Proposed Rule2023-28498
Clean Water Act Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Point Source Category
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
January 23, 2024
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
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.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 15 (Tuesday, January 23, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[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 [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[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 <a href="https://www.epa.gov/eg/meat-and-poultry-products-effluent-guidelines-2024-proposed-rule">https://www.epa.gov/eg/meat-and-poultry-products-effluent-guidelines-2024-proposed-rule</a> 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:
<bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
<bullet> Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Office of Water Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
<bullet> 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>, 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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#aef9c6c7dac2c1cdc580fddacbd8cbeecbdecf80c9c1d8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="94c3fcfde0f8fbf7ffbac7e0f1e2f1d4f1e4f5baf3fbe2">[email protected]</span></a>.
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:
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> (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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> 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 <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets</a> 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, CO<INF>2</INF>, N<INF>2</INF>, and
CH<INF>4</INF>.
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. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.351">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.351</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-21124-4">https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-21124-4</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
<bullet> Processing details (including type of meat or poultry and
type of processing),
<bullet> Type and size (both production and employees) of the
facility, and
<bullet> 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:
<bullet> Treatment system influent (untreated wastewater). Sample
collected downstream of screening (if present) to ensure large solids
were removed to facilitate sampling.
<bullet> Effluent from primary treatment (or influent to biological
treatment). Primary treatment typically included a DAF unit or
anaerobic basin/lagoon.
[[Page 4486]]
<bullet> Effluent from biological treatment (or influent to
tertiary treatment). Biological treatment typically included complete
nitrification/denitrification.
<bullet> Effluent from tertiary treatment (e.g., filters,
disinfection, and/or chlorination/dechlorination), if tertiary
treatment was in place.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and carbonaceous biochemical
oxygen demand (CBOD)
<bullet> Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
<bullet> Inorganic anions
<bullet> Oil & grease
<bullet> Nitrogen compounds
<bullet> Total and ortho-phosphorus
<bullet> TSS and TDS
<bullet> Total organic carbon (TOC)
<bullet> Bacteria (fecal coliform, Escherichia coli (E. coli)) and
enterococci)
<bullet> 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 CO<INF>2</INF> 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.
CO<INF>2</INF> greenhouse gas emissions totaled 5,981 million metric
tons of CO<INF>2</INF> 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. <a href="http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual">www.eia.gov/electricity/annual</a>.
\14\ <a href="https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions">https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. CO<INF>2</INF>
emissions by 753 tons per year, or an 0.000013 percent increase of the
nationwide total (based on U.S. CO<INF>2</INF> greenhouse gas emissions
of 5,981 million metric tons of CO<INF>2</INF> 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. <a href="http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual">www.eia.gov/electricity/annual</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\ <a href="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/">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/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2021.108459">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2021.108459</a>.
\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. <a href="https://doi.org/10.5851/kosfa.2022.e39">https://doi.org/10.5851/kosfa.2022.e39</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 BOD<INF>5</INF>), 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. <a href="https://doi.org/10.4081/mr.2013.e2">https://doi.org/10.4081/mr.2013.e2</a>.
\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 pe
[…truncated; see source link]Indexed from Federal Register on January 23, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.