# Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Point Source Category > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A02-2838 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Proposed Rule - **Published:** February 25, 2002 - **Citation:** 67 FR 8582 ## Text 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: Category Examples of regulated 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 Poultry) Slaughtering 311611 (NAICS). Meat Processed from Carcasses 311612 (NAICS). Sausages and Other Prepared Meat Products 2013 (SIC). Poultry Slaughtering and Processing 2015 (SIC). Poultry Processing 311615 (NAICS). Rendering and Meat By-Product Processing 311613 (NAICS). Support Activities for Animal Production 11521 (NAICS). Prepared Feed and Feed Ingredients for Animals and Fowls, Except Dogs and Cats 2048 (SIC). Dog and Cat Food 2047 (SIC). Dog and Cat Food Manufacturing 311111 (NAICS). Other Animal Food Manufacturing 311119 (NAICS). All Other Miscellaneous Food Manufacturing 311999 (NAICS). Animal and Marine Fats and Oils 2077 (SIC). Poultry Hatcheries and 11234 (NAICS). Livestock Services, Except Veterinary 0751 (SIC). 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. 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) 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 (BOD 5 ), 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 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. 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; Subpart B: Complex Slaughterhouse; Subpart C: Low-Processing Packinghouse; and Subpart D: High-Processing Packinghouse BPT 2 Equalization, dissolved air flotation, secondary biological treatment with nitrification. 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: Sausage and Luncheon Meats Processor; Subpart H: Ham Processor; and Subpart I: Canned Meats Processor BPT 2 Equalization, dissolved air flotation, secondary biological treatment with nitrification. 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, 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 10 9 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 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 Processing (facilities which slaughter up to 10 million pounds per year); and, Subpart L: Poultry Further Processing (facilities which produce up to 7,000 pounds per year of finished product) BPT; BCT 1 Equalization, dissolved air flotation, secondary biological treatment with less efficient nitrification. 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 Processing (facilities which slaughter more than 10 million pounds per year); and, Subpart L: Poultry Further Processing (facilities which produce more than 7,000 pounds per year of finished product) BPT; BCT 3 Equalization, dissolved air flotation, secondary biological treatment with nitrification and denitrification. 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, BOD 5 , 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 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 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 BOD 5 , 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. 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. 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 Stratum (No. of employees) Number of facilities in stratum Screener survey sample size Detailed survey sample size Certainty 65 0 65 Large Processor (≥500) 43 31 3 Large Slaughterer (≥500) 190 100 52 Small Processor (10-499) 1,878 688 62 Small Slaughterer (10-499) 498 130 69 Very Small Processor (<10) 5,308 649 57 Renderer 235 52 42 Total 8,217 1,650 350 Various meat and poultry processors were randomly selected within each grouping. EPA weighted each survey response to account for facilities not surveyed and to develop national estimates from the survey responses. EPA deliberately selected the 65 “certainty” facilities to obtain site-specific information on the top producers for all types of meat and poultry products as well as facilities identified as good performers by State and Regional environmental personnel. EPA focused much of its analysis on the characteristics of larger facilities because indirect and direct small facilities as a group ( see Section III.A.1 for descriptions of “small facilities”) discharge less than 3% of the conventional pollutants, 1% of the toxic pollutants, 4% of the nutrients, and less 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 (BOD 5 , 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 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 (BOD 5 ) Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD 5 ) Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand (DBOD 5 ) 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. 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 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 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. 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 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 Treatment category Treatment unit Percent of direct/indirect discharging facilities having the treatment unit in place Direct Discharger (percent) Indirect Discharger (percent) Primary treatment Screen 98 64 Oil and Grease Removal 83 77 Dissolved Air Floatation 81 46 Flow Equalization 75 34 Secondary and Tertiar [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A02-2838. Public record. Not legal advice.