Clean Water Act Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Point Source Category, 4474-4537 [2023-28498]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
4474
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 432
[EPA–HQ–OW–2021–0736; FRL–8885–01–
OW]
RIN 2040–AG22
Clean Water Act Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Meat
and Poultry Products Point Source
Category
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of
public hearing.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA or the Agency) is
proposing a regulation to revise the
technology-based effluent limitations
guidelines and standards (ELGs) for the
meat and poultry products (MPP) point
source category. The proposed rule
would improve water quality and
protect human health and the
environment by reducing the discharge
of nutrients and other pollutants to the
nation’s surface waters. EPA is
proposing several regulatory options,
including the preferred option
discussed in this notice. The preferred
option is estimated to cost $232 million
annually and reduce pollutant
discharges by approximately 100
million pounds per year.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before March 25, 2024.
Public hearing: EPA will hold two
public hearings about this proposed rule
on January 24, 2024 and January 31,
2024. Visit EPA’s website at https://
www.epa.gov/eg/meat-and-poultryproducts-effluent-guidelines-2024proposed-rule for additional
information about the public hearings
and for any potential changes to the
public hearing schedule.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OW–2021–0736, by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov/ (our
preferred method). Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center,
Office of Water Docket, Mail Code
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20460.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: EPA
Docket Center, WJC West Building,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket
Center’s hours of operations are 8:30
a.m.–4:30 p.m., Monday–Friday (except
Federal Holidays).
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the Docket ID No. for this
rulemaking. Comments received may be
posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov/, including any
personal information provided. For
detailed instructions on sending
comments and additional information
on the rulemaking process, see the
‘‘Public Participation’’ heading of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steve Whitlock, Engineering and
Analysis Division, Office of Water
(4303T), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number: 202–566–1541; email address:
Whitlock.Steve@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble Acronyms and
Abbreviations. EPA uses multiple
acronyms and terms in this preamble.
While this list may not be exhaustive, to
ease the reading of this preamble and for
reference purposes, EPA defines terms
and acronyms used in Appendix A of
this preamble.
Supporting Documentation. The
proposed rule is supported by several
documents, including:
• Technical Development Document
for Proposed Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Meat
and Poultry Products Point Source
Category (TDD), Document No. 821–R–
23–011. This report summarizes the
technical and engineering analyses
supporting the proposed rule including
cost methodologies, pollutant removal
estimates, non-water quality
environmental impacts, and calculation
of the proposed effluent limitations.
• Environmental Assessment
Analysis for Proposed Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards
for the Meat and Poultry Products Point
Source Category (EA Report), Document
No. 821–R–23–012. This report
summarizes the potential environmental
and human health impacts estimated to
result from implementation of the
proposed rule. The report also describes
the environmental justice analysis
conducted.
• Benefit and Cost Analysis for
Proposed Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Meat
and Poultry Products Point Source
Category (BCA Report), Document No.
821–R–23–013. This report summarizes
the societal benefits and costs estimated
to result from implementation of the
proposed rule.
• Regulatory Impact Analysis for
Proposed Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Meat
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
and Poultry Products Point Source
Category (RIA), Document No. 821–R–
23–014. This report presents a profile of
the MPP industry, a summary of
estimated costs and impacts associated
with the proposed rule, and an
assessment of the potential impacts on
employment and small businesses.
• Docket Index for the Proposed
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards for the Meat and Poultry
Products Point Source Category. This
document provides a list of the
additional memoranda, references, and
other information EPA relied on for the
proposed revisions to the MPP ELGs.
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of Rule
B. Summary of Proposed Rule
II. Public Participation
III. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. What action is the Agency taking?
C. What is the Agency’s authority for
taking this action?
D. What are the incremental costs and
benefits of this action?
IV. Background
A. Clean Water Act
B. Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards
1. Best Practicable Control Technology
Currently Available (BPT)
2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control
Technology (BCT)
3. Best Available Technology Economically
Achievable (BAT)
4. Best Available Demonstrated Control
Technology (BADCT) for New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS)
5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing
Sources (PSES)
6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources
(PSNS)
C. Actions Leading to Revisions to the
Meat and Poultry Products Rule
1. National Review of Nutrient Discharges
From Industrial Sources
2. Detailed Study of Meat and Poultry
Products
3. Announcement of Rule in Preliminary
Effluent Guidelines Plan 15
4. Litigation and Consent Decree
V. Meat and Poultry Products Industry
Description
A. General Description of Industry
B. Control and Treatment Technologies
1. Conventional Pollutant Removal
2. Biological/Organic Pollutant Removal
3. Phosphorus Removal
4. Pathogen Removal
5. Chlorides Removal
6. Solids Handling
VI. Data Collection
A. Information From the Meat and Poultry
Products Industry
1. Survey
2. Stakeholder Meetings and Outreach
B. Economic Data
1. Facility and Firm-Level Economic Data
2. Industry and Sector-Level Economic
Data
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
C. Other Data Sources
1. Site Visits
2. Wastewater Sampling
VII. Proposed Regulation
A. Description of the Options
B. Proposed Changes to Subcategories
C. Rationale for the Preferred Option
(Option 1)
1. Direct Discharging Facilities (BAT)
a. Availability of Nitrogen and Phosphorus
Removal Technologies
b. Economic Achievability of Nitrogen and
Phosphorus Removal
c. Non-Water Quality Environmental
Impacts of Nitrogen and Phosphorus
Removal
2. Indirect Discharging Facilities (PSES/
PSNS)
a. BAT Rationale for PSES/PSNS for
Nutrients
b. BPT/BCT Rationale for PSES/PSNS for
Conventional Pollutant
c. Technological Availability
d. Costs of Conventional Pollutants
Removal (BPT/BCT)
e. Non-Water Quality Environmental
Impacts (BPT/BCT)
D. Rationale for Other Regulatory Options
Proposed (Options 2 and 3)
E. Rationale for Rejecting Options 2 and 3
as the Preferred Option
F. Additional Provisions
G. Small Business Considerations From the
Small Business Advocacy Review Panel
VIII. Costs, BPT Wholly Disproportionate
Cost Test, Economic Achievability, and
Other Economic Impacts
A. BPT Wholly Disproportionate Cost Test
B. BCT Cost Test
C. Economic Achievability Analysis for
BAT
1. Facility Closure Analysis (BAT)
2. BAT Cost-to-Revenue Analyses
D. Other Economic Analyses
1. Facility Closure Analysis
2. Facility and Firm Level Cost-to-Revenue
Analyses
3. Market Effects
4. Employment Effects
5. Chlorides Removal Costs and Impacts
IX. Pollutant Loadings
A. Estimate of Existing Industry Pollutant
Discharges
B. Summary of Incremental Changes of
Pollutant Loadings From Regulatory
Options
X. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts
A. Energy Requirements
B. Air Pollution
C. Solid Waste Generation
XI. Environmental Assessment
A. Introduction
B. Summary of Environmental and Human
Health Impacts
C. Environmental Assessment
Methodology
D. Results From the Environmental
Assessment
1. Improvements in Surface Water Quality
2. Improvements to Vulnerable Species
Habitats
3. Human Health Impact Improvements
XII. Benefits Analysis
A. Categories of Benefits Analyzed
B. Quantification and Monetization of
Benefits
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
1. Human Health Effects From Surface
Water Quality Changes
2. Ecological Condition and Recreational
Use Effects From Changes in Surface
Water Quality Improvements
3. Changes in Air Quality Related Effects
4. Other Quantified and/or Monetized
Benefits
C. Total Monetized Benefits
D. Non-Monetized Benefits
XIII. Environmental Justice Impacts
A. Literature Review
B. Screening Analysis
C. Community Outreach
D. Distribution of Benefits
1. Drinking Water Quality
2. Fisher Population
E. Results of the Analysis
XIV. Development of Effluent Limitations
and Standards
A. Criteria Used To Select Data as the Basis
for the Limitations and Standards
B. Data Selection for Each Technology
Option
XV. Regulatory Implementation
A. Implementation of New Limitations and
Standards
B. Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements
C. Applicability of PSNS/NSPS
Requirements
XVI. Related Acts of Congress, E.O.s, and
Agency Initiatives
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory
Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. E.O. 13132: Federalism
F. E.O. 13175: Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
G. E.O. 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks
H. E.O. 13211: Actions That Significantly
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
J. E.O. 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income
Populations; Executive Order 14096
Revitalizing Our Nation’s Commitment
to Environmental Justice for All
Appendix A to the Preamble: Definitions,
Acronyms, and Abbreviations Used in
This Preamble
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of Rule
EPA is proposing revisions to a
regulation that would apply to
wastewater discharges from meat and
poultry products (MPP) facilities. The
MPP industry discharges large
quantities of nutrients, such as nitrogen
and phosphorus, that enter the Nation’s
waters. Nutrient pollution is one of the
most widespread, costly, and
challenging environmental problems
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4475
impacting water quality in the United
States. Excessive nitrogen and
phosphorus in surface water can lead to
a variety of problems, including
eutrophication and harmful algal
blooms, that have negative impacts on
human health and the environment.
EPA reported in Preliminary Effluent
Guidelines Program Plan 15
(Preliminary Plan 15. USEPA. 2021.
EPA–821–R–21–003) that the MPP
industry discharges the highest
phosphorus levels and second highest
nitrogen levels of all industrial
categories.
The MPP industry has an estimated
5,055 facilities across the country that
engage in meat and/or poultry slaughter,
further processing, and/or rendering.
Proposed requirements would reduce
the amount of nutrients and other
pollutants discharged from the MPP
industry, both directly into waters of the
United States under state or EPA-issued
NPDES permits and indirectly via
sanitary sewers or transport to and
through municipal sewage treatment
plants, also known as Publicly Owned
Treatment Works (POTWs). Importantly,
this rule would advance progress on
environmental justice goals.
EPA initially promulgated the MPP
ELGs in 1974 and amended the
regulation in 2004. It currently applies
only to direct dischargers (those that
discharge directly to a water of the
United States), and only to about 150 of
the 5,055 MPP facilities in the industry.
Phosphorus is not regulated under the
current ELGs. Pollutants in the
wastewater from MPP indirect
dischargers, which are not currently
regulated by the ELGs, can interfere
with or pass through POTWs. Research
also shows communities near MPP
facilities are likely to experience
multiple environmental stressors, and in
these communities, minority and lowincome percentiles exceed national
averages. Additionally, some MPP
facilities are already using available and
affordable technologies that can be used
at additional facilities nationwide to
reduce pollutant discharges from the
MPP industry.
EPA is considering a range of options
in this rulemaking. The options include
more stringent effluent limitations on
total nitrogen, new effluent limitations
on total phosphorus, updated effluent
limitations for other pollutants, new
pretreatment standards for indirect
dischargers, and revised production
thresholds for some of the subcategories
in the existing rule. EPA is also
requesting comment on potential
effluent limitations on chlorides for
high chloride waste streams,
establishing effluent limitations for E.
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
4476
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
coli for direct dischargers, and including
conditional limits for indirect
dischargers that discharge to POTWs
that remove nutrients to the extent that
would be required under the proposed
pretreatment standards in certain
regulatory options. Each option would
result in different levels of pollutant
reduction and costs.
EPA is proposing a preferred
regulatory option (described in section
VII below) and seeking comment on the
other options. EPA estimates the
preferred regulatory option (Option 1)
would reduce pollutant discharges by
approximately 100 million pounds per
year. EPA predicts the preferred
regulatory option would result in
environmental and ecological
improvements, including reduced
adverse impacts to wildlife and human
health.
EPA estimates that the proposed rule
based on the preferred regulatory option
will cost $232 million per year in social
costs and result in $90 million per year
in monetized benefits using a 3 percent
discount rate and $227 million per year
in social costs and result in $85 million
per year in monetized benefits using a
7 percent discount rate. The benefit
numbers are based on modeling water
quality improvements in five regional
water basins and then extrapolating the
benefits results from those basins to
remainder of the country.1 The benefit
estimates also include the national
effects of increased air pollution and
greenhouse gas emissions under the
rule.
Not all costs and benefits can be fully
quantified and monetized, and
importantly, EPA anticipates the
proposed rule would also generate
important unquantified benefits (e.g.,
improved habitat conditions for plants,
invertebrates, fish, amphibians, and the
wildlife that prey on aquatic organisms).
Furthermore, while some health benefits
and willingness to pay for water quality
improvements have been quantified and
monetized, those estimates may not
fully capture all important water
quality-related benefits.
B. Summary of Proposed Rule
EPA proposes to revise the ELGs for
the MPP industry based on Best
Practicable Control Technology
Currently Available (BPT), Best
Conventional Pollutant Control
Technology (BCT), Best Available
Technology Economically Achievable
1 See Section 3 of the Benefit and Costs Analysis
for descriptions of the water quality modeling and
monetized benefit calculations. See Appendix E of
the Benefit and Costs Analysis for descriptions of
the approach for extrapolating the regional water
quality benefits to the rest of the country.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
(BAT), Best Available Demonstrated
Control Technology (BADCT) for New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS),
Pretreatment Standards for Existing
Sources (PSES), and Pretreatment
Standards for New Sources (PSNS).
BPT, BCT, and BAT would apply to
existing facilities that directly discharge
to waters of the U.S. BADCT/NSPS
would apply to new sources that
directly discharge to waters of the U.S.
PSES and PSNS would apply to existing
and new sources, respectively, that
discharge indirectly via POTWs.
EPA is proposing three regulatory
options that build on the current MPP
ELGs. Option 1, which is EPA’s
preferred regulatory option in this
proposed rule, would include new
phosphorus limits and revised nitrogen
limits 2 for large direct dischargers and
new pretreatment standards on certain
conventional pollutants for large
indirect dischargers. Here, large refers to
the existing production thresholds in
the current MPP ELGs. Option 2 would
include the requirements in Option 1
and add nutrient limits for indirect
discharging first processors and
renderers above specified production
thresholds. Option 3 would be similar to
Option 2 but with lower production
thresholds for the nutrient limits and
conventional pollutant limits for both
direct and indirect dischargers. In
contrast to Options 1 and 2, Option 3
would use lower production thresholds
than those in the existing rule. All three
options would minimize impacts to
small firms, based on the impact
thresholds described in EPA’s
Regulatory Flexibility Act guidance for
assessing impacts to small firms in
terms of a cost to revenue ratio. While
Option 3 includes limits for more
facilities than Options 1 and 2, it is
similarly structured to avoid significant
impacts to small firms. Option 3 would
achieve the greatest amount of pollutant
reductions of the three options. Option
3 would also simplify the existing rule
by utilizing the same size thresholds for
all subcategories. For example, total
phosphorus limits would apply to direct
discharging facilities in all subcategories
producing greater than or equal to 10
million pounds per year under Option
3. Under Options 2 and 3, EPA also
proposes to include ‘‘conditional
limits,’’ which would allow an
exemption from nutrient pretreatment
standards for indirect dischargers that
are discharging to POTWs that have
2 The terms nitrogen and phosphorus refer to total
nitrogen and total phosphorus throughout this
document.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
nutrient removal capabilities that result
in equivalent nutrient removal.
The following discussion is organized
by discharge type (direct or indirect)
and by facility status (existing or new):
Direct Discharges From Existing Sources
Options 1 and 2: BAT would include
new phosphorus effluent limitations
based on chemical removal and more
stringent nitrogen effluent limitations
based on biological treatment to achieve
full denitrification. BCT and BPT for the
conventional pollutants (biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended
solids (TSS), oil & grease, pH) limits
would remain unchanged from the
current MPP ELG. These limits would
apply to direct discharging facilities
based on the same production
thresholds as the existing rule: 50
million pounds per year of finished
product produced for meat further
processors (Subcategories F–I), 50
million pounds per year of live weight
killed (LWK) for meat slaughtering
(Subcategories A–D), 100 million
pounds per year of LWK for poultry
slaughtering (Subcategories K), 7
million pounds of finished product per
year for poultry further processors
(Subcategory L), and 10 million pounds
per year of raw material processed for
renderers (Subcategory J). The limits for
facilities in Subcategory E would not be
changed.
Option 3: BAT would include the
same BAT requirements as Option 1,
with lower production thresholds for
applicability. Specifically, BAT would
include new phosphorus effluent
limitations based on chemical removal
for facilities in all subcategories that are
producing greater than or equal to 10
million pounds per year. Additionally,
BAT would include new and/or more
stringent nitrogen limits based on
biological treatment to achieve full
denitrification for facilities in all
subcategories producing greater than or
equal to 20 million pounds per year.
BAT for ammonia as N limits and BCT
and BPT limits for conventional
pollutants (BOD, TSS, oil & grease, fecal
coliform, pH) limits would remain
unchanged from the current MPP ELGs.
The limits for facilities in Subcategory
E would not be changed.
Indirect Discharges to POTWs From
Existing Sources
Option 1: PSES would include new
conventional pollutant limits based on
BPT and BCT limits for BOD, TSS, and
oil & grease based on screening and
dissolved air flotation (DAF)
technology. Under this option,
pretreatment standards would apply to
facilities producing greater than: 50
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
4477
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
million pounds per year of finished
product for meat further processors
(Subcategories F–I), 50 million pounds
per year of LWK for meat slaughtering
(Subcategories A–D), 100 million
pounds per year of LWK for poultry
slaughtering (Subcategory K), 7 million
pounds per year of finished product for
poultry further processors (Subcategory
L), and 10 million pounds per year of
raw material processed by renderers
(Subcategory J). No new PSES based on
pretreatment standards for nitrogen and
phosphorus would be established under
Option 1.
Option 2: Option 2 would include the
same PSES requirements for
conventional pollutants as Option 1.
Additionally, PSES would include new
pretreatment standards based on BAT
for phosphorus based on chemical
removal and new nitrogen pretreatment
standards based on biological treatment
to achieve full denitrification. The
nitrogen and phosphorus PSES
requirements would include facilities
with production thresholds greater than
or equal to: 200 million pounds per year
of LWK for meat slaughtering
(Subcategories A–D), 200 million
pounds per year of LWK for poultry
slaughtering (Subcategory K), and 350
million pounds per year processed by
renderers (Subcategory J).
Option 3: Option 3 would include the
same PSES requirements as Option 2,
with lower production thresholds for
applicability. Specifically, PSES would
include new conventional pollutant
pretreatment standards based on BPT/
BCT for BOD, TSS, and oil & grease
based on screening and DAF techniques
for all indirect MPP facilities producing
greater than 5 million pounds per year.
Additionally, PSES would include new
phosphorus and nitrogen pretreatment
standards based on BAT for all indirect
MPP facilities producing greater than 30
million pounds per year.
Direct Discharges From New Sources
Under all options, NSPS based on
BADCT would be equal to BAT, BPT,
and BCT. Thus, Options 1, 2 and 3
would contain the same requirements
for existing and new direct discharging
facilities.
Indirect Discharges From New Sources
Under all options, PSNS would be
equal to PSES. Thus, Options 1, 2, and
3 would contain the same requirements
for existing and new indirect
discharging facilities.
Additional details about the proposed
ELGs are described in Section VII of this
preamble.
II. Public Participation
Submit your comments, identified by
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2021–
0736, at https://www.regulations.gov
(our preferred method), or the other
methods identified in the ADDRESSES
section. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from the
docket. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not
submit to EPA’s docket at https://
www.regulations.gov any information
you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI), Proprietary
Business Information (PBI), or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. EPA will generally not consider
comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e.,
on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). Please visit https://
www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epadockets for additional submission
methods; the full EPA public comment
policy; information about CBI, PBI, or
multimedia submissions; and general
guidance on making effective
comments.
III. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Entities potentially regulated by any
final rule following this action include:
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
TABLE III–1
North American
Industry
Classification
System
(NAICS) Code
Category
Example of regulated entity
Industry ....................................................
Facilities engaged in slaughtering, further processing, or rendering of meat and
poultry products, which may include the following sectors:
Meat Packing Plants ................................................................................................
Animal (except Poultry) Slaughtering ......................................................................
Meat Processed from Carcasses ............................................................................
Sausages and Other Prepared Meat Products .......................................................
Poultry Slaughtering and Processing ......................................................................
Meat & Meat Product Wholesalers ..........................................................................
Poultry Processing ...................................................................................................
Rendering and Meat By-Product Processing ..........................................................
Support Activities for Animal Production .................................................................
Prepared Feed and Feed Ingredients for Animals and Fowls, Except Dogs and
Cats.
Dog and Cat Food Manufacturing ...........................................................................
Other Animal Food Manufacturing ..........................................................................
All Other Miscellaneous Food Manufacturing .........................................................
Animal and Marine Fats and Oils ............................................................................
Livestock Services, Except Veterinary ....................................................................
This table is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
regulated by this action. This table
includes the types of entities that the
EPA is now aware could potentially be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
regulated by this action. Other types of
entities not included could also be
regulated. To determine whether your
entity is regulated by this action, you
should carefully examine the
applicability criteria found in 40 CFR
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
31161
311611
311612
311612
311615
422470
311615
311613
11521
311119
311111
311119
311999
311613
311611
432.1, 432.10, 432.20, 432.30, 432.40,
432.50, 432.60, 432.70, 432.80, 432.90,
432.100, 432.110, and 432.120 and the
definitions in 40 CFR 432.2. If you have
questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
4478
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
B. What action is the Agency taking?
The Agency is proposing to revise the
existing MPP ELGs and is soliciting
comment on possible revisions and
additions to the ELGs for existing and
new sources in the MPP point source
category.
C. What is the Agency’s authority for
taking this action?
EPA is proposing to promulgate this
rule under the authority of sections 301,
304, 306, 307, 308, 402, and 501 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1311,
1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342, and 1361.
D. What are the incremental costs and
benefits of this action?
This proposed action is estimated to
cost $232 million per year in social
costs and result in $90 million per year
in monetized benefits using a 3 percent
discount rate and $227 million per year
in social costs and result in $85 million
per year in monetized benefits using a
7 percent discount rate. The current
benefit numbers reflect the national
effects of increased air pollution and
greenhouse gas emissions under the
rule. EPA also expects that there will be
additional non-monetized benefits that
result from the proposed action. See the
Benefits Cost Analysis for additional
information on monetization and
quantification of health, ecological,
market, and economic productivity
benefits.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
IV. Background
A. Clean Water Act
Congress passed the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972, also known as the Clean Water
Act (‘‘CWA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’), to ‘‘restore
and maintain the chemical, physical,
and biological integrity of the Nation’s
waters’’ (33 U.S.C. 1251(a)). The CWA
establishes a comprehensive program
for protecting our nation’s waters.
Among its core provisions, the CWA
prohibits the discharge of pollutants
from a point source to waters of the
United States (WOTUS), except as
authorized under the CWA. Under
section 402 of the CWA, discharges may
be authorized through a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit. The CWA establishes a
two-pronged approach for these permits:
technology-based controls that establish
the floor of performance for all
dischargers, and water quality-based
limits where the technology-based
limits are insufficient for the discharge
to meet applicable water quality
standards. To serve as the basis for the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
technology-based controls, the CWA
authorizes EPA to establish nationally
applicable, technology-based effluent
limitations guidelines and new source
performance standards for discharges
from different categories of point
sources, such as industrial, commercial,
and public sources.
Direct dischargers must comply with
effluent limitations in NPDES permits.
Technology-based effluent limitations in
NPDES permits are derived from
effluent limitations guidelines (CWA
sections 301(b) and 304, 33 U.S.C.
1311(b) and 1314) and new source
performance standards (CWA section
306, 33 U.S.C. 1316) promulgated by
EPA, or based on best professional
judgment (BPJ) where EPA has not
promulgated an applicable effluent
limitations guideline or new source
performance standard (CWA section
402(a)(1)(B), 33 U.S.C. 1342(a)(1)(B); 40
CFR 125.3(c)). The effluent limitations
guidelines and new source performance
standards established by regulation for
categories of industrial dischargers are
based on the degree of control that can
be achieved using various levels of
pollution control technology, as
specified in the Act.
The CWA also authorizes EPA to
promulgate nationally applicable
pretreatment standards that restrict
pollutant discharges from categories of
indirect dischargers (i.e., facilities that
introduce wastewater to POTWs), as
outlined in CWA sections 307(b) and
(c), and 304(g) (33 U.S.C. 1317(b) and
(c), and 1314(g)). EPA establishes
national categorical pretreatment
standards for those pollutants in
wastewater from indirect dischargers
that may pass through, interfere with, or
are otherwise incompatible with POTW
operations (CWA section 307(b), 33
U.S.C. 1317(b)). Generally, in
determining whether pollutants pass
through a POTW when considering the
establishment of categorical
pretreatment standards, EPA compares
the percentage of pollutant removed by
typical POTWs achieving secondary
treatment with the percentage of the
pollutant removed by facilities meeting
the candidate technology basis (e.g.,
BPT or BAT) (46 FR 9408, 9416 (Jan. 28,
1981)). A pollutant is deemed to pass
through a POTW when the average
percentage removed by well-operated
POTWs performing secondary treatment
is less than the average percentage
removed by direct dischargers operating
the BPT/BAT technology basis.
Pretreatment standards are designed to
ensure that wastewaters from direct and
indirect industrial dischargers are
subject to similar levels of treatment
(CWA section 301(b) and 33 U.S.C.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1311(b). The legislative history of the
1977 CWA amendments explains that
pretreatment standards are technologybased and analogous to technologybased effluent limitations for direct
dischargers. As further explained in the
legislative history, the combination of
pretreatment and treatment by the
POTW is intended to achieve the level
of treatment that would be required if
the industrial source were making a
direct discharge (Conf. Rep. No. 95–830,
at 87 (1977), reprinted in U.S. Congress,
Senate Committee on Public Works
(1978), A Legislative History of the CWA
of 1977, Serial No. 95–14 at 271 (1978)).
For categorical pretreatment standards,
EPA’s approach for passthrough satisfies
two competing objectives set by
Congress: (1) That standards for indirect
dischargers be equivalent to standards
for direct dischargers; and (2) that the
treatment capability and performance of
the POTWs be recognized and taken
into account in regulating the discharge
of pollutants from indirect dischargers
(CWA sections 301(b)(1)(A) and
301(b)(1)(E) (33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(1)(A) and
1311(b)(1)(E)). In addition, POTWs are
required to implement local treatment
limits applicable to their industrial
indirect dischargers to satisfy any local
requirements (40 CFR 403.5).
EPA promulgates national ELGs for
major industrial categories for three
classes of pollutants: (1) Conventional
pollutants (i.e., BOD, TSS, oil & grease,
fecal coliform, and pH), as outlined in
CWA section 304(a)(4) (33 U.S.C.
1314(a)(4) and 40 CFR 401.16); (2) toxic
pollutants (e.g., toxic metals such as
arsenic, mercury, selenium, and
chromium; toxic organic pollutants such
as benzene, benzo-a-pyrene, phenol, and
naphthalene), as outlined in CWA
section 307(a) (33 U.S.C. 1317(a), 40
CFR 401.15, and 40 CFR 423 appendix
A); and (3) nonconventional pollutants,
which are those pollutants that are not
categorized as conventional or toxic
(e.g., ammonia-N, nitrogen, phosphorus,
and total dissolved solids (TDS)).
B. Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards (ELGs)
EPA develops ELGs that are
technology-based regulations for a
category of dischargers. EPA bases these
regulations on performance of control
and treatment technologies in light of
the factors specified in CWA section
304(b) and 306 (33 U.S.C. 1314(b),
1316), but after the limitations and
standards are established, dischargers
may use any technology that meets the
limitations and standards. The
legislative history of CWA section
304(b) (33 U.S.C. 1314(b)), which is the
heart of the effluent guidelines program,
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
describes the need to press toward
higher levels of control through research
and development of new processes,
modifications, replacement of obsolete
plants and processes, and other
improvements in technology, taking into
account the cost of controls. Congress
has also stated that EPA does not
consider water quality impacts on
individual water bodies as the
guidelines are developed (Statement of
Senator Muskie, October 4, 1972,
reprinted in A Legislative History of the
Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972, at 170. (U.S.
Senate, Committee on Public Works,
Serial No. 93–1, January 1973);
Southwestern Elec. Power Co. v. EPA,
920 F.3d at 1005, ‘‘The Administrator
must require industry, regardless of a
discharge’s effect on water quality, to
employ defined levels of technology to
meet effluent limitations.’’ (citations
and internal quotations omitted). CWA
sections 304(b), 304(g), and 306(b) (33
U.S.C. 1314(b), 1314(g) and 1316(b))
authorize revision of ELGs where
appropriate.
The CWA specifies four types of
technology-based ELGs applicable to
direct dischargers and two types of
pretreatment standards applicable to
indirect dischargers, referred to
collectively as ‘‘effluent limitations
guidelines and standards (ELGs)’’. These
ELGs are summarized below.
1. Best Practicable Control Technology
Currently Available (BPT)
For existing direct dischargers, the
Act specifies two increasingly-stringent
levels of control. The first level of
control, BPT, applies to all pollutants
(conventional, toxic, and
nonconventional pollutants).
Traditionally, as is consistent with the
statute, its legislative history and
caselaw, EPA defines ‘‘currently
available’’ based on the average of the
best performance of facilities within the
industry, grouped to reflect various
ages, sizes, processes, or other common
characteristics (Chem. Mfrs. Assn. v.
EPA, 870 F.2d 177, 207–208 (1989)).
The statute specifies a number of factors
for consideration in establishing or
revising BPT: the cost of achieving
effluent reductions in relation to the
effluent reduction benefits, the age of
equipment and facilities, the processes
employed, the engineering aspects of
the control technologies, process
changes, non-water quality
environmental impacts (including
energy requirements), and such other
factors as the Administrator deems
appropriate (CWA section 304(b)(1)(B),
33 U.S.C. 1314(b)(1)(B)). If, however,
existing performance is uniformly
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
inadequate, EPA may establish
limitations based on higher levels of
control than what is currently in place
in an industrial category, based on an
Agency determination that the
technology is available in another
category or subcategory and can be
practicably applied.
2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control
Technology (BCT)
BCT represents the second level of
stringency for controlling discharge of
conventional pollutants. In addition to
other factors specified in CWA section
304(b)(4)(B) (33 U.S.C. 1314(b)(4)(B)),
the CWA requires that EPA establish
BCT limitations after consideration of a
two-part ‘‘cost-reasonableness’’ test.
EPA explained its methodology for the
development of BCT limitations in July
1986 (51 FR 24974 (July 9, 1986)). The
Act designates the following as
conventional pollutants: BOD, TSS,
fecal coliform, pH, and any additional
pollutants defined by the Administrator
as conventional (CWA section 304(a)(4);
33 U.S.C. 1314(a)(4)). The Administrator
designated oil & grease as an additional
conventional pollutant (44 FR 44501
(July 30, 1979) and 40 CFR 401.16).
3. Best Available Technology
Economically Achievable (BAT)
BAT represents the second level of
stringency for controlling discharge of
toxic and nonconventional pollutants
(including nutrients). Courts have
referred to this as the CWA’s ‘‘gold
standard’’ for controlling discharges
from existing sources (Southwestern
Elec. Power Co. v. EPA, 920 F.3d at
1003). In general, BAT represents the
best available, economically achievable
performance of facilities in the
industrial subcategory or category,
considering the factors specified in
CWA section 304(b) (33 U.S.C. 1314(b)).
As the statutory phrase intends, EPA
considers the technological availability
and economic achievability in
determining what level of control
represents BAT (CWA section
301(b)(2)(A), 33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(2)(A)).
The statute specifies a number of factors
for consideration in establishing or
revising BAT: the cost of achieving BAT
effluent reductions, the age of
equipment and facilities involved, the
process employed, potential process
changes, and non-water quality
environmental impacts, including
energy requirements, and such other
factors as the Administrator deems
appropriate (CWA Section 304(b)(2)(B),
33 U.S.C. 1314(b)(2)(B)). The Agency
retains considerable discretion in
assigning the weight to be accorded
these factors (Weyerhaeuser Co. v.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4479
Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1045 (D.C. Cir.
1978)). EPA usually determines
economic achievability based on the
effect of the cost of compliance with
BAT limitations on overall industry and
subcategory financial conditions (Chem.
Mfrs. Assn. v. EPA, 870 F.2d 177, 251–
52 (5th Cir. 1988)).
BAT reflects the highest performance
in the industry and may reflect a higher
level of performance than is currently
being achieved based on technology
transferred from a different subcategory
or category, bench scale or pilot plant
studies, or foreign plants (Southwestern
Elec. Power Co. v. EPA, 920 F.3d at
1006; American Paper Inst. v. Train, 543
F.2d 328, 353 (D.C. Cir. 1976); American
Frozen Food Inst. v. Train, 539 F.2d
107, 132 (D.C. Cir. 1976)). BAT may be
based upon process changes or internal
controls, even when these technologies
are not common industry practice
(American Frozen Foods, 539 F.2d at
132, 140; Reynolds Metals Co. v. EPA,
760 F.2d 549, 562 (4th Cir. 1985);
California & Hawaiian Sugar Co. v.
EPA, 553 F.2d 280, 285–88 (2nd Cir.
1977)).
4. New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS)
NSPS reflect effluent reductions that
are achievable based on BADCT.
Owners of new sources have the
opportunity to install the best and most
efficient production processes and
wastewater treatment technologies. As a
result, NSPS should represent the most
stringent controls attainable through the
application of the BADCT for all
pollutants (that is, conventional,
nonconventional, and toxic pollutants).
In establishing NSPS, EPA is directed to
take into consideration the cost of
achieving the effluent reduction and any
non-water quality environmental
impacts and energy requirements (CWA
section 306(b)(1)(B), 33 U.S.C.
1316(b)(1)(B)).
5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing
Sources (PSES)
CWA section 307(b) (33 U.S.C.
1317(b)), of the Act calls for EPA to
issue pretreatment standards for
discharges of pollutants to POTWs.
PSES are designed to prevent the
discharge of pollutants that pass
through, interfere with, or are otherwise
incompatible with the operation of
POTWs. Categorical pretreatment
standards are technology-based and are
analogous to BPT and BAT effluent
limitations guidelines, and thus, the
Agency typically considers the same
factors in promulgating PSES as it
considers in promulgating BPT/BAT.
The General Pretreatment Regulations,
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
4480
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
which set forth the framework for the
implementation of categorical
pretreatment standards, are found at 40
CFR part 403. These regulations
establish general pretreatment standards
that apply to all non-domestic
dischargers (52 FR 1586 (January 14,
1987)).
6. Pretreatment Standards for New
Sources (PSNS)
CWA section 307(c) (33 U.S.C.
1317(c)) calls for EPA to promulgate
PSNS. Such pretreatment standards
must prevent the discharge of any
pollutant into a POTW that may
interfere with, pass through, or may
otherwise be incompatible with the
POTW. EPA promulgates PSNS based
on BADCT for new sources. New
indirect dischargers have the
opportunity to incorporate into their
facilities the best available
demonstrated technologies. The Agency
typically considers the same factors in
promulgating PSNS as it considers in
promulgating NSPS.
C. Actions Leading to Proposed
Revisions to the MPP ELGs
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
1. National Review of Nutrient
Discharges From Industrial Sources
(USEPA. 2019. EPA–821–R–19–005)
EPA conducted a cross-industry
review of publicly available discharge
monitoring report (DMR) and toxics
release inventory (TRI) data from 2015
on nutrient discharges from industrial
point source categories. This review
identified industries, based on their
discharges of nutrients in wastewater
and the potential to reduce their
nutrient discharges, that may be
candidates for ELG development or
revision and prioritized them for further
review. EPA then ranked industrial
categories by the nutrient loads in their
wastewater discharges, specifically
looking at the median facility load and
number of facilities reporting
discharges. The MPP industry ranked as
one of the highest in the analysis for
total nitrogen and total phosphorus,
leading EPA to focus on this industry
(USEPA. 2019. EPA–HQ–OW–2019–
0618).
To better understand the MPP
industry and related nutrient sources,
discharges, and treatment, EPA
reviewed historical documentation
supporting the development of the
existing MPP ELGs, analyzed 2015 DMR
and TRI data, and contacted several
MPP facilities. Many MPP facilities
discharging high amounts of nutrients
are located in EPA Regions 4 and 5,
which provided information on the
development of nutrient permit limits
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
and current practices for managing
wastewater containing nutrients at MPP
facilities. Many of these facilities had
permits with water-quality-based
ammonia limits more stringent than the
existing 2004 MPP ELGs. More than half
of the permits reviewed also included
water quality-based limits or monitoring
requirements for total Kjeldahl nitrogen
(TKN), nitrate/nitrite, and/or total
phosphorus, which are not regulated
under the 2004 MPP ELG.
EPA found that some MPP facilities
are performing better than the existing
2004 ELG for nutrient discharges
(nitrogen and ammonia), as well as
removing phosphorus, which is not
regulated under the existing ELG. For
nitrogen, the median annual average of
97 direct discharging MPP facilities was
32.8 mg/L, which is well below the 2004
ELG monthly averages of 103 mg/L for
poultry and 132 mg/L for meat
processors. For ammonia, the median
annual average for 119 facilities was
approximately 0.5 mg/L, which is far
lower than the 4 mg/L required under
the ELG regulations. For phosphorus,
which is not regulated under the
existing ELGs, the median annual
average of 140 MPP facilities was less
than 2 mg/L indicating that some MPP
facilities are meeting water-quality
based low phosphorus limits of their
NPDES permits using current treatment
technologies. These initial results
indicated that revised ELGs may be
appropriate as the industry is capable of
achieving effluent limitations well
below the current 2004 regulations.
2. Detailed Study of Meat and Poultry
Products (USEPA. 2021. EPA–821–R–
21–003)
As a result of the cross-industry
review of nutrients in industrial
wastewater and the further review of the
MPP category, EPA began a detailed
study of the MPP industry. The goals of
the MPP detailed study were to gain a
better understanding of the industry and
evaluate whether the ELGs should be
revised.
EPA began by collecting publicly
available information about the MPP
industry. To obtain a list of facilities
that may be part of the MPP industry,
EPA evaluated industry directories from
the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Food Safety Inspection Service
(FSIS), the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), and the National
Renderers Association (NRA). To further
develop this list, EPA evaluated
information from POTW Annual
Reports, EPA’s Integrated Compliance
Information System National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (ICIS–
NPDES) database, and EPA’s TRI
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
database. EPA also engaged with EPA
regions, federal agencies, States, clean
water organizations, industry
stakeholders, environmental groups,
and communities in close proximity to
MPP facilities to understand different
perspectives on the industry and effects
of the industry on communities and to
gain insights into the industry.
EPA used the publicly available
information to analyze the industry.
EPA found that the MPP industry
discharges the highest phosphorus
levels and second highest nitrogen
levels of all industrial categories. EPA
found the nutrient discharges are from
numerous facilities across the country
and that the nutrient pollutants are at
concentrations that can be reduced with
current wastewater treatment
technology. Further, some of the studied
facilities were already removing
nutrients and achieving effluent
concentrations well below the
limitations in the existing MPP ELGs.
During the detailed study, EPA
compiled a list of over 7,000 facilities
from the sources listed above that
potentially processed meat and poultry
products and might be part of the MPP
industry. Of these, EPA estimated that
approximately 300 are likely direct
dischargers. During the rulemaking
process, EPA refined the list to 5,055
MPP facilities, of which 171 are direct
dischargers. As the existing ELGs only
apply to a subset of the direct
dischargers, the 2004 MPP ELGs cover
approximately 150 facilities. As
mentioned, the wastewater from the
direct dischargers has high amounts of
nutrients. Around 120 of the estimated
150 direct dischargers discharge to
waters listed as impaired, with much of
the MPP total nitrogen and total
phosphorus load discharging to waters
impaired for algal growth, ammonia,
nutrients, and/or oxygen depletion.
As the majority of MPP facilities are
indirect dischargers, which are not
currently subject to national categorical
pretreatment standards, EPA also
studied POTWs that receive MPP
wastewater. In reviewing permits for
POTWs that receive MPP wastewater,
EPA found the majority do not have
limits for nitrogen or phosphorus. Thus,
many POTWs may not be removing
much of the nutrient load discharged by
MPP industrial users because many
POTWs do not have tertiary treatment
designed to remove nutrients.
Additionally, many of the POTWs
(73%) had permit violations for
pollutants found in MPP wastewater
(analysis included BOD, TSS, chlorides,
nitrogen, phosphorus, E. coli, total
residual chlorine (TRC), coliforms,
metals, ammonia, and oil & grease). The
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
4481
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
collected data thus indicates MPP
facilities may be causing or contributing
to violations of POTW permit limits
(EUSEPA. 2021. PA–HQ–OW–2021–
0547–0110).
National ELGs can help ensure that all
people in the vicinity of industrial
direct and indirect discharges receive
the same degree of protection from
environmental and health hazards, and
equal access to the decision-making
process to have a healthy environment
in which to live, learn, and work. To
assess information related to
environmental justice, EPA conducted
screening analyses of areas with MPP
facilities and found 82% of MPP
facilities that directly discharge
wastewater to waters of the U.S. are
within one mile of census block groups
with demographic or environmental
characteristics of concern. This
indicates that such facilities may be
disproportionately impacting
communities of concern and therefore
revised wastewater regulations may
benefit these communities.3
3. Announcement of Rule in
Preliminary Effluent Guidelines Plan 15
In 2021, in the Preliminary Effluent
Guidelines Program Plan 15
(Preliminary Plan 15), EPA announced a
rulemaking to revise the existing
discharge standards for the MPP
industry (USEPA. 2021. EPA–821–R–
21–003).
4. Litigation and Consent Decree
On December 23, 2022, Plaintiffs Cape
Fear River Watch, Rural Empowerment
Association for Community Help,
Waterkeepers Chesapeake, Waterkeeper
Alliance, Humane Society of the United
States, Food & Water Watch,
Environment America, Comite Civico
del Valle, Center for Biological
Diversity, and Animal Legal Defense
Fund filed a complaint alleging that
EPA’s failure to revise ELGs and to
promulgate pretreatment standards for
the MPP category constituted failures to
act by statutory deadlines in violation of
the CWA and Administrative
Procedures Act (‘‘APA’’) (Cape Fear
River Watch et al. v. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, No.
1:22–cv–03809 (D. D.C)).
Although EPA was in the process of
conducting the MPP rulemaking, EPA
had not publicly announced any
specific timeline for completion. The
parties initiated settlement discussions,
resulting in a proposed consent decree
with deadlines for completion of the
rulemaking, which EPA entered into
after public notice and comment (88 FR
12930 (Mar. 1, 2023)). Under the
consent decree, EPA has obligations to
sign a notice of proposed rulemaking by
December 13, 2023 and to sign a
decision taking final action on the
proposal by August 31, 2025 (Consent
Decree, Cape Fear River Watch et al. v.
EPA, Case No. 1:22–cv–03809–BAH (05/
03/23)).
V. Meat and Poultry Products Industry
Description
A. General Description of Industry
The MPP point source category
includes facilities ‘‘engaged in the
slaughtering, dressing and packing of
meat and poultry products for human
consumption and/or animal food and
feeds. Meat and poultry products for
human consumption include meat and
poultry from cattle, hogs, sheep,
chickens, turkeys, ducks and other fowl
as well as sausages, luncheon meats and
cured, smoked or canned or other
prepared meat and poultry products
from purchased carcasses and other
materials. Meat and poultry products for
animal food and feeds include animal
oils, meat meal and facilities that render
grease and tallow from animal fat, bones
and meat scraps’’ (40 CFR 432.1).
Based on industry responses to the
2022 MPP Questionnaire, EPA estimates
there are 5,055 MPP facilities currently
in operation. Table V–1 shows the
estimated number of MPP facilities
based on facility process based on the
2022 MPP Questionnaire and other
publicly available data sources. ‘‘Meat
First’’ refers to facilities that slaughter
animals excluding poultry. ‘‘Meat
Further’’ refers to facilities that further
process animal products excluding
poultry. ‘‘Poultry First’’ refers to
facilities that slaughter poultry. ‘‘Poultry
Further’’ refers to facilities that further
process poultry. Facilities that process
meat and poultry were classified by the
type which they process the most.
‘‘Render’’ refers to facilities that only
process meat and poultry offcuts,
trimmings, bones, dead animals, scrap
materials, and other related usable byproducts. For more information on how
facilities were classified, see the Meat
and Poultry Products (MPP) Profile
Methodology Memorandum (USEPA.
2023. DCN MP00306).
TABLE V–1—NUMBER OF FACILITIES IN MPP INDUSTRY BY PROCESS AND DISCHARGE TYPE
Number of facilities
Process
Direct
dischargers
Indirect
dischargers
Zero
dischargers
Total
Meat First .........................................................................................................
Meat Further ....................................................................................................
Poultry First ......................................................................................................
Poultry Further .................................................................................................
Render .............................................................................................................
47
29
70
6
19
509
2,741
168
169
121
270
690
52
119
45
826
3,460
290
294
185
Total ..........................................................................................................
171
3,708
1,176
5,055
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Source: DCNMP00306.
As shown in Table V–1, there are a
large number of MPP facilities in each
sector. These facilities are located across
the country. Although first processors/
slaughterhouses tend to be larger, there
is a large range in production volumes
across the industry. Based on the
questionnaire, 171 facilities have
NPDES permits and discharge
wastewater directly to waters of the U.S.
An additional 3,708 facilities discharge
wastewater to POTWs, and 1,176
facilities do not discharge process
wastewater. MPP effluent discharges
contain pollutants including nitrogen,
phosphorus, ammonia, oil & grease,
BOD, and chlorides.
3 Characteristics of concern in this analysis are
defined as demographic or environmental indexes
above the 80th percentile in a state based on data
available in the 2020 release of EJSCREEN. Census
block groups with one or more indexes above this
threshold were considered communities of concern.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
B. Control and Treatment Technologies
EPA evaluated technologies available
to control and treat wastewater
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
4482
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
generated by the MPP industry. EPA has
not identified any practical difference in
types of treatment technologies between
meat products and poultry products
facilities. Some MPP processes result in
wastewater streams with higher
concentrations of pollutants, but
facilities across the industry generally
contain the same pollutants, including
nitrogen, phosphorus, oil & grease, BOD,
TSS, and chlorides.
The pollutants in MPP wastewaters
are similar to those in domestic
wastewater. POTWs often have similar
wastewater treatment technologies as
direct discharging MPP facilities.
However, some indirect MPP
wastewater discharges have pollutant
loads that the receiving POTW cannot
handle. These indirect discharges may
cause passthrough or interference as
those terms are defined in EPA’s general
pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR
403.3(k) and (p). Also, many POTWs are
not equipped to effectively treat all
pollutants found in MPP wastewater
such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and
chlorides. Thus, indirect discharging
MPP facilities may need to treat their
wastewater before sending it to their
POTW in order to meet any local limits
established by the control authority
under EPA’s general pretreatment
regulations (40 CFR part 403).
EPA evaluated available technologies
that can be used to treat or remove MPP
pollutants, individually and in
treatment trains. This section is split
into subsections based on type of
pollutant removal, including
conventional pollutants, phosphorus,
nitrogen, pathogens, and chlorides. As
the evaluated technologies result in
sludge production, technologies for
solids handling are also included.
Discussions on treatment trains are
included within applicable sections.
1. Conventional Pollutant Removal
MPP process wastewater contains oil
& grease, TSS, and BOD, which are all
conventional pollutants. These
pollutants can be removed with primary
treatment, which removes floating and
settleable solids. Typical treatment
technologies include screens and DAF.
a. Screening: Screens are generally the
first treatment unit in a wastewater
treatment train. Screens are inexpensive
and remove large solid particles from
the wastewater that may otherwise
damage or interfere with downstream
equipment and treatment processes. At
some facilities, the materials removed
by the screens may be used as raw
material at rendering facilities.
b. Dissolved air flotation (DAF): DAF
is used extensively in the primary
treatment of MPP wastewaters to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
remove suspended solids and oil &
grease. In a DAF unit, air is dissolved
into the wastewater, forming small
bubbles. As the air bubbles float to the
surface, solids attach to the air bubbles,
and rise to the top of the unit forming
a layer of floating pollutants. A skimmer
is used to continuously remove this
layer of floating solids, while a bottom
sludge collector removes any solids that
settle to the bottom. In some facilities,
such as renderers, the removed solids
can be recycled to the facility as raw
materials.
c. Chemical Addition: Polymers,
flocculants, and phosphorus
precipitating chemicals may be added
to, or prior to, the DAF. The chemical
addition increases the removal of
pollutants from the wastewater. Adding
chemicals to remove phosphorus can
help facilities meet phosphorus effluent
limits. For facilities that recycle
materials from the DAF to the facility,
chemicals addition may not be possible
as this would contaminate the raw
material.
2. Biological/Organic Pollutant Removal
BOD, nitrogen, and phosphorus are
removed through biological, physical,
and chemical processes. Biological
processes can be used to achieve low
levels of BOD and nitrogen and are
commonly used at MPP facilities.
Microorganisms used in biological
wastewater treatment require
phosphorus for cell synthesis and
energy transport and typically remove
10 to 30 percent of influent phosphorus.
Through biological treatment, organic
compounds are broken down with
bacteria into products including water,
CO2, N2, and CH4.
a. Anaerobic biological treatment: In
anaerobic wastewater treatment,
facultative and anaerobic
microorganisms reduce organic matter
and BOD into gaseous methane and
carbon dioxide. The gases may be
released into the atmosphere, captured
and flared, or used as biogas. Anaerobic
treatment systems have negligible
energy requirements and can treat highstrength wastewaters. Anaerobic lagoons
are a typical anaerobic system used at
MPP facilities. Due to the detention
time, these lagoons also equalize
wastewater flow. The lagoons are not
mixed to maintain anaerobic conditions.
Anaerobic lagoons can reduce BOD by
95 percent and suspended solids by 95
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
percent (Johns. 1995; 4 USEPA. 1974; 5
USEPA. 1975).6
b. Aerobic biological treatment: In
aerobic wastewater treatment,
microorganisms require oxygen to
degrade organic material into water,
carbon dioxide, and organic
compounds. Aerobic degradation is
faster than anaerobic degradation.
Soluble BOD reductions up to 95
percent are possible. Aerated lagoons
have fixed, floating, or diffused air
systems to aerate the water. Aerobic
lagoons (naturally aerated systems) use
algae to aerate the system through
photosynthesis.
c. Anoxic biological treatment:
Anoxic wastewater treatment systems
are oxygen deficient, and bacteria break
down nitrogenous compounds into
oxygen and nitrogen gas.
d. Activated sludge: This system
includes an aeration tank followed by a
settling tank. Settled solids from the
second tank are recycled back into the
aeration tank. Under optimal
conditions, this process can achieve 95
percent reductions in BOD, suspended
solids, and reductions in ammonia
nitrogen (Johns. 1995; USEPA. 1974;
USEPA. 1975).
e. Sequencing batch reactor (SBR): An
SBR completes the activated sludge
process in a single reactor. The system
first fills with wastewater, then the
reaction in which bacteria break down
organic compounds in the presence of
oxygen occurs for some time, then the
system is given time to settle and
separate the microorganisms from the
treated effluent, and then the tank is
discharged. SBR systems provide high
removal rates of BOD and suspended
solids, can be designed for nitrification,
and can remove nitrogen and
phosphorus. SBRs are ideal for low flow
processes as they do not need to run
continuously, and the systems allow for
operational and loading flexibility
(Glenn et al. 1990).7
f. Multistage biological treatment for
nitrogen removal: Nitrogen removal is a
4 Johns, M.R. 1995. Developments in wastewater
treatment in the meat processing industry: A
review. Bioresource Technology 54. EPA–HQ–OW–
2002–0014–2410. DCN 300232.
5 USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).
1974, February. Development Document for Effluent
Limitation Guidelines and New Source Performance
Standards for the Red Meat Processing Segment of
the Meat Product and Rendering Processing Point
Source Category. Washington, DC. DCN MP00348.
6 USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).
1975, April. Development Document for Effluent
Limitation Guidelines and New Source Performance
Standards for the Poultry Segment of the Meat
Product and Rendering Processing Point Source
Category. Washington, DC. DCN MP00349.
7 Glenn, S.L., R.T., Norris, Jr., and J.T.
Sommerfield. 1990. Discrete-event simulation in
wastewater treatment. Journal of Environmental
Science and Health, 25 (4).
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
two-step process: nitrification and
denitrification.
i. Nitrification is a two-step aerobic
process. First, ammonia is oxidized into
nitrite by Nitrosomonas bacteria. Then,
nitrite is oxidized into nitrate by
Nitrobacter bacteria (Metcalf & Eddy,
Inc. 1991).8
ii. Denitrification: Nitrite and nitrate
are reduced by heterotrophic bacteria
into nitrogen gas in anaerobic
conditions. A carbon source, such as
methanol, may need to be added to keep
the microbes healthy.
Biological treatment systems are often
used in series to achieve high rates of
nitrogen removal. Wastewater flows
from one system to the next, with
recycle streams and returned activated
sludge returning to various locations of
the system. Some examples include:
i. Modified Ludzack-Ettinger (MLE):
The MLE is a two-stage system in which
an anoxic stage is followed by an
aerobic stage, before wastewater goes to
a clarifier. Mixed liquor with high levels
of nitrate is recycled from the aerobic
stage back to the influent. Activated
sludge from the clarifier is also recycled
back to the influent. The MLE process
removes most of the BOD and can
achieve a nitrogen removal of 80
percent.
ii. Bardenpho: This is a four-stage
process: anoxic, aerobic, anoxic,
aerobic, followed by a secondary
clarifier. Mixed liquor with high levels
of nitrate is recycled from the first
aerobic stage back to the first anoxic
stage. Activated sludge from the clarifier
is recycled back to the influent.
Nitrification occurs primarily in the
second stage (aerobic). Denitrification
occurs in the first and third stages
(anoxic). The final aeration stage
removes nitrogen gas from the system
and increases the concentration of
dissolved oxygen. The four-stage
Bardenpho process achieves higher rates
of nitrogen removal compared to the
two-stage MLE process.
iii. Modified Bardenpho: This is a
five-stage process: anaerobic, anoxic,
aerobic, anoxic, aerobic, followed by a
secondary clarifier. As in the Bardenpho
process, mixed liquor with high levels
of nitrate is recycled from the first
aerobic stage back to the first anoxic
stage and activated sludge from the
clarifier is recycled back to the influent.
The anaerobic stage at the beginning of
the system results in biological
phosphorus removal. Phosphateaccumulating organisms (PAOs) are
recycled from the aerobic stage in the
8 Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1991. Wastewater
Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, and Reuse. 3rd
Edition, McGraw-Hill, Inc. DCN MP00334.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:53 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
mixed liquor to the anaerobic stage. In
the following aerobic stages, PAOs
uptake large amounts of phosphorus
(USEPA. 2021. EPA 830–R–01–001).
iv. Other: There are many other
processes that use multiple stages of
treatment to remove nitrogen. These
include A2/O, step feed, University of
Capetown (UCT) processes, oxidation
ditches, and the Schreiber process,
amongst others (USEPA. 2004. EPA–
821–R–04–011).
g. Membrane bioreactor (MBR): MBRs
use membranes to separate liquids and
solids. The liquid stream then passes
through anoxic and aerobic zones, in
similar processes to the biological
treatment systems described above. As
the membranes greatly reduce the
suspended solids in the liquid stream,
MBR removes nitrogen and phosphorus
(USEPA. 2009. EPA/600/R-09/012).
h. Enhanced Biological Phosphorus
Removal: Microorganisms used in
biological wastewater treatment require
phosphorus for cell synthesis and
energy transport. In the treatment of
typical domestic wastewater, between
10 and 30 percent of influent
phosphorus is removed by microbial
assimilation, followed by clarification or
filtration. However, phosphorus
assimilation in excess of requirements
for cell maintenance and growth, known
as luxury uptake, can be induced by a
sequence of anaerobic and aerobic
conditions (Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1991).
As explained above, the modified
Bardenpho process removes phosphorus
biologically.
3. Phosphorus Removal
As mentioned in the biological/
organic pollutant removal section, some
phosphorus is removed in biological
treatment processes. To achieve low
levels of phosphorus, chemical addition
and/or tertiary filters can be used.
a. Chemical addition: Phosphorus can
be removed from wastewater by
precipitation using metal salts [ferric
chloride, aluminum sulfate (alum)] or
lime. Polymers may also be added to
increase the removal efficiency. The
chemicals may be added prior to or in
the DAF, in primary clarifier effluent, in
biological treatment processes prior to
secondary clarification, or after
secondary clarification. The precipitated
phosphorus is removed with other
biosolids (Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1991).
b. Tertiary Filters: Filters following
chemical phosphorus removal can be
used to achieve high removal rates of
phosphorus. Tertiary filtration may
include sand filters, ion-exchange,
membranes, and others.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4483
4. Pathogen Removal
Disinfection destroys remaining
pathogenic microorganisms and is
generally required for all MPP
wastewaters being discharged to surface
waters. Chlorination/dechlorination,
Ultra-Violet (UV), and some filters can
be used to meet effluent limits for
pathogens and to inactivate pathogenic
microorganisms prior to discharge to
surface waters.
a. Chlorination/dechlorination:
Chlorine disinfects wastewater through
oxidation reactions with cellular
material which results in the
destruction of pathogens. Mixing and
contact time in a chlorine contact
chamber are critical factors to ensure
proper disinfection. The chlorine
compounds commonly used for
wastewater disinfection are chlorine
gas, calcium hypochlorite, sodium
hypochlorite, and chlorine dioxide
(Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1991). Chlorine
residuals are toxic to aquatic life, so
dechlorination is often necessary. Sulfur
dioxide can be added, as it reacts with
both free chlorine and chloramines with
chloride ions, lowering chlorine
residuals (USEPA, 1999. EPA 832–F–
99–062).
b. Ultra-Violet (UV): Radiation
emitted from UV light is an effective
bactericide and virucide and does not
generate any toxic compounds.
Wavelengths between 250 and 270 nm
inactivates cells (USEPA, 1999. EPA
832–F–99–064). UV lamps can be
submerged in the wastewater or
suspended outside the wastewater.
c. Tertiary Filtration: Filters and
membranes with pore sizes smaller than
pathogens can be used to remove
pathogens from wastewater.
Ultrafiltration, membranes, and reverse
osmosis are options.
5. Chlorides Removal
Some MPP processes, including hides
processing, meat and poultry koshering,
and further processing techniques, such
as curing, brining, and pickling,
commonly produce wastewater streams
with high levels of chlorides. Some
facilities engage in water softening,
which can also produce high chlorides
wastestreams. Wastewater treatment
technologies commonly found at
POTWs and many MPP facilities do not
remove chlorides. The optimal chlorides
treatment technologies for a facility
depends on wastewater strength,
climate, land availability, and cost. High
chloride wastestreams may be able to be
separated from other wastestreams,
which can reduce costs and energy
required for treatment.
a. Hauling: Facilities may choose to
haul high chloride wastewater (also
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
4484
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
called brine) offsite in tanker trucks.
The wastewater may be taken to a
renderer where it may be used for
production purposes, transported to a
facility equipped to treat and/or dispose
of brine, or taken offsite for deep-well
injection or other means of disposal.
Hauling can be costly as compared to
other options, especially for large
amounts of wastewater.
b. Evaporation ponds: Brine
wastewater may be disposed into
shallow ponds exposed to the sun. The
water evaporates, leaving salt. The salt
will need to be emptied from the ponds
occasionally to allow the ponds to be
reused. This technology relies on solar
evaporation and is best in dry/semi-dry
climates. Land space for the ponds is
also necessary. Due to the potential for
groundwater pollution, the ponds
should be lined (Panagopoulos et al.
2019).9
c. Evaporation systems/Crystallizers:
Brine water is concentrated to near
saturation, which results in salt
crystallization. Heat is used to evaporate
the water. The systems are often costly
as compared to other options and
corrosion is common if proper materials
of construction are not utilized (Zhang
et al. 2021).10
d. Deep-well injection: Fluids such as
brine/salt water can be injected
underground into porous geological
formations. The well is normally 500
to1500 meters deep. Constructing a well
can be costly, and deep-well injection is
not allowed in some parts of the U.S.
(Panagopoulos et al. 2019).
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
6. Solids Handling
Some wastewater treatment
technologies produce industrial sludge.
In the MPP industry, sludge is primarily
generated by the DAF and clarifiers. The
sludge contains oil & grease, organic
materials, nitrogen, phosphorus, and
chemicals/polymers added in the
treatment system. The sludge may have
a high-water content, which can be
reduced, to reduce volume and save
hauling and landfilling costs. Common
dewatering technologies include gravity
thickening units and the belt filter press.
The sludge may be incinerated, land
applied, or landfilled, depending on
State, local and federal regulations and
disposal method availability.
9 Panagopoulos, A., Haralambous, K.J., and
Loizidou, M. 2019. Desalination brine disposal
methods and treatment technologies—A review.
Science of The Total Environment, 693. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.351.
10 Zhang, C., Shi, Y., Shi, L., Li, H., Li, R., Hong,
S., Zhuo, S., Zhang, T., Wang, P. 2021. Designing
a next generation solar crystallizer for real seawater
brine treatment with zero liquid discharge. Nature
Communications, 12. https://www.nature.com/
articles/s41467-021-21124-4.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:53 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
VI. Data Collection
A. Information From the Meat and
Poultry Products Industry
The Agency evaluated the following
databases online to locate data and
information to support regulatory
development: The Agency’s ICIS–
NPDES database, USDA’s Food Safety
and Inspection Service’s Hazard
Analysis and Critical Control Point
(HACCP) Databases, the 2020 U.S.
Census of Manufactures, Dun &
Bradstreet (D&B) Hoover’s database, and
Experian’s Business TargetIQ database.
In addition, the Agency conducted a
thorough collection and review of
secondary sources, which include data,
reports, and analyses published by
government agencies; reports and
analyses published by the MPP industry
and its associated organizations; and
publicly available financial information
compiled by both government and
private organizations.
EPA met with or consulted the
following organizations for industry
information including facility names,
addresses and contact information:
National Cattlemen’s Beef Association,
National Pork Producers Council, North
American Meat Institute, the North
American Renderers Association, and
the U.S. Poultry & Egg Association.
The documents cited above were all
used by EPA in developing the industry
profile, a survey sampling frame, and for
stratifying the survey sampling frame. In
addition to these publications, EPA
examined many other documents that
provided useful overviews and analysis
of the MPP industry. EPA also
conducted general internet searches by
company name.
1. Survey
Publicly available data on MPP
facilities are limited. EPA has based the
population of MPP facilities on data
largely from the USDA FSIS. The FSIS
dataset compiles information on facility
name and location, type(s) of meat and
poultry processed, and limited details
on size (both employees and amount
processed). USDA FSIS does not report
details specific to wastewater generation
or wastewater treatment. EPA also
included a list of renderers from the
NRA, and MPP facilities in the ICIS–
NPDES dataset, in developing the list of
MPP facilities. These data are limited
since the NPDES data generally includes
only those facilities directly discharging
wastewater, although some individual
States require pretreatment permits to
also be reported.
In order to supplement publicly
available data sources, EPA conducted a
survey of the MPP industry. EPA
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
developed two questionnaires to collect
site-specific technical and economic
information to provide a more robust
record to support developing regulatory
options and conduct analyses required
by statutes and executive orders. EPA’s
Office of Water administered a Census
Questionnaire and a Detailed
Questionnaire to facilities engaging in
meat and poultry processing, including
those currently regulated under 40 CFR
part 432, and facilities that discharge
wastewater directly to waters of the
U.S., indirectly to POTWs, or do not
discharge wastewater. The Census
Questionnaire was administered as a
census of the industry to confirm the
industry population, as well as general
information on the industry, including:
• Processing details (including type
of meat or poultry and type of
processing),
• Type and size (both production and
employees) of the facility, and
• Wastewater generation and
treatment information.
EPA used information collected
through the Census Questionnaire to
confirm the list of facilities that fall
within the MPP industry and to identify
which MPP facilities generate, treat,
and/or discharge wastewater. A
statistically representative subset of
different types of MPP facilities were
asked to complete a more detailed set of
questions. This Detailed Questionnaire
collected the same information as the
Census Questionnaire and additional
details on processing operations, types
and amount of wastewater generated by
operation, wastewater treatment details,
and economic data. In addition, EPA
collected and analyzed wastewater
samples from six MPP facilities that
received the Detailed Questionnaire to
characterize raw waste streams,
wastewater treatment systems, and
treated effluent for pollutants of interest.
At the outset of EPA’s development of
the questionnaires, based on data
primarily from USDA FSIS and ICIS–
NPDES, EPA estimated the MPP
industry had between 7,000 and 8,000
facilities. Because no one data source
collects information from all MPP
facilities, the exact number was unclear
at the time the questionnaires were
developed. EPA refined the list of
facilities by identifying additional or
duplicate facilities and working with
trade associations to identify facilities
that do not process meat or poultry. EPA
conducted a statistical sample of
facilities on the list and sent 1,565
unique facilities the Detailed
Questionnaire and the other facilities
were sent the Census Questionnaire.
EPA stratified the list of facilities (i.e.,
the sampling frame) into groups based
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
4485
on the stage of operation (i.e., slaughter,
further processor, renderer), the meat
type (i.e., meat, poultry), and
production, to increase sample
precision. Each facility fell within one
or more strata. EPA estimated the
number of facilities to sample from each
stratum based on acceptable error,
confidence level, and expected response
rate using Cochran’s sample size
formula. The target sample size was
1,633 and these 1,565 represent the
1,633 facility-strata combination as
some facilities fell in multiple strata and
represent multiple strata. The Detailed
Questionnaire included all questions in
the Census Questionnaire. Both
questionnaires were issued at the same
time and requested data for 2021. Data
from 2021 represents the most recent
year for which complete technical and
economic data were available as EPA
administered the survey in 2022. The
Detailed Questionnaire also asked for
some data from 2017 and 2019 to
evaluate recent trends in industry
operation and economics. EPA
administered the data collection under
the authority of section 308 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33
U.S.C. 1318 and in accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501–3521.11 The questionnaires can be
found in Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–
OW–2021–0736. Additional details on
the questionnaire methodology can be
found in the TDD.
B. Economic Data
C. Other Data Sources
EPA analyzed the economic impact of
the proposed regulation on both
discharging facilities and the firms that
own them. These analyses form the
basis of EPA’s proposed determination
that the regulation is economically
achievable. EPA also analyzed larger
market wide impacts on production
levels, prices, and employment. EPA
relied on existing sources of economic
data for these analyses and to
supplement facility and firm
information obtained from the industry
survey.
EPA conducted several data collection
activities in support of developing the
proposed rule. EPA used these data to
develop an industry profile, evaluate
industry subcategorization, determine
wastewater characteristics and potential
pollution control technologies, review
potential pollutant load reductions and
costs associated with certain technology
options, review environmental impacts
associated with discharges from this
industry, and develop pollutant
limitations.
1. Facility and Firm-Level Economic
Data
During 2022, EPA conducted site
visits at nine different MPP facilities,
specifically three meat facilities, five
poultry facilities, and one independent
rendering facility. In selecting
candidates for site visits, EPA attempted
to identify facilities with advanced
wastewater treatment technologies
across the different types of operations
performed in the industry. During each
visit, EPA collected information on
facility process operations including
recent changes and upgrades,
wastewater treatment operations, water
usage, and waste management
operations. See the TDD for additional
details on site visits.
2. Stakeholder Meetings and Outreach
2. Industry and Sector-Level Economic
Data
EPA encouraged the participation of
all interested parties throughout the
development of the MPP rule. The
Agency conducted outreach to trade
associations that represent the vast
majority of the facilities that will be
affected by the rule. EPA met with
various stakeholders to discuss aspects
of the regulation development. EPA also
participated in industry meetings and
gave presentations on the status of the
regulation development. A
comprehensive list and description of
these meetings can be found in the TDD.
EPA also met with environmental
groups and Tribal communities and
conducted environmental justice
outreach. For details on these meetings,
see the Environmental Assessment for
the Proposed Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Meat
and Poultry Products Point Source
Category (U.S. EPA, 2023. EPA 821–R–
23–012).
11 EPA ICR No. 2701.01, OMB Control No. 2040–
NEW.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
When questionnaire responses were
available for a facility and its owner,
that information was used for the
impact analyses, such as the closure
analyses and the cost-to-revenue
screening analyses that are described in
detail in section VIII. When information
from the questionnaire was not
available, however, EPA relied on two
primary sources of external data. The
first data source was the USDA FSIS
facility-level information. This
information was used to supplement
facility production and employment
estimates. The second data source was
D&B Hoovers database of business
information. This source was used to
supplement revenue, employment, and
ownership information at both the firm
and facility level.
After estimating facility and firm level
costs, EPA analyzed the potential effect
on market prices for major industry
commodities such as, beef, pork, broiler
chickens, and turkeys. EPA also
analyzed the potential for changes to
national and regional production-levels
for these commodities. EPA estimated
changes to both short-term and longterm employment levels. Finally, EPA
also estimated potential changes to the
barriers-to-entry for this industry as well
as industry consolidation trends.
The primary data source for the sector
and industry-level analyses is USDA’s
Economic Research Service (ERS). The
ERS analyzes trends and emerging
issues in the agricultural sector and
regularly publish data on farm sector
performance and farm households’ wellbeing; farm size and concentration;
market analysis, data, and projections
on commodity supply, demand, and
prices; and Federal farm policies. EPA
also used results from agricultural
market studies published in peer
reviewed journals.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1. Site Visits
2. Wastewater Sampling
Between August and November 2022,
EPA conducted a sampling program at
six MPP facilities located throughout
the United States to collect wastewater
characterization data and treatment
performance data.
EPA selected facilities based on
nitrogen and phosphorus discharge data
reported in DMRs and wastewater
treatment information obtained from
permits, permit application data, and
site visits. EPA selected three meat
facilities, two poultry facilities, and one
independent rendering facility with low
discharges of nutrients and/or
phosphorus. All selected facilities were
direct discharge facilities.
During each sampling episode, EPA
collected wastewater samples for five
consecutive days. Sampling points
varied by facility and wastewater
treatment system, but in general, EPA
collected the following samples at all
selected facilities:
• Treatment system influent
(untreated wastewater). Sample
collected downstream of screening (if
present) to ensure large solids were
removed to facilitate sampling.
• Effluent from primary treatment (or
influent to biological treatment).
Primary treatment typically included a
DAF unit or anaerobic basin/lagoon.
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
4486
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
• Effluent from biological treatment
(or influent to tertiary treatment).
Biological treatment typically included
complete nitrification/denitrification.
• Effluent from tertiary treatment
(e.g., filters, disinfection, and/or
chlorination/dechlorination), if tertiary
treatment was in place.
• Final effluent from the treatment
system, if different than effluent from
last level of treatment (e.g., reaeration
basin).
EPA also collected operations data
during the sampling episode to allow for
an engineering assessment of the design,
operation, and performance of treatment
systems at MPP facilities. Specifically,
EPA collected system design
information, as well as daily operations
data (e.g., production, wastewater flow,
chemical additions, sludge generation).
See the TDD and facility-specific
sampling episode reports (USEPA. 2023.
DCN MP00326, DCN MP00333, DCN
MP00332, DCN MP00317, DCN
MP00315, DCN MP00311) for details on
the sampling points selected for each
facility and the operational data
collected.
Based on conversations with industry,
most MPP facilities use drinking water
sources (public water supplies or well
water) for all source water. Furthermore,
facilities may treat their source water
with sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) or
water softeners before use as the
facilities are generating food-grade
products (USEPA. 2022. DCN MP00123,
DCN MP00276, DCN MP00138, DCN
MP00142). For these reasons and
because EPA does not expect drinking
water to contain nutrients or other
pollutants at levels found in MPP
wastewater, EPA did not collect source
water samples.
EPA identified pollutants of interest
in MPP wastewater based on data from
the previous MPP rulemaking (USEPA,
2004) and literature searches. Below is
a list of pollutant or pollutant groups
chosen by EPA for the MPP sampling
program.
• Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
and carbonaceous biochemical oxygen
demand (CBOD)
• Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
• Inorganic anions
• Oil & grease
• Nitrogen compounds
• Total and ortho-phosphorus
• TSS and TDS
• Total organic carbon (TOC)
• Bacteria (fecal coliform, Escherichia
coli (E. coli)) and enterococci)
• Metals
See the Pollutants of Concern (POC)
Analysis for the Meat and Poultry
Products (MPP) Proposed Rule (USEPA.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
2023. DCN MP00190), which presents a
table of the pollutants by analytical
method and corresponding baseline
values. See the Generic Sampling and
Analysis Plan (GSAP) (USEPA. 2023.
DCN MP00136) and the facility-specific
sampling and analysis plans (SAPs)
(USEPA. 2023. DCN MP00149, DCN
MP00137, DCN MP00150, DCN
MP00151, DCN MP00152, DCN
MP00153) for more information on
sampling procedures. EPA has included
in the MPP Rulemaking Record all
information collected for which each
facility has not asserted a claim of CBI
or which would indirectly reveal
information claimed to be CBI.
VII. Proposed Regulation
A. Description of the Options
As previously described, EPA’s 2019
cross-cutting review of nutrient
discharges from 59 industrial categories
found that the MPP point source
category discharged some of the highest
nitrogen and phosphorus levels of all
industries. OW initiated a detailed
study in 2020 and announced a
rulemaking to revise the ELGs in EPA’s
Preliminary Plan 15 based on
information suggesting facilities can do
more to control nutrients and other
pollutants and that revisions could
reduce discharges affecting underserved
and overburdened communities
(USEPA. 2021. EPA–821–R–21–003).
EPA identified technologies currently in
use by MPP facilities that can further
reduce nitrogen discharges below the
levels that are found in the existing
ELGs, which were last revised in 2004.
In addition, MPP facilities are currently
using technologies to remove
phosphorus, which is not regulated
under the existing MPP ELGs. This
proposal evaluates three regulatory
options as shown in Table VII–2 of this
preamble. While developing these
regulatory options, EPA’s goal was to
reduce pollutant discharges to surface
waters, reduce and/or eliminate
interference and passthrough at POTWs
receiving MPP wastewater, and
establish effluent limits and
pretreatment standards based on
technologies that are available and
economically achievable for the
industry, while minimizing impacts to
small business.
EPA considered and continues to
consider ways to minimize impacts to
small business when developing the
regulatory options consistent with the
statutory factors. As described in
Section V, EPA identified 5,055 MPP
facilities generating process wastewater,
and 3,879 of these facilities discharge to
waters of the U.S. directly or indirectly.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
EPA carefully considered impacts of
new or revised effluent limitations and
pretreatment standards on small
business by using facility production
thresholds to distinguish smaller
facilities with lower revenues from
larger facilities. In developing the
options, EPA evaluated differing
thresholds for applicability of the
proposed rule provisions to evaluate
how impacts to small business would
vary as more and smaller facilities
would be subject to new and/or more
stringent effluent limitations and
pretreatment standards. The record
supports that the impacts to small
business from the preferred option
(Option 1) would not be significant (see
Section XVI.C). Under Option 1, most
MPP facilities (79 percent) fall below
the proposed production thresholds,
and therefore, would have no new
limitations. The proposed new
limitations under Option 1 would
impact 844 facilities, representing 21
percent of the total number of MPP
facilities discharging to waters of the
U.S. and to POTWs.
Under the most expansive option
proposed (Option 3), new limitations
would impact 1,618 facilities of the
3,879, or 42 percent of facilities
discharging to waters of the U.S. and to
POTWs. EPA also considered
minimizing impacts to small businesses
by basing effluent limitations on lower
cost wastewater treatment technologies
for facilities with lower production. For
example, in Option 3, indirect
discharging facilities producing below 5
million pounds per year would have no
new requirements and indirect
discharging facilities producing between
5 and 30 million pounds per year would
have effluent limitations based on lower
cost pretreatment technologies
consisting of screening and DAF to
control conventional pollutants only.
Facilities producing 30 million pounds
per year or greater would have
additional requirements that include
both conventional pollutant removal
and nitrogen and phosphorus removal,
and this would impact only 21 percent
of indirect discharging facilities.
Table VII–1 shows the total number of
MPP facilities that have discharges
followed by the number of facilities that
EPA estimates would incur costs to
comply with the requirements of the
various regulatory options. All options
build on the existing MPP ELGs and are
based on three technologies:
conventional pollutant (e.g., BOD, TSS,
Oil & Grease) removal by screening and
DAF, phosphorus removal by chemical
precipitation, and nitrogen removal by
biological treatment to achieve full
denitrification. Each option
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
incrementally increases the
subcategories and/or number of
facilities to which the effluent
limitations and pretreatment standards
would apply. Nitrogen and phosphorus
are two primary pollutants to be
4487
reduced with these regulatory options
and the processes involved in removal
are briefly described next.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
TABLE VII–1—NUMBER OF MPP FACILITIES—TOTAL DISCHARGING FACILITIES AND NUMBER THAT WOULD INCUR COSTS
UNDER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE REGULATORY OPTIONS
Total #
dischargers
Total # facilities
incurring costs
under ELG
Regulatory option
Discharge type
Option 1 ..................................................................
Directs ....................................................................
Indirects ..................................................................
171
3,708
126
719
Option 2 ..................................................................
Total
Directs ....................................................................
Indirects ..................................................................
3,879
171
3,708
845
126
719
Option 3 ..................................................................
Total
Directs ....................................................................
Indirects ..................................................................
3,879
171
3,708
845
135
1485
Total
3,879
1,620
Nitrogen removal is carried out
through a three-step biological process:
(1) The conversion of ammonia from
organic nitrogen by hydrolysis and
microbial activities, called
ammonification; (2) the aerobic
conversion of ammonia to nitrate by
reacting the ammonia with oxygen in a
process called nitrification; and (3) the
conversion of nitrate to nitrogen gas by
reacting the nitrate with organic carbon
under anoxic conditions in a process
called denitrification. Phosphorus can
be removed from wastewater by
biological uptake by microorganisms
and by chemical precipitation with a
metal cation. Depending on the target
concentration, a plant process might
employ both technologies. Such a
combined approach might be of
particular benefit if the target
concentration is very low and the
starting concentration is high. In such a
case, biological removal is used to
remove the bulk of the phosphorus, and
chemical polishing follows to achieve
the final concentration; such an
approach tends to reduce sludge
formation from denitrification (USEPA.
2008. EPA 832–R–08–006).
For direct dischargers, all proposed
options would establish revised effluent
limitations that build upon the
wastewater treatment systems that are
the basis of the existing MPP ELGs. The
ELGs that currently apply to these
facilities are based on screens, DAF,
anaerobic lagoons, biological treatment
to achieve nitrification and partial
denitrification, and chlorination/
dechlorination. The effluent limitations
for direct dischargers in today’s
proposal are based on more complete
denitrification. Therefore, large facilities
that already have denitrification
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
technology for nitrogen removal would
likely need to add more complete
denitrification and chemical
phosphorus removal technologies to
comply with the proposed effluent
limitations for total nitrogen and
phosphorus. Smaller facilities could be
subject to nutrient limits under the
lower production thresholds in Option
3 and would presumably need to install
this technology for the first time, since
these facilities are currently below the
applicability threshold for the existing
ELG.
Since there are no national
pretreatment standards applicable to the
MPP category, indirect discharging
facilities are currently only subject to
any local limits established by the
control authority under the general
pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR part
403. Wastewater treatment in place at
indirect discharging facilities therefore
ranges from no treatment to some
treatment. Treatment ranges from basic
treatment, such as screens and oil water
separators, or more complex treatment
such as DAF, anaerobic lagoons,
biological treatment to achieve
nitrification and denitrification, and
phosphorus removal. To meet the
proposed conventional pollutant
pretreatment standards under the
preferred Option 1, which is based on
screens and DAF technology, existing
indirect discharging facilities with no
treatment in place now would likely
need to install similar technologies. To
meet the nitrogen and phosphorus
pretreatment standards contained in
Options 2 and 3, many indirect
dischargers would likely need to add
additional treatment such as anaerobic
lagoons, biological treatment to achieve
nitrification and full denitrification, and
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
chemical phosphorus removal
technologies. However, as described
later in this preamble, EPA is proposing
to include ‘‘conditional limits’’ under
Options 2 and 3 which would allow an
exemption from nutrient pretreatment
standards for indirect dischargers that
are discharging to POTWs that have
nutrient removal capabilities that result
in equivalent nutrient removal.
Option 1 is EPA’s preferred option
and builds on the existing MPP ELGs by
adding new effluent limitations for large
direct and indirect dischargers. Option
1 would include new phosphorus limits
for large direct dischargers based on
chemical phosphorus removal
technology, more stringent nitrogen
limits for large direct dischargers based
on full (not partial) denitrification, and
new conventional pollution limits
(pretreatment standards) for large
indirect dischargers based on very basic
wastewater treatment such as screening
and DAF technologies to prevent
passthrough and interference at POTWs.
EPA requests comment on the concept
of allowing POTWs, control authorities,
or permit authorities to waive, under
certain circumstances, the new
conventional pollutant limits for large
indirect dischargers. Although EPA is
unclear how this would work in
practice, it is possible that POTWs not
experiencing passthrough and
interference may be able to waive these
pretreatment standards while
continuing to prevent passthrough and
interference. Additionally, POTWs that
perform denitrification may want to
waive BOD limits for their MPP
industrial users so they can receive
more carbon to support bacterial
conversion of nitrates to nitrogen gas.
EPA requests comment both on whether
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
4488
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
such waivers should be allowed, and
the demonstration necessary to justify
such waivers.
Large refers to the existing rule
production thresholds of greater than 50
million pounds per year of finished
product produced for meat further
processors (Subcategories F–I) and in
terms of LWK for meat slaughtering
(Subcategories A–D). For poultry
slaughtering (Subcategory K) large also
refers to existing rule production
thresholds of greater than 100 million
pounds per year of LWK, greater than 7
million pounds per year of finished
product produced for poultry further
processors (Subcategory L), and 10
million pounds per year of raw material
processed for renderers (Subcategory J).
Option 2 builds on (includes all
requirements in) Option 1 and would
add nitrogen and phosphorus
pretreatment standards for some large
indirect discharging slaughterhouses
and renderers. Specifically, Option 2
would add phosphorus and nitrogen
limits for indirect discharging
slaughterhouses producing greater than
or equal to 200 million pounds per year
and indirect discharging renderers
producing greater than or equal to 350
million pounds per year.
Option 3 extends the requirements for
both direct and indirect discharging
facilities under Options 1 and 2 to
smaller facilities. For direct discharging
facilities, Option 3 would apply
phosphorus and nitrogen limits to all
subcategories producing greater than or
equal to 10 million pounds per year,
and additional more stringent nitrogen
limits in all subcategories producing
greater than or equal to 20 million
pounds per year. For all indirect
discharging facilities, Option 3 would
require conventional pollutant limits for
facilities producing greater than 5
million pounds per year, and nitrogen
and phosphorus limits for facilities
producing greater than 30 million
pounds per year.
Additionally, all options would
include stricter fecal coliform limits for
direct discharging facilities, based on
chlorination/dechlorination and UV
disinfection (which is the same
technology basis for the existing
limitations for fecal coliform).
In addition to the options described
above, EPA solicits comment on
including three additional requirements
in any final rule. First, limitations on
the discharge of chlorides by
establishing a zero discharge of
pollutants requirement for certain high
chlorides wastestreams. The technology
basis for this requirement is segregation
of these wastestreams from other
process wastewater streams and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
management via sidestream
evaporation. EPA solicits comment on
including this provision for all facilities
(both direct and indirect) producing
more than 5 million pounds per year
with high chlorides processes. Second,
EPA solicits comment on conditional
limitations for phosphorus and nitrogen
discharges from indirect dischargers
under Options 2 and 3. Third, EPA
solicits comment on limitations on E.
coli for direct discharging facilities.
B. Proposed Changes to Subcategories
As described above, EPA proposes to
revise ELGs for facilities in the
following MPP subcategories: Simple
Slaughterhouses (Subcategory A),
Complex Slaughterhouses (Subcategory
B), Low-Processing Packinghouses
(Subcategory C), and High-Processing
Packinghouses (Subcategory D).
Although the proposed options may
establish differing production
thresholds for applicability under these
subcategories, EPA proposes to leave the
definitions of these subcategories
unchanged because the definitions are
not based on production thresholds and
effluent limitations in the proposed
regulatory options would apply to a
subset of these subcategories as they are
currently defined.
The Agency is not proposing revised
ELGs for the small processor category
(Subcategory E). Subcategory E is
defined based on a size threshold of no
more than 6,000 pounds per day (2.19M
pounds per year) of any type or
combination of finished product. EPA
also proposes to leave applicability
definitions for Subcategory E
unchanged.
EPA is proposing revised limitations
and new pretreatment standards for
facilities in the following MPP
subcategories: Meat Cutters
(Subcategory F), Sausage and Luncheon
Meats Processors (Subcategory G), Ham
Processors (Subcategory H), and Canned
Meats Processors (Subcategory I).
Subcategories F–I are currently defined
based on a production rate greater than
6,000 pounds per day (2.19 million
pounds per year), and EPA proposes to
leave the definitions for these
subcategories unchanged. However,
EPA proposes to apply effluent
limitations to a subset of these
subcategories based on production
thresholds, which could change under
the proposed regulatory options.
EPA is also proposing retaining the
Renderer (Subcategory J) subcategory
and revising the limitations and
proposing new pretreatment standards
for facilities in this subcategory. EPA
proposes to leave the applicability
definitions for Renderers (Subcategory J)
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
unchanged as facilities using raw
material at rates greater than 10 million
pounds per year. However, EPA
proposes to apply effluent limitations to
a subset of these subcategories based on
production thresholds, which could
change under the proposed regulatory
options.
EPA is proposing establishing revised
limitations and new pretreatment
standards for facilities in the poultry
subcategories. The poultry subcategories
(Subcategory K, Poultry First Processing
and Subcategory L, Poultry Further
Processing) are not defined based on
production and EPA proposes to leave
the applicability definitions unchanged.
However, EPA proposes to apply
effluent limitations to a subset of these
subcategories based on production
thresholds, which could change under
the proposed regulatory options.
In summary, EPA is retaining the
existing subcategories and proposing
revisions to applicable effluent
limitations and addition of new
pretreatment standards for most of these
subcategories. The proposed ELGs apply
to subsets of facilities in each
subcategory based on production
thresholds. In establishing the original
ELGs for this industry and in the 2004
revisions, EPA broke the industry down
into subcategories with similar
characteristics. This breakdown
recognized the major differences among
companies within the industry, which
might reflect, for example, different
processes or economies of scale.
Subdividing an industry into
subcategories results in more tailored
regulatory standards, thereby increasing
regulatory predictability and
diminishing the need to address
variations among facilities through a
variance process (Weyerhaeuser Co. v.
Costle, 590 F. 2d 1011, 1053 (D.C. Cir.
1978)). EPA proposes to retain the
subcategories in the rule as they reflect
differences in processes and wastewater
strength and composition and EPA has
not identified any additional processes
or changes in processes since the 2004
rulemaking that would warrant revision
of the existing subcategories or
consideration of any additional
subcategories.
In addition to some specific requests
for comment included throughout this
proposal, EPA solicits comment on all
aspects of this proposal, including the
information, data, and assumptions EPA
relied upon to develop the three
regulatory options, as well as the
proposed effluent limitations and
pretreatment standards for existing and
new facilities, and additional provisions
(see Section F below) included in this
proposal.
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
4489
TABLE VII–2—SUMMARY OF REGULATORY OPTIONS
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Direct dischargers
Indirect dischargers
Technology basis
Applicable facilities
Technology basis
Applicable facilities
Option 1 ..........
Adds to existing ELG: full
denitrification, chemical
phosphorus removal, filter.
Conventional pollution limits
based on screening/grit removal, DAF, and
dewatering/solids handling.
Option 2 ..........
Same technology as Option 1
>50 million lbs/yr of finished
product produced for meat
further processors, >50 million lbs/yr LWK for meat
slaughtering, >100 million
lbs/yr of LWK for poultry
slaughtering, >7 million lbs/
yr of finished product produced for poultry further
processors, >10 million lbs/
yr of raw material processed for renderers.
Same facilities as Option 1 ...
>50 million lbs/yr of finished
product produced for meat
further processors, >50 million lbs/yr LWK for meat
slaughtering, >100 million
lbs/yr of LWK for poultry
slaughtering, >7 million lbs/
yr of finished product produced for poultry further
processors, >10 million lbs/
yr of raw material processed for renderers.
Option 1 facilities plus
slaughterhouses producing
≥200 million lbs/yr and renderers processing ≥350
million lbs/yr raw material.
Option 3 ..........
Same technology as Option 1
C. Rationale for the Preferred Option
(Option 1)
Considering the statutory criteria and
factors described in Section IV above,
EPA proposes to revise the ELGs based
on BPT, BCT, BAT, PSES, PSNS, and
BADCT (for NSPS) based on the
technologies described in its preferred
Option 1. EPA also solicits comment on
the other proposed options (Options 2
and 3), and any other permutation of
these options, although they are not the
preferred option in this proposed rule
for the reasons discussed in section VII.
E below.
As described in section IV, the CWA
defines two increasingly stringent levels
of control to be used for developing
limits for classes of pollutants and
specifies factors that need to be
considered. BPT is the first level of
control and applies to all pollutants
(Southwestern Electric Power Co. v.
EPA, 920 F.3d 999, 1006 (5th Cir.
2019)). BPT limits are set based on the
facilities representing ‘‘the average of
the best’’ wastewater treatment in use by
the industry. Statutory factors include
consideration of total cost in relation to
benefits; costs cannot be ‘‘wholly
disproportionate’’ to benefits (Chem.
Mfrs. Assn. v. EPA, 870 F.2d 177, 205
(5th Cir. 1989)).
BAT represents the second level of
control for toxic and non-conventional
pollutants such as nitrogen and
phosphorus. In setting BAT, EPA uses
not the ‘‘average’’ plant, but rather the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:53 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
Phosphorus and nitrogen limits for all direct discharging
facilities producing ≥ 10
million lbs/yr, and more
stringent nitrogen limits to
all facilities producing ≥20
million lbs/yr.
Same technologies as Option
1 plus anaerobic lagoon
(BOD pretreatment), activated sludge (nitrification
and full denitrification),
chemical P removal, filter.
Same technology as Option 2
‘‘single best performing plant’’ in the
industry (Chem. Mfrs. Assn. v. EPA, 870
F. 2d at 226 (5th Cir. 1989)). Unlike
BPT, the BAT factors omit a cost-benefit
analysis, and replace it with a
requirement to consider only the ‘‘cost
of achieving such effluent reduction’’
(Southwestern Elec. Power Co. v. EPA,
920 F.3d at 1006 (5th Cir. 2019)). The
CWA requires that BAT be
‘‘economically achievable,’’ which has
been interpreted to mean that the costs
of controls can be ‘‘reasonably borne’’
by the industry (Chem. Mfrs. Ass’n, 870
F.2d at 262 (5th Cir. 1989); BP
Exploration & Oil, 66 F.3d 784, 799–800
(6th Cir. 1996)). BCT represents the
second level of control for conventional
pollutants such as oil & grease, BOD,
TSS, fecal coliform, and pH. Statutory
factors for BCT include a costreasonableness test.
Under the preferred Option 1, for
direct dischargers, EPA proposes to
revise BPT/BAT for nitrogen and
phosphorus and BPT/BCT for fecal
coliform. For indirect dischargers, EPA
proposes to establish PSES and PSNS
based on BPT/BCT for TSS, BOD, and
oil & grease.
1. Direct Discharging Facilities (BAT)
For direct dischargers, EPA proposes
BAT effluent limitations for nitrogen
based on biological treatment to achieve
full denitrification and BAT effluent
limitations for phosphorus based on
biological treatment with chemical
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Conventional limits for facilities producing >5 million
lbs/yr plus nitrogen and
phosphorus limits for all facilities >30 million lbs/yr.
precipitation with filtration. After
considering the factors specified in
CWA section 304(b)(2)(B) (33 U.S.C.
1314(b)(2)(B)), EPA proposes to find that
this technology is technologically
available, economically achievable, and
has acceptable non-water quality
environmental impacts.
(a) Availability of Nitrogen and
Phosphorus Removal Technologies
‘‘In setting BAT, EPA uses not the
average plant, but the optimally
operating plant, the pilot plant which
acts as a beacon to show what is
possible’’ (Kennecott v. EPA, 780 F.2d
445, 448 (4th Cir. 1985), citing A
Legislative History of the Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972, 93d Cong., 1st Sess. (Comm. Print
1973), at 798)). BAT is supposed to
reflect the highest performance in the
industry and may reflect a higher level
of performance than is currently being
achieved based on technology
transferred from a different subcategory
or category, bench scale or pilot plant
studies, or foreign plants (Southwestern
Elec. Power Co. v. EPA, 920 F.3d at
1006; Am. Paper Inst. v. Train, 543 F.2d
328, 353 (D.C. Cir. 1976); Am. Frozen
Food Inst. v. Train, 539 F.2d 107, 132
(D.C. Cir. 1976)). BAT may be based
upon process changes or internal
controls, even when these technologies
are not common industry practice (Am.
Frozen Foods, 539 F.2d at 132, 140;
Reynolds Metals Co. v. EPA, 760 F.2d
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
4490
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
549, 562 (4th Cir. 1985); California &
Hawaiian Sugar Co. v. EPA, 553 F.2d
280, 285–88 (2nd Cir. 1977)). As
recently reiterated by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, ‘‘Under
our precedent, a technological process
can be deemed available for BAT
purposes even if it is not in use at all,
or if it is used in unrelated industries.
Such an outcome is consistent with
Congress’[s] intent to push pollution
control technology’’ (Southwestern Elec.
Power Co. v. EPA, 920 F.3d at 1031,
citation and internal quotations
omitted). The technology bases for BAT
are currently in use by MPP facilities
across the sector. EPA has identified 14
facilities using enhanced nitrogen
removal technologies and 22 using
phosphorus removal technologies in
both meat and poultry processing and
rendering. These technologies are also
widely used in municipal wastewater
treatment in the U.S. and around the
world. Accordingly, EPA proposes to
find that such technologies are
‘‘available’’ within the meaning of the
statute.
(b) Economic Achievability of Nitrogen
and Phosphorus Removal
EPA proposes to find that the
proposed BAT effluent limitations for
total nitrogen and total phosphorus
under the preferred Option 1 are
economically achievable. Courts have
interpreted economic achievability to
mean that the cost of the regulations can
be ‘‘reasonably borne’’ by the industry
as a whole (Chem. Mfrs. Ass’n v. EPA,
870 F.2d 177, 262 (5th Cir. 1989); BP
Exploration & Oil v. EPA, 66 F.3d 784,
799–800 (6th Cir. 1996); see also Nat’l
Wildlife Fed’n v. EPA, 286 F.3d 554, 570
(D.C. Cir. 2002); CPC Int’l Inc. v. Train,
540 F.2d 1329, 1341–42 (8th Cir. 1976),
cert. denied, 430 U.S. 966 (1977)).
‘Congress clearly understood that
achieving the CWA’s goal of eliminating
all discharges would cause ‘‘some
disruption in our economy,’’ including
plant closures and job losses’ (Chem.
Mfrs. Ass’n v. EPA, 870 F.2d at 252,
citations omitted; see also id. at 252
n.337, reviewing cases in which courts
have upheld EPA’s regulations that
projected up to 50 percent closure
rates).
EPA assesses economic achievability
using two primary approaches. The
main approach is to use a discounted
cash flow analysis to predict the number
of possible closures resulting from
implementation of the regulatory
option. The closure analysis compares
the future costs of compliance to the
facility’s estimated future earnings
during the same period. For this
analysis, EPA is considering a facility
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
that shows positive future earnings
without the rule and negative future
earnings with the rule (regardless of
magnitude of the earnings) to be a
potential closure. EPA often also uses a
simple financial screening analysis to
compare facility compliance cost-torevenue (CTR), in order to assess the
relative magnitude of the economic
impacts to each facility. The higher the
ratio of cost to revenue, the greater the
potential impact on the facility.
Facilities experiencing significant
economic impacts may, among other
possibilities, reduce production levels,
make changes to production and facility
operations, forgo future expansion, or
close. A cost-to-revenue analysis does
not predict these responses but is a
reasonable way to assess the likelihood
of these types of impacts. On the other
hand, some indirect facilities,
depending on how their utility fees are
structured, may incur lower payments
to the receiving POTW due to lower
pollutant loads being sent to the POTW.
EPA proposes to find that the
preferred Option 1 is economically
achievable in terms of affordability to
the industry as a whole because results
from both the BAT analysis of potential
closures and the BAT CTR analysis
show that potential closures and
financial impacts are limited to a single
facility that accounts for approximately
one percent of discharging facilities and
less than one percent (0.02 percent) of
the total universe of MPP facilities. See
Section VIII and the Cost and Economic
Impact Screening Analyses and the
Facility Closure Analysis sections of the
RIA for more detailed results.
Additionally, EPA also performed a
market analysis that estimates the
proposed Option 1 would change
market prices for major meat and
poultry commodities by less than a
tenth of a percent. See the Market
Impact Analysis section of the RIA for
more detailed results.
The annualized social cost of the
preferred option is $232 million and
$227 million using a three percent and
seven percent discount rate
respectively. The total cost of a
rulemaking does not in and of itself
inform the Agency about its impact to
the industry as a whole without
understanding the economic conditions
of that industry. For example, an
industry with total annual sales of only
$20 to $30 billion might experience
disruptions due to annual costs of this
magnitude. However, the MPP industry,
as classified under NAICS 3116, is a
relatively large industry. The American
Survey of Manufacturers estimates that
total sales for the industry in 2021 were
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
$267 billion.12 Given the size of the
MPP industry, EPA does not consider
the total annual cost of the preferred
Option 1 to be a determinative factor
with respect to economic achievability.
(c) Non-Water Quality Environmental
Impacts of Nitrogen and Phosphorus
Removal
EPA proposes to find that the nonwater quality environmental impacts of
the preferred Option 1 (full
denitrification, chemical phosphorus
removal, and filtering) are acceptable.
For further discussion of these impacts,
see Section X.
EPA’s preferred Option 1 for direct
dischargers, which EPA estimates
would require 125 of 171 total direct
dischargers to install additional
wastewater controls, would add an
estimated additional 78,989 MWh of
demand to the U.S. power grid. This
would increase the total power demand
of the U.S. by 0.0000019 percent, based
on the U.S. generating 4,108 billion
MWh in 2021 nationwide (EIA, 2021).13
Preferred Option 1 for direct dischargers
is also estimated to increase the US CO2
emissions by 34,898 tons per year, or an
0.00058 percent increase of the
nationwide total (Climate Change
Indicators: U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions. USEPA. 2023).14 In 2020,
U.S. CO2 greenhouse gas emissions
totaled 5,981 million metric tons of CO2
equivalents. EPA also estimates that an
additional 286,685 tons of sludge will
be generated under preferred Option 1.
EPA proposes to find that the additional
energy requirements, greenhouse gas
emissions and sludge production are
acceptable under the Act.
2. Indirect Discharging Facilities (PSES/
PSNS)
To control pollutants discharged by
indirect discharging facilities, EPA
establishes categorical pretreatment
standards for existing sources (PSES)
and for new sources (PSNS). Before
establishing PSES/PSNS for a pollutant,
EPA examines whether the pollutant
‘‘passes through’’ a POTW or interferes
with the POTW operation or sludge
disposal practices. In determining
whether a pollutant passes through
POTWs for these purposes, EPA
typically compares the percentage of a
pollutant removed by well-operated
12 U.S. Census Bureau. (2022). 2021 Annual
Survey of Manufacturers: Summary Statistics for
Industry Groups and Industries in the U.S.: 2018–
2021.
13 U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2021.
Electric Power Annual Report. www.eia.gov/
electricity/annual.
14 https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/
climate-change-indicators-us-greenhouse-gasemissions.
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
POTWs performing secondary treatment
to the percentage removed by direct
dischargers operating the BPT/BAT
technology basis. A pollutant is
determined to pass through POTWs
when the average percentage removed
nationwide by well-operated POTWs
performing secondary treatment is less
than the average percentage removed by
direct dischargers operating the BPT/
BAT technology basis. EPA establishes
pretreatment standards for those
pollutants regulated under BPT/BAT
that pass through POTWs. In this way,
the standards for indirect dischargers
are equivalent to direct dischargers in
that the treatment capability and
performance of POTWs is recognized
and taken into account in regulating the
pollutants from indirect dischargers.
The Meat and Poultry Products POTW
Passthrough Analysis (the Passthrough
Analysis) indicates that oil & grease,
BOD, TSS, TN and TP pass through
POTWs (USEPA. 2023. DCN MP00309).
EPA did not conduct its traditional
passthrough analysis for the
management of high chloride
wastestreams that are being included for
consideration as an additional regulated
waste stream under all the proposed
regulatory options. Rather, for chlorides,
because the BAT technology for the
proposed zero-discharge limitations and
standards would achieve 100 percent
removal of chlorides, and POTWs do
not remove chlorides, the record
supports a finding of passthrough absent
this analysis.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
(a) BAT Rationale for PSES/PSNS for
Nutrients
After considering all the relevant
statutory factors and wastewater
technologies presented in this preamble
and the TDD, EPA is not proposing to
establish pretreatment standards (PSES/
PSNS) for nitrogen and phosphorus
removal for indirect dischargers under
its preferred Option 1 for the reasons
discussed in Section VII.E below.
However, EPA is soliciting comment on
the other proposed regulatory options
(Options 2 and 3) and any other
regulatory options that would include
such pretreatment standards for
nutrients (See Section VII.D below).
(b) BPT/BCT Rationale for PSES/PSNS
for Conventional Pollutants
Under preferred Option 1, EPA
proposes to establish PSES based on the
BPT level of control for conventional
pollutants (BOD, TSS, oil & grease)
based on screening and DAF
technologies. After considering all the
relevant factors and wastewater
technologies presented in this preamble
and in the TDD, EPA proposes to find
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
that this technology is available,
imposes costs that are not wholly
disproportionate to effluent reduction
benefits, and has acceptable non-water
quality environmental impacts.
(c) Technological Availability
Courts have interpreted BPT to
represent the ‘‘average of the best’’
performance (EPA v. National Crushed
Stone Assn., 449 U.S. 64, 76 (1977). See
also, Kennecott Copper v. EPA, 612 F.2d
1232, 1238 (10th Cir. 1979);
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d
1011, 1059, 1062 (D.C. Cir. 1978);
American Petroleum Institute v. EPA,
540 F.2d 1023, 1034 (10th Cir. 1976);
American Frozen Food Institute v.
Train, 539 F.2d 107, 117, 119 (D.C.
Cir.1976); American Meat Inst. v. EPA,
526 F.2d 442, 462 (7th Cir. 1975); cert.
denied, 430 U.S. 922 (1977); Tanners’
Council of America, Inc. v. Train, 540
F.2d 1188, 1191 (4th Cir.1976)). The
technologies forming the bases for the
proposed BPT revisions represent the
average of the best performance as they
are in use by MPP facilities across the
subcategories. EPA has identified 21
indirect discharging facilities using
screening and DAF technologies in both
meat and poultry processing and
rendering. In addition, these
technologies are widely used at direct
discharging facilities. Most facilities use
some type of oil & grease removal
technology, and DAF is the most
commonly used by MPP facilities.
Furthermore, these technologies are
widely used by a variety of industrial
classes and in municipal wastewater
treatment for the control of conventional
pollutants. See the TDD for additional
discussion of DAF. DAF technologies
have a small footprint, and EPA has no
data indicating that the facilities that
would be subject to pretreatment
standards for conventional pollutants
under the preferred Option 1 would not
be able to implement DAF technologies
at existing and new facilities.
(d) Costs of Conventional Pollutants
Removal (BPT/BCT)
Caselaw and the CWA’s legislative
history indicate that to revise BPT, EPA
is to employ a limited cost-benefit
balancing test, applying controls unless
the costs are wholly disproportionate to
the effluent reduction benefits (Chem.
Mfrs. Ass’n v. EPA, 870 F.2d 177, 204,
205 (5th Cir. 1989); Kennecott Copper v.
EPA, 612 F.2d 1232, 1238 (10th Cir.
1979); American Meat Inst. v. EPA, 526
F.2d 442, 453 (7th Cir. 1975); cert.
denied, 430 U.S. 922 (1977); America
Frozen Food v. Train, 539 F.2d 107, 117,
119 (D.C. Cir. 1976). See also, A
Legislative History of the Water
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4491
Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. at 169–170
(Comm. Print 1973)). EPA’s analysis
shows that the effluent reduction
benefits are not wholly disproportionate
to the costs of conventional pollutant
removal technologies under the
preferred Option 1 (see Section VIII.A
for additional details). The costs are
$32.84 million, and the effluent
reduction is 234 million pounds per
year of pollutants removed.
Additionally, upgrading from the
candidate BPT to BCT candidate
technology (which is screening/grit
removal, DAF, anaerobic lagoon, and
biological treatment) did not pass the
BCT cost test, and thus, EPA is
proposing to set BCT as equal to BPT
(see Section VIII B.).
(e) Non-Water-Quality Environmental
Impacts (BPT/BCT)
The record supports that removal of
conventional pollutants under the
preferred Option 1 would have
acceptable non-water quality
environmental impacts, including
energy requirements (see Section X of
this preamble).
EPA’s preferred Option 1 includes
removal of the conventional pollutants
BOD, oil & grease, and TSS from the
meat and poultry facility’s discharge
before sending it to the POTW for
further treatment. Under Option 1, 719
out of 3,708 indirect discharging
facilities would incur an estimated
1,699 MWh of energy demand.
Although most of this energy demand
would be a shift from the POTW to the
MPP facility, some portion of this could
result in an additional energy demand
to the U.S. power grid. This total power
demand under preferred Option 1 is
0.000000041 percent of the U.S. power
generation (based on 4,108 billion MWh
in 2021 nationwide), which EPA
proposes to find is acceptable (EIA,
2021).15 EPA also proposes to find that
the additional GHG increases would be
acceptable. Preferred Option 1 for
indirect dischargers is estimated to
increase the U.S. CO2 emissions by 753
tons per year, or an 0.000013 percent
increase of the nationwide total (based
on U.S. CO2 greenhouse gas emissions
of 5,981 million metric tons of CO2
equivalents in 2020) (Climate Change
Indicators: U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions. USEPA. 2023). Similarly
preferred Option 1 for indirect
dischargers would increase the sludge
production by an estimated 11,961 tons
of sludge per year, across 719 indirectly
15 U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2021.
Electric Power Annual Report. www.eia.gov/
electricity/annual.
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
4492
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
discharging facilities, which EPA also
proposes to find to be acceptable.
D. Rationale for Other Regulatory
Options Proposed (Options 2 and 3)
EPA also evaluated the applicability
of the statutory factors with respect to
the other regulatory options proposed
(Options 2 and 3), although EPA is not
proposing these as the preferred option
for the reasons discussed in Section
VII.E below. With respect to
technological availability, the
technologies assessed for Options 2 and
3 are widely used in municipal
wastewater treatment in the U.S. and
around the world. The record supports
that such technologies are available in
that they effectively remove the
pollutants addressed in this rulemaking.
However, there may be constraints on
availability of nutrient removal
technologies with respect to indirect
dischargers (as discussed in Section
VII.E below), and EPA solicits
information about such potential
constraints. With respect to the statutory
cost tests for BPT, BCT and BAT for
Options 2 and 3, see Section VIII below.
EPA’s comparison of costs to benefits of
the proposed BPT/BCT limitations
under those options would historically
support a finding that the costs are not
‘‘wholly disproportionate’’ to the
benefits. Similarly, the possible facility
closures and cost to revenue ratio of the
proposed BAT limitations are within the
range of impacts that EPA has
historically considered to be
economically achievable, as required by
CWA section 301(b)(2)(A) (33 U.S.C.
1311(b)(2)(A)). EPA reasonably
considered impacts on small businesses
in setting production thresholds for
applicability based on avoiding cost to
revenue ratios indicating likelihood of
economic impacts, as identified in the
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
guidance (CWA section 304(b)(2)(B),
authorizing consideration of ‘‘such other
factors as the Administrator deems
appropriate’’ in establishing BAT). With
respect to non-water quality
environmental impacts of the BPT/BCT
and BAT technologies under Options 2
and 3, see Section X below. EPA solicits
comment on whether these proposed
options—or other regulatory options
based on different production
thresholds or technologies—would meet
the applicable statutory factors and
should form the basis of any final rule.
E. Rationale for Rejecting Options 2 and
3 as the Preferred Option
As discussed above, EPA considered
two proposed options (Options 2 and 3)
that would be more expansive than
Option 1. EPA did not select these as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
the preferred option due to several
potential concerns. First, EPA is
concerned that the more expansive
options may impede the Biden
Administration’s initiatives to expand
independent meat and poultry
processing capacity and enhance the
resilience of the food supply chain, as
reflected in Executive Order (E.O.)
14036 (July 9, 2021). This is a crucial
Administration priority to protect
against the type of supply chain
disruptions that arose during the
COVID–19 pandemic. In issuing the
E.O., the Administration explained that
without such diversification, ‘‘our food
supply chains are susceptible to
shocks,’’ and that ‘‘[w]hen COVID–19 or
other disasters such as fires or
cyberattacks shutter a plant, many
ranchers have no other place to take
their animals’’ See Fact Sheet: The
Biden-Harris Action Plan for a Fairer,
More Competitive, and More Resilient
Meat and Poultry Supply Chain (The
White House. 2022) (noting that ‘‘our
overreliance on just a handful of giant
processors leaves us all vulnerable, with
any disruptions at these bottlenecks
rippling throughout our food
system.’’).16
Relative to many other industries
regulated by ELGs, the MPP industry
plays a critical role in the nation’s food
supply chain. The supply chain
disruptions during the COVID–19
pandemic highlighted the problems
with the consolidation of the industry
over the last 50 years and how
susceptible it is to shocks. The
pandemic disrupted both the market
supply and demand patterns typically
observed. As the demand for meat and
poultry from restaurants declined
dramatically in response to the public
lock down efforts, the demand for meat
from grocery stores and on-line sources
rose.17 At the same time, COVID began
to spread rapidly through meat and
poultry processing facilities. This
resulted in a significant short-run
disruption to supply as facilities
temporarily closed and many more
reduced line speeds due to both worker
shortages and safety concerns.18 These
combined changes to demand and
supply led to shortages and higher
16 https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/
statements-releases/2022/01/03/fact-sheet-thebiden-harris-action-plan-for-a-fairer-morecompetitive-and-more-resilient-meat-and-poultrysupply-chain/.
17 Hobbs J.E. (2021). The Covid–19 pandemic and
meat supply chains. Meat science, 181, 108459.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2021.108459.
18 Whitehead, D., & Brad Kim, Y.H. (2022). The
Impact of COVID 19 on the Meat Supply Chain in
the USA: A Review. Food science of animal
resources, 42(5), 762–774. https://doi.org/10.5851/
kosfa.2022.e39.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
prices for many meat and poultry
commodities (The White House. 2022).
EPA’s analysis showed Options 2 and
3 have more potential facility closures
than Option 1 due to the requirements
imposed on additional facilities, thus
potentially harming the
Administration’s priority to expand and
diversify the meat and poultry
processing industry. For this reason,
EPA is selecting Option 1 as the
preferred proposed option at this time,
rather than more expansive options, as
it would allow the Agency to achieve
significant reductions in nutrients and
conventional pollutants in a way that
avoids potential supply chain
disruptions in the nation’s food supply,
consistent with the policy direction in
the E.O. While EPA’s analysis shows
Option 1 may result in 16 possible
facility closures, this represents 0.03
percent of total industry facilities, and
thus, any supply chain disruptions from
such possible closures would be
minimal, temporary and localized. In
addition, the forecasted change in
industry production levels due to the
preferred Option 1 is estimated to be
only 0.01 percent. By comparison,
EPA’s analysis shows that potential
facility closures would be 22 under
Option 2 and 53 under Option 3,
supporting EPA’s selection of Option 1
as the preferred proposed option. See
the Other Economic Factors section of
the RIA for a more in-depth discussion
of this issue.
The CWA gives EPA authority to
consider these policy concerns in
determining BAT (CWA section
304(b)(2)(B) (authorizing consideration
of ‘‘such other factors as the
Administrator deems appropriate’’ in
assessing BAT); Weyerhaeuser v. Costle,
590 F.2d 1011, 1045 (D.C. Cir. 1978)
(Congress intended that EPA have
discretion ‘‘to decide how to account for
the consideration factors, and how
much weight to give each factor.’’)).
At the same time, EPA intends to
consider any impact of federal financial
assistance on wastewater treatment
upgrades at these facilities. EPA seeks
comment on whether other federal
funds or other programs could reduce or
minimize potential impacts of the more
expansive options on the
Administration’s efforts to support the
meat and poultry supply chain.
EPA has also heard from small entity
representatives (SERs) during EPA’s
SBREFA panel process (Final Panel
Report of the Small Business Advocacy
Review Panel on EPA’s Planned
Proposed Meat and Poultry Products
Effluent Limitations Guidelines
Rulemaking. USEPA. 2023. DCN
MP00347) that there are potential
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
concerns about the availability of
nitrogen removal technologies under
Options 2 and 3, due to space
limitations for such technologies at
some facilities. Although these
technologies are currently in use in the
industry, these technologies require a
greater land area than DAF (the
conventional pollutant control
technology that is the basis for the limits
on indirect dischargers under Option 1),
particularly at facilities with high
wastewater flows. EPA has heard
concerns from SERs with respect to
facilities located in or near urbanized
areas where sufficient space may not be
available to install certain components
of nitrification/denitrification
technology, such as aerobic and
anaerobic lagoons. Industry
stakeholders have also indicated that
zoning restrictions may prevent them
from acquiring adjacent parcels of land
that may be needed for installation of
such technology. EPA estimates that 143
indirect discharging facilities would
incur costs to comply with nitrogen and
phosphorus effluent limits under
Option 2 and 777 such facilities would
incur costs to comply with limits under
Option 3, many of which would need to
install nitrogen control technologies for
the first time. EPA would like additional
information about available space at
such facilities, as well as information on
other high rate/small footprint nutrient
removal technologies that might be
available to treat MPP wastewater.
EPA also heard from SERs concern
about the availability of nutrient control
technologies for indirect dischargers
under Options 2 and 3 due to ongoing
supply chain issues and labor shortages
in the wastewater treatment industry.
While these technologies are widely
available and have been used in many
industrial and municipal wastewater
treatment facilities across the country to
remove nutrients, SERs have raised
concerns about the timing of such
availability. The amount of a good
supplied for a market can take time to
adjust to a sudden large increase in
demand. In addition, if there is a
temporary spike in demand resulting
from many facilities needing to come
into compliance at the same time, there
may not be an incentive for the
companies that make and install these
technologies to increase their long-term
capacity. Given the large number of
indirect facilities that would need to
install new nutrient removing treatment
technologies under Options 2 and 3,
there is a potential for implementation
delays. These implementation delays
could result in facilities operating out of
compliance or temporarily closing until
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
they are able to get the new control
technology in place. See the Other
Economic Factors Section of the RIA for
a more in-depth discussion of this issue.
Given the large number of indirect
discharging facilities that would likely
need to install nutrient removal
technologies under Options 2 and 3, and
the ongoing supply chain issues, it is
not clear whether these technologies
will be available in sufficient quantity to
allow for installation within the threeyear statutory timeframe for
pretreatment standards under CWA
section 307(b) (33 U.S.C 1317(b)). EPA
solicits additional information about
production capacity for nutrient control
technologies in the industry, given that
the Nation is currently in the process of
significant investments in water
infrastructure as part of the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law.
In addition, EPA is considering
whether there are compliance
flexibilities for indirect discharging
facilities that would allow for additional
time beyond the three-year statutory
timeframe in CWA section 307(b) (33
U.S.C. 1317(b)), in light of potential
concerns about availability of
technology due to supply chain issues.
EPA solicits comment on how it could
implement new pretreatment standards
consistent with this provision
recognizing that there could be supply
chain issues preventing facilities from
installing the treatment technologies.
For example, one option could be to
allow phased implementation based on
size thresholds, whereby larger facilities
would be required to install such
technologies within three years of the
effective date of the rule, while smaller
facilities would be allowed additional
time to install such technologies, based
on a demonstration that the facility is
contractually bound to procure the
technology within a specified time of
the effective date. EPA solicits comment
on such an approach, or other
implementation flexibilities for indirect
discharging facilities, should the
Agency decide to finalize a rule based
on a more expansive option than the
preferred Option 1.
Should the Agency decide to
promulgate a rule based on a more
expansive option, EPA is considering
conditional limits under these options
(see Section VII.F) to reduce costs and
eliminate the need for redundant
treatment. To better understand the
potential use of such conditional limits,
EPA solicits information about how
many POTWs that receive MPP
wastewater have nitrogen and
phosphorus removal technologies that
could provide an equivalent level of
treatment, and whether such flexibilities
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4493
may result in significant cost savings,
including any relevant data on
incremental cost savings or other
benefits.
EPA has also heard from industry
representatives that since nitrification/
denitrification technologies also remove
organic pollutants (as measured by
BOD5), there is some concern about the
ability of POTWs to meet their discharge
limitations should indirect discharging
MPP facilities be required to meet
nitrogen pretreatment standards. The
secondary treatment regulations at 40
CFR 133.102 require POTWs to achieve
a 30-day average percent removal of
BOD and TSS of not less than 85
percent. If MPP facilities currently
discharge a significant quantity of
organic pollutants to a POTW, that load
would be reduced after meeting any
nitrogen pretreatment standards. That
may therefore reduce the percent
reduction in BOD achieved at the POTW
since the POTW would be receiving
more dilute flows. While EPA notes that
the secondary treatment regulations at
133.103(d) allow for consideration of
less concentrated influent wastewater
and the substitution of a lower percent
removal requirement or a mass loading
limit for the percent removal
requirement by the Regional
Administrator or State Director, which
could address this issue, EPA solicits
additional comments on this concern
from the POTW community.
F. Additional Provisions
In addition to seeking comment on
the three proposed regulatory options,
EPA solicits public comment on three
additional provisions that would apply
with respect to some of these options:
First, with respect to the pretreatment
standards for nitrogen and phosphorus
that would apply to indirect dischargers
under Options 2 and 3, EPA solicits
comment on a provision that would
allow an exemption from these limits
for indirect discharging MPP facilities
discharging to POTWs that provide
equivalent nutrient removal as would be
required under the proposed PSES/
PSNS. Such ‘‘conditional limits’’ have
been used in previous ELGs, such as the
Iron and Steel Manufacturing Effluent
Guidelines (40 CFR 420.15). EPA is
considering including such a provision
in any final rule that would contain
nutrient pretreatment standards (such as
under Options 2 or 3) because nitrogen
and phosphorus removal technologies
involve more costly, advanced treatment
than is required for conventional
pollutants and some facilities have
already shared costs to upgrade their
receiving POTW to remove nutrients to
meet Water Quality Based Effluent
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
4494
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Limits in the POTW’s discharge permits.
If the receiving POTW is providing
equivalent nutrient removal, then the
MPP facilities may not need to pretreat
their wastewater to remove nutrients to
achieve an equivalent environmental
outcome. Conditional provisions that
allow this flexibility, provided the
POTW agrees, would reduce costs for
indirect dischargers where the POTW
already has nutrient removal
technologies and eliminate redundant
treatment. For conditional limits
applied to a MPP facility, EPA solicits
comment on how to structure such a
provision to include factors such as
what treatment at the POTW could be
considered equivalent, whether the
POTW permit should contain nitrogen
and phosphorus effluent limits at least
as stringent as the pretreatment
standards that would be required at the
MPP facility, how to demonstrate
compliance, how to ensure that the
POTW has the capacity and ability to
adequately treat such wastewaters while
maintaining its design pollutant
capacity reserved for the residential
population, and the process by which
the facility would request the
conditional limits be applied and
receive approval from their control
authority.
Second, EPA solicits comment on
including E. coli as a regulated
parameter for direct dischargers because
the presence of E. coli is a more reliable
indicator of pathogen pollution than the
presence of fecal coliforms. E. coli, a
predominate member of normal gut
microflora in warm blooded animals,
has a limited capacity for reproduction
outside of the intestinal tract, making its
presence in environmental samples a
strong indicator of fecal contamination
(Odonkor and Ampofo. 2013).19 Fecal
coliforms, a large group of
thermotolerant bacteria, include some
bacterial species of environmental
origin and therefore can result in false
positives for fecal contamination (Doyle
and Erickson. 2006).20 EPA updated its
recreational water quality standards in
2012 (USEPA. 2012. EPA–820–F–12–
058) and the Revised Total Coliform
Rule in 2013 (USEPA. 2013. EPA 815–
B–13–001) to reflect the current state of
knowledge for indicator bacteria. Given
these updates in the use of bacterial
indicators for water quality, and that
current disinfection technology can
consistently reduce the presence of
19 Odonkor, S.T.; Ampofo, J.K. 2013. Escherichia
coli as an indicator of bacteriological quality of
water: An overview. Microbiology Research, 4(1),
e2. https://doi.org/10.4081/mr.2013.e2.
20 Doyle, M.P.; Erickson, M.C. 2006. Closing the
door on the fecal coliform assay. Microbe. 1, 162–
163.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
these indicator bacteria below the
current MPP ELGs, EPA is soliciting
comment on more stringent fecal
coliform limits for direct dischargers
based on BCT/BPT as well as limits for
E. coli for direct dischargers based on
BAT as part of the preferred option in
this proposed rule. EPA also solicits
comment on replacing fecal coliform
limits with E. coli limits in any final
rule to reduce redundancy in
monitoring and limit requirements.
Third, EPA solicits comment on
including BAT/NSPS/PSES/PSNS
chloride limits for certain wastestreams
to remove salts from facility discharges
in any final rule based on BAT. In the
meat processing industry, salts may be
used in further processing and for water
softening purposes. The presence of
chlorides in discharges to surface waters
can adversely affect aquatic organisms
because of their sensitivity to
concentrations of salt. A review of
chlorides data in 2021 discharge
monitoring reports from ICIS–NPDES
showed about 70 percent of MPP
facilities are discharging wastewater
with chloride concentrations exceeding
ambient water quality criteria of 230
mg/L and secondary drinking water
standards of 250 mg/L (the reported
70th percentile of these data was 254
mg/L). Although removing salt is
difficult and can be expensive, and
therefore treating the whole wastewater
effluent may not be the most efficient
way to control chlorides, some facilities
have certain operations with process
wastewater that is kept separate from
the main waste stream. These processes
include hide processing, water softening
regeneration wastewater, meat and
poultry koshering, and further
processing operations involving
marinating and curing. Segregation and
treatment of these process wastestreams
is currently in place at some MPP
facilities. Segregation and management
of these high chloride wastestreams
could result in targeted reductions of up
to 477 million pounds of salt discharges
annually at a cost of $172 million
annually if applied to 466 facilities
under Options 1, 2 and 3.
EPA is considering salt recycle/
evaporation systems as the technology
basis for establishing BAT/NSPS/PSES/
PSNS limitations to control chlorides
discharged in high chlorides waste
streams in any final rule. EPA is
considering effluent limitations for
chlorides for direct and indirect
discharging facilities in any subcategory
with production greater than 5 million
pounds per year with high chlorides
processes. Analysis indicates that these
technologies may be available,
economically achievable, and have
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
acceptable non-water quality
environmental impacts. See section 12
of the TDD for additional details on the
non-water quality environmental
impacts of this provision. EPA is not
including this provision as part of the
preferred option in today’s proposal, but
rather is soliciting comment on
including such a provision in any final
rule. In particular, EPA solicits
comment on the potential costs of such
a provision, and specifically on the cost
methodology and results contained in
the TDD.
G. Small Business Considerations From
the Small Business Advocacy Review
Panel
Although this proposed rule would
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to
reduce the impact of this proposed rule
on small entities and completed the
Small Business Advocacy Review
(SBAR) panel to take input from small
entities. EPA’s proposed preferred
option would not expand applicability
to smaller direct discharging facilities,
but it would propose first-ever national
pretreatment standards for indirect
discharging facilities. EPA’s analysis
(see Section VIII) shows that Option 1
would apply to 96 small firms. This
section discusses the 5
recommendations from the SBAR panel.
EPA recognizes that under all options
considered some facilities will be
subject to pretreatment standards and/or
categorical discharge standards for the
first time, and therefore, may not be
familiar with certain aspects of NPDES
permitting and/or pretreatment
standards. EPA also heard concerns
during the SBAR panel outreach
meetings with SERs specifically related
to a lack of familiarity with effluent
guidelines and pretreatment standards.
One of the five recommendations was
for EPA therefore to solicit comments on
what information small facilities would
find beneficial (e.g., terms to know for
determining applicability and
compliance, information from the
POTW or control authority, information
on the general permitting process,
wastewater operator requirements, and
how to measure annual production) that
could be addressed through guidance or
other materials that EPA could provide
should any final rule expand
applicability to small firms beyond the
current rule. EPA therefore solicits
comment from small entities on this
topic.
EPA also heard from SERs about
concerns related to production
thresholds for applicability of the ELGs.
While EPA’s proposed regulatory
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
options minimize impacts on small
entities, another recommendation that
EPA also solicits comment on is
whether the proposed production
thresholds could be adjusted to further
minimize such impacts, particularly
with respect to Options 2 and 3 as those
options expand coverage to additional
facilities as compared to Option 1. A
third recommendation that EPA also
solicits comment on is for alternatives to
production thresholds for determining
regulation, such as water usage,
specifically as a way to minimize
impacts to small firms or to provide an
alternative means of determining
applicability to small firms that may not
track production.
Under Options 2 and 3, EPA is
considering conditional limits for
facilities that discharge to POTWs with
nitrogen and phosphorus limits and
treatment capabilities equivalent to the
treatment that would be needed to
comply with any new proposed
requirements. For these indirect
discharging facilities, with
documentation and approval by the
POTW/control authority, the MPP
facilities would not need to treat the
wastewater for nitrogen and phosphorus
before discharging to the POTW. A
fourth Panel recommendation that EPA
also requests comment on is the
inclusion of conditional limits, and
specifically what documentation and
approval by the POTW/control authority
would be sufficient to establish
conditional limits as a compliance
mechanism.
The fifth recommendation was for
EPA to consider and take comment on
a longer or flexible timeline for small
entities to meet proposed regulations.
EPA requests comment from small
entities on what kind of timeline
flexibilities would be helpful. See the
SBREFA panel report for additional
details regarding these and other
considerations that were raised by SERs
(USEPA. 2023. DCN MP00347).
VIII. Costs, BPT Wholly
Disproportionate Cost Test, Economic
Achievability, and Other Economic
Impacts
This section provides an overview of
the methodology EPA used to assess the
costs and the economic impacts of the
three options considered in the
proposed rule and summarizes the
results of these analyses. EPA separately
assessed the cost and economic impacts
of the BPT, BCT, and BAT requirements
for each regulatory option proposed.
Then EPA assessed the combined
economic effects of all BPT, BCT, and
BAT requirements for each option for
purposes of implementing the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
Regulatory Impact Analysis required by
E.O. See the RIA and supporting
information in the docket for additional
detail. The proposed rule would revise
BPT for conventional pollutants and
consider whether more stringent BCT
limits pass the two-part BCT cost test
(51 FR 24974 (July 9,1986)). For BPT,
EPA performed a ‘‘wholly
disproportionate’’ cost test for all direct
and indirect discharging facilities that
would be required to control
conventional pollutants under the three
proposed options. For BCT, EPA
evaluated the reasonableness of BCT
candidate technologies—those that
remove more conventional pollutants
than BPT—by applying a two-part cost
test. The two-part ‘‘cost reasonableness’’
test requires: (1) The cost per pound of
conventional pollutant removed by
dischargers in upgrading from BPT
limits to the candidate BCT option must
be less than the cost per pound of
conventional pollutant removal by
upgrading POTWs from secondary
treatment to advanced secondary
treatment (‘‘the POTW test’’); and (2) an
assessment of industry costs per pound
removed in upgrading from BPT to BCT
relative to the costs per pound removed
in going from no treatment to BPT,
followed by a comparison of that ratio
to the analogous ratio for POTWs (‘‘the
industry cost effectiveness test’’). The
industry ratio must be less than the
POTW ratio to pass the test.
The proposed rule would also revise
BAT for non-conventional pollutants
(nitrogen and phosphorus). EPA
assessed the economic achievability of
BAT for all direct and indirect facilities
that would have requirements for nonconventional pollutants under the
proposed options. In developing ELGs
reflecting BAT, and as required by CWA
section 301(b)(2)(A) (33 U.S.C.
1311(b)(2)(A)), EPA evaluates the
economic achievability of the regulatory
options to assess the impacts of
applying the limitations and standards
to the industry as a whole, which
typically includes an assessment of
incremental facility closures attributable
to a regulatory option. As described in
more detail below, this proposed ELG is
expected to result in incremental costs
when compared to baseline operations
for many facilities. The cost and
economic impact analysis for this
proposed rulemaking focuses on
understanding the magnitude and
distribution of compliance costs across
the industry and the broader market
impacts. EPA used indicators to assess
the impacts of the three regulatory
options on the MPP industry. EPA
considered the total cost to industry and
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4495
change in the number and capacity of
specific facilities expected to close
under the proposed option, as well as
the other options considered, compared
to baseline. EPA also analyzed the ratio
of compliance costs to revenue to see
how the three options would change the
number of plants and their owning
entities that exceed thresholds
indicating potential financial strain. In
addition to the analyses supporting the
economic achievability of the regulatory
options, EPA conducted other analyses
to (1) characterize other potential
impacts of the regulatory options (e.g.,
on market prices) and (2) to meet the
requirements of E.O.s or other statutes
(e.g., E.O. 12866, Regulatory Flexibility
Act, Unfunded Mandates Reform Act).
A. BPT Wholly Disproportionate Cost
Test
EPA estimated facility-specific costs
and loads for two levels of treatment
technology reflected in the regulatory
options developed. The first level of
treatment was the use of DAF
technology. This level of technology is
already in place for direct discharging
facilities reflecting the existing rule
BPT, BCT and BAT requirements but
would be a new requirement for indirect
discharging facilities. The CWA requires
that the EPA consider ‘‘the total cost of
application of technology in relation to
the effluent reduction benefits to be
achieved from such application,’’ and
these costs should not be wholly
disproportionate to the corresponding
effluent reduction benefits. As the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
stated, ‘‘The courts of appeal have
consistently held that Congress
intended section 304(b) to give the EPA
broad discretion in considering the cost
of pollution abatement in relation to its
benefits and to preclude the EPA from
giving the cost of compliance primary
importance’’ (Chemical Manufacturers
Assn. v. U.S. EPA, 870 F.2d 177, 204,
(5th Cir. 1989)).
Table VIII–1 presents the annualized
after-tax technology costs and associated
pollutant load reductions for individual
subcategories of facilities and the
industry as a whole. Although BPT
applies to both conventional and
nonconventional pollutants, DAF
technology is primarily employed to
address conventional pollutants, so only
conventional pollutant reductions are
shown. Load reductions reflect the
change in pollutants being discharged
from regulated facilities to their
receiving POTWs. The table
demonstrates that under BPT, there
would be significant reductions in
conventional pollutant loading for each
subcategory and the industry as a
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
4496
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
whole, across all three options. Based
on these results, EPA proposes to find
that BPT costs for conventional
pollutant reductions under the preferred
Option 1 are not wholly
disproportionate to the corresponding
effluent reduction benefits. EPA also
solicits comment on whether the BPT
costs of conventional pollutant
reductions under regulatory Options 2
and 3, as reflected in the table below,
are also not wholly disproportionate to
the effluent reduction benefits.
TABLE VIII–1
Rule option
Subcategories
Total
annualized
BPT
costs 21
(millions of
$2022)
Oil & grease
BOD
Total
pollutants
TSS
Oil & grease
BOD
BPT Reductions (M lbs/yr)
Option 1 .........
Option 2 .........
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Option 3 .........
Total
pollutants
BPT Ratio lbs/$
A–D ...............
F–I .................
J ....................
K ....................
L ....................
$2.00
2.46
0.74
7.08
1.66
3
6
0
3
0
7
0
2
61
8
3
0
1
100
13
13
6
3
164
22
$0.63
0.43
2.91
2.65
4.60
$0.31
18.15
0.42
0.12
0.20
$0.65
36.31
0.83
0.07
0.12
$0.16
0.41
0.26
0.04
0.08
All ...........
A–D ...............
F–I .................
J ....................
K ....................
L ....................
13.93
2.00
2.46
0.74
7.08
1.66
12
3
6
0
3
0
77
7
0
2
61
8
118
3
0
1
100
13
207
13
6
3
164
22
1.14
0.63
0.43
2.91
2.65
4.60
0.18
0.31
18.15
0.42
0.12
0.20
0.12
0.65
36.31
0.83
0.07
0.12
0.07
0.16
0.41
0.26
0.04
0.08
All ...........
A–D ...............
F–I .................
J ....................
K ....................
L ....................
13.93
15.76
6.89
0.79
7.75
1.66
12
7
11
0
3
0
77
14
0
2
63
8
118
7
0
1
104
13
207
28
11
3
170
22
1.14
2.25
0.64
3.10
2.78
4.60
0.18
1.10
27.30
0.45
0.12
0.20
0.12
2.32
54.60
0.88
0.07
0.12
0.07
0.56
0.62
0.27
0.05
0.08
All ...........
32.84
21
88
126
234
1.55
0.37
0.26
0.14
B. BCT Cost Test
In July 1986, EPA explained how it
developed its methodology for setting
effluent limitations based on BCT (51
FR 24974). EPA evaluates the
reasonableness of BCT candidate
technologies—those that remove more
conventional pollutants than BPT—by
applying a two-part cost test: a POTW
test and an industry cost-effectiveness
test.
EPA first calculates the cost per
pound of conventional pollutant
removed by industrial dischargers in
upgrading from BPT to a BCT candidate
technology, and then compares this cost
to the cost per pound of conventional
pollutants removed in upgrading
POTWs to advanced secondary
treatment (i.e., ‘‘the POTW test’’). The
upgrade cost to industry must be less
than the POTW benchmark of $0.25 per
pound (in 1976 dollars) or $1.48 per
pound (in 2022 dollars). In the industry
cost-effectiveness test, the ratio of the
cost per pound to go from BPT to BCT
divided by the cost per pound to go
from raw wastewater to BPT for the
industry must be less than 1.29 (that is,
21 All
BPT and BAT costs were annualized using
the weighted average cost of capital (WACC) for
facilities. The WACC was derived based on facility
responses to Industry Survey. See Section 5.2.3 of
the Regulatory Impact Analysis for a detailed
explanation of how the WACC was derived.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
TSS
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
the cost increase must be less than 29
percent).
For purposes of this analysis, for the
preferred Option 1, EPA compared the
cost of upgrading from the candidate
BPT (based on screens followed with
DAF technology for 720 large indirect
facilities) to BCT (based on biological
treatment to achieve full denitrification
and chemical precipitation with
filtration as described for BAT in
Section VII C.1). The cost for these 719
facilities to upgrade from candidate BPT
to candidate BCT would range from
$0.26 to $1.32 per pound of pollutant
removed depending on the subcategory.
Option 2 involves the same 719
facilities receiving conventional
pollutant removal technology; thus, the
cost and results of this test would be the
same as Option 1. Option 3 would
require 1,485 indirect facilities to
implement conventional pollutant
removal technology, and the cost for
these facilities to upgrade from
candidate BPT to candidate BCT would
range from $0.30 to $1.03 per pound of
pollutant removed depending on the
subcategory. The section 9 of the TDD
provides more details on the
calculations of the BCT cost tests.
In developing BCT limits, EPA
considered whether there are
technologies that achieve greater
removals of conventional pollutants
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
than the candidate for BPT, and whether
those technologies are cost-reasonable
according to the prescribed BCT tests.
For Subcategories A through D, F
through J, K, and L, EPA identified
technologies that can achieve greater
removals of conventional pollutants
than the candidate BPT standards;
however, this technology is full
treatment (based on screening/grit
removal, DAF, anaerobic lagoon,
biological treatment, chemical
phosphorus removal, sand filter, and
solids handling), and EPA proposes to
find that it does not pass the BCT cost
test under any of the proposed options.
Furthermore, since these limits are for
indirect dischargers that send their
wastewater to POTWs, and POTWs are
designed to remove BOD, TSS, and oil
& grease, EPA considers screens with
DAF treatment an appropriate
pretreatment technology for PSES/
PSNS. Accordingly, EPA proposes to
establish BCT effluent limitations equal
to the candidate BPT limitations based
on screens followed with DAF for
indirect dischargers in these
subcategories.
C. Economic Achievability Analysis for
BAT
For the second level of treatment for
toxic and non-conventional pollutants,
direct dischargers must meet BAT, and
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
4497
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
indirect dischargers must meet
pretreatment standards based on BAT.
In setting BAT, EPA is required to
evaluate costs and determine if they can
be reasonably borne by the industry.
EPA considers not only technology cost
but also engineering and process
changes as well as energy requirements
of implementing the new technology.
The cost estimates developed by EPA
for the technologies considered for BPT,
BCT, and BAT incorporate these factors
as additional cost elements.
1. Facility Closure Analysis (BAT)
Estimates of possible facility closures
are the traditional way EPA considers
economic achievability. A discounted
cash-flow analysis was performed on
detailed questionnaire respondents and
the results were then extrapolated to all
facilities incurring costs under each
option. For more information on this
approach, see the RIA. Table VIII–2
shows the number of facilities with BAT
costs and the estimated possible
closures by production subcategory for
each option. The table also shows the
relative percentage of facilities with
costs and total discharging facilities that
are estimated to close. EPA estimated
that the preferred Option 1 would have
only a single possible closure and
proposes to find that this would be
considered economically achievable
under any reasonable measure of
impacts. Under Options 2 and 3 EPA
estimated that there are 19 and 29 total
possible closures, respectively. This
equates to 7 percent of the 269 facilities
with BAT costs under Option 2, and 3
percent of the 913 facilities with BAT
costs under Option 3. However, to
understand the economic impact of
these options on the industry it is
necessary to consider these possible
closures within the context of the total
number of industry facilities. Neither
Options 2 nor 3 have estimated
potential closures that exceed 1 percent
of the 3,897 discharging facilities. If the
zero discharge facilities were also
factored in, these percentages would be
smaller still. These two options were
developed to limit BAT requirements to
just the larger discharging facilities that
tend to be better able to afford the
nutrient reduction technologies. EPA
solicits comment on whether Options 2
and 3 would be economically
achievable for the industry as a whole,
based on the level of possible facility
closures reflected in the table below.
TABLE VIII–2—POSSIBLE FACILITY CLOSURES DUE TO BAT COSTS BY REGULATORY OPTION
Production sub-categories
Rule option
Total facilities
Meat first
Meat further
Poultry first
Poultry further
Rendering
1:
Facilities with BAT Costs ..................
Estimated Possible Closures ............
% of facilities with costs ...................
% of all Discharging facilities ............
30
0
0.0
0.0
9
0
0.0
0.0
64
1
1.6
0.0
5
0
0.0
0.0
18
0
0.0
0.0
126
1
0.8
0.0
Facilities with BAT Costs ..................
Estimated Possible Closures ............
% of facilities with costs ...................
% of all Discharging facilities ............
85
10
11.8
0.3
9
0
0.0
0.0
142
8
5.6
0.2
5
0
0.0
0.0
28
1
3.6
0.0
269
19
7.1
0.5
Facilities with BAT Costs ..................
Estimated Possible Closures ............
% of facilities with costs ...................
% of all Discharging facilities ............
137
11
8.0
0.3
371
3
0.8
0.1
190
11
5.8
0.3
100
1
1.0
0.0
115
3
2.6
0.1
913
29
3.2
0.7
2:
3:
To assess the economic achievability
of BAT technologies, EPA also
compared facility level costs to
estimated revenue to screen for
potential financial impacts to facilities.
EPA considered total facility costs
relative to industry sales, the number of
facilities that have costs greater than 1
percent and 3 percent of revenue, and
the number of potential facility closures.
The next level of control beyond BPT is
not feasible for facilities unless the BPT
technology is in place, so EPA
conservatively assessed both the costs of
BAT assuming BPT is in place, called
‘‘incremental,’’ and the costs including
both costs to meet revised BPT and the
revised BAT, called ‘‘additive’’ costs of
BAT technologies. Table VIII–3 shows
the incremental and additive BAT costs
for each of the three options and the
percentage of annual industry sales
these costs comprise.
TABLE VIII–3—TOTAL ANNUALIZED AFTER-TAX COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR BAT
Incremental BAT
Regulatory option
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
(millions, 2022$)
Option 1 ...........................................................................
Option 2 ...........................................................................
Option 3 ...........................................................................
BPT + BAT (additive)
% Industry annual
sales *
$196.39
576.49
962.78
(millions, 2022$)
0.07
0.22
0.36
$196.39
583.51
981.54
% Industry annual
sales *
0.07
0.22
0.37
* Based on U.S. Census Annual Survey of Manufacturers, 2021 sales for NAICS 3116.
The difference between the
incremental and Additive (BPT+BAT)
costs are small, which reflects the
relatively small cost of the DAF
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:53 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
technology compared to the more
expensive nutrient removal
technologies. For assessing economic
achievability, EPA is considering the
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
additive BAT costs. Table VIII–4 shows
these full BAT costs broken out by
production sub-categories.
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
4498
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
TABLE VIII–4—TOTAL ANNUALIZED AFTER-TAX BAT COSTS BY SUB-CATEGORY FOR RULE OPTIONS IN (2022$)
Production sub-category
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Meat First .....................................................................................................................................
Meat Further ................................................................................................................................
Poultry First ..................................................................................................................................
Poultry Further .............................................................................................................................
Renderer ......................................................................................................................................
$62.47
3.73
114.00
6.06
10.13
$226.76
3.73
324.51
6.06
22.44
$255.60
204.91
381.48
72.21
67.32
Total Facility BAT costs ........................................................................................................
196.39
583.51
981.53
2. BAT Cost-to-Revenue Analyses
Under the Agency’s Regulatory
Flexibility Act Guidance for assessing
impacts of EPA actions on small entities
(Final Guidance for EPA Rulewriters:
Regulatory Flexibility Act as Amended
by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act. USEPA
2006), facilities incurring costs below
one percent of revenue are unlikely to
face economic impacts, while facilities
with costs between 1 percent and 3
percent of revenue have a higher chance
of facing economic impacts, and
facilities incurring costs above three
percent of revenue have a still higher
probability of economic impact.
Tables VIII–5, VIII–6, and VIII–7 show
the number of facilities that have BAT
CTR ratios that fall into the three above
mentioned categories for each option.
To provide context for these numbers,
the tables display the percentage of
facilities that fall into each group, by all
facilities incurring cost and by all
discharging facilities. For all options,
the percentage of discharging facilities
with a higher probability of financial
impacts is less than one. When
considering subcategories, all
production types have less than one
percent of discharging facilities in the
higher-probability category, except for
poultry slaughter which has 2.1 percent
and 2.5 percent of discharging facilities
in this category under options 2 and 3
respectively.
TABLE VIII–5—FACILITY-LEVEL BAT AFTER-TAX COMPLIANCE COST-TO-REVENUE ANALYSIS FOR OPTION 1
Number of facilities
with a ratio of
Percentage of facilities with
BAT costs with ratio of
Percent of all discharging facilities
with a ratio of
Facilities
that
discharge
Facilities
with BAT
costs
Meat First ......................
Meat Further ..................
Poultry First ...................
Poultry Further ..............
Rendering ......................
556
2,770
238
175
140
30
9
64
5
18
526
2,761
174
170
122
30
9
61
3
17
0
0
2
2
1
0
0
1
0
0
100.0
100.0
95.3
60.0
94.4
0.0
0.0
3.1
40.0
5.6
0.0
0.0
1.6
0.0
0.0
94.6
99.7
73.1
97.1
87.1
5.4
0.3
25.6
1.7
12.1
0.0
0.0
0.8
1.1
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
Total Number .........
3,879
126
3,753
120
5
1
95.2
4.0
0.8
96.8
3.1
0.1
0.0
Sub-categories
0%
<1%
≥1 to 3%
≥3%
<1%
≥1 to 3%
≥3%
0%
<1%
≥1 to 3%
≥3%
TABLE VIII–6—FACILITY-LEVEL BAT AFTER-TAX COMPLIANCE COST-TO-REVENUE ANALYSIS FOR OPTION 2
Number of facilities
with a ratio of
Percentage of facilities with
BAT costs with ratio of
Percent of all discharging facilities
with a ratio of
Facilities
that
discharge
Facilities
with BAT
costs
Meat First ......................
Meat Further ..................
Poultry First ...................
Poultry Further ..............
Rendering ......................
556
2,770
238
175
140
85
9
142
5
28
471
2,761
96
170
112
85
9
130
3
26
0
0
7
2
2
0
0
5
0
0
100.0
100.0
91.5
60.0
92.9
0.0
0.0
4.9
40.0
7.1
0.0
0.0
3.5
0.0
0.0
84.7
99.7
40.3
97.1
80.0
15.3
0.3
54.6
1.7
18.6
0.0
0.0
2.9
1.1
1.4
0.0
0.0
2.1
0.0
0.0
Total Number .........
3,879
269
3,610
253
11
5
94.1
4.1
1.9
93.1
6.5
0.3
0.1
Sub-categories
0%
<1%
≥1 to 3%
≥3%
<1%
≥1 to 3%
≥3%
0%
<1%
≥1 to 3%
≥3%
TABLE VIII–7—FACILITY-LEVEL BAT AFTER-TAX COMPLIANCE COST-TO-REVENUE ANALYSIS FOR OPTION 3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Number of facilities
with a ratio of
Percentage of facilities with
BAT costs with ratio of
Percent of all discharging facilities
with a ratio of
Facilities
that
discharge
Facilities
with BAT
costs
Meat First ......................
Meat Further ..................
Poultry First ...................
Poultry Further ..............
Rendering ......................
556
2,770
238
175
140
137
371
190
100
115
419
2,399
48
75
25
134
368
173
97
103
1
1
11
2
12
2
2
6
1
0
97.8
99.2
91.1
97.0
89.6
0.7
0.3
5.8
2.0
10.4
1.5
0.5
3.2
1.0
0.0
75.4
86.6
20.2
42.9
17.9
24.1
13.3
72.7
55.4
73.6
0.2
0.0
4.6
1.1
8.6
0.4
0.1
2.5
0.6
0.0
Total Number .........
3,879
913
2,966
875
27
11
95.8
3.0
1.2
76.5
22.6
0.7
0.3
Sub-categories
The CTR analysis shows that under
Option 1 the BAT costs would be less
than 1 percent of revenue for 99.9
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
0%
<1%
≥1 to 3%
≥3%
<1%
≥1 to 3%
percent of discharging facilities, and,
per RFA guidance, would be unlikely to
face economic impacts. Therefore, EPA
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
≥3%
0%
<1%
≥1 to 3%
≥3%
proposes to find that Option 1 is
economically achievable for the
industry as a whole. Given that the BAT
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
4499
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
CTR results for options 2 and 3 show
that 99.6 percent and 99.1 percent of
discharging facilities would have costs
less than 1 percent of revenues,
respectively, EPA solicits comment on
whether these options would also be
economically achievable.
D. Other Economic Analyses
Sections A, B, and C above address
the CWA requirements for determining
BPT, BCT, and BAT. Economic effects of
each of these technology levels was
considered in isolation. This section
presents the aggregate costs and impacts
of each of the three options on regulated
facilities. These analyses cover both
facility-level and firm-level effects,
employment effects, and market-level
effects.
Under the preferred Option 1, EPA
estimated that 16 facilities would
potentially close. Under Option 2, EPA
estimated that 22 facilities would
potentially close. Under Option 3, EPA
estimated that 53 facilities would
potentially close. This corresponds
respectively to 0.3 percent, 0.4 percent,
and 1.0 percent of all facilities
(including zero discharge facilities).
Chapter 5 in the RIA provides more
detailed results for the three regulatory
options EPA analyzed. Table VIII–8
presents the results of the facility
closure analysis.
1. Facility Closure Analysis
Estimating the potential closures of
existing facilities is the traditional way
EPA assesses economic achievability
under the CWA. This analysis is based
first on financial data reported in the
detailed questionnaire, and then
extrapolated to the larger universe of
facilities based on relevant facility
financial and production characteristics.
TABLE VIII–8—POSSIBLE FACILITY CLOSURE ESTIMATES
Option 1
Number of Possible Facility Closures .........................................................................................
Number of Facilities with Costs ...................................................................................................
Number of Discharging Facilities .................................................................................................
% of Facilities with Costs ............................................................................................................
Rather than close the facility, some
firms may decide to reduce facility
production levels to be below the
production size thresholds included in
each of the options. Although they
would be avoiding compliance costs,
they would incur the opportunity costs
of forgone net revenues. Firms may
choose this approach if it is seen as less
economically burdensome than the
regulatory cost of compliance. This
approach is not costed because EPA
assumes that it would only be chosen by
the firm if it is less costly. However,
reducing production to avoid
compliance, if chosen by enough
facilities could have a measurable effect
on industry production. This potential
change in quantity produced is different
than the quantity effects discussed in
the following market analysis. The
potential costs of regulatory compliance
could also affect future decisions to
expand production at those existing
facilities that currently produce below
the threshold production levels that are
part of each of the regulatory options.
Option 2
16 (0.4%)
845
3,879
1.9%
Option 3
22 (0.6%)
845
3,879
2.6%
53 (1.0%)
1,620
3,879
3.3%
2. Facility and Firm Level Cost-toRevenue Analyses
(a) Facility-Level Cost-to-Revenue
Analysis
EPA conducted a screening-level
analysis of each regulatory option’s
potential impact on discharging MPP
facilities and parent entities based on
cost-to-revenue ratios. For each of the
two levels of analysis (facility and
parent entity), the Agency assumed, for
analytic convenience and as a worstcase scenario, that none of the
compliance costs would be passed on to
retailers or back to producers (farmers)
and would instead be absorbed by the
processing facilities and their parent
entities. This assumption overstates the
impacts of projected compliance
expenditures on a facility since it is
more realistic to assume that a portion
of these costs in most all cases may be
passed up and down the supply chain
resulting in small incremental cost
increases to producers and consumers.
It is, however, a reasonable assumption
for a screening-level estimate of the
potential cost impacts.
EPA used reported revenue estimates
in the detailed surveys responses. EPA
estimated revenue using reported
annual production multiplied by the
average revenue per unit of production
from the detailed questionnaire for
facilities producing the same output
type, e.g., slaughtered poultry.
Otherwise, EPA used external revenue
estimates from proprietary sources such
as Hoovers D&B where available or used
the mid-point of the production level
category assigned to the facility in the
FSIS database to first estimate their
production level, and then multiplied
this by survey average revenue per unit
of production, mentioned previously.
EPA then calculated the change in the
annualized after-tax costs of the three
regulatory options presented in Tables
VIII–6, 7 and 8 of this preamble as a
percent of baseline annual revenues. See
Chapter 4 of the RIA for a more detailed
discussion of the methodology used for
the facility-level cost-to-revenue
analysis. Table VIII–9 presents the
facility-level results for each of the three
options.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
TABLE VIII–9—FACILITY-LEVEL AFTER-TAX COMPLIANCE COST-TO-REVENUE ANALYSIS RESULTS BY REGULATORY OPTION
Number of facilities with a ratio of
Rule option
1 ....................................
2 ....................................
3 ....................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Total
dischargers
3,879
3,879
3,879
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Facilities
with costs
845
845
1,620
Jkt 262001
0%
<1%
3,033
3,033
2,257
838
828
1,576
PO 00000
Frm 00027
≥1 and
3%
5
12
31
Fmt 4701
Percentage of facilities with
costs with ratio of
≥3%
2
5
13
Sfmt 4702
<1%
99
98
97
≥1 and
3%
Percent of all dischargers with a ratio
of
≥3%
0.6
1.4
1.9
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
0.2
0.6
0.8
23JAP2
0%
78.2
78.2
58.2
<1%
21.6
21.4
40.7
≥1 and
3%
0.1
0.3
0.8
≥3%
0.1
0.1
0.3
4500
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Under the preferred Option 1, EPA
estimated that seven facilities (0.18
percent of total dischargers) would
incur incremental costs greater than or
equal to one percent of revenue,
including two facilities that have costs
greater than or equal to three percent of
revenue, and an additional 838 facilities
would incur costs that are less than one
percent of revenue. Under Option 2,
EPA estimated that 17 (0.44 percent of
total dischargers) facilities would incur
incremental costs greater than or equal
to one percent of revenue, including five
facilities that have costs greater than or
equal to three percent of revenue, and
an additional 828 facilities would incur
costs that are less than one percent of
revenue. Under Option 3, EPA
estimated that 44 facilities (1.13 percent
of total dischargers) would incur
incremental costs greater than or equal
to 1 percent of revenue, including 13
facilities that have costs greater than or
equal to three percent of revenue, and
an additional 1,578 facilities would
incur costs that are less than 1 percent
of revenue. For each of these three
options, the remaining discharging
facilities would incur no costs. Chapter
4 in the RIA provides more detailed
results for the three regulatory options
EPA analyzed.
(b) Firm-Level Cost-to-Revenue Analysis
EPA also assessed the economic
impact of the regulatory options at the
parent entity level. The screening-level
cost-to-revenue analysis at the parent
entity level provides insight on the
impact on those entities that own one or
more MPP facilities. In this analysis, the
domestic parent entity associated with a
given facility is defined as the entity
with the largest ownership share in the
facility. For each parent entity or firm,
EPA compared the incremental change
in the total annualized after-tax costs
and the total revenue for the entity to
baseline (see Chapter 4 of the RIA for
details). EPA based ownership and
annual revenues directly on
questionnaire responses for those
facilities that completed detailed
questionnaires. Ownership was also
based on questionnaire responses.
Revenue information, however, was
based on external sources of financial
information, mentioned above. Where
questionnaire responses were not
available, ownership and firm revenue
information were based on matching
these facilities with firms contained in
the external firm data (Hoovers D&B)
that have reported business activity
under NAICS category 3116. For
facilities where a match could not be
made, facilities were assumed to be
owned by a firm that owned no other
businesses and has no other sources of
revenue. This assumption likely leads to
an overestimation of the cost-to revenue
ratio for many of these entities that may
also have additional sources of revenue.
Table VIII–10 provides firm-level costto-revenue results.
TABLE VIII–10—FIRM-LEVEL CTR SCREENING ANALYSIS RESULTS
Firms with
MPP
facilities
Rule option
1 ................................................
2 ................................................
3 ................................................
I
4,127
4,127
4,127
Number firms with a ratio of
0% a
3,730
3,730
3,129
I
a These
>0 and <1%
≥1 and <3%
394
393
980
3
3
14
I
I
Percent of firms with a ratio of
≥3%
0% a
0
1
4
I
90
90
76
I
>0 and <1%
≥1 and <3%
10
10
24
0.1
0.1
0.4
I
I
≥3%
0.0
0.0
0.1
firms own only facilities that already meet discharge requirements for the wastestreams addressed by a given regulatory option and are therefore not estimated to incur any compliance technology costs.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Like the facility-level analysis above,
cost-to-revenue ratios provide
screening-level indicators of potential
economic impacts, this time to the
owning entities; higher ratios suggest a
higher probability of economic impacts.
EPA estimates that the number of
entities owning existing MPP facilities
to be 4,127 firms. Under the proposed
rule Option 1, there would be 3,730
firms with no costs and 394 with costs
less than one percent of revenue. EPA
estimates that three firms would incur
incremental costs greater than or equal
to one percent of revenue and less than
three percent of revenue. No firms are
expected to incur costs greater than or
equal to three percent of revenue. Under
Option 2, there would be 3,730 firms
with no costs and 393 with costs less
than 1 percent of revenue. EPA
estimates that four firms would incur
incremental costs greater than or equal
to 1 percent of revenue and only one of
these would incur costs greater than or
equal to 3 percent of revenue. Under
Option 3, there would be 3,129 firms
with no costs and 980 with costs less
than 1 percent of revenue. EPA
estimates that 18 firms would incur
incremental costs greater than or equal
to 1 percent of revenue and, of these,
four would incur costs greater than or
equal to 3 percent of revenue. Chapter
4 in the RIA provides more detailed
results for the three regulatory options
EPA analyzed.
(c) Small Business Impacts
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA) and Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA),
EPA is required to estimate the potential
economic impacts of the rule on small
businesses. The definition of small
business varies by NAICS categories and
for this industrial category the
definition is based on employment
levels provided in Table VIII–11 below.
Firm employment levels are based on
questionnaire responses when available.
For non-respondents, firm employment
estimates from Hoovers D&B are used if
the firm was matched to one or more
facilities. For remaining firms USDA
facility inspection data employment
categories for facilities are used to
estimate if the owners are a small
business. For more information on this
approach see the SBREFA screening
analysis section of the RIA.
TABLE VIII–11—SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION SMALL BUSINESS SIZE STANDARDS FOR MEAT AND POULTRY
PROCESSING INDUSTRY
Size standard
in employee
#s
NAICS code
NAICS industry description
311611 ...........................
311612 ...........................
311613 ...........................
Animal (except Poultry) Slaughtering .....................................................................................................
Meat Processed from Carcasses ............................................................................................................
Rendering and Meat Byproduct Processing ...........................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:53 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
1,150
1,000
750
4501
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
TABLE VIII–11—SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION SMALL BUSINESS SIZE STANDARDS FOR MEAT AND POULTRY
PROCESSING INDUSTRY—Continued
Size standard
in employee
#s
NAICS code
NAICS industry description
311615 ...........................
Poultry Processing ..................................................................................................................................
For each of the three options, EPA
estimated the number of small parent
entities that incur annual compliance
costs that fall into one of three
categories: less than 1 percent of annual
revenue; between 1 percent and less
than 3 percent of annual revenue; and
3 percent or more of annual revenue.
Table VIII–12 presents the results of the
CTR test for all small entities that own
MPP dischargers. Table VIII–13 shows
aggregate revenue and cost for small
firms by process type. EPA
conservatively assumes that entities
with an unidentified size are large.
While this assumption potentially
1,250
reduces the number of identified small
entities, it provides a conservative
estimate of the percentage of small
entities with impacts, since none of the
entities with an unidentified size have
a CTR ratio greater than one percent
under any of the regulatory options.
TABLE VIII–12—SMALL FIRM-LEVEL CTR SCREENING ANALYSIS RESULTS
Number small firms with a ratio of
Total # of
small firms
Entity type
Option 1 .....................................
Option 2 .....................................
Option 3 .....................................
0% a
3,233
3,233
3,233
>0 and <1%
≥1 and <3%
95
94
248
1
1
11
3,137
3,137
2,970
Percent of small firms with a ratio of
≥3%
0% a
0
1
4
>0 and <1%
≥1 and <3%
3
3
8
0.0
0.0
0.0
97
97
92
≥3%
0.0
0.0
0.0
a These entities own only facilities that already meet discharge requirements for the wastestreams addressed by a given regulatory option and are therefore not estimated to incur any compliance technology costs.
TABLE VIII–13—AGGREGATE REVENUE AND COSTS FOR SMALL FIRMS BY PROCESS TYPE
Total # small
firms with
dischargers
Process type a
Total # small
firms with
costs
Aggregate
revenue
(millions,
2022$)
Aggregate
costs
(millions,
2022$)
Option 1
Meat first ..........................................................................................................
Meat further .....................................................................................................
Poultry first .......................................................................................................
Poultry further ..................................................................................................
Render .............................................................................................................
372
1,799
55
47
23
22
31
16
20
7
$83,328
61,517
20,008
9,363
6,019
$4.5
0.1
13.6
3.0
1.0
Total ..........................................................................................................
2,296
96
180,235
22.3
Meat first ..........................................................................................................
Meat further .....................................................................................................
Poultry first .......................................................................................................
Poultry further ..................................................................................................
Render .............................................................................................................
372
1,799
55
47
23
22
31
16
20
7
83,328
61,517
20,008
9,363
6,019
32.7
0.1
41.6
3.0
1.0
Total ..........................................................................................................
2,296
96
180,235
78.5
Meat first ..........................................................................................................
Meat further .....................................................................................................
Poultry first .......................................................................................................
Poultry further ..................................................................................................
Render .............................................................................................................
372
1,799
55
47
23
54
149
25
25
9
97,768
151,897
20,627
9,521
6,029
44.8
38.8
63.1
11.9
10.0
Total ..........................................................................................................
2,296
262
285,841
168.6
Option 2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Option 3
a Process
type assigned to firms based on highest production.
The results from the Small Firm-Level
CTR Screening Analysis demonstrate
that there is not a significant financial
burden on a substantial number of small
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
firms that own MPP facilities. Likewise,
the results also show that small firms do
not bear a disproportionate financial
burden relative to large firms. These
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
results demonstrate that the use of
facility production size thresholds for
each of the three options ensures that
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
4502
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
the primary economic burden of the rule
is born by large facilities and firms.
3. Market Effects
The analyses thus far have focused
either at the individual facility or firm
level but have not directly addressed the
cumulative effects of the rule options.
EPA examined the effects of the
regulatory options on the national
markets for beef, pork, chicken, and
turkey. EPA developed linear domestic
and trade demand and supply equations
for each meat product based on price
elasticities from USDA data and other
published sources. To estimate the
impacts of the regulatory options, the
domestic supply curves were adjusted
to incorporate the after-tax annualized
compliance costs incurred by producers
in each meat product market, causing a
shift in each supply curve and a
decrease in domestic supply. After
estimating the post-regulatory
equilibrium for each meat product
market, market-level impacts on prices
and quantities were estimated. Tables
VIII–14 and VIII–15 provide the
percentage change in quantity and
prices respectively for each meat
product and rule option combination.
The overall effects on meat product
supplies and prices are sufficiently
small under all three options that they
are unlikely to have a noticeable effect
on producer or consumer behavior. For
more information on the market analysis
methodology and results see Chapter 6
of the RIA.
TABLE VIII–14—POST-COMPLIANCE DECREASE IN MEAT MARKET SUPPLIES BY RULE OPTION
% Change total supply
Meat product
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Beef ..............................................................................................................................................
Pork ..............................................................................................................................................
Chicken ........................................................................................................................................
Turkey ..........................................................................................................................................
¥0.006
¥0.017
¥0.014
¥0.010
¥0.018
¥0.051
¥0.028
¥0.021
¥0.027
¥0.073
¥0.086
¥0.063
Total ......................................................................................................................................
¥0.012
¥0.031
¥0.065
TABLE VIII–15—POST-COMPLIANCE INCREASE IN MEAT MARKET PRICES BY RULE OPTION
% Change in prices
Meat product
Option 1
Beef ..............................................................................................................................................
Pork ..............................................................................................................................................
Chicken ........................................................................................................................................
Turkey ..........................................................................................................................................
4. Employment Effects
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
In addition to addressing the costs
and impacts of the regulatory options,
EPA estimated the potential impacts of
this rulemaking on employment.
Employment effects can be both positive
and negative as well as temporary or
permanent. The employment analyses
performed for the proposed rule
measure labor changes in terms of full
time equivalent (FTE) labor inputs. EPA
measures the short-term employment
effects directly due to estimated
closures as well as the long-term
employment effects from changes in
production levels at the new market
equilibrium. Employment loss due to
facility closures is considered transitory
as some of the production that occurred
at these facilities will quickly move to
other facilities with spare capacity.
Eventually new and expanding existing
facilities will take on much of the
remaining production that would have
occurred at the closed facilities. As
these shifts in production occur so too
will employment opportunities.
Closures are not the only rule impact
affecting employment. As just described
in the preceding market analysis
section, overall production is likely to
go down slightly once the markets for
meat products reach a new equilibrium
of supply and demand. Lower
production levels would likely result in
long-term job losses. The number of
long-term possible job losses across the
whole industry due to decreased
production are 65, 161, and 339 for
options 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Relative
to the total industry employment levels,
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
Option 2
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.01
Option 3
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.02
these job losses translate to 0.0002
percent, 0.001 percent, and 0.0032
percent, respectively. The annual
operation and maintenance costs for the
new treatment technologies include
labor costs, based on typical dollar per
hour wage rates for the industry. These
labor hours can be used to estimate the
additional employees necessary to
operate and maintain the treatment
technologies. These new jobs more than
offset those lost due to lower production
levels for all three options, resulting in
a net gain of 166, 669, and 1,603 jobs
respectively. Table VIII–16 presents the
possible short-term and long-term
employment impacts of the three
regulatory options being considered. For
more on the employment analyses see
Chapter 7 of the RIA.
TABLE VIII–16—POSSIBLE EMPLOYMENT IMPACTS ESTIMATED BY REGULATORY OPTION
[FTE *]
Employment impact category
Option 1
Short-term Employment Losses due to Possible Closures .........................................................
Short-term losses as % of total employment ..............................................................................
Long-term Employment Losses due to Decreased Production ..................................................
Long-run/labor to Operate Treatment Technology ......................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
¥16,917
¥0.03%
¥65
166
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
Option 2
¥17,461
¥0.03%
¥161
669
Option 3
¥20,205
¥0.04%
¥339
1,942
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
4503
TABLE VIII–16—POSSIBLE EMPLOYMENT IMPACTS ESTIMATED BY REGULATORY OPTION—Continued
[FTE *]
Employment impact category
Option 1
Net Long-term Changes in Employment .....................................................................................
Total long-run as % of total employment ....................................................................................
101
0.0002%
Option 2
508
0.001%
Option 3
1,603
0.0032%
* One FTE equivalent to 2,080 hrs/yr.
5. Chlorides Removal Costs and Impacts
EPA is taking comment on the
inclusion of chlorides removal limits.
EPA is considering establishing a zero
discharge of pollutants requirement for
high chloride waste streams for facilities
producing more than 5 million pounds
per year with high chlorides processes.
The technology costs considered for this
requirement involve segregating the
high chloride waste streams from other
process wastewater and managing these
high chloride streams through
sidestream evaporation. Details on the
costs and economic impacts of the
chlorides removal provision can be
found in the TDD and the RIA,
respectively.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
IX. Pollutant Loadings
A. Estimation of Existing Industry
Pollutant Discharges
In developing ELGs, the CWA calls for
EPA to identify the effluent reduction
from each level of control (CWA section
304(b)(2)(A)(BAT), (b)(4)(A)(BCT), and
(b)(1)(A)(BPT). 33 U.S.C.
1314(b)(2)(A)(BAT); 1314(b)(4)(A)(BCT),
and 1314(b)(1)(A)(BPT)). To estimate
effluent reduction, or removals, EPA
first estimates on an annual, per facility
basis, the pollutant load discharged
today. EPA then estimates pollutant
discharge loads and removals that
would result from the proposed
regulatory options. As described in
section VII, the three proposed
regulatory options apply different
combinations of wastewater treatment
technology to specific sets of facilities
based on facility production size
thresholds. EPA estimates pollutant
discharge loads and removals for two
MPP waste streams: (1) MPP process
wastewater and (2) high chlorides
wastewater (as a segregated waste
stream).
Supporting analyses and datasets for
the MPP loadings calculations include
the following:
• MPP Industry Profile—identifies
the MPP facilities impacted by the
proposed rule and key inputs for the
loadings/removal analysis including
processing type, discharge status (i.e.,
direct, indirect, zero discharge), and
discharge flow rate for both process
wastewater and high chlorides
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
wastewater (Meat and Poultry Products
(MPP) Profile Methodology
Memorandum. USEPA. DCN MP00306).
• Treatment in Place (TIP) Analysis—
identifies existing wastewater treatment
based on facility-specific data, where
possible, and assigns existing
wastewater treatment to facilities
without data based on MPP
Questionnaire response data and
engineering best judgment (Treatment
in Place (TIP) Analysis for the Meat and
Poultry Products (MPP) Proposed Rule.
USEPA. DCN MP00191).
• Pollutants of Concern (POC)
Analysis—identifies the pollutants
present in untreated MPP process
wastewater at treatable levels
(Pollutants of Concern (POC) Analysis
for the Meat and Poultry Products (MPP)
Proposed Rule. USEPA. DCN MP00190).
• Analytical Database—compilation
of all wastewater sampling from
publicly available sources or collected
as part of the proposed rule. The
database includes facility-specific
wastewater monitoring data from the
MPP Questionnaire, EPA sampling,
2021 Discharge Monitoring Report
(DMR) data for select MPP facilities,
responses to EPA’s CWA section 308
data requests, and any other data on
MPP process wastewater provided to
EPA (e.g., from site visits or other
discussions with industry) (Analytical
Database Methodology for the Meat and
Poultry Products Proposed Rulemaking.
USEPA. DCN MP00303).
For the MPP process waste stream,
pollutant loads and removals were
estimated for the wastewater treatment
technology systems described in the
regulatory options: phosphorus removal
by chemical precipitation for direct and
indirect dischargers, nitrogen removal
by biological treatment to achieve full
denitrification for direct and indirect
dischargers, select conventional
pollutant (e.g., BOD, TSS, Oil & Grease)
removal by screening and dissolved air
flotation (DAF) for indirect dischargers,
and high chlorides sidestream
evaporation for direct and indirect
dischargers. EPA estimated facility
pollutant discharge loads and removals
that would result from these four
technology systems.
For the MPP high chlorides waste
stream, pollutant loads and removals
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
were estimated based on evaporation
technology, and this was applied to both
direct and indirect facilities with a high
chlorides waste stream.
Baseline pollutant loadings and
removals were calculated using the
facility flows and the effluent pollutant
concentrations associated with the TIP
analysis. Using data from the MPP
Questionnaire and existing data, EPA
identified facility-specific details on
facility operations (type of processing),
discharge status, and existing TIP. If no
relevant treatment is currently in place
at a facility, the raw process wastewater
concentrations were used.
Effluent loads for each facility were
calculated for the POCs for the
treatment system considered under the
regulatory options by multiplying the
pollutant concentration associated with
the wastewater treatment technology by
the wastewater flow rate. For indirect
dischargers, (i.e., discharges to a
POTW), EPA accounted for pollutant
removal that occurs at the POTW to
calculate the baseline and regulatory
option loadings. Indirect discharge
loads were estimated at the POTW
effluent (i.e., following treatment at the
POTW to account for pollutant removal
that occurs at the POTW) to represent
the pollutant load to the receiving
water. The pollutant load removals were
calculated as the difference between the
baseline load and the load resulting
with the treatment technology in place.
B. Summary of Incremental Changes of
Pollutant Loadings and Removals From
Regulatory Options
Table IX–1 summarizes the net
reduction in annual pollutant loadings,
compared to baseline, associated with
each regulatory option. Removals for
total nitrogen, total phosphorus,
chlorides the conventional pollutants
BOD, TSS, oil & grease are shown here.
Additional pollutants are also removed
by the technologies. More information
on the pollutant loads is available in the
TDD. Compared to the existing rule
baseline, all proposed regulatory
options result in decreased pollutant
loadings to surface waters.
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
4504
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
TABLE IX–1—NET REDUCTIONS IN ANNUAL POLLUTANT LOADINGS FOR KEY POLLUTANTS
Reductions c in annual pollutant loadings million lb/yr
(% reduction)
Regulatory option
Nitrogen
1 .......................................................................................................................
2 .......................................................................................................................
3 .......................................................................................................................
Conventional a
Phosphorus
9 (10%)
45 (49%)
76 (83%)
8 (37%)
16 (78%)
20 (94%)
80 (31%)
167 (64%)
226 (87%)
Chlorides b
477 (98%)
477 (98%)
477 (98%)
a Conventional
Pollutant Removal includes BOD, O&G, TSS.
has same removal under each option.
reductions include removals by POTWs.
b Chlorides
c Pollutant
X. Non-Water Quality Environmental
Impacts
The elimination or reduction of one
form of pollution may create or
aggravate other environmental
problems. Therefore, CWA sections
304(b) and 306 require EPA to consider
non-water quality environmental
impacts (including energy requirements)
associated with ELGs. To consider these
factors, EPA considered the potential
impact of the technology basis on
energy consumption, air pollution, and
solid waste generation. As shown
below, EPA anticipates that all of the
proposed rule options would produce
minimal non-water quality
environmental impacts and as such
proposes that they are acceptable.
Additional information about the
analysis of these non-water quality
impacts is contained in the TDD.
A. Energy Requirements
MPP Facilities use energy when
operating processing equipment,
operating the facility buildings, and
operating wastewater treatment systems.
For this proposal, EPA considers
whether there would be an associated
change in the incremental energy
requirements compared to baseline.
Energy requirements vary depending on
the regulatory option evaluated and the
current operations of the facility.
Therefore, as applicable, EPA estimates
the increase in energy usage in
(megawatt hours, MWh) for equipment
added to the plant systems or in
consumed fuel (gallons). EPA sums the
estimated increase to calculate the net
change in energy requirements from
baseline for the regulatory options.
EPA estimates the amount of energy
needed to operate the additional
wastewater treatment systems based on
conventional pollutant (e.g., BOD, TSS,
Oil & Grease) removal by screening and
DAF, phosphorus removal by chemical
precipitation, nitrogen removal by
biological treatment to achieve full
denitrification, and high chlorides
removal by sidestream evaporation.
Table X–1 of this preamble shows the
net change in annual electrical energy
usage associated with the regulatory
options compared to baseline. The table
values assume a zero net increase for
conventional pollutant treatment of
indirect dischargers, as the burden of
treatment is shifted from the POTW to
the MPP facility. Table X–1 also does
not include the additional energy
demand for treatment of high chlorides
wastewater, which is estimated to be an
additional 349,000 MWh per year.
TABLE X–1—ESTIMATED INCREMENTAL CHANGE IN ENERGY REQUIREMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH REGULATORY OPTIONS
COMPARED TO BASELINE
Energy use associated with regulatory options
Non-water quality environmental impact
Option 1
Increase in Electrical Energy usage (MWh) ..............................................................
Increase as % of total US electric power generated in 2021 35 ................................
By comparison, electric power
generation facilities generated 4,108
billion MWh of electric power in the
United States in 2021 (EIA, 2021).22 All
of the proposed options would result in
a negligible increase in the amount of
energy generation required nationwide.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
B. Air Pollution
EPA proposes to find that wastewater
treatment processes evaluated in this
proposed rule would not generate
significant air emissions above the
current emissions, either directly from
the facility or indirectly from the
facilities that provide energy to MPP
facilities. Possible non-odorous gases
that may be emitted from these
22 https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/archive/
2021/pdf/epa.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
104,208
0.0000025%
processes include nitrogen and carbon
dioxide. EPA expects a slight increase in
nitrogen gas generated over the current
baseline because it would be formed
during the denitrification process and
would escape to the atmosphere. Since
nitrogen comprises over 78 percent of
the Earth’s atmosphere and is not
considered a greenhouse gas, the
additional generation is not considered
to pose an environmental impact.
Carbon dioxide will be released when
BOD is oxidized by oxygen-containing
compounds. However, the BOD being
treated would generally not increase but
rather just the location of treatment
would change (POTW vs MPP facility).
Therefore, there would generally be no
significant incremental increase in
carbon dioxide over current treatment
levels.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Option 2
386,448
0.0000094%
Option 3
557,538
0.0000136%
Odors are the only significant air
pollution problem associated with the
treatment of MPP wastewaters and
generally are associated with anaerobic
conditions. Thus, flow equalization
basins, DAF units, and anaerobic
lagoons are possible sources of
malodors, especially for indirect
dischargers who may not currently do
pretreatment prior to discharging to a
POTW. Potential odorous substances
associated with MPP wastewater
include ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and
organic compounds. Ammonia in MPP
wastewaters is typically due to
breakdown of more complex substances
and can be released under certain
circumstances. However, aerobic
nitrifying conditions will favor keeping
ammonia in solution as it is converted
to nitrate, meaning that odors will
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
generally be suppressed. In addition,
maintenance of pH around neutral
conditions will disfavor stripping
ammonia, leaving it in the wastewater to
be oxidized or assimilated. Furthermore,
denitrification processes will favor
additional conversion of ammonia.
Thus, any incremental ammonia
generation would be minimal. The
chemical precipitation process to
remove phosphorus is not expected to
generate any additional odors.
Hydrogen sulfide can be formed
under anaerobic and anoxic conditions
such as in the denitrification reactors.
Hydrogen sulfide generation requires
the presence of sulfate in the
wastewater, which is typically low in
MPP wastes. (In most cases the source
of sulfates in MPP wastewater is the
source water supply.) In addition, the
formation of sulfide is less favored than
the reduction of nitrate to nitrogen,
meaning that under most circumstances,
sulfide would not be formed to a greater
degree than is currently the case,
especially if the facility is wellmanaged.
Volatile odorous organic compounds
can be generated in anaerobic lagoons.
If specific facilities have odor
difficulties, covers over the lagoons can
be used to capture odorous substances
that are then subsequently destroyed by
some oxidation or combustion process.
Some facilities capture anaerobically
generated methane for fuel; if that gas
stream must be scrubbed before use, the
waste would be recycled to the
wastewater treatment plant, resulting in
no net environmental impact. Such
oxidation and combustion processes
would potentially result in additional
carbon dioxide generation; however,
that generation constitutes minimal
incremental generation, since the
organic substances involved would have
gone through oxidation naturally.
Typically, odorous organic compounds
are well-destroyed in aerobic systems.
Overall, the incremental change in odor
problems associated with this proposed
regulation are expected to be small.
Odor problems usually are significant
only when the sulfur content of MPP
wastewaters is high, especially when
treatment facilities are not well
managed. Generally, MPP wastewater
treatment facilities using anaerobic
processes for treating wastewater with a
low sulfur concentration have few odor
problems. At such facilities,
maintaining a naturally occurring layer
of floating solids in anaerobic contact
basins and lagoons generally minimizes
odors. Thus, the technology options
4505
should not increase emissions of
odorous compounds from well-managed
MPP wastewater treatment facilities. If a
facility uses nitrification to meet the
ammonia limitations, then any ammonia
odors would be minimal because the
process keeps the ammonia in solution
as it is converted to nitrate. However,
using anaerobic treatment for initial
BOD reduction before aerobic treatment
would increase emissions of methane
and volatile organic compounds, but the
increases should be negligible given
today’s extensive use of lagoons and
other anaerobic processes in MPP
wastewater treatment. In addition,
covering anaerobic lagoons and flaring
the gas captured can reduce these
emissions. If the volume of captured gas
is sufficient, it can be used as a fuel to
produce process heat or electricity. EPA
observed facilities capturing gas for use
as fuel during site visits.
C. Solid Waste Generation
EPA estimates that compliance with
the proposed rule would not
significantly increase the amount of
wastewater treatment sludge generated
for the meat and poultry processing
industry. Table X–2 estimates the
incremental sludge production increases
for the proposed rule.
TABLE X–2—ESTIMATE OF INCREMENTAL SLUDGE PRODUCTION INCREASES
Incremental sludge production associated with
regulatory options
Non-water quality environmental impact
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Sludge Production (tons/year) .....................................................................................................
The estimates of sludge production in
Table X–2 are based on the
concentrations of BOD entering the
biological part of the treatment system
after pretreatment (i.e., screening, DAF).
The sludge yield coefficient for the
denitrification process is lower than the
coefficient for the aerobic process;
therefore, the amount of sludge
generated per BOD unit would be lower
for the denitrification part than the
nitrification part.
The values presented in Table X–2
represent the total sludge production for
the modeled unit processes. The values
in Table X–2 assume a zero net increase
in solids production from conventional
pollutant treatment at affected indirect
dischargers, as the burden of treatment
shifts from the POTW to the MPP
facility. Additional solids are expected
to be generated from chemical
phosphorus removal as a result of this
proposed rule. Generally, a facility will
either combine the solids generated
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
from this process with other process
solids, or it may elect to process and
resell the reclaimed phosphorus on the
private market. If a facility selects an
aluminum based chemical process for
precipitation, this may limit the ability
of the solids to be land applied. EPA
also expects that more emphasis on
pollution prevention (e.g., by increased
segregation of waste) could further
reduce sludge generation, though it is
not expected to yield significant
reductions. Examples of such pollution
prevention practices include segregation
of high chlorides wastewaters from the
main treatment stream, allowing the
solids to be extracted more
economically from the waste steam and
reducing the overall volume of sludge.
XI. Environmental Assessment
A. Introduction
The environmental assessment for the
proposed rule reviewed currently
available literature on the documented
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
384,359
995,804
1,213,782
environmental and human health
impacts of MPP wastewater discharges
and conducted modeling to estimate
impacts of MPP discharge to surface
waters and downstream environments at
both localized and regional scales.
EPA’s review of the scientific literature
documents cases of the extensive
impacts of MPP wastewater discharges
on human health and the environment
and a full description of EPA’s modeling
methodology and results are provided in
the Environmental Assessment
document. EPA modeled the impacts of
MPP discharges at baseline conditions
(pre-rule conditions) and the
improvements that may result if the
proposed options were implemented.
It is well established that effluent
guidelines are not required to consider
the impacts on receiving water quality
See, e.g., Southwestern Electrical Power
Co. v. United States, 920 F.3d 999, 1005
(5th Cir. 2019). (The CWA ‘‘requires
ELGs to be based on technological
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
4506
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
feasibility rather than on water quality,’’
citing E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v.
Train, 430 U.S. 112, 130–31, (1977)).
That is, the Administrator must ‘‘require
industry, regardless of a discharge’s
effect on water quality, to employ
defined levels of technology to meet
effluent limitations’’ Id., citing Am.
Petroleum Inst. v. EPA, 661 F.2d 240,
343–44 (5th Cir. 1981). ELGs are
‘‘technology-based rather than harmbased’’ insofar as they ‘‘reflect the
capabilities of available pollution
control technologies to prevent or limit
different discharges rather than the
impact that those discharges have on the
waters.’’ Id., citing Tex. Oil and Gas v.
EPA, 161 F.3d 923, 927 (5th Cir. 1998).
Nevertheless, there is great public
interest in understanding the benefits of
EPA’s effluent guidelines and E.O.
12866, 12898, and 14096 require an
assessment of the environmental
benefits of Federal rulemakings.
B. Summary of Environmental and
Human Health Impacts
As discussed in the Environmental
Assessment document, current scientific
literature as well as EPA’s own data
indicated that MPP wastewaters contain
large amounts of a wide range of
harmful pollutants, which contribute to
extensive environmental impacts and
can have detrimental effects on human
health through multiple exposure
routes.
Nutrient overloading of surface waters
is a national issue, and this concern
extends to surface waters receiving MPP
wastewater, with 36 percent and 37
percent of catchments downstream 23 of
direct and indirect dischargers,
respectively, are impaired for nutrients
and/or oxygen demand. Excess nutrients
in aquatic environments, or
eutrophication, is the most documented
impact and consequentially can result
in the accelerated growth of bacteria
and/or algae, reducing available
dissolved oxygen (DO) and limiting the
ability of the waterbody to support
aquatic life. Examples include
biodiversity loss, impacts to fish
development and reproduction, as well
as fish kills from hypoxic, or
deoxygenated, waters. Low DO levels
can also release toxic metals from
sediments, further contaminating
aquatic habitat (Li et al. 2013).24 Often
spurred by eutrophication, some algal
blooms release toxins into the water,
which can result in sickness and/or
23 Within
25 river miles downstream.
H., Shi, A., Li, M., & Zhang, X. 2013. Effect
of pH, Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, and Flow
Rate of Overlying Water on Heavy Metals Release
from Storm Sewer Sediments. Journal of Chemistry,
2013, 434012. doi:10.1155/2013/434012.
24 Li,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
death in exposed terrestrial animals and
people.
Excess nutrients can impact human
health through several pathways, both
direct and indirect. High nitrate
concentrations in drinking water can
lead to infant methemoglobinemia (blue
baby syndrome), colorectal cancer,
thyroid disease, and neural tube defects
(USEPA. 2000. EPA–822–B–00–002)
(Ward et al. 2018).25 High nutrient
levels in drinking water sources can also
lead to objectionable tastes and odors,
and potentially increase drinking water
treatment costs to remove nitrates. In
terms of indirect health impacts, the
growth of harmful algal and bacteria due
to eutrophication can potentially result
in the contamination of shellfish with
fecal coliform bacteria or algal toxins.
Adverse health impacts from the
consumption of contaminated shellfish
can include paralytic, diarrhetic,
amnesic, and neurotoxic shellfish
poisoning (USEPA. 2015. EPA–
820R15102) (Hoagland et al. 2002).26
Drinking water quality can be
impacted by several other pollutants
present in MPP wastewater in addition
to nutrients. Consumption of water
contaminated with pathogenic bacteria
can pose serious health risks, ranging
from gastrointestinal illness like
diarrhea, vomiting, and fever, to sepsis
and toxic shock syndrome in extreme
cases (Baskin-Graves et al. 2019).27 High
levels of suspended solids can harbor
bacteria in drinking water sources,
making treatment more difficult.
Arsenic, which is present in some
sanitizers, may be introduced to MPP
wastewater through contact with offal or
during nightly equipment cleaning
operations. Arsenic is both a carcinogen
and a toxin and can have reproductive
impacts if ingested via drinking water
(Witkowska et al. 2021).28 Some heavy
metals have been detected in MPP
wastewater, which if then found at
25 Ward, M.H., Jones, R.R., Brender, J.D., de Kok,
T.M., Weyer, P.J., Nolan, B.T., van Breda, S.G. 2018.
Drinking Water Nitrate and Human Health: An
Updated Review. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(7),
1557. doi:10.3390/ijerph15071557.
26 Hoagland, P., Anderson, D.M., Kaoru, Y., &
White, A.W. 2002. The Economic Effects of Harmful
Algal Blooms in the United States: Estimates,
Assessment Issues, and Information Needs.
Estuaries, 25, 819–837.
27 Baskin-Graves, L., Mullen, H., Aber, A.,
Sinisterra, J., Ayub, K., Amaya-Fuentes, R., &
Wilson, S. 2019. Rapid Health Impact Assessment
of a Proposed Poultry Processing Plant in Millsboro,
Delaware. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 16(18). doi:10.3390/
ijerph16183429.
28 Witkowska, D., S5owik, J., & Chilicka, K. 2021.
Heavy Metals and Human Health: Possible
Exposure Pathways and the Competition for Protein
Binding Sites. Molecules, 26(19). doi:10.3390/
molecules26196060.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
sufficient concentrations in drinking
water can pose health risks.
Pollutants found in MPP wastewater
also compromise aquatic and terrestrial
biota survival and reproduction. For
example, biodiversity loss can occur
when aquatic organisms are exposed to
elevated levels of chlorides, killing or
impairing freshwater species, and
allowing for the proliferation of more
salt tolerant organisms (Weber-Scannell
and Duffy. 2007).29 Suspended solids
increase turbidity, blocking light
infiltration of surface waters and
limiting primary production, thereby
impacting food availability for higher
trophic levels. Some metals common in
MPP wastewater streams, such as zinc
and copper, have been identified as
toxic to crops when biosolids generated
from MPP wastewater treatment were
used as a soil supplement, and these
metals can similarly limit primary
production at low concentrations
(Gerber et al. 2017) 30 (Amoatey and
Baawain. 2019).31
C. Environmental Assessment
Methodology
The environmental assessment for the
proposed rule reviewed currently
available literature on the documented
environmental and human health
impacts of MPP wastewater discharges
and conducts modeling to estimate the
impacts of these discharge to surface
waters and downstream environments at
both localized and regional scales. EPA
modeled the water quality impacts of
MPP discharges at baseline conditions
(pre-rule conditions) and the
improvements that would likely result
after the implementation of the rule in
both a set of smaller case study
watersheds as well as in larger
watersheds that represent diverse land
areas across the continental U.S.
To evaluate the potential water
quality impacts of the proposed rule,
EPA developed models of both the
selected case study watersheds and
larger, watersheds using the Hydrologic
and Water Quality System (HAWQS) 2.0
and the Soil and Water Assessment Tool
29 Weber-Scannell, P., & Duffy, L. 2007. Effects of
Total Dissolved Solids on Aquatic Organisms: A
Review of Literature and Recommendation for
Salmonid Species. American Journal of
Environmental Sciences, 3. doi:10.3844/
ajessp.2007.1.6.
30 Gerber, M.D., Lucia, T., Correa, L., Neto, J.E.P.,
& Correa, E´. K. 2017. Phytotoxicity of effluents from
swine slaughterhouses using lettuce and cucumber
seeds as bioindicators. Science of The Total
Environment, 592, 86–90. doi: https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.075.
31 Amoatey, P., & Baawain, M.S. 2019. Effects of
pollution on freshwater aquatic organisms. Water
Environment Research, 91(10), 1272–1287. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1002/wer.1221.
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
(SWAT) (Neitsch et al. 2011).32 The
model delineates subbasins and reaches
at the resolution of 14-digit hydrologic
unit codes (HUCs).33 While these
models simulate impacts on
eutrophication in receiving streams,
they are limited to a daily timestep, and
EPA is considering a more detailed
model analysis of algal and DO kinetics.
Additional details on model setup,
including calibration results, can be
found in Appendix A of the
Environmental Assessment document.
EPA identified three case study
locations to help demonstrate the water
quality effects of the proposed rule at a
fine spatial scale. Case study locations
were chosen based on the contributions
of NPDES-permitted dischargers, areas
of existing impairment(s), and
availability of observed data to facilitate
model calibration. Regarding NPDESpermitted discharger contributions,
watershed locations were considered if
they contained one or more discharger
with significant nutrient loads 34 and
were upstream or headwater locations
as these areas were less likely to be
overwhelmed by baseline nonpoint
source loads or greatly dilute point
source contributions with the volume of
receiving water. Watersheds with
previously documented water quality
impairments or published Total
Maximum Daily Loads 35 were also
prioritized, especially if the
impairments are due to common
pollutants from the MPP industry, such
as nutrients, pathogens, organic
enrichment (i.e., BOD), or sediment.
EPA also modeled larger watersheds
to demonstrate the water quality
impacts of the proposed rule over a
greater portion of the nation covering a
wider variety of land area types than the
case studies. Three HUC2 watershed 36
were selected for modeling based on the
presence of both MPP facilities routing
wastewater effluent directly to waters of
the U.S. (direct dischargers) and
facilities discharging wastewater to an
offsite POTW (indirect dischargers).
Watersheds that had been previously
32 Neitsch, S.L., Williams, J.R., Arnold, J.G. and
Kiniry, J.R. 2011. Soil and Water Assessment Tool
Theoretical Documentation Version 2009. Texas
Water Resources Institute, College Station.
33 https://www.usgs.gov/tools/hydrologic-unitmaps.
34 An initial filter for ‘‘significant nutrient loads’’
was 100 kg/day.
35 The maximum amount of a pollutant allowed
to enter a waterbody so that the waterbody will
meet and continue to meet water quality standards
for that particular pollutant.
36 HUC2 watersheds are regional divisions and
average 177,560 square miles across the U.S.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
calibrated and/or had adequate observed
data 37 available were prioritized.
To further understand the
environments and waterbody use types
which may be impacted by MPP
wastewater discharge under baseline
conditions, EPA conducted a GIS
analysis to identify sensitive habitats
downstream of direct and indirect MPP
facility final wastewater outfalls across
the nation. EPA used publicly available
databases to identify impaired waters,
fisheries (shellfishing, recreational, and
commercial fishing), threatened and
endangered species habitat and
protected areas, priority waterbodies,
and recreational areas within 25 river
miles of a process wastewater outfall.
EPA also identified the number of each
sensitive environment type that would
be expected to experience improved
water quality under proposed rule
Options. See Chapter 4 and Appendix B
of the EA for details regarding datasets
used and GIS methodologies.
D. Results From the Environmental
Assessment
EPA focused its quantitative analyses
on the environmental and human health
impacts associated with exposure to
pollutants via the surface water
pathway. Both direct and indirect
discharge sources were considered in
these analyses and models. These
analyses concentrated on improvements
in surface water quality; impacts to
sensitive environments, including
wildlife habitat, fisheries, and impaired
waters; and impacts to human health
from consumption of contaminated
drinking water or exposure to
contaminated surface waters via
recreational activities.
1. Improvements in Surface Water
Quality
EPA estimated that reduced pollutant
loadings to surface waters will improve
water quality by reducing nutrient
concentrations in all waters
immediately downstream of MPP
wastewater outfalls under proposed rule
options in the case study modeling.
When the most stringent technology
options were applied (representing
regulatory Option 3) nutrient
concentrations changed minimally in
certain watersheds (less than 1 percent
reductions), while other receiving
waters could on average see up to 81
37 Adequate observed data refers to in-stream
flow, TSS, TN, and TP measurements taken within
the watershed selected for modeling that allowed
for calibration to be successfully completed. When
available data was insufficient, calibration
parameters from similar watersheds (as identified
by a cluster analysis) within the same HUC2 region
were applied. See Appendix A of the BCA for
additional details.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4507
percent and 83 percent reductions in TP
and TN, respectively.
The pollutants associated with MPP
wastewater causing the greatest number
of impairments under baseline
conditions were pathogens, nutrients,
and oxygen depletion. EPA estimated
that 70 percent and 75 percent of all
stream segments 38 of direct and indirect
wastewater outfalls, respectively, are
impaired for at least one pollutant found
in MPP wastewater. EPA estimated that
within these impaired stream segments,
63 percent and 5.83 percent of impacted
river miles downstream of direct and
indirect dischargers, respectively,
would benefit from improved upstream
water under Options 1 and 2. Because
nutrient limits are included under
Option 2 for indirect discharges,
however, water quality improvements in
these impaired catchments would likely
be greater. Under proposed Option 3, 66
percent and 29 percent of stream
segments downstream of directs and
indirect dischargers, respectively,
would benefit from decrease upstream
pollutant loadings. EPA did not estimate
the number of catchments that would no
longer be considered impaired under
each proposed rule option as
impairment status may be dependent on
many factors beyond the scope of this
rulemaking.
2. Improvements to Vulnerable Species
Habitats
EPA identified 108 unique vulnerable
animal and insect species that have
habitat located in watersheds
potentially impacted by MPP
wastewater discharge. Species groups
included amphibians, birds, clams,
crustaceans, fishes, insects, mammals,
reptiles, and snails. Of these species, 26
percent were considered of lower
vulnerability, 5 percent were
moderately vulnerable, and 69 percent
were found be of a high vulnerability
status. EPA estimated that 88 percent
and 90 percent of downstream
waterbodies serving as habitat to these
threatened and endangered species
could see water quality improvements
compared to baseline conditions, under
Options 1 or 2, and 3, respectively.
EPA’s analysis indicated that MPP
wastewater discharges to surface waters
pose the greatest risk to Quadrula
cylindrica cylindrica, also known as the
Rabbitsfoot clam, which is considered
threatened, with 358 stream miles of
habitat impacted by MPP discharges.
Under all three rule options, 15 of the
16 upstream MPP facilities would be
required to adhere to new limits, and
thus improve Q. cylindrica habitat in
38 Within
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
25 river miles.
23JAP2
4508
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
these reaches. EPA estimated that 29
percent of the stream segments that
serve as habitat to threatened and/or
endangered species are also impaired
for at least one pollutant found in MPP
wastewater. Nationally, EPA estimated
that 75 species with a high vulnerability
(69 percent) to change in water quality
currently are found in watersheds that
are impaired under baseline conditions,
and that all of these watersheds may
experience improvements in water
quality under the proposed rule Options
2 and 3, and 98 percent under preferred
Option 1.
3. Human Health Impact Improvements
Intentional or accidental consumption
of water contaminated with pollutants
such as pathogens and nitrate can cause
health impacts in humans, ranging from
gastrointestinal illness to thyroid
disease. EPA estimated that
implementation of the proposed rule
options would result in improvements
in source water quality to 121 drinking
water service areas under Options 1 and
2, and 147 under Option 3. EPA also
estimated the number of recreational
areas that may experience improved
water conditions under each rule
option. For Options 1 or 2, and 3, 58
percent and 64 percent of recreational
areas are expected to improve,
respectively, the majority of which are
classified as local parks.
Impacts to fisheries and fishing
habitat are also of concern to human
health as the consumption of
contaminated shellfish can cause
illness. Also, some individuals rely on
subsistence fishing for survival and the
reduction of fish populations due to
compromised habitat can threaten their
wellbeing. EPA estimated that 26
unique species used in commercial
fishing may potentially be impacted by
MPP wastewater release under baseline
conditions, as well as 1 commercial
oyster bed, and 9 recreational fishing
areas. For preferred Option 1, 96 percent
of all commercial fisheries, and 67
percent of recreational fishing areas,
may benefit from improved water
quality. These statistics are the same for
Options 2 and 3 as this analysis
currently reflects impacts from direct
discharging facilities only. EPA plans to
expand this analysis to include impacts
to fishing areas from indirect MPP
wastewater discharge to support any
final rule.
XII. Benefits Analysis
This section summarizes EPA’s
estimates of the changes in national
environmental benefits expected to
result from changes in MPP facility
wastewater discharges described in
Section IX of this preamble, and the
resultant environmental effects,
summarized in Section XI of this
preamble. The Benefit Cost Analysis
(BCA) report provides additional details
on the benefits methodologies and
analyses.
A. Categories of Benefits Analyzed
Table XII–1 of this preamble
summarizes benefit categories
associated with the three regulatory
options and notes which categories EPA
was able to quantify and monetize.
Analyzed benefits fall into four broad
categories: (1) Human health benefits
from surface water quality
improvements, (2) ecological conditions
and effects on recreational use from
surface water quality changes, (3)
market and productivity benefits, and
(4) air-related effects. Within these
broad categories, EPA assessed the
benefits associated with the regulatory
options in this proposal with varying
degrees of completeness and rigor.
Where possible, EPA quantified the
expected changes in effects and
estimated monetary values. However,
data limitations, modeling limitations,
and gaps in the understanding of how
society values certain environmental
changes prevented EPA from
quantifying and/or monetizing some
benefit categories. EPA notes that all
human health and environmental
improvements discussed in the EA also
represent benefits of the proposal
(whether quantified or unquantified),
and the Agency will continue to
enhance its benefits analysis methods
where appropriate throughout the
rulemaking process.
TABLE XII–1—SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED BENEFITS CATEGORIES
Benefits analysis
Category
Effect of regulatory options
Quantified
I
Monetized
Qualitative
I discussion
Human Health Benefits from Surface Water Quality Improvements
Changes in incidence of adverse human
health effects (e.g., cases of gastrointestinal illness) from exposure to MPP
pollutants via recreational use.
Changes in incidence of adverse human
health effects (e.g., developmental effects, gastrointestinal illness, cancer)
from exposure to MPP pollutants via
drinking water.
Reduced exposure to E. coli and HAB-related illnesses
from primary contact recreation and recreationally
caught and consumed fish and shellfish.
....................
....................
✓
Reduced exposure to high nitrate concentrations, E.
coli, and DBPs (which may be generated indirectly
due to nutrient enrichment and eutrophication) in
drinking water.
....................
....................
✓
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Ecological Condition and Recreational Use Effects from Surface Water Quality Changes
Benefits from changes in surface water
quality, including: aquatic and wildlife
habitat,a water-based recreation,a aesthetic benefits,a and nonuse values a.
Benefits from the protection of threatened
and endangered species.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
Improved ambient water quality in receiving and downstream reaches, resulting in: enhanced value of
swimming, fishing, boating, and near-water activities
from water quality changes; improved aesthetics
from shifts in water clarity, color, odor, including
nearby site amenities for residing, working, and traveling; and Improved existence, option, and bequest
values from improved ecosystem health.
Improved T&E species habitat and potential effects on
T&E species populations.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
✓
✓
✓
✓
....................
✓
23JAP2
4509
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
TABLE XII–1—SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED BENEFITS CATEGORIES—Continued
Benefits analysis
Category
Effect of regulatory options
Quantified
I
Monetized
Qualitative
I discussion
Market and Productivity Effects
Changes in drinking water treatment costs
Changes in wastewater treatment costs ....
Changes in the fees paid by MPP indirect
dischargers to POTWs.
Improved quality of source water used for drinking ......
Reduced wastewater treatment costs at POTWs ..........
Reduced (concentration-based) fees paid to POTWs
by MPP indirect dischargers for discharges of TN,
TP, BOD, and TSS.
Improved quality of surface waters used for livestock
watering.
Improved fisheries yield and harvest quality due to
aquatic habitat changes.
Improved fisheries yield and harvest quality due to
aquatic habitat changes; Reduced risk of consuming
contaminated fish and shellfish.
Changes in participation in water-based recreation, increases in visitation and purchases from supporting
businesses.
Improved property values from changes in water quality.
Livestock watering ......................................
Changes in commercial fishing yields ........
Changes in subsistence harvesting yields
Changes in tourism and participation in
water recreation.
Changes in property values ........................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
✓
✓
✓
....................
....................
✓
✓
....................
✓
....................
....................
✓
....................
....................
✓
....................
....................
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Air Quality-Related Effects
Changes in air emissions of PM2.5 .............
Changes in mortality and morbidity from exposure to
particulate matter (PM2.5) emitted directly or linked
to changes in NOX and SO2 emissions (precursors
to PM2.5 and ozone).
Changes in ecosystem effects; visibility impairment;
and human health effects from direct exposure to
NOX, SO2, and hazardous air pollutants.
Changes in climate change effects; Social cost of carbon and methane.
Changes in air emissions of NOX and SO2
Changes in air emissions of CO2 and CH4
a These values are implicit in the total WTP for water quality improvements.
Source: Benefit Costs Analysis for Revisions to the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Point.
USEPA. 2023.
B. Quantification and Monetization of
Benefits
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
1. Human Health Effects From Surface
Water Quality Changes
Pollutants present in MPP wastewater
discharges (e.g., pathogenic bacteria,
nitrogen, and phosphorus) can cause a
variety of adverse human health effects.
The regulatory options affect human
health risk by changing effluent
discharges to surface waters and, as a
result, reducing exposure to MPP
pollutants in surface water via three
exposure pathways: (1) Primary contact
recreation in waters affected by MPP
discharges, (2) consumption of drinking
water sourced from surface waters
affected by MPP discharges, and (3)
consumption of shellfish taken from
waters affected by MPP discharges.
Due to data limitations and
uncertainties, EPA was only able to
monetize a subset of the health benefits
associated with changes in pollutant
discharges from MPP facilities resulting
from the regulatory options in this
proposal as compared to baseline. EPA
anticipates monetizing benefits
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
associated with a reduction in illness
due to primary contact recreation for
any final rule making. See the BCA,
Chapter 3 and Appendix A for more
details on the water quality index (WQI)
used.
2. Ecological Condition and
Recreational Use Effects From Changes
in Surface Water Quality Improvements
EPA evaluated whether the regulatory
options in this proposal would alter
aquatic habitats and human welfare by
changing concentrations of pollutants
such as ammonia, nitrogen, phosphorus,
BOD, DO, fecal coliform bacteria,
chlorides, and suspended sediment
relative to baseline. As a result, the
usability of some recreational waters
relative to baseline discharge conditions
could improve under each option,
thereby affecting recreational users.
Changes in pollutant loadings can also
change the attractiveness of recreational
waters by making recreational trips
more or less enjoyable. The regulatory
options may also change nonuse values
stemming from bequest, altruism, and
existence motivations. Individuals may
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
value water quality maintenance,
ecosystem protection, and healthy
species populations independent of any
use of those attributes.
EPA used a WQI to translate water
quality measurements, gathered for
multiple parameters that are indicative
of various aspects of water quality, into
a single numerical indicator that reflects
achievement of quality consistent with
the suitability for certain uses. The WQI
included six parameters: DO, BOD, E.
coli, total nitrogen, total phosphorus,
and TSS. EPA modeled changes in all
parameters, using modeled data for
inputs for all parameters except E. coli,
where monitoring data was used.
Chapter 3 and Appendix A of the BCA
discuss the WQI methodology in detail.
EPA estimated the change in
monetized benefit values using an
updated version of the meta-regressions
of surface water valuation studies used
in the benefit analyses of the 2015
(USEPA. 2015. EPA–821–R–15–005)
and 2020 (USEPA. 2020. EPA–821–R–
20–003) rules affecting the Steam
Electric point source category. The
meta-regressions quantify average
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
4510
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
household willingness to pay (WTP) for
incremental improvements in surface
water quality. Chapter 4 and Appendix
B of the BCA provides additional detail
on the valuation methodology.
Table XII–2 presents the main
analysis results of WTP estimates, based
on Model 1 of the meta regression
analysis and using 3 percent and 7
percent discount rates (USEPA. 2020.
EPA–821–R–20–003). The total
annualized values of water quality
improvements from reducing nutrients,
bacteria and pathogens, conventional
pollutants, and other pollutants
discharges from MPP facilities to
affected HUC12s ranged from $0.52
million under Option 1 (7 percent
discount rate) to $33 million under
Option 3 (3 percent discount rate).
These results represent only a limited
regional assessment of benefits and do
not reflect national water quality
benefits. See the Benefit Cost Analysis
for a more detailed explanation.
TABLE XII–2—ESTIMATED HOUSEHOLD AND TOTAL ANNUALIZED WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY FOR WATER QUALITY
IMPROVEMENTS UNDER THE REGULATORY OPTIONS MID-ATLANTIC REGION ONLY
[Note—Additional water quality modeling results and additional benefits to be completed week of October 23]
Affected
population
(millions) a
Proposed regulatory option
Option 1 ...........................................................................................................
Option 2 ...........................................................................................................
Option 3 ...........................................................................................................
Average
annual WTP
per person
(2022$) b
47.2
47.2
47.2
$0.01
0.39
0.70
Total annualized WTP
(millions 2022$) b c
3% Discount
rate
$0.56
18.4
33.0
7% Discount
rate
$0.52
17.4
31.1
b Estimates
based on Model 1, which provides EPA’s main estimate of non-market benefits.
benefits are regional-level rather than national-level since water quality modeling was limited to the Mid-Atlantic Region.
Source: Benefit Cost Analysis for Revisions to the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Point
Source Category. USEPA. 2023. B.
c Estimated
3. Changes in Air Quality Related
Effects
The proposed rule has the potential to
affect air pollution through three main
mechanisms: (1) Indirect changes in
CO2, NOX, SO2, and PM2.5 emissions
associated with changes in electricity
consumed to power wastewater
treatment processes at MPP facilities
and POTWs; (2) transportation-related
air pollutant emissions (CO2, NOX, and
SO2) due to changes in the trucking of
solid waste for land application,
landfilling, or composting; and (3)
changes in direct process-related
emissions or capture of methane (CH4)
generated at MPP facilities and POTWs.
EPA evaluated potential effects
resulting from net changes in air
emissions of five pollutants: CO2, CH4,
NOX, SO2, and primary PM2.5. CO2 and
CH4 are key GHGs that EPA has
determined endanger public health and
welfare through their contribution to
climate change. NOX and SO2 are
precursors to fine particles sized 2.5
microns and smaller (PM2.5), which are
also emitted directly, and NOX is an
ozone precursor. These air pollutants
cause a variety of adverse health effects
including premature death, nonfatal
heart attacks, hospital admissions,
emergency department visits, upper and
lower respiratory symptoms, acute
bronchitis, aggravated asthma, lost work
and school days, and acute respiratory
symptoms.
Table XII–3 of this preamble shows
the changes in emissions of CO2, CH4,
NOX, SO2, and primary PM2.5 under all
proposed rule options relative to
baseline. The proposed rule would
result in a net increase in the emissions
of CO2, CH4, NOX, and SO2 under
preferred Option 1. Emissions of these
pollutants increase incrementally under
both Options 2 and 3, with the most
notable changes estimated for methane,
NOX, and CO2 emissions. These
estimated increases in emissions are
associated with changes in electricity
consumption to power additional
wastewater treatment processes;
transportation-related air emissions due
to changes in the trucking of solid waste
for offsite land application, composting,
and/or landfilling; and changes in direct
process-related emissions.
TABLE XII–3—ESTIMATED CHANGES IN AIR POLLUTION EMISSIONS UNDER THE PROPOSED RULE OPTIONS INCREMENTAL
INCREASE FROM BASELINE *
CO2
(tons/year)
Proposed regulatory option
Option 1 ...........................................................................................................
Option 2 ...........................................................................................................
Option 3 ...........................................................................................................
CH4
(tons/year)
27,560
100,890
145,030
2.25
8.30
11.89
NOX
(tons/year)
17.85
63.26
90.18
SO2
(tons/year)
16.60
61.21
88.21
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
* Emissions are not additive between options.
EPA followed the same methodology
used in analyzing the revisions to the
technology based ELGs for the steam
electric generating point source category
to monetize human health related
impacts from changes in NOX, SO2, and
PM2.5 emissions (USEPA. 2015. EPA–
821–R–15–005). EPA used the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
Emissions & Generation Resource
Integrated Database (eGRID) to estimate
changes in the tons of NOX and SO2
emissions associated with changes in
electricity consumed at MPP facilities
PO 00000
and POTWs (USEPA. 2023).39 The
eGRID database provides emission
factors based on historical electricity
generation (observed or estimated using
2021 data). It is designed to be used to
39 USEPA. 2023. Emissions & Generation
Resource Integrated Database (eGRID). Retrieved
from https://www.epa.gov/egrid.
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
4511
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
estimate the emissions footprint of
marginal changes in electricity
consumption, assuming a constant
generation mix. The Integrated Power
Model (IPM) simulates future electricity
generation (and associated emissions) to
meet projected demand, given market,
environmental, and other system
constraints. Either approach can be used
to estimate indirect emissions from
electricity consumption. The eGRID
database provides static emission
factors, whereas the IPM can provide
predicted changes in the profile of
electricity generation.
EPA’s use of EGRID values for the
proposed rule analysis is conservative
in that it would tend to overstate
emissions associated with the increased
power consumption to operate MPP
wastewater treatment systems since
emission factors are expected to decline
in the coming decades (e.g., due to the
2022 IRA). For the final rule, EPA plans
to account for these changes by using
future emission factors derived using
EPA’s IPM model. EPA requests
comment on using IPM results to
estimate future emissions.
4. Other Quantified and/or Monetized
Benefits
(a) Benefits to Threatened and
Endangered Species
To assess the potential for the rule to
benefit threatened and endangered
species (both aquatic and terrestrial)
relative to the baseline, EPA analyzed
the overlap between waters expected to
see reductions in wildlife water quality
criteria exceedance status under a
particular option and the known critical
habitat locations of high vulnerability
threatened and endangered species. EPA
examined the life history traits of
potentially affected threatened and
endangered species and categorized
them by potential for population
impacts due to surface water quality
changes. Chapter 2 of the BCA and
Chapter 4 of the EA provide additional
detail on the methodology. EPA’s
analysis showed that there are 113
species whose known critical habitats
overlap with surface waters downstream
of facilities that may be affected by the
proposed options. Of these species, 28
were considered to be of lower
vulnerability status, 5 were considered
moderate vulnerable, and 78 were
consider highly vulnerable. Principal
sources of uncertainty include the
specifics of how changes under the
regulatory options will impact
threatened and endangered species,
exact spatial distribution of the species,
and additional species of concern not
considered.
C. Total Monetized Benefits
Using the analysis approach described
above, EPA estimated annualized
benefits of the three regulatory options
for all monetized categories. Table XII–
5 and Table XII–6 of this preamble
summarize the total annualized benefits
using 3 percent and 7 percent discount
rates, respectively. The preferred option
(Option 1) has monetized benefits
estimated at $90 million using a three
percent discount rate and $85 million
using a seven percent discount rate.
TABLE XII–5—SUMMARY OF TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED MONETIZED BENEFITS AT THREE PERCENT
[In millions, 2022$, at 2025]
Benefit category a
Human Health Effects from Water Quality Changes:
Change in gastrointestinal illness rates from pathogen exposure.
Ecological Conditions and Recreational Use Changes:
Use and nonuse values for water quality improvements (for Mid-Atlantic Region only).
Market and Productivity Effects:
Changes in Drinking Water Treatment Costs ..........
Air-Related Effects:
Changes in CO2 and CH4 air emissions ..................
Changes in human health effects from Changes in
NOX and SO2 emissions.
Total ..................................................................
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
A ........................................
A ........................................
A.
$95.6 + B ...........................
$166.1 + B .........................
$208.4 + B.
C ........................................
C ........................................
C.
¥$1.9 ................................
¥$3.5 ................................
¥$7.0 ................................
¥$12.9 ..............................
¥$10.1.
¥$18.6.
$90+A+B+C .......................
$146+A+B+C .....................
$180+A+B+C.
a ‘‘A’’ represents unmonetized human health effects from water quality improvements. ‘‘B’’ represents the additional unquantified non-market
water quality benefits. ‘‘C’’ represents the unmonetized market and productivity effects of improved water quality.
TABLE XII–6—SUMMARY OF TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED MONETIZED BENEFITS AT SEVEN PERCENT
[In millions, 2022$, at 2025]
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Benefit ctegory a
Human Health Effects from Water Quality Changes:
Change in gastrointestinal illness rates from pathogen exposure.
Ecological Conditions and Recreational Use Changes:
Use and nonuse values for water quality improvements (for Mid-Atlantic Region only).
Market and Productivity Effects:
Changes in Drinking Water Treatment Costs ..........
Air-Related Effects:
Changes in CO2 and CH4 air emissions ..................
Changes in human health effects from Changes in
NOX and SO2 emissions.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Option 1
Option 2
A ........................................
A ........................................
A.
$89.0 + B ...........................
$154.4 + B .........................
$193.7 + B.
C ........................................
C ........................................
C.
¥$1.9 ................................
¥$2.7 ................................
¥$7.0 ................................
¥$10.1 ..............................
¥$10.1.
¥$14.5.
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
Option 3
4512
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
TABLE XII–6—SUMMARY OF TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED MONETIZED BENEFITS AT SEVEN PERCENT—Continued
[In millions, 2022$, at 2025]
Benefit ctegory a
Total ..................................................................
Option 1
Option 2
$85+A+B+C .......................
$137+A+B+C .....................
Option 3
$179+A+B+C.
a ‘‘A’’
represents unmonetized human health effects from water quality improvements. ‘‘B’’ represents the additional unmonetized non-market
water quality benefits. ‘‘C’’ represents the unmonetized market and productivity effects of improved water quality.
D. Non-Monetized Benefits
The monetary value of the proposed
rule’s effects on social welfare does not
account for all effects of the proposed
options because, as described above,
EPA is currently unable to quantify and/
or monetize some categories. EPA
anticipates the proposed rule Options
would also generate important
unquantified benefits, including but not
limited to:
• Reduced incidence of adverse human
health effects (e.g., developmental
effects, gastrointestinal illness,
cancer) from exposure to MPP
pollutants via drinking water
• Protection of threatened and
endangered species
• Reduction in wastewater treatment
costs at some POTWs
• Changes in fees paid by some MPP
indirect discharges based on
concentration of conventional
pollutants
• Improved quality of surface waters
used for livestock watering
• Changes in fisheries yield and harvest
due to aquatic habitat changes,
impacting subsistence fishing
populations as well as commercial
fishing operations
• Changes in participation in waterbased recreation
• Changes in property values from
changes in water quality
The BCA Report discusses changes in
these potentially important effects
qualitatively, indicating their potential
magnitude where possible. EPA will
continue to seek to enhance its
approaches to quantify and/or monetize
a broader set of benefits for any final
rule and solicits comment on
monetizing some of these additional
benefits categories.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
XIII. Environmental Justice Impacts
Consistent with EPA’s commitment to
integrating environmental justice (EJ) in
the Agency’s actions, the Agency
analyzed the distribution of impacts of
this action across all potentially affected
communities and sought input from
stakeholders representing communities
with potential EJ concerns. EPA
prepared this analysis to implement the
recommendations of the Agency’s EJ
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
Technical Guidance (USEPA. 2016).40
For this ELG rulemaking, this analysis
was conducted as part of the EA
alongside other non-statutorily required
analyses, such as water quality
improvements, with the discussion of
quantified benefits to specific
communities and community groups
included in the BCA. This analysis is
intended to inform the public of the
distributional effects of this proposal
and the input EPA received from
communities with potential EJ concerns.
E.O. 12898 and E.O. 14096 are
discussed in Section XVI.J of this
preamble.
Overall, the analysis showed that
communities near MPP facilities,
surface waters downstream 41 of MPP
wastewater discharge, those receiving
drinking water from a potentially
impacted service area, or potentially
relying on subsistence fishing have
greater proportions of low-income
individuals and racial/ethnic minorities
than the national average. Benefits
associated with improvements to water
quality resulting from pollutant
reductions in surface water and
drinking water are expected to accrue to
low-income populations and some
minorities at a marginally higher rate
when compared to all impacted
communities under all proposed
regulatory options.
A. Literature Review
EPA conducted a literature review to
identify studies, data, and research
describing the environmental and
human health impacts of MPP facilities
on low-income individuals and racial/
ethnic minorities, focusing primarily on
facility discharges of pollutants to
water. EPA identified 21 papers
published since 2005 that were relevant
to this rule making. These sources
suggested that MPP facilities are often
located in rural areas with multiple
large facilities in the same county or
region, and that half of the communities
surrounding slaughterhouses in the U.S.
contain at least 30 percent of residents
40 USEPA. 2016. Technical Guidance for
Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory
Analysis. https://www.epa.gov/environmental
justice/technical-guidance-assessingenvironmental-justice-regulatory-analysis.
41 Within 25 river miles.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
living below the poverty line, which is
over twice the national average
(Winders and Abrell. 2021) 42 (Burkhart
et al. 2018).43 The review also
highlighted the ecological and health
impacts of pollutant contamination of
surface waters from MPP wastewater,
such as elevated nitrogen discharge
contributing to algal bloom occurrence
and causing methemoglobinemia, or
blue baby syndrome, in infants
consuming drinking water with high
nitrate levels (Environment America
Center. 2020).44 These findings suggest
that wastewater discharge from MPP
facilities differentially impacts various
communities and population groups.
EPA solicits comment on additional
literature that discusses potential EJ
concerns related to the specific changes
being proposed to MPP wastewater
discharges. For further discussion of the
literature review, see Chapter 7 of the
EA.
B. Proximity Analyses
EPA performed a set of proximity
analyses using the EJSCREENBatch R
package (USEPA. 2022) 45 to identify the
environmental and socioeconomic
characteristics of the communities that
are expected to be impacted by
discharges from MPP facilities via
relevant exposure pathways.
First, EPA analyzed communities
located within a 1-mile radius of an
MPP facility using facility coordinates.
EPA found that communities within 1
mile of an MPP facility have greater
proportions of low-income individuals
and individuals identifying as Asian,
Black, and/or Hispanic than the national
average. EPA also considered how these
42 Winders, D.J., & Abrell, E. 2021.
Slaughterhouse Workers, Animals, and the
Environment: The Need for a Rights-Centered
Regulatory Framework in the United States That
Recognizes Interconnected Interests. Health and
Human Rights Journal. Vol. 23: No. 2.
43 Burkhart, K., Bernhardt, C., Pelton, T.,
Schaeffer, E., and Phillips, A. 2018. Water Pollution
from Slaughterhouses. The Environmental Integrity
Project. https://earthjustice.org/.
44 Environment America Center. 2020.
Slaughterhouses Are Polluting Our Waterways.
https://environmentamericacenter.org/sites/
environment/files/reports/Slaughterhouse%20
factsheet%20FINAL.pdf.
45 USEPA. March 2022. EJSCREENBatch. V2.0.
Available online: https://github.com/USEPA/
EJSCREENBatch.
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
communities’ exposure to relevant
environmental indicators 46 of concern
may change: PM 2.5, diesel PM, and
traffic proximity.47 These indicators all
exceeded the national average, with
traffic proximity in these communities
more than double that of the average
person.
Second, EPA examined the
characteristics of communities located
within a one-mile distance of a surface
waterbody downstream of MPP
facilities.48 EPA found that
communities downstream of MPP
wastewater outfalls are on average
exposed to higher P.M 2.5 levels and
have a heighted proximity to traffic
compared to national averages. These
communities also have greater
proportions of low-income individuals
compared to the national average.
Lastly, EPA conducted an analysis of
communities served by public water
systems (PWSs) either with a source
water intake within 25 miles
downstream of an MPP wastewater
outfall (direct PWS) or buying water
from a direct PWS (buying PWS).
Service areas were determined using a
multi-tiered approach based on
availability, first using service areas
identified in the Hydroshare
(SimpleLab, EPIC.2022),49 then 2022
TIGER zip code tabulated areas, and
finally county boundaries. Communities
served by potentially impacted drinking
water service areas have a greater
proportion of individuals who identify
as Black/African American when
compared to the national average. This
trend is most prominent in buying
PWSs.
For additional detail on the proximity
analysis and drinking water service area
methodologies, and further results of the
screening analysis, please refer to
Chapter 7 of the EA.
46 Environmental indicator exposures were
determined from raw indicator scores available in
EJSCREEN V2.1. Each CBG score was population
weighted before averaging across all communities.
Environmental indicator score definitions are
available in the EJSCREEN Technical
Documentation (U.S. EPA. 2023. EJSCREEN
Technical Documentation).
47 EPA estimates that PM 2.5 will increase under
Options 2 and 3 due to an increase in emissions
from increased wastewater treatment. Diesel PM
and traffic volume near facilities are predicted to
rise as industrial sludge generation from treatment
changes will increase under all proposed options,
resulting in increased trucking for offsite land
application. For further details on these estimates,
refer to Section X of this document and the Section
6 of the EA.
48 EPA defined downstream surface waterbodies
as a segment 25 miles downstream of the initial
common identifiers (COMIDs) identified for each
direct discharge outfall.
49 SimpleLab, EPIC. 2022. U.S. Community Water
Systems Service Boundaries, v2.4.0, HydroShare,
https://www.hydroshare.org/resource/
20b908d73a784fc1a097a3b3f2b58bfb.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
C. Community Outreach
Due to the large number of potential
communities with EJ concerns who
could be affected, as identified in the
results of the screening analysis, EPA
used a wide-reaching approach to
community engagement to maximize
awareness of the rulemaking and the
potential impacts of proposed policy
options. An overview of the rulemaking
and its potential interest to communities
was presented to the Office of
Environmental Justice and External
Civil Rights management team on May
30, 2023 to increase national awareness
of the proposed rulemaking. This team
includes EJ National Program and
Regional managers, who engage directly
with communities across the country.
EPA also presented a rulemaking
overview and held a discussion session
with participants of the National
Environmental Justice Community
Engagement Call on June 20th, 2023,
which had over 200 attendees.50
D. Distribution of Benefits
EPA evaluated the distribution of
estimated benefits and costs of the
proposed regulatory options across the
affected population, with consideration
of their distribution among communities
with environmental justice concerns.
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) Circular A–4, which provides
guidance to agencies on the
development of regulatory analyses as
required under E.O. 12866, states that
regulatory analyses ‘‘should provide a
separate description of distributional
effects (i.e., how both benefits and costs
are distributed among sub-populations
of particular concern).’’
To determine how benefits from
pollutant reductions in MPP wastewater
may be distributed among communities
with environmental justice concerns,
EPA calculated the population-weighted
averages of these groups for impacted
drinking water service areas and
communities potentially reliant on
subsistence fishing from surface waters
downstream of MPP wastewater
outfalls. EPA then compared these
community characteristics to the subset
of these populations who are expected
to benefit under each proposed
regulatory option.
1. Drinking Water Quality
EPA estimated that 7,595,010 people
receive drinking water from a Public
Water System (PWS) that either directly
intakes source water from a surface
50 A recording of this meeting is available on the
National Environmental Justice Community
Engagement website through the ‘‘Previous Calls’’
link.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4513
water potentially impacted by MPP
wastewater (direct) or from a PWS that
buys drinking water from a direct PWS
(buying). The population of these
service areas (SAs) receiving potentially
impacted drinking water has greater
proportions of individuals identifying as
Black/African American than the
national average. Under all proposed
regulatory options, drinking water
benefits from improved source water are
expected to accrue at a higher rate to
low-income and Black/African
American individuals. For Options 1
and 2, which impact the same direct
discharging facilities and therefore the
same service areas, 75.1 percent of the
total receiving population would be
impacted, 31.2 percent and 22.7 percent
of which identify as low income and
Black/African American, respectively.
For Option 3, 82.7 percent of the total
receiving population would be
impacted, 30.5 percent and 22.1 percent
of which identify as low income and
Black/African American, respectively.
For further discussion of changes in the
distribution of drinking water benefits
under proposed rule options, refer to
section 3 of Chapter 7 of the EA.
2. Fisher Population
EPA estimated that 13,244,292 people
live within a 50-mile distance of a
downstream surface water potentially
impacted by MPP wastewater.51 This
population is representative of the
group of people who may travel to these
waterbodies for recreational or
subsistence fishing opportunities.
Communities in these areas have on
average greater proportions of lowincome individuals than the national
average. Under all regulatory options,
benefits from improved fish habitat are
expected to accrue at a higher rate to
low-income individuals, although a
greater number of individuals would
potentially benefit under Option 3. See
section 3 of Chapter 7 of the EA for a
further discussion of these results.
E. Results of the Analysis
The results of EPA’s screening
analyses found that communities near
MPP facilities, downstream surface
waters, and those using impacted
surface waters have greater proportions
of low-income and/or racial/ethnic
minorities than the national average.
51 Studies of fishers’ behavior and practices have
made similar observations (e.g., Sohngen, B., Zhang,
W., Bruskotter, J., & Sheldon, B. 2015. Results from
a 2014 Survey of Lake Erie Anglers. Columbus, OH:
The Ohio State University, Department of
Agricultural, Environmental and Development
Economics and School of Environment & Natural
Resources; Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant. 2018. Lake
Michigan Anglers Boost Local Illinois and Indiana
Economies.)
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
4514
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
The results of EPA’s distributional
analysis of impacts suggested that
improvements in drinking water quality
and to fishing areas will differentially
accrue to minority and/or low-income
populations under all proposed
regulatory options. Remaining
exposures, impacts, costs, and benefits
analyzed are small enough that EPA
could not conclude whether changes in
differential impacts would occur.
XIV. Development of Effluent
Limitations and Standards
This section describes the statistical
methodology used to calculate the longterm averages (LTAs), variability factors,
and limitations for BAT, BPT, new
source performance standards and
pretreatment standards for existing and
new sources. EPA’s statistical
methodology is well established and has
been upheld by courts Chemical Mfrs.
Assn. v. EPA, 877 F.2d 177, 211–12 (5th
Cir. 1989). The methodology is based on
LTA effluent values and variability
factors that account for variation in
treatment performance of the model
technology. The LTAs, variability
factors, and limitations were based upon
pollutant concentrations collected from
EPA sampling episodes, DMR data, data
from State EPA offices, and data
submitted by industry.
The proposed ELGs, collectively
referred to in the remainder of this
section as ‘‘limitations,’’ for pollutants
for each regulatory option, as presented
in this preamble, are provided as ‘‘daily
maximums’’ and ‘‘maximums for
monthly averages.’’ Definitions
provided in 40 CFR 122.2 state that the
daily maximum limitation is the
‘‘highest allowable ‘daily discharge,’ ’’
and the maximum for monthly average
limitation is the ‘‘highest allowable
average of ‘daily discharges’ over a
calendar month, calculated as the sum
of all ‘daily discharges’ measured during
a calendar month divided by the
number of ‘daily discharges’ measured
during that month.’’ Daily discharges
are defined to be the ‘discharge of a
pollutant’ measured during a calendar
day or any 24-hour period that
reasonably represents the calendar day
for purposes of sampling.’’
EPA first determines an average
performance level (the ‘‘long-term
average’’) that a facility with welldesigned and operated model
technologies (which reflect the
appropriate level of control) is capable
of achieving. This LTA is calculated
from the data from the facilities using
the BPT, BCT, and BAT technologies for
the regulatory option. EPA uses all
values and a lognormal distribution to
calculate the facility LTA, which is then
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
used in calculations for both limitations.
EPA expects that all facilities subject to
the limitations will design and operate
their treatment systems to achieve the
LTA performance level on a consistent
basis because facilities with welldesigned and operated BAT and BPT/
BCT technologies have demonstrated
that this can be done.
EPA then calculates the 99th
percentile of daily measurements and
the 95th percentile of monthly averages.
The percentiles are chosen with the
intention to accommodate reasonably
anticipated variability within the
control of the facility while also
reflecting a level of performance
consistent with the CWA requirement
that these effluent limitations be based
on the ‘‘best’’ available technologies.
The daily maximum limitation is based
on the 99th percentiles of the
distribution of the daily measurements.
The maximum monthly average
limitation is based on the 95th
percentile of the distribution of the
monthly averages of the daily
measurements and monthly averages.
Using the LTA and the percentiles, EPA
determines the daily and monthly
‘‘variability factors’’ (VFs), which are
allowances for the variation in pollutant
concentrations when processed through
well designed and operated treatment
systems. The allowance for variance
incorporates all components of
variability including process and
wastewater generation, sample
collection, shipping, storage, and
analytical variability. If a facility
operates its treatment system to meet
the relevant LTA, EPA expects the
facility to be able to meet the
limitations. VFs assure that normal
fluctuations in a facility’s treatment are
accounted for in the limitations. The
daily VFs are calculated by dividing the
99th percentile of daily measurements
by the corresponding LTA. The monthly
VFs are calculated by dividing the 95th
percentile of monthly measurements by
the corresponding LTA.
EPA calculates LTAs and VFs for each
facility with sufficient daily or monthly
data. EPA then combines the LTAs and
daily and monthly VFs across all
facilities by calculating their median
values.
To calculate the limitations, the LTAs
are multiplied by the corresponding
VFs. This ensures the limitations
account for these reasonable excursions
above the LTA. EPA’s use of VFs results
in limitations that are generally well
above the actual LTA. For direct
dischargers (BAT, BPT), EPA developed
limits for total nitrogen, total
phosphorus, E. coli, chlorides, and fecal
coliform. For indirect dischargers
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(PSES, PSNS), EPA developed limits for
oil and grease, BOD, TSS, total nitrogen,
total phosphorus, and chlorides.
A. Criteria Used To Select Data as the
Basis for the Limitations and Standards
In developing ELGs for any industry,
EPA qualitatively reviews all the data
before selecting data that represents
proper operation of the technology that
forms the basis for the limitations. EPA
typically uses four criteria to assess the
data. The first criterion requires that the
facility have the BPT, BCT, or BAT
treatment technology and demonstrate
consistently diligent and optimal
operation. Application of this criterion
typically eliminates any facility with
treatment other than the candidate
technology. EPA generally determines
whether a facility meets this criterion
based upon site visits, discussions with
facility management, and/or comparison
to the characteristics, operation, and
performance of treatment systems at
other facilities. EPA often contacts
facilities to determine whether data
submitted were representative of normal
operating conditions for the facility and
equipment. As a result of this review,
EPA typically excludes the data in
developing the limitations when the
facility has not optimized the
performance of its treatment system to
the degree that represents the
appropriate level of control (e.g., BPT,
BCT, or BAT).
A second criterion generally requires
that the influents and effluents from the
treatment components represent typical
wastewater from the industry, without
incompatible wastewater from other
sources. Application of this criterion
results in EPA selecting those facilities
where the commingled wastewaters did
not result in substantial dilution,
facilities without equalization where
slug loads could result and cause
frequent upsets and/or overloads, more
concentrated wastewaters, or
wastewaters with different types of
pollutants than those generated by the
waste stream for which EPA is
proposing effluent limitations.
A third criterion typically ensures
that the pollutants are present in the
influent at sufficient concentrations to
evaluate treatment effectiveness. To
evaluate whether the data meet this
criterion for inclusion as a basis of the
limitations, EPA often uses the longterm average test (or LTA test) for
facilities where EPA possesses paired
influent and effluent data (see section
13 of the TDD for details of the LTA
test). The test measures the influent
concentrations to ensure a pollutant is
present at a sufficient concentration to
evaluate treatment effectiveness. If a
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
dataset for a pollutant fails the test (i.e.,
pollutant not present at a treatable
concentration), EPA excludes the data
for that pollutant at that plant when
calculating the limitations.
A fourth criterion typically requires
that the data are valid and appropriate
for their intended use (e.g., the data
must be analyzed with a sufficiently
sensitive method). Also, EPA does not
use data associated with periods of
treatment upsets because these data
would not reflect the performance from
well-designed and well-operated
treatment systems. In applying the
fourth criterion, EPA may evaluate the
pollutant concentrations, analytical
methods and the associated quality
control/quality assurance data, flow
values, mass loading, plant logs, and
other available information. As part of
this evaluation, EPA reviews the process
or treatment conditions that may have
resulted in extreme values (high and
low). As a consequence of this review,
EPA may exclude data associated with
certain time periods or other data
outliers that reflect poor performance or
analytical anomalies by an otherwise
well-operated site.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
B. Data Selection for Each Technology
EPA used specific data sources to
derive limitations for pollutants for
wastewater streams resulting from MPP
process wastewater and high chlorides
processes. The LTAs, VFs, and
limitations for each waste stream were
based on pollutant concentrations
collected during EPA sampling
episodes, DMR data, data provided by
EPA Regions and State agencies, and
data submitted by industry. EPA
conducted six sampling episodes.
Industry discharge data includes data
submitted in the MPP Questionnaire,
data submitted by facilities upon
request, and publicly available
discharge monitoring reports.
EPA identified facilities that were
operating the BAT technology for one or
more of the proposed pollutants for
regulation: total nitrogen, total
phosphorus, E. coli, oil and grease, TSS,
BOD, fecal coliforms. EPA calculated
the BAT LTA for a given pollutant based
on the facilities operating the BAT
technology basis for that pollutant.
Limitations may be based on
technology transferred from a different
subcategory within an industry or from
another industrial category. Limitations
based on transfer of technology must be
supported by a conclusion that the
technology is indeed transferable and a
reasonable prediction that it will be
capable of meeting the prescribed
effluent limits (Tanners’ Council of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
America v. Train, 540 F.2nd 1188 (4th
Cir. 1976)).
For the proposed limitations, EPA
combined data sets across all MPP
processes to give a single limit per
analyte for the industry. As the raw
materials for MPP processes are
animals/animal products, composed of
carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus, EPA
finds combining data from different
MPP processes to be reasonable.
Additionally, with the available data,
EPA performed a comparison of influent
from the different MPP processes and
found the wastewater characteristics to
be comparable. Therefore, EPA proposes
to find that the combination is
reasonable and solicits data to inform
this analysis.
Additional details on the data and
methodology used to calculate the
effluent limitations in today’s proposal
can be found in TDD section 13. In
addition, the proposed limitations for
each level of control for the preferred
Option 1 can be found in the proposed
regulatory text following this preamble.
In addition to the proposed
limitations, as described earlier EPA is
soliciting comment on including
effluent limitations for E. coli in
addition to, or in place of, limitations
for fecal coliform for direct discharging
facilities. Based on data available to
EPA at the time of proposal, the
monthly average limitation for E. coli
would be 9 MPN or CFU per 100 mL
(see the TDD for additional
information). EPA solicits comment on
this value as well as the data and
methodology used to calculate the
proposed effluent limitations in today’s
proposal. EPA also solicits comment on
including effluent limitations for
chlorides, which are proposed as zerodischarge for high chlorides processes.
In addition to general comments related
to the calculation of proposed effluent
limitations, EPA also solicits comment
on combining data across subcategories
in developing the proposed limitations.
EPA also solicits additional daily and
monthly data from facilities across the
industry.
XV. Regulatory Implementation
A. Implementation of New Limitations
and Standards
ELGs act as a primary mechanism to
control the discharge of pollutants to
waters of the United States. This
proposed rule would be applied to MPP
wastewater discharges through
incorporation into NPDES permits
issued by the EPA or States under CWA
section 402 (33 U.S.C. 1342) and
through pretreatment program
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4515
requirements under CWA section 307
(33 U.S.C. 1317).
The Agency has developed the
limitations and standards for this
proposed rule to control the discharge of
pollutants from the MPP point source
category. Once promulgated, those
permits or control mechanisms issued
after this rule’s effective date would be
required to incorporate the effluent
limitations guidelines and standards, as
applicable. Also, under section 510 of
the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1370), States may
require effluent limitations under State
law as long as they are no less stringent
than the requirements of a final rule.
Finally, in addition to requiring
application of the technology-based
ELGs promulgated in a final rule, CWA
section 301(b)(1)(C) (33 U.S.C.
1311(b)(1)(C)) requires the permitting
authority to impose more stringent
effluent limitations on discharges as
necessary to meet applicable water
quality standards.
Categorical pretreatment standards for
existing indirect dischargers, unlike
effluent limitations guidelines
applicable to direct dischargers, are
directly enforceable and must specify a
time for compliance not to exceed three
years under CWA section 307(b)(1) (33
U.S.C. 1317(b)(1)). Under EPA’s General
Pretreatment Regulations for Existing
and New Sources (40 CFR part 403),
POTWs with flows in excess of 5
million gallons per day (MGD) must
develop pretreatment programs meeting
prescribed conditions. These POTWs
have the legal authority to require
compliance with applicable
pretreatment standards and control the
introduction of pollutants to the POTW
through permits, orders, or similar
means. POTWs with approved
pretreatment programs act as the control
authorities for their industrial users.
Among the responsibilities of the
control authority are the development of
the specific discharge limitations for the
POTW’s industrial users. Because
pollutant discharge limitations in
categorical pretreatment standards may
be expressed as concentrations or mass
limitations, in many cases, the control
authority must convert the pretreatment
standards to limitations applicable to a
specific industrial user and then include
these in POTW permits or another
control instrument.
New source direct dischargers must
comply with the new source
performance standards (NSPS) of this
rule when they commence discharging
MPP process wastewater. CWA section
306 (33 U.S.C. 1316) states that NSPS
are effective upon promulgation. While
arguably this language could mean that
they are also enforceable upon
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
4516
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
promulgation, over the decades of CWA
implementation, NSPS for direct
dischargers have been implemented
through NPDES permits. For facilities
that are considered new sources, the
CWA provides for a protection period
from any more stringent technologybased standards. The protection period
is generally 10 years from the
completion of construction. See CWA
section 306(d) (33 U.S.C. 1316(d) and 40
CFR 122.29(d)). Thus, any source that
commenced construction before
promulgation of future NSPS will not be
subject to any more stringent standard
of performance until the protection
period identified in 40 CFR 122.29(d)
expires.
Facilities that discharge wastewater
from operations from more than one
category may need to comply with
limitations and standards from multiple
subcategories. For these facilities,
permit writers would use the ‘‘building
block approach’’ based on production or
wastewater discharge flow to combine
the sets of limitations into one final
effluent limitation in the facility’s
permit. In cases where one part of the
wastewater comes from operations with
no national technology-based
limitations, the permit writer must first
establish BPJ limitations for this portion
of the wastewater, and then combine
these with any applicable national
technology-based limitations using the
building block approach. However, first
processing subcategories (subcategories
A, B, C, D, and K) are defined to include
wastewater discharges from further
processing and rendering operations at
the same facility. These facilities will
only be regulated by the relevant first
processing subcategory or subcategories.
In May 2000, EPA promulgated a
regulation streamlining the NPDES
regulations (Amendments to Streamline
the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Program
Regulations: Round Two. 65 FR 30886;
May 15, 2000) which includes a
monitoring waiver for direct dischargers
subject to effluent guidelines. Direct
discharge facilities may request a
reduction in sampling a guidelinelimited pollutant if that discharger ‘‘has
demonstrated through sampling and
other technical factors that the pollutant
is not present in the discharge or is
present only at background levels from
intake water and without any increase
in the pollutant due to activities of the
discharger’’ (65 FR 30908; 40 CFR
122.44). EPA noted in the preamble to
the final NPDES streamlining rule that
the Agency is granting a waiver from
monitoring requirements but not a
waiver from the limit. In addition, the
provision does not waive monitoring for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
any pollutants for which there are limits
based on water quality standards. The
waiver for direct dischargers lasts for
the term of the NPDES permit and is not
available during the term of the first
permit issued to a discharger. Any
request for this waiver must be
submitted with the application for a
reissued permit or a request for
modification of a reissued permit. On
receiving authorization from their
NPDES permitting authority, direct
discharge facilities covered by any
effluent guidelines (including any final
rule promulgated for this category) may
use the monitoring waiver contained in
the NPDES streamlining final rule.
The CWA requires application of
effluent limitations established pursuant
to section 301 or the pretreatment
standards of section 307 to all direct and
indirect dischargers. However, the
statute provides for the modification of
these national requirements in a limited
number of circumstances. The Agency
has established administrative
mechanisms to provide an opportunity
for relief from the application of the
national effluent limitations guidelines
for categories of existing sources for
toxic, conventional, and
nonconventional pollutants.
EPA may develop, with the
concurrence of the State, effluent
limitations or standards different from
the otherwise applicable requirements
for an individual existing discharger if
it is fundamentally different with
respect to factors considered in
establishing the effluent limitations or
standards applicable to the individual
discharger. Such a modification is
known as a Fundamentally Different
Factor (FDF) variance. FDF variances
are not available for new sources
(DuPont v. Train, 430 U.S. 112 (1977)).
EPA, in its initial implementation of
the effluent guidelines program,
provided for the FDF modifications in
regulations, which were variances from
the BPT effluent limitations, BAT
limitations for toxic and
nonconventional pollutants, and BCT
limitations for conventional pollutants
for direct dischargers. FDF variances for
toxic pollutants were challenged
judicially and ultimately sustained by
the Supreme Court in Chemical
Manufacturers Association v. Natural
Resources Defense Council, 470 U.S.
116, 124 (1985).
Subsequently, in the Water Quality
Act of 1987, Congress added a new
section to the CWA—section 301(n) (33
U.S.C. 1311(n)). This provision
explicitly authorizes modifications of
the otherwise applicable BAT effluent
limitations, if a discharger is
fundamentally different with respect to
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the factors specified in CWA section 304
(other than cost) from those considered
by EPA in establishing the effluent
limitations. CWA section 301(n) also
defined the conditions under which
EPA may establish alternative
requirements. Under section 301(n), an
application for approval of a FDF
variance must be based solely on (1)
Information submitted during
rulemaking raising the factors that are
fundamentally different or (2)
information the applicant did not have
a reasonable opportunity to submit
during the rulemaking. The alternate
limitation must be no less stringent than
justified by the difference and must not
result in markedly more adverse nonwater quality environmental impacts
than the national limitation.
EPA regulations further detail the
substantive criteria used to evaluate
FDF variance requests for direct
dischargers. 40 CFR 125.31(d) and 40
CFR 403.13(d) identify six factors (e.g.,
volume of process wastewater, age and
size of a discharger’s facility) that may
be considered in determining if a
discharger is fundamentally different.
The Agency must determine whether,
based on one or more of these factors,
the discharger in question is
fundamentally different from the
dischargers and factors considered by
EPA in developing the nationally
applicable effluent guidelines. The
regulation also lists four other factors
(e.g., inability to install equipment
within the time allowed or a
discharger’s ability to pay) that may not
provide a basis for an FDF variance. In
addition, under 40 CFR 125.31(c), a
request for limitations less stringent
than the national limitation may be
approved only if compliance with the
national limitations would result in
either (a) a removal cost wholly out of
proportion to the removal cost
considered during development of the
national limitations, or (b) a non-water
quality environmental impact
(including energy requirements)
fundamentally more adverse than the
impact considered during development
of the national limits. The legislative
history of section 301(n) underscores
the necessity for the FDF variance
applicant to establish eligibility for the
variance. EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR
125.32(b) and 403.13 impose this
burden upon the applicant. The
applicant must show that the factors
relating to the discharge controlled by
the applicant’s permit that are claimed
to be fundamentally different are, in
fact, fundamentally different from those
factors considered by EPA in
establishing the applicable guidelines.
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
In practice, very few FDF variances have
been granted for past ELGs.
CWA section 301(c) (33 U.S.C.
1311(c)) authorizes a variance from the
otherwise applicable BAT effluent
guidelines for nonconventional
pollutants due to economic factors. The
request for a variance from effluent
limitations developed from BAT
guidelines must normally be filed by the
discharger during the public notice
period for the draft permit. 40 CFR
122.21(m)(2) specifies that section
301(c) variances must be filed within
270 days of promulgation of an ELG.
Specific guidance for this type of
variance is provided in Draft Guidance
for Application and Review of Section
301(c) Variance Requests (USEPA.
1984).52
CWA section 307(b)(1) (33 U.S.C.
1317(b)) establishes a discretionary
program for POTWs to grant ‘‘removal
credits’’ to their indirect dischargers.
Removal credits are a regulatory
mechanism by which industrial users
may discharge a pollutant in quantities
that exceed what would otherwise be
allowed under an applicable categorical
pretreatment standard because it has
been determined that the POTW to
which the industrial user discharges
consistently treats the pollutant. EPA
has promulgated removal credit
regulations as part of its pretreatment
regulations (40 CFR 403.7). These
regulations provide that a POTW may
give removal credits if prescribed
requirements are met. The POTW must
apply to and receive authorization from
the Approval Authority. To obtain
authorization, the POTW must
demonstrate consistent removal of the
pollutant for which approval authority
is sought. Furthermore, the POTW must
have an approved pretreatment
program. Finally, the POTW must
demonstrate that granting removal
credits will not cause the POTW to
violate applicable federal, State, or local
sewage sludge requirements or the
POTW’s NPDES permit limits and
conditions (40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)).
The United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit interpreted the
CWA as requiring EPA to promulgate
the comprehensive sewage sludge
regulations pursuant to CWA section
405(d)(2)(A)(ii) (33 U.S.C.
1345(d)(2)(A)(ii)) before any removal
credits could be authorized (NRDC v.
EPA, 790 F.2d 289, 292 (3d Cir., 1986);
cert. denied., 479 U.S. 1084 (1987)).
Congress made this explicit in the Water
Quality Act of 1987, which provided
that EPA could not authorize any
52 https://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/
OWM0469.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
removal credits until it issued the
sewage sludge use and disposal
regulations. On February 19, 1993, EPA
promulgated Standards for the Use or
Disposal of Sewage Sludge, which are
codified at 40 CFR part 503. EPA
interprets the Court’s decision in NRDC
v. EPA as only allowing removal credits
for a pollutant if EPA has either
regulated the pollutant in Part 503 or
established a concentration of the
pollutant in sewage sludge below which
public health and the environment are
protected when sewage sludge is used
or disposed.
The 40 CFR part 503 sewage sludge
regulations allow four options for
sewage sludge disposal: (1) Land
application for beneficial use, (2)
placement on a surface disposal unit, (3)
firing in a sewage sludge incinerator,
and (4) disposal in a landfill which
complies with the municipal solid
waste landfill criteria in section 40 CFR
503.4. Because pollutants in sewage
sludge are regulated differently
depending upon the use or disposal
method selected, under EPA’s
pretreatment regulations the availability
of a removal credit for a particular
pollutant is linked to the POTW’s
method of using or disposing of its
sewage sludge. The regulations provide
that removal credits may be potentially
available for the following pollutants:
(1) If POTW applies its sewage sludge
to the land for beneficial uses, disposes
of it in a surface disposal unit, or
incinerates it in a sewage sludge
incinerator, removal credits may be
available for the pollutants for which
EPA has established limits in 40 CFR
part 503. EPA has set ceiling limitations
for nine metals in sludge that is land
applied, three metals in sludge that is
placed on a surface disposal unit, and
seven metals and 57 organic pollutants
in sludge that is incinerated in a sewage
sludge incinerator.
(2) Additional removal credits may be
available for sewage sludge that is land
applied, placed in a surface disposal
unit, or incinerated in a sewage sludge
incinerator, so long as the concentration
of these pollutants in sludge do not
exceed concentration levels established
in Part 403, Appendix G, Table II. For
sewage sludge that is land applied,
removal credits may be available for an
additional two metals and 14 organic
pollutants. For sewage sludge that is
placed on a surface disposal unit,
removal credits may be available for an
additional seven metals and 13 organic
pollutants. For sewage sludge that is
incinerated in a sewage sludge
incinerator, removal credits may be
available for three other metals (40 CFR
403.7(a)(3)(iv)(B)).
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4517
(3) When a POTW disposes of its
sewage sludge in a municipal solid
waste landfill that meets the criteria of
40 CFR part 258, removal credits may be
available for any pollutant in the
POTW’s sewage sludge (40 CFR part
403.7(a)(3)(iv)(C)).
B. Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements
The proposed effluent limitations
include pollutants not previously
regulated in ELGs for direct and indirect
MPP dischargers. NPDES permit writers
and pretreatment control authorities
must establish requirements for
regulated MPP facilities to monitor their
effluent to ensure that they are
complying with the effluent limitations
and pretreatment standards. As
specified at 40 CFR 122.41, 122.44, and
122.48, all NPDES permits must specify
requirements for using, maintaining,
and installing (if appropriate)
monitoring equipment; monitoring type,
intervals, and frequencies that will
provide representative data; analytical
methods; and reporting and
recordkeeping. In addition, 40 CFR
122.42 outlines additional conditions
applicable to specified categories of
NPDES permits. For example, during
the NPDES permit cycle, POTWs must
provide adequate notice to the
permitting authority of any new
introduction of pollutants into the
POTW from an indirect discharger
which otherwise would be subject to
CWA section 301 or 306 if it were
directly discharging those pollutants;
any substantial change in the volume or
character of pollutants being introduced
into the POTW; and any anticipated
impact to the POTW final discharge (40
CFR 142.2(b)).
The NPDES program requires
permittees (with certain specific
exceptions) to monitor for limited
pollutants and report data at least once
a year. 40 CFR 122.44(i)(2). Industrial
users and POTWs have similar reporting
requirements as specified at 40 CFR
403.12. The general pretreatment
regulations at 40 CFR part 403 require
significant industrial users (which
includes all industrial users subject to
Categorical Pretreatment Standards,
with certain specific exceptions) to
monitor for limited pollutants and
report data in June and December,
unless required more frequently in the
Pretreatment Standard or by the control
authority or approval authority (40 CFR
403.12(e)). POTW control authorities are
also required by 40 CFR 403.8(f) to
conduct annual inspections and
sampling to independently assess
compliance with standards.
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
4518
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
EPA does not plan to promulgate
specific monitoring requirements or
monitoring frequencies in the MPP rule.
Therefore, NPDES permit writers may
establish monitoring requirements and
monitoring frequencies at their
discretion subject to the requirements of
the NPDES regulations. Likewise, the
control authority for indirect
dischargers may establish monitoring
requirements and monitoring
frequencies at their discretion subject to
the requirements of the pretreatment
program regulations and in compliance
with approved State and POTW
program procedures. The Agency notes,
however, that since the PRA requires it
to estimate the incremental reporting
and recordkeeping burden associated
with any new regulation, in developing
the proposed Part 432 limitations it
considered a monthly sampling
frequency for purposes of estimating
this burden. EPA expects that facilities
properly operating and maintaining the
wastewater treatment technology system
will be able to comply with the monthly
average limitation/standard when they
sample at the assumed monthly
monitoring frequency, although
compliance is required regardless of the
number of samples analyzed and
averaged in a month. EPA recommends
that permitting authorities require
monitoring samples at some regular,
predetermined frequency. If a facility
has difficulty complying with the
standards on an ongoing basis, the
facility should improve its equipment,
operations, and/or maintenance.
Facilities are required to use
analytical methods specified in or
approved under 40 CFR part 136 for
compliance monitoring (40 CFR
122.41(j)(4), 403.12(g)(3)). Of note, Part
136 requires facilities to collect grab
samples for oil & grease. In developing
the Part 432 oil & grease limitations,
EPA generally collected six grab
samples in a 24-hour monitoring day.
For pH, sample types can range from a
one-time grab sample during a
monitoring day to continuous sampling
throughout a monitoring day where pH
is a critical aspect of the wastewater
treated or the wastewater treatment
operation.
C. Applicability of PSNS/NSPS
Requirements
In 2004, EPA promulgated NSPS/
PSNS for certain discharges from new
units. Regardless of the outcome of the
current rulemaking, those units that are
currently subject to the 2004 NSPS/
PSNS will continue to be subject to such
standards. In addition, EPA is proposing
to clarify in the text of the regulation
that, assuming the Agency promulgates
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
BAT/PSES requirements as part of the
current rulemaking, units to which the
2004 NSPS/PSNS apply will also be
subject to any newly promulgated BAT/
PSES requirements because they will be
existing sources with respect to such
new requirements.
XVI. Related Acts of Congress, E.O’s
and Agency Initiatives
Additional information about these
statutes and Executive Orders can be
found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory
Review
This action is a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’, as defined under section 3(f)(1)
of E.O. 12866, as amended by E.O.
14094. Accordingly, EPA submitted this
action to OMB for E.O. 12866 review.
Documentation of any changes made in
response to the E.O. 12866 review is
available in the docket. The EPA
prepared an analysis of the potential
costs and benefits associated with this
action. This analysis, ‘‘Benefit and Cost
Analysis for Proposed Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards
for the Meat and Poultry Products Point
Source Category’’ EPA 821–R–23–013, is
also available in the docket and is
briefly summarized in Section VIII.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection activities
in this proposed rule have been
submitted for approval to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
the PRA. The Information Collection
Request (ICR) document that the EPA
prepared has been assigned EPA ICR
number 2701.02. You can find a copy of
the ICR in the docket for this rule, and
it is briefly summarized here.
This Information Collection Request
(ICR) seeks approval of the information
requirements in the Proposed Rule for
the Effluent Guidelines and Standards
for the Meat and Poultry Products (MPP)
Category. EPA is proposing revisions to
Best Available Technology
Economically Achievable (BAT), as well
as new Pretreatment Standards for
Existing Sources (PSES) and
Pretreatment Standards for New Sources
(PSNS) under the Clean Water Act
(CWA) for MPP facilities. Under the
proposed BAT, certain MPP facilities
that discharge wastewater directly to
waters of the U.S. would be required to
monitor for additional pollutants, such
as phosphorus. Under the proposed
PSES/PSNS, certain MPP facilities that
discharge wastewater into publicly
owned treatment works (POTWs) would
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
be required to control the discharge of
conventional pollutants. The proposed
rule would require all affected direct
discharging MPP facilities to meet limits
for nitrogen, and phosphorus before
discharging wastewater to surface
waters. These facilities are already
required to monitor for nitrogen. The
proposed rule would require all affected
indirect MPP facilities to meet limits for
biological oxygen demand (BOD), oil
and grease, and total suspended solids
(TSS) before discharging wastewater to
POTWs through the use of wastewater
treatment technologies and Best
Management Practices (BMPs).
The users of the data would be MPP
facilities, State and local regulatory
authorities, EPA, and, perhaps most
importantly, the general public.
Specifically for indirect dischargers, the
users of the data would be MPP
facilities and their Control Authorities.
By establishing categorical pretreatment
standards for the MPP category in 40
CFR part 432, MPP dischargers to
POTWs would become subject to certain
reporting requirements in 40 CFR part
403. These include a requirement to
submit a baseline monitoring report, 90day compliance report and on-going
monitoring and reporting requirements
including results of discharge sampling.
Reports submitted to the Permitting or
Control Authority may contain
confidential business information.
However, EPA does not consider the
specific information being requested by
the rule to be typical of confidential
business or personal information. If a
respondent does consider this
information to be of a confidential
nature, the respondent may request that
such information be treated as such. All
confidential data will be handled in
accordance with 40 CFR 122.7, 40 CFR
part 2, and EPA’s Security Manual Part
III, Chapter 9, dated August 9, 1976.
Respondents/affected entities: Entities
affected by this information collection
request are Meat and Poultry Products
facilities and Control Authorities.
The Meat and Poultry Products (MPP)
point source category includes facilities
‘‘engaged in the slaughtering, dressing
and packing of meat and poultry
products for human consumption and/
or animal food and feeds. Meat and
poultry products for human
consumption include meat and poultry
from cattle, hogs, sheep, chickens,
turkeys, ducks and other fowl as well as
sausages, luncheon meats and cured,
smoked or canned or other prepared
meat and poultry products from
purchased carcasses and other
materials. Meat and poultry products for
animal food and feeds include animal
oils, meat meal and facilities that render
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
4519
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
grease and tallow from animal fat, bones
and meat scraps’’ (See 40 CFR 432.1).
Control Authorities have regulatory
oversight for pollutant discharges to
POTWs. The ‘‘Control Authority’’ refers
to the POTW if the POTW has an
approved pretreatment program, or the
Approval Authority if it has not been
approved, which may be the State or
EPA. By establishing categorical
pretreatment standards for the MPP
category, control authorities would be
subject to certain oversight requirements
in 40 CFR part 403.
Respondent’s obligation to respond:
Mandatory (40 CFR 122.41, 122.44 and
122.48, and 40 CFR parts 403 and 432.)
Estimated number of respondents:
485 meat and poultry product facilities
and 360 control authorities
Frequency of response: EPA is
assuming a one-time burden per facility
to develop baseline and 90-day
compliance reports and review
production as well as monthly data
reporting.
Total estimated burden: 15,133 hours
(per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: $2,981,260 (per
year), includes $1,339,530 annualized
capital or operation & maintenance
costs.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Submit your comments on the
Agency’s need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden
estimates and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden to
the EPA using the docket identified at
the beginning of this rule. The EPA will
respond to any ICR-related comments in
the final rule. You may also send your
ICR-related comments to OMB’s Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs
using the interface at www.reginfo.gov/
public/do/PRAMain. Find this
particular information collection by
selecting ‘‘Currently under Review—
Open for Public Comments’’ or by using
the search function. OMB must receive
comments no later than February 22,
2024.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
I certify that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the RFA. The small entities
subject to the requirements of this
action are meat and poultry products
facilities that engage in meat and/or
poultry slaughter, further processing,
and/or rendering. The proposed rule
would not affect any current small
governmental jurisdictions or not-forprofit organizations. Only facilities that
exceed the subcategory-specific
production thresholds would be subject
to this rule. The Agency has determined
that under the proposed Option 1, of the
estimated 3,233 small businesses that
own MPP facilities, 96 small entities
may experience an impact. Of the 96
potentially regulated small entities, no
entities are estimated to incur
annualized post-tax compliance costs
greater than 3 percent of revenues; only
one entity is estimated to incur
compliance costs between 1 to 3 percent
of revenues; 95 small entities are
estimated to incur compliance costs of
less than 1 percent of revenues. Under
the most stringent option (Option 3),
263 small entities may experience an
impact: 4 entities are estimated to incur
costs greater than 3 percent of revenues,
11 entities between 1 to 3 percent, and
248 less than 1 percent. These results
are summarized in Table XVI–2, below
(same as Table VIII–12). Details of this
analysis are presented in Section VIII
and the RIA found in the docket.
TABLE XVI–2—SMALL FIRM-LEVEL CTR SCREENING ANALYSIS RESULTS
Option 1 .....................................
Option 2 .....................................
Option 3 .....................................
Number small firms with a ratio of
Total # of
small firms
Entity type
I
3,233
3,233
3,233
0% a
3,137
3,137
2,970
I
a These
>0 and <1%
≥1 and <3%
95
94
248
1
1
11
I
I
Percent of small firms with a ratio of
≥3%
I
0% a
0
1
4
97
97
92
I
>0 and <1%
≥1 and <3%
3
3
8
0.0
0.0
0.0
I
I
≥3%
0.0
0.0
0.0
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
entities own only facilities that already meet discharge requirements for the wastestreams addressed by a given regulatory option and are therefore not estimated to incur any compliance technology costs.
Although this proposed rule would
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to
reduce the impact of this proposed rule
on small entities. The proposed rule
includes subcategory-specific
production thresholds that would have
less stringent effluent limitations for
smaller production facilities. Facilities
under certain production thresholds
may have no national effluent
limitations.
Although not required by the RFA to
convene a Small Business Advocacy
Review (SBAR) Panel because the EPA
has now determined that this proposal
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities, the EPA originally convened a
panel to obtain advice and
recommendations from small entity
representatives potentially subject to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
this rule’s requirements. The 5 panel
recommendations are briefly
summarized here, and a copy of the
SBAR Panel Report is included in the
docket for this rulemaking (USEPA.
2023. DCN MP00347). The Panel
recommended EPA: (1) Exclude small
and very small firms from regulation
and take public comment on production
thresholds so as not to cause substantial
economic hardship on small entities; (2)
Set regulations based on wastewater
flows as an alternative to production
thresholds; (3) Consider and take
comment on a longer or flexible
timeline for small entities to meet
proposed regulations; (4) Consider and
take comment on conditional limits for
MPP facilities that discharge to POTWs
that already have nitrogen and
phosphorus treatment capabilities
equivalent to the proposed rule in place;
(5) Publish compliance guides to help
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
facilities determine rule applicability
and requirements and to take comment
on what information would be
beneficial for small entities.
Although not required by the RFA,
the EPA prepared an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis (IRFA) that examines
the impact of the proposed rule on small
entities along with regulatory
alternatives that could minimize that
impact. The IRFA describes why this
action is being considered, the
objectives and legal basis for the
proposed rule, the small entities to
which the proposed rule applies, the
compliance requirements, other relevant
Federal rules, potential economic
impacts on small entities, how
regulatory options developed by EPA
served to mitigate the impact of the
regulatory options on small entities, and
uncertainties and limitations. The
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
4520
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
complete IRFA is available for review in
the docket.
In accordance with RFA requirements
and as it has consistently done in
developing effluent limitations
guidelines and standards, EPA
subsequently assessed whether the
proposed regulatory options would have
‘‘a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities’’ (SISNOSE).
EPA performed this assessment for each
of the proposed options and as
described above certified no SISNOSE.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action contains a federal
mandate under UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–
1538, that may result in expenditures of
$100 million or more for State, local and
Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
the private sector in any one year.
Accordingly, the EPA has prepared a
written statement required under
section 202 of UMRA. The statement is
included in the docket for this action
and briefly summarized here.
An industrial user (IU) is a
nondomestic source of indirect
discharge into a POTW, and in this rule
is the meat and poultry products facility
discharger. The Control Authority may
be the POTW, the State, or EPA,
depending on whether the POTW or the
State is approved by EPA to administer
the pretreatment program. The Control
Authority is the POTW in cases where
the POTW has an approved
pretreatment program. The Control
Authority is the State, where the POTW
has not been approved to administer the
pretreatment program, but the State has
been approved. The Control Authority is
EPA where neither the POTW nor the
State have been approved to administer
the pretreatment program. The Approval
Authority is the State (Director) in an
NPDES authorized State with an
approved pretreatment program, the
EPA regional administrator in a nonNPDES authorized State, or NPDES
State without an approved State
pretreatment program.
Typically, an IU is responsible for
demonstrating compliance with
pretreatment standards by performing
self-monitoring, submitting reports and
notifications to its Control Authority,
and maintaining records of activities
associated with its discharge to the
POTW. The Control Authority is the
regulating authority responsible for
implementing and enforcing
pretreatment standards. The General
Pretreatment Regulations require certain
minimum oversight of IUs by Control
Authorities. The required minimum
oversight includes receipt and analysis
of reports and notifications submitted
by IUs, random sampling and analyzing
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
effluent from IUs, and conducting
surveillance activities to identify
occasional and continuing
noncompliance with pretreatment
standards. The Control Authority is also
responsible for taking enforcement
action as necessary.
For IUs that are designated as
Significant Industrial Users (SIUs),53
Control Authorities must inspect and
sample the SIU effluent annually,
review the need for a slug control plan,
and issue a permit or equivalent control
mechanism. IUs subject to categorical
pretreatment standards are referred to as
Categorical Industrial Users (CIUs) and
General Pretreatment Regulations define
SIU to include CIUs.
The Approval Authority is
responsible for ensuring that POTWs
comply with all applicable pretreatment
program requirements. Among other
things, the Approval Authority receives
annual pretreatment reports from the
Control Authority. These reports must
identify which IUs are CIUs. In
accordance with 40 CFR 122.44(j)(1) all
POTWs are required to ‘‘identify, in
terms of character and volume of
pollutants, any SIU’’ and include them
on their NPDES Application form,
122.21(j)(6). Approved POTW Control
Authorities have legal authority and
procedures to identify and control such
IUs (40 CFR 403.8(f)(1) & (2)). Therefore,
this proposed MPP rule requires little
extra burden on Control Authorities to
identify the subset of SIUs that are
subject to categorical pretreatment
standards and to apply the requirements
to them.
This action is not subject to the
requirements of section 203 of UMRA
because it contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments.
E. E.O. 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
53 SIUs are defined as Industrial Users subject to
Categorical Pretreatment Standards, or those that:
discharge an average of 25,000 gallons per day or
more of process wastewater to the POTW
(excluding sanitary, noncontact cooling and boiler
blowdown wastewater); contributes a process waste
stream which makes up 5 percent or more of the
average dry weather hydraulic or organic capacity
of the POTW Treatment plant; or is designated as
such by the Control Authority on the basis that the
Industrial User has a reasonable potential for
adversely affecting the POTW’s operation or for
violating any Pretreatment Standard. See 40 CFR
403.3 for details.
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
F. E.O. 13175: Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have Tribal
implications as specified in E.O. 13175.
It would not have substantial direct
effects on Tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal
Government and the Indian Tribes, or
the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian Tribes as
specified in E.O. 13175. EPA is not
aware of any facility subject to these
proposed ELGs that is owned by Tribal
governments. Thus, E.O. 13175 does not
apply to this action.
Consistent with the EPA Policy on
Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribes, EPA consulted with
Tribal officials during the development
of this action. EPA initiated
consultation and coordination with
federally recognized Tribal governments
in January 2023. EPA shared
information about the Meat and Poultry
Products effluent guidelines rulemaking
(MPP ELG) with all federally recognized
Tribes by sending a letter and detailed
plan describing the rulemaking, the
potential impact to Tribes, and
opportunities for Tribal involvement.
EPA performed a proximity-based
screening analysis to determine which
Tribes and Tribal lands are the most
likely to be impacted by MPP industrial
activity and/or changes to the MPP ELG.
Tribes that were identified as being in
proximity 54 to either 10 or more MPP
facilities or a waterbody potentially
impacted by MPP wastewater
discharge,55 were notified of these
screening results to promote awareness.
EPA continued this government-togovernment dialogue by hosting two
identical listening sessions as webinars
on February 6th and 13th, 2023, where
Tribal representatives were invited to
participate in further discussions about
the rulemaking process and objectives,
with a focus on identifying specific
ways the rulemaking may affect Tribes.
The consultation process ended on
March 10th, 2023. No Tribal
governments requested direct
government-to-government
consultations, and EPA received no
written comments from any Tribes.
G. E.O. 13045: Protection of Children
From Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks
E.O. 13045 directs federal agencies to
include an evaluation of the health and
safety effects of the planned regulation
54 Within
5 miles.
50 miles of a 25-mile reach downstream
of an MPP wastewater outfall.
55 Within
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
on children in federal health and safety
standards and explain why the
regulation is preferable to potentially
effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives. This action is not subject to
E.O. 13045 because the EPA does not
believe the environmental health risks
or safety risks addressed by this action
present a disproportionate risk to
children.
EPA reviewed epidemiological
studies to determine whether exposures
to pollutants in MPP wastewater are
associated with disproportionate health
risks among children. EPA identified
evidence of disproportionate health
risks among children from exposure to
nitrates, which can result from the
discharge of nitrogen from MPP
facilities. Research has shown an
association between exposure to nitrates
in drinking water and increased
incidence of birth defects and
methemoglobinemia (‘‘blue baby
syndrome’’) in children (Fears. 2021),56
(Baskin-) 57 EPA analyzed changes in
total nitrogen (TN) loadings from MPP
facilities under the proposed regulation
and found that the regulatory options all
result in estimated reductions relative to
the baseline in TN loadings into
downstream receiving waters.
Additionally, compared to the baseline,
EPA found that modeled regulatory
Option 3 resulted in reductions in
average nitrate concentrations in all
three case study watersheds. This result
suggests that nitrate levels will decrease
in source waters for intakes of drinking
water systems downstream of MPP
wastewater discharge. While reducing
nitrogen species in source water may
reduce the amount and cost of treatment
needed, EPA does not anticipate
changes in nitrate and nitrite
concentrations in drinking water. This
is because public water systems must
meet the maximum contaminant level
(MCL) in water for nitrates and nitrite
(10 mg/L and 1 mg/L, respectively).
These MCLs are equal to the Maximum
Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) and
were specifically based on levels
considered low enough to protect
infants from methemoglobinemia. The
risk to children in households whose
water supply comes from public water
systems is therefore low. Because of this
as well as data limitations, EPA did not
56 Fears, Darryl. April 13, 2021. A Poultry Plant,
Years of Groundwater Contamination And, Finally,
A Court Settlement. The Washington Post.
57 Leah Baskin-Graves, Haley Mullen, Aaron
Aber, Jair Sinisterra, Kamran Ayub, Roxana AmayaFuentes, and Sacoby Wilson. 2019. Rapid Health
Impact Assessment of A Proposed Poultry
Processing Plant in Millsboro, Delaware.
International Journal of Environmental Research
and Public Health, Vol. 16, Issue 3429.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
quantify resulting changes in birth
defects and methemoglobinemia but
expects children to benefit from a
reduced risk of these health impacts
from lower nitrogen concentrations in
source waters.
Nutrient concentrations in private
well water may be impacted by any
increase in land application of sludges
expected to occur under proposed rule
options. Because land application
locations and frequencies change over
time, EPA was not able to estimate
potential impacts of this rulemaking on
private well water quality, and therefore
the health of children in affected
households. Taken together, it is
underdetermined how children may be
impacted under the implementation of
this rule.
H. E.O. 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not a significant energy
action under E.O. 13211, because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution or use
of energy. As discussed in Section X,
EPA estimates that compliance with this
proposed rule would create a small
increase in nationwide energy
consumption for MPP facilities. EPA
estimates an approximate increase of
104,208 MWh per year for wastewater
treatment. By comparison, electric
power generation facilities generated
4,108 billion megawatt hours of electric
power in the United States in 2021 (EIA.
2021).58 Additional energy requirements
for EPA’s selected options are
acceptable (i.e., significantly less than
0.001 percent of national requirements).
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
This rulemaking does not involve
technical standards.
J. E.O. 12898: Federal Actions To
Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations; Executive Order 14096
Revitalizing Our Nation’s Commitment
to Environmental Justice for All
The EPA believes that the human
health or environmental conditions that
exist prior to this action result in or
have the potential to result in
disproportionate and adverse human
health or environmental effects on
communities with environmental justice
(EJ) concerns. Literature on the MPP
industry showed that facilities are
commonly (Winders and Abrell.
58 U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2021.
Electric Power Annual Report. www.eia.gov/
electricity/annual.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4521
2021) 59 in rural areas, often with
multiple large facilities located in the
same county (Burkhart et al. 2018).60
Exposure to pollutants released by
facilities through air, water, and solid
waste (Baskin-Graves et al. 2019) cause
health effects in communities near or
downstream of facilities (Hall et al.
2021) 61 near MPP facilities have been
documented to have greater proportions
of vulnerable population groups and
potential exposures to environmental
stressors than the average community.
The results of EPA’s proximity analysis
support this finding. EPA determined
that Census block groups (CBGs) located
within one mile of an MPP facility had
larger proportions of people identifying
as Asian, Black, and or Hispanic, and
more low-income individuals than the
national average.62 Relevant indicators
of pollution exposures expected to be
impacted under proposed rule options
(PM2.5, diesel PM, and traffic proximity)
also exceeded the 50th percentile
nationally on average for these
communities. EPA also assessed
community demographics along
downstream receiving waters 63 of MPP
facilities and areas served by public
drinking water systems sourcing water
from receiving waters. These analyses
showed that CBGs served by impacted
drinking water systems have greater
proportions of Black/African American
people than the national average, while
CBGs within one mile of a downstream
receiving waters have a larger
proportion of low-income individuals
than the national average.64 EPA
believes that this action is likely to
reduce existing disproportionate and
adverse effects on communities with
environmental justice concerns. Under
all proposed regulatory options, the
extent of MPP discharge impacts on
59 Winders, D.J., & Abrell, E. 2021.
Slaughterhouse Workers, Animals, and the
Environment: The Need for a Rights-Centered
Regulatory Framework in the United States That
Recognizes Interconnected Interests. Health and
Human Rights Journal. Vol. 23: No. 2.
60 Burkhart, K., Bernhardt, C., Pelton, T.,
Schaeffer, E., and Phillips, A. 2018. Water Pollution
from Slaughterhouses. The Environmental Integrity
Project. https://earthjustice.org/.
61 Hall, J., Galarraga, J., Berman, I., Edwards, C.,
Khanjar, N., Kavi, L., Murray, R., Burwell-Naney,
K., Jiang, C., & Wilson, S. 2021. Environmental
injustice and industrial chicken farming in
Maryland. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 18(21). https://doi.org/
10.3390/ijerph182111039.
62 The national average of people identifying as
Asian, Black, and/or Hispanic are 5.6, 12.2, and
18.4 percent, respectively, and is 29.8 percent for
individuals considered to be of low-income status.
(ACS 2017–2021).
63 Within 25 river miles of an MPP process
wastewater outfall.
64 National averages are derived from the fiveyear 2017–2021 American Community Survey.
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
4522
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
drinking water sources decreases
compared to the baseline, therefore
reducing impacts to these drinking
water distribution systems and the
people served by them. The drinking
water systems predicted to have
improved intake water quality under the
regulatory options evaluated serve an
increasing fraction of the population
identifying as Black/African American
relative to baseline under preferred
option 1 and option 2, but a decreasing
fraction under option 3. However, this
percentage exceeds the national average
under all options. Additionally, lowincome individuals differentially benefit
from improved drinking water resources
under all regulatory options evaluated.
When considering other analyses, such
as the distribution of impacts to
communities fishing in downstream
receiving waters, the regulatory options
do not create disproportionate or
adverse effects relative to the baseline.
For information regarding the
distribution of anticipated benefits and
a discussion of outreach and public
engagement efforts, refer to Section XIII
of this preamble. The information
supporting this Executive Order review
is contained in section 7 of the
Environmental Assessment document,
which is available in the public docket.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Appendix A to the Preamble:
Definitions, Acronyms, and
Abbreviations Used in This Preamble
The following acronyms, abbreviations,
and terms are used in this preamble. These
terms are provided for convenience to the
reader, and they are not regulatory
definitions with the force or effect of law, nor
are they to be used as guidance for
implementation of this proposed rule.
Administrator. The Administrator of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Agency. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
BAT. Best Available Technology
economically achievable, as defined by CWA
sections 301(b)(2)(A) and 304(b)(2)(B).
BCA. Benefit Cost Analysis.
BCT. The best control technology for
conventional pollutants, applicable to
discharges of conventional pollutants from
existing industrial point sources, as defined
by section 304(b)(4) of the CWA.
Bioaccumulation. General term describing
a process by which chemicals are taken up
by an organism either directly from exposure
to a contaminated medium or by
consumption of food containing the
chemical, resulting in a net accumulation of
the chemical over time by the organism.
BMP. Best management practice.
BOD5. Biological oxygen demand measured
over a five-day period.
BPJ. Best Professional Judgement.
BPT. The best practicable control
technology currently available, as defined by
CWA sections 301(b)(1) and 304(b)(1).
CBI. Confidential business information.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
CFR. Code of Federal Regulations.
CWA. Clean Water Act; The Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), as amended, e.g., by
the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 95–217)
and the Water Quality Act of 1987 (Pub. L.
100–4).
CWA Section 308 Questionnaire. A
questionnaire sent to facilities under the
authority of section 308 of the CWA, which
requests information to be used in the
development of national effluent limitations
guidelines and standards.
Conventional Pollutants. Section 304(a)(4)
designates the following as conventional
pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand, total
suspended solids, fecal coliform, and pH,
and any additional pollutants defined by the
Administrator. The Administrator designated
oil & grease as an additional conventional
pollutant on July 30, 1979. 40 CFR 401.16.
DAF. Dissolved Air Flotation.
Daily Discharge. The discharge of a
pollutant measured during any calendar day
or any 24-hour period that reasonably
represents a calendar day.
Denitrification. Nitrite and nitrate are
reduced by heterotrophic bacteria into
nitrogen gas in anaerobic conditions.
Direct discharge. (1) Any addition of any
‘‘pollutant’’ or combination of pollutants to
‘‘waters of the United States’’ from any
‘‘point source’’ or (2) any addition of any
pollutant or combination of pollutant to
waters of the ‘‘contiguous zone’’ or the ocean
from any point source other than a vessel or
other floating craft that is being used as a
means of transportation. This definition
includes additions of pollutants into waters
of the United States from surface runoff that
is collected or channeled by man; discharges
through pipes, sewers, or other conveyances
owned by a State, municipality, or other
person that do not lead to a treatment works;
and discharges through pipes, sewers, or
other conveyances that lead into privately
owned treatment works. This term does not
include addition of pollutants by any
‘‘indirect discharger.’’ 40 CFR 122.2.
DMR. Discharge Monitoring Report
Effluent limitation. Under CWA section
502(11), any restriction, including schedules
of compliance, established by a State or the
Administrator on quantities, rates, and
concentrations of chemical, physical,
biological, and other constituents that are
discharged from point sources into navigable
waters, the waters of the contiguous zone, or
the ocean.
EJA. Environmental Justice Analysis
ELGs. Effluent limitations guidelines and
standards.
E.O. Executive Order.
EPA. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
Existing Source. For this rule, any source
that is not a new source as defined in 40 CFR
122.2.
Facility. Any NPDES ‘‘point source’’ or any
other facility or activity (including land or
appurtenances thereto) that is subject to
regulation under the CWA.
Finished Product. The final manufactured
product produced on site, including products
intended for consumption with no additional
processing as well as products intended for
further processing, when applicable.
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
First Processing. Operations which receive
live meat animals or poultry and produce a
raw, dressed meat or poultry product, either
whole or in parts.
FTE. Full Time Equivalent Employee
Further Processing. Operations which
utilize whole carcasses or cut-up meat or
poultry products for the production of fresh
or frozen products, and may include the
following types of processing: cutting and
deboning, cooking, seasoning, smoking,
canning, grinding, chopping, dicing, forming
or breading.
Groundwater. Water that is found in the
saturated part of the ground underneath the
land surface.
Hazardous Waste. Any waste, including
wastewater, defined as hazardous under
RCRA, CERCLA, TSCA, or any State law.
HEM. A measure of oil & grease in
wastewater by mixing the wastewater with
hexane and measuring the oils and greases
that are removed from the wastewater with
n-hexane. Specifically, EPA Method 1664,
see, Table IB.
Indirect discharge. Wastewater discharged
or otherwise introduced to a POTW.
Landfill. A disposal facility or part of a
facility or plant where solid waste, sludges,
or other process residuals are placed in or on
any natural or manmade formation in the
earth for disposal and which is not a storage
pile, a land treatment facility, a surface
impoundment, an underground injection
well, a salt dome or salt bed formation, an
underground mine, a cave, or a corrective
action management unit.
LTA (Long-Term Average). For purposes of
the effluent guidelines, average pollutant
levels achieved over a period of time by a
facility, subcategory, or technology option.
LTAs were used in developing the effluent
limitations guidelines and standards in
today’s proposed regulation.
Live Weight Killed (LWK). The total weight
of the total number of animals slaughtered
during a specific time period.
Maximum Monthly Discharge Limitation.
The highest allowable average of ‘‘daily
discharges’’ over a calendar month,
calculated as the sum of all ‘‘daily
discharges’’ measured during the calendar
month divided by the number of ‘‘daily
discharges’’ measured during the month.
Meat. The term ‘‘meat’’ includes all animal
products from cattle, calves, hogs, sheep,
lambs, horses, goats and exotic livestock (e.g.,
elk, buffalo, deer) etc., except those defined
as Poultry for human consumption. This
category may include certain species not
classified as ‘‘meat’’ by USDA FSIS and that
may or may not be under USDA FSIS
voluntary inspection.
MPP. Meat and Poultry Products.
Minimum Level. The level at which an
analytical system gives recognizable signals
and an acceptable calibration point.
Mortality. Death rate or proportion of
deaths in a population.
NAICS. North American Industry
Classification System.
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
4523
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Non-Conventional Pollutants. Pollutants
that are neither conventional pollutants nor
toxic/priority pollutants.
Non-Water Quality Environmental Impact.
Deleterious aspects of control and treatment
technologies applicable to point source
category wastes, including, but not limited to
air pollution, noise, radiation, sludge and
solid waste generation, and energy used.
NPDES. National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System.
NSPSs. New Source Performance
Standards.
Outfall. The mouth of conduit drains and
other conduits from which a facility effluent
discharges into receiving waters.
Point source. Any discernible, confined,
and discrete conveyance, including but not
limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel,
conduit, well, discrete fissure, container,
rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding
operation, vessel, or other floating craft from
which pollutants are or may be discharged.
The term does not include agricultural
stormwater discharges or return flows from
irrigated agriculture. See CWA section
502(14), 33 U.S.C. 1362(14); 40 CFR 122.2.
Pollutants of Concern (POCs). Pollutants
commonly found in meat and poultry
processing wastewaters. Generally, a
chemical is considered as a POC if it was
detected in untreated process wastewater at
5 times a baseline value in more than 10%
of the samples.
Poultry. Broilers, other young chickens,
hens, fowl, mature chickens, turkeys, capons,
geese, ducks, exotic poultry (e.g., ostriches),
and small game such as quail, pheasants, and
rabbits. This category may include species
not classified as ‘‘poultry’’ by USDA FSIS
and that may or may not be under USDA
FSIS voluntary inspection.
POTW. Publicly owned treatment works.
Any device or system owned by a State or
municipality that is used in the treatment
(including recycling and reclamation) of
municipal sewage or industrial wastes of a
liquid nature. These include sewers, pipes, or
other conveyances only if they convey
wastewater to a POTW providing treatment.
See CWA section 212, 33 U.S.C. 1292; 40
CFR 122.2, and 403.3.
Priority Pollutant. One hundred twenty-six
compounds that are a subset of the 65 toxic
pollutants and classes of pollutants outlined
pursuant to section 307(a) of the CWA. They
are listed at 40 CFR part 423 Appx A.
PSES. Pretreatment Standards for existing
sources of indirect discharges, under section
307(b) of the CWA.
PSNS. Pretreatment standards for new
sources under section 307(c) of the CWA.
Raw Material. The basic input materials to
a renderer composed of animal and poultry
trimmings, bones, meat scraps, dead animals,
feathers and related usable by-products.
RCRA. The Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.
RO. Reverse osmosis.
RFA. Regulatory Flexibility Act.
SBA. Small Business Administration.
SBR. Sequencing batch reactor.
SBREFA. Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.
Sediment. Particulate matter lying below
water.
SER. Small Entity Representative.
SIC. Standard Industrial Classification
(SIC)—A numerical categorization system
used by the U.S. Department of Commerce to
catalogue economic activity. SIC codes refer
to the products, or group of products,
produced or distributed, or to services
rendered by an operating establishment. SIC
codes are used to group establishments by
the economic activities in which they are
engaged. SIC codes often denote a facility’s
primary, secondary, tertiary, etc. economic
activities.
Surface water. All waters of the United
States, including rivers, streams, lakes,
reservoirs, and seas.
TKN. Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen.
Total Nitrogen. Sum of nitrate/nitrite and
TKN.
Toxic pollutants. As identified under the
CWA, 65 pollutants and classes of pollutants,
see 40 CFR 401.15, of which 126 specific
substances have been designated priority
toxic pollutants. See Appendix A to 40 CFR
part 423.
TSS. Total suspended solids.
UMRA. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
USDA. United States Department of
Agriculture.
UV. Ultra-violet light.
Variability factor. Calculated from the
concentration data from the facilities using
the BAT technologies that incorporates all
components of variability including process
and wastewater generation, sample
collection, shipping, storage, and analytical
variability.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 432
Environmental protection; Meat and
meat products; Poultry and poultry
products; Waste treatment and disposal;
Water pollution control.
Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the Environmental Protection
Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR part
432 as follows:
PART 432—MEAT AND POULTRY
PRODUCTS POINT SOURCE
CATEGORY
1. The authority for part 432
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316,
1317, 1318, 1342 and 1361.
2. Amend § 432.2 by:
a. Removing paragraph (d).
■ b. Redesignating paragraph (c) as (d)
and adding new paragraph (c).
■ c. Adding paragraphs (l)(7), (m), (n)
and (o).
The additions read as follows:
■
■
§ 432.2
General definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) E. coli means the bacterial count,
as determined by approved methods of
analysis for Parameter 4 in Table 1A in
40 CFR 136.3.
(d) Fecal coliform means the bacterial
count, as determined by approved
methods of analysis for Parameter 1 in
Table 1A in 40 CFR 136.3.
*
*
*
*
*
(l)(7) Total Phosphorus means the
total of particulate and soluble
phosphorus
(m) The term nitrification means
oxidation of ammonium salts to nitrites
(via Nitrosomas bacteria) and the further
oxidation of nitrite to nitrate via
Nitrobacter bacteria.
(n) The term denitrification means the
microbial process of reducing nitrate
and nitrite to gaseous nitrous oxide, and
nitrogen gas.
(o) The term phosphorus removal
means removal of particulate and
soluble phosphorus by biological uptake
and solids settling and removal.
Subpart A [Amended]
3. Amend § 432.12(a)(1) by revising
the table ‘‘Effluent Limitations [BPT]’’ to
read as follows:
■
§ 432.12 Effluent limitations attainable by
the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT).
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
*
*
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (a)—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
[BPT]
Maximum
daily 1
Regulated parameter
BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................
Fecal Coliform ..........................................................................................................................................................
O&G 3 .......................................................................................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:53 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
0.24
2 50
0.12
Maximum
monthly avg.1
0.12
2 22
0.06
4524
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (a)—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS—Continued
[BPT]
Maximum
daily 1
Regulated parameter
TSS ..........................................................................................................................................................................
0.40
Maximum
monthly avg.1
0.20
1 Pounds
per 1,000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK.
2 MPN or CFU per 100 mL.
3 May be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM).
§ 432.13 Effluent limitations attainable by
the application of the best available
technology economically achievable (BAT).
*
*
*
*
*
4. Amend § 432.13 by revising the
table ‘‘Effluent Limitations [BAT]’’ to
read as follows:
■
*
*
*
*
*
TABLE 1 TO § 432.13—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
[BAT]
Maximum
daily 1
Regulated parameter
Ammonia (as N) .......................................................................................................................................................
Total Nitrogen ..........................................................................................................................................................
Total Phosphorus .....................................................................................................................................................
E. Coli ......................................................................................................................................................................
1 mg/L
2 MPN
■
Maximum
monthly avg.1
8.0
20
1.5
2 14
4.0
12
0.8
29
(ppm).
or CFU per 100 mL.
5. Revise § 432.14 to read as follows:
§ 432.14 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources (PSES).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7
and 403.13, any existing source subject
to this subpart that slaughters more than
50 million pounds per year (in units of
LWK) that introduces pollutants into a
publicly owned treatment works must
comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must
achieve the following pretreatment
standards for existing sources (PSES):
TABLE 1 TO § 432.14—PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES
[PSES]
Maximum
daily 1
Regulated parameter
BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................
TSS ..........................................................................................................................................................................
Oil and grease .........................................................................................................................................................
1,945
1,578
1,635
Maximum
monthly avg.1
1,323
925
1,393
1 mg/L.
6. Amend § 432.15 by revising the
introductory text and paragraph (b)(1),
and removing paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
■
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 432.15 New source performance
standards (NSPS).
Facilities subject to the 2004 new
source performance standards in
§§ 432.15 of this part continue to be
subject to those standards. These 2004
new sources are also subject to revised
BPT and BAT effluent limitations
specified in § 432.12 and 432.13 of this
part (for direct dischargers) or the
revised pretreatment standards specified
in § 432.14 of this part (for indirect
dischargers). Except as provided in
paragraph (c) of this section, any source
that is a new source subject to this
subpart must achieve the following
performance standards:
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) In the case of process wastewater
associated with the slaughtering of
animals on-site or the processing of the
carcasses of animals slaughtered on-site,
the standards for BOD5, fecal coliform,
O&G, and TSS are the same as the
limitations specified in § 432.12(a)(1)
and the standards for ammonia (as N)
total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and E.
coli are as follows:
TABLE 5 TO PARAGRAPH (b)(1)—PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
[NSPS]
Maximum
daily 1
Regulated parameter
Ammonia (as N) .......................................................................................................................................................
Total Nitrogen ..........................................................................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
8.0
20
Maximum
monthly avg.1
4.0
12
4525
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 5 TO PARAGRAPH (b)(1)—PERFORMANCE STANDARDS—Continued
[NSPS]
Maximum
daily 1
Regulated parameter
Total Phosphorus .....................................................................................................................................................
E. Coli ......................................................................................................................................................................
1 mg/L
2 MPN
*
■
Maximum
monthly avg.1
1.5
0.8
29
2 14
(ppm).
or CFU per 100 mL.
§ 432.16 Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS).
*
*
*
*
7. Revise § 432.16 to read as follows:
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7
and 403.13, any existing source subject
to this subpart that slaughters more than
50 million pounds per year (in units of
LWK) that introduces pollutants into a
publicly owned treatment works must
comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must
achieve the following pretreatment
standards for existing sources (PSNS):
TABLE 1 TO § 432.16—PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES
[PSNS]
Maximum
daily 1
Regulated parameter
BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................
TSS ..........................................................................................................................................................................
Oil and grease .........................................................................................................................................................
Maximum
monthly avg.1
1,945
1,578
1635
1,323
925
1393
1 mg/L.
§ 432.22 Effluent limitations attainable by
the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT).
Subpart B [Amended]
8. Amend § 432.22 (a)(1) by revising
the table ‘‘Effluent Limitations [BPT]
table to read as follows:
■
*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
*
TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (a)(1)—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
[BPT]
Maximum
daily 1
Regulated parameter
BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................
Fecal Coliform ..........................................................................................................................................................
O&G 3 .......................................................................................................................................................................
TSS ..........................................................................................................................................................................
Maximum
monthly avg.1
0.42
2 50
0.16
0.50
0.21
2 22
0.08
0.25
1 Pounds
per 1,000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK.
or CFU per 100 mL.
be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM).
2 MPN
3 May
*
■
*
*
*
*
9. Revise § 432.23 to read as follows:
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 432.23 Effluent limitations attainable by
the application of the best available
technology economically achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart that
slaughters more than 50 million pounds
per year (in units of LWK) must achieve
the following effluent limitations
representing the application of BAT:
Limitations for ammonia (as N), total
phosphorus, E. coli, and total nitrogen
are the same as specified in § 432.13.
■ 10. Revise § 432.24 to read as follows:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
§ 432.24 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources (PSES).
§ 432.25 New source performance
standards (NSPS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7
and 403.13, any existing source subject
to this subpart that slaughters more than
50 million pounds per year (in units of
LWK) that introduces pollutants into a
publicly owned treatment works must
comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must
achieve the following pretreatment
standards for existing sources (PSES):
Limitations for BOD5, TSS, oil and
grease are the same as specified in
§ 432.14.
■ 11. Amend § 432.25 by revising the
introductory text and paragraph (b)(1),
and removing paragraph (c).
The revisions read as follows:
Facilities subject to the 2004 new
source performance standards in this
section continue to be subject to those
standards. These 2004 new sources are
also subject to revised BPT and BAT
effluent limitations specified in
§§ 432.22 and 432.23 (for direct
dischargers) or the revised pretreatment
standards specified in § 432.24 (for
indirect dischargers). Except as
provided in paragraph (c) of this
section, any source that is a new source
subject to this subpart must achieve the
following performance standards:
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
4526
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
(1) In the case of process wastewater
associated with the slaughtering of
animals on-site or the processing of the
carcasses of animals slaughtered on-site,
the standards for BOD5, fecal coliform,
O&G, and TSS are the same as the
corresponding limitations specified in
§ 432.22(a)(1) and the standards for
ammonia (as N), total phosphorus, E.
coli, and total nitrogen are the same as
the limitations specified in
§ 432.15(b)(1).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 12. Revise § 432.26 to read as follows:
§ 432.26 Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS).
Subpart C [Amended]
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7
and 403.13, any existing source subject
to this subpart that slaughters more than
50 million pounds per year (in units of
LWK) that introduces pollutants into a
publicly owned treatment works must
comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must
achieve the following pretreatment
standards for existing sources (PSES):
Limitations for BOD5, TSS, oil and
grease are the same as specified in
§ 432.16.
■
13. Amend § 432.32 (a)(1) by revising
the table ‘‘Effluent Limitations [BPT]’’ to
read as follows:
§ 432.32 Effluent limitations attainable by
the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT).
*
*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (a)(1)—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
[BPT]
Maximum
daily 1
Regulated parameter
BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................
Fecal Coliform ..........................................................................................................................................................
O&G 3 .......................................................................................................................................................................
TSS ..........................................................................................................................................................................
0.34
2 50
0.16
0.48
Maximum
monthly avg.1
0.17
2 22
0.08
0.24
1 Pounds
per 1,000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK.
or CFU per 100 mL.
3 May be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM).
2 MPN
*
■
*
*
*
*
14. Revise § 432.33 to read as follows:
§ 432.33 Effluent limitations attainable by
the application of the best available
technology economically achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart that
slaughters more than 50 million pounds
per year (in units of LWK) must achieve
the following effluent limitations
representing the application of BAT: the
limitations for ammonia (as N), total
phosphorus, E. coli, and total nitrogen
are the same as specified in § 432.13.
■ 15. Revise § 432.34 to read as follows:
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 432.34 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources (PSES).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7
and 403.13, any existing source subject
to this subpart that slaughters more than
50 million pounds per year (in units of
LWK) that introduces pollutants into a
publicly owned treatment works must
comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must
achieve the following pretreatment
standards for existing sources (PSES):
Limitations for BOD5, TSS, oil and
grease are the same as specified in
§ 432.14.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
16. Amend § 432.35 by revising the
introductory text and paragraph (b)(1),
and removing paragraph (c) to read as
follow:
■
§ 432.35 New source performance
standards (NSPS).
Facilities subject to the 2004 new
source performance standards in
§§ 432.35 of this part continue to be
subject to those standards. These 2004
new sources are also subject to revised
BPT and BAT effluent limitations
specified in §§ 432.32 and 432.33 (for
direct dischargers) or the revised
pretreatment standards specified in
§ 432.34 (for indirect dischargers).
Except as provided in paragraph (c) of
this section, any source that is a new
source subject to this subpart must
achieve the following performance
standards:
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) In the case of process wastewater
associated with the slaughtering of
animals on-site or the processing of the
carcasses of animals slaughtered on-site,
the standards for BOD5, fecal coliform,
TSS, and O&G are the same as the
corresponding limitations specified in
§ 432.32(a)(1) and the standards for
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
ammonia (as N), total phosphorus, E.
coli, and total nitrogen are the same as
the limitations specified in
§ 432.15(b)(1).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 17. Revise § 432.36 to read as follows:
§ 432.36 Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7
and 403.13, any existing source subject
to this subpart that slaughters more than
50 million pounds per year (in units of
LWK) that introduces pollutants into a
publicly owned treatment works must
comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must
achieve the following pretreatment
standards for existing sources (PSES):
Limitations for BOD5, TSS, oil and
grease are the same as specified in
§ 432.16.
■ 18. Amend § 432.42 (a)(1) by revising
the table ‘‘Effluent Limitations [BPT]’’ to
read as follows:
§ 432.42 Effluent limitations attainable by
the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT).
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
*
*
4527
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (a)(1)—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
[BPT]
Maximum
daily 1
Regulated parameter
BOD5 2 .....................................................................................................................................................................
Fecal Coliform ..........................................................................................................................................................
O&G 4 .......................................................................................................................................................................
TSS 2 ........................................................................................................................................................................
Maximum
monthly avg.1
0.48
3 50
0.26
0.62
0.24
3 22
0.13
0.31
1 Pounds
per 1,000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK.
values for BOD5 and TSS are for average plants, i.e., plants where the ratio of avg. wt. of processed meat products/avg. LWK is 0.55.
Adjustments can be made for high-processing packinghouses operating at other such ratios according to the following equations: lbs BOD5/
1,000 lbs LWK = 0.21 + 0.23 (v¥0.4) and lbs TSS/1,000 lbs LWK = 0.28 + 0.3 (v¥0.4), where v equals the following ratio: lbs processed meat
products/lbs LWK.
3 MPN or CFU per 100 mL.
4 May be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM).
2 The
*
■
*
*
*
*
19. Revise § 432.43 to read as follows:
and removing paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
§ 432.43 Effluent limitations attainable by
the application of the best available
technology economically achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart that
slaughters more than 50 million pounds
per year (in units of LWK) must achieve
the following effluent limitations
representing the application of BAT:
Limitations for ammonia (as N), total
phosphorus, E. coli, and total nitrogen
are the same as specified in § 432.13.
■ 20. Revise § 432.44 to read as follows:
§ 432.44 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources (PSES).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7
and 403.13, any existing source subject
to this subpart that slaughters more than
50 million pounds per year (in units of
LWK) that introduces pollutants into a
publicly owned treatment works must
comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must
achieve the following pretreatment
standards for existing sources (PSES):
Limitations for BOD5, TSS, oil and
grease are the same as specified in
§ 432.14.
■ 21. Amend § 432.45 by revising the
introductory text and paragraph (b)(1),
§ 432.45 New source performance
standards (NSPS).
Facilities subject to the 2004 new
source performance standards in
§§ 432.45 of this part continue to be
subject to those standards. These 2004
new sources are also subject to revised
BPT and BAT effluent limitations
specified in § 432.42 and 432.43 of this
part (for direct dischargers) or the
revised pretreatment standards specified
in § 432.44 of this part (for indirect
dischargers Except as provided in
paragraph (c) of this section, any source
that is a new source subject to this
subpart must achieve the following
performance standards:
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) In the case of process wastewater
associated with the slaughtering of
animals on-site or the processing of the
carcasses of animals slaughtered on-site,
the standards for BOD5, fecal coliform,
O&G, and TSS are the same as the
corresponding limitations specified in
§ 432.22(a)(1) and the standards for
ammonia (as N), total phosphorus, E.
coli, and total nitrogen are the same as
the limitations specified in
§ 432.15(b)(1).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 22. Revise § 432.46 to read as follows:
§ 432.46 Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7
and 403.13, any existing source subject
to this subpart that slaughters more than
50 million pounds per year (in units of
LWK) that introduces pollutants into a
publicly owned treatment works must
comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must
achieve the following pretreatment
standards for existing sources (PSES):
Limitations for BOD5, TSS, oil and
grease are the same as specified in
§ 432.16.
Subpart F [Amended]
23. Amend § 432.62 by revising
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
■
§ 432.62 Effluent limitations attainable by
the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT).
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Facilities that generate more than
50 million pounds per year of finished
products must achieve the following
effluent limitations:
TABLE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (b)—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
[BPT]
Maximum
daily 1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Regulated parameter
BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................
Fecal Coliform ..........................................................................................................................................................
O&G 3 .......................................................................................................................................................................
TSS ..........................................................................................................................................................................
1 Pounds
per 1,000 lbs (or g/kg) of finished product.
or CFU per 100 mL.
3 May be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM).
2 MPN
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:53 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
0.036
2 50
0.012
0.044
Maximum
monthly avg.1
0.018
2 22
0.006
0.022
4528
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
§ 432.63 Effluent limitations attainable by
the application of the best available
technology economically achievable (BAT).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 24. Amend § 432.63 by revising
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Facilities that generate more than
50 million pounds per year of finished
products must achieve the following
effluent limitations:
TABLE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (b)—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
[BAT]
Maximum
daily 1
Regulated parameter
Ammonia (as N) .......................................................................................................................................................
Total Nitrogen ..........................................................................................................................................................
Total Phosphorus .....................................................................................................................................................
E. Coli ......................................................................................................................................................................
1 mg/L
2 MPN
■
8.0
20
1.5
2 14
Maximum
monthly avg.1
4.0
12
0.8
29
(ppm).
or CFU per 100 mL.
25. Revise § 432.64 to read as follows:
§ 432.64 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources (PSES).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7
and 403.13, any existing source subject
to this subpart that processes more than
50 million pounds per year that
introduces pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve
the following pretreatment standards for
existing sources (PSES):
TABLE 1 TO § 432.64—PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES
[PSES]
Maximum
daily 1
Regulated parameter
BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................
TSS ..........................................................................................................................................................................
Oil and grease .........................................................................................................................................................
1,945
1,578
1,635
Maximum
monthly avg.1
1,323
925
1,393
1 mg/L.
26. Amend § 432.65 by revising the
introductory text and paragraph (b), and
removing paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
■
§ 432.65 New source performance
standards (NSPS).
Facilities subject to the 2004 new
source performance standards specified
in § 432.65 continue to be subject to
those standards. These 2004 new
sources are also subject to revised BPT
and BAT effluent limitations specified
in §§ 432.62 and 432.63 (for direct
dischargers) or the revised pretreatment
standards in § 432.64 (for indirect
dischargers). Except as provided in
paragraph (c) of this section, any source
that is a new source subject to this
subpart must achieve the following
performance standards:
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Facilities that generate more than
50 million pounds per year of finished
products must achieve the limitations
for BOD5, fecal coliform, O&G, and TSS
specified in § 432.62(b) and the
limitations for ammonia (as N), total
phosphorus, E. coli, and total nitrogen
specified in § 432.63(b).
■ 27. Revise § 432.66 to read as follows:
§ 432.66 Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7
and 403.13, any existing source subject
to this subpart that processes more than
50 million pounds per year that
introduces pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve
the following pretreatment standards for
new sources (PSNS):
TABLE 1 TO § 432.66—PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES
[PSNS]
Maximum
daily 1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Regulated parameter
BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................
TSS ..........................................................................................................................................................................
Oil and grease .........................................................................................................................................................
1,945
1,578
1,635
Maximum
monthly avg.1
1,323
925
1,393
1 mg/L.
Subpart G—Pretreatment Standards
for Existing Sources [PSES]
28. Amend § 432.72 by revising
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
§ 432.72 Effluent limitations attainable by
the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT).
*
PO 00000
*
*
Frm 00056
*
Fmt 4701
*
Sfmt 4702
(b) Facilities that generate more than
50 million pounds per year of finished
products must achieve the following
effluent limitations:
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
4529
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (b)—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
[BPT]
Maximum
daily 1
Regulated parameter
BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................
Fecal Coliform ..........................................................................................................................................................
O&G 3 .......................................................................................................................................................................
TSS ..........................................................................................................................................................................
0.56
2 50
0.20
0.68
Maximum
monthly avg.1
0.28
2 22
0.10
0.34
1 Pounds
per 1,000 lbs (or g/kg) of finished product.
or CFU per 100 mL.
be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM).
2 MPN
3 May
*
*
*
*
§ 432.73 Effluent limitations attainable by
the application of the best available
technology economically achievable (BAT).
*
29. Amend § 432.73 by revising
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
■
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Facilities that generate more than
50 million pounds per year of finished
products must achieve the following
effluent limitations:
TABLE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (b)—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
[BAT]
Maximum
daily 1
Regulated parameter
Ammonia (as N) .......................................................................................................................................................
Total Nitrogen ..........................................................................................................................................................
Total Phosphorus .....................................................................................................................................................
E. Coli ......................................................................................................................................................................
1 mg/L
2 MPN
■
8.0
20
1.5
2 14
Maximum
monthly avg.1
4.0
12
0.8
29
(ppm).
or CFU per 100 mL.
30. Revise § 432.74 to read as follows:
§ 432.74 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources (PSES).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7
and 403.13, any existing source subject
to this subpart that processes more than
50 million pounds per year that
introduces pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve
the following pretreatment standards for
existing sources (PSES):
TABLE 1 TO § 432.74—PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES
[PSES]
Maximum
daily 1
Regulated parameter
BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................
TSS ..........................................................................................................................................................................
Oil and grease .........................................................................................................................................................
1,945
1,578
1,635
Maximum
monthly avg.1
1,323
925
1,393
1 mg/L.
31. Amend § 432.75 by revising the
introductory text and paragraphs (b),
and removing paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
■
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 432.75 New source performance
standards (NSPS).
Facilities subject to the 2004 new
source performance standards in
§ 432.75 continue to be subject to those
standards. These 2004 new sources are
also subject to revised BPT and BAT
effluent limitations specified in
§§ 432.72 and 432.73 (for direct
dischargers) or the revised pretreatment
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
standards specified in § 432.74 (for
indirect dischargers). Except as
provided in paragraph (c) of this
section, any source that is a new source
subject to this subpart must achieve the
following performance standards:
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Facilities that generate more than
50 million pounds per year of finished
products must achieve the limitations
for BOD5, fecal coliform, O&G, and TSS
specified in § 432.72(b) and the
limitations for ammonia (as N), total
phosphorus, E. coli, and total nitrogen
specified in § 432.73(b).
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
■
32. Revise § 432.76 to read as follows:
§ 432.76 Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7
and 403.13, any existing source subject
to this subpart that processes more than
50 million pounds per year that
introduces pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve
the following pretreatment standards for
new sources (PSNS):
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
4530
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1 § 432.76—PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES
[PSNS]
Maximum
daily 1
Regulated parameter
BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................
TSS ..........................................................................................................................................................................
Oil and grease .........................................................................................................................................................
1,945
1,578
1,635
Maximum
monthly avg.1
1,323
925
1,393
1 mg/L.
§ 432.82 Effluent limitations attainable by
the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT).
Subpart H [Amended]
33. Amend § 432.82 by revising
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
■
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Facilities that generate more than
50 million pounds per year of finished
products must achieve the following
effluent limitations:
TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (b)—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
[BPT]
Maximum
daily 1
Regulated parameter
BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................
Fecal Coliform ..........................................................................................................................................................
O&G 3 .......................................................................................................................................................................
TSS ..........................................................................................................................................................................
0.62
2 50
0.22
0.74
Maximum
monthly avg.1
0.31
2 22
0.11
0.37
1 Pounds
per 1,000 lbs (or g/kg) of finished product.
or CFU per 100 mL.
3 May be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM).
2 MPN
§ 432.83 Effluent limitations attainable by
the application of the best available
technology economically achievable (BAT).
34. Amend § 432.83 by revising
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
■
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Facilities that generate more than
50 million pounds per year of finished
products must achieve the following
effluent limitations:
TABLE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (b)—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
[BAT]
Maximum
daily 1
Regulated parameter
Ammonia (as N) .......................................................................................................................................................
Total Nitrogen ..........................................................................................................................................................
Total Phosphorus .....................................................................................................................................................
E. Coli ......................................................................................................................................................................
1 mg/L
2 MPN
■
8.0
20
1.5
2 14
Maximum
monthly avg.1
4.0
12
0.8
29
(ppm).
or CFU per 100 mL.
35. Revise § 432.84 to read as follows:
§ 432.84 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources (PSES).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7
and 403.13, any existing source subject
to this subpart that processes more than
50 million pounds per year that
introduces pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve
the following pretreatment standards for
existing sources (PSES):
TABLE 1 TO § 432.84—PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
[PSES]
Maximum
daily 1
Regulated parameter
BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................
TSS ..........................................................................................................................................................................
Oil and grease .........................................................................................................................................................
1 mg/L.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:53 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
1,945
1,578
1,635
Maximum
monthly avg.1
1,323
925
1,393
4531
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
36. Amend § 432.85 by revising the
introductory text and paragraph (b), and
removing paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
■
§ 432.85 New source performance
standards (NSPS).
Facilities subject to the 2004 new
source performance standards in
§ 432.85 continue to be subject to those
standards. These 2004 new sources are
also subject to revised BPT and BAT
effluent limitations specified in
§§ 432.82 and 432.83 (for direct
dischargers) or the revised pretreatment
standards specified in § 432.84 (for
indirect dischargers). Except as
provided in paragraph (c) of this
section, any source that is a new source
subject to this subpart must achieve the
following performance standards:
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Facilities that generate more than
50 million pounds per year of finished
products must achieve the limitations
for BOD5, fecal coliform, O&G, and TSS
specified in § 432.82(b) and the
limitations for ammonia (as N), total
phosphorus, E. coli, and total nitrogen
specified in § 432.83(b).
■ 37. Revise § 432.86 to read as follows:
§ 432.86 Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7
and 403.13, any existing source subject
to this subpart that processes more than
50 million pounds per year that
introduces pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve
the following pretreatment standards for
new sources (PSNS):
TABLE 1 § 432.86—PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES
[PSNS]
Maximum
daily 1
Regulated parameter
BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................
TSS ..........................................................................................................................................................................
Oil and grease .........................................................................................................................................................
1,945
1,578
1,635
Maximum
monthly avg.1
1,323
925
1,393
1 mg/L.
§ 432.92 Effluent limitations attainable by
the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT).
Subpart I [ Amended]
38. Amend § 432.92 by revising
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
■
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Facilities that generate more than
50 million pounds per year of finished
products must achieve the following
effluent limitations:
TABLE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (b)—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
[BPT]
Maximum
daily 1
Regulated parameter
BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................
Fecal Coliform ..........................................................................................................................................................
O&G 3 .......................................................................................................................................................................
TSS ..........................................................................................................................................................................
0.74
2 50
0.26
0.90
Maximum
monthly avg.1
0.37
2 22
0.13
0.45
1 Pounds
per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) of finished product.
or CFU per 100 mL.
be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM).
2 MPN
3 May
§ 432.93 Effluent limitations attainable by
the application of the best available
technology economically achievable (BAT).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 39. Amend § 432.93 by revising
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Facilities that generate more than
50 million pounds per year of finished
products must achieve the following
effluent limitations:
TABLE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (b)—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
[BAT]
Maximum
daily 1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Regulated parameter
Ammonia (as N) .......................................................................................................................................................
Total Nitrogen ..........................................................................................................................................................
Total Phosphorus .....................................................................................................................................................
E. Coli ......................................................................................................................................................................
1 mg/L
2 MPN
(ppm).
or CFU per 100 mL.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
8.0
20
1.5
2 14
Maximum
monthly avg.1
4.0
12
0.8
29
4532
■
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
40. Revise § 432.94 to read as follows:
§ 432.94 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources (PSES).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7
and 403.13, any existing source subject
to this subpart that processes more than
50 million pounds per year that
introduces pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve
the following pretreatment standards for
existing sources (PSES):
TABLE 1 TO § 432.94—PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES
[PSES]
Maximum
daily 1
Regulated parameter
BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................
TSS ..........................................................................................................................................................................
Oil and grease .........................................................................................................................................................
1,945
1,578
1,635
Maximum
monthly avg.1
1,323
925
1,393
1 mg/L.
41. Amend § 432.95 by revising the
introductory text and paragraph (b), and
removing paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
■
§ 432.95 New source performance
standards (NSPS).
Facilities subject to the 2004 new
source performance standards in
§§ 432.95 of this part continue to be
subject to those standards. These 2004
new sources are also subject to revised
BPT and BAT effluent limitations
specified in § 432.92 and 432.93 of this
part (for direct dischargers) or the
revised pretreatment standards specified
in § 432.94 of this part (for indirect
dischargers). Except as provided in
paragraph (c) of this section, any source
that is a new source subject to this
subpart must achieve the following
performance standards:
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Facilities that generate more than
50 million pounds per year of finished
products must achieve the limitations
for BOD5, fecal coliform, O&G, and TSS
specified in § 432.92(b) and the
limitations for ammonia (as N), total
phosphorus, E. coli, and total nitrogen
specified in § 432.93(b).
■ 42. Revise § 432.96 to read as follows:
§ 432.96 Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7
and 403.13, any existing source subject
to this subpart that processes more than
50 million pounds per year that
introduces pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve
the following pretreatment standards for
new sources (PSNS):
TABLE 1 TO § 432.96—PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES
[PSNS]
Maximum
daily 1
Regulated parameter
BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................
TSS ..........................................................................................................................................................................
Oil and grease .........................................................................................................................................................
1,945
1,578
1,635
Maximum
monthly avg.1
1,323
925
1,393
1 mg/L.
§ 432.102 Effluent limitations attainable by
the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT).
Subpart J [Amended]
43. Amend § 432.102 by revising
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
■
(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR
125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the application
of BPT:
TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (a)—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
[BPT]
Maximum
daily 1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Regulated parameter
BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................
Fecal Coliform ..........................................................................................................................................................
O&G 3 .......................................................................................................................................................................
TSS ..........................................................................................................................................................................
1 Pounds
per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) of raw material.
or CFU per 100 mL
3 May be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM).
2 MPN
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:53 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
0.34
2 50
0.20
0.42
Maximum
monthly avg.1
0.17
2 22
0.10
0.21
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
§ 432.103 Effluent limitations attainable by
the application of the best available
technology economically achievable (BAT).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 44. Revise § 432.103 to read as
follows:
Except as provided by 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
4533
source subject to this subpart must
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the application
of BAT:
TABLE 1 TO § 432.103—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
[BAT]
Maximum
daily
Regulated parameter
Ammonia (as N) 1 ....................................................................................................................................................
Total Nitrogen 2 ........................................................................................................................................................
Total Phosphorus 2 ..................................................................................................................................................
E. Coli ......................................................................................................................................................................
0.14
20
1.5
3 14
Maximum
monthly avg.
0.07
12
0.8
39
1 Pounds
2 mg/L
3 MPN
per 1000 lbs (g/kg) of raw material (RM).
(ppm).
or CFU per 100 mL
§ 432.104 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources (PSES).
45. Revise § 432.104 to read as
follows:
■
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7
and 403.13, any existing source subject
to this subpart that uses raw material at
rates more than 10 million pounds per
year that introduces pollutants into a
publicly owned treatment works must
comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must
achieve the following pretreatment
standards for existing sources (PSES):
TABLE 1 § 432.104—PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES
[PSES]
Maximum
daily 1
Regulated parameter
BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................
TSS ..........................................................................................................................................................................
Oil and grease .........................................................................................................................................................
1,945
1,578
1,635
Maximum
monthly avg.1
1,323
925
1,393
1 mg/L.
46. Amend § 432.105 by revising
paragraph (a) and removing paragraph
(c) to read as follows:
■
§ 432.105 New source performance
standards (NSPS).
(a) Facilities subject to the 2004 new
source performance standards in
§ 432.105 continue to be subject to those
standards. These 2004 new sources are
also subject to revised BPT and BAT
effluent limitations specified in
§§ 432.102 and 432.103 (for direct
dischargers) or the revised pretreatment
standards specified in § 432.104 (for
indirect dischargers). Except as
provided in paragraph (c) of this
section, any source that is a new source
subject to this subpart must achieve the
following performance standards:
TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (a)—PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
[NSPS]
Maximum
daily
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Regulated parameter
Ammonia (as N) 1 ....................................................................................................................................................
BOD5 1 .....................................................................................................................................................................
E. coli .......................................................................................................................................................................
Fecal coliform ..........................................................................................................................................................
O&G 1 3 .....................................................................................................................................................................
Total Nitrogen 4 ........................................................................................................................................................
Total Phosphorus 4 ..................................................................................................................................................
TSS 1 ........................................................................................................................................................................
1 Pounds
per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) of raw material (RM).
or CFU per 100 mL..
3 May be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM).
4 mg/L (ppm).
2 MPN
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
0.14
0.18
2 14
2 50
0.10
20
1.5
0.22
Maximum
monthly avg.
0.07
0.09
29
2 22
0.05
12
0.8
0.11
4534
*
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
*
*
*
*
47. Revise § 432.106 to read as
follows:
■
§ 432.106 Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7
and 403.13, any existing source subject
to this subpart that uses raw material at
rates more than 10 million pounds per
year that introduces pollutants into a
publicly owned treatment works must
comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must
achieve the following pretreatment
standards for new sources (PSNS):
TABLE 1 TO § 432.106—PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES
[PSNS]
Maximum
daily 1
Regulated parameter
BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................
TSS ..........................................................................................................................................................................
Oil and grease .........................................................................................................................................................
1,945
1,578
1,635
Maximum
monthly avg.1
1,323
925
1,393
1 mg/L.
Subpart K [Amended]
48. Revise § 432.112 to read as
follows:
■
§ 432.112 Effluent limitations attainable by
the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart that
slaughters more than 100 million
pounds per year (in units of LWK) must
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the application
of BPT:
TABLE 1 TO § 432.112—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
[BPT]
Maximum
daily 1
Regulated parameter
Ammonia (as N) .......................................................................................................................................................
BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................
Fecal Coliform ..........................................................................................................................................................
O&G (as HEM) ........................................................................................................................................................
TSS ..........................................................................................................................................................................
1 mg/L
2 MPN
8.0
26
2 50
14
30
Maximum
monthly avg.1
4.0
16
2 22
8.0
20
(ppm).
or CFU per 100 mL.
49. Revise § 432.113 to read as
follows:
■
§ 432.113 Effluent limitations attainable by
the application of the best available
technology economically achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart that
slaughters more than 100 million
pounds per year (in units of LWK) must
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the application
of BAT:
TABLE 1 TO § 432.113—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
[BAT]
Maximum
daily 1
Regulated parameter
Ammonia (as N) .......................................................................................................................................................
Total Nitrogen ..........................................................................................................................................................
Total Phosphorus .....................................................................................................................................................
E. Coli ......................................................................................................................................................................
8.0
20
1.5
2 14
Maximum
monthly avg.1
4.0
12
0.8
39
1 (mg/L)
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
2 MPN
(ppm).
or CFU per 100 mL.
50. Revise § 432.114 to read as
follows:
■
§ 432.114 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources (PSES).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7
and 403.13, any existing source subject
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
to this subpart that slaughters more than
100 million pounds per year (in units of
LWK) that introduces pollutants into a
publicly owned treatment works must
comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must
achieve the following pretreatment
standards for existing sources (PSES):
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
4535
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1 TO § 432.114—PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES
[PSES]
Maximum
daily 1
Regulated parameter
BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................
TSS ..........................................................................................................................................................................
Oil and grease .........................................................................................................................................................
1,945
1,578
1,635
Maximum
monthly avg.1
1,323
925
1,393
1 mg/L.
51. Amend § 432.115 by revising the
introductory text and paragraph (b) to
read as follows:
■
§ 432.115 New source performance
standards (NSPS).
Facilities subject to the 2004 new
source performance standards in
§ 432.115 continue to be subject to those
standards. These 2004 new sources are
also subject to revised BPT and BAT
effluent limitations specified in
§§ 432.112 and 432.113 (for direct
dischargers) or the revised pretreatment
standards specified in § 432.114 (for
indirect dischargers). Any source that is
a new source subject to this subpart
must achieve the following performance
standards:
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Facilities that slaughter more than
100 million pounds per year (in units of
LWK) must achieve the following
performance standards:
TABLE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (b)—PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
[NSPS]
Maximum
daily 1
Regulated parameter
Ammonia (as N) .......................................................................................................................................................
BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................
E. coli .......................................................................................................................................................................
Fecal Coliform ..........................................................................................................................................................
O&G (as HEM) ........................................................................................................................................................
TSS ..........................................................................................................................................................................
Total Phosphorus .....................................................................................................................................................
Total Nitrogen ..........................................................................................................................................................
1 mg/L
2 MPN
8.0
26
2 14
2 50
14
30
1.5
20
Maximum
monthly avg.1
4.0
16
29
2 22
8.0
20
0.8
12
(ppm).
or CFU per 100 mL.
52. Revise § 432.116 to read as
follows:
■
§ 432.116 Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7
and 403.13, any existing source subject
to this subpart that slaughters more than
100 million pounds per year (in units of
LWK) that introduces pollutants into a
publicly owned treatment works must
comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must
achieve the following pretreatment
standards for new sources (PSNS):
TABLE 1 TO § 432.116—PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES
[PSNS]
Maximum
daily 1
Regulated parameter
BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................
TSS ..........................................................................................................................................................................
Oil and grease .........................................................................................................................................................
1,945
1,578
1,635
Maximum
monthly avg.1
1,323
925
1,393
1 mg/L.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Subpart L [Amended]
53. Revise § 432.122 to read as
follows:
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:53 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
§ 432.122 Effluent limitations attainable by
the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
source subject to this subpart that
further processes more than 7 million
pounds per year (in units of finished
product) must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the
application of BPT:
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
4536
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1 TO § 432.122—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
[BPT]
Maximum
daily 1
Regulated parameter
Ammonia (as N) .......................................................................................................................................................
BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................
Fecal Coliform ..........................................................................................................................................................
O&G (as HEM) ........................................................................................................................................................
TSS ..........................................................................................................................................................................
1 mg/L
2 MPN
Maximum
monthly avg.1
8.0
26
2 50
14
30
4.0
16
3 22
8.0
20
(ppm).
or CFU per 100 mL.
54. Revise § 432.123 to read as
follows:
■
§ 432.123 Effluent limitations attainable by
the application of the best available
technology economically achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart that
further processes more than 7 million
pounds per year (in units of finished
product) must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the
application of BAT:
TABLE 1 TO § 432.123—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
[BAT]
Maximum
daily 1
Regulated parameter
Ammonia (as N) .......................................................................................................................................................
Total Nitrogen ..........................................................................................................................................................
Total Phosphorus .....................................................................................................................................................
E. Coli ......................................................................................................................................................................
1 mg/L
2 MPN
Maximum
monthly avg.1
8.0
20
1.5
2 14
4.0
12
0.8
29
(ppm).
or CFU per 100 mL.
55. Revise § 432.124 to read as
follows:
■
§ 432.124 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources (PSES).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7
and 403.13, any existing source subject
to this subpart that processes more than
7 million pounds per year (in units of
LWK) that introduces pollutants into a
publicly owned treatment works must
comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must
achieve the following pretreatment
standards for existing sources (PSES):
TABLE 1 TO § 432.124—PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES
[PSES]
Maximum
daily 1
Regulated parameter
BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................
TSS ..........................................................................................................................................................................
Oil and grease .........................................................................................................................................................
Maximum
monthly avg.1
1,945
1,578
1,635
1,323
925
1,393
1 mg/L.
56. Amend § 432.125 by revising the
introductory text and paragraph (b) to
read as follows:
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
■
§ 432.125 New source performance
standards (NSPS).
Facilities subject to the 2004 new
source performance standards in
§§ 432.125 of this part continue to be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
subject to those standards. These 2004
new sources are also subject to revised
BPT and BAT effluent limitations
specified in § 432.122 and 432.123 of
this part (for direct dischargers) or the
revised pretreatment standards specified
in § 432.124 of this part (for indirect
dischargers). Any source that is a new
source subject to this subpart must
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
achieve the following performance
standards:
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Facilities that further process more
than 7 million pounds per year (in units
of finished product) must achieve the
following performance standards:
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
4537
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (b)—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
[NSPS]
Maximum
daily 1
Regulated parameter
Ammonia (as N) .......................................................................................................................................................
BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................
E. coli .......................................................................................................................................................................
Fecal Coliform ..........................................................................................................................................................
O&G (as HEM) ........................................................................................................................................................
TSS ..........................................................................................................................................................................
Total Phosphorus .....................................................................................................................................................
Total Nitrogen ..........................................................................................................................................................
1 mg/L
2 MPN
8.0
26
2 14
2 50
14
30
1.5
20
Maximum
monthly avg 1
4.0
16
29
2 22
8.0
20
0.8
12
(ppm).
or CFU per 100 mL.
57. Revise § 432.126 to read as
follows:
■
§ 432.126 Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7
and 403.13, any existing source subject
to this subpart that processes more than
7 million pounds per year (in units of
LWK) that introduces pollutants into a
publicly owned treatment works must
comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must
achieve the following pretreatment
standards for new sources (PSNS):
TABLE 1 TO § 432.126—PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES
[PSNS]
Maximum
daily 1
Regulated parameter
BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................
TSS ..........................................................................................................................................................................
Oil and grease .........................................................................................................................................................
1 mg/L.
[FR Doc. 2023–28498 Filed 1–22–24; 8:45 am]
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\23JAP2.SGM
23JAP2
1,945
1,578
1,635
Maximum
monthly avg 1
1,323
925
1,393
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 23, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4474-4537]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28498]
[[Page 4473]]
Vol. 89
Tuesday,
No. 15
January 23, 2024
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 432
Clean Water Act Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the
Meat and Poultry Products Point Source Category; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 4474]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 432
[EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0736; FRL-8885-01-OW]
RIN 2040-AG22
Clean Water Act Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for
the Meat and Poultry Products Point Source Category
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of public hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is
proposing a regulation to revise the technology-based effluent
limitations guidelines and standards (ELGs) for the meat and poultry
products (MPP) point source category. The proposed rule would improve
water quality and protect human health and the environment by reducing
the discharge of nutrients and other pollutants to the nation's surface
waters. EPA is proposing several regulatory options, including the
preferred option discussed in this notice. The preferred option is
estimated to cost $232 million annually and reduce pollutant discharges
by approximately 100 million pounds per year.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 25, 2024.
Public hearing: EPA will hold two public hearings about this
proposed rule on January 24, 2024 and January 31, 2024. Visit EPA's
website at https://www.epa.gov/eg/meat-and-poultry-products-effluent-guidelines-2024-proposed-rule for additional information about the
public hearings and for any potential changes to the public hearing
schedule.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OW-2021-0736, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Office of Water Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
Hand Delivery or Courier: EPA Docket Center, WJC West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
The Docket Center's hours of operations are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m.,
Monday-Friday (except Federal Holidays).
Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Public Participation''
heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Whitlock, Engineering and
Analysis Division, Office of Water (4303T), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number: 202-566-1541; email address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations. EPA uses multiple acronyms and
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, EPA defines
terms and acronyms used in Appendix A of this preamble.
Supporting Documentation. The proposed rule is supported by several
documents, including:
Technical Development Document for Proposed Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products
Point Source Category (TDD), Document No. 821-R-23-011. This report
summarizes the technical and engineering analyses supporting the
proposed rule including cost methodologies, pollutant removal
estimates, non-water quality environmental impacts, and calculation of
the proposed effluent limitations.
Environmental Assessment Analysis for Proposed Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products
Point Source Category (EA Report), Document No. 821-R-23-012. This
report summarizes the potential environmental and human health impacts
estimated to result from implementation of the proposed rule. The
report also describes the environmental justice analysis conducted.
Benefit and Cost Analysis for Proposed Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products
Point Source Category (BCA Report), Document No. 821-R-23-013. This
report summarizes the societal benefits and costs estimated to result
from implementation of the proposed rule.
Regulatory Impact Analysis for Proposed Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products
Point Source Category (RIA), Document No. 821-R-23-014. This report
presents a profile of the MPP industry, a summary of estimated costs
and impacts associated with the proposed rule, and an assessment of the
potential impacts on employment and small businesses.
Docket Index for the Proposed Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Point Source
Category. This document provides a list of the additional memoranda,
references, and other information EPA relied on for the proposed
revisions to the MPP ELGs.
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of Rule
B. Summary of Proposed Rule
II. Public Participation
III. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. What action is the Agency taking?
C. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?
D. What are the incremental costs and benefits of this action?
IV. Background
A. Clean Water Act
B. Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)
2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)
3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
4. Best Available Demonstrated Control Technology (BADCT) for
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)
6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)
C. Actions Leading to Revisions to the Meat and Poultry Products
Rule
1. National Review of Nutrient Discharges From Industrial
Sources
2. Detailed Study of Meat and Poultry Products
3. Announcement of Rule in Preliminary Effluent Guidelines Plan
15
4. Litigation and Consent Decree
V. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Description
A. General Description of Industry
B. Control and Treatment Technologies
1. Conventional Pollutant Removal
2. Biological/Organic Pollutant Removal
3. Phosphorus Removal
4. Pathogen Removal
5. Chlorides Removal
6. Solids Handling
VI. Data Collection
A. Information From the Meat and Poultry Products Industry
1. Survey
2. Stakeholder Meetings and Outreach
B. Economic Data
1. Facility and Firm-Level Economic Data
2. Industry and Sector-Level Economic Data
[[Page 4475]]
C. Other Data Sources
1. Site Visits
2. Wastewater Sampling
VII. Proposed Regulation
A. Description of the Options
B. Proposed Changes to Subcategories
C. Rationale for the Preferred Option (Option 1)
1. Direct Discharging Facilities (BAT)
a. Availability of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal Technologies
b. Economic Achievability of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal
c. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts of Nitrogen and
Phosphorus Removal
2. Indirect Discharging Facilities (PSES/PSNS)
a. BAT Rationale for PSES/PSNS for Nutrients
b. BPT/BCT Rationale for PSES/PSNS for Conventional Pollutant
c. Technological Availability
d. Costs of Conventional Pollutants Removal (BPT/BCT)
e. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts (BPT/BCT)
D. Rationale for Other Regulatory Options Proposed (Options 2
and 3)
E. Rationale for Rejecting Options 2 and 3 as the Preferred
Option
F. Additional Provisions
G. Small Business Considerations From the Small Business
Advocacy Review Panel
VIII. Costs, BPT Wholly Disproportionate Cost Test, Economic
Achievability, and Other Economic Impacts
A. BPT Wholly Disproportionate Cost Test
B. BCT Cost Test
C. Economic Achievability Analysis for BAT
1. Facility Closure Analysis (BAT)
2. BAT Cost-to-Revenue Analyses
D. Other Economic Analyses
1. Facility Closure Analysis
2. Facility and Firm Level Cost-to-Revenue Analyses
3. Market Effects
4. Employment Effects
5. Chlorides Removal Costs and Impacts
IX. Pollutant Loadings
A. Estimate of Existing Industry Pollutant Discharges
B. Summary of Incremental Changes of Pollutant Loadings From
Regulatory Options
X. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts
A. Energy Requirements
B. Air Pollution
C. Solid Waste Generation
XI. Environmental Assessment
A. Introduction
B. Summary of Environmental and Human Health Impacts
C. Environmental Assessment Methodology
D. Results From the Environmental Assessment
1. Improvements in Surface Water Quality
2. Improvements to Vulnerable Species Habitats
3. Human Health Impact Improvements
XII. Benefits Analysis
A. Categories of Benefits Analyzed
B. Quantification and Monetization of Benefits
1. Human Health Effects From Surface Water Quality Changes
2. Ecological Condition and Recreational Use Effects From
Changes in Surface Water Quality Improvements
3. Changes in Air Quality Related Effects
4. Other Quantified and/or Monetized Benefits
C. Total Monetized Benefits
D. Non-Monetized Benefits
XIII. Environmental Justice Impacts
A. Literature Review
B. Screening Analysis
C. Community Outreach
D. Distribution of Benefits
1. Drinking Water Quality
2. Fisher Population
E. Results of the Analysis
XIV. Development of Effluent Limitations and Standards
A. Criteria Used To Select Data as the Basis for the Limitations
and Standards
B. Data Selection for Each Technology Option
XV. Regulatory Implementation
A. Implementation of New Limitations and Standards
B. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
C. Applicability of PSNS/NSPS Requirements
XVI. Related Acts of Congress, E.O.s, and Agency Initiatives
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. E.O. 13132: Federalism
F. E.O. 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
G. E.O. 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
H. E.O. 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. E.O. 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice
in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations; Executive Order
14096 Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to Environmental Justice
for All
Appendix A to the Preamble: Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations
Used in This Preamble
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of Rule
EPA is proposing revisions to a regulation that would apply to
wastewater discharges from meat and poultry products (MPP) facilities.
The MPP industry discharges large quantities of nutrients, such as
nitrogen and phosphorus, that enter the Nation's waters. Nutrient
pollution is one of the most widespread, costly, and challenging
environmental problems impacting water quality in the United States.
Excessive nitrogen and phosphorus in surface water can lead to a
variety of problems, including eutrophication and harmful algal blooms,
that have negative impacts on human health and the environment. EPA
reported in Preliminary Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 15
(Preliminary Plan 15. USEPA. 2021. EPA-821-R-21-003) that the MPP
industry discharges the highest phosphorus levels and second highest
nitrogen levels of all industrial categories.
The MPP industry has an estimated 5,055 facilities across the
country that engage in meat and/or poultry slaughter, further
processing, and/or rendering. Proposed requirements would reduce the
amount of nutrients and other pollutants discharged from the MPP
industry, both directly into waters of the United States under state or
EPA-issued NPDES permits and indirectly via sanitary sewers or
transport to and through municipal sewage treatment plants, also known
as Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs). Importantly, this rule would
advance progress on environmental justice goals.
EPA initially promulgated the MPP ELGs in 1974 and amended the
regulation in 2004. It currently applies only to direct dischargers
(those that discharge directly to a water of the United States), and
only to about 150 of the 5,055 MPP facilities in the industry.
Phosphorus is not regulated under the current ELGs. Pollutants in the
wastewater from MPP indirect dischargers, which are not currently
regulated by the ELGs, can interfere with or pass through POTWs.
Research also shows communities near MPP facilities are likely to
experience multiple environmental stressors, and in these communities,
minority and low-income percentiles exceed national averages.
Additionally, some MPP facilities are already using available and
affordable technologies that can be used at additional facilities
nationwide to reduce pollutant discharges from the MPP industry.
EPA is considering a range of options in this rulemaking. The
options include more stringent effluent limitations on total nitrogen,
new effluent limitations on total phosphorus, updated effluent
limitations for other pollutants, new pretreatment standards for
indirect dischargers, and revised production thresholds for some of the
subcategories in the existing rule. EPA is also requesting comment on
potential effluent limitations on chlorides for high chloride waste
streams, establishing effluent limitations for E.
[[Page 4476]]
coli for direct dischargers, and including conditional limits for
indirect dischargers that discharge to POTWs that remove nutrients to
the extent that would be required under the proposed pretreatment
standards in certain regulatory options. Each option would result in
different levels of pollutant reduction and costs.
EPA is proposing a preferred regulatory option (described in
section VII below) and seeking comment on the other options. EPA
estimates the preferred regulatory option (Option 1) would reduce
pollutant discharges by approximately 100 million pounds per year. EPA
predicts the preferred regulatory option would result in environmental
and ecological improvements, including reduced adverse impacts to
wildlife and human health.
EPA estimates that the proposed rule based on the preferred
regulatory option will cost $232 million per year in social costs and
result in $90 million per year in monetized benefits using a 3 percent
discount rate and $227 million per year in social costs and result in
$85 million per year in monetized benefits using a 7 percent discount
rate. The benefit numbers are based on modeling water quality
improvements in five regional water basins and then extrapolating the
benefits results from those basins to remainder of the country.\1\ The
benefit estimates also include the national effects of increased air
pollution and greenhouse gas emissions under the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Section 3 of the Benefit and Costs Analysis for
descriptions of the water quality modeling and monetized benefit
calculations. See Appendix E of the Benefit and Costs Analysis for
descriptions of the approach for extrapolating the regional water
quality benefits to the rest of the country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not all costs and benefits can be fully quantified and monetized,
and importantly, EPA anticipates the proposed rule would also generate
important unquantified benefits (e.g., improved habitat conditions for
plants, invertebrates, fish, amphibians, and the wildlife that prey on
aquatic organisms). Furthermore, while some health benefits and
willingness to pay for water quality improvements have been quantified
and monetized, those estimates may not fully capture all important
water quality-related benefits.
B. Summary of Proposed Rule
EPA proposes to revise the ELGs for the MPP industry based on Best
Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT), Best
Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT), Best Available
Technology Economically Achievable (BAT), Best Available Demonstrated
Control Technology (BADCT) for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS),
Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES), and Pretreatment
Standards for New Sources (PSNS). BPT, BCT, and BAT would apply to
existing facilities that directly discharge to waters of the U.S.
BADCT/NSPS would apply to new sources that directly discharge to waters
of the U.S. PSES and PSNS would apply to existing and new sources,
respectively, that discharge indirectly via POTWs.
EPA is proposing three regulatory options that build on the current
MPP ELGs. Option 1, which is EPA's preferred regulatory option in this
proposed rule, would include new phosphorus limits and revised nitrogen
limits \2\ for large direct dischargers and new pretreatment standards
on certain conventional pollutants for large indirect dischargers.
Here, large refers to the existing production thresholds in the current
MPP ELGs. Option 2 would include the requirements in Option 1 and add
nutrient limits for indirect discharging first processors and renderers
above specified production thresholds. Option 3 would be similar to
Option 2 but with lower production thresholds for the nutrient limits
and conventional pollutant limits for both direct and indirect
dischargers. In contrast to Options 1 and 2, Option 3 would use lower
production thresholds than those in the existing rule. All three
options would minimize impacts to small firms, based on the impact
thresholds described in EPA's Regulatory Flexibility Act guidance for
assessing impacts to small firms in terms of a cost to revenue ratio.
While Option 3 includes limits for more facilities than Options 1 and
2, it is similarly structured to avoid significant impacts to small
firms. Option 3 would achieve the greatest amount of pollutant
reductions of the three options. Option 3 would also simplify the
existing rule by utilizing the same size thresholds for all
subcategories. For example, total phosphorus limits would apply to
direct discharging facilities in all subcategories producing greater
than or equal to 10 million pounds per year under Option 3. Under
Options 2 and 3, EPA also proposes to include ``conditional limits,''
which would allow an exemption from nutrient pretreatment standards for
indirect dischargers that are discharging to POTWs that have nutrient
removal capabilities that result in equivalent nutrient removal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The terms nitrogen and phosphorus refer to total nitrogen
and total phosphorus throughout this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following discussion is organized by discharge type (direct or
indirect) and by facility status (existing or new):
Direct Discharges From Existing Sources
Options 1 and 2: BAT would include new phosphorus effluent
limitations based on chemical removal and more stringent nitrogen
effluent limitations based on biological treatment to achieve full
denitrification. BCT and BPT for the conventional pollutants
(biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), oil &
grease, pH) limits would remain unchanged from the current MPP ELG.
These limits would apply to direct discharging facilities based on the
same production thresholds as the existing rule: 50 million pounds per
year of finished product produced for meat further processors
(Subcategories F-I), 50 million pounds per year of live weight killed
(LWK) for meat slaughtering (Subcategories A-D), 100 million pounds per
year of LWK for poultry slaughtering (Subcategories K), 7 million
pounds of finished product per year for poultry further processors
(Subcategory L), and 10 million pounds per year of raw material
processed for renderers (Subcategory J). The limits for facilities in
Subcategory E would not be changed.
Option 3: BAT would include the same BAT requirements as Option 1,
with lower production thresholds for applicability. Specifically, BAT
would include new phosphorus effluent limitations based on chemical
removal for facilities in all subcategories that are producing greater
than or equal to 10 million pounds per year. Additionally, BAT would
include new and/or more stringent nitrogen limits based on biological
treatment to achieve full denitrification for facilities in all
subcategories producing greater than or equal to 20 million pounds per
year. BAT for ammonia as N limits and BCT and BPT limits for
conventional pollutants (BOD, TSS, oil & grease, fecal coliform, pH)
limits would remain unchanged from the current MPP ELGs. The limits for
facilities in Subcategory E would not be changed.
Indirect Discharges to POTWs From Existing Sources
Option 1: PSES would include new conventional pollutant limits
based on BPT and BCT limits for BOD, TSS, and oil & grease based on
screening and dissolved air flotation (DAF) technology. Under this
option, pretreatment standards would apply to facilities producing
greater than: 50
[[Page 4477]]
million pounds per year of finished product for meat further processors
(Subcategories F-I), 50 million pounds per year of LWK for meat
slaughtering (Subcategories A-D), 100 million pounds per year of LWK
for poultry slaughtering (Subcategory K), 7 million pounds per year of
finished product for poultry further processors (Subcategory L), and 10
million pounds per year of raw material processed by renderers
(Subcategory J). No new PSES based on pretreatment standards for
nitrogen and phosphorus would be established under Option 1.
Option 2: Option 2 would include the same PSES requirements for
conventional pollutants as Option 1. Additionally, PSES would include
new pretreatment standards based on BAT for phosphorus based on
chemical removal and new nitrogen pretreatment standards based on
biological treatment to achieve full denitrification. The nitrogen and
phosphorus PSES requirements would include facilities with production
thresholds greater than or equal to: 200 million pounds per year of LWK
for meat slaughtering (Subcategories A-D), 200 million pounds per year
of LWK for poultry slaughtering (Subcategory K), and 350 million pounds
per year processed by renderers (Subcategory J).
Option 3: Option 3 would include the same PSES requirements as
Option 2, with lower production thresholds for applicability.
Specifically, PSES would include new conventional pollutant
pretreatment standards based on BPT/BCT for BOD, TSS, and oil & grease
based on screening and DAF techniques for all indirect MPP facilities
producing greater than 5 million pounds per year. Additionally, PSES
would include new phosphorus and nitrogen pretreatment standards based
on BAT for all indirect MPP facilities producing greater than 30
million pounds per year.
Direct Discharges From New Sources
Under all options, NSPS based on BADCT would be equal to BAT, BPT,
and BCT. Thus, Options 1, 2 and 3 would contain the same requirements
for existing and new direct discharging facilities.
Indirect Discharges From New Sources
Under all options, PSNS would be equal to PSES. Thus, Options 1, 2,
and 3 would contain the same requirements for existing and new indirect
discharging facilities.
Additional details about the proposed ELGs are described in Section
VII of this preamble.
II. Public Participation
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2021-
0736, at https://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or the
other methods identified in the ADDRESSES section. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from the docket. EPA may publish
any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit to EPA's
docket at https://www.regulations.gov any information you consider to
be Confidential Business Information (CBI), Proprietary Business
Information (PBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish
to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents
located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). Please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets for additional submission methods; the full EPA
public comment policy; information about CBI, PBI, or multimedia
submissions; and general guidance on making effective comments.
III. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Entities potentially regulated by any final rule following this
action include:
Table III-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
North American
Industry
Category Example of regulated Classification
entity System (NAICS)
Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...................... Facilities engaged in
slaughtering,
further processing,
or rendering of meat
and poultry
products, which may
include the
following sectors:
Meat Packing Plants.. 31161
Animal (except 311611
Poultry)
Slaughtering.
Meat Processed from 311612
Carcasses.
Sausages and Other 311612
Prepared Meat
Products.
Poultry Slaughtering 311615
and Processing.
Meat & Meat Product 422470
Wholesalers.
Poultry Processing... 311615
Rendering and Meat By- 311613
Product Processing.
Support Activities 11521
for Animal
Production.
Prepared Feed and 311119
Feed Ingredients for
Animals and Fowls,
Except Dogs and Cats.
Dog and Cat Food 311111
Manufacturing.
Other Animal Food 311119
Manufacturing.
All Other 311999
Miscellaneous Food
Manufacturing.
Animal and Marine 311613
Fats and Oils.
Livestock Services, 311611
Except Veterinary.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table includes the types of entities that the EPA is now
aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of
entities not included could also be regulated. To determine whether
your entity is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine
the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR 432.1, 432.10, 432.20,
432.30, 432.40, 432.50, 432.60, 432.70, 432.80, 432.90, 432.100,
432.110, and 432.120 and the definitions in 40 CFR 432.2. If you have
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult
[[Page 4478]]
the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
B. What action is the Agency taking?
The Agency is proposing to revise the existing MPP ELGs and is
soliciting comment on possible revisions and additions to the ELGs for
existing and new sources in the MPP point source category.
C. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?
EPA is proposing to promulgate this rule under the authority of
sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, 402, and 501 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342, and 1361.
D. What are the incremental costs and benefits of this action?
This proposed action is estimated to cost $232 million per year in
social costs and result in $90 million per year in monetized benefits
using a 3 percent discount rate and $227 million per year in social
costs and result in $85 million per year in monetized benefits using a
7 percent discount rate. The current benefit numbers reflect the
national effects of increased air pollution and greenhouse gas
emissions under the rule. EPA also expects that there will be
additional non-monetized benefits that result from the proposed action.
See the Benefits Cost Analysis for additional information on
monetization and quantification of health, ecological, market, and
economic productivity benefits.
IV. Background
A. Clean Water Act
Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972, also known as the Clean Water Act (``CWA'' or ``the Act''), to
``restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of the Nation's waters'' (33 U.S.C. 1251(a)). The CWA establishes a
comprehensive program for protecting our nation's waters. Among its
core provisions, the CWA prohibits the discharge of pollutants from a
point source to waters of the United States (WOTUS), except as
authorized under the CWA. Under section 402 of the CWA, discharges may
be authorized through a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit. The CWA establishes a two-pronged approach for these
permits: technology-based controls that establish the floor of
performance for all dischargers, and water quality-based limits where
the technology-based limits are insufficient for the discharge to meet
applicable water quality standards. To serve as the basis for the
technology-based controls, the CWA authorizes EPA to establish
nationally applicable, technology-based effluent limitations guidelines
and new source performance standards for discharges from different
categories of point sources, such as industrial, commercial, and public
sources.
Direct dischargers must comply with effluent limitations in NPDES
permits. Technology-based effluent limitations in NPDES permits are
derived from effluent limitations guidelines (CWA sections 301(b) and
304, 33 U.S.C. 1311(b) and 1314) and new source performance standards
(CWA section 306, 33 U.S.C. 1316) promulgated by EPA, or based on best
professional judgment (BPJ) where EPA has not promulgated an applicable
effluent limitations guideline or new source performance standard (CWA
section 402(a)(1)(B), 33 U.S.C. 1342(a)(1)(B); 40 CFR 125.3(c)). The
effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance standards
established by regulation for categories of industrial dischargers are
based on the degree of control that can be achieved using various
levels of pollution control technology, as specified in the Act.
The CWA also authorizes EPA to promulgate nationally applicable
pretreatment standards that restrict pollutant discharges from
categories of indirect dischargers (i.e., facilities that introduce
wastewater to POTWs), as outlined in CWA sections 307(b) and (c), and
304(g) (33 U.S.C. 1317(b) and (c), and 1314(g)). EPA establishes
national categorical pretreatment standards for those pollutants in
wastewater from indirect dischargers that may pass through, interfere
with, or are otherwise incompatible with POTW operations (CWA section
307(b), 33 U.S.C. 1317(b)). Generally, in determining whether
pollutants pass through a POTW when considering the establishment of
categorical pretreatment standards, EPA compares the percentage of
pollutant removed by typical POTWs achieving secondary treatment with
the percentage of the pollutant removed by facilities meeting the
candidate technology basis (e.g., BPT or BAT) (46 FR 9408, 9416 (Jan.
28, 1981)). A pollutant is deemed to pass through a POTW when the
average percentage removed by well-operated POTWs performing secondary
treatment is less than the average percentage removed by direct
dischargers operating the BPT/BAT technology basis. Pretreatment
standards are designed to ensure that wastewaters from direct and
indirect industrial dischargers are subject to similar levels of
treatment (CWA section 301(b) and 33 U.S.C. 1311(b). The legislative
history of the 1977 CWA amendments explains that pretreatment standards
are technology-based and analogous to technology-based effluent
limitations for direct dischargers. As further explained in the
legislative history, the combination of pretreatment and treatment by
the POTW is intended to achieve the level of treatment that would be
required if the industrial source were making a direct discharge (Conf.
Rep. No. 95-830, at 87 (1977), reprinted in U.S. Congress, Senate
Committee on Public Works (1978), A Legislative History of the CWA of
1977, Serial No. 95-14 at 271 (1978)). For categorical pretreatment
standards, EPA's approach for passthrough satisfies two competing
objectives set by Congress: (1) That standards for indirect dischargers
be equivalent to standards for direct dischargers; and (2) that the
treatment capability and performance of the POTWs be recognized and
taken into account in regulating the discharge of pollutants from
indirect dischargers (CWA sections 301(b)(1)(A) and 301(b)(1)(E) (33
U.S.C. 1311(b)(1)(A) and 1311(b)(1)(E)). In addition, POTWs are
required to implement local treatment limits applicable to their
industrial indirect dischargers to satisfy any local requirements (40
CFR 403.5).
EPA promulgates national ELGs for major industrial categories for
three classes of pollutants: (1) Conventional pollutants (i.e., BOD,
TSS, oil & grease, fecal coliform, and pH), as outlined in CWA section
304(a)(4) (33 U.S.C. 1314(a)(4) and 40 CFR 401.16); (2) toxic
pollutants (e.g., toxic metals such as arsenic, mercury, selenium, and
chromium; toxic organic pollutants such as benzene, benzo-a-pyrene,
phenol, and naphthalene), as outlined in CWA section 307(a) (33 U.S.C.
1317(a), 40 CFR 401.15, and 40 CFR 423 appendix A); and (3)
nonconventional pollutants, which are those pollutants that are not
categorized as conventional or toxic (e.g., ammonia-N, nitrogen,
phosphorus, and total dissolved solids (TDS)).
B. Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards (ELGs)
EPA develops ELGs that are technology-based regulations for a
category of dischargers. EPA bases these regulations on performance of
control and treatment technologies in light of the factors specified in
CWA section 304(b) and 306 (33 U.S.C. 1314(b), 1316), but after the
limitations and standards are established, dischargers may use any
technology that meets the limitations and standards. The legislative
history of CWA section 304(b) (33 U.S.C. 1314(b)), which is the heart
of the effluent guidelines program,
[[Page 4479]]
describes the need to press toward higher levels of control through
research and development of new processes, modifications, replacement
of obsolete plants and processes, and other improvements in technology,
taking into account the cost of controls. Congress has also stated that
EPA does not consider water quality impacts on individual water bodies
as the guidelines are developed (Statement of Senator Muskie, October
4, 1972, reprinted in A Legislative History of the Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972, at 170. (U.S. Senate, Committee on
Public Works, Serial No. 93-1, January 1973); Southwestern Elec. Power
Co. v. EPA, 920 F.3d at 1005, ``The Administrator must require
industry, regardless of a discharge's effect on water quality, to
employ defined levels of technology to meet effluent limitations.''
(citations and internal quotations omitted). CWA sections 304(b),
304(g), and 306(b) (33 U.S.C. 1314(b), 1314(g) and 1316(b)) authorize
revision of ELGs where appropriate.
The CWA specifies four types of technology-based ELGs applicable to
direct dischargers and two types of pretreatment standards applicable
to indirect dischargers, referred to collectively as ``effluent
limitations guidelines and standards (ELGs)''. These ELGs are
summarized below.
1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)
For existing direct dischargers, the Act specifies two
increasingly-stringent levels of control. The first level of control,
BPT, applies to all pollutants (conventional, toxic, and
nonconventional pollutants). Traditionally, as is consistent with the
statute, its legislative history and caselaw, EPA defines ``currently
available'' based on the average of the best performance of facilities
within the industry, grouped to reflect various ages, sizes, processes,
or other common characteristics (Chem. Mfrs. Assn. v. EPA, 870 F.2d
177, 207-208 (1989)). The statute specifies a number of factors for
consideration in establishing or revising BPT: the cost of achieving
effluent reductions in relation to the effluent reduction benefits, the
age of equipment and facilities, the processes employed, the
engineering aspects of the control technologies, process changes, non-
water quality environmental impacts (including energy requirements),
and such other factors as the Administrator deems appropriate (CWA
section 304(b)(1)(B), 33 U.S.C. 1314(b)(1)(B)). If, however, existing
performance is uniformly inadequate, EPA may establish limitations
based on higher levels of control than what is currently in place in an
industrial category, based on an Agency determination that the
technology is available in another category or subcategory and can be
practicably applied.
2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)
BCT represents the second level of stringency for controlling
discharge of conventional pollutants. In addition to other factors
specified in CWA section 304(b)(4)(B) (33 U.S.C. 1314(b)(4)(B)), the
CWA requires that EPA establish BCT limitations after consideration of
a two-part ``cost-reasonableness'' test. EPA explained its methodology
for the development of BCT limitations in July 1986 (51 FR 24974 (July
9, 1986)). The Act designates the following as conventional pollutants:
BOD, TSS, fecal coliform, pH, and any additional pollutants defined by
the Administrator as conventional (CWA section 304(a)(4); 33 U.S.C.
1314(a)(4)). The Administrator designated oil & grease as an additional
conventional pollutant (44 FR 44501 (July 30, 1979) and 40 CFR 401.16).
3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
BAT represents the second level of stringency for controlling
discharge of toxic and nonconventional pollutants (including
nutrients). Courts have referred to this as the CWA's ``gold standard''
for controlling discharges from existing sources (Southwestern Elec.
Power Co. v. EPA, 920 F.3d at 1003). In general, BAT represents the
best available, economically achievable performance of facilities in
the industrial subcategory or category, considering the factors
specified in CWA section 304(b) (33 U.S.C. 1314(b)). As the statutory
phrase intends, EPA considers the technological availability and
economic achievability in determining what level of control represents
BAT (CWA section 301(b)(2)(A), 33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(2)(A)). The statute
specifies a number of factors for consideration in establishing or
revising BAT: the cost of achieving BAT effluent reductions, the age of
equipment and facilities involved, the process employed, potential
process changes, and non-water quality environmental impacts, including
energy requirements, and such other factors as the Administrator deems
appropriate (CWA Section 304(b)(2)(B), 33 U.S.C. 1314(b)(2)(B)). The
Agency retains considerable discretion in assigning the weight to be
accorded these factors (Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1045
(D.C. Cir. 1978)). EPA usually determines economic achievability based
on the effect of the cost of compliance with BAT limitations on overall
industry and subcategory financial conditions (Chem. Mfrs. Assn. v.
EPA, 870 F.2d 177, 251-52 (5th Cir. 1988)).
BAT reflects the highest performance in the industry and may
reflect a higher level of performance than is currently being achieved
based on technology transferred from a different subcategory or
category, bench scale or pilot plant studies, or foreign plants
(Southwestern Elec. Power Co. v. EPA, 920 F.3d at 1006; American Paper
Inst. v. Train, 543 F.2d 328, 353 (D.C. Cir. 1976); American Frozen
Food Inst. v. Train, 539 F.2d 107, 132 (D.C. Cir. 1976)). BAT may be
based upon process changes or internal controls, even when these
technologies are not common industry practice (American Frozen Foods,
539 F.2d at 132, 140; Reynolds Metals Co. v. EPA, 760 F.2d 549, 562
(4th Cir. 1985); California & Hawaiian Sugar Co. v. EPA, 553 F.2d 280,
285-88 (2nd Cir. 1977)).
4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
NSPS reflect effluent reductions that are achievable based on
BADCT. Owners of new sources have the opportunity to install the best
and most efficient production processes and wastewater treatment
technologies. As a result, NSPS should represent the most stringent
controls attainable through the application of the BADCT for all
pollutants (that is, conventional, nonconventional, and toxic
pollutants). In establishing NSPS, EPA is directed to take into
consideration the cost of achieving the effluent reduction and any non-
water quality environmental impacts and energy requirements (CWA
section 306(b)(1)(B), 33 U.S.C. 1316(b)(1)(B)).
5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)
CWA section 307(b) (33 U.S.C. 1317(b)), of the Act calls for EPA to
issue pretreatment standards for discharges of pollutants to POTWs.
PSES are designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants that pass
through, interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the
operation of POTWs. Categorical pretreatment standards are technology-
based and are analogous to BPT and BAT effluent limitations guidelines,
and thus, the Agency typically considers the same factors in
promulgating PSES as it considers in promulgating BPT/BAT. The General
Pretreatment Regulations,
[[Page 4480]]
which set forth the framework for the implementation of categorical
pretreatment standards, are found at 40 CFR part 403. These regulations
establish general pretreatment standards that apply to all non-domestic
dischargers (52 FR 1586 (January 14, 1987)).
6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)
CWA section 307(c) (33 U.S.C. 1317(c)) calls for EPA to promulgate
PSNS. Such pretreatment standards must prevent the discharge of any
pollutant into a POTW that may interfere with, pass through, or may
otherwise be incompatible with the POTW. EPA promulgates PSNS based on
BADCT for new sources. New indirect dischargers have the opportunity to
incorporate into their facilities the best available demonstrated
technologies. The Agency typically considers the same factors in
promulgating PSNS as it considers in promulgating NSPS.
C. Actions Leading to Proposed Revisions to the MPP ELGs
1. National Review of Nutrient Discharges From Industrial Sources
(USEPA. 2019. EPA-821-R-19-005)
EPA conducted a cross-industry review of publicly available
discharge monitoring report (DMR) and toxics release inventory (TRI)
data from 2015 on nutrient discharges from industrial point source
categories. This review identified industries, based on their
discharges of nutrients in wastewater and the potential to reduce their
nutrient discharges, that may be candidates for ELG development or
revision and prioritized them for further review. EPA then ranked
industrial categories by the nutrient loads in their wastewater
discharges, specifically looking at the median facility load and number
of facilities reporting discharges. The MPP industry ranked as one of
the highest in the analysis for total nitrogen and total phosphorus,
leading EPA to focus on this industry (USEPA. 2019. EPA-HQ-OW-2019-
0618).
To better understand the MPP industry and related nutrient sources,
discharges, and treatment, EPA reviewed historical documentation
supporting the development of the existing MPP ELGs, analyzed 2015 DMR
and TRI data, and contacted several MPP facilities. Many MPP facilities
discharging high amounts of nutrients are located in EPA Regions 4 and
5, which provided information on the development of nutrient permit
limits and current practices for managing wastewater containing
nutrients at MPP facilities. Many of these facilities had permits with
water-quality-based ammonia limits more stringent than the existing
2004 MPP ELGs. More than half of the permits reviewed also included
water quality-based limits or monitoring requirements for total
Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), nitrate/nitrite, and/or total phosphorus,
which are not regulated under the 2004 MPP ELG.
EPA found that some MPP facilities are performing better than the
existing 2004 ELG for nutrient discharges (nitrogen and ammonia), as
well as removing phosphorus, which is not regulated under the existing
ELG. For nitrogen, the median annual average of 97 direct discharging
MPP facilities was 32.8 mg/L, which is well below the 2004 ELG monthly
averages of 103 mg/L for poultry and 132 mg/L for meat processors. For
ammonia, the median annual average for 119 facilities was approximately
0.5 mg/L, which is far lower than the 4 mg/L required under the ELG
regulations. For phosphorus, which is not regulated under the existing
ELGs, the median annual average of 140 MPP facilities was less than 2
mg/L indicating that some MPP facilities are meeting water-quality
based low phosphorus limits of their NPDES permits using current
treatment technologies. These initial results indicated that revised
ELGs may be appropriate as the industry is capable of achieving
effluent limitations well below the current 2004 regulations.
2. Detailed Study of Meat and Poultry Products (USEPA. 2021. EPA-821-R-
21-003)
As a result of the cross-industry review of nutrients in industrial
wastewater and the further review of the MPP category, EPA began a
detailed study of the MPP industry. The goals of the MPP detailed study
were to gain a better understanding of the industry and evaluate
whether the ELGs should be revised.
EPA began by collecting publicly available information about the
MPP industry. To obtain a list of facilities that may be part of the
MPP industry, EPA evaluated industry directories from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS),
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the National Renderers
Association (NRA). To further develop this list, EPA evaluated
information from POTW Annual Reports, EPA's Integrated Compliance
Information System National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(ICIS-NPDES) database, and EPA's TRI database. EPA also engaged with
EPA regions, federal agencies, States, clean water organizations,
industry stakeholders, environmental groups, and communities in close
proximity to MPP facilities to understand different perspectives on the
industry and effects of the industry on communities and to gain
insights into the industry.
EPA used the publicly available information to analyze the
industry. EPA found that the MPP industry discharges the highest
phosphorus levels and second highest nitrogen levels of all industrial
categories. EPA found the nutrient discharges are from numerous
facilities across the country and that the nutrient pollutants are at
concentrations that can be reduced with current wastewater treatment
technology. Further, some of the studied facilities were already
removing nutrients and achieving effluent concentrations well below the
limitations in the existing MPP ELGs.
During the detailed study, EPA compiled a list of over 7,000
facilities from the sources listed above that potentially processed
meat and poultry products and might be part of the MPP industry. Of
these, EPA estimated that approximately 300 are likely direct
dischargers. During the rulemaking process, EPA refined the list to
5,055 MPP facilities, of which 171 are direct dischargers. As the
existing ELGs only apply to a subset of the direct dischargers, the
2004 MPP ELGs cover approximately 150 facilities. As mentioned, the
wastewater from the direct dischargers has high amounts of nutrients.
Around 120 of the estimated 150 direct dischargers discharge to waters
listed as impaired, with much of the MPP total nitrogen and total
phosphorus load discharging to waters impaired for algal growth,
ammonia, nutrients, and/or oxygen depletion.
As the majority of MPP facilities are indirect dischargers, which
are not currently subject to national categorical pretreatment
standards, EPA also studied POTWs that receive MPP wastewater. In
reviewing permits for POTWs that receive MPP wastewater, EPA found the
majority do not have limits for nitrogen or phosphorus. Thus, many
POTWs may not be removing much of the nutrient load discharged by MPP
industrial users because many POTWs do not have tertiary treatment
designed to remove nutrients. Additionally, many of the POTWs (73%) had
permit violations for pollutants found in MPP wastewater (analysis
included BOD, TSS, chlorides, nitrogen, phosphorus, E. coli, total
residual chlorine (TRC), coliforms, metals, ammonia, and oil & grease).
The
[[Page 4481]]
collected data thus indicates MPP facilities may be causing or
contributing to violations of POTW permit limits (EUSEPA. 2021. PA-HQ-
OW-2021-0547-0110).
National ELGs can help ensure that all people in the vicinity of
industrial direct and indirect discharges receive the same degree of
protection from environmental and health hazards, and equal access to
the decision-making process to have a healthy environment in which to
live, learn, and work. To assess information related to environmental
justice, EPA conducted screening analyses of areas with MPP facilities
and found 82% of MPP facilities that directly discharge wastewater to
waters of the U.S. are within one mile of census block groups with
demographic or environmental characteristics of concern. This indicates
that such facilities may be disproportionately impacting communities of
concern and therefore revised wastewater regulations may benefit these
communities.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Characteristics of concern in this analysis are defined as
demographic or environmental indexes above the 80th percentile in a
state based on data available in the 2020 release of EJSCREEN.
Census block groups with one or more indexes above this threshold
were considered communities of concern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Announcement of Rule in Preliminary Effluent Guidelines Plan 15
In 2021, in the Preliminary Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 15
(Preliminary Plan 15), EPA announced a rulemaking to revise the
existing discharge standards for the MPP industry (USEPA. 2021. EPA-
821-R-21-003).
4. Litigation and Consent Decree
On December 23, 2022, Plaintiffs Cape Fear River Watch, Rural
Empowerment Association for Community Help, Waterkeepers Chesapeake,
Waterkeeper Alliance, Humane Society of the United States, Food & Water
Watch, Environment America, Comite Civico del Valle, Center for
Biological Diversity, and Animal Legal Defense Fund filed a complaint
alleging that EPA's failure to revise ELGs and to promulgate
pretreatment standards for the MPP category constituted failures to act
by statutory deadlines in violation of the CWA and Administrative
Procedures Act (``APA'') (Cape Fear River Watch et al. v. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, No. 1:22-cv-03809 (D. D.C)).
Although EPA was in the process of conducting the MPP rulemaking,
EPA had not publicly announced any specific timeline for completion.
The parties initiated settlement discussions, resulting in a proposed
consent decree with deadlines for completion of the rulemaking, which
EPA entered into after public notice and comment (88 FR 12930 (Mar. 1,
2023)). Under the consent decree, EPA has obligations to sign a notice
of proposed rulemaking by December 13, 2023 and to sign a decision
taking final action on the proposal by August 31, 2025 (Consent Decree,
Cape Fear River Watch et al. v. EPA, Case No. 1:22-cv-03809-BAH (05/03/
23)).
V. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Description
A. General Description of Industry
The MPP point source category includes facilities ``engaged in the
slaughtering, dressing and packing of meat and poultry products for
human consumption and/or animal food and feeds. Meat and poultry
products for human consumption include meat and poultry from cattle,
hogs, sheep, chickens, turkeys, ducks and other fowl as well as
sausages, luncheon meats and cured, smoked or canned or other prepared
meat and poultry products from purchased carcasses and other materials.
Meat and poultry products for animal food and feeds include animal
oils, meat meal and facilities that render grease and tallow from
animal fat, bones and meat scraps'' (40 CFR 432.1).
Based on industry responses to the 2022 MPP Questionnaire, EPA
estimates there are 5,055 MPP facilities currently in operation. Table
V-1 shows the estimated number of MPP facilities based on facility
process based on the 2022 MPP Questionnaire and other publicly
available data sources. ``Meat First'' refers to facilities that
slaughter animals excluding poultry. ``Meat Further'' refers to
facilities that further process animal products excluding poultry.
``Poultry First'' refers to facilities that slaughter poultry.
``Poultry Further'' refers to facilities that further process poultry.
Facilities that process meat and poultry were classified by the type
which they process the most. ``Render'' refers to facilities that only
process meat and poultry offcuts, trimmings, bones, dead animals, scrap
materials, and other related usable by-products. For more information
on how facilities were classified, see the Meat and Poultry Products
(MPP) Profile Methodology Memorandum (USEPA. 2023. DCN MP00306).
Table V-1--Number of Facilities in MPP Industry by Process and Discharge Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of facilities
---------------------------------------------------------------
Process Direct Indirect Zero
dischargers dischargers dischargers Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meat First...................................... 47 509 270 826
Meat Further.................................... 29 2,741 690 3,460
Poultry First................................... 70 168 52 290
Poultry Further................................. 6 169 119 294
Render.......................................... 19 121 45 185
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 171 3,708 1,176 5,055
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: DCNMP00306.
As shown in Table V-1, there are a large number of MPP facilities
in each sector. These facilities are located across the country.
Although first processors/slaughterhouses tend to be larger, there is a
large range in production volumes across the industry. Based on the
questionnaire, 171 facilities have NPDES permits and discharge
wastewater directly to waters of the U.S. An additional 3,708
facilities discharge wastewater to POTWs, and 1,176 facilities do not
discharge process wastewater. MPP effluent discharges contain
pollutants including nitrogen, phosphorus, ammonia, oil & grease, BOD,
and chlorides.
B. Control and Treatment Technologies
EPA evaluated technologies available to control and treat
wastewater
[[Page 4482]]
generated by the MPP industry. EPA has not identified any practical
difference in types of treatment technologies between meat products and
poultry products facilities. Some MPP processes result in wastewater
streams with higher concentrations of pollutants, but facilities across
the industry generally contain the same pollutants, including nitrogen,
phosphorus, oil & grease, BOD, TSS, and chlorides.
The pollutants in MPP wastewaters are similar to those in domestic
wastewater. POTWs often have similar wastewater treatment technologies
as direct discharging MPP facilities. However, some indirect MPP
wastewater discharges have pollutant loads that the receiving POTW
cannot handle. These indirect discharges may cause passthrough or
interference as those terms are defined in EPA's general pretreatment
regulations at 40 CFR 403.3(k) and (p). Also, many POTWs are not
equipped to effectively treat all pollutants found in MPP wastewater
such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and chlorides. Thus, indirect discharging
MPP facilities may need to treat their wastewater before sending it to
their POTW in order to meet any local limits established by the control
authority under EPA's general pretreatment regulations (40 CFR part
403).
EPA evaluated available technologies that can be used to treat or
remove MPP pollutants, individually and in treatment trains. This
section is split into subsections based on type of pollutant removal,
including conventional pollutants, phosphorus, nitrogen, pathogens, and
chlorides. As the evaluated technologies result in sludge production,
technologies for solids handling are also included. Discussions on
treatment trains are included within applicable sections.
1. Conventional Pollutant Removal
MPP process wastewater contains oil & grease, TSS, and BOD, which
are all conventional pollutants. These pollutants can be removed with
primary treatment, which removes floating and settleable solids.
Typical treatment technologies include screens and DAF.
a. Screening: Screens are generally the first treatment unit in a
wastewater treatment train. Screens are inexpensive and remove large
solid particles from the wastewater that may otherwise damage or
interfere with downstream equipment and treatment processes. At some
facilities, the materials removed by the screens may be used as raw
material at rendering facilities.
b. Dissolved air flotation (DAF): DAF is used extensively in the
primary treatment of MPP wastewaters to remove suspended solids and oil
& grease. In a DAF unit, air is dissolved into the wastewater, forming
small bubbles. As the air bubbles float to the surface, solids attach
to the air bubbles, and rise to the top of the unit forming a layer of
floating pollutants. A skimmer is used to continuously remove this
layer of floating solids, while a bottom sludge collector removes any
solids that settle to the bottom. In some facilities, such as
renderers, the removed solids can be recycled to the facility as raw
materials.
c. Chemical Addition: Polymers, flocculants, and phosphorus
precipitating chemicals may be added to, or prior to, the DAF. The
chemical addition increases the removal of pollutants from the
wastewater. Adding chemicals to remove phosphorus can help facilities
meet phosphorus effluent limits. For facilities that recycle materials
from the DAF to the facility, chemicals addition may not be possible as
this would contaminate the raw material.
2. Biological/Organic Pollutant Removal
BOD, nitrogen, and phosphorus are removed through biological,
physical, and chemical processes. Biological processes can be used to
achieve low levels of BOD and nitrogen and are commonly used at MPP
facilities. Microorganisms used in biological wastewater treatment
require phosphorus for cell synthesis and energy transport and
typically remove 10 to 30 percent of influent phosphorus. Through
biological treatment, organic compounds are broken down with bacteria
into products including water, CO2, N2, and
CH4.
a. Anaerobic biological treatment: In anaerobic wastewater
treatment, facultative and anaerobic microorganisms reduce organic
matter and BOD into gaseous methane and carbon dioxide. The gases may
be released into the atmosphere, captured and flared, or used as
biogas. Anaerobic treatment systems have negligible energy requirements
and can treat high-strength wastewaters. Anaerobic lagoons are a
typical anaerobic system used at MPP facilities. Due to the detention
time, these lagoons also equalize wastewater flow. The lagoons are not
mixed to maintain anaerobic conditions. Anaerobic lagoons can reduce
BOD by 95 percent and suspended solids by 95 percent (Johns. 1995; \4\
USEPA. 1974; \5\ USEPA. 1975).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Johns, M.R. 1995. Developments in wastewater treatment in
the meat processing industry: A review. Bioresource Technology 54.
EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0014-2410. DCN 300232.
\5\ USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1974,
February. Development Document for Effluent Limitation Guidelines
and New Source Performance Standards for the Red Meat Processing
Segment of the Meat Product and Rendering Processing Point Source
Category. Washington, DC. DCN MP00348.
\6\ USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1975, April.
Development Document for Effluent Limitation Guidelines and New
Source Performance Standards for the Poultry Segment of the Meat
Product and Rendering Processing Point Source Category. Washington,
DC. DCN MP00349.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Aerobic biological treatment: In aerobic wastewater treatment,
microorganisms require oxygen to degrade organic material into water,
carbon dioxide, and organic compounds. Aerobic degradation is faster
than anaerobic degradation. Soluble BOD reductions up to 95 percent are
possible. Aerated lagoons have fixed, floating, or diffused air systems
to aerate the water. Aerobic lagoons (naturally aerated systems) use
algae to aerate the system through photosynthesis.
c. Anoxic biological treatment: Anoxic wastewater treatment systems
are oxygen deficient, and bacteria break down nitrogenous compounds
into oxygen and nitrogen gas.
d. Activated sludge: This system includes an aeration tank followed
by a settling tank. Settled solids from the second tank are recycled
back into the aeration tank. Under optimal conditions, this process can
achieve 95 percent reductions in BOD, suspended solids, and reductions
in ammonia nitrogen (Johns. 1995; USEPA. 1974; USEPA. 1975).
e. Sequencing batch reactor (SBR): An SBR completes the activated
sludge process in a single reactor. The system first fills with
wastewater, then the reaction in which bacteria break down organic
compounds in the presence of oxygen occurs for some time, then the
system is given time to settle and separate the microorganisms from the
treated effluent, and then the tank is discharged. SBR systems provide
high removal rates of BOD and suspended solids, can be designed for
nitrification, and can remove nitrogen and phosphorus. SBRs are ideal
for low flow processes as they do not need to run continuously, and the
systems allow for operational and loading flexibility (Glenn et al.
1990).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Glenn, S.L., R.T., Norris, Jr., and J.T. Sommerfield. 1990.
Discrete-event simulation in wastewater treatment. Journal of
Environmental Science and Health, 25 (4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
f. Multistage biological treatment for nitrogen removal: Nitrogen
removal is a
[[Page 4483]]
two-step process: nitrification and denitrification.
i. Nitrification is a two-step aerobic process. First, ammonia is
oxidized into nitrite by Nitrosomonas bacteria. Then, nitrite is
oxidized into nitrate by Nitrobacter bacteria (Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.
1991).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1991. Wastewater Engineering:
Treatment, Disposal, and Reuse. 3rd Edition, McGraw-Hill, Inc. DCN
MP00334.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Denitrification: Nitrite and nitrate are reduced by
heterotrophic bacteria into nitrogen gas in anaerobic conditions. A
carbon source, such as methanol, may need to be added to keep the
microbes healthy.
Biological treatment systems are often used in series to achieve
high rates of nitrogen removal. Wastewater flows from one system to the
next, with recycle streams and returned activated sludge returning to
various locations of the system. Some examples include:
i. Modified Ludzack-Ettinger (MLE): The MLE is a two-stage system
in which an anoxic stage is followed by an aerobic stage, before
wastewater goes to a clarifier. Mixed liquor with high levels of
nitrate is recycled from the aerobic stage back to the influent.
Activated sludge from the clarifier is also recycled back to the
influent. The MLE process removes most of the BOD and can achieve a
nitrogen removal of 80 percent.
ii. Bardenpho: This is a four-stage process: anoxic, aerobic,
anoxic, aerobic, followed by a secondary clarifier. Mixed liquor with
high levels of nitrate is recycled from the first aerobic stage back to
the first anoxic stage. Activated sludge from the clarifier is recycled
back to the influent. Nitrification occurs primarily in the second
stage (aerobic). Denitrification occurs in the first and third stages
(anoxic). The final aeration stage removes nitrogen gas from the system
and increases the concentration of dissolved oxygen. The four-stage
Bardenpho process achieves higher rates of nitrogen removal compared to
the two-stage MLE process.
iii. Modified Bardenpho: This is a five-stage process: anaerobic,
anoxic, aerobic, anoxic, aerobic, followed by a secondary clarifier. As
in the Bardenpho process, mixed liquor with high levels of nitrate is
recycled from the first aerobic stage back to the first anoxic stage
and activated sludge from the clarifier is recycled back to the
influent. The anaerobic stage at the beginning of the system results in
biological phosphorus removal. Phosphate-accumulating organisms (PAOs)
are recycled from the aerobic stage in the mixed liquor to the
anaerobic stage. In the following aerobic stages, PAOs uptake large
amounts of phosphorus (USEPA. 2021. EPA 830-R-01-001).
iv. Other: There are many other processes that use multiple stages
of treatment to remove nitrogen. These include A2/O, step feed,
University of Capetown (UCT) processes, oxidation ditches, and the
Schreiber process, amongst others (USEPA. 2004. EPA-821-R-04-011).
g. Membrane bioreactor (MBR): MBRs use membranes to separate
liquids and solids. The liquid stream then passes through anoxic and
aerobic zones, in similar processes to the biological treatment systems
described above. As the membranes greatly reduce the suspended solids
in the liquid stream, MBR removes nitrogen and phosphorus (USEPA. 2009.
EPA/600/R[hyphen]09/012).
h. Enhanced Biological Phosphorus Removal: Microorganisms used in
biological wastewater treatment require phosphorus for cell synthesis
and energy transport. In the treatment of typical domestic wastewater,
between 10 and 30 percent of influent phosphorus is removed by
microbial assimilation, followed by clarification or filtration.
However, phosphorus assimilation in excess of requirements for cell
maintenance and growth, known as luxury uptake, can be induced by a
sequence of anaerobic and aerobic conditions (Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.
1991). As explained above, the modified Bardenpho process removes
phosphorus biologically.
3. Phosphorus Removal
As mentioned in the biological/organic pollutant removal section,
some phosphorus is removed in biological treatment processes. To
achieve low levels of phosphorus, chemical addition and/or tertiary
filters can be used.
a. Chemical addition: Phosphorus can be removed from wastewater by
precipitation using metal salts [ferric chloride, aluminum sulfate
(alum)] or lime. Polymers may also be added to increase the removal
efficiency. The chemicals may be added prior to or in the DAF, in
primary clarifier effluent, in biological treatment processes prior to
secondary clarification, or after secondary clarification. The
precipitated phosphorus is removed with other biosolids (Metcalf &
Eddy, Inc. 1991).
b. Tertiary Filters: Filters following chemical phosphorus removal
can be used to achieve high removal rates of phosphorus. Tertiary
filtration may include sand filters, ion-exchange, membranes, and
others.
4. Pathogen Removal
Disinfection destroys remaining pathogenic microorganisms and is
generally required for all MPP wastewaters being discharged to surface
waters. Chlorination/dechlorination, Ultra-Violet (UV), and some
filters can be used to meet effluent limits for pathogens and to
inactivate pathogenic microorganisms prior to discharge to surface
waters.
a. Chlorination/dechlorination: Chlorine disinfects wastewater
through oxidation reactions with cellular material which results in the
destruction of pathogens. Mixing and contact time in a chlorine contact
chamber are critical factors to ensure proper disinfection. The
chlorine compounds commonly used for wastewater disinfection are
chlorine gas, calcium hypochlorite, sodium hypochlorite, and chlorine
dioxide (Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1991). Chlorine residuals are toxic to
aquatic life, so dechlorination is often necessary. Sulfur dioxide can
be added, as it reacts with both free chlorine and chloramines with
chloride ions, lowering chlorine residuals (USEPA, 1999. EPA 832-F-99-
062).
b. Ultra-Violet (UV): Radiation emitted from UV light is an
effective bactericide and virucide and does not generate any toxic
compounds. Wavelengths between 250 and 270 nm inactivates cells (USEPA,
1999. EPA 832-F-99-064). UV lamps can be submerged in the wastewater or
suspended outside the wastewater.
c. Tertiary Filtration: Filters and membranes with pore sizes
smaller than pathogens can be used to remove pathogens from wastewater.
Ultrafiltration, membranes, and reverse osmosis are options.
5. Chlorides Removal
Some MPP processes, including hides processing, meat and poultry
koshering, and further processing techniques, such as curing, brining,
and pickling, commonly produce wastewater streams with high levels of
chlorides. Some facilities engage in water softening, which can also
produce high chlorides wastestreams. Wastewater treatment technologies
commonly found at POTWs and many MPP facilities do not remove
chlorides. The optimal chlorides treatment technologies for a facility
depends on wastewater strength, climate, land availability, and cost.
High chloride wastestreams may be able to be separated from other
wastestreams, which can reduce costs and energy required for treatment.
a. Hauling: Facilities may choose to haul high chloride wastewater
(also
[[Page 4484]]
called brine) offsite in tanker trucks. The wastewater may be taken to
a renderer where it may be used for production purposes, transported to
a facility equipped to treat and/or dispose of brine, or taken offsite
for deep-well injection or other means of disposal. Hauling can be
costly as compared to other options, especially for large amounts of
wastewater.
b. Evaporation ponds: Brine wastewater may be disposed into shallow
ponds exposed to the sun. The water evaporates, leaving salt. The salt
will need to be emptied from the ponds occasionally to allow the ponds
to be reused. This technology relies on solar evaporation and is best
in dry/semi-dry climates. Land space for the ponds is also necessary.
Due to the potential for groundwater pollution, the ponds should be
lined (Panagopoulos et al. 2019).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Panagopoulos, A., Haralambous, K.J., and Loizidou, M. 2019.
Desalination brine disposal methods and treatment technologies--A
review. Science of The Total Environment, 693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.351.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Evaporation systems/Crystallizers: Brine water is concentrated
to near saturation, which results in salt crystallization. Heat is used
to evaporate the water. The systems are often costly as compared to
other options and corrosion is common if proper materials of
construction are not utilized (Zhang et al. 2021).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Zhang, C., Shi, Y., Shi, L., Li, H., Li, R., Hong, S.,
Zhuo, S., Zhang, T., Wang, P. 2021. Designing a next generation
solar crystallizer for real seawater brine treatment with zero
liquid discharge. Nature Communications, 12. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-21124-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Deep-well injection: Fluids such as brine/salt water can be
injected underground into porous geological formations. The well is
normally 500 to1500 meters deep. Constructing a well can be costly, and
deep-well injection is not allowed in some parts of the U.S.
(Panagopoulos et al. 2019).
6. Solids Handling
Some wastewater treatment technologies produce industrial sludge.
In the MPP industry, sludge is primarily generated by the DAF and
clarifiers. The sludge contains oil & grease, organic materials,
nitrogen, phosphorus, and chemicals/polymers added in the treatment
system. The sludge may have a high-water content, which can be reduced,
to reduce volume and save hauling and landfilling costs. Common
dewatering technologies include gravity thickening units and the belt
filter press. The sludge may be incinerated, land applied, or
landfilled, depending on State, local and federal regulations and
disposal method availability.
VI. Data Collection
A. Information From the Meat and Poultry Products Industry
The Agency evaluated the following databases online to locate data
and information to support regulatory development: The Agency's ICIS-
NPDES database, USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service's Hazard
Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) Databases, the 2020 U.S.
Census of Manufactures, Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) Hoover's database, and
Experian's Business TargetIQ database. In addition, the Agency
conducted a thorough collection and review of secondary sources, which
include data, reports, and analyses published by government agencies;
reports and analyses published by the MPP industry and its associated
organizations; and publicly available financial information compiled by
both government and private organizations.
EPA met with or consulted the following organizations for industry
information including facility names, addresses and contact
information: National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Pork
Producers Council, North American Meat Institute, the North American
Renderers Association, and the U.S. Poultry & Egg Association.
The documents cited above were all used by EPA in developing the
industry profile, a survey sampling frame, and for stratifying the
survey sampling frame. In addition to these publications, EPA examined
many other documents that provided useful overviews and analysis of the
MPP industry. EPA also conducted general internet searches by company
name.
1. Survey
Publicly available data on MPP facilities are limited. EPA has
based the population of MPP facilities on data largely from the USDA
FSIS. The FSIS dataset compiles information on facility name and
location, type(s) of meat and poultry processed, and limited details on
size (both employees and amount processed). USDA FSIS does not report
details specific to wastewater generation or wastewater treatment. EPA
also included a list of renderers from the NRA, and MPP facilities in
the ICIS-NPDES dataset, in developing the list of MPP facilities. These
data are limited since the NPDES data generally includes only those
facilities directly discharging wastewater, although some individual
States require pretreatment permits to also be reported.
In order to supplement publicly available data sources, EPA
conducted a survey of the MPP industry. EPA developed two
questionnaires to collect site-specific technical and economic
information to provide a more robust record to support developing
regulatory options and conduct analyses required by statutes and
executive orders. EPA's Office of Water administered a Census
Questionnaire and a Detailed Questionnaire to facilities engaging in
meat and poultry processing, including those currently regulated under
40 CFR part 432, and facilities that discharge wastewater directly to
waters of the U.S., indirectly to POTWs, or do not discharge
wastewater. The Census Questionnaire was administered as a census of
the industry to confirm the industry population, as well as general
information on the industry, including:
Processing details (including type of meat or poultry and
type of processing),
Type and size (both production and employees) of the
facility, and
Wastewater generation and treatment information.
EPA used information collected through the Census Questionnaire to
confirm the list of facilities that fall within the MPP industry and to
identify which MPP facilities generate, treat, and/or discharge
wastewater. A statistically representative subset of different types of
MPP facilities were asked to complete a more detailed set of questions.
This Detailed Questionnaire collected the same information as the
Census Questionnaire and additional details on processing operations,
types and amount of wastewater generated by operation, wastewater
treatment details, and economic data. In addition, EPA collected and
analyzed wastewater samples from six MPP facilities that received the
Detailed Questionnaire to characterize raw waste streams, wastewater
treatment systems, and treated effluent for pollutants of interest.
At the outset of EPA's development of the questionnaires, based on
data primarily from USDA FSIS and ICIS-NPDES, EPA estimated the MPP
industry had between 7,000 and 8,000 facilities. Because no one data
source collects information from all MPP facilities, the exact number
was unclear at the time the questionnaires were developed. EPA refined
the list of facilities by identifying additional or duplicate
facilities and working with trade associations to identify facilities
that do not process meat or poultry. EPA conducted a statistical sample
of facilities on the list and sent 1,565 unique facilities the Detailed
Questionnaire and the other facilities were sent the Census
Questionnaire. EPA stratified the list of facilities (i.e., the
sampling frame) into groups based
[[Page 4485]]
on the stage of operation (i.e., slaughter, further processor,
renderer), the meat type (i.e., meat, poultry), and production, to
increase sample precision. Each facility fell within one or more
strata. EPA estimated the number of facilities to sample from each
stratum based on acceptable error, confidence level, and expected
response rate using Cochran's sample size formula. The target sample
size was 1,633 and these 1,565 represent the 1,633 facility-strata
combination as some facilities fell in multiple strata and represent
multiple strata. The Detailed Questionnaire included all questions in
the Census Questionnaire. Both questionnaires were issued at the same
time and requested data for 2021. Data from 2021 represents the most
recent year for which complete technical and economic data were
available as EPA administered the survey in 2022. The Detailed
Questionnaire also asked for some data from 2017 and 2019 to evaluate
recent trends in industry operation and economics. EPA administered the
data collection under the authority of section 308 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 1318 and in accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.\11\ The questionnaires
can be found in Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0736. Additional
details on the questionnaire methodology can be found in the TDD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ EPA ICR No. 2701.01, OMB Control No. 2040-NEW.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Stakeholder Meetings and Outreach
EPA encouraged the participation of all interested parties
throughout the development of the MPP rule. The Agency conducted
outreach to trade associations that represent the vast majority of the
facilities that will be affected by the rule. EPA met with various
stakeholders to discuss aspects of the regulation development. EPA also
participated in industry meetings and gave presentations on the status
of the regulation development. A comprehensive list and description of
these meetings can be found in the TDD. EPA also met with environmental
groups and Tribal communities and conducted environmental justice
outreach. For details on these meetings, see the Environmental
Assessment for the Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Point Source Category (U.S.
EPA, 2023. EPA 821-R-23-012).
B. Economic Data
EPA analyzed the economic impact of the proposed regulation on both
discharging facilities and the firms that own them. These analyses form
the basis of EPA's proposed determination that the regulation is
economically achievable. EPA also analyzed larger market wide impacts
on production levels, prices, and employment. EPA relied on existing
sources of economic data for these analyses and to supplement facility
and firm information obtained from the industry survey.
1. Facility and Firm-Level Economic Data
When questionnaire responses were available for a facility and its
owner, that information was used for the impact analyses, such as the
closure analyses and the cost-to-revenue screening analyses that are
described in detail in section VIII. When information from the
questionnaire was not available, however, EPA relied on two primary
sources of external data. The first data source was the USDA FSIS
facility-level information. This information was used to supplement
facility production and employment estimates. The second data source
was D&B Hoovers database of business information. This source was used
to supplement revenue, employment, and ownership information at both
the firm and facility level.
2. Industry and Sector-Level Economic Data
After estimating facility and firm level costs, EPA analyzed the
potential effect on market prices for major industry commodities such
as, beef, pork, broiler chickens, and turkeys. EPA also analyzed the
potential for changes to national and regional production-levels for
these commodities. EPA estimated changes to both short-term and long-
term employment levels. Finally, EPA also estimated potential changes
to the barriers-to-entry for this industry as well as industry
consolidation trends.
The primary data source for the sector and industry-level analyses
is USDA's Economic Research Service (ERS). The ERS analyzes trends and
emerging issues in the agricultural sector and regularly publish data
on farm sector performance and farm households' well-being; farm size
and concentration; market analysis, data, and projections on commodity
supply, demand, and prices; and Federal farm policies. EPA also used
results from agricultural market studies published in peer reviewed
journals.
C. Other Data Sources
EPA conducted several data collection activities in support of
developing the proposed rule. EPA used these data to develop an
industry profile, evaluate industry subcategorization, determine
wastewater characteristics and potential pollution control
technologies, review potential pollutant load reductions and costs
associated with certain technology options, review environmental
impacts associated with discharges from this industry, and develop
pollutant limitations.
1. Site Visits
During 2022, EPA conducted site visits at nine different MPP
facilities, specifically three meat facilities, five poultry
facilities, and one independent rendering facility. In selecting
candidates for site visits, EPA attempted to identify facilities with
advanced wastewater treatment technologies across the different types
of operations performed in the industry. During each visit, EPA
collected information on facility process operations including recent
changes and upgrades, wastewater treatment operations, water usage, and
waste management operations. See the TDD for additional details on site
visits.
2. Wastewater Sampling
Between August and November 2022, EPA conducted a sampling program
at six MPP facilities located throughout the United States to collect
wastewater characterization data and treatment performance data.
EPA selected facilities based on nitrogen and phosphorus discharge
data reported in DMRs and wastewater treatment information obtained
from permits, permit application data, and site visits. EPA selected
three meat facilities, two poultry facilities, and one independent
rendering facility with low discharges of nutrients and/or phosphorus.
All selected facilities were direct discharge facilities.
During each sampling episode, EPA collected wastewater samples for
five consecutive days. Sampling points varied by facility and
wastewater treatment system, but in general, EPA collected the
following samples at all selected facilities:
Treatment system influent (untreated wastewater). Sample
collected downstream of screening (if present) to ensure large solids
were removed to facilitate sampling.
Effluent from primary treatment (or influent to biological
treatment). Primary treatment typically included a DAF unit or
anaerobic basin/lagoon.
[[Page 4486]]
Effluent from biological treatment (or influent to
tertiary treatment). Biological treatment typically included complete
nitrification/denitrification.
Effluent from tertiary treatment (e.g., filters,
disinfection, and/or chlorination/dechlorination), if tertiary
treatment was in place.
Final effluent from the treatment system, if different
than effluent from last level of treatment (e.g., reaeration basin).
EPA also collected operations data during the sampling episode to
allow for an engineering assessment of the design, operation, and
performance of treatment systems at MPP facilities. Specifically, EPA
collected system design information, as well as daily operations data
(e.g., production, wastewater flow, chemical additions, sludge
generation). See the TDD and facility-specific sampling episode reports
(USEPA. 2023. DCN MP00326, DCN MP00333, DCN MP00332, DCN MP00317, DCN
MP00315, DCN MP00311) for details on the sampling points selected for
each facility and the operational data collected.
Based on conversations with industry, most MPP facilities use
drinking water sources (public water supplies or well water) for all
source water. Furthermore, facilities may treat their source water with
sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) or water softeners before use as the
facilities are generating food-grade products (USEPA. 2022. DCN
MP00123, DCN MP00276, DCN MP00138, DCN MP00142). For these reasons and
because EPA does not expect drinking water to contain nutrients or
other pollutants at levels found in MPP wastewater, EPA did not collect
source water samples.
EPA identified pollutants of interest in MPP wastewater based on
data from the previous MPP rulemaking (USEPA, 2004) and literature
searches. Below is a list of pollutant or pollutant groups chosen by
EPA for the MPP sampling program.
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and carbonaceous biochemical
oxygen demand (CBOD)
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
Inorganic anions
Oil & grease
Nitrogen compounds
Total and ortho-phosphorus
TSS and TDS
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Bacteria (fecal coliform, Escherichia coli (E. coli)) and
enterococci)
Metals
See the Pollutants of Concern (POC) Analysis for the Meat and
Poultry Products (MPP) Proposed Rule (USEPA. 2023. DCN MP00190), which
presents a table of the pollutants by analytical method and
corresponding baseline values. See the Generic Sampling and Analysis
Plan (GSAP) (USEPA. 2023. DCN MP00136) and the facility-specific
sampling and analysis plans (SAPs) (USEPA. 2023. DCN MP00149, DCN
MP00137, DCN MP00150, DCN MP00151, DCN MP00152, DCN MP00153) for more
information on sampling procedures. EPA has included in the MPP
Rulemaking Record all information collected for which each facility has
not asserted a claim of CBI or which would indirectly reveal
information claimed to be CBI.
VII. Proposed Regulation
A. Description of the Options
As previously described, EPA's 2019 cross-cutting review of
nutrient discharges from 59 industrial categories found that the MPP
point source category discharged some of the highest nitrogen and
phosphorus levels of all industries. OW initiated a detailed study in
2020 and announced a rulemaking to revise the ELGs in EPA's Preliminary
Plan 15 based on information suggesting facilities can do more to
control nutrients and other pollutants and that revisions could reduce
discharges affecting underserved and overburdened communities (USEPA.
2021. EPA-821-R-21-003). EPA identified technologies currently in use
by MPP facilities that can further reduce nitrogen discharges below the
levels that are found in the existing ELGs, which were last revised in
2004. In addition, MPP facilities are currently using technologies to
remove phosphorus, which is not regulated under the existing MPP ELGs.
This proposal evaluates three regulatory options as shown in Table VII-
2 of this preamble. While developing these regulatory options, EPA's
goal was to reduce pollutant discharges to surface waters, reduce and/
or eliminate interference and passthrough at POTWs receiving MPP
wastewater, and establish effluent limits and pretreatment standards
based on technologies that are available and economically achievable
for the industry, while minimizing impacts to small business.
EPA considered and continues to consider ways to minimize impacts
to small business when developing the regulatory options consistent
with the statutory factors. As described in Section V, EPA identified
5,055 MPP facilities generating process wastewater, and 3,879 of these
facilities discharge to waters of the U.S. directly or indirectly. EPA
carefully considered impacts of new or revised effluent limitations and
pretreatment standards on small business by using facility production
thresholds to distinguish smaller facilities with lower revenues from
larger facilities. In developing the options, EPA evaluated differing
thresholds for applicability of the proposed rule provisions to
evaluate how impacts to small business would vary as more and smaller
facilities would be subject to new and/or more stringent effluent
limitations and pretreatment standards. The record supports that the
impacts to small business from the preferred option (Option 1) would
not be significant (see Section XVI.C). Under Option 1, most MPP
facilities (79 percent) fall below the proposed production thresholds,
and therefore, would have no new limitations. The proposed new
limitations under Option 1 would impact 844 facilities, representing 21
percent of the total number of MPP facilities discharging to waters of
the U.S. and to POTWs.
Under the most expansive option proposed (Option 3), new
limitations would impact 1,618 facilities of the 3,879, or 42 percent
of facilities discharging to waters of the U.S. and to POTWs. EPA also
considered minimizing impacts to small businesses by basing effluent
limitations on lower cost wastewater treatment technologies for
facilities with lower production. For example, in Option 3, indirect
discharging facilities producing below 5 million pounds per year would
have no new requirements and indirect discharging facilities producing
between 5 and 30 million pounds per year would have effluent
limitations based on lower cost pretreatment technologies consisting of
screening and DAF to control conventional pollutants only. Facilities
producing 30 million pounds per year or greater would have additional
requirements that include both conventional pollutant removal and
nitrogen and phosphorus removal, and this would impact only 21 percent
of indirect discharging facilities.
Table VII-1 shows the total number of MPP facilities that have
discharges followed by the number of facilities that EPA estimates
would incur costs to comply with the requirements of the various
regulatory options. All options build on the existing MPP ELGs and are
based on three technologies: conventional pollutant (e.g., BOD, TSS,
Oil & Grease) removal by screening and DAF, phosphorus removal by
chemical precipitation, and nitrogen removal by biological treatment to
achieve full denitrification. Each option
[[Page 4487]]
incrementally increases the subcategories and/or number of facilities
to which the effluent limitations and pretreatment standards would
apply. Nitrogen and phosphorus are two primary pollutants to be reduced
with these regulatory options and the processes involved in removal are
briefly described next.
Table VII-1--Number of MPP Facilities--Total Discharging Facilities and Number That Would Incur Costs Under the
Requirements of the Regulatory Options
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total #
Total # facilities
Regulatory option Discharge type dischargers incurring costs
under ELG
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1................................... Directs...................... 171 126
Indirects.................... 3,708 719
-------------------------------------
Total 3,879 845
Option 2................................... Directs...................... 171 126
Indirects.................... 3,708 719
-------------------------------------
Total 3,879 845
Option 3................................... Directs...................... 171 135
Indirects.................... 3,708 1485
-------------------------------------
Total 3,879 1,620
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nitrogen removal is carried out through a three-step biological
process: (1) The conversion of ammonia from organic nitrogen by
hydrolysis and microbial activities, called ammonification; (2) the
aerobic conversion of ammonia to nitrate by reacting the ammonia with
oxygen in a process called nitrification; and (3) the conversion of
nitrate to nitrogen gas by reacting the nitrate with organic carbon
under anoxic conditions in a process called denitrification. Phosphorus
can be removed from wastewater by biological uptake by microorganisms
and by chemical precipitation with a metal cation. Depending on the
target concentration, a plant process might employ both technologies.
Such a combined approach might be of particular benefit if the target
concentration is very low and the starting concentration is high. In
such a case, biological removal is used to remove the bulk of the
phosphorus, and chemical polishing follows to achieve the final
concentration; such an approach tends to reduce sludge formation from
denitrification (USEPA. 2008. EPA 832-R-08-006).
For direct dischargers, all proposed options would establish
revised effluent limitations that build upon the wastewater treatment
systems that are the basis of the existing MPP ELGs. The ELGs that
currently apply to these facilities are based on screens, DAF,
anaerobic lagoons, biological treatment to achieve nitrification and
partial denitrification, and chlorination/dechlorination. The effluent
limitations for direct dischargers in today's proposal are based on
more complete denitrification. Therefore, large facilities that already
have denitrification technology for nitrogen removal would likely need
to add more complete denitrification and chemical phosphorus removal
technologies to comply with the proposed effluent limitations for total
nitrogen and phosphorus. Smaller facilities could be subject to
nutrient limits under the lower production thresholds in Option 3 and
would presumably need to install this technology for the first time,
since these facilities are currently below the applicability threshold
for the existing ELG.
Since there are no national pretreatment standards applicable to
the MPP category, indirect discharging facilities are currently only
subject to any local limits established by the control authority under
the general pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR part 403. Wastewater
treatment in place at indirect discharging facilities therefore ranges
from no treatment to some treatment. Treatment ranges from basic
treatment, such as screens and oil water separators, or more complex
treatment such as DAF, anaerobic lagoons, biological treatment to
achieve nitrification and denitrification, and phosphorus removal. To
meet the proposed conventional pollutant pretreatment standards under
the preferred Option 1, which is based on screens and DAF technology,
existing indirect discharging facilities with no treatment in place now
would likely need to install similar technologies. To meet the nitrogen
and phosphorus pretreatment standards contained in Options 2 and 3,
many indirect dischargers would likely need to add additional treatment
such as anaerobic lagoons, biological treatment to achieve
nitrification and full denitrification, and chemical phosphorus removal
technologies. However, as described later in this preamble, EPA is
proposing to include ``conditional limits'' under Options 2 and 3 which
would allow an exemption from nutrient pretreatment standards for
indirect dischargers that are discharging to POTWs that have nutrient
removal capabilities that result in equivalent nutrient removal.
Option 1 is EPA's preferred option and builds on the existing MPP
ELGs by adding new effluent limitations for large direct and indirect
dischargers. Option 1 would include new phosphorus limits for large
direct dischargers based on chemical phosphorus removal technology,
more stringent nitrogen limits for large direct dischargers based on
full (not partial) denitrification, and new conventional pollution
limits (pretreatment standards) for large indirect dischargers based on
very basic wastewater treatment such as screening and DAF technologies
to prevent passthrough and interference at POTWs. EPA requests comment
on the concept of allowing POTWs, control authorities, or permit
authorities to waive, under certain circumstances, the new conventional
pollutant limits for large indirect dischargers. Although EPA is
unclear how this would work in practice, it is possible that POTWs not
experiencing passthrough and interference may be able to waive these
pretreatment standards while continuing to prevent passthrough and
interference. Additionally, POTWs that perform denitrification may want
to waive BOD limits for their MPP industrial users so they can receive
more carbon to support bacterial conversion of nitrates to nitrogen
gas. EPA requests comment both on whether
[[Page 4488]]
such waivers should be allowed, and the demonstration necessary to
justify such waivers.
Large refers to the existing rule production thresholds of greater
than 50 million pounds per year of finished product produced for meat
further processors (Subcategories F-I) and in terms of LWK for meat
slaughtering (Subcategories A-D). For poultry slaughtering (Subcategory
K) large also refers to existing rule production thresholds of greater
than 100 million pounds per year of LWK, greater than 7 million pounds
per year of finished product produced for poultry further processors
(Subcategory L), and 10 million pounds per year of raw material
processed for renderers (Subcategory J).
Option 2 builds on (includes all requirements in) Option 1 and
would add nitrogen and phosphorus pretreatment standards for some large
indirect discharging slaughterhouses and renderers. Specifically,
Option 2 would add phosphorus and nitrogen limits for indirect
discharging slaughterhouses producing greater than or equal to 200
million pounds per year and indirect discharging renderers producing
greater than or equal to 350 million pounds per year.
Option 3 extends the requirements for both direct and indirect
discharging facilities under Options 1 and 2 to smaller facilities. For
direct discharging facilities, Option 3 would apply phosphorus and
nitrogen limits to all subcategories producing greater than or equal to
10 million pounds per year, and additional more stringent nitrogen
limits in all subcategories producing greater than or equal to 20
million pounds per year. For all indirect discharging facilities,
Option 3 would require conventional pollutant limits for facilities
producing greater than 5 million pounds per year, and nitrogen and
phosphorus limits for facilities producing greater than 30 million
pounds per year.
Additionally, all options would include stricter fecal coliform
limits for direct discharging facilities, based on chlorination/
dechlorination and UV disinfection (which is the same technology basis
for the existing limitations for fecal coliform).
In addition to the options described above, EPA solicits comment on
including three additional requirements in any final rule. First,
limitations on the discharge of chlorides by establishing a zero
discharge of pollutants requirement for certain high chlorides
wastestreams. The technology basis for this requirement is segregation
of these wastestreams from other process wastewater streams and
management via sidestream evaporation. EPA solicits comment on
including this provision for all facilities (both direct and indirect)
producing more than 5 million pounds per year with high chlorides
processes. Second, EPA solicits comment on conditional limitations for
phosphorus and nitrogen discharges from indirect dischargers under
Options 2 and 3. Third, EPA solicits comment on limitations on E. coli
for direct discharging facilities.
B. Proposed Changes to Subcategories
As described above, EPA proposes to revise ELGs for facilities in
the following MPP subcategories: Simple Slaughterhouses (Subcategory
A), Complex Slaughterhouses (Subcategory B), Low-Processing
Packinghouses (Subcategory C), and High-Processing Packinghouses
(Subcategory D). Although the proposed options may establish differing
production thresholds for applicability under these subcategories, EPA
proposes to leave the definitions of these subcategories unchanged
because the definitions are not based on production thresholds and
effluent limitations in the proposed regulatory options would apply to
a subset of these subcategories as they are currently defined.
The Agency is not proposing revised ELGs for the small processor
category (Subcategory E). Subcategory E is defined based on a size
threshold of no more than 6,000 pounds per day (2.19M pounds per year)
of any type or combination of finished product. EPA also proposes to
leave applicability definitions for Subcategory E unchanged.
EPA is proposing revised limitations and new pretreatment standards
for facilities in the following MPP subcategories: Meat Cutters
(Subcategory F), Sausage and Luncheon Meats Processors (Subcategory G),
Ham Processors (Subcategory H), and Canned Meats Processors
(Subcategory I). Subcategories F-I are currently defined based on a
production rate greater than 6,000 pounds per day (2.19 million pounds
per year), and EPA proposes to leave the definitions for these
subcategories unchanged. However, EPA proposes to apply effluent
limitations to a subset of these subcategories based on production
thresholds, which could change under the proposed regulatory options.
EPA is also proposing retaining the Renderer (Subcategory J)
subcategory and revising the limitations and proposing new pretreatment
standards for facilities in this subcategory. EPA proposes to leave the
applicability definitions for Renderers (Subcategory J) unchanged as
facilities using raw material at rates greater than 10 million pounds
per year. However, EPA proposes to apply effluent limitations to a
subset of these subcategories based on production thresholds, which
could change under the proposed regulatory options.
EPA is proposing establishing revised limitations and new
pretreatment standards for facilities in the poultry subcategories. The
poultry subcategories (Subcategory K, Poultry First Processing and
Subcategory L, Poultry Further Processing) are not defined based on
production and EPA proposes to leave the applicability definitions
unchanged. However, EPA proposes to apply effluent limitations to a
subset of these subcategories based on production thresholds, which
could change under the proposed regulatory options.
In summary, EPA is retaining the existing subcategories and
proposing revisions to applicable effluent limitations and addition of
new pretreatment standards for most of these subcategories. The
proposed ELGs apply to subsets of facilities in each subcategory based
on production thresholds. In establishing the original ELGs for this
industry and in the 2004 revisions, EPA broke the industry down into
subcategories with similar characteristics. This breakdown recognized
the major differences among companies within the industry, which might
reflect, for example, different processes or economies of scale.
Subdividing an industry into subcategories results in more tailored
regulatory standards, thereby increasing regulatory predictability and
diminishing the need to address variations among facilities through a
variance process (Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F. 2d 1011, 1053
(D.C. Cir. 1978)). EPA proposes to retain the subcategories in the rule
as they reflect differences in processes and wastewater strength and
composition and EPA has not identified any additional processes or
changes in processes since the 2004 rulemaking that would warrant
revision of the existing subcategories or consideration of any
additional subcategories.
In addition to some specific requests for comment included
throughout this proposal, EPA solicits comment on all aspects of this
proposal, including the information, data, and assumptions EPA relied
upon to develop the three regulatory options, as well as the proposed
effluent limitations and pretreatment standards for existing and new
facilities, and additional provisions (see Section F below) included in
this proposal.
[[Page 4489]]
Table VII-2--Summary of Regulatory Options
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct dischargers Indirect dischargers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable Applicable
Technology basis facilities Technology basis facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1........................ Adds to existing >50 million lbs/yr Conventional >50 million lbs/yr
ELG: full of finished pollution limits of finished
denitrification, product produced based on product produced
chemical for meat further screening/grit for meat further
phosphorus processors, >50 removal, DAF, and processors, >50
removal, filter. million lbs/yr dewatering/solids million lbs/yr
LWK for meat handling. LWK for meat
slaughtering, slaughtering,
>100 million lbs/ >100 million lbs/
yr of LWK for yr of LWK for
poultry poultry
slaughtering, >7 slaughtering, >7
million lbs/yr of million lbs/yr of
finished product finished product
produced for produced for
poultry further poultry further
processors, >10 processors, >10
million lbs/yr of million lbs/yr of
raw material raw material
processed for processed for
renderers. renderers.
Option 2........................ Same technology as Same facilities as Same technologies Option 1
Option 1. Option 1. as Option 1 plus facilities plus
anaerobic lagoon slaughterhouses
(BOD producing >=200
pretreatment), million lbs/yr
activated sludge and renderers
(nitrification processing >=350
and full million lbs/yr
denitrification), raw material.
chemical P
removal, filter.
Option 3........................ Same technology as Phosphorus and Same technology as Conventional
Option 1. nitrogen limits Option 2. limits for
for all direct facilities
discharging producing >5
facilities million lbs/yr
producing >= 10 plus nitrogen and
million lbs/yr, phosphorus limits
and more for all
stringent facilities >30
nitrogen limits million lbs/yr.
to all facilities
producing >=20
million lbs/yr.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Rationale for the Preferred Option (Option 1)
Considering the statutory criteria and factors described in Section
IV above, EPA proposes to revise the ELGs based on BPT, BCT, BAT, PSES,
PSNS, and BADCT (for NSPS) based on the technologies described in its
preferred Option 1. EPA also solicits comment on the other proposed
options (Options 2 and 3), and any other permutation of these options,
although they are not the preferred option in this proposed rule for
the reasons discussed in section VII. E below.
As described in section IV, the CWA defines two increasingly
stringent levels of control to be used for developing limits for
classes of pollutants and specifies factors that need to be considered.
BPT is the first level of control and applies to all pollutants
(Southwestern Electric Power Co. v. EPA, 920 F.3d 999, 1006 (5th Cir.
2019)). BPT limits are set based on the facilities representing ``the
average of the best'' wastewater treatment in use by the industry.
Statutory factors include consideration of total cost in relation to
benefits; costs cannot be ``wholly disproportionate'' to benefits
(Chem. Mfrs. Assn. v. EPA, 870 F.2d 177, 205 (5th Cir. 1989)).
BAT represents the second level of control for toxic and non-
conventional pollutants such as nitrogen and phosphorus. In setting
BAT, EPA uses not the ``average'' plant, but rather the ``single best
performing plant'' in the industry (Chem. Mfrs. Assn. v. EPA, 870 F. 2d
at 226 (5th Cir. 1989)). Unlike BPT, the BAT factors omit a cost-
benefit analysis, and replace it with a requirement to consider only
the ``cost of achieving such effluent reduction'' (Southwestern Elec.
Power Co. v. EPA, 920 F.3d at 1006 (5th Cir. 2019)). The CWA requires
that BAT be ``economically achievable,'' which has been interpreted to
mean that the costs of controls can be ``reasonably borne'' by the
industry (Chem. Mfrs. Ass'n, 870 F.2d at 262 (5th Cir. 1989); BP
Exploration & Oil, 66 F.3d 784, 799-800 (6th Cir. 1996)). BCT
represents the second level of control for conventional pollutants such
as oil & grease, BOD, TSS, fecal coliform, and pH. Statutory factors
for BCT include a cost-reasonableness test.
Under the preferred Option 1, for direct dischargers, EPA proposes
to revise BPT/BAT for nitrogen and phosphorus and BPT/BCT for fecal
coliform. For indirect dischargers, EPA proposes to establish PSES and
PSNS based on BPT/BCT for TSS, BOD, and oil & grease.
1. Direct Discharging Facilities (BAT)
For direct dischargers, EPA proposes BAT effluent limitations for
nitrogen based on biological treatment to achieve full denitrification
and BAT effluent limitations for phosphorus based on biological
treatment with chemical precipitation with filtration. After
considering the factors specified in CWA section 304(b)(2)(B) (33
U.S.C. 1314(b)(2)(B)), EPA proposes to find that this technology is
technologically available, economically achievable, and has acceptable
non-water quality environmental impacts.
(a) Availability of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal Technologies
``In setting BAT, EPA uses not the average plant, but the optimally
operating plant, the pilot plant which acts as a beacon to show what is
possible'' (Kennecott v. EPA, 780 F.2d 445, 448 (4th Cir. 1985), citing
A Legislative History of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972, 93d Cong., 1st Sess. (Comm. Print 1973), at 798)). BAT is
supposed to reflect the highest performance in the industry and may
reflect a higher level of performance than is currently being achieved
based on technology transferred from a different subcategory or
category, bench scale or pilot plant studies, or foreign plants
(Southwestern Elec. Power Co. v. EPA, 920 F.3d at 1006; Am. Paper Inst.
v. Train, 543 F.2d 328, 353 (D.C. Cir. 1976); Am. Frozen Food Inst. v.
Train, 539 F.2d 107, 132 (D.C. Cir. 1976)). BAT may be based upon
process changes or internal controls, even when these technologies are
not common industry practice (Am. Frozen Foods, 539 F.2d at 132, 140;
Reynolds Metals Co. v. EPA, 760 F.2d
[[Page 4490]]
549, 562 (4th Cir. 1985); California & Hawaiian Sugar Co. v. EPA, 553
F.2d 280, 285-88 (2nd Cir. 1977)). As recently reiterated by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, ``Under our precedent, a
technological process can be deemed available for BAT purposes even if
it is not in use at all, or if it is used in unrelated industries. Such
an outcome is consistent with Congress'[s] intent to push pollution
control technology'' (Southwestern Elec. Power Co. v. EPA, 920 F.3d at
1031, citation and internal quotations omitted). The technology bases
for BAT are currently in use by MPP facilities across the sector. EPA
has identified 14 facilities using enhanced nitrogen removal
technologies and 22 using phosphorus removal technologies in both meat
and poultry processing and rendering. These technologies are also
widely used in municipal wastewater treatment in the U.S. and around
the world. Accordingly, EPA proposes to find that such technologies are
``available'' within the meaning of the statute.
(b) Economic Achievability of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal
EPA proposes to find that the proposed BAT effluent limitations for
total nitrogen and total phosphorus under the preferred Option 1 are
economically achievable. Courts have interpreted economic achievability
to mean that the cost of the regulations can be ``reasonably borne'' by
the industry as a whole (Chem. Mfrs. Ass'n v. EPA, 870 F.2d 177, 262
(5th Cir. 1989); BP Exploration & Oil v. EPA, 66 F.3d 784, 799-800 (6th
Cir. 1996); see also Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. EPA, 286 F.3d 554, 570
(D.C. Cir. 2002); CPC Int'l Inc. v. Train, 540 F.2d 1329, 1341-42 (8th
Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 966 (1977)). `Congress clearly
understood that achieving the CWA's goal of eliminating all discharges
would cause ``some disruption in our economy,'' including plant
closures and job losses' (Chem. Mfrs. Ass'n v. EPA, 870 F.2d at 252,
citations omitted; see also id. at 252 n.337, reviewing cases in which
courts have upheld EPA's regulations that projected up to 50 percent
closure rates).
EPA assesses economic achievability using two primary approaches.
The main approach is to use a discounted cash flow analysis to predict
the number of possible closures resulting from implementation of the
regulatory option. The closure analysis compares the future costs of
compliance to the facility's estimated future earnings during the same
period. For this analysis, EPA is considering a facility that shows
positive future earnings without the rule and negative future earnings
with the rule (regardless of magnitude of the earnings) to be a
potential closure. EPA often also uses a simple financial screening
analysis to compare facility compliance cost-to-revenue (CTR), in order
to assess the relative magnitude of the economic impacts to each
facility. The higher the ratio of cost to revenue, the greater the
potential impact on the facility. Facilities experiencing significant
economic impacts may, among other possibilities, reduce production
levels, make changes to production and facility operations, forgo
future expansion, or close. A cost-to-revenue analysis does not predict
these responses but is a reasonable way to assess the likelihood of
these types of impacts. On the other hand, some indirect facilities,
depending on how their utility fees are structured, may incur lower
payments to the receiving POTW due to lower pollutant loads being sent
to the POTW.
EPA proposes to find that the preferred Option 1 is economically
achievable in terms of affordability to the industry as a whole because
results from both the BAT analysis of potential closures and the BAT
CTR analysis show that potential closures and financial impacts are
limited to a single facility that accounts for approximately one
percent of discharging facilities and less than one percent (0.02
percent) of the total universe of MPP facilities. See Section VIII and
the Cost and Economic Impact Screening Analyses and the Facility
Closure Analysis sections of the RIA for more detailed results.
Additionally, EPA also performed a market analysis that estimates the
proposed Option 1 would change market prices for major meat and poultry
commodities by less than a tenth of a percent. See the Market Impact
Analysis section of the RIA for more detailed results.
The annualized social cost of the preferred option is $232 million
and $227 million using a three percent and seven percent discount rate
respectively. The total cost of a rulemaking does not in and of itself
inform the Agency about its impact to the industry as a whole without
understanding the economic conditions of that industry. For example, an
industry with total annual sales of only $20 to $30 billion might
experience disruptions due to annual costs of this magnitude. However,
the MPP industry, as classified under NAICS 3116, is a relatively large
industry. The American Survey of Manufacturers estimates that total
sales for the industry in 2021 were $267 billion.\12\ Given the size of
the MPP industry, EPA does not consider the total annual cost of the
preferred Option 1 to be a determinative factor with respect to
economic achievability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ U.S. Census Bureau. (2022). 2021 Annual Survey of
Manufacturers: Summary Statistics for Industry Groups and Industries
in the U.S.: 2018-2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts of Nitrogen and Phosphorus
Removal
EPA proposes to find that the non-water quality environmental
impacts of the preferred Option 1 (full denitrification, chemical
phosphorus removal, and filtering) are acceptable. For further
discussion of these impacts, see Section X.
EPA's preferred Option 1 for direct dischargers, which EPA
estimates would require 125 of 171 total direct dischargers to install
additional wastewater controls, would add an estimated additional
78,989 MWh of demand to the U.S. power grid. This would increase the
total power demand of the U.S. by 0.0000019 percent, based on the U.S.
generating 4,108 billion MWh in 2021 nationwide (EIA, 2021).\13\
Preferred Option 1 for direct dischargers is also estimated to increase
the US CO2 emissions by 34,898 tons per year, or an 0.00058
percent increase of the nationwide total (Climate Change Indicators:
U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. USEPA. 2023).\14\ In 2020, U.S.
CO2 greenhouse gas emissions totaled 5,981 million metric
tons of CO2 equivalents. EPA also estimates that an
additional 286,685 tons of sludge will be generated under preferred
Option 1. EPA proposes to find that the additional energy requirements,
greenhouse gas emissions and sludge production are acceptable under the
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2021. Electric
Power Annual Report. www.eia.gov/electricity/annual.
\14\ https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Indirect Discharging Facilities (PSES/PSNS)
To control pollutants discharged by indirect discharging
facilities, EPA establishes categorical pretreatment standards for
existing sources (PSES) and for new sources (PSNS). Before establishing
PSES/PSNS for a pollutant, EPA examines whether the pollutant ``passes
through'' a POTW or interferes with the POTW operation or sludge
disposal practices. In determining whether a pollutant passes through
POTWs for these purposes, EPA typically compares the percentage of a
pollutant removed by well-operated
[[Page 4491]]
POTWs performing secondary treatment to the percentage removed by
direct dischargers operating the BPT/BAT technology basis. A pollutant
is determined to pass through POTWs when the average percentage removed
nationwide by well-operated POTWs performing secondary treatment is
less than the average percentage removed by direct dischargers
operating the BPT/BAT technology basis. EPA establishes pretreatment
standards for those pollutants regulated under BPT/BAT that pass
through POTWs. In this way, the standards for indirect dischargers are
equivalent to direct dischargers in that the treatment capability and
performance of POTWs is recognized and taken into account in regulating
the pollutants from indirect dischargers.
The Meat and Poultry Products POTW Passthrough Analysis (the
Passthrough Analysis) indicates that oil & grease, BOD, TSS, TN and TP
pass through POTWs (USEPA. 2023. DCN MP00309). EPA did not conduct its
traditional passthrough analysis for the management of high chloride
wastestreams that are being included for consideration as an additional
regulated waste stream under all the proposed regulatory options.
Rather, for chlorides, because the BAT technology for the proposed
zero-discharge limitations and standards would achieve 100 percent
removal of chlorides, and POTWs do not remove chlorides, the record
supports a finding of passthrough absent this analysis.
(a) BAT Rationale for PSES/PSNS for Nutrients
After considering all the relevant statutory factors and wastewater
technologies presented in this preamble and the TDD, EPA is not
proposing to establish pretreatment standards (PSES/PSNS) for nitrogen
and phosphorus removal for indirect dischargers under its preferred
Option 1 for the reasons discussed in Section VII.E below. However, EPA
is soliciting comment on the other proposed regulatory options (Options
2 and 3) and any other regulatory options that would include such
pretreatment standards for nutrients (See Section VII.D below).
(b) BPT/BCT Rationale for PSES/PSNS for Conventional Pollutants
Under preferred Option 1, EPA proposes to establish PSES based on
the BPT level of control for conventional pollutants (BOD, TSS, oil &
grease) based on screening and DAF technologies. After considering all
the relevant factors and wastewater technologies presented in this
preamble and in the TDD, EPA proposes to find that this technology is
available, imposes costs that are not wholly disproportionate to
effluent reduction benefits, and has acceptable non-water quality
environmental impacts.
(c) Technological Availability
Courts have interpreted BPT to represent the ``average of the
best'' performance (EPA v. National Crushed Stone Assn., 449 U.S. 64,
76 (1977). See also, Kennecott Copper v. EPA, 612 F.2d 1232, 1238 (10th
Cir. 1979); Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1059, 1062 (D.C.
Cir. 1978); American Petroleum Institute v. EPA, 540 F.2d 1023, 1034
(10th Cir. 1976); American Frozen Food Institute v. Train, 539 F.2d
107, 117, 119 (D.C. Cir.1976); American Meat Inst. v. EPA, 526 F.2d
442, 462 (7th Cir. 1975); cert. denied, 430 U.S. 922 (1977); Tanners'
Council of America, Inc. v. Train, 540 F.2d 1188, 1191 (4th Cir.1976)).
The technologies forming the bases for the proposed BPT revisions
represent the average of the best performance as they are in use by MPP
facilities across the subcategories. EPA has identified 21 indirect
discharging facilities using screening and DAF technologies in both
meat and poultry processing and rendering. In addition, these
technologies are widely used at direct discharging facilities. Most
facilities use some type of oil & grease removal technology, and DAF is
the most commonly used by MPP facilities. Furthermore, these
technologies are widely used by a variety of industrial classes and in
municipal wastewater treatment for the control of conventional
pollutants. See the TDD for additional discussion of DAF. DAF
technologies have a small footprint, and EPA has no data indicating
that the facilities that would be subject to pretreatment standards for
conventional pollutants under the preferred Option 1 would not be able
to implement DAF technologies at existing and new facilities.
(d) Costs of Conventional Pollutants Removal (BPT/BCT)
Caselaw and the CWA's legislative history indicate that to revise
BPT, EPA is to employ a limited cost-benefit balancing test, applying
controls unless the costs are wholly disproportionate to the effluent
reduction benefits (Chem. Mfrs. Ass'n v. EPA, 870 F.2d 177, 204, 205
(5th Cir. 1989); Kennecott Copper v. EPA, 612 F.2d 1232, 1238 (10th
Cir. 1979); American Meat Inst. v. EPA, 526 F.2d 442, 453 (7th Cir.
1975); cert. denied, 430 U.S. 922 (1977); America Frozen Food v. Train,
539 F.2d 107, 117, 119 (D.C. Cir. 1976). See also, A Legislative
History of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 93d
Cong. 1st Sess. at 169-170 (Comm. Print 1973)). EPA's analysis shows
that the effluent reduction benefits are not wholly disproportionate to
the costs of conventional pollutant removal technologies under the
preferred Option 1 (see Section VIII.A for additional details). The
costs are $32.84 million, and the effluent reduction is 234 million
pounds per year of pollutants removed. Additionally, upgrading from the
candidate BPT to BCT candidate technology (which is screening/grit
removal, DAF, anaerobic lagoon, and biological treatment) did not pass
the BCT cost test, and thus, EPA is proposing to set BCT as equal to
BPT (see Section VIII B.).
(e) Non-Water-Quality Environmental Impacts (BPT/BCT)
The record supports that removal of conventional pollutants under
the preferred Option 1 would have acceptable non-water quality
environmental impacts, including energy requirements (see Section X of
this preamble).
EPA's preferred Option 1 includes removal of the conventional
pollutants BOD, oil & grease, and TSS from the meat and poultry
facility's discharge before sending it to the POTW for further
treatment. Under Option 1, 719 out of 3,708 indirect discharging
facilities would incur an estimated 1,699 MWh of energy demand.
Although most of this energy demand would be a shift from the POTW to
the MPP facility, some portion of this could result in an additional
energy demand to the U.S. power grid. This total power demand under
preferred Option 1 is 0.000000041 percent of the U.S. power generation
(based on 4,108 billion MWh in 2021 nationwide), which EPA proposes to
find is acceptable (EIA, 2021).\15\ EPA also proposes to find that the
additional GHG increases would be acceptable. Preferred Option 1 for
indirect dischargers is estimated to increase the U.S. CO2
emissions by 753 tons per year, or an 0.000013 percent increase of the
nationwide total (based on U.S. CO2 greenhouse gas emissions
of 5,981 million metric tons of CO2 equivalents in 2020)
(Climate Change Indicators: U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. USEPA.
2023). Similarly preferred Option 1 for indirect dischargers would
increase the sludge production by an estimated 11,961 tons of sludge
per year, across 719 indirectly
[[Page 4492]]
discharging facilities, which EPA also proposes to find to be
acceptable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2021. Electric
Power Annual Report. www.eia.gov/electricity/annual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Rationale for Other Regulatory Options Proposed (Options 2 and 3)
EPA also evaluated the applicability of the statutory factors with
respect to the other regulatory options proposed (Options 2 and 3),
although EPA is not proposing these as the preferred option for the
reasons discussed in Section VII.E below. With respect to technological
availability, the technologies assessed for Options 2 and 3 are widely
used in municipal wastewater treatment in the U.S. and around the
world. The record supports that such technologies are available in that
they effectively remove the pollutants addressed in this rulemaking.
However, there may be constraints on availability of nutrient removal
technologies with respect to indirect dischargers (as discussed in
Section VII.E below), and EPA solicits information about such potential
constraints. With respect to the statutory cost tests for BPT, BCT and
BAT for Options 2 and 3, see Section VIII below. EPA's comparison of
costs to benefits of the proposed BPT/BCT limitations under those
options would historically support a finding that the costs are not
``wholly disproportionate'' to the benefits. Similarly, the possible
facility closures and cost to revenue ratio of the proposed BAT
limitations are within the range of impacts that EPA has historically
considered to be economically achievable, as required by CWA section
301(b)(2)(A) (33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(2)(A)). EPA reasonably considered
impacts on small businesses in setting production thresholds for
applicability based on avoiding cost to revenue ratios indicating
likelihood of economic impacts, as identified in the Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis guidance (CWA section 304(b)(2)(B), authorizing
consideration of ``such other factors as the Administrator deems
appropriate'' in establishing BAT). With respect to non-water quality
environmental impacts of the BPT/BCT and BAT technologies under Options
2 and 3, see Section X below. EPA solicits comment on whether these
proposed options--or other regulatory options based on different
production thresholds or technologies--would meet the applicable
statutory factors and should form the basis of any final rule.
E. Rationale for Rejecting Options 2 and 3 as the Preferred Option
As discussed above, EPA considered two proposed options (Options 2
and 3) that would be more expansive than Option 1. EPA did not select
these as the preferred option due to several potential concerns. First,
EPA is concerned that the more expansive options may impede the Biden
Administration's initiatives to expand independent meat and poultry
processing capacity and enhance the resilience of the food supply
chain, as reflected in Executive Order (E.O.) 14036 (July 9, 2021).
This is a crucial Administration priority to protect against the type
of supply chain disruptions that arose during the COVID-19 pandemic. In
issuing the E.O., the Administration explained that without such
diversification, ``our food supply chains are susceptible to shocks,''
and that ``[w]hen COVID-19 or other disasters such as fires or
cyberattacks shutter a plant, many ranchers have no other place to take
their animals'' See Fact Sheet: The Biden-Harris Action Plan for a
Fairer, More Competitive, and More Resilient Meat and Poultry Supply
Chain (The White House. 2022) (noting that ``our overreliance on just a
handful of giant processors leaves us all vulnerable, with any
disruptions at these bottlenecks rippling throughout our food
system.'').\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/01/03/fact-sheet-the-biden-harris-action-plan-for-a-fairer-more-competitive-and-more-resilient-meat-and-poultry-supply-chain/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relative to many other industries regulated by ELGs, the MPP
industry plays a critical role in the nation's food supply chain. The
supply chain disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the
problems with the consolidation of the industry over the last 50 years
and how susceptible it is to shocks. The pandemic disrupted both the
market supply and demand patterns typically observed. As the demand for
meat and poultry from restaurants declined dramatically in response to
the public lock down efforts, the demand for meat from grocery stores
and on-line sources rose.\17\ At the same time, COVID began to spread
rapidly through meat and poultry processing facilities. This resulted
in a significant short-run disruption to supply as facilities
temporarily closed and many more reduced line speeds due to both worker
shortages and safety concerns.\18\ These combined changes to demand and
supply led to shortages and higher prices for many meat and poultry
commodities (The White House. 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Hobbs J.E. (2021). The Covid-19 pandemic and meat supply
chains. Meat science, 181, 108459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2021.108459.
\18\ Whitehead, D., & Brad Kim, Y.H. (2022). The Impact of COVID
19 on the Meat Supply Chain in the USA: A Review. Food science of
animal resources, 42(5), 762-774. https://doi.org/10.5851/kosfa.2022.e39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's analysis showed Options 2 and 3 have more potential facility
closures than Option 1 due to the requirements imposed on additional
facilities, thus potentially harming the Administration's priority to
expand and diversify the meat and poultry processing industry. For this
reason, EPA is selecting Option 1 as the preferred proposed option at
this time, rather than more expansive options, as it would allow the
Agency to achieve significant reductions in nutrients and conventional
pollutants in a way that avoids potential supply chain disruptions in
the nation's food supply, consistent with the policy direction in the
E.O. While EPA's analysis shows Option 1 may result in 16 possible
facility closures, this represents 0.03 percent of total industry
facilities, and thus, any supply chain disruptions from such possible
closures would be minimal, temporary and localized. In addition, the
forecasted change in industry production levels due to the preferred
Option 1 is estimated to be only 0.01 percent. By comparison, EPA's
analysis shows that potential facility closures would be 22 under
Option 2 and 53 under Option 3, supporting EPA's selection of Option 1
as the preferred proposed option. See the Other Economic Factors
section of the RIA for a more in-depth discussion of this issue.
The CWA gives EPA authority to consider these policy concerns in
determining BAT (CWA section 304(b)(2)(B) (authorizing consideration of
``such other factors as the Administrator deems appropriate'' in
assessing BAT); Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1045 (D.C. Cir.
1978) (Congress intended that EPA have discretion ``to decide how to
account for the consideration factors, and how much weight to give each
factor.'')).
At the same time, EPA intends to consider any impact of federal
financial assistance on wastewater treatment upgrades at these
facilities. EPA seeks comment on whether other federal funds or other
programs could reduce or minimize potential impacts of the more
expansive options on the Administration's efforts to support the meat
and poultry supply chain.
EPA has also heard from small entity representatives (SERs) during
EPA's SBREFA panel process (Final Panel Report of the Small Business
Advocacy Review Panel on EPA's Planned Proposed Meat and Poultry
Products Effluent Limitations Guidelines Rulemaking. USEPA. 2023. DCN
MP00347) that there are potential
[[Page 4493]]
concerns about the availability of nitrogen removal technologies under
Options 2 and 3, due to space limitations for such technologies at some
facilities. Although these technologies are currently in use in the
industry, these technologies require a greater land area than DAF (the
conventional pollutant control technology that is the basis for the
limits on indirect dischargers under Option 1), particularly at
facilities with high wastewater flows. EPA has heard concerns from SERs
with respect to facilities located in or near urbanized areas where
sufficient space may not be available to install certain components of
nitrification/denitrification technology, such as aerobic and anaerobic
lagoons. Industry stakeholders have also indicated that zoning
restrictions may prevent them from acquiring adjacent parcels of land
that may be needed for installation of such technology. EPA estimates
that 143 indirect discharging facilities would incur costs to comply
with nitrogen and phosphorus effluent limits under Option 2 and 777
such facilities would incur costs to comply with limits under Option 3,
many of which would need to install nitrogen control technologies for
the first time. EPA would like additional information about available
space at such facilities, as well as information on other high rate/
small footprint nutrient removal technologies that might be available
to treat MPP wastewater.
EPA also heard from SERs concern about the availability of nutrient
control technologies for indirect dischargers under Options 2 and 3 due
to ongoing supply chain issues and labor shortages in the wastewater
treatment industry. While these technologies are widely available and
have been used in many industrial and municipal wastewater treatment
facilities across the country to remove nutrients, SERs have raised
concerns about the timing of such availability. The amount of a good
supplied for a market can take time to adjust to a sudden large
increase in demand. In addition, if there is a temporary spike in
demand resulting from many facilities needing to come into compliance
at the same time, there may not be an incentive for the companies that
make and install these technologies to increase their long-term
capacity. Given the large number of indirect facilities that would need
to install new nutrient removing treatment technologies under Options 2
and 3, there is a potential for implementation delays. These
implementation delays could result in facilities operating out of
compliance or temporarily closing until they are able to get the new
control technology in place. See the Other Economic Factors Section of
the RIA for a more in-depth discussion of this issue.
Given the large number of indirect discharging facilities that
would likely need to install nutrient removal technologies under
Options 2 and 3, and the ongoing supply chain issues, it is not clear
whether these technologies will be available in sufficient quantity to
allow for installation within the three-year statutory timeframe for
pretreatment standards under CWA section 307(b) (33 U.S.C 1317(b)). EPA
solicits additional information about production capacity for nutrient
control technologies in the industry, given that the Nation is
currently in the process of significant investments in water
infrastructure as part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
In addition, EPA is considering whether there are compliance
flexibilities for indirect discharging facilities that would allow for
additional time beyond the three-year statutory timeframe in CWA
section 307(b) (33 U.S.C. 1317(b)), in light of potential concerns
about availability of technology due to supply chain issues. EPA
solicits comment on how it could implement new pretreatment standards
consistent with this provision recognizing that there could be supply
chain issues preventing facilities from installing the treatment
technologies. For example, one option could be to allow phased
implementation based on size thresholds, whereby larger facilities
would be required to install such technologies within three years of
the effective date of the rule, while smaller facilities would be
allowed additional time to install such technologies, based on a
demonstration that the facility is contractually bound to procure the
technology within a specified time of the effective date. EPA solicits
comment on such an approach, or other implementation flexibilities for
indirect discharging facilities, should the Agency decide to finalize a
rule based on a more expansive option than the preferred Option 1.
Should the Agency decide to promulgate a rule based on a more
expansive option, EPA is considering conditional limits under these
options (see Section VII.F) to reduce costs and eliminate the need for
redundant treatment. To better understand the potential use of such
conditional limits, EPA solicits information about how many POTWs that
receive MPP wastewater have nitrogen and phosphorus removal
technologies that could provide an equivalent level of treatment, and
whether such flexibilities may result in significant cost savings,
including any relevant data on incremental cost savings or other
benefits.
EPA has also heard from industry representatives that since
nitrification/denitrification technologies also remove organic
pollutants (as measured by BOD5), there is some concern
about the ability of POTWs to meet their discharge limitations should
indirect discharging MPP facilities be required to meet nitrogen
pretreatment standards. The secondary treatment regulations at 40 CFR
133.102 require POTWs to achieve a 30-day average percent removal of
BOD and TSS of not less than 85 percent. If MPP facilities currently
discharge a significant quantity of organic pollutants to a POTW, that
load would be reduced after meeting any nitrogen pretreatment
standards. That may therefore reduce the percent reduction in BOD
achieved at the POTW since the POTW would be receiving more dilute
flows. While EPA notes that the secondary treatment regulations at
133.103(d) allow for consideration of less concentrated influent
wastewater and the substitution of a lower percent removal requirement
or a mass loading limit for the percent removal requirement by the
Regional Administrator or State Director, which could address this
issue, EPA solicits additional comments on this concern from the POTW
community.
F. Additional Provisions
In addition to seeking comment on the three proposed regulatory
options, EPA solicits public comment on three additional provisions
that would apply with respect to some of these options: First, with
respect to the pretreatment standards for nitrogen and phosphorus that
would apply to indirect dischargers under Options 2 and 3, EPA solicits
comment on a provision that would allow an exemption from these limits
for indirect discharging MPP facilities discharging to POTWs that
provide equivalent nutrient removal as would be required under the
proposed PSES/PSNS. Such ``conditional limits'' have been used in
previous ELGs, such as the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Effluent
Guidelines (40 CFR 420.15). EPA is considering including such a
provision in any final rule that would contain nutrient pretreatment
standards (such as under Options 2 or 3) because nitrogen and
phosphorus removal technologies involve more costly, advanced treatment
than is required for conventional pollutants and some facilities have
already shared costs to upgrade their receiving POTW to remove
nutrients to meet Water Quality Based Effluent
[[Page 4494]]
Limits in the POTW's discharge permits. If the receiving POTW is
providing equivalent nutrient removal, then the MPP facilities may not
need to pretreat their wastewater to remove nutrients to achieve an
equivalent environmental outcome. Conditional provisions that allow
this flexibility, provided the POTW agrees, would reduce costs for
indirect dischargers where the POTW already has nutrient removal
technologies and eliminate redundant treatment. For conditional limits
applied to a MPP facility, EPA solicits comment on how to structure
such a provision to include factors such as what treatment at the POTW
could be considered equivalent, whether the POTW permit should contain
nitrogen and phosphorus effluent limits at least as stringent as the
pretreatment standards that would be required at the MPP facility, how
to demonstrate compliance, how to ensure that the POTW has the capacity
and ability to adequately treat such wastewaters while maintaining its
design pollutant capacity reserved for the residential population, and
the process by which the facility would request the conditional limits
be applied and receive approval from their control authority.
Second, EPA solicits comment on including E. coli as a regulated
parameter for direct dischargers because the presence of E. coli is a
more reliable indicator of pathogen pollution than the presence of
fecal coliforms. E. coli, a predominate member of normal gut microflora
in warm blooded animals, has a limited capacity for reproduction
outside of the intestinal tract, making its presence in environmental
samples a strong indicator of fecal contamination (Odonkor and Ampofo.
2013).\19\ Fecal coliforms, a large group of thermotolerant bacteria,
include some bacterial species of environmental origin and therefore
can result in false positives for fecal contamination (Doyle and
Erickson. 2006).\20\ EPA updated its recreational water quality
standards in 2012 (USEPA. 2012. EPA-820-F-12-058) and the Revised Total
Coliform Rule in 2013 (USEPA. 2013. EPA 815-B-13-001) to reflect the
current state of knowledge for indicator bacteria. Given these updates
in the use of bacterial indicators for water quality, and that current
disinfection technology can consistently reduce the presence of these
indicator bacteria below the current MPP ELGs, EPA is soliciting
comment on more stringent fecal coliform limits for direct dischargers
based on BCT/BPT as well as limits for E. coli for direct dischargers
based on BAT as part of the preferred option in this proposed rule. EPA
also solicits comment on replacing fecal coliform limits with E. coli
limits in any final rule to reduce redundancy in monitoring and limit
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Odonkor, S.T.; Ampofo, J.K. 2013. Escherichia coli as an
indicator of bacteriological quality of water: An overview.
Microbiology Research, 4(1), e2. https://doi.org/10.4081/mr.2013.e2.
\20\ Doyle, M.P.; Erickson, M.C. 2006. Closing the door on the
fecal coliform assay. Microbe. 1, 162-163.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, EPA solicits comment on including BAT/NSPS/PSES/PSNS
chloride limits for certain wastestreams to remove salts from facility
discharges in any final rule based on BAT. In the meat processing
industry, salts may be used in further processing and for water
softening purposes. The presence of chlorides in discharges to surface
waters can adversely affect aquatic organisms because of their
sensitivity to concentrations of salt. A review of chlorides data in
2021 discharge monitoring reports from ICIS-NPDES showed about 70
percent of MPP facilities are discharging wastewater with chloride
concentrations exceeding ambient water quality criteria of 230 mg/L and
secondary drinking water standards of 250 mg/L (the reported 70th
percentile of these data was 254 mg/L). Although removing salt is
difficult and can be expensive, and therefore treating the whole
wastewater effluent may not be the most efficient way to control
chlorides, some facilities have certain operations with process
wastewater that is kept separate from the main waste stream. These
processes include hide processing, water softening regeneration
wastewater, meat and poultry koshering, and further processing
operations involving marinating and curing. Segregation and treatment
of these process wastestreams is currently in place at some MPP
facilities. Segregation and management of these high chloride
wastestreams could result in targeted reductions of up to 477 million
pounds of salt discharges annually at a cost of $172 million annually
if applied to 466 facilities under Options 1, 2 and 3.
EPA is considering salt recycle/evaporation systems as the
technology basis for establishing BAT/NSPS/PSES/PSNS limitations to
control chlorides discharged in high chlorides waste streams in any
final rule. EPA is considering effluent limitations for chlorides for
direct and indirect discharging facilities in any subcategory with
production greater than 5 million pounds per year with high chlorides
processes. Analysis indicates that these technologies may be available,
economically achievable, and have acceptable non-water quality
environmental impacts. See section 12 of the TDD for additional details
on the non-water quality environmental impacts of this provision. EPA
is not including this provision as part of the preferred option in
today's proposal, but rather is soliciting comment on including such a
provision in any final rule. In particular, EPA solicits comment on the
potential costs of such a provision, and specifically on the cost
methodology and results contained in the TDD.
G. Small Business Considerations From the Small Business Advocacy
Review Panel
Although this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has
tried to reduce the impact of this proposed rule on small entities and
completed the Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) panel to take input
from small entities. EPA's proposed preferred option would not expand
applicability to smaller direct discharging facilities, but it would
propose first-ever national pretreatment standards for indirect
discharging facilities. EPA's analysis (see Section VIII) shows that
Option 1 would apply to 96 small firms. This section discusses the 5
recommendations from the SBAR panel.
EPA recognizes that under all options considered some facilities
will be subject to pretreatment standards and/or categorical discharge
standards for the first time, and therefore, may not be familiar with
certain aspects of NPDES permitting and/or pretreatment standards. EPA
also heard concerns during the SBAR panel outreach meetings with SERs
specifically related to a lack of familiarity with effluent guidelines
and pretreatment standards. One of the five recommendations was for EPA
therefore to solicit comments on what information small facilities
would find beneficial (e.g., terms to know for determining
applicability and compliance, information from the POTW or control
authority, information on the general permitting process, wastewater
operator requirements, and how to measure annual production) that could
be addressed through guidance or other materials that EPA could provide
should any final rule expand applicability to small firms beyond the
current rule. EPA therefore solicits comment from small entities on
this topic.
EPA also heard from SERs about concerns related to production
thresholds for applicability of the ELGs. While EPA's proposed
regulatory
[[Page 4495]]
options minimize impacts on small entities, another recommendation that
EPA also solicits comment on is whether the proposed production
thresholds could be adjusted to further minimize such impacts,
particularly with respect to Options 2 and 3 as those options expand
coverage to additional facilities as compared to Option 1. A third
recommendation that EPA also solicits comment on is for alternatives to
production thresholds for determining regulation, such as water usage,
specifically as a way to minimize impacts to small firms or to provide
an alternative means of determining applicability to small firms that
may not track production.
Under Options 2 and 3, EPA is considering conditional limits for
facilities that discharge to POTWs with nitrogen and phosphorus limits
and treatment capabilities equivalent to the treatment that would be
needed to comply with any new proposed requirements. For these indirect
discharging facilities, with documentation and approval by the POTW/
control authority, the MPP facilities would not need to treat the
wastewater for nitrogen and phosphorus before discharging to the POTW.
A fourth Panel recommendation that EPA also requests comment on is the
inclusion of conditional limits, and specifically what documentation
and approval by the POTW/control authority would be sufficient to
establish conditional limits as a compliance mechanism.
The fifth recommendation was for EPA to consider and take comment
on a longer or flexible timeline for small entities to meet proposed
regulations. EPA requests comment from small entities on what kind of
timeline flexibilities would be helpful. See the SBREFA panel report
for additional details regarding these and other considerations that
were raised by SERs (USEPA. 2023. DCN MP00347).
VIII. Costs, BPT Wholly Disproportionate Cost Test, Economic
Achievability, and Other Economic Impacts
This section provides an overview of the methodology EPA used to
assess the costs and the economic impacts of the three options
considered in the proposed rule and summarizes the results of these
analyses. EPA separately assessed the cost and economic impacts of the
BPT, BCT, and BAT requirements for each regulatory option proposed.
Then EPA assessed the combined economic effects of all BPT, BCT, and
BAT requirements for each option for purposes of implementing the
Regulatory Impact Analysis required by E.O. See the RIA and supporting
information in the docket for additional detail. The proposed rule
would revise BPT for conventional pollutants and consider whether more
stringent BCT limits pass the two-part BCT cost test (51 FR 24974 (July
9,1986)). For BPT, EPA performed a ``wholly disproportionate'' cost
test for all direct and indirect discharging facilities that would be
required to control conventional pollutants under the three proposed
options. For BCT, EPA evaluated the reasonableness of BCT candidate
technologies--those that remove more conventional pollutants than BPT--
by applying a two-part cost test. The two-part ``cost reasonableness''
test requires: (1) The cost per pound of conventional pollutant removed
by dischargers in upgrading from BPT limits to the candidate BCT option
must be less than the cost per pound of conventional pollutant removal
by upgrading POTWs from secondary treatment to advanced secondary
treatment (``the POTW test''); and (2) an assessment of industry costs
per pound removed in upgrading from BPT to BCT relative to the costs
per pound removed in going from no treatment to BPT, followed by a
comparison of that ratio to the analogous ratio for POTWs (``the
industry cost effectiveness test''). The industry ratio must be less
than the POTW ratio to pass the test.
The proposed rule would also revise BAT for non-conventional
pollutants (nitrogen and phosphorus). EPA assessed the economic
achievability of BAT for all direct and indirect facilities that would
have requirements for non-conventional pollutants under the proposed
options. In developing ELGs reflecting BAT, and as required by CWA
section 301(b)(2)(A) (33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(2)(A)), EPA evaluates the
economic achievability of the regulatory options to assess the impacts
of applying the limitations and standards to the industry as a whole,
which typically includes an assessment of incremental facility closures
attributable to a regulatory option. As described in more detail below,
this proposed ELG is expected to result in incremental costs when
compared to baseline operations for many facilities. The cost and
economic impact analysis for this proposed rulemaking focuses on
understanding the magnitude and distribution of compliance costs across
the industry and the broader market impacts. EPA used indicators to
assess the impacts of the three regulatory options on the MPP industry.
EPA considered the total cost to industry and change in the number and
capacity of specific facilities expected to close under the proposed
option, as well as the other options considered, compared to baseline.
EPA also analyzed the ratio of compliance costs to revenue to see how
the three options would change the number of plants and their owning
entities that exceed thresholds indicating potential financial strain.
In addition to the analyses supporting the economic achievability of
the regulatory options, EPA conducted other analyses to (1)
characterize other potential impacts of the regulatory options (e.g.,
on market prices) and (2) to meet the requirements of E.O.s or other
statutes (e.g., E.O. 12866, Regulatory Flexibility Act, Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act).
A. BPT Wholly Disproportionate Cost Test
EPA estimated facility-specific costs and loads for two levels of
treatment technology reflected in the regulatory options developed. The
first level of treatment was the use of DAF technology. This level of
technology is already in place for direct discharging facilities
reflecting the existing rule BPT, BCT and BAT requirements but would be
a new requirement for indirect discharging facilities. The CWA requires
that the EPA consider ``the total cost of application of technology in
relation to the effluent reduction benefits to be achieved from such
application,'' and these costs should not be wholly disproportionate to
the corresponding effluent reduction benefits. As the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stated, ``The courts of appeal have
consistently held that Congress intended section 304(b) to give the EPA
broad discretion in considering the cost of pollution abatement in
relation to its benefits and to preclude the EPA from giving the cost
of compliance primary importance'' (Chemical Manufacturers Assn. v.
U.S. EPA, 870 F.2d 177, 204, (5th Cir. 1989)).
Table VIII-1 presents the annualized after-tax technology costs and
associated pollutant load reductions for individual subcategories of
facilities and the industry as a whole. Although BPT applies to both
conventional and nonconventional pollutants, DAF technology is
primarily employed to address conventional pollutants, so only
conventional pollutant reductions are shown. Load reductions reflect
the change in pollutants being discharged from regulated facilities to
their receiving POTWs. The table demonstrates that under BPT, there
would be significant reductions in conventional pollutant loading for
each subcategory and the industry as a
[[Page 4496]]
whole, across all three options. Based on these results, EPA proposes
to find that BPT costs for conventional pollutant reductions under the
preferred Option 1 are not wholly disproportionate to the corresponding
effluent reduction benefits. EPA also solicits comment on whether the
BPT costs of conventional pollutant reductions under regulatory Options
2 and 3, as reflected in the table below, are also not wholly
disproportionate to the effluent reduction benefits.
Table VIII-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
annualized
BPT costs Oil & Total Oil & Total
Rule option Sub- categories \21\ grease BOD TSS pollutants grease BOD TSS pollutants
(millions
of $2022)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPT Reductions (M lbs/yr)
BPT Ratio lbs/$
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1................................... A-D........................... $2.00 3 7 3 13 $0.63 $0.31 $0.65 $0.16
F-I........................... 2.46 6 0 0 6 0.43 18.15 36.31 0.41
J............................. 0.74 0 2 1 3 2.91 0.42 0.83 0.26
K............................. 7.08 3 61 100 164 2.65 0.12 0.07 0.04
L............................. 1.66 0 8 13 22 4.60 0.20 0.12 0.08
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All........................ 13.93 12 77 118 207 1.14 0.18 0.12 0.07
Option 2................................... A-D........................... 2.00 3 7 3 13 0.63 0.31 0.65 0.16
F-I........................... 2.46 6 0 0 6 0.43 18.15 36.31 0.41
J............................. 0.74 0 2 1 3 2.91 0.42 0.83 0.26
K............................. 7.08 3 61 100 164 2.65 0.12 0.07 0.04
L............................. 1.66 0 8 13 22 4.60 0.20 0.12 0.08
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All........................ 13.93 12 77 118 207 1.14 0.18 0.12 0.07
Option 3................................... A-D........................... 15.76 7 14 7 28 2.25 1.10 2.32 0.56
F-I........................... 6.89 11 0 0 11 0.64 27.30 54.60 0.62
J............................. 0.79 0 2 1 3 3.10 0.45 0.88 0.27
K............................. 7.75 3 63 104 170 2.78 0.12 0.07 0.05
L............................. 1.66 0 8 13 22 4.60 0.20 0.12 0.08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All........................ 32.84 21 88 126 234 1.55 0.37 0.26 0.14
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. BCT Cost Test
In July 1986, EPA explained how it developed its methodology for
setting effluent limitations based on BCT (51 FR 24974). EPA evaluates
the reasonableness of BCT candidate technologies--those that remove
more conventional pollutants than BPT--by applying a two-part cost
test: a POTW test and an industry cost-effectiveness test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ All BPT and BAT costs were annualized using the weighted
average cost of capital (WACC) for facilities. The WACC was derived
based on facility responses to Industry Survey. See Section 5.2.3 of
the Regulatory Impact Analysis for a detailed explanation of how the
WACC was derived.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA first calculates the cost per pound of conventional pollutant
removed by industrial dischargers in upgrading from BPT to a BCT
candidate technology, and then compares this cost to the cost per pound
of conventional pollutants removed in upgrading POTWs to advanced
secondary treatment (i.e., ``the POTW test''). The upgrade cost to
industry must be less than the POTW benchmark of $0.25 per pound (in
1976 dollars) or $1.48 per pound (in 2022 dollars). In the industry
cost-effectiveness test, the ratio of the cost per pound to go from BPT
to BCT divided by the cost per pound to go from raw wastewater to BPT
for the industry must be less than 1.29 (that is, the cost increase
must be less than 29 percent).
For purposes of this analysis, for the preferred Option 1, EPA
compared the cost of upgrading from the candidate BPT (based on screens
followed with DAF technology for 720 large indirect facilities) to BCT
(based on biological treatment to achieve full denitrification and
chemical precipitation with filtration as described for BAT in Section
VII C.1). The cost for these 719 facilities to upgrade from candidate
BPT to candidate BCT would range from $0.26 to $1.32 per pound of
pollutant removed depending on the subcategory. Option 2 involves the
same 719 facilities receiving conventional pollutant removal
technology; thus, the cost and results of this test would be the same
as Option 1. Option 3 would require 1,485 indirect facilities to
implement conventional pollutant removal technology, and the cost for
these facilities to upgrade from candidate BPT to candidate BCT would
range from $0.30 to $1.03 per pound of pollutant removed depending on
the subcategory. The section 9 of the TDD provides more details on the
calculations of the BCT cost tests.
In developing BCT limits, EPA considered whether there are
technologies that achieve greater removals of conventional pollutants
than the candidate for BPT, and whether those technologies are cost-
reasonable according to the prescribed BCT tests. For Subcategories A
through D, F through J, K, and L, EPA identified technologies that can
achieve greater removals of conventional pollutants than the candidate
BPT standards; however, this technology is full treatment (based on
screening/grit removal, DAF, anaerobic lagoon, biological treatment,
chemical phosphorus removal, sand filter, and solids handling), and EPA
proposes to find that it does not pass the BCT cost test under any of
the proposed options. Furthermore, since these limits are for indirect
dischargers that send their wastewater to POTWs, and POTWs are designed
to remove BOD, TSS, and oil & grease, EPA considers screens with DAF
treatment an appropriate pretreatment technology for PSES/PSNS.
Accordingly, EPA proposes to establish BCT effluent limitations equal
to the candidate BPT limitations based on screens followed with DAF for
indirect dischargers in these subcategories.
C. Economic Achievability Analysis for BAT
For the second level of treatment for toxic and non-conventional
pollutants, direct dischargers must meet BAT, and
[[Page 4497]]
indirect dischargers must meet pretreatment standards based on BAT. In
setting BAT, EPA is required to evaluate costs and determine if they
can be reasonably borne by the industry. EPA considers not only
technology cost but also engineering and process changes as well as
energy requirements of implementing the new technology. The cost
estimates developed by EPA for the technologies considered for BPT,
BCT, and BAT incorporate these factors as additional cost elements.
1. Facility Closure Analysis (BAT)
Estimates of possible facility closures are the traditional way EPA
considers economic achievability. A discounted cash-flow analysis was
performed on detailed questionnaire respondents and the results were
then extrapolated to all facilities incurring costs under each option.
For more information on this approach, see the RIA. Table VIII-2 shows
the number of facilities with BAT costs and the estimated possible
closures by production subcategory for each option. The table also
shows the relative percentage of facilities with costs and total
discharging facilities that are estimated to close. EPA estimated that
the preferred Option 1 would have only a single possible closure and
proposes to find that this would be considered economically achievable
under any reasonable measure of impacts. Under Options 2 and 3 EPA
estimated that there are 19 and 29 total possible closures,
respectively. This equates to 7 percent of the 269 facilities with BAT
costs under Option 2, and 3 percent of the 913 facilities with BAT
costs under Option 3. However, to understand the economic impact of
these options on the industry it is necessary to consider these
possible closures within the context of the total number of industry
facilities. Neither Options 2 nor 3 have estimated potential closures
that exceed 1 percent of the 3,897 discharging facilities. If the zero
discharge facilities were also factored in, these percentages would be
smaller still. These two options were developed to limit BAT
requirements to just the larger discharging facilities that tend to be
better able to afford the nutrient reduction technologies. EPA solicits
comment on whether Options 2 and 3 would be economically achievable for
the industry as a whole, based on the level of possible facility
closures reflected in the table below.
Table VIII-2--Possible Facility Closures due to BAT Costs by Regulatory Option
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Production sub-categories
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total
Rule option Poultry facilities
Meat first Meat further Poultry first further Rendering
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1:
Facilities with BAT Costs........................... 30 9 64 5 18 126
Estimated Possible Closures......................... 0 0 1 0 0 1
% of facilities with costs.......................... 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.8
% of all Discharging facilities..................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2:
Facilities with BAT Costs........................... 85 9 142 5 28 269
Estimated Possible Closures......................... 10 0 8 0 1 19
% of facilities with costs.......................... 11.8 0.0 5.6 0.0 3.6 7.1
% of all Discharging facilities..................... 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5
3:
Facilities with BAT Costs........................... 137 371 190 100 115 913
Estimated Possible Closures......................... 11 3 11 1 3 29
% of facilities with costs.......................... 8.0 0.8 5.8 1.0 2.6 3.2
% of all Discharging facilities..................... 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To assess the economic achievability of BAT technologies, EPA also
compared facility level costs to estimated revenue to screen for
potential financial impacts to facilities. EPA considered total
facility costs relative to industry sales, the number of facilities
that have costs greater than 1 percent and 3 percent of revenue, and
the number of potential facility closures. The next level of control
beyond BPT is not feasible for facilities unless the BPT technology is
in place, so EPA conservatively assessed both the costs of BAT assuming
BPT is in place, called ``incremental,'' and the costs including both
costs to meet revised BPT and the revised BAT, called ``additive''
costs of BAT technologies. Table VIII-3 shows the incremental and
additive BAT costs for each of the three options and the percentage of
annual industry sales these costs comprise.
Table VIII-3--Total Annualized After-Tax Compliance Costs for BAT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental BAT BPT + BAT (additive)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory option % Industry annual % Industry annual
(millions, 2022$) sales * (millions, 2022$) sales *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1........................ $196.39 0.07 $196.39 0.07
Option 2........................ 576.49 0.22 583.51 0.22
Option 3........................ 962.78 0.36 981.54 0.37
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Based on U.S. Census Annual Survey of Manufacturers, 2021 sales for NAICS 3116.
The difference between the incremental and Additive (BPT+BAT) costs
are small, which reflects the relatively small cost of the DAF
technology compared to the more expensive nutrient removal
technologies. For assessing economic achievability, EPA is considering
the additive BAT costs. Table VIII-4 shows these full BAT costs broken
out by production sub-categories.
[[Page 4498]]
Table VIII-4--Total Annualized After-Tax BAT Costs by Sub-Category for Rule Options in (2022$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Production sub-category Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meat First...................................................... $62.47 $226.76 $255.60
Meat Further.................................................... 3.73 3.73 204.91
Poultry First................................................... 114.00 324.51 381.48
Poultry Further................................................. 6.06 6.06 72.21
Renderer........................................................ 10.13 22.44 67.32
-----------------------------------------------
Total Facility BAT costs.................................... 196.39 583.51 981.53
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. BAT Cost-to-Revenue Analyses
Under the Agency's Regulatory Flexibility Act Guidance for
assessing impacts of EPA actions on small entities (Final Guidance for
EPA Rulewriters: Regulatory Flexibility Act as Amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. USEPA 2006), facilities
incurring costs below one percent of revenue are unlikely to face
economic impacts, while facilities with costs between 1 percent and 3
percent of revenue have a higher chance of facing economic impacts, and
facilities incurring costs above three percent of revenue have a still
higher probability of economic impact.
Tables VIII-5, VIII-6, and VIII-7 show the number of facilities
that have BAT CTR ratios that fall into the three above mentioned
categories for each option. To provide context for these numbers, the
tables display the percentage of facilities that fall into each group,
by all facilities incurring cost and by all discharging facilities. For
all options, the percentage of discharging facilities with a higher
probability of financial impacts is less than one. When considering
subcategories, all production types have less than one percent of
discharging facilities in the higher-probability category, except for
poultry slaughter which has 2.1 percent and 2.5 percent of discharging
facilities in this category under options 2 and 3 respectively.
Table VIII-5--Facility-Level BAT After-Tax Compliance Cost-to-Revenue Analysis for Option 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of facilities with a ratio Percentage of facilities Percent of all discharging
Facilities Facilities of with BAT costs with ratio facilities with a ratio of
Sub-categories that with BAT -------------------------------------- of -------------------------------------
discharge costs -----------------------------
0% <1% >=1 to 3% >=3% <1% >=1 to 3% >=3% 0% <1% >=1 to 3% >=3%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meat First..................................................... 556 30 526 30 0 0 100.0 0.0 0.0 94.6 5.4 0.0 0.0
Meat Further................................................... 2,770 9 2,761 9 0 0 100.0 0.0 0.0 99.7 0.3 0.0 0.0
Poultry First.................................................. 238 64 174 61 2 1 95.3 3.1 1.6 73.1 25.6 0.8 0.4
Poultry Further................................................ 175 5 170 3 2 0 60.0 40.0 0.0 97.1 1.7 1.1 0.0
Rendering...................................................... 140 18 122 17 1 0 94.4 5.6 0.0 87.1 12.1 0.7 0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Number............................................... 3,879 126 3,753 120 5 1 95.2 4.0 0.8 96.8 3.1 0.1 0.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table VIII-6--Facility-Level BAT After-Tax Compliance Cost-to-Revenue Analysis for Option 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of facilities with a ratio Percentage of facilities Percent of all discharging
Facilities Facilities of with BAT costs with ratio facilities with a ratio of
Sub-categories that with BAT -------------------------------------- of -------------------------------------
discharge costs -----------------------------
0% <1% >=1 to 3% >=3% <1% >=1 to 3% >=3% 0% <1% >=1 to 3% >=3%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meat First..................................................... 556 85 471 85 0 0 100.0 0.0 0.0 84.7 15.3 0.0 0.0
Meat Further................................................... 2,770 9 2,761 9 0 0 100.0 0.0 0.0 99.7 0.3 0.0 0.0
Poultry First.................................................. 238 142 96 130 7 5 91.5 4.9 3.5 40.3 54.6 2.9 2.1
Poultry Further................................................ 175 5 170 3 2 0 60.0 40.0 0.0 97.1 1.7 1.1 0.0
Rendering...................................................... 140 28 112 26 2 0 92.9 7.1 0.0 80.0 18.6 1.4 0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Number............................................... 3,879 269 3,610 253 11 5 94.1 4.1 1.9 93.1 6.5 0.3 0.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table VIII-7--Facility-Level BAT After-Tax Compliance Cost-to-Revenue Analysis for Option 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of facilities with a ratio Percentage of facilities Percent of all discharging
Facilities Facilities of with BAT costs with ratio facilities with a ratio of
Sub-categories that with BAT -------------------------------------- of -------------------------------------
discharge costs -----------------------------
0% <1% >=1 to 3% >=3% <1% >=1 to 3% >=3% 0% <1% >=1 to 3% >=3%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meat First..................................................... 556 137 419 134 1 2 97.8 0.7 1.5 75.4 24.1 0.2 0.4
Meat Further................................................... 2,770 371 2,399 368 1 2 99.2 0.3 0.5 86.6 13.3 0.0 0.1
Poultry First.................................................. 238 190 48 173 11 6 91.1 5.8 3.2 20.2 72.7 4.6 2.5
Poultry Further................................................ 175 100 75 97 2 1 97.0 2.0 1.0 42.9 55.4 1.1 0.6
Rendering...................................................... 140 115 25 103 12 0 89.6 10.4 0.0 17.9 73.6 8.6 0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Number............................................... 3,879 913 2,966 875 27 11 95.8 3.0 1.2 76.5 22.6 0.7 0.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CTR analysis shows that under Option 1 the BAT costs would be
less than 1 percent of revenue for 99.9 percent of discharging
facilities, and, per RFA guidance, would be unlikely to face economic
impacts. Therefore, EPA proposes to find that Option 1 is economically
achievable for the industry as a whole. Given that the BAT
[[Page 4499]]
CTR results for options 2 and 3 show that 99.6 percent and 99.1 percent
of discharging facilities would have costs less than 1 percent of
revenues, respectively, EPA solicits comment on whether these options
would also be economically achievable.
D. Other Economic Analyses
Sections A, B, and C above address the CWA requirements for
determining BPT, BCT, and BAT. Economic effects of each of these
technology levels was considered in isolation. This section presents
the aggregate costs and impacts of each of the three options on
regulated facilities. These analyses cover both facility-level and
firm-level effects, employment effects, and market-level effects.
1. Facility Closure Analysis
Estimating the potential closures of existing facilities is the
traditional way EPA assesses economic achievability under the CWA. This
analysis is based first on financial data reported in the detailed
questionnaire, and then extrapolated to the larger universe of
facilities based on relevant facility financial and production
characteristics.
Under the preferred Option 1, EPA estimated that 16 facilities
would potentially close. Under Option 2, EPA estimated that 22
facilities would potentially close. Under Option 3, EPA estimated that
53 facilities would potentially close. This corresponds respectively to
0.3 percent, 0.4 percent, and 1.0 percent of all facilities (including
zero discharge facilities). Chapter 5 in the RIA provides more detailed
results for the three regulatory options EPA analyzed. Table VIII-8
presents the results of the facility closure analysis.
Table VIII-8--Possible Facility Closure Estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Possible Facility Closures............................ 16 (0.4%) 22 (0.6%) 53 (1.0%)
Number of Facilities with Costs................................. 845 845 1,620
Number of Discharging Facilities................................ 3,879 3,879 3,879
% of Facilities with Costs...................................... 1.9% 2.6% 3.3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than close the facility, some firms may decide to reduce
facility production levels to be below the production size thresholds
included in each of the options. Although they would be avoiding
compliance costs, they would incur the opportunity costs of forgone net
revenues. Firms may choose this approach if it is seen as less
economically burdensome than the regulatory cost of compliance. This
approach is not costed because EPA assumes that it would only be chosen
by the firm if it is less costly. However, reducing production to avoid
compliance, if chosen by enough facilities could have a measurable
effect on industry production. This potential change in quantity
produced is different than the quantity effects discussed in the
following market analysis. The potential costs of regulatory compliance
could also affect future decisions to expand production at those
existing facilities that currently produce below the threshold
production levels that are part of each of the regulatory options.
2. Facility and Firm Level Cost-to-Revenue Analyses
EPA conducted a screening-level analysis of each regulatory
option's potential impact on discharging MPP facilities and parent
entities based on cost-to-revenue ratios. For each of the two levels of
analysis (facility and parent entity), the Agency assumed, for analytic
convenience and as a worst-case scenario, that none of the compliance
costs would be passed on to retailers or back to producers (farmers)
and would instead be absorbed by the processing facilities and their
parent entities. This assumption overstates the impacts of projected
compliance expenditures on a facility since it is more realistic to
assume that a portion of these costs in most all cases may be passed up
and down the supply chain resulting in small incremental cost increases
to producers and consumers. It is, however, a reasonable assumption for
a screening-level estimate of the potential cost impacts.
(a) Facility-Level Cost-to-Revenue Analysis
EPA used reported revenue estimates in the detailed surveys
responses. EPA estimated revenue using reported annual production
multiplied by the average revenue per unit of production from the
detailed questionnaire for facilities producing the same output type,
e.g., slaughtered poultry. Otherwise, EPA used external revenue
estimates from proprietary sources such as Hoovers D&B where available
or used the mid-point of the production level category assigned to the
facility in the FSIS database to first estimate their production level,
and then multiplied this by survey average revenue per unit of
production, mentioned previously. EPA then calculated the change in the
annualized after-tax costs of the three regulatory options presented in
Tables VIII-6, 7 and 8 of this preamble as a percent of baseline annual
revenues. See Chapter 4 of the RIA for a more detailed discussion of
the methodology used for the facility-level cost-to-revenue analysis.
Table VIII-9 presents the facility-level results for each of the three
options.
Table VIII-9--Facility-Level After-Tax Compliance Cost-to-Revenue Analysis Results by Regulatory Option
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of facilities with a ratio of Percentage of facilities Percent of all dischargers with a
-------------------------------------- with costs with ratio of ratio of
Rule option Total Facilities ------------------------------------------------------------------
dischargers with costs 0% <1% >=1 and >=3% >=1 and >=1 and
3% <1% 3% >=3% 0% <1% 3% >=3%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................................. 3,879 845 3,033 838 5 2 99 0.6 0.2 78.2 21.6 0.1 0.1
2............................................................. 3,879 845 3,033 828 12 5 98 1.4 0.6 78.2 21.4 0.3 0.1
3............................................................. 3,879 1,620 2,257 1,576 31 13 97 1.9 0.8 58.2 40.7 0.8 0.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 4500]]
Under the preferred Option 1, EPA estimated that seven facilities
(0.18 percent of total dischargers) would incur incremental costs
greater than or equal to one percent of revenue, including two
facilities that have costs greater than or equal to three percent of
revenue, and an additional 838 facilities would incur costs that are
less than one percent of revenue. Under Option 2, EPA estimated that 17
(0.44 percent of total dischargers) facilities would incur incremental
costs greater than or equal to one percent of revenue, including five
facilities that have costs greater than or equal to three percent of
revenue, and an additional 828 facilities would incur costs that are
less than one percent of revenue. Under Option 3, EPA estimated that 44
facilities (1.13 percent of total dischargers) would incur incremental
costs greater than or equal to 1 percent of revenue, including 13
facilities that have costs greater than or equal to three percent of
revenue, and an additional 1,578 facilities would incur costs that are
less than 1 percent of revenue. For each of these three options, the
remaining discharging facilities would incur no costs. Chapter 4 in the
RIA provides more detailed results for the three regulatory options EPA
analyzed.
(b) Firm-Level Cost-to-Revenue Analysis
EPA also assessed the economic impact of the regulatory options at
the parent entity level. The screening-level cost-to-revenue analysis
at the parent entity level provides insight on the impact on those
entities that own one or more MPP facilities. In this analysis, the
domestic parent entity associated with a given facility is defined as
the entity with the largest ownership share in the facility. For each
parent entity or firm, EPA compared the incremental change in the total
annualized after-tax costs and the total revenue for the entity to
baseline (see Chapter 4 of the RIA for details). EPA based ownership
and annual revenues directly on questionnaire responses for those
facilities that completed detailed questionnaires. Ownership was also
based on questionnaire responses. Revenue information, however, was
based on external sources of financial information, mentioned above.
Where questionnaire responses were not available, ownership and firm
revenue information were based on matching these facilities with firms
contained in the external firm data (Hoovers D&B) that have reported
business activity under NAICS category 3116. For facilities where a
match could not be made, facilities were assumed to be owned by a firm
that owned no other businesses and has no other sources of revenue.
This assumption likely leads to an overestimation of the cost-to
revenue ratio for many of these entities that may also have additional
sources of revenue. Table VIII-10 provides firm-level cost-to-revenue
results.
Table VIII-10--Firm-Level CTR Screening Analysis Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firms with Number firms with a ratio of Percent of firms with a ratio of
Rule option MPP -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
facilities 0% \a\ >0 and <1% >=1 and <3% >=3% 0% \a\ >0 and <1% >=1 and <3% >=3%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................. 4,127 3,730 394 3 0 90 10 0.1 0.0
2.................................. 4,127 3,730 393 3 1 90 10 0.1 0.0
3.................................. 4,127 3,129 980 14 4 76 24 0.4 0.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ These firms own only facilities that already meet discharge requirements for the wastestreams addressed by a given regulatory option and are
therefore not estimated to incur any compliance technology costs.
Like the facility-level analysis above, cost-to-revenue ratios
provide screening-level indicators of potential economic impacts, this
time to the owning entities; higher ratios suggest a higher probability
of economic impacts. EPA estimates that the number of entities owning
existing MPP facilities to be 4,127 firms. Under the proposed rule
Option 1, there would be 3,730 firms with no costs and 394 with costs
less than one percent of revenue. EPA estimates that three firms would
incur incremental costs greater than or equal to one percent of revenue
and less than three percent of revenue. No firms are expected to incur
costs greater than or equal to three percent of revenue. Under Option
2, there would be 3,730 firms with no costs and 393 with costs less
than 1 percent of revenue. EPA estimates that four firms would incur
incremental costs greater than or equal to 1 percent of revenue and
only one of these would incur costs greater than or equal to 3 percent
of revenue. Under Option 3, there would be 3,129 firms with no costs
and 980 with costs less than 1 percent of revenue. EPA estimates that
18 firms would incur incremental costs greater than or equal to 1
percent of revenue and, of these, four would incur costs greater than
or equal to 3 percent of revenue. Chapter 4 in the RIA provides more
detailed results for the three regulatory options EPA analyzed.
(c) Small Business Impacts
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) and Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), EPA is required to
estimate the potential economic impacts of the rule on small
businesses. The definition of small business varies by NAICS categories
and for this industrial category the definition is based on employment
levels provided in Table VIII-11 below. Firm employment levels are
based on questionnaire responses when available. For non-respondents,
firm employment estimates from Hoovers D&B are used if the firm was
matched to one or more facilities. For remaining firms USDA facility
inspection data employment categories for facilities are used to
estimate if the owners are a small business. For more information on
this approach see the SBREFA screening analysis section of the RIA.
Table VIII-11--Small Business Administration Small Business Size
Standards for Meat and Poultry Processing Industry
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS industry Size standard
NAICS code description in employee #s
------------------------------------------------------------------------
311611......................... Animal (except Poultry) 1,150
Slaughtering.
311612......................... Meat Processed from 1,000
Carcasses.
311613......................... Rendering and Meat 750
Byproduct Processing.
[[Page 4501]]
311615......................... Poultry Processing..... 1,250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each of the three options, EPA estimated the number of small
parent entities that incur annual compliance costs that fall into one
of three categories: less than 1 percent of annual revenue; between 1
percent and less than 3 percent of annual revenue; and 3 percent or
more of annual revenue. Table VIII-12 presents the results of the CTR
test for all small entities that own MPP dischargers. Table VIII-13
shows aggregate revenue and cost for small firms by process type. EPA
conservatively assumes that entities with an unidentified size are
large. While this assumption potentially reduces the number of
identified small entities, it provides a conservative estimate of the
percentage of small entities with impacts, since none of the entities
with an unidentified size have a CTR ratio greater than one percent
under any of the regulatory options.
Table VIII-12--Small Firm-Level CTR Screening Analysis Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number small firms with a ratio of Percent of small firms with a ratio of
Entity type Total # of -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
small firms 0% \a\ >0 and <1% >=1 and <3% >=3% 0% \a\ >0 and <1% >=1 and <3% >=3%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1........................... 3,233 3,137 95 1 0 97 3 0.0 0.0
Option 2........................... 3,233 3,137 94 1 1 97 3 0.0 0.0
Option 3........................... 3,233 2,970 248 11 4 92 8 0.0 0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ These entities own only facilities that already meet discharge requirements for the wastestreams addressed by a given regulatory option and are
therefore not estimated to incur any compliance technology costs.
Table VIII-13--Aggregate Revenue and Costs for Small Firms by Process Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aggregate Aggregate
Total # small Total # small revenue costs
Process type \a\ firms with firms with (millions, (millions,
dischargers costs 2022$) 2022$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meat first...................................... 372 22 $83,328 $4.5
Meat further.................................... 1,799 31 61,517 0.1
Poultry first................................... 55 16 20,008 13.6
Poultry further................................. 47 20 9,363 3.0
Render.......................................... 23 7 6,019 1.0
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 2,296 96 180,235 22.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meat first...................................... 372 22 83,328 32.7
Meat further.................................... 1,799 31 61,517 0.1
Poultry first................................... 55 16 20,008 41.6
Poultry further................................. 47 20 9,363 3.0
Render.......................................... 23 7 6,019 1.0
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 2,296 96 180,235 78.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meat first...................................... 372 54 97,768 44.8
Meat further.................................... 1,799 149 151,897 38.8
Poultry first................................... 55 25 20,627 63.1
Poultry further................................. 47 25 9,521 11.9
Render.......................................... 23 9 6,029 10.0
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 2,296 262 285,841 168.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Process type assigned to firms based on highest production.
The results from the Small Firm-Level CTR Screening Analysis
demonstrate that there is not a significant financial burden on a
substantial number of small firms that own MPP facilities. Likewise,
the results also show that small firms do not bear a disproportionate
financial burden relative to large firms. These results demonstrate
that the use of facility production size thresholds for each of the
three options ensures that
[[Page 4502]]
the primary economic burden of the rule is born by large facilities and
firms.
3. Market Effects
The analyses thus far have focused either at the individual
facility or firm level but have not directly addressed the cumulative
effects of the rule options. EPA examined the effects of the regulatory
options on the national markets for beef, pork, chicken, and turkey.
EPA developed linear domestic and trade demand and supply equations for
each meat product based on price elasticities from USDA data and other
published sources. To estimate the impacts of the regulatory options,
the domestic supply curves were adjusted to incorporate the after-tax
annualized compliance costs incurred by producers in each meat product
market, causing a shift in each supply curve and a decrease in domestic
supply. After estimating the post-regulatory equilibrium for each meat
product market, market-level impacts on prices and quantities were
estimated. Tables VIII-14 and VIII-15 provide the percentage change in
quantity and prices respectively for each meat product and rule option
combination. The overall effects on meat product supplies and prices
are sufficiently small under all three options that they are unlikely
to have a noticeable effect on producer or consumer behavior. For more
information on the market analysis methodology and results see Chapter
6 of the RIA.
Table VIII-14--Post-Compliance Decrease in Meat Market Supplies by Rule Option
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% Change total supply
Meat product -----------------------------------------------
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beef............................................................ -0.006 -0.018 -0.027
Pork............................................................ -0.017 -0.051 -0.073
Chicken......................................................... -0.014 -0.028 -0.086
Turkey.......................................................... -0.010 -0.021 -0.063
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... -0.012 -0.031 -0.065
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table VIII-15--Post-Compliance Increase in Meat Market Prices by Rule Option
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% Change in prices
Meat product -----------------------------------------------
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beef............................................................ 0.01 0.02 0.03
Pork............................................................ 0.01 0.03 0.05
Chicken......................................................... 0.01 0.02 0.05
Turkey.......................................................... 0.00 0.01 0.02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Employment Effects
In addition to addressing the costs and impacts of the regulatory
options, EPA estimated the potential impacts of this rulemaking on
employment. Employment effects can be both positive and negative as
well as temporary or permanent. The employment analyses performed for
the proposed rule measure labor changes in terms of full time
equivalent (FTE) labor inputs. EPA measures the short-term employment
effects directly due to estimated closures as well as the long-term
employment effects from changes in production levels at the new market
equilibrium. Employment loss due to facility closures is considered
transitory as some of the production that occurred at these facilities
will quickly move to other facilities with spare capacity. Eventually
new and expanding existing facilities will take on much of the
remaining production that would have occurred at the closed facilities.
As these shifts in production occur so too will employment
opportunities.
Closures are not the only rule impact affecting employment. As just
described in the preceding market analysis section, overall production
is likely to go down slightly once the markets for meat products reach
a new equilibrium of supply and demand. Lower production levels would
likely result in long-term job losses. The number of long-term possible
job losses across the whole industry due to decreased production are
65, 161, and 339 for options 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Relative to the
total industry employment levels, these job losses translate to 0.0002
percent, 0.001 percent, and 0.0032 percent, respectively. The annual
operation and maintenance costs for the new treatment technologies
include labor costs, based on typical dollar per hour wage rates for
the industry. These labor hours can be used to estimate the additional
employees necessary to operate and maintain the treatment technologies.
These new jobs more than offset those lost due to lower production
levels for all three options, resulting in a net gain of 166, 669, and
1,603 jobs respectively. Table VIII-16 presents the possible short-term
and long-term employment impacts of the three regulatory options being
considered. For more on the employment analyses see Chapter 7 of the
RIA.
Table VIII-16--Possible Employment Impacts Estimated by Regulatory Option
[FTE *]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Employment impact category Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Short-term Employment Losses due to Possible Closures........... -16,917 -17,461 -20,205
Short-term losses as % of total employment...................... -0.03% -0.03% -0.04%
Long-term Employment Losses due to Decreased Production......... -65 -161 -339
Long-run/labor to Operate Treatment Technology.................. 166 669 1,942
[[Page 4503]]
Net Long-term Changes in Employment............................. 101 508 1,603
Total long-run as % of total employment......................... 0.0002% 0.001% 0.0032%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* One FTE equivalent to 2,080 hrs/yr.
5. Chlorides Removal Costs and Impacts
EPA is taking comment on the inclusion of chlorides removal limits.
EPA is considering establishing a zero discharge of pollutants
requirement for high chloride waste streams for facilities producing
more than 5 million pounds per year with high chlorides processes. The
technology costs considered for this requirement involve segregating
the high chloride waste streams from other process wastewater and
managing these high chloride streams through sidestream evaporation.
Details on the costs and economic impacts of the chlorides removal
provision can be found in the TDD and the RIA, respectively.
IX. Pollutant Loadings
A. Estimation of Existing Industry Pollutant Discharges
In developing ELGs, the CWA calls for EPA to identify the effluent
reduction from each level of control (CWA section 304(b)(2)(A)(BAT),
(b)(4)(A)(BCT), and (b)(1)(A)(BPT). 33 U.S.C. 1314(b)(2)(A)(BAT);
1314(b)(4)(A)(BCT), and 1314(b)(1)(A)(BPT)). To estimate effluent
reduction, or removals, EPA first estimates on an annual, per facility
basis, the pollutant load discharged today. EPA then estimates
pollutant discharge loads and removals that would result from the
proposed regulatory options. As described in section VII, the three
proposed regulatory options apply different combinations of wastewater
treatment technology to specific sets of facilities based on facility
production size thresholds. EPA estimates pollutant discharge loads and
removals for two MPP waste streams: (1) MPP process wastewater and (2)
high chlorides wastewater (as a segregated waste stream).
Supporting analyses and datasets for the MPP loadings calculations
include the following:
MPP Industry Profile--identifies the MPP facilities
impacted by the proposed rule and key inputs for the loadings/removal
analysis including processing type, discharge status (i.e., direct,
indirect, zero discharge), and discharge flow rate for both process
wastewater and high chlorides wastewater (Meat and Poultry Products
(MPP) Profile Methodology Memorandum. USEPA. DCN MP00306).
Treatment in Place (TIP) Analysis--identifies existing
wastewater treatment based on facility-specific data, where possible,
and assigns existing wastewater treatment to facilities without data
based on MPP Questionnaire response data and engineering best judgment
(Treatment in Place (TIP) Analysis for the Meat and Poultry Products
(MPP) Proposed Rule. USEPA. DCN MP00191).
Pollutants of Concern (POC) Analysis--identifies the
pollutants present in untreated MPP process wastewater at treatable
levels (Pollutants of Concern (POC) Analysis for the Meat and Poultry
Products (MPP) Proposed Rule. USEPA. DCN MP00190).
Analytical Database--compilation of all wastewater
sampling from publicly available sources or collected as part of the
proposed rule. The database includes facility-specific wastewater
monitoring data from the MPP Questionnaire, EPA sampling, 2021
Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) data for select MPP facilities,
responses to EPA's CWA section 308 data requests, and any other data on
MPP process wastewater provided to EPA (e.g., from site visits or other
discussions with industry) (Analytical Database Methodology for the
Meat and Poultry Products Proposed Rulemaking. USEPA. DCN MP00303).
For the MPP process waste stream, pollutant loads and removals were
estimated for the wastewater treatment technology systems described in
the regulatory options: phosphorus removal by chemical precipitation
for direct and indirect dischargers, nitrogen removal by biological
treatment to achieve full denitrification for direct and indirect
dischargers, select conventional pollutant (e.g., BOD, TSS, Oil &
Grease) removal by screening and dissolved air flotation (DAF) for
indirect dischargers, and high chlorides sidestream evaporation for
direct and indirect dischargers. EPA estimated facility pollutant
discharge loads and removals that would result from these four
technology systems.
For the MPP high chlorides waste stream, pollutant loads and
removals were estimated based on evaporation technology, and this was
applied to both direct and indirect facilities with a high chlorides
waste stream.
Baseline pollutant loadings and removals were calculated using the
facility flows and the effluent pollutant concentrations associated
with the TIP analysis. Using data from the MPP Questionnaire and
existing data, EPA identified facility-specific details on facility
operations (type of processing), discharge status, and existing TIP. If
no relevant treatment is currently in place at a facility, the raw
process wastewater concentrations were used.
Effluent loads for each facility were calculated for the POCs for
the treatment system considered under the regulatory options by
multiplying the pollutant concentration associated with the wastewater
treatment technology by the wastewater flow rate. For indirect
dischargers, (i.e., discharges to a POTW), EPA accounted for pollutant
removal that occurs at the POTW to calculate the baseline and
regulatory option loadings. Indirect discharge loads were estimated at
the POTW effluent (i.e., following treatment at the POTW to account for
pollutant removal that occurs at the POTW) to represent the pollutant
load to the receiving water. The pollutant load removals were
calculated as the difference between the baseline load and the load
resulting with the treatment technology in place.
B. Summary of Incremental Changes of Pollutant Loadings and Removals
From Regulatory Options
Table IX-1 summarizes the net reduction in annual pollutant
loadings, compared to baseline, associated with each regulatory option.
Removals for total nitrogen, total phosphorus, chlorides the
conventional pollutants BOD, TSS, oil & grease are shown here.
Additional pollutants are also removed by the technologies. More
information on the pollutant loads is available in the TDD. Compared to
the existing rule baseline, all proposed regulatory options result in
decreased pollutant loadings to surface waters.
[[Page 4504]]
Table IX-1--Net Reductions in Annual Pollutant Loadings for Key Pollutants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reductions \c\ in annual pollutant loadings million lb/yr (%
reduction)
Regulatory option ---------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional
Nitrogen Phosphorus \a\ Chlorides \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................... 9 (10%) 8 (37%) 80 (31%) 477 (98%)
2............................................... 45 (49%) 16 (78%) 167 (64%) 477 (98%)
3............................................... 76 (83%) 20 (94%) 226 (87%) 477 (98%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Conventional Pollutant Removal includes BOD, O&G, TSS.
\b\ Chlorides has same removal under each option.
\c\ Pollutant reductions include removals by POTWs.
X. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts
The elimination or reduction of one form of pollution may create or
aggravate other environmental problems. Therefore, CWA sections 304(b)
and 306 require EPA to consider non-water quality environmental impacts
(including energy requirements) associated with ELGs. To consider these
factors, EPA considered the potential impact of the technology basis on
energy consumption, air pollution, and solid waste generation. As shown
below, EPA anticipates that all of the proposed rule options would
produce minimal non-water quality environmental impacts and as such
proposes that they are acceptable. Additional information about the
analysis of these non-water quality impacts is contained in the TDD.
A. Energy Requirements
MPP Facilities use energy when operating processing equipment,
operating the facility buildings, and operating wastewater treatment
systems. For this proposal, EPA considers whether there would be an
associated change in the incremental energy requirements compared to
baseline. Energy requirements vary depending on the regulatory option
evaluated and the current operations of the facility. Therefore, as
applicable, EPA estimates the increase in energy usage in (megawatt
hours, MWh) for equipment added to the plant systems or in consumed
fuel (gallons). EPA sums the estimated increase to calculate the net
change in energy requirements from baseline for the regulatory options.
EPA estimates the amount of energy needed to operate the additional
wastewater treatment systems based on conventional pollutant (e.g.,
BOD, TSS, Oil & Grease) removal by screening and DAF, phosphorus
removal by chemical precipitation, nitrogen removal by biological
treatment to achieve full denitrification, and high chlorides removal
by sidestream evaporation. Table X-1 of this preamble shows the net
change in annual electrical energy usage associated with the regulatory
options compared to baseline. The table values assume a zero net
increase for conventional pollutant treatment of indirect dischargers,
as the burden of treatment is shifted from the POTW to the MPP
facility. Table X-1 also does not include the additional energy demand
for treatment of high chlorides wastewater, which is estimated to be an
additional 349,000 MWh per year.
Table X-1--Estimated Incremental Change in Energy Requirements Associated With Regulatory Options Compared to
Baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy use associated with regulatory options
Non-water quality environmental impact --------------------------------------------------------
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase in Electrical Energy usage (MWh).............. 104,208 386,448 557,538
Increase as % of total US electric power generated in 0.0000025% 0.0000094% 0.0000136%
2021 \35\.............................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By comparison, electric power generation facilities generated 4,108
billion MWh of electric power in the United States in 2021 (EIA,
2021).\22\ All of the proposed options would result in a negligible
increase in the amount of energy generation required nationwide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/archive/2021/pdf/epa.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Air Pollution
EPA proposes to find that wastewater treatment processes evaluated
in this proposed rule would not generate significant air emissions
above the current emissions, either directly from the facility or
indirectly from the facilities that provide energy to MPP facilities.
Possible non-odorous gases that may be emitted from these processes
include nitrogen and carbon dioxide. EPA expects a slight increase in
nitrogen gas generated over the current baseline because it would be
formed during the denitrification process and would escape to the
atmosphere. Since nitrogen comprises over 78 percent of the Earth's
atmosphere and is not considered a greenhouse gas, the additional
generation is not considered to pose an environmental impact. Carbon
dioxide will be released when BOD is oxidized by oxygen-containing
compounds. However, the BOD being treated would generally not increase
but rather just the location of treatment would change (POTW vs MPP
facility). Therefore, there would generally be no significant
incremental increase in carbon dioxide over current treatment levels.
Odors are the only significant air pollution problem associated
with the treatment of MPP wastewaters and generally are associated with
anaerobic conditions. Thus, flow equalization basins, DAF units, and
anaerobic lagoons are possible sources of malodors, especially for
indirect dischargers who may not currently do pretreatment prior to
discharging to a POTW. Potential odorous substances associated with MPP
wastewater include ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and organic compounds.
Ammonia in MPP wastewaters is typically due to breakdown of more
complex substances and can be released under certain circumstances.
However, aerobic nitrifying conditions will favor keeping ammonia in
solution as it is converted to nitrate, meaning that odors will
[[Page 4505]]
generally be suppressed. In addition, maintenance of pH around neutral
conditions will disfavor stripping ammonia, leaving it in the
wastewater to be oxidized or assimilated. Furthermore, denitrification
processes will favor additional conversion of ammonia. Thus, any
incremental ammonia generation would be minimal. The chemical
precipitation process to remove phosphorus is not expected to generate
any additional odors.
Hydrogen sulfide can be formed under anaerobic and anoxic
conditions such as in the denitrification reactors. Hydrogen sulfide
generation requires the presence of sulfate in the wastewater, which is
typically low in MPP wastes. (In most cases the source of sulfates in
MPP wastewater is the source water supply.) In addition, the formation
of sulfide is less favored than the reduction of nitrate to nitrogen,
meaning that under most circumstances, sulfide would not be formed to a
greater degree than is currently the case, especially if the facility
is well-managed.
Volatile odorous organic compounds can be generated in anaerobic
lagoons. If specific facilities have odor difficulties, covers over the
lagoons can be used to capture odorous substances that are then
subsequently destroyed by some oxidation or combustion process. Some
facilities capture anaerobically generated methane for fuel; if that
gas stream must be scrubbed before use, the waste would be recycled to
the wastewater treatment plant, resulting in no net environmental
impact. Such oxidation and combustion processes would potentially
result in additional carbon dioxide generation; however, that
generation constitutes minimal incremental generation, since the
organic substances involved would have gone through oxidation
naturally. Typically, odorous organic compounds are well-destroyed in
aerobic systems. Overall, the incremental change in odor problems
associated with this proposed regulation are expected to be small. Odor
problems usually are significant only when the sulfur content of MPP
wastewaters is high, especially when treatment facilities are not well
managed. Generally, MPP wastewater treatment facilities using anaerobic
processes for treating wastewater with a low sulfur concentration have
few odor problems. At such facilities, maintaining a naturally
occurring layer of floating solids in anaerobic contact basins and
lagoons generally minimizes odors. Thus, the technology options should
not increase emissions of odorous compounds from well-managed MPP
wastewater treatment facilities. If a facility uses nitrification to
meet the ammonia limitations, then any ammonia odors would be minimal
because the process keeps the ammonia in solution as it is converted to
nitrate. However, using anaerobic treatment for initial BOD reduction
before aerobic treatment would increase emissions of methane and
volatile organic compounds, but the increases should be negligible
given today's extensive use of lagoons and other anaerobic processes in
MPP wastewater treatment. In addition, covering anaerobic lagoons and
flaring the gas captured can reduce these emissions. If the volume of
captured gas is sufficient, it can be used as a fuel to produce process
heat or electricity. EPA observed facilities capturing gas for use as
fuel during site visits.
C. Solid Waste Generation
EPA estimates that compliance with the proposed rule would not
significantly increase the amount of wastewater treatment sludge
generated for the meat and poultry processing industry. Table X-2
estimates the incremental sludge production increases for the proposed
rule.
Table X-2--Estimate of Incremental Sludge Production Increases
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental sludge production associated with
regulatory options
Non-water quality environmental impact --------------------------------------------------
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sludge Production (tons/year)................................ 384,359 995,804 1,213,782
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The estimates of sludge production in Table X-2 are based on the
concentrations of BOD entering the biological part of the treatment
system after pretreatment (i.e., screening, DAF). The sludge yield
coefficient for the denitrification process is lower than the
coefficient for the aerobic process; therefore, the amount of sludge
generated per BOD unit would be lower for the denitrification part than
the nitrification part.
The values presented in Table X-2 represent the total sludge
production for the modeled unit processes. The values in Table X-2
assume a zero net increase in solids production from conventional
pollutant treatment at affected indirect dischargers, as the burden of
treatment shifts from the POTW to the MPP facility. Additional solids
are expected to be generated from chemical phosphorus removal as a
result of this proposed rule. Generally, a facility will either combine
the solids generated from this process with other process solids, or it
may elect to process and resell the reclaimed phosphorus on the private
market. If a facility selects an aluminum based chemical process for
precipitation, this may limit the ability of the solids to be land
applied. EPA also expects that more emphasis on pollution prevention
(e.g., by increased segregation of waste) could further reduce sludge
generation, though it is not expected to yield significant reductions.
Examples of such pollution prevention practices include segregation of
high chlorides wastewaters from the main treatment stream, allowing the
solids to be extracted more economically from the waste steam and
reducing the overall volume of sludge.
XI. Environmental Assessment
A. Introduction
The environmental assessment for the proposed rule reviewed
currently available literature on the documented environmental and
human health impacts of MPP wastewater discharges and conducted
modeling to estimate impacts of MPP discharge to surface waters and
downstream environments at both localized and regional scales. EPA's
review of the scientific literature documents cases of the extensive
impacts of MPP wastewater discharges on human health and the
environment and a full description of EPA's modeling methodology and
results are provided in the Environmental Assessment document. EPA
modeled the impacts of MPP discharges at baseline conditions (pre-rule
conditions) and the improvements that may result if the proposed
options were implemented.
It is well established that effluent guidelines are not required to
consider the impacts on receiving water quality See, e.g., Southwestern
Electrical Power Co. v. United States, 920 F.3d 999, 1005 (5th Cir.
2019). (The CWA ``requires ELGs to be based on technological
[[Page 4506]]
feasibility rather than on water quality,'' citing E.I. du Pont de
Nemours & Co. v. Train, 430 U.S. 112, 130-31, (1977)). That is, the
Administrator must ``require industry, regardless of a discharge's
effect on water quality, to employ defined levels of technology to meet
effluent limitations'' Id., citing Am. Petroleum Inst. v. EPA, 661 F.2d
240, 343-44 (5th Cir. 1981). ELGs are ``technology-based rather than
harm-based'' insofar as they ``reflect the capabilities of available
pollution control technologies to prevent or limit different discharges
rather than the impact that those discharges have on the waters.'' Id.,
citing Tex. Oil and Gas v. EPA, 161 F.3d 923, 927 (5th Cir. 1998).
Nevertheless, there is great public interest in understanding the
benefits of EPA's effluent guidelines and E.O. 12866, 12898, and 14096
require an assessment of the environmental benefits of Federal
rulemakings.
B. Summary of Environmental and Human Health Impacts
As discussed in the Environmental Assessment document, current
scientific literature as well as EPA's own data indicated that MPP
wastewaters contain large amounts of a wide range of harmful
pollutants, which contribute to extensive environmental impacts and can
have detrimental effects on human health through multiple exposure
routes.
Nutrient overloading of surface waters is a national issue, and
this concern extends to surface waters receiving MPP wastewater, with
36 percent and 37 percent of catchments downstream \23\ of direct and
indirect dischargers, respectively, are impaired for nutrients and/or
oxygen demand. Excess nutrients in aquatic environments, or
eutrophication, is the most documented impact and consequentially can
result in the accelerated growth of bacteria and/or algae, reducing
available dissolved oxygen (DO) and limiting the ability of the
waterbody to support aquatic life. Examples include biodiversity loss,
impacts to fish development and reproduction, as well as fish kills
from hypoxic, or deoxygenated, waters. Low DO levels can also release
toxic metals from sediments, further contaminating aquatic habitat (Li
et al. 2013).\24\ Often spurred by eutrophication, some algal blooms
release toxins into the water, which can result in sickness and/or
death in exposed terrestrial animals and people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Within 25 river miles downstream.
\24\ Li, H., Shi, A., Li, M., & Zhang, X. 2013. Effect of pH,
Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, and Flow Rate of Overlying Water on
Heavy Metals Release from Storm Sewer Sediments. Journal of
Chemistry, 2013, 434012. doi:10.1155/2013/434012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excess nutrients can impact human health through several pathways,
both direct and indirect. High nitrate concentrations in drinking water
can lead to infant methemoglobinemia (blue baby syndrome), colorectal
cancer, thyroid disease, and neural tube defects (USEPA. 2000. EPA-822-
B-00-002) (Ward et al. 2018).\25\ High nutrient levels in drinking
water sources can also lead to objectionable tastes and odors, and
potentially increase drinking water treatment costs to remove nitrates.
In terms of indirect health impacts, the growth of harmful algal and
bacteria due to eutrophication can potentially result in the
contamination of shellfish with fecal coliform bacteria or algal
toxins. Adverse health impacts from the consumption of contaminated
shellfish can include paralytic, diarrhetic, amnesic, and neurotoxic
shellfish poisoning (USEPA. 2015. EPA-820R15102) (Hoagland et al.
2002).\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Ward, M.H., Jones, R.R., Brender, J.D., de Kok, T.M.,
Weyer, P.J., Nolan, B.T., van Breda, S.G. 2018. Drinking Water
Nitrate and Human Health: An Updated Review. International Journal
of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(7), 1557.
doi:10.3390/ijerph15071557.
\26\ Hoagland, P., Anderson, D.M., Kaoru, Y., & White, A.W.
2002. The Economic Effects of Harmful Algal Blooms in the United
States: Estimates, Assessment Issues, and Information Needs.
Estuaries, 25, 819-837.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drinking water quality can be impacted by several other pollutants
present in MPP wastewater in addition to nutrients. Consumption of
water contaminated with pathogenic bacteria can pose serious health
risks, ranging from gastrointestinal illness like diarrhea, vomiting,
and fever, to sepsis and toxic shock syndrome in extreme cases (Baskin-
Graves et al. 2019).\27\ High levels of suspended solids can harbor
bacteria in drinking water sources, making treatment more difficult.
Arsenic, which is present in some sanitizers, may be introduced to MPP
wastewater through contact with offal or during nightly equipment
cleaning operations. Arsenic is both a carcinogen and a toxin and can
have reproductive impacts if ingested via drinking water (Witkowska et
al. 2021).\28\ Some heavy metals have been detected in MPP wastewater,
which if then found at sufficient concentrations in drinking water can
pose health risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Baskin-Graves, L., Mullen, H., Aber, A., Sinisterra, J.,
Ayub, K., Amaya-Fuentes, R., & Wilson, S. 2019. Rapid Health Impact
Assessment of a Proposed Poultry Processing Plant in Millsboro,
Delaware. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health, 16(18). doi:10.3390/ijerph16183429.
\28\ Witkowska, D., S[lstrok]owik, J., & Chilicka, K. 2021.
Heavy Metals and Human Health: Possible Exposure Pathways and the
Competition for Protein Binding Sites. Molecules, 26(19).
doi:10.3390/molecules26196060.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutants found in MPP wastewater also compromise aquatic and
terrestrial biota survival and reproduction. For example, biodiversity
loss can occur when aquatic organisms are exposed to elevated levels of
chlorides, killing or impairing freshwater species, and allowing for
the proliferation of more salt tolerant organisms (Weber-Scannell and
Duffy. 2007).\29\ Suspended solids increase turbidity, blocking light
infiltration of surface waters and limiting primary production, thereby
impacting food availability for higher trophic levels. Some metals
common in MPP wastewater streams, such as zinc and copper, have been
identified as toxic to crops when biosolids generated from MPP
wastewater treatment were used as a soil supplement, and these metals
can similarly limit primary production at low concentrations (Gerber et
al. 2017) \30\ (Amoatey and Baawain. 2019).\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Weber-Scannell, P., & Duffy, L. 2007. Effects of Total
Dissolved Solids on Aquatic Organisms: A Review of Literature and
Recommendation for Salmonid Species. American Journal of
Environmental Sciences, 3. doi:10.3844/ajessp.2007.1.6.
\30\ Gerber, M.D., Lucia, T., Correa, L., Neto, J.E.P., &
Correa, [Eacute]. K. 2017. Phytotoxicity of effluents from swine
slaughterhouses using lettuce and cucumber seeds as bioindicators.
Science of The Total Environment, 592, 86-90. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.075.
\31\ Amoatey, P., & Baawain, M.S. 2019. Effects of pollution on
freshwater aquatic organisms. Water Environment Research, 91(10),
1272-1287. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/wer.1221.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Environmental Assessment Methodology
The environmental assessment for the proposed rule reviewed
currently available literature on the documented environmental and
human health impacts of MPP wastewater discharges and conducts modeling
to estimate the impacts of these discharge to surface waters and
downstream environments at both localized and regional scales. EPA
modeled the water quality impacts of MPP discharges at baseline
conditions (pre-rule conditions) and the improvements that would likely
result after the implementation of the rule in both a set of smaller
case study watersheds as well as in larger watersheds that represent
diverse land areas across the continental U.S.
To evaluate the potential water quality impacts of the proposed
rule, EPA developed models of both the selected case study watersheds
and larger, watersheds using the Hydrologic and Water Quality System
(HAWQS) 2.0 and the Soil and Water Assessment Tool
[[Page 4507]]
(SWAT) (Neitsch et al. 2011).\32\ The model delineates subbasins and
reaches at the resolution of 14-digit hydrologic unit codes (HUCs).\33\
While these models simulate impacts on eutrophication in receiving
streams, they are limited to a daily timestep, and EPA is considering a
more detailed model analysis of algal and DO kinetics. Additional
details on model setup, including calibration results, can be found in
Appendix A of the Environmental Assessment document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Neitsch, S.L., Williams, J.R., Arnold, J.G. and Kiniry,
J.R. 2011. Soil and Water Assessment Tool Theoretical Documentation
Version 2009. Texas Water Resources Institute, College Station.
\33\ https://www.usgs.gov/tools/hydrologic-unit-maps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA identified three case study locations to help demonstrate the
water quality effects of the proposed rule at a fine spatial scale.
Case study locations were chosen based on the contributions of NPDES-
permitted dischargers, areas of existing impairment(s), and
availability of observed data to facilitate model calibration.
Regarding NPDES-permitted discharger contributions, watershed locations
were considered if they contained one or more discharger with
significant nutrient loads \34\ and were upstream or headwater
locations as these areas were less likely to be overwhelmed by baseline
nonpoint source loads or greatly dilute point source contributions with
the volume of receiving water. Watersheds with previously documented
water quality impairments or published Total Maximum Daily Loads \35\
were also prioritized, especially if the impairments are due to common
pollutants from the MPP industry, such as nutrients, pathogens, organic
enrichment (i.e., BOD), or sediment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ An initial filter for ``significant nutrient loads'' was
100 kg/day.
\35\ The maximum amount of a pollutant allowed to enter a
waterbody so that the waterbody will meet and continue to meet water
quality standards for that particular pollutant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also modeled larger watersheds to demonstrate the water quality
impacts of the proposed rule over a greater portion of the nation
covering a wider variety of land area types than the case studies.
Three HUC2 watershed \36\ were selected for modeling based on the
presence of both MPP facilities routing wastewater effluent directly to
waters of the U.S. (direct dischargers) and facilities discharging
wastewater to an offsite POTW (indirect dischargers). Watersheds that
had been previously calibrated and/or had adequate observed data \37\
available were prioritized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ HUC2 watersheds are regional divisions and average 177,560
square miles across the U.S.
\37\ Adequate observed data refers to in-stream flow, TSS, TN,
and TP measurements taken within the watershed selected for modeling
that allowed for calibration to be successfully completed. When
available data was insufficient, calibration parameters from similar
watersheds (as identified by a cluster analysis) within the same
HUC2 region were applied. See Appendix A of the BCA for additional
details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To further understand the environments and waterbody use types
which may be impacted by MPP wastewater discharge under baseline
conditions, EPA conducted a GIS analysis to identify sensitive habitats
downstream of direct and indirect MPP facility final wastewater
outfalls across the nation. EPA used publicly available databases to
identify impaired waters, fisheries (shellfishing, recreational, and
commercial fishing), threatened and endangered species habitat and
protected areas, priority waterbodies, and recreational areas within 25
river miles of a process wastewater outfall. EPA also identified the
number of each sensitive environment type that would be expected to
experience improved water quality under proposed rule Options. See
Chapter 4 and Appendix B of the EA for details regarding datasets used
and GIS methodologies.
D. Results From the Environmental Assessment
EPA focused its quantitative analyses on the environmental and
human health impacts associated with exposure to pollutants via the
surface water pathway. Both direct and indirect discharge sources were
considered in these analyses and models. These analyses concentrated on
improvements in surface water quality; impacts to sensitive
environments, including wildlife habitat, fisheries, and impaired
waters; and impacts to human health from consumption of contaminated
drinking water or exposure to contaminated surface waters via
recreational activities.
1. Improvements in Surface Water Quality
EPA estimated that reduced pollutant loadings to surface waters
will improve water quality by reducing nutrient concentrations in all
waters immediately downstream of MPP wastewater outfalls under proposed
rule options in the case study modeling. When the most stringent
technology options were applied (representing regulatory Option 3)
nutrient concentrations changed minimally in certain watersheds (less
than 1 percent reductions), while other receiving waters could on
average see up to 81 percent and 83 percent reductions in TP and TN,
respectively.
The pollutants associated with MPP wastewater causing the greatest
number of impairments under baseline conditions were pathogens,
nutrients, and oxygen depletion. EPA estimated that 70 percent and 75
percent of all stream segments \38\ of direct and indirect wastewater
outfalls, respectively, are impaired for at least one pollutant found
in MPP wastewater. EPA estimated that within these impaired stream
segments, 63 percent and 5.83 percent of impacted river miles
downstream of direct and indirect dischargers, respectively, would
benefit from improved upstream water under Options 1 and 2. Because
nutrient limits are included under Option 2 for indirect discharges,
however, water quality improvements in these impaired catchments would
likely be greater. Under proposed Option 3, 66 percent and 29 percent
of stream segments downstream of directs and indirect dischargers,
respectively, would benefit from decrease upstream pollutant loadings.
EPA did not estimate the number of catchments that would no longer be
considered impaired under each proposed rule option as impairment
status may be dependent on many factors beyond the scope of this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Within 25 river miles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Improvements to Vulnerable Species Habitats
EPA identified 108 unique vulnerable animal and insect species that
have habitat located in watersheds potentially impacted by MPP
wastewater discharge. Species groups included amphibians, birds, clams,
crustaceans, fishes, insects, mammals, reptiles, and snails. Of these
species, 26 percent were considered of lower vulnerability, 5 percent
were moderately vulnerable, and 69 percent were found be of a high
vulnerability status. EPA estimated that 88 percent and 90 percent of
downstream waterbodies serving as habitat to these threatened and
endangered species could see water quality improvements compared to
baseline conditions, under Options 1 or 2, and 3, respectively.
EPA's analysis indicated that MPP wastewater discharges to surface
waters pose the greatest risk to Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica, also
known as the Rabbitsfoot clam, which is considered threatened, with 358
stream miles of habitat impacted by MPP discharges. Under all three
rule options, 15 of the 16 upstream MPP facilities would be required to
adhere to new limits, and thus improve Q. cylindrica habitat in
[[Page 4508]]
these reaches. EPA estimated that 29 percent of the stream segments
that serve as habitat to threatened and/or endangered species are also
impaired for at least one pollutant found in MPP wastewater.
Nationally, EPA estimated that 75 species with a high vulnerability (69
percent) to change in water quality currently are found in watersheds
that are impaired under baseline conditions, and that all of these
watersheds may experience improvements in water quality under the
proposed rule Options 2 and 3, and 98 percent under preferred Option 1.
3. Human Health Impact Improvements
Intentional or accidental consumption of water contaminated with
pollutants such as pathogens and nitrate can cause health impacts in
humans, ranging from gastrointestinal illness to thyroid disease. EPA
estimated that implementation of the proposed rule options would result
in improvements in source water quality to 121 drinking water service
areas under Options 1 and 2, and 147 under Option 3. EPA also estimated
the number of recreational areas that may experience improved water
conditions under each rule option. For Options 1 or 2, and 3, 58
percent and 64 percent of recreational areas are expected to improve,
respectively, the majority of which are classified as local parks.
Impacts to fisheries and fishing habitat are also of concern to
human health as the consumption of contaminated shellfish can cause
illness. Also, some individuals rely on subsistence fishing for
survival and the reduction of fish populations due to compromised
habitat can threaten their wellbeing. EPA estimated that 26 unique
species used in commercial fishing may potentially be impacted by MPP
wastewater release under baseline conditions, as well as 1 commercial
oyster bed, and 9 recreational fishing areas. For preferred Option 1,
96 percent of all commercial fisheries, and 67 percent of recreational
fishing areas, may benefit from improved water quality. These
statistics are the same for Options 2 and 3 as this analysis currently
reflects impacts from direct discharging facilities only. EPA plans to
expand this analysis to include impacts to fishing areas from indirect
MPP wastewater discharge to support any final rule.
XII. Benefits Analysis
This section summarizes EPA's estimates of the changes in national
environmental benefits expected to result from changes in MPP facility
wastewater discharges described in Section IX of this preamble, and the
resultant environmental effects, summarized in Section XI of this
preamble. The Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) report provides additional
details on the benefits methodologies and analyses.
A. Categories of Benefits Analyzed
Table XII-1 of this preamble summarizes benefit categories
associated with the three regulatory options and notes which categories
EPA was able to quantify and monetize. Analyzed benefits fall into four
broad categories: (1) Human health benefits from surface water quality
improvements, (2) ecological conditions and effects on recreational use
from surface water quality changes, (3) market and productivity
benefits, and (4) air-related effects. Within these broad categories,
EPA assessed the benefits associated with the regulatory options in
this proposal with varying degrees of completeness and rigor. Where
possible, EPA quantified the expected changes in effects and estimated
monetary values. However, data limitations, modeling limitations, and
gaps in the understanding of how society values certain environmental
changes prevented EPA from quantifying and/or monetizing some benefit
categories. EPA notes that all human health and environmental
improvements discussed in the EA also represent benefits of the
proposal (whether quantified or unquantified), and the Agency will
continue to enhance its benefits analysis methods where appropriate
throughout the rulemaking process.
Table XII-1--Summary of Estimated Benefits Categories
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits analysis
-----------------------------------------
Category Effect of regulatory options Qualitative
Quantified Monetized discussion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human Health Benefits from Surface Water Quality Improvements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in incidence of adverse Reduced exposure to E. coli and ............ ............ [check]
human health effects (e.g., cases HAB-related illnesses from
of gastrointestinal illness) from primary contact recreation and
exposure to MPP pollutants via recreationally caught and
recreational use. consumed fish and shellfish.
Changes in incidence of adverse Reduced exposure to high nitrate ............ ............ [check]
human health effects (e.g., concentrations, E. coli, and
developmental effects, DBPs (which may be generated
gastrointestinal illness, cancer) indirectly due to nutrient
from exposure to MPP pollutants enrichment and eutrophication)
via drinking water. in drinking water.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ecological Condition and Recreational Use Effects from Surface Water Quality Changes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits from changes in surface Improved ambient water quality in [check] [check] [check]
water quality, including: aquatic receiving and downstream
and wildlife habitat,\a\ water- reaches, resulting in: enhanced
based recreation,\a\ aesthetic value of swimming, fishing,
benefits,\a\ and nonuse values \a\. boating, and near-water
activities from water quality
changes; improved aesthetics
from shifts in water clarity,
color, odor, including nearby
site amenities for residing,
working, and traveling; and
Improved existence, option, and
bequest values from improved
ecosystem health.
Benefits from the protection of Improved T&E species habitat and [check] ............ [check]
threatened and endangered species. potential effects on T&E species
populations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 4509]]
Market and Productivity Effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in drinking water treatment Improved quality of source water ............ ............ [check]
costs. used for drinking.
Changes in wastewater treatment Reduced wastewater treatment ............ ............ [check]
costs. costs at POTWs.
Changes in the fees paid by MPP Reduced (concentration-based) ............ ............ [check]
indirect dischargers to POTWs. fees paid to POTWs by MPP
indirect dischargers for
discharges of TN, TP, BOD, and
TSS.
Livestock watering................. Improved quality of surface ............ ............ [check]
waters used for livestock
watering.
Changes in commercial fishing Improved fisheries yield and [check] ............ [check]
yields. harvest quality due to aquatic
habitat changes.
Changes in subsistence harvesting Improved fisheries yield and ............ ............ [check]
yields. harvest quality due to aquatic
habitat changes; Reduced risk of
consuming contaminated fish and
shellfish.
Changes in tourism and Changes in participation in water- ............ ............ [check]
participation in water recreation. based recreation, increases in
visitation and purchases from
supporting businesses.
Changes in property values......... Improved property values from ............ ............ [check]
changes in water quality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Quality-Related Effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in air emissions of PM2.5.. Changes in mortality and [check] [check] [check]
morbidity from exposure to
particulate matter (PM2.5)
emitted directly or linked to
changes in NOX and SO2 emissions
(precursors to PM2.5 and ozone).
Changes in air emissions of NOX and Changes in ecosystem effects; [check] [check] [check]
SO2. visibility impairment; and human
health effects from direct
exposure to NOX, SO2, and
hazardous air pollutants.
Changes in air emissions of CO2 and Changes in climate change [check] [check] [check]
CH4. effects; Social cost of carbon
and methane.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ These values are implicit in the total WTP for water quality improvements.
Source: Benefit Costs Analysis for Revisions to the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat
and Poultry Products Point. USEPA. 2023.
B. Quantification and Monetization of Benefits
1. Human Health Effects From Surface Water Quality Changes
Pollutants present in MPP wastewater discharges (e.g., pathogenic
bacteria, nitrogen, and phosphorus) can cause a variety of adverse
human health effects. The regulatory options affect human health risk
by changing effluent discharges to surface waters and, as a result,
reducing exposure to MPP pollutants in surface water via three exposure
pathways: (1) Primary contact recreation in waters affected by MPP
discharges, (2) consumption of drinking water sourced from surface
waters affected by MPP discharges, and (3) consumption of shellfish
taken from waters affected by MPP discharges.
Due to data limitations and uncertainties, EPA was only able to
monetize a subset of the health benefits associated with changes in
pollutant discharges from MPP facilities resulting from the regulatory
options in this proposal as compared to baseline. EPA anticipates
monetizing benefits associated with a reduction in illness due to
primary contact recreation for any final rule making. See the BCA,
Chapter 3 and Appendix A for more details on the water quality index
(WQI) used.
2. Ecological Condition and Recreational Use Effects From Changes in
Surface Water Quality Improvements
EPA evaluated whether the regulatory options in this proposal would
alter aquatic habitats and human welfare by changing concentrations of
pollutants such as ammonia, nitrogen, phosphorus, BOD, DO, fecal
coliform bacteria, chlorides, and suspended sediment relative to
baseline. As a result, the usability of some recreational waters
relative to baseline discharge conditions could improve under each
option, thereby affecting recreational users. Changes in pollutant
loadings can also change the attractiveness of recreational waters by
making recreational trips more or less enjoyable. The regulatory
options may also change nonuse values stemming from bequest, altruism,
and existence motivations. Individuals may value water quality
maintenance, ecosystem protection, and healthy species populations
independent of any use of those attributes.
EPA used a WQI to translate water quality measurements, gathered
for multiple parameters that are indicative of various aspects of water
quality, into a single numerical indicator that reflects achievement of
quality consistent with the suitability for certain uses. The WQI
included six parameters: DO, BOD, E. coli, total nitrogen, total
phosphorus, and TSS. EPA modeled changes in all parameters, using
modeled data for inputs for all parameters except E. coli, where
monitoring data was used. Chapter 3 and Appendix A of the BCA discuss
the WQI methodology in detail.
EPA estimated the change in monetized benefit values using an
updated version of the meta-regressions of surface water valuation
studies used in the benefit analyses of the 2015 (USEPA. 2015. EPA-821-
R-15-005) and 2020 (USEPA. 2020. EPA-821-R-20-003) rules affecting the
Steam Electric point source category. The meta-regressions quantify
average
[[Page 4510]]
household willingness to pay (WTP) for incremental improvements in
surface water quality. Chapter 4 and Appendix B of the BCA provides
additional detail on the valuation methodology.
Table XII-2 presents the main analysis results of WTP estimates,
based on Model 1 of the meta regression analysis and using 3 percent
and 7 percent discount rates (USEPA. 2020. EPA-821-R-20-003). The total
annualized values of water quality improvements from reducing
nutrients, bacteria and pathogens, conventional pollutants, and other
pollutants discharges from MPP facilities to affected HUC12s ranged
from $0.52 million under Option 1 (7 percent discount rate) to $33
million under Option 3 (3 percent discount rate). These results
represent only a limited regional assessment of benefits and do not
reflect national water quality benefits. See the Benefit Cost Analysis
for a more detailed explanation.
Table XII-2--Estimated Household and Total Annualized Willingness-To-Pay for Water Quality Improvements Under
the Regulatory Options Mid-Atlantic Region Only
[Note--Additional water quality modeling results and additional benefits to be completed week of October 23]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total annualized WTP (millions
Affected Average annual 2022$) b c
Proposed regulatory option population WTP per person -------------------------------
(millions) \a\ (2022$) \b\ 3% Discount 7% Discount
rate rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1........................................ 47.2 $0.01 $0.56 $0.52
Option 2........................................ 47.2 0.39 18.4 17.4
Option 3........................................ 47.2 0.70 33.0 31.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\b\ Estimates based on Model 1, which provides EPA's main estimate of non-market benefits.
\c\ Estimated benefits are regional-level rather than national-level since water quality modeling was limited to
the Mid-Atlantic Region.
Source: Benefit Cost Analysis for Revisions to the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat
and Poultry Products Point Source Category. USEPA. 2023. B.
3. Changes in Air Quality Related Effects
The proposed rule has the potential to affect air pollution through
three main mechanisms: (1) Indirect changes in CO2,
NOX, SO2, and PM2.5 emissions
associated with changes in electricity consumed to power wastewater
treatment processes at MPP facilities and POTWs; (2) transportation-
related air pollutant emissions (CO2, NOX, and
SO2) due to changes in the trucking of solid waste for land
application, landfilling, or composting; and (3) changes in direct
process-related emissions or capture of methane (CH4)
generated at MPP facilities and POTWs.
EPA evaluated potential effects resulting from net changes in air
emissions of five pollutants: CO2, CH4,
NOX, SO2, and primary PM2.5.
CO2 and CH4 are key GHGs that EPA has determined
endanger public health and welfare through their contribution to
climate change. NOX and SO2 are precursors to
fine particles sized 2.5 microns and smaller (PM2.5), which
are also emitted directly, and NOX is an ozone precursor.
These air pollutants cause a variety of adverse health effects
including premature death, nonfatal heart attacks, hospital admissions,
emergency department visits, upper and lower respiratory symptoms,
acute bronchitis, aggravated asthma, lost work and school days, and
acute respiratory symptoms.
Table XII-3 of this preamble shows the changes in emissions of
CO2, CH4, NOX, SO2, and
primary PM2.5 under all proposed rule options relative to
baseline. The proposed rule would result in a net increase in the
emissions of CO2, CH4, NOX, and
SO2 under preferred Option 1. Emissions of these pollutants
increase incrementally under both Options 2 and 3, with the most
notable changes estimated for methane, NOX, and
CO2 emissions. These estimated increases in emissions are
associated with changes in electricity consumption to power additional
wastewater treatment processes; transportation-related air emissions
due to changes in the trucking of solid waste for offsite land
application, composting, and/or landfilling; and changes in direct
process-related emissions.
Table XII-3--Estimated Changes in Air Pollution Emissions Under the Proposed Rule Options Incremental Increase
from Baseline *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (tons/ CH4 (tons/ NOX (tons/ SO2 (tons/
Proposed regulatory option year) year) year) year)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1........................................ 27,560 2.25 17.85 16.60
Option 2........................................ 100,890 8.30 63.26 61.21
Option 3........................................ 145,030 11.89 90.18 88.21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Emissions are not additive between options.
EPA followed the same methodology used in analyzing the revisions
to the technology based ELGs for the steam electric generating point
source category to monetize human health related impacts from changes
in NOX, SO2, and PM2.5 emissions
(USEPA. 2015. EPA-821-R-15-005). EPA used the Emissions & Generation
Resource Integrated Database (eGRID) to estimate changes in the tons of
NOX and SO2 emissions associated with changes in
electricity consumed at MPP facilities and POTWs (USEPA. 2023).\39\ The
eGRID database provides emission factors based on historical
electricity generation (observed or estimated using 2021 data). It is
designed to be used to
[[Page 4511]]
estimate the emissions footprint of marginal changes in electricity
consumption, assuming a constant generation mix. The Integrated Power
Model (IPM) simulates future electricity generation (and associated
emissions) to meet projected demand, given market, environmental, and
other system constraints. Either approach can be used to estimate
indirect emissions from electricity consumption. The eGRID database
provides static emission factors, whereas the IPM can provide predicted
changes in the profile of electricity generation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ USEPA. 2023. Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated
Database (eGRID). Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/egrid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's use of EGRID values for the proposed rule analysis is
conservative in that it would tend to overstate emissions associated
with the increased power consumption to operate MPP wastewater
treatment systems since emission factors are expected to decline in the
coming decades (e.g., due to the 2022 IRA). For the final rule, EPA
plans to account for these changes by using future emission factors
derived using EPA's IPM model. EPA requests comment on using IPM
results to estimate future emissions.
4. Other Quantified and/or Monetized Benefits
(a) Benefits to Threatened and Endangered Species
To assess the potential for the rule to benefit threatened and
endangered species (both aquatic and terrestrial) relative to the
baseline, EPA analyzed the overlap between waters expected to see
reductions in wildlife water quality criteria exceedance status under a
particular option and the known critical habitat locations of high
vulnerability threatened and endangered species. EPA examined the life
history traits of potentially affected threatened and endangered
species and categorized them by potential for population impacts due to
surface water quality changes. Chapter 2 of the BCA and Chapter 4 of
the EA provide additional detail on the methodology. EPA's analysis
showed that there are 113 species whose known critical habitats overlap
with surface waters downstream of facilities that may be affected by
the proposed options. Of these species, 28 were considered to be of
lower vulnerability status, 5 were considered moderate vulnerable, and
78 were consider highly vulnerable. Principal sources of uncertainty
include the specifics of how changes under the regulatory options will
impact threatened and endangered species, exact spatial distribution of
the species, and additional species of concern not considered.
C. Total Monetized Benefits
Using the analysis approach described above, EPA estimated
annualized benefits of the three regulatory options for all monetized
categories. Table XII-5 and Table XII-6 of this preamble summarize the
total annualized benefits using 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates,
respectively. The preferred option (Option 1) has monetized benefits
estimated at $90 million using a three percent discount rate and $85
million using a seven percent discount rate.
Table XII-5--Summary of Total Estimated Annualized Monetized Benefits at Three Percent
[In millions, 2022$, at 2025]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefit category \a\ Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human Health Effects from Water
Quality Changes:
Change in gastrointestinal A...................... A...................... A.
illness rates from pathogen
exposure.
Ecological Conditions and
Recreational Use Changes:
Use and nonuse values for water $95.6 + B.............. $166.1 + B............. $208.4 + B.
quality improvements (for Mid-
Atlantic Region only).
Market and Productivity Effects:
Changes in Drinking Water C...................... C...................... C.
Treatment Costs.
Air-Related Effects:
Changes in CO2 and CH4 air -$1.9.................. -$7.0.................. -$10.1.
emissions.
Changes in human health effects -$3.5.................. -$12.9................. -$18.6.
from Changes in NOX and SO2
emissions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................ $90+A+B+C.............. $146+A+B+C............. $180+A+B+C.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ ``A'' represents unmonetized human health effects from water quality improvements. ``B'' represents the
additional unquantified non-market water quality benefits. ``C'' represents the unmonetized market and
productivity effects of improved water quality.
Table XII-6--Summary of Total Estimated Annualized Monetized Benefits at Seven Percent
[In millions, 2022$, at 2025]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefit ctegory \a\ Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human Health Effects from Water
Quality Changes:
Change in gastrointestinal A...................... A...................... A.
illness rates from pathogen
exposure.
Ecological Conditions and
Recreational Use Changes:
Use and nonuse values for water $89.0 + B.............. $154.4 + B............. $193.7 + B.
quality improvements (for Mid-
Atlantic Region only).
Market and Productivity Effects:
Changes in Drinking Water C...................... C...................... C.
Treatment Costs.
Air-Related Effects:
Changes in CO2 and CH4 air -$1.9.................. -$7.0.................. -$10.1.
emissions.
Changes in human health effects -$2.7.................. -$10.1................. -$14.5.
from Changes in NOX and SO2
emissions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 4512]]
Total........................ $85+A+B+C.............. $137+A+B+C............. $179+A+B+C.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ ``A'' represents unmonetized human health effects from water quality improvements. ``B'' represents the
additional unmonetized non-market water quality benefits. ``C'' represents the unmonetized market and
productivity effects of improved water quality.
D. Non-Monetized Benefits
The monetary value of the proposed rule's effects on social welfare
does not account for all effects of the proposed options because, as
described above, EPA is currently unable to quantify and/or monetize
some categories. EPA anticipates the proposed rule Options would also
generate important unquantified benefits, including but not limited to:
Reduced incidence of adverse human health effects (e.g.,
developmental effects, gastrointestinal illness, cancer) from exposure
to MPP pollutants via drinking water
Protection of threatened and endangered species
Reduction in wastewater treatment costs at some POTWs
Changes in fees paid by some MPP indirect discharges based on
concentration of conventional pollutants
Improved quality of surface waters used for livestock watering
Changes in fisheries yield and harvest due to aquatic habitat
changes, impacting subsistence fishing populations as well as
commercial fishing operations
Changes in participation in water-based recreation
Changes in property values from changes in water quality
The BCA Report discusses changes in these potentially important
effects qualitatively, indicating their potential magnitude where
possible. EPA will continue to seek to enhance its approaches to
quantify and/or monetize a broader set of benefits for any final rule
and solicits comment on monetizing some of these additional benefits
categories.
XIII. Environmental Justice Impacts
Consistent with EPA's commitment to integrating environmental
justice (EJ) in the Agency's actions, the Agency analyzed the
distribution of impacts of this action across all potentially affected
communities and sought input from stakeholders representing communities
with potential EJ concerns. EPA prepared this analysis to implement the
recommendations of the Agency's EJ Technical Guidance (USEPA.
2016).\40\ For this ELG rulemaking, this analysis was conducted as part
of the EA alongside other non-statutorily required analyses, such as
water quality improvements, with the discussion of quantified benefits
to specific communities and community groups included in the BCA. This
analysis is intended to inform the public of the distributional effects
of this proposal and the input EPA received from communities with
potential EJ concerns. E.O. 12898 and E.O. 14096 are discussed in
Section XVI.J of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ USEPA. 2016. Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental
Justice in Regulatory Analysis. https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/technical-guidance-assessing-environmental-justice-regulatory-analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall, the analysis showed that communities near MPP facilities,
surface waters downstream \41\ of MPP wastewater discharge, those
receiving drinking water from a potentially impacted service area, or
potentially relying on subsistence fishing have greater proportions of
low-income individuals and racial/ethnic minorities than the national
average. Benefits associated with improvements to water quality
resulting from pollutant reductions in surface water and drinking water
are expected to accrue to low-income populations and some minorities at
a marginally higher rate when compared to all impacted communities
under all proposed regulatory options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Within 25 river miles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Literature Review
EPA conducted a literature review to identify studies, data, and
research describing the environmental and human health impacts of MPP
facilities on low-income individuals and racial/ethnic minorities,
focusing primarily on facility discharges of pollutants to water. EPA
identified 21 papers published since 2005 that were relevant to this
rule making. These sources suggested that MPP facilities are often
located in rural areas with multiple large facilities in the same
county or region, and that half of the communities surrounding
slaughterhouses in the U.S. contain at least 30 percent of residents
living below the poverty line, which is over twice the national average
(Winders and Abrell. 2021) \42\ (Burkhart et al. 2018).\43\ The review
also highlighted the ecological and health impacts of pollutant
contamination of surface waters from MPP wastewater, such as elevated
nitrogen discharge contributing to algal bloom occurrence and causing
methemoglobinemia, or blue baby syndrome, in infants consuming drinking
water with high nitrate levels (Environment America Center. 2020).\44\
These findings suggest that wastewater discharge from MPP facilities
differentially impacts various communities and population groups. EPA
solicits comment on additional literature that discusses potential EJ
concerns related to the specific changes being proposed to MPP
wastewater discharges. For further discussion of the literature review,
see Chapter 7 of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Winders, D.J., & Abrell, E. 2021. Slaughterhouse Workers,
Animals, and the Environment: The Need for a Rights-Centered
Regulatory Framework in the United States That Recognizes
Interconnected Interests. Health and Human Rights Journal. Vol. 23:
No. 2.
\43\ Burkhart, K., Bernhardt, C., Pelton, T., Schaeffer, E., and
Phillips, A. 2018. Water Pollution from Slaughterhouses. The
Environmental Integrity Project. https://earthjustice.org/.
\44\ Environment America Center. 2020. Slaughterhouses Are
Polluting Our Waterways. https://environmentamericacenter.org/sites/environment/files/reports/Slaughterhouse%20factsheet%20FINAL.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Proximity Analyses
EPA performed a set of proximity analyses using the EJSCREENBatch R
package (USEPA. 2022) \45\ to identify the environmental and
socioeconomic characteristics of the communities that are expected to
be impacted by discharges from MPP facilities via relevant exposure
pathways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ USEPA. March 2022. EJSCREENBatch. V2.0. Available online:
https://github.com/USEPA/EJSCREENBatch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, EPA analyzed communities located within a 1-mile radius of
an MPP facility using facility coordinates. EPA found that communities
within 1 mile of an MPP facility have greater proportions of low-income
individuals and individuals identifying as Asian, Black, and/or
Hispanic than the national average. EPA also considered how these
[[Page 4513]]
communities' exposure to relevant environmental indicators \46\ of
concern may change: PM 2.5, diesel PM, and traffic proximity.\47\ These
indicators all exceeded the national average, with traffic proximity in
these communities more than double that of the average person.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Environmental indicator exposures were determined from raw
indicator scores available in EJSCREEN V2.1. Each CBG score was
population weighted before averaging across all communities.
Environmental indicator score definitions are available in the
EJSCREEN Technical Documentation (U.S. EPA. 2023. EJSCREEN Technical
Documentation).
\47\ EPA estimates that PM 2.5 will increase under Options 2 and
3 due to an increase in emissions from increased wastewater
treatment. Diesel PM and traffic volume near facilities are
predicted to rise as industrial sludge generation from treatment
changes will increase under all proposed options, resulting in
increased trucking for offsite land application. For further details
on these estimates, refer to Section X of this document and the
Section 6 of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, EPA examined the characteristics of communities located
within a one-mile distance of a surface waterbody downstream of MPP
facilities.\48\ EPA found that communities downstream of MPP wastewater
outfalls are on average exposed to higher P.M 2.5 levels and have a
heighted proximity to traffic compared to national averages. These
communities also have greater proportions of low-income individuals
compared to the national average.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ EPA defined downstream surface waterbodies as a segment 25
miles downstream of the initial common identifiers (COMIDs)
identified for each direct discharge outfall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, EPA conducted an analysis of communities served by public
water systems (PWSs) either with a source water intake within 25 miles
downstream of an MPP wastewater outfall (direct PWS) or buying water
from a direct PWS (buying PWS). Service areas were determined using a
multi-tiered approach based on availability, first using service areas
identified in the Hydroshare (SimpleLab, EPIC.2022),\49\ then 2022
TIGER zip code tabulated areas, and finally county boundaries.
Communities served by potentially impacted drinking water service areas
have a greater proportion of individuals who identify as Black/African
American when compared to the national average. This trend is most
prominent in buying PWSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ SimpleLab, EPIC. 2022. U.S. Community Water Systems Service
Boundaries, v2.4.0, HydroShare, https://www.hydroshare.org/resource/20b908d73a784fc1a097a3b3f2b58bfb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For additional detail on the proximity analysis and drinking water
service area methodologies, and further results of the screening
analysis, please refer to Chapter 7 of the EA.
C. Community Outreach
Due to the large number of potential communities with EJ concerns
who could be affected, as identified in the results of the screening
analysis, EPA used a wide-reaching approach to community engagement to
maximize awareness of the rulemaking and the potential impacts of
proposed policy options. An overview of the rulemaking and its
potential interest to communities was presented to the Office of
Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights management team on May
30, 2023 to increase national awareness of the proposed rulemaking.
This team includes EJ National Program and Regional managers, who
engage directly with communities across the country. EPA also presented
a rulemaking overview and held a discussion session with participants
of the National Environmental Justice Community Engagement Call on June
20th, 2023, which had over 200 attendees.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ A recording of this meeting is available on the National
Environmental Justice Community Engagement website through the
``Previous Calls'' link.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Distribution of Benefits
EPA evaluated the distribution of estimated benefits and costs of
the proposed regulatory options across the affected population, with
consideration of their distribution among communities with
environmental justice concerns. Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Circular A-4, which provides guidance to agencies on the development of
regulatory analyses as required under E.O. 12866, states that
regulatory analyses ``should provide a separate description of
distributional effects (i.e., how both benefits and costs are
distributed among sub-populations of particular concern).''
To determine how benefits from pollutant reductions in MPP
wastewater may be distributed among communities with environmental
justice concerns, EPA calculated the population-weighted averages of
these groups for impacted drinking water service areas and communities
potentially reliant on subsistence fishing from surface waters
downstream of MPP wastewater outfalls. EPA then compared these
community characteristics to the subset of these populations who are
expected to benefit under each proposed regulatory option.
1. Drinking Water Quality
EPA estimated that 7,595,010 people receive drinking water from a
Public Water System (PWS) that either directly intakes source water
from a surface water potentially impacted by MPP wastewater (direct) or
from a PWS that buys drinking water from a direct PWS (buying). The
population of these service areas (SAs) receiving potentially impacted
drinking water has greater proportions of individuals identifying as
Black/African American than the national average. Under all proposed
regulatory options, drinking water benefits from improved source water
are expected to accrue at a higher rate to low-income and Black/African
American individuals. For Options 1 and 2, which impact the same direct
discharging facilities and therefore the same service areas, 75.1
percent of the total receiving population would be impacted, 31.2
percent and 22.7 percent of which identify as low income and Black/
African American, respectively. For Option 3, 82.7 percent of the total
receiving population would be impacted, 30.5 percent and 22.1 percent
of which identify as low income and Black/African American,
respectively. For further discussion of changes in the distribution of
drinking water benefits under proposed rule options, refer to section 3
of Chapter 7 of the EA.
2. Fisher Population
EPA estimated that 13,244,292 people live within a 50-mile distance
of a downstream surface water potentially impacted by MPP
wastewater.\51\ This population is representative of the group of
people who may travel to these waterbodies for recreational or
subsistence fishing opportunities. Communities in these areas have on
average greater proportions of low-income individuals than the national
average. Under all regulatory options, benefits from improved fish
habitat are expected to accrue at a higher rate to low-income
individuals, although a greater number of individuals would potentially
benefit under Option 3. See section 3 of Chapter 7 of the EA for a
further discussion of these results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Studies of fishers' behavior and practices have made
similar observations (e.g., Sohngen, B., Zhang, W., Bruskotter, J.,
& Sheldon, B. 2015. Results from a 2014 Survey of Lake Erie Anglers.
Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University, Department of Agricultural,
Environmental and Development Economics and School of Environment &
Natural Resources; Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant. 2018. Lake Michigan
Anglers Boost Local Illinois and Indiana Economies.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Results of the Analysis
The results of EPA's screening analyses found that communities near
MPP facilities, downstream surface waters, and those using impacted
surface waters have greater proportions of low-income and/or racial/
ethnic minorities than the national average.
[[Page 4514]]
The results of EPA's distributional analysis of impacts suggested that
improvements in drinking water quality and to fishing areas will
differentially accrue to minority and/or low-income populations under
all proposed regulatory options. Remaining exposures, impacts, costs,
and benefits analyzed are small enough that EPA could not conclude
whether changes in differential impacts would occur.
XIV. Development of Effluent Limitations and Standards
This section describes the statistical methodology used to
calculate the long-term averages (LTAs), variability factors, and
limitations for BAT, BPT, new source performance standards and
pretreatment standards for existing and new sources. EPA's statistical
methodology is well established and has been upheld by courts Chemical
Mfrs. Assn. v. EPA, 877 F.2d 177, 211-12 (5th Cir. 1989). The
methodology is based on LTA effluent values and variability factors
that account for variation in treatment performance of the model
technology. The LTAs, variability factors, and limitations were based
upon pollutant concentrations collected from EPA sampling episodes, DMR
data, data from State EPA offices, and data submitted by industry.
The proposed ELGs, collectively referred to in the remainder of
this section as ``limitations,'' for pollutants for each regulatory
option, as presented in this preamble, are provided as ``daily
maximums'' and ``maximums for monthly averages.'' Definitions provided
in 40 CFR 122.2 state that the daily maximum limitation is the
``highest allowable `daily discharge,' '' and the maximum for monthly
average limitation is the ``highest allowable average of `daily
discharges' over a calendar month, calculated as the sum of all `daily
discharges' measured during a calendar month divided by the number of
`daily discharges' measured during that month.'' Daily discharges are
defined to be the `discharge of a pollutant' measured during a calendar
day or any 24-hour period that reasonably represents the calendar day
for purposes of sampling.''
EPA first determines an average performance level (the ``long-term
average'') that a facility with well-designed and operated model
technologies (which reflect the appropriate level of control) is
capable of achieving. This LTA is calculated from the data from the
facilities using the BPT, BCT, and BAT technologies for the regulatory
option. EPA uses all values and a lognormal distribution to calculate
the facility LTA, which is then used in calculations for both
limitations. EPA expects that all facilities subject to the limitations
will design and operate their treatment systems to achieve the LTA
performance level on a consistent basis because facilities with well-
designed and operated BAT and BPT/BCT technologies have demonstrated
that this can be done.
EPA then calculates the 99th percentile of daily measurements and
the 95th percentile of monthly averages. The percentiles are chosen
with the intention to accommodate reasonably anticipated variability
within the control of the facility while also reflecting a level of
performance consistent with the CWA requirement that these effluent
limitations be based on the ``best'' available technologies. The daily
maximum limitation is based on the 99th percentiles of the distribution
of the daily measurements. The maximum monthly average limitation is
based on the 95th percentile of the distribution of the monthly
averages of the daily measurements and monthly averages. Using the LTA
and the percentiles, EPA determines the daily and monthly ``variability
factors'' (VFs), which are allowances for the variation in pollutant
concentrations when processed through well designed and operated
treatment systems. The allowance for variance incorporates all
components of variability including process and wastewater generation,
sample collection, shipping, storage, and analytical variability. If a
facility operates its treatment system to meet the relevant LTA, EPA
expects the facility to be able to meet the limitations. VFs assure
that normal fluctuations in a facility's treatment are accounted for in
the limitations. The daily VFs are calculated by dividing the 99th
percentile of daily measurements by the corresponding LTA. The monthly
VFs are calculated by dividing the 95th percentile of monthly
measurements by the corresponding LTA.
EPA calculates LTAs and VFs for each facility with sufficient daily
or monthly data. EPA then combines the LTAs and daily and monthly VFs
across all facilities by calculating their median values.
To calculate the limitations, the LTAs are multiplied by the
corresponding VFs. This ensures the limitations account for these
reasonable excursions above the LTA. EPA's use of VFs results in
limitations that are generally well above the actual LTA. For direct
dischargers (BAT, BPT), EPA developed limits for total nitrogen, total
phosphorus, E. coli, chlorides, and fecal coliform. For indirect
dischargers (PSES, PSNS), EPA developed limits for oil and grease, BOD,
TSS, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and chlorides.
A. Criteria Used To Select Data as the Basis for the Limitations and
Standards
In developing ELGs for any industry, EPA qualitatively reviews all
the data before selecting data that represents proper operation of the
technology that forms the basis for the limitations. EPA typically uses
four criteria to assess the data. The first criterion requires that the
facility have the BPT, BCT, or BAT treatment technology and demonstrate
consistently diligent and optimal operation. Application of this
criterion typically eliminates any facility with treatment other than
the candidate technology. EPA generally determines whether a facility
meets this criterion based upon site visits, discussions with facility
management, and/or comparison to the characteristics, operation, and
performance of treatment systems at other facilities. EPA often
contacts facilities to determine whether data submitted were
representative of normal operating conditions for the facility and
equipment. As a result of this review, EPA typically excludes the data
in developing the limitations when the facility has not optimized the
performance of its treatment system to the degree that represents the
appropriate level of control (e.g., BPT, BCT, or BAT).
A second criterion generally requires that the influents and
effluents from the treatment components represent typical wastewater
from the industry, without incompatible wastewater from other sources.
Application of this criterion results in EPA selecting those facilities
where the commingled wastewaters did not result in substantial
dilution, facilities without equalization where slug loads could result
and cause frequent upsets and/or overloads, more concentrated
wastewaters, or wastewaters with different types of pollutants than
those generated by the waste stream for which EPA is proposing effluent
limitations.
A third criterion typically ensures that the pollutants are present
in the influent at sufficient concentrations to evaluate treatment
effectiveness. To evaluate whether the data meet this criterion for
inclusion as a basis of the limitations, EPA often uses the long-term
average test (or LTA test) for facilities where EPA possesses paired
influent and effluent data (see section 13 of the TDD for details of
the LTA test). The test measures the influent concentrations to ensure
a pollutant is present at a sufficient concentration to evaluate
treatment effectiveness. If a
[[Page 4515]]
dataset for a pollutant fails the test (i.e., pollutant not present at
a treatable concentration), EPA excludes the data for that pollutant at
that plant when calculating the limitations.
A fourth criterion typically requires that the data are valid and
appropriate for their intended use (e.g., the data must be analyzed
with a sufficiently sensitive method). Also, EPA does not use data
associated with periods of treatment upsets because these data would
not reflect the performance from well-designed and well-operated
treatment systems. In applying the fourth criterion, EPA may evaluate
the pollutant concentrations, analytical methods and the associated
quality control/quality assurance data, flow values, mass loading,
plant logs, and other available information. As part of this
evaluation, EPA reviews the process or treatment conditions that may
have resulted in extreme values (high and low). As a consequence of
this review, EPA may exclude data associated with certain time periods
or other data outliers that reflect poor performance or analytical
anomalies by an otherwise well-operated site.
B. Data Selection for Each Technology
EPA used specific data sources to derive limitations for pollutants
for wastewater streams resulting from MPP process wastewater and high
chlorides processes. The LTAs, VFs, and limitations for each waste
stream were based on pollutant concentrations collected during EPA
sampling episodes, DMR data, data provided by EPA Regions and State
agencies, and data submitted by industry. EPA conducted six sampling
episodes. Industry discharge data includes data submitted in the MPP
Questionnaire, data submitted by facilities upon request, and publicly
available discharge monitoring reports.
EPA identified facilities that were operating the BAT technology
for one or more of the proposed pollutants for regulation: total
nitrogen, total phosphorus, E. coli, oil and grease, TSS, BOD, fecal
coliforms. EPA calculated the BAT LTA for a given pollutant based on
the facilities operating the BAT technology basis for that pollutant.
Limitations may be based on technology transferred from a different
subcategory within an industry or from another industrial category.
Limitations based on transfer of technology must be supported by a
conclusion that the technology is indeed transferable and a reasonable
prediction that it will be capable of meeting the prescribed effluent
limits (Tanners' Council of America v. Train, 540 F.2nd 1188 (4th Cir.
1976)).
For the proposed limitations, EPA combined data sets across all MPP
processes to give a single limit per analyte for the industry. As the
raw materials for MPP processes are animals/animal products, composed
of carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus, EPA finds combining data from
different MPP processes to be reasonable. Additionally, with the
available data, EPA performed a comparison of influent from the
different MPP processes and found the wastewater characteristics to be
comparable. Therefore, EPA proposes to find that the combination is
reasonable and solicits data to inform this analysis.
Additional details on the data and methodology used to calculate
the effluent limitations in today's proposal can be found in TDD
section 13. In addition, the proposed limitations for each level of
control for the preferred Option 1 can be found in the proposed
regulatory text following this preamble.
In addition to the proposed limitations, as described earlier EPA
is soliciting comment on including effluent limitations for E. coli in
addition to, or in place of, limitations for fecal coliform for direct
discharging facilities. Based on data available to EPA at the time of
proposal, the monthly average limitation for E. coli would be 9 MPN or
CFU per 100 mL (see the TDD for additional information). EPA solicits
comment on this value as well as the data and methodology used to
calculate the proposed effluent limitations in today's proposal. EPA
also solicits comment on including effluent limitations for chlorides,
which are proposed as zero-discharge for high chlorides processes. In
addition to general comments related to the calculation of proposed
effluent limitations, EPA also solicits comment on combining data
across subcategories in developing the proposed limitations. EPA also
solicits additional daily and monthly data from facilities across the
industry.
XV. Regulatory Implementation
A. Implementation of New Limitations and Standards
ELGs act as a primary mechanism to control the discharge of
pollutants to waters of the United States. This proposed rule would be
applied to MPP wastewater discharges through incorporation into NPDES
permits issued by the EPA or States under CWA section 402 (33 U.S.C.
1342) and through pretreatment program requirements under CWA section
307 (33 U.S.C. 1317).
The Agency has developed the limitations and standards for this
proposed rule to control the discharge of pollutants from the MPP point
source category. Once promulgated, those permits or control mechanisms
issued after this rule's effective date would be required to
incorporate the effluent limitations guidelines and standards, as
applicable. Also, under section 510 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1370), States
may require effluent limitations under State law as long as they are no
less stringent than the requirements of a final rule. Finally, in
addition to requiring application of the technology-based ELGs
promulgated in a final rule, CWA section 301(b)(1)(C) (33 U.S.C.
1311(b)(1)(C)) requires the permitting authority to impose more
stringent effluent limitations on discharges as necessary to meet
applicable water quality standards.
Categorical pretreatment standards for existing indirect
dischargers, unlike effluent limitations guidelines applicable to
direct dischargers, are directly enforceable and must specify a time
for compliance not to exceed three years under CWA section 307(b)(1)
(33 U.S.C. 1317(b)(1)). Under EPA's General Pretreatment Regulations
for Existing and New Sources (40 CFR part 403), POTWs with flows in
excess of 5 million gallons per day (MGD) must develop pretreatment
programs meeting prescribed conditions. These POTWs have the legal
authority to require compliance with applicable pretreatment standards
and control the introduction of pollutants to the POTW through permits,
orders, or similar means. POTWs with approved pretreatment programs act
as the control authorities for their industrial users. Among the
responsibilities of the control authority are the development of the
specific discharge limitations for the POTW's industrial users. Because
pollutant discharge limitations in categorical pretreatment standards
may be expressed as concentrations or mass limitations, in many cases,
the control authority must convert the pretreatment standards to
limitations applicable to a specific industrial user and then include
these in POTW permits or another control instrument.
New source direct dischargers must comply with the new source
performance standards (NSPS) of this rule when they commence
discharging MPP process wastewater. CWA section 306 (33 U.S.C. 1316)
states that NSPS are effective upon promulgation. While arguably this
language could mean that they are also enforceable upon
[[Page 4516]]
promulgation, over the decades of CWA implementation, NSPS for direct
dischargers have been implemented through NPDES permits. For facilities
that are considered new sources, the CWA provides for a protection
period from any more stringent technology-based standards. The
protection period is generally 10 years from the completion of
construction. See CWA section 306(d) (33 U.S.C. 1316(d) and 40 CFR
122.29(d)). Thus, any source that commenced construction before
promulgation of future NSPS will not be subject to any more stringent
standard of performance until the protection period identified in 40
CFR 122.29(d) expires.
Facilities that discharge wastewater from operations from more than
one category may need to comply with limitations and standards from
multiple subcategories. For these facilities, permit writers would use
the ``building block approach'' based on production or wastewater
discharge flow to combine the sets of limitations into one final
effluent limitation in the facility's permit. In cases where one part
of the wastewater comes from operations with no national technology-
based limitations, the permit writer must first establish BPJ
limitations for this portion of the wastewater, and then combine these
with any applicable national technology-based limitations using the
building block approach. However, first processing subcategories
(subcategories A, B, C, D, and K) are defined to include wastewater
discharges from further processing and rendering operations at the same
facility. These facilities will only be regulated by the relevant first
processing subcategory or subcategories.
In May 2000, EPA promulgated a regulation streamlining the NPDES
regulations (Amendments to Streamline the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Program Regulations: Round Two. 65 FR 30886; May 15,
2000) which includes a monitoring waiver for direct dischargers subject
to effluent guidelines. Direct discharge facilities may request a
reduction in sampling a guideline-limited pollutant if that discharger
``has demonstrated through sampling and other technical factors that
the pollutant is not present in the discharge or is present only at
background levels from intake water and without any increase in the
pollutant due to activities of the discharger'' (65 FR 30908; 40 CFR
122.44). EPA noted in the preamble to the final NPDES streamlining rule
that the Agency is granting a waiver from monitoring requirements but
not a waiver from the limit. In addition, the provision does not waive
monitoring for any pollutants for which there are limits based on water
quality standards. The waiver for direct dischargers lasts for the term
of the NPDES permit and is not available during the term of the first
permit issued to a discharger. Any request for this waiver must be
submitted with the application for a reissued permit or a request for
modification of a reissued permit. On receiving authorization from
their NPDES permitting authority, direct discharge facilities covered
by any effluent guidelines (including any final rule promulgated for
this category) may use the monitoring waiver contained in the NPDES
streamlining final rule.
The CWA requires application of effluent limitations established
pursuant to section 301 or the pretreatment standards of section 307 to
all direct and indirect dischargers. However, the statute provides for
the modification of these national requirements in a limited number of
circumstances. The Agency has established administrative mechanisms to
provide an opportunity for relief from the application of the national
effluent limitations guidelines for categories of existing sources for
toxic, conventional, and nonconventional pollutants.
EPA may develop, with the concurrence of the State, effluent
limitations or standards different from the otherwise applicable
requirements for an individual existing discharger if it is
fundamentally different with respect to factors considered in
establishing the effluent limitations or standards applicable to the
individual discharger. Such a modification is known as a Fundamentally
Different Factor (FDF) variance. FDF variances are not available for
new sources (DuPont v. Train, 430 U.S. 112 (1977)).
EPA, in its initial implementation of the effluent guidelines
program, provided for the FDF modifications in regulations, which were
variances from the BPT effluent limitations, BAT limitations for toxic
and nonconventional pollutants, and BCT limitations for conventional
pollutants for direct dischargers. FDF variances for toxic pollutants
were challenged judicially and ultimately sustained by the Supreme
Court in Chemical Manufacturers Association v. Natural Resources
Defense Council, 470 U.S. 116, 124 (1985).
Subsequently, in the Water Quality Act of 1987, Congress added a
new section to the CWA--section 301(n) (33 U.S.C. 1311(n)). This
provision explicitly authorizes modifications of the otherwise
applicable BAT effluent limitations, if a discharger is fundamentally
different with respect to the factors specified in CWA section 304
(other than cost) from those considered by EPA in establishing the
effluent limitations. CWA section 301(n) also defined the conditions
under which EPA may establish alternative requirements. Under section
301(n), an application for approval of a FDF variance must be based
solely on (1) Information submitted during rulemaking raising the
factors that are fundamentally different or (2) information the
applicant did not have a reasonable opportunity to submit during the
rulemaking. The alternate limitation must be no less stringent than
justified by the difference and must not result in markedly more
adverse non-water quality environmental impacts than the national
limitation.
EPA regulations further detail the substantive criteria used to
evaluate FDF variance requests for direct dischargers. 40 CFR 125.31(d)
and 40 CFR 403.13(d) identify six factors (e.g., volume of process
wastewater, age and size of a discharger's facility) that may be
considered in determining if a discharger is fundamentally different.
The Agency must determine whether, based on one or more of these
factors, the discharger in question is fundamentally different from the
dischargers and factors considered by EPA in developing the nationally
applicable effluent guidelines. The regulation also lists four other
factors (e.g., inability to install equipment within the time allowed
or a discharger's ability to pay) that may not provide a basis for an
FDF variance. In addition, under 40 CFR 125.31(c), a request for
limitations less stringent than the national limitation may be approved
only if compliance with the national limitations would result in either
(a) a removal cost wholly out of proportion to the removal cost
considered during development of the national limitations, or (b) a
non-water quality environmental impact (including energy requirements)
fundamentally more adverse than the impact considered during
development of the national limits. The legislative history of section
301(n) underscores the necessity for the FDF variance applicant to
establish eligibility for the variance. EPA's regulations at 40 CFR
125.32(b) and 403.13 impose this burden upon the applicant. The
applicant must show that the factors relating to the discharge
controlled by the applicant's permit that are claimed to be
fundamentally different are, in fact, fundamentally different from
those factors considered by EPA in establishing the applicable
guidelines.
[[Page 4517]]
In practice, very few FDF variances have been granted for past ELGs.
CWA section 301(c) (33 U.S.C. 1311(c)) authorizes a variance from
the otherwise applicable BAT effluent guidelines for nonconventional
pollutants due to economic factors. The request for a variance from
effluent limitations developed from BAT guidelines must normally be
filed by the discharger during the public notice period for the draft
permit. 40 CFR 122.21(m)(2) specifies that section 301(c) variances
must be filed within 270 days of promulgation of an ELG. Specific
guidance for this type of variance is provided in Draft Guidance for
Application and Review of Section 301(c) Variance Requests (USEPA.
1984).\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ https://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/OWM0469.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CWA section 307(b)(1) (33 U.S.C. 1317(b)) establishes a
discretionary program for POTWs to grant ``removal credits'' to their
indirect dischargers. Removal credits are a regulatory mechanism by
which industrial users may discharge a pollutant in quantities that
exceed what would otherwise be allowed under an applicable categorical
pretreatment standard because it has been determined that the POTW to
which the industrial user discharges consistently treats the pollutant.
EPA has promulgated removal credit regulations as part of its
pretreatment regulations (40 CFR 403.7). These regulations provide that
a POTW may give removal credits if prescribed requirements are met. The
POTW must apply to and receive authorization from the Approval
Authority. To obtain authorization, the POTW must demonstrate
consistent removal of the pollutant for which approval authority is
sought. Furthermore, the POTW must have an approved pretreatment
program. Finally, the POTW must demonstrate that granting removal
credits will not cause the POTW to violate applicable federal, State,
or local sewage sludge requirements or the POTW's NPDES permit limits
and conditions (40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
interpreted the CWA as requiring EPA to promulgate the comprehensive
sewage sludge regulations pursuant to CWA section 405(d)(2)(A)(ii) (33
U.S.C. 1345(d)(2)(A)(ii)) before any removal credits could be
authorized (NRDC v. EPA, 790 F.2d 289, 292 (3d Cir., 1986); cert.
denied., 479 U.S. 1084 (1987)). Congress made this explicit in the
Water Quality Act of 1987, which provided that EPA could not authorize
any removal credits until it issued the sewage sludge use and disposal
regulations. On February 19, 1993, EPA promulgated Standards for the
Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge, which are codified at 40 CFR part
503. EPA interprets the Court's decision in NRDC v. EPA as only
allowing removal credits for a pollutant if EPA has either regulated
the pollutant in Part 503 or established a concentration of the
pollutant in sewage sludge below which public health and the
environment are protected when sewage sludge is used or disposed.
The 40 CFR part 503 sewage sludge regulations allow four options
for sewage sludge disposal: (1) Land application for beneficial use,
(2) placement on a surface disposal unit, (3) firing in a sewage sludge
incinerator, and (4) disposal in a landfill which complies with the
municipal solid waste landfill criteria in section 40 CFR 503.4.
Because pollutants in sewage sludge are regulated differently depending
upon the use or disposal method selected, under EPA's pretreatment
regulations the availability of a removal credit for a particular
pollutant is linked to the POTW's method of using or disposing of its
sewage sludge. The regulations provide that removal credits may be
potentially available for the following pollutants:
(1) If POTW applies its sewage sludge to the land for beneficial
uses, disposes of it in a surface disposal unit, or incinerates it in a
sewage sludge incinerator, removal credits may be available for the
pollutants for which EPA has established limits in 40 CFR part 503. EPA
has set ceiling limitations for nine metals in sludge that is land
applied, three metals in sludge that is placed on a surface disposal
unit, and seven metals and 57 organic pollutants in sludge that is
incinerated in a sewage sludge incinerator.
(2) Additional removal credits may be available for sewage sludge
that is land applied, placed in a surface disposal unit, or incinerated
in a sewage sludge incinerator, so long as the concentration of these
pollutants in sludge do not exceed concentration levels established in
Part 403, Appendix G, Table II. For sewage sludge that is land applied,
removal credits may be available for an additional two metals and 14
organic pollutants. For sewage sludge that is placed on a surface
disposal unit, removal credits may be available for an additional seven
metals and 13 organic pollutants. For sewage sludge that is incinerated
in a sewage sludge incinerator, removal credits may be available for
three other metals (40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)(iv)(B)).
(3) When a POTW disposes of its sewage sludge in a municipal solid
waste landfill that meets the criteria of 40 CFR part 258, removal
credits may be available for any pollutant in the POTW's sewage sludge
(40 CFR part 403.7(a)(3)(iv)(C)).
B. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
The proposed effluent limitations include pollutants not previously
regulated in ELGs for direct and indirect MPP dischargers. NPDES permit
writers and pretreatment control authorities must establish
requirements for regulated MPP facilities to monitor their effluent to
ensure that they are complying with the effluent limitations and
pretreatment standards. As specified at 40 CFR 122.41, 122.44, and
122.48, all NPDES permits must specify requirements for using,
maintaining, and installing (if appropriate) monitoring equipment;
monitoring type, intervals, and frequencies that will provide
representative data; analytical methods; and reporting and
recordkeeping. In addition, 40 CFR 122.42 outlines additional
conditions applicable to specified categories of NPDES permits. For
example, during the NPDES permit cycle, POTWs must provide adequate
notice to the permitting authority of any new introduction of
pollutants into the POTW from an indirect discharger which otherwise
would be subject to CWA section 301 or 306 if it were directly
discharging those pollutants; any substantial change in the volume or
character of pollutants being introduced into the POTW; and any
anticipated impact to the POTW final discharge (40 CFR 142.2(b)).
The NPDES program requires permittees (with certain specific
exceptions) to monitor for limited pollutants and report data at least
once a year. 40 CFR 122.44(i)(2). Industrial users and POTWs have
similar reporting requirements as specified at 40 CFR 403.12. The
general pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR part 403 require significant
industrial users (which includes all industrial users subject to
Categorical Pretreatment Standards, with certain specific exceptions)
to monitor for limited pollutants and report data in June and December,
unless required more frequently in the Pretreatment Standard or by the
control authority or approval authority (40 CFR 403.12(e)). POTW
control authorities are also required by 40 CFR 403.8(f) to conduct
annual inspections and sampling to independently assess compliance with
standards.
[[Page 4518]]
EPA does not plan to promulgate specific monitoring requirements or
monitoring frequencies in the MPP rule. Therefore, NPDES permit writers
may establish monitoring requirements and monitoring frequencies at
their discretion subject to the requirements of the NPDES regulations.
Likewise, the control authority for indirect dischargers may establish
monitoring requirements and monitoring frequencies at their discretion
subject to the requirements of the pretreatment program regulations and
in compliance with approved State and POTW program procedures. The
Agency notes, however, that since the PRA requires it to estimate the
incremental reporting and recordkeeping burden associated with any new
regulation, in developing the proposed Part 432 limitations it
considered a monthly sampling frequency for purposes of estimating this
burden. EPA expects that facilities properly operating and maintaining
the wastewater treatment technology system will be able to comply with
the monthly average limitation/standard when they sample at the assumed
monthly monitoring frequency, although compliance is required
regardless of the number of samples analyzed and averaged in a month.
EPA recommends that permitting authorities require monitoring samples
at some regular, predetermined frequency. If a facility has difficulty
complying with the standards on an ongoing basis, the facility should
improve its equipment, operations, and/or maintenance.
Facilities are required to use analytical methods specified in or
approved under 40 CFR part 136 for compliance monitoring (40 CFR
122.41(j)(4), 403.12(g)(3)). Of note, Part 136 requires facilities to
collect grab samples for oil & grease. In developing the Part 432 oil &
grease limitations, EPA generally collected six grab samples in a 24-
hour monitoring day. For pH, sample types can range from a one-time
grab sample during a monitoring day to continuous sampling throughout a
monitoring day where pH is a critical aspect of the wastewater treated
or the wastewater treatment operation.
C. Applicability of PSNS/NSPS Requirements
In 2004, EPA promulgated NSPS/PSNS for certain discharges from new
units. Regardless of the outcome of the current rulemaking, those units
that are currently subject to the 2004 NSPS/PSNS will continue to be
subject to such standards. In addition, EPA is proposing to clarify in
the text of the regulation that, assuming the Agency promulgates BAT/
PSES requirements as part of the current rulemaking, units to which the
2004 NSPS/PSNS apply will also be subject to any newly promulgated BAT/
PSES requirements because they will be existing sources with respect to
such new requirements.
XVI. Related Acts of Congress, E.O's and Agency Initiatives
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review
This action is a ``significant regulatory action'', as defined
under section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866, as amended by E.O. 14094.
Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to OMB for E.O. 12866 review.
Documentation of any changes made in response to the E.O. 12866 review
is available in the docket. The EPA prepared an analysis of the
potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This
analysis, ``Benefit and Cost Analysis for Proposed Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Point Source
Category'' EPA 821-R-23-013, is also available in the docket and is
briefly summarized in Section VIII.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document
that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2701.02. You can
find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly
summarized here.
This Information Collection Request (ICR) seeks approval of the
information requirements in the Proposed Rule for the Effluent
Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products (MPP)
Category. EPA is proposing revisions to Best Available Technology
Economically Achievable (BAT), as well as new Pretreatment Standards
for Existing Sources (PSES) and Pretreatment Standards for New Sources
(PSNS) under the Clean Water Act (CWA) for MPP facilities. Under the
proposed BAT, certain MPP facilities that discharge wastewater directly
to waters of the U.S. would be required to monitor for additional
pollutants, such as phosphorus. Under the proposed PSES/PSNS, certain
MPP facilities that discharge wastewater into publicly owned treatment
works (POTWs) would be required to control the discharge of
conventional pollutants. The proposed rule would require all affected
direct discharging MPP facilities to meet limits for nitrogen, and
phosphorus before discharging wastewater to surface waters. These
facilities are already required to monitor for nitrogen. The proposed
rule would require all affected indirect MPP facilities to meet limits
for biological oxygen demand (BOD), oil and grease, and total suspended
solids (TSS) before discharging wastewater to POTWs through the use of
wastewater treatment technologies and Best Management Practices (BMPs).
The users of the data would be MPP facilities, State and local
regulatory authorities, EPA, and, perhaps most importantly, the general
public. Specifically for indirect dischargers, the users of the data
would be MPP facilities and their Control Authorities. By establishing
categorical pretreatment standards for the MPP category in 40 CFR part
432, MPP dischargers to POTWs would become subject to certain reporting
requirements in 40 CFR part 403. These include a requirement to submit
a baseline monitoring report, 90-day compliance report and on-going
monitoring and reporting requirements including results of discharge
sampling. Reports submitted to the Permitting or Control Authority may
contain confidential business information. However, EPA does not
consider the specific information being requested by the rule to be
typical of confidential business or personal information. If a
respondent does consider this information to be of a confidential
nature, the respondent may request that such information be treated as
such. All confidential data will be handled in accordance with 40 CFR
122.7, 40 CFR part 2, and EPA's Security Manual Part III, Chapter 9,
dated August 9, 1976.
Respondents/affected entities: Entities affected by this
information collection request are Meat and Poultry Products facilities
and Control Authorities.
The Meat and Poultry Products (MPP) point source category includes
facilities ``engaged in the slaughtering, dressing and packing of meat
and poultry products for human consumption and/or animal food and
feeds. Meat and poultry products for human consumption include meat and
poultry from cattle, hogs, sheep, chickens, turkeys, ducks and other
fowl as well as sausages, luncheon meats and cured, smoked or canned or
other prepared meat and poultry products from purchased carcasses and
other materials. Meat and poultry products for animal food and feeds
include animal oils, meat meal and facilities that render
[[Page 4519]]
grease and tallow from animal fat, bones and meat scraps'' (See 40 CFR
432.1).
Control Authorities have regulatory oversight for pollutant
discharges to POTWs. The ``Control Authority'' refers to the POTW if
the POTW has an approved pretreatment program, or the Approval
Authority if it has not been approved, which may be the State or EPA.
By establishing categorical pretreatment standards for the MPP
category, control authorities would be subject to certain oversight
requirements in 40 CFR part 403.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR 122.41,
122.44 and 122.48, and 40 CFR parts 403 and 432.)
Estimated number of respondents: 485 meat and poultry product
facilities and 360 control authorities
Frequency of response: EPA is assuming a one-time burden per
facility to develop baseline and 90-day compliance reports and review
production as well as monthly data reporting.
Total estimated burden: 15,133 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: $2,981,260 (per year), includes $1,339,530
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at
the beginning of this rule. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related
comments in the final rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments
to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs using the
interface at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular
information collection by selecting ``Currently under Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function. OMB must receive
comments no later than February 22, 2024.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The
small entities subject to the requirements of this action are meat and
poultry products facilities that engage in meat and/or poultry
slaughter, further processing, and/or rendering. The proposed rule
would not affect any current small governmental jurisdictions or not-
for-profit organizations. Only facilities that exceed the subcategory-
specific production thresholds would be subject to this rule. The
Agency has determined that under the proposed Option 1, of the
estimated 3,233 small businesses that own MPP facilities, 96 small
entities may experience an impact. Of the 96 potentially regulated
small entities, no entities are estimated to incur annualized post-tax
compliance costs greater than 3 percent of revenues; only one entity is
estimated to incur compliance costs between 1 to 3 percent of revenues;
95 small entities are estimated to incur compliance costs of less than
1 percent of revenues. Under the most stringent option (Option 3), 263
small entities may experience an impact: 4 entities are estimated to
incur costs greater than 3 percent of revenues, 11 entities between 1
to 3 percent, and 248 less than 1 percent. These results are summarized
in Table XVI-2, below (same as Table VIII-12). Details of this analysis
are presented in Section VIII and the RIA found in the docket.
Table XVI-2--Small Firm-Level CTR Screening Analysis Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number small firms with a ratio of Percent of small firms with a ratio of
Entity type Total # of -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
small firms 0% \a\ >0 and <1% >=1 and <3% >=3% 0% \a\ >0 and <1% >=1 and <3% >=3%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1........................... 3,233 3,137 95 1 0 97 3 0.0 0.0
Option 2........................... 3,233 3,137 94 1 1 97 3 0.0 0.0
Option 3........................... 3,233 2,970 248 11 4 92 8 0.0 0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ These entities own only facilities that already meet discharge requirements for the wastestreams addressed by a given regulatory option and are
therefore not estimated to incur any compliance technology costs.
Although this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has
tried to reduce the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The
proposed rule includes subcategory-specific production thresholds that
would have less stringent effluent limitations for smaller production
facilities. Facilities under certain production thresholds may have no
national effluent limitations.
Although not required by the RFA to convene a Small Business
Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel because the EPA has now determined that
this proposal would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the EPA originally convened a
panel to obtain advice and recommendations from small entity
representatives potentially subject to this rule's requirements. The 5
panel recommendations are briefly summarized here, and a copy of the
SBAR Panel Report is included in the docket for this rulemaking (USEPA.
2023. DCN MP00347). The Panel recommended EPA: (1) Exclude small and
very small firms from regulation and take public comment on production
thresholds so as not to cause substantial economic hardship on small
entities; (2) Set regulations based on wastewater flows as an
alternative to production thresholds; (3) Consider and take comment on
a longer or flexible timeline for small entities to meet proposed
regulations; (4) Consider and take comment on conditional limits for
MPP facilities that discharge to POTWs that already have nitrogen and
phosphorus treatment capabilities equivalent to the proposed rule in
place; (5) Publish compliance guides to help facilities determine rule
applicability and requirements and to take comment on what information
would be beneficial for small entities.
Although not required by the RFA, the EPA prepared an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) that examines the impact of the
proposed rule on small entities along with regulatory alternatives that
could minimize that impact. The IRFA describes why this action is being
considered, the objectives and legal basis for the proposed rule, the
small entities to which the proposed rule applies, the compliance
requirements, other relevant Federal rules, potential economic impacts
on small entities, how regulatory options developed by EPA served to
mitigate the impact of the regulatory options on small entities, and
uncertainties and limitations. The
[[Page 4520]]
complete IRFA is available for review in the docket.
In accordance with RFA requirements and as it has consistently done
in developing effluent limitations guidelines and standards, EPA
subsequently assessed whether the proposed regulatory options would
have ``a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities''
(SISNOSE). EPA performed this assessment for each of the proposed
options and as described above certified no SISNOSE.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action contains a federal mandate under UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-
1538, that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any one year. Accordingly, the EPA has prepared a written
statement required under section 202 of UMRA. The statement is included
in the docket for this action and briefly summarized here.
An industrial user (IU) is a nondomestic source of indirect
discharge into a POTW, and in this rule is the meat and poultry
products facility discharger. The Control Authority may be the POTW,
the State, or EPA, depending on whether the POTW or the State is
approved by EPA to administer the pretreatment program. The Control
Authority is the POTW in cases where the POTW has an approved
pretreatment program. The Control Authority is the State, where the
POTW has not been approved to administer the pretreatment program, but
the State has been approved. The Control Authority is EPA where neither
the POTW nor the State have been approved to administer the
pretreatment program. The Approval Authority is the State (Director) in
an NPDES authorized State with an approved pretreatment program, the
EPA regional administrator in a non-NPDES authorized State, or NPDES
State without an approved State pretreatment program.
Typically, an IU is responsible for demonstrating compliance with
pretreatment standards by performing self-monitoring, submitting
reports and notifications to its Control Authority, and maintaining
records of activities associated with its discharge to the POTW. The
Control Authority is the regulating authority responsible for
implementing and enforcing pretreatment standards. The General
Pretreatment Regulations require certain minimum oversight of IUs by
Control Authorities. The required minimum oversight includes receipt
and analysis of reports and notifications submitted by IUs, random
sampling and analyzing effluent from IUs, and conducting surveillance
activities to identify occasional and continuing noncompliance with
pretreatment standards. The Control Authority is also responsible for
taking enforcement action as necessary.
For IUs that are designated as Significant Industrial Users
(SIUs),\53\ Control Authorities must inspect and sample the SIU
effluent annually, review the need for a slug control plan, and issue a
permit or equivalent control mechanism. IUs subject to categorical
pretreatment standards are referred to as Categorical Industrial Users
(CIUs) and General Pretreatment Regulations define SIU to include CIUs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ SIUs are defined as Industrial Users subject to Categorical
Pretreatment Standards, or those that: discharge an average of
25,000 gallons per day or more of process wastewater to the POTW
(excluding sanitary, noncontact cooling and boiler blowdown
wastewater); contributes a process waste stream which makes up 5
percent or more of the average dry weather hydraulic or organic
capacity of the POTW Treatment plant; or is designated as such by
the Control Authority on the basis that the Industrial User has a
reasonable potential for adversely affecting the POTW's operation or
for violating any Pretreatment Standard. See 40 CFR 403.3 for
details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Approval Authority is responsible for ensuring that POTWs
comply with all applicable pretreatment program requirements. Among
other things, the Approval Authority receives annual pretreatment
reports from the Control Authority. These reports must identify which
IUs are CIUs. In accordance with 40 CFR 122.44(j)(1) all POTWs are
required to ``identify, in terms of character and volume of pollutants,
any SIU'' and include them on their NPDES Application form,
122.21(j)(6). Approved POTW Control Authorities have legal authority
and procedures to identify and control such IUs (40 CFR 403.8(f)(1) &
(2)). Therefore, this proposed MPP rule requires little extra burden on
Control Authorities to identify the subset of SIUs that are subject to
categorical pretreatment standards and to apply the requirements to
them.
This action is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
E. E.O. 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
F. E.O. 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in E.O.
13175. It would not have substantial direct effects on Tribal
governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the
Indian Tribes, or the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes as specified in E.O.
13175. EPA is not aware of any facility subject to these proposed ELGs
that is owned by Tribal governments. Thus, E.O. 13175 does not apply to
this action.
Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribes, EPA consulted with Tribal officials during the
development of this action. EPA initiated consultation and coordination
with federally recognized Tribal governments in January 2023. EPA
shared information about the Meat and Poultry Products effluent
guidelines rulemaking (MPP ELG) with all federally recognized Tribes by
sending a letter and detailed plan describing the rulemaking, the
potential impact to Tribes, and opportunities for Tribal involvement.
EPA performed a proximity-based screening analysis to determine which
Tribes and Tribal lands are the most likely to be impacted by MPP
industrial activity and/or changes to the MPP ELG. Tribes that were
identified as being in proximity \54\ to either 10 or more MPP
facilities or a waterbody potentially impacted by MPP wastewater
discharge,\55\ were notified of these screening results to promote
awareness. EPA continued this government-to-government dialogue by
hosting two identical listening sessions as webinars on February 6th
and 13th, 2023, where Tribal representatives were invited to
participate in further discussions about the rulemaking process and
objectives, with a focus on identifying specific ways the rulemaking
may affect Tribes. The consultation process ended on March 10th, 2023.
No Tribal governments requested direct government-to-government
consultations, and EPA received no written comments from any Tribes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Within 5 miles.
\55\ Within 50 miles of a 25-mile reach downstream of an MPP
wastewater outfall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. E.O. 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks
and Safety Risks
E.O. 13045 directs federal agencies to include an evaluation of the
health and safety effects of the planned regulation
[[Page 4521]]
on children in federal health and safety standards and explain why the
regulation is preferable to potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives. This action is not subject to E.O. 13045 because
the EPA does not believe the environmental health risks or safety risks
addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.
EPA reviewed epidemiological studies to determine whether exposures
to pollutants in MPP wastewater are associated with disproportionate
health risks among children. EPA identified evidence of
disproportionate health risks among children from exposure to nitrates,
which can result from the discharge of nitrogen from MPP facilities.
Research has shown an association between exposure to nitrates in
drinking water and increased incidence of birth defects and
methemoglobinemia (``blue baby syndrome'') in children (Fears.
2021),\56\ (Baskin-) \57\ EPA analyzed changes in total nitrogen (TN)
loadings from MPP facilities under the proposed regulation and found
that the regulatory options all result in estimated reductions relative
to the baseline in TN loadings into downstream receiving waters.
Additionally, compared to the baseline, EPA found that modeled
regulatory Option 3 resulted in reductions in average nitrate
concentrations in all three case study watersheds. This result suggests
that nitrate levels will decrease in source waters for intakes of
drinking water systems downstream of MPP wastewater discharge. While
reducing nitrogen species in source water may reduce the amount and
cost of treatment needed, EPA does not anticipate changes in nitrate
and nitrite concentrations in drinking water. This is because public
water systems must meet the maximum contaminant level (MCL) in water
for nitrates and nitrite (10 mg/L and 1 mg/L, respectively). These MCLs
are equal to the Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) and were
specifically based on levels considered low enough to protect infants
from methemoglobinemia. The risk to children in households whose water
supply comes from public water systems is therefore low. Because of
this as well as data limitations, EPA did not quantify resulting
changes in birth defects and methemoglobinemia but expects children to
benefit from a reduced risk of these health impacts from lower nitrogen
concentrations in source waters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Fears, Darryl. April 13, 2021. A Poultry Plant, Years of
Groundwater Contamination And, Finally, A Court Settlement. The
Washington Post.
\57\ Leah Baskin-Graves, Haley Mullen, Aaron Aber, Jair
Sinisterra, Kamran Ayub, Roxana Amaya-Fuentes, and Sacoby Wilson.
2019. Rapid Health Impact Assessment of A Proposed Poultry
Processing Plant in Millsboro, Delaware. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 16, Issue 3429.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nutrient concentrations in private well water may be impacted by
any increase in land application of sludges expected to occur under
proposed rule options. Because land application locations and
frequencies change over time, EPA was not able to estimate potential
impacts of this rulemaking on private well water quality, and therefore
the health of children in affected households. Taken together, it is
underdetermined how children may be impacted under the implementation
of this rule.
H. E.O. 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not a significant energy action under E.O. 13211,
because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution or use of energy. As discussed in Section X, EPA
estimates that compliance with this proposed rule would create a small
increase in nationwide energy consumption for MPP facilities. EPA
estimates an approximate increase of 104,208 MWh per year for
wastewater treatment. By comparison, electric power generation
facilities generated 4,108 billion megawatt hours of electric power in
the United States in 2021 (EIA. 2021).\58\ Additional energy
requirements for EPA's selected options are acceptable (i.e.,
significantly less than 0.001 percent of national requirements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2021. Electric
Power Annual Report. www.eia.gov/electricity/annual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
J. E.O. 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations; Executive Order 14096
Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to Environmental Justice for All
The EPA believes that the human health or environmental conditions
that exist prior to this action result in or have the potential to
result in disproportionate and adverse human health or environmental
effects on communities with environmental justice (EJ) concerns.
Literature on the MPP industry showed that facilities are commonly
(Winders and Abrell. 2021) \59\ in rural areas, often with multiple
large facilities located in the same county (Burkhart et al. 2018).\60\
Exposure to pollutants released by facilities through air, water, and
solid waste (Baskin-Graves et al. 2019) cause health effects in
communities near or downstream of facilities (Hall et al. 2021) \61\
near MPP facilities have been documented to have greater proportions of
vulnerable population groups and potential exposures to environmental
stressors than the average community. The results of EPA's proximity
analysis support this finding. EPA determined that Census block groups
(CBGs) located within one mile of an MPP facility had larger
proportions of people identifying as Asian, Black, and or Hispanic, and
more low-income individuals than the national average.\62\ Relevant
indicators of pollution exposures expected to be impacted under
proposed rule options (PM2.5, diesel PM, and traffic
proximity) also exceeded the 50th percentile nationally on average for
these communities. EPA also assessed community demographics along
downstream receiving waters \63\ of MPP facilities and areas served by
public drinking water systems sourcing water from receiving waters.
These analyses showed that CBGs served by impacted drinking water
systems have greater proportions of Black/African American people than
the national average, while CBGs within one mile of a downstream
receiving waters have a larger proportion of low-income individuals
than the national average.\64\ EPA believes that this action is likely
to reduce existing disproportionate and adverse effects on communities
with environmental justice concerns. Under all proposed regulatory
options, the extent of MPP discharge impacts on
[[Page 4522]]
drinking water sources decreases compared to the baseline, therefore
reducing impacts to these drinking water distribution systems and the
people served by them. The drinking water systems predicted to have
improved intake water quality under the regulatory options evaluated
serve an increasing fraction of the population identifying as Black/
African American relative to baseline under preferred option 1 and
option 2, but a decreasing fraction under option 3. However, this
percentage exceeds the national average under all options.
Additionally, low-income individuals differentially benefit from
improved drinking water resources under all regulatory options
evaluated. When considering other analyses, such as the distribution of
impacts to communities fishing in downstream receiving waters, the
regulatory options do not create disproportionate or adverse effects
relative to the baseline. For information regarding the distribution of
anticipated benefits and a discussion of outreach and public engagement
efforts, refer to Section XIII of this preamble. The information
supporting this Executive Order review is contained in section 7 of the
Environmental Assessment document, which is available in the public
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ Winders, D.J., & Abrell, E. 2021. Slaughterhouse Workers,
Animals, and the Environment: The Need for a Rights-Centered
Regulatory Framework in the United States That Recognizes
Interconnected Interests. Health and Human Rights Journal. Vol. 23:
No. 2.
\60\ Burkhart, K., Bernhardt, C., Pelton, T., Schaeffer, E., and
Phillips, A. 2018. Water Pollution from Slaughterhouses. The
Environmental Integrity Project. https://earthjustice.org/.
\61\ Hall, J., Galarraga, J., Berman, I., Edwards, C., Khanjar,
N., Kavi, L., Murray, R., Burwell-Naney, K., Jiang, C., & Wilson, S.
2021. Environmental injustice and industrial chicken farming in
Maryland. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health, 18(21). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182111039.
\62\ The national average of people identifying as Asian, Black,
and/or Hispanic are 5.6, 12.2, and 18.4 percent, respectively, and
is 29.8 percent for individuals considered to be of low-income
status. (ACS 2017-2021).
\63\ Within 25 river miles of an MPP process wastewater outfall.
\64\ National averages are derived from the five-year 2017-2021
American Community Survey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix A to the Preamble: Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations
Used in This Preamble
The following acronyms, abbreviations, and terms are used in
this preamble. These terms are provided for convenience to the
reader, and they are not regulatory definitions with the force or
effect of law, nor are they to be used as guidance for
implementation of this proposed rule.
Administrator. The Administrator of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Agency. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
BAT. Best Available Technology economically achievable, as
defined by CWA sections 301(b)(2)(A) and 304(b)(2)(B).
BCA. Benefit Cost Analysis.
BCT. The best control technology for conventional pollutants,
applicable to discharges of conventional pollutants from existing
industrial point sources, as defined by section 304(b)(4) of the
CWA.
Bioaccumulation. General term describing a process by which
chemicals are taken up by an organism either directly from exposure
to a contaminated medium or by consumption of food containing the
chemical, resulting in a net accumulation of the chemical over time
by the organism.
BMP. Best management practice.
BOD5. Biological oxygen demand measured over a five-
day period.
BPJ. Best Professional Judgement.
BPT. The best practicable control technology currently
available, as defined by CWA sections 301(b)(1) and 304(b)(1).
CBI. Confidential business information.
CFR. Code of Federal Regulations.
CWA. Clean Water Act; The Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), as amended, e.g., by
the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 95-217) and the Water Quality
Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 100-4).
CWA Section 308 Questionnaire. A questionnaire sent to
facilities under the authority of section 308 of the CWA, which
requests information to be used in the development of national
effluent limitations guidelines and standards.
Conventional Pollutants. Section 304(a)(4) designates the
following as conventional pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand,
total suspended solids, fecal coliform, and pH, and any additional
pollutants defined by the Administrator. The Administrator
designated oil & grease as an additional conventional pollutant on
July 30, 1979. 40 CFR 401.16.
DAF. Dissolved Air Flotation.
Daily Discharge. The discharge of a pollutant measured during
any calendar day or any 24-hour period that reasonably represents a
calendar day.
Denitrification. Nitrite and nitrate are reduced by
heterotrophic bacteria into nitrogen gas in anaerobic conditions.
Direct discharge. (1) Any addition of any ``pollutant'' or
combination of pollutants to ``waters of the United States'' from
any ``point source'' or (2) any addition of any pollutant or
combination of pollutant to waters of the ``contiguous zone'' or the
ocean from any point source other than a vessel or other floating
craft that is being used as a means of transportation. This
definition includes additions of pollutants into waters of the
United States from surface runoff that is collected or channeled by
man; discharges through pipes, sewers, or other conveyances owned by
a State, municipality, or other person that do not lead to a
treatment works; and discharges through pipes, sewers, or other
conveyances that lead into privately owned treatment works. This
term does not include addition of pollutants by any ``indirect
discharger.'' 40 CFR 122.2.
DMR. Discharge Monitoring Report
Effluent limitation. Under CWA section 502(11), any restriction,
including schedules of compliance, established by a State or the
Administrator on quantities, rates, and concentrations of chemical,
physical, biological, and other constituents that are discharged
from point sources into navigable waters, the waters of the
contiguous zone, or the ocean.
EJA. Environmental Justice Analysis
ELGs. Effluent limitations guidelines and standards.
E.O. Executive Order.
EPA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Existing Source. For this rule, any source that is not a new
source as defined in 40 CFR 122.2.
Facility. Any NPDES ``point source'' or any other facility or
activity (including land or appurtenances thereto) that is subject
to regulation under the CWA.
Finished Product. The final manufactured product produced on
site, including products intended for consumption with no additional
processing as well as products intended for further processing, when
applicable.
First Processing. Operations which receive live meat animals or
poultry and produce a raw, dressed meat or poultry product, either
whole or in parts.
FTE. Full Time Equivalent Employee
Further Processing. Operations which utilize whole carcasses or
cut-up meat or poultry products for the production of fresh or
frozen products, and may include the following types of processing:
cutting and deboning, cooking, seasoning, smoking, canning,
grinding, chopping, dicing, forming or breading.
Groundwater. Water that is found in the saturated part of the
ground underneath the land surface.
Hazardous Waste. Any waste, including wastewater, defined as
hazardous under RCRA, CERCLA, TSCA, or any State law.
HEM. A measure of oil & grease in wastewater by mixing the
wastewater with hexane and measuring the oils and greases that are
removed from the wastewater with n-hexane. Specifically, EPA Method
1664, see, Table IB.
Indirect discharge. Wastewater discharged or otherwise
introduced to a POTW.
Landfill. A disposal facility or part of a facility or plant
where solid waste, sludges, or other process residuals are placed in
or on any natural or manmade formation in the earth for disposal and
which is not a storage pile, a land treatment facility, a surface
impoundment, an underground injection well, a salt dome or salt bed
formation, an underground mine, a cave, or a corrective action
management unit.
LTA (Long-Term Average). For purposes of the effluent
guidelines, average pollutant levels achieved over a period of time
by a facility, subcategory, or technology option. LTAs were used in
developing the effluent limitations guidelines and standards in
today's proposed regulation.
Live Weight Killed (LWK). The total weight of the total number
of animals slaughtered during a specific time period.
Maximum Monthly Discharge Limitation. The highest allowable
average of ``daily discharges'' over a calendar month, calculated as
the sum of all ``daily discharges'' measured during the calendar
month divided by the number of ``daily discharges'' measured during
the month.
Meat. The term ``meat'' includes all animal products from
cattle, calves, hogs, sheep, lambs, horses, goats and exotic
livestock (e.g., elk, buffalo, deer) etc., except those defined as
Poultry for human consumption. This category may include certain
species not classified as ``meat'' by USDA FSIS and that may or may
not be under USDA FSIS voluntary inspection.
MPP. Meat and Poultry Products.
Minimum Level. The level at which an analytical system gives
recognizable signals and an acceptable calibration point.
Mortality. Death rate or proportion of deaths in a population.
NAICS. North American Industry Classification System.
[[Page 4523]]
Non-Conventional Pollutants. Pollutants that are neither
conventional pollutants nor toxic/priority pollutants.
Non-Water Quality Environmental Impact. Deleterious aspects of
control and treatment technologies applicable to point source
category wastes, including, but not limited to air pollution, noise,
radiation, sludge and solid waste generation, and energy used.
NPDES. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
NSPSs. New Source Performance Standards.
Outfall. The mouth of conduit drains and other conduits from
which a facility effluent discharges into receiving waters.
Point source. Any discernible, confined, and discrete
conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel,
tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock,
concentrated animal feeding operation, vessel, or other floating
craft from which pollutants are or may be discharged. The term does
not include agricultural stormwater discharges or return flows from
irrigated agriculture. See CWA section 502(14), 33 U.S.C. 1362(14);
40 CFR 122.2.
Pollutants of Concern (POCs). Pollutants commonly found in meat
and poultry processing wastewaters. Generally, a chemical is
considered as a POC if it was detected in untreated process
wastewater at 5 times a baseline value in more than 10% of the
samples.
Poultry. Broilers, other young chickens, hens, fowl, mature
chickens, turkeys, capons, geese, ducks, exotic poultry (e.g.,
ostriches), and small game such as quail, pheasants, and rabbits.
This category may include species not classified as ``poultry'' by
USDA FSIS and that may or may not be under USDA FSIS voluntary
inspection.
POTW. Publicly owned treatment works. Any device or system owned
by a State or municipality that is used in the treatment (including
recycling and reclamation) of municipal sewage or industrial wastes
of a liquid nature. These include sewers, pipes, or other
conveyances only if they convey wastewater to a POTW providing
treatment. See CWA section 212, 33 U.S.C. 1292; 40 CFR 122.2, and
403.3.
Priority Pollutant. One hundred twenty-six compounds that are a
subset of the 65 toxic pollutants and classes of pollutants outlined
pursuant to section 307(a) of the CWA. They are listed at 40 CFR
part 423 Appx A.
PSES. Pretreatment Standards for existing sources of indirect
discharges, under section 307(b) of the CWA.
PSNS. Pretreatment standards for new sources under section
307(c) of the CWA.
Raw Material. The basic input materials to a renderer composed
of animal and poultry trimmings, bones, meat scraps, dead animals,
feathers and related usable by-products.
RCRA. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42
U.S.C. 6901 et seq.
RO. Reverse osmosis.
RFA. Regulatory Flexibility Act.
SBA. Small Business Administration.
SBR. Sequencing batch reactor.
SBREFA. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996.
Sediment. Particulate matter lying below water.
SER. Small Entity Representative.
SIC. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)--A numerical
categorization system used by the U.S. Department of Commerce to
catalogue economic activity. SIC codes refer to the products, or
group of products, produced or distributed, or to services rendered
by an operating establishment. SIC codes are used to group
establishments by the economic activities in which they are engaged.
SIC codes often denote a facility's primary, secondary, tertiary,
etc. economic activities.
Surface water. All waters of the United States, including
rivers, streams, lakes, reservoirs, and seas.
TKN. Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen.
Total Nitrogen. Sum of nitrate/nitrite and TKN.
Toxic pollutants. As identified under the CWA, 65 pollutants and
classes of pollutants, see 40 CFR 401.15, of which 126 specific
substances have been designated priority toxic pollutants. See
Appendix A to 40 CFR part 423.
TSS. Total suspended solids.
UMRA. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
USDA. United States Department of Agriculture.
UV. Ultra-violet light.
Variability factor. Calculated from the concentration data from
the facilities using the BAT technologies that incorporates all
components of variability including process and wastewater
generation, sample collection, shipping, storage, and analytical
variability.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 432
Environmental protection; Meat and meat products; Poultry and
poultry products; Waste treatment and disposal; Water pollution
control.
Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR part 432 as follows:
PART 432--MEAT AND POULTRY PRODUCTS POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
0
1. The authority for part 432 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342 and
1361.
0
2. Amend Sec. 432.2 by:
0
a. Removing paragraph (d).
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (c) as (d) and adding new paragraph (c).
0
c. Adding paragraphs (l)(7), (m), (n) and (o).
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 432.2 General definitions.
* * * * *
(c) E. coli means the bacterial count, as determined by approved
methods of analysis for Parameter 4 in Table 1A in 40 CFR 136.3.
(d) Fecal coliform means the bacterial count, as determined by
approved methods of analysis for Parameter 1 in Table 1A in 40 CFR
136.3.
* * * * *
(l)(7) Total Phosphorus means the total of particulate and soluble
phosphorus
(m) The term nitrification means oxidation of ammonium salts to
nitrites (via Nitrosomas bacteria) and the further oxidation of nitrite
to nitrate via Nitrobacter bacteria.
(n) The term denitrification means the microbial process of
reducing nitrate and nitrite to gaseous nitrous oxide, and nitrogen
gas.
(o) The term phosphorus removal means removal of particulate and
soluble phosphorus by biological uptake and solids settling and
removal.
Subpart A [Amended]
0
3. Amend Sec. 432.12(a)(1) by revising the table ``Effluent
Limitations [BPT]'' to read as follows:
Sec. 432.12 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
Table 1 to Paragraph (a)--Effluent Limitations
[BPT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5.................................... 0.24 0.12
Fecal Coliform.......................... \2\ 50 \2\ 22
O&G \3\................................. 0.12 0.06
[[Page 4524]]
TSS..................................... 0.40 0.20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1,000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK.
\2\ MPN or CFU per 100 mL.
\3\ May be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM).
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec. 432.13 by revising the table ``Effluent Limitations
[BAT]'' to read as follows:
Sec. 432.13 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
* * * * *
Table 1 to Sec. 432.13--Effluent Limitations
[BAT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N).......................... 8.0 4.0
Total Nitrogen.......................... 20 12
Total Phosphorus........................ 1.5 0.8
E. Coli................................. \2\ 14 \2\ 9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
\2\ MPN or CFU per 100 mL.
0
5. Revise Sec. 432.14 to read as follows:
Sec. 432.14 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source
subject to this subpart that slaughters more than 50 million pounds per
year (in units of LWK) that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned
treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve the
following pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES):
Table 1 to Sec. 432.14--Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources
[PSES]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5.................................... 1,945 1,323
TSS..................................... 1,578 925
Oil and grease.......................... 1,635 1,393
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L.
0
6. Amend Sec. 432.15 by revising the introductory text and paragraph
(b)(1), and removing paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 432.15 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Facilities subject to the 2004 new source performance standards in
Sec. Sec. 432.15 of this part continue to be subject to those
standards. These 2004 new sources are also subject to revised BPT and
BAT effluent limitations specified in Sec. 432.12 and 432.13 of this
part (for direct dischargers) or the revised pretreatment standards
specified in Sec. 432.14 of this part (for indirect dischargers).
Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, any source that is
a new source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
performance standards:
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) In the case of process wastewater associated with the
slaughtering of animals on-site or the processing of the carcasses of
animals slaughtered on-site, the standards for BOD5, fecal
coliform, O&G, and TSS are the same as the limitations specified in
Sec. 432.12(a)(1) and the standards for ammonia (as N) total nitrogen,
total phosphorus, and E. coli are as follows:
Table 5 to Paragraph (b)(1)--Performance Standards
[NSPS]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N).......................... 8.0 4.0
Total Nitrogen.......................... 20 12
[[Page 4525]]
Total Phosphorus........................ 1.5 0.8
E. Coli................................. \2\ 14 \2\ 9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
\2\ MPN or CFU per 100 mL.
* * * * *
0
7. Revise Sec. 432.16 to read as follows:
Sec. 432.16 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source
subject to this subpart that slaughters more than 50 million pounds per
year (in units of LWK) that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned
treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve the
following pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSNS):
Table 1 to Sec. 432.16--Pretreatment Standards for New Sources
[PSNS]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5.................................... 1,945 1,323
TSS..................................... 1,578 925
Oil and grease.......................... 1635 1393
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L.
Subpart B [Amended]
0
8. Amend Sec. 432.22 (a)(1) by revising the table ``Effluent
Limitations [BPT] table to read as follows:
Sec. 432.22 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
Table 1 to Paragraph (a)(1)--Effluent Limitations
[BPT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5.................................... 0.42 0.21
Fecal Coliform.......................... \2\ 50 \2\ 22
O&G \3\................................. 0.16 0.08
TSS..................................... 0.50 0.25
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1,000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK.
\2\ MPN or CFU per 100 mL.
\3\ May be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM).
* * * * *
0
9. Revise Sec. 432.23 to read as follows:
Sec. 432.23 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart that slaughters more than 50
million pounds per year (in units of LWK) must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the application of BAT: Limitations
for ammonia (as N), total phosphorus, E. coli, and total nitrogen are
the same as specified in Sec. 432.13.
0
10. Revise Sec. 432.24 to read as follows:
Sec. 432.24 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source
subject to this subpart that slaughters more than 50 million pounds per
year (in units of LWK) that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned
treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve the
following pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES):
Limitations for BOD5, TSS, oil and grease are the same as
specified in Sec. 432.14.
0
11. Amend Sec. 432.25 by revising the introductory text and paragraph
(b)(1), and removing paragraph (c).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 432.25 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Facilities subject to the 2004 new source performance standards in
this section continue to be subject to those standards. These 2004 new
sources are also subject to revised BPT and BAT effluent limitations
specified in Sec. Sec. 432.22 and 432.23 (for direct dischargers) or
the revised pretreatment standards specified in Sec. 432.24 (for
indirect dischargers). Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this
section, any source that is a new source subject to this subpart must
achieve the following performance standards:
* * * * *
(b) * * *
[[Page 4526]]
(1) In the case of process wastewater associated with the
slaughtering of animals on-site or the processing of the carcasses of
animals slaughtered on-site, the standards for BOD5, fecal
coliform, O&G, and TSS are the same as the corresponding limitations
specified in Sec. 432.22(a)(1) and the standards for ammonia (as N),
total phosphorus, E. coli, and total nitrogen are the same as the
limitations specified in Sec. 432.15(b)(1).
* * * * *
0
12. Revise Sec. 432.26 to read as follows:
Sec. 432.26 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source
subject to this subpart that slaughters more than 50 million pounds per
year (in units of LWK) that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned
treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve the
following pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES):
Limitations for BOD5, TSS, oil and grease are the same as
specified in Sec. 432.16.
Subpart C [Amended]
0
13. Amend Sec. 432.32 (a)(1) by revising the table ``Effluent
Limitations [BPT]'' to read as follows:
Sec. 432.32 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
Table 1 to Paragraph (a)(1)--Effluent Limitations
[BPT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5.................................... 0.34 0.17
Fecal Coliform.......................... \2\ 50 \2\ 22
O&G \3\................................. 0.16 0.08
TSS..................................... 0.48 0.24
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1,000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK.
\2\ MPN or CFU per 100 mL.
\3\ May be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM).
* * * * *
0
14. Revise Sec. 432.33 to read as follows:
Sec. 432.33 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart that slaughters more than 50
million pounds per year (in units of LWK) must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the application of BAT: the
limitations for ammonia (as N), total phosphorus, E. coli, and total
nitrogen are the same as specified in Sec. 432.13.
0
15. Revise Sec. 432.34 to read as follows:
Sec. 432.34 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source
subject to this subpart that slaughters more than 50 million pounds per
year (in units of LWK) that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned
treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve the
following pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES):
Limitations for BOD5, TSS, oil and grease are the same as
specified in Sec. 432.14.
0
16. Amend Sec. 432.35 by revising the introductory text and paragraph
(b)(1), and removing paragraph (c) to read as follow:
Sec. 432.35 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Facilities subject to the 2004 new source performance standards in
Sec. Sec. 432.35 of this part continue to be subject to those
standards. These 2004 new sources are also subject to revised BPT and
BAT effluent limitations specified in Sec. Sec. 432.32 and 432.33 (for
direct dischargers) or the revised pretreatment standards specified in
Sec. 432.34 (for indirect dischargers). Except as provided in
paragraph (c) of this section, any source that is a new source subject
to this subpart must achieve the following performance standards:
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) In the case of process wastewater associated with the
slaughtering of animals on-site or the processing of the carcasses of
animals slaughtered on-site, the standards for BOD5, fecal
coliform, TSS, and O&G are the same as the corresponding limitations
specified in Sec. 432.32(a)(1) and the standards for ammonia (as N),
total phosphorus, E. coli, and total nitrogen are the same as the
limitations specified in Sec. 432.15(b)(1).
* * * * *
0
17. Revise Sec. 432.36 to read as follows:
Sec. 432.36 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source
subject to this subpart that slaughters more than 50 million pounds per
year (in units of LWK) that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned
treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve the
following pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES):
Limitations for BOD5, TSS, oil and grease are the same as
specified in Sec. 432.16.
0
18. Amend Sec. 432.42 (a)(1) by revising the table ``Effluent
Limitations [BPT]'' to read as follows:
Sec. 432.42 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
[[Page 4527]]
Table 1 to Paragraph (a)(1)--Effluent Limitations
[BPT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5 \2\................................ 0.48 0.24
Fecal Coliform.......................... \3\ 50 \3\ 22
O&G \4\................................. 0.26 0.13
TSS \2\................................. 0.62 0.31
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1,000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK.
\2\ The values for BOD5 and TSS are for average plants, i.e., plants
where the ratio of avg. wt. of processed meat products/avg. LWK is
0.55. Adjustments can be made for high-processing packinghouses
operating at other such ratios according to the following equations:
lbs BOD5/1,000 lbs LWK = 0.21 + 0.23 (v-0.4) and lbs TSS/1,000 lbs LWK
= 0.28 + 0.3 (v-0.4), where v equals the following ratio: lbs
processed meat products/lbs LWK.
\3\ MPN or CFU per 100 mL.
\4\ May be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM).
* * * * *
0
19. Revise Sec. 432.43 to read as follows:
Sec. 432.43 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart that slaughters more than 50
million pounds per year (in units of LWK) must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the application of BAT: Limitations
for ammonia (as N), total phosphorus, E. coli, and total nitrogen are
the same as specified in Sec. 432.13.
0
20. Revise Sec. 432.44 to read as follows:
Sec. 432.44 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source
subject to this subpart that slaughters more than 50 million pounds per
year (in units of LWK) that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned
treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve the
following pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES):
Limitations for BOD5, TSS, oil and grease are the same as
specified in Sec. 432.14.
0
21. Amend Sec. 432.45 by revising the introductory text and paragraph
(b)(1), and removing paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 432.45 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Facilities subject to the 2004 new source performance standards in
Sec. Sec. 432.45 of this part continue to be subject to those
standards. These 2004 new sources are also subject to revised BPT and
BAT effluent limitations specified in Sec. 432.42 and 432.43 of this
part (for direct dischargers) or the revised pretreatment standards
specified in Sec. 432.44 of this part (for indirect dischargers Except
as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, any source that is a new
source subject to this subpart must achieve the following performance
standards:
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) In the case of process wastewater associated with the
slaughtering of animals on-site or the processing of the carcasses of
animals slaughtered on-site, the standards for BOD5, fecal
coliform, O&G, and TSS are the same as the corresponding limitations
specified in Sec. 432.22(a)(1) and the standards for ammonia (as N),
total phosphorus, E. coli, and total nitrogen are the same as the
limitations specified in Sec. 432.15(b)(1).
* * * * *
0
22. Revise Sec. 432.46 to read as follows:
Sec. 432.46 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source
subject to this subpart that slaughters more than 50 million pounds per
year (in units of LWK) that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned
treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve the
following pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES):
Limitations for BOD5, TSS, oil and grease are the same as
specified in Sec. 432.16.
Subpart F [Amended]
0
23. Amend Sec. 432.62 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 432.62 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
* * * * *
(b) Facilities that generate more than 50 million pounds per year
of finished products must achieve the following effluent limitations:
Table 2 to Paragraph (b)--Effluent Limitations
[BPT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5.................................... 0.036 0.018
Fecal Coliform.......................... \2\ 50 \2\ 22
O&G \3\................................. 0.012 0.006
TSS..................................... 0.044 0.022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1,000 lbs (or g/kg) of finished product.
\2\ MPN or CFU per 100 mL.
\3\ May be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM).
[[Page 4528]]
* * * * *
0
24. Amend Sec. 432.63 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 432.63 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
* * * * *
(b) Facilities that generate more than 50 million pounds per year
of finished products must achieve the following effluent limitations:
Table 2 to Paragraph (b)--Effluent Limitations
[BAT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N).......................... 8.0 4.0
Total Nitrogen.......................... 20 12
Total Phosphorus........................ 1.5 0.8
E. Coli................................. \2\ 14 \2\ 9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
\2\ MPN or CFU per 100 mL.
0
25. Revise Sec. 432.64 to read as follows:
Sec. 432.64 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source
subject to this subpart that processes more than 50 million pounds per
year that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works
must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve the following
pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES):
Table 1 to Sec. 432.64--Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources
[PSES]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5.................................... 1,945 1,323
TSS..................................... 1,578 925
Oil and grease.......................... 1,635 1,393
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L.
0
26. Amend Sec. 432.65 by revising the introductory text and paragraph
(b), and removing paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 432.65 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Facilities subject to the 2004 new source performance standards
specified in Sec. 432.65 continue to be subject to those standards.
These 2004 new sources are also subject to revised BPT and BAT effluent
limitations specified in Sec. Sec. 432.62 and 432.63 (for direct
dischargers) or the revised pretreatment standards in Sec. 432.64 (for
indirect dischargers). Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this
section, any source that is a new source subject to this subpart must
achieve the following performance standards:
* * * * *
(b) Facilities that generate more than 50 million pounds per year
of finished products must achieve the limitations for BOD5,
fecal coliform, O&G, and TSS specified in Sec. 432.62(b) and the
limitations for ammonia (as N), total phosphorus, E. coli, and total
nitrogen specified in Sec. 432.63(b).
0
27. Revise Sec. 432.66 to read as follows:
Sec. 432.66 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source
subject to this subpart that processes more than 50 million pounds per
year that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works
must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve the following
pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS):
Table 1 to Sec. 432.66--Pretreatment Standards for New Sources
[PSNS]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5.................................... 1,945 1,323
TSS..................................... 1,578 925
Oil and grease.......................... 1,635 1,393
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L.
Subpart G--Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources [PSES]
0
28. Amend Sec. 432.72 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 432.72 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
* * * * *
(b) Facilities that generate more than 50 million pounds per year
of finished products must achieve the following effluent limitations:
[[Page 4529]]
Table 2 to Paragraph (b)--Effluent Limitations
[BPT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5.................................... 0.56 0.28
Fecal Coliform.......................... \2\ 50 \2\ 22
O&G \3\................................. 0.20 0.10
TSS..................................... 0.68 0.34
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1,000 lbs (or g/kg) of finished product.
\2\ MPN or CFU per 100 mL.
\3\ May be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM).
* * * * *
0
29. Amend Sec. 432.73 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 432.73 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
* * * * *
(b) Facilities that generate more than 50 million pounds per year
of finished products must achieve the following effluent limitations:
Table 2 to Paragraph (b)--Effluent Limitations
[BAT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N).......................... 8.0 4.0
Total Nitrogen.......................... 20 12
Total Phosphorus........................ 1.5 0.8
E. Coli................................. \2\ 14 \2\ 9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
\2\ MPN or CFU per 100 mL.
0
30. Revise Sec. 432.74 to read as follows:
Sec. 432.74 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source
subject to this subpart that processes more than 50 million pounds per
year that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works
must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve the following
pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES):
Table 1 to Sec. 432.74--Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources
[PSES]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5.................................... 1,945 1,323
TSS..................................... 1,578 925
Oil and grease.......................... 1,635 1,393
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L.
0
31. Amend Sec. 432.75 by revising the introductory text and paragraphs
(b), and removing paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 432.75 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Facilities subject to the 2004 new source performance standards in
Sec. 432.75 continue to be subject to those standards. These 2004 new
sources are also subject to revised BPT and BAT effluent limitations
specified in Sec. Sec. 432.72 and 432.73 (for direct dischargers) or
the revised pretreatment standards specified in Sec. 432.74 (for
indirect dischargers). Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this
section, any source that is a new source subject to this subpart must
achieve the following performance standards:
* * * * *
(b) Facilities that generate more than 50 million pounds per year
of finished products must achieve the limitations for BOD5,
fecal coliform, O&G, and TSS specified in Sec. 432.72(b) and the
limitations for ammonia (as N), total phosphorus, E. coli, and total
nitrogen specified in Sec. 432.73(b).
0
32. Revise Sec. 432.76 to read as follows:
Sec. 432.76 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source
subject to this subpart that processes more than 50 million pounds per
year that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works
must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve the following
pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS):
[[Page 4530]]
Table 1 Sec. 432.76--Pretreatment Standards for New Sources
[PSNS]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5.................................... 1,945 1,323
TSS..................................... 1,578 925
Oil and grease.......................... 1,635 1,393
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L.
Subpart H [Amended]
0
33. Amend Sec. 432.82 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 432.82 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
* * * * *
(b) Facilities that generate more than 50 million pounds per year
of finished products must achieve the following effluent limitations:
Table 1 to Paragraph (b)--Effluent Limitations
[BPT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5.................................... 0.62 0.31
Fecal Coliform.......................... \2\ 50 \2\ 22
O&G \3\................................. 0.22 0.11
TSS..................................... 0.74 0.37
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1,000 lbs (or g/kg) of finished product.
\2\ MPN or CFU per 100 mL.
\3\ May be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM).
0
34. Amend Sec. 432.83 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 432.83 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
* * * * *
(b) Facilities that generate more than 50 million pounds per year
of finished products must achieve the following effluent limitations:
Table 2 to Paragraph (b)--Effluent Limitations
[BAT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N).......................... 8.0 4.0
Total Nitrogen.......................... 20 12
Total Phosphorus........................ 1.5 0.8
E. Coli................................. \2\ 14 \2\ 9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
\2\ MPN or CFU per 100 mL.
0
35. Revise Sec. 432.84 to read as follows:
Sec. 432.84 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source
subject to this subpart that processes more than 50 million pounds per
year that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works
must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve the following
pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES):
Table 1 to Sec. 432.84--Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources
[PSES]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5.................................... 1,945 1,323
TSS..................................... 1,578 925
Oil and grease.......................... 1,635 1,393
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L.
[[Page 4531]]
0
36. Amend Sec. 432.85 by revising the introductory text and paragraph
(b), and removing paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 432.85 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Facilities subject to the 2004 new source performance standards in
Sec. 432.85 continue to be subject to those standards. These 2004 new
sources are also subject to revised BPT and BAT effluent limitations
specified in Sec. Sec. 432.82 and 432.83 (for direct dischargers) or
the revised pretreatment standards specified in Sec. 432.84 (for
indirect dischargers). Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this
section, any source that is a new source subject to this subpart must
achieve the following performance standards:
* * * * *
(b) Facilities that generate more than 50 million pounds per year
of finished products must achieve the limitations for BOD5,
fecal coliform, O&G, and TSS specified in Sec. 432.82(b) and the
limitations for ammonia (as N), total phosphorus, E. coli, and total
nitrogen specified in Sec. 432.83(b).
0
37. Revise Sec. 432.86 to read as follows:
Sec. 432.86 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source
subject to this subpart that processes more than 50 million pounds per
year that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works
must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve the following
pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS):
Table 1 Sec. 432.86--Pretreatment Standards for New Sources
[PSNS]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5.................................... 1,945 1,323
TSS..................................... 1,578 925
Oil and grease.......................... 1,635 1,393
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L.
Subpart I [ Amended]
0
38. Amend Sec. 432.92 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 432.92 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
* * * * *
(b) Facilities that generate more than 50 million pounds per year
of finished products must achieve the following effluent limitations:
Table 2 to Paragraph (b)--Effluent Limitations
[BPT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5.................................... 0.74 0.37
Fecal Coliform.......................... \2\ 50 \2\ 22
O&G \3\................................. 0.26 0.13
TSS..................................... 0.90 0.45
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) of finished product.
\2\ MPN or CFU per 100 mL.
\3\ May be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM).
* * * * *
0
39. Amend Sec. 432.93 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 432.93 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
* * * * *
(b) Facilities that generate more than 50 million pounds per year
of finished products must achieve the following effluent limitations:
Table 2 to Paragraph (b)--Effluent Limitations
[BAT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N).......................... 8.0 4.0
Total Nitrogen.......................... 20 12
Total Phosphorus........................ 1.5 0.8
E. Coli................................. \2\ 14 \2\ 9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
\2\ MPN or CFU per 100 mL.
[[Page 4532]]
0
40. Revise Sec. 432.94 to read as follows:
Sec. 432.94 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source
subject to this subpart that processes more than 50 million pounds per
year that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works
must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve the following
pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES):
Table 1 to Sec. 432.94--Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources
[PSES]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5.................................... 1,945 1,323
TSS..................................... 1,578 925
Oil and grease.......................... 1,635 1,393
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L.
0
41. Amend Sec. 432.95 by revising the introductory text and paragraph
(b), and removing paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 432.95 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Facilities subject to the 2004 new source performance standards in
Sec. Sec. 432.95 of this part continue to be subject to those
standards. These 2004 new sources are also subject to revised BPT and
BAT effluent limitations specified in Sec. 432.92 and 432.93 of this
part (for direct dischargers) or the revised pretreatment standards
specified in Sec. 432.94 of this part (for indirect dischargers).
Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, any source that is
a new source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
performance standards:
* * * * *
(b) Facilities that generate more than 50 million pounds per year
of finished products must achieve the limitations for BOD5,
fecal coliform, O&G, and TSS specified in Sec. 432.92(b) and the
limitations for ammonia (as N), total phosphorus, E. coli, and total
nitrogen specified in Sec. 432.93(b).
0
42. Revise Sec. 432.96 to read as follows:
Sec. 432.96 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source
subject to this subpart that processes more than 50 million pounds per
year that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works
must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve the following
pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS):
Table 1 to Sec. 432.96--Pretreatment Standards for New Sources
[PSNS]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5.................................... 1,945 1,323
TSS..................................... 1,578 925
Oil and grease.......................... 1,635 1,393
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L.
Subpart J [Amended]
0
43. Amend Sec. 432.102 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 432.102 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any
existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations representing the application of BPT:
Table 1 to Paragraph (a)--Effluent Limitations
[BPT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5.................................... 0.34 0.17
Fecal Coliform.......................... \2\ 50 \2\ 22
O&G \3\................................. 0.20 0.10
TSS..................................... 0.42 0.21
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) of raw material.
\2\ MPN or CFU per 100 mL
\3\ May be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM).
[[Page 4533]]
* * * * *
0
44. Revise Sec. 432.103 to read as follows:
Sec. 432.103 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of
the best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
Except as provided by 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the application of BAT:
Table 1 to Sec. 432.103--Effluent Limitations
[BAT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum daily monthly avg.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N) \1\...................... 0.14 0.07
Total Nitrogen \2\...................... 20 12
Total Phosphorus \2\.................... 1.5 0.8
E. Coli................................. \3\ 14 \3\ 9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (g/kg) of raw material (RM).
\2\ mg/L (ppm).
\3\ MPN or CFU per 100 mL
0
45. Revise Sec. 432.104 to read as follows:
Sec. 432.104 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source
subject to this subpart that uses raw material at rates more than 10
million pounds per year that introduces pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve
the following pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES):
Table 1 Sec. 432.104--Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources
[PSES]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5.................................... 1,945 1,323
TSS..................................... 1,578 925
Oil and grease.......................... 1,635 1,393
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L.
0
46. Amend Sec. 432.105 by revising paragraph (a) and removing
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 432.105 New source performance standards (NSPS).
(a) Facilities subject to the 2004 new source performance standards
in Sec. 432.105 continue to be subject to those standards. These 2004
new sources are also subject to revised BPT and BAT effluent
limitations specified in Sec. Sec. 432.102 and 432.103 (for direct
dischargers) or the revised pretreatment standards specified in Sec.
432.104 (for indirect dischargers). Except as provided in paragraph (c)
of this section, any source that is a new source subject to this
subpart must achieve the following performance standards:
Table 1 to Paragraph (a)--Performance Standards
[NSPS]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum daily monthly avg.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N) \1\...................... 0.14 0.07
BOD5 \1\................................ 0.18 0.09
E. coli................................. \2\ 14 \2\ 9
Fecal coliform.......................... \2\ 50 \2\ 22
O&G 1 3................................. 0.10 0.05
Total Nitrogen \4\...................... 20 12
Total Phosphorus \4\.................... 1.5 0.8
TSS \1\................................. 0.22 0.11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) of raw material (RM).
\2\ MPN or CFU per 100 mL..
\3\ May be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM).
\4\ mg/L (ppm).
[[Page 4534]]
* * * * *
0
47. Revise Sec. 432.106 to read as follows:
Sec. 432.106 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source
subject to this subpart that uses raw material at rates more than 10
million pounds per year that introduces pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve
the following pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS):
Table 1 to Sec. 432.106--Pretreatment Standards for New Sources
[PSNS]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5.................................... 1,945 1,323
TSS..................................... 1,578 925
Oil and grease.......................... 1,635 1,393
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L.
Subpart K [Amended]
0
48. Revise Sec. 432.112 to read as follows:
Sec. 432.112 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart that slaughters more than 100
million pounds per year (in units of LWK) must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the application of BPT:
Table 1 to Sec. 432.112--Effluent Limitations
[BPT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N).......................... 8.0 4.0
BOD5.................................... 26 16
Fecal Coliform.......................... \2\ 50 \2\ 22
O&G (as HEM)............................ 14 8.0
TSS..................................... 30 20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
\2\ MPN or CFU per 100 mL.
0
49. Revise Sec. 432.113 to read as follows:
Sec. 432.113 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of
the best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart that slaughters more than 100
million pounds per year (in units of LWK) must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the application of BAT:
Table 1 to Sec. 432.113--Effluent Limitations
[BAT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N).......................... 8.0 4.0
Total Nitrogen.......................... 20 12
Total Phosphorus........................ 1.5 0.8
E. Coli................................. \2\ 14 \3\ 9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ (mg/L) (ppm).
\2\ MPN or CFU per 100 mL.
0
50. Revise Sec. 432.114 to read as follows:
Sec. 432.114 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source
subject to this subpart that slaughters more than 100 million pounds
per year (in units of LWK) that introduces pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve
the following pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES):
[[Page 4535]]
Table 1 to Sec. 432.114--Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources
[PSES]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5.................................... 1,945 1,323
TSS..................................... 1,578 925
Oil and grease.......................... 1,635 1,393
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L.
0
51. Amend Sec. 432.115 by revising the introductory text and paragraph
(b) to read as follows:
Sec. 432.115 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Facilities subject to the 2004 new source performance standards in
Sec. 432.115 continue to be subject to those standards. These 2004 new
sources are also subject to revised BPT and BAT effluent limitations
specified in Sec. Sec. 432.112 and 432.113 (for direct dischargers) or
the revised pretreatment standards specified in Sec. 432.114 (for
indirect dischargers). Any source that is a new source subject to this
subpart must achieve the following performance standards:
* * * * *
(b) Facilities that slaughter more than 100 million pounds per year
(in units of LWK) must achieve the following performance standards:
Table 2 to Paragraph (b)--Performance Standards
[NSPS]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N).......................... 8.0 4.0
BOD5.................................... 26 16
E. coli................................. \2\ 14 \2\ 9
Fecal Coliform.......................... \2\ 50 \2\ 22
O&G (as HEM)............................ 14 8.0
TSS..................................... 30 20
Total Phosphorus........................ 1.5 0.8
Total Nitrogen.......................... 20 12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
\2\ MPN or CFU per 100 mL.
0
52. Revise Sec. 432.116 to read as follows:
Sec. 432.116 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source
subject to this subpart that slaughters more than 100 million pounds
per year (in units of LWK) that introduces pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve
the following pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS):
Table 1 to Sec. 432.116--Pretreatment Standards for New Sources
[PSNS]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5.................................... 1,945 1,323
TSS..................................... 1,578 925
Oil and grease.......................... 1,635 1,393
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L.
Subpart L [Amended]
0
53. Revise Sec. 432.122 to read as follows:
Sec. 432.122 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart that further processes more than 7
million pounds per year (in units of finished product) must achieve the
following effluent limitations representing the application of BPT:
[[Page 4536]]
Table 1 to Sec. 432.122--Effluent Limitations
[BPT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N).......................... 8.0 4.0
BOD5.................................... 26 16
Fecal Coliform.......................... \2\ 50 \3\ 22
O&G (as HEM)............................ 14 8.0
TSS..................................... 30 20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
\2\ MPN or CFU per 100 mL.
0
54. Revise Sec. 432.123 to read as follows:
Sec. 432.123 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of
the best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart that further processes more than 7
million pounds per year (in units of finished product) must achieve the
following effluent limitations representing the application of BAT:
Table 1 to Sec. 432.123--Effluent Limitations
[BAT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N).......................... 8.0 4.0
Total Nitrogen.......................... 20 12
Total Phosphorus........................ 1.5 0.8
E. Coli................................. \2\ 14 \2\ 9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
\2\ MPN or CFU per 100 mL.
0
55. Revise Sec. 432.124 to read as follows:
Sec. 432.124 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source
subject to this subpart that processes more than 7 million pounds per
year (in units of LWK) that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned
treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve the
following pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES):
Table 1 to Sec. 432.124--Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources
[PSES]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5.................................... 1,945 1,323
TSS..................................... 1,578 925
Oil and grease.......................... 1,635 1,393
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L.
0
56. Amend Sec. 432.125 by revising the introductory text and paragraph
(b) to read as follows:
Sec. 432.125 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Facilities subject to the 2004 new source performance standards in
Sec. Sec. 432.125 of this part continue to be subject to those
standards. These 2004 new sources are also subject to revised BPT and
BAT effluent limitations specified in Sec. 432.122 and 432.123 of this
part (for direct dischargers) or the revised pretreatment standards
specified in Sec. 432.124 of this part (for indirect dischargers). Any
source that is a new source subject to this subpart must achieve the
following performance standards:
* * * * *
(b) Facilities that further process more than 7 million pounds per
year (in units of finished product) must achieve the following
performance standards:
[[Page 4537]]
Table 2 to Paragraph (b)--Effluent Limitations
[NSPS]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum daily monthly avg
\1\ \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N).......................... 8.0 4.0
BOD5.................................... 26 16
E. coli................................. \2\ 14 \2\ 9
Fecal Coliform.......................... \2\ 50 \2\ 22
O&G (as HEM)............................ 14 8.0
TSS..................................... 30 20
Total Phosphorus........................ 1.5 0.8
Total Nitrogen.......................... 20 12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
\2\ MPN or CFU per 100 mL.
0
57. Revise Sec. 432.126 to read as follows:
Sec. 432.126 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source
subject to this subpart that processes more than 7 million pounds per
year (in units of LWK) that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned
treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve the
following pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS):
Table 1 to Sec. 432.126--Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources
[PSNS]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum daily monthly avg
\1\ \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5.................................... 1,945 1,323
TSS..................................... 1,578 925
Oil and grease.......................... 1,635 1,393
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L.
[FR Doc. 2023-28498 Filed 1-22-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
