently regulated under subpart G of 40 CFR part 432. These
facilities have an extensive product mix and tend to require more
intensive meat processing (e.g., seasoning, cuttings, molding, packing)
than meat cutters. Wastewater sources include meat processing and
cleanup operations.
Ham processors that produce more than 6,000 pounds of finished
product per day (i.e., non-small processors) are currently regulated
under subpart H of 40 CFR part 432. These facilities produce hams and
other ham-related products. The operations involved in ham production
use more water than the typical meat processing operations; and because
of the direct water-ham contact, the wastewater load is increased. Ham
processors rely on pickling, preserving, and preparation materials
(e.g., sugar, sodium nitrite and nitrate, spices) to cure and prepare
the ham products. The production operations and cleanup in the rest of
the ham processing facility is fairly comparable in both practice and
resulting waste load to that of the sausage and luncheon meat
processors.
Meat canners that produce more than 6,000 pounds of finished
product per day (i.e., non-small processors) are currently regulated
under subpart I of 40 CFR part 432. These facilities generally require
a number of processing steps such as size reduction, mixing and
blending, and cooking. These operations require special equipment and
generate more wastewater flows and pollutant loading than other meat
further processors per pound of finished product. Meat canners also use
pickling, preserving, and preparation materials (e.g., sugar, sodium
nitrite and nitrate, spices) to cure and prepare the canned meat
products.
b. Wastewater Characterization
Organic materials are the primary sources of pollutants in meat
first and further processing wastewater. These substances cause a
reduction in oxygen levels as microorganisms consume oxygen for
decomposition processes. For this reason these organic substances are
evaluated by biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), which measures the amount
of oxygen required by bacteria and other microorganisms to decompose
the organic matter, and BOD_5, which calculates the amount of
oxygen used in the first five days of decomposition. Although levels
vary between facilities, typical BOD₅ values in the raw
wastewater influent to be treated range from 1,600 mg/L to 3,000 mg/L
(Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 00128). Primary sources of high
BOD₅ levels include blood, stomach contents, greases and
fats, and pickling, preserving, and cooking materials.
Bacteria are also present in meat first and further processing
wastewater in quantities of between 2 to 4 million fecal coliform
colony forming units per 100 mL based on the most probable number (MPN)
technique for estimating microbial populations. There is also the
potential for viruses and parasite eggs to be present in the water. The
amounts and types of pollutants that slaughterhouses generate greatly
depends upon the particular step

[[Page 8602]]

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

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

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

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

[[Page 8603]]

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

[[Page 8604]]

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

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

[[Page 8605]]

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

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

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

[[Page 8606]]

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

C. Pollutants of Concern

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

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

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

[[Page 8607]]

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

D. Approach to Estimating Compliance Costs

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

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

[[Page 8608]]

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

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

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

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

[[Page 8609]]

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

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

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

[[Page 8610]]

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

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

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

E. Approach to Estimating Pollutant Reductions

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

[[Page 8611]]

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

[[Page 8612]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

VIII. Economic Analysis

A. Introduction

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

B. Economic Data Collection Activities

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

C. Annualized Compliance Cost Estimates

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

D. Economic Impact Methodologies

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

[[Page 8613]]

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

[[Page 8614]]

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

[[Page 8615]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 8616]]

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

F. Results of BCT Cost Test

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

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

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

[[Page 8617]]

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

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

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

G. Costs and Economic Impacts of PSES Options

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

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

[[Page 8618]]

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

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

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

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

H. Economic Impacts for New Sources

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

I. Firm-Level Impacts

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

[[Page 8619]]

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

J. Community Impacts

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

K. Market and Foreign Trade Impacts

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

L. Cost-Reasonableness and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

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

[[Page 8620]]

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

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

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

[[Page 8621]]

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

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

[[Page 8622]]

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

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

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

[[Page 8623]]

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

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

M. Small Business Analysis

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

[[Page 8624]]

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

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

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

IX. Water Quality Analysis and Environmental Benefits

A. Qualitative Description of Water Quality Benefits

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

B. Facilities Modeled

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

C. Pollutants of Concern

EPA identified 30 pollutants of concern for the meat processing
segment of the industry and 27 pollutants of concern for the poultry
processing segment of the industry (see Section V.C). This list
includes Ammonia as Nitrogen, Carbonaceous BOD_5, Chemical
Oxygen Demand (COD), Nitrate +Nitrite (as Nitrogen), Hexane Extractable
Method (HEM), Oil and Grease, Total Recoverable Oil and Grease, pH,
Temperature, Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorous (as PO₄).
Discharges of these pollutants of concern into freshwater and
estuarine

[[Page 8625]]

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

D. Benefits Modeling Methodology

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

E. Modeled Technology Option Scenarios

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

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

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

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

F. Documented Impacts and Permit Violations

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

G. Modeled Water Quality Impacts

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

[[Page 8626]]

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

H. Monetized Water Quality Benefits

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

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

X. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts

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

A. Energy Requirements

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

[[Page 8627]]

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

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

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

B. Air Emissions Impacts

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

[[Page 8628]]

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

C. Solid Waste Generation

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

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

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

[[Page 8629]]

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

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

XI. Options Selected for Proposal

A. Introduction

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

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

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

[[Page 8630]]

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

[[Page 8631]]

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

[[Page 8632]]

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

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

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

[[Page 8633]]

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

B. Pretreatment Standards

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

[[Page 8634]]

otherwise be incompatible with the treatment works; and (3) improve
opportunities to recycle and reclaim municipal and industrial
wastewaters and sludges.
Currently there are no categorical pretreatment standards for the
MPP point source category. EPA is not proposing new pretreatment
standards for existing or new MPP indirect dischargers. While EPA has
some information regarding effluents from MPP indirect dischargers that
may pass through, interfere with, or otherwise be incompatible with
POTW operations, it is not clear that it justifies categorical
pretreatment standards for this industry. The following sections
discuss the information EPA was able to collect and what information
EPA is soliciting in this proposal and planning to collect after
proposal.
1. POTW Interference
As noted above, there are no categorical pretreatment standards for
MPP indirect dischargers, however, the national pretreatment standards
prohibit the discharge of, ``Any pollutant, including oxygen demanding
pollutants (BOD, etc.) released in a Discharge at a flow rate and/or
pollutant concentration which will cause Interference with the POTW ,''
(see 40 CFR 403.5(b)(4)). All indirect dischargers are prohibited from
introducing into a POTW any pollutant(s) which cause pass through or
interference whether or not categorical pretreatment standards or any
national, State, or local pretreatment requirements apply (see 40 CFR
403.5(a)(1)). POTWs are required to develop and enforce Pretreatment
Programs and/or set local limits to ensure renewed and continued
compliance with the POTW's NPDES permit or sludge use or disposal
practices (see 40 CFR 403.5(c)). According to data provided in the
detailed surveys, approximately one-third of the MPP facilities
discharge to POTWs which discharge less than 5 MGD. These POTWs are
often not required through their NPDES permits to implement
Pretreatment Programs.
EPA typically does not establish pretreatment standards for
conventional pollutants (e.g., BOD_5, TSS, Oil and Grease)
since POTWs are designed to treat these pollutants, but EPA has
exercised its authority to establish categorical pretreatment standards
for conventional pollutants. For example, EPA established categorical
pretreatment standards for new and existing sources with a one day
maximum concentration of 100 mg/L oil and grease in the Petroleum
Refining Point Source Category (40 CFR 419). This standard is based on
the performance of either of two technologies (primary oil removal or
DAF). EPA identified this pretreatment standard as necessary to
``minimize the possibility of slug loadings of oil and grease being
discharged to POTW,'' (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 00167). EPA notes
that oil and grease from Petroleum Refineries is not the same material
as oil and grease from MPP facilities. EPA solicits comment on the use
of the 100 mg/L standard for preventing POTW interference by vegetable/
animal oil and grease discharges.
EPA previously identified that high organic loadings and grease
remaining in the MPP facility effluent may cause difficulty in the POTW
treatment system and that the performance of trickling filters appear
to be particularly sensitive (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No.00162;
Record No.00140). High loadings of oil and grease can also clog pipes
and promote the growth of filamentous bacteria which can inhibit the
performance of the POTW (especially trickling filters which are more
often used at smaller POTWs) (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 00085). A
concentration of 100
mg/L for Oil and Grease is often cited as a local limit and compliance
with this limit may require an effective dissolved air floatation
device in addition to a catch basin and other primary treatment system
(Docket No. W-01-06, Record No.00162; Record No.00140). EPA recognizes
that much of this data was developed in the 1970s but believes that it
is still relevant today.
EPA also previously identified that oil and grease of petroleum
origin has been reported to interfere with the aerobic processes of
POTWs (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 00167). It is believed that the
principal interference is caused by the attachment of oil and grease of
petroleum origin onto floc particles, resulting in a slower settling
rate, loss of solids by carryover out of the settling basin, and
excessive release of BOD from the POTW to the environment.
Additionally, EPA identified that oil and grease of petroleum origin
may coat the biomass in activated sludge treatment units, thereby
interfering with oxygen transfer and reducing treatment efficiency.
EPA Regional and State permit writers and pretreatment coordinators
identified approximately twenty cases where MPP indirect dischargers
interfered with POTW operations (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 10037).
While some specific details are lacking, these cases generally describe
how overloadings of various parameters (e.g., BOD_5, Oil and
Grease, TSS, Ammonia) and unequalized flows from MPP indirect
dischargers have resulted in POTW interference incidents and POTW NPDES
permit violations.
It is not clear, however, whether these identified interference
incidents represent an industry-wide problem or if they are site
specific and more appropriately addressed by the general pretreatment
prohibitions and local limits, or by POTW upgrades. Some of these
instances do involve violations of local limits or were resolved by
POTW upgrades, and therefore the general pretreatment prohibitions and
local limits did work. However, EPA does not know how frequently this
was the case. More detailed information will be gathered to determine
whether these facilities were in violation of the local limits, POTWs
have upgraded since the incident, or these were one-time problems. EPA
solicits more detailed information on these identified interference
incidents and other POTW interference and pass through incidents. EPA
will collect more information from EPA and State pretreatment program
coordinators, POTWs, and MPP indirect dischargers after proposal to:
(1) Understand whether the general pretreatment prohibition is
sufficient to address POTW interference and pass through incidents for
this industry; and (2) determine if reoccurrences of these POTW
interference and pass through incidents necessitate categorical
pretreatment standards at the time of the final rule for non-small
facilities.
Many POTWs are capable of controlling MPP indirect discharges
through local limits or sufficient dilution with domestic wastewaters.
Most of the approximately 1,500 POTWs with approved Pretreatment
Programs have numeric oil and grease limits and many POTWs without
approved Pretreatment Programs also have oil and grease limits. For
example, EPA identified approximately two dozen Pretreatment Programs
with local limits on oil and grease (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No.
10037). Oil and grease limits were most often in the range of 50 mg/L
to 450 mg/L with 100 mg/L as the most common reported limit. Other
Pretreatment Programs use descriptive requirements to limit
interference from high oil and grease concentrations.
While most POTWs are not significantly affected by MPP indirect
discharges, EPA notes that some, primarily smaller POTWs, including
those not required to implement approved Pretreatment Programs, may
have difficulty in properly treating MPP indirect discharges or in
setting local

[[Page 8635]]

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

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

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

[[Page 8636]]

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

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

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

[[Page 8637]]

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

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

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

[[Page 8638]]

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

[[Page 8639]]

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

D. Independent Rendering Facilities (Subcategory J)

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

E. Poultry Facilities (Subcategories K and L)

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

[[Page 8640]]

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

[[Page 8641]]

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

[[Page 8642]]

F. Regulatory Alternatives for Meat and Poultry Products Industry

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

[[Page 8643]]

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

[[Page 8644]]

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

Contents of an EMS

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

[[Page 8645]]

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

Environmental Management System and Audit Program

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

[[Page 8646]]

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

[[Page 8647]]

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

Assessment of Alternatives

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

[[Page 8648]]

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

XII. Regulatory Implementation

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

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

Abbreviation/Effluent Limitation Guideline or Standard

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

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

[[Page 8649]]

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

B. Upset and Bypass Provisions

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

C. Variances and Modifications

The CWA requires application of effluent limitations established
pursuant to section 301 or pretreatment standards of section 307 to all
direct and indirect dischargers. However, the statute provides for the
modification of these national requirements in a limited number of
circumstances. Moreover, the Agency has established administrative
mechanisms to provide an opportunity for relief from the application of
the national effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards
for categories of existing sources for toxic, conventional, and
nonconventional pollutants.
1. Fundamentally Different Factors Variances
EPA will develop effluent limitations or standards different from
the otherwise applicable requirements if an individual discharging
facility is fundamentally different with respect to factors considered
in establishing the limitation of standards applicable to the
individual facility. Such a modification is known as a ``fundamentally
different factors'' (FDF) variance.
Early on, EPA, by regulation provided for the FDF modifications
from the BPT effluent limitations, BAT limitations for toxic and
nonconventional pollutants and BPT limitations for conventional
pollutants for direct dischargers. For indirect discharg