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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 432

[FRL-7631-2]

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:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

Today's final rule revises Clean Water Act effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance standards for meat producing facilities. These revisions apply to existing as well as new slaughtering facilities ( “first processors”), to facilities that further process meat to produce products like sausages (“further processors”) and to independent rendering facilities that convert inedible by-products to items like pet food (“renderers”). The rule establishes, for the first time, effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance standards for existing and new poultry first and further processors. Today's guidelines and standards establish limitations on wastewater discharges of specified pollutants for meat and poultry products facilities that discharge directly to U.S. waters. There are no current regulations for facilities that discharge indirectly, and EPA has not adopted regulations for those facilities. Today's rule applies to wastewater discharges from existing meat and poultry facilities above specified production thresholds. Today's new source standards apply to new meat facilities above the production thresholds and to all new poultry facilities irrespective of their production level. EPA is not revising the current effluent limitations guidelines or new source performance standards for meat first or further processors below the production threshold.

This final rule will benefit the Nation's receiving waters by reducing discharges of conventional pollutants, ammonia, and nitrogen. EPA estimates that compliance with this regulation will reduce discharges of nitrogen up to 27 million pounds per year, ammonia by 3 million pounds per year, and conventional pollutants by 4 million pounds per year.

DATES:

This regulation shall become effective October 8, 2004. The Director of the Federal Register approves the incorporation by reference on October 8, 2004, of certain publications listed in this rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. For judicial review purposes, this final rule is promulgated as of 1:00 p.m. (Eastern time) on September 22, 2004, as provided in 40 CFR 23.2.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for today's final rule is available for public inspection at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For additional technical information contact Samantha Lewis at (202) 566-1058. For additional economic information contact James Covington at (202) 566-1034.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

General Information

A. What Entities Are Potentially Regulated by This Final Rule?

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)

31161 (NAICS)

Animal (except Poultry) Slaughtering

311611 (NAICS)

Meat Processed from Carcasses

311612 (NAICS)

Sausages and Other Prepared Meat Products

2013 (SIC)

311612 (NAICS)

Poultry Slaughtering and Processing

2015 (SIC)

311615 (NAICS)

Meat & Meat Product Wholesalers

422470 (NAICS)

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)

311119 (NAICS)

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)

311613 (NAICS)

Livestock Services, Except Veterinary.

0751 (SIC)

311611 (NAICS)

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria listed at 40 CFR parts 432.1, 432.10, 432.20, 432.30, 432.40, 432.50, 432.60, 432.70, 432.80, 432.90, 432.100, 432.110, and 432.120 of today's rule. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed for technical information in the preceding

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section.

B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?

1. Docket

EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID

No. OW-2002-0014. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include information claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566-2426. Every user is entitled to copy 266 pages per day before incurring a charge. The Docket may charge 15 cents a page for each page over the page limit plus an administrative fee of $25.00.

2. Electronic Access

You may access this

Federal Register

document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “

Federal Register

” listings at

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at

http://www.epa.gov/edocket/

to view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket identification number: OW-2002-0014.

Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in section B.1.

C. What Other Information Is Available To Support This Final Rule?

The two major documents supporting the final regulations are the following:

• “Technical Development Document for the Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Point Source Category” [EPA-821-R-04-011] referred to in the preamble as the Technical Development Document (TDD): This document presents the technical information that formed the basis for EPA's decisions in today's final rule. The TDD describes, among other things, the data collection activities, the wastewater treatment technology options considered by the Agency as the basis for effluent limitations guidelines and standards, the pollutants found in Meat and Poultry Products (MPP) wastewaters, and the estimation of pollutant removals associated with certain pollutant control options.

• “Economic and Environmental Benefits Analysis of the Final Meat and Poultry Products Rule” [EPA-821-R-04-010] referred to as the Economic and Environmental Benefits Analysis (EEBA). This document presents the methodology employed to assess economic impacts, environmental impacts, and environmental benefits of the final rule and the results of the analyses.

Major supporting documents are available in hard copy from the National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP), U.S. EPA/NSCEP, P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA 45242-2419, (800) 490-9198,

www.epa.gov/ncepihom.

You can obtain electronic copies of this preamble and rule as well as major supporting documents at EPA Dockets at

www.epa.gov/edocket

and at

www.epa.gov/guide/mpp.

D. What Process Governs Judicial Review for Today's Final Rule?

In accordance with 40 CFR part 23.2, today's rule is considered promulgated for the purposes of judicial review as of 1:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, September 22, 2004. Under Section 509(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), judicial review of today's effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance standards may be obtained by filing a petition in the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for review within 120 days from the date of promulgation of these guidelines and standards. Under Section 509(b)(2) of the CWA, the requirements of this regulation may not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought to enforce these requirements.

E. What Are the Compliance Dates for Today's Final Rule?

Each National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit must include all technology-based effluent limitations promulgated by EPA. Consequently, all reissued permits for existing direct dischargers must require compliance with today's limitations. Direct dischargers that are new sources must comply with applicable new source performance standards (NSPS) on the date the new sources begin discharging. For purposes of the revised NSPS being promulgated today, a source is a new source if it commences construction after October 8, 2004.

Today's rule does not revise the new source performance standards for wastewater discharges from small meat products facilities (

i.e.,

those new meat facilities whose production is below the subcategory-specific production threshold) in Subparts A-I. Therefore, the respective new source dates for small facilities in Subparts A-I are not affected by today's final rule.

F. How Does EPA Protect Confidential Business Information (CBI)?

Certain information and data in the record supporting the final rule have been claimed as CBI and, therefore, EPA has not included these materials in the record that is available to the public in the Water Docket. Further, the Agency has withheld from disclosure some data not claimed as CBI because release of this information could indirectly reveal information claimed to be confidential. To support the rulemaking while preserving confidentiality claims, EPA is presenting in the public record certain information in aggregated form, masking facility identities, or using other strategies.

Table of Contents

I. Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations Used in This Document

II. Under What Legal Authority Is This Final Rule Issued?

III. What Is the Legislative Background of This Rule?

A. Clean Water Act

B. Existing Clean Water Act requirements applicable to meat and poultry processors

IV. How Was This Final Rule Developed?

A. February 2002 Proposed Rule

B. August 2003 Notice of Data Availability

C. Public Comments

D. Public Outreach

V. How Is the Final Rule Different From the Proposed Rule and the Approaches Discussed in the NODA?

A. Definitions

B. Pollutants

C. Costs and Economic Impacts

D. Loadings

E. Environmental Assessment

F. Treatment Options

G. Limitations

VI. Applicability

A. To Whom does This Rule Apply?

B. What Is a First Processor?

C. What Is a Further Processor?

D. What Is an Independent Renderer?

E. What Is Included as Meat? What Is Included as Poultry?

F. What if a Facility Processes Both Meat and Poultry? How Is It Categorized?

G. Are Indirect Dischargers Covered by This Final Rule?

H. What Changes Have Been Made to the Regulations for Meat Products?

I. What Wastewaters Are Covered?

J. Which Pollutants Have Limitations and Standards Established by This Rule?

K. Does This Regulation Impose Monitoring Requirements?

VII. What Is the Basis of the Final Regulation?

A. What Options Did EPA Consider for the Final Rule?

B. What Is the Basis for EPA's Selected Technology Options for Subcategories A-D (Meat First Processors)?

C. What Is the Basis for EPA's Selected Technology Options for Subcategory E (Meat Small Further Processors)?

D. What Is the Basis for EPA's Selected Technology Options for Subcategories F-I (Meat Further Processing)?

E. What Is the Basis for EPA's Selected Technology Options for Subcategory J (Independent Rendering)?

F. What Is the Basis for EPA's Selected Technology Options for Subcategory K (Poultry First Processing)?

G. What Is the Basis for EPA's Selected Technology Options for Subcategory L (Poultry Further Processing)?

VIII. How Did EPA Estimate the Pollutant Loadings and Compliance Costs for the Final Rule?

A. Pollutant Reductions

B. Compliance Costs

IX. What Are the Economic Impacts Associated With This Rule?

A. What Methods Were Used To Determine the Costs and Economic Impacts?

B. How Many Closures Are Projected as a Result of the Final Rule?

C. What Company-Level Impacts, Other Than Closure, Are Projected Due to the Final Rule?

D. What Market Level Impacts Are Projected?

E. What Are the Potential Impacts on Foreign Trade?

F. What Are the Potential Impacts on Communities?

G. What Are the Projected Barriers to Entry for New Sources?

H. What Do the Cost-Reasonableness and Cost-Effectiveness Analyses Show?

X. Water Quality Analysis and Environmental Benefits

A. Summary of the Environmental Benefits

B. What Pollutants Are in MPP Wastewater, and How Do They Affect Human Health and the Environment?

C. How Will Water Quality and Human Health Be Improved by This Rule?

XI. What Are the Other (Non-Water Quality) Environmental Impacts and Benefits?

A. Air Emissions

B. Energy Consumption

C. Solid Waste Generation

XII. How Will This Rule Be Implemented?

A. Implementation of the Limitations and Standards for Direct Dischargers

B. Upset and Bypass Provisions

C. Variances and Modifications

XIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

K. Congressional Review Act

I. Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations Used in This Document

Act—The Clean Water Act

Agency—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

AP—Alkylphenol polyethoxylate

APE—Alkylphenol ethoxylate

ASM—Annual Survey of Manufacturers, Census Bureau

AWQC—Ambient Water Quality Criteria

BAT—Best available technology economically achievable, as defined by section 304(b)(2)(B) of the Act

BCT—Best conventional pollutant control technology, as defined by section 304(b)(4) of the Act

BOD, BOD

5

—Biochemical oxygen demand

BMP—Best management practices, as defined by section 304(e) of the Act

BPJ—Best professional judgment

BPT—Best practicable control technology currently available, as defined by section 304(b)(1) of the Act

CAA—Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401

et seq.

, as amended)

CAFO—Concentrated animal feeding operation

CAPDET—Computer Assisted Procedure for Design and Evaluation of Wastewater Treatment Systems

CBI—Confidential business information

CBOD—Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand

CE—Cost-effectiveness (ratio of compliance costs to the pounds of pollutants removed)

CFR—Code of Federal Regulations

CFU—Colony-forming unit

COD—Chemical oxygen demand

Conventional Pollutants—Constituents of wastewater as determined by section 304(a)(4) of the Act and the regulations there under 40 CFR 401.16, including pollutants classified as biochemical oxygen demand, suspended solids, oil and grease, fecal coliform, and pH

CWA—Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251

et seq.

, as amended)

DAF—Dissolved air flotation

DCN—Document control number

Direct Discharger—An industrial discharger that introduces wastewater to a water of the United States with or without treatment by the discharger

DMR—Discharge Monitoring Report

DO—Dissolved oxygen

EBT—Earnings before tax

EEBA—Economic and Environmental Benefits Analysis of the Final Meat and Poultry Products Rule (EPA-821-R-04-010)

Effluent Limitation—A maximum amount, per unit of time, production, volume or other unit, of each specific constituent of the effluent from an existing point source that is subject to limitation. Effluent limitations may be expressed as a mass loading or as a concentration (

e.g.

, milligrams of pollutant per liter discharged).

ELG—Effluent limitations and guidelines

ELWK—Equivalent live weight killed

End-of-Pipe Treatment—Refers to those processes that treat a plant waste stream for pollutant removal prior to discharge

ER—Estrogen receptor

FDF—Fundamentally different factor

FR—Federal Register

FSIS—Food Safety Inspection Service

FTE—Full-time equivalents (related to the number of employees)

HACCP—Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point

HAP—Hazardous air pollutant

HEM—Hexane extractable material

Indirect Discharger—An industrial discharger that introduces wastewater into a publicly owned treatment works

kg—Kilogram

kkg—1,000 kilograms

lbs/yr—Pounds per year

LTA—Long-term average concentration

LWK—Live weight killed

mg/L—Milligrams per liter

mL—Milliliter

MPN—Most probable number

MPP—Meat and Poultry Products point source category

NAICS—North American Industry Classification System

NAWQA—National Water Quality Assessment, a U. S. Geological Survey program

NCEPI—EPA's National Center for Environmental Publications

NODA—Notice of Data Availability (August 13, 2003; 68 FR 48472)

Nonconventional Pollutants—Pollutants that have not been designated as either conventional pollutants or priority pollutants

NPDES—National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, a Federal program by which industry dischargers, including municipalities, obtain permits to discharge pollutants to the nation's water, under section 402 of the Act

NPV—Net present value

NSPS—New Source Performance Standards

NTTAA—National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

NWPCAM—The National Water Pollution Control Assessment Model

O&G—Oil and grease

O&M—Operation and maintenance

OMB—Office of Management and Budget

P—Phosphorus

PCS—Permit Compliance System

PE—Pound-equivalents (the units used to weight toxic pollutants)

POTW—Publicly owned treatment works

ppm—parts per million

Priority Pollutants—The 126 pollutants listed at 40 CFR part 423, appendix A

PSES—Pretreatment standards for existing sources of indirect discharges, under section 307(b) of the Act

PSNS—Pretreatment standards for new sources of indirect discharges, under sections 307(b) and (c) of the Act

PV—Present value

RCRA—Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RFA—Regulatory Flexibility Act

SBA—U.S. Small Business Administration

SBREFA—Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

SER—Small entity representative

SIC—Standard Industrial Classification, a numerical categorization scheme used by the U.S. Department of Commerce to denote segments of industry

SIU—Significant Industrial User as defined in the General Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR part 403)

SOP—Standard operating procedure

TDD—Technical Development Document for the Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Point Source Category (EPA-821-R-04-011)

TKN—Total Kjeldahl nitrogen

TMDL—Total maximum daily load

TRI—Toxic Release Inventory

TSE—Transmissible spongiform encephalopathy

TSS—Total suspended solids

UMRA—Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

U.S.C.—United States Code

USDA—United States Department of Agriculture

WQI—Water Quality Index

WQS—Water quality standards

II. Under What Legal Authority Is This Final Rule Issued?

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is promulgating these regulations 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, 1318, 1342, and 1361.

III. What Is the Legislative Background of This Rule?

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 restricting the types and amounts of pollutants discharged from various industrial, commercial, and public sources of wastewater.

Congress recognized that regulating only those sources that discharge effluents directly into the Nation's waters would not be sufficient to achieve the CWA's goals. Congress was also concerned about pollutants from facilities that discharge wastewater through sewers flowing to publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs). Consequently, the CWA requires EPA to promulgate nationally applicable pretreatment standards for those pollutants in wastewater from indirect dischargers which pass through, interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with POTW operations (Section 307(b) and (c), 33 U.S.C. 1317(b) and (c)). Generally, pretreatment standards are designed to ensure that wastewater from direct and indirect industrial dischargers are subject to similar levels of treatment. In addition, POTWs are required to develop and enforce local pretreatment limits applicable to their industrial indirect dischargers to satisfy local requirements (

see

40 CFR part 403.5).

1. Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards

Direct dischargers must comply with effluent limitations in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits; indirect dischargers must comply with pretreatment standards. 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.

Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)—Section 304(b)(1) of the CWA

In the regulations, EPA defines BPT effluent limitations for conventional, toxic, and non-conventional pollutants. 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 (O&G) as an additional conventional pollutant on July 30, 1979 (

see

44 FR 44501). EPA has identified 65 pollutants and classes of pollutants as toxic pollutants, of which 126 specific substances have been designated priority toxic pollutants (

see

Appendix A to 40 CFR part 403, reprinted after 40 CFR part 423.17). EPA considers all other pollutants to be non-conventional.

In specifying BPT, EPA looks at a number of factors. EPA first considers the total cost of applying the control technology in relation to the effluent reduction benefits. The Agency also considers the age of the equipment and facilities, the processes used and any required process changes, engineering aspects of the control technologies, non-water quality environmental impacts (including energy requirements), and such other factors as the EPA Administrator deems appropriate (CWA 304(b)(1)(B)). Traditionally, EPA establishes BPT effluent limitations based on the average of the best performances of facilities of various ages, sizes, processes or other common characteristics within the industry. Where current performance is uniformly inadequate to meet effluent controls, BPT may reflect higher levels of control than currently in place in an industrial category if the Agency determines the technology can be practically applied.

Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)—Section 304(b)(4) of the CWA

The 1977 amendments to the CWA required EPA to identify effluent reduction levels for conventional pollutants associated with BCT for discharges from existing industrial point sources. In addition to the other factors specified in Section 304(b)(4)(B), the CWA requires that EPA establish BCT limitations after considering a two-part “cost-reasonableness” test. EPA explained its methodology for developing BCT limitations in July 1986 (see 51 FR 24974).

Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)—Section 304(b)(2) of the CWA

In general, BAT effluent limitations guidelines represent the best available economically achievable reduction in discharges of toxic and non-conventional pollutants by plants in the industrial subcategory or category. 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. The Agency retains considerable discretion in assigning the weight to be accorded these factors. BAT limitations may be based on effluent reductions attainable through changes in a facility's processes and operations. Where existing performance is uniformly inadequate, BAT may reflect a higher level of performance than is currently being achieved within a particular subcategory 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.

New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)—Section 306 of the CWA

NSPS reflect effluent reductions that are achievable based on the best available demonstrated control technology. New sources can 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—conventional, non-conventional, and priority pollutants. In establishing NSPS, EPA must consider the cost of achieving the effluent reduction, any non-water quality environmental impacts, and energy requirements.

Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)—Section 307(b) of the CWA

PSES 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 (POTWs), including POTW sludge disposal methods. Pretreatment standards for existing sources are technology-based and are like BAT effluent limitations guidelines.

You can find the General Pretreatment Regulations, which set forth the framework for the implementation of national pretreatment standards, at 40 CFR part 403.

Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)—Section 307(c) of the CWA

Like PSES, PSNS are designed to prevent the discharges of pollutants that pass through, interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the operation of POTWs. PSNS are to be issued at the same time as New Source Performance Standards. New indirect dischargers have the opportunity to incorporate into their plants the best available demonstrated control technologies. The Agency considers the same factors in promulgating PSNS as it considers in promulgating New Source Performance Standards.

2. Effluent Guidelines Planning Process—Section 304(m) Requirements

Section 304(m) of the CWA requires EPA every two years to publish a plan for reviewing and revising existing effluent limitations guidelines and standards and for promulgating new effluent guidelines. On January 2, 1990, EPA published an Effluent Guidelines Plan (see 55 FR 80) in which the Agency established schedules for developing new and revised effluent guidelines for several industry categories. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., and Public Citizen, Inc., challenged the Effluent Guidelines Plan in a suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, (

NRDC et al

v.

Reilly

, Civ. No. 89-2980). On January 31, 1992, the Court entered a consent decree which, among other things, establishes schedules for EPA to propose and take final action on effluent limitations guidelines and standards for several point source categories. The amended consent decree requires EPA to take final action on the Meat and Poultry Products effluent guidelines by February 26, 2004.

At the time EPA selected the Meat and Poultry Products (MPP) point source category for review, pathogens, nutrients, and oxygen-depleting substances were contributing 25 to 35 percent to reported water quality problems in impaired rivers and streams. EPA selected the meat and poultry products category, along with concentrated animal feeding operations and aquatic animal production, as sources of nutrients needing additional control. EPA also selected the MPP industry for review to analyze changes that have occurred in this industry in the United States since the development of the current regulations.

B. Existing Clean Water Act Requirements Applicable to Meat and Poultry Processors

EPA issued effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance standards for meat slaughterhouses and packinghouses (40 CFR part 432 subcategories A through D) in February 1974 and for meat further processing facilities (subcategories E through I) in January 1975. EPA later revised or withdrew some of the BPT and BAT limitations due to litigation. The Agency also issued effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance standards for independent renderers (subcategory J) in January 1975, then promulgated revised BAT and NSPS limitations in October 1977. EPA proposed regulations for the poultry industry in April 1975, but never finalized them.

IV. How Was This Final Rule Developed?

A. February 2002 Proposed Rule

On February 25, 2002, EPA published a proposed rule entitled, “Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Point Source Category” (

see

67 FR 8582). At that time, EPA proposed to revise the effluent limitations guidelines and standards for wastewater discharges from meat processing and independent rendering facilities and proposed new guidelines for poultry slaughtering and processing facilities.

EPA identified six groups (12 subcategories) of facilities categorized by animal and processing type (

i.e.

, meat or poultry; first processor (slaughterer), further processor, or renderer). EPA grouped several existing subcategories together (A-D, F-I) because of similarities in processes and products. This proposed subcategorization scheme allowed EPA to assess more accurately various

technology options in terms of compliance costs, pollutant reductions, benefits, and economic impacts.

EPA proposed limitations and standards for two new subcategories (K and L) for poultry slaughterers and further processors. EPA proposed to add limitations for chemical oxygen demand (COD), ammonia (as nitrogen), total nitrogen, and total phosphorus. EPA proposed revised limitations and standards in nine of the ten existing subcategories, choosing not to propose to revise limitations for “small” facilities in subcategories A-D or for the smallest meat further processors (subcategory E). EPA also proposed lowering the production threshold for independent renderers so that facilities rendering 10 million pounds per year or more would be subject to the guidelines. EPA did not propose national pretreatment standards for indirect dischargers (see 67 FR 8633; February 25, 2002) in any subcategory.

B. August 2003 Notice of Data Availability

On August 13, 2003, EPA published a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) at 68 FR 48472. In the NODA, EPA discussed major issues raised in comments on the proposed rule; identified revisions EPA considered making to the technical and economic methodologies used to estimate compliance costs, pollutant loadings, and economic and environmental impacts; presented the results of these suggested methodology changes and incorporation of new (or revised) data; and summarized EPA's thinking on how these results could affect the final decisions. EPA asked for comments on the revised methodologies and data.

C. Public Comments

This preamble includes a general summary of public comments in the discussions of the various issues addressed here. EPA has prepared a “Comment Response Document” that includes responses to comments submitted for the proposed rule and the notice of data availability. All of the comments, including supporting documents submitted on today's action, are available for public review in the administrative record for this final rule, filed under docket number OW-2002-0014.

The proposed regulations were published in the

Federal Register

on February 25, 2002 (67 FR 8582), and the comment period closed on June 25, 2002. EPA received approximately 50 comments on the proposed rule. EPA received comments from a multitude of sources, including facility owners and operators, environmental groups, State agencies, publicly owned water treatment plants, representatives of various trade associations, and private citizens.

The comment period for the Notice of Data Availability was from August 13 through October 14, 2003 (68 FR 48472). EPA received approximately 40 comments on the Notice.

D. Public Outreach

In support of both the proposed rule and today's final rule, EPA has conducted outreach activities. During the development of the proposed regulations for meat and poultry products, EPA met with members of the stakeholder community through meetings, sampling trips, and site visits to collect information on waste management practices at meat and poultry product operations.

After the proposed rule was published, EPA conducted two public outreach meetings on the proposed regulations and continued to meet with representatives of stakeholder groups, including representatives of various industry trade associations. EPA used several additional means to provide outreach to stakeholders, such as managing websites that post information related to these regulations. EPA provided supporting documents for the proposed rule on these sites. These documents included the “Technical Development Document,” “Economic Analysis,” and “Environmental Assessment” of the proposed regulations. These are available at www.epa.gov/guide/mpp/.

V. How Is the Final Rule Different From the Proposed Rule and the Approaches Discussed in the NODA?

Since the proposed rule was published, EPA has incorporated a significant amount of additional technical and economic data into the database used for developing the effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance standards. In addition, EPA has modified certain assumptions used in its cost and pollutant loadings models. The NODA discussed in detail these new data (

see

68 FR 48479; August 13, 2003). This section summarizes the major changes EPA has made for the final rule.

A. Definitions

1. How Has the Definition of a “Small” Poultry First Processor Changed?

A small poultry first processor (Subcategory K) is a facility that slaughters 100 million pounds or less of poultry per year, measured as live weight killed. For the proposed rule, EPA had defined a small facility as slaughtering 10 million pounds or less per year, live weight killed.

EPA examined the effect of increasing the threshold for small poultry slaughter facilities (Subcategory K) from the proposed 10 million pounds per year. In its analysis, EPA considered two types of competition: Competition between poultry facilities for poultry market share, and competition with meat facilities as a substitute for poultry.

Based on the most reliable studies performed to date, significant economies of scale exist in poultry slaughter. Extrapolating from Ollinger

et al.

(2000, DCN 25088), a 50 million pounds per year (lbs/yr) poultry plant has about a 3 percent cost advantage over a 10 million lbs/yr plant. This cost advantage increases with production: A 150 million lbs/yr plant has perhaps a 15 percent cost advantage over the 10 million lbs/yr plant. Economies of scale in meat slaughter plants are not as significant: a 150 million lbs/yr meat slaughter plant might have a 5 percent cost advantage over a 10 million lbs/yr plant (extrapolated from MacDonald

et al.

, 2000, DCN 328-001).

In both sectors, compliance costs per pound of production are larger for the smaller plants. In the poultry sector, costs per pound for slaughtering plants with less than 50 million lbs/yr of production are projected to be 20 times larger than those for plants above that threshold. This exacerbates the competitive disadvantage under which the smaller poultry plants already operate. In the meat sector, the compliance cost per pound differential, while still substantial, is much smaller.

In addition, EPA estimates that compliance costs per pound of poultry are about 40 percent larger than compliance costs per pound of meat. Consumers consider meat and poultry to be substitutes; if the price of poultry increases relative to that of meat, consumers will increase purchases of meat and decrease purchases of poultry. These changes are not large, but are statistically significant.

In summary, EPA determined that (1) poultry facilities will be somewhat disadvantaged by the rule relative to meat facilities if the poultry slaughter facility production threshold stays at 10 million pounds/year (as proposed) or even at 50 million pounds/year, and (2) within the poultry sector, smaller slaughter facilities (at 10 million or 50 million pounds/year) will be disadvantaged by the rule relative to large slaughter facilities. Therefore, EPA chose to increase the small production threshold for small poultry slaughter

plants from 10 million lbs/yr to 100 million lbs/yr for the final rule. This reduces the estimated number of non-small facilities in subcategory K from 118 to 99. See Section 2.2.2 of the EEBA for discussion on the selection of the production threshold for Subcategory K for the final rule.

2. How Has the Definition of Subcategory E Facilities Been Clarified?

The current § 432.51 (Subpart E) regulations define “small processor” as “an operation that produces up to 2,730 kg (6,000 lb) per day of any type or combination of finished product.” Because using the words “up to 6,000 lb per day” may lead to questions on whether facilities that produce 6,000 pounds per day are covered by Subcategory E or Subcategories F-I, EPA is changing the language to be consistent with the production threshold language in other subcategories of the final rule. Therefore, in today's final rule, it states that Subcategory (Subpart) E facilities are those that produce no more than 6,000 pounds per day of finished product.

B. Pollutants

1. How Have the Regulated Pollutants Changed?

In the proposed rule, EPA proposed limitations for ammonia (as nitrogen), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD

5

), chemical oxygen demand (COD), fecal coliforms, oil and grease (as hexane-extractable material), pH, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and total suspended solids (TSS). In the final rule, EPA decided not to include limits for COD or total phosphorus.

In 2002, EPA proposed to add COD to the BPT limitations for non-small meat facilities in Subcategories A-D, F-I, and J to better reflect the current BPT treatment technology (67 FR 8630; February 25, 2002). EPA did not propose to establish COD limitations for the poultry subcategories. As discussed in the NODA (68 FR 48484; August 13, 2003), commenters stated that COD is not as accurate an indicator of a biological treatment system performance as BOD and carbonaceous BOD (CBOD), because biological treatment systems are not necessarily designed to remove nonbiodegradable chemical oxygen-demanding components. In addition, one commenter stated that COD removal would be financially burdensome. In today's final rule, EPA has taken these comments into account and has not established a COD limitation. This is because the current regulations for Subcategories A-D, F-I, and J already include limitations for BOD. EPA has determined that with the addition of limitations for ammonia (as nitrogen) where they did not exist previously and new limitations for total nitrogen, regulation of these parameters for these subcategories effectively controls these pollutant discharges of concern.

EPA has decided not to regulate total phosphorus in today's final rule for any subcategory. In a change from the proposed rule, EPA did not set limitations or standards for total phosphorus because it did not select a technology option for the final rule that controls phosphorus (

i.e.

, Option 2.5 + P or Option 4). In general, Option 2.5 + P and Option 4 were either not economically achievable, not cost-effective for phosphorus removal, or not available or demonstrated technology for a subcategory. The decision to not select a technology option that controls phosphorus is subcategory-specific and the reasons are explained in detail in Section VII.

2. How Has Reporting of Fecal Coliforms Changed?

EPA proposed a maximum of 400 MPN (most probable number) per 100 ml at any time of fecal coliforms for the BPT limitations and NSPS for Subparts K and L (poultry subcategories). These proposed limitations/standards were the same as the current BPT in place for Subparts A-J, which EPA did not propose to change. Based on analyses conducted for the proposed rule, EPA tentatively determined that poultry facilities could achieve this level.

Commenters requested that EPA allow monitoring of fecal coliforms to be reported in units of colony forming units (CFU) per 100 milliliters (mL) in addition to MPN per 100 mL specified in the existing regulations. Results from either technique can be considered comparable, as long as the analyzed volume is equivalent. Therefore, EPA revised the limitations and standards to allow results to be reported in either MPN units or CFU units per 100 mL. See Section V.C.1 of the NODA for additional information (68 FR 48484, August 13, 2003).

Finally, today's final rule will correct 40 CFR 432 for Subparts A through J to delete the monthly average limitations/standards for fecal coliforms and pH leaving only daily maximum limitations and standards. Because the values are currently the same for the daily maximum limitations/standards and the monthly average limitations/standards, EPA does not expect that any facility will need to change its operations with the elimination of the monthly average limitations/standards currently codified in the CFR for fecal coliforms and pH. As discussed in the NODA (68 FR 48499; August 13, 2003), 40 CFR 432 currently specifies both monthly average limitations/standards and daily maximum limitations (at the same limitations) for fecal coliforms and pH, while the text of the final rules published in the

Federal Register

(39 FR 7900; February 28, 1974 and 40 FR 906; January 3, 1975) included only daily maximum limitations and standards for those parameters. For today's final rule the subparts regulating the discharge of fecal coliforms include the following daily maximum limitation/standard: a maximum at any time of 400 MPN (or CFU)/100 mL. For the subparts regulating pH, the daily maximum limitation/standard is: within the range of 6.0 to 9.0.

C. Costs and Economic Impacts

1. How Has the Methodology Changed for Calculating the Costs To Upgrade Facilities as a Result of This Rule?

EPA proposed to establish effluent limitations based on the performance of biological wastewater treatment designed and operated to achieve a specified degree of denitrification (

i.e.

, reduced total nitrogen). To estimate the costs of the proposed rule, EPA used a model facility approach, applied frequency factors to obtain national estimates, and applied an existing computer model (Computer Assisted Procedure For Design And Evaluation Of Wastewater Treatment Systems (CAPDET)) used for determining capital and operating and maintenance costs for various wastewater treatment unit operations. Based on public comments on the proposed costing approach and the incorporation of new data following proposal, EPA revised its approach for developing national estimates of compliance costs for the MPP industry, as presented in the NODA. For the costs presented in the NODA, EPA developed its own computer model specific to the MPP industry using a more facility-specific approach for the surveyed facilities and applying survey weights to obtain national estimates. See Section III of the NODA for more detailed information (68 FR 48479; August 13, 2003).

Since the NODA was published, EPA has made some additional changes to the cost model. Based on comment, EPA has further modified the cost models and reviewed the assessment of current treatment-in-place (see DCN 300-004, Section 10 of the TDD, and Record Section 28 of the rulemaking docket). The changes in the cost models include revising the values of the constants used

in the model, accounting for the use of lime as an alkalinity source, including costs for a holding/polishing pond with seven day retention, and limiting the nitrate recycle rate to a maximum of five times the influent flow when costing facilities for Option 2.5 technology and higher. See Section VIII of today's preamble for a discussion of the cost estimates for the final rule.

2. How Has the Methodology for Closure Analysis Changed?

For the proposed rule, EPA projected facility-level economic impacts using a probability model derived from Census data because detailed survey financial information was not available at that time. As discussed in the NODA, fewer than 40 percent of direct discharging facilities provided facility-level financial data in the detailed survey. Industry stated that many companies in the MPP industry do not maintain financial records at the facility level, which is how EPA typically evaluates economic impacts. Instead they maintain their financial records at, for example, the company level, division level or product line level. As a result, EPA could not directly scale up its facility-level closure analysis to produce a national projection of closures. Therefore, EPA used two approaches to deal with the lack of facility-level financial data. First, EPA adjusted the weights of facilities that did provide financial data to account for facilities that did not provide that data. Second, EPA performed a subsidiary company-level analysis to supplement the primary facility-level analysis.

For the final rule, EPA used a combination of the probability model approach developed for the proposed rule, and the closure model based on detailed survey data. EPA used this combination of modeling approaches because in Subcategories F-I, Subcategory J, and Subcategory L, too few direct discharging facilities submitted detailed surveys to estimate costs and project national economic impacts adequately. In these subcategories EPA used data from direct discharge screener survey facilities to estimate compliance costs and used the probability distribution model to project economic impacts. In Subcategories A-D and Subcategory K, EPA used the closure model approach based on detailed survey data to project impacts. Finally, based on comments to the NODA, EPA projects a facility will close if the present value (PV) of future compliance costs exceeds the forecast PV of net income under two of the three forecasting methods described in Section IX. For the NODA, EPA projected closure when the costs exceeded the forecast PV of net income under three of the five forecasting methods. EPA has also analyzed closures using a more conservative assumption that a facility closes if the PV or future compliance cost exceeds the forecast PV of net income under one of three forecasting methods. See Section VI.A of the NODA (68 FR 48487; August 13, 2003) and Section IX of today's preamble for more detailed information.

D. Loadings

1. How Has the Methodology Changed for Calculating the Pollutant Loadings Generated by Regulated Facilities?

As discussed in the NODA (68 FR 48482; August 13, 2003), EPA revised the proposed model facility group approach in order to develop pollutant loadings and load reductions that are consistent with the revised costing methodology, which is based on a facility-level analysis. EPA developed the baseline loadings presented in this final rule using facility-specific effluent data submitted with the detailed surveys or obtained from Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) from the Permit Compliance System (PCS), a computerized data base of DMR reported effluent values. For facilities without monitoring information for some pollutants, EPA used a default data set. Default baseline concentrations were developed using data from surveyed or sampled facilities that use the same type of pretreatment technology/treatment technology and that had similar operations. See Section VIII of today's preamble and Section 11 of the Technical Development Document for more detailed information on estimating pollutant loads and reductions.

Because the final long-term averages on which the limits are based were developed fairly late in the rulemaking process due to the receipt of late submissions of data from industry, some of which was requested by EPA, to clarify issues raised by commenters after the NODA, EPA estimated facility-by-facility pollutant load reductions for each of the technology options by using the target effluent concentrations developed prior to the development of the final long-term averages (LTAs) used for calculating limitations and standards. The final LTAs used for developing limitations are either less stringent or the same as the target effluent concentrations used for developing pollutant load reductions and compliance cost estimates. Although the target effluent concentrations and the final rule LTAs are not identical, EPA considers its estimates of pollutant load reductions and costs for today's final rule to be generally representative of the load reductions and costs that will be realized based on the limitations and standards that the Agency is promulgating today. EPA calculated pollutant load reductions as the difference between the baseline pollutant load and option-specific pollutant load.

2. How Have the Target Effluent Concentrations Used for Calculating Loadings Changed?

The target effluent concentrations used to estimate pollutant load reductions and compliance costs for the final rule have not changed from those EPA used in the NODA (see 68 FR 48482; August 13, 2003 for non-small facilities in Subcategories A-D and K and see Section 10 of the TDD for Subcategories F-J and L non-small and small facilities). As noted in the previous section, the final LTAs are not identical to the target effluent concentrations, but EPA considers the target effluent concentrations still generally representative.

E. Environmental Assessment

1. How Has the Methodology Changed for Modeling Water Quality?

In the proposed rule, EPA used the National Water Pollution Control Assessment Model (NWPCAM) version 1.1 to estimate environmental impacts to surface water quality resulting from implementation of the proposed rule. Ecological effects such as habitat degradation were noted but not quantified to avoid double-counting benefits derived using NWPCAM version 1.1. Habitat degradation can result from increased suspended particulate matter and total suspended solids were already accounted for in NWPCAM. In response to comments that NWPCAM did not incorporate nutrients, EPA used an updated version of NWPCAM which simulates concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus to more fully estimate the water quality change and the associated monetized benefits associated with the provisions in today's rule. Commenters also had concerns about the missing sources of loadings in the model, especially nonpoint and point sources that were not captured in NWPCAM version 1.1. For the final rule, EPA used NWPCAM version 2.1, which models water quality using a stream reach network with greater resolution and

incorporates additional point and nonpoint source loadings.

2. How Has the Methodology Changed for Determining Recreational Benefits?

The benefits analysis for the proposed rule used two methods to estimate a household's willingness to pay for improvements in water quality: (1) A water quality ladder and (2) a continuous water quality index (WQI). In the final rule, a continuous water quality index was used to estimate a household's willingness to pay for improvements in water quality. The “continuous” method was suggested by Mitchell and Carson (1993) as a means to attribute benefits to marginal water quality improvement whether or not it happened to be of sufficient magnitude to result in reclassification to a higher use class. The benefits analysis of the proposed MPP regulation presented both methods in order to contrast their results. The “continuous” method of monetizing water quality benefits from WQI changes used in the analysis of the proposed rule was further revised in the benefit assessment for the final effluent limitation guidelines for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), as explained in the NODA (68 FR 48492; August 13, 2003). This revision included the application of a benefit transfer function developed from the results of the Mitchell and Carson survey. EPA believes the water quality index and the Mitchell-Carson valuation function may help address some concerns associated with the NWPCAM monetization of benefits at proposal. The benefits methodology for the final rule is discussed in more detail in Section X.

3. How Has the Methodology Changed for Determining Toxicity Assessment?

In the proposed rule, EPA did not undertake a toxicity assessment. As noted in the NODA (68 FR 48493; August 13, 2003), EPA performed an exploratory analysis employing stream dilution modeling techniques, which do not take into account fate processes other than complete immediate mixing, to assess the potential impacts of releases of ten pollutants (ammonia, barium, chromium, copper, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, titanium, vanadium, and zinc) from the 53 detailed survey MPP facilities for which sufficient data were available to model. Based on the results of this assessment, EPA's assessment did not identify meaningful health or aquatic life benefits associated with the selected BPT or BAT options. EPA thus did not conduct further analyses of these types of impacts.

F. Treatment Options

1. What Changes Were Made to the Costed Treatment Option for Each Subcategory?

Table V.F-1 summarizes the treatment options for each of the meat and poultry product subcategories that formed the basis for the proposed limitations and standards as well as those that are the basis of this final rule. See Section VII of today's preamble for the identification of the technology basis for each option and a discussion of how the options were selected for the final rule. In a change from proposal, as discussed in the NODA (68 FR 48499; August 13, 2003), EPA is not pursuing Option 3 as a technology basis for the final rule. This is because the only MPP facility (a poultry slaughtering facility) to identify Option 3 technology on their survey was not able to provide EPA with supporting data (

i.e.

, nitrate/nitrite, total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), or total nitrogen effluent concentrations). Therefore, EPA did not have a facility to use as the basis for establishing long-term average concentrations for Option 3. The only facilities determined to have complete denitrification also used chemicals to remove phosphorus. EPA classified these facilities as Option 4.

Table V.F-1.—Summary of Technology Options by Subcategory and Size

Subcategory

Size threshold for final rule

Facility type

Proposed rule

Final rule

A-D: Meat First Processors

Non-small (>50 million lbs/yr)

Existing

BPT: Option 2

BAT: Option 3

BPT: Nitrification (Option 2/2.5) for ammonia (as nitrogen), no revision for conventionals.

BAT: Option 2.5 for total nitrogen.

New

Option 3

NSPS = BPT for ammonia (as nitrogen).

NSPS = BAT for total nitrogen.

No revision for conventionals.

Small (≤50 million lbs/yr)

Existing/New

No revision

No revision.

E: Smallest Meat Further Processors

Small (≤1,560,000 lbs/yr)

Existing/New

No revision

No revision.

F-I: Meat Further Processors

Non-small (>50 million lbs/yr)

Existing

BPT: Option 2

BAT: Option 3

BPT: no revision.

BAT: Option 2.5 for total nitrogen, no revision for ammonia (as nitrogen).

New

Option 3

NSPS = BAT (Option 2.5) for total nitrogen.

NSPS = Nitrification (Option 2/2.5) for ammonia (as nitrogen).

No revision for conventionals.

Small (>1,560,000 but ≤50 million lbs/yr)

Existing/New

No revision

No revision.

J: Independent Renderers

(>10 million lbs/yr)

Existing

Option 2

BPT: no revision.

BAT: Option 2.5 for total nitrogen, no revision for ammonia (as nitrogen).

New

Option 2

NSPS = BAT for total nitrogen.

No revision for ammonia (as nitrogen) and conventionals.

K: Poultry First Processors

Non-small (>100 million lbs/yr)

Existing

Option 3

BPT: Nitrification (Option 2/2.5) for ammonia (as nitrogen) and conventionals.

BAT: Option 2.5 for total nitrogen,

BAT= BPT for ammonia (as nitrogen).

New

Option 3

NSPS = BPT for ammonia (as nitrogen) and conventionals,

NSPS = BAT for total nitrogen.

Small (≤100 million lbs/yr)

Existing

Option 1

No regulation.

New

Option 1

Nitrification (Option 2/2.5) for ammonia (as nitrogen), Option 2 for conventionals.

L: Poultry Further Processors

Non-small (>7 million pounds/yr)

Existing

Option 3

BPT: Nitrification (Option 2/2.5) for ammonia (as nitrogen) and Option 2 for conventionals.

BAT: Option 2.5 for total nitrogen,

BAT= BPT for ammonia (as nitrogen).

New

Option 3

NSPS = BPT for ammonia (as nitrogen) and conventionals,

NSPS = BAT for total nitrogen.

Small (≤7 million pounds/yr)

Existing

Option 1

No regulation.

New

Option 1

Nitrification (Option 2/2.5) for ammonia (as nitrogen), Option 2 for conventionals.

G. Limitations

1. Are the Limitations Production-Based or Concentration-Based?

The current limitations that are not being changed by this rule will continue to be production-based. New limits and ammonia limits for certain MPP subcategories that have changed due to today's rule are concentration-based (

e.g.

, in milligrams per liter). See Section XII for a discussion on how the rule will be implemented.

EPA received several comments from industry about the need to use more water to properly implement USDA's Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) program. USDA initiated the HACCP program to increase food safety and decrease the risk of food-borne illness while allowing facilities more flexibility in processing procedures. One aspect of this HACCP rule requires meat and poultry products facilities to develop and implement standard operating procedures (SOPs) for sanitation. Based on comments, EPA concluded that many facilities implementing the sanitation SOPs had increased their use of water to clean processing equipment and surfaces. EPA does not want to discourage good sanitation SOPs and compliance with HACCP by setting production-based limitations which might result in restricted water use during periods of increased production. Therefore, for all new or revised limitations/standards in today's final rule, EPA is using a concentration basis. Concerns over dilution are outweighed by the need for food safety. In addition, the NPDES regulations prohibit dilution, and permit writers who are concerned about dilution may convert the concentration-based limitations to mass-based limitations using a reasonable measure of facility-specific flow based on the time period after HACCP was implemented at the facility.

2. What Changes Did EPA Make to the Methodology for Calculating Long-Term Averages (LTAs) and the Limitations and Standards Promulgated Today?

Based on comments about its data selection and the amount of data used, EPA has reviewed data from additional sampling episodes and facility self-monitoring data in developing the final limitations and standards in today's rule. (In this section, a reference to limitations also includes new source performance standards.) EPA also reevaluated the appropriateness of the data it relied on in evaluating the different treatment options at the time of the proposal and for the NODA. As a consequence, EPA has retained some data sets used for the proposal and/or NODA and excluded others from the calculations. EPA also has re-evaluated the technology determinations associated with the data sets based on comments and discussions with facilities. As a consequence, EPA has moved some data sets from one option to another. The discussion below provides further explanation of these changes and how these changed the analyses used for EPA's final technology determinations and the calculation of the final limitations.

For the final rule, EPA used the average effluent concentrations presented in the NODA to evaluate the costs and pollutant removals associated with Options 1 through 4 of the final rule. The results of this assessment are explained in detail at Section VII of the preamble.

After the close of the NODA comment period, based on comments and data concerning the Option 2.0 and 2.5 technologies—the technology bases that were ultimately selected for the final rule for the limitations and standards for both the meat and poultry subcategories—EPA revised the target effluent concentrations to develop the final LTAs. This resulted from EPA's reassessment of its earlier selection of model facilities and a recalculation of the long-term average concentration based on a reconsideration of the performance of these facilities. The revised LTAs were higher than the NODA average effluent concentrations.

Because EPA relied for its reassessment on some of the data that were submitted after the close of the NODA comment period, EPA was not able to fully reflect the revised LTAs in its analyses of costs, removals, economic impact, cost-reasonableness and cost-effectiveness of the technology options selected for the final limitations and standards for Option 2 and Option 2.5. However, EPA did perform a supplemental analysis using a revised LTA for nitrogen that was close to the LTAs upon which the final limitations are based. In addition to using this revised LTA for total nitrogen in the supplemental analysis of costs for both the poultry and meat subcategories, EPA also used other information that was received in late comments including treatment-in-place classifications, additional costs for methanol, and longer storage duration for emergency holding ponds. EPA is presenting the results of this supplemental analysis in the TDD (costs and removals) and the

EEBA (economic impacts, cost-reasonableness, and cost-effectiveness). Based on this analysis, EPA estimates that the total annualized pre-tax compliance costs of the rule could be $52 million (a decrease from the $58.2 million estimate in EPA's primary analysis) and the removals of total nitrogen could be 20.6 million pounds per year (a decrease from the 27 million pounds per year estimate in the primary analysis). EPA has concluded that the results of the supplemental analysis would not change EPA's selection of the technology bases for BPT, BAT, and NSPS, or its determination that the final rule is economically achievable, cost-reasonable, and nutrient cost-effective.

As noted above, EPA did not use the NODA average effluent concentrations for calculating the final effluent limitations and standards. Rather, EPA based the final LTA concentrations on further consideration of the performance of facilities using the model BPT and BAT technologies and additional data and information provided in comments on the NODA.

In particular, regarding the total nitrogen LTA, commenters were concerned about EPA's intention to transfer the poultry total nitrogen LTA for use in the development of the limitations and standards for meat facilities. Commenters demonstrated that the average influent nitrogen concentrations (

i.e.

, TKN) at meat facilities are almost two times higher than the average influent nitrogen concentration at poultry facilities which may affect their ability to consistently achieve the same effluent concentrations using the BAT technology. For the final rule, EPA thus selected the model poultry facility with an influent nitrogen concentration that was closest to the average influent nitrogen concentration at meat facilities. This led to a total nitrogen LTA for meat facilities that was about 20% less stringent than the total nitrogen LTA for poultry facilities. Further, based on comments concerning the excess detention times in the anoxic basins of the two partial denitrification facilities that were used to set the limitations (EPA used one of the facilities to calculate the LTAs for meat facilities and both were used for poultry facilities), EPA reassessed its estimates of the variability among denitrification rates at BAT facilities and determined that an additional factor to reflect lower denitrification rates at some facilities was appropriate for calculating the final nitrogen limitations. This factor was related to the consideration of several variables, including anoxic basin size, BOD/TKN ratio, and influent total nitrogen variability (see DCN 300-017).

In regard to the ammonia (as nitrogen) and conventional pollutant LTAs, based on comments regarding the use of all data EPA collected, EPA reevaluated its full effluent database (

i.e.

, including data from facilities that only provided data reported as summarized monthly averages). As a result of this reevaluation, EPA further revised its selection of model facilities for use in developing the ammonia (as nitrogen) and conventional pollutant LTAs for the rule. (See DCNs 300-011, 300-012, and 300-013.) In addition, comments were received that seasonal changes in performance or wastes to be treated with respect to the biological nitrification portion of the process would affect the ability to meet ammonia limits. Following evaluation of the ammonia data, including the effects of seasonal variability, EPA calculated the final limitations using the most representative facility's data and applied a seasonality adjustment factor to the final limitations. All of these revisions were designed to ensure that facilities operating the selected technology would be able to achieve all of the limitations and standards of the final rule in all seasons of the year. See Section 14 of the TDD for the final rule for discussion of the data sets used to develop the final limitations and standards for these subcategories and pollutants.

Although EPA recalculated effluent limitations using the new LTAs identified above, EPA determined that it was not necessary to make further revisions to its cost and removal assessments beyond the supplemental analyses discussed above. EPA recalculated the LTAs in order to ensure that the effluent limitations guidelines being promulgated today reflect the best and most current information available to EPA regarding the performance of the BPT and BAT facilities. Because these effluent limitations guidelines become the basis for enforceable permit limitations, EPA concluded that this refinement is justified. EPA's estimates of costs and removals, however, have a different function. Unlike the limitations, they are not binding. Rather, EPA uses this information as a basis for evaluating which BPT and BAT candidate technologies under consideration best meet the statutory requirements. EPA has determined that the analyses based on the NODA average effluent concentration, along with the supplemental analysis, remain generally applicable to the technology options considered and use of the final LTAs in calculating the costs and removals would not have changed EPA's conclusions about the technology on which it should base the final limitations. The new LTAs are not significantly different from the LTAs used as the basis for EPA's supplemental analysis, and EPA has concluded that the final revisions to the LTAs would not change the cost and removal estimates in a material way. In other words, when considering the refined versions of the LTAs developed for purposes of calculating the limitations in light of the analyses it conducted, EPA continues to conclude that the chosen technology bases meet the CWA requirements for BPT, BAT, and NSPS. For these reasons, EPA believes it is appropriate not to recalculate the costs and removal estimates to reflect the new LTAs being used to calculate the final limitations and standards. To do so would not have materially changed the results.

In conjunction with its review of its statistical models, EPA performed an engineering review to verify that the limitations are reasonable based upon the design and expected operation of the control technologies and the facility process conditions. As part of the engineering review, EPA examined the range of performance from facilities with Option 2.5 technology as indicated by the facility effluent for those facilities whose data were used to calculate the limitations and those that were not used as a basis for the limitations. Some facility data sets demonstrated the best available technology and achieved the expected performance level. Other facility data sets reflected inadequate performance, either in the manner the facility operates the technology or because of design differences in the technology. For these facilities, EPA has evaluated the impact of the costs to the industry for facility upgrades to its design, operating, and maintenance conditions to meet the limitations (see Section VIII.B for discussion of compliance cost methodology).

As discussed in the NODA and in more detail in Section VII.B of today's final rule, EPA did not identify any non-small meat first processing facilities (Subcategories A-D) that meet EPA's criteria for selection as operating as a BAT Option 2.5 facility. Therefore, in developing limitations associated with Option 2.5 for meat first processing facilities, EPA transferred the long-term average concentration for total nitrogen from a well-operated Option 2.5 poultry first processing facility and, as discussed above, included an additional factor to adjust the final total nitrogen limitations to account for variable denitrification rates and ensure

achievability. EPA included costs (such as costs for lagoon bypass, additional carbon source, or two-stage denitrification) for the meat first processing facilities to achieve the Option 2.5 LTA for total nitrogen.

Because commenters stated that two-stage denitrification should not be part of EPA's definition of Option 2.5 technology, EPA reviewed the costs for the five non-small meat first processors (Subcategories A-D) in EPA's database that EPA had costed for two-stage denitrification in the preliminary cost analysis due to their high influent TKN (

i.e.

, greater than 200 mg/L) levels. EPA then developed alternate costs for these facilities in the supplemental analysis, including costs for additional pretreatment using DAF and alum addition (to reduce the TKN load to the biological nutrient removal system) followed by single-stage denitrification. On a site-specific basis, these costs were both lower and higher than the costs EPA estimated for its original analysis, but were still within the range that EPA considers economically achievable. These alternate cost estimates do not result in any additional economic impacts (

i.e.

, closures). Details of the supplemental analyses are provided in Section 10 of the TDD and in the EEBA.

3. How Has the Monitoring Frequency Changed?

In developing the proposed maximum monthly limitations and standards, EPA had assumed a monitoring frequency of thirty samples per month (

i.e.

, daily monitoring) which had been the assumption for the previously promulgated limitations. In the proposal (67 FR 8632), EPA solicited comment on whether small poultry facilities should have monthly limitations/standards based upon 20 days, rather than 30 days, because they would be unlikely to operate on weekends. In response, EPA received comments that stated that monitoring every day during the month was too frequent for all facilities; one commenter requested sampling once per week. An analysis of existing permits for MPP facilities showed that the monitoring frequency ranged from daily to weekly to monthly. EPA agrees with the commenters and has reduced the assumed monitoring frequency to weekly (approximately four times a month) for any new limitations and standards promulgated in this rulemaking. EPA incorporated this assumed monitoring frequency into the monitoring costs and determination of the limitations for the final rule. This rule does not establish minimum monitoring frequencies. The decision regarding the actual frequency at which facilities must monitor for compliance with today's limitations and standards is left to the permit writer. See 40 CFR 122.44(1) and 122.48.

VI. Applicability

A. To Whom Does This Rule Apply?

This regulation applies to meat facilities and poultry and small game facilities (referred to as “poultry facilities” for convenience) that discharge their wastewater directly into waters of the U.S. (

e.g.

, stream, lake, ocean) and are required to obtain an NPDES permit. Facilities that send their wastewater to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) are not subject to this final rule; they remain subject to 40 CFR 403 and their local limits (see sections VI.G and XII.A.2).

Facilities above certain production thresholds (see Table VI.H-1 for subcategory-specific production thresholds) who are involved in any of the following activities are subject to this rule:

• Slaughtering (first processing) meat or poultry or both

• Further processing meat or poultry or both

• Rendering meat or poultry or both.

Operations or processes for which EPA has not promulgated effluent limitations guidelines and standards are subject to technology-based limitations determined on a case-by-case basis under 40 CFR 125.3.

B. What Is a First Processor?

A first processor is a facility that slaughters live animals and produces whole or cut-up carcasses. First processing operations can include the assembly and holding of animals for slaughter, killing, bleeding, removal of hide or hair or feathers, evisceration and variety meat (organ) harvest, carcass washing, trimming, carcass chilling and refrigeration, and cleanup. For the purposes of this rule, a facility is still a first processor if it performs other operations in addition to slaughtering such as further processing or rendering and is only subject to the limitations for first processors.

First processors include facilities classified as simple slaughterhouses (40 CFR 432 Subpart A), complex slaughterhouses (Subpart B), low-processing packinghouses (Subpart C), and high-processing packinghouses (Subpart D), in addition to the newly created Subpart K for poultry first processors.

C. What Is a Further Processor?

A further processor is a facility that performs operations which utilize whole carcasses or cut-up meat or poultry products for the production of fresh or frozen products. Further processing operations may include the following types of processing: Cutting and deboning, cooking, seasoning, smoking, canning, grinding, chopping, dicing, forming, breading, breaking, trimming, skinning, tenderizing, marinating, curing, pickling, extruding and/or linking. A facility is still a further processor if it performs other operations in addition to further processing such as rendering (but not slaughtering) and is only subject to the limitations for further processors.

Meat further processors include facilities classified as small processors (40 CFR part 432 Subpart E), meat cutters (Subpart F), sausage and luncheon meats processors (Subpart G), ham processors (Subpart H), and canned meats processors (Subpart I), in addition to the newly created Subpart L for poultry further processors.

D. What Is An Independent Renderer?

A renderer processes slaughtering by-products (

e.g.

, animal fat, bone, blood, hair, feathers, dead animals) from either poultry or meat into usable products. An independent renderer is subject to 40 CFR part 432 Subpart J and is a facility that performs rendering operations at a production rate greater than 10 million pounds per year and does not do any first or further processing.

E. What Is Included as Meat? What Is Included as Poultry?

For today's rule, “meat” includes cattle, calves, hogs, sheep, lambs, horses, and all other animal species except poultry, other birds, rabbits, and other small game.

“Poultry” includes chickens, turkeys, ducks, other birds, rabbits, and other small game.

F. What if a Facility Processes Both Meat and Poultry? How Is it Categorized?

Facilities that discharge wastewater from both meat and poultry processing operations will have to comply with limitations and standards for two subcategories. Permit writers would use the “building block approach” based on production or wastewater discharge flow to apply the two sets of limitations into one final effluent limitation in the facility's permit. See Section XII of today's preamble for a discussion on how the rule will be implemented.

G. Are Indirect Dischargers Covered by This Final Rule?

EPA is not establishing pretreatment standards for existing or new sources in today's final rule. Indirect dischargers (

i.e.

, facilities that discharge their MPP process wastewater to a publicly owned treatment works) remain subject to the General Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR 403) and local limitations.

The current part 432 regulations do not include pretreatment standards (beyond a cross-reference to the General Pretreatment Standards) and EPA did not propose to add them. However, as discussed in the NODA (68 FR 48477; August 13, 2003), following the publication of the proposal, EPA continued to gather additional data to determine whether or not national categorical pretreatment standards were necessary for the MPP industry. In addition, EPA received comments on the proposal and NODA regarding the necessity of pretreatment standards for the MPP industry. Most commenters supported EPA's proposed decision to not promulgate pretreatment standards for new and existing indirect dischargers.

Based on the data gathered through the EPA Regional offices and the comments EPA received on this subject, EPA determined that there was not sufficient evidence of pass through or interference from MPP facilities to warrant establishing national pretreatment standards for these facilities. For further discussion and to review the data gathered, see DCN 115-077 in the docket for today's notice.

In today's final rule, EPA has removed the current cross-reference to the General Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR part 403) under PSES and PSNS for all subcategories. EPA found that this cross-reference was potentially confusing and duplicative. All process wastewater discharges to publicly owned treatment works (regardless of point source category) are subject to part 403 regardless of whether it is specified in the codified regulatory text or not.

H. What Changes Have Been Made to the Regulations for Meat Products?

Today's action revises Part 432 in a number of respects discussed elsewhere in today's

Federal Register

Notice. These revisions include promulgation of effluent limitations guidelines and standards for poultry processors, which are presented in two new subparts (subparts K and L), and the promulgation of limitations and standards for ammonia and nitrogen for certain pre-existing subcategories. EPA has also adopted a new applicability statement for Part 432 to account for the new poultry subcategories and has consolidated into a General Definitions section definitions that in the past had been repeated for each subcategory. The new General Definitions section, codified at § 432.2, contains some new definitions, some revised definitions, and some previously codified definitions that remain unchanged. EPA has also removed as unnecessary provisions in Part 432 that require indirect dischargers to comply with 40 CFR Part 403, because those requirements speak for themselves.

For the convenience of the reader, today's rule presents Part 432 in its entirety. This presentation includes reprinting portions of Part 432 for which EPA is making no substantive changes today. Those portions of the existing MPP effluent limitations guidelines and standards that are not substantively amended by this action are not subject to judicial review; nor is their effective date affected by today's action.

Table VI.H-1 explains the changes and additions made to the earlier regulation for meat slaughterhouses, packinghouses, and further processors. The earlier regulation did not have production thresholds distinguishing between small and non-small categories, and it did not have Subcategories K and L for poultry slaughterers and further processors.

Table VI.H-1.—Summary of Changes by Subcategory and Size

Subcategory

Size

Description

Changes made by this rule

A-D: Meat First Processors

Small

Slaughters ≤ 50 million lb/yr live weight killed (LWK) of meat

No revision.

Non-small

Slaughters > 50 million lb/yr LWK of meat

Set BPT limit for ammonia.

No revision for BPT/BCT for conventional pollutants.

Set BAT limits for nitrogen.

Set BAT limits for ammonia = BPT.

Revise NSPS for ammonia = BPT.

Set NSPS for total nitrogen = BAT.

No revision for NSPS for conventional pollutants.

E: Meat Small Further Processors

Produces ≤ 6,000 lb/day of meat finished product

No revision.

F-I: Meat Further Processors

Small

Produces > 6,000 lb/d but ≤ 50 million lb/yr of meat finished product

No revision.

Non-small

Produces > 50 million lb/yr of meat finished product

No revision for BPT/BCT.

Set BAT limits for nitrogen.

No revision to BAT limits for ammonia except for Subcategory G.

Set NSPS for total nitrogen = BAT.

Set NSPS for ammonia.

No revision to NSPS for conventional pollutants.

J: Independent Renderers

Renders > 10 million lb/yr of raw material (meat and/or poultry)

Lower production rate in definition from 75,000 pounds per day to 10 million pounds per year.

No revision for BPT/BCT.

Set BAT limits for nitrogen.

No revision to BAT limits for ammonia.

Set NSPS for total nitrogen = BAT.

No revision to NSPS for conventional pollutants or ammonia.

K: Poultry First Processors

Small

Slaughters ≤ 100 million lb/yr LWK of poultry

No national limitations, except for new sources.

Set NSPS for BOD

5

, TSS, O&G (as HEM), pH, ammonia & fecal coliforms.

Non-small

Slaughters > 100 million lb/yr LWK of poultry

Set BPT/BCT/NSPS limits for BOD

5

, TSS, O&G (as HEM), pH, ammonia & fecal coliforms.

Set BAT and NSPS limits for total nitrogen.

Set BAT limits for ammonia = BPT.

L: Poultry Further Processors

Small

Produces ≤ 7 million lb/yr of poultry finished product

No national limitations, except for new sources.

Set NSPS for BOD

5

, TSS, O&G (as HEM), pH, ammonia & fecal coliforms.

Non-small

Produces > 7 million lb/yr of poultry finished product

Set BPT/BCT/NSPS limits for BOD

5

, TSS, O&G (as HEM), pH, ammonia & fecal coliforms.

Set BAT and NSPS limits for total nitrogen.

Set BAT limits for ammonia = BPT.

I. What Wastewaters Are Covered?

This rule covers wastewater generated by the following meat and poultry product operations: first processing, further processing, and rendering. Examples of this type of wastewater include water from carcass washing, bird washing before and after evisceration, water used in scalding in the process of feather removal, chilling, cleaning and sanitizing of equipment and facilities, and other process area cleanup, including washing out trucks and animal holding areas. Stormwater that is associated with these activities is also included.

This rule does not include non-process wastewater such as non-contact cooling water, sanitary wastewater, and stormwater that is not associated with industrial activity.

J. Which Pollutants Have Limitations and Standards Established by This Rule?

EPA is establishing limitations and standards for 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD

5

), total suspended solids (TSS), pH, oil and grease (as hexane extractable material), fecal coliforms, ammonia (as nitrogen), and total nitrogen. However, for some subcategories EPA will not be revising current limitations for all or some pollutants (

e.g.

, conventional pollutants) and will therefore only be establishing limitations and standards for some of these pollutants (

e.g.

, total nitrogen).

EPA has decided not to regulate total residual chlorine in today's final rule, even though EPA evaluated it for regulation for the MPP industry. When there is residual chlorine (

i.e.

, chlorine is not used up to inactivate bacteria), this chlorine can react with organic compounds such as humic materials (

i.e.

, forms of organic carbon created by decaying organic matter) and form other chlorinated organic compounds such as trihalomethanes (

e.g.

, bromoform, chloroform, bromodichloromethane, dibromochloromethane). Trihalomethanes are a potential human health concern in drinking water. However, treatment processes that meat and poultry products facilities use to remove biochemical oxygen demand and other parameters also reduce the concentrations of organic compounds in the discharged wastewater and, therefore, lessen, to some extent, the potential for the formation of trihalomethanes.

Disinfection via chlorination is part of the BAT technology basis for the final limitations and standards for today's final rule. Therefore, EPA used chlorination to estimate compliance costs for disinfection in the cost model; however, this regulation does not require the use of a specific technology-based process for disinfection. Thus, facilities may use disinfection technologies other than chlorination to comply with this final rule. Other effective methods exist besides chlorinating with free chlorine (

e.g.

, use of chloramines, ozone, ultraviolet radiation) that may not form the same level or type of by-products. In addition, the environmental effects of disinfection by-products depend on the characteristics and uses of the receiving water. These considerations persuade EPA that disinfection by-products from MPP facilities are best controlled through individual NPDES permit limits on a facility-by-facility basis.

In fact, for non-small facilities that responded to EPA's detailed survey, 63 percent of facilities in Subcategories A-D (meat first processors) and 48 percent of facilities in Subcategory K (poultry first processors) already have limits in their NPDES permits for total residual chlorine. An additional 5 percent of meat first processors and 12 percent of poultry first processors have monitoring requirements for total residual chlorine without corresponding limits. Therefore, EPA concluded that the current system is working well in addressing any residual chlorine issues. When a chlorinated discharge enters U.S. waters that are high in organic carbon content, then it is a local water quality issue best addressed through a tailored, individual NPDES permit.

See Section V.B for discussion of pollutants that EPA proposed for regulation but did not regulate in the final rule (

i.e.

, COD and total phosphorus).

K. Does This Regulation Impose Monitoring Requirements ?

EPA is not promulgating any monitoring requirements in this regulation. While EPA based its limitations, statistical analysis, and corresponding cost estimates for today's rule on monitoring once per week, no such frequency is being required today. Rather, actual monitoring requirements for individual facilities are specified in the NPDES permits issued by the States (or other authorized permitting authority).

VII. What Is the Basis of the Final Regulation?

This section describes, by subcategory, the options considered and selected for today's final rule. EPA provides a discussion, as applicable, for the regulatory levels that EPA considered for regulation (

i.e.

, BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS) for each of the subcategories of the MPP industry. See summary in Table VII.A-1. For a detailed discussion of all technology options considered in the development of today's final rule, see the proposal (see 67 FR 8582; February 25, 2002, the NODA (see 68 FR 48500; August 13, 2003) or Section 9 of the TDD for today's final rule.

EPA has also determined that each technology it selected as the basis for the final limitations has effluent reductions commensurate with compliance costs and is economically achievable for the applicable subcategory. EPA considered the age, size, processes, and other engineering factors pertinent to facilities in the scope of the final regulation for the

purpose of evaluating the technology options. None of these factors, except size, provides a basis for selecting different technologies from those EPA selected for today's rule. As discussed in the proposal (67 FR 8582; February 25, 2002) and below, EPA is not promulgating or revising national effluent limitations for small facilities in specific subcategories. (See Section 5 of the TDD for the final rule for further discussion of EPA's analyses of these factors.)

The new source performance standards (NSPS) EPA is establishing today represent the greatest degree of effluent reduction achievable through best available demonstrated control technology. The new source technology basis is equivalent to the technology basis upon which EPA is setting BAT. In selecting its technology basis for today's NSPS, EPA considered all of the factors specified in CWA section 306, including the cost of achieving effluent reductions. EPA has thoroughly reviewed the costs of such technologies and has concluded that such costs do not present a barrier to entry (see the Economic and Environmental Benefits Analysis in the rulemaking record). The Agency also considered energy requirements and other non-water quality environmental impacts for the new source technology basis and found no basis for any different standards from those selected for NSPS. Therefore, EPA concluded that the NSPS technology basis chosen constitutes the best available demonstrated control technology. For a discussion on the compliance date for new sources, see Section XII of today's final rule.

EPA decided not to establish BPT, BCT, or BAT limitations for small facilities in Subcategories K and L (poultry first and further processing, respectively) or to revise current limitations and standards for small facilities in Subcategories A-I (see Table VI.H-1). EPA is establishing new source performance standards for new small facilities in Subcategories K and L. EPA's bases for not promulgating revised limitations or standards for small facilities are explained in the following sections. Finally, EPA decided not to establish pretreatment standards for all existing and new indirect dischargers (PSES and PSNS) for the reasons discussed in the NODA (68 FR 48477; August 13, 2003) and in Section VI.G of today's rule.

A. What Options Did EPA Consider for the Final Rule?

As discussed in the NODA (68 FR 48500; August 13, 2003), comments on the proposal requested that EPA consider modifications to the preferred options selected as the basis for the proposed limitations and standards for certain subcategories. As a result of additional data and comments, EPA reconsidered the technology options for BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS that EPA evaluated for the proposed rule. In the NODA, EPA presented two additional options for further consideration and comment. These additional options include primary and secondary biological treatment and disinfection, nitrification, partial denitrification, and, for one option, chemical phosphorus removal. EPA refers to these options as “Option 2.5” and “Option 2.5+P.” EPA also stated in the NODA that it was considering not revising limitations and standards for certain facilities.

For the final rule, EPA considered the full range of options (Option 1 through Option 4) for all non-small facilities (

i.e.

, facilities above the proposed subcategory-specific threshold) as well as options under which EPA would not promulgate national effluent limitations guidelines and standards for those facilities or would not revise those limitations and standards currently in place. Table VII.A-1 describes these options. For small facilities, EPA considered Option 1, Option 2, or no regulation/no revision. All technology-based options EPA considered for the final rule included some pretreatment of the wastewaters prior to biological treatment (including combinations of screening, dissolved air flotation, equalization, and chemical addition) followed by primary and secondary biological treatment and disinfection. In Table VII.A-1, EPA uses the terms “partial” and “more complete” to describe the varying degrees of nitrification and denitrification and to convey the increasing stringency of the options. Because 100 percent nitrification or denitrification is not possible, EPA chose the term “more complete” instead of “complete” to describe the more stringent technology options.

For the NODA, EPA evaluated the effectiveness of in-place denitrification technology at meat and poultry facilities. For facilities for which EPA had data, EPA identified the facilities' denitrification treatment systems and the partial denitrification levels they achieved (

e.g.

, long-term average nitrate + nitrite or total nitrogen effluent concentrations). One commenter stated that it believed that the target LTAs used to calculate costs for Option 2.5 were based upon facilities that had high nitrogen removals, regardless of the control technologies used at those facilities (

e.g.

, facilities were using two-stage denitrification equipment) and that EPA failed to clearly define partial denitrification. Following its consideration of comments received on the NODA, EPA has better defined its criteria for selecting facilities that are achieving the level of denitrification that represents Option 2.5 control (

i.e.

, partial denitrification). EPA has used long-term data with individual measurements (

i.e.

, not summarized monthly average data) for total nitrogen (or both TKN and nitrate+nitrite) from facilities employing BAT partial denitrification to determine the Option 2.5 limitation for total nitrogen. For the development of the LTA for total nitrogen, EPA considered facilities to be operating as BAT partial denitrification (Option 2.5) technology if they met all four of the following criteria:

• EPA has long-term effluent data for total nitrogen (or both TKN and nitrate+nitrite) for the facility for the period which they were operating their treatment system as Option 2.5.

• Facility had the biological treatment components of Option 2.5 technology in place and had a minimum BOD:TKN ratio of 3 at the influent to biological nutrient removal;

• Facility was achieving effluent total nitrogen concentrations below 60 mg/L; and

• Facility's current total nitrogen effluent concentration can be achieved by EPA's Option 2.5 cost model (

i.e.

, when running the cost model starting at the facility's actual influent TKN concentration, facility's actual total nitrogen effluent concentration can be achieved using single-stage denitrification and a maximum nitrate recycle rate of 5).

EPA chose 60 mg/L based on the documented total nitrogen removal of the denitrification processes that is used in EPA's cost model (Modified Ludzack-Ettinger process) which can achieve an average nitrogen removal of 70 percent. When applying 70 percent removal of total nitrogen to the average total nitrogen influent concentration (193 mg/L) at meat survey facilities, the resulting concentration is approximately 60 mg/L.

EPA developed the fourth criteria to ensure that it did not select facilities as BAT that use components of Option 2.5 technology but operate them in a way that is inadequate to achieve a degree of nitrification or approaches the performance and costs of EPA's Option 2.5 cost model. For example, based on comments from industry, EPA's Option 2.5 cost model (based on single stage denitrification) allows for a maximum nitrate recycle rate of 5 to achieve the Option 2.5 LTAs. Some facilities may

actually use a higher recycle rate when operating their system. When estimating compliance costs for such facilities, EPA's costing methodology requires the use of the Option 2.5 LTAs with a two-stage denitrification system (similar to the equipment used in the Option 4 cost model). For additional details regarding EPA's cost models or BAT facility selection for development of limitations, see Sections 10 and 14, respectively, of the TDD for the final rule.

Table VII.A-1.—Options Considered

Option

Description

1

1

Biological Treatment + Partial Nitrification + Disinfection

2

Biological Treatment + More Complete Nitrification + Disinfection

2.5

Biological Treatment + Nitrification + Partial Denitrification + Disinfection

2.5 + P

Biological Treatment + Nitrification + Partial Denitrification + Chemical Phosphorus Removal + Disinfection

4

Biological Treatment + Nitrification + More Complete Denitrification + Chemical Phosphorus Removal + Disinfection

1

Note:

All Options are preceded by pretreatment steps.

B. What Is the Basis for EPA's Selected Technology Options for Subcategories A-D (Meat First Processors)?

In 2002, EPA proposed revised national regulations for facilities in Subcategories A-D that exceed a production threshold of 50 million pounds (live weight killed) per year. EPA proposed this threshold to reduce potential economic impacts to small facilities by allowing for different limitations for small and non-small facilities (

i.e.

, less stringent limitations for small facilities). EPA did not receive adverse comment on the production threshold and is retaining the proposed production threshold for the final rule. Therefore, this section discusses small facilities and non-small facilities separately. Costs presented in this section are presented in 1999 year dollars which is the base year of the survey; however, EPA provides updated estimates in 2003 year dollars in Section VIII.B.

1. Meat First Processors That Slaughter Less Than or Equal to 50 Million Pounds Per Year (Small)

EPA is not revising limitations or standards for small facilities in Subcategories A-D. Such facilities will continue to be subject to the current limitations in Meat and Poultry Products effluent limitations guidelines (part 432), as applicable. The current regulations include production-based limitations for these facilities for BOD, TSS, oil & grease, pH, and fecal coliforms for existing sources and standards for these same pollutants plus the addition of standards for ammonia (as nitrogen) for new sources. The following sections discuss EPA's decision to retain the current BPT, BCT, and BAT limitations and NSPS for small direct discharge facilities in Subcategories A-D.

a. BPT/BCT/BAT

EPA proposed not to revise the current BPT, BCT, or BAT limitations for existing small direct dischargers in Subcategories A-D (meat first processors). For the final rule, for these facilities, EPA evaluated the cost of achieving pollutant reductions and the economic achievability of compliance with best practicable control technology (BPT) limitations based on the Option 1 technology and the level of the pollutant reductions resulting from compliance with such limitations. Option 1 includes biological treatment, partial nitrification, and disinfection.

EPA estimated that the cost of achieving the effluent reductions for these facilities at Option 1 would be $198 per pound of pollutant removed (1999$).

1

EPA has promulgated effluent limitations guidelines in the past with costs per pound of pollutant removed as high as $37 per pound (1999$) although generally ELGs have had much lower costs per pound. Therefore, EPA evaluated the cost of the treatment technology options to small facilities using $37 per pound removed as guidance for assessing BPT cost-reasonableness.

1

In estimating the pounds of pollutants removed by implementing Option 1 technology for these facilities, EPA used the sum of BOD

5

and ammonia (as nitrogen) removed. EPA did not include removals of other pollutants, including COD, in this analysis because, for example, BOD and COD address many of the same pollutants and including both could result in double counting.

Consequently, following this approach, EPA has determined the total costs of effluent reductions using the Option 1 technology are not reasonable in relation to the effluent reduction benefits for the following reasons. First, although EPA estimates that implementation of the Option 1 technology would result in zero closures, EPA estimates the cost of effluent reductions using Option 1 technology is $198 per pound removed. Moreover, Option 1 does not remove any additional nutrients and consequently is not “nutrient cost-effective” (see Section VII.B.2.c for detailed discussion on nutrient cost-effectiveness). For the reasons discussed in this section, EPA has concluded that for existing small direct dischargers in the Subcategories A-D, Option 1 is not the best practicable control technology, best conventional pollutant control technology, or best available technology economically achievable. Because the other options being considered would require more equipment and therefore more costs than Option 1, EPA assumed they would not be considered cost-reasonable. Therefore, EPA has determined that it should not promulgate revisions to the current BPT, BCT, or BAT limitations for existing small direct dischargers. These facilities will continue to be subject to the applicable portions of sections 432.10—432.40.

b. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)

When establishing NSPS based on best available demonstrated technology, the Agency considers how the cost of complying with any more stringent effluent limitations will affect new facilities trying to enter the industry. EPA employs a barrier to entry analysis that evaluates the barrier posed to new entrants by the cost of complying with the regulation. (For further discussion, see Section IX.G.) While, as explained previously, the cost of effluent reductions for existing small A-D facilities may not be cost reasonable, it is not necessarily the case that the costs for new facilities are as great. Generally, it is less costly for a new facility to incorporate waste treatment technologies during construction than to retrofit existing facilities.

EPA's barrier to entry analysis compares estimated average incremental capital costs a facility or company incurs to meet the effluent guidelines to average total assets of existing facilities or companies. EPA considered establishing new source performance standards for small facilities in Subcategories A-D based on Option 1 technology. EPA evaluated the barrier to entry based on a ratio of costs for Option 1 to assets of existing facilities. The Agency estimates a cost to assets ratio of 16.7%, which the Agency concludes will present a barrier to entry to new facilities. Because the costs for other options would be greater than for Option 1, these would pose an even greater barrier to entry. For these reasons, EPA is not revising the NSPS limitations for new small direct dischargers in these subcategories. New facilities would continue to be subject to

the current NSPS limitations in sections 432.15, 432.25, 432.35, and 432.45.

2. Meat First Processors That Slaughter More Than 50 Million Pounds Per Year (Non-Small)

a. Pollutants

For non-small facilities in Subcategories A-D, EPA is revising limitations and standards for some pollutants and is establishing total nitrogen limitations and standards for the first time. EPA is not revising the current limitations (BPT/BCT) or new source performance standards (NSPS) for conventional pollutants for these facilities. The current regulations include production-based limitations and standards for these facilities for BOD, TSS, oil & grease, pH, and fecal coliforms. EPA is revising BPT to include limitations for ammonia (as nitrogen), establishing a BAT limitation for ammonia (as nitrogen) equivalent to the BPT limitation, revising the NSPS for ammonia to be equivalent to the BPT limitation, and establishing BAT and NSPS limitations for total nitrogen. As discussed in Section V.G, the revised and new limitations and standards are concentration-based. The following sections discuss the technology bases EPA selected for the final rule for the non-small direct discharge facilities in Subcategories A-D.

b. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)

In 1974, EPA established BPT for the meat subcategories A-D based on biological treatment (

e.g.

, aerobic and anaerobic treatment) to control five conventional pollutants or pollutant parameters (BOD

5

, TSS, oil & grease, fecal coliforms, and pH). The BPT limitations did not include limits for ammonia (as nitrogen) because nitrification was not a widely used technology, and therefore, not the BPT technology at the time. However, EPA notes that the BPT technology that was the basis for the 1974 limitations provided some incidental ammonia removal through nitrification during extended aeration, which resulted in some reduction in ammonia (as nitrogen). EPA did attempt to establish ammonia limitations under BAT based on a technology other than nitrification (which was more advanced than the 1974 BPT technology). Those limitations were the subject of judicial challenge and were remanded to EPA for further consideration (

American Meat Institute

v.

Environmental Protection Agency,

526 F.2d 442 (7th Cir. 1975)). In 2002, EPA proposed new BPT limitations for ammonia (as nitrogen) based on Option 2 for non-small facilities in Subcategories A-D (facilities with production rates greater than 50 million pounds live weight killed (LWK) per year). As shown in Table VII.A-1, Option 2 consists of biological treatment followed by more complete nitrification than Option 1 to further reduce ammonia levels and disinfection.

EPA is establishing BPT limitations for ammonia (as nitrogen) for non-small direct dischargers in Subcategories A-D based on the proposed technology option (Option 2) with the inclusion of Option 2.5 facilities as part of evaluating seasonal effects on nitrification. A large degree of nitrification must occur in order to achieve sufficient partial denitrification to meet the nitrogen limitations, thus, the limitations for ammonia are based on data from facilities of both option types. EPA has concluded that “more complete” nitrification is now a widely available pollution control technology that should be the basis for the BPT ammonia limitation. For this guideline, EPA did not propose revising BPT limitations for the conventional pollutants. (See Section VII.B.2.c on BCT for additional information on why EPA is not revising current limits for conventional pollutants for facilities in these subcategories.)

EPA has concluded that biological nitrification treatment technology represents the best practicable control technology currently available for control of ammonia (as nitrogen) while providing incidental removals of additional conventional pollutants, particularly BOD

5

and TSS, and is the basis for the BPT limitations for these facilities for the following reasons.

First, this technology is available and readily applicable to all non-small facilities in Subcategories A-D. Approximately 97 percent of the non-small direct discharging facilities in these subcategories currently use the Option 2 technology or better. Although most facilities have the components of Option 2 technology in place (

e.g.

, nitrification basin/aerobic reactor), some facilities are not achieving the Option 2 long-term average (LTA) concentration for ammonia or the additional removals of the conventional pollutants identified in the following paragraph. EPA attributes this to their failure to operate or maintain the Option 2 technology adequately. Consequently, when estimating the costs of compliance with Option 2 for purposes of evaluating its reasonableness and for estimating economic impacts, EPA included costs for treatment optimization that a number of facilities would need in order to achieve the Option 2 LTAs. For example, EPA included costs for increased aeration, detention time (capacity), chemical addition, sludge handling, process controls, and additional in-process sampling and analytical testing. (See Sections 10 and 11 of the final Technical Development Document for additional discussion of the cost and loading methodologies.)

Second, the cost of compliance with these limitations relative to the effluent reduction benefits is not disproportionate. Based on our economic analysis (see Section IX), EPA concludes that compliance with BPT limitations based on Option 2 technology should not result in closures of any existing non-small direct dischargers in these subcategories. Moreover, adopting this level of control will reduce the quantity of ammonia (as nitrogen) and other pollutants currently being discharged into the environment.

For meat first processor facilities that produce more than 50 million pounds LWK per year, EPA estimates an annual compliance cost for Option 2 of $7.29 million (pre-tax, 1999$). It also estimates 3.8 million pounds of BOD

5

and ammonia (as nitrogen) removed from current discharges into the Nation's waters (for $2.55/pound-pollutant removed (1999$)). In estimating the pounds of pollutant removed by implementing Option 2 technology for these facilities, EPA used the sum of BOD

5

and ammonia (as nitrogen) removed. EPA tried to avoid “double-counting” pollutant reductions that would occur if, for example, EPA summed removals of COD and BOD. As previously explained, EPA has evaluated BPT costs and removals using, as guidance, $37/lb-removed in 1999 dollars as a point of comparison. EPA has, therefore, determined the total cost of effluent reductions due to the Option 2 technology ($2.55 per pound removed) are reasonable in view of the effluent reduction benefits.

EPA found that 32% of the non-small facilities in these subcategories use Option 2.5 (which includes partial denitrification). Although Option 2.5 technology is demonstrated, it is not as widely available as Option 2. Moreover, the pollutant loadings reductions for ammonia (as nitrogen) for Option 2.5 are the same as the reduction estimated for Option 2 but cost $9 million more every year. Therefore, EPA did not select it as the basis of BPT limitations.

EPA did not select Option 2.5+P or Option 4 as the basis for BPT limitations, as they do not achieve additional pollutant reductions at a cost EPA considers reasonable. For example, Option 2.5+P does not achieve

additional removals of ammonia (as nitrogen) but would cost an additional $36 million annually. Option 4 would remove an additional 59,000 pounds of ammonia (as nitrogen) at an additional cost of $45 million annually. Moreover, EPA notes that Option 2.5+P represents control technology not closely related to the technology basis for the earlier BPT regulations. Chemical phosphorus removal is not closely connected to the nitrification and disinfection technology that was the basis of the 1974 BPT limitations for Subcategories A-D. The Agency did not select other options considered for BPT because they were not readily available and/or produced an unfavorable total BPT cost and removal comparison. Detailed discussions explaining why EPA rejected setting BPT limitations based on these other technology options are contained in the proposal and the NODA (see 67 FR 8637; February 25, 2002 and 68 FR 48499; August 13, 2003). EPA has no information that justifies changing these conclusions.

Although EPA is not changing the technology basis from that proposed, the Agency is promulgating BPT limitations for non-small facilities in Subcategories A-D that are slightly different than proposed. First, where EPA is promulgating BPT limitations for pollutants like ammonia (as nitrogen) for which EPA had not previously set BPT limits for these subcategories, the final limitations are based on revised and additional data reflecting the types of changes described in the NODA (see 68 FR 48495). In addition, for the reasons discussed in Section V.G, where EPA is adopting new or revised BPT limitations, EPA has expressed them in concentration-based form while the unchanged limitations will continue to be expressed as production-based limits. (See Section 15 of the TDD for guidance on how both types of limits can be implemented together into permits.)

c. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)

For both the proposed and final rules, in deciding whether to adopt more stringent limitations for BCT than BPT, EPA considered technologies that might achieve greater removals of conventional pollutants than those adopted for BPT. It also looked at whether those technologies are cost-reasonable under the standards established by the CWA. EPA generally refers to the decision criteria as the “BCT cost test.”

As discussed in Section VII.B.2.a, EPA is not revising the current BPT effluent limitations for conventional parameters (

i.e.

, pH, BOD

5

, TSS, O&G, and fecal coliforms) for non-small meat first processors (Subcategories A-D). Therefore, when considering a technology that would achieve greater removals of conventional pollutants than adopted for BPT, EPA compared the removals achievable through implementation of the Option 2 technology (which EPA considered as the possible technology basis for BCT) to current BPT limitations. EPA estimates that Option 2 removes about an additional 610,000 pounds per year of BOD

5

and 970,000 pounds per year of TSS compared to pollutant reductions by facilities meeting or exceeding current BPT limitations. There are no additional removals of O&G or fecal coliforms.

EPA evaluated Option 2 under the BCT cost test and it failed (see EPA's Economic and Environmental Benefits Analysis for details on the Agency's analysis). EPA did not evaluate technology options, such as Option 2+F (Option 2 plus the addition of a filter), because they are more costly and would not remove significantly more conventional pollutants than Option 2. Therefore, if Option 2 did not pass, these options would not pass the BCT cost test. The Agency did not identify any technologies that pass the BCT cost test and achieve greater removals of conventional pollutants than the current BPT technology. Thus, EPA is not revising the BCT limitations for these facilities. Non-small facilities in Subcategories A-D will continue to be regulated by the current BCT limitations (which are equivalent to the current BPT limitations) in sections 432.17, 432.27, 432.37, and 432.47.

d. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)

EPA proposed to establish the BAT level of regulatory control for non-small facilities in Subcategories A-D based on Option 3 (

i.e.

, biological treatment, more complete nitrification, more complete denitrification and disinfection). As discussed in the NODA, after review and evaluation of the revised and new data, EPA has reconsidered its assessment of Option 3 as BAT technology. EPA determined that Option 3 did not meet all the statutory criteria for BAT. Therefore, the Agency refocused its evaluation for the technology basis for BAT on Option 2.5, Option 2.5+P and Option 4 for nutrient removal. (See Section VII.A of today's preamble for a description of the technology options.) For the final rule, EPA is basing the BAT limitations for non-small facilities in Subcategories A-D on Option 2.5 technology and is promulgating a limitation for total nitrogen on this basis. EPA is, however, setting a limitation for ammonia (as nitrogen) that is equal to BPT.

The following section describes EPA's rationale for selecting Option 2.5 technology and rejecting Option 2.5+P and Option 4 for the basis of the total nitrogen limitation and for selecting to set BAT equal to BPT (based on Option 2) for ammonia (as nitrogen). Both the proposal and the NODA contain detailed discussions explaining why EPA rejected setting BAT limitations based on other more stringent technology options (see 67 FR 8629; February 25, 2002 and 68 FR 48499; August 13, 2003). The record for today's final rule provides no basis for EPA to change these conclusions.

EPA selected Option 2.5 technology as the basis of BAT for non-small facilities in Subcategories A-D for the following reasons. First, Option 2.5 technology has been demonstrated as available, as 32 percent of the non-small facilities in Subcategories A-D use the components of Option 2.5 technology (

e.g.

, facility has in place a denitrification basin, nitrification basin, and disinfection) or more advanced technology. EPA has, however, determined that facilities in Subcategories A-D with the components of Option 2.5 technology in place are not operating their systems optimally based on review of the BOD:TKN ratios (68 FR 48500; August 13, 2003). EPA concluded that for effective denitrification to occur, facilities must be achieving a minimum BOD:TKN ratio of 3. In addition, these facilities are not currently achieving at least a 60 mg/L total nitrogen concentration in the effluent. (EPA is using 60 mg/L as a minimum standard for facilities it considered in developing the BAT long-term average limitation for total nitrogen. See Section VII.A for discussion of BAT facility selection criteria.) EPA did have data from poultry first processing facilities with Option 2.5 technology that met all BAT selection criteria, indicating that the poultry facility's treatment systems were well operated. For this reason, when estimating costs and pollutant reductions and in developing limitations associated with Option 2.5, EPA used the long-term average (LTA) concentration for total nitrogen from well-operated Option 2.5 poultry first processing facilities (see Section 14 of the TDD for the final rule). EPA included costs (such as costs for lagoon bypass, additional carbon source, or two-stage denitrification) for the meat first processing facilities to achieve the poultry Option 2.5 LTA for total nitrogen.

Second, Option 2.5 is economically achievable. EPA estimates the pre-tax annualized compliance costs (in 1999 dollars) for Option 2.5 to be $16.7 million. Using the facility and company closure methodologies described in Section IX.A, EPA estimates that no facilities or companies will close. EPA performed an alternate analysis by estimating closures using more conservative assumptions (

i.e.

, EPA predicted a closure would occur if the facility failed under 1 of 3 forecast methodologies, rather than under at least 2 out of 3). Under EPA's more conservative alternate analysis, the Agency estimates that there could be two closures among subcategory A-D facilities. Because not all facilities are covered by the closure analysis, it may understate the number of facility closures nationally.

As discussed in the NODA (68 FR 48489; August 13, 2003), EPA tried to determine whether there are additional companies that own direct discharging MPP facilities. The Agency identified, based on the screener survey results, three additional companies across all subcategories that may own direct discharging MPP facilities. Therefore, the company-level analysis may underestimate the number of company closures nationally, but to a lesser degree than the facility-level analysis.

EPA also considered the cost-effectiveness of nutrient removal as one aspect of its evaluation of BAT options for this industry as whole. As discussed in the proposed rule and the NODA, EPA has established a benchmark for nitrogen removal of $4 per pound, based on studies of nitrogen removal by POTWs with biological nutrient removal, and a benchmark for phosphorus removal of $10 per pound, based on studies of agricultural best management practices that reduce phosphorus discharges. EPA used these benchmarks for nutrients in connection with the effluent guidelines for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs).

For Option 2.5 for subcategories A-D, EPA estimates 15.4 million pounds removed per year of total nitrogen and nutrient cost-effectiveness of $1.08 per pound of total nitrogen removed. Because Option 2.5 does not include phosphorus removal, EPA did not calculate nutrient cost-effectiveness for phosphorus for Option 2.5. EPA concludes that Option 2.5 is nutrient cost-effective for total nitrogen.

EPA considered Option 2.5+P as the basis of BAT, but rejected it for the following reasons. First, no facilities in EPA's database for Subcategories A-D use Option 2.5+P technology. However, facilities may use individual components of the technology. Some facilities in the subcategories use Option 2.5 technology (for nitrogen removal) and Option 2+P or Option 4 (for phosphorus removal). Second, EPA estimated the pre-tax annualized cost of Option 2.5+P to be $42.9 million. EPA now believes these costs may be underestimated. Based on information provided in comments on the NODA and further analysis, EPA concludes that the average annual cost of increased alum addition and the resulting increased sludge generation and disposal may range from $108,000 to $378,000 more per facility than previously estimated for this subcategory (see DCN 300-015). Option 2.5+P removes an estimated 4.5 million pounds per year of total phosphorus and achieves the same level of nitrogen and conventional pollutant reduction as Option 2.5. Although the cost per pound of phosphorus removed using the estimated cost of $42.9 million is $9.49 per pound, EPA believes that the actual cost per pound would be greater than $10 because of the additional costs noted above. Although EPA has selected options where the nutrient cost-effectiveness is greater then the reference values (

i.e.

, $4/lb nitrogen removed and $10/lb phosphorus removed) for an individual subcategory or segment, EPA has not done so in cases where selecting such an option would raise the nutrient cost-effectiveness of the rule, as a whole, over these values. With a phosphorus cost-effectiveness over $10/lb for non-small facilities in Subcategory A-D, the phosphorus cost-effectiveness for the rule, as a whole, would be greater than $10/lb total phosphorus removed. Therefore, considering the lack of availability of the technology and the unfavorable nutrient cost-effectiveness for phosphorus, EPA rejected Option 2.5+P as the basis of BAT limitations.

EPA considered Option 4 (which includes more complete denitrification and chemical phosphorus removal) as the basis of BAT but did not select it due to the high increase in cost compared to Option 2.5 and the poor incremental nutrient cost-effectiveness (

i.e.

, the high cost to remove additional nutrients compared to Option 2.5+P).

EPA estimates that there are no direct discharge facilities in these subcategories currently operating Option 4 technology. EPA estimates the pre-tax annualized compliance costs for Option 4 to be $52.0 million (1999$), which is $9.1 million more than Option 2.5+P and $35.3 million more than Option 2.5. EPA estimates that Option 4 removes 18.5 million pounds per year of nitrogen (3.1 million more pounds per year than Option 2.5 or Option 2.5+P) and 5.0 million pounds per year of phosphorus (approximately 500,000 more pounds per year than Option 2.5+P). EPA estimates no facility or company closures for Option 4. Finally, EPA estimates the incremental nitrogen cost-effectiveness (as compared to Option 2.5) to be $11.56 per pound of total nitrogen removed and the incremental phosphorus cost-effectiveness (as compared to Option 2.5+P) to be $20.09 per pound of total phosphorus removed. The incremental nutrient cost-effectiveness of Option 4 is above the benchmark values; therefore, EPA does not consider Option 4 to be cost-effective.

EPA is establishing BAT limitations for ammonia (as nitrogen) that are equivalent to the limitations it is promulgating today under BPT for subcategories A-D. EPA considered setting more stringent limitations for ammonia (as nitrogen) under BAT; however, the selected BAT technology option (Option 2.5) does not remove any additional quantity of ammonia (as nitrogen), particularly when considering the seasonal effects using data from Option 2 and Option 2.5 facilities. Although Option 4 does remove some additional pounds of ammonia (as nitrogen) as compared to Option 2, EPA did not select Option 4 for BAT for the reasons discussed earlier in this section.

e. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)

As previously discussed, when establishing NSPS, EPA considers whether increased compliance costs related to the effluent guidelines regulation might create a barrier for a new facility to enter the industry and whether there are any new source standards currently in place for the subcategory. The barrier to entry analysis compares the estimated average increase in facility or company capital costs to meet the effluent guidelines to the average total assets of existing facilities or companies. EPA does not have data on the assets of new entrants because, in general, we cannot identify them before they are established. Therefore, EPA uses data on the assets of existing facilities. The extent to which potential new entrants have total assets that are similar to those of existing industry participants provides a proxy for potential barriers to entry that new facility compliance costs may represent.

EPA performed an analysis to evaluate the effect of the rule on the costs to new entrants into the meat and poultry products industry by calculating

the ratio of average capital costs to average total assets as a measure of the potential for barriers to entry that the MPP rule could create for these facilities. If the barrier to entry ratio is large, then there is a possibility that the rule will discourage entry into the meat and poultry products market.

EPA has estimated the ratio of costs to assets for facilities for Options 2.5, 2.5+P and Option 4. The ratios are 1.6% for Option 2.5, 2.6% for Option 2.5+P, 3.3% for Option 4. The estimates for Option 2.5+P and Option 4, however, do not reflect EPA's additional evaluation of the costs for chemical phosphorus based on comments EPA received (see DCN 300-015). From this additional evaluation, EPA concludes that the average annualized costs may be $108,000 to $378,000 per facility more for chemical phosphorus removal than those used in EPA's barrier to entry analysis, as discussed here. EPA is concerned that, with these additional costs, the ratio may rise to a level that the Agency would consider to be a barrier to entry for Option 2.5+P and Option 4.

EPA has decided to revise the standards for new sources for ammonia (as nitrogen) for facilities in subcategories A-D to be equivalent to the BPT limitations being established today and to establish standards for total nitrogen equivalent to the BAT limitations being established today based on Option 2.5. These standards do not present a barrier to entry. Although there are existing NSPS for these facilities, they do not include standards for total nitrogen.

C. What Is the Basis for EPA's Selected Technology Options for Subcategory E (Meat Small Further Processors)?

Subcategory E includes the smallest meat further processing facilities (

i.e.

, meat further processing facilities that produce 6,000 pounds or fewer per day). In 2002, EPA proposed not to revise the regulations for existing or new direct dischargers in Subcategory E. EPA did not propose to revise the existing limitations applicable to smaller MPP facilities (including all facilities in Subcategory E) to the proposal because EPA determined that “small” MPP facilities discharge a very small proportion of the total industry discharge and that improved treatment would produce only a limited amount of loadings removal (67 FR 8582; February 25, 2002). EPA did not receive comment or additional information to persuade EPA to revise the existing effluent limitations guidelines and standards for this subcategory. Therefore, the current part 432 regulations continue to apply to those facilities (§ 432.50).

D. What Is the Basis for EPA's Selected Technology Options for Subcategories F-I (Meat Further Processing)?

In order to allow for different limitations for small and non-small meat further processing facilities, EPA's 2002 proposal called for a production threshold of 50 million pounds (finished product) for facilities in Subcategories F-I. EPA is retaining that production threshold for the final rule. Therefore, EPA addresses small facilities and non-small facilities separately. Note the meat processors that process 6,000 or fewer pounds per day (1.56 million pounds per year) are not included in Subcategories F-I, but are covered under Subcategory E (see Section VII.C). Costs presented in this section are presented in 1999 year dollars which is the base year of the survey; however, EPA provides updated estimates in 2003 year dollars in Section VIII.B.

1. Meat Further Processors That Process More Than 6,000 Pounds Per Day but Less Than or Equal to 50 Million Pounds Per Year (Small)

EPA is not revising limitations or standards for small facilities in Subcategories F-I except to correct an error in the BAT ammonia limitation. Meat further processing facilities that produce greater than 6,000 pounds per day but less than or equal to 50 million pounds per year of finished product will continue to be subject to the current limitations in the Meat and Poultry Products effluent limitations guidelines (part 432), as applicable. The following sections discuss EPA's decision to retain the current BPT, BCT, and BAT limitations and NSPS for small direct discharge facilities in Subcategories F-I.

a. BPT/BCT/BAT

EPA proposed not to revise the BPT, BCT or BAT limitations for existing small meat further processors in Subcategories F-I. In part 432, small facilities in Subcategories F-I currently have BPT limitations for the five conventional pollutants and BAT limitations for ammonia. EPA did not propose to revise BPT limitations for conventional pollutants for small facilities in these subcategories. EPA evaluated the cost of additional technology (

e.g.

, filtration) under the BCT cost test and it failed. Therefore, EPA is not revising the conventional pollutant limitations under BCT for small facilities in Subcategories F-I.

For the final rule, EPA considered revising the ammonia (as nitrogen) limitations under BAT. EPA evaluated the cost of achieving pollutant reductions and the economic achievability of compliance with limitations based on Option 1 and Option 2 technology. Option 1 includes biological treatment, partial nitrification, and disinfection, and Option 2 accomplishes more complete nitrification (

i.e.

, ammonia removal) than Option 1 technology. When evaluating BAT technology, EPA must determine whether the technology is available and economically achievable. EPA must also determine whether the identified technology is best. EPA typically evaluates a technology's cost-effectiveness as a factor in its decision. When considering cost-effectiveness (except for nutrients), EPA typically evaluates additional pollutant reductions in toxic pound-equivalents. EPA estimates that the annualized cost of Option 1 and Option 2 are about $1.10 and $1.11 million (pre-tax, 1999 dollars), respectively, which represents approximately 9.4% of net income (as shown in Table IX.B-5). Using the closure methodology described in Section IX, there is a very small probability that there could be one facility closure out of sixteen facilities under either option: the probability of closure is 1.49% and 1.51%, respectively. EPA estimates that Option 1 achieves a reduction of 5 toxic pound-equivalents per year, and Option 2 achieves a reduction of 15.2 toxic pound-equivalents per year, resulting in a toxic cost-effectiveness of $129,000 per toxic pound-equivalent (in 1981 dollars) for Option 1 and $42,900 per toxic pound equivalent ($1981) for Option 2. Historically, EPA has evaluated BAT technology using a toxic cost-effectiveness value of $200/toxic pound-equivalents (in 1981 dollars). Therefore, EPA has determined that Options 1 and 2 are not cost-effective and are not economically achievable best available technology.

For existing small direct dischargers in the Subcategories F-I, the Agency found neither Option 1 nor Option 2 is the best practicable control technology, best conventional pollutant control technology, or best available technology economically achievable. Therefore, EPA is not revising BPT, BCT, or BAT limitations for existing small meat further processors. These facilities will remain subject to sections 432.60-432.90, as applicable.

b. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)

In 2002, EPA proposed not to revise the current new source performance standards for small facilities in Subcategories F-I (meat further processors). For the final rule, EPA has concluded that the data on these facilities is insufficient to determine if Option 1 or Option 2 technology would present a barrier to entry. In addition, the analysis of barrier to entry data for these subcategories was complicated by the fact that some facilities performing operations fitting within the scope of Subcategories F-I also perform operations that are regulated under Subcategory L (poultry further processors). (See Section IX for discussion of “mixed processors.”) EPA notes that its analysis of Options 1 and 2 as candidate BAT technologies for ammonia removal in these subcategories showed insignificant additional removals at extremely high cost (several orders of magnitude above its cost-effectiveness benchmark). While new facilities may be able to install technology at lower cost than existing facilities, it is unlikely that the costs would be low enough for the cost-effectiveness to approach a reasonable value. Finally, EPA also considered whether or not there were any new source performance standards currently in place when deciding whether to revise new source performance standards. There are current new source performance standards for these facilities which appear to be adequate. Therefore, EPA is not revising NSPS for new small meat further processors. New sources are subject to the current NSPS limitations in sections 432.65, 432.75, 432.85, and 432.95.

2. Meat Further Processors That Process More Than 50 Million Pounds Per Year (Non-Small)

a. Pollutants

For non-small facilities in Subcategories F-I, EPA is establishing limitations for total nitrogen for existing sources, correcting an error in the BAT limitation for ammonia, and establishing nitrogen and ammonia (as nitrogen) standards for new sources. EPA is not revising the current limitations (BPT/BCT) or new source performance standards (NSPS) for conventional pollutants and is not revising the current BAT limitations for ammonia (as nitrogen). The current regulations include production-based limitations and standards for these facilities for BOD, TSS, oil & grease, pH, and fecal coliforms for existing and new sources and a concentration-based limitation for ammonia (as nitrogen) for existing sources. As discussed in Section V.G, the new limitations and standards are concentration-based. The following sections discuss the technology bases EPA selected for the final rule for the non-small direct discharge facilities in Subcategories F-I.

b. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)

EPA established BPT for the meat further processors (Subcategories F-I) in 1975, based on biological treatment (

e.g.

, aerobic and anaerobic treatment) to control five conventional pollutants or pollutant parameters (BOD

5

, TSS, oil & grease, fecal coliforms, and pH). The current limitations for ammonia (as nitrogen) for non-small meat further processors are contained in BAT and not BPT (see Section VII.D.2.d for discussion of BAT options for ammonia removal). Therefore, this section does not discuss BPT limitations for ammonia (as nitrogen). In February 2002, EPA proposed new BPT limitations for chemical oxygen demand (COD) based on Option 2 in an effort to better reflect current BPT treatment technology for non-small meat further processing facilities (67 FR 8630; February 25, 2002). See Section V.B for discussion on why EPA is not establishing BPT limitations for COD in today's final rule.

EPA did not propose revising BPT limitations for conventional pollutants. (See Section VII.D.2.c on BCT for additional information on why EPA is not revising current limits for conventional pollutants for facilities in these subcategories.) Therefore, EPA is not revising the conventional pollutant limitations for non-small meat further processing facilities (Subcategories F-I) in today's final rule and such facilities will remain subject to the BPT limitations in sections 432.62, 432.72, 432.82, and 432.92.

c. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)

When deciding whether to adopt more stringent limitations for BCT than BPT, EPA considers technologies that might achieve greater removals of conventional pollutants than those adopted for BPT.

EPA is not promulgating new BPT effluent limitations for conventional parameters (

i.e.

, pH, BOD

5

, TSS, O&G, and fecal coliforms) for non-small meat further processors (Subcategories F-I). When considering a technology that would achieve greater removals of conventional pollutants than adopted for BPT, EPA compared the removals achievable through implementation of the Option 2 technology (which EPA considered as the possible technology basis for BCT) to current BPT limitations. EPA estimates that Option 2 removes approximately 21,700 pounds more per year of BOD

5

compared to conventional pollutant reductions by facilities meeting or exceeding current BPT limitations. There are no additional removals of TSS, O&G, or fecal coliforms.

EPA evaluated Option 2 under the BCT cost test and it failed (see EPA's Economic and Environmental Benefits Analysis for details on the Agency's analysis). EPA did not evaluate other technology options, such as Option 2 + F (Option 2 plus the addition of a filter), because they are more costly and do not remove significantly more conventional pollutants than Option 2. If Option 2 did not pass, these more expensive options would not pass the BCT cost test. The Agency did not identify any technologies that pass the BCT cost test and achieve greater removals of conventional pollutants than the current BPT technology. Thus, EPA is not revising the BCT limitations for these facilities. Non-small meat further processing facilities in Subcategories F-I will remain subject to the current BCT limitations (which are equivalent to the current BPT limitations for conventional pollutants) in sections 432.67, 432.77, 432.87, and 432.97.

d. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)

EPA proposed to establish the BAT level of regulatory control for non-small meat further processors (Subcategories F-I) based on Option 3 (

i.e.

, biological treatment, more complete denitrification, more complete nitrification, and disinfection). As discussed in the NODA, after review and evaluation of the revised and new data, EPA has reconsidered its assessment of Option 3 as BAT technology. EPA determined that Option 3 did not meet all the statutory criteria for BAT. The Agency refocused its evaluation for the technology basis for BAT on Option 2.5, Option 2.5+P, or Option 4 for nutrient removal (see Section VII.A of today's preamble for a description of the technology options). For the final rule, EPA is basing the BAT limitations for total nitrogen for these facilities on Option 2.5 technology and is promulgating a limitation for total nitrogen on this basis. EPA is not revising the current BAT limitation for ammonia (as nitrogen) except to correct a typographical error in the daily maximum limitation.

EPA evaluated whether revising the current BAT limitation for ammonia (as nitrogen) based on Option 2, Option 2.5, Option 2.5+P, or Option 4 treatment technologies could be supported. When evaluating revision of BAT for non-conventional pollutants that are not nutrients, EPA considers not only whether the technology option is available and economically achievable, but also whether it is best. EPA typically evaluates a technology's cost-effectiveness as a factor in its decision. When considering cost-effectiveness (except for nutrients), EPA typically looks at the costs of the additional pollutant reductions (in toxic pound-equivalents).

EPA has estimated the annualized cost of each technology option under review. The approximate annualized cost of the technology options ranged from $266,000 for Option 2 to $798,000 for Option 4 (pre-tax, 1999 dollars). Using the closure methodology described in Section IX, EPA projects that there would be a slight probability (0.5%) that at most one facility would close under any of the technology options. However, the average toxic cost-effectiveness numbers range from $8,000 per toxic pound-equivalent ($1981) for Option 2 to $18,400 per toxic pound-equivalent ($1981) for Option 4. These high values are due to the very minimal incremental reduction in toxic pound-equivalents: 19.4 toxic pound-equivalents/year for Options 2, 2.5, or 2.5+P and 25.3 toxic pound-equivalents/year for Option 4. EPA typically uses $200 per toxic pound-equivalents (in 1981 dollars) as an indication of cost-effectiveness for toxic pollutants. Therefore, EPA has determined that Options 2, 2.5, 2.5+P, and 4 are a not cost-effective basis for revising current ammonia (as nitrogen) limitations for non-small facilities in these subcategories when compared with those currently being achieved.

The following section describes EPA's rationale for selecting Option 2.5 technology and rejecting Option 2.5+P and Option 4 as the basis of BAT limitations for nutrients. EPA did not consider Option 2 for control of nutrients as it is not designed to reduce total nitrogen or total phosphorus. Both the proposal and the NODA contain detailed discussions explaining why EPA rejected setting BAT limitations based on other technology options (

see

67 FR 8629; February 2002 and 68 FR 48499; August 13, 2003). The record for today's final rule provides no basis for EPA to change these conclusions.

EPA selected Option 2.5 technology as the basis of BAT control for total nitrogen for non-small meat further processing facilities (Subcategories F-I) because it is demonstrated as available and is economically achievable. First, although no facilities in these subcategories use Option 2.5 technology, this technology has been demonstrated as available in all other subcategories of the MPP industry. EPA notes that it did not have any detailed survey respondents that are within the scope of Subcategories F-I and that based on its screener questionnaire database, EPA estimates only 4 non-small facilities in these subcategories. Based upon information collected from facilities in this subcategory who received screener surveys, all of the facilities are estimated to be currently achieving the LTA of Option 2.5 for total nitrogen.

Second, Option 2.5 is economically achievable. EPA estimates the pre-tax annualized compliance costs (in 1999 dollars) for Option 2.5 to be $329,000. These costs are conservative and may be overstated as they include costs for the components of Option 2.5 technology even at facilities where the effluent concentrations are below the LTA for Option 2.5. EPA chose to possibly overestimate costs in this subcategory because of the uncertainty regarding the numbers of facilities in these subcategories and lack of detailed information on their operations. This is due to the small number of screener survey respondents and the fact that EPA does not have any detailed survey respondents from these subcategories. In addition, EPA's finding of economic achievability in this rule is based on the estimated costs of implementing the components of the model technology, not on achieving the resulting limitations. Using the facility and company closure methodologies described in Section IX.A, EPA estimates a 0.2% probability of facility-level closure (

i.e.

, at most one facility closure).

EPA also considered the cost-effectiveness of nutrient removal when evaluating BAT options for this industry segment. However, as previously noted, all non-small meat further processing facilities (Subcategories F-I) in EPA's database are already achieving the Option 2.5 LTAs. Therefore, EPA estimates zero additional pounds removed per year of total nitrogen and could not calculate a nutrient cost-effectiveness for nitrogen.

Furthermore, there is the possibility that facilities in subcategories A-D that perform further processing may be at a competitive disadvantage if facilities in subcategories F-I do not have equivalent limits. In addition, EPA does not want to encourage companies to split their operations in order to be subject to lower limits.

EPA considered Option 2.5+P as the basis of BAT, but rejected it for the following reasons. First, no non-small meat further processing facilities in EPA's database use Option 2.5+P technology. Second, Option 2.5+P costs an additional $30,000 annually for no additional pollutant reductions when compared to Option 2.5, because all of the facilities in EPA's database were achieving LTAs for phosphorus much lower than the LTA for 2.5+P. Therefore, this technology does not appear to be cost-effective.

EPA considered Option 4 as the basis of BAT but did not select it due to the lack of availability of the technology option, the high increase in cost compared to Option 2.5, and the poor incremental nutrient cost-effectiveness (

i.e.

, the high cost to remove additional nutrients compared to Option 2.5+P).

EPA estimates that there are no facilities in subcategories F-I currently operating Option 4 technology. In addition, EPA estimates the pre-tax annualized compliance costs for Option 4 to be $798,000 (1999$), which is $469,000 more than Option 2.5. EPA estimates that Option 4 removes approximately 80,000 pounds per year of nitrogen and zero pounds per year of phosphorus. Using the facility and company closure methodologies described in Section IX.A, EPA estimates a 0.5% probability of facility-level closure (

i.e.

, at most one facility closure). Finally, EPA estimates the average nutrient cost-effectiveness for nitrogen to be $10.02 per pound of total nitrogen removed, while the incremental nitrogen cost-effectiveness relative to Option 2.5 is $5.89 per pound. Both of the figures are above the $4 per pound benchmark for nitrogen removal. Therefore, EPA does not consider Option 4 to be cost-effective.

e. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)

In 2002, EPA proposed to revise the current new source performance standards for non-small facilities in Subcategories F-I (meat further processors) based on Option 3 technology. EPA estimates only four non-small direct discharge meat further processing facilities, and therefore, has insufficient data on these facilities to determine if Options 2.5, 2.5+P, or 4 would present a barrier to entry. When deciding whether to promulgate revised new source performance standards, EPA also considers whether or not there are any new source performance standards currently in place. As discussed in Section VII.D.2.d, EPA is revising

existing source BAT limitations for non-small meat further processors based on Option 2.5 technology for total nitrogen and is not revising BAT limitations for ammonia (as nitrogen) (except to correct an error). Although there currently are new source performance standards for these facilities, they do not include limitations for total nitrogen or ammonia (as nitrogen). Therefore, for non-small meat further processors, EPA is setting NSPS for total nitrogen equivalent to the BAT limitations based on Option 2.5 and for ammonia (as nitrogen) based on Option 2 (because Option 2.5 does not provide any additional ammonia removal). EPA is not revising the current NSPS for conventional pollutants.

E. What Is the Basis for EPA's Selected Technology Options for Subcategory J (Independent Rendering)?

Currently section 432.101(b) defines a renderer subject to the guidelines limitations as “an independent or off-site rendering operation * * * which manufactures at rates greater than 75,000 pounds of raw material per day [or 19.5 million pounds per year based on 260 work days].” In 2002, EPA proposed to lower the production threshold to 10 million pounds per year based on a review of the available data at that time (

i.e.

, screener survey data). EPA selected the threshold to design model facilities for use in estimating costs, pollutant loadings, non-water quality impacts, and economic impacts for the proposed rule. EPA is promulgating this production threshold of 10 million pounds per year. There were no comments opposing this change in the threshold. Facilities that manufacture at rates less than or equal to 10 million pounds per year will remain out of the scope of Part 432, while facilities above the threshold will be covered by today's final regulation. EPA has not identified any additional direct discharging rendering facilities producing at rates between 10 million and 19.5 million pounds per year in its database.

1. Pollutants

For facilities in Subcategory J, EPA is establishing limitations and standards for total nitrogen for existing and new sources. EPA is not revising the current limitations (BPT/BCT) or new source performance standards (NSPS) for conventional pollutants and is not revising the current BAT limitations or NSPS for ammonia (as nitrogen). The current regulations include production-based limitations and standards for these facilities for BOD

5

, TSS, oil & grease (O&G), pH, fecal coliforms and ammonia (as nitrogen). As discussed in Section V.G, the new limitations and standards are concentration-based. The following sections discuss the technology bases EPA selected for the final rule for the direct discharge facilities in Subcategory J.

2. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)

EPA established BPT for Subcategory J (Renderers) in 1975, based on biological treatment (

e.g.

, aerobic and anaerobic treatment) to control five conventional pollutants or pollutant parameters (BOD

5

, TSS, oil & grease, fecal coliforms, and pH). The current limitations for ammonia (as nitrogen) for non-small meat further processors are contained in BAT and not BPT (see Section VII.E.4 for discussion of BAT options for ammonia removal). Therefore, this section does not discuss BPT limitations for ammonia (as nitrogen). In February 2002, EPA proposed new BPT limitations for chemical oxygen demand (COD) based on Option 2 in an effort to better reflect current BPT treatment technology for renderers (67 FR 8630; February 25, 2002). See Section V.B for discussion on why EPA is not establishing BPT limitations for COD in today's final rule.

EPA did not propose revising BPT limitations for conventional pollutants. (See Section VII.E.3 on BCT for additional information on why EPA is not revising current limits for conventional pollutants for facilities in this subcategory.) Therefore, EPA is not revising the conventional pollutant limitations for independent rendering facilities (Subcategory J) in today's final rule and such facilities will remain subject to the BPT limitations in section 432.102.

3. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)

In deciding whether to adopt more stringent limitations for BCT than BPT for facilities in subcategory J, EPA considered technologies that might achieve greater removals of conventional pollutants than those adopted for BPT. EPA also looked at whether those technologies are cost-reasonable under the standards established by the CWA. EPA generally refers to the decision criteria as the “BCT cost test.”

As discussed in Section VII.E.1, EPA is not promulgating new BPT effluent limitations for conventional parameters (

i.e.

, pH, BOD

5

, TSS, O&G, and fecal coliforms) for independent rendering facilities (Subcategory J). Therefore, when considering a technology that would achieve greater removals of conventional pollutants than adopted for BPT, EPA compared the removals achievable through implementation of the Option 2 technology (which EPA considered as the possible technology basis for BCT) to current BPT limitations. EPA estimates that Option 2 removes approximately 34,000 pounds more per year of BOD

5

compared to conventional pollutant reductions by facilities meeting or exceeding current BPT limitations. There are no additional removals of TSS, O&G, or fecal coliforms.

EPA evaluated Option 2 under the BCT cost test and it failed (see the Economic and Environmental Benefits Analysis for details on EPA's analysis). For the final rule, EPA did not evaluate other technology options, such as Option 2 + F (Option 2 plus the addition of a filter), because they are more costly and do not remove significantly more conventional pollutants than Option 2. Therefore, if Option 2 did not pass, these more expensive options would not pass the BCT cost test. The Agency did not identify any technologies that pass the BCT cost test and achieve greater removals of conventional pollutants than the current BPT technology. Thus, EPA is not revising the BCT limitations for these facilities. Independent rendering facilities in Subcategory J will remain subject to the current BCT limitations (which are equivalent to the current BPT limitations for conventional pollutants) in section 432.107.

4. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)

EPA proposed to establish the BAT level of regulatory control for independent renderers (Subcategory J) based on Option 2 and took comment on other options in the NODA. For the final rule, EPA is basing the BAT limitations for these facilities on Option 2.5 technology and is promulgating a limitation for total nitrogen on this basis. EPA is not revising the current BAT limitation for ammonia (as nitrogen).

EPA evaluated whether revising the current BAT limitation for ammonia (as nitrogen) based on Option 2, Option 2.5, Option 2.5+P, or Option 4 treatment technologies could be supported. When evaluating revision of BAT for non-conventional pollutants that are not nutrients, EPA not only considers whether the technology option is available and economically achievable, but also whether it is best. EPA typically evaluates a technology's cost-effectiveness as a factor in its decision. When considering cost-effectiveness (except for nutrients), EPA typically

evaluates the additional pollutant reductions (in toxic pound-equivalents).

EPA has estimated the annualized cost of each technology option under review. The approximate annualized cost of the technology options ranged from $628,000 for Option 2 to $10.2 million for Option 4 (pre-tax, 1999 dollars). Using the closure methodology described in Section IX, there is a slight probability (no more than 3.3%) that there could be one facility closure under Options 2, 2.5, and 2.5+P and one closure under Option 4. However, the average toxic cost-effectiveness numbers range from $4,100 per toxic pound-equivalent ($1981) for Option 2 to $29,000 per toxic pound-equivalent ($1981) for Option 4. These high values are due to the very minimal incremental reduction in toxic pound-equivalents (

i.e.

, 90 toxic pound-equivalents/year for Option 2, 2.5, or 2.5+P and 205 toxic pound-equivalents/year for Option 4) and the high incremental cost. EPA typically uses $200 per toxic pound-equivalents (in 1981 dollars) as an indication of cost-effectiveness for toxic pollutants. Therefore, EPA has determined that Options 2, 2.5, 2.5+P, and 4 are a not cost-effective basis for revising current ammonia (as nitrogen) limitations for independent renderers in Subcategory J when compared with those currently being achieved.

The following section describes EPA's rationale for selecting Option 2.5 technology and rejecting Option 2.5+P and Option 4 as the basis of BAT limitations for nutrients. EPA did not consider Option 2 for control of nutrients as it is no

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.