SEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Technical Development Document for the
Final Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the
Meat and Poultry Products
Point Source Category (40 CFR 432)
Volume 2 of 4
-------
Technical Development Document for the
Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the
Meat and Poultry Products Point Source Category
(40 CFR 432)
Volume 2 of 4
EPA-821-R-04-011
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Engineering and Analysis Division
Washington, DC
July 2004
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND DISCLAIMER
The Agency would like to acknowledge the contributions of Marvin Rubin, Shari Barash,
Samantha Lewis, Lisa Larimer, Jade Lee-Freeman, Leonid Kopylev, Maria Smith, Lynn Zipf, James
Covington, and William Anderson for the development of this technical document. In addition, EPA
acknowledges the contribution of Tetra Tech Inc., Eastern Research Group, Westat, and Science
Applications International Corporation.
Neither the United States government nor any of its employees, contractors, subcontractors,
or other employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or
responsibility for any third party's use of, or the results of such use of, any information, apparatus,
product, or process discussed in this report, or represents that its use by such a third party would not
infringe on privately owned rights. References to proprietary technologies are not intended to be an
endorsement by the Agency.
Questions or comments regarding this report should be addressed to:
Ms. Samantha Lewis
Engineering and Analysis Division (4303T)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 566-1058
lewis.samantha@epa.gov
-------
VOLUME 2
Contents
Section 10. Incremental Capital and Operation and Maintenance Costs
for the Final Regulation 10-1
10.1 Background 10-1
10.2 Revised Methodology for Estimating Compliance Costs 10-2
10.3 Technology Options Considered as Basis for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards 10-4
10.4 Long-term Average Concentrations Used for Estimating Costs for the Technology
Options 10-5
10.5 Cost Models 10-6
10.5.1 Option 1 Cost Model (Biological Treatment with Limited Nitrification) .... 10-7
10.5.2 Option 2 Cost Model (Nitrification) 10-7
10.5.3 Option 2.5 Cost Model (Nitrification + Partial Denitrification) 10-8
10.5.4 Option 2.5+P Cost Model (Nitrification + Partial Denitrification +
Phosphorus Removal) 10-8
10.5.5 Option 4 Cost Model (Nitrification + Denitrification + Phosphorous
Removal) 10-8
10.6 Estimating Facility Costs 10-9
10.7 Summary of Estimated Compliance Costs 10-11
10.8 Supplemental and Sensitivity Analyses 10-16
10.9 References 10-22
Section 11. Pollutant Loadings 11-1
11.1 Baseline Pollutant Loadings 11-2
11.1.1 Establishment of Facility Specific Baseline Pollutant Concentrations 11-2
11.1.1.1 Pollutant Concentrations from Analytical Data 11-3
11.1.1.2 Pollutant Concentrations Calculated Based on Associated
Pollutant Parameters 11-4
11.1.1.3 Pollutant Concentrations Based on Default Values 11-8
11.1.1.4 Permit Limit Adjustments 11-10
11.1.2 Facility-Specific Baseline Pollutant Loading Estimates 11-11
11.2 Technology Options Loadings 11-14
11.2.1 Establishment of Facility-Specific Post-Compliance Pollutant
Concentrations 11-14
-------
('onleiils
11.2.2 Facility-Specific Technology Option Loading Estimates 11-16
11.3 Pollutant Removals 11-25
11.4 Supplemental Analyses 11-26
Section 12. Non-water Quality Environmental Impacts 12-1
12.1 Energy Requirements 12-1
12.2 Air Emissions Impacts 12-3
12.3 Solid Waste Generation 12-5
12.4 References 12-7
Sec tion 13. Selected Technology Options 13-1
13.1 Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards 13-1
13.1.1 Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT) 13-1
13.1.2 Best Control Technology for Conventional Pollutants (BCT) 13-2
13.1.3 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) 13-3
13.1.4 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) 13-4
13.1.5 Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) and New Sources
(PSNS) 13-4
13.2 Selected Technology Options for Each Subcategory 13-5
13.2.1 Subcategories A Through D (Meat Slaughtering Facilities) 13-5
13.2.1.1 Small Facilities in Subcategories A through D (meat first processors
that slaughter less than or equal to 50 million pounds per year) .... 13-5
13.2.1.2 Non-Small Facilities in Subcategories A through D (meat first
processors that slaughter more than 50 million pounds per year) . . . 13-7
13.2.2 Subcategory E (Small Processors) 13-17
13.2.3 Subcategories F through I (Meat Further Processing Facilities) 13-17
13.2.3.1 Small Facilities in Subcategories F through I (meat further
processors that process more than 6,000 pounds per day but less
than or equal to 50 million pounds per year) 13-18
13.2.3.2 Non-Small Facilities in Subcategories F through I (meat further
processors that process more than 50 million pounds per year) . . . 13-20
13.2.4 Subcategory K (Poultry First Processing Facilities) 13-25
13.2.4.1 Small Facilities in Subcategory K (Poultry first processors that
slaughter less than or equal to 100 million pounds per year) 13-26
13.2.4.2 Non-small Facilities in Subcategory K (Poultry first processing
facilities that slaughter more than 100 million pounds per year) . . 13-28
13.2.5 Subcategory L (Poultry Further Processing Facilities) 13-33
-------
('onleiils
13.2.5.1 Small Facilities in Subcategory L (poultry further processing
facilities that produce less than or equal to 7 million pounds
per year) 13-34
13.2.5.2 Non-small Facilities in Subcategory L (Poultry further processing
facilities that produce more than 7 million pounds per year) 13-35
13.2.6 Subcategory J (Independent Renderers) 13-41
Section 14. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation 14-1
14.1 Overview of Data Selection 14-2
14.2 Episode Selection for Each Subcategory 14-4
14.2.1 Poultry Subcategories 14-4
14.2.1.1 Exclusions of All Data from Episodes 14-4
14.2.1.2 Pollutant Specific Exclusions 14-5
14.2.2 Meat Subcategories 14-6
14.2.2.1 Exclusions of All Data from Episodes 14-6
14.2.2.2 Pollutant Specific Exclusions 14-7
14.3 Censoring Types Associated with Data 14-7
14.4 Data Substitutions and Exclusions 14-8
14.4.1 Data Substitutions 14-8
14.4.2 Data Exclusions 14-9
14.5 Data Aggregation 14-10
14.5.1 Aggregation of Field Duplicates 14-11
14.5.2 Aggregation of Grab Samples 14-12
14.6 Overview of Limitations 14-13
14.6.1 Objective 14-13
14.6.2 Selection of Percentiles 14-15
14.6.3 Compliance with Limitations 14-16
14.7 Summary of the Limitations 14-19
14.8 Estimation of Limitations 14-19
14.8.1 Episode Long-Term Averages and Variability Factors 14-19
14.8.2 Limitations 14-21
14.8.2.1 Poultry Subcategory, K 14-21
14.8.2.2 Poultry Further Processing Subcategory, Subcategory L 14-30
14.8.3 Meat Subcategories 14-31
14.9 Summary of Final Limitations 14-32
in
-------
('onleiils
Section 15. Regulatory Implementation 15-1
15.1 Applicability of the Revised Part 432 Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and Standards 15-1
15.2 Compliance Dates 15-3
15.3 Calculation of NPDES Permit Limitations 15-4
15.3.1 Meat and Independent Renderer Facilities 15-5
15.3.2 Poultry Facilities 15-9
15.3.3 Mixed Meat and Poultry Production Facilities 15-10
15.3.4 Facilities Covered by Additional Guidelines or Technology-Based Effluent
Limitations Established on a Case-By-Case Basis 15-11
15.3.5 Facilities With Highly Variable or Seasonal Production 15-12
15.4 Other NPDES Permit Conditions 15-13
15.4.1 Upset and Bypass Provisions 15-13
15.4.2 Best Management Practices 15-13
15.4.3 Compliance Monitoring 15-14
15.5 Variances and Modifications 15-15
15.5.1 Fundamentally Different Factors Variances 15-15
15.5.2 Economic Variances 15-17
15.5.3 Water Quality Variances 15-17
Section 16. Glossary
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
Appendix B. Survey Desk;n and Calculation of National Estimates
Appendix C. 40 CFR Part 432
VOLUME 1
Section 1. Summary and Scope oi the Regulation
1.1 Purpose of this Rulemaking
1.2 Overview of the MPP Point Source Category
1.3 Summary of the Final M PP Effluent Limitations and Guidelines
1.4 Protection of Confidential Business Information
Section 2. Lec;al Authority and Background
2.1 Legal Authority
2.2 Regulatory Background
2.3 Scope and Applicability of Final Regulation
IV
-------
('onleiils
Section 3. Data Collection Activities
3.1 Summary of EPA's Site Visit and Sampling Program
3.2 EPA MPP Industry Surveys
3.3 Other Information Collection Activities
3.4 Stakeholder Meetings
Section 4. Meat and Poultry Products Industry Overview
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Meat Products Industry Description
4.3 Description of Meat First and Further Processing Operations
4.4 Poultry Processing Industry Description
4.5 Description of Poultry First and Further Processing Operations
4.6 Description of Rendering Operations
Section 5. Sijbcategorization
5.1 Subcategorization Process
5.2 Subcategories for the Final Rule
5.3 References
Section 6. Water Characterization
6.1 Meat Processing Wastes
6.2 Poultry Processing Wastes
6.3 Rendering Wastewater Generation and Characteristics
6.4 Conclusions
6.5 References
Section 7. Selection ok Pollutants and Pollutant Parameters kor Regulation
7.1 Pollutants Considered for Regulation
7.2 Selection of Pollutants of Concern
7.3 Selection of Pollutants for Regulation
7.4 References
Section 8. Wastew ater Treatment Technologies and Pollution Prevention
Practices
8.1 Primary Treatment
8.2 Secondary Biological Treatment
8.3 Tertiary Treatment
8.4 Disinfection
-------
('onleiils
8.5 Effluent Disposal
8.6 Solids Disposal
8.7 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Reduction Practices
8.8 References
Section 9. Technology Options
9.1
Option 1
9.2
Option 2
9.3
Option 2+P
9.4
Option 2.5
9.5
Option 2.5+P
9.6
Option 3
9.7
Option 4
9.8
Option 5
VOLUME 3
Appendix D. Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Sijik ategories
(Part 1)
VOLUME 4
Appendix D. Aggregated Daily Data for Proposed Pollutants and Subcategories
(Part 2)
Appendix E. Attachments to Section 13
Appendix F. Attachments to Section 14
VI
-------
Section 10
Incremental Capital and Operation and Maintenance
Costs for the Final Regulation
This section presents EPA's estimates of costs for the meat and poultry products (MPP)
industry to comply with the technology options EPA considered as the basis for the final effluent
limitations guidelines (ELGs) and standards. A detailed description of the cost methodology and
detailed cost estimates are provided in the supplementary technical document Detailed Costing
Document for the Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry
Products Point Source Category (hereinafter referred to as the Cost Report). Costs were
specifically evaluated for each type of direct discharging MPP facility, including meat, poultry,
combined meat and poultry (mixed), and independent rendering facilities. EPA estimated the
compliance costs for each technology option to determine potential economic impacts on the
MPP industry and to weigh those costs against the benefits of the reduction in pollutants and
nutrients resulting from implementation of the technology options.
10.1 BACKGROUND
For the proposed rule, EPA developed compliance cost estimates based on the use of
model facilities. Specifically, EPA subdivided the entire MPP industry into 19 groups and 4 size
classes. EPA used these groups and size classifications to develop 76 model facility groups
(19 groups x 4 class sizes = 76) to represent the range of potential MPP facilities currently
operating. Costs were developed for each model facility group (MFG). To derive compliance
costs for each MFG, the Computer Assisted Procedure for Design and Evaluation of Wastewater
Treatment Systems (CAPDET) (Hydromantis, 2001), a computerized cost model, was used for
developing construction and annual operation and maintenance costs for required treatment units.
Construction costs were used to determine the capital cost of necessary treatment units. To
provide the incremental costs for each set of model facilities, the model facility costs were then
multiplied by the estimated number of facilities that require the upgrade. For selected technology
options, EPA also estimated retrofit costs based on data collected as part of the rule development.
Each set of model facility category costs and the retrofit costs were combined separately to
10-1
-------
Section 10. Incremental Capital ami Operation and Maintenance Costs for the Final Reeulution
determine costs for each regulatory subcategory (regulatory subcategories A through D, F
through I, J, K, and L). A detailed description of the cost method and cost estimates for the
proposed rule are available in the development document for the proposed rule (USEPA, 2002).
In response to the proposed ELGs, the Industry Coalition commented that the model
facilities EPA had developed were not representative of the MPP industry and that the cost
estimates derived were not representative of actual industry costs (Industry Coalition, 2002). The
Industry Coalition also criticized the use of CAPDET, which, they asserted, was primarily
developed for estimating costs for municipal wastewater treatment.
10.2 REVISED METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING COMPLIANCE COSTS
In response to comments provided on the methods used for the proposed rule and to
incorporate additional data collected after the proposed rule was published, EPA revised the
methodology for estimating the costs to be incurred by MPP facilities to comply with the final
ELGs. In particular, the revised methodology differed from that used for the proposed rule in two
significant ways: (1) the costs were estimated on a facility-specific basis for all direct discharging
facilities that received a detailed survey and for some that received only a screener survey (rather
than using modeled facilities), and (2) the cost models used were customized for the MPP
industry. EPA provided the documentation for the revised methodology in the NODA for review
and comment (see 68 FR 48479; August 13, 2003).
Since the NODA was published, EPA made some additional changes to the cost
methodology and model based on comments received. EPA modified the cost models as
appropriate including, for example, revising the values for many of the constants and
assumptions used in the model (e.g., labor rates, chemical costs), including costs for the addition
of a holding/polishing pond with 7-day retention, and limiting the nitrate recycle rate to a
maximum of five times the influent flow when costing facilities for Option 2.5 technology and
higher. The Cost Report provides a more detailed description of the cost methodology used for
the final rule, including all the equations, constants, and other cost information used by EPA to
estimate the incremental capital and operation and maintenance costs associated with achieving
the performance levels of the technology options considered by EPA for the final rule.
10-2
-------
Section 10. Incremental Camtal and Operation and Maintenance Costs tor the l:inal Regulation
The resulting facility-specific compliance cost estimates were then used to estimate
compliance costs for the MPP industry (national estimates of costs). In particular, the facility-
specific cost estimates were multiplied by the survey weight established for the particular facility.
Further discussion of how survey weights were derived for each surveyed facility is provided in
Appendix B. The weighted facility estimates were then grouped by regulatory subcategories (e.g.,
subcategories A through D, F through I, J, K and L) for use in analysis of the technology options.
Costs were specifically estimated for all direct discharging facilities that submitted
detailed surveys and perform first processing, further processing, and/or rendering operations,
and for direct discharging facilities that submitted only screener surveys and perform further
processing and/or rendering operations. Because of the small amount of information available,
facilities that had received only screener surveys were costed using additional information
obtained from facilities that had performed further processing and/or rendering operations and
had submitted a detailed survey. As shown in Table 10-1, cost estimates were derived for 74
direct discharging facilities. Among the 74 direct discharging facilities, 58 submitted detailed
surveys and 16 submitted screener surveys.
Table 10-1. Number of Facilities for Which Specific Costs Were Estimated for Each MPP
Regulatory Subcategory
Regulatory
Subcategory
Facility
Size
Number of Direct Discharge Facilities
Detailed Surveys
Screener Surveys
A-D
Small
1
0
Non-small
19
0
K
Small
3
0
Non-small
33
0
F-I and L :1
Small and
Non-small
1
12
J
Non-small
1
4
Total number of surveys
58
16
' Includes mixed facilities (facilities that process both meat and poultry).
10-3
-------
Section 10. Incremental Capital ami Operation and Maintenance Costs for the Final Reeulution
As described further in Section 10.5, EPA developed a series of cost models to estimate
compliance costs for the 74 direct discharging MPP facilities for each of the technology options
considered by the Agency. These models were developed based on cost and performance data
related to treatment technologies in use at MPP facilities, supplemented as necessary with a
combination of vendor supplied information, data and information provided in the comments on
the proposal and NODA, and information from the literature.
Finally, the revisions to the cost estimates were also based on the use of all data available
to EPA as part of the data collection efforts for the rule, including data from the detailed and
screener surveys of the MPP industry, survey follow-up requests, and other data collection
efforts. The MPP industry detailed survey, in particular, included data and information related to
MPP facility wastewater characteristics, wastewater flows, and wastewater treatment system
operation. Subsequent to the proposed rule, EPA visited and sampled several additional MPP
facilities. Section 3 of this document describes EPA's data collection efforts for the development
of the final rule.
10.3 TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS CONSIDERED AS BASIS FOR EFFLUENT
LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS
As described in more detail in Section 9, EPA identified a number of potential technology
options that were considered as the basis for developing effluent limitations for the MPP
industry. In response to comments on the proposed rule, the technology options EPA considered
for the final rule were slightly modified from those considered for the proposed rule. The most
significant modification is development of a technology option that accounts for treatment
systems that employ partial denitrification of MPP wastewaters (Option 2.5). This technology
option does not achieve the same degree of denitrification as the proposed Option 3 (complete
denitrification). A summary of the technology options EPA considered as the basis for
establishing final ELGs for MPP facilities is provided in Table 10-2. These technology options
are applicable to pretreated MPP wastewaters. Pretreatment of MPP wastewater includes any
combination of screening, flotation, equalization, dissolved air flotation (with or without
chemical addition) and anaerobic treatment.
1(M
-------
Section 10. Incremental Camtal and Operation and Maintenance Costs tor the l:inal Regulation
It should be noted that EPA develops ELGs based on the performance of a combination
of processes and treatment technologies but does not require their use. Instead, selection of the
specific processes and technologies used to treat MPP wastewaters is left to the discretion of
individual MPP facilities. After promulgation of the final rule, EPA will require compliance with
the final numerical limitations and standards; MPP facilities will not be required to use specific
processes or technologies.
Table 10-2. Technology Options Considered by EPA for MPP Facilities
Technology Option
Description
1
Biological treatment ' plus limited nitrification and disinfection
2
Biological treatment with complete nitrification and disinfection
2+Pb
Option 2 plus phosphorus removal
2.5
Option 2 plus partial denitrification
2.5+P
Option 2 plus partial denitrification + phosphorus removal
3b
Option 2 plus more complete denitrification
4
Option 2 plus more complete denitrification and phosphorus removal
5b
Option 2 plus more complete denitrification plus chemical
phosphorus removal plus filtration
¦' Biological treatment for the MPP HI.(is is defined as the removal of biochemical oxygen demand from wastewater
by an aerobic biological process.
h After the proposed rule was published, IiPA no longer considered Option 3 because of difficulty finding facilities
with Option ?•> in place that had total nitrogen effluent data and no longer considered Options 2 i P and 5 because of
the costs involved.
10.4 LONG-TERM AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS USED FOR
ESTIMATING COSTS FOR THE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS
EPA identified treatment in-place at MPP facilities that form the basis for the technology
options considered for the final ELGs for the MPP industry. The expected performance of each
technology option can be described in terms of the long-term average (LTA) pollutant
concentrations observed in the effluent at those MPP facilities that have the technology option.
Table 10-3 presents the LTAs EPA derived for each technology option, which were used in the
10-5
-------
Section 10. Incremental Capital ami Operation and Maintenance Costs for the Final Reeulution
cost models as the basis for estimating compliance costs. The option LTA concentrations for
mixed facilities (i.e., those facilities that process both poultry and meat) were weighted based on
the flow and production at the facilities (as reported in the detailed or screener surveys) and the
option LTA concentrations in Table 10-3.
Table 10-3. Long-Term Average Concentrations Used for Developing Cost Estimates for the
Technology Options Considered for the Final MPP Industry Effluent Guidelines
Technology Option l.TA Concentrations (ing/1.)
Type of
Operation
Technology
Option
Bio-
chemical
Oxygen
Demand
Total
Kjcldahl
Nitrogen
Ammonia-
N
Nitrate+
Nitrite
Total
Nitrogen
Total
Phosphorus
Total
Suspended
Solids
Poultry
1
x.x
7.17
5.19
N A
N A
N A
10.21
2
x.x
4.97
1.0
N A
N A
N A
10.21
2.5
x.x
4.97
1.0
29.24
34.2
N A
10.21
2.5 ¦ P
x.x
4.97
1.0
29.24
34.2
4.2
10.21
4
7.0
1.34
0.17
0.52
1.X6
2.27
5.05
1
7.0
X.095
6.115
N A
N A
N A
25.10
Vlcal
2
7.0
3.615
O.X95
N A
N A
N A
25.10
2.5
7.0
3.615
O.X95
30.59
34.2
N A
25.10
2.5 ¦ P
7.0
3.615
O.X95
30.59
34.2
X.2X
25.10
4
6.45
3.17
0.1X5
10.34
13.51
5.12
1X.65
N A - not applicable.
10.5 COST MODELS
EPA developed a series of cost models to estimate the costs required to modify an
existing MPP wastewater treatment system to achieve the technology option LTA concentrations
(target effluent concentrations) shown in Table 10-3. For the final rule, EPA evaluated four
technology options for non-small facilities, including Options 2, 2.5, 2.5+P, and 4. For small
facilities, EPA evaluated two technology options for the final rule, including Options 1 and 2.
EPA developed four cost models for each of the technology options considered for non-
small facilities (Options 2, 2.5, 2.5+P, and 4). EPA did not specifically develop a cost model for
10-6
-------
Section 10. Incremental Camtal and Operation and Maintenance Costs tor the l:inal Regulation
Option 1 due the small number of facilities that were evaluated and the fact that the technology
option included less complicated unit processes (as compared to those for Options 2, 2.5, 2.5+P,
and 4). Therefore, the Option 2 cost model with minor modification (e.g., use of LTAs
representing Option 1) was used to cost for Option 1. The costs estimated by the models include
capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. Within each model, EPA developed cost
equations or curves derived from a combination of vendor-supplied information, data and
information provided in the MPP detailed surveys, and data and information provided in
comments on the proposed rule.
A brief summary of each cost model is provided below; a detailed description of each
cost model is available in the Cost Report; and the electronic versions of the cost models are
available in Sections 19.5 and 29.2 of the Administrative Record.
10.5.1 Option 1 Cost Model (Biological Treatment with Limited Nitrification)
The Option 1 cost model estimates the incremental cost required to modify an existing
nitrifying MPP facility to achieve the Option 1 LTA concentrations shown in Table 10-3. EPA
used the Option 2 cost model (see discussion in Section 10.5.2) with Option 1 LTAs to estimate
Option 1 costs for small facilities. This approach produced acceptable cost estimates because the
only difference between Options 1 and 2 is the LTAs for total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) and
ammonia (as nitrogen).
10.5.2 Option 2 Cost Model (Nitrification)
The Option 2 cost model estimates the incremental cost required by an existing nitrifying
MPP facility to achieve the Option 2 performance levels (LTA concentrations) shown in
Table 10-3. The capital cost estimated for this option includes the cost for the addition of a
polymer feed system and a holding pond (that could serve as an emergency or polishing pond).
The O&M costs include maintenance costs, energy costs for oxygen transfer to remove
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and ammonia (as nitrogen), alkalinity costs, polymer costs,
sludge disposal costs, sampling and analysis costs, and performance costs. The cost model also
includes estimated labor costs and energy costs for the polymer feed system.
10-7
-------
Section 10. Incremental Capital ami Operation and Maintenance Costs for the Final Reeulution
10.5.3 Option 2.5 Cost Model (Nitrification + Partial Denitrification)
The Option 2.5 cost model estimates the incremental cost to be incurred by a nitrifying
MPP facility to move from its baseline to Option 2.5 performance levels. The capital costs
include, as needed, costs for anoxic tanks, pumps, mixers, methanol and polymer feed systems, a
lagoon bypass, a sludge dewatering system, and a holding pond. The O&M costs include
alkalinity costs, methanol costs, polymer costs, sludge disposal costs, sampling and analysis costs
for process control, performance costs, compliance costs, and methane revenue loss due to
lagoon bypass. The O&M costs also include maintenance costs, labor costs, and energy costs for
anoxic tanks, pumps, mixers, methanol and polymer feed systems, a sludge dewatering system,
and a holding pond.
10.5.4 Option 2.5+P Cost Model (Nitrification + Partial Denitrification +
Phosphorus Removal)
The Option 2.5+P cost model estimates the incremental cost to be incurred by a nitrifying
MPP facility to move from its baseline to Option 2.5+P performance levels. The capital costs
include, as needed, costs for anoxic tanks, pumps, mixers, methanol and polymer feed systems,
an alum feed system, mix tanks, a lagoon bypass, a sludge dewatering system, and a holding
pond. The O&M costs include alkalinity costs, polymer costs, alum costs, sludge disposal costs,
sampling and analysis costs for process control, performance costs, compliance costs, and
methane revenue loss due to lagoon bypass. The O&M costs also include estimated maintenance
costs, labor costs, and energy costs for anoxic tanks, pumps, mixers, alum and polymer feed
systems, mix tanks, a sludge dewatering system, and a holding pond.
10.5.5 Option 4 Cost Model (Nitrification + Denitrification + Phosphorous Removal)
The Option 4 cost model estimates the incremental cost to be incurred by a nitrifying
MPP facility to move from its baseline to Option 4 performance levels. The capital costs include,
as needed, costs for anoxic tanks, aeration tanks, pumps, mixers, an aeration system, methanol,
polymer and alum feed systems, mix tanks, a lagoon bypass, a filtration system, a sludge
dewatering system, and a holding pond. The O&M costs include alkalinity costs, polymer costs,
alum costs, sludge disposal costs, sampling and analysis costs for process control, performance
10-8
-------
Section 10. Incremental Camtal and Operation and Maintenance Costs tor the l:inal Regulation
costs, compliance costs, and methane revenue loss due to installation of a lagoon bypass. The
O&M costs also include maintenance costs, labor costs, and energy costs for anoxic tanks,
aeration tanks, pumps, mixers, an aeration system, an alum and polymer feed system, mix tanks,
a filtration system, a sludge dewatering system, and a holding pond. A filtration system is
included in the model and used as necessary, particularly when a poultry facility requires use of a
filter to achieve the LTA for total suspended solids (TSS).
10.6 ESTIMATING FACILITY COSTS
The primary cost model inputs required for each MPP facility are wastewater treatment
plant flow, and influent and effluent pollutant concentrations for select parameters. The data
inputs for each facility were obtained from a variety of sources, including the MPP detailed and
screener surveys, sampling episode reports, site visit reports, and discharge monitoring reports. In
the absence of influent concentrations for a facility, the concentrations were derived from
influent concentrations from facilities having similar processing operations and the expected
performance (i.e., removal) based on the facility's treatment in place. EPA then classified each
facility's wastewater treatment system based on the description provided in the detailed survey
and the summary of monitoring data submitted with the survey. After reviewing the current
effluent concentrations, treatment in place, Option LTA concentrations, and technology options,
EPA decided whether new or additional treatment units would be required to achieve the Option
LTA concentrations.
The four cost models (without modifications) estimate costs to convert a nitrification
facility to the various technology options. According to the MPP detailed surveys responses,
most direct discharging facilities in the MPP industry have treatment systems in place that are
already nitrifying. The models described above were used to develop cost estimates for those
facilities. However, for some MPP facilities with treatment systems that are not efficiently
nitrifying, EPA determined that additional costs for the addition of, or modification to, tanks
and/or the aeration system would be required to achieve the Option LTA concentrations. For
those facilities the estimated additional costs were added to the costs generated by the cost
models.
10-9
-------
Section 10. Incremental Capital ami Operation and Maintenance Costs for the Final Reeulution
To estimate costs for Options 2.5, 2.5+P, and 4 for facilities that are currently
denitrifying, the cost models were run twice:
• The first run was used in calculating the costs by identifying equipment sizes involved
for attaining the facility's current level of denitrification. The facility-level
nitrate/nitrite concentrations for MPP facilities were obtained from survey responses.
This run provided the design parameters (e.g., tank size, pump size, horsepower
requirements) needed to achieve the nitrate/nitrite effluent concentrations reported by
the facility.
• The second run was used in calculating the costs by identifying the equipment sizes
involved for attaining the option LTA concentration levels. This run provided the
facility-specific design parameters needed to achieve the option LTA concentrations.
The difference in the design parameters from the two model runs was then used to calculate the
incremental costs for the facility (for all necessary components). More details regarding how the
cost model accounted for existing MPP facilities that already have treatment systems that achieve
some level of denitrification are provided in the Cost Report.
In some instances an MPP facility uses a unique treatment system (e.g., sequencing batch
reactors) that the cost models were not designed to handle specifically. For these unique
instances, the cost models were slightly modified to calculate costs for those particular facilities.
However, the concepts and the design and cost equations used in the models remained the same
when estimating costs for such facilities.
After costs were estimated for each detailed survey facility for each technology option,
EPA multiplied the cost estimate for each facility by the applicable survey weight for the facility
to derive a survey-weighted estimate. Weighted estimates were then summed. The result
represents a national estimate of the compliance costs for achieving the performance levels
associated with each technology option.
10-10
-------
Section 10. Incremental Camtal and Operation and Maintenance Costs tor the l:inal Regulation
10.7 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COMPLIANCE COSTS
For the final rule, EPA estimated the incremental costs for complying with the
performance levels associated with the regulatory options considered by EPA for the final rule.
The results of the cost analysis for each of the non-small direct discharging first processing
facilities are provided in Table 10-4. Due to the need for protection of confidential business
information (CBI), the individual facility results for the non-small direct discharging further
processing and independent rendering facilities are not provided in this section, but are included
in the CBI portion of the Administrative Record. A summary of the national cost estimates for all
non-small direct discharging facilities is provided in Table 10-5.
Due to the need for protection of CBI, the individual facility results for all small direct
discharging facilities are not provided in this section, but are also included in the CBI portion of
the Administrative Record. A summary of the national cost estimates for all small direct
discharging facilities is provided in Table 10-6. It should be noted that Table 10-6 also includes
costs for mixed processors that are attributable to small levels of production of further processed
meat (Subcategories F through I) and poultry (Subcategory L). The facility counts presented in
these tables include the double counting of seven facilities with production in both non-small
Subcategory L and small Subcategories F through I, and three facilities with production in small
Subcategory L and small Subcategories F through I.
10-11
-------
Table 10-4. Summary of Estimated Compliance Costs for Non-Small Direct Discharging First Processing Facilities by Facility
and Regulatory Option
DKTII)
Category
Option 2
Option 2.5
Option 2.5+P
Option 4
Incremental
Capital Cost
Incremental
O&M Cost
Incremental
Capital Cost
Incremental
O&M Cost
Incremental
Capital Cost
Incremental
O&M Cost
Incremental
Capital Cost
Incremental
O&M Cost
001 1
PI 2
$736,700
$ 1 56,200
$1,399,300
$278,400
$1,592,900
$706,700
$2,876,000
$926,900
0012
M 123
( R123/P2)
$9 IS,000
$47,600
$2,039,100
$171,000
$2,773,700
$1,921,700
$4,103,800
$2,268,000
0019
PI 3
$508,100
$84,100
$1,105,200
$168,100
$1,105,200
$173,100
$2,716,100
$571,800
0020
PI 2
$833,700
$93,900
$1,482,100
$214,700
$1,679,700
$645,100
$3,710,600
$1,072,900
0022
PI 23
$587,800
$134,800
$1,335,400
$252,000
$2,892,300
$967,200
$4,517,700
$1,263,500
0026
PI 23
$834,600
$170,900
$1,671,200
$299,800
$2,080,500
$1,409,200
$3,631,500
$1,689,900
0027
PI 2
$726,700
$155,700
$1,033,700
$250,000
$1,212,700
$639,300
$2,247,400
$790,200
0029
PI
$475,500
$155,200
$1,148,700
$249,800
$1,229,500
$412,300
$3,955,300
$651,400
0032
PI 2
$490,400
$83,600
$490,400
$98,600
$655,600
$469,800
$2,273,800
$773,800
0039
PI 2
$682,200
$89,300
$1,397,200
$ 165,600
$1,510,600
$399,000
$3,331,300
$772,600
0042
PI 2
$577,100
$86,200
$814,100
$184,300
$975,400
$537,300
$3,298,600
$731,300
0044
PI 23
$654,000
$143,500
$664,000
$ 1 52,600
$2,224,600
$851,300
$3,1 13,000
$969,400
0045
PI 2
$1,089,900
$105,000
$1,099,900
$167,200
$1,169,300
$172,200
$2,015,600
$376,100
0046
R13
$282,400
$28,500
$965,200
$150,900
$1,028,400
$269,300
$1,568,800
$420,200
0054
PI 2
$693,500
$177,400
$1,232,500
$259,100
$1,371,000
$559,900
$4,527,000
$886,100
0256
R13
$752,600
$170,300
$ 1,991,600
$168,300
$3,520,000
$804,600
$3,616,100
$1,071,300
0271
PI 2
$145,200
$109,900
$145,200
$124,900
$145,200
$129,900
$185,200
$148,900
0272
PI 2
$501,900
$213,800
$501,900
$213,800
$501,900
$218,800
$1,938,300
$439,500
0273
PI
$507,400
$84,100
$1,255,800
$216,800
$1,321,200
$335,300
$2,871,100
$557,600
0274
PI
$0
$20,000
$0
$35,000
$0
$40,000
$0
$48,600
0275
R13
$866,200
$126,600
$1,429,200
$160,100
$2,951,500
$809,100
$3,056,100
$1,078,100
0277
R13
$0
$20,000
$4,368,900
$216,800
$4,939,800
$ 1,3 1 7,400
$6,322,300
$1,840,300
-------
Table 10-4. Summary of Estimated Compliance Costs for Non-Small Direct Discharging First Processing Facilities by Facility
and Regulatory Option (Continued)
I) K Til)
Category
Option 2
Option 2.5
Option 2.5+P
Option 4
Incremental
C apital Cost
Incremental
O&M Cost
Incremental
Capital Cost
Incremental
O&M Cost
Incremental
Capital Cost
Incremental
O&M Cost
Incremental
Capital Cost
Incremental
O&M Cost
0280
R13
$55X,700
$36,X00
$3,213,700
$267,000
$3,360,500
$1,101,300
$3,6 IX,600
$1,173,400
02X3
R13
$501 ,X00
$53,900
$ 1 ,X35,000
$156,700
$2,120,600
$X 14,700
$2,7X6,000
$1,054,400
02X7
M13
(R13/P3)
SO
$35,100
$1,360,900
$ 169,600
$1,451,500
$34X,200
$2,163,100
$59X,400
02X9
PI 2
S 1 5 1,600
$123,700
$634,000
$223,400
$757,200
$490,400
$2,944,100
$719,700
0290
PI
$339,700
$30,200
$339,700
$45,200
$339,700
$50,200
$X3 5,600
$254,600
0291
PI 2
$432,700
$33,000
$1,030,100
$ 14X,400
$1,1 74,X00
$461,600
$2,X29,500
$750,200
0292
PI 23
$547,400
$X5,300
$9XX,000
$191,400
$9XX,000
$ 196,400
$2,760,500
$490,500
0293
PI 23
$5X5,200
$X6,400
$ 1,5X 1 ,X00
$219,000
$1,649,000
$295,700
$3,237,400
$529,X00
0297
PI 2
$522,300
$60,700
$532,300
$65,100
$1,916,200
$429,700
$3,16X, 100
$704,200
0300
PI 23
$ 1,63 1,500
$252,700
$1,641,500
$210,200
$ 1 ,X65,200
$6X7,700
$2,393,XOO
$1,003,X00
0304
PI
$447,700
$X2,300
$457,700
$X4,100
$555,200
$267,000
$1,496,300
$409,000
0307
PI 23
$371,500
$31,200
$1,1 59,600
$155,600
$1,179,500
$26X,400
$2,6XX,900
$527,500
030X
PI 2
$449,500
$X2,500
$426,100
$122,100
$5X1,300
$399,X00
$2,140,900
$694,400
0309
PI
$429,100
$157,400
$441,000
$ 1 59,500
$506,600
$321,500
$1,923,400
$529,600
03 10
PI 23
$677,400
$X9,200
$6X7,400
$-X 1,400
$756,900
$-76,400
$1,65X,X00
$ 129,X00
03 12
PI 2
$435,300
$49,700
$1,009,300
$122,700
$1,109,200
$32X,700
$2,X40,700
$617,500
0314
PI
$432,000
$X1,X00
$432,000
$96,X00
$505,600
$206,300
$2,024,400
$4X6,000
03 1 7
R13
$367,200
$102,000
$ 1,7 3 X, 100
$3 19,000
$ 1 ,X06,700
$4X1,X00
$1,952,600
$50X,X00
03 1X
R13
$XX5,000
$46,600
$3,204,600
$49,900
$3,672,700
$1,179,400
$4,763,600
$1,521,300
0321
R13
$1,621,700
$279,200
$2,X50,500
$201,100
$4,5X9,900
$1,277,900
$4,715,200
$ 1,532,XOO
0322
R13
$1,947,700
$7X,500
$6,475,'400
$250,200
$7,463,400
$2,575,200
SX,494,600
S3,174,400
-------
Table 10-4. Summary of Estimated Compliance Costs for Non-Small Direct Discharging First Processing Facilities by Facility
and Regulatory Option (Continued)
I) K Til)
Category
Option 2
Option 2.5
Option 2.5+P
Option 4
Incremental
C apital Cost
Incremental
O&M Cost
Incremental
Capital Cost
Incremental
O&M Cost
Incremental
Capital Cost
Incremental
O&M Cost
Incremental
Capital Cost
Incremental
O&M Cost
0325
R13
$960,000
$50,500
$2,435,700
$5,000
$4,231,300
$1,148,700
$4,407,900
$1,455,500
0326
R13
$214,500
$26,500
$1,159,700
$176,000
$1,262,500
$399,800
$1,593,100
$572,300
0328
R13
$573,300
$37,200
$3,438,100
$475,900
$3,535,000
$590,300
$3,661,000
$706,200
0332
M 123
(R123/P2)
$773,300
$43,900
$2,394,600
$143,300
$4,304,900
$1,626,000
$5,393,700
$1,950,700
0333
R13
$4,555,200
$2,992,700
$1 1,068,100
$4,960,000
$1 1,689,500
$5,085,900
$12,015,800
$5,307,000
0336
R13
$1,019,300
$137,200
$1,676,400
$166,700
$1,919,800
$747,600
$2,524,200
$972,800
0339
PI 23
$1,233,000
$105,800
$3,763,200
$23,500
$3,845,900
$1 15,100
$5,921,800
$61 1,400
0340
PI 3
$619,600
$ 138,500
$2,137,000
$261,900
$2,288,100
$579,700
$5,1 10,600
$855,700
0342
R13
$241,000
$27,600
$745,000
$186,500
$2,194,900
$677,500
$3,353,100
$796,700
-------
Section 10. Incremental Camtal and Operation and Maintenance Costs tor the l:inal Regulation
Table 10-5. Total and Average Compliance Costs for Non-small Facilities by Subcategory and
Regulatory Option
Total Costs
Average Facility Costs
(1000's, 2003 dollars)
(1000's, 2003 dollars)
Post-tax
Pre-tax
Post-tax
Pre-tax
Option
Capital
Annualized
Annualized
Capital
Annualized
Annualized
Subcategory A-D
Option 2
S27.165
S5.179
S8.051
S937
SI 79
S278
Option 2.5
S75.061
SI 2.395
SI 8.435
S2.588
S427
S636
Option 2.5+P
S97.662
S30.794
S47.412
S3.368
SI.062
SI.63 5
Option 4
S121,753
S3 7.382
S57.451
S4.198
SI.289
SI.981
Subcategory F-I1
Option 2
SI.106
S294
S294
S276
S73
S73
Option 2.5
SI.124
S3 63
S3 63
S281
S91
S91
Option 2.5+P
S1.216
S3 96
S3 96
S3 04
S99
S99
Option 4
S2.350
S882
S882
S588
S220
S220
Subcategory J1
Option 2
SI.429
S695
S695
S75
S3 7
S3 7
Option 2.5
S7.755
S3.123
S3.123
S408
SI 64
SI 64
Option 2.5+P
S9.978
S8.212
S8.212
S525
S432
S432
Option 4
S12.82 7
SI 1.237
SI 1.237
S675
S591
S591
Subcategory K.
Option 2
S70.650
SI 5.026
SI 9.598
S736
SI 57
S204
Option 2.5
S 147,592
S28.067
S35.151
SI.53 7
S292
S3 66
Option 2.5+P
SI 77,432
S53.370
S70.027
SI.848
S556
S729
Option 4
S366.069
S93.408
SI.205.090
S3.813
S973
SI.255
Subcategory L1,2
Option 2
SI.495
S615
S615
S149
S62
S62
Option 2.5
S2.615
SI.086
SI.086
S262
SI 09
SI 09
Option 2.5+P
S4.207
SI.630
SI.630
S421
SI 63
SI 63
Option 4
S8.641
S3.612
S3.612
S864
S3 61
S3 61
Total
Option 2
S101.845
S21.808
S29.253
S645
SI 38
SI 85
Option 2.5
S234.147
S45.033
S58.157
SI.482
S285
S3 68
Option 2.5+P
S290.495
S94.403
S127.677
SI.839
S597
S808
Option 4
S511.639
S 146.521
SI 93.691
S3.238
S927
SI.226
For non-small facilities in Subcategories V through 1, .1, and 1., post-tax annualized costs are equal to pre-tax
annualized costs because the analysis is based on model facilities, and HPA assumed a tax shield of SO to avoid
underestimating impacts.
: Subcategory includes seven mixed processor facilities with non-small levels of production in Subcategory 1. and
small levels of production in Subcategory F through 1; on average, 61 percent of their production falls into
Subcategory 1.. Compliance costs for mixed processor facilities are distributed between subcategories based on their
percentage of production in each.
10-15
-------
Section 10. Incremental Capital ami Operation and Maintenance Costs for the Final Reeulution
Table 10-6. Total and Average Compliance Costs for Small Facilities by Subcategory and
Regulatory Option
Option
Total Costs
(1000's, 2003 dollars)
Average Costs
(1000's, 2003 dollars)
Capital
Post-tax
Annualized1
Pre-tax
Annualized
Capital
Post-tax
Annualized1
Pre-tax
Annualized
Subcategory A-D2
Option 1
S2.000 -
S4.000
SI.000-
S2.500
SI.000 -
S2.500
SI50 - SI 75
S80-S120
S80-S120
Option 2'
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Subcategory F-I4
Option 1
S2.550
SI.224
SI.224
S121
S58
S58
Option 2
S2.550
SI.233
SI.233
S121
S59
S59
Subcategory K.2
Option 1
S7.500 -
SI 0.000
S2.500 -
S5.000
S2.500 -
S5.000
S200 - S400
S75-S100
S75-S100
Option 2
S7.500 -
SI 0.000
S2.500 -
S5.000
S2.500 -
S5.000
S200 - S400
S75-S100
S75-S100
Subcategory
Option 1
S19
SI 5
SI 5
S6
S5
S5
Option 2
S19
SI 5
SI 5
S6
S5
S5
1 For small facilities, post-tax annualized eosts are equal to pre-tax annualized costs because (1) the facility is an S
corporation or 1.1.C" (Subcategories A through 1) and K), so taxes are paid on the income of the owning partners or
(2) the analysis is based on model facilities (Subcategories F through 1 and I.), and IiPA assumed a tax shield of SO
to avoid underestimating impacts.
: Estimated costs are presented as a range to prevent the disclosure of confidential business information.
Option 2 was not costed for small facilities in this subcategory, because IiPA did not propose further regulations.
4 Subcategory includes 7 mixed processor facilities with small levels of production in Subcategory 1"-1 and non-small
levels of production in Subcategory I.. This subcategory also includes 3 mixed processor facilities with small levels
of production in Subcategory 1"-1 and small levels of production in Subcategory I.. Compliance costs for mixed
processor facilities are distributed between subcategories based on their percentage of production in each.
^ Subcategory includes 3 mixed processor facilities with small levels of production in Subcategory 1. and small levels
of production in Subcategory 1"-1. Compliance costs for mixed processor facilities are distributed between
subcategories based on their percentage of production in each.
10.8 SUPPLEMENTAL AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSES
As described previously in Section 10.2, EPA received a number of comments on the cost
methodology and models used to estimate costs for the proposal and NODA. In particular, the
Industry Coalition provided detailed comments on many aspects of the cost model. EPA
specifically revised the cost methodology for the final rule to address many of the concerns raised
10-16
-------
Section 10. Incremental Camtal and Operation and Maintenance Costs tor the l:inal Regulation
by the Industry Coalition about the methods used for the proposal and NODA. In fact, many of
the constants used in the new cost models for the final rule (as described further in the Cost
Report) are taken from those provided by the Industry Coalition (e.g., constants provided in
Appendix G to the Industry Coalition comments on the proposed rule; see DCN 300004).
Although EPA accommodated the majority of comments received on the cost
methodology and model, there were several issues for which EPA performed sensitivity analyses
(one of which, Run #3, is identified as the supplemental analysis) to determine the potential
impact on final rule decisions. These analyses performed by EPA and the results are presented in
Table 10-7. As described further in Section 13, EPA selected technology Options 2 and 2.5 as the
basis for the BPT and BAT final effluent limitations, and therefore, the supplemental/sensitivity
analyses were all performed for technology Options 2 and 2.5. As shown in Table 10-7, based on
the results of these analyses, EPA did not change its conclusions regarding economic
achievability, cost-reasonableness, or cost-effectiveness of the final rule.
It should be noted that EPA received detailed information about improvements to the
wastewater treatment systems for the Facilities 307 and 339 from the actual facilities. The
upgrades to the treatment systems occurred after EPA's base year (1999) of the survey (which is
the base year for EPA's estimates of incremental compliance costs and pollutant removals). In
EPA's sensitivity cost analyses 3 and 4, EPA chose to incorporate this information into its
databases. EPA decided that, where facilities had provided enough detailed information
regarding treatment system upgrades, the costs and pollutant loadings should reflect the best data
possible. Due to the incorporation of this information, EPA's facility-specific estimates of costs
and pollutant reductions at each of these two facilities is reduced as compared to the estimates in
the cost run for the final rule (as presented in Section 10.8.1 above). Facility 307 is one of the
two model facilities whose data (from the years after the upgrade occurred) form the basis of the
total nitrogen limitations. Therefore, EPA performed an analysis of costs and pollutant reductions
that reflected that treatment in place during those years
As shown in Table 10-7, there were four issues that served as the basis for the four
supplemental/sensitivity cost model runs performed by EPA.
10-17
-------
Section 10. Incremental Capital ami Operation and Maintenance Costs for the Final Reeulution
• Denitrification Rate - As described further in the Cost Report, EPA used a
denitrification rate of 0.171 mg nitrate/nitrite-N denitrified/mg MLVSS-day in its
evaluation of different nutrient removal technologies. Using this nitrification rate
in its cost model, EPA determined that achieving Option 2.5 nitrogen removals
was economically achievable and cost-effective for MPP facilities. EPA
recognizes, however, that the actual denitrification rate will vary among facilities
and be dependent on a number of factors. In order to confirm its conclusion about
the economic achievability of the final rule, EPA performed a sensitivity analysis
to determine the potential impact of a lower denitrification rate on the costs of the
rule.
• Methanol Costs - EPA received comments regarding the price volatility of
methanol over the past 10 years, and the potential impact on the cost estimates.
Further, comments were received regarding the fact that the unit cost estimates for
methanol proposed for use in the cost model for the final rule ($0.60 per gallon as
provided in the industry comments on the proposed rule) are too low. Based on
research performed by EPA, EPA believes that the use of $0.60 per gallon (in
1999 year dollars which is equivalent to $0. 66 per gallon in year 2003 dollars) in
the cost model was reasonable for 1999. However, EPA understands the potential
varying prices for chemicals such as methanol, therefore, EPA used a methanol
price of $ 1.05 per gallon (in 1999 year dollars which is equivalent to $ 1.16 per
gallon in 2003 year dollars) in the supplemental analysis of costs for the final rule.
EPA has concluded that increasing costs to $ 1.16/gal would not change EPA's
decisions regarding the final rule.
• Emergency Pond Size - Concerns were raised that EPA did not account for the
addition of safety measures such as emergency holding basins that are needed to
ensure that periodic upsets at MPP wastewater treatment plants do not result in
non-compliance with the final effluent limitations. Although EPA believes that
including an emergency pond at a properly designed and operated wastewater
treatment plant would be desirable but not necessary, EPA included an
emergency/polishing pond with a 7-day detention time in the cost model in an
effort to respond to the concerns raised. The revised cost model includes costs for
additional ponds that may serve as a polishing pond and/or an emergency storage
pond. The pond is designed with a 7-day detention time to be located at the end of
the treatment plant and ensures compliance at all times. The pond may be used as
a polishing pond to meet the effluent TSS and BOD limits. Since polishing
requires 1 to 3 days of detention time, only a fraction of the pond volume is
needed for polishing the effluent. The pond may also be used for emergency
storage during plant upset. Depending on the duration of plant upset, the entire
volume of pond may be used for emergency storage during upset. EPA also
performed a supplemental analysis to determine the affect of installation of an
emergency pond with a 15-day detention time. As part of this analysis, EPA
incorporated data and information provided by the Industry Coalition related to
the presence and type of holding or emergency ponds at MPP facilities (which was
10-18
-------
Section 10. Incremental Capital and Operation and Maintenance Costs tor the l:inal Regulation
not specifically gathered in EPA's detailed survey questionnaire). In this analysis,
EPA included costs for additional ponds or for increased capacity of existing
ponds. Results of this analysis indicate that the estimated costs for Option 2.5 are
still economically achievable, cost reasonable, and cost-effective (for nitrogen
removal). Additional information related to how costs were estimated for
holding/emergency ponds, including the analysis of costs assuming a 15-day
detention time, is provided in the Cost Report.
• Pretreatment for Facilities with High TKN Influent Loads-In its primary cost
analysis, EPA identified 5 detailed survey respondents with high influent TKN
concentrations (i.e., greater than 200 mg/L). In order for these facilities to achieve
the targeted long-term average concentration for total nitrogen on Table 10-3
using the Option 2.5 cost model (which is limited to a maximum nitrate recycle
rate of 5 times), EPA estimated costs for a two-stage denitrification system. Based
on industry comments on EPA's use of two-state denitrification, EPA performed a
supplemental analysis to cost the detailed survey facilities in that situation for
additional pretreatment of their raw wastewater followed by single-stage
denitrification. EPA costed the incorporation of DAF and chemical addition. The
results of this supplemental would not change EPA's conclusions regarding the
technology selection, economic achievability, or cost-effectiveness (for total
nitrogen) for the final rule.
Table 10-7 provides a summary of the values used in the cost runs and their impact on the
estimated costs for the final rule. A brief description of the cost runs follow.
Original Cost Run: The results of this cost run are used as the basis for the final rule and
were presented in Section 10.8.1 above. This run was performed with the values of constants
described in the Cost Report. The cost run included a 7-day holding pond which may be used by
a facility both as a polishing pond and/or an emergency pond. Costs for the addition of a holding
pond were not included for facilities that have a holding pond in place or a filtration system in
place. The cost run was also based on a target LTA concentration of 34.2 mg/L for total nitrogen
(see Table 10-3). The total pre-tax annualized costs (2003$) for non-small facilities based on
Option 2.5 was estimated to be $58.2 million.
Sensitivity Cost Run I: This cost run was performed on eight meat and 12 poultry
facilities. Except for the denitrification rate, the values of all other constants used in the Original
Cost Run were used. The results of this preliminary analysis indicate that reducing the
10-19
-------
Section 10. Incremental Capital ami Operation and Maintenance Costs for the Final Regulation
denitrification rate to 0.09 lbs nitrate-N/lb VSS-day would increase the cost of meat and poultry
facilities by 16 percent and 7 percent, respectively.
Sensitivity Cost Run 2: Similar to Supplement Cost Run 1, this cost run was performed on
eight meat and 12 poultry facilities. The values of constants used in the Original Cost Run
remained the same except that the denitrification rate was further reduced to 0.05 lbs nitrate-N/lb
VSS-day. The results of this preliminary analysis indicate that the cost of meat and poultry
facilities would increase by 41 percent and 16 percent, respectively.
Sensitivity Cost Run 3 (Supplemental Analysis Run): In this cost run additional facility
information received since the Original Cost Run was incorporated by EPA into its analysis of
costs. Therefore, the items costed based on treatment in place for some facilities were not the
same as those used for the Original Cost Run. For instance, many facilities were costed for a
holding pond in the Original Cost Run. Several of those facilities were later found to have a
holding pond in place. Consequently, those facilities were no longer costed for a holding pond in
this run. In addition, this cost run was based on an increased target LTA concentration of 45.35
mg/L for total nitrogen, which is higher than the total nitrogen levels used for the Original Cost
Run. Additional features of this cost run include a revised methanol cost of $1.05 per gallon and
a holding pond with a 15-day detention time. Unlike the Original Cost Run, facilities with a
filtration system were also costed for a holding pond. These costs provide a very conservative
cost estimate for Option 2.5. The total pre-tax annualized costs (2003$) for non-small facilities
based on Option 2.5 were estimated to be $52.8 million. The costs were reduced compared to the
cost of the Original Cost Run because the target effluent LTA concentration for total nitrogen
was increased by more than 10 mg/L to 45.35 mg/L. Moreover, incorporation of additional
facility information contributed may have contributed to the decrease in costs.
Sensitivity Cost Run 4: This cost run is identical to the Supplemental Cost Run 3 except
the denitrification rate is reduced to 0.05 lbs nitrate-N/lb VSS-day. All the features discussed in
Supplemental Cost Run 3 are applicable to this cost run. However, it should be noted that the
cost estimated by this cost run is extremely conservative and represent the high end of the
Industry costs. The total pre-tax annualized costs (2003$) for the entire rule for Option 2.5 were
10-20
-------
Section 10. Incremental Camtal and Operation and Maintenance Costs lor the l:inal Regulation
estimated to be $52.8 million. Even with this high end of the cost, the final rule was found to be
cost effective.
Table 10-7. Summary of Supplemental Cost Analyses Performed for the MPP Final Rule
Cost Run
Description
Dcnitrification
Rate (lbs Nitrate-
N/lb VSS-day)
Methanol Costs
($/j»allon)
Holding* Pond
Detention l ime
(Days)
Results
(Annualized
Costs)
Original
I-Tillient TN 34
mg/1.
0.17
0.60
7
S5X.2 million
Sensitivity 1
Preliminary
estimates
I-Til lie nt TN 34
mg/1.
0.09
0.60
7
Increases cost for
meat facilities by
16%; Increases
cost for poultry
facilities by 7%
Sensitivity 2
Preliminary
estimates
I-Til lie nt TN 34
mg/1.
0.05
0.60
7
Increases cost for
meat facilities by
41%; Increases
cost for poultry
facilities by 16%
Sensitivity 3'1
I-Til lie nt TN 45
mg/1.
0.17
1.05
15
S52.X million
Sensitivity 4"
I-Til lie nt TN 45
mg/1.
0.05
1.05
15
S60.2 million
¦' These runs were based on higher target effluent nitrogen concentrations and also included updated facility data and
information made available since the NODA. Run lis was used as the supplemental analysis.
10.9 REFERENCES
Hydromantis, Inc.2001. Computer Assisted Procedure for Design and Evaluation of Wastewater
Treatment Systems (CAPDET). Version 1.0: State-of-the-art software for the design and
cost estimation of wastewater treatment plants, [computer program], Hamilton, Canada.
http://www.hydromantis.com.
Industry Coalition. 2002. Joint comments of the meat and poultry products industry coalition.
Meat and Poultry Products Industry Coalition. EPA Docket No. W-01-06.
10-21
-------
Section 10. Incremental Capital ami Operation and Maintenance Costs for the Final Reindation
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002. Development Document for the
Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry
Products Industry Point Source Category. EPA 821-B-01-007. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2004. Detailed Costing Document for the
Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products
Point Source Category. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington, D.C.
10-22
-------
Section 11
Pollutant Loadings
This section presents the methodology used to derive annual pollutant loading estimates
for the meat and poultry products (MPP) industry. Pollutant loadings are estimated for the MPP
industry to (1) evaluate the effectiveness of treatment technology options, (2) estimate the
benefits gained from reducing the amount of pollutants discharged, and (3) evaluate the cost-
effectiveness of the technology options in reducing the pollutant loadings. Baseline pollutant
loadings and technology option loadings are defined as follows:
Baseline pollutant loadings. The estimated amount of pollutants in MPP wastewaters
currently being discharged to surface waters. For the purpose of this analysis, EPA
considers the baseline pollutant loadings the amount that was discharged in the base year
of the survey (1999).
• Technology option loadings. The estimated amount of pollutants in MPP wastewaters
discharged to surface waters after the implementation of the limitations and guidelines,
also referred to as post-compliance or treated pollutant loadings. In calculating these
loadings, EPA assumed that all MPP facilities currently discharging pollutants at higher
concentrations than the long-term average (LTA) concentrations of the selected
technology option level would upgrade as necessary and operate their wastewater
treatment systems to meet the target LTA concentration levels.
• Pollutant removals. The estimated amount of pollutants removed from wastewaters after
the implementation of the limitations and guidelines. Pollutant removals are calculated by
taking the difference between baseline pollutant loadings and technology option loadings.
As described in Section 10, in response to comments EPA substantially revised the
method to estimate compliance costs by applying a facility-specific approach and using survey
weights to develop national estimates. To remain consistent with the revised costing
methodology, the assessment of pollutant loading reductions was developed on a facility level
similar to the revised analysis of costs. In addition, as was done for compliance cost estimates,
TTi
-------
Section 11. Pollulanl Loadings
facilities were grouped by regulatory subcategories (i.e., subcategories A through D, F through I,
K, and L) in the development of national loading estimates.
For the proposed rule, EPA estimated pollutant loadings for all the pollutants of concern
identified at proposal for the meat and poultry subcategories. These pollutants are listed in
Section 7, Tables 7-2 and 7-3 (at proposal, carbaryl and Salmonella were also pollutants of
concern for the meat subcategories and poultry subcategories, respectively). As described in
Section 14, LTAs were developed for 11 pollutants of concern. These 11 pollutants of concern
are comprised of the eight pollutants that were proposed for regulation (ammonia (as nitrogen),
5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), chemical oxygen demand (COD), fecal coliforms,
oil and grease (as hexane extractable material [HEM]), total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and total
suspended solids (TSS)), with the addition of three other pollutants (5-day carbonaceous
biological oxygen demand (CBOD^), nitrate+nitrite as nitrogen, and total kjeldahl nitrogen
(TKN)) that were also considered for regulation after the proposal. For the final rule, since
pollutant removals can only be estimated for pollutants with a target LTA, EPA only estimated
pollutant loadings for the 11 pollutants for which LTAs were established.
11.1 BASELINE POLLUTANT LOADINGS
11.1.1 Establishment of Facility Specific Baseline Pollutant Concentrations
To estimate the baseline pollutant loadings, baseline pollutant concentrations for the
selected 11 pollutants of concern (POC) were first established for each facility in which loadings
were estimated. Facility baseline concentrations are the estimated pollutant concentrations in the
MPP wastewaters that a facility is currently discharging.
The following sections describes the methodology used to develop facility-specific
baseline pollutant concentrations.
11-2
-------
Section 11. Pollutant Loadings
11.1.1.1 Pollutant Concentrations from Analytical Data
For each facility, extensive efforts were made to obtain analytical effluent wastewater
concentration data representative of the treatment system in place at the facility. When available,
and generally in order of preference, the following data sources were used to establish the
baseline pollutant concentration for a specific facility:
• Data provided by the facility in their response to the detailed survey.
• Corrections to a "fact sheet" sent to each facility that summarized detailed survey
information about the facility's effluent concentrations, wastewater flows, and
wastewater treatment operations.
• Data provided by the facility through telephone communications.
Data collected by EPA as part of the sampling episode performed for the rulemaking
effort.
Site visit data.
• Discharge monitoring report (DMR) data from the EPA Permit Compliance System
(PCS), EPA Regional Office, or State regulatory agency.
• Effluent data provided in the facility's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit application.
When effluent data were available from any of the sources described above, the annual
average concentrations reported for 1999 were used for determining baseline loadings because
1999 was the year of the MPP detailed survey. Concentrations reported for years after 1999 were
also used, but only when data from 1999 were unavailable and only if facility operations or
treatment performance had not significantly changed since 1999. In instances where data from
more than one source were available for a particular facility, the average that represented and
encompassed the largest span of time was used. For example, if both detailed survey data and
sampling episode data were available for a facility, the detailed survey data were used instead of
11-3
-------
Section 11. Pollulanl Loadings
the sampling episode data. In this example the detailed survey data represented the average
pollutant concentration over a year while the sampling episode data represented the average
concentration over a period of 3 or 5 days.
11.1.1.2 Pollutant Concentrations Calculated Based on Associated Pollutant Parameters
When effluent data for a pollutant or pollutants could not be obtained from any of the
above data sources, default concentrations were calculated. In particular, EPA calculated default
concentrations for certain pollutants if data on an associated pollutant parameter were available.
For example, based on the available data from the sampling episodes and detailed survey data, a
strong relationship was found between BOD, and CBOD, concentrations in MPP wastewaters.
Therefore, when a facility did not have data on effluent CBOD, concentrations, but did have
effluent BOD, data, then the CBOD, concentration could be estimated based on the BOD, data
(more detailed information on the calculations and formula development are available in Section
19.6.1, DCN 100784 of the rulemaking record).
The following methodologies were used to estimate baseline pollutant concentrations for
certain pollutant parameters:
• BOD5: If BOD, data were unavailable but CBOD, data were available, BOD, was
calculated as:
BOD, = (CBOD - 0.0302) / 0.8442.
This formula was based on the relationship found from all paired effluent BOD, and
CBOD, data available in the detailed surveys and sampling episodes.
CBOD5: If CBOD data were unavailable but BOD, data were available, CBOD, was
calculated as:
CBOD, = (0.8442 x BOD,) + 0.0302.
This formula was based on the relationship found from all paired effluent BOD, and
CBOD, data available in the detailed surveys and sampling episodes.
Tm
-------
Section 11. Pollutant Loadings
TKN: If TKN data were unavailable but ammonia (as nitrogen) data were available,
TKN was calculated as:
TKN = NH, + 1.98.
This formula was based on the average organic fraction from all detailed survey and
sampling episode data with paired effluent ammonia (as nitrogen) and TKN data.
• Nitrate+nitrite: Effluent nitrate+nitrite concentrations were calculated in several
ways, depending on the data available for a particular facility.
a. If nitrate+nitrite data were unavailable but total nitrogen data were available,
nitrate+nitrite was calculated as
nitrate+nitrite = total nitrogen - TKN
b. If effluent data for only nitrate were available (i.e., no nitrite, or nitrate+nitrate data),
then the nitrate+nitrite concentration was calculated as
nitrate+nitrite = nitrate + 0.62
This formula was based on the average nitrite concentration from all facilities with
separate nitrate and nitrite data.
c. If nitrate+nitrite could not be calculated from the methods above, then nitrate+nitrite
values were calculated based on influent and effluent total nitrogen balance equations
as follows:
For facilities that do not engage denitrification in their wastewater treatment system
(Option 2 variants or less, i.e., Option 1 and 2+P):
Effluent nitrate+nitrite = (BNR influent total nitrogen) - (effluent TKN)
Where:
Total nitrogen = (nitrate+nitrite) + TKN
iT-5
-------
Section 11. Pollulanl Loadings
Based on the following relationship:
BNR influent total nitrogen - nitrogen removed from sludge wasting =
Effluent total nitrogen
Therefore:
(BNR influent TKN) + (BNR influent nitrate+nitrite) - (nitrogen removed
from sludge wasting) = (effluent TKN) + (effluent nitrate+nitrite)
"BNR influent" refers to the influent to the biological nutrient removal (BNR)
treatment system. The beginning of the BNR system was considered to be where
either nitrification or denitrification first occurred in the wastewater treatment system
(for example, the activated sludge or anoxic basin).
For BNR influent total nitrogen, if BNR influent nitrate+nitrite data were not
available for a facility, then it was assumed to be negligible and set equal to zero. The
amount of nitrogen removed from sludge wasting was also assumed to be negligible
and not incorporated in the calculations.
For partial denitrification facilities (all variants of Option 2.5, i.e., Option 2.5+F,
Option 2.5+P, etc.):
Effluent nitrate+nitrite = [(BNR influent total nitrogen) x (TN reduction
factor)] - (effluent TKN)
Where:
TN reduction factor: This factor was based on the average total nitrogen reduction
rate for partial denitrification facilities of the appropriate meat type.
For red meat facilities, the average total nitrogen reduction was 43% (based on data
from six facilities). For poultry facilities, the average total nitrogen reduction was
56% (based on data from six facilities). For mixed meat further processors and
independent renderers, the total nitrogen reduction was 49.5%, which was calculated
11-6
-------
Section 11. Pollutant Loadings
by taking the average of the reductions for red meat and for poultry (i.e., the average
of 43% and 56%). The reduction factor was calculated by subtracting the percent
reduction from one (i.e., for red meat, the reduction factor = 1 - 0.43 = 0.57).
• Total nitrogen: If total nitrogen data were unavailable, then total nitrogen was
calculated as:
total nitrogen = (nitrate+nitrite) + TKN
Total phosphorus: If total phosphorus data were unavailable, total phosphorus
was calculated as follows:
a. The phosphorus concentration entering a treatment system's nitrification or
denitrification stage was calculated based on the facility's manufacturing processes
and wastewater pre-treatment units. See Detailed Costing Document for the Final
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products
Point Source Category (DCN 300004) for detailed descriptions on the calculation of
BNR influent concentrations.
b. Based on this concentration and the wastewater flow, the phosphorus mass (in pounds
per day) entering the nitrification or denitrification stage could be calculated.
c. The amount of biosludge produced by nitrification systems was calculated using the
influent/effluent BOD^ and TKN concentrations and the respective yield coefficients.
The amount of sludge produced from denitrification systems was determined by the
calculated amount of nitrates removed in the anoxic reactor and the relevant yield
coefficients. Based on data from technical literature, it was assumed that the
biosludge contained 2 percent phosphorus1. From these calculations, the mass of
phosphorus removed from biosludge wasting could be determined.
1 WEF, 1998. Biological and chemical systems for nutrient removal. Water Environment
Foundation, Alexandria, Virginia.
iT-7
-------
Section 11. Pollulanl Loadings
d. The final effluent phosphorus concentration was calculated by determining the
remaining mass of phosphorus in the wastewater and using the following formula:
Final effluent phosphorus (mg/L) = (phosphorus in lb/dav) x 1.000.000
Flow (gallons/day) x 8.34
11.1.1.3 Pollutant Concentrations Based on Default Values
Considerable effort was made to either obtain analytical effluent concentration data or to
calculate pollutant concentrations based on another pollutant where a correlation was
demonstrated. However, when analytical effluent data for a particular pollutant was unavailable
and could not be calculated then a default value was used for the facility. Default concentrations
were calculated for BOD5, COD, fecal coliforms, ammonia (as nitrogen), oil and grease, and
TSS. For each regulatory subcategory, all the available analytical data for a particular pollutant
was averaged from all the facilities matching the subcategory and with treatment-in-place
performance comparable to Option 2 and above, and this average was used as the default value.
A summary of the default concentrations used for developing baseline pollutant concentrations
are presented in Table 11-2.
Table 11-2. Default Concentrations for Facility Baseline Concentration Development
(in mg/L)
Regulatory
Subcategory
B()l)5
COI)
Fecal
Coliform
NH,-N"
Oil and
(irease
TSS
A—I)
1 1.6
70
1 14
2.72
6.6
23
K
8.0
46
537
1.44
5.0
12
I-land I.
12.6
77
194
.v 12
5.0
17
.1
7.5
111
124
5.X2
0.3
16
'' NI 1,-N Ammonia (as nitrogen)
As an example, all the available TSS data from Subcategory K facilities with treatment-
in-place levels of Option 2 and above were averaged. The resulting average TSS concentration
was calculated to be 12 mg/L, and it would subsequently be used as the default concentration for
any Subcategory K facility in which effluent data for TSS were unavailable.
11-8
-------
Section 11. Pollutant Loadings
A single default set to be used by all facilities of a particular regulatory subcategory was
developed only using data from facilities with a treatment-in-place performance of Option 2 and
above for the following reasons:
Previous attempts at developing a unique default set for each treatment-in-place
level that was based on all the data from facilities matching that particular
treatment-in-place level (i.e., one default set for Option 2+P facilities based on all
the data from Option 2+P facilities, another default set for Option 4 facilities
based on all data from Option 4 facilities) failed because for many pollutant
parameters, no data was available for certain treatment-in-place levels.
Additionally, many of the indicated differences in default concentrations between
the treatment-in-place levels for which data was available were found to be
relatively small for most pollutants.
• Since all facilities with a treatment-in-place of Option 2 and above perform full
nitrification, the inclusion of ammonia (as nitrogen) concentrations from facilities
that did not perform full nitrification (i.e., those classified as Option 1) would
have inappropriately raised the default value for ammonia (as nitrogen).
• Most of the facilities for which loading estimates were developed had treatment-
in-place performance comparable to Option 2 and above, therefore the default
value should be based on data from facilities with treatment-in-place performance
comparable to Option 2 and above.
Because of the general lack of data for the pollutants of concern for stand-alone red meat
or poultry further processors (Subcategories F through I and L, respectively), the baseline data
from these two facility types were combined. The result was one set of default baseline
concentrations that was applied to all further processors, regardless of whether it was a red meat
or poultry further processor. The expectation is that the wastewater characteristics at further
processors are more likely to be dependent on the processing operation (e.g., breading, frying)
than on the type of meat.
FT-9
-------
Section 11. Pollulanl Loadings
For independent rendering facilities (Subcategory J), in addition to all the available
analytical data, data provided by the MPP Industry Coalition for three independent rendering
facilities, and data provided by the National Renderers Association for two independent
rendering facilities were used in the development of default concentrations for these facilities
(see DCN 100078 in Section 19.3.5 of the Docket).
11.1.1.4 Permit Limit Adjustments
After pollutant concentrations for each facility were determined from the previous steps,
they were adjusted for applicable NPDES permit limits for the facility to more accurately
estimate the effect of the new limitations and standards compared to current regulations. When
permit limits were available for a facility (from a copy of the facility's NPDES permit or from
PCS), the concentration was lowered to equal the facility's permit limit value if the average
effluent concentration was greater than the limit specified in the permit2. Monthly average
limitations contained in the permit were used when available; maximum daily limitations were
used when monthly averages were not available. When seasonal limits were included in a permit,
an average concentration for the permit was calculated using all seasonal limits. For example, if
the permit BOD limit was 20 mg/L for 6 months and 10 mg/L for 6 months, the average value of
15 mg/L was used for the permit limitation.
The final baseline concentration for each pollutant at each facility was established after
adjustments for permit limits.
11.1.2 Facility-Specific Baseline Pollutant Loading Estimates
Baseline pollutant loadings for 1999 for each facility and pollutant parameter were
calculated as follows:
Load = (concentration x flow x conversion factor) / 1,000,000
Permit limit adjustments could not he made when only mass hased limits were specified in the permit. Concentration
hased permit limits applicable in 1999 were used when available. 1 lowever. the most current permit requirements were used
when the limits tor 1999 were unknown tor any particular facility.
11-10
-------
Section 11. Pollutant Loadings
where:
load = pollutant loadings, in pounds per year (lb/year) or million colony-forming
units per year (million cfu/year)
concentration = pollutant concentration, in milligrams per liter (mg/L), or cfu/100
mL
flow = facility average annual effluent flow rate as reported in the MPP detailed
survey, in gallons per year
conversion factor = the conversion factor used is dependent on the concentration
units of the pollutant:
mg/L = 8.345, and
cfu/100 mL = 37.8.
Facility-specific baseline pollutant loading estimates for non-small slaughtering facilities
are presented in Table 11-3. Facility-specific baseline pollutant loading estimates for non-small
further processing and independent rendering facilities are available in the Confidential Business
Rulemaking Record (DCN 300009). In addition, facility-specific baseline pollutant loading
estimates for small facilities are available in the Confidential Business Rulemaking Record
(DCN 300010).
11-11
-------
Table 11-3. Facility-Specific Baseline Loading Estimates (in pounds per year, except for fecal coliforms which are in million colony
forming units per year)
DKT 11)
Category
Size
BOD,
CBOl),
COD
Fecal
Coliform
Nll,-Na
Nitrate +
Nitrite
o&(;
TKN
Total N
Total P
TSS
001 1
Pi
NS
12.XX5
1 1.017
209.904
62.376
10.09X
21X.5X6
27.541
19.1X7
237.773
X2.664
59.673
0012
M123
(R123 1*2)
NS
IX. 129
15.533
525.021
3.X9X.704
2.X70
665.9X0
2X.025
17.X27
6X3.X07
39X.031
59.525
0019
PI 3
NS
11.7X2
10.031
129.199
12.79X
1.3X4
256.259
14.220
X4X
257.107
11.X66
13.420
0020
PI 2
NS
31.24X
26.550
25X.X72
625.6X1
10.X69
270.647
26.607
22.07X
292.725
X7.4X9
49.364
0022
PI 23
NS
23.421
19.X74
153.774
125.513
1.211
335.293
16.924
7.667
342.960
129.427
52.627
0026
PI 3
NS
12.594
10.795
246.X 14
2.273.690
5.397
273.215
21.590
16.0X4
2X9.300
229.161
75.563
0027
PI 2
NS
5X.694
49.6X5
206.143
11.379.20X
10.00X
363.19X
22.6XX
IX.933
3X2.132
76.543
52.262
0029
PI
NS
4X.9X2
41.425
111.429
154.526
31.799
19.636
12.264
36.624
56.261
19.494
46.29X
0032
PI
NS
5.917
5.075
122.154
4X.400
2.11V,
57.753
13.356
X.067
65.X20
64.317
16.562
0039
PI 2
NS
23.011
19.557
19X.540
1.X6X.315
2.605
351.475
14.32X
11.202
362.676
37.373
26.050
0042
PI 2
NS
26.797
22.725
156.697
356.997
1.302
273.031
19.052
X.0X7
2X1.1 IX
64.430
2X.57X
0044
PI 23
NS
26.300
22.321
17X.704
3.540.310
X.2X5
101.723
2.462
16.022
117.746
131.664
42.596
0045
PI 2
NS
X6.262
72.951
195.279
166.353
4.270
147.797
X3.273
12.726
160.523
3.203
200.70X
0046
R13
NS
12.420
10.546
140.35X
557.992
990
176.7XX
10.441
4.9XX
1X1.776
1.616
30.776
0054
PI 2
NS
24.924
21.169
193.603
239.577.3X1
32.007
1X7.652
16.427
40.390
22X.042
53.041
56.9X6
0256
R13
NS
151.07X
127.6X3
552.X51
16X.944
5.665
774.274
2X.642
15.013
7X9.2X7
147.962
19X.290
0271
PI 2
NS
22.174
IX. 793
111.429
1.662.263
2.924
9.0X9
12.264
12.915
22.004
1.21X
4X.004
0272
PI 2
NS
26.420
22.331
41.660
1.650.673
3.09X
3X.539
4.5X5
4.901
43.440
911
2X.242
0273
PI
NS
7.754
6.631
12X.931
12.771
7X9
5X.307
2.735
6.372
64.679
9.530
6.654
0274
PI
NS
7.4X4
6.376
35.30X
1X9.4XX
1.036
14.1X1
10.5X6
4.164
1X.345
211
2.X40
0275
R13
NS
66.X59
56.561
273.347
1.603.304
6X.X25
201.900
25.955
76.612
27X.512
144.X97
X6.523
0277
R13
NS
40.1 79
25.X64
44X.146
304.331
1.595
1.501.146
103.553
X.509
1.509.655
292.677
97.500
02X0
R13
NS
16.594
14.142
307.550
621.351
2.611
967.934
11.992
11.372
979.306
177.229
39.249
02X3
R13
NS
23.575
20.021
273.096
2.420.546
19.646
499.092
25.931
27.426
526.519
140.243
55.009
02X7
V113 (R13 1*3)
NS
IX. 794
12.739
121.X50
359.596
16.616
272.00X
9.046
23.927
295.935
43.017
37.293
02X9
PI 2
NS
13.056
11.126
157.114
3.439.427
515
177.710
6.X72
7.353
1X5.063
42.914
72.152
0290
PI
NS
9.064
1.12V,
69.4XX
35.695
2.5 IX
35.X02
59.376
7.503
43.304
662
7.427
0291
PI 2
NS
12.546
10.692
152.1X4
7.537.301
2.962
273.054
1X.204
9.052
2X2.106
51.973
1X.537
0292
PI 2
NS
1X.46X
14.603
144.X57
36.590
1.394
143.379
15.943
7.666
151.045
0
27.243
0293
PI 23
NS
19.547
16.607
559.476
666.X20
1.434
52.451
3.497
X.357
60.X0X
9.196
X.XX2
0297
PI 2
NS
10.023
X.5X6
1X7.X50
111.645
2.X76
X4.57X
20.675
11.009
95.5X7
67.004
6.039
0300
PI 23
NS
145.955
123.442
344.036
2.1X1.030
1X.XX4
50.4X2
37.X64
61.9 IX
114.356
10X.112
172.2X7
0304
PI
NS
11.49X
9.776
105.161
2.0X3.347
1.150
72.946
1.3X0
5.703
7X.649
27.X26
1 X.466
0307
PI 23
NS
23.19X
19.66X
X2.729
252.693
7X3
309.50X
16.3X4
6.316
315.X25
5.590
2X.536
030X
PI 2
NS
20.5X3
17.446
105.X76
39.74X
7.039
44.497
6.X30
11.623
56.119
45.X63
22.597
0309
PI
NS
34.041
2X.777
60.032
130.X23
X66
67.359
6.905
3.466
70.X25
14.625
14.625
0310
PI 23
NS
X.X62
7.611
215.007
2.2X6.147
5.246
60.202
21.642
13.760
73.962
4.300
24.124
-------
Table 11-3. Facility-Specific Baseline Loading Estimates (in pounds per year, except for fecal coliforms which are in million colony
forming units per year) (Continued)
DKT 11)
Category
Size
BOD,
CBOl),
COD
Fecal
Coliform
NH,-N"
Nil rale +
Nilrile
o&(;
TKN
TotalN
Total P
TSS
0312
I'12
NS
1 1.760
10.029
153.214
X43.X25
21.67X
251.567
X01
2X.312
279.X79
2X.X15
29.954
03 14
PI
NS
1 1.066
9.407
9X.X93
234.611
1.016
22.967
6.X 12
5.29X
2X.265
7.979
17.XX5
0317
R13
NS
1 1.X0X
10.015
72.X05
166.X96
2X6
446.X65
IX.223
3.342
450.207
22.742
45.X 13
031X
R13
NS
26.160
20.346
505.050
1.9 7 X. 19 2
7.267
1.345.039
47.956
13.X06
1.35X.X46
257.0X6
101.005
0321
R13
NS
X7.X57
74.392
514.436
3.520.305
20.650
754.963
4X.X47
35.306
790.269
265.020
407.0XX
0322
R13
NS
62.116
52.937
1.14X.213
2.X67.529
2.X0X
2.X 12.243
90.366
35.519
2.X47.762
596.560
123.076
0325
R13
NS
79.194
67.095
550.425
1.X65.354
15.047
1.203.750
52.265
15.X39
1.219.5XX
2X1.350
134.630
0326
R13
NS
3.2X6
2.X 17
99.2XX
6.471
2X6
254.566
9.42X
429
254.994
33.999
12.2X5
032X
R13
NS
16.715
14.24X
101.666
433.01X
2.231
465.X26
10.060
11.244
477.070
52.305
29.0X9
0332
Ml 23
(R123 i'2)
NS
52.X70
44.X23
377.646
2.2X0.X10
1.636
9X0.369
41.53X
14.099
994.46X
316.542
102.594
0333
R13
NS
41 1.641
347.792
655.000
1.130.793
1.909.021
51.549
62.194
1.927.6X1
1.979.230
317.064
X95.469
0336
R13
NS
39.033
33.049
223.X41
291.763
X3.155
371.011
6.473
X9.532
460.544
119.990
50.0X0
0339
PI 23
NS
29.69X
25.347
417.X57
525.666
1.645
349.246
45.9X9
19.73X
36X.9X3
4.X43
56.2X9
0340
PI 3
NS
31.534
26.731
165.750
3.2X3.6X6
616
2X4.173
3.262
6.162
290.335
59.73X
3X.059
0342
R123
NS
15.X69
13.447
115.251
135.200
X29
134.X7X
10.943
4.112
13X.990
X4.440
24.143
'' NII,-N Ammonia (as nitrogen).
-------
Section 11. Pollulanl Loadings
11.2 TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS LOADINGS
This section presents the methods used to develop pollutant loading estimates after
implementation of the limitations and guidelines for the MPP industry. Technology option
loadings are defined as the estimated pollutant loadings in MPP wastewaters after
implementation of the selected technology option; they are also referred to as post-compliance or
treated pollutant loadings. To estimate the technology option loadings for each technology option
being considered, post-compliance pollutant concentrations were derived for each facility for
which baseline pollutant loadings were estimated. Detailed descriptions of each technology
option considered by EPA are presented in Section 9.
11.2.1 Establishment of Facility-Specific Post-Compliance Pollutant
Concentrations
Table 11-4 presents the long-term average (LTA) concentrations for the 11 POCs for each
technology option considered by EPA. LTA concentrations are expected average pollutant levels
to be achieved by a facility for the selected option level. Prior to accounting for the variability of
the wastewater, these target LTAs would be used to design a wastewater treatment system to
meet the limitations of the final MPP rule. EPA derived these LTAs based on data from the
detailed surveys and the sampling episodes. A detailed description of the methodology for LTA
development is presented in Section 14.
Post-compliance concentrations for each facility were determined by comparing the
facility's baseline concentration with the technology option LTA concentration. When the
technology option LTA concentration was lower than the facility's baseline concentration, the
technology option LTA concentration was used to represent the facility's effluent pollutant
concentration after implementation of the limitations and guidelines.
11-14
-------
Table 11-4. Technology Option Long-Term Average Concentrations (in mg/L)
Regulatory
Subcatej»ory(ies)
Technology
Option
BOI)5
CBOI),
COI)
Fecal
Coliform"
NII.rN"
Nitrate+
Nitrite
o&(;
TKN
Total N
Total P
rss
l"
7.0
6.0
125
400
6.1 1
N A
14
X.l
N A
N A
25.1
A—I)
2
7.0
6.0
125
400
O.X95
N A
14
3.6
N A
N A
25.1
and
2.5
7.0
6.0
125
400
O.X95
30.6
14
3.6
34
N A
25.1
I-I
2.5 ¦ P
7.0
6.0
125
400
O.X95
30.6
14
3.6
34
X.3
25.1
4
6.4
6.0
125
400
0.1X5
10.3
14
3.2
13.5
5.1
1X.6
1"
X.X
6.0
29.6
400
5.19
N A
5.9
7.17
N A
N A
10.2
K
2
X.X
6.0
29.6
400
1.0
N A
5.9
4.97
N A
N A
10.2
and
2.5
X.X
6.0
29.6
400
1.0
29.2
5.9
4.97
34
N A
10.2
I.
2.5 ¦ P
X.X
6.0
29.6
400
1.0
29.2
5.9
4.97
34
4.2
10.2
4
7.0
6.0
17.25
400
0.17
0.52
5.39
1.34
1.9
2.3
5.0
2
7.0
6.0
125
400
O.X95
N A
14
3.6
N A
N A
25.1
.1
2.5
7.0
6.0
125
400
O.X95
30.6
14
3.6
34
N A
25.1
2.5 ¦ P
7.0
6.0
125
400
O.X95
30.6
14
3.6
34
X.3
25.1
4
6.4
6.0
125
400
0.1X5
10.3
14
3.2
13.5
5.1
1X.6
N A not applicable for this option level.
'' I.TA concentration for Fecal Coliform is 400MPN/ 100ml for all options.
b NI 1,-N Ammonia (as nitrogen).
1 Option 1 was only used for estimating loadings for small facilities in Subcategories A-I), 1"-1 ,K, and I..
-------
Section 11. Pollulanl Loadings
11.2.2 Facility-Specific Technology Option Loading Estimates
After post-compliance pollutant concentrations were determined, technology option
loadings for each facility were calculated as follows:
Load = (concentration x flow x conversion factor)/1,000,000
where:
load = pollutant loadings, in pounds per year (lb/year), or million colony-forming
units per year (million cfu/year).
concentration = pollutant concentration, in mg/L, or cfu/lOOmL.
flow = facility effluent flow rate as reported in the MPP detailed survey, in gallons
per year.
conversion factor = the conversion factor used is dependent on the concentration
units of the pollutant:
mg/L = 8.345, and
cfu/lOOmL = 37.8.
Facility-specific technology option loading estimates for non-small slaughtering facilities
are presented in Tables 11-5 to 11-7. Facility-specific technology option loading estimates for
non-small further processing and independent rendering facilities are available in the
Confidential Business Rulemaking Record (DCN300009). In addition, facility-specific
technology option loading estimates for small facilities are available in the Confidential Business
Rulemaking Record (DCN300010).
11-16
-------
Table 11-5. Technology Option Loading Estimates for Option 2
(in pounds per year, except for fecal coliforms which are in million colony forming units per year)
DETll)
Category
Size
B()l)5
CBOl),
COD
Fecal
Coliform
NllrN"
Nitrate +
Nitrite
o&(;
(1IEM)
TKN
Total N
Total P
rss
001 1
Pi
NS
12.XX5
1 1.017
135.X70
62.376
4.590
N A
27.0X2
19.1X7
N A
N A
46.X66
0012
VI123
(R123 P2)
NS
1X129
15.533
525.021
3.X9X.704
2.X70
N A
2X.025
17.X27
N A
N A
59.525
0019
PI 3
NS
11.7X2
10.031
X3.630
12.79X
1.3X4
N A
14.220
X4X
N A
N A
13.420
0020
PI 2
NS
31.24X
26.550
167.567
625.6X1
5.661
N A
26.607
22.07X
N A
N A
49.364
0022
PI 23
NS
23.421
19.X74
99.53X
125.513
1.211
N A
16.924
7.667
N A
N A
34.334
0026
PI 3
NS
12.594
10.795
159.762
2.273.690
5.397
N A
21.590
16.0X4
N A
N A
55.107
0027
PI 2
NS
39.670
27.04X
133.436
X. 167.X24
4.50X
N A
22.6XX
IX.933
N A
N A
46.026
0029
PI
NS
21.443
14.620
72.12X
154.526
2.437
N A
12.264
12.111
N A
N A
24.X79
0032
PI
NS
5.917
5.075
79.070
4X.400
2.671
N A
13.356
X.067
N A
N A
16.562
0039
P12
NS
23.011
19.557
12X.515
1.X6X.315
2605
N A
14.32X
11.202
N A
N A
26.050
0042
P12
NS
26.797
20.560
101.429
356.997
1.302
N A
19.052
X.0X7
N A
N A
2X.57X
0044
PI 23
NS
26.300
22.321
115.674
3.540.310
2.462
N A
3.90X
16.022
N A
N A
39.900
0045
P12
NS
37.579
25.622
126.403
166.353
4.270
N A
25.195
12.726
N A
N A
43.601
0046
R13
NS
12.420
10.546
140.35X
557.992
990
N A
10.441
4.9XX
N A
N A
30.776
0054
P12
NS
24.924
21.169
125.319
7.670.950
4.234
N A
16.427
21.042
N A
N A
43.226
0256
R13
NS
33.04X
2X.327
552.X51
16X.944
4.225
N A
2X.642
15.013
N A
N A
11X.502
0271
P12
NS
21.443
14.620
72.12X
1.662.263
2.437
N A
12.264
12.111
N A
N A
24.X79
0272
P12
NS
X.017
5.466
26.967
1.650.673
911
N A
4.5X5
4.52X
N A
N A
9.302
0273
PI
NS
7.754
6.631
X3.457
12.771
7X9
N A
2.735
6.372
N A
N A
6.654
0274
PI
NS
7.4X4
6.376
35.30X
1X9.4XX
1.036
N A
10.5X6
4.164
N A
N A
2.X40
0275
R13
NS
27.530
23.597
273.347
1.603.304
3.520
N A
25.955
14.217
N A
N A
X6.523
0277
R13
NS
40.179
25.X64
44X.146
304.331
1.595
N A
103.553
X.509
N A
N A
97.500
02X0
R13
NS
16.594
14.142
307.550
621.351
2.611
N A
11.992
11.372
N A
N A
39.249
02X3
R13
NS
23.575
20.021
273.096
2.420.546
3.517
N A
25.931
14.204
N A
N A
55.009
02X7
VI13
(R13 P3)
NS
IX. 794
12.739
121.X50
359.596
3.305
N A
9.046
13.34X
N A
N A
37.293
02X9
P12
NS
13.056
11.126
101.700
3.439.427
515
N A
6.X72
7.353
N A
N A
35.0X0
0290
PI
NS
9.064
7.72X
69.4XX
35.695
2.5 IX
N A
14.X54
7.503
N A
N A
7.427
0291
P12
NS
12.546
10.692
9X.50X
6.029.X41
2.962
N A
IX.204
9.052
N A
N A
1X.537
0292
P12
NS
1X.46X
14.603
93.766
36.590
1.394
N A
15.943
7.666
N A
N A
27.243
0293
PI 23
NS
19.547
16.607
103.503
666.X20
1.434
N A
3.497
X.357
N A
N A
X.XX2
0297
P12
NS
10.023
X.5X6
121.595
111.645
2.X76
N A
20.675
11.009
N A
N A
6.039
0300
PI 23
NS
66.206
45.141
222.694
2.1X1.030
7.523
N A
37.X64
37.391
N A
N A
76.X 14
0304
PI
NS
11.49X
9.776
6X.070
2.0X3.347
1.150
N A
1.3X0
5.703
N A
N A
1 X.466
0307
PI 23
NS
23.19X
16.769
X2.729
252.693
7X3
N A
16.3X4
6.316
N A
N A
2X.536
030X
P12
NS
20.375
13.X92
6X.533
39.74X
2.315
N A
6.X30
11.507
N A
N A
22.597
0309
PI
NS
11.553
7.X77
3X.X59
130.X23
X66
N A
6.905
3.466
N A
N A
13.404
0310
PI 23
NS
X.X62
7.611
127.2X4
2.2X6.147
4.300
N A
21.642
13.760
N A
N A
24.124
0312
P12
NS
11.760
10.029
99.175
X43.X25
3.351
N A
X01
16.652
N A
N A
29.954
0314
PI
NS
11.066
9.407
64.013
234.611
1.016
N A
6.X 12
5.29X
N A
N A
17.XX5
0317
R13
NS
10.X05
9.261
72.X05
166.X96
2X6
N A
IX.223
3.342
N A
N A
3X.744
031X
R13
NS
26.160
20.346
505.050
1.97X.192
6.504
N A
47.956
13.X06
N A
N A
101.005
g
-------
Table 11-5. Technology Option Loading Estimates for Option 2 (in pounds per year, except for fecal coliforms which are in million
colony forming units per year) (Continued)
DKTll)
Category
Size
B()l)5
CBOl),
COD
Fecal
Coliform
NllrN"
Nitrate +
Nitrite
o&(;
(1IEM)
TKN
Total N
Total P
TSS
().>21
R13
NS
51.XI1
44.410
514.436
3.520.305
6.624
N A
4X.X47
26.757
N A
N A
1X5.7X0
0322
R13
NS
62.116
52.937
1.14X.213
2.X67.529
2.X0X
N A
90.366
35.519
N A
N A
123.076
0325
R13
NS
55.436
47.516
550.425
1.X65.354
7.0XX
N A
52.265
15.X39
N A
N A
134.630
0326
R13
NS
3.2X6
2.X 17
99.2XX
6.471
2X6
N A
9.42X
429
N A
N A
12.2X5
0328
R13
NS
16.715
14.24X
101.666
433.01X
2.231
N A
10.060
11.244
N A
N A
29.0X9
0332
Ml 23
(R123 1'2)
NS
44.059
37.765
377.646
2.2X0.X10
1.636
N A
41.53X
14.099
N A
N A
102.594
0333
R13
NS
65.96X
56.544
655.000
1.130.793
X.434
N A
62.194
34.06X
N A
N A
236.543
0336
R13
NS
22.544
19.324
223.X41
291.763
2.XX2
N A
6.473
11.642
N A
N A
50.0X0
0339
PI 23
NS
29.69X
25.347
270.47X
525.666
1.645
N A
45.9X9
19.73X
N A
N A
56.2X9
0340
PI 3
NS
31.534
21.74X
107.290
3.2X3.6X6
616
N A
3.262
6.162
N A
N A
37.00X
0342
R123
11.607
9.949
115.251
135.200
X29
N A
10.943
4.112
N A
N A
24.143
N A Not Applicable (not a pollutant of concern for this subcategory.
'' NII,-N Ammonia (as nitrogen).
-------
Table 11-6. Technology Option Loading Estimates for Option 2.5
(in pounds per year, except for fecal coliforms which are in million colony forming units per year)
DETll)
Category
Size
B()l)5
CBOl),
COD
Fecal
Coliform
NlI.rN
Nitrate +
Nitrite
o&(;
(1IEM)
TKN
Total N
Total P
TSS
001 1
Pi
NS
12.XX5
1 1.017
135.X70
62.376
4.590
134.2 IX
27.0X2
19.1X7
156.9X5
N A
46.X66
0012
Mi:.! (R123 i'2)
NS
IX. 129
15.533
525.021
3.X9X.704
2.X70
231.074
2X.025
17.X27
25X.343
N A
59.525
0019
PI 3
NS
11.7X2
10.031
X3.630
12.79X
1.3X4
X2.613
14.220
X4X
96.627
N A
13.420
0020
PI 2
NS
31.24X
26.550
167.567
625.6X1
5.661
165.529
26.607
22.07X
193.60X
N A
49.364
0022
PI 23
NS
23.421
19.X74
99.53X
125.513
1.211
9X.327
16.924
7.667
115.006
N A
34.334
0026
PI 3
NS
12.594
10.795
159.762
2.273.690
5.397
157.X19
21.590
16.0X4
1X4.590
N A
55.107
0027
PI 2
NS
39.670
27.04X
133.436
X. 167.X24
4.50X
131.X 13
22.6XX
1X.933
154.173
N A
46.026
0029
PI
NS
21.443
14.620
72.12X
154.526
2.437
19.636
12.264
12.111
56.261
N A
24.X79
0032
PI
NS
5.917
5.075
79.070
4X.400
2.671
57.753
13.356
X.067
65.X20
N A
16.562
0039
PI 2
NS
23.011
19.557
12X.515
1.X6X.315
2.605
126.952
14.32X
11.202
14X.4X7
N A
26.050
0042
PI 2
NS
26.797
20.560
101.429
356.997
1.302
100.196
19.052
X.0X7
117.192
N A
2X.57X
0044
PI 23
NS
26.300
22.321
115.674
3.540.310
3.90X
101.723
2.462
16.022
117.746
N A
39.900
0045
PI 2
NS
37.579
25.622
126.403
166.353
4.270
124.X66
25.195
12.726
146.047
N A
43.601
0046
R13
NS
12.420
10.546
140.35X
557.992
990
61.775
10.441
4.9XX
69.065
N A
30.776
0054
PI 2
NS
24.924
21.169
125.319
7.670.950
4.234
123.794
16.427
21.042
144.794
N A
43.226
0256
R13
NS
33.04X
2X.327
552.X51
16X.944
4.225
144.421
2X.642
15.013
161.464
N A
11X.502
0271
PI 2
NS
21.443
14.620
72.12X
1.662.263
2.437
9.0X9
12.264
12.111
22.004
N A
24.X79
0272
PI 2
NS
X.017
5.466
26.967
1.650.673
911
26.639
4.5X5
4.52X
31.157
N A
9.302
027?
PI
NS
7.754
6.631
X3.457
12.771
7X9
5X.307
2.735
6.372
64.679
N A
6.654
0274
PI
NS
7.4X4
6.376
35.30X
1X9.4XX
1.036
14.1X1
10.5X6
4.164
1X.345
N A
2.X40
0275
R13
NS
27.530
23.597
273.347
1.603.304
3.520
120.306
25.955
14.217
134.504
N A
X6.523
0277
R13
NS
40.179
25.X64
44X.146
304.331
1.595
271.139
103.553
X.509
303.137
N A
97.500
02X0
R13
NS
16.594
14.142
307.550
621.351
2.611
135.360
11.992
11.372
151.334
N A
39.249
0283
R13
NS
23.575
20.021
273.096
2.420.546
3.517
120.196
25.931
14.204
134.3X0
N A
55.009
02X7
M13 (R13 i'.?)
NS
IX. 794
12.739
121.X50
359.596
3.305
112.951
9.046
13.34X
126.2X1
N A
37.293
02X9
PI 2
NS
13.056
11.126
101.700
3.439.427
515
100.463
6.X72
7.353
117.504
N A
35.0X0
0290
PI
NS
9.064
7.72X
69.4XX
35.695
2.5 IX
35.X02
14.X54
7.503
43.304
N A
7.427
0291
PI 2
NS
12.546
10.692
9X.50X
6.029.X41
2.962
97.310
1X.204
9.052
113.X 17
N A
1X.537
0292
PI 2
NS
1X.46X
14.603
93.766
36.590
1.394
92.625
15.943
7.666
10X.337
N A
27.243
0293
PI 23
NS
19.547
16.607
103.503
666.X20
1.434
52.451
3.497
X.357
60.X0X
N A
X.XX2
0297
PI 2
NS
10.023
X.5X6
121.595
111.645
2.X76
X4.57X
20.675
11.009
95.5X7
N A
6.039
0300
PI 23
NS
66.206
45.141
222.694
2.1X1.030
7.523
50.4X2
37.X64
37.391
114.356
N A
76.X 14
0304
PI
NS
11.49X
9.776
6X.070
2.0X3.347
1.150
67.242
1.3X0
5.703
7X.649
N A
1 X.466
0307
PI 23
NS
23.19X
16.769
X2.729
252.693
7X3
XI.723
16.3X4
6.316
95.5X6
N A
2X.536
030X
PI 2
NS
20.375
13.X92
6X.533
39.74X
2.315
44.497
6.X30
11.507
56.119
N A
22.597
-------
Table 11-6. Technology Option Loading Estimates for Option 2.5
(in pounds per year, except for fecal coliforms which are in million colony forming units per year) (Continued)
DETll)
Category
Size
BOD,
CBOl),
COD
Fecal
Coliform
NH,-N"
Nitrate +
Nitrite
o&(;
(1IEM)
TKN
Total N
Total P
TSS
0309
PI
NS
11.553
7.X77
3X.X59
130.X23
X66
3X.3X6
6,905
3.466
44.X9X
N A
1 3.404
03 10
PI 23
NS
X.X62
7.61 1
127.2X4
2.2X6.147
4.300
60.202
21,642
13.760
73.962
N A
24.124
0312
PI 2
NS
1 1.760
10.029
99.175
X43.X25
3.351
97.969
X01
16.652
1 14.5XX
N A
29.954
03 14
PI
NS
1 1.066
9.407
64.013
234.61 1
1.016
22.967
6.X 12
5.29X
2X.265
N A
17.XX5
0317
R13
NS
10.X05
9.261
72.X05
166.X96
2X6
47,21X
1X.223
3.342
52.790
N A
3X.744
03IX
R13
NS
26.160
20.346
505.050
1.97X.192
6.504
222,2X4
47.956
1 3.X06
24X.516
N A
101.005
0321
R13
NS
51.X1 1
44.410
514.436
3.520.305
6.624
226,415
4X.X47
26.757
253.135
N A
1X5.7X0
0322
R13
NS
62.1 16
52.937
1.14X.213
2.X67.529
2.X0X
505.355
90.366
35.519
564,993
N A
123.076
0325
R13
NS
55,436
47.516
550.425
1.X65.354
7.0XX
242.255
52.265
1 5.X39
270.X44
N A
134.630
0326
R13
NS
3.2X6
2.X 17
99.2XX
6.471
2X6
43.699
9.42X
429
4X.X56
N A
12.2X5
032X
R13
NS
16,715
14.24X
101.666
433.0 IX
2.231
139.252
10.060
1 1.244
155,6X5
N A
29.0X9
0332
mi:.?
(R123 1*2)
NS
44,059
37.765
377.646
2.2X0.X10
1.636
192.537
41.53X
14.099
215.25X
N A
102.594
0333
R13
NS
65.96X
56,544
655.000
1.130.793
X.434
51.549
62.194
34.06X
322,301
N A
236.543
0336
R13
NS
22.544
19.324
223.X41
291.763
2.XX2
9X.51X
6.473
11.642
110.144
N A
50.0X0
0339
PI 23
NS
29.698
25.347
270.47X
525.666
1.645
267.1X9
45.9X9
19.73X
312.512
N A
56.2X9
0340
PI 3
NS
31.534
21.74X
107.290
3.2X3.6X6
616
105.9X5
3.262
6.162
123.963
N A
37.00X
0342
R123
NS
11.607
9.949
115.251
135.200
X29
50.724
10.943
4.112
56.710
N A
24.143
N A Not Applicable (not a pollutant of concern for this subcategory).
'' N1I,-N Ammonia (as nitrogen).
-------
Table 11-7. Technology Option Loading Estimates for Option 2.5+P
(in pounds per year, except for fecal coliforms which are in million colony forming units per year)
DETll)
Category
Size
BOD,
CBOl),
COD
Fecal
Coliform
NH,-N"
Nitrate +
Nitrite
o&(;
(1IEM)
TKN
Total N
Total P
TSS
001 1
Pi
NS
12.XX5
1 1.017
135.X70
62.376
4.590
134.2 IX
27.0X2
19.1X7
156.9X5
19.279
46.X66
0012
VI123
(R12 3 P2)
NS
IX. 129
15.533
525.021
3.X9X.704
2.X70
231.074
2X.025
17.X27
25X.343
62.546
59.525
0019
PI 3
NS
11.7X2
10.031
X3.630
12.79X
1.3X4
X2.613
14.220
X4X
96.627
11 .X66
13.420
0020
PI 2
NS
31.24X
26.550
167.567
625.6X1
5.661
165.529
26.607
22.07X
193.60X
23.776
49.364
0022
PI 23
NS
23.421
19.X74
99.53X
125.513
1.211
9X.327
16.924
7.667
115.006
14.124
34.334
0026
PI 3
NS
12.594
10.795
159.762
2.273.690
5.397
157.X 19
21.590
16.0X4
1X4.590
22.669
55.107
0027
PI 2
NS
39.670
27.04X
133.436
X. 167.X24
4.50X
131.X 13
22.6XX
1X.933
154.173
1X.933
46.026
0029
PI
NS
21.443
14.620
72.12X
154.526
2.437
19.636
12.264
12.111
56.261
10.234
24.X79
0032
PI
NS
5.917
5.075
79.070
4X.400
2.671
57.753
13.356
X.067
65.X20
11.219
16.562
0039
PI 2
NS
23.011
19.557
12X.515
1.X6X.315
2.605
126.952
14.32X
11.202
14X.4X7
1X.235
26.050
0042
PI 2
NS
26.797
20.560
101.429
356.997
1.302
100.196
19.052
X.0X7
117.192
14.392
2X.57X
0044
PI 23
NS
26.300
22.321
115.674
3.540.310
3.90X
101.723
2.462
16.022
117.746
16.413
39.900
0045
PI 2
NS
37.579
25.622
126.403
166.353
4.270
124.X66
25.195
12.726
146.047
3.203
43.601
0046
R13
NS
12.420
10.546
140.35X
557.992
990
61.775
10.441
4.9XX
69.065
1.616
30.776
0054
PI 2
NS
24.924
21.169
125.319
7.670.950
4.234
123.794
16.427
21.042
144.794
17.7X2
43.226
0256
R13
NS
33.04X
2X.327
552.X51
16X.944
4.225
144.421
2X.642
15.013
161.464
39.091
11X.502
0271
PI 2
NS
21.443
14.620
72.12X
1.662.263
2.437
9.0X9
12.264
12.111
22.004
1.21X
24.X79
0272
PI 2
NS
X.017
5.466
26.967
1.650.673
911
26.639
4.5X5
4.52X
31.157
911
9.302
027?
PI
NS
7.754
6.631
X3.457
12.771
7X9
5X.307
2.735
6.372
64.679
9.530
6.654
0274
PI
NS
7.4X4
6.376
35.30X
1X9.4XX
1.036
14.1X1
10.5X6
4.164
1X.345
211
2.X40
0275
R13
NS
27.530
23.597
273.347
1.603.304
3.520
120.306
25.955
14.217
134.504
32.564
X6.523
0277
R13
NS
40.179
25.X64
44X.146
304.331
1.595
271.139
103.553
X.509
303.137
73.391
97.500
02X0
R13
NS
16.594
14.142
307.550
621.351
2.611
135.360
11.992
11.372
151.334
36.639
39.249
0283
R13
NS
23.575
20.021
273.096
2.420.546
3.517
120.196
25.931
14.204
134.3X0
32.534
55.009
02X7
VI13( R13 P3)
NS
IX. 794
12.739
121.X50
359.596
3.305
112.951
9.046
13.34X
126.2X1
30.573
37.293
02X9
PI 2
NS
13.056
11.126
101.700
3.439.427
515
100.463
6.X72
7.353
117.504
14.430
35.0X0
0290
PI
NS
9.064
7.72X
69.4XX
35.695
2.5 IX
35.X02
14.X54
7.503
43.304
662
7.427
0291
PI 2
NS
12.546
10.692
9X.50X
6.029.X41
2.962
97.310
1X.204
9.052
113.X 17
13.97X
1X.537
0292
PI 2
NS
1X.46X
14.603
93.766
36.590
1.394
92.625
15.943
7.666
10X.337
0
27.243
0293
PI 23
NS
19.547
16.607
103.503
666.X20
1.434
52.451
3.497
X.357
60.X0X
9.196
X.XX2
0297
PI 2
NS
10.023
X.5X6
121.595
111.645
2.X76
X4.57X
20.675
11.009
95.5X7
17.253
6.039
0300
PI 23
NS
66.206
45.141
222.694
2.1X1.030
7.523
50.4X2
37.X64
37.391
114.356
31,59X
76.X 14
0304
PI
NS
11.49X
9.776
6X.070
2.0X3.347
1.150
67.242
1.3X0
5.703
7X.649
9.659
1 X.466
0307
PI 23
NS
23.19X
16.769
X2.729
252.693
7X3
XI.723
16.3X4
6.316
95.5X6
5.590
2X.536
030X
PI 2
NS
20.375
13.X92
6X.533
39.74X
2.315
44.497
6.X30
11.507
56.119
9.724
22.597
0309
PI
NS
11.553
7.X77
3X.X59
130.X23
X66
3X.3X6
6.905
3.466
44.X9X
5.514
13.404
0310
PI 23
NS
X.X62
7.611
127.2X4
2.2X6.147
4.300
60.202
21.642
13.760
73.962
4.300
24.124
0312
PI 2
NS
11.760
10.029
99.175
X43.X25
3.351
97.969
X01
16.652
114.5XX
14.072
29.954
0314
PI
NS
11.066
9.407
64.013
234.611
1.016
22.967
6.X 12
5.29X
2X.265
7.979
17.XX5
0317
R13
NS
10.X05
9.261
72.X05
166.X96
2X6
47.21X
IX.223
3.342
52.790
12.7X1
3X.744
031X
R13
NS
26.160
20.346
505.050
1.97X. 192
6.504
222.2X4
47.956
13.X06
24X.516
60.167
101.005
0321
R13
NS
51.X11
44.410
514.436
3.520.305
6.624
226.415
4X.X47
26.757
253.135
61.2X5
1X5.7X0
g
-------
Table 11-7. Technology Option Loading Estimates for Option 2.5+P
(in pounds per year, except for fecal coliforms which are in million colony forming units per year) (Continued)
DKTll)
Category
Size
BOD,
CBOl),
COD
Fecal
Coliform
NH,-N"
Nitrate +
Nitrite
Oil and
(irease
TKN
Total N
Total P
TSS
0522
R13
NS
62.116
52.937
1.14X.213
2.X67.529
2.X0X
505.355
90.366
35.519
564.993
136.7XX
123.076
?25
R13
NS
55.436
47.516
550.425
1.X65.354
7.0XX
242.255
52.265
15.X39
270.X44
65.573
134.630
0326
R13
NS
3.2X6
2.X 17
99.2XX
6.471
2X6
43.699
9.42X
429
4X.X56
11.X2X
12.2X5
0328
R13
NS
16.715
14.24X
101.666
433.01X
2.231
139.252
10.060
11.244
155.6X5
37.692
29.0X9
0332
i*2i
NS
44.059
37.765
377.646
2.2X0.X10
1.636
192.537
41.53X
14.099
215.25X
52.115
102.594
0333
R13
NS
65.96X
56.544
655.000
1.130.793
X.434
51.549
62.194
34.06X
322.301
7X.031
236.543
0336
R13
NS
22.544
19.324
223.X41
291.763
2.XX2
9X.51X
6.473
11.642
110.144
26.666
50.0X0
0339
PI 23
NS
29.69X
25.347
270.47X
525.666
1.645
267.1X9
45.9X9
19.73X
312.512
4.X43
56.2X9
0340
PI 3
NS
31.534
21.74X
107.290
3.2X3.6X6
616
105.9X5
3.262
6.162
123.963
15.224
37.00X
0342
R123
NS
11.607
9.949
115.251
135.200
X29
50.724
10.943
4.112
56.710
13.730
24.143
'' NII,-N Ammonia (as nitrogen).
-------
Table 11-8. Technology Option Loading Estimates for Option 4
(in pounds per year, except for fecal coliforms which are in million colony forming units per year)
DKTII)
Category
Size
B()l)5
CBOI),
COI)
Fecal
Coliform
NH,-N"
Nitrate +
Nitrite
Oil and
(irease
TKN
TotalN
Total P
TSS
001 1
Pi
NS
12.XX5
1 1.017
79.1X1
62.376
7X0
2.3X7
24.741
6.151
X.53X
10.420
23.1X1
0012
M123 (R123 i'2)
NS
IX. 129
15.533
525.021
3.X9X.704
1.397
7X.107
2X.025
17.X27
102.053
3X.676
59.525
0019
PI 3
NS
11.7X2
10.031
4X.737
12.79X
4X0
1.469
14.220
X4X
5.255
6.414
13.420
0020
PI 2
NS
31.24X
26.550
97.653
625.6X1
962
2.944
26.607
7.5X6
10.530
12.X51
2X.5XX
0022
PI 23
NS
23.421
19.X74
5X.00X
125.513
572
1.749
16.924
4.506
6.255
7.633
16.9X2
0026
PI 3
NS
12.594
10.795
93.105
2.273.690
91X
2.X07
21.590
7.232
10.039
12.252
27.257
0027
PI 2
NS
31.556
27.04X
77.762
X. 167.X24
766
2.344
22.6XX
6.041
X.3X5
10.233
22.765
0029
PI
NS
17.057
14.620
42.034
154.526
414
1.267
12.264
3.265
4.532
5.531
12.306
0032
PI
NS
5.917
5.075
46.0X0
4X.400
454
1.3X9
13.356
3.5X0
4.969
6.064
13.490
0039
PI 2
NS
23.011
19.557
74.X95
1.X6X.315
73X
2.25X
14.32X
5.X IX
X.076
9.X56
21.926
0042
PI 2
NS
23.9X7
20.560
59.110
356.997
5X3
1.7X2
1X.470
4.592
6.374
7.779
17.305
0044
PI 23
NS
26.300
22.321
67.412
3.540.310
664
2.032
2.462
5.237
7.269
X.X71
19.735
0045
PI 2
NS
29.X93
25.622
73.664
166.353
726
2.221
23.017
5.722
7.943
3.203
21.565
0046
R13
NS
12.420
10.546
140.35X
557.992
374
20.XXI
10.441
4.9XX
27.2X3
1.616
30.776
0054
PI 2
NS
24.924
21.169
73.032
7.670.950
720
2.202
16.427
5.673
7.X75
9.611
21.3X0
0256
R13
NS
30.452
2X.327
552.X51
16X.944
X73
4X.X17
2X.642
14.966
63.7X3
24.172
XX.050
0271
PI 2
NS
17.057
14.620
42.034
1.662.263
414
1.267
12.264
3.265
4.532
1.21X
12.306
0272
PI 2
NS
6.377
5.466
15.715
1.650.673
155
474
4.5X5
1.221
1.695
911
4.601
0273
PI
NS
7.754
6.631
4X.636
12.771
479
1.466
2.735
3.77X
5.244
6.400
6.654
0274
PI
NS
7.4X4
6.376
33.102
1X9.4XX
326
99 X
10.343
2.571
3.569
211
2.X40
0275
R13
NS
25.367
23.597
273.347
1.603.304
72X
40.666
25.955
12.467
> > M >
20.136
73.34X
0277
R13
NS
40.179
25.X64
44X.146
304.331
1.595
91.650
103.553
X.509
119.74X
45.3X2
97.500
02X0
R13
NS
16.594
14.142
307.550
621.351
X19
45.754
11.992
11.372
59.7X1
22.656
39.249
02X3
R13
NS
23.575
20.021
273.096
2.420.546
727
40.62X
25.931
12.456
53.0X4
20.1 IX
55.009
02X7
Ml3 (R13 1*3)
NS
IX. 794
12.739
121.X50
359.596
6X3
3X.1X0
9.046
11.705
49.XX5
1 X.905
37.293
02X9
PI 2
NS
13.056
11.126
59.26X
3.439.427
515
1.7X7
6.X72
4.604
6.391
7.799
17.351
0290
PI
NS
9.064
7.72X
43.430
35.695
42X
1.309
13.570
3.374
4.6X3
662
7.427
0291
PI 2
NS
12.546
10.692
57.40X
6.029.X41
566
1.731
17.93X
4.459
6.190
7.555
16.X06
0292
PI 2
NS
1X.46X
14.603
54.644
36.590
539
1.647
15.943
4.245
5.X92
0
15.997
0293
PI 23
NS
19.547
16.607
60.31X
666.X20
594
1.X1X
3.497
4.6X6
6.504
7.93X
X.XX2
0297
PI 2
NS
10.023
X.5X6
70.X62
111.645
69 X
2.136
20.675
5.505
7.641
9.325
6.039
0300
PI 23
NS
52.664
45.141
129.779
2.1X1.030
1.279
3.912
37.X64
10.0X1
13.994
17.07X
37.993
0304
PI
NS
11.49X
9.776
39.669
2.0X3.347
391
1.196
1.3X0
3.0X2
4.277
5.220
11.613
0307
PI 23
NS
19.564
16.769
4X.212
252.693
475
1.453
15.065
3.745
5.199
5.590
14.114
030X
PI 2
NS
16.207
13.X92
39.939
39.74X
394
1.204
6.X30
3.103
4.306
5.256
11.692
0309
PI
NS
9.190
7.X77
22.646
130.X23
223
6X3
6.905
1.759
2.442
2.9X0
6.630
0310
PI 23
NS
X.X62
7.611
74.177
2.2X6.147
731
2.236
21.642
5.762
7.99X
4.300
21.716
-------
Table 11-8. Technology Option Loading Estimates for Option 4
(in pounds per year, except for fecal coliforms which are in million colony forming units per year) (Continued)
DKTll)
Category
Size
BOD,
CBOl),
COD
Fecal
Coliform
N11
N"
Nitrate +
Nitrite
Oil and
(irease
TKN
Total N
Total P
TSS
0312
PI 2
NS
1 1.760
10.029
57.796
X43.X25
570
570
1.742
4.49o
6.232
7.606
16.920
03 14
PI
NS
1 1.066
9.407
37.305
234.611
36X
1.125
6.X 12
2.X9X
4.022
4.909
10.921
0317
R13
NS
9.956
9.261
72.X05
166.X96
2X6
15.961
IX.223
3.342
20.X54
7.903
2X.7XX
031X
R13
NS
26.160
20.346
505.050
1.97X.192
1.344
75.136
47.956
13.X06
9X.171
37.205
101.005
0321
R13
NS
47.740
44.410
514.436
3.520.305
1.369
76.533
4X.X47
23.463
99.996
37.X96
13X.040
0322
R13
NS
62.116
52.937
1.14X.213
2.X67.529
2.X0X
170.X 19
90.366
35.519
223.1X9
X4.5X4
123.076
0325
R13
NS
51.0X0
47.516
550.425
1.X65.354
1.465
X1.XX7
52.265
15.X39
106.991
40.547
134.630
0326
R13
NS
3.2X6
2.X 17
99.2XX
6.471
264
14.771
9.42X
429
19.300
7.314
12.2X5
032X
R13
NS
16.715
14.24X
101.666
433.01X
X42
47.070
10.060
11.244
61.500
23.307
29.0X9
0332
M123(R123 i'2)
NS
40.597
37.765
377.646
2.2X0.X10
1.164
65.0X1
41.53X
14.099
X5.033
32.226
102.594
0333
R13
NS
60.7X5
56.544
655.000
1.130.793
1.743
51.549
62.194
29.X74
127.3 IX
4X.251
175.75X
0336
R13
NS
20.773
19.324
223.X41
291.763
596
33.301
6.473
10.209
43.510
16.4X9
50.0X0
0339
I'123
NS
29.69X
25.347
157.627
525.666
1.553
4.752
45.9X9
12.245
16.996
4.X43
46.146
0340
PI 3
NS
25.373
21.74X
62.525
3.2X3.6X6
616
1.XX5
3.262
4.X57
6.742
X.22X
1X.304
0342
R123
NS
10.695
9.949
115.251
135.200
307
17.146
10.943
4.112
22.402
X.490
24.143
'' NII,-N Ammonia (as nitrogen).
-------
Section 11. Pollutant Loadings
11.3 POLLUTANT REMOVALS
From baseline pollutant and technology option loadings, EPA estimated national
pollutant removals after implementation of the limitations and guidelines. Pollutant removals
were calculated by taking the difference between the baseline pollutant loadings and each
technology option loadings. National pollutant removal estimates for non-small facilities for each
technology option are presented in Table 11-9.
Table 11-9. Removal of Specified Pollutants by Subcategory and Option'-Non-small Facilities
Kcmoyals (Pounds per Year)
Subcategory
Pollutant
Ontion 2
Ontion 2.5
Ont. 2.5+P
Ontion 4
A through I)
5-I)ay Biochemical Oxygen Demand
609.665
609.665
609.665
640.054
(non-small)
Total Suspended Solids
967.092
967.092
967.092
1.116.025
Chemical Oxygen Demand
0
0
0
0
Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand
511.342
511.342
511.342
511.342
Ammonia (as Nitrogen)
2.250.306
2.250.306
2.250.306
2.309.92X
Total Nitrogen
0
15.400.791
15.400.791
1X.456.9X4
Total Phosphorus
0
0
4.519.X67
4.972.1 XX
Nitrate Nitrite
0
13.574.55X
13.574.55X
16.374.921
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
2.212.522
2.212.522
2.212.522
2.22X.721
()il&(irease
0
0
0
0
1- through I
5-Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand
21.703
21.703
21.703
24.467
(non-small)
Total Suspended Solids
0
0
0
0
Chemical Oxygen Demand
42.213
42.213
42.213
42.213
Carbonaceous Biochemical. Oxygen Demand
1 X.395
1 X.395
1 X.395
1 X.395
Ammonia (as Nitrogen)
10.575
10.575
10.575
13.X04
Total Nitrogen
0
0
0
79.677
Total Phosphorus
0
0
0
0
Nitrate Nitrite
0
0
0
0
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
12.945
12.945
12.945
15.677
()il&(irease
0
0
0
0
.1
5-Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand
34.176
34.176
34.176
36.734
(non-small)
Total Suspended Solids
0
0
0
19.X71
Chemical Oxygen Demand
0
0
0
0
Carbonaceous Biochemical. Oxygen Demand
2X.570
2X.570
2X.570
2X.570
Ammonia (as Nitrogen)
4X.965
4X.965
4X.965
56.3XX
Total Nitrogen
0
1.469.407
1.469.407
1.652.506
Total Phosphorus
0
0
590.434
622.5X3
Nitrate Nitrite
0
1.465.011
1.465.011
1.644.216
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
51.819
51.X19
51.X19
54.7XX
Oil &. Grease
0
0
0
0
K
5-Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand
643.X30
643.X30
643.X30
X6X.X41
(non-small)
Total Suspended Solids
1.309.553
1.309.553
1.309.553
2.573.666
Chemical Oxygen Demand
6.513.77X
6.513.77X
6.513.77X
11.244.275
Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand
725.207
725.207
725.207
725.207
Ammonia (as Nitrogen)
331.973
331.973
331.973
502.103
Total Nitrogen
0
9.367.XOX
9.367.XOX
20.XX3.771
Total Phosphorus
0
0
4.147.3X5
4.671.571
Nitrate Nitrite
0
10.112.961
10.112.961
20.103.140
11-25
-------
Section 11. Pollulanl Loadings
Table 11-9. Removal of Specified Pollutants by Subcategory and
Option'-Non-small Facilities (Continued)
Removals (Pounds per Year)
Subcategory
Pollutant
Option 2
Option 2.5
Opt. 2.5+P
Option 4
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
22x255
22x255
223.255
800.944
Oil &. Grease
.>1x477
.>1x477
313.477
329.373
I.
5-Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand
9.14?
9.14?
9.143
18.672
(non-small)
Total Suspended Solids
135
135
135
3.923
Chemical Oxygen Demand
4x609
4x609
43.609
59.123
Carbonaceous Biochemical. Oxygen Demand
1 3.889
1x889
13.889
13.889
Ammonia (as Nitrogen)
9.492
9.492
9.492
16.123
Total Nitrogen
0
146..>64
146.364
354.355
Total Phosphorus
0
0
25.012
27.000
Nitrate Nitrite
0
153.476
153.476
335.921
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
5.6X5
5.685
5.685
19.039
Oil &. Grease
0
0
0
0
1 Incremental to baseline of current performance. Current performance based on summarized 1999 DMR data
provided in response to detailed surveys. Pollutant loading for various treatment options based on sampling data,
survey information, and DMR data.
: IiPA recognizes that total nitrogen should be more than nitrate/nitrite as nitrogen because total nitrogen is the sum
of nitrate/nitrite as nitrogen and total Kjeldahl nitrogen. 1 lowever, the target effluent concentrations were taken from
different sets of facilities (i.e., those that provided total nitrogen data and those that provided nitrate/nitrite as
nitrogen data). HPA is regulating total nitrogen, not nitrate/nitrite nitrogen for the final rule.
11.4 SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSES
As described previously in Section 10.8, EPA performed four sensitivity cost runs to
determine the impacts of various issues on final rule decisions. In order to evaluate the cost-
effectiveness of cost runs 3 and 4, EPA developed parallel loadings estimates using the higher
target effluent nitrogen concentrations and updated facility data.
As a result of incorporating updated facility data for the this analysis, default
concentrations for developing baseline pollutant concentrations were slightly modified to
incorporate the non-1999 data added for the analyses, as well as any updated data and
information collected subsequent to the NODA. Table 11-10 summarizes the default
concentrations used for developing baseline pollutant concentrations for the supplemental
analyses.
Table 11-11 presents the facility-specific baseline loading estimates for the sensitivity
runs. In addition, Table 11-12 summarizes technology option LTAs, and Tables 11-13 and 11-14
11-26
-------
Section 11. Pollutant Loadings
present the facility-specific technology option loading estimates (for Option 2 and Option 2.5,
respectively) for the sensitivity runs 3 and 4.
Table 11-10. Default Concentrations for Facility Baseline Concentration Development
(in mg/L)
Regulatory
Subcategory
BOI)5
COI)
l ocal Coliform
Ammonia
(as nitrogen)
Oil and (irease
TSS
A—I)
11.6
70
1 14
2.72
6.6
23
K
7.3
46
536
1.43
5.0
11
r-Iandl.
12.6
77
194
3.12
5.0
17
.1
7.5
111
124
5.X2
0.3
16
11-27
-------
Table 11-11. Facility-Specific Baseline Loading Estimates for Sensitivity Runs 3 and 4
(in pounds per year, except for fecal coliforms which are in million colony forming units per year)
00
DKTII)
Category
Size
BOI)5
CBOI),
COI)
Fecal
Coliform
NH,-N"
Nitrate +
Nitrite
Oil and
(irease
TKN
Total N
Total P
TSS
001 1
I'12
NS
12.XX5
1 1.017
209.904
62.376
10.09X
21X.5X6
27.541
19.1X7
237.773
X2.664
59.673
0012
Mil!
(R123 i'2)
NS
IX. 129
15.533
525.021
3.X9X.704
2.X70
665.9X0
2X.025
17.X27
6X3.X07
39X.031
59.525
0019
PI 3
NS
11.7X2
10.031
129.199
12.79X
1.3X4
256.259
14.220
X4X
257.107
11.X66
13.420
0020
P12
NS
31.24X
26.550
25X.X72
625.6X1
10.X69
270.647
26.607
22.07X
292.725
X7.4X9
49.364
0022
PI 23
NS
21.3X2
21.3X2
55.X32
50.221
415
1.666
21.052
5.900
7.566
16.0X0
17.X 19
0026
PI 23
NS
12.594
10.795
246.X 14
2.273.690
5.397
273.215
21.590
16.0X4
2X9.300
229.161
75.563
0027
P12
NS
5X.694
49.6X5
206.143
11.379.20X
10.00X
34X.1X7
22.6XX
33.945
3X2.132
70.X63
51.7X2
0029
PI
NS
4X.9X2
41.425
111.429
154.526
31.799
19.636
12.264
36.624
56.261
19.494
46.29X
0032
P12
NS
5.917
5.075
122.154
4X.400
2.77X
57.753
13.356
X.067
65.X20
64.317
16.562
0039
P12
NS
23.011
19.557
19X.540
1.X6X.315
2.6053
51.475
14.32X
11.2023
62.676
37.373
26.050
0042
P12
NS
26.797
22.725
156.697
356.997
1.302
273.031
19.052
X.0X7
2X1.1 IX
59.907
2X.57X
0044
PI 23
NS
26.300
22.321
17X.704
3.540.310
X.2X5
101.723
2.462
16.022
117.746
129.X99
42.596
0045
P12
NS
X6.262
72.951
195.279
166.353
4.270
145.657
X3.273
12.726
15X.3X3
3.203
200.70X
0046
R13
NS
12.420
10.546
140.35X
557.992
990
176.7XX
10.441
4.9XX
1X1.776
1.616
30.776
0054
P12
NS
24.924
21.169
193.603
239.577.3X1
32.007
1X7.652
16.427
40.390
22X.042
53.041
56.9X6
0256
R13
NS
151.07X
127.6X3
552.X51
16X.944
5.665
774.274
2X.642
15.013
7X9.2X7
147.962
19X.290
0271
P12
NS
22.174
1X.793
111.429
1.662.263
2.924
9.0X9
12.264
12.915
22.004
1.21X
4X.004
0272
P12
NS
26.420
22.331
41.660
1.650.673
3.09X
39.375
4.5X5
4.901
44.276
911
2X.242
0273
PI
NS
7.754
6.631
12X.931
12.771
7X9
5X.307
2.735
6.372
64.679
9.530
6.654
0274
PI
NS
7.4X4
6.376
35.30X
1X9.4XX
1.036
14.1X1
10.5X6
4.164
IX.345
211
2.X40
0275
R13
NS
66.X59
56.561
273.347
1.603.304
6X.X25
216.559
25.955
76.612
293.171
142.013
X6.523
0277
R13
NS
40.179
25.X64
44X.146
304.331
1.595
1.501.146
103.553
X.509
1.509.655
292.677
97.500
02X0
R13
NS
16.594
14.142
307.550
621.351
2.611
967.934
11.992
11.372
979.306
177.229
39.249
02X3
R13
NS
23.575
20.021
273.096
2.420.546
19.646
499.092
25.931
27.426
526.519
140.243
55.009
02X7
Ml3 (R13 1'.?)
NS
IX. 794
12.739
121.X50
359.596
16.616
272.00X
9.046
23.927
295.935
43.017
37.293
02X9
P12
NS
13.056
11.126
157.114
3.439.427
515
177.710
6.X72
7.353
1X5.063
42.914
72.152
0290
PI
NS
9.064
7.72X
69.4XX
35.695
2.5 IX
35.X02
59.376
7.503
43.304
662
7.427
0291
P12
NS
12.546
10.692
152.1X4
7.537.301
2.962
273.054
IX.204
9.052
2X2.106
51.973
1X.537
0292
P12
NS
1X.46X
14.603
144.X57
36.590
1.394
143.379
15.943
7.666
151.045
0
27.243
0293
PI 23
NS
19.547
16.607
559.476
666.X20
1.434
52.451
3.497
X.357
60.X0X
9.196
X.XX2
0297
P12
NS
10.023
X.5X6
1X7.X50
111.645
2.X76
X3.303
20.675
11.009
94.312
66.040
6.039
0300
PI 23
NS
145.955
123.442
344.036
2.1X1.030
1X.XX4
50.4X2
37.X64
61.91X
114.356
10X.112
172.2X7
0304
PI
NS
11.49X
9.776
105.161
2.0X3.347
1.150
72.946
1.3X0
5.703
7X.649
27.X26
1 X.466
0307
PI 23
NS
22.506
19.12X
126.223
33.X03
X79
191.242
24.99X
2.71X
193.960
X.529
25.3X6
030X
P12
NS
20.5X3
17.446
105.X76
39.74X
7.039
43.74X
6.X30
11.623
55.371
45.X63
22.597
0309
PI
NS
9.465
X.030
60.032
130.X23
X66
67.359
6.905
3.466
70.X25
14.625
14.625
0310
P12
NS
X.X62
76.112
150.722
X 6.147
5.246
60.202
21.642
13.760
73.962
4.300
24.124
$5
-------
Table 11-11. Facility-Specific Baseline Loading Estimates for Sensitivity Runs 3 and 4 (in pounds per year, except for fecal
coliforms which are in million colony forming units per year) (Continued)
DFTll)
Catej»ory
Size
BOD,
CBOl),
COD
Fecal
Coliform
NH,-N"
Nitrate +
Nitrite
Oil and
(irease
TKN
Total N
Total P
TSS
0312
1' 12
NS
1 1.760
10.029
153.214
X43.X25
21.67X
251.567
X01
2X.312
279.X79
2X.X15
29.954
0314
PI
NS
1 1.066
9.407
9X.X93
234.611
1.016
22.967
6.X 12
5.29X
2X.265
7.979
17.XX5
0317
R13
NS
11.X0X
10.015
72.X05
166.X96
2X6
446.X65
IX.223
3.342
450.207
22.742
45.X 13
031X
R13
NS
26.160
20.346
505.050
1.97X.192
7.267
1.345.039
47.956
13.X06
1.35X.X46
257.0X6
101.005
0321
R13
NS
X7.X57
74.392
514.436
3.520.305
20.650
754.963
4X.X47
35.306
790.269
265.415
407.OXX
0322
R13
NS
62.116
52.937
1.14X.213
2.X67.529
2.X0X
2.X 12.243
90.366
35.519
2.X47.762
596.560
123.076
0325
R13
NS
79.194
67.095
550.425
1.X65.354
15.047
1.203.750
52.265
15.X39
1.219.5XX
2XX.115
134.630
0326
R13
NS
3.2X6
2.X 17
99.2XX
6.471
2X6
254.566
9.42X
429
254.994
33.999
12.2X5
032X
R13
NS
16.715
14.24X
101.666
433.01X
2.231
465.X26
10.060
11.244
477.070
52.305
29.0X9
0332
M123(R123 i'2)
NS
52.X70
44.X23
377.646
2.2X0.X10
1.636
9X0.369
41.53X
14.099
994.46X
316.542
102.594
0333
R13
NS
41 1.641
347.792
655.000
1.130.793
1.909.021
51.549
62.194
1.927.6X1
1.979.230
360.430
X95.469
0336
R13
NS
39.033
33.049
223.X41
291.763
X3.155
371.011
6.473
X9.532
460.544
119.990
50.0X0
0339
PI 23
NS
29.69X
25.347
417.X57
525.666
1.645
349.246
45.9X9
19.73X
36X.9X3
4.X43
56.2X9
0340
PI 3
NS
31.534
26.731
165.750
3.2X3.6X6
616
2X4.173
3.262
6.162
290.335
59.111
3X.059
0342
R123
NS
15.X69
13.447
115.251
135.200
X29
134.X7X
10.943
4.112
13X.990
X4.440
24.143
a NI 1,-N
imonia (as nitrogen).
-------
Table 11-12. Technology Option Long-Term Average Concentrations for Sensitivity Runs 3 and 4 (in mg/L)
Regulatory
Subcategories)
Technology
Option
BOI)5
CBOI),
COI)
Fecal
Coliform"
N1I,-N"
Nitrate +
Nitrite
Oil and
(irease
TKN
Total
Nitrogen
Total
Phosphor
us
TSS
A—I)
and
I-I
2
7.0
6.0
125
400
O.X95
N A
14
,V6
N A
N A
25.1
2.5
7.0
6.0
125
400
O.X95
41.7
14
,V6
45.4
N A
25.1
K
and
I.
2
x.x
6.0
29.6
400
1.0
N A
5.9
4.97
N A
N A
10.2
2.5
x.x
6.0
29.6
400
1.0
40.4
5.9
4.97
45.4
N A
10.2
.1
2
7.0
6.0
125
400
O.X95
N A
14
,V6
N A
N A
25.1
2.5
7.0
6.0
125
400
O.X95
41.7
14
,V6
45.4
N A
25.1
N A not applicable lor this option level.
'' I.TA concentration for Fecal Coliform is 400MPN 100 ml for all options.
h N1I,-N Ammonia (as nitrogen).
-------
Table 11-13. Technology Option Loading Estimates for Option 2 for Sensitivity Runs 3 and 4 (in pounds per year, except for
fecal coliforms which are in million colony forming units per year)
DETll)
Category
Size
BOD,
CBOl),
COD
Fecal
Coliform
NH,-N"
Nitrate+Nitrite
o&(;
(1IEM)
TKN
Total N
Total P
rss
001 1
I'12
NS
12.XX5
1 1.017
135.X70
62.376
4.590
N A
27.0X2
19.1X7
N A
N A
46.X66
0012
Mi:.! (R123 i'2)
NS
IX. 129
15.533
525.021
3.X9X.704
2.X70
N A
2X.025
17.X27
N A
N A
59.525
0019
PI 3
NS
11.7X2
10.031
X3.630
12.79X
1.3X4
N A
14.220
X4X
N A
N A
13.420
0020
PI 2
NS
31.24X
26.550
167.567
625.6X1
5.661
N A
26.607
22.07X
N A
N A
49.364
0022
PI 23
NS
21.3X2
21.3X2
55.X32
50.221
415
N A
21.052
5.900
N A
N A
17.X 19
0026
PI 23
NS
12.594
10.795
159.762
2.273.690
5.397
N A
21.590
16.0X4
N A
N A
55.107
0027
PI 2
NS
39.670
27.04X
133.436
X. 167.X24
4.50X
N A
22.6XX
22.405
N A
N A
46.026
0029
PI
NS
21.443
14.620
72.12X
154.526
2.437
N A
12.264
12.111
N A
N A
24.X79
0032
PI 2
NS
5.917
5.075
79.070
4X.400
2.671
N A
13.356
X.067
N A
N A
16.562
0039
PI 2
NS
23.011
19.557
12X.515
1.X6X.315
2.605
N A
14.32X
11.202
N A
N A
26.050
0042
PI 2
NS
26.797
20.560
101.429
356.997
1.302
N A
19.052
X.0X7
N A
N A
2X.57X
0044
PI 23
NS
26.300
22.321
115.674
3.540.310
3.90X
N A
2.462
16.022
N A
N A
39.900
0045
PI 2
NS
37.579
25.622
126.403
166.353
4.270
N A
25.195
12.726
N A
N A
43.601
0046
R13
NS
12.420
10.546
140.35X
557.992
990
N A
10.441
4.9XX
N A
N A
30.776
0054
PI 2
NS
24.924
21.169
125.319
7.670.950
4.234
N A
16.427
21.042
N A
N A
43.226
0256
R13
NS
33.04X
2X.327
552.X51
16X.944
4.225
N A
2X.642
15.013
N A
N A
11X.502
0271
PI 2
NS
21.443
14.620
72.12X
1.662.263
2.437
N A
12.264
12.111
N A
N A
24.X79
0272
PI 2
NS
X.017
5.466
26.967
1.650.673
911
N A
4.5X5
4.52X
N A
N A
9.302
0273
PI
NS
7.754
6.631
X3.457
12.771
7X9
N A
2.735
6.372
N A
N A
6.654
0274
PI
NS
7.4X4
6.376
35.30X
1X9.4XX
1.036
N A
10.5X6
4.164
N A
N A
2.X40
0275
R13
NS
27.530
23.597
273.347
1.603.304
3.520
N A
25.955
14.217
N A
N A
X6.523
0277
R13
NS
40.179
25.X64
44X.146
304.331
1.595
N A
103.553
X.509
N A
N A
97.500
02X0
R13
NS
16.594
14.142
307.550
621.351
2.611
N A
11.992
11.372
N A
N A
39.249
02X3
R13
NS
23.575
20.021
273.096
2.420.546
3.517
N A
25.931
14.204
N A
N A
55.009
02X7
M13 (R13 P3)
NS
IX. 794
12.739
121.X50
359.596
3.305
N A
9.046
13.34X
N A
N A
37.293
02X9
PI 2
NS
13.056
11.126
101.700
3.439.427
515
N A
6.X72
7.353
N A
N A
35.0X0
0290
PI
NS
9.064
7.72X
69.4XX
35.695
2.5 IX
N A
14.X54
7.503
N A
N A
7.427
0291
PI 2
NS
12.546
10.692
9X.50X
6.029.X41
2.962
N A
1X.204
9.052
N A
N A
1X.537
0292
P12
NS
1X.46X
14.603
93.766
36.590
1.394
N A
15.943
7.666
N A
N A
27.243
0293
PI 23
NS
19.547
16.607
103.503
666.X20
1.434
N A
3.497
X.357
N A
N A
X.XX2
0297
PI 2
NS
10.023
X.5X6
121.595
111.645
2.X76
N A
20.675
11.009
N A
N A
6.039
0300
PI 23
NS
66.206
45.141
222.694
2.1X1.030
7.523
N A
37.X64
37.391
N A
N A
76.X 14
0304
PI
NS
11.49X
9.776
6X.070
2.0X3.347
1.150
N A
1.3X0
5.703
N A
N A
1 X.466
0307
PI 23
NS
22.506
19.12X
126.223
33.X03
X79
N A
24.99X
2.71X
N A
N A
25.3X6
030X
PI 2
NS
20.375
13.X92
6X.533
39.74X
2.315
N A
6.X30
11.507
N A
N A
22.597
0309
PI
NS
9.465
7.X77
3X.X59
130.X23
X66
N A
6.905
53.466
N A
N A
13.404
0310
PI 23
NS
X.X62
7.611
127.2X4
2.2X6.147
4.300
N A
21.642
13.760
N A
N A
24.124
0312
PI 2
NS
11.760
10.029
99.175
X43.X25
3.351
N A
X01
16.652
N A
N A
29.954
0314
PI
NS
1 1.066
9.407
64.013
234.611
1.016
N A
6.X 12
5.29X
N A
N A
17.XX5
0317
R13
NS
10.X05
9.261
72.X05
166.X96
2X6
N A
IX.223
3.342
N A
N A
3X.744
031X
R13
NS
26.160
20.346
505.050
1.97X. 192
6.504
N A
47.956
13.X06
N A
N A
101.005
-------
Table 11-13. Technology Option Loading Estimates for Option 2 for Sensitivity Runs 3 and 4 (in pounds per year, except for
fecal coliforms which are in million colony forming units per year) (Continued)
DETll)
Category
Size
BOD,
CBOl),
COD
Fecal
Coliform
NH,-N"
Nitrate+Nitrite
o&(;
(1IEM)
TKN
Total N
Total P
rss
0321
R13
NS
51.XI1
44.410
514.436
3.520.305
6.624
N A
4X.X47
26.757
N A
N A
1X5.7X0
0322
R13
NS
62.116
52.937
1.14X.213
2.X67.529
2.X0X
N A
90.366
35.519
N A
N A
123.076
0325
R13
NS
55.436
47.516
550.425
1.X65.354
7.0XX
N A
52.265
15.X39
N A
N A
134.630
0326
R13
NS
3.2X6
2.X 17
99.2XX
6.471
2X6
N A
9.42X
429
N A
N A
12.2X5
032X
R13
NS
16.715
14.24X
101.666
433.01X
2.231
N A
10.060
11.244
N A
N A
29.0X9
0332
Ml 23
(R12 3 i'2)
NS
44.059
37.765
377.646
2.2X0.X10
1.636
N A
41.53X
14.099
N A
N A
102.594
0333
R13
NS
65.96X
56.544
655.000
1.130.793
X.434
N A
62.194
34.06X
N A
N A
236.543
0336
R13
NS
22.544
19.324
223.X41
291.763
2.XX2
N A
6.473
11.642
N A
N A
50.0X0
0339
PI 23
NS
29.69X
25.347
270.47X
525.666
1.645
N A
45.9X9
19.73X
N A
N A
56.2X9
0340
PI 3
NS
31.534
21.74X
107.290
3.2X3.6X6
616
N A
3.262
6.162
N A
N A
37.00X
0342
R123
NS
11.607
9.949
115.251
135.200
X29
N A
10.943
4.112
N A
N A
24.143
'' NII,-N Ammonia (as nitrogen).
-------
Table 11-14. Technology Option Loading Estimates for Option 2.5 for Supplemental Analyses 3 and 4 (in pounds per year, except for
fecal coliforms which are in million colony forming units per year)
DETll)
Category
Size
BOD,
CBOl),
COD
Fecal
Coliform
NH,-N"
Nitrate +
Nitrite
o&(;
(HEM)
TKN
Total N
Total P
TSS
001 1
PI 2
NS
12.XX5
11.017
135.X70
62.376
4.590
1X5.399
27.0X2
19.1X7
20X.I66
N A
46.X66
0012
Mi:.! (R123 i'2)
NS
IX. 129
15.533
525.021
3.X9X.704
2.X70
315.300
2X.025
17.X27
342.569
N A
59.525
0019
PI 3
NS
11.7X2
10.031
X3.630
12.79X
1.3X4
114.116
14.220
X4X
12X.130
N A
13.420
0020
P12
NS
31.24X
26.550
167.567
625.6X1
5.661
22X.650
26.607
22.07X
256.729
N A
49.364
0022
I'123
NS
21.3X2
21.3X2
55.X32
50.221
415
1.666
21.052
5.900
7.566
N A
17.X 19
0026
I'123
NS
12.594
10.795
159.762
2.273.690
5.397
2IX.000
21.590
16.0X4
244.771
N A
55.107
0027
P12
NS
39.670
27.04X
133.436
X. 167.X24
4.50X
1X2.077
22.6XX
22.405
204.436
N A
46.026
0029
PI
NS
21.443
14.620
72.12X
154.526
2.437
19.636
12.264
12.111
56.261
N A
24.X79
0032
PI 2
NS
5.917
5.075
79.070
4X.400
2.671
57.753
13.356
X.067
65.X20
N A
16.562
0039
PI 2
NS
23.011
19.557
12X.515
1.X6X
2.605
175.362
14.32X
11.202
196.X97
N A
26.050
0042
PI 2
NS
26.797
20.560
101.429
356.997
1.302
13X.403
19.052
X.0X7
155.399
N A
2X.57X
0044
PI 23
NS
26.300
22.321
115.674
3.540.310
3.90X
101.723
2.462
16.022
117.746
N A
39.900
0045
PI 2
NS
37.579
25.622
126.403
166.353
4.270
145.657
25.195
12.726
15X.3X3
N A
43.601
0046
R13
NS
12.420
10.546
140.35X
557.992
990
X4.292
10.441
4.9XX
91.5X2
N A
30.776
0054
PI 2
NS
24.924
21.169
125.319
7.670.950
4.234
171.001
16.427
21.042
192.000
N A
43.226
0256
R13
NS
33.04X
2X.327
552.X51
16X.944
4.225
197.062
2X.642
15.013
214.106
N A
11X.502
0271
PI 2
NS
21.443
14.620
72.12X
1.662.263
2.437
9.0X9
12.264
12.111
22.004
N A
24.X79
0272
PI 2
NS
X.017
5.466
26.967
1.650.673
911
36.797
4.5X5
4.52X
41.315
N A
9.302
0273
PI
NS
7.754
6.631
X3.457
12.771
7X9
5X.307
2.735
6.372
64.679
N A
6.654
0274
PI
NS
7.4X4
6.376
35.30X
1X9.4XX
1.036
14.1X1
10.5X6
4.164
1X.345
N A
2.X40
0275
R13
NS
27.530
23.597
273.347
1.603.304
3.520
164.157
25.955
14.217
17X.355
N A
X6.523
0277
R13
NS
40.179
25.X64
44X.146
304.331
1.595
369.96X
103.553
X.509
401.966
N A
97.500
02X0
R13
NS
16.594
14.142
307.550
621.351
2.611
1X4.69X
11.992
11.372
200.672
N A
39.249
02X3
R13
NS
23.575
20.021
273.096
2.420.546
3.517
164.007
25.931
14.204
17X.191
N A
55.009
02X7
Ml.! (R13 1'.?)
NS
IX. 794
12.739
121.X50
359.596
3.305
154.122
9.046
13.34X
167.451
N A
37.293
02X9
PI 2
NS
13.056
11.126
101.700
3.439.427
515
13X.772
6.X72
7.353
155.X 14
N A
35.0X0
0290
PI
NS
9.064
7.72X
69.4XX
35.695
2.5 IX
35.X02
14.X54
7.503
43.304
N A
7.427
0291
PI 2
NS
12.546
10.692
9X.50X
6.029.X41
2.962
134.417
1X.204
9.052
150.924
N A
IX.537
0292
PI 2
NS
1X.46X
14.603
93.766
36.590
1.394
127.946
15.943
7.666
143.65X
N A
27.243
0293
PI 23
NS
19.547
16.607
103.503
666.X20
1.434
52.451
3.497
X.357
60.X0X
N A
X.XX2
0297
PI 2
NS
10.023
X.5X6
121.595
111.645
2.X76
X3.303
20.675
11.009
94.312
N A
6.039
0300
PI 23
NS
66.206
45.141
222.694
2.1X1.030
7.523
50.4X2
37.X64
37.391
114.356
N A
76.X 14
0304
PI
NS
11.49X
9.776
6X.070
2.0X3.347
1.150
72.946
1.3X0
5.703
7X.649
N A
1 X.466
0307
PI 23
NS
22.506
19.12X
126.223
33.X03
X79
172.235
24.99X
2.71X
193.3X6
N A
25.3X6
030X
PI 2
NS
20.375
13.X92
6X.533
39.74X
2.315
43.74X
6.X30
11.507
55.371
N A
22.597
0309
PINS
NS
9.462
7.X77
3X.X59
130.X23
X66
53.024
6.905
3.466
59.535
N A
13.404
0310
PI 23
NS
X.X62
7.611
127.2X4
2.2X6.147
4.300
60.202
21.642
13.760
73.962
N A
24.124
0312
PI 2
NS
11.760
10.029
99.175
X43.X25
3.351
135.327
X01
16.652
151.946
N A
29.954
0314
PI
NS
1 1.066
9.407
64.013
234.611
1.016
22.967
6.X 12
5.29X
2X.265
N A
17.XX5
0317
R13
NS
10.X05
9.261
72.X05
166.X96
2X6
64.429
IX.223
3.342
70.001
N A
3X.744
031X
R13
NS
26.160
20.346
505.050
1.9 7X. 192
6.504
303.306
47.956
13.X06
329.53X
N A
101.005
-------
Table 11-14. Technology Option Loading Estimates for Option 2.5 for Supplemental Analyses 3 and 4 (in pounds per year,
except for fecal coliforms which are in million colony forming units per year) (Continued)
DETll)
Category
Size
B()l)5
CBOl),
COD
Fecal
Coliform
Nll.,-N"
Nitrate +
Nitrite
o&(;
(1IEM)
TKN
Total N
Total P
TSS
0321
R13
NS
51.XI1
44.410
514.436
3.520.305
6.624
30X.943
4X.X47
26.757
335.662
N A
1X5.7X0
0322
R13
NS
62.116
52.937
1.14X.213
2.X67.529
2.X0X
6X9.556
90.366
35.519
749.194
N A
123.076
0325
R13
NS
55.436
47.516
550.425
1.X65.354
7.0XX
330.556
52.265
15.X39
359.145
N A
134.630
0326
R13
NS
3.2X6
2.X 17
99.2XX
6.471
2X6
59.627
9.42X
429
64.7X4
N A
12.2X5
032X
R13
NS
16.715
14.24X
101.666
433.01X
2.231
190.009
10.060
11.244
206.442
N A
29.0X9
0332
VI123
(R12 3 1'2)
NS
44.059
37.765
377.646
2.2X0.X10
1.636
262.716
41.53X
14.099
2X5.437
N A
102.594
0333
R13
NS
65.96X
56.544
655.000
1.130.793
X.434
51.549
62.194
34.06X
427.379
N A
236.543
0336
R13
NS
22.544
19.324
223.X41
291.763
2.XX2
134.427
6.473
11.642
146.054
N A
50.0X0
0339
PI 23
NS
29.69X
25.347
270.47X
525.666
1.645
349.246
45.9X9
19.73X
36X.9X3
N A
56.2X9
0340
PI 3
NS
31.534
21.74X
107.290
3.2X3.6X6
616
146.400
3.262
6.162
164.37X
N A
37.00X
0342
R123
NS
11.607
9.949
115.251
135.200
X29
69.213
10.943
4.112
75.199
N A
24.143
'' NII,-N Ammonia (as nitrogen).
-------
Section 12
Non-water Quality Environmental Impacts
Sections 304(b) and 306(b) of the Clean Water Act require EPA to consider non-water
quality environmental impacts (including energy requirements) associated with effluent
limitations guidelines and standards. To comply with these requirements, EPA considered the
potential impact of the final meat and poultry products (MPP) rule on energy consumption, air
emissions, and solid waste generation. A discussion of the selected technology options is given in
Section 13 of this Development Document. Considering energy use and environmental impacts
across all media, EPA has determined that the impacts identified in this section are justified by
the benefits associated with compliance with the final rule. Because the final rule only affects
non-small facilities who directly discharge their wastewaters, impacts for those facilities are the
only ones discussed here. Section 12.1 discusses the energy requirements for implementing
wastewater treatment technologies at MPP facilities. Section 12.2 presents the impact of the
technologies on air emissions, and Section 12.3 discusses the impact on wastewater treatment
sludge generation.
12.1 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
EPA estimates that compliance with this rule (Option 2.5) will result in a small net
increase in nationwide energy consumption for all subcategories subject to changes resulting
from this rule, except Subcategory J, which is projected to have decreased energy requirements.
This estimated decrease for Subcategory J is because the facilities will all have decreased
aeration requirements due to biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) removal during anoxic
processes (before the aeration tank); because the BOD is removed beforehand, less aeration is
needed for BOD removal during the aeration process. Although other subcategories may also
decrease their aeration requirements, that decrease may be offset by the addition of
supplementary BOD to achieve the desired nitrate reduction. For non-small direct discharging
facilities nationwide, EPA estimates that there will be a 7.3 percent increase in total annual
energy consumption for biological processes. This represents a net increase of approximately
12-1
-------
Section 12. Non-waler Onalily linvironmenlal Imparls
17,700 megawatt-hours per year. This is a relatively small net increase compared with the current
total annual amount of energy consumption by non-small direct facilities for wastewater
treatment (approximately 243,500 megawatt-hours per year).
Table 12-1 presents the estimates of energy use expected to be needed as a result of this
regulation, organized by subcategory. These estimates were developed using the cost models and
the information available in the MPP screener and detailed surveys.
Table 12-1. Incremental Energy Use for Existing Non-Small Direct Discharging MPP Facilities
40 (TR 432
Baseline Knerjjy Use for MPP
Incremental Kner^y l)se for MPP
Subcategory"
YY YY I P (KYY II/yr)
YY YY I P (KYY H/yr)
|% Increase]
A, B, (\ I)
62,3 X1,835
8,100,573
|1 1.5%|
I\ C>, II, I
1,71 1,465
51,93 1
|2.9%|
.1
10,440,620
-61 1,232
|-6.2%|
K.
162,51 1,445
9,891,034
15.7%]
I.
6,470,8 12
346,789
|5.1%|
It should be noted that these are aggregate national estimates. Individual facilities may
have a decrease in energy consumption if they use the anaerobic lagoon effluent as the only
source of organic carbon for denitrification while other facilities will see increased energy use
due to additional pumping and other requirements. Reductions in aerobic reactor oxygen transfer
requirements have been reported in some studies, due to the removal of BOD during anaerobic
and anoxic treatment (Randall et. al. 1999).
Under Options 2 and 2+P, a slight increase in energy consumption is expected as
additional oxygen is required for removing BOD and ammonia (as nitrogen) using nitrification.
However this increase is not significant as most MPP facilities are currently nitrifying, and
therefore, will require a limited amount of additional oxygen. Under Option 2.5+P, the energy
requirement will be approximately the same as that of Option 2.5. Under Options 2+P and 2.5+P,
however, additional energy may be required for a few facilities that require sludge dewatering. In
12-2
-------
Section 12. Non-waler Onalily linvironmenlal Imparls
Option 4, which includes several aeration and anoxic tanks, EPA expects a significant increase in
energy requirement because aeration and mixing are required for the tanks. Pumps and sludge
dewatering systems also contribute to additional energy requirement under Option 4.
12.2 AIR EMISSIONS IMPACTS
The Agency believes that the wastewater treatment processes included in the technology
options for this rule (Option 2.5) will not generate significant air emissions above the current
emissions, either directly from the facility or indirectly through an increased air emissions impact
from the electric power generation facilities providing the additional energy.
Possible non-odorous gases might be emitted from these processes, including nitrogen
and carbon dioxide. Nitrogen gas will be formed during the denitrification process, and will
escape to the atmosphere. Since nitrogen comprises over 78% of the Earth's atmosphere and is
not considered a greenhouse gas, it's generation is not considered to pose an environmental
impact. Carbon dioxide will be released when BOD is oxidized by oxygen-containing
compounds. However, the BOD being treated will generally not increase for most facilities, and
therefore, there will generally be no incremental increase in carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide
emissions might increase incrementally only for facilities requiring additional BOD for
denitrification, which constitutes approximately 20% of the MPP facilities.
Odors are the only significant air pollution problem associated with the treatment of MPP
wastewaters, and generally are associated with anaerobic conditions. Thus, flow equalization
basins, dissolved air flotation (DAF) units, anaerobic lagoons, and other wastewater treatment
unit processes are possible sources of malodors. Potential odorous substances associated with
MPP wastewater include ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and organic compounds. Ammonia in MPP
wastewaters is typically formed by the breakdown of more complex substances, and can be
released under certain circumstances. However, aerobic nitrifying conditions will cause ammonia
to remain in a solution as it is converted to nitrate, meaning that odors will generally be
suppressed. In addition, maintenance of pH around neutral conditions will disfavor stripping
ammonia, leaving it in the wastewater to be oxidized or assimilated. Thus, the incremental
ammonia generation will most likely be minimal.
12-3
-------
Section 12. Non-waler Onalily linvironmenlal Imparls
Hydrogen sulfide is primarily formed by the reduction of sulfates in wastewater. Such
generation requires the presence of sulfate in the wastewater, which is typically low in MPP
wastes (USEPA, 1974). In most cases the source of sulfates in MPP wastewater is the source
water supply (Sneed, 2001). Hydrogen sulfide is mainly generated under anaerobic conditions,
which most facilities currently have in place. The rule does not require such lagoons, therefore,
additional generation of hydrogen sulfide will be minimal. Hydrogen sulfide may also be formed
under anoxic conditions such as in the denitrification reactors. However, the formation of sulfide
in an anoxic environment is less favored than the reduction of nitrate to nitrogen. This implies
that if the wastewater contains nitrates, then, under anoxic conditions, sulfides will not be formed
to a greater degree. Eighty percent of the non-small direct discharging facilities that EPA
analyzed for the final rule presently employ anaerobic treatment and/or anoxic treatment
(denitrification). Therefore, the sulfates present in the wastewater of those facilities are currently
being reduced to hydrogen sulfide and are emitted. For these facilities, promulgation of
Option 2.5 would result in practically no additional emissions of hydrogen sulfide. However, for
the remaining 20 percent of the facilities that do not presently employ anaerobic treatment and/or
anoxic treatment, EPA believes there is at least the potential for increased hydrogen sulfide
generation (assuming high levels of sulfate are also present). Thus, EPA does not expect that the
technology option selected for the final rule (Option 2.5) should result in a significant increase in
emissions of odorous compounds.
Odorous volatile organic compounds can be generated in anaerobic lagoons. However,
most facilities currently have such lagoons in place, meaning that incremental additional
generation of such substances will be minimal. If specific facilities have odor difficulties, covers
over lagoons can be used to capture odorous substances that are subsequently destroyed by some
oxidation or combustion process. Such oxidation and combustion processes will potentially
result in additional carbon dioxide generation; however, that generation constitutes minimal
incremental generation, since the organic substances involved would have gone through
oxidation naturally. Typically, odorous organic compounds are well-destroyed in aerobic
systems. Overall, the incremental odor problems associated with this regulation are small.
However, odor problems are usually significant only when the sulfur content of MPP
12^
-------
Section 12. Non-waler Onalily linvironmenlal Imparls
wastewaters is high, especially when treatment facilities are not well managed. Generally, MPP
wastewater treatment facilities using anaerobic processes for treating wastewater with a low
sulfur concentration have few odor problems. At such facilities, maintaining a naturally occurring
layer of floating solids in anaerobic contact basins and lagoons generally minimizes odors. Since
Option 2.5 does not require anaerobic treatment, the final rule should not increase emissions of
odorous compounds from well-managed MPP wastewater treatment facilities. EPA visited
several MPP facilities, and none had odor control problems.
Most MPP facilities are currently nitrifying, therefore EPA expects no significant increase
in air emission under Options 2 and 2+P. Like Option 2.5, air emissions under Option 2.5+P will
also be minimal. However, in Option 4, which requires full denitrification with 2-stage
denitrification process, the post-aeration anoxic environment is likely to produce odors due to the
low level of nitrate nitrogen present. It should be noted that if a facility has upstream anaerobic
treatment, there is less potential for hydrogen sulfide production in the post-aeration anoxic
environment as most hydrogen sulfide emissions already occur in the upstream anaerobic
treatment process. Because Option 4 involves complete denitrification with supplemental carbon
source, EPA expects facilities with Option 4 technology to have higher nitrogen and carbon
dioxide emissions than those facilities with Option 2.5 technology.
12.3 SOLID WASTE GENERATION
The most significant non-water quality impact for this rule is the generation of solid
wastes from MPP wastewater treatment. EPA estimates that compliance with the final rule will
slightly increase the amount of sludge generated during MPP wastewater treatment for meat first
and further processors and will decrease the amount for renderers and poultry first and further
processors. For non-small direct discharging facilities nationwide, EPA estimates that there will
be a 2.3 percent reduction in total annual sludge production (a net reduction of approximately
3,200 tons per year). This is a relatively small net reduction in comparison with the current total
annual amount of sludge production by non-small direct facilities (approximately 138,000
tons/yr). The reduction in sludge generation for renderers and poultry processes is because of the
increased use of anaerobic and anoxic processes, which inherently tend to generate less sludge
12-5
-------
Section 12. Non-water Quality Environmental Imparls
than aerobic processes, while not having increased sludge generation from total suspended solids
(TSS) removal. Table 12-2 presents the amount of wastewater treatment sludge expected to be
generated at non-small direct discharging facilities as a result of this regulation. Actual sludge
generation at individual facilities will vary from the percentages shown in the table. Depending
on the treatment processes currently in place, a facility's sludge generation may increase even
though the total amount for the subcategory decreases.
Table 12-2. I ncremental Sludge Generation for Non-Small Direct Discharging MPP Facilities
40 (TR 432
Subcategory"
Baseline Slud«e (feneration for
MPP WW I P (tons/yr)
Incremental Sludj»e (feneration for MPP
WWTP (tons/yr) [% Increase]
A, B, (\ I)
25,503
675
12.6%|
I ", (1, 11, I
1,586
0.64
|0.04%|
.1
6,514
-568
|-9.5% |
K.
96,846
-3,203
|-3.4%|
I.
7,606
-126
|-1.7%|
¦' Facilities in Subcategory H are not affected by today's rule, therefore, there is no net incremental sludge
generation.
The estimates of sludge production in Table 12.2 are based on the concentrations of BOD
entering the biological part of the treatment system after pretreatment (e.g., DAF or anaerobic
lagoon), and include sludge generation by facilities that may require a supplemental carbon
source for denitrification. In a nitrification/denitrification process, a significant portion of the
influent BOD is removed by the denitrification process, which results in a low amount of BOD
available for removal by aerobic process. Because the sludge yield coefficient of denitrification
process is lower than that of aerobic process, the overall sludge generation of a nitrification/
denitrification process is usually lower than that of a nitrification process. Since, the majority of
MPP facilities are currently performing nitrification and have an aeration basin in-place,
installing a denitrification unit ahead of the existing aerobic process will result in lower sludge
yields for most facilities. Some facilities that require supplemental carbon source for
denitrification, however, might observe an increase in sludge generation.
12-6
-------
Section 12. Non-water Quality Environmental Imparls
Under Option 2, a slight increase in sludge generation might result from additional
nitrification, though this increase is not significant because most MPP facilities are currently
nitrifying. Under Option 2+P and 2.5+P, in addition to the incremental sludge generated under
Option 2 and 2.5, respectively, a significant amount of sludge may be generated by the
phosphorus removal process. In Option 4, which involves both phosphorus removal and
complete denitrfication with methanol use, very high volumes of sludge may be generated.
EPA also expects that a greater emphasis on pollution prevention could further reduce
sludge generations, although these potential reductions were not calculated. Emphasis may be
given to increasing segregation of waste materials that have value as raw materials for the
production of rendered products from wastewater flows. For example, using alternatives to
fluming to remove viscera from processing areas and initially "dry cleaning" facilities as the
initial step in the daily cleaning of processing equipment and facilities may reduce sludge
generation. Such practices were noted for some facilities in the industry surveys. If contact with
water is prevented, fats and proteins that would otherwise dissolve and pass through screening
and dissolved air flotation do not become sources of BOD and ammonia nitrogen, and
consequently, sources of additional sludge.
12.4 REFERENCES
Randall W., Z. Kisoglu, D. Sen, P. Mitta, and U. Erdal. 1999. Evaluation of Wastewater
Treatment Plants for BNR Retrofits Using Advances in Technology, Virginia
Polytechnical Institute and State University, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Blacksburg, Virginia: Submitted to the USEPA Chesapeake Bay Program,
Annapolis, Maryland. (DCN 00031)
Sneed, J.W., 2001. Future of Renewable Energy Generation In Iowa. Ames, Iowa, available at
http://www.econ.iastate.edu/outreach/agriculture/programs/2001_Renewable_Energy_Sy
mposium/Sneed_Summary.pdf (DCN 300027)
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1974. Development Document For Effluent
Limitation Guidelines And New Source Performance Standards For The Red Meat
12-7
-------
Section 12. Non-water Quality linvironmental Imparls
Processing Segment Of The Meat Product And Rendering Processing Point Source
Category. February 1974. (DCN 00162)
12-8
-------
Section 13
Selected Technology Options
As discussed in Section 2, EPA must promulgate six types of effluent limitations
guidelines (ELGs) and standards for each major industrial category, as appropriate:
• Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)
• Best Control Technology for Conventional Pollutants (BCT)
• Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
• Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)
• Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS).
This section describes the rationale for selecting technology options that serve as the basis
for the effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the MPP point source category.
13.1 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS
13.1.1 Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)
In general, the BPT technology level represents the average of the best existing
performances of plants of various processes, ages, sizes, or other common characteristics. Where
existing performance is considered uniformly inadequate, BPT may be transferred from a
different subcategory or industry. Limitations based on transfer of technology must be supported
by a conclusion that the technology is indeed transferable and a reasonable prediction that it will
be capable of meeting the prescribed effluent limits. (See Tanners' Council of America v. Train,
540 F.2nd 1188 (4,h Cir. 1976).) BPT focuses on end-of-pipe treatment rather than process
changes or internal controls, except where the process changes or internal controls are common
industry practice.
The cost-benefit inquiry for BPT is a limited balancing, committed to EPA's discretion,
that does not require the Agency to quantify the benefits in monetary terms. In balancing costs in
relation to effluent reduction benefits, EPA considers the volume and nature of existing
13-1
-------
Section /.?. Selected Technology Options
discharges expected after the application of BPT, the general environmental effects of the
pollutants, and the cost and economic impact of the required pollution controls. When setting
BPT limitations, EPA is required under Section 304(b) to perform a limited cost-benefit
balancing to ensure the costs are not wholly out of proportion to the benefits achieved. (See
EPA's revised BPT limitations for subcategories A through D, F through I, J, and K based on
Option 2.5.)
13.1.2 Best Control Technology for Conventional Pollutants (BCT)
The BCT methodology, promulgated in 1986 (51 FR 24974), discusses the Agency's
consideration of costs in establishing BCT ELGs. EPA evaluates the reasonableness of BCT
candidate technologies (those which are technologically feasible) by applying a two-part cost
test:
1. The POTW test
2. The industry cost-effectiveness test
In the POTW test, EPA 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 pollutant removed in upgrading POTWs
from secondary treatment. The upgrade cost to industry must be less than the POTW benchmark
of $0.25/lb (in 1976 dollars).
In the industry cost-effectiveness test, the ratio of the incremental BPT to BCT cost
divided by the BPT cost for the industry must be less than 1.29 (i.e., the cost increase must be
less than 29 percent). The Economic and Environmental Benefits Analysis of the Final Meat and
Poultry Products Rule (EPA-821-R-04-010) for the final rule 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 those established for BPT, and whether those
technologies are cost-reasonable according to the prescribed BCT tests. For subcategories A
13-2
-------
Section /.?. Selected Tec hnology Options
through D, E through I, K, and L, EPA identified no technologies that can achieve greater
removals of conventional pollutants than the BPT standards that also pass the BCT cost test.
Accordingly, EPA established BCT effluent limitations equal to the current BPT limitations for
these subcategories. In the Rendering subcategory (Subcategory J), EPA found that Option 2.5
would achieve greater removal of conventional pollutants and was cost-reasonable under the
BCT cost tests and therefore selected this technology as the basis for BCT.
13.1.3 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
In general, BAT ELGs represent the best economically achievable performance of
facilities in the industrial subcategory or category. The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes BAT
as a principal national means of controlling the direct discharge of toxic and nonconventional
pollutants. The factors considered in assessing BAT include the cost of achieving BAT effluent
reductions; the age of equipment and facilities involved; the process(es) employed; potential
process changes; non-water quality environmental impacts, including energy requirements; and
such other factors as the EPA Administrator deems appropriate. The Agency retains considerable
discretion in assigning the weight to be accorded these factors. An additional statutory factor
considered in setting BAT is economic achievability. Generally, EPA determines economic
achievability on the basis of total costs to the industry and the effect of compliance with BAT
limitations on overall industry and subcategory financial conditions.
For purposes of the final rule, EPA has determined that each technology option
considered is technically available. EPA has also determined that at least one option is
economically achievable for the segment to which it applies. Furthermore, EPA has determined,
for the reasons given in Section 12, that none of the technology options has unacceptable,
adverse non-water quality environmental impacts. EPA also considered the age, size, processes,
and other engineering factors pertinent to facilities in the segments for the purpose of evaluating
the technology options. EPA established separate limits for facilities on the basis of size. As
discussed in more detail in Section 5, EPA is not establishing more stringent limitations for small
meat slaughterers, nor is the Agency revising the limitations for the small meat processors
subcategory (Subpart E). EPA survey data indicate that approximately 107 small meat processing
13-3
-------
Section /.?. Selected Tec hnology Options
facilities would have been subject to any new limitations. EPA estimated that the additional
pollutant reductions achieved by establishing more stringent limitations for those small facilities
would be minimal.
13.1.4 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
New Source Performance Standards reflect effluent reductions that are achievable based
on the best available demonstrated control technology. New facilities have the opportunity to
install the best and most efficient production processes and wastewater treatment technologies.
As a result, NSPS should represent the most stringent controls attainable through the application
of the best available demonstrated control technology for all pollutants (that is, conventional,
nonconventional, and priority pollutants). In establishing NSPS, EPA is directed to take into
consideration the cost of achieving the effluent reduction and any non-water quality
environmental impacts and energy requirements.
In selecting its NSPS technology for these segments and subcategories, EPA considered
all the factors specified in CWA section 306, including the costs of achieving effluent reductions
and the effect of costs on new projects (barrier to entry). The Agency also considered energy
requirements and other non-water quality environmental impacts for the NSPS options and
concluded that these impacts were no greater than those for the BAT technology options and are
acceptable. EPA therefore concluded that the NSPS technology basis promulgated constitutes the
best available demonstrated control technology for those segments.
13.1.5 Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) and New Sources
(PSNS)
National pretreatment standards are established for those pollutants in wastewater from
indirect dischargers that might pass through, interfere with, or otherwise be incompatible with
publicly owned treatment works (POTW) operations. Currently, there are no categorical
pretreatment standards for the meat and poultry products (MPP) point source category. EPA is
not promulgating ELGs for indirect dischargers; therefore, EPA is not promulgating new
pretreatment standards for existing or new MPP indirect dischargers.
134
-------
Section /.?. Selected Technology Options
13.2 SELECTED TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR EACH SUBCATEGORY
The technology options selected for each of the ELGs and standards (BPT, BCT, BAT,
NSPS, and PSNS) are described for each subcategory in sections 13.2.1 through 13.2.6. More
detailed information related to the methodologies and results related to estimating the cost-
effectiveness and economic achievability of the final rule is provided in the Economic and
Environmental Benefits Analysis of the Final Meat and Poultry Products Rule
(EPA-821 -R-04-010).
13.2.1 Subcategories A Through D (Meat Slaughtering Facilities)
13.2.1.1 Small Facilities in Subcategories A through D (meat first processors that
slaughter less than or equal to 50 million pounds per year)
EPA did not revise limitations or standards for small facilities in Subcategories A through
D. Such facilities continue to be subject to the current limitations in MPP ELGs (40 CFR part
432), as applicable. The current regulations include production-based limitations for these
facilities for BOD, TSS, oil & grease, pH, and fecal coliforms for existing sources, and standards
for these same pollutants plus the addition of standards for ammonia (as nitrogen) for new
sources. The following sections describe EPA's decision to retain the current BPT, BCT, and
BAT limitations and NSPS for small direct discharge facilities in Subcategories A through D.
BPT. BCT. and BAT Requirements
EPA proposed not to revise the current BPT, BCT, or BAT limitations for existing small
direct dischargers in Subcategories A through D (meat first processors). For the final rule, for
these facilities EPA evaluated the cost of achieving pollutant reductions and the economic
achievability of compliance with BPT limitations based on the Option 1 technology and the level
of the pollutant reductions resulting from compliance with such limitations. Option 1 includes
biological treatment, partial nitrification, and disinfection.
13-5
-------
Section /.?. Selected Tec hnology Options
EPA estimated that the cost of achieving the effluent reductions for these facilities at
Option 1 would be $ 198/lb of pollutant removed (1999 dollars).1 EPA has promulgated ELGs in
the past with costs per pound of pollutant removed as high as $37/lb (1999 dollars) although in
general ELGs have had much lower costs per pound. Therefore, EPA evaluated the cost of the
treatment technology options to small facilities using $37/lb removed as guidance for assessing
BPT cost-reasonableness.
Consequently, following this approach, EPA determined that the total costs of effluent
reductions using the Option 1 technology are not reasonable in relation to the effluent reduction
benefits for the following reasons. First, although EPA estimated that implementing the Option 1
technology would result in zero closures, EPA estimated the cost of effluent reductions using the
Option 1 technology is $198/lb removed. Moreover, Option 1 does not remove any additional
nutrients and consequently is not "nutrient cost-effective." For the reasons discussed in this
section, EPA concluded that for existing small direct dischargers in Subcategories A through D,
Option 1 is not the best practicable control technology, best conventional pollutant control
technology, or best available technology economically achievable. Because the other options
being considered would require more equipment and therefore higher costs than Option 1, the
Agency assumed they would not be considered cost-reasonable. Therefore, EPA determined that
it should not promulgate revisions to the current BPT, BCT, or BAT limitations for existing
small direct dischargers. These facilities will continue to be subject to the applicable portions of
sections 432.10 through 432.40.
NSPS Requirements
When establishing NSPS based on best available demonstrated technology, EPA
considers how the cost of complying with any more stringent effluent limitations will affect new
facilities trying to enter the industry. The Agency employs a barrier to entry analysis that
evaluates the barrier posed to new entrants by the cost of complying with the regulation.
'In estimating the pounds of pollutants removed by implementing Option 1 technology for these facilities,
liPA used the sum of 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (1J()I)5) and ammonia (as nitrogen) removed. IiPA did not
include removals of other pollutants, including chemical oxygen demand (COD), in this analysis because, for
example, BOD and COD address many of the same pollutants and including both could result in double counting.
13-6
-------
Section /.?. Selected Tec hnology Options
Although, as explained previously, the cost of effluent reductions for existing small facilities in
Subcategories A through D might not be cost-reasonable, it is not necessarily the case that the
costs for new facilities are as great. Generally, the cost for a new facility to incorporate waste
treatment technologies during construction is less than that to retrofit existing facilities.
EPA's barrier to entry analysis compares estimated average incremental capital costs a
facility or company incurs to meet the effluent guidelines to average total assets of existing
facilities or companies. EPA considered establishing NSPS for small facilities in Subcategories
A through D based on Option 1 technology. EPA evaluated the barrier to entry based on a ratio of
costs for Option 1 to assets of existing facilities. The Agency estimated a cost-to-assets ratio of
16.7 percent, which the Agency concludes will present a barrier to entry to new facilities.
Because the costs for other options would be greater than those for Option 1, these would pose an
even greater barrier to entry. For these reasons, EPA did not revise the NSPS limitations for new
small direct dischargers in these subcategories. New facilities would continue to be subject to the
current NSPS limitations in sections 432.15, 432.25, 432.35, and 432.45.
13.2.1.2 Non-Small Facilities in Subcategories A through D (meat first processors
that slaughter more than 50 million pounds per year)
For non-small facilities in Subcategories A through D, EPA revised limitations and
standards for some pollutants and established total nitrogen limitations and standards for the first
time. EPA did not revise the current limitations (BPT/BCT) or NSPS for conventional pollutants
for these facilities The current regulations include production-based limitations and standards for
these facilities for BOD, TSS, oil and grease, pH, and fecal coliforms. EPA revised BPT to
include limitations for ammonia (as nitrogen), establishing a BAT limitation for ammonia (as
nitrogen) equivalent to the BPT limitation, and establishing BAT/NSPS limitations for total
nitrogen. The NSPS for ammonia (as nitrogen) is not being changed. As discussed in Section 15,
the revised and new limitations and standards are concentration-based. The following sections
discuss the technology bases EPA selected for the final rule for the non-small direct discharge
facilities in Subcategories A through D.
13-7
-------
Section /.?. Selected Technology Options
BPT Requirements
In 1974 EPA established BPT for the meat subcategories A through D based on
biological treatment (e.g., aerobic and anaerobic treatment) to control five conventional
pollutants or pollutant parameters (BOD5, TSS, oil and grease, fecal coliforms, and pH). The
BPT limitations did not include limits for ammonia (as nitrogen) because nitrification was not a
widely used technology and therefore not the BPT at the time. EPA notes, however, that the BPT
that was the basis for the 1974 limitations provided some incidental ammonia removal through
nitrification during extended aeration, which resulted in some reduction in ammonia (as
nitrogen). EPA did attempt to establish ammonia limitations under BAT based on a technology
other than nitrification (which was more advanced than the 1974 BPT). Those limitations were
the subject of judicial challenge and were remanded to EPA for further consideration (American
Meat Institute v. Environmental Protection Agency, 526 F.2d 442 (7,h Cir. 1975)). In 2002 EPA
proposed new BPT limitations for ammonia (as nitrogen) based on Option 2 for non-small
facilities in Subcategories A through D (facilities with production rates greater than 50 million
pounds live weight killed (LWK) per year). As described in Section 9, Option 2 consists of
biological treatment followed by more complete nitrification than Option 1 to further reduce
ammonia levels and disinfection.
EPA established BPT limitations for ammonia (as nitrogen) for non-small direct
dischargers in Subcategories A through D based on the proposed technology option (Option 2).
EPA concluded that "more complete" nitrification is now a widely available pollution control
technology that should be the basis for the BPT ammonia limitation. For these guidelines, EPA is
not revising BPT limitations for the conventional pollutants.
EPA concluded that the Option 2 treatment technology represents the BPT for control of
ammonia (as nitrogen) while providing incidental removals of additional conventional pollutants,
particularly BOD^ and TSS, and is the basis for the BPT limitations for these facilities for the
following reasons.
First, this technology is available and readily applicable to all non-small facilities in
Subcategories A through D. Approximately 97 percent of the non-small direct discharging
13-8
-------
Section /.?. Selected Tec hnology Options
facilities in these subcategories currently use the Option 2 technology or better. Although most
facilities have the components of Option 2 technology in place (e.g., nitrification basin/aerobic
reactor), some facilities are not achieving the Option 2 long-term average (LTA) concentration
for ammonia or the additional removals of the conventional pollutants. EPA attributes this to
their failure to operate or maintain the Option 2 technology adequately. Consequently, when
estimating the costs of compliance with Option 2 for purposes of evaluating its reasonableness
and for estimating economic impacts, EPA included costs for treatment optimization that a
number of facilities would need to achieve the Option 2 LTAs. For example, EPA included costs
for increased aeration, detention time (capacity), chemical addition, sludge handling, process
controls, and additional in-process sampling and analytical testing. (See Sections 10 and 11 for
additional discussion of the cost and loading methodologies.)
Second, the cost of compliance with these limitations relative to the effluent reduction
benefits is not disproportionate. Based on EPA's economic analysis, EPA concluded that
compliance with BPT limitations based on Option 2 technology should not result in closures of
any existing non-small direct dischargers in these subcategories. Moreover, adopting this level of
control will reduce the quantity of ammonia (as nitrogen) and other pollutants currently being
discharged into the environment.
For meat first processor facilities that produce more than 50 million pounds LWK per
year, EPA estimated an annual compliance cost for Option 2 of $7.29 million (pre-tax, 1999
dollars). It also estimated 3.8 million pounds of BOD^ and ammonia (as nitrogen) removed from
current discharges into the Nation's waters (for $2.55/lb pollutant removed (1999 dollars)). In
estimating the pounds of pollutant removed by implementing Option 2 technology for these
facilities, EPA used the sum of BOD^ and ammonia (as nitrogen) removed. EPA tried to avoid
"double-counting" pollutant reductions that would occur if, for example, the Agency summed
removals of COD and BOD. As previously explained, EPA evaluated BPT costs and removals
using, as guidance, $37/lb removed in 1999 dollars as a point of comparison. EPA, therefore,
determined that the total cost of effluent reductions due to the Option 2 technology ($2.55/lb
pound removed) is reasonable in view of the effluent reduction benefits.
13-9
-------
Section /.?. Selected Tec hnology Options
EPA found that 32 percent of the non-small facilities in these subcategories use Option
2.5 (which includes partial denitrification). Although the Option 2.5 technology is demonstrated,
it is not as widely available as the Option 2 technology. Moreover, the pollutant loading
reduction for ammonia (as nitrogen) for Option 2.5 is the same as the reduction estimated for
Option 2 but costs $9 million more every year. Therefore, EPA did not select Option 2 it as the
basis of BPT limitations.
EPA did not select Option 2.5+P or Option 4 as the basis for BPT limitations because as
they do not achieve additional pollutant reductions at a cost EPA considers reasonable. For
example, Option 2.5+P does not achieve additional removals of ammonia (as nitrogen) but would
cost an additional $36 million annually. Option 4 would remove an additional 59,000 pounds of
ammonia (as nitrogen) at an additional cost of $45 million annually. Moreover, EPA notes that
Option 2.5+P represents control technology not closely related to the technology basis for the
earlier BPT regulations. Chemical phosphorus removal is not closely connected to the
nitrification and disinfection technology that was the basis of the 1974 BPT limitations for
Subcategories A through D. The Agency did not select other options considered for BPT because
they were not readily available and/or produced an unfavorable total BPT cost and removal
comparison. Detailed discussions explaining why EPA rejected setting BPT limitations based on
these other technology options are contained in the proposal and the Notice of Data Availability
(NODA; see 67 FR 8637, February 25, 2002, and 68 FR 48499, August 13, 2003).
Although EPA did not change the technology basis from that proposed, the Agency
promulgated BPT limitations for non-small facilities in Subcategories A through D that are
slightly different from those proposed. First, where EPA promulgated BPT limitations for
pollutants like ammonia (as nitrogen) for which EPA had not previously set BPT limits for these
subcategories, the final limitations are based on revised and additional data reflecting the types of
changes described in the NODA (see 68 FR 48495). In addition, where EPA is adopting new or
revised BPT limitations, it has expressed them in a concentration-based form, whereas the
unchanged limitations will continue to be expressed as production-based limits. (See Section 15
for guidance on how both types of limits can be implemented together in permits.)
13-10
-------
Section /.?. Selected Technology Options
BCT Requirements
For both the proposed and final rules, in deciding whether to adopt more stringent
limitations for BCT than for BPT, EPA considered technologies that might achieve greater
removals of conventional pollutants than those adopted for BPT. It also looked at whether those
technologies are cost-reasonable under the standards established by the CWA. EPA refers to the
decision criteria as the "BCT cost test."
EPA did not revise the current BPT effluent limitations for conventional parameters (pH,
BOD5, TSS, oil and grease, and fecal coliforms) for non-small meat first processors
(Subcategories A through D). Therefore, when considering a technology that would achieve
greater removals of conventional pollutants than that adopted for BPT, EPA compared the
removals achievable through implementation of the Option 2 technology (which EPA considered
as the possible technology basis for BCT) to current BPT limitations. EPA estimated that Option
2 removed about an additional 610,000 pounds per year of BOD5 and 970,000 pounds per year of
TSS compared to pollutant reductions by facilities meeting or exceeding current BPT limitations.
There are no additional removals of oil and grease or fecal coliforms.
EPA evaluated Option 2 under the BCT cost test and it failed (see the Economic and
Environmental Benefits Analysis of the Final Meat and Poultry Products Rule
(EPA-821-R-04-010). EPA did not evaluate technology options, such as Option 2+F (Option 2
plus the addition of a filter) because they are more costly and would not remove significantly
more conventional pollutants than Option 2. Therefore, if Option 2 did not pass the BCT cost
test, those options would not pass. The Agency did not identify any technologies that pass the
BCT cost test and achieve greater removals of conventional pollutants than the current BPT
technology. Thus, EPA did not revise the BCT limitations for these facilities. Non-small facilities
in Subcategories A through D will continue to be regulated by the current BCT limitations
(which are equivalent to the current BPT limitations) in sections 432.17, 432.27, 432.37, and
432.47.
13-11
-------
Section /.?. Selected Tec hnology Options
BAT Requirements
EPA proposed to establish the BAT level of regulatory control for non-small facilities in
Subcategories A through D based on Option 3 (biological treatment, more complete nitrification,
more complete denitrification and disinfection). As discussed in the NODA, after review and
evaluation of the revised and new data, EPA reconsidered its assessment of Option 3 as BAT.
EPA determined that Option 3 did not meet all the statutory criteria for BAT. Therefore, the
Agency refocused its evaluation for the technology basis for BAT on Option 2.5, Option 2.5+P,
and Option 4 for nutrient removal. For the final rule, EPA based the BAT limitations for non-
small facilities in Subcategories A through D on Option 2.5 technology and is promulgating a
limitation for total nitrogen on this basis. EPA did, however, set a limitation for ammonia (as
nitrogen) that is equal to BPT.
This section describes EPA's rationale for selecting Option 2.5 technology and rejecting
Option 2.5+P and Option 4 for the basis of the total nitrogen limitation and for selecting to set
BAT equal to BPT (based on Option 2) for ammonia (as nitrogen). Both the proposal and the
NODA contain detailed discussions explaining why EPA rejected setting BAT limitations based
on other more stringent technology options (see 67 FR 8629, February 25, 2002, and 68 FR
48499, August 13,2003).
EPA selected Option 2.5 technology as the basis of BAT for non-small facilities in
Subcategories A through D for the following reasons. First, Option 2.5 technology has been
demonstrated as available because 32 percent of the non-small facilities in Subcategories A
through D use the components of Option 2.5 technology (e.g., facility has in place a
denitrification basin, nitrification basin and disinfection) or more advanced technology. EPA,
however, determined that facilities in Subcategories A through D with the components of Option
2.5 technology in place are not operating their systems optimally based on review of the
BOD:TKN ratios (68 FR 48500, August 13, 2003). EPA concluded that for effective
denitrification to occur, facilities must be achieving a minimum BOD:TKN ratio of 3. In
addition, these facilities were not achieving at least a 60 mg/L total nitrogen concentration in the
effluent. (EPA used 60 mg/L as a minimum standard for facilities it considered in developing the
13-12
-------
Section /.?. Selected Technology Options
BAT LTA limitation for total nitrogen.) EPA did have data from poultry first processing facilities
with Option 2.5 technology that met all BAT selection criteria, indicating that the poultry
facilities' treatment systems were well operated. For this reason, when estimating costs and
pollutant reductions and developing limitations associated with Option 2.5, EPA used the LTA
concentration for total nitrogen from well-operated Option 2.5 poultry first processing facilities
(see Section 14). EPA included costs (such as costs for lagoon bypass, additional carbon source,
or two-stage denitrification) for the meat first processing facilities to achieve the poultry Option
2.5 LTA for total nitrogen.
Second, Option 2.5 is economically achievable. EPA estimated the pretax annualized
compliance costs (in 1999 dollars) for Option 2.5 to be $16.7 million. Using the facility and
company closure methodologies described in the Economic and Environmental Benefits Analysis
of the Final Meat and Poultry Products Rule (EPA-821-R-04-010), EPA estimated that no
facilities or companies will close. EPA performed an alternative analysis by estimating closures
using more conservative assumptions; that is, EPA predicted a closure would occur if the facility
failed under one of three forecast methodologies, rather than under at least two out of three.
Using the alternative analysis, EPA estimated two facility closures under Option 2.5. Because not
all facilities are covered by the closure analysis, it might understate the number of facility
closures nationally.
As discussed in the NODA (68 FR 48489, August 13, 2003), EPA tried to determine
whether additional companies own direct discharging MPP facilities. The Agency identified,
based on the screener survey results, three additional companies across all subcategories that
might own direct discharging MPP facilities. Therefore, the company-level analysis might
underestimate the number of company closures nationally but to a lesser degree than the facility-
level analysis.
EPA also considered the cost-effectiveness of nutrient removal as one aspect of its
evaluation of BAT options for this industry as a whole. As discussed in the proposed rule and the
NODA, EPA established a benchmark for nitrogen removal of $4/lb, based on studies of nitrogen
removal by publically owned treatment works (POTWs) with biological nutrient removal, and a
13-13
-------
Section /.?. Selected Tec hnology Options
benchmark for phosphorus removal of $ 10/lb, based on studies of agricultural best management
practices that reduce phosphorus discharges. EPA used these benchmarks for nutrients in
connection with the effluent guidelines for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs).
Under the CAFO effluent guidelines, EPA promulgated regulations for industry sectors (e.g., the
dairy sector) where the nutrient cost-effectiveness exceeded these values for the individual
sectors but maintained a nutrient cost-effectiveness that was under these values for the rule as a
whole. Therefore, EPA evaluated each segment or subcategory in the MPP category in
comparison to the $4/lb for nitrogen and $ 10/lb for phosphorus values, but ultimately evaluated
whether poor nutrient cost-effectiveness of an individual segment/subcategory would change the
nutrient cost-effectiveness for the rule as a whole.
For Option 2.5 for subcategories A through D, EPA estimated 15.4 million pounds
removed per year of total nitrogen and nutrient cost-effectiveness of $ 1,08/lb of total nitrogen
removed. Because Option 2.5 does not include phosphorus removal, EPA did not calculate
nutrient cost-effectiveness for phosphorus for Option 2.5. EPA concluded that Option 2.5 is
nutrient cost-effective for total nitrogen.
EPA considered Option 2.5+P as the basis of BAT but rejected it for the following
reasons. First, no facilities in EPA's database for Subcategories A through D use Option 2.5+P
technology. Second, EPA estimated the pretax annualized cost of Option 2.5+P to be $42.9
million. EPA believed these costs might be underestimated. Based on information provided in
comments on the NODA and further analysis, EPA concluded that the average annual cost of
increased alum addition and the resulting increased sludge generation and disposal might range
from $108,000 to $378,000 more per facility than previously estimated for this subcategory.
Option 2.5+P removes an estimated 4.5 million pounds per year of total phosphorus and achieves
the same level of nitrogen and conventional pollutant reduction as Option 2.5. Although the cost
per pound of phosphorus removed using the estimated cost of $42.9 million is $9.49/lb, EPA
believes that the actual cost per pound would be greater than $10 because of the additional costs
noted above. Although EPA selected options where the nutrient cost-effectiveness is greater then
the reference values ($4/lb nitrogen removed and $ 10/lb phosphorus removed) for an individual
subcategory or segment, EPA has not done so in cases where selecting such an option would
13-14
-------
Section /.?. Selected Tec hnology Options
raise the nutrient cost-effectiveness of the rule, as a whole, over these values. With a phosphorus
cost-effectiveness over $ 10/lb for non-small facilities in Subcategory A through D, the
phosphorus cost-effectiveness for the rule, as a whole, would be greater than $ 10/lb total
phosphorus removed. Therefore, considering the lack of availability of the technology and the
unfavorable nutrient cost-effectiveness for phosphorus, EPA rejected Option 2.5+P as the basis
of BAT limitations.
EPA considered Option 4 (which includes more complete denitrification and chemical
phosphorus removal) as the basis of BAT but did not select it because of the high increase in cost
compared to Option 2.5 and the poor incremental nutrient cost-effectiveness (the high cost to
remove additional nutrients compared to Option 2.5+P).
EPA estimated that there are no direct discharging facilities in these subcategories
currently operating Option 4 technology. EPA estimated the pretax annualized compliance costs
for Option 4 to be $52.0 million (1999 dollars), which is $9.1 million more than Option 2.5+P
and $35.3 million more than Option 2.5. EPA estimated that Option 4 removes 18.5 million
pounds per year of nitrogen (3.1 million more pounds per year than Option 2.5 or Option 2.5+P)
and 5.0 million pounds per year of phosphorus (approximately 500,000 more pounds per year
than Option 2.5+P). EPA estimated no facility or company closures for Option 4. Finally, EPA
estimated the incremental nitrogen cost-effectiveness (as compared to Option 2.5) to be $11.56/lb
of total nitrogen removed and the incremental phosphorus cost-effectiveness (as compared to
Option 2.5+P) to be $20.09/lb of total phosphorus removed. The incremental nutrient cost-
effectiveness of Option 4 is above the benchmark values; therefore, EPA did not consider Option
4 cost-effective.
EPA established BAT limitations for ammonia (as nitrogen) that are equivalent to the
limitations promulgated in the final rule under BPT. EPA considered setting more stringent
limitations for ammonia (as nitrogen) under BAT; however, the selected BAT technology option
(Option 2.5) does not remove any additional quantity of ammonia (as nitrogen). Although Option
4 does remove some additional pounds of ammonia (as nitrogen) as compared to Option 2, EPA
did not select Option 4 for BAT for the reasons discussed earlier in this section.
13-15
-------
Section /.?. Selected Tec hnology Options
NSPS Requirements
As previously discussed, when establishing NSPS, EPA considers whether increased
compliance costs related to the effluent guidelines regulation might create a barrier for a new
facility to enter the industry and whether there are any new source standards currently in place for
the subcategory. The barrier to entry analysis compares the estimated average increase in facility
or company capital costs to meet the effluent guidelines to the average total assets of existing
facilities or companies. EPA did not have data on the assets of new entrants because, in general,
they cannot be identified before they are established. Therefore, EPA used data on the assets of
existing facilities. The extent to which potential new entrants have total assets similar to those of
existing industry participants provides a proxy for potential barriers to entry that new facility
compliance costs may represent.
EPA performed an analysis to evaluate the effect of the rule on the costs to new entrants
into the meat and poultry products industry by calculating the ratio of average capital costs to
average total assets as a measure of the potential for barriers to entry that the MPP rule could
create for these facilities. If the barrier to entry ratio is large, there is a possibility that the rule
will discourage entry into the MPP market.
EPA estimated the ratio of costs to assets for Options 2.5, 2.5+P, and 4. The ratios are 1.6
percent for Option 2.5, 2.6 percent for Option 2.5+P, and 3.3 percent for Option 4. The estimates
for Options 2.5+P and 4, however, do not reflect EPA's additional evaluation of the costs for
chemical phosphorus based on comments received (see DCN 300,025). From this additional
evaluation, EPA concluded that the average annualized costs for chemical phosphorus removal
might be $108,000 to $378,000 per facility more than the costs used in EPA's barrier to entry
analysis. With these additional costs, the ratio might rise to a level that the Agency would
consider a barrier to entry for Options 2.5+P and 4.
EPA decided to revise the standards for new sources for ammonia (as nitrogen) to be
equivalent to the BPT limitations being established in the final rule based on Option 2 and to
establish standards for total nitrogen equivalent to the BAT limitations being established based
on Option 2.5. These standards do not present a barrier to entry. Although there are existing
13-16
-------
Section /.?. Selected Technology Options
NSPS for these facilities, they do not include standards for total nitrogen. In addition, the revised
NSPS for ammonia (as nitrogen) is based on the best demonstrated technology (i.e., more
complete nitrification) whereas the current NSPS for ammonia (as nitrogen) is based on the
current BAT limitations set in 1974 and achieves a lower level of nitrification (or may include
ammonia stripping) (See p. 150, Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
New Source Standards for the Red Meat Processing Segment of the Meat Product and Rendering
Processing Point Source Category, February 1974). Moreover, at the time the current NSPS
were promulgated, nitrification technology was not well established and, in many cases, was
available in only pilot plant or laboratory settings. Page 155 of the technical development
document for the 1974 rule states: "Each of the identified BAT technologies, except ammonia
removal, is currently being practiced in one or more packing plants."
13.2.2 Subcategory E (Small Processors)
Subcategory E includes the smallest meat further processing facilities (meat further
processing facilities that produce 6,000 pounds or less per day). In 2002 EPA proposed not to
revise the regulations for existing or new direct dischargers in Subcategory E. EPA did not
propose to revise the existing limitations applicable to smaller MPP facilities (including all
facilities in Subcategory E) because EPA determined that "small" MPP facilities discharge a very
small proportion of the total industry discharge and that improved treatment would produce only
a limited amount of loadings removal (67 FR 8623, February 25, 2002). EPA did not receive
comment or additional information to persuade it to revise the existing ELGs and standards for
this subcategory. Therefore, the current part 432 regulations continue to apply to those facilities
(section 432.50).
13.2.3 Subcategories F through I (Meat Further Processing Facilities)
To allow for different limitations for small and non-small meat further processing
facilities, EPA's 2002 proposal called for a production threshold of 50 million pounds (finished
product) for facilities in Subcategories F through I. EPA is retaining that production threshold for
the final rule. Therefore, EPA addresses small facilities and non-small facilities separately. Note
the meat processors that process 6,000 pounds or less per day (1.56 million pounds per year) are
13-17
-------
Section /.?. Selected Tec hnology Options
not included in Subcategories F through I, but are covered under Subcategory E. Costs in this
section are presented in 1999 dollars because 1999 is the base year of the survey.
13.2.3.1 Small Facilities in Subcategories F through I (meat further processors that
process more than 6,000 pounds per day but less than or equal to 50 million
pounds per year)
EPA did not revise limitations or standards for small facilities in Subcategories F through
I. Meat further processing facilities that produce greater than 6,000 pounds per day but less than
or equal to 50 million pounds per year of finished produc\t will continue to be subject to the
current limitations in the meat and poultry products effluent limitations guidelines (part 432), as
applicable. The following sections discuss EPA's decision to retain the current BPT, BCT, and
BAT limitations and NSPS for small direct discharge facilities in Subcategories F through I.
BPT, BCT. and BAT Requirements
EPA proposed not to revise the BPT, BCT or BAT limitations for existing small meat
further processors in Subcategories F through I. In part 432, small facilities in Subcategories F
through I currently have BPT limitations for the five conventional pollutants and BAT limitations
for ammonia. EPA did not propose to revise BPT limitations for conventional pollutants for
small facilities in these subcategories. EPA evaluated the cost of additional technology (e.g.,
filtration) under the BCT cost test and it failed. Therefore, EPA did not revise the conventional
pollutant limitations under BCT for small facilities in Subcategories F through I.
For the final rule, EPA considered revising the ammonia (as nitrogen) limitations under
BAT. EPA evaluated the cost of achieving pollutant reductions and the economic achievability of
compliance with limitations based on Option 1 and Option 2 technology. Option 1 includes
biological treatment, partial nitrification, and disinfection, and Option 2 accomplishes more
complete nitrification (i.e., ammonia removal) than Option 1 technology. When evaluating BAT
technology, EPA must determine whether the technology is available and economically
achievable. EPA must also determine whether the identified technology is best. EPA typically
evaluates a technology's cost-effectiveness as a factor in its decision. When considering cost-
effectiveness (except for nutrients), EPA typically evaluates additional pollutant reductions in
13-18
-------
Section /.?. Selected Technology Options
toxic pound-equivalents. EPA estimated that the annualized cost of Option 1 and Option 2 are
about $1.10 and $1.11 million (pre-tax, 1999 dollars), respectively, which represents
approximately 9.4 percent of net income. Using the closure methodology described in the
Economic and Environmental Benefits Analysis of the Final Meat and Poultry Products Rule
(EPA-821-R-04-010), there is a very small probability that there could be one facility closure out
of sixteen facilities under either option: the probability of closure is 1.49 percent and 1.51
percent, respectively. EPA estimated that Option 1 achieves a reduction of 5 toxic pound-
equivalents per year, and Option 2 achieves a reduction of 15.2 toxic pound-equivalents per year,
resulting in a toxic cost-effectiveness of $ 129,000 per toxic pound-equivalent (in 1981 dollars)
for Option 1 and $42,900 per toxic pound equivalent (1981 dollars) for Option 2. Historically,
EPA evaluated BAT technology using a toxic cost-effectiveness value of $200/toxic pound-
equivalents (1981 dollars). Therefore, EPA determined that Options 1 and 2 are not cost-effective
and are not economically achievable best available technology.
For existing small direct dischargers in the Subcategories F through I, the Agency found
neither Option 1 nor Option 2 is the best practicable control technology, best conventional
pollutant control technology, or best available technology economically achievable. Therefore,
EPA did not revise BPT, BCT, or BAT limitations for existing small meat further processors.
These facilities will remain subject to sections 432.60 through 432.90, as applicable.
NSPS Requirements
In 2002, EPA proposed not to revise the current new source performance standards for
small facilities in Subcategories F through I (meat further processors). For the final rule, EPA
concluded that the data on these facilities is insufficient to determine if Option 1 or Option 2
technology would present a barrier to entry. In addition, the analysis of barrier to entry data for
these subcategories was complicated by the fact that some facilities performing operations fitting
within the scope of Subcategories F through I also perform operations that are regulated under
Subcategory L (poultry further processors). EPA notes that its analysis of Options 1 and 2 as
candidate BAT technologies for ammonia removal in these subcategories showed insignificant
additional removals above its cost-effectiveness benchmark. While new facilities may be able to
13-19
-------
Section /.?. Selected Tec hnology Options
install technology at lower cost than existing facilities, it is unlikely that the costs would be low
enough for the cost-effectiveness to approach a reasonable value. Finally, EPA also considered
whether or not there were any new source performance standards currently in place when
deciding whether to revise new source performance standards. There are current new source
performance standards for these facilities which appear to be adequate. Therefore, EPA did not
revise NSPS for new small meat further processors. New sources are subject to the current NSPS
limitations in sections 432.65, 432.75, 432.85, and 432.95.
13.2.3.2 Non-Small Facilities in Subcategories F through I (meat further processors
that process more than 50 million pounds per year)
For non-small facilities in Subcategories F through I, EPA established limitations and
standards for total nitrogen for existing and new sources and establishing ammonia (as nitrogen)
standards for new sources. EPA did not revise the current limitations (BPT/BCT) or new source
performance standards (NSPS) for conventional pollutants and did not revise the current BAT
limitations for ammonia (as nitrogen). The current regulations include production-based
limitations and standards for these facilities for BOD, TSS, oil and grease, pH, and fecal
coliforms for existing and new sources and a concentration-based limitation for ammonia (as
nitrogen) for existing sources. As discussed in Section 14, the new limitations and standards are
concentration-based. The following sections discuss the technology bases EPA selected for the
final rule for the non-small direct discharge facilities in Subcategories F through I.
BPT Requirements
EPA established BPT for the meat further processors (Subcategories F through I) in 1975,
based on biological treatment (e.g., aerobic and anaerobic treatment) to control five conventional
pollutants or pollutant parameters (BOD5, TSS, oil & grease, fecal coliforms, and pH). The
current limitations for ammonia (as nitrogen) for non-small meat further processors are contained
in BAT and not BPT. Therefore, this section does not discuss BPT limitations for ammonia (as
nitrogen). In February 2002, EPA proposed new BPT limitations for chemical oxygen demand
(COD) based on Option 2 in an effort to better reflect current BPT treatment technology for non-
13-20
-------
Section /.?. Selected Technology Options
small meat further processing facilities (67 FR 8630, February 25, 2002). See Section 7.3.2 for a
discussion on why EPA is not establishing BPT limitations for COD in the final rule.
EPA did not revise the conventional pollutant limitations for non-small meat further
processing facilities (Subcategories F through I) in the final rule and such facilities will remain
subject to the BPT limitations in sections 432.62, 432.72, 432.82, and 432.92.
BCT Requirements
When deciding whether to adopt more stringent limitations for BCT than BPT, EPA
considers technologies that might achieve greater removals of conventional pollutants than those
adopted for BPT.
EPA did not promulgate new BPT effluent limitations for conventional parameters (i.e.,
pH, BOD5, TSS, oil and grease, and fecal coliforms) for non-small meat further processors
(Subcategories F through I). When considering a technology that would achieve greater removals
of conventional pollutants than adopted for BPT, EPA compared the removals achievable
through implementation of the Option 2 technology (which EPA considered as the possible
technology basis for BCT) to current BPT limitations. EPA estimated that Option 2 removes
approximately 21,700 pounds more per year of BOD5 compared to conventional pollutant
reductions by facilities meeting or exceeding current BPT limitations. There are no additional
removals of TSS, oil and grease, or fecal coliforms.
EPA evaluated Option 2 under the BCT cost test and it failed (see the Economic and
Environmental Benefits Analysis of the Final Meat and Poultry Products Rule
EPA-821 -R-04-010). EPA did not evaluate other technology options, such as Option 2 + F
(Option 2 plus the addition of a filter), because they are more costly and do not remove
significantly more conventional pollutants than Option 2. If Option 2 did not pass the cost test,
these more expensive options would not pass. The Agency did not identify any technologies that
pass the BCT cost test and achieve greater removals of conventional pollutants than the current
BPT technology. Thus, EPA did not revise the BCT limitations for these facilities. Non-small
meat further processing facilities in Subcategories F through I will remain subject to the current
13-21
-------
Section /.?. Selected Tec hnology Options
BCT limitations (which are equivalent to the current BPT limitations for conventional pollutants)
in sections 432.67, 432.77, 432.87, and 432.97.
BAT Requirements
EPA proposed to establish the BAT level of regulatory control for non-small meat further
processors (Subcategories F through I) based on Option 3 (i.e., biological treatment, more
complete denitrification, more complete nitrification, and disinfection). As discussed in the
NODA, after review and evaluation of the revised and new data, EPA reconsidered its
assessment of Option 3 as BAT technology. EPA determined that Option 3 did not meet all the
statutory criteria for BAT. The Agency refocused its evaluation for the technology basis for BAT
on Option 2.5, Option 2.5+P, or Option 4 for nutrient removal (see Section 9 for a description of
the technology options). For the final rule, EPA based the BAT limitations for total nitrogen for
these facilities on Option 2.5 technology and promulgated a limitation for total nitrogen on this
basis. EPA did not revise the current BAT limitation for ammonia (as nitrogen).
EPA evaluated whether revising the current BAT limitation for ammonia (as nitrogen)
based on Options 2, 2.5, 2.5+P, or 4 treatment technologies could be supported. When evaluating
revision of BAT for non-conventional pollutants that are not nutrients, EPA considers not only
whether the technology option is available and economically achievable, but also whether it is
best. EPA typically evaluates a technology's cost-effectiveness as a factor in its decision. When
considering cost-effectiveness (except for nutrients), EPA typically looks at the costs of the
additional pollutant reductions (in toxic pound-equivalents).
EPA estimated the annualized cost of each technology option under review. The
approximate annualized cost of the technology options ranged from $266,000 for Option 2 to
$798,000 for Option 4 (pretax, 1999 dollars). Using the closure methodology, EPA projected that
there would be a slight probability (0.5 percent) that at most one facility would close under any
of the technology options. However, the average toxic cost-effectiveness numbers range from
$8,000 per toxic pound-equivalent (1981 dollars) for Option 2 to $ 18,400 per toxic pound-
equivalent (1981 dollars) for Option 4. These high values are due to the very minimal
incremental reduction in toxic pound-equivalents: 19.4 toxic pound-equivalents/year for Options
13-22
-------
Section /.?. Selected Tec hnology Options
2, 2.5, or 2.5+P and 25.3 toxic pound-equivalents/year for Option 4. EPA typically uses $200 per
toxic pound-equivalents (in 1981 dollars) as an indication of cost-effectiveness for toxic
pollutants. Therefore, EPA determined that Options 2, 2.5, 2.5+P, and 4 are a not cost-effective
basis for revising current ammonia (as nitrogen) limitations for non-small facilities in these
subcategories when compared with those currently being achieved.
The following section describes EPA's rationale for selecting Option 2.5 technology and
rejecting Options 2.5+P and 4 as the basis of BAT limitations for nutrients. EPA did not consider
Option 2 for control of nutrients as it is not designed to reduce total nitrogen or total phosphorus.
Both the proposal and the NODA contain detailed discussions explaining why EPA rejected
setting BAT limitations based on other technology options (see 67 FR 8629, February 2002 and
68 FR 48499, August 13, 2003).
EPA selected Option 2.5 technology as the basis of BAT control for total nitrogen for
non-small meat further processing facilities (Subcategories F through I) because it is
demonstrated as available and is economically achievable. First, although no facilities in these
subcategories use Option 2.5 technology, this technology has been demonstrated as available in
all other subcategories of the MPP industry. EPA notes that it did not have any detailed survey
respondents that are within the scope of Subcategories F through I and that based on its screener
questionnaire database, EPA estimated only four non-small facilities in these subcategories.
Based upon information collected from facilities in this subcategory who received screener
surveys, all of the facilities are estimated to be currently achieving the LTA of Option 2.5 for
total nitrogen.
Second, Option 2.5 is economically achievable. EPA estimated the pretax annualized
compliance costs (in 1999 dollars) for Option 2.5 to be $329,000. These costs are conservative
and may be overstated as they include costs for the components of Option 2.5 technology even at
facilities where the effluent concentrations are below the LTA for Option 2.5. EPA chose to
possibly overestimate costs in this subcategory because of the uncertainty regarding the numbers
of facilities in these subcategories and lack of detailed information on their operations. This is
due to the small number of screener survey respondents and the fact that EPA does not have any
13-23
-------
Section /.?. Selected Tec hnology Options
detailed survey respondents from these subcategories. In addition, EPA's finding of economic
achievability in the final rule is based on the estimated costs of implementing the components of
the model technology, not on achieving the resulting limitations. Using the facility and company
closure methodologies, EPA estimated a 0.2 percent probability of facility-level closure (i.e., at
most one facility closure).
EPA also considered the cost-effectiveness of nutrient removal when evaluating BAT
options for this industry segment. However, as previously noted, all non-small meat further
processing facilities (Subcategories F through I) in EPA's database are already achieving the
Option 2.5 LTAs. Therefore, EPA estimated zero additional pounds removed per year of total
nitrogen and could not calculate a nutrient cost-effectiveness for nitrogen.
Furthermore, there is the possibility that facilities in subcategories A through D that
perform further processing may be at a competitive disadvantage if facilities in subcategories F
through I do not have equivalent limits. In addition, EPA does not want to encourage companies
to split their operations in order to be subject to lower limits.
EPA considered Option 2.5+P as the basis of BAT, but rejected it for the following
reasons. First, no non-small meat further processing facilities in EPA's database use Option
2.5+P technology. Second, Option 2.5+P costs an additional $30,000 annually for no additional
pollutant reductions when compared to Option 2.5. Therefore, this technology was not
considered to be cost-effective.
EPA considered Option 4 as the basis of BAT but did not select it due to the lack of
availability of the technology option, the high increase in cost compared to Option 2.5, and the
poor incremental nutrient cost-effectiveness (i.e., the high cost to remove additional nutrients
compared to Option 2.5+P).
EPA estimated that there are no facilities in these subcategories currently operating
Option 4 technology. In addition, EPA estimated the pre-tax annualized compliance costs for
Option 4 to be $798,000 (1999 dollars), which is $469,000 more than Option 2.5. EPA estimated
that Option 4 removes approximately 80,000 pounds per year of nitrogen and zero pounds per
13-24
-------
Section /.?. Selected Tec hnology Options
year of phosphorus. Using the facility and company closure methodologies, EPA estimated a 0.5
percent probability of facility-level closure (i.e., at most one facility closure). Finally, EPA
estimated the average nutrient cost-effectiveness for nitrogen to be $ 10.02/lb of total nitrogen
removed, while the incremental nitrogen cost-effectiveness relative to Option 2.5 is $5.89/lb.
Both of the figures are above the $4/lb benchmark for nitrogen removal. Therefore, EPA did not
consider Option 4 to be cost-effective.
NSPS Requirements
In 2002 EPA proposed to revise the current new source performance standards for non-
small facilities in Subcategories F through I (meat further processors) based on Option 3
technology. EPA estimated only four non-small direct discharge meat further processing
facilities, and therefore, has insufficient data on these facilities to determine if Options 2.5,
2.5+P, or 4 would present a barrier to entry. When deciding whether to promulgate revised new
source performance standards, EPA considered whether or not there are any new source
performance standards currently in place. EPA revised existing source BAT limitations for non-
small meat further processors based on Option 2.5 technology for total nitrogen and did not
revise BAT limitations for ammonia (as nitrogen). Although there currently are new source
performance standards for these facilities, they do not include limitations for total nitrogen or
ammonia (as nitrogen). Therefore, for non-small meat further processors, EPA set NSPS for total
nitrogen equivalent to the BAT limitations based on Option 2.5 and for ammonia (as nitrogen)
based on Option 2 (because Option 2.5 does not provide any additional ammonia removal). EPA
did not revise the current NSPS for conventional pollutants.
13.2.4 Subcategory K (Poultry First Processing Facilities)
In 2002, EPA proposed a production threshold of 10 million pounds (live weight killed)
per year for facilities in Subcategory K. EPA proposed this threshold to allow for different
limitations for small and non-small poultry first processing facilities. EPA raised the production
threshold for the final rule from 10 to 100 million pounds per year. Therefore, this section
discusses small and non-small facilities separately. Costs presented in this section are presented
in 1999 year dollars which is the base year of the survey.
13-25
-------
Section /.?. Selected Tec hnology Options
13.2.4.1 Small Facilities in Subcategory K (Poultry first processors that slaughter less
than or equal to 100 million pounds per year)
For the final rule, small poultry first processing facilities include facilities with
production rates less than or equal to 100 million pounds per year (live weight killed). EPA is not
establishing limitations for any existing small poultry first processing facilities in Subcategory K.
However, EPA established new source performance standards for new facilities. The following
sections discuss EPA's decision not to establish BPT, BCT, or BAT limitations and to establish
NSPS for small direct discharge facilities in Subcategory K.
BPT/BCT/BA T Requirements
In 2002 EPA proposed new BPT/BCT/BAT for the small poultry first processors based
on Option 1. EPA also evaluated Option 2 for small facilities in this subcategory. Based on
comments on the proposal and the incorporation of data from the detailed surveys, EPA did not
establish BPT/BCT/BAT limitations for small facilities in Subcategory K (poultry first
processors) for the final rule.
First, even though Options 1 and 2 are available technologies (i.e., partial and more
complete nitrification, respectively) readily applicable to all small facilities in Subcategory K, the
cost of compliance with these limitations in relation to the effluent reduction benefits is
disproportionate. For poultry first processor facilities with production rates less than or equal to
100 million pounds of live weight killed (LWK) per year EPA estimated it will cost $ 1,487/lb of
pollutant removed (1999 dollars) for Option 1 and $501/lb (1999 dollars) for Option 2. These
values significantly exceed the $37/lb removed benchmark that EPA used, as guidance, to assess
BPT cost reasonableness.
Consequently, EPA determined the total cost of effluent reductions using the Options 1
and 2 technologies are not reasonable in relation to the effluent reduction benefits. The Agency
tried to avoid "double-counting" pollutant reductions that would occur if, for example, EPA
summed removals of COD and BOD. Therefore, EPA used the sum of BOD^ and ammonia (as
nitrogen) removed to estimate the pounds of pollutant removed under the technology options for
these facilities. As noted previously, EPA estimated this cost as $ 1,487/lb removed for Option 1
13-26
-------
Section /.?. Selected Tec hnology Options
and $501/lb removed for Option 2. Second, EPA found that compliance with limitations based
on Option 1 or Option 2 technology will result in at least 36 closures for the existing small direct
dischargers for which facility-level financial data exists. EPA only had sufficient financial data
for 9 out of an estimated 37 small facilities in this subcategory. Therefore, there may be more
closures than we are able to project.
Existing small direct discharge facilities in Subcategory K will remain subject to permit
limits based on the best professional judgment of the permit writer.
NSPS Requirements
For the 2002 proposal, EPA proposed new NSPS based on Option 1. In the NODA (68
FR 48500, August 13, 2003), EPA gave notice that it was considering the modified options
(Option 2.5, Option 2.5+P, and no revision/no regulation) in addition to the proposed options
(Options 1 and 2) for small slaughtering facilities. Based on comments received on the proposal
and the completion of the review and incorporation of data from the detailed surveys, EPA
established NSPS standards for small facilities in Subcategory K based on Option 2. There are no
current new source performance standards for small poultry first processors and 75 percent of
small facilities in EPA's database currently use Option 2 technology (or more advanced
technology); therefore, Option 2 is demonstrated technology for this segment of facilities.
However, EPA determined that the ratio of capital costs to total assets for the facilities in this
subcategory to be 13 percent for both Option 1 and Option 2 technology levels. While 13 percent
of average total assets is a significant level, EPA concluded that the limited amount of data for
these facilities limited the analysis and the actual ratio of capital costs to total assets for new
facilities may be much lower. For example, the analysis includes one facility whose ratio is
greater than 30 percent, while another facility has a ratio of approximately 4 percent. Thus, since
the barrier to entry test results are identical for Options 1 and 2, and 75 percent of existing
facilities use Option 2 technology, EPA selected the more stringent Option 2 as the level of
control for new sources for ammonia (as nitrogen) and the five conventional pollutants.
13-27
-------
Section /.?. Selected Tec hnology Options
13.2.4.2 Non-small Facilities in Subcategory K (Poultry first processing
facilities that slaughter more than 100 million pounds per year)
For non-small facilities in Subcategory K, EPA, for the first time, established limitations
and standards for BOD5, TSS, oil & grease, pH, fecal coliforms, ammonia (as nitrogen), and total
nitrogen for existing and new sources. As discussed in Section 14, the new limitations and
standards are concentration-based. The following sections discuss the technology bases EPA
selected for the final rule for the direct discharge non-small facilities in Subcategory K.
BPT Requirements
In 2002 EPA proposed new BPT for the non-small poultry first processors (Subcategory
K) based on Option 3 to control five conventional pollutants or pollutant parameters (BOD^,
TSS, oil & grease, fecal coliforms, and pH) and also control ammonia (as nitrogen), total
nitrogen and total phosphorus. As discussed in the NODA, after review and evaluation of the
revised and new data, EPA reconsidered its assessment of Option 3 technology.
EPA established BPT limitations for BOD^, TSS, oil & grease, fecal coliforms, pH and
ammonia (as nitrogen) for non-small direct dischargers in Subcategory K based on technology
Option 2 (see Section 9 for additional details on the Option 2 technology).
The Agency concluded that the Option 2 treatment technology represents the best
practicable control technology currently available and is the basis for the BPT limitations for
these facilities for the following reasons.
First, this technology is available technology and is readily applicable to all non-small
facilities in Subcategory K. More than 92 percent of the non-small direct discharging facilities in
these subcategories are using Option 2 technology, or more advanced technology. Although most
facilities have the components of Option 2 technology in place (e.g., nitrification basin/aerobic
reactor), some facilities are not achieving the projected Option 2 long-term average
concentrations (LTAs). EPA attributes this to their failure to operate or maintain the Option 2
technology adequately. (See Sections 10 and 11 for additional discussion of the cost and loading
methodologies.) Consequently, when estimating the costs of compliance with Option 2, EPA
13-28
-------
Section /.?. Selected Tec hnology Options
included costs for treatment optimization for a number of facilities to achieve the Option 2 LTA.
For example, EPA included costs for increased aeration, chemical addition, sludge handling,
process controls, in-process sampling, analytical testing, and capacity.
Second, the cost of compliance with these limitations in relation to the effluent reduction
benefits is not disproportionate. EPA projected that compliance with BPT limitations based on
Option 2 technology will not result in closures of existing non-small direct dischargers in these
subcategories. Moreover, adopting this level of control will create a significant reduction in
pollutants discharged into the environment. For poultry first processor facilities with production
rates greater than 100 million pounds LWK per year using Option 2, EPA estimated an annual
compliance cost of $17.7 million (pretax, 1999 dollars) and removal of 980,000 pounds of BOD5
and ammonia (as nitrogen) from current discharges into the Nation's waters at a cost of $ 18.18/lb
of pollutant removed (1999 dollars). This cost per pound of pollutant removed is below the
$37/lb benchmark that EPA is using, as guidance, to evaluate cost-reasonableness.
EPA considered Option 2.5 (which also includes partial denitrification) as the basis for
BPT limitations. However, Option 2.5 does not remove any additional pounds of conventional
pollutants or ammonia (as nitrogen) and costs $9.4 million more annually than Option 2. In
addition, EPA found that 45 percent of non-small facilities in this subcategory in EPA's database
are using the components of Option 2.5 technology (e.g., facility has in place a denitrification
basin, nitrification basin and disinfection) or more advanced technology. Because Option 2.5
costs more, does not remove additional pollutants, and is not as widely available as Option 2
technology, EPA did not select it as the basis of BPT limitations.
Furthermore, EPA did not select Option 2.5+P or Option 4 as the basis for BPT
limitations, as they do not achieve adequate additional pollutant reductions as compared to their
additional compliance costs. Specifically, Option 2.5+P does not achieve any additional removals
of conventional pollutants or ammonia (as nitrogen) as compared to Option 2, but it would cost
an additional $45.7 million (in 1999 dollars) annually. Option 4 would remove an additional
170,000 pounds of ammonia (as nitrogen) for an additional $91.4 million (in 1999 dollars)
annually. Other options the Agency considered for BPT were not selected due to lack of
13-29
-------
Section /.?. Selected Technology Options
availability and/or poor BPT cost and removal comparison. Both the proposal and the NODA
contain detailed discussions explaining why EPA rejected setting BPT limitations based on other
technology (see 67 FR 8629, February 25, 2002 and 68 FR 48499, August 13, 2003).
BCT Requirements
In deciding whether to adopt more stringent limitations for BCT than BPT, EPA
considered whether technologies other than those adopted for BPT will achieve greater removal
of conventional pollutants and whether the costs of those technologies are reasonable under the
standards established by the CWA. EPA generally refers to the decision criteria as the "BCT cost
test." EPA is promulgating BCT effluent limitations for conventional parameters (e.g., pH, TSS,
O&G) equivalent to BPT for this subcategory because the Agency did not identify technologies
that can achieve greater removals of conventional pollutants that also pass the BCT cost test.
EPA evaluated adding a filter to the BPT technology (i.e., Option 2 + F) in order to get further
conventional pollutant reductions. However, this technology option failed the BCT cost test. (For
a more detailed description of the BCT cost test and details on EPA's analysis, see the Economic
and Environmental Benefits Analysis of the Final Meat and Poultry Products Rule
[EPA-821 -R-04-010]).
BAT Requirements
EPA proposed to establish the BAT level of regulatory control for non-small facilities in
Subcategory K based on Option 3 (i.e., biological treatment, more complete nitrification, more
complete denitrification and disinfection). As discussed in the NODA, after review and
evaluation of the revised and new data, EPA reconsidered its assessment of Option 3 as BAT
technology. EPA determined that Option 3 did not meet all the statutory criteria for BAT. The
Agency refocused its evaluation for the technology basis for BAT on Option 2.5, Option 2.5+P or
Option 4 for nutrient removal (see Section 9 for a description of the technology options). For the
final rule, EPA based the BAT limitations for these facilities on Option 2.5 technology and
promulgated a limitation for total nitrogen on this basis. However, EPA is setting a limitation for
ammonia (as nitrogen) that is equal to BPT, because using Option 2.5 technology or higher does
13-30
-------
Section /.?. Selected Tec hnology Options
not result in any additional ammonia removal than the technology used to establish BPT
(Option 2).
The following section describes EPA's rationale for selecting Option 2.5 technology and
rejecting Option 2.5+P and Option 4. The proposal and the NODA (see 67 FR 8629 and 68 FR
48499) contain detailed explanations why EPA rejected setting BAT limitations based on other
technology options, and the Administrative Record for the final rule provides does not support
EPA changing these conclusions.
EPA determined that Option 2.5 technology is available in Subcategory K, as 45 percent
of the non-small facilities in this subcategory in EPA's database use the components of Option
2.5 (or more advanced technology) and is economically achievable. EPA estimated the
compliance costs for Option 2.5 to be $31.8 million (in 1999 dollars). Using the facility and
company closure methodologies, EPA believes that no facilities or companies will close. For a
sensitivity analysis, EPA also estimated closures using a less stringent decision rule (closure
under one of three forecast methodologies rather than at least two of three). Using the alternate
analysis, EPA estimated no facilities will close under Option 2.5.
EPA also considered nutrient removal cost-effectiveness when evaluating BAT options
for this industry. For Option 2.5, EPA estimated 9.4 million pounds removed per year of total
nitrogen and a nutrient cost-effectiveness of $3.40/lb of total nitrogen removed. Because Option
2.5 does not include phosphorus removal, EPA did not calculate nutrient cost-effectiveness for
phosphorus for Option 2.5. EPA concludes that Option 2.5 is nutrient cost-effective for total
nitrogen.
EPA considered Option 2.5+P as the basis of BAT, but rejected it. Fourteen percent of
non-small facilities in Subcategory K in EPA's database use Option 2.5+P technology (or more
advanced technology). EPA estimated the pre-tax annualized cost of Option 2.5+P is $63.4
million (1999 dollars), which is $31.6 million more than Option 2.5. EPA estimated no facility
closures and one company closure for Option 2.5+P (Note: Facilities that are owned by the
company that is projected to close did not provide facility-level financial information; therefore,
those facilities are not part of the facility-level analysis). Option 2.5+P removes 4.1 million
13-31
-------
Section /.?. Selected Tec hnology Options
pounds per year of total phosphorus and achieves the same level of nitrogen and conventional
pollutant reduction as Option 2.5. Therefore, EPA estimated the average nutrient cost-
effectiveness to be $6.77/lb/lb total nitrogen removed and $ 15.28/lb total phosphorus removed.
These values exceed the benchmark that EPA is using, as guidance, for cost-effectiveness.
Therefore, EPA did not select Option 2.5+P due to the poor cost-effectiveness for nutrients.
EPA also considered, but did not select, Option 4 as the basis of BAT limitations due to
the high increase in cost as compared to Option 2.5, the poor incremental nutrient cost-
effectiveness (i.e., the high cost to remove additional nutrients as compared to Option 2.5+P),
and high number of closures.
EPA estimated that almost 3 percent of direct discharge non-small facilities in this
subcategory currently operate Option 4 technology (or more advanced technology). EPA
estimated the pre-tax annualized compliance costs for Option 4 to be $ 109.1 million (1999
dollars), which is $45.7 million more than Option 2.5+P and $77.3 million more than Option 2.5.
EPA also estimated that Option 4 removes 20.9 million pounds per year of nitrogen (11.5 million
more than Option 2.5 or Option 2.5+P) and 4.7 million pounds per year of phosphorus (about
520,000 pounds per year more than Option 2.5+P). However, EPA projects 22 facility closures
and one company closure under Option 4 and estimated the average nutrient cost-effectiveness to
be $5.22/lb total nitrogen removed and $23.35/lb total phosphorus removed. The incremental
nutrient cost-effectiveness is $6.71 /lb of nitrogen removed (relative to Option 2.5) and $87.17 /lb
of phosphorus removed (relative to Option 2.5+P). Option 4 exceeds the $4 /lb removed
benchmark value for nitrogen and the $ 10/lb removed benchmark value for phosphorus.
Therefore, EPA finds that Option 4 is not cost-effective for total nitrogen or phosphorus removal
and is not economically achievable technology.
EPA established BAT limitations for ammonia (as nitrogen) that are equivalent to the
limitations it promulgated under BPT. EPA considered setting more stringent limitations for
ammonia (as nitrogen) under BAT; however, the selected BAT technology option (Option 2.5)
does not remove any additional quantity of ammonia (as nitrogen). Although Option 4 does
13-32
-------
Section /.?. Selected Tec hnology Options
remove some additional pounds of ammonia (as nitrogen) as compared to Option 2, EPA did not
select Option 4 for BAT for the reasons discussed earlier in this section.
NSPS Requirements
EPA considers the barrier to entry into the industry for a new facility that results from the
compliance costs of the regulation and whether or not there are new source standards in place for
the facilities. For this rule, EPA used the ratio of average capital costs to average total assets to
measure the potential for barrier to entry due to the MPP rule. EPA estimated the ratio of costs to
assets for Option 2.5, 2.5+P, and Option 4: they range from 4.0 percent for Option 2.5 to 4.2
percent for Option 2.5+P to 12.3 percent for Option 4. The estimates for Option 2.5+P and
Option 4, however, do not reflect EPA's additional evaluation of the costs for chemical
phosphorus based on comments EPA received (see DCN 300015). From this additional
evaluation, EPA concludes that for non-small poultry first processors costs may be $25,000 to
$106,000 more per facility for chemical phosphorus removal (including costs for additional
sludge disposal) than those used in EPA's barrier to entry analysis, as discussed here. EPA was
concerned that, with these additional costs, the ratio may rise to a level that the Agency would
consider to be a barrier to entry for Option 2.5+P and Option 4. Therefore, EPA set standards for
new sources equivalent to the BAT limitations established by the final rule (based on Option 2.5
technology) for total nitrogen and equivalent to BPT (based on Option 2 technology) for
ammonia (as nitrogen) and the five conventional pollutants.
13.2.5 Subcategory L (Poultry Further Processing Facilities)
In 2002 EPA proposed a production threshold of 7 million pounds (finished product) per
year for facilities in Subcategory L. EPA proposed this threshold to allow for different limitations
for small and non-small poultry further processing facilities. EPA is retaining the proposed
threshold for the final rule. Therefore, this section discusses small and non-small facilities
separately. Costs presented in this section are presented in 1999 year dollars which is the base
year of the survey.
13-33
-------
Section /.?. Selected Tec hnology Options
13.2.5.1 Small Facilities in Subcategory L (poultry further processing facilities that
produce less than or equal to 7 million pounds per year)
For the final rule, small poultry first processing facilities include facilities with
production rates less than or equal to 7 million pounds (finished product) per year. EPA did not
establish limitations for any existing small poultry further processing facilities in Subcategory L.
However, EPA established new source performance standards for new facilities. The following
sections discuss EPA's decision not to establish BPT, BCT, or BAT limitations and to establish
NSPS for small direct discharge facilities in Subcategory L.
BPT/BCT/BA T Requirements
In 2002, EPA proposed new BPT/BCT/BAT for the small poultry further processors
based on Option 1. EPA also evaluated Option 2 for small facilities in this subcategory. Based on
incorporation of data from the detailed surveys, EPA did not establish BPT/BCT/BAT
limitations for small facilities in Subcategory K (poultry first processors) for the final rule for the
following reasons.
First, even though Option 1 and Option 2 are available technologies (i.e., partial and more
complete nitrification, respectively) readily applicable to all small facilities in Subcategory L, the
cost of compliance with these limitations in relation to the effluent reduction benefits is
disproportionate. For poultry further processor facilities with production rates less than or equal
to 7 million pounds of live weight killed (LWK) per year EPA estimated it will cost
approximately $74/lb of pollutant removed (1999 dollars) for Option 1 or Option 2, which
exceed the $37/lb removed benchmark that EPA is using, as guidance, to evaluate BPT cost-
reasonableness.
Consequently, EPA determined the total cost of effluent reductions using the Option 1 or
Option 2 technology is not reasonable in relation to the effluent reduction benefits. Second, due
to lack of facility-level financial data, EPA could not estimate closures that would result with
BPT limitations based on Option 1 or Option 2 technology. In addition, the analysis of financial
data for small facilities in Subcategory L was complicated by the fact that some facilities
performing operations fitting within the scope of Subcategory L also perform operations that are
13-34
-------
Section /.?. Selected Technology Options
regulated under Subcategories F through I (meat further processors). (See the Economic and
Environmental Benefits Analysis of the Final Meat and Poultry Products Rule
[EPA-821-R-04-010] for a discussion of how "mixed processors" were addressed.) Existing
small direct discharge facilities in Subcategory L will remain subject to permit limits based on
the best professional judgment of the permit writer.
NSPS Requirements
In 2002, EPA proposed new NSPS for small poultry further processors (Subcategory L)
based on Option 1. In the NODA (68 FR 48500, August 13, 2003), EPA gave notice that it was
considering the modified options (Option 2.5, Option 2.5+P, and no revision/no regulation) in
addition to the proposed options (Option 1 and Option 2) for these facilities. After considering
comments and the data from the detailed surveys, EPA established NSPS standards for small
poultry further processing facilities based on Option 2. EPA determined that all existing small
poultry further processors in EPA's database currently use the components of Option 2
technology, although, as noted above, they would incur additional costs to meet the Option 2
LTAs. In addition, EPA determined that there is no barrier to entry for either Option 1 or Option
2 as the ratio of capital costs to total assets for the facilities in this subcategory is 0.4 percent for
both Option 1 and Option 2 technology levels. Finally, there are no current new source
performance standards in place for small facilities in Subcategory L. Since the barrier to entry
test results are identical for Options 1 and 2, and all existing facilities have the components in
place for Option 2 technology, EPA selected the more stringent Option 2 as the level of control
for new sources for ammonia (as nitrogen) and the five conventional pollutants.
13.2.5.2 Non-small Facilities in Subcategory L (Poultry further processing facilities
that produce more than 7 million pounds per year)
For non-small facilities in Subcategory L, EPA, for the first time, established limitations
and standards for BOD5, TSS, oil & grease, pH, fecal coliforms, ammonia (as nitrogen), and total
nitrogen for existing and new sources. As discussed in Section 14, the new limitations and
standards are concentration-based. The following sections discuss the technology bases EPA
13-35
-------
Section /.?. Selected Tec hnology Options
selected for the final rule for the direct discharge non-small facilities in Subcategory L (poultry
further processors).
BPT Requirements
In 2002 EPA based its proposal for new BPT for the poultry further processors
(Subcategory L) on Option 3 to control five conventional pollutants or pollutant parameters
(BOD5, TSS, oil and grease, fecal coliforms, and pH) and also control ammonia (as nitrogen),
total nitrogen and total phosphorus. As discussed in the NODA, after review and evaluation of
the revised and new data, EPA reconsidered its assessment of Option 3 technology.
EPA decided to establish BPT limitations for BOD^, TSS, oil & grease (as HEM), fecal
coliforms, pH and ammonia (as nitrogen) for non-small direct dischargers in Subcategory L
based on technology Option 2 (see Section 9 for additional details on the Option 2 technology).
The Agency concluded that the Option 2 treatment technology is the best practicable
control technology currently available, and it should be the basis for the BPT limitations for these
facilities. First, this technology is available and readily applicable to all non-small facilities in
Subcategory L. EPA estimated that all non-small direct discharge facilities in this subcategory
currently operate Option 2 technology (or more advanced technology).
Second, the cost of compliance with these limitations in relation to the effluent reduction
benefits is not disproportionate. For poultry further processing facilities with production rates
greater than 7 million pounds finished product per year, EPA estimated an annual compliance
cost under Option 2 of $557,000 (pretax 1999 dollars) and 18,600 pounds of BOD5 and ammonia
(as nitrogen) removed from current discharges at a cost of $29.88/lb (1999 dollars) of pollutant
removed. In estimating the pounds of pollutant removed based on Option 2 technology for these
facilities, EPA used the sum of BOD^ and ammonia (as nitrogen) removed. The cost per pound
removed approaches, but is still below, the $37 /lb value that EPA uses as guidance in evaluating
BPT cost-reasonableness.
EPA considered Option 2.5 (which also includes partial denitrification) as the basis for
BPT limitations. However, Option 2.5 does not remove any additional pounds of conventional
13-36
-------
Section /.?. Selected Technology Options
pollutants or ammonia (as nitrogen) compared to Option 2 but costs almost $426,000 more
annually. In addition, EPA found that Option 2.5 technology is not as widely available as Option
2 technology. That is, 37 percent of non-small poultry further processors in EPA's database use
Option 2.5 (or more advanced) technology, while 100 percent use Option 2 (or more advanced)
technology. Thus, EPA did not select Option 2.5 as the basis of BPT limitations.
Furthermore, EPA did not select either Option 2.5+P or Option 4 as the basis for BPT
limitations because they do not achieve adequate pollutant reductions relative to additional
compliance costs. Specifically, Option 2.5+P does not achieve any additional removals of
conventional pollutants or ammonia (as nitrogen) but would cost $918,000 more each year than
Option 2. Option 4 would remove an insignificant amount of ammonia (as nitrogen) for an
additional $2.7 million annually. EPA did not select other options it considered for BPT due to
lack of availability and poor BPT cost and removal comparison. The 2002 proposal and the
NODA (see 66 FR 457 and 68 FR 48499) contain detailed explanations of why EPA rejected
BPT limitations based on other BPT technology options.
BCT Requirements
In deciding whether to adopt more stringent limitations for BCT than BPT, EPA
considered whether there are technologies other than those adopted for BPT that achieve greater
removals of conventional pollutants and whether those technologies are cost-reasonable under
CWA standards. EPA generally refers to the decision criteria as the "BCT cost test." EPA
promulgated effluent limitations for conventional parameters (e.g., pH, TSS, O&G) equivalent to
BPT for this subcategory because it identified no technologies achieving greater removals of
conventional pollutants that also pass the BCT cost test. EPA considered adding a filter to the
BPT technology (i.e., Option 2 + F) to get further conventional pollutant reductions; however,
this technology option failed the BCT cost test. For a more detailed description of the BCT cost
test and details on EPA's analysis, see the Economic and Environmental Benefits Analysis for the
Final Meat and Poultry Products Rule (EPA-821-R-04-010).
13-37
-------
Section /.?. Selected Tec hnology Options
BAT Requirements
EPA proposed to establish the BAT level of regulatory control for non-small facilities in
Subcategory L based on Option 3 (biological treatment, more complete denitrification, more
complete nitrification, and disinfection). As discussed in the NODA, after review and evaluation
of the revised and new data, EPA reconsidered its assessment of Option 3 as BAT technology.
EPA determined that Option 3 did not meet all the statutory criteria for BAT. The Agency
refocused its evaluation for the technology basis for BAT on Option 2.5, Option 2.5+P or Option
4 for nutrient removal (see Section 9 for a description of the technology options). For the final
rule, EPA bases the BAT limitations for these facilities on Option 2.5 technology and
promulgated a limitation for total nitrogen on this basis. EPA is, however, setting a limitation for
ammonia (as nitrogen) that is equal to BPT.
The following section describes EPA's rationale for selecting Option 2.5 technology and
rejecting Options 2.5+P and 4. The proposal and the NODA (see 67 FR 8629 and 68 FR 48499)
contain detailed explanations why EPA rejected setting BAT limitations based on other
technology options, and the Administrative Record for the final rule does not support EPA
changing these conclusions.
EPA selected Option 2.5 technology as the basis of BAT for non-small facilities in
Subcategory L for two reasons. First, Option 2.5 technology has been demonstrated as available
in Subcategory L. EPA estimated that 37 percent of non-small direct discharge facilities in this
subcategory in EPA's database currently operate at or above the Option 2.5 technology level.
Second, Option 2.5 is economically achievable. EPA estimated the compliance costs (pre-tax,
1999 dollars) for Option 2.5 to be $983,000 per year. Using the closure methodology, there is a
slight probability (0.9 percent) that there could be one facility closure under Option 2.5.
EPA also considered nutrient removal cost-effectiveness when evaluating BAT options
for this industry. For Option 2.5, EPA estimated 146,000 pounds removed per year of total
nitrogen and a nutrient cost-effectiveness of $6.71 /lb total nitrogen removed. Option 2.5 does not
include phosphorus removal; therefore, EPA did not calculate nutrient cost-effectiveness for
phosphorus for Option 2.5. For the subcategory, Option 2.5 exceeds the $4/lb removed value
13-38
-------
Section /.?. Selected Tec hnology Options
EPA uses as guidance for nitrogen cost-effectiveness, but the cost-effectiveness for the rule as a
whole does not exceed the $4 /lb value. Therefore, Option 2.5 is cost-effective for total nitrogen.
EPA considered Option 2.5+P as the basis of BAT but rejected it. EPA estimated that 9
percent of the non-small poultry further processors use Option 2.5 (or more advanced)
technology with phosphorus removal. The pre-tax annualized cost of Option 2.5+P is $1.5
million (1999 dollars) and the probability of a facility level closure is less than 1.4 percent (i.e.,
at most one facility closure). Option 2.5+P removes 25,000 pounds per year of total phosphorus
and achieves the same level of nitrogen and conventional pollutant reduction as Option 2.5.
Therefore, EPA estimated the average nutrient cost-effectiveness to be $10.08 /lb total nitrogen
and $58.98 /lb total phosphorus removed. Therefore, EPA did not select Option 2.5+P due to the
poor cost-effectiveness for both total nitrogen and total phosphorus.
EPA also considered Option 4 as the basis of BAT but did not select it due to the high
increase in cost compared to Option 2.5 and the poor nutrient cost-effectiveness (i.e., the high
cost to remove additional nutrients compared to Option 2.5+P).
Nine percent of non-small direct discharge facilities in this subcategory operate Option 4
technology (or more advanced technology). Therefore, EPA considers the technology to be
available. EPA estimated the pre-tax annualized compliance costs for Option 4 to be $3.3 million
(1999 dollars), which is $ 1.8 million more than Option 2.5+P and $2.3 million more than Option
2.5. Option 4 removes 354,000 pounds per year of nitrogen (208,000 more than Options 2.5 or
2.5+P) and 27,000 pounds per year of phosphorus (approximately 2,000 more pounds per year
than Option 2.5+P). There is a 3 percent probability of a facility-level closure for Option 4 (at
most one facility closure) and a ratio of 16.8 percent when comparing annualized compliance
costs to net income. EPA considers this cost to revenue ratio high and an indication that Option 4
is not economically achievable for non-small facilities in Subcategory L. Finally, the incremental
nutrient cost-effectiveness for nitrogen (as compared to Option 2.5) is $11 /lb total nitrogen
removed and for phosphorus (as compared to Option 2.5+P) is $902 /lb total phosphorus
removed. Therefore, EPA finds that Option 4 is not nutrient cost-effective for total nitrogen or
total phosphorus removal and is not economically achievable.
13-39
-------
Section /.?. Selected Tec hnology Options
EPA established BAT limitations for ammonia (as nitrogen) that are equivalent to the
limitations it promulgated under BPT. EPA considered setting more stringent limitations for
ammonia (as nitrogen) under BAT; however, the selected BAT option (Option 2.5) does not
remove any additional quantity of ammonia (as nitrogen). Although Option 4 does remove some
additional pounds of ammonia (as nitrogen) as compared to Option 2, EPA did not select Option
4 for BAT for the reasons discussed earlier in this section.
NSPS Requirements
For this rule, EPA used the ratio of average capital costs to average total assets to
measure the potential barrier to entry due to the MPP rule. However, several non-small facilities
in Subcategory L also perform operations that fall under the scope of Subcategories F through I.
This complicates the analysis of the barrier to entry data. EPA estimated the ratio of costs to
assets for Option 2.5, Option 2.5+P, and Option 4 for non-small poultry further processing
facilities (Subcategory L). The ratios range from 0.1 percent for Option 2.5 and Option 2.5+P to
0.6 percent for Option 4. The estimates for Option 2.5+P and Option 4, however, do not reflect
EPA's additional evaluation of the costs for chemical phosphorus based on comments EPA
received (see DCN 300015). EPA performed an analysis using increased quantities of alum for
chemical phosphorus removal for the detailed survey respondents (i.e., non-small meat and
poultry slaughterers). From this additional evaluation, EPA concludes that costs for poultry
slaughterers may be between 2 percent and 43 percent more per facility for chemical phosphorus
removal (including increased sludge disposal) than those used in EPA's barrier to entry analysis,
as discussed here. EPA was concerned that, with similar additional costs, the ratio for further
processors may rise to a level that the Agency would consider to be a barrier to entry for Option
2.5+P and Option 4. Based on these results, EPA decided to establish standards for new sources
equivalent to the BAT limitations based on Option 2.5 technology for total nitrogen and
equivalent to BPT (based on Option 2) for ammonia (as nitrogen) and the five conventional
pollutants.
13^0
-------
Section /.?. Selected Tec hnology Options
13.2.6 Subcategory J (Independent Renderers)
Currently section 432.101(b) defines a renderer subject to the guidelines limitations as
"an independent or off-site rendering operation ...which manufactures at rates greater than 75,000
pounds of raw material per day [or 19.5 million pounds per year based on 260 work days]." In
2002 EPA proposed to lower the production threshold to 10 million pounds per year based on a
review of the available data at that time (i.e., screener survey data). EPA selected the threshold to
design model facilities for use in estimating costs, pollutant loadings, non-water quality impacts,
and economic impacts for the proposed rule. EPA promulgated this production threshold of 10
million pounds per year. There were no comments opposing this change in the threshold.
Facilities that manufacture at rates less than or equal to 10 million pounds per year will remain
out of the scope of 40 CFR part 432, while facilities above the threshold will be covered by the
final regulation. EPA has not identified any additional direct discharging rendering facilities
producing at rates between 10 million and 19.5 million pounds per year in its database.
For facilities in Subcategory J, EPA established limitations and standards for total
nitrogen for existing and new sources. EPA did not revise the current limitations (BPT/BCT) or
new source performance standards (NSPS) for conventional pollutants and did not revise the
current BAT limitations or NSPS for ammonia (as nitrogen). The current regulations include
production-based limitations and standards for these facilities for BOD5, TSS, oil & grease, pH,
fecal coliforms and ammonia (as nitrogen). As discussed in Section 14, the new limitations and
standards are concentration-based. The following sections discuss the technology bases EPA
selected for the final rule for the direct discharge facilities in Subcategory J.
BPT Requirements
EPA established BPT for Subcategory J (Renderers) in 1975, based on biological
treatment (e.g., aerobic and anaerobic treatment) to control five conventional pollutants or
pollutant parameters (BOD5, TSS, oil and grease, fecal coliforms, and pH). The current
limitations for ammonia (as nitrogen) for non-small meat further processors are contained in
BAT and not BPT. Therefore, this section does not discuss BPT limitations for ammonia (as
nitrogen). In February 2002 EPA proposed new BPT limitations for COD based on Option 2 in
13-41
-------
Section /.?. Selected Technology Options
an effort to better reflect current BPT treatment technology for renderers (67 FR 8630, February
25, 2002). See Section 7.3.2 for a discussion on why EPA is not establishing BPT limitations for
COD in the final rule.
EPA did not propose revising BPT limitations for conventional pollutants. Therefore,
EPA did not revise the conventional pollutant limitations for independent rendering facilities
(Subcategory J) in the final rule and such facilities will remain subject to the BPT limitations in
section 432.102.
BCT Requirements
In deciding whether to adopt more stringent limitations for BCT than BPT, EPA
considered technologies that might achieve greater removals of conventional pollutants than
those adopted for BPT. EPA also looked at whether those technologies are cost-reasonable under
the standards established by the CWA. EPA generally refers to the decision criteria as the "BCT
cost test."
EPA did not promulgate new BPT effluent limitations for conventional parameters (i.e.,
pH, BOD5, TSS, oil and grease, and fecal coliforms) for independent rendering facilities
(Subcategory J). Therefore, when considering a technology that would achieve greater removals
of conventional pollutants than adopted for BPT, EPA compared the removals achievable
through implementation of the Option 2 technology (which EPA considered as the possible
technology basis for BCT) to current BPT limitations. EPA estimated that Option 2 removes
approximately 34,000 pounds more per year of BOD5 compared to conventional pollutant
reductions by facilities meeting or exceeding current BPT limitations. There are no additional
removals of TSS, O&G, or fecal coliforms.
EPA evaluated Option 2 under the BCT cost test and it failed (see the Economic and
Environmental Benefits Analysis of the Final Meat and Poultry Products Rule (EPA 821 -R-04-
010). For the final rule, EPA did not evaluate other technology options, such as Option 2 + F
(Option 2 plus the addition of a filter), because they are more costly and do not remove
significantly more conventional pollutants than Option 2. Therefore, if Option 2 did not pass,
13-42
-------
Section /.?. Selected Tec hnology Options
these more expensive options would not pass the BCT cost test. The Agency did not identify any
technologies that pass the BCT cost test and achieve greater removals of conventional pollutants
than the current BPT technology. Thus, EPA did not revise the BCT limitations for these
facilities. Independent rendering facilities in Subcategory J will remain subject to the current
BCT limitations (which are equivalent to the current BPT limitations for conventional pollutants)
in section 432.107.
BAT Requirements
EPA proposed to establish the BAT level of regulatory control for independent renderers
(Subcategory J) based on Option 2 and took comment on other options in the NODA. For the
final rule, EPA is basing the BAT limitations for these facilities on Option 2.5 technology and
promulgated a limitation for total nitrogen on this basis. EPA did not revise the current BAT
limitation for ammonia (as nitrogen).
EPA evaluated whether revising the current BAT limitation for ammonia (as nitrogen)
based on Option 2, Option 2.5, Option 2.5+P, or Option 4 treatment technologies could be
supported. When evaluating revision of BAT for non-conventional pollutants that are not
nutrients, EPA not only considers whether the technology option is available and economically
achievable, but also whether it is best. EPA typically evaluates a technology's cost-effectiveness
as a factor in its decision. When considering cost-effectiveness (except for nutrients), EPA
typically evaluates the additional pollutant reductions (in toxic pound-equivalents).
EPA estimated the annualized cost of each technology option under review. The
approximate annualized cost of the technology options ranged from $628,000 for Option 2 to
$ 10.2 million for Option 4 (pre-tax, 1999 dollars). Using the closure methodology, there is a
slight probability (no more than 3.3 percent) that there could be one facility closure under
Options 2, 2.5, and 2.5+P and one closure under Option 4. However, the average toxic cost-
effectiveness numbers range from $4,100 per toxic pound-equivalent ($ 1981) for Option 2 to
$29,000 per toxic pound-equivalent ($ 1981) for Option 4. These high values are due to the very
minimal incremental reduction in toxic pound-equivalents (i.e., 90 toxic pound-equivalents/year
for Option 2, 2.5, or 2.5+P and 205 toxic pound-equivalents/year for Option 4) and the high
13-43
-------
Section /.?. Selected Tec hnology Options
incremental cost. EPA typically uses $200 per toxic pound-equivalents (in 1981 dollars) as an
indication of cost-effectiveness for toxic pollutants. Therefore, EPA determined that Options 2,
2.5, 2.5+P, and 4 are a not cost-effective basis for revising current ammonia (as nitrogen)
limitations for independent renderers in Subcategory J when compared with those currently being
achieved.
The following section describes EPA's rationale for selecting Option 2.5 technology and
rejecting Option 2.5+P and Option 4 as the basis of BAT limitations for nutrients. EPA did not
consider Option 2 for control of nutrients as it is not designed to reduce total nitrogen or total
phosphorus. Both the proposal and the NODA contain detailed discussions explaining why EPA
rejected setting BAT limitations based on other technology (see 67 FR 8629; February 25, 2002
and 68 FR 48499; August 13, 2003). EPA did not propose Option 3 for facilities in Subcategory
J based on concerns over the economic impact and nitrogen cost-effectiveness estimated for the
proposed rule. However, as discussed in Section 3 of this document and the NODA (68 FR
48476; August 13, 2003), EPA incorporated a significant amount of information into its analyses
since proposal. This includes surveys from independent rendering facilities and comments from a
trade association representing independent rendering facilities. In light of that data and
information, EPA now finds a technology option that includes some denitrification (Option 2.5)
is economically achievable and nutrient cost-effective for total nitrogen for independent
rendering facilities.
EPA selected Option 2.5 technology as the basis of BAT limitations for total nitrogen for
total nitrogen for independent rendering facilities because it is demonstrated as available and is
economically achievable. First, Option 2.5 technology has been demonstrated as available in
Subcategory J as 38 percent of facilities in EPA's database use components of Option 2.5
technology (or more advanced technology).
Second, Option 2.5 is economically achievable. EPA estimated the pre-tax annualized
compliance costs (in 1999 dollars) for Option 2.5 to be $2.8 million. Using the facility and
company closure methodologies, EPA estimated a 1.3 percent probability of facility-level closure
(i.e., at most one facility closure).
13^4
-------
Section /.?. Selected Tec hnology Options
EPA also considered the cost-effectiveness of nutrient removal when evaluating BAT
options for this industry segment. For Option 2.5, EPA estimated 1.5 million pounds removed
per year of total nitrogen and the nutrient cost-effectiveness to be $ 1,92/lb of total nitrogen
removed. Because Option 2.5 does not include phosphorus removal, EPA did not calculate
nutrient cost-effectiveness for phosphorus for Option 2.5. EPA concludes that Option 2.5 is
nutrient cost-effective for total nitrogen.
EPA considered Option 2.5+P as the basis of BAT, but rejected it for the following
reasons. Option 2.5+P costs $7.4 million annually for 1.5 million pounds of total nitrogen
reduction per year (i.e., the same reduction of total nitrogen as Option 2.5) and 590,000 pounds
of total phosphorus reduction per year. Therefore, the average nitrogen cost-effectiveness for
Option 2.5+P is $5.06/lb of total nitrogen removed and the average phosphorus cost-
effectiveness is $ 12.59/lb of total phosphorus removed. The nutrient cost-effectiveness values for
nitrogen and phosphorus exceed the benchmarks that EPA uses; therefore, EPA did not select
Option 2.5+P.
EPA considered Option 4 as the basis of BAT but did not select it due to the lack of
availability of the technology option, the high increase in cost compared to Option 2.5, and the
poor incremental nutrient cost-effectiveness (i.e., the high cost to remove additional nutrients
compared to Option 2.5+P).
Based on its database, EPA estimated that there are no facilities in this subcategory
currently operating Option 4 technology. In addition, EPA estimated the pre-tax annualized
compliance costs for Option 4 to be $10.2 million (1999 dollars), which is $7.4 million more
than Option 2.5. EPA estimated that Option 4 removes approximately 1.7 million pounds per
year of total nitrogen (200,000 more than Option 2.5) and 620,000 pounds per year of total
phosphorus (30,000 more than Option 2.5+P). Using the facility and company closure
methodologies, EPA estimated a 4.8 percent probability of facility-level closure (i.e., 1 facility
closure). Finally, EPA estimated the incremental nutrient cost-effectiveness to be $40/lb of total
nitrogen removed (compared to Option 2.5) and $85/lb of total phosphorus removed (compared
to Option 2.5+P). The nutrient cost-effectiveness of Option 4 is well above the $4/lb total
13-45
-------
Section /.?. Selected Tec hnology Options
nitrogen removed and $ 10/lb total phosphorus removed benchmarks and therefore, EPA does not
consider Option 4 to be cost-effective.
NSPS Requirements
In 2002, EPA proposed to revise the current new source performance standards for
independent rendering facilities in Subcategory J based on Option 2 technology. As discussed in
the NODA, with the development of Option 2.5, EPA reconsidered technology basis for all
subcategories (68 FR 48500; August 13, 2003). EPA selected Option 2.5 technology as the basis
for BAT limitations; therefore, EPA did not consider Option 2 technology (a less stringent
technology) as the basis for NSPS for the final rule. EPA estimated the ratio of costs to assets for
Options 2.5, 2.5+P and Option 4. The ratios are: 0.3 percent for Option 2.5, 0.4 percent for
Option 2.5+P, 0.5 percent for Option 4. The estimates for Option 2.5+P and Option 4, however,
do not reflect EPA's additional evaluation of the costs for chemical phosphorus based on
comments EPA received (see DCN 300,025). EPA performed an analysis using increased
quantities of alum for chemical phosphorus removal for the detailed survey respondents (i.e.,
non-small meat and poultry slaughterers). From this additional evaluation, EPA concludes that
the average costs for meat and poultry slaughterers may be between 4 and 26 percent more per
facility for chemical phosphorus removal (including increased sludge disposal) than those used in
EPA's barrier to entry analysis, as discussed here. EPA is concerned that, with similar additional
costs, the ratio for independent renderers may rise to a level that the Agency would consider to be
a barrier to entry for Option 2.5+P and Option 4.
Although this subcategory does have current NSPS, they do not include limitations for
total nitrogen. Therefore, EPA established NSPS for total nitrogen based on Option 2.5
technology. EPA did not revise NSPS for ammonia (as nitrogen) or for the conventional
pollutants.
13-46
-------
Section 14
LIMITATIONS AND STANDARDS: DATA SELECTION AND
CALCULATION
This section describes the data sources, data selection, data conventions, and statistical
methodology used by EPA in calculating the long-term averages, variability factors, and
limitations. The effluent limitations and standards' for meat and poultry subcategories and
options are based on long-term average effluent values and variability factors that account for
variation in treatment performance within a particular treatment technology over time.
This section only provides information for pollutants for which EPA ultimately
promulgated limitations. For the Poultry Subcategories, EPA promulgated limitations for
ammonia (as nitrogen (N)), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), total suspended solids (TSS),
oil and grease measured as hexane extractable materials (O&G (as HEM)), fecal coliforms and
total nitrogen. For the Meat Subcategories, EPA promulgated limitations for ammonia (as N) and
total nitrogen.
Section 14.1 gives a brief overview of data sources (a more detailed discussion is
provided in Section 3) and describes EPA's evaluation and selection of facility data sets that are
the basis of the final limitations. Section 14.2 provides a more detailed discussion of the selection
of the data sets used as the basis for the limitations. Section 14.3 describes censoring types
associated with the data. Section 14.4 describes data substitutions and exclusions. Section 14.5
presents the procedures for data aggregation. Section 14.6 provides an overview of the
limitations. Sections 14.7 and 14.8 describe procedures for estimation of long-term averages,
variability factors, and concentration-based limitations. Final limitations are listed in Section
14.9. The attachments for Section 14 are provided in Appendix F.
'In the remainder of this chapter, references to 'limitations' includes 'standards.'
14-1
-------
Section 14. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
14.1 OVERVIEW OF DATA SELECTION
To develop the long-term averages, variability factors, and limitations, EPA used
wastewater data from facilities with components of the model technology for each subcategory
and option. These data were collected from two sources: EPA's sampling episodes, herein
referred to as "sampling episodes;" and industry's self-monitoring data, herein referred to as
"self-monitoring episodes." EPA qualitatively reviewed the data from the sampling and self-
monitoring episodes and selected episodes to represent each option based on a review of the
production processes and treatment technologies in place at each facility. EPA only used data
from facilities that had some or all components of the model technologies for the option (model
technologies for each option are described in Section 9 of TDD).
For some facilities, EPA had data from one or more sampling episodes and/or one or
more self-monitoring episodes. In general, EPA analyzed the data from each episode separately
in calculating the limitations. If EPA received individual measurements (i.e., not averaged data)
from a facility with a sizeable gap (e.g., one year) or data that represented a different treatment
train, then each self-monitoring episode was considered separately. As an example, Episode 307
utilized the Option 2 treatment technology during 1999 while this facility used the Option 2.5
technologies beginning in 2001.2 This approach to multiple periods data from a single facility is
consistent with EPA's practice for other industrial categories. Data from different sources
generally characterize different time periods, different treatment technologies, and/or different
chemical analytical methods.
:In this section and the record, HPA has referred to the 1999 data as Hpisode 307a; the 2001 data as Hpisode
307b; the 2002-2003 data as Hpisode 307c; and the 2001-2003 data as Hpisode 307e. Similarly, for Facility 340,
HPA refers to the 1999 data as Hpisode 340a; and the 2001-2002 data as Hpisode 340b. Where facilities provided
daily data and monthly averages, the monthly averages are presented as the episode number followed by'm.' For
example, Hpisode 307m and 290m.
14-2
-------
Section 14. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
In developing the promulgated limitations, EPA generally used the self-monitoring data
when they were measured by analytical methods specified in or approved under 40 CFR Part 136
that facilities are required to use for compliance monitoring. One exception was EPA's exclusion
of some industry self-monitoring data for oil and grease. Consistent with other recently
promulgated or amended effluent guidelines limitations for other point source categories/ EPA
excluded all self-monitoring oil and grease data analyzed with methods that require freon, an
ozone-depleting agent, as an extraction solvent. EPA is phasing out these freon-based methods
and has approved a replacement method, Method 1664, which measures hexane extractable
materials (HEM). Consequently, EPA developed the O&G (as HEM) limitations solely on the
measurements from Method 1664. For TSS, EPA excluded data from one facility (290) that
reported using Method 2540B, because this method measures total solids rather than TSS.
In evaluating the fecal coliforms data, EPA excluded data where the reported methods
might have been measuring total rather than fecal coliforms (facilities 11, 26, 32, 290, 308, 326).
EPA also excluded data from episodes where the laboratories measured fecal coliforms after the
8-hour holding times consistent with 40 CFR 136. These data were from sampling episodes at
poultry facilities (6443, 6445, 6448, 6493).
First, EPA evaluated each data set to determine what technology or series of technologies
the data represented. In this manner, EPA eliminated many data sets because they did not
represent a technology basis considered during development of this rule. In a few instances, EPA
included data from facilities that employ technologies in addition to the technology bases being
considered. In these cases, EPA had data from intermediate sampling points representing the
model technologies; in other words, the data EPA employed reflected application of only the
technologies under consideration. Next, EPA reviewed the remaining data sets to ensure that
each facility was effectively operating its technologies particularly in regards to partial
denitrification. EPA also excluded treatment data from indirect discharging facilities because, in
XTR Parts 420, 437, and 438
14-3
-------
Section 14. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
general, they are not required to treat their effluent discharges to the same levels as directly
discharging facilities - particularly for conventional parameters and nutrients.
Second, EPA reviewed the remaining data on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis to determine
if any data values appeared to be unreasonable and suitable for possible exclusions. For example,
EPA eliminated data for a particular pollutant that were collected while a facility was
experiencing exceptional incidents or upsets or pollutant data for time periods that indicate the
facility was in violation of its permit. These exclusions, along with justifications, are described in
detail in the next section.
14.2 EPISODE SELECTION FOR EACH SUBCATEGORY
This section describes the data selected to calculate the final limitations for each pollutant
in each subcategory. Part 1 of Appendix D lists the daily data and sampling points corresponding
to the episodes that represent the final technology options considered for which EPA had long-
term monitoring or EPA sampling data. Attachment 14-1 in Appendix F provides summary
statistics for these same episodes, sorted by subcategory and option.
14.2.1 Poultry Subcategories
For the Poultry Subcategories, EPA is promulgating conventional pollutant and ammonia
(as N) limitations based on Option 2. EPA is promulgating total nitrogen limitations based on
Option 2.5.
14.2.1.1 Exclusions of All Data from Episodes
For Episode 339, EPA excluded the data for all pollutants from one week (7/17-
7/23/2000), because all of the effluent was directed to the recycle pond rather than being
discharged. The facility indicated there was some type of plant upset that caused it not to meet
their limits. Because this was not the facility's normal practice, EPA excluded the data from that
time period.
14-4
-------
Section 14. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
For Episode 304, EPA excluded all data for all pollutants from January 1, 1999 through
July 31, 1999. These data were collected during the start-up period of the treatment system and
do not represent well-operated conditions.
14.2.1.2 Pollutant Specific Exclusions
The following describes data that EPA excluded for specific parameters. Unless indicated
otherwise, these data were ultimately not used to determine the final limitations. Consequently,
these exclusions had no effect on the final limitations. They are presented here because they are
included in statistical analyses provided in record section 32 for the final rule.
Ammonia (as N)
For Episode 339, EPA excluded all ammonia (as N) data for the months of July through
September of 2002 because the ammonia (as N) effluent discharges during this period at this
facility were associated with enforcement period for ammonia (as N) discharges. EPA further
reviewed the ammonia (as N) data from this facility and similarly excluded ammonia (as N) data
that were greater than permit limit of 2.9 mg/L (May 1 to October 31) and 3.9 mg/L (November 1
to April 30).
In addition, for Episode 277, EPA excluded the ammonia (as N) value of 9.0 mg/L
collected on 7/7/1999 because the value is extreme in comparison with other data from that
facility (DCN333091).
BOD5
For Episode 273, EPA excluded a BOD^ value of 47.63 mg/L for 3/19/1999 because the
value appears to be an extreme value.
14-5
-------
Section 14. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
Total Nitrogen
For Episode 304, EPA excluded a total nitrogen data value of 832.92 mg/L for 5/5/2003
because the value is inconsistent with other results for that facility (See DCN 333090). EPA also
excluded a data value of 36.51 mg/L for 8/11/1999 because the value is smaller than the
corresponding sum of the values of nitrite/nitrate and total kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN).
For Episode 307, EPA excluded the total nitrogen data value of 2934 mg/L in March of
2002 because the value was an order of magnitude greater than any other reported value, and
thus, likely to be a typographic error.
14.2.2 Meat Subcategories
For the meat subcategories, EPA considered promulgating total nitrogen limitations based
on Option 2.5 and ammonia (as N) limitations based on Option 2. EPA ultimately transferred
limitations for these pollutants from Poultry Subcategory K (See discussion in Section 14.8.3).
This section discusses the data exclusions that EPA used in evaluating the data from the meat
subcategories. However, because these data were ultimately not used to determine the final
limitations, these exclusions had no effect on the final limitations.
14.2.2.1 Exclusions of All Data from Episodes
There are two facilities in EPA's database for which EPA performed two separate
sampling activities (i.e., once prior to proposal and once after proposal). Based on an assessment
of the sampling data collected during the two different sampling episodes for both facilities, EPA
concluded that the post-proposal sampling episode at each facility provides a better
demonstration of the model technology, and has included only the post-proposal Episodes, 6485
and 6486, in its final database. The excluded Episodes are 6335 and 6446.
14-6
-------
Section 14. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
14.2.2.2 Pollutant Specific Exclusions
Ammonia (as N)
For Episode 287, EPA excluded the ammonia (as N) data from the first half of January in
1999 (1/1/1999 to 1/17/1999). Time plots of the ammonia (as N) data for this facility (DCN
333070) showed increased values during this time period and much lower values for the
remainder of the year.
Similarly, for Episode 277, EPA excluded data value from 7/7/1999 because the value
appears to be extreme (DCN 333091).
BOD5
For Episode 287, EPA excluded the BOD^ data from the first half of January in 1999
(1/1/1999 to 1/17/1999). Time plots of the BOD^ data for this facility (DCN 333070) showed
increased values during this time period and much lower values for the remainder of the year.
14.3 CENSORING TYPES ASSOCIATED WITH DATA
In its statistical analyses, EPA considered the censoring type associated with the data.
EPA considered measured values to be detected. In statistical terms, the censoring type for such
data was 'non-censored' (NC). Measurements reported as being less than some sample-specific
detection limit (e.g., <10 mg/L) were censored and were considered to be non-detected (ND). In
the tables and data listings in this document and the record for the rulemaking, EPA has used the
abbreviations NC and ND to indicate the censoring types. Laboratories can also report numerical
results for specific pollutants detected in the samples as "right-censored." Right-censored
measurements are those that are reported as being greater than the highest calibration value of the
analysis (e.g., >1000 |ig/L). The next section explains EPA assumptions for the right-censored
data.
14-7
-------
Section 14. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
The distinction between the two censoring types, NC and ND, is important because the
procedure used to determine the variability factors considers censoring type explicitly. This
estimation procedure modeled the facility data sets using the modified delta-lognormal
distribution described in Appendix E. In this distribution, data are modeled as a mixture of two
distributions.
14.4 DATA SUBSTITUTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS
In some cases, EPA did not use all of the data described in Section 14.2 in calculating the
limitations. Other than the data substitutions and exclusions described in this section and Section
14.2, EPA has used the data from the episodes and sampling points presented in Appendix D.
14.4.1 Data Substitutions
EPA's data substitutions included use of different values and/or censoring assumptions.
The following paragraphs describe these substitutions.
In a few data sets, facilities reported their data to have zero values. (See DCN333007)
Because laboratory equipment cannot measure 'zero' values, EPA substituted higher values for
purposes of the statistical analyses. Some of these reported zero values were for O&G (as HEM)
and those values were substituted with the baseline level of 5 mg/L. Some other zero values were
for BOD^, ammonia (as N), and TKN in Episode 326 (EPA did not use data from this episode in
calculation of final limitations) and fecal coliforms (Episodes 293 and 297, 314, 326, (EPA did
not regulate fecal coliforms based on these data.) EPA substituted baseline values, as defined in
Appendix A, instead of zero values.
In EPA's view, some data were more likely to have been detection limits rather than
measured (or non-censored) values. With this interpretation, the data are more appropriately
modeled as non-detected values in the statistical analyses. This paragraph describes the data that
were affected by this interpretation. (Also see DCN 333006.) For Episode 277, 11 percent of the
ammonia (as N) data were reported as measured at 0.1 mg/L which was the same value as the
14-8
-------
Section 14. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
detection limit associated with 61 percent of the data. In addition, for Episode 397, 31 percent of
the ammonia (as N) data were reported as measured at 0.1 mg/L. Thus, EPA considered all
ammonia (as N) values of 0.1 mg/L at Episodes 277 and 397 to be non-detected. For O&G (as
HEM), Episode 309 reported 28 percent of its data to be measured values of 5.1 mg/L. EPA
assumed that these values resulted from adjusting the minimum level for slightly smaller sample
sizes that required by the analytical method, and thus, assumed that the values were non-detected
in its statistical analyses. For TSS, Episode 328 reported 21 percent of its data to be measured at
4 mg/L, which was the same value as the detection limit associated with 21 percent of the data.
Thus, EPA assumed that all TSS values of 4 mg/L at Episode 328 were non-detected.
On the other hand, EPA assumed that some data that were reported as non-detected were
measured (or non-censored values) for purposes of the statistical analyses. These values were for
total nitrogen from Episode 304 (See DCN 3333006.) For measurements of total nitrogen,
Episode 304 reported some data as being less than ('<') some value. In this case, the total
nitrogen values were the sum of TKN and nitrate/nitrite. EPA suspects that the facility used this
convention when the TKN value was measured below detection and the nitrate/nitrite was
reported at a value substantially above the nominal quantitation limit. In such cases, the TKN
would have been a very small fraction of the total nitrogen value. For this reason, EPA
considered it was more appropriate to consider such total nitrogen values to be non-censored for
purposes of its statistical analyses.
14.4.2 Data Exclusions
In addition to the data exclusions as part of the engineering reviews as described in
Sections 14.1 and 14.2, EPA excluded some data from the statistical analyses.
EPA excluded right-censored data in the self-monitoring episodes from its calculations.
Right-censored measurements are those that are reported as being greater than the highest
calibration value of the analysis (e.g., >1000 |ig/L). Episode 334 reported four right-censored
values for BOD^ and fecal coliforms. Those data points were excluded from the analysis as they
14-9
-------
Section 14. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
happened during a short time period and indicated some abnormal situation at the facility. EPA
also had some right-censored data from the sampling episodes. None of the right-censored data
were in the episode data sets selected as the basis for the final limitations. In its preliminary
evaluations of the sampling episode data, EPA assumed that right-censored values were non-
censored.
14.5 DATA AGGREGATION
In some cases, EPA determined that two or more samples had to be mathematically
aggregated, or averaged, to obtain a single value that could be used in other calculations. In some
cases, this meant that field duplicates and grab samples were aggregated for a single sampling
point. Appendix D lists the data after these aggregations were completed and a single daily value
was obtained for each day for each pollutant. See DCN 330001 for a listing of the data before
aggregation.
Because each aggregated data value entered into the modified delta-lognormal model as a
single value, the censoring type associated with that value was also important. In many cases, a
single aggregated value was created from unaggregated data that were all either detected or non-
detected. In the remaining cases with a mixture of detected and non-detected unaggregated
values, EPA determined that the resulting aggregated value should be considered to be detected
because the pollutant was measured at detectable levels.
This section describes each of the different aggregation procedures. They are presented in
the order that the aggregation was performed. That is, field duplicates were aggregated first and
grab samples second.
14-10
-------
Section 14. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
14.5.1 Aggregation of Field Duplicates
During the EPA sampling episodes, EPA collected a small number of field duplicates.
Generally, ten percent of the number of samples collected were duplicated. Field duplicates are
two samples collected for the same sampling point at approximately the same time, assigned
different sample numbers, and flagged as duplicates for a single sampling point at a facility.
Because the analytical data from each duplicate pair characterize the same conditions at
that time at a single sampling point, EPA aggregated the data to obtain one data value for those
conditions. The data value associated with those conditions was the arithmetic average of the
duplicate pair.
In most cases, both duplicates in a pair had the same censoring type. In these cases, the
censoring type of the aggregate was the same as the duplicates. In the remaining cases, one
duplicate was a non-censored value and the other duplicate was a non-detected value. In these
cases, EPA determined that the appropriate censoring type of the aggregate was 'non-censored'
because the pollutant had been present in one sample. (Even if the other duplicate had a zero
value4, the pollutant still would have been present if the samples had been physically combined.)
Table 14-1 summarizes the procedure for aggregating the analytical results from the field
duplicates. This aggregation step for the duplicate pairs was the first step in the aggregation
procedures for both influent and effluent measurements.
Table 14-1. Aggregation of Field Duplicates
If (he field duplicates
are:
Censoring type
of average is:
Value of aggregate is:
Formulas for
aggregate value of
duplicates:
Both non-eensored
NIC
arithmetic average of measured values
(NC, i N(\)/2
Both non-deteeted
NI)
arithmetic average of sample-specific
detection limits
(1)1., i 1)1.;)/2
JThis is presented as a 'worst-ease' scenario. In praetiee, the laboratories eannot measure 'zero' values.
Rather they report that the value is less than some level (see Seetion 4).
14-11
-------
Section 14. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
Table 14-1. Aggregation of Field Duplicates (Continued)
If (he field duplicates
are:
Censoring type
of average is:
Value of aggregate is:
Formulas for
aggregate value of
duplicates:
Both non-detected
Nl)
arithmetic average of sample-
specific detection limits
(1)1., i 1)1.;)/2
NC - non-censored (or detected).
NI) - non-detected.
1)1. - sample-specific detection limit.
14.5.2 Aggregation of Grab Samples
During the EPA sampling episodes, EPA collected two types of samples: grab and
composite. Typically, EPA collected composite samples. Of the pollutants promulgated for
regulation, O&G (as HEM) was the only one for which the chemical analytical method specifies
that grab samples must be used. EPA collected multiple (usually four) grab samples during a
sampling day at a sampling point. To obtain one value characterizing the pollutant levels at the
sampling point on a single day, EPA mathematically aggregated the measurements from the grab
samples.
The procedure arithmetically averaged the measurements to obtain a single value for the
day. When one or more measurements were non-censored, EPA determined that the appropriate
censoring type of the aggregate was 'non-censored' because the pollutant was present. Table 14-2
summarizes the procedure.
Table 14-2. Aggregation of Grab Samples
If the grab or multiple
samples are:
Censoring type of
Daily Value is:
Daily value is:
Formulas for Calculating Daily
Value:
All non-censored
NC
arithmetic average of
measured values
£nc,
1=1
n
All non-detected
Nl)
arithmetic average of
sample-specilk detection
limits
XDL.
1=1
11
14-12
-------
Section 14. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
Table 14-2. Aggregation of Grab Samples (Continued)
If (he grab or multiple
samples are:
Censoring type of
Daily Value is:
Daily value is:
Formulas for Calculating Daily
Value:
Mixture of non-censored
and non-detected values
(total number of
observations is n kim)
NC
arithmetic average of
measured values and
sample-specific detection
limits
k m
i NC, * t DL,
1= 1 1= 1
n
NC - non-censored (or detected).
NI) - non-detected.
1)1. - sample-specific detection limit.
14.6 OVERVIEW OF LIMITATIONS
The preceding sections discuss the data selected as the basis for the limitations and the
data aggregation procedures EPA used to obtain daily values in its calculations. This section
provides a general overview of limitations before returning to the development of the limitations
for the MPP industry. This section describes EPA's objective for daily maximum and monthly
average limitations, the selection of percentiles for those limitations, and compliance with final
limitations. EPA has included this discussion in Section 14 because these fundamental concepts
are often the subject of comments on EPA's effluent guidelines regulations and in EPA's
contacts and correspondence with the MPP industry.
14.6.1 Objective
In establishing daily maximum limitations, EPA's objective is to restrict the discharges
on a daily basis to a level that is achievable for a facility that targets its treatment at the long-term
average. EPA acknowledges that variability around the long-term average results from normal
operations. This variability means that occasionally facilities may discharge at a level that is
greater than or lower than the long-term average. This variability also means that facilities may
occasionally discharge at a level that is considerably lower than the long-term average. To allow
for these possibly higher daily discharges, EPA has established the daily maximum limitation. A
facility that discharges consistently at a level near the daily maximum limitation would not be
operating its treatment system to achieve the long-term average, which is part of EPA's objective
14-13
-------
Section 14. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
in establishing the daily maximum limitations. That is, targeting treatment to achieve the
limitations may result in frequent values exceeding the limitations due to routine variability in
treated effluent.
In establishing monthly average limitations, EPA's objective is to provide an additional
restriction to help ensure that facilities target their average discharges to achieve the long-term
average. The monthly average limitation requires continuous dischargers to provide on-going
control, on a monthly basis, that complements controls imposed by the daily maximum
limitation. In order to meet the monthly average limitation, a facility must counterbalance a value
near the daily maximum limitation with one or more values well below the daily maximum
limitation. To achieve compliance, these values must result in a monthly average value at or
below the monthly average limitation.
In estimating the limitations, EPA first determines an average performance level (the
"option long-term average") that a facility with well-designed and operated model technologies
(that reflect the appropriate level of control) is capable of achieving. This long-term average is
calculated from the data from the facilities using the model technologies for the option. EPA
expects that all facilities subject to the final limitations will design and operate their treatment
systems to achieve the long-term average performance level on a consistent basis because
facilities with well-designed and operated model technologies have demonstrated that this can be
done.
Next, EPA determines an allowance for the variation in pollutant concentrations when
wastewater is processed through extensive and well-designed treatment systems. This allowance
incorporates all components of variability, including shipping, sampling, storage, and analytical
variability. This allowance is incorporated into the limitations through the use of the variability
factors that EPA calculated from the data from the facilities using the model technologies. If a
facility operates its treatment system to achieve the relevant option long-term average, EPA
expects the facility will be able to comply with the limitations. Variability factors assure that
14-14
-------
Section 14. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
normal fluctuations in a facility's treatment are accounted for in the limitations. By accounting
for these reasonable excursions above the long-term average, EPA's use of variability factors
results in limitations that are generally well above the actual long-term averages.
EPA calculates the percentile used as a basis for the daily maximum limitation using the
product of the long-term average and the daily variability factor. EPA also calculates the
percentile used as a basis for the monthly average limitation using the product of the long-term
average and the monthly variability factor. The following subsection describes EPA's rationale
for selecting the certain percentiles as the basis for the limitations.
14.6.2 Selection of Percentiles
EPA calculates limitations based upon percentiles chosen, on one hand, to be high
enough to accommodate reasonably anticipated variability within control of the facility and, on
the other hand, to be low enough to reflect a level of performance consistent with the Clean
Water Act requirement that these effluent limitations be based on the "best" technologies. The
daily maximum limitation is an estimate of the 99th percentile of the distribution of the daily
measurements. The monthly average limitation is an estimate of the 95th percentile of the
distribution of the monthly averages of the daily measurements.
The 99th and 95th percentiles do not relate to, or specify, the percentage of time a
discharger operating the "best available" or "best available demonstrated" level of technology
will meet (or not meet) the daily maximum and monthly average limitations. Rather, EPA used
these percentiles in developing the limitations. If a facility is designed and operated to achieve
the long-term average on a consistent basis and the facility maintains adequate control of its
processes and treatment systems, the allowance for variability provided in the limitations is
sufficient for the facility to meet the requirements of the rule. EPA used 99 percent and 95
percent to draw a line at a definite point in each statistical distributions (100 percent is not
feasible because it represents an infinitely large value) while setting the percentile at a level that
would ensure that operators work hard to establish and maintain the appropriate level of control.
14-15
-------
Section 14. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
By targeting its treatment at the long-term average, a well-operated facility would be able to
comply with the limitations at all times because EPA has incorporated an appropriate allowance
for variability into the limitations.
In conjunction with the statistical methods, EPA performs an engineering review to verify
that the limitations are reasonable based upon the design and expected operation of the control
technologies and the facility process conditions. As part of that review, EPA examines the range
of performance by the facility data sets used to calculate the limitations. Some facility data sets
demonstrate the best available technology. Other facility data sets may demonstrate the same
technology, but not the best demonstrated design and operating conditions for that technology.
For these facilities, EPA will evaluate the degree to which the facility can upgrade its design,
operating, and maintenance conditions to meet the limitations. If such upgrades are not possible,
then EPA will modify the limitations to reflect the lowest levels that the technologies can
reasonably be expected to achieve.
14.6.3 Compliance with Limitations
EPA promulgates limitations with which facilities can comply at all times by properly
operating and maintaining their processes and treatment technologies. EPA uses a percentile of a
statistical distribution in developing the daily maximum limitation and the monthly average
limitation because statistical methods provide a logical and consistent framework for analyzing a
set of effluent data and determining values from the data that form a reasonable basis for effluent
limitations. EPA establishes the limitations on the basis of percentiles estimated using data from
facilities with well-operated and controlled processes and treatment systems. However, because
EPA uses a percentile basis, the issue of exceedances (i.e., values that exceed the limitations) or
excursions is often raised in public comments on limitations. For example, comments often
suggest that EPA include a provision that allows a facility to be considered in compliance with
permit limitations if its discharge exceeds the daily average limitations one day out of 100 and
the monthly average discharge exceeds the monthly average limitation one month out of 20. This
14-16
-------
Section 14. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Culcululion
issue was, in fact, raised in other rules, including EPA's final Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and
Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) rulemaking. EPA's general approach there for developing limitations
based on percentiles is the same in this rule, and was upheld in Chemical Manufacturers
Association v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 870 F.2d 177, 230 (5th Cir. 1989). The
Court determined that:
EPA reasonably concluded that the data points exceeding the 99th and 95th
percentiles represent either quality-control problems or upsets because there
can be no other explanation for these isolated and extremely high
discharges. If these data points result from quality-control problems, the
exceedances they represent are within the control of the plant. If, however,
the data points represent exceedances beyond the control of the industry,
the upset defense is available.
Id. at 230.
More recently, this issue was raised in EPA's Phase I rule for the pulp and paper industry.
In that rulemaking, EPA used the same general approach for developing limitations based on
percentiles that it had used for the OCPSF rulemaking and for today's rule. This approach for the
monthly average limitation was upheld in National Wildlife Federation, et al v. Environmental
Protection Agency, 286 F.3d 554 (D.C. Cir. 2002). The Court determined that:
EPA's approach to developing monthly limitations was reasonable. It
established limitations based on percentiles achieved by facilities using
well-operated and controlled processes and treatment systems. It is
therefore reasonable for EPA to conclude that measurements above the
limitations are due to either upset conditions or deficiencies in process and
treatment system maintenance and operation. EPA has included an
affirmative defense that is available to mills that exceed limitations due to
an unforeseen event. EPA reasonably concluded that other exceedances
14-17
-------
Section 14. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
would be the result of design or operational deficiencies. EPA rejected
Industry Petitioners' claim that facilities are expected to operate processes
and treatment systems so as to violate the limitations at some pre-set rate.
EPA explained that the statistical methodology was used as a framework to
establish the limitations based on percentiles. These limitations were never
intended to have the rigid probabilistic interpretation that Industry
Petitioners have adopted. Therefore, we reject Industry Petitioners'
challenge to the effluent limitations.
As that Court recognized, EPA's allowance for reasonably anticipated variability in its
effluent limitations, coupled with the availability of the upset defense, reasonably accommodates
acceptable excursions. Any further excursion allowances would go beyond the reasonable
accommodation of variability and would jeopardize the effective control of pollutant discharges
on a consistent basis and/or bog down administrative and enforcement proceedings in detailed
fact-finding exercises, contrary to Congressional intent. See, as an example, Rep. No. 92-414,
92d Congress, 2d Sess. 64, reprinted in A Legislative History of the Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 at 1482; Legislative History of the Clean Water Act of 1977 at 464-65.
EPA expects that facilities will comply with promulgated limitations at all times. If the
exceedance is caused by an upset condition, the facility would have an affirmative defense to an
enforcement action if the requirements of 40 CFR 122.41 (n) are met. If an exceedance is caused
by a design or operational deficiency, then EPA has determined that the facility's performance
does not represent the appropriate level of control. For promulgated limitations, EPA has
determined that such exceedances can be controlled by diligent process and wastewater treatment
system operational practices such as frequent inspection and repair of equipment, use of back-up
systems, and operator training and performance evaluations.
EPA recognizes that, as a result of the rule, some dischargers may need to improve
treatment systems, process controls, and/or treatment system operations in order to consistently
14-18
-------
Section 14. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
meet the effluent limitations. EPA believes that this consequence is consistent with the Clean
Water Act statutory framework, which requires that discharge limitations reflect the best
technology.
14.7 SUMMARY OF THE LIMITATIONS
The limitations for pollutants for each option are provided as 'daily maximums' and
'maximums for monthly averages' (except for pH). Definitions provided in 40 CFR 122.2 state
that the daily maximum limitation is the "highest allowable 'daily discharge'" and the maximum
for monthly average limitation (also referred to as the "average monthly discharge limitation") is
the "highest allowable average of 'daily discharges' over a calendar month, calculated as the sum
of all 'daily discharges' measured during a calendar month divided by the number of 'daily
discharges' measured during that month." Daily discharges are defined to be the "'discharge of a
pollutant' measured during a calendar day or any 24-hour period that reasonably represents the
calendar day for purposes of sampling." For the MPP rule, EPA has calculated daily maximum
and monthly average limitations expressed in terms of allowable pollutant discharge in
concentration-based units of milligrams per liter (mg/L).
14.8 ESTIMATION OF LIMITATIONS
This section discusses the calculation of the daily maximum and monthly average
limitations. In the tables provided in this section, either the mean or long-term average is
provided. If the column is labeled 'mean', then the arithmetic average is presented. The column
labeled 'LTA' presents the long-term average which was calculated following the procedures in
Appendix E.
14.8.1 Episode Long-Term Averages and Variability Factors
For each episode data set that contained individual daily measurements (e.g., monitored
daily or weekly) EPA calculated the episode long-term average (LTA) and daily variability factor
(VF) by using the modified delta-lognormal distribution (see Appendix E). In the following
14-19
-------
Section 14. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
discussion, these are considered to be based on the statistical model. Attachment 14-2 in
Appendix F provides the episode long-term average and variability factors for all pollutants of
concern for all options.
For the regulated pollutants, where appropriate, EPA has incorporated autocorrelation
into the estimates from the data sets containing individual daily measurements. (See Attachment
14-3 in Appendix F for changes of the LTA and VF before and after incorporation, DCN 333050
for evaluation methodology). When data are said to be positively autocorrelated, it means that
measurements taken at specific time intervals (such as 1 day or 2 weeks apart) are related. To
determine if autocorrelation exists in the data, a statistical evaluation is required using many
measurements for equally spaced intervals over an extended period of time. Where such data
were available for the final rule, EPA performed a statistical evaluation of autocorrelation and if
necessary provided adjustments to the limitations as explained in DCN 333050. As a result of its
evaluation of autocorrelation, EPA determined that adjustments should be incorporated into the
limitations for total nitrogen, ammonia (as N), BOD^, and TSS for both the Meat and Poultry
subcategories. EPA was only able to evaluate the autocorrelation in some data sets selected as the
basis for the limitations for those pollutants. Where a data set was insufficient for purposes of
evaluating autocorrelation, EPA transferred the values it used in the adjustment ("rho values") as
shown in Attachments 14-3 in Appendix F. These autocorrelation adjustments resulted in higher
limitations for pollutants for which adjustment was performed. Appendix E explains
autocorrelation and the adjustments for these limitations in further detail. DCN 333050 describes
EPA's evaluation of autocorrelation in the episode data sets.
For other episode data sets that contained monthly averages (listed in Part 2 of Appendix
D), EPA calculated the mean of those values using the arithmetic average. In the final rule, EPA
has included these monthly averages in developing the option LTA used as the basis for the
limitation. EPA determined that it was appropriate to include these averages, so the limitations
would be based upon a broader section of the industry.
14-20
-------
Section 14. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
14.8.2 Limitations
For each regulated pollutant, this section explains the selection process and method that
EPA used to calculate each of the promulgated limits.
14.8.2.1 Poultry Subcategory, K
EPA promulgated limitations for ammonia (as N), BOD^ O&G (as HEM), TSS, total
nitrogen, and fecal coliforms for the Poultry Subcategory K. The basis of these limitations is
discussed below.
BOD^ and TSS
To develop the final limitations for BOD^ and TSS for the Poultry Subcategory K, EPA first
determined the median of the BOD^ and TSS effluent mean concentrations of all of the poultry
facilities in its database that utilize Option 2 or Option 2.5 technologies. In order to respond to
comments, EPA eliminated all Option 2 and Option 2.5 facilities with a filter or chemical
phosphorus removal from the analysis. The Option 2 and Option 2.5 technologies are the same
except that Option 2.5 technology also includes partial denitrification. For this calculation, EPA
combined the data from facilities using either option because EPA does not want to interfere with
denitrification (which is required to achieve BAT limits for total nitrogen) and the data indicate
that effluent discharges of BOD5 and TSS are sometimes higher at facilities that employ partial
denitrification. Table 14-3 provides information on the facilities and BOD^ and TSS effluent
mean concentrations used to calculate the median BOD^ and TSS effluent concentrations. Based
on comments that EPA should use all of the data available to it, EPA used its full effluent
database for Option 2 and 2.5 facilities (i.e., including data from facilities that only provided data
reported as summarized monthly averages) to select a model facility for use in developing the
BOD^ and TSS option LTAs for the final rule. This ensures that facilities operating the selected
technology would be able to achieve the limitations of the final rule (including the BAT
limitations for total nitrogen).
14-21
-------
Section 14. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
Table 14-3. Data Used to Determine the Median of BOD^ and TSS Mean Effluent
Concentrations from Treatment with Option 2 or Option 2.5 Technologies'
Facility Number
Treatment Option
Mean
BOD, Effluent
Concentration' mj»/L
Mean
TSS Kffluent Concentration'
mj»/L
11
2.5
N/A
12.8
22
2
N/A
15.65
26
2.5
N/A
13.9
27
2
13.02
N/A
32
2.5
N/A
4.98
39
2
5.30
6.00
42
2
7.82
8.34
45
2.5
1.77
4.17
133
2
7.00
31.50
291
2
3.77
5.57
300
2.5
19.40
22.90
307a
2
7.87
10.1
309
2
Lxceeds Permit Limit
11.1
312
2
3.51
8.94
' For facilities in FPA's BAT database, these values reflect the Final values alter data exclusions.
N A - Not Available
Using the information in Table 14-3, EPA determined that the median BOD^ and TSS effluent
mean concentrations for all poultry facilities in EPA's database employing the Option 2 or
Option 2.5 technologies are 7.0 mg/L and 10.1 mg/L, respectively. However, for purposes of
calculating the option LTA and VFs for use in developing limitations for the final rule, EPA is
limited to using only those episodes with individual data points (i.e. unsummarized daily/weekly
monitoring or EPA's 3-5 day sampling episodes.) For TSS, the facility with its mean closest to
7.0 mg/L (Episode 307a) did provide individual data, so EPA used this data to develop the LTAs
and VFs for the final limitations. For BOD^, the facility with the median of means (Episode 133)
14-22
-------
Section 14. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
did not provide individual data points (only summarized monthly average data), therefore, EPA
selected the facility whose mean was closest to the median value but that also provided
individual data. For BOD5, this facility is again Episode 307a, so EPA used this data to develop
the option LTAs and VFs for the final limitations.
Because LTAs for most episode data sets are calculated from the statistical model, they are not
necessarily the same as arithmetic averages of the data. EPA notes that LTAs for BOD5 and TSS
for facility 307a are just slightly higher than the mean concentrations provided in Table 14-3 (i.e.
the BOD^ option LTA = 7.98 mg/L and the TSS option LTA = 10.2 mg/L.) Using the
methodology described in Appendix E and multiplying the LTA by the VFs for facility 307a, the
BOD^ daily maximum limit is 7.98 mg/L x 3.25 = 26 mg/L and the monthly average limitation is
7.98 mg/L x 1.96 = 16 mg/L. The TSS daily maximum limitation is 10.2 mg/L x 2.94 = 30 mg/L
and the monthly average limitation is 10.2 x 1.87 = 20 mg/L. These limit numbers have all been
rounded up to the nearest integer.
O&G (as HEM)
As explained above for BOD5 and TSS, EPA selected Episode 307a as the model facility for the
BOD^ and TSS parameter limitations in the Poultry Subcategory K. EPA is unable to base the
O&G (as HEM) limitations on data from Episode 307a because EPA's database does not contain
any O&G (as HEM) data for Facility 307a.
Thus, to develop the final limitations for O&G (as HEM), as was done for BOD^ and TSS, for
the Poultry Subcategory K, EPA first determined the median of the O&G (as HEM) effluent LTA
concentrations of all of the poultry facilities in its database that utilize Option 2 or Option 2.5
technologies. In response to comments, EPA eliminated all Option 2 and Option 2.5 facilities
with a filter or chemical phosphorus removal from the analysis. The Option 2 and Option 2.5
technologies are the same except that Option 2.5 also includes partial denitrification. However,
EPA found that no Option 2 facilities had any O&G (as HEM) data, so was left with only Option
2.5 facilities. Since EPA has no basis to conclude that this additional step would have any effect
14-23
-------
Section 14. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
on the O&G (as HEM) effluent concentrations, EPA concluded that it is appropriate to calculate
the O&G (as HEM) limitations for the Poultry Subcategory K from Option 2.5. Table 14-4
provides information on the facilities and O&G (as HEM) effluent discharges used to calculate
the median of the O&G (as HEM) effluent LTA concentrations. Based on comments that EPA
should use all of the data available to it, EPA used its full effluent database for options 2 and 2.5
facilities (i.e., including data from facilities that only provided data reported as summarized
monthly averages) to calculate the O&G (as HEM) LTAs and limitations for the final rule. This
ensures that facilities operating the selected technology would be able to achieve the limitations
of the final rule.
Table 14-4. Data Used to Establish O&G (as HEM)
Limitations in the Poultry Subcategory K1
Kpisorie
Number
LTA, mj»/L
1-I)ay VI
4-I)ay VI
Daily Max
Limit, mj»/L
Monthly
Average Limit,
mu/L
11
5.75
1.93
1.23
26
6.21
2.51
1.37
32
6.13
2.12
1.29
644 X
5.93
h
h
312
c
c
c
Final Limitation
6.03
2.19
1.30
13.2
7.8
' Limits are calculated as product of median LTA and mean VI'.
h LPA is unable to calculate V'l's tor data sets that contain only a single non-censored value.
c Although this facility provided KPA with some summary effluent data, the data included boiler blowdown wastewater and is
therefore not representative of poultry process wastewaters alone.
First, EPA calculated the option LTA for O&G (as HEM) as the median of the episode-
specific LTAs. The median is the midpoint of the values ordered (i.e., ranked) from smallest to
largest. For example, for O&G (as HEM), when the four episode LTAs are ordered, this midpoint
value is 6.03 mg/L.
14-24
-------
Section 14. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
Second, EPA selected the option daily VF. After calculating the episode-specific VFs,
EPA calculated the option daily VF as the mean of the episode-specific daily VFs for that
pollutant in the subcategory and option. Likewise, the option monthly VF was the mean of the
episode-specific monthly VFs for that pollutant in the subcategory and option. In this case, the
option daily VF and the monthly VFs are 2.19 and 1.30, respectively.
Ammonia as N
Similar to the manner in which EPA selected Episode 307a to calculate the BOD^ and
TSS limitations, EPA first determined the median of the ammonia (as N) effluent mean
concentrations of all the poultry facilities in its database that utilize the Option 2.5 technologies.
In order to respond to comments, EPA eliminated all Option 2.5 facilities with a filter or
chemical phosphorus removal. The Option 2 and Option 2.5 technologies are the same except
that Option 2.5 also includes partial denitrification. For this evaluation, EPA used only the data
from facilities using Option 2.5 because EPA does not want to discourage denitrification and the
data indicate that effluent discharges of ammonia (as N) are sometimes higher from facilities that
employ partial denitrification. Table 14-5 provides information on the facilities and ammonia (as
N) effluent discharges used to calculate the median of the ammonia (as N) effluent mean
concentrations. Based on comments that EPA should use all of the data available to it, EPA used
its full effluent database for Option 2.5 facilities (i.e., including data from facilities that only
provided data reported as summarized monthly averages ) to select a model facility for use in
developing the ammonia (as N) option LTA for the final rule. This ensures that facilities
operating the selected technology would be able to achieve the limitations of the final rule
(including the BAT limitations for total nitrogen).
14-25
-------
Section 14. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
Table 14-5. Mean Ammonia (as N) Effluent Concentration Data from Treatment with Option 2
or Option 2.5 Technologies'
Facility Number1'
Treatment Option
Mean
Ammonia (as N) Kffluent
Concent rat ion 'ni«/l.
11
2.5
2.2
22
2
0.36
26
2.5
1.4
27
2
2.2
32
2.5
0.69
39
2
0.60
42
2
0.38
45
2.5
0.17
133
2
2.0
291
2
0.89
300
2.5
2.5
307a
2
0.303
307c
2.5
0.36
309
2
0.66
' For facilities in FPA's model facility database, these values reflect the final values after data exclusions.
h FPA also has data for FPA sampling Fpisode 644X. FPA did not include Fpisode 644X in this table because its ammonia (as
N) effluent concentration is already accounted for by Fpisode 307e. This is because the data for Fpisode 307e encompass the
time period of Sampling Fpisode 644X.
First, EPA calculated the option LTA for ammonia (as N) as the median of the episode-
specific effluent mean concentrations. The median is the midpoint of the values ordered (i.e.,
ranked) from smallest to largest. Using the information in Table 14-5, EPA determined that the
median ammonia (as N) effluent mean concentration for all poultry facilities in EPA's database
employing the Option 2.5 technologies is 1.05 mg/L. However, for purposes of calculating the
option LTA and VFs for use in developing limitations for the final rule, EPA is limited to using
14-26
-------
Section 14. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
only those episodes with individual data points (i.e. unsummarized daily/weekly monitoring or
EPA's 3-5 day sampling episodes.) EPA selected the facility whose LTA was the closest to the
median but that also provided individual data. Table 14-6 presents the episode data that could be
used to develop limitations for the final rule. For ammonia (as N), the episode with an LTA
closest to 1.05 mg/L for ammonia (as N) is Episode 26, so EPA used this episode data set to
develop the LTAs and VFs for the final limitations. The ammonia (as N) daily maximum
limitation is 5.9 mg/L (1.1 mg/L x 5.37) and the monthly average limitation is 2.81 mg/L (1.1
mg/L x 2.55).
Table 14-6. Data Used to Establish the Ammonia (as N) Limitations in the Poultry
Subcategory Ka
Kpisodc Number
Option
LTA, mj»/L
l-l)ay VI
4-Day VI
11
2.5
1.93
7.69
3.08
26
2.5
1.1
5.37
2.55
32
2.5
.69
2.46
1.66
45
2.5
. 153
4.57
2.33
291
2
0.82
7.68
3.08
307a
2.
.303
5.02
2.40
307e
2.5
.36
5.83
2.0
309
2
0.56
7.49
3.16
644 X
2.5
1.28
1.69
1.21
However, EPA received comments about the seasonal variability of ammonia (as N). In
order to address these comments, EPA summarized all of the information for poultry facilities
with ammonia (as N) permit limits in its database. For each facility that had tiered limits based
on the time of the year, EPA compared the highest value to the lowest value. Tables 14-7 shows
this comparison.
14-27
-------
Section 14. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
Table 14-7. Comparison of Winter and Summer Ammonia (as N) Permit Limitations for
Poultry Facilities
Kpisode Number
Ammonia (as N) Daily Maximum
Limit, mj»/L
Ammonia (as N) Monthly Averaj»e
Limit, mj»/L
Winter IIij»h
Summer Low
Winter IIij»h
Summer Low
20
14
X
9
5
26
39
29
26
19
27
30
7.5
20
5
291
4
2.4
2.7
1.6
297
12
X
X
5
307
2.7
1.3
1.7
0.7
3 10
1 1
7.5
5.5
5
314
IS
5
12
3
339
3.9
2.9
1.2
0.9
For each facility and each type of limit, EPA calculated the ratio between the winter high
permit limit and mean of the winter and summer permit limit. EPA found that the average of
these ratios was 1.30 for both the daily maximum permit limits and the monthly average permit
limits.
Therefore, in order to account for seasonal variability, EPA calculated the final ammonia
(as N) limits by multiplying the daily maximum and monthly average limitations determined
previously by the average of the ratio determined above. The ammonia (as N) daily maximum
and monthly average limitations are 8 mg/L (5.9 x 1.3) and 4 mg/L (2.8 x 1.3), respectively.
These limit numbers have all been rounded up to the nearest integer.
Total Nitrogen
EPA conducted a thorough evaluation of all poultry subcategory facilities as possible
BAT facilities to calculate total nitrogen limitations. This evaluation is discussed thoroughly in
14-28
-------
Section 14. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
DCN 300001 and is summarized as follows. First, EPA eliminated all facilities that do not
employ the Option 2.5 technologies. This Option includes partial denitrification. Next, EPA
eliminated all facilities that did not provide total nitrogen effluent data (or both TKN and
nitrate/nitrite) or only provided summary data. EPA eliminated facilities that only provided
summary data because daily variability cannot be determined from summary data. Next, EPA
carefully reviewed the remaining facilities and eliminated some facilities because they were not
operating their technology consistent with the BAT definition of partial denitrification. One
facility was eliminated because it additionally treated tannery wastewater which is not subject to
this rule. As a result of this evaluation, EPA concluded that data from two facilities could be used
to establish the total nitrogen limitations. These Episodes are 307c and 339.
Table 14-8 provides information on the facilities and total nitrogen effluent discharges
used to calculate the total nitrogen limitations.
Table 14-8. Data Used to Establish the Total Nitrogen Limitations in the Poultry Subcategory K '
Kpisodc Number
LTA, mj»/L
l-l)ay VI
4-Day VI
307c
55.5
2.79
1.93
339
35.5
2.35
1.66
First, EPA calculated the option LTA for total nitrogen as the median of the episode-
specific LTAs. The median is the midpoint of the values ordered (i.e., ranked) from smallest to
largest. For total nitrogen, this midpoint value is 45.5 mg/L.
Second, EPA selected the option daily VF. After calculating the episode-specific VFs,
EPA calculated the option daily VF as the mean of the episode-specific daily VFs for that
pollutant in the subcategory and option. Likewise, the option monthly VF was the mean of the
episode-specific monthly VFs for that pollutant in the subcategory and option. In this case, the
option daily VF and the monthly VFs are 2.57 and 1.795 respectively.
14-29
-------
Section 14. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
The total nitrogen daily maximum limit is 117 mg/L (45.5 mg/L x 2.57) and the monthly
average limitation is 82 g/L (45.5 mg/L x 1.79).
However, EPA received comments that both Episode 307c and 339 have excess detention
times in their anoxic basins. Therefore, EPA identified and used an additional factor to ultimately
calculate the final total nitrogen limitations. This factor was related to the consideration of
several variables, including the anoxic basin, BOD/TKN ratio, and influent total nitrogen
variability and increased the effluent total nitrogen limits by 25 percent (DCN 300017).
Therefore, the final total nitrogen limitations for Subcategory K are 147 mg/L and 103 mg/L for
the daily maximum and monthly average limitations, respectively. These numbers have been
rounded up to the nearest integer.
Fecal Coliforms
During EPA sampling episodes, EPA collected and analyzed for fecal coliforms.
However, when EPA conducted this sampling, it exceeded the holding time specified for analysis
for many samples. Subsequent analyses indicated that exceeding holding times could affect the
results. (DCN 165310) Therefore, EPA proposed to establish fecal coliforms limitations for the
Poultry Subcategory K equivalent to the existing limitations/standards for the Meat
Subcategories (i.e., 400 MPN per 100 mL at any time). For the final rule, EPA has concluded this
transfer is appropriate because EPA determined this level is achievable by the poultry facilities.
14.8.2.2 Poultry Further Processing Subcategory, Subcategory L
EPA promulgated limitations for ammonia (as N), BOD^ O&G (as HEM), TSS, total
nitrogen, and fecal coliforms for the Poultry Further Processing Subcategory L. EPA transferred
all of these limitations from the Poultry Subcategory K.
In general, EPA sought to transfer data from first processors to further processors due to
the lack of available effluent data for further processing facilities. With the available data, EPA
14-30
-------
Section 14. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
performed a comparison of influent from the two subcategories. EPA found the wastewater
charateristics to be comparable. Therefore, EPA concludes this transfer is reasonable.
14.8.3 Meat Subcategories
EPA promulgated limitations for ammonia (as N) and total nitrogen for the Meat
Subcategories. Ammonia (as N) and total nitrogen limitations were transferred from the Poultry
Subcategory. Each of these transfers is discussed below.
Total Nitrogen
EPA did not identify any meat facilities that were operating the BAT Option 2.5
technology as defined in the final regulation and that were able to provide total nitrogen (or TKN
and nitrate/nitrite) data for their effluent. Consequently, EPA evaluated the appropriateness of
transferring the poultry total nitrogen limitations to these subcategories. EPA performed a
comparison of the wastewater characteristics and wastewater treatment kinetics of poultry and
meat facilities. EPA found that with the exception of higher influent TKN concentrations at meat
facilities, the wastewaters concentrations are very similar. In order to account for the higher TKN
concentrations, EPA transferred the LTA and VFs from the poultry BAT Option 2.5 facility with
the influent TKN concentration that is most comparable to the average meat facility influent
TKN concentration (i.e., Episode 307, 2002-2003 data only). Data for this facility has been
provided above in Table 14-8.
In addition, for the same reasons explained in the discussion for the total nitrogen
limitation in the Poultry Processing subcategory, EPA identified and used an additional factor to
ultimately calculate the final total nitrogen limitations for the Meat Subcategories. This factor
was related to the consideration of several variables, including the anoxic basin, BOD/TKN
ratio, and influent total nitrogen variability and increased the effluent total nitrogen limits by 25
percent (DCN300017). The resulting limitations are 194 mg/L and 134 mg/L for the daily
maximum and monthly average limitations, respectively.
14-31
-------
Section 14. Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
Ammonia as N
As explained above, EPA performed a comparison of the wastewater characteristics and
wastewater treatment kinetics of poultry and meat facilities. EPA found that with the exception
of higher influent TKN concentrations at meat facilities, the wastewaters concentrations are very
similar. In addition, EPA found that due to the nature of the design of biological treatment
systems, the wastewaters were similar in treatability. Since the general wastewater characteristics
of meat facilities are similar to poultry facilities, and the biological processes used to treat the
wastewater are the same, EPA concludes that transferring ammonia (as N) limitations from the
Poultry Subcategories to the Meat Subcategories is appropriate.
14.9 Summary of Final Limitations
Table 14-9 presents a summary of the limitations for the MPP industry.
Table 14-9. Final Limitations for the MPP Industry.
Subcategory
Pollutant
Daily Maximum
Limitation, mj»/L
Monthly Average
Limitation, mj»/L
Poultry Subcategories K. and I.
Ammonia (as N)
8.0
4.0
BOI),
26
16
TSS
30
20
()&(i (as IIHM)
14
8
Total Nitrogen
147
103
Meat Subcategories
Ammonia (as N)
8.0
4.0
Total Nitrogen
194
134
14-32
-------
Section 15
Regulatory Implementation
This section provides guidance to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit writers and the regulated community for implementing 40 CFR Part 432
effluent limitations guidelines (ELGs) and standards for meat and poultry processing (MPP)
facilities. The section is organized as follows:
Section 15.1 describes the applicability of the revised Part 432 ELGs and standards.
• Section 15.2 summarizes compliance dates.
• Section 15.3 presents guidance on calculating NPDES permit effluent limitations.
• Section 15.4 summarizes compliance monitoring requirements.
Section 15.5 discusses variances and modifications.
15.1 APPLICABILITY OF THE REYISED PART 432 EFFLUENT
LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS
The MPP ELGs and standards regulate direct discharges of process wastewaters into
waters of the United States (e.g., streams, lakes, oceans) that are authorized by an NPDES
permit. MPP facilities that discharge their process wastewaters to a publicly owned treatment
works (POTW) are not regulated by this final rule. The revised 40 CFR Part 432 applies to all
existing and new meat and poultry first processing (slaughtering) and further processing facilities
and independent rendering facilities. Facilities above certain production thresholds (Table 15-1)
that are involved in any of the following activities are subject to the revised or new limitations in
this rule:
15-1
-------
Section 15. liegulutoiy Implementation
Table 15-1. Summary of 40 CFR 432 Production Thresholds for Regulated Subcategories
Regulatory Subcategory
Production Threshold
Non-Small
Small
A - Simple Slaughterhouse
>50 million lb/yr
<50 million lb/yr
B - Complex Slaughterhouse
>50 million lb/yr
<50 million lb/yr
(' - I.ow-Processing Packinghouse
>50 million lb/yr
<50 million lb/yr
I) - High-Processing Packinghouse
>50 million lb/yr
<50 million lb/yr
H - Small Processor
-
<1,560,000 lb/yr
I-" - Meat Cutter
>50 million lb/yr
> 1,560,000 lb/yr
but
<50 million lb/yr
(i - Sausage and Luncheon Meats Processor
>50 million lb/yr
> 1,560,000 lb/yr
but
<50 million lb/yr
11-1 lam Processor
>50 million lb/yr
>1,560,000 lb/yr
but
<50 million lb/yr
1 - Canned Meats
>50 million lb/yr
> 1,560,000 lb/yr
but
<50 million lb/yr
.1 - Renderer
>10 million lb/yr
K. - Poultry First processing
>100 million lb/yr
<100 million lb/yr
1. - Poultry Further Processing
>7 million lb/yr
<1 million lb/yr
• First Processing. A first processor is a facility that slaughters live animals and
produces whole or cut-up carcasses. First processing operations can include the
assembly and holding of animals for slaughter; killing, bleeding; removal of hide, hair
or feathers; evisceration and variety meat (organ) harvest; carcass washing; trimming;
carcass chilling and refrigeration; and cleanup. A facility is still a first processor if it
performs operations in addition to slaughtering, such as further processing or
rendering. First processors include facilities classified as simple slaughterhouses (40
CFR Part 432, Subpart A), complex slaughterhouses (Subpart B), low-processing
15-2
-------
Sec Hon 15. Reguluton Implementation
packinghouses (Subpart C), and high-processing packinghouses (Subpart D), in
addition to the newly created Subpart K for poultry first processors.
• Further Processing. A further processor are operations which utilize whole carcasses
or cut-up meat or poultry products for the production of fresh or frozen products, and
may include the following types of processing: cutting and deboning, cooking,
seasoning, smoking, canning, grinding, chopping, dicing, forming, breading,
breaking, trimming, skinning, tenderizing, marinating, curing, pickling, extruding,
and/or linking. A facility is still a further processor if it performs operations in
addition to further processing, such as rendering (but not slaughtering). Further
processors include facilities classified as small processors (40 CFR Part 432, Subpart
E), meat cutters (Subpart F), sausage and luncheon meats processors (Subpart G),
ham processors (Subpart H), and canned meats processors (Subpart I), in addition to
the newly created Subpart L for poultry further processors.
Rendering. A renderer processes slaughtering by-products (e.g., animal fat, bone,
blood, hair, feathers, dead animals) into usable products. An independent renderer is
subject to 40 CFR Part 432, Subpart J, and is a facility that performs only rendering
operations at a production rate greater than 10 million pounds per year and does not
do any first or further processing.
Facilities in the meat subcategories (A through I) whose production falls below the specified
production thresholds (see Table 15-1) remain subject to Part 432, as specified; that is, EPA is
not revising the current limits in Part 432 for those facilities.
15.2 COMPLIANCE DATES
New and reissued NPDES permits to direct dischargers must include these effluent
limitations, and the permits must require immediate compliance with such limitations. If the
permitting authority wishes to provide a compliance schedule, it must do so through an
enforcement mechanism.
15-3
-------
Section 15. Regululoiy Implementation
New sources must comply with the new source standards (NSPS) of this rule when they
commence discharging MPP process wastewater. Because the final rule was not promulgated
within 120 days of the proposed rule, the Agency considers a discharger to be a new source if its
construction commences more than 30 days after publications of the final rule in the Federal
Register.
There are meat product facilities that were new sources subject to the earlier NSPS
provisions because they commenced construction after promulgation of the earlier NSPS. The
CWA provides for a protection period for such facilities from any more stringent standards. The
protection period is generally 10 years from the completion of construction. See section 306(d) of
the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1316(d) and 40C.F.R. 122.29(d). Thus, any source that commenced
construction after promulgation of the earlier NSPS and before promulgation of today's NSPS
will not be subject to any more stringent BAT limitations in today's rule until the protection
period identified in 40 C.F.R. 122.29(d) expires.
15.3 CALCULATION OF NPDES PERMIT LIMITATIONS
The existing ELGs and standards that are being retained for Best Practical Control
Technology currently available (BPT), Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT),
Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT), and NSPS are production-based
limitations in pounds (of pollutant) per 1,000 pounds (of production unit). The new ELGs and
standards being established for BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS are concentration-based limitations
in milligrams per liter (mg/L). The NPDES regulations (at 40 CFR 122.45(f)) require permit
writers to include in permits mass-based limitations for direct dischargers, but they allow an
exception when the limits are expressed in terms of other units of measurement (e.g.,
concentration). This section provides guidance on how the 40 CFR Part 432 effluent guidelines
are to be included in NPDES permits.
The effluent limitations included in 40 CFR Part 432 are provided as maximum daily
discharge limitations and maximum monthly average discharge limitations. Definitions provided
at 40 CFR 122.2 state that the "maximum daily discharge limitation" is the "highest allowable
'daily discharge'" and the "maximum average for monthly discharge limitation" is the "highest
15-4
-------
Sec Hon 15. Reguluton Implementation
allowable average of 'daily discharges' over a calendar month, calculated as the sum of all 'daily
discharges' measured during a calendar month divided by the number of 'daily discharges'
measured during that month." "Daily discharge" is defined as the "'discharge of a pollutant'
measured during a calendar day or any 24-hour period that reasonably represents the calendar day
for purposes of sampling."
15.3.1 Meat and Independent Renderer Facilities
New and existing MPP facilities that are regulated under the meat and independent
renderer subcategories will be subject to a combination of production- and concentration-based
effluent limitations. The existing ELGs for Subcategories A through J that are being retained will
remain as production-based limitations expressed in pounds (of pollutant) per 1,000 pounds (of
production unit). In addition, the new 40 CFR Part 432 ELGs and standards established for
several parameters are concentration-based limitations. A summary of the pollutants regulated
under the meat and independent renderer subcategories and the basis by which they should be
applied are provided in Table 15-2. In developing NPDES permit limitations for MPP facilities
subject to both production- and concentration-based effluent limitations and standards, a permit
writer must include both limitations.
Production units for existing effluent limitations and standards include live weight killed,
equivalent live weight killed, finished product, and raw material. To convert the effluent
limitations and standards expressed as pounds per 1,000 pounds of product to a monthly average
or daily maximum permit limit, the permitting authority would use a production rate with units of
1,000 pounds per day. The NPDES permit regulations at 40 CFR 122.45(b)(2) require that
NPDES permit limits be based on a "... reasonable measure of actual production." The
production rates used for NPDES permitting for the MPP industry have commonly been the
annual average production from the prior 5-year period, prorated to a daily basis.
15-5
-------
Section 15. Regululoiy Implementation
Table 15-2. Summary of Basis for Pollutants Regulated under the Meat and Independent
Renderer Subcategories
Applicable
Subcatej»ory(ies)
Size
Facility
Type
Pollutants Re«ulated
Under Kxistin« 40 (TR
Part 432 Production-
Based Kffluent
(Guidelines"
Additional Pollutants
Regulated Under New
40 CFR Part 432
Concentration-Based
Kffluent (Guidelines''
A D
Non-small
(>50 million
lb/yr)
Hxisting
BOD5, TSS, oil and grease,
fecal coliforms, pi 1
Ammonia (as N), total
nitrogen
New
BOD5, TSS, oil and grease,
fecal coliforms, pi 1,
ammonia (as N)
Total nitrogen
Small
( 50 million
lb/yr)
Hxisting
BOD5, TSS, oil and grease,
fecal coliforms, pi 1
-
New
BOD5, TSS, oil and grease,
fecal coliforms, pi 1,
ammonia (as N)
-
H
Small
( 1,560,000
lb/yr)
Hxisting/New
BOIX, TSS, oil and grease,
fecal coliforms, pi 1
-
F I
Non-small
(>50 million
lb/yr)
Hxisting
BOD5, TSS, oil and grease,
fecal coliforms, pi 1,
ammonia (as N)
Total nitrogen
New
BOD5, TSS, oil and grease,
fecal coliforms, pi 1
Ammonia (as N), total
nitrogen
Small
(>1,560,000 but
50 million
lb/yr)
Hxisting
BOD5, TSS, oil and grease,
fecal coliforms, pi 1,
ammonia (as N)
-
New
BOD5, TSS, oil and grease,
fecal coliforms, pi 1
-
.1
(>10 million
lb/yr)
Hxisting
BOD5, TSS, oil and grease,
fecal coliforms, pi 1,
ammonia (as N)
Total nitrogen
New
BOD5, TSS, oil and grease,
fecal coliforms, pi 1,
ammonia (as N)
Total nitrogen
Note: BOD, 5-day biochemical oxygen demand; TSS total suspended solids; N nitrogen.
¦' Hflluent limitations for fecal coliform bacteria and pi 1 are not production-based. Furthermore, additional
allocations are provided for BOD, and TSS for hide and by-product processing.
b Hflluent limitations for all pollutants are concentration-based.
The objective in determining a production estimate for a facility is to develop a measure
of production that can reasonably be expected to prevail during the next term of the permit. This
measure is used in combination with the production-based limitations to establish a maximum
15-6
-------
Sec Hon 15. Reguluton Implementation
mass of pollutant that may be discharged each day and month. If the permit production rate is
based on the maximum month, however, permit could allow excessive discharges of pollutants
during significant portions of the life of the permit. These excessive allowances might discourage
facilities from ensuring optimal waste management, water conservation, and wastewater
treatment practices during lower production periods. On the other hand, if the average permit
production rate is based on an average derived from the lowest year of production over the past 5
years, facilities might have trouble ensuring that their waste management, water conservation,
and wastewater treatment practices can accommodate shorter periods of higher production.
Facilities might need to target a more stringent treatment level than that on which the limits were
based during periods of high production. To accomplish this, facilities would likely have to
develop more efficient treatment systems and better water conservation and waste management
practices for use during these periods.
The new ELGs and standards being established for BPT, BAT, and NSPS for ammonia
and total nitrogen are concentration-based limitations. The permit writer, however, has the option
to also include mass-based limitations in pounds (of pollutant) per day. Mass-based effluent
limitations may be included in permits to ensure that dilution of process wastewaters will not be
used as a substitute for treatment. Therefore, the permit writer would need to determine whether
the potential exists for dilution of process wastewaters in the facility to be permitted.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS),
issued a landmark rule in 1996, the Pathogen Reduction: Hazard Analysis and Critical Control
Point (HACCP) Systems. The HAACP program is designed to ensure the safety of food products
in the United States by reducing the occurrence and numbers of pathogenic microorganisms on
meat and poultry products and thereby reducing the incidence of foodborne illness associated
with consuming those products. The HACCP rule specifically requires MPP facilities (excluding
renderers) to develop and implement a system of preventive controls to improve the safety of
their products. The HACCP rule also mandates all MPP facilities to develop and implement
written standard operating procedures for sanitation. To comply with the HACCP requirements,
water is commonly used at MPP facilities to flush loose meat, blood, soluble protein, and
inorganic particles from processing areas. As a result, MPP plants can use large quantities of
15-7
-------
Section 15. Regululoiy Implementation
water during various processing and cleaning operations. Information collected by EPA as part of
the MPP rule development effort indicates that water conservation is still practiced at MPP plants
in light of the HAACP requirements. For example, within the USDA guidelines, water used in
some MPP operations may be reclaimed and reused. Also, using dry cleaning to clean process
area floors reduces the amount of water used. Section 6 provides additional information on
reported water use levels for meat and poultry processing operations and rendering. EPA believes
this information will be useful to permit writers and control authorities in those instances where
they deem it appropriate to set mass-based limitations.
In making the decision whether to include mass-based limitations in NPDES permits, a
permit writer needs to evaluate whether appropriate water conservation practices are being used
at the MPP plant. If dilution of wastewater is a concern at a particular MPP plant, the permit
writer should derive them mass-based limitations and include them in the permit. Mass-based
effluent limitations are derived by multiplying the concentration-based effluent limitations from
the final rule by an appropriate wastewater flow rate for the facility's MPP operations (expressed
in gallons per day). The permit writer must use a reasonable estimate of process wastewater
flows and the concentration limitations to develop mass-based limitations for the NPDES permit.
Process wastewater discharge is defined in the regulation (40 CFR Part 432) to include
wastewaters resulting from production of meat and poultry products that come into direct contact
with raw materials, further-processed products, or final products, and surface runoff from the
immediate process area that has the potential to become contaminated. The MPP effluent
guidelines do not apply to nonprocess wastewater. Nonprocess wastewater means sanitary
wastewater, noncontact cooling water, water from laundering, and noncontact storm water.
Nonprocess wastewater also includes wastewater discharges from nonindustrial sources, such as
residential housing, schools, churches, recreational parks, and shopping centers, as well as
wastewater discharges from gas stations, utility plants, and hospitals. EPA considers storm water
that is commingled with MPP operations process wastewater prior to treatment or discharge
(contact storm water) subject to the MPP effluent guidelines. In cases where the process
wastewater flow claimed by industry might be excessive, the permit writer may develop a more
appropriate process wastewater flow for use in computing the mass-based effluent limitations.
15-8
-------
Sec Hon 15. Reguluton Implementation
15.3.2 Poultry Facilities
New and existing MPP facilities that are regulated under the poultry processing
subcategories will be subject to concentration-based effluent limitations. The new 40 CFR Part
432 ELGs and standards established for several parameters are concentration-based limitations
(in milligrams per liter). A summary of the pollutants regulated under the poultry processing
subcategories is provided in Table 15-3.
Table 15-3. Summary Basis for Pollutants Regulated under the Meat and Independent Renderer
Subcategories
Applicable
Subcategory) ies)
Size
Facility Type
Pollutants Regulated Under
New 40 (TR Part 432
Concentration-Based Hffluent
Guidelines
K.
Non-small
(>100 million lb vr)
Existing and new
B()I)5, TSS, oil and grease (as
I1HM), fecal colilbrms, pi 1,
ammonia (as N), total
nitrogen
Small
( 100 million lb vr)
Existing
-
New
B()I)5, TSS, oil and grease (as
I1HM), fecal colilbrms, pi 1,
ammonia (as N)
I.
Non-Small
(>7 million lb/yr)
Existing and new
BOI)5, TSS, oil and grease (as
IIHM), fecal colilbrms, pi I,
ammonia (as nitrogen) total
nitrogen
Small
( 7 million lbs/yr)
Existing
-
New
B()I)5, TSS, oil and grease (as
IIHM), fecal colilbrms, pi I,
ammonia (as N)
Note: IIHM hexane-extractable material.
The ELGs and standards being established for BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS are
concentration-based limitations. The permit writer, however, has the option to include mass-
based limitations in pounds (of pollutant) per day as well. As described in Section 15.3.2, there
are several considerations for a permit writer in deciding whether to include, as well as in
calculating, mass-based limitations for MPP facilities.
15-9
-------
Section 15. Regululoiy Implementation
15.3.3 Mixed Meat and Poultry Production Facilities
A limited number of MPP facilities process both meat and poultry products at the same
site. In these instances, a permit writer will need to apply all applicable effluent guidelines for
each subcategory applicable to the particular operations at the MPP facility. Permit writers
should use the "building block approach," whereby the allowable pollutant loads from individual
regulated waste streams are combined to derive a single limitation applicable to the combined
wastewaters.
For example, if an existing facility discharges wastewater from meat slaughtering
operations commingled with wastewater discharges from poultry further processing operations,
the permit writer must base the effluent limitations in the permit on the limitations for Subparts
A through D as well as Subpart L. It should be noted that the ELGs for certain conventional
pollutants (BOD, TSS, and oil and grease) are based on production in Subparts A through I.
However, in Subparts K and L (for poultry plants) the ELGs for these same conventional
pollutants are concentration-based. In this instance, the permit writer would need to convert the
concentration-based limitations in subparts K and L to mass-based limits to allow for
combination with the applicable production-based limitations (in pounds per day). Section 15.3.2
describes several considerations for a permit writer when calculating mass-based limitations at
MPP facilities.
Under certain circumstances, a mixed MPP facility will be subject to two different
concentration-based limitations. For example, the final rule includes different concentration-
based effluent limitations for total nitrogen for those subparts applicable to meat processing (A
through D and F through I) and those subparts applicable to poultry processing (K and L).
Because a permit writer is required to apply all applicable effluent guidelines, and in most
instances all process flows are combined before treatment, the permit writer should establish a
flow-weighted concentration that would serve as the effluent limitation. Before selecting
appropriate process flow values for use in flow-weighting the different concentration-based
limitations, the permit writer should consider the factors discussed in Section 15.3.2 above.
Alternatively, permit writers may also combine concentration-based effluent limitations by
15-10
-------
Sec lion 15. Regulatory Implementation
converting each to a mass limitation using the appropriate waste water flow from each applicable
waste stream and then combining the mass values. As noted previously, Section 15.3.2 describes
several considerations for a permit writer when calculating mass-based limitations at MPP
facilities.
15.3.4 Facilities Covered by Additional Guidelines or Technology-Based Effluent
Limitations Established on a Case-By-Case Basis
When a facility is also covered by other existing effluent guidelines (e.g., leather tanning),
the facility will need to comply with both regulations. In those cases, the permit writer will
combine the limitations using an approach that proportions the limitations based on the different
production levels (for production-based standards) or wastewater flows (for concentration-based
standards). NPDES permit writers refer to this approach as the "building block approach."
There might also be instances when other existing effluent guidelines regulate a set of
pollutants different from those in the MPP final rule. As described in the EPA NPDES Permit
Writers ' Manual (USEPA, (EPA-833-B-96-003; USEPA, 1996), if all regulated process
wastewaters are combined, there are two approaches for properly applying the effluent
guidelines:
• If one waste stream containing a pollutant that is not covered by an effluent guideline
is combined with another waste stream that has applicable effluent guidelines for the
same pollutant, then the permit writers must use best professional judgment (BPJ) to
establish a technology-based effluent limit for the nonregulated wastewater.
• If one waste stream that does not contain a pollutant is combined with another waste
stream that has applicable effluent guidelines for the pollutant, the permit writer must
ensure that the nonregulated waste stream does not dilute the regulated waste stream
to the point where the pollutant is not analytically detectable. If this circumstance
occurs, the permit writer will most likely need to establish internal outfalls, as
allowed under 40 CFR 122.45(h).
15-11
-------
Section 15. Regulatory Implementation
The NPDES permit regulations at 40 CFR 125.3 require the establishment of technology-
based limits derived on a case-by-case basis using BPJ for nonmunicipal (industrial) facilities.
BPJ limits may be particularly established by permit writers for MPP facilities in cases where the
effluent limitations in the final rule are not available for, or do not regulate, a particular pollutant
of concern or a particular waste stream (e.g., nonprocess waste waters). Like the approach
described above for applying effluent limitations from different effluent guidelines, permit
writers will need to combine as appropriate any BPJ-based effluent limitations. If the limitations
are based on production or mass, the final NPDES permit limitations will be the sum of the mass
effluent limitations derived in Sections 15.3.1 and 15.3.2 and any mass effluent limitations
developed on a case-by-case basis using BPJ by the permit writer to take into account nonprocess
wastewater discharge. If applicable effluent limitations are based on concentration, the permit
writer should flow-weight the applicable effluent concentrations.
15.3.5 Facilities With Highly Variable or Seasonal Production
Certain MPP facilities might expect production to change significantly during the permit
term. In those cases where highly variable production is expected, a permit writer can include
alternative or tiered limits. According to the EPA NPDES Permit Writer's Manual (EPA-833-B-
96-003; USEPA, 1996), up to a 20 percent fluctuation in production is considered normal. To
address instances where the production at an MPP facility is expected to be highly variable, a
permit writer can establish tiered limits. Tiered limits are simply a set of limits that vary based on
the production at the facility. In establishing tiered limits, permit writers should ensure that the
permit clearly identifies how the tiered limits are to be applied (e.g., how to calculate and report
production).
For facilities with large seasonal variations in production, permit writers might want to
consider the use of seasonal limitations (one set of limits based on spring/summer production
rates and another set of limits based on fall/winter production rates).
15-12
-------
Sec Hon 15. Reguluton Implementation
15.4 OTHER NPDES PERMIT CONDITIONS
In accordance with the requirements contained in 40 CFR Parts 122 and 125, a number of
other NPDES permit conditions are applicable to direct discharging MPP facilities. This section
highlights several conditions with particular relevance to such MPP facilities.
15.4.1 Upset and Bypass Provisions
A "bypass" is an intentional diversion of the streams from any portion of a treatment
facility. An "upset" is an exceptional incident in which unintentional and temporary
noncompliance with technology-based permit effluent limitations occurs because of factors
beyond the reasonable control of the permittee. EPA's regulations concerning bypasses and
upsets for direct dischargers are set forth at 40 CFR 122.41(m) and (n).
15.4.2 Best Management Practices
Sections 304(e), 308(a), 402(a), and 501(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) authorize the
EPA Administrator to prescribe BMPs as part of ELGs and standards, or as part of a permit.
Section 304(e) of the CWA authorizes EPA to include BMPs in ELGs for certain toxic or
hazardous pollutants for the purpose of controlling "plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or
waste disposal, and drainage from raw material storage." CWA Section 402(a)(1) and the
NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(k) also provide for BMPs to control or abate the discharge
of pollutants when numeric limitations and standards are infeasible. In addition, section
402(a)(2), read in concert with section 501(a), authorizes EPA to prescribe as wide a range of
permit conditions as the Administrator deems appropriate to ensure compliance with applicable
effluent limitations and standards and such other requirements.
Dikes, curbs, and other control measures are being used at some MPP facilities to contain
leaks and spills as part of "good housekeeping" practices. On a facility-by-facility basis,
however, a permit writer may choose to incorporate BMPs into the permit. Section 8.8 provides a
detailed discussion of pollution prevention practices and BMPs used in the MPP industry.
15-13
-------
Section 15. Regululoiy Implementation
15.4.3 Compliance Monitoring
NPDES permit writers must establish requirements for regulated MPP facilities to
monitor their effluent to ensure that they are complying with effluent limitations. As specified at
40 CFR 122.41, 122.44, and 122.48, all NPDES permits must specify requirements for using,
maintaining, and installing (if appropriate) monitoring equipment; monitoring type, intervals, and
frequencies that will provide representative data; analytical methods; and reporting and
recordkeeping. The NPDES program requires permittees (with certain specific exceptions) to
monitor for limited pollutants and report data at least once a year.
EPA has not promulgated specific monitoring requirements or monitoring frequencies in
the MPP final rule; therefore, NPDES permit writers may establish monitoring requirements and
monitoring frequencies at their discretion. The Agency notes, however, that in developing the
Part 432 limitations, it considered a weekly sampling frequency. EPA expects that facilities
properly operating and maintaining the option technology will be able to comply with the
monthly average limitation/standard when they sample at the assumed weekly monitoring
frequency, although compliance is required regardless of the number of samples analyzed and
averaged in a month. EPA does not, however, condone the practice of allowing the number of
monitoring samples to vary arbitrarily merely to allow a facility to achieve a desired average
concentration, (a value below the limit). It is expected that enforcement authorities would prefer,
or even require, monitoring samples at some regular, predetermined frequency. If a facility has
difficulty complying with the standards on an ongoing basis, the facility should improve its
equipment, operations, and/or maintenance.
In addition, Part 136 requires facilities to collect grab samples for oil and grease. In
developing the Part 432 oil and grease limitations, EPA generally collected six grab samples in a
24-hour monitoring day. The sample types for pH can range from a one-time grab sample during
a monitoring day to continuous sampling throughout a monitoring day where pH is a critical
aspect of the wastewater treated or the wastewater treatment operation.
In May 2000 EPA promulgated a regulation streamlining the NPDES regulations
(Amendments to Streamline the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program
15-14
-------
Sec Hon 15. Reguluton Implementation
Regulations: Round Two (65 FR 30886; May 15, 2000)), which includes a monitoring waiver for
direct dischargers subject to effluent guidelines. A direct discharging facility may choose not to
sample a guideline-limited pollutant if that discharger "has demonstrated through sampling and
other technical factors that the pollutant is not present in the discharge or is present only at
background levels from intake water and without any increase in the pollutant due to activities of
the discharger" (65 FR 30908; 40 CFR 122.44). EPA noted in the preamble to the final NPDES
streamlining rule that the Agency is granting a waiver from monitoring requirements but not a
waiver from the limit. In addition, the revision does not waive monitoring for any pollutants for
which there are limits based on water quality standards. The waiver for direct dischargers lasts
for the term of the reissued NPDES permit and is not available during the term of the first permit
issued to a discharger. Any request for this waiver must be submitted with the application for a
reissued permit or request for modification of a reissued permit. With the permit writer's
authorization, any direct discharging facility covered by the MPP ELGs and standards may use
the monitoring waiver contained in the NPDES streamlining final rule.
15.5 VARIANCES AND MODIFICATIONS
The CWA requires application of effluent limitations established pursuant to section 301
or the pretreatment standards of section 307 to all direct and indirect dischargers. However, the
statute provides for the modification of these national requirements in a limited number of
circumstances. Moreover, the Agency has established administrative mechanisms to provide an
opportunity for relief from the application of the national ELGs and pretreatment standards for
categories of existing sources for toxic, conventional, and nonconventional pollutants.
15.5.1 Fundamentally Different Factors Variances
EPA will develop effluent limitations or standards different from the otherwise applicable
requirements if an individual discharging facility is fundamentally different with respect to the
factors considered in establishing the limitations or standards applicable to the individual facility.
Such a modification is known as a "fundamentally different factors" (FDF) variance.
15-15
-------
Section 15. Regulatory Implementation
EPA provides for FDF variances from the BPT effluent limitations, BAT limitations for
toxic and nonconventional pollutants, and BCT limitations for conventional pollutants for direct
dischargers. FDF variances for toxic pollutants were challenged judicially and ultimately
sustained by the Supreme Court (see Chemical Manufacturers A.s.sn v. NRDC, 479 U.S. 116
(1985)).
Subsequently, in the Water Quality Act of 1987, Congress added section 301(n) to the
CWA to authorize modifications of the otherwise applicable BAT effluent limitations or
categorical pretreatment standards for existing sources if a facility is fundamentally different with
respect to the factors specified in section 304 (other than costs) from the facilities EPA
considered in establishing the effluent limitations or pretreatment standard. Section 301(n) also
defined the conditions under which EPA may establish alternative requirements. Under Section
301(n), an application for approval of an FDF variance must be based solely on either
information submitted during rulemaking raising the factors that are fundamentally different or
information the applicant did not have an opportunity to submit. The alternative limitation or
standard must be no less stringent than justified by the difference and must not result in markedly
more adverse non-water quality environmental impacts than does the national limitation or
standard.
The EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 125, Subpart D, authorizing the Regional
Administrators to establish alternative limitations and standards, further detail the substantive
criteria used to evaluate FDF variance requests for direct dischargers. Thus, 40 CFR 125.31(d)
identifies six factors (e.g., volume of process wastewater, age and size of a discharger's facility)
that may be considered in determining whether a facility is fundamentally different. The Agency
must determine whether, on the basis of one or more of these factors, the facility in question is
fundamentally different from the facilities and factors EPA considered in developing the
nationally applicable effluent guidelines. The regulation also lists four other factors (e.g., the
infeasibility of installation within the time allowed, a discharger's ability to pay) that may not
provide a basis for an FDF variance. In addition, under 40 CFR 125.31(b)(3), a request for
limitations less stringent than the national limitation may be approved only if compliance with
the national limitations would result in either a removal cost wholly out of proportion to the
15-16
-------
Sec Hon 15. Reguluton Implementation
removal cost considered during development of the national limitations, or a non-water quality
environmental impact (including energy requirements) fundamentally more adverse than the
impact considered during development of the national limits.
The legislative history of section 301(n) underscores the necessity for the FDF variance
applicant to establish eligibility for the variance. EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 125.32(b)( 1) are
explicit in imposing this burden on the applicant. The applicant must show that the factors
relating to the discharge controlled by the applicant's permit which are claimed to be
fundamentally different are, in fact, fundamentally different from those factors EPA considered
in establishing the applicable guidelines. An FDF variance is not available to a new source
subject to NSPS.
15.5.2 Economic Variances
Section 301(c) of the CWA authorizes a variance from the otherwise applicable BAT
effluent guidelines for nonconventional pollutants due to economic factors. Normally, the
discharger must file the request for a variance from effluent limitations developed from BAT
guidelines during the public notice period for the draft permit. Other filing time periods might
apply, as specified at 40 CFR 122.21 (1 )(2). Specific guidance for this type of variance is
available from EPA's Office of Wastewater Management.
15.5.3 Water Quality Variances
Section 301(g) of the CWA authorizes a variance from BAT effluent guidelines for
certain nonconventional pollutants due to localized environmental factors. These pollutants are
ammonia, chlorine, color, iron, and total phenols.
15-17
-------
Section 16
Glossary, Acronyms, and Abbreviations
A
AAIMP - The American Association of Meat Processors
Administrator - The Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Alternate discharge - See Zero discharge
AMI - American Meat Institute
AMSA - Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies
Average monthly discharge limitation - The highest allowable average of "daily discharges"
over a calendar month, calculated as the sum of all "daily discharges" measured during the
calendar month divided by the number of "daily discharges" measured during the month.
B
BAT - The best available technology economically achievable, applicable to effluent limitations
for industrial discharges to surface waters, as defined by Section 304(b)(2)(B) of the CWA.
BCT - The best control technology for conventional pollutants, applicable to discharges of
conventional pollutants from existing industrial point sources, as defined by Section 304(b)(4) of
the CWA.
Blood processing - The blood may be heated to coagulate the albumin; then, the albumin and
fibrin are separated (e.g., with a screen or centrifuge) from the blood water and forwarded for
further processing. The blood water or serum remaining after coagulation may be evaporated for
animal feed, or it may be sewered.
16-1
-------
Section 16. (Hossair, Acronyms, unci Abbreviations
BOD5 - Biochemical oxygen demand measured over a 5 day period.
BPJ - Best professional judgment
BPT - The best practicable control technology currently available, applicable to effluent
limitations, for industrial discharges to surface waters, as defined by Section 304(b)(1) of the
CWA.
C
Canned meat processor (Definition for 40 CFR 432, Subpart I) - An operation that prepares and
cans meats (such as stew, sandwich spreads, or similar products) alone or in combination with
other finished products at rates greater than 2730 kg (6000 lb) per day.
CFR - Code of Federal Regulations
Clean water act (CWA) - The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (33
U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq.), as amended.
Complex slaughterhouse (Definition for 40 CFR 432, Subpart B) - A slaughterhouse that
accomplishes extensive by-product processing, usually at least three of such operations as
rendering, paunch and viscera handling, blood processing, hide processing, or hair processing
Conventional pollutants - Constituents of wastewater as determined by Section 304(a)(4) of the
CWA (and EPA regulations), i.e., pollutants classified as biochemical oxygen demand, total
suspended solids, oil and grease, fecal coliform, and pH.
D
Daily discharge - The discharge of a pollutant measured during any calendar day or any 24-hour
period that reasonably represents a calendar day.
Deep-well injection - Long-term or permanent disposal of untreated, partially treated, or treated
wastewaters by pumping the wastewater into underground formations of suitable character
through a bored, drilled, or driven well.
16-2
-------
Section 16. (Hossair, Acronyms, unci Abbreviations
Direct discharger - A facility that discharges or may discharge treated or untreated wastewaters
into waters of the United States.
DMR - Discharge monitoring report
Dry rendering - The process of cooking animal byproducts by dry heat in open steam-jacketed
tanks.
Effluent limitation guideline (ELGs) - Under CWA section 502( 11), any restriction, including
schedules of compliance, established by a State or the Administrator on quantities, rates, and
concentrations of chemical, physical, biological, and other constituents which are discharged
from point sources into navigable waters, the waters of the contiguous zone, or the ocean (CWA
Sections 301(b) and 304(b)).
ELWK - Equivalent live weight killed
Existing source - For this rule, any facility from which there is or may be a discharge of
pollutants, the construction of which is commenced before the publication of the final regulations
prescribing a standard of performance under Section 306 of the CWA.
Facility- All contiguous property and equipment owned, operated, leased, or under the control of
the same person or entity.
FDF - Fundamentally different factor
Finished product - The final manufactured product produced on site, including products
intended for consumption with no additional processing as well as products intended for further
processing, when applicable.
First processing - Operations which receive live meat animals or poultry and produce a raw,
dressed meat or poultry product, either whole or in parts.
16-3
-------
Sec Hon 16. (Hossair, Acronyms, and Abbreviations
FSIS - Food Safety and Inspection Service
FTE - Full time equivalent employee
Further processing - Operations which use whole carcasses or cut-up meat or poultry products
for the production of fresh or frozen products, and may include the following types of processing:
cutting and deboning, cooking, seasoning, smoking, canning, grinding, chopping, dicing,
forming, or breading.
G
Ground water - Water in a saturated zone or stratum beneath the surface of land or water
H
Ham processor (Definition for 40 CFR 432, Subpart H) - An operation that manufactures hams
alone or in combination with other finished products at rates greater than 2730 kg (6000 lb) per
day.
Hazardous waste - Any waste, including wastewater, defined as hazardous under RCRA,
TSCA, or any state law.
Hexane extractable method (HEM) - A measure of oil and grease in wastewater by mixing the
wastewater with hexane and measuring the oils and greases that are removed from the
wastewater with the hexane. See 40 CFR Part 136.
Hide processing - Wet or dry hide processing. Includes demanuring, washing, and defleshing,
followed by curing.
High-processing packinghouse (Definition for 40 CFR 432, Subpart D) - A packinghouse that
processes both animals slaughtered at the site and additional carcasses from outside sources.
/
In scope - Facilities and/or wastewaters that EPA proposes to be subject to this guidelines.
16^
-------
Section 16. (Hossair, Ac ronyms, and Abbreviations
Indirect discharger - A facility that discharges or may discharge wastewaters into a publicly
owned treatment works.
L
Live weight killed (LWK) - The total weight of the total number of animals slaughtered during
a specific time period.
Long-term average (LTA) - For purposes of the effluent guidelines, average pollutant levels
achieved over a period of time by a facility, subcategory, or technology option. LTAs were used
in developing the effluent limitations guidelines and standards in the proposed regulation.
Low-processing packinghouse (Definition for 40 CFR 432, Subpart C) - A packinghouse that
processes no more than the total animals killed at that plant, normally processing less than the
total kill.
M
Maximum monthly average discharge limitation - The highest allowable average of "daily
discharges" over a calendar month, calculated as the sum of all "daily discharges" measured
during the calendar month, divided by the number of "daily discharges" measured during the
month.
Meat - The term "meat" includes all animal products from cattle, calves, hogs, sheep and lambs,
etc., except those defined as poultry.
Meat cutter (Definition for 40 CFR 432, Subpart F) - An operation fabricates, cuts, or otherwise
produces fresh meat cuts and related finished products from livestock carcasses, at rates greater
than 2730 kg (6000 lb) per day.
Meat product operations - Include meat and poultry slaughtering operations, by-product
operations, rendering, and further processing.
16-5
-------
Sec Hon 16. (Hossair, Acronyms, and Abbreviations
Minimum level - The level at which an analytical system gives recognizable signals and an
acceptable calibration point.
MPP - Meat and poultry products
N
NAICS - North American Industry Classification System. NAICS was developed jointly by the
U.S., Canada, and Mexico to provide new comparability in statistics about business activity
across North America.
National pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES) permit - A permit to discharge
wastewater into waters of the United States issued under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination system, authorized by Section 402 of the CWA. See NPDES.
Nitrification capability - The capability of a POTW treatment system to oxidize ammonia or
ammonium salts initially to nitrites (via nitrosomonas bacteria,) and subsequently to nitrates (via
Nitrobacter bacteria). Criteria for determining the nitrification capability of a POTW treatment
system are: bioassays confirming the presence of nitrifying bacteria, and analyses of the nitrogen
balance demonstrating a reduction in the concentration of ammonia or ammonium salts and an
increase in the concentrations of nitrites and nitrates.
Non-contact cooling water - Water used for cooling in process and nonprocess applications
which does not come into contact with any raw material, intermediate product, by-product, waste
product (including air emissions), or finished product.
Non-conventional pollutants - Pollutants that are neither conventional pollutants nor priority
pollutants listed at 40 CFR §401.15 and Part 423 Appendix A.
Non-detect value - The analyte is below the level of detection that can be reliably measured by
the analytical method. This is also known in statistical terms as left-censoring.
16-6
-------
Section 16. (Hossair, Ac ronyms, and Abbreviations
Non-water quality environmental impact - Deleterious aspects of control and treatment
technologies applicable to point source category wastes, including, but not limited to air
pollution, noise, radiation, sludge and solid waste generation, and energy used.
NRA - National Renderers Association
NRDC - Natural Resources Defense Council
NPDES program - The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program
authorized by Sections 307, 318, 402, and 405 of the Clean Water Act. It applies to facilities that
discharge wastewater directly to United States surface waters.
NSPS - New Source Performance Standards, applicable to industrial facilities whose
construction is begun after the effective date of the final regulations (if those regulations are
promulgated after 120 days from publication of proposal in the Federal Register). See 40 CFR
122.2.
NTTA - National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
NWPCAM - The National Water Pollution Control Assessment Model (version 1.1) is a
computer model to model the instream dissolved oxygen concentration, as influenced by
pollutant reductions of BOD^, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total suspended solids, and fecal coliform
bacteria.
o
Off-site - Outside the boundaries of a facility
On-site - The same or geographically contiguous property, which may be divided by a public or
private right-of-way, provided the entrance and exit between the properties is at a crossroads
intersection, and access is by crossing as opposed to going along the right-of-way. Non-
contiguous properties owned by the same company or locality but connected by a right-of-way,
which it controls, and to which the public does not have access, is also considered on-site
property.
16-7
-------
Sec Hon 16. (Hossair, Acronyms, and Abbreviations
Out-of-scope - Out-of-scope facilities are facilities which EPA has not determined to be subject
to provisions of this guideline, or facilities that do not engage in meat products operations.
Outfall - The mouth of conduit drains and other conduits from which a facility effluent
discharges into receiving waters.
P
Packinghouse - A plant that both slaughters animals and subsequently processes carcasses into
cured, smoked, canned, or other prepared meat products.
Pass through - The term "pass through" means a discharge that exits the POTW into waters of
the United States in quantities or concentrations which, alone or in conjunction with a discharge
or discharges from other sources, is a cause of a violation of any requirement of the POTW's
NPDES permit (including an increase in the magnitude or duration of a violation).
Point source - Any discernable, confined, and discrete conveyance from which pollutants are or
may be discharged. See CWA section 502(14).
Pollutants of concern (POCs) - Pollutants commonly found in meat and poultry processing
wastewaters. Generally, a chemical is considered as a POC if it is detected in untreated process
wastewater at five times a baseline value in more than 10 percent of the samples.
Poultry - Broilers, other young chickens, hens, fowl, mature chickens, turkeys, capons, geese,
ducks, and small game such as quail, pheasants, and rabbits.
Poultry operations - Includes poultry slaughtering operations, by-product operations, rendering,
and further processing.
Priority pollutant - 126 compounds that are a subset of the 65 toxic pollutants and classes of
pollutants outlined, pursuant to Section 307 of the CWA.
Process wastewater - Any water which, during red meat or poultry operations, comes into direct
contact with or results from the storage, production, or use of any raw material, intermediate
product, finished product, by-product, or waste product. Wastewater from equipment cleaning,
16-8
-------
Section 16. (Hossair, Ac ronyms, and Abbreviations
direct-contact air pollution control devices, rinse water, storm water associated with industrial
activity, and contaminated cooling water are considered to be process wastewater. Process
wastewater may also include wastewater that is contract hauled for off-site disposal. Sanitary
wastewater, uncontaminated noncontact cooling water, and storm water not associated with
industrial activity are not considered to be process wastewater.
PSES - Pretreatment standards for existing sources of indirect discharges, under Section 307(b)
of the CWA, applicable (for this rule) to indirect dischargers that commenced construction prior
to promulgation of the final rule.
PSNS - Pretreatment standards for new sources under Section 307(c) of the CWA.
Publicly owned treatment works (POTW) - A treatment works as defined by section 212 of the
Clean Water Act, which is owned by a State or municipality (as defined by section 502(4) of the
Clean Water Act). This definition includes any devices and systems used in the storage,
treatment, recycling and reclamation of municipal sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature.
It also includes sewers, pipes and other conveyances, only if they convey wastewater to a POTW
treatment plant. The term also means the municipality as defined in section 502(4) of the Clean
Water Act, which has jurisdiction over the indirect discharges to and the discharges from such a
treatment works.
R
Raw material - The basic input materials to a renderer, composed of animal and poultry
trimmings, bones, meat scraps, dead animals, feathers and related usable by-products.
RCRA - The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) (42 U.S.C. Section
6901 et seq.), which regulates the generation, treatment, storage, disposal, or recycling of solid
and hazardous wastes.
Renderer (Definition for 40 CFR 432, Subpart J) - An independent or off-site rendering
operation, conducted separately from a slaughterhouse, packinghouse, or poultry dressing or
processing plant, that manufactures at rates greater than 75,000 pounds of raw material per day of
16-9
-------
Sec Hon 16. (Hossair, Acronyms, and Abbreviations
meat meal, tankage, animal fats or oils, grease, and tallow, and may cure cattle hides, but
excluding marine oils, fish meal, and fish oils.
RFA - Regulatory Flexibility Act
s
Sample-specific detection limit - The smallest quantity in the experiment calibration range that
may be measured reliably in any given sample.
SAP - Sampling and analysis plan.
Sausage and luncheon meat processor (Definition for 40 CFR 432, Subpart G) - An operation
that cuts fresh meats, grinds, mixes, seasons, smokes, or otherwise produces finished products,
such as sausage, bologna, and luncheon meats at rates greater than 2730 kg (6000 lb) per day.
SBREFA - Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.
SCC - Sample control center
SER - Small entity representative
SIC - Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) - A numerical categorization system used by the
U.S. Department of Commerce to catalogue economic activity. SIC codes refer to the products,
or group of products, produced or distributed, or to services rendered by an operating
establishment. SIC codes are used to group establishments by the economic activities in which
they are engaged. SIC codes often denote a facility's primary, secondary, tertiary, etc. economic
activities.
Simple slaughterhouse (Definition for 40 CFR 432, Subpart A) - A slaughterhouse that
accomplishes very limited by-product processing, if any, usually no more than two of such
operations as rendering, paunch and viscera handling, blood processing, hide processing, or hair
processing.
16-10
-------
Section 16. (Hossair, Acronyms, unci Abbreviations
Site - A site is generally one contiguous physical location at which manufacturing operations
related to the meat products industry occur. This includes, but is not limited to, slaughtering,
processing, and rendering. In some instances, a site may include properties located within
separate fence lines, but located close to each other.
Slaughter house - A plant that slaughters animals and has as its main product fresh meat as
whole, half, or quarter carcasses, or smaller meat cuts.
Small-business - The definitions of small business for the meat products industries are in SBA's
regulations at 13 CFR 121.201. These size standards were updated effective October 1, 2000.
SBA size standards for the meat and poultry products industry (i.e., for NAICS codes 311611,
311612,311613, and 311615) define a "small business" as one with 500 or fewer employees.
Small processor - (Definition for 40 CFR 432, Subpart E) An operation that produces up to
2730 kg (6000 lb) per day of any type or combination of finished products.
Stearin - An ester of glycerol and stearic acid found in MPP wastewaters.
Surface water - Waters of the United States, as defined at 40 CFR 122.2.
1
TKN - Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Treatment - Any method, technique, or process designed to change the physical, chemical, or
biological character or composition of any metal-bearing, oily, or organic waste so as to
neutralize such wastes, to render such wastes amenable to discharge, or to recover metal, oil, or
organic content from the wastes.
TSS - Total suspended solids
Variability factor - Used in calculating a limitation (or standard) to allow for reasonable
variation in pollutant concentrations when processed through extensively and well designed
16-11
-------
Sec Hon 16. (Hossair, Acronyms, and Abbreviations
treatment systems. Variability factors assure that normal fluctuations in a facility's treatment are
accounted for in the limitations. By accounting for these reasonable excursions above the long-
term average, EPA's use of variability factors results in limitations that are generally well above
the actual long-term averages.
Viscera handling (wet or dry viscera handling) - Includes removal of partially digested feed and
washing of viscera.
w
Wastewater - See Process Wastewater.
Wastewater treatment - The processing of wastewater by physical, chemical, biological, or
other means to remove specific pollutants from the wastewater stream, or to alter the physical or
chemical state of specific pollutants in the wastewater stream. Treatment is performed for
discharge of treated wastewater, recycle of treated wastewater to the same process which
generated the wastewater, or for reuse of the treated wastewater in another process.
Wet rendering - The process of cooking animal byproducts by steam under pressure in closed
tanks.
z
Zero (or alternate) Discharge - Disposal of process and/or nonprocess wastewaters other than
by direct discharge to a surface water or by indirect discharge to a POTW or PrOTW. Examples
include land application, deep well injection, and contract hauling.
16-12
-------
Appendix A
Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
-------
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
-------
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
The analytical methods described in this appendix were used to determine pollutant levels
in wastewater samples collected by EPA and industry at a number of meat and poultry product
facilities. (Sampling efforts are described in Section 3.) In developing the final rule, EPA used
data from samples collected by EPA and industry to determine the levels of Aeromonas,
ammonia as nitrogen, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), carbonaceous biochemical oxygen
demand, chemical oxygen demand (COD), chloride, Cryptosporidium, dissolved biochemical
oxygen demand, dissolved total phosphorus, Escherichia coli (E. coli), fecal coliform bacteria,
fecal Streptococcus, 21 metals, oil and grease (measured as /7-hexane-extractable material
[HEM]), nitrate/nitrite, six pesticides, Salmonella, total coliform bacteria, total dissolved solids
(TDS), total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), total organic carbon (TOC), total orthophosphate, total
phosphorus, total residual chlorine, total suspended solids (TSS), and volatile residue. As
explained in Section 7, EPA is regulating a subset of these pollutants.
Sections A.l and A.2 of this appendix explain nominal quantitation limits and baseline
values. Section A.3 describes the reporting conventions used by laboratories in expressing the
results of the analyses. Section A.4 describes each analytical method and the corresponding
baseline values that EPA used in determining the pollutants of concern. Section A.5 defines total
nitrogen. Table A-l lists the analytical methods and baseline values used for each pollutant.
A.l NOMINAL QUANTITATION LIMITS
The nominal quantitation limit is the smallest quantity of an analyte that can be reliably
measured with a particular method. Protocols used for determining nominal quantitation limits in
a particular method depend on the definitions and conventions that EPA used at the time the
method was developed. The nominal quantitation limits associated with the methods addressed in
this section fall into five categories:
1. The first category pertains to EPA Methods 1660 and 1664, which define the
minimum level (ML) as the lowest level at which the entire analytical system must
give a recognizable signal and an acceptable calibration point for the analyte. These
methods are described in Section A.4.1.
A-l
-------
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
2. The second category pertains specifically to EPA Method 1620, which is explained in
detail in Section A.4.2.
3. The third category pertains to the remainder of the chemical methods (classical wet
chemistry and pesticides) in which a variety of terms are used to describe the lowest
level at which measurement results are quantitated. In some cases (especially with the
classical wet chemistry analytes) the methods date to the 1970s and 1980s when EPA
used different concepts of quantitation. These methods typically list a measurement
range or lower limit of measurement. The terms differ by method and, as discussed in
subsequent sections, the levels presented are not always representative of the lowest
levels laboratories currently can achieve.
For methods associated with a calibration procedure, the laboratories demonstrated
through a low-point calibration standard that they were capable of reliable
quantitation at method-specified (or lower) levels. In such cases these nominal
quantitation limits are operationally equivalent to the ML (though not specifically
identified as such in the methods). In the case of titrimetric or gravimetric methods,
the laboratory adhered to the established lower limit of the measurement range
published in the methods. Details of the specific methods are presented in Sections
A.4.3 through A.4.17.
4. The fourth category pertains to Cryptosporidium. There is currently no detection limit
associated with the method used to determine Cryptosporidium (EPA Method 1622,
described in Section A.4.18), so when Cryptosporidium was not found in the sample,
no number was associated with the sample. Therefore, there is no nominal
quantitation limit for Cryptosporidium.
5. The fifth category pertains to all microbiological methods except methods for
Cryptosporidium. The fifth category pertains specifically to the multiple-tube test
procedure, explained in detail in Section A.4.19.
A-2
-------
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
A.2 BASELINE VALUES
As described further in Section 7, in determining the pollutants of concern, EPA
compared the reported concentrations for each pollutant to a multiple of the baseline value. As
described in Section A.3 and shown in Table A-l, for most pollutants, the baseline value was set
equal to the nominal quantitation limit for the analytical method. EPA made two general types of
exceptions, and these are briefly described below. Section A.4 provides additional details about
these exceptions in the context of the analytical method.
The first type of exception occurred when baseline values differed from the nominal
quantitation limits in the analytical methods. When the baseline values had lower values, EPA
made these exceptions because the laboratory had submitted data that demonstrated reliable
measurements could be obtained at lower levels for those pollutants. When the baseline values
had higher values, EPA concluded that the nominal quantitation limit for a specified method was
less than the level that laboratories could reliably achieve and adjusted the baseline value
upward.
The second type of exception was setting baseline values at a common value for multiple
analytical methods for the same pollutant. For some analytes, EPA permitted the laboratories to
choose between methods to accommodate sample characteristics. When these methods had
different nominal quantitation limits, EPA usually used the one with the lowest value or the one
associated with the method used for most samples.
A.3 ANALYTICAL RESULTS REPORTING CONVENTIONS
All of the analytical chemistry data were reported as liquid concentrations in
weight/volume units, e.g., micrograms per liter (|ig/L). Cryptosporidium results were reported in
the calculated number of Cryptosporidium oocysts detected per liter. Bacteriological data
generated using multiple-tube fermentation techniques were reported as most probable number
per 100 milliliters (MPN/100 mL) or for data generated using membrane filtration techniques, as
colony forming units (CFU/100 mL).
A-3
-------
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
The laboratories expressed the results of the analyses either numerically or as not
quantitated1 for a pollutant in a sample. If the pollutant was quantitated2 in the sample, then the
result was expressed numerically. For the non-quantitated results, for each sample, the
laboratories reported a "sample-specific quantitation limit."" The sample-specific quantitation
limit for a particular pollutant is generally the smallest quantity in the calibration range that can
be measured in any given sample. The sample-specific quantitation limit was used as a reporting
limit for this industry. Two reporting examples are provided below.
Example 1: For a hypothetical pollutant X, the sample-specific quantitation limit is 10
|ig/L. When the laboratory quantitated the amount of pollutant X in the sample as being 15 |ig/L,
the result would be reported as "15 |ig/L".
Example 2: For the hypothetical pollutant X, the sample-specific quantitation limit is 10
|ig/L. When the laboratory could not quantitate the amount of pollutant X in the sample, the
result would be reported as "<10 |ig/L." That is, the analytical result indicated a value less than
the sample-specific quantitation limit of 10 |ig/L. The actual amount of pollutant X in that
sample is between zero (i.e., the pollutant is not present) and 10 |ig/L. If a pollutant is reported as
non-quantitated in a particular wastewater sample, this does not mean that the pollutant is not
present in the wastewater. It means that analytical techniques (whether because of instrument
limitations, pollutant interactions, or other reasons) do not permit its measurement at levels
below the sample-specific quantitation limit.
In its calculations, EPA generally substituted the reported value of the sample-specific
quantitation limit for each non-quantitated result. In a few cases described in Section A.4.1, when
the sample-specific quantitation limit was less than the baseline value, EPA substituted the
1 Hlsewhere in this document and in the preamble to the final rule, HPA refers to pollutants as "not
detected" or "non-detected." This appendix uses the term "not quantitated" or "non-quantitated" rather than non-
detected.
: Hlsewhere in this document and in the preamble to the final rule, HPA refers to pollutants as "detected."
This appendix uses the term "quantitated" rather than detected.
Hlsewhere in this document and in the preamble to the proposed rule, HPA refers to a "sample-specific
quantitation limit" as a "sample-specific detection limit" or, more simply, as a "detection limit."
A4
-------
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
baseline value for the non-quantitated result. And in a few instances (also described in Section
A.4.1), when the quantitated value was below the baseline value, EPA considered these values to
be non-quantitated in the statistical analyses and substituted the baseline value for the measured
value.
A.4 ANALYTICAL METHODS
EPA and industry analyzed all of the meat product facility wastewater samples using
methods identified in Table A-l. (As explained in Section 7, EPA is regulating only a subset of
these analytes.) EPA generally used either EPA methods from Methods for Chemical Analysis of
Water and Wastes (MCAWW) or the American Public Health Association's Standard Methods
for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (SM). Table A-l provides a summary of the
pollutants analyzed, the method(s) used to measured each analyte, the nominal quantitation
levels, and the baseline levels. The following sections provide additional information supporting
the summary in Table A-l.
In analyzing samples, EPA generally used approved analytical methods listed in Title 40,
Part 136 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 136) for compliance monitoring or
methods EPA has used for decades in support of effluent guidelines development. Exceptions for
use of non-approved methods are explained in the method-specific subsections that follow Table
A-l. Except for nitrate/nitrite, EPA established limitations or standards based only on data
generated by approved methods listed in 40 CFR 136. As explained in Section A.4.10, EPA used
nitrate/nitrite data from Method 300.0 to develop the final limitations and standards for total
nitrogen and is promulgating the use of Method 300.0 for compliance.
Each of the following sections states whether the method is approved for compliance
monitoring in 40 CFR 136 (even if the pollutant will not be regulated), provides a short
description of the method, identifies the nominal quantitation limit, and explains EPA's choice
for the baseline value. The sections are ordered alphabetically by analyte name within the five
categories identified in Section A.l.
A-5
-------
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
Table A-l. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
Analyte
Method
CAS
Number
Sample
Collection
& Analysis
Nominal
Quantitation
Value
Baseline
Value
Aeronionas
92601.
C2101
HPA
2.0/100 ml.
2.0/100 ml.
Ammonia as nitrogen
350.1
7664417
Industry
0.01 ITlg/I.
0.20 mg/1.
350.2
HPA
0.20 mg/I.
350.3
Industry
0.03 mg/1.
SM4500-N113 B
N/A
SM4500-N113 C
0.02 mg/1.
SM4500-N113 H
5.0 mg/1.
SM4500-N113 H
0.03 mg/1.
SM4500-NI13 (1
0.8 mg/1.
Antimony
1620
7440360
HPA
20.0 ng/1-
20.0 |_ig/1.
Arsenic
1620
7440382
HPA
10.0 ng/1-
10.0 |_ig/1.
Barium
1620
7440393
HPA
200.0 |_ig/1.
200.0 |_ig/1.
Beryllium
1620
7440417
HPA
5.0 ng/I.
5.0 ng/I.
BOD,
405.1
C003
HPA
2.0 mg/1.
2.0 mg/1.
SM5210 B
2.0 mg/1.
Boron
1620
7440428
HPA
100.0 |_ig/1.
100.0 |_ig/1.
Cadmium
1620
7440439
HPA
5.0 ng/I.
5.0 ng/I.
Carbonaceous BOI),
405.1
("002
HPA
2.0 mg/1.
2.0 mg/1.
SM5210 B
2.0 mg/1.
Carbaryl
632
63252
HPA
1.0 ng/I.
1.0 ng/I.
COD
410.1
("004
HPA
50.0 mg/1.
5.0'1 mg/1.
410.2
5.0 mg/1.
410.4 (automated)
3.0 mg/1.
410.4 (manual)
20.0 mg/I.h
SM5220 B
5.0 mg/1.
SM5220 C
Industry
50.0 mg/1.
11AC11 8000
3.0 mg/1.
Chloride
300.0
16887006
HPA
0.05 mg/1.
1.0 mg/1.
325.3
1.0 mg/1.
Chromium
1620
7440473
HPA
10.0 |_ig/1.
10.0 |_ig/1.
n.s-Permethrin
1660
61949766
HPA
5.0 ng/1.
5.0 ng/I.
Cobalt
1620
7440484
HPA
50.0 |_ig/1.
50.0 |_ig/1.
Copper
1620
7440508
HPA
25.0 ng/I.
25.0 ng/I.
Cryptosporidium
1622
137259508
HPA
0 oocysts/1.
0 oocysts/1.
Dichlorvos
1657
62737
HPA
2.0 |_ig/1.
2.0 |_ig/1.
Dissolved BOD,
405.1
("003 D
HPA
2.0 mg/1.
2.0 mg/1.
A-6
-------
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
Table A-l. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values (Continued)
Analyte
Method
CAS
Number
Sample
Collection
& Analysis
Nominal
Quantitation
Value
Baseline
Value
Dissolved total
phosphorus
365.2
142654421)
HPA
0.01 ITlg/1.
0.01 mg/1.
365.3
li. coli
SM9221 H
C'050
HPA
2.0/100 ml.
2.0/100 ml.
l ocal coli form
SM9221 C
("2106
Industry
2.0/100 ml.
2.0/100 ml.
SM9221 H
HPA
2.0/100 ml.
SM 9222 I)
Industry
2.0/100 ml.
l ocal Streptococcus
SM9230 B
("2107
HPA
2.0/100 ml.
2.0/100 ml.
111 •; m
1664
("036
HPA
5.0 rng/1.
5.0 mg/1.
1664 A
5.0 rng/1.
1 .cad
1620
7439921
HPA
50.0 ng/I.
50.0 |_ig/1.
Malathion
1657
121755
HPA
2.0 ng/I.
2.0 |_ig/1.
Manganese
1620
7439965
HPA
1 5 ng/'I.
1 5 ng/1.
Mercury
1620
7439976
HPA
0.20 ng/1-
0.20 |_ig/1.
Molybdenum
1620
74399X7
HPA
10.0 ng/1-
10.0 |_ig/1.
Nickel
1620
7440020
HPA
40.0 |_ig/1.
40.0 |_ig/1.
Nitrate/Nitrite
300.0
("005
HPA
0.01 rng/1.
0.05 mg/1.
352.1
Industry
0.1 rng/1.
353.1
HPA
0.01 rng/1.
353.2
HPA
0.05 rng/1.
354.1
Industry
0.01 rng/1.
SM4500-NQ2 B
Industry
0.005 mg/1.
SM4500-N03 I)
Industry
0.14 mg/1.
SM4500-NQ3 H
Industry
0.01 mg/1.
Oil and grease
413.1
("036
Industry
5.0 mg/1.
5.0 mg/1.
SM5520 B
Industry
10.0 mg/1.
SM 5520 I)
Industry
10.0 mg/1.
Salmonella
HDA-BAM
68583357
HPA
2.0 mg/1.
2.0 mg/1.
Selenium
1620
77X2492
HPA
5.0 ng/I.
5.0 ng/I.
Silver
1620
7440224
HPA
10.0 ng/1-
10.0 |_ig/1.
Tetrachlorvinphos
1657
2224X799
HPA
2.0 ng/I.
2.0 |_ig/1.
Thallium
1620
74402X0
HPA
10.0 ng/1-
10.0 |_ig/1.
Tin
1620
7440315
HPA
30.0 ng/I.
30.0 |_ig/1.
Titanium
1620
7440326
HPA
5.0 ng/I.
5.0 ng/I.
Total coli form
SM9221 B
HI 0606
HPA
2.0/100 ml.
2.0/100 ml.
Total dissolved solids
160.1
("010
HPA
10.0 mg/1.
10.0 mg/1.
A-7
-------
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
Table A-l. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values (Continued)
Analyte
Method
CAS
Number
Sample
Collection
& Analysis
Nominal
Quantitation
Value
Baseline
Value
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
351.2
("021
HPA
0.10 mg/I.
0.5 mg/I.
351.3
HPA
0.50 mg/I.
SM4500-Norg B
Industry
N/A
SM4500-N113 H
Industry
5.0 mg/I.
Total organic carbon
415.1
("012
HPA
1.0 mg/I.
1.0 mg/I.
Total orthophosphate
300.0
("034
HPA
0.20 mg/I.
0.01 mg/I.
365.2
0.01 mg/I.
Total phosphorus
365.2
14265442
HPA
0.01 mg/I.
0.01 mg/I.
365.3
HPA
0.01 mg/I.
365.4
Industry
0.01 mg/I.
SM4500-P B
Industry
0.01 mg/I.
SM4500-P H
Industry
0.01 mg/I.
11 ACT I SI 90
Industry
0.01 mg/I.
Total residual chlorine
330.5
77S2505
HPA
0.20 mg/I.
0.20 mg/I.
11ACT1 SI 67
0.10 mg/I.
Total suspended solids
160.2
("009
HPA
4.0 mg/I.
4.0 mg/I.
SM2540 I)
Industry
4.0 mg/I.
//•(Y/i.s-Permethrin
1660
61949777
HPA
5.
0 ng/I.
5.0 ng/I.
Vanadium
1620
7440622
HPA
50.
0 ng/I.
50.0 |_ig/1.
Volatile residue
160.4
("030
HPA
10.
0 mg/I.
10.0 mg/I.
Yttrium
1620
7440655
HPA
5.
0 ng/I.
5.0 ng/I.
Zinc
1620
7440666
HPA
20.
0 ng/I.
20.0 |_ig/1.
'' The baseline value was adjusted to reflect the lowest nominal quantitation limit of the titrimetric procedures
(410.1,410.2, and 5220B). See Section A.4.6 for a detailed explanation.
h Method 410.4 lists two different quantitation limits that are dependent on whether the automated or manual
protocols were followed. The automated method limit is 3 mg/I. and the manual method limit is 20 mg/I..
A-8
-------
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
A.4.1 EPA Methods 1660 (m-Permethrin, /ra/is-Permethrin) and 1664, 1664A,
413.1, SM5520B, and SM5520D (HEM)
Laboratories used EPA Method 1660 to measure cz.v-permethrin and /rt/zz.v-permethrin,
and EPA Methods 1664 and 1664A to measure zz-hexane-extractable material (HEM). While 40
CFR 136 lists Method 1664Aasan approved method for compliance monitoring of HEM, Part
136 does not list any methods for the pesticides cz.v-permethrin and //wz.v-permethrin. Table 7 in
40 CFR 455, however, lists Method 1660 as approved for compliance monitoring of permethrin
for the Pesticide Chemicals Point Source Category. (Permethrin is the common name given to
any mixture of the two isomers, cz.v-permethrin and /rt/zz.v-permethrin.)
These methods use the minimum level (ML) concept for quantitation of the pollutant(s).
The ML is defined as the lowest level at which the entire analytical system must give a
recognizable signal and an acceptable calibration point for the analyte. When an ML is published
in a method, EPA has demonstrated that the ML can be achieved in at least one well-operated
laboratory. When that laboratory or another laboratory uses that method, the laboratory is
required to demonstrate, through calibration of the instrument or analytical system, that it can
achieve pollutant measurements at the ML.
For cz.v-permethrin, //wz.v-permethrin, and HEM, EPA used the method-specified MLs as
the baseline values. In determining the pollutants of concern and in calculating the HEM
standards, if a quantitated value or sample-specific quantitation limit was reported with a value
less than the ML specified in the method, EPA substituted the value of the ML and assumed that
the measurement was not quantitated. For example, for cz.v-permethrin with an ML of 5 |ig/L, if
the laboratory reported a quantitated value of 3 |ig/L, EPA would have assumed that the
concentration was not quantitated4 with a sample-specific quantitation limit of 5 |ig/L. The
objective of this comparison was to identify any results for the three pollutants reported below
the method-defined ML. Results reported below the ML were changed to the ML to ensure that
all results used by EPA were reliable. In most cases, the quantitated values and sample-specific
quantitation limits were equal to or greater than the baseline values.
4 As explained in Appendix (', IiPA applied different statistieal assumptions to quantitated and non-
quantitated results.
A-9
-------
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
A.4.2 EPA Method 1620 (Metals)
Laboratories used EPA Method 1620 to measure the concentrations of 21 metals.
Although EPA Method 1620 is not listed in 40 CFR 136 as an approved method for compliance
monitoring, it represents a consolidation of the analytical techniques in several approved methods
listed in 40 CFR Part 136, such as EPA Method 200.7 (inductively coupled plasma (ICP) atomic
emission spectroscopy of trace elements) and Method 245.1 (mercury cold vapor atomic
absorption technique). This method was developed specifically for the effluent guidelines
program. EPA Method 1620 includes more metal analytes than are listed in the approved
methods and contains quality control requirements at least as stringent as the approved methods
in 40 CFR 136.
EPA Method 1620 employs the concept of an instrument detection limit (IDL). The IDL
is defined as "the smallest signal above background noise that an instrument can detect reliably."^
Data reporting practices for EPA Method 1620 analyses follow the conventional metals-reporting
practices used in other EPA programs, in which values are required to be reported at or above the
IDL. In applying EPA Method 1620, IDLs are determined on a quarterly basis by each analytical
laboratory and are, therefore, laboratory-specific and time-specific. Although EPA Method 1620
contains MLs, the MLs predate EPA's recent refinements of the ML concept described earlier.
The ML values associated with EPA Method 1620 are based on a consensus opinion reached
between EPA and laboratories during the 1980s regarding levels that could be considered reliable
quantitation limits when using EPA Method 1620. These limits do not reflect advances in
technology and instrumentation since the 1980s. Consequently, the IDLs were used as the lowest
values for reporting purposes, with the general understanding that reliable results can be
produced at or above the IDLs. Though the baseline values were derived from the MLs (or
adjusted MLs) in EPA Method 1620, EPA used the laboratory-reported quantitated values and
sample-specific quantitation limits, which captured concentrations down to the IDLs, in its data
analyses.
" Keith, I..11., W. C'rummctt, .1. Deegan, R.A. I.ibby, J.K. Taylor, (i. Wcntlcr (19X3). "Principles of
Hnvironmental Analysis," Analytical Chemistry, Volume 55, Page 2217.
A-10
-------
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
In general, EPA used the MLs specified in Method 1620 as the baseline values. However,
EPA adjusted the baseline value for lead to 50 micrograms per liter (|ig/L) and boron to 100
|ig/L. In EPA Method 1620, lead has an ML of 5 |ig/L for graphite furnace atomic absorption
(GFAA) spectroscopy analysis; EPA determined, however, that it was not necessary for the
laboratories to measure down to such low levels and that lead could be analyzed by ICP
spectroscopy/' Consequently, the ML requirement was adjusted to 50 |ig/L, the ML for the ICP
method. In EPA Method 1620, boron has an ML of 10 |ig/L, but laboratory feedback years ago
indicated that laboratories could not reliably achieve this low level. As a result, EPA requires
laboratories to measure values at only 100 |ig/L and above. Thus, EPA adjusted the baseline
value to 100 |ig/L.
A.4.3 Methods 350.1, 350.2, 350.3, 4500-NH, B, SM4500-NH, C, SM4500-NH, D,
SM4500-NHj E, SM4500-NH3 F, and SM4500 NHrG (Ammonia as Nitrogen)
For EPA sampling episodes, ammonia as nitrogen was measured using Method 350.2,
which is listed as approved for compliance monitoring in 40 CFR 136. Industry supplied data
generated by 350.1, 350.3, SM4500-NH, B, SM4500-NH, C, SM4500-NH, D, SM4500-NH, E,
SM4500-NH, F, and SM4500-NH, G. All of the methods used by the industry to determine
ammonia as nitrogen are approved in 40 CFR 136, except for SM4500-NH3 D.
Method 350.2 utilizes either colorimetric, titrimetric, or electrode procedures to measure
ammonia. SM4500-NH3 B is a preliminary distillation procedure used to separate the ammonia
from sample matrix interferences. Method 350.1 is an automated colorimetric method that uses a
continuous flow analytical system; SM4500-NH, C is colorimetric; SM4500-NH3 D is a phenate
method; SM4500-NH, E is titrimetric; and 350.3 and SM4500-NH, F & G are potentiometric
methods that all measure ammonia.
Method 350.2 has a lower measurement range limit of 0.20 milligrams per liter (mg/L)
for the colorimetric and electrode procedures and a lower measurement range limit of 1.0 mg/L
for the titrimetric procedure. Rather than using different baseline values for the same pollutant,
'' Also antimony, arsenic, selenium, and thallium were analyzed by ICP instead of (il'AA. The method Ml.s
were used because the laboratories demonstrated that their 11)1.s were able to quantitate below the Ml. for these four
analytes.
A-11
-------
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
EPA used the 0.20 mg/L because it represented a value at which ammonia as nitrogen can be
measured reliably by several determinative techniques in Method 350.2, as well as in other
approved methods in 40 CFR 136.
A.4.4 Methods 405.1 and SM5210 B (BOD5, Carbonaceous BOD5, and Dissolved
BOD5)
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD,), carbonaceous BOD, (CBOD,), and dissolved
BOD, (DBOD,) were measured using Method 405.1 and Standard Method (SM) 5210 B, both of
which are approved for compliance monitoring in 40 CFR 136. BOD, and CBOD, are essentially
the same method, except an organic compound is added to the CBOD, test to inhibit nitrogenous
oxygen demand. If the sample does not include any nitrogenous demand to inhibit, the results
should be comparable for BOD, and CBOD,. BOD, and dissolved BOD, are the same method,
except that the dissolved BOD, sample is filtered prior to analysis (either in the field or
immediately upon receipt by the laboratory).
Method 405.1 and SM5210 B are identical and the nominal quantitation limit, expressed
in the methods as the lower limit of the measurement range at 2 mg/L, is the same for all three
forms of BOD,. EPA used this nominal quantitation limit of 2 mg/L as the baseline value in
determining the pollutants of concern.
A.4.5 EPA Method 632 (Carbaryl)
Carbaryl was determined by EPA Method 632. No methods approved for carbaryl are
given in 40 CFR 136. However, Method 632 is approved for compliance monitoring of carbaryl
for the Pesticide Chemicals Point Source Category (see Table 7 in 40 CFR 455).
In this method, samples are prepared by liquid-liquid extraction with methylene chloride
in a separatory funnel. The extract is analyzed by a high-pressure liquid chromatograph with an
ultraviolet (UV) detector. The nominal quantitation limit was determined by a low-point
calibration standard. The nominal quantitation limit for carbaryl is 1 |ig/L, which was used as the
baseline value.
A-12
-------
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
A.4.6 Methods 410.1, 410.2, 410.4, SM5220 B, SM5220 C, and HACH 8000
(Chemical Oxygen Demand)
EPA determined chemical oxygen demand (COD) using Methods 410.1,410.2, 410.4,
and SM5220 B. Industry determined COD using SM5220 C and HACH 8000. Methods 410.1,
410.2, 410.4, SM5220 C and HACH 8000 are approved for compliance monitoring in 40
CFR 136.
Methods 410.1, 410.2, and SM5220 C are titrimetric procedures that follow identical
analytical protocols and differ only in the range of COD concentrations that they are designed to
measure. Reagent concentrations and sample volumes are adjusted to accommodate a wide range
of sample concentrations, because the dynamic range of the chemistry used to detect COD is
somewhat limited. Standard Method 5220 B is a titrimetric method that incorporates the different
reagent concentrations and sample volumes listed in Methods 410.1 and 410.2 into one method.
Data from all three of these methods are directly comparable. Method 410.4 is a colorimetric
procedure. The HACH 8000 method is a colorimetric procedure that utilizes a preliminary
digestion procedure and can be used for various concentration ranges.
Methods 410.1 and SM5220 C are designed to measure mid-level concentrations (greater
than 50 mg/L) of COD and are associated with a nominal quantitation limit of 50 mg/L. Method
410.2 is designed to measure low-level concentrations of these parameters in the range of 5 to 50
mg/L. Method 410.4 has a measurement range of 3 to 900 mg/L for automated procedures and a
measurement range of 20 to 900 mg/L for manual procedures. The HACH 8000 method has a
lower measurement limit of 3.0 mg/L. EPA contracts required laboratories to measure down to
the lowest quantitation limit possible regardless of the method used. Therefore, if the laboratory
analyzed a sample using Method 410.1 and obtained a non-quantitated result, it had to reanalyze
the sample using Method 410.2. Thus, the quantitation limit reported for non-quantitated results
was equal to 5 mg/L, unless sample dilutions were required for complex matrices.
For all COD data, EPA used the baseline value of 5 mg/L, which is associated with the
lower quantitation limit for the titrimetric procedures because most of the data used to determine
the pollutants of concern had been obtained by the titrimetric procedures (Methods 410.1, 410.2,
or SM5220 B).
A-13
-------
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
A.4.7 Methods 325.3 and 300.0 (Chloride)
Chloride was measured using Method 325.3, which is approved for compliance
monitoring in 40 CFR 136, and Method 300.0, which is not listed in 40 CFR 136. Method 325.3
is a colorimetric (actually titrimetric) procedure and measures concentrations greater than 1
mg/L. Method 300.0 uses ion chromatography and can measure to levels as low as 0.05 mg/L.
EPA allowed laboratories to use Method 300.0 even though it is not approved at 40 CFR 136
because the analytical methods normally used for chloride are subject to interferences sometimes
present in samples containing blood, animal tissue, or other particulates. With Method 300.0, the
complex matrices are not a factor and this method has a lower nominal quantitation limit than
Method 325.3. (Section A.4.10 provides a more detailed description of Method 300.0.)
For all chloride data, EPA used the baseline value of 1 mg/L, which is associated with the
higher quantitation limit for the colorimetric procedure because most of the data used in the
pollutants of concern analysis had been obtained by the colorimetric procedure (Method 325.3).
A.4.8 EPA Method 1657 (Dichlorvos, Malathion, Tetrachlorvinphos)
Laboratories used Method 1657 to measure dichlorvos, malathion, and tetrachlorvinphos
concentrations in the samples. There is one approved method for malathion at 40 CFR 136 —
SM6630C; however, the other two pesticides are not listed in 40 CFR 136. EPA Method 1657
was selected for analysis of all three pesticides for several reasons, including the following:
• Method 1657 is approved for compliance monitoring of all three pesticides for the
Pesticide Chemicals Point Source Category (see Table I1 in 40 CFR 455).
• EPA 1600-series methods were developed specifically for the effluent guidelines
program; therefore, they have more stringent quality control requirements than Standard
Methods.
• It was more economical to use one method for the three pesticides than to analyze
malathion separately by SM6630C.
Tabic 7 lists tetrachlorvinphos as stirofos.
A-14
-------
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
In Method 1657, samples are prepared by liquid-liquid extraction. The extract is dried and
concentrated and a l-|_iL aliquot of the extract is injected into the gas chromatography equipment.
The nominal quantitation limit of 2 |ig/L was used as the baseline value for all three pesticides.
This nominal quantitation limit was determined from the results of low-point calibration
standards.
A.4.9 Methods 365.2, 365.3, 365.4, SM4500-P B, SM4500-P E, and HACH 8190
(Dissolved Total Phosphorus and Total Phosphorus)
EPA determined dissolved total phosphorus and total phosphorus by Methods 365.2 and
365.3. Industry determined total phosphorus by Methods 365.4, SM4500-P B, SM4500-P E, and
HACH 8190. Methods 365.2, 365.3, 365.4, SM4500-P B, and SM4500-P E are approved for
compliance monitoring of total phosphorus at 40 CFR 136. HACH 8190 is a colorimetric method
that is considered to be a comparable version of Method 365.2. Total phosphorus represents all
of the phosphorus present in the sample, regardless of form, as measured by the persulfate
digestion procedure. Dissolved phosphorus results were obtained by filtering the sample prior to
this step.
Methods 365.2 and 365.3 are spectrophotometric methods that differ from each other
only in the preparation of one of the reagents. Method 365.2 specifies the separation of the
ammonium molybdate and the antimony potassium tartrate from the ascorbic acid reagent, while
Method 365.3 allows for the combining these reagents into a single solution. Because the
chemistry is unaffected, data from the two methods are directly comparable. Method 365.4 is an
automated colorimetric method. SM4500-P B is the sample digestion step used with SM 4500-
P E, a spectrophotometric method comparable to Method 365.2.
These methods have the same nominal quantitation limit, 0.01 mg/L, for both analytes.
EPA used this value as the baseline value for both dissolved total phosphorus and total
phosphorus.
A-15
-------
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
A.4.10 Methods 300.0, 352.1, 353.1, 353.2, 354.1, SM4500-N02 B, SM4500NOrD,
and SM4500-N0j E (Nitrate/Nitrite)
For EPA sampling episodes, nitrate/nitrite was measured by Methods 300.0, 353.1, and
353.2. For industry-supplied data, nitrate/nitrite was measured by Methods 352.1, 354.1,
SM4500-NO, B, SM4500-NO, D, and SM4500-NO., E. All of these methods, except for
Methods 300.0 and SM4500-N03 D, are approved for compliance monitoring in 40 CFR 136.
Because nitrate/nitrite is a component of total nitrogen (see Section A.5), EPA considered
approving EPA Method 300.0 at 40 CFR Part 432 for compliance monitoring of nitrate/nitrite or
amending 40 CFR Part 136 to include Method 300.0 for determination of nitrate/nitrite from
wastewaters. In the preamble to the MPP proposed rule, EPA requested comments on the use of
this method for the MPP point source category and whether the method should be approved and
included in 40 CFR Part 432, 40 CFR Part 136, or both. EPA did not receive any comments on
this topic. EPA is planning to propose a rule to amend 40 CFR Part 136 to include Method 300.0
for determining nitrate/nitrite in wastewater.
Many of the approved analytical methods for nitrite/nitrate in 40 CFR 136, including
Methods 352.1, 353.1 and 353.2, are based on colorimetric techniques (adding to a sample
reagents that form a colored product when they react with the nitrate/nitrite and then measuring
the intensity of the colored product). Such methods can be subject to interferences in the complex
matrices associated with this industry, where samples may contain blood, animal tissue, or other
particulates that affect both the color development and ability to pass light through the sample to
measure the intensity of the colored product. In contrast, Method 300.0 employs the technique
known as ion chromatography to measure 10 inorganic anions, including nitrate and nitrite. Ion
chromatography permits the various inorganic anions to be separated from one another as well as
from other materials and contaminants present in the sample. Each anion can be identified on the
basis of its characteristic retention time (the time required to pass through the instrumentation).
After separation, the anions are measured by a conductivity detector that responds to changes in
the effluent from the ion chromatograph-changes that occur when the negatively charged anions
(analytes) elute at characteristic retention times, thereby changing the conductivity of the
solution. Thus, Method 300.0 offers better specificity for nitrate and nitrite in the presence of
A-16
-------
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
interferences compared with the approved colorimetric methods. Method 300.0 is included in the
rulemaking record (Docket No. W-01-06, Record No. 10036).
Methods 353.1 and 353.2 are essentially the same method, with variations in the
technique used to reduce the nitrite (NO;) present in the sample to nitrate (NO,). Method 353.1
uses hydrazine to accomplish the reduction, while Method 353.2 uses cadmium granules. Method
353.2 is typically preferred simply because the cadmium granules are far easier to handle and less
toxic than hydrazine. The chemistry of the colorimetric determination is the same, as are the
interferences. SM4500-NO, E is a manual cadmium reduction method that is similar to Method
353.3. The reduction methods convert all of the nitrate into nitrite and measure total nitrite
concentration.
Methods 354.1 and SM4500-N02 B directly measure nitrite. These methods are
essentially the same as the oxidized nitrogen methods, but without the reduction. Methods 352.1,
SM4500-NO, D, and 300.0 directly measure nitrate. Method 352.1 uses the colorimetric reaction
of brucine sulfate with nitrate to form a color that is proportional to the nitrate concentration.
SM4500-NO, D uses a nitrate electrode to measure nitrate. Method 300.0 is detailed above.
Each of the methods lists slightly different nominal quantitation limits that are expressed
in the methods as the lower limit of the measurement range. The nominal quantitation limit for
Methods 300.0, 353.1, 354.1, and SM4500-NO, E is 0.01 mg/L. The nominal quantitation limit
for Method 353.2 is 0.05 mg/L, and for 352.1 is 0.1 mg/L. The nominal quantitation limit for
SM4500-N02 B is 0.005 mg/L and for SM4500-NO, D is 0.14 mg/L. Rather than use different
baseline values for the same pollutant, EPA used the nominal quantitation limit of 0.05 mg/L
from Method 353.1 as the baseline value for nitrate/nitrite. EPA chose this value because Method
353.1 was used to obtain most of the data used in the pollutants of concern analysis. This value is
also the maximum of the nominal quantitation limits from the methods used by EPA.
A.4.11 Methods 413.1, SM5520 B, and SM5520 D (Oil and Grease)
Industry determined oil and grease by Methods 413.1, SM5520 B, and SM5520 D.
Methods 413.1 and SM5520 B are listed as approved methods for compliance monitoring in 40
CFR 136, whereas SM5520 D is not listed there. Methods 413.1 and SM5520 B are gravimetric
A-17
-------
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
methods. SM5520 D is a soxhlet extraction method. Method 413.1 has a lower limit
measurement range of 5.0 mg/L, and SM5520 B and SM5520 D have a lower limit measurement
range of 10 mg/L. EPA used the nominal quantitation limit of 5.0 mg/L from EPA Method
1664A as the baseline value.
A.4.12 Method 160.1 (Total Dissolved Solids)
Total dissolved solids (TDS) was measured by Method 160.1, which is approved for
compliance monitoring in 40 CFR 136 (see 'residue - filterable'). Method 160.1 is a gravimetric
method with a lower limit measurement range of 10 mg/L. EPA used this nominal quantitation
limit of 10 mg/L as the baseline value.
A.4.13 Methods 351.2, 351.3, SM4500-Norg B, and SM4500-NH, E (Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen)
For EPA sampling episodes, total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) was measured by Methods
351.2 and 351.3. For industry supplied data, TKN was measured by SM4500-Norg B and
SM4500-NH, E. All of these methods are approved for compliance monitoring in 40 CFR 136.
Method 351.2 is designed to be used with a flow colorimetry apparatus with a lower
measurement range limit of 0.1 mg/L. Method 351.3 is a manual colorimetric analysis that has a
lower measurement range limit of 0.5 mg/L. SM4500-Norg B is the sample preparation method
and SM4500-NH, E is the determinative method for TKN. SM4500-Norg B and SM4500-NH,
have a lower measurement range of 5 mg/L. Rather than use different baseline values for the
same pollutant, EPA used the nominal quantitation limit of 0.5 mg/L from Method 351.3 as the
baseline value for TKN. EPA chose this value because Method 351.3 was used by EPA to obtain
most of the data used in the pollutants of concern analysis. This value is also the maximum of the
nominal quantitation limits from the two methods used by EPA.
A.4.14 Method 415.1 (Total Organic Carbon)
Total organic carbon (TOC) was determined by Method 415.1, which is approved for
compliance monitoring in 40 CFR 136. Method 415.1 is a combustion (or oxidation) method
A-18
-------
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
with a lower measurement range limit of 1 mg/L. EPA used this nominal quantitation limit of 1
mg/L as the baseline value.
A.4.15 Methods 365.2 and 300.0 (Total Orthophosphate)
Methods 365.2 and 300.0 were used to measure orthophosphate concentrations. Total
orthophosphate is the inorganic phosphorus (P04) in the sample. Method 365.2 is approved for
compliance monitoring of total orthophosphate in 40 CFR 136, while Method 300.0 is not. As
explained previously (see Sections A.4.7 and A.4.10), EPA allowed laboratories to use Method
300.0 because interferences sometimes present in samples containing blood, animal tissue, or
other particulates are not a factor in the analysis.
Method 365.2 is a colorimetric method for determining orthophosphate and measures
concentrations greater than 0.01 mg/L. Method 300.0 uses ion chromatography and can measure
down to 0.20 mg/L. For all orthophosphate data, EPA used the baseline value of 0.01 mg/L,
which is associated with the lower quantitation limit for the colorimetric procedure because the
laboratories used Method 365.2 to produce the majority of the data used in the pollutants of
concern analysis.
A.4.16 Methods HACH 8167 and 330.5 (Total Residual Chlorine)
Total residual chlorine was determined by Methods 330.5 and HACH 8167. Method
330.5 is approved for compliance monitoring in 40 CFR 136. Methods 330.5 and HACH 8167
use the same colorimetric reagent, N,N-diethyl-p-phenylene diamine (DPD), and are essentially
the same procedure; thus, the data are directly comparable.
The nominal quantitation limit in Method 330.5 is 0.2 mg/L; the nominal quantitation
limit for method HACH 8167 is 0.1 mg/L. Rather than use two different baseline values for the
same pollutant, EPA used the value associated with Method 330.5 (0.2 mg/L) as the baseline
value because Method 330.5 was used to produce the majority of the data used in the pollutants
of concern analysis. The Method 330.5 baseline value also is the higher of the two values.
A-19
-------
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
A.4.17 Method 160.2 and SM2540 D (Total Suspended Solids)
For EPA sampling episodes, total suspended solids (TSS) was determined using Method
160.2. For industry supplied data, TSS was measured by SM2540 D. Both methods are approved
for compliance monitoring in 40 CFR 136. Both methods are gravimetric with a lower limit
measurement range of 4 mg/L. The nominal quantitation limit of 4 mg/L was used as the baseline
value.
A.4.18 Method 160.4 (Volatile Residue)
Volatile residue was determined by Method 160.4, which is approved for compliance
monitoring in 40 CFR 136. Method 160.4 is a gravimetric and ignition method with a lower limit
measurement range of 10 mg/L. The nominal quantitation limit of 10 mg/L was used as the
baseline value.
A.4.19 EPA Method 1622 (Cryptosporidium)
Cryptosporidium was determined by EPA Method 1622, which, as explained in Section
A. 1, has not been approved for compliance monitoring. However, Methods 1622 and 1623 are 40
CFR Part 136-approved methods for Cryptosporidium for ambient water monitoring, published
on July 21, 2003 (68 Federal Register (FR) 139, pages 43272^3283; correction notice in 68 FR
182 page 54934). In Method 1622, the laboratory filters a 10-liter sample through an absolute-
porosity filter to capture any target organisms that may be present, elutes the filter, concentrates
the eluate, purifies the concentrate using immunomagnetic separation, and applies the purified
sample to a microscope slide. The purified sample is stained with an antibody stain and a vital
dye stain, and target organisms are identified and counted based on immunofluorescence assay,
differential interference microscopy, and vital dye staining characteristics.
Due to the high turbidity of the sample matrices for these episodes, it was necessary for
the analytical laboratory to modify the sample processing steps of the method, depending on the
nature of the particulates in the sample. For samples that contained a high concentration of
biological particles, a small volume of the sample (100 to 250 milliliters (mL)) was concentrated
using centrifugation and then processed according to EPA Method 1622. For samples with lower
A-20
-------
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
concentrations of biological particulates that could be filtered, a 10-liter sample was filtered
through a compressed foam filter, the filter was eluted, and the eluate was concentrated by
centrifugation and then processed according to EPA Method 1622.
As explained earlier, there is no detection limit or baseline value associated with EPA
Method 1622; however, EPA used the baseline value of zero in the pollutant of concern analysis.
Furthermore, if Cryptosporidium was not quantitated, the sample was reported as zero.
A.4.20 SM9221B, SM9221C, SM9221D, SM9221E, SM9221F, SM9230B,
SM9260L, FDA-BAM Chapter 5 (Total Coliform, Fecal Coliform, E. call,
Fecal Streptococcus, Aeromonas, Salmonella)
Laboratories measured the densities of total coliform, fecal coliform, E. coli, fecal
streptococcus, Aeromonas, and Salmonella in 100-milliliter samples using the multiple-tube
fermentation procedures specified in Standard Methods and the Food and Drug Administration's
Biological Analytical Manual (FDA-BAM). EPA used methods approved for compliance
monitoring in 40 CFR 136 for total coliform (SM9221 B), fecal coliform (SM9221C,D,E), and
fecal streptococcus (SM9230B). At the time of the sampling there were no methods approved in
40 CFR 136 for E. coli, Aeromonas, and Salmonella', however, EPA published final ambient
water monitoring methods for E.coli on July 21, 2003 (68 FR 139, pages 43272^3283;
correction notice in 68 FR 182, page 54934). The method used for E. coli, SM9221 F, is now an
approved method in Part 136.
To measure total coliform (SM 922 IB), fecal coliform (SM 9221C,D,E), and E. coli (SM
9221 F), samples were inoculated into a presumptive medium (lauryl tryptose broth) and
incubated. Tubes positive for growth and gas production were transferred into confirmatory
media: brilliant green bile broth (for total coliform), EC (for fecal coliform), or EC-MUG (for E.
coli). Tubes with growth and gas production in their respective media were recorded as positive.
To measure fecal streptococcus (SM 9230B), samples were inoculated into a presumptive
medium (azide dextrose broth) and incubated. Tubes positive for turbidity (growth) were
confirmed by streaking onto bile esculin agar plates. All plates with typical growth were recorded
as positive for fecal streptococcus.
A-21
-------
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
Aeromonas densities were determined using SM 9260L, followed by the confirmation
steps in EPA Method 1605 to minimize false positive results. Samples were inoculated into a
presumptive medium (TSB30) and incubated. Tubes with growth were streaked onto ampicillin-
dextrin agar (ADA). All yellow colonies were isolated on nutrient agar and confirmed as
Aeromonas if they were oxidase positive and were able to ferment trehalose. In addition to the
biochemical confirmation, colony morphologies from ADA and nutrient agar were recorded and
used to differentiate between Aeromonas and Bacillus.
The FDA-BAM Chapter 5 method was used to determine Salmonella densities. Samples
were inoculated into a presumptive medium (tetrathionate broth) and incubated. Tubes with
growth were streaked onto Hektoen enteric agar plates. Typical colonies were confirmed on triple
sugar iron agar slants. The FDA-BAM method was used instead of the approved Kenner-Clark
method because the performance of the FDA-BAM method is better suited for samples that
contain blood and particulates.
The nominal quantitation limit for these analytes was determined using the most probable
number (MPN) approach specified in Standard Methods. The MPN of each target organism per
100 milliliters was calculated based on the positive and negative results from the analysis of
multiple replicates at multiple dilutions for each sample (see Table 9221. IV of Standard Methods
and Table 2 in Appendix 2 of FDA-BAM). Based on the tables in Standard Methods, the
nominal quantitation limit for all analytes was 2 MPN per 100 mL. The nominal quantitation
limit was used as the baseline value. No values were reported below the baseline value.
A. 4.20.1 Holding Time Study
When EPA conducted its own sampling episodes at the facilities, it exceeded the required
holding time for some samples. Although laboratories qualified to conduct total coliform, fecal
coliform, and E. coli analyses might have been within driving distance of the facilities being
evaluated, laboratories qualified to perform fecal streptococcus, Salmonella, and Aeromonas
analyses generally were not available, because analysis for these analytes is more complex than
coliform analyses. As a result, for most sampling episodes, EPA decided to ship samples
overnight to a laboratory capable of performing all of the bacterial analyses. Because these
A-22
-------
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
samples would exceed the holding time requirements in 40 CFR 136, EPA performed a holding
time study to evaluate the possible effects of analyzing samples at different holding times.
To determine whether or not the results for samples with longer holding times were
consistent with results for samples analyzed within 8 hours (i.e., the time period consistent with
40 CFR 136 for compliance sampling), for total coliforms, fecal coliforms, E. coli, Aeromonas,
fecal streptococcus, and Salmonella from MPP facilities, EPA conducted a holding time study to
evaluate sample concentrations at 8, 24, 30, and 48 hours after sample collection for wastewater
effluent samples from a beef facility (before disinfection and final effluent), a pork facility (final
effluent prior to discharge into the sewer system), and a poultry facility (final effluent). The study
report, which contains results for all target bacteria, is DCN 165311 in Section 22.6 in the public
record for the Notice of Data Availability (NODA). Only the results for fecal coliform and E. coli
are discussed here, because EPA is not establishing numeric limitations for other target indicators
in the holding time study. As holding times increase, the fecal coliform and E. coli
concentrations may change. EPA's intent in conducting the study was to gain some insight into
the length of time that would still provide results comparable to the results for samples held for
eight hours.
For red meat effluent, the results of this study indicate that samples for fecal coliform and
E. coli measurements can be held for 24 hours and still produce results comparable to analyses
conducted at 8 hours after sample collection, provided that samples are stored on ice until
analysis and not frozen. For poultry wastewater effluent, the study results indicate that samples
held longer than 8 hours do not provide comparable results to results at 8-hour holding times.
For red meat facilities where EPA is retaining the previously promulgated limitations and
standards, EPA is using the fecal coliform data from the EPA sampling episodes for some
analyses such as (1) calculations for loadings and (2) evaluation of treatment performance by
comparing influent and effluent data. For the treatment technologies that EPA considered, all of
the red meat data from sampling episodes are associated with holding times of about 24 hours.
Based on the results of the holding time study, EPA is using the 24-hour data for these analyses.
Note that EPA is not revising the current limitations and standards for red meat facilities and thus
is not using these data to develop limitations and standards for fecal coliform. In the NODA,
A-23
-------
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
EPA requested comments on the use of the 24-hour holding time data for analysis of loadings
and treatment performance at red meat facilities. EPA did not receive any comments in response
to the solicitation in the NODA.
For poultry facilities, where EPA transferred the existing limitations and standards from
the red meat subcategories, EPA used only data within the 8-hour holding time for its loading
analysis because the holding time study indicated that longer holding times for poultry processing
wastewaters were not comparable to the 8-hour period. Because only one sampling episode
(6304) meets this criterion, EPA based its loadings and other analyses on fecal coliform data
from this single sampling episode and any appropriate self-monitoring data. EPA used these data
in evaluating the achievability of the limitations that EPA transferred from the existing
limitations for the red meat subcategory. EPA received comments on the transfer of limitations
for the poultry subcategory from the red meat subcategory, and on its planned use of data to
analyze loadings and treatment performance.
A.4.20.2 Monitoring ofE. coli and Fecal Coliform
Although EPA considers fecal coliform to be the appropriate parameter for regulation for
the MPP industry, EPA recognizes that some states and tribes may still prefer that facilities
monitor directly for E. coli. Because concentrations of fecal coliform and E. coli might be similar
in these matrices, EPA is considering an alternative that would allow facilities to monitor E. coli
instead of fecal coliform in the effluent. This alternative would be available when EPA amends
40 CFR 136 to include an analytical method for E. coli in industrial effluent. EPA expects to
promulgate such a method in the next few years. EPA is conducting validation studies of this
method and expects to propose this method in 2004. See Vol. 68, No. 156 of the Federal Register
for more detail.
A.4.20.3 Reporting Units
EPA received comments requesting that the Agency allow for monitoring of fecal
coliforms to be reported in colony forming units (CFU) per 100 milliliters in addition to most
probable numbers (MPN) per 100 mL as specified in the existing regulations. Based on the
research of Thomas and Woodward in Estimation of Coliforms Density by the Membrane Filter
A-24
-------
Appendix A. Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
and the Fermentation Tube Methods, results from either technique can be considered comparable
as long as the volume analyzed is equivalent. This finding of comparability is consistent with
documentation for the existing fecal coliform limitations and standards. Therefore, EPA is
revising the limitations and standards to allow for fecal coliform results to be reported in units of
either MPN per 100 mL or CFU per 100 mL, based on the analytical method used to determine
the results. Specifically, fecal coliform results should be reported in MPN per 100 mL if the
multiple-tube format is used; and in CFU per 100 mL if the membrane filtration (MF) technique
is used. According to SM 9222A and SM 9222B, although statistical comparisons show the MF
technique to be more precise than the multiple-tube procedure, data generated from the MF and
the multiple-tube test yield approximately the same water quality information.
A.5 Total Nitrogen
EPA is regulating total nitrogen to ensure that the relationship between organic nitrogen
(estimated by TKN) and inorganic nitrogen (estimated by nitrate/nitrite) is maintained. EPA is
defining "total nitrogen" to be the sum of nitrate/nitrite and TKN for the purposes of the MPP
industry. This summation includes nitrogen in the trinegative oxidation state (the dominant
oxidation state of nitrogen in organic compounds), ammonia-nitrogen, and nitrogen in nitrite
(N02 ) and nitrate (NO, ). In developing the limitations (see Section 14), EPA used a baseline
value of 0.1 mg/L, which is the sum of the baseline values for nitrate/nitrite (0.05 mg/L) and
TKN (0.05 mg/L).
A-25
-------
Appendix B
Survey Design and Calculation of National
Estimates
-------
Appendix B - Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
-------
Appendix B - Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
In 2001, EPA distributed two industry surveys. The first survey, entitled 2001 Meat
Products Industry Screener Survey (short survey), was mailed to 1,650 meat products industry
facilities. The second survey, entitled 2001 Meat Products Industry Survey (detailed survey), was
mailed to 350 meat products industry facilities.
Section B. 1 of this appendix describes the survey design (identification of facilities in the
industry and sample design). Section B.2 of this appendix describes the selection of the sample.
Section B.3 of this appendix describes response status of short survey facilities. Section B.4 of
this appendix describes the calculation of sample weights. Section B.5 of this appendix describes
the methodology for estimating national totals and their variance estimates. Section B.6 of this
appendix summarizes EPA's analysis of the detailed survey.
B.I SURVEY DESIGN
This section describes the development of the sampling plan, which includes
identification of the meat products industry and stratification of facilities.
B.l.l Sample Frame
To produce a mailing list of facilities for the detailed survey and short survey, EPA
developed a sample frame of the meat products industry. A sample frame is a list of all members
(sampling units) of a population, from which a random sample of members will be drawn for the
survey. Therefore, a sample frame is the basis for the development of a sampling plan to select a
random sample. EPA used several data sources to construct this sample frame. The March 2000
Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) database was the main source of data. It
was supplemented with information from the Urner-Barry Meat and Poultry Directory 2000 and
an April 2000 list of 236 renderers provided by the National Renderers Association (NRA). The
sample frame for the meat product survey contained 8,217 facilities.
EPA classified each facility into sampling strata by considering facility type, facility size,
and type of animal used at the facility. Each facility was of one of the following three types: first
processor, further processor, or renderer. Three size categories were used to determine the facility
size. The size category was defined as large for facilities with 500 employees or more, small for
B-l
-------
Appendix B - Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
facilities with 10 to 499 employees, and very small for facilities with 9 employees or less. Each
facility on the sample frame specialized in one or several types of animal. These types of animal
corresponded to poultry, beef, pork, and other. Renderers were not identified by size or animal
type.
B.I.2 Sample Design
The sample frame for the survey included an unknown number of out-of-scope facilities.
In order to obtain reliable counts of eligible meat product facilities, i.e., the facilities that were in-
scope, by type and facility size directly from the frame, the survey was designed as a two-phase
sample.
A first-phase sample of 2,000 facilities was selected from a sample frame containing
8,217 facilities. Additionally, a second-phase sample of 350 facilities was selected from the first-
phase sample. All 350 second-phase sample facilities were mailed the detailed questionnaire,
while the remaining 1,650 first-phase sample facilities received the short questionnaire. While
the abridged form collected basic data to determine eligibility status and types of meat processed,
the long form collected data about the 350 second-phase sample facilities for technical and
financial information. Because of time constraints, both surveys were sent out simultaneously. To
improve the accuracy of estimates from the detailed survey, the final weights were calibrated to
the estimated counts of eligible facilities from the short survey.
EPA identified a list of 65 facilities that were to be selected for the second-phase detailed
sample with certainty to obtain information necessary for evaluating facility operations and best
technology options. The first-phase and second-phase facility samples were stratified samples.
Stratification separated the eligible population into non-overlapping strata that were as
homogeneous as possible. Stratification assured that the sample would contain the same
proportions as found on the sample frame, for those variables used to define the strata. The first-
phase sample (selecting 1,935 non-certainties from 8,152) was stratified by facility type and size.
The stratification of the second-phase sample was based only on facility type, since just 285
facilities were to be selected from the 1,935 first-phase non-certainties.
B-2
-------
Appendix B - Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
Table B-l shows the distribution of facilities on the sample frame by facility type (first
processor, further processor, renderer, or missing), size, and certainty status. Most certainty
facilities were large first processors. Only 5 certainty facilities were small and none of the very
small facilities were included in the sample with certainty.
B.1.3 Imputing for Missing Facility Type
In order to estimate the number of eligible facilities by type, size, and meat product (the
purpose of the short survey), it was necessary to include samples of sufficient size from each
facility-type-by-size stratum. This required assigning each facility on the frame to one of these
strata; however, this information was unknown for many facilities; thus, EPA imputed the
missing stratification data.
Table B-l. Distribution of Facilities in the Sample Frame by Certainty, Facility Type, and Size
Size
Certainty status
Facility type
Larue
Small
Very small
Unknown
Total
first Processor
149
234
0
0
383
Non-certainties
further Processor
34
883
0
0
917
Renderer
0
0
0
235
235
Unknown
50
1,259
5,308
0
6,61 7
Non-certainty total
233
2,376
5,308
235
8,152
first Processor
56
3
0
0
59
Certainties
further Processor
1
0
0
0
1
Renderer
0
0
0
1
1
Unknown
2
2
0
0
4
Certainty total
59
5
0
1
65
Grand total
292
2,381
5,308
236
8,217
From Table B-l it is seen that facility type had to be imputed for 6,617 non-certainty
facilities.1 The facilities to be imputed a specific type were chosen randomly from the set of
facilities with missing type. The facilities with unknown facility type were distributed between
"first processors" and "further processors" proportionally to the reported number by type within
1 It should be noted that no imputation was earried out on the four certainty facilities with missing facility
type, as they were to be included in the sample by design.
B-3
-------
Appendix B - Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
each size category. Therefore, 9 (=50 x (34/(34+149))) of the 50 large facilities with missing
facility type were assigned to the further processor category, while the remaining 41 large
facilities were assigned to the "first processor" category. Similarly, 995 of the 1,259 small
facilities with missing facility type were assigned the "further processor" type, and the remaining
264 small facilities were assigned the "first processor" type. All very small facilities were
assumed to be further processors because very small facilities in this industry were typically
further processors.
All imputed values were used only for allocating the sample. None of the values were
used for estimation and any wrong assumption simply resulted in a less efficient sample (larger
variance). In addition, this imputation process was not expected to introduce any bias in the
statistical procedure. For example, all very small facilities were assumed to be further processors;
however, if any very small facility reported as a first processor it was treated as such in all
analyses.
B.1.4 Imputing for Missing Animal Type
Before selecting the samples, the frame was sorted by animal type within each stratum.
This allowed for appropriate representation of the different animal types in random selection of
the sample. Table B-2 shows the distribution by animal type of noncertainty facilities that were
not renderers. It should be noted that the stratification did not require the specification of animal
type for the renderers. All large facilities with missing animal type were randomly assigned to
one of the 7 animal type categories described in Table B-2 proportionally to the large facilities
with animal types reported in the frame. On the other hand, small and very small facilities were
combined and randomly assigned to animal type groups proportionally to the number of small
facilities reported with animal types.
B-4
-------
Appendix B - Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
Table B-2. Distribution of Noncertainty and Non-Renderer Facilities Imputed for Animal Type
Facility size
Animal type
Number of facilities
reported on frame
Number of facilities
imputed
Large
Pork only
17
4
Poultry only
127
30
Poultry & Pork
2
0
Beef only
10
2
Beel'& Pork
6
1
Beel'& Poultry
3
2
Beef& Poultry & Pork
23
6
Missing
45
N/A
Small and very small
Pork only
157
805
Poultry only
152
779
Poultry & Pork
32
164
Beef only
1%
1,005
Beef& Pork
203
1,041
Beef& Poultry
76
390
Beef& Poultry & Pork
43 X
2,246
Missing
6,430
N/A
Total
7,91 7
6,475
B.2 SAMPLE SELECTION OF FACILITIES
The design of the first-phase sample was based upon the assumption that large facilities
were more likely to be eligible than small facilities, which in turn were expected to be eligible
more frequently than very small facilities. Thus, EPA determined that oversampling of the large
facilities would be appropriate, in order to include many eligible facilities. Too much
oversampling would reduce the accuracy of estimates because some facilities would have much
greater weights than other facilities. An examination of alternative oversampling schemes2
suggested balancing these two constraints by selecting large facilities at six times the rate of very
small facilities, and at twice the rate of small facilities.
: July 28, 2000 memorandum from David Marker to I lelen Jacobs and Jade I.ee-I:reeman.
B-5
-------
Appendix B - Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
After sorting by animal type, the facilities were selected from each stratum using
systematic sampling scheme. Systematic sampling involve selecting every k,h facility where k is
determined by the selection rate. The allocation of the sample is described in Table B-3. The
allocation in Table B-3 was based upon the 6-3-1 rule according to which, large facilities were
selected at a rate that was 6 times higher than that of very small facilities and twice higher than
that of small facilities. Using this allocation scheme, EPA selected a total of 2,000 facilities from
the frame of 8,217 facilities.
Table B-3. Allocation of the First-Phase Sample
Stratum It
Sample frame size
(NJ
First phase sample size
(nj
Certainty
65
65
Large First Processor
190
152
Large I urtherProcessor
43
34
Small First Processor
498
199
Small Further Processor
1,878
750
Very Small Further Processor
5,308
706
Re rule re r
235
94
Total
8,217
2,000
The 350 sample facilities were allocated in the second-phase sample to provide similar
precision for each of seven analytic domains of interest. These domains were: poultry, beef, and
pork first processors; poultry, beef, and pork further processors; and renderers. The 285
noncertainty sample facilities were therefore allocated so that approximately 41 (=285/7) were in
each of these seven domains. The entire second-phase sample, including the noncertainty sample,
consisted of 121 first processors, 122 further processors, and 42 renderers, along with 65
facilities selected with certainty. The facilities were sorted within facility type by animal type (as
listed in Table B-4) before selecting the samples. Table B-4 shows how the first-phase sample in
the previous table was distributed across the short and detailed surveys.
B-6
-------
Appendix B - Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
Table B-4. Allocation of the Sample to the Short and Detailed Surveys
Facility size and type
Sample size
First phase
Short survey
Detailed Survey
Certainty
65
0
65
Large First proeessor
152
100
52
I.arge Further proeessor
34
31
3
Small First proeessor
199
130
69
Small Further proeessor
750
688
62
Very small Further proeessor
706
649
57
Re rule re r
94
52
42
Total
2,000
1,650
350
For the purpose of selecting the sample of facilities, the WESSAMP SAS macro
developed at Westat was used. WESSAMP selects systematic samples within sampling strata
defined through a set of parameters.
B.3 RESPONSE STATUS OF SHORT (SCREENER) SAMPLE FACILITIES
Of the 1,650 facilities to which a short form was mailed, 173 did not return the form and
as of December 31, 2002 eligibility was unknown for 157 of them. The remaining 16 were
known to be eligible non-respondents. EPA also assumed that some of the 157 facilities with
unknown eligibility were eligible non-respondents. A total of 286 facilities that were either out-
of-scope or could not be located were classified as ineligible. The remaining 1,191 facilities were
eligible respondents. These were facilities that returned a complete form and indicated that they
engaged in meat processing. The short survey weights were constructed for a total of 1,254
eligible respondents. This includes 63 certainty facilities that completed the detailed survey
questionnaire. They are included in the weighting for both surveys to allow national estimates to
be produced from either set of respondents. Thus, the short survey weights were constructed
using the 1,191 eligible short survey respondents, and 63 "shadow" facilities corresponding to
the 63 certainty facilities that were eligible to be detailed survey respondents.
Table B-5 shows the response status by stratum for the 1,650 facilities that were mailed
the short survey (excluding the 63 shadow facilities).
B-7
-------
Appendix B - Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
Table B-5. Response Status for the Short Survey by First-Phase Stratum
Non-respondent
Ineligible
Stratum
Sample
size
Kl^ible
Respondent
(5.)
Known
Kli«ibilitv
(S2)
Unknown
Kli«ibilitv
(S4)
Out-of-
Scope
(¦S',)
Non-
deliverable
Large First Processor
100
97
1
1
1
0
Large Further Processor
31
28
0
1
2
0
Small First Processor
130
101
1
9
15
4
Small Further Processor
688
498
7
59
73
51
Very Small Further
Processor
649
435
7
85
57
65
Renderer
52
32
0
2
5
13
Total
1,650
1,191
16
157
153
133
B.4 WEIGHTING OF THE SHORT SURVEY
This section describes the methodology used to calculate the base weights, non-response
adjustments, and the final weights for the short survey. In its analysis, EPA applied sample
weights to survey data. The short survey was weighted in order to account for variable
probabilities of selection, differential response rates, and ineligible facilities. The base weights
and non-response adjustments reflect the probability of selection for each facility and
adjustments for facility level non-responses, respectively. Weighting the data allows inferences to
be made about all eligible facilities, not just those included in the sample, but also those not
included in the sample or those that did not respond to the survey. Also, the weighted estimates
have a smaller variance than unweighted estimates (see Section B.5 of this appendix for variance
estimation.)
B.4.1 Base Weight Calculation
The first step in weighting the short survey was to assign a base weight to each of the
sample facilities. The base weight associated with a short survey facility was calculated by
multiplying the reciprocal of the probability of including that facility in the first-phase sample of
2,000 facilities, by the reciprocal of the probability of not including that facility in the detailed
survey sample in the second phase. Table B-6 shows the calculation of the base weight. The short
B-8
-------
Appendix B - Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
survey base weight for a given first-phase stratum h and second-phase stratum / can formally be
written as follows:
-l
-l
Base weighty
^Nhj
x
m,
M
where Nh is the number of facilities in the sample frame that belong to first-phase stratum
/?, nh is the number of facilities selected in the first-phase sample that belong to first-phase
stratum h (Nh and nh are shown in Table B-5), M, is the number of first-phase sample facilities
that belonged to second-phase stratum /, and m, is the number of facilities selected in the detailed
survey sample from second-phase stratum /.
For example, in the first-phase sample, 34 of 43 large further processors were selected, so
the first-phase inclusion probability was 0.7907. The second-phase sample only stratified by
facility type, so the second-phase inclusion probability for further processors in the detailed
survey was (3 + 62 + 57)/(34 + 750 + 706) = 0.0819 (see Table B-4). The overall inclusion
probability for the short survey was (0.7907) x (1 - 0.0819) = 0.72596. The base weight was the
reciprocal of this probability, i.e., reciprocal of 0.72596, which is 1.3775.
B-9
-------
Appendix B - Survey Design and Calculation of National listimales
Table B-6. Base Weight Calculation for the Short Survey
Stratum
First-phase
inclusion
probability
(",/*J
Second-phase
detailed survey
inclusion
probabilities
(nt/M,)
Short survey
inclusion
probabilities
fe('-t))
Short survey base
weijihts
Large First processor
o.xooo
0.3447
0.52422
1.9076
Small First processor
0.3996
0.3447
0.26185
3.8191
Large Further processor
0.7907
0.0819
0.72596
1.3775
Small Further processor
0.3994
0.0819
0.36666
2.7273
Very Small Further processor
0.1330
0.0819
0.12212
8.1889
Renderer
0.4000
0.4468
0.22128
4.5192
B.4.2 Eligibility and Non-response Adjustment
The base weights associated with the short survey facilities were adjusted for non-
response. Because 157 of the 173 non-responding facilities had an unknown eligibility status, it
was assumed that they were distributed among eligible (respondent and non-respondent) and out-
of-scope facilities in the same proportions as the respondents within each stratum. It was
assumed that all non-respondents did receive their surveys. The non-response adjustment was
applied in two steps. In the first step, the base weights of facilities were multiplied by the
adjustment factor obtained by dividing the sum of the weights of all sample facilities by the sum
of the weights of facilities with known eligibility status. Thus, the weight, vv,,, for a facility /' in
stratum /?, after the unknown eligibility adjustment can be written as follows:
wM = [base weight) x [unknown_eligibility adjustment) t
l \ f S\ + S\ + S\ + S\)
= (/«,«. „«*/„), x [ _s. ;.s., + .v. J
1 - h
where Sh S:. and S4 represent the sum of the weights for stratum h of eligible
respondents, eligible non-respondents, unknown eligibility non-respondents, and ineligible
facilities, respectively (see Table B-5). In the second step, the unknown eligibility adjusted
B-10
-------
Appendix B - Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
weight was further adjusted to account for eligible non-respondents, which was the final survey
weight. As with the adjustment for unknown eligibility, the non-response adjustment factor was
defined as the ratio of the sum of the weights of eligible facilities (both respondents and non-
respondents) to the sum of the weights of the eligible respondent facilities only. This non-
response adjustment was also performed within strata in order to account for differential response
rates in the short survey. Table B-7 shows the non-response adjustment factors (both unknown
eligibility adjustment and non-response adjustment for eligible non-respondents) and final
weights for each stratum.
Table B-7. Non-Response Adjustment and Final Weight for the Short Survey
Stratum It
Short survey
base \veij»ht
Unknown Kli«ibility
adjustment
f .S| + + Sj 1
I 5, + S2 + 5, J
Non-response
adjustment
fs, +S.-1
I S, J
Short survey final
\veij»ht
OK J
Large First Processor
1.9076
1.0101
1.0103
1.9467
Small First Processor
3.81 y i
1.0769
1.0099
4.1536
Large Further Processor
1.3775
1.0333
1.0000
1.4234
Small Further Processor
2.7273
1.1021
1.0141
3.0480
Very Small Further
Processor
8.1 889
1.1703
1.0161
9.7380
Renderer
4.5192
1.0541
1.0000
4.7635
EPA has revised the short survey weighting based on all responses received until
December 31, 2002. These revised survey weights have been used to produce the national
estimates. (See Section B.6.)
B.5 ESTIMATION METHOD
This section presents the general methodology and equations for calculating estimates
from the short survey.
B.5.1 National Estimates
National total estimates were obtained for each characteristic and domain of interest by
multiplying the reported value by the final survey weight (non-response-adjusted weight
B-ll
-------
Appendix B - Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
including both unknown eligibility adjustment and adjustment for eligible non-respondents) and
by summing all weighted values for the facilities that belong to the domain of interest k.
Similarly, ratio estimates (for example, of the mean) in a given domain k were obtained as
a ratio of two national total estimates. For example, the average cattle production by facilities
doing first processing was calculated by dividing the weighted production of cattle by the
weighted count of first processors.
where vv,,, is the final weight for facility i,ytl is the cattle production for facility /', both in
domain k, and the summation is over all facilities reporting cattle production.
Note that many facilities were involved in more than one type of activity or production.
Their classification into one activity type, either first processing, further processing, rendering, or
some combination was determined by the relative concentration of their production in any
activity. Similar classification issues arose when reporting production by animal type (red meat,
poultry, or mixed). For purposes of statistical weighting procedures, if at least 85 percent of total
production was of a given type of activity, it was classified accordingly (e.g., first processor). If
no activity type accounted for 85 percent of production it was classified as mixed type. The same
rule was used for animal type.
B.5.2 Variance Estimates
To compute the correct estimates of standard errors a set of jackknife replicate weights
was constructed and attached to each facility. Under the jackknife replication method, a number
-I
B-12
-------
Appendix B - Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
of subsamples (called jackknife replicates) were generated from the full sample, and the entire
weighting process as described in the previous sections was repeated for each replicate. In this
way, a series of replicate weights were generated for each facility, which together with the full-
sample weight were used to calculate sampling errors (see Wolters, 1985 for a description of the
jackknife and other variance estimation methods)'. Given that there were almost 1,200
responding facilities for the short survey, it was decided to create 90 replicates for variance
estimation. Each respondent was assigned a number between 1 and 90. The first replicate used
the values from all facilities except those assigned to group 1. The other replicates were derived
in a similar way by excluding the values for a different group each time.
In order to illustrate how the sampling errors have been calculated, let be the weighted
national average estimate of a characteristic v (e.g., first processor meat production of cattle) for
the entire data set. If is the corresponding estimate for jackknife replicate r, then the estimated
variance of v is given by the following formula:
where the summation extends over all 90 jackknife replicates that were formed for the
short survey. This jackknife variance was often used to compute 95 percent confidence limits
around the estimate. These limits are given by:
y ± l-96-y/var(>-)
The WesVar program was used to compute estimates of standard errors.
Wolters, K.. M. (1985) Introduction to Variance Estimation, Springer-Yerlag Publishers, New York.
B-13
-------
Appendix B - Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
B.6 ANALYSIS OF THE DETAILED SURVEY
For the final rule, the base weight associated with a detailed sample facility was
calculated by multiplying the reciprocal of the probability of including that facility in the first-
phase sample of 2,000 facilities, by the reciprocal of the probability of including that facility in
the detailed survey sample. Table B-8 shows the calculation of the base weight. The detailed
survey base weight for a given first-phase stratum h and second-phase stratum / can formally be
written as follows:
Base weight M
-i
-i
N„
m.
M,.
where Nh is the number of facilities in the sample that belong to first-phase stratum h (Nh
and nh are shown in Table B-3), nh is the number of facilities selected in the first-phase sample
that belong to first-phase stratum /?, Mt is the number of first-phase sample facilities that belong
to second-phase stratum /, and m, is the number of facilities selected in the detailed survey
sample from second-phase stratum / (second-phase stratum totals can be found in the column
labeled "Detailed Survey" in Table B-4).
B-14
-------
Appendix B - Survey Design and Calculation of National lislimales
Table B-8. Base Weight Calculation for the Detailed Survey Sample
Stratum
First-phase
inclusion
probability
("„ / <%)
Second-phase
inclusion
probabilities
('»/ / M,)
Detailed survey
inclusion
probabilities
U wjl m,))
Detailed survey
base \veij»hts
k) U)')
Large First Processor
0.8000
0.3447
0.2758
3.6260
Small First Processor
0.3996
0.3447
0.1378
7.2594
Large Further Processor
0.7907
0.0819
0.0647
15.4460
Small Further Processor
0.3994
0.0819
0.0327
30.5816
Very Small Further Processor
0.1330
0.0819
0.0109
91.8232
Re rule re r
0.4000
0.4468
0.1787
5.5952
Certainties
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
Due to duplication on the sample frame, a few facilities were sampled for both the short
and detailed surveys. Such facilities were encouraged to complete both forms since estimates are
made independently from both surveys.
The non-response adjustment for the detailed survey was carried out with the same
methodology used to adjust the base weights for the short survey (see Section B.4.2). The non-
response adjustments for each stratum are shown in Table B-9. However, the non-response-
adjusted weights were further adjusted to benchmark them to the weighted counts of eligible
facilities calculated from the short survey. This is because the much larger sample size in the
short survey provides better estimates of the number of eligible facilities in each stratum. This
second adjustment was done within type and size categories and yielded the final weight. If h
designates a first-phase stratum, then the detailed survey final weight vv, for a given facility /' can
be written as
follows:
, , (Estimated Number of Facilities from Short Survev),
W, = [NR - Adjusted Weight) x — : : "~A—
' (Estimated Number of Facilities from Detailed Survey) h
B-15
-------
Appendix B - Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
Table B-9. Non-Response Adjustment and Final NR Adjusted Weight for the Detailed Survey
Stratum It
Detailed
survey base
\veij»ht
Non-response
adjustment
( S", + S2 + 5, + sA
V S\ + S2 + Sy J
Non-response
adjust ment
fs,+sA
{ 5, J
Detailed survey
final NK adjusted
\veij»ht
Large First
Processor
3.6260
1.0000
1.0000
3.6260
Small First
Processor
7.2594
1.173 1
1.0513
8.9525
Large Further
Processor
15.4460
1.0000
1.0000
15.4460
Small Further
Processor
30.5816
1.0577
1.2162
39.3391
Very Small Further
Processor
91.8232
1.1818
1.2500
135.6479
Re rule re r
5.5952
1.0526
1.0000
5.8897
As a first step in the benchmarking, EPA categorized facilities into groups using the
facility meat type (red meat, poultry, or a mixture) and production type (first processing, further
processing, first processing/further processing, first processing/rendering, further
processing/rendering, first processing/further processing/rendering). In addition, EPA gathered
independent renderers into one group. As a result of crossing three meat types by six different
production types and adding rendering as a separate type, EPA obtained the following 19
possible types of facilities.
1.
Red Meat Slaughter,
2.
Red Meat Slaughter/Render,
3.
Red Meat Processor,
4.
Red Meat Processor/Render,
5.
Red Meat Both,
6.
Red Meat Both/Render,
7.
Poultry Slaughter,
8.
Poultry Slaughter/Render,
B-16
-------
Appendix B - Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
9.
Poultry Processor,
10.
Poultry Processor/Render,
11.
Poultry Both,
12.
Poultry Both/Render,
13.
Mixed Meat Slaughter,
14.
Mixed Meat Slaughter/Render,
15.
Mixed Meat Processor,
16.
Mixed Meat Processor/Render,
17.
Mixed Meat Both,
18.
Mixed Meat Both/Render, and
19.
Renderer Only.
EPA further split these facility types into non-small (or large) and small based on total
production. Thus, EPA obtained a total of 38 possible groups of facilities. Within each of the 38
groups, EPA compared the estimated number of facilities using the short survey weights to the
estimates using the detailed survey weights. Because the detailed questionnaire had data for only
a few or no facilities within some groups, it was necessary to collapse some groups. Moreover,
the adjustment factors were either too small or too large for some of the groups. Therefore, the 38
facility groups were collapsed to form 11 post-strata. To perform this step, EPA determined that
it was appropriate to collapse certain production types and sizes within meat type. For example,
two groups for non-small red meat slaughters and non-small red meat slaughter/render were
collapsed into a single group. The criteria for collapsing were that the short survey sample count
for the post-stratum (after collapsing) must be at least 10 and that for the detailed survey the
sample count must be at least 5. Moreover, the adjustment factors must be between 0.4 (=1/2.5)
and 2.5. The large variations in the post-stratification adjustment factors introduces large
variations in the final (post-stratified) weights that results in increased variances. On the other
hand, too much collapsing of cells would introduce bias. Therefore, the choice of lower and
upper cut-off values for the adjustment factors was a trade-off between the bias and variance.
EPA chose these lower and upper threshold values of adjustment factors because values larger
B-17
-------
Appendix B - Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
than 0.4 for lower threshold and values smaller than 2.5 for upper threshold would have resulted
in too much collapsing, and hence the risk of potential bias. For the final rule, the certainty cases
were held out of the post-stratification step, so that the sum of the weights for the non-certainty
detailed survey respondents were made to match the sum of the weights for the non-certainty
short survey respondents. As a result, none of the weights are now less than 1.0.
Within each of the 11 groups, we then benchmarked the detailed survey weights so that
the national estimate of facilities using the detailed questionnaire database matched the national
estimates based upon the short survey data. Because facilities from different sampling strata
could be assigned to the same group, it is possible to have facilities with different survey weights
within a particular group after collapsing. By collapsing these groups, we obtained information
about facilities with similar characteristics, and improved precision for its national estimates
based upon data available only from the detailed questionnaire (e.g., data about the wastewater
treatment components).
Table B-10 provides the number of facilities in the short survey database, the number of
facilities in the detailed questionnaire database, and the national estimate of the number of
facilities. Both the short survey and detailed survey provide the same national estimate of number
of facilities for each of the 11 post-strata.
Table B-10. Number of MPP Facilities
Post-Stratum
Number of Facilities
Shortsurvey
Respondents
Detailed
Survey
Respondents
National
Estimate
Non-small Red Meat Slaughter,
Slaughter/Render, Processor, Processor/Render,
Slaughter/Processor or
Slaughter/Processor/Render
82
54
210
Small Red Meat Slaughter or Slaughter/Render
62
6
493
Small Red Meat Processor or Processor/Render
309
43
1873
Small Red Meat Slaughter/Processor or
Slaughter/Processor/Render
122
16
1018
B-18
-------
Appendix B - Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
Table B-10. Number of MPP Facilities (Continued)
Post-Stratum
Number of Facilities
Shortsurvey
Respondents
Detailed
Survey
Respondents
National
Estimate
Small Mixed Meat
340
18
1911
Non-small Poultry Slaughter or Poultry
Slaughter/Render
79
27
170
Non-small Poultry Slaughter/Processor, Processor,
or Processor/Render
75
35
175
Non-small Poultry Slaughter/Processor/ Render
10
9
28
Small Poultry Slaughter, Slaughter/Render,
Slaughter/Processor, Slaughter/Processor/Render,
Processor, or Processor/Render
50
6
327
Render Only
29
20
132
Note the national estimates presented in Table B-10 include all MPP facilities (e.g., direct dischargers, indirect dischargers, zero
dischargers, and all facilities regardless of si/.e) and is not the same as the national estimate of number of regulated MPP facilities
(e.g., direct dischargers above the category-specific production thresholds).
National estimates and corresponding standard errors for the detailed survey are calculated using the methods described in Section
B.5 for the short survey.
B-19
-------
Appendix C
40 CFR Part 432
-------
Appendix ('. 40 CI R Par! 432
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Pt. 432
Galibrat ion verific at ion standard (V'KR):
The midpoint calibration standard (('S3)
that is used to verify calibration. See Table
1.
Ghlorophenolics: collectively. the analytes
listed in Table 1.
GS1. GS2. ('S3. ("SI. GSii: See (Calibration
standards and Table I.
field blank: An aliquot of reagent water or
other reference matrix that is placed in a
sample container in the laboratory or the
field, and treated as a sample in all respects,
including exposure to sampling site condi
t ions, storage, preservation, and all analyt
ical procedures. The purpose of the field
blank is to determine if the field or sample
t ransport ing procedures and environment s
have contaminated the sample.
GG: Gas chromat ograph or gas c hroma
t ography.
IIRGG: High resolut ion GG.
IPR: Initial precision and recovery: four
aliquots of the diluted PAR standard ana
lyzed to establish the ability to generate ac
ceptable precision and ac c urac y. An IPR is
performed prior to the first time this method
is used and any time the method or instru
inent at ion is modified.
K I): Kuderna Danish concentrator: a de
vice used to concentrate the analytes in a
solvent.
Laboratory blank: See Method blank.
l aboratory control sample (I CS): See On
going precision and recovery standard (OPR).
laboratory reagent blank: See Method
blank.
May: This action, activity, or procedural
step is neither required nor prohibited.
May not: This action, activity, or proce
dural step is prohibited.
Method blank: An aliquot of reagent water
that is trealed exac t ly as a sample inc luding
exposure to all glassware, equipment, sol
vents, reagents, internal standards, and sur
rogates that are used with samples. The
method blank is used to determine if
analyt es or interferences are present in the
laboratory environment, the reagents, or the
apparat us.
Minimum level (MI ): The level at which
t he ent ire analyt ical system must give a rec
ogni/able signal and acceptable calibration
point for the analyte. It is equivalent to the
concentration of the lowest calibration
standard, assuming that all method specified
sample weights, volumes, and cleanup proce
dures have been employed.
MS: Mass spectrometer or mass spec t rom
et ry.
Must: This action, activity, or procedural
step is required.
OPR: Ongoing precision and recovery
standard (OPR); a laboratory blank spiked
with known quant it ies of analyt es. The OPR
is analyzed exact ly like a sample. Its purpose
is to assure that the results produced by the
laboratory remain within the limits spec i
fied in this method for prec ision and recov
ery.
PAR: Precision and recovery standard: sec
ondary standard that is diluted and spiked to
form the IPR and OPR.
Preparat ion blank: See Method blank.
Primary dilution standard: A solution con
taining the specified analyt es that is pur
chased or prepared from stock solutions and
diluted as needed to prepare c alibrat ion solu
t ions and ot her so hit ions.
Quality control check sample (QCS): A
sample containing all or a subset of the
analyt es at known concentrations. The QCS
is obtained from a source external to the lab
oratory or is prepared from a source of
standards different from the source of cali
brat ion standards. It is used to c hec k lahora
tory performance with test materials pre
pared external to the normal preparation
prcx ess.
Reagent water: Water demonstrated to be
free from the analyt es of interest and poten
tially interfering substances at the method
del ect ion limit for t he analyt e.
Relative standard deviation (RSI)): The
standard deviation times 100 divided by the
mean.
RI': Response factor. See Sec tion 10.f>. 1.
RR: Relat ive response. See Sect ion 10.1.1.
RSI): See Relat ive st andard devTit ion.
Should: This action, activity, or proce
dural step is suggested but not required.
Stock solution: A solution containing an
analyte that is prepared using a reference
material traceable to I,PA. the National In
st itute of Science and Technology (XIS I ). or
a source that will attest to the purity and
aut bent ic it y of t he reference material.
V'KR: See Calibrat ion verificat ion
standard.
PART 431 [RESERVED]
PART 432—MEAT PRODUCTS POINT
SOURCE CATEGORY
Subpart A—Simple Slaughterhouse
Subcategory
Sec .
132.10 Applicability: description of the sim
pie slaughterhouse subcategory.
132.11 Specialized definit ions.
132 12 I Affluent limit at ions guidelines rep
resent ing t he degree of effluent reduc t ion
at tainable by t he applic at ion of t he best
practicable control technology currently
available.
132.13 [Reserved]
132.11 Pret real inent standards for exist ing
sources.
132.If) Standards of performance for new
sources.
132.1 (i Pret real inent standards for new
sources.
c-i
-------
Pt. 432
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-03 Edition)
132.17 I;,ffluont limit at ions guidelines rep
resent ing t he degree of effluent reduct ion
at tainable by t he applicat ion of t he best
convent ional pollutant cont rol tech
no logy.
Subpart B—Complex Slaughterhouse
Subcategory
132.20 Applicability: description of the coin
plex slaughterhouse subcategory.
132.21 Specialized definit ions.
132.22 1 Affluent limit at ions guidelines rep
resent ing t he degree of effluent reduct ion
at tainable by t he applicat ion of t he best
practicable control technology currently
standards for existing
performance for new
standards for new
av
132.23 [Reserved]
132.21 Pret real ment
sources.
132.2:") Standards of
sources.
-132.26 Pret real ment
sources.
132.27 leffluent
132.11 Pret real inent standards for existi
sources.
132,1:") St;
of performance for new
sources.
132,10 Pretreal inent standards for new
sources.
132.17 leffluent limit at ions guidelines rep
resent ing t he degree of effluent reduct ion
at tainable by t he applicat ion of t he best
convent ional pollutant cont rol tech
no logy.
Subpart E—Small Processor Subcategory
132
t he
at ions guidelines rep
resent ing t he degree of effluent reduct ion
at tainable by t he applicat ion of t he best
convent ional pollutant cont rol tech
no logy.
Subpart C—Low-Processing Packinghouse
Subcategory
132.30 Applicability: description of the low-
processing packinghouse subcategory.
132.31 Specialized definit ions.
132.32 leffluent limit at ions guidelines rep
resent ing t he degree of effluent reduct ion
at tainable by t he applicat ion of t he best
practicable control technology currently
available.
132.33 [Reserved]
132.31 Pret real ment
sources.
132.3:") Standards of
sources.
•132.30 Pret real ment
sources.
132.37 leffluent
132
132
132
132
132
132
standards for existing
performance for new
standards for new
at ions guidelines rep
resent ing t he degree of effluent reduct ion
at tainable by t he applicat ion of t he best
convent ional pollutant cont rol tech
no logy.
Subpart D—High-Processing Packinghouse
Subcategory
132.10 Applicability: descript ion of the high
processing packinghouse subcategory.
132.11 Specialized definit ions.
132.12 leffluent limit at ions guidelines rep
resent ing t he degree of effluent reduct ion
at tainable by t he applicat ion of t he best
practicable control technology currently
:")0 Applicability: descript ion of
small processor subcategory.
:")1 Specialized definit ions.
:")2 leffluent limitations guidelines rep
resent ing t he degree of effluent reduct ion
at tainable by t he applicat ion of t he best
practicable control technology currently
available.
:")3 132-f) 1 [Reserved]
:">:") Standards of performance for new
sources.
:")0 Pret real ment standards for new
sources.
:")7 leffluent limitations guidelines rep
resent ing t he degree of effluent reduct ion
at tainable by t he applicat ion of t he best
convent ional pollutant cont rol tech
no logy.
Subpart F—Meat Cutter Subcategory
132.00 Applicability: descript ion of the meat
cut ter subcategory.
132.01 Specialized definit ions.
132.02 leffluent limit at ions guidelines rep
resent ing t he degree of effluent reduct ion
at tainable by t he applicat ion of t he best
practicable control technology currently
available.
132.03 leffluent limit at ions guidelines rep
resent ing t he degree of effluent reduct ion
at tainable by t he applicat ion of t he best
available t echnology economically
achievable.
132.01 [Reserved]
132.0:") Standards of performance for new
sources.
132.00 Pret real ment standards for new
132,13 [Reserved]
sources.
132.07 leffluent limit at ions guidelines rep
resent ing t he degree of effluent reduct ion
at tainable by t he applicat ion of t he best
convent ional pollutant cont rol tech
no logy.
Subpart G—Sausage and Luncheon Meats
Processor Subcategory
132-70 Applicability: description of the sau
sage and lunc heon meat processor sub
category.
132.71 Specialized definit ions.
132.72 leffluent limit at ions guidelines rep
resent ing t he degree of effluent reduct ion
C-2
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
§432.11
at tamable by t ho applicat ion of t ho host
practicable control technology currently
available.
132.73 1 Affluent limit at ions guidelines rep
resent ing t he degree of effluent reduet ion
at tainable by t he applicat ion of t he best
available t eehnology economically
achievable.
132.71 [Reserved!
132.7:") Standards of performance for new
sources.
132.7(i Pretreal inent standards for new
sources.
132.77 1 Affluent limit at ions guidelines rep
resent ing t he degree of effluent reduet ion
at tainable by t he applicat ion of t he best
convent ional pollutant cont rol tech
no logy.
Subpart H—Ham Processor Subcategory
132.80 Applicability: description of the ham
processor subeat egory.
132.81 Specialized definit ions.
132.82 1 effluent limit at ions guidelines rep
resent ing t he degree of effluent reduet ion
at tainable by t he applicat ion of t he best
practicable control technology currently
available.
132.83 1 effluent limit at ions guidelines rep
resent ing t he degree of effluent reduet ion
at tainable by t he applicat ion of t he best
available t eehnology economically
achievable.
132.81 [Reserved]
132.8:") Standards of performance for new
sources.
-132.86 Pretreal inent standards for new
sources.
132.87 1 effluent limit at ions guidelines rep
resent ing t he degree of effluent reduet ion
at tainable by t he applicat ion of t he best
convent ional pollutant cont rol tech
no logy.
Subpart I—Canned Meats Processor
Subcategory
132.90 Applicability: description of the
canned meats processor subcategory.
132.91 Specialized definit ions.
132.92 1 effluent limit at ions guidelines rep
resent ing t he degree of effluent reduet ion
at tainable by t he applicat ion of t he best
practicable control technology currently
available.
132.93 1 effluent limit at ions guidelines rep
resent ing t he degree of effluent reduet ion
at tainable by t he applicat ion of t he best
available t eehnology economically
achievable.
132.91 [Reserved]
132.9:") Standards of performance for new
sources.
-132.96 Pretreal ment standards for new
sources.
132.97 1 effluent limit at ions guidelines rep
resent ing t he degree of effluent reduet ion
at tainable by t he applicat ion of t he best
convent ional pollutant cont rol tech
no logy.
Subpart J—Renderer Subcategory
132.100 Applicability: deseript ion of the ren
derer subeat egory.
132.101 Specialized definit ions.
132.102 leffluent limitat ions guidelines rep
resent ing t he degree of effluent reduet ion
at tainable by t he applicat ion of t he best
practicable control technology currently
available.
132.103 leffluent limitat ions guidelines rep
resent ing t he degree of effluent reduet ion
at tainable by t he applicat ion of t he best
available t eehnology economically
achievable.
132.101 [Reserved]
132.10:") Standards of performance for new
sources.
132.106 Pret real ment standards for new
sources.
132.107 leffluent limitat ions guidelines rep
resent ing t he degree of effluent reduet ion
at tainable by t he applicat ion of t he best
convent ional pollut ion cont rol tech
no logy.
AtlHOKIIY: Sees. 301. 301 (b) and (c). 306 (b)
and (c). and 307(c) of the federal Water Pol
hit ion Control Ac t. as amended: 33 tJ.S.C.
1251. 1311. 1311 (b) and (c). 1316 (b) and (c).
1317(c): 86 Stat. 816 et seq.. Pub. I.. 92 500: 91
Stat. 1567. Pub. I.. 95 217.
Sot"Kt K: 39 PR 7897. Feb. 28. 1971. unless
ot herwise noted.
Subpart A—Simple
Slaughterhouse Subcategory
$432.10 Applicability; description of
the simple slaughterhouse sub-
category.
The provisions of this subpart arc ap
plicable to discharges result ing from
tlie product ion of red meat carcasses,
in whole or part, by simple slaughter-
houses.
$432.11 Specialized definitions.
for the purpose of this subpar t:
(a) f.xcept as provided below, the gen
eral definitions, abbreviations and
methods of analysis set forth in 40 (T'R
part 401 shall apply to this subpart.
(b) Ihe term "slaughterhouse" shall
mean a plant that slaughters animals
and has as its main product fresh meat
as whole, half or quarter carcasses or
smaller- meat cut s.
C-3
-------
§432.12
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-03 Edition)
(c) The term "simple slaughter
house" shall mean a slaughterhouse
which accomplishes very limited by-
product processing, if any, usually no
more than two of such operations as
rendering, paunch and viscera hail
dling, blood processing, hide proc-
essing, or hair processing.
(d) The term "l.VVK" (live weight
killed) shall mean the total weight of
the total number of animals slaugh
t ered during the time to which the ef
fluent limitations apply; i.e., during
any one day or any period of thirty
consecut ive days.
(e) The term "l .l.VVK" (equivalent
live weight killed) shall mean the total
weight of the total number of animals
slaughtered at locations other than the
slaughterhouse or packinghouse, which
animals provide hides, blood, viscera or
renderable materials for processing at
that slaughterhouse, in addition to
those derived from animals slaughtered
on site.
(f) The term "oil and grease" shall
mean those components of process
waste water amenable to measurement
by the method described in "Methods
for Chemical Analysis of Water and
Wastes," l()7l, I'.PA, Analytical Quality
Control Laboratory, page 217.
$432.12 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applica-
tion of the best practicable control
technology currently available.
I'.xcept as provided in §§125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent limita
t ions representing the degree of efflu
ent reduction attainable by the appli
cation of the best practicable control
technology currently available (HP I):
(a) The following limitations estab
lish the quantity <>t" quality of pollut
ants or pollutant properties, controlled
by this section and attributable to on
site slaughter or subsequent meat,
meat product or by product processing
of carcasses of animals slaughtered on
site, which may be discharged by a
point source subject to the provisions
of this subpart after application of the
best practicable control technology
current ly available:
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Effluent characteristic
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kilograms per
1.000 kg LWK)
BOD5
0 24 0 12
TSS
0 40 0 20
Oil and grease
0 12 0 06
Fecal coliform
(') (')
PH
(') (')
English units (pounds per
1.000 lb LWK)
BOD5
0 24 0 12
TSS
0 40 0 20
Oil and grease
0 12 0 06
Fecal coliform
(') (')
PH
(>) (>)
1 Maximum at any time 400 mpn/100 ml
-'Within the range 6 0 to 9 0
(b) The following limitations estab
lish the quantity <>t" quality of pollut
ants or pollutant properties, controlled
by this section and attributable to the
processing (defleshing, washing and
curing) of hides derived from animals
slaughtered at locations other than the
slaughterhouse, which may be dis
charged by a point source subject to
the provisions of this subpart, in addi
t ion to the discharge allowed by
§432.12(a):
Effluent limitations
Effluent characteristic
Average of daily
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kilograms per
1.000 kg ELWK)
BOD5
TSS
0 04 0 02
0 08 0 04
English units (pounds per
1.000 lb ELWK)
BOD5
TSS
0 04 0 02
0 08 0 04
(c) The following limitations estab
lish the quantity <>•" quality of pollut
ants or pollutant properties, controlled
by this section and attributable to the
processing of blood derived from ani
mals slaughtered at locations other
t hail the slaughterhouse, which may be
discharged by a point source subject to
C-4
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
§432.15
the provisions of this subpart, in addi
t ion to the discharge allowed by
§432.12(a):
Effluent limitations
Effluent characteristic
Average of daily
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kilograms per
1.000 kg ELWK)
BOD5
TSS
0 04 0 02
0 08 0 04
English units (pounds per
1.000 lb ELWK)
BOD5
TSS
0 04 0 02
0 08 0 04
(d) The following limitations est ah
lish the quantity or quality of pollut
ants or pollutant properties, controlled
by this section and attributable to the
wet or low temperature rendering of
material derived from animals slaugli
t ered at locations other than the
slaughterhouse, which may be dis
charged by a point source subject to
the provisions of this subpart, in addi
t ion to the discharge allowed by
§432.12(a):
Effluent limitations
Effluent characteristic
Average of daily
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kilograms per
1.000 kg ELWK)
BOD5
TSS
0 06 0 03
0 12 0 06
English units (pounds per
1.000 lb ELWK)
BOD5
TSS
0 06 0 03
0 12 0 06
(e) The following limitations estab
lish the quantity or quality of pollut
ants or pollutant properties, controlled
by this section and attributable to the
dry rendering of material derived from
animals slaughtered at locations other
than the slaughterhouse, which may be
discharged by a point source subject to
the provisions of this subpart, in addi
t ion to the discharge allowed by
§432.12(a):
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Effluent characteristic
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kilograms per
1.000 kg ELWK)
BOD5
0 02 0 01
TSS
0 04 0 02
pH
(') (')
English units (pounds per
1.000 lb ELWK)
BOD5
0 02 0 01
TSS
0 04 0 02
pH
(') (')
1 Within the range 6 0 to 9 0
13!) IK 7X07. I'd). 28. 1071. as amended at <>()
I k XiOlil. .June 20. 1005]
$432.13 | Reserved |
$432.14 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process waste
water pollutants into a publicly owned
treatment works must comply with 4(1
(T'R part 4(13. In addition, the following
pretreatment standard establishes the
quantity or quality of pollutants or
pollutant properties controlled by this
section which may be discharged to a
publicly owned treatment works by a
point source subject to the provisions
of t his subpart.
Pollutant or pollutant property
Pretreatment standard
pH
No limitation
BOD5
Do
TSS
Do
Oil and grease
Do
Fecal coliform
Do
110 I K ()1K). I'd). 11. 107:"). as amended at (i()
I k ;i;i0(il. lime 20. 100f)|
$432.15 Standards of performance for
new sources.
(a) I lie following standards of per
formance establish the quantity or
quality of pollut ant s or pollut ant prop
ert ies, controlled by this section and
attributable to on site slaughter or
subsequent meat, meat product or by-
product processing of carcasses of ani
mals slaughtered on site which may be
discharged by a new source subject to
C-5
-------
§432.16
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-03 Edition)
t lie provisions of t his subpart: the limi
tat ions shall he as specified in
?}432.12(a). with the exception that in
addition to the pollutants or pollutant
properties controlled by that sub
section, discharges of ammonia shall
not exceed the limitations set forth
below:
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Effluent characteristic Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kilograms per
1.000 kg LWK)
Ammonia
0 34 0 1 7
English units (pounds per
1.000 lb LWK)
Ammonia
0 34 0 1 7
(b) The following standards of per
formance establish the quantity <>•"
quality of pollut ant s or pollut ant prop
ert ies, controlled by this section and
attributable to the processing of blood
derived from animals slaughtered at lo
cations other than the slaughterhouse,
which may be discharged by a new
source subject to the provisions of this
subpart, in addition to the discharge
allowed by §§432.15(a) and 432.12(c):
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Effluent characteristic Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kilograms per
1.000 kg ELWK)
Ammonia
0 06 0 03
English units (pounds per
1.000 lb ELWK)
Ammonia
0 06 0 03
(c) The following standards of per
formance establish the quantity or
quality of pollut ant s or pollut ant prop
ert ies, controlled by this section and
attributable to the wet or low tempera
ture rendering of material derived from
animals slaughtered at locations other
than slaughterhouse, which may be dis
charged by a new source subject to the
provisions of this subpart, in addition
to the discharge allowed by §§432.15(a)
and 432.12(d):
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Effluent characteristic Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kilograms per
1.000 kg ELWK)
Ammonia
0 10 0 05
English units (pounds per
1.000 lb ELWK)
Ammonia
0 10 0 05
(d) The following standards of per
formance establish the quantity or
quality of pollut ant s or pollut ant prop
ert ies, controlled by this section and
attributable to the dry rendering of
material derived from animals slaugh
t ered at locations other than the
slaughterhouse which may be dis
charged by a new source subject to the
provisions of this subpart, in addition
to the discharge allowed by §§432.15(a)
and 432.12(e):
Effluent limitations
Effluent characteristic
Average of daily
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kilograms per
1.000 kg ELWK)
Ammonia
0 04 0 02
English units (pounds per
1.000 lb ELWK)
Ammonia
0 04 0 02
13!) IK 7X07. I'd). 28. 137-1: 3!) I k 2G-123. .July 10.
1071|
$432.16 Pretreatment standards for
new sources.
Any new source subject to this sub
part that introduces process waste
water pollutants into a publicly owned
treatment works must comply with 4(1
(T'R part 403.
|GO IK 330(5-1. .June 20. 1005]
C-6
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
§432.22
$432.17 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applica-
tion of the best conventional pollut-
ant control technology.
F.xcept as provided in §§125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent limita
t ions representing the degree of efflu
ent reduction attainable by the appli
cation of the best conventional pollut
ant control technology (HOT): The lim
it at ions shall be the same as those
specified for conventional pollutants
(which are defined in §401.l(i) in §'132.12
of this subpart for the best practicable
control technology currently available
(HPT).
|fil Ik 2fi()()l. .July !). l!)8(i|
Subpart B—Complex
Slaughterhouse Subcategory
§ 432.20 Applicability; description of
the complex slaughterhouse sub-
category.
The provisions of this subpart are ap
plicable to discharges resulting from
the production of red meat carcasses,
in whole or part, by complex slaughter
houses.
$432.21 Specialized definitions.
For t he purpose of t his subpart:
(a) F.xcept as provided below, the gen
eral definitions, abbreviations and
methods of analysis set forth in 40 OTP
part 401 shall apply to this subpart.
(b) The term "slaughterhouse" shall
mean a plant that slaughters animals
and has as its main product fresh meat
as whole, half or quarter carcasses or
smaller meat cut s.
(c) The term "complex slaughter
house" shall mean a slaughterhouse
that accomplishes extensive by prod
uct processing, usually at least t hree of
such operat ions as rendering, paunch
and viscera handling, blood processing,
hide processing, or hair processing.
(d) The term "FVVK" (live weight
killed) shall mean the total weight of
the total number of animals slaugh
t ered during the time to which the ef
fluent limitations apply; i.e., during
any one day or any period of thirty
consecut ive days.
(e) The term "FI.VVK" (equivalent
live weight killed) shall mean the total
weight of the total number of animals
slaughtered at locations other than the
slaughterhouse or packinghouse, which
animals provide hides, blood, viscera or
renderable materials for processing at
that slaughterhouse, in addition to
those derived from animals slaughtered
on site.
(f) The term "oil and grease" shall
mean those components of process
waste water amenable to measurement
by the method described in "Methods
for Ohemical Analysis of Water and
Wastes," 1971, F.FA, Analytical Quality
Oontrol l.aboratory, page 217.
$432.22 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applica-
tion of the best practicable control
technology currently available.
F.xcept as provided in §§125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent limita
t ions representing the degree of efflu
ent reduction attainable by the appli
cation of the best practicable control
technology currently available (HPT):
(a) The following limitations estab
lish the quantity or quality of pollut
ants or pollutant properties, controlled
by this section and attributable to on
site slaughter or subsequent meat,
meat product or by product processing
of carcasses of animals slaughtered on
site, which may be discharged by a
point source subject to the provisions
of this subpart after application of the
best practical control technology cur
rent ly available:
C-7
-------
§432.22
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-03 Edition)
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Effluent characteristic Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kilograms per
1.000 kg LWK)
BOD5
0 42
0 21
TSS
050
0 25
Oil and grease
0 16
0 08
Fecal coliform
(')
(')
PH
P)
P)
English units (pounds per
1.000 lb LWK)
BOD5
0 42
0 21
TSS
050
0 25
Oil and grease
0 16
0 08
Fecal coliform
(')
(')
PH
P)
P)
1 Maximum at any time 400 mpn/100 ml
-'Within the range 6 0 to 9 0
(b) The following limitations est ah
lish the quantity <>t" quality of' pollut
ants of pollutant properties, controlled
by this section and attributable to the
processing (defleshing, washing and
curing) of hides derived from animals
slaughtered at locations other than the
slaughterhouse, which may be dis
charged by a point source subject to
the provisions of this subpart, in addi
t ion to the discharge allowed by para
graph (a) of t his sect ion:
Effluent limitations
Effluent characteristic
Average of daily
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kilograms per
1.000 kg ELWK)
BOD5
TSS
0 04 0 02
0 08 0 04
English units (pounds per
1.000 lb ELWK)
BOD5
TSS
0 04 0 02
0 08 0 04
(c) The following limitations est ah
lish the quantity or quality of pollut
ants or pollutant properties, controlled
by this section and attributable to the
processing of blood derived from ani
mals slaughtered at locations other
than the slaughterhouse, which may be
discharged by a point source subject to
the provisions of this subpart, in addi
t ion to the discharge allowed by para
graph (a) of t his sect ion:
Effluent limitations
Effluent characteristic
Average of daily
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kilograms per
1.000 kg ELWK)
BOD5
0 04 0 02
TSS
0 08 0 04
English units (pounds per
1.000 lb ELWK)
BOD5
0 04 0 02
TSS
0 08 0 04
(d) The following limitations est ah
lish the quantity or quality of pollut
ants or pollutant properties, controlled
by this section and attributable to the
wet or low temperature rendering of
material derived from animals slaugh
t ered at locations other than the
slaughterhouse, which may be dis
charged by a point source subject to
the provisions of this subpart, in addi
t ion to the discharge allowed by para
graph (a) of t his sect ion:
Effluent limitations
Effluent characteristic
Average of daily
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kilograms per
1.000 kg ELWK)
BOD5
0 06 0 03
TSS
0 12 0 06
English units (pounds per
1.000 lb ELWK)
BOD5
0 06 0 03
TSS
0 12 0 06
(e) The following limitations est ah
lish the quantity or quality of pollut
ants or pollutant properties, controlled
by this section and attributable to the
dry rendering of material derived from
animals slaughtered at locations other
than the slaughterhouse, which may be
discharged by a point source subject to
the provisions of this subpart, in addi
t ion to the discharge allowed by para
graph (a):
C-8
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
§432.25
Effluent limitations
Effluent characteristic
Average of daily
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kilograms per
1.000 kg ELWK)
BOD5
TSS
0 02 0 01
0 04 0 02
English units (pounds per
1.000 lb ELWK)
BOD5
TSS
0 02 0 01
0 04 0 02
13!) Ik 7X07. I'd). 28. 1071: 30 I k 2(il23. .July 10.
1071. as amended al 15 I k 8225-1. Her. 15. 1080:
GO I k 330B-1. .June 20. 1005]
$432.23 | Reserved |
§ 432.24 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources.
Any exist ing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process waste
water pollutants into a publicly owned
treatment works must comply with 40
C.I'R part 403. In addition, the following
pretreatment standard establishes the
quantity or quality of pollutants or
pollutant properties controlled by this
section which may be discharged to a
publicly owned treatment works by a
point source subject to the provisions
of t his subpart.
Pollutant or pollutant property
Pretreatment standard
pH
No limitation
BOD5
Do
TSS
Do
Oil and grease
Do
Fecal coliform
Do
110 I k ()11(). I'd). 11. 1075. as amended at GO
I k 330B5. .June 20. 1005]
§ 432.25 Standards of performance for
new sources.
(a) The following standards of per-
formance establish the quantity or
quality of pollut ant s or pollut ant prop
ert ies, controlled by this section and
attributable to on site slaughter or
subsequent meat, meat product or by-
product processing of carcasses of ani
tnals slaughtered on site which may be
discharged by a new source subject to
the provisions of this subpart: The lim
it at ions shall be as specified in
§432.22(a), with the exception that in
addition to the pollutants or pollutant
properties controlled by that sub
section, discharges of ammonia shall
not exceed the limitations set forth
below:
Effluent limitations
Effluent characteristic
Average of daily
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kilograms per
1.000 kg LWK)
Ammonia
0 48 0 24
English units (pounds per
1.000 lb LWK)
Ammonia
0 48 0 24
(b) The following standards of per
fonnance establish the quantity or
quality of pollut ant s or pollut ant prop
ert ies, controlled by this section and
attr ibutable to the processing of blood
der ived from animals slaughtered at lo
cations other- than the slaughterhouse,
which may be discharged by a new
source subject to the provisions of this
subpart, in addition to the discharge
allowed by paragraph (a) of this section
and S432.22(c):
Effluent limitations
Effluent characteristic
Average of daily
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kilograms per
1.000 kg ELWK)
Ammonia
0 06 0 03
English units (pounds per
1.000 lb ELWK)
Ammonia
0 06 0 03
(c) The following standards of per
fonnance establish the quantity or
quality of pollut ant s or pollut ant prop
ert ies, controlled by this section and
attributable to the wet or low tempera
ture rendering of material der ived from
animals slaughtered at locations other
than the slaughterhouse, which may be
discharged by a new source subject to
the provisions of this subpart, in addi
t ion to the discharge allowed by para
graph (a) of this section and §432.22(d):
C-9
-------
§432.26
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-03 Edition)
Effluent limitations
Effluent characteristic
Average of daily
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kilograms per
1.000 kg ELWK)
Ammonia
0 10 0 05
English units (pounds per
1.000 lb ELWK)
Ammonia
0 10 0 05
(d) The following standards of per
formance establish the quantity or
quality of po lit it ant s or po lit it ant prop
ert ies, controlled by this section and
attributable to the dry rendering of
material derived from animals slaugli
t ered at locations other than the
slaughterhouse, which may be dis
charged by a new source subject to the
provisions of this subpart, in addition
to the discharge allowed by paragraph
(a) of t his sect ion and § 432.22(e):
Effluent limitations
Effluent characteristic
Average of daily
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kilograms per
1.000 kg ELWK)
Ammonia
0 04 0 02
English units (pounds per
1.000 lb ELWK)
Ammonia
0 04 0 02
13!) IK 7X07. I'd). 28. 1071: 30 I k 2G-123. .July 10.
1071|
§ 432.26 Pretreatment standards for
new sources.
Any new source subject to this sub
part that introduces process waste
water pollutants into a publicly owned
treatment works must comply with 40
OI'R part 4(13.
|GO I K :i:i0(if). .June 20. 1005]
$432.27 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applica-
tion of the best conventional pollut-
ant control technology.
I'.xcept as provided in §§125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent limita
t ions representing the degree of ef'flu
ent reduction attainable by the appli
cation of the best conventional pollut
ant control technology (HOT): The lim
it at ions shall be the same as those
specified for conventional pollutants
(which are defined in §401.Hi) in §432.22
of this subpart for the best practicable
control technology currently available
(HPT).
151 I K 25001. .July 0. 108(i|
Subpart C—Low-Processing
Packinghouse Subcategory
§ 432.30 Applicability; description of
the low-processing packinghouse
subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are ap
plicable to discharges resulting from
the production of red meat carcasses in
whole or part, by low processing pack
inghouses.
$432.31 Specialized definitions.
1 or t he purpose of t his subpart:
(a) I'.xcept as provided below, the gen
eral definitions, abbreviations and
methods of analysis set forth in 40 0.1 R
part 401 shall apply to this subpart.
(b) The term "packinghouse" shall
mean a plant that both slaughters ani
mals and subsequent ly processes car
casses into cured, smoked, canned or
ot her prepared meat products.
(c) The term "low processing pack
inghouse" shall mean a packinghouse
that processes no more than the total
animals killed at that plant, normally
processing less than the total kill.
(d) The term "l.VVK" (live weight
killed) shall mean the total weight of
the total number of animals slaugli
t ered during the time to which the ef
fluent limitations apply; i.e., during
any one day or any period of thirty
consecut ive days.
(e) The term "1 .l.VVK" (equivalent
live weight killed) shall mean the total
C-10
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
§432.32
weight of the total number of animals
slaughtered at locations other than the
slaughterhouse or packinghouse, which
animals provide hides, blood, viscera or
renderable materials for processing at
that slaughterhouse, in addition to
those derived from animals slaughtered
on site.
(f) The term "oil and grease" shall
mean those components of process
waste water amenable to measurement
by the method described in "Methods
for Chemical Analysis of Water and
Wastes," 1971, I'.PA, Analytical Quality
Control Laboratory, page 217.
$432.32 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applica-
tion of the best practicable control
technology currently available.
L.xcept as provided in §§125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent limita
t ions representing the degree of efflu
ent reduction attainable by the appli
cation of the best practicable control
technology currently available (HP I):
(a) The following limitations est ah
lish the quantity or quality of pollut
ants or pollutant properties, controlled
by this section and attributable to on
site slaughter or subsequent meat,
meat product or byproduct, processing
of carcasses of animals slaughtered on
site, which may be discharged by a
point source subject to the provisions
of this subpart after application of the
best practicable control technology
current ly available:
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Effluent characteristic Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kilograms per
1.000 kg LWK)
BOD5
0 34 0 1 7
TSS
0 48 0 24
Oil and grease
0 16 0 08
Fecal coliform
(') (')
PH
P) P)
English units (pounds per
1.000 lb LWK)
BOD5
0 34 0 1 7
TSS
0 48 0 24
Oil and grease
0 16 0 08
Fecal coliform
(') (')
PH
P) P)
1 Maximum at any time 400 mpn/100 ml
-'Within the range 6 0 to 9 0
(b) The following limitations est ah
lish the quantity or quality of pollut
ants or pollutant properties, controlled
by this section and attributable to the
processing (defleshing, washing and
curing) of hides derived from animals
slaughtered at locations other than the
packinghouse, which may be dis
charged by a point source subject to
the provisions of this subpart, in addi
t ion to the discharge allowed by para
graph (a) of t his sect ion:
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Effluent characteristic Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kilograms per
1.000 kg ELWK)
BOD5 0 04 0 02
TSS 0 08 0 04
(c) The following limitations est ah
lish the quantity or quality of pollut
ants or pollutant properties, controlled
by this section and attributable to the
processing of blood derived from ani
mals slaughtered at locations other
than the packinghouse, which may be
discharged by a point source subject to
C-ll
-------
§432.33
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-03 Edition)
the provisions of this subpart, in addi
t ion to the discharge allowed by para
graph (a) of t his sect ion:
Effluent limitations
Effluent characteristic
Average of daily
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kilograms per
1.000 kg ELWK)
BOD5
TSS
0 04 0 02
0 08 0 04
English units (pounds per
1.000 lb ELWK)
BOD5
TSS
0 04 0 02
0 08 0 04
(d) The following limitations estab
lish the quantity or quality of pollut
ants or pollutant properties, controlled
by this section and attributable to the
wet or low temperature rendering of
material derived from animals slaugh
t ered at locations other than the pack
inghouse, which may be discharged by
a point source subject to the provisions
of this subpart, in addition to the dis
charge allowed by paragraph (a) of this
sect ion:
Effluent limitations
Effluent characteristic
Average of daily
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kilograms per
1.000 kg ELWK)
BOD5
TSS
0 06 0 03
0 12 0 06
English units (pounds per
1.000 lb ELWK)
BOD5
TSS
0 06 0 03
0 12 0 06
(e) The following limitations estab
lish the quantity or quality of pollut
ants or pollutant properties, controlled
by this section and attributable to the
dry rendering of material derived from
animals slaughtered at locations other
than the packinghouse, which may be
discharged by a point source subject to
the provisions of this subpart, in addi
t ion to the discharge allowed by para
graph (a) of t his sect ion:
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Effluent characteristic Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kilograms per
1.000 kg ELWK)
BOD5
0 02 0 01
TSS
0 04 0 02
English units (pounds per
1.000 lb ELWK)
BOD5
0 02 0 01
TSS
0 04 0 02
13!) I K 7X07. I'd). 28. 137-1. as amended at (ill
I k .June 20. 1005]
$432.33 | Reserved |
§ 432.34 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process waste
water pollutants into a publicly owned
treatment works must comply with '1(1
(T'R part 403. In addition, the following
pretreatment standard establishes the
quantity or quality of pollutants or
pollutant properties controlled by this
section which may be discharged to a
publicly owned treatment works by a
point source subject to the provisions
of t his subpart.
Pollutant or pollutant property
Pretreatment standard
pH
No limitation
BOD5
Do
TSS
Do
Oil and grease
Do
Fecal coliform
Do
110 I K ()H7. I'd). 11. 107:"). as amended at (i()
I k ;«0(if). lime 20. 100f>]
§ 432.35 Standards of performance for
new sources.
(a) The following standards of per
formance establish the quantity or
quality of pollut ant s or pollut ant prop
ert ies, controlled by this section and
attributable to on site slaughter or
subsequent meat, meat product or by-
product processing of carcasses of ani
mals slaughtered on site which may be
discharged by a new source subject to
t he provisions of t his subpart: The lim
it at ions shall be as specified in
S432.32(a), with the exception that in
C-12
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
§432.36
addition to t lie pollutants of pollutant
properties controlled by that sub
section, discharges of ammonia shall
not exceed the limitations set forth
below:
Effluent limitations
Effluent characteristic
Average of daily
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kilograms per
1.000 kg LWK)
Ammonia
0 48 0 24
English units (pounds per
1.000 lb LWK)
Ammonia
0 48 0 24
(b) The following standards of per
formance establish the quantity <>r
quality of pollut ant s or pollut ant prop
ert ies, controlled by this section and
attributable to the processing of blood
derived from animals slaughtered at lo
cations other than the packinghouse,
which may be discharged by a new
source subject to the provisions of this
subpart, in addition to the discharge
allowed by paragraph (a) of this section
and tj432.32(c):
Effluent limitations
Effluent characteristic
Average of daily
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kilograms per
1.000 kg ELWK)
Ammonia
0 06 0 03
English units (pounds per
1.000 lb ELWK)
Ammonia
10 06 0 03
(c) The following standards of per
formance establish the quantity or
quality of pollut ant s or pollut ant prop
ert ies, controlled by this section and
attributable to the wet or low tempera
ture rendering of material derived from
animals slaughtered at locations other
than the packinghouse, which may be
discharged by a new source subject to
the provisions of this subpart, in addi
t ion to the discharge allowed by para
graph (a) of this section and tj432.32(a).
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Effluent characteristic Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kilograms per
1.000 kg ELWK)
Ammonia 0 10 0 05
ENT A= 01 -'English units
(pounds per 1.000 lb
ELWK)
Ammonia 0 10 0 05
(d) The following standards of per
formance establish the quantity or
quality of pollut ant s or pollut ant prop
ert ies, controlled by this section and
attributable to the dry rendering of
material derived from animals slaugh
t ered at locations other than the pack
inghouse, which may be discharged by
a new source subject to the provisions
of this subpart, in addition to the dis
charge allowed by paragraph (a) of this
sect ion and §432.32(e):
Effluent limitations
Effluent characteristic
Average of daily
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kilograms per
1.000 kg ELWK)
Ammonia
0 04 0 02
English units (pounds per
1.000 lb ELWK)
Ammonia
0 04 0 02
13!) I K 7X07. I'd). 28. 1071: 30 I k 2G-123. .July 10.
1071|
§ 432.36 Pretreatment standards for
new sources.
Any new source subject to this sub
part that introduces process waste
water pollutants into a publicly owned
treatment works must comply with 4(1
(T'R part 4(13.
|GO I K :i:i0<>fi. .June 20. 1005]
C-13
-------
§432.37
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-03 Edition)
$432.37 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applica-
tion of the best conventional pollut-
ant control technology.
F.xcept as provided in §§125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent limita
t ions representing the degree of efflu
ent reduction attainable by the appli
cation of the best conventional pollut
ant control technology (HOT): The lim
it at ions shall be the same as those
specified for conventional pollutants
(which are defined in §401.l(i) in §432.32
of this subpart for the best practicable
control technology currently available
(HPT).
|fil Ik 2fi()()l. .July !). l!)8(i|
Subpart D—High-Processing
Packinghouse Subcategory
§ 432.40 Applicability; description of
the hign-processing packinghouse
subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are ap
plicable to discharges resulting from
the production of red meat carcasses,
in whole or part, by high processing
packinghouses.
$432.41 Specialized definitions.
For t he purpose of t his subpart:
(a) F.xcept as provided below, the gen
eral definitions, abbreviations and
methods of analysis set forth in 40 OTP
part 401 shall apply to this subpart.
(b) The term "packinghouse" shall
mean a plant that both slaughters ani
mals and subsequent ly processes car
casses into cured, smoked, canned or
ot her prepared meat products.
(c) The term "high processing pack
inghouse" shall mean a packinghouse
which processes both animals slaugh
t ered at the site and additional car
casses from outside sources.
(d) The term "I.VVK" (live weight
killed) shall mean the total weight of
the total number of animals slaugh
t ered during the time to which the ef
fluent limitations apply; i.e., during
any one day or any period of thirty
consecut ive days.
(e) The term "FI.WK" (equipment
live weight killed) shall mean the total
weight of the total number of animals
slaughtered at locations other than the
slaughterhouse or packinghouse, which
animals provide hides, blood, viscera or
renderable materials for processing at
that slaughterhouse, in addition to
those derived from animals slaughtered
on site.
(f) The term "oil and grease" shall
mean those components of process
waste water amenable to measurement
by the method described in "Methods
for Ohemical Analysis of Water and
Wastes," 1971, F.FA, Analytical Quality
Oontrol l.aboratory, page 217.
$432.42 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applica-
tion of the best practicable control
technology currently available.
F.xcept as provided in §§125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent limita
t ions representing the degree of efflu
ent reduction attainable by the appli
cation of the best practicable control
technology currently available (HPT):
(a) The following limitations est ah
lish the quantity or quality of pollut
ants or pollutant properties, controlled
by this section and attributable to on
site slaughter or subsequent meat,
meat product or byproduct processing
of carcasses of animals slaughtered on
site, which may be discharged by a
point source subject to the provisions
of this subpart after application of the
best practicable control technology
current ly available:
C-14
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
§432.42
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Effluent characteristic Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kilograms per
1.000 kg LWK)
BOD5+
0 48 0 24
TSS+
0 62 0 31
Oil and grease
026 0 13
Fecal coliform
(') (')
PH
(') (')
English units (pounds per
1.000 lb LWK)
BOD5+
0 48 0 24
TSS+
0 62 0 31
Oil and grease
026 0 13
Fecal coliform
(') (')
PH
(>) (>)
1 Maximum at any time 400 mpn/100 ml
-'Within the range 6 0 to 9 0
~ The values for B()I)5 and suspended solids
are for average plants, i.e.. plants with a
ratio of average weight of processed meat
products to average I.YVK of ().:*>:*>. Adjust
inents can be made for high processing pack
ing houses at other ratios according to the
following equal ions:
kg BOD5/1000 kg I .VVK 0.21 t 0.23
(v 0,1)
kg SS/1000 kg I VVK 0.28 t 0.30
(v 0,1)
where
v kg processed meat products; kg I .VVK.
(b) The following limitations estab
lish the quantity or quality of po 1 Hit
ants or pollutant properties, controlled
by this section and attributable to the
processing (defleshing, washing and
curing) of hides derived from animals
slaughtered at locations other than the
packinghouse, which may be dis
charged by a point source subject to
the provisions of this subpart, in addi
t ion to the discharge allowed by para
graph (a) of t his sect ion:
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Effluent characteristic Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kilograms per
1.000 kg ELWK)
BOD5
0 04 0 02
TSS
0 08 0 04
English units (pounds per
1.000 lb ELWK)
BOD5
0 04 0 02
TSS
0 08 0 04
(c) The following limitations est ah
lish the quantity <>t" quality of' pollut
ants of pollutant properties, controlled
by this section and attributable to the
processing of' blood derived from ani
tnals slaughtered at locations other
than the packinghouse, which may be
discharged by a point source subject to
the provisions of' this subpart, in addi
t ion to the discharge allowed by para
graph (a) of't his sect ion:
Effluent limitations
Effluent characteristic
Average of daily
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kilograms per
1.000 kg ELWK)
BOD5
0 04 0 02
TSS
0 08 0 04
English units (pounds per
1.000 lb ELWK)
BOD5
0 04 0 02
TSS
0 08 0 04
(d) The following limitations estab
lish the quantity or quality of' pollut
ants or pollutant properties, controlled
by this section and attributable to the
wet or low temperature rendering of
material derived from animals slaugh
t ered at locations other than the pack
inghouse, which may be discharged by
a point source subject to the provisions
of' this subpart, in addition to the dis
charge allowed by paragraph (a) of'this
sect ion:
C-15
-------
§432.43
Effluent limitations
Effluent characteristic
Average of daily
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kilograms per
1.000 kg ELWK)
BOD5
TSS
0 06 0 03
0 12 0 06
English units (pounds per
1.000 lb ELWK)
BOD5
TSS
0 06 0 03
0 12 0 06
(e) The following limitations est ah
lish the quantity or quality <>'" pollut
ants or pollutant properties, controlled
by this section and attributable to the
dry rendering of material derived from
animals slaughtered at locations other
than the packinghouse, which may be
discharged by a point source subject to
the provisions of this subpart, in addi
t ion to the discharge allowed by para
graph (a) of t his sect ion:
Effluent limitations
Effluent characteristic
Average of daily
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kilograms per
1.000 kg ELWK)
BOD5
TSS
0 02 0 01
0 04 0 02
English units (pounds per
1.000 lb ELWK)
BOD5
TSS
0 02 0 01
0 04 0 02
13!) IK 7X07. I'd). 28. 137-1. as amended at (ill
I k .June 20. 1005]
$432.43 | Reserved |
§ 432.44 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process waste
water pollutants into a publicly owned
treatment works must comply with 40
(T'R part 403. In addition, the following
pretreatment standard establishes the
quantity or quality of pollutants or
pollutant properties controlled by this
section which may be discharged to a
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-03 Edition)
publicly owned treatment works by a
point source subject to the provisions
of t his subpart.
Pollutant or pollutant property
Pretreatment standard
pH
No limitation
BOD5
Do
TSS
Do
Oil and grease
Do
Fecal coliform
Do
110 I K ()H7. I'd). 11. 107:"). as amended at (i()
I k XiOlif). .June 20. 100f>]
§ 432.45 Standards of performance for
new sources.
(a) The following standards of per
formance establish the quantity or
quality of pollut ant s or pollut ant prop
ert ies, controlled by this section and
attributable to on site slaughter or
subsequent meat, meat product or by-
product processing or carcasses of ani
mals slaughtered onsite which may be
discharged by a new source subject to
the provisions of this subpart: The lim
it at ions shall be as specified in
§432.42(a), with the exception that in
addition to the pollutants or pollutant
properties controlled by that sub
section, discharges of ammonia shall
not exceed the limitations set forth
below:
Effluent limitations
Effluent characteristic
Average of daily
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kilograms per
1.000 kg LWK)
Ammonia
0 80 0 40
English units (pounds per
1.000 lb LWK)
Ammonia
0 80 0 40
(b) The following standards of per
formance establish the quantity or
quality of pollut ant s or pollut ant prop
ert ies, controlled by this section and
attributable to the processing of blood
derived from animals slaughtered at lo
cations other than the packinghouse,
which may be discharged by a new
source subject to the provisions of this
subpart, in addition to the discharge
allowed by paragraph (a) of this section
and §432.42(c):
C-16
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Effluent limitations
Effluent characteristic
Average of daily
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kilograms per
1.000 kg ELWK)
Ammonia
0 06 0 03
English units (pounds per
1.000 lb ELWK)
Ammonia
0 06 0 03
(c) The following standards of per-
formance establish the quantity <>r
quality of pollut ant s or pollut ant prop
ert ies, controlled by this section and
attributable to the wet or low tempera
ture rendering of material derived from
animals slaughtered at locations other
than the packinghouse, which may be
discharged by a new source subject to
the provisions of this subpart, in addi
t ion to the discharge allowed by para
graph (a) of this section and §423.42(d):
Effluent limitations
Effluent characteristic
Average of daily
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kilograms per
1.000 kg ELWK)
Ammonia
0 10 0 05
English units (pounds per
1.000 lb ELWK)
Ammonia
0 10 0 05
(d) The following standards of per-
formance establish the quantity or
quality of pollut arrt s or pollut ant prop
ert ies, controlled by this section and
attributable to the dry rendering of
material derived from animals slaugh
t ered at locations other- than the pack
inghouse, which may be discharged by
a new source subject to the provisions
of this subpart, in addition to the dis
charge allowed by paragraph (a) of this
sect ion and §432.42(e):
§432.50
Effluent limitations
Effluent characteristic
Average of daily
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kilograms per
1.000 kg ELWK)
Ammonia
0 04 0 02
English units (pounds per
1.000 lb ELWK)
Ammonia
0 04 0 02
13!) I'K 7X07. I'd). 28. 137-1: 3!) I k 2G-123. .July 10.
1071|
§ 432.46 Pretreatment standards for
new sources.
Any new source subject to this sub
part that introduces process waste
water- pollutants into a publicly owned
treatment works must comply with 4(1
OI'R part 403.
|GO I'K 330(ifi. June 20. 1005]
$432.47 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applica-
tion of the best conventional pollut-
ant control technology.
I'.xcept as provided in §§125.30
through 125.32, any exist ing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent limita
t ions representing the degree of efflu
ent reduction attainable by the appli
cation of the best conventional pollut
ant control technology (HOT): The lim
it at ions shall be the same as those
specified for conventional pollutants
(which are defined in §401.Hi) in §432.42
of this subpart for the best practicable
control technology currently available
(HPT).
151 I'K 25001. .July 0. 108(i|
Subpart E—Small Processor
Subcategory
Sol kt K: 10 I'K 005. .Jan. 3. 1075. unless olh
erwise noled.
§ 432.50 Applicability; description of
the small processor subcategory.
The provisions of this subpar t are ap
plicable to discharges resulting from
C-17
-------
§432.51
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-03 Edition)
the production of finished meat prod
nets such as fresh meat cuts, smoked
products, canned products, hams, sail
sages, luncheon meats, or similar prod
ucts by a small processor.
$432.51 Specialized definitions.
1 or t he purpose of t his subpart:
(a) l.xcept as provided below, the gen
eral definitions, abbreviations and
methods of analysis set forth in 40 (T'R
part 401 shall apply to this subpart.
(b) The term "small processor" shall
mean an operation that produces up to
2730 kg ((>000 lb) per day of any type or
combinat ion of finished products.
(c) The term "finished product" shall
mean the final manufactured product
as fresh meat cuts, hams, bacon or
other smoked meats, sausage, luncheon
meats, stew, canned meats or related
product s.
$432.52 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applica-
tion of the best practicable control
technology currently available.
l.xcept as provided in §§125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent limita
t ions representing the degree of efflu
ent reduction attainable by the appli
cation of the best practicable control
technology currently available (HP I):
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Effluent characteristic
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kg/kkg of finished
product)
BOD5
20 10
TSS
2 4 12
Oil and grease
10 05
pH
(') (')
Fecal coliforms
P) P)
English units (lb/1.000 lb of
finished product)
BOD5
20 10
TSS
24 12
Oil and grease
10 05
pH
(') (')
Fecal coliforms
P) P)
1 Within the range 6 0 to 9 0
No limitation
|1() I k nor., Jan. 3. 137:"., as amended at (i() I k
.June 20. l!)!)f.|
§§ 432.53—432.54 | Reserved |
§ 432.55 Standards of performance for
new sources.
The following standards of perform
ance establish the quantity or quality
of pollutants or pollutant properties,
controlled by this section, which may
be discharged by a new source subject
t o t he provisions of t his subpart:
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Effluent characteristic Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kg/kkg of finished
product)
BOD5
10 05
TSS
12 06
Oil and grease
0 5 0 25
pH
(') (')
Fecal coliforms
P) P)
English units (lb/1.000 lb of
finished product)
BOD5
10 05
TSS
12 06
Oil and grease
0 5 0 25
pH
(') (')
Fecal coliforms
P) P)
1 Within the range 6 0 to 9 0
No limitation
§ 432.56 Pretreatment standards for
new sources.
Any new source subject to this sub
part that introduces process waste
water pollutants into a publicly owned
treatment works must comply with 40
(T'R part 403. In addition, the following
pretreatment standard establishes the
quantity or quality of pollutants or
pollutant properties controlled by this
section which may be discharged to a
publicly owned treatment works by a
new source subject to the provisions of
t his subpart:
Pollutant or pollutant property
Pretreatment standard
BOD5
No limitation
TSS
Do
Oil and grease
Do
pH
Do
Fecal coliform
Do
[10 I'k !)0fi. Ian. 3. 137:"., as amended at (i() I'k
June 20. 1005]
C-18
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
§432.63
$432.57 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applica-
tion of the best conventional pollut-
ant control technology.
F.xcept as provided in §§125.30
through 125.32, the following limit a
t ions establish the quantity <>•" quality
of pollutants or pollutant properties,
controlled by this section, which may
be discharged by a point source subject
to the provisions of this subpart after
application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology:
Effluent limitations
Average of
daily values
Effluent characteristic
Maximum
for 30 con-
for any 1
secutive
day
days shall
not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kg/kkg of
finished product)
BOD5
1 0
05
TSS
1 2
06
Oil and grease
05
0 25
pH
(')
(')
Fecal coliforms
P)
P)
BOD5
1 0
05
TSS
1 2
06
Oil and grease
05
0 25
pH
(')
(')
Fecal coliforms
P)
P)
1 Within the range 6 0 to 9 0
No limitation
|fil I k 2fi()()l. .July !). l!)8(i|
Subpart F—Meat Cutter
Subcategory
Sol kt K: 10 I R 90(). .Ian. 3. 197:"). unless oth
erwise noted.
§ 432.60 Applicability; description of
the meat cutter subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are ap
plicable to discharges resulting from
the fabrication or manufacture of fresh
meat cuts such as steaks, roasts,
chops, etc. by a meat cutter.
$432.61 Specialized definitions.
For t he purpose of t his subpart:
(a) F.xcept as provided below, the gen
eral definitions, abbreviations and
methods of analysis set forth in 40 (TP
part 401 shall apply to this subpart.
(b) The term "meat cutter" shall
mean an operation which fabricates,
cuts, or otherwise produces fresh meat
cuts and related finished products from
livestock carcasses, at rates greater
than 2730 kg ((>000 lb) per day.
(c) The term "finished product" shall
mean the final manufactured product
as fresh meat cuts including, but not
limited to, steaks, roasts, chops, or
boneless meat s.
$432.62 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applica-
tion of the best practicable control
technology currently available.
F.xcept as provided in §§125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent limita
t ions representing the degree of efflu
ent reduction attainable by the appli
cation of the best practicable control
technology currently available (HPT):
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Effluent characteristic Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kg/kkg of finished
product)
BOD5
0 036
0018
TSS
0 044
0 022
Oil and grease
0012
0 000
pH
(')
(')
Fecal coliforms
P)
P)
English units (lb/1.000 lb of
finished product)
BOD5
0 036
0018
TSS
10 044
0 022
Oil and grease
0012
0 006
pH
(')
(')
Fecal coliforms
P)
P)
1 Within the range 6 0 to 9 0
-'Maximum at any time 400 mpn/100 ml
[ 10 I R 9()(i. .Ian. 3. 197:"), as amended at (i() I R
33f)()fi. .June 29. 19951
$432.63 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applica-
tion of the best available tech-
nology economically achievable.
The following limitations establish
t he quant ity or qua lit y of pollut ant s or
pollutant properties, controlled by this
sect ion, which may be discharged by a
C-19
-------
§432.64
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-03 Edition)
point source subject to the provisions
of this subpart after application of the
best available technology economically
achievable:
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Effluent characteristic Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Milligrams per liter—effluent
Ammonia 8 0 mg/l 4 0
1 11 I k 507-18. Aug- 20.
$432.64 | Reserved |
§ 432.65 Standards of performance for
new sources.
The following standards of perform
ance establish the quantity or quality
of pollutants or pollutant properties,
controlled by this section, which may
be discharged by a new source subject
t o t he provisions of t his subpart:
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Effluent characteristic Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kg/kkg of finished
product)
BOD5
0 036
0018
TSS
0 044
0 022
Oil and grease
0012
0 006
pH
(')
(')
Fecal coliforms
(')
(')
English units (lb/1.000 lb of
finished product)
BOD5
0 030
0015
TSS
0 036
0018
Oil and grease
0012
0 006
pH
(')
(')
Fecal coliforms
(>)
(>)
1 Within the range 6 0 to 9 0
-'Maximum at any time 400 mpn/100 ml
§ 432.66 Pretreatment standards for
new sources.
Any new source subject to this sub
part that introduces process waste
water pollutants into a publicly owned
treatment works must comply with '1(1
(T'R part 403. In addition, the following
pretreatment standard establishes the
quantity or quality of pollutants or
pollutant properties controlled by this
section which may be discharged to a
publicly owned treatment works by a
new source subject to the provisions of
t his subpart:
Pollutant or pollutant property
Pretreatment standard
BOD5
No limitation
TSS
Do
Oil and grease
Do
pH
Do
Fecal coliform
Do
110 I K 00(i. .Ian. 3. 1075. as amended at ()0 I K
;i;i0(if). .June 20. 1005]
$432.67 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applica-
tion of the best conventional pollut-
ant control technology.
I'.xcept as provided in §§125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent limita
t ions representing the degree of ef'flu
ent reduction attainable by the appli
cation of the best conventional pollut
ant control technology (MOT): I lie lim
it at ions shall be the same as those
specified for conventional pollutants
(which are defined in §401.l(i) in §'132.(!2
of this subpart for the best practicable
control technology currently available
(HPT).
|51 I K 25001. Inly 0. 108(i|
Subpart G—Sausage and Lunch-
eon Meats Processor Sub-
category
Sol kt K: 10 I K 007. .Ian. 3. 1075. unless oth
erwise noted.
S 432.70 Applicability; description of
the sausage and luncheon meat
processor subcategory.
I lie provisions of this subpart are ap
plicable to discharges resulting from
the manufacture of fresh meat cuts,
sausage, bologna, and other luncheon
meats by a sausage and luncheon meat
processor.
$432.71 Specialized definitions.
For the purpose of this subpart:
(a) I'.xcept as provided below, the gen
eral definitions, abbreviations and
methods of analysis set forth in 40 (T'R
part 401 shall apply to this subpart.
C-20
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
§432.75
(b) The term "sausage and luncheon
meat processor" shall mean an oper
at ion which cuts fresh meats, grinds,
mixes, seasons, smokes or otherwise
produces finished products such as sail
sage, bologna and luncheon meats at
rates greater than 2730 kg ((i()()() lb) per
day.
(c) The term "finished product" shall
mean the final manufactured product
as fresh meat cuts including steaks,
roasts, chops or boneless meat, bacon
or other smoked meats (except hams)
such as sausage, bologna or other
luncheon meats, or related products
(except canned meats).
$432.72 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applica-
tion of the best practicable control
technology currently available.
I'.xcept as provided in §§125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent limita
t ions representing the degree of efflu
ent reduction attainable by the appli
cation of the best practicable control
technology currently available (HP I):
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Effluent characteristic
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kg/kkg of finished
product)
BOD5
0 56 0 28
TSS
0 68 0 34
Oil and grease
020 0 10
pH
(') (')
Fecal coliforms
P) P)
English units (lb/1.000 lb of
finished product)
BOD5
0 56 0 28
TSS
0 68 0 34
Oil and grease
020 0 10
pH
(') (')
Fecal coliforms
P) P)
1 Within the range 6 0 to 9 0
-'Maximum at any time 400 mpn/100 ml
|1() I k 007. Jan. 3. 1075. as amended at (iO I k
:i:i0()(i. .June 20. 100f)|
$432.73 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applica-
tion of the best available tech-
nology economically achievable.
The following limitations establish
t he quant ity or qua lit y of po lit it ant s or
pollutant properties, controlled by this
sect ion, which may be discharged by a
point source subject to the provisions
of this subpart after application of the
best available technology economically
achievable:
[Milligrams per liter—effluent]
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Effluent characteristics Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Ammonia 80 mg/l 4 0
|11 Ik 50718. Aug. 20. 1070]
S 432.74 | Reserved |
S 432.75 Standards of performance for
new sources.
The following standards of perform
ance establish the quantity or quality
of pollutants or pollutant properties,
controlled by this section, which may
be discharged by a new sources subject
t o t he provisions of t his subpart:
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Effluent characteristic
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kg/kkg of finished
product)
BOD5
0 56 0 28
TSS
0 68 0 34
Oil and grease
020 0 10
pH
(') (')
Fecal coliforms
P) P)
English units (lb/1.000 lb of
finished product)
BOD5
0 48 0 24
TSS
0 58 0 29
Oil and grease
020 0 10
pH
(') (')
Fecal coliforms
P) P)
1 Within the range 6 0 to 9 0
-'Maximum at any time 400 mpn/100 ml
C-21
-------
§432.76
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-03 Edition)
S 432.76 Pretreatment standards for
new sources.
Any new source subject to this sub
part that introduces process waste
water pollutants into a publicly owned
treatment works must comply with 40
C.l'R part 403. In addition, the following
pretreatment standard establishes the
quantity or quality of' pollutants or
pollutant properties controlled by this
section which may be discharged to a
publicly owned treatment works by a
new source subject to the provisions of
t his subpart:
Pollutant or pollutant property
Pretreatment standard
BOD5
No limitation
TSS
Do
Oil and grease
Do
pH
Do
Fecal coliform
Do
|1() Ik 007. Jan. 3. 1075. as amended at (iO I H
:i:i0()(i. .June 20. 100f)|
$432.77 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applica-
tion of the best conventional pollut-
ant control technology.
I'.xcept as provided in §§125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent limita
t ions representing the degree of efflu
ent reduction attainable by the appli
cation of the best conventional pollut
ant control technology (MOT): The lim
it at ions shall be the same as those
specified for conventional pollutants
(which are defined in §401.Hi) in §432.72
of this subpart for the best practicable
control technology currently available
(HPT).
|fil I k 25001. .July 0. 108(i|
Subpart H—Ham Processor
Subcategory
Sol kt K: 10 I R 008. .Ian. 3. 107:"). unless oth
erwise noted.
§ 432.80 Applicability; description of
the ham processor subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are ap
plicable to discharges resulting from
the manufacture of hams alone or in
combination with other finished prod
ucts by a ham processor.
$432.81 Specialized definitions.
For t he purpose of t his subpart:
(a) I'.xcept as provided below, the gen
eral definitions, abbreviations and
methods of analysis set forth in 40 (T'R
part 401 shall apply to this subpart.
(b) The term "ham processor" shall
mean an operation which manufactures
hams alone or in combination with
other finished products at rates greater
than 2730 kg ((iOOO lb) per day.
(c) The term "finished products"
shall mean the final manufactured
product as fresh meat cuts including
steaks, roasts, chops or boneless meat,
smoked or cured hams, bacon or other
smoked meats, sausage, bologna or
other luncheon meats (except canned
meat s).
$432.82 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applica-
tion of the best practicable control
technology currently available.
I'.xcept as provided in §§125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent limita
t ions representing the degree of efflu
ent reduction attainable by the appli
cation of the best practicable control
technology currently available (HPT):
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Effluent characteristic Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kg/kkg of finished
product)
BOD5
0 62 0 31
TSS
0 74 0 37
Oil and grease
0 22 0 11
pH
(') (')
Fecal coliform
P) P)
English units (lb/1.000 lb of
finished product)
BOD5
0 62 0 31
TSS
0 74 0 37
Oil and grease
0 22 0 11
pH
(') (')
Fecal coliform
P) P)
1 Within the range 6 0 to 9 0
-'Maximum at any time 400 mpn/100 ml
|10 I k 008. .Jan. 3. 1075. as amended at (iO I k
:i:i0()(i. June 20. 1005]
C-22
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
§432.90
$432.83 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applica-
tion of the best available tech-
nology economically achievable.
The following limitations establish
t he quant ity or qua lit y of" po lit it ant s or
pollutant properties, controlled by this
sect ion, which may be discharged by a
point source subject to the provisions
of" this subpart after application of" the
best available technology economically
achievable:
[Milligrams per liter—effluent]
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Effluent characteristic Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Ammonia 8 0 mg/l 4 0
1 11 I k 507-18. Aug. 20.
$432.84 | Reserved |
§ 432.85 Standards of performance for
new sources.
The following standards of" perform
ance establish the quantity or quality
of" pollutants or pollutant properties,
controlled by this section, which may
be discharged by a new source subject
t o t he provisions of" t his subpart:
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Effluent characteristic
Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kg/kkg of finished
product)
BOD5
0 62 0 31
TSS
0 74 0 37
Oil and grease
0 22 0 11
pH
(') (')
Fecal coliform
(') (')
English units (lb/1.000 lb of
finished product)
BOD5
0 62 0 31
TSS
0 74 0 37
Oil and grease
0 22 0 11
pH
(') (')
Fecal coliform
(>) (>)
1 Within the range 6 0 to 9 0
-'Maximum at any time 400 mpn/100 ml
§ 432.86 Pretreatment standards for
new sources.
Any new source subject to this sub
part that introduces process waste
water pollutants into a publicly owned
treatment works must comply with '1(1
OI'R part 403. In addition, the following
pretreatment standard establishes the
quantity or quality of" pollutants or
pollutant properties controlled by this
section which may be discharged to a
publicly owned treatment works by a
new source subject to the provisions of"
t his subpart:
Pollutant or pollutant property
Pretreatment standard
BOD5
No limitation
TSS
Do
Oil and grease
Do
pH
Do
Fecal coliform
Do
[10 I k 008. Jan. 3. 1075. as amended at (iO I k
:i:i0()(i. .June 20. 1005]
$432.87 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applica-
tion of the best conventional pollut-
ant control technology.
I'.xcept as provided in §§125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent limita
t ions representing the degree of" ef'f'lu
ent reduction attainable by the appli
cation of" the best conventional pollut
ant control technology (U(-T): I lie lim
it at ions shall be the same as those
specified for conventional pollutants
(which are defined in §'101. Hi) in §'132.82
of" this subpart for the best practicable
control technology currently available
(HPT).
151 I k 25001. .July 0. 108(i|
Subpart I—Canned Meats
Processor Subcategory
Sol kt K: 10 I k 000. .Ian. 3. 1075. unless otli
erwise noted.
§ 432.90 Applicability; description of
the canned meats processor sub-
category.
I lie provisions of'this subpart are ap
plicable to discharges resulting from
the manufacture of" canned meats alone
C-23
-------
§432.91
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-03 Edition)
or in combination witli any other fin
ished products, by a canned meats
processor.
$432.91 Specialized definitions.
For t lie purpose of t his subpart:
(a) l.xcept as provided below, the gen
eral definitions, abbreviations and
methods of analysis set forth in 40 C.I'R
part 401 shall apply to this subpart.
(b) llie term "canned meat proc-
essor" shall mean an operation which
prepares and cans meats (such as stew,
sandwich spreads, or similar products)
alone or in combination with other fin
ished products at rates greater than
273(1 kg ((>000 lb.) per day.
(c) llie term "finished products"
shall mean the final manufactured
product as fresh meat cuts including
steaks, roasts, chops or boneless meat,
hams, bacon or other smoked meats,
sausage, bologna or other luncheon
meats, stews, sandwich spreads or
ot her canned meat s.
$432.92 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applica-
tion of the best practicable control
technology currently available.
l.xcept as provided in §§125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent limita
t ions representing the degree of efflu
ent reduction attainable by the appli
cation of the best practicable control
technology currently available (HP I):
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Effluent characteristic Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kg/kkg of finished
product)
BOD5
0 74 0 37
TSS
0 90 0 45
Oil and grease
026 0 12
pH
(') (')
Fecal coliform
P) P)
English units (lb/1.000 lb of
finished product)
BOD5
0 74 0 37
TSS
0 90 0 45
Oil and grease
026 0 13
pH
(') (')
Fecal coliform
P) P)
1 Within the range 6 0 to 9 0
-'Maximum at any time 400 mpn/100 ml
[ 10 I k 000. Jan. 3. 1075. as amended at (iO I k
:i:i0()(i. .June 20. 100f)|
$432.93 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applica-
tion of the best available tech-
nology economically achievable.
llie following limitations establish
t he quant ity or qua lit y of po lit it ant s or
pollutant properties, controlled by this
sect ion, which may be discharged by a
point source subject to the provisions
of this subpart after application of the
best available technology economically
achievable:
[Milligrams per liter—effluent]
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Effluent characteristic Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Ammonia 8 0 mg/l 4 0
111 I'k 50718. Aug. 20. 1070]
$432.94 | Reserved |
$ 432.95 Standards of performance for
new sources.
llie following standards of perform
ance establish the quantity or quality
of pollutants or pollutant properties,
controlled by this section, which may
be discharged by a new source subject
t o t he provisions of t his subpart:
C-24
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
§432.101
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Effluent characteristic Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kg/kkg of finished
product)
BOD5
0 74 0 37
TSS
0 90 0 45
Oil and grease
026 0 13
pH
(') (')
Fecal coliform
(') (')
English units (lb/1.000 lb of
finished product)
BOD5
0 74 0 37
TSS
0 90 0 45
Oil and grease
026 0 13
pH
(') (')
Fecal coliform
(>) (>)
1 Within the range 6 0 to 9 0
-'Maximum at any time 400 mpn/100 ml
§ 432.96 Pretreatment standards for
new sources.
Any new source subject to this sub
part that introduces process waste
water pollutants into a publicly owned
treatment works must comply with 40
C.l'R part 403. In addition, the following
pretreatment standard establishes the
quantity or quality of' pollutants or
pollutant properties controlled by this
section which may be discharged to a
publicly owned treatment works by a
new source subject to the provisions of
t his subpart:
Pollutant or pollutant property
Pretreatment standard
BOD5
No limitation
TSS
Do
Oil and grease
Do
pH
Do
Fecal coliform
Do
|1() Ik 000. Jan. 3. 1075. as amended at (ill I H
:i:i0()(i. .June 20. 100f)|
$432.97 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applica-
tion of the best conventional pollut-
ant control technology.
I'.xcept as provided in §§125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent limita
t ions representing the degree of efflu
ent reduction attainable by the appli
cation of the best conventional pollut
ant control technology (HOT): The lim
it at ions shall be the same as those
specified for conventional pollutants
(which are defined in §401.Hi) in §432.92
of this subpart for the best practicable
control technology currently available
(HPT).
|fil I k 2fi()()l. .July 0. 108(i|
Subpart J—Renderer Subcategory
Sol kt K: 10 I R 010. .Ian. 3. 107:"). unless oth
erwise noted.
S 432.100 Applicability; description of
the renderer subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are ap
plicable to discharges resulting from
the manufacture of meat meal, dried
animal byproduct residues (tankage),
animal oils, grease and tallow, perhaps
including hide curing, by a renderer.
$432,101 Specialized definitions.
For the purpose of this subpart:
(a) I'.xcept as provided below, the gen
eral definitions, abbreviations and
methods of analysis set forth in 40 OFR
part 401 shall apply to this subpart.
(b) The term "renderer" shall mean
an independent or off site rendering op
eration, conducted separate from a
slaughterhouse, packinghouse or poul
try dressing or processing plant, which
manufactures at rates greater than
75,000 pounds of raw material per day of
meat meal, tankage, animal fats or
oils, grease, and tallow, and may cure
cattle hides, but excluding marine oils,
fish meal, and fish oils.
(c) The term "tankage" shall mean
dried animal by product residues used
in feedstuff's.
(d) The term "tallow" shall mean a
product made from beef' cat t le or sheep
fat that has a melting point of'40 0. or
great er.
(e) The term "raw material" or as ab
breviated herein, "RM", shall mean the
basic input materials to a renderer
composed of' animal and poultry trim
tilings, bones, meat scraps, dead ani
mals, feathers and related usable by-
product s.
C-25
-------
§432.102
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-03 Edition)
$432,102 Effluent limitations guide-
lines representing the degree of ef-
fluent reduction attainame by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently avail-
able.
(a) I'.xcept as provided in §§125.30
through 125.32, and subject to the pro
visions of paragraph (b) of this sect ion,
any existing point source subject to
this subpart shall achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best prac-
ticable control technology currently
available (HP I ):
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Effluent characteristic Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kg/kkg of raw
material)
BOD5
034
0 17
TSS
0 42
0 21
Oil and grease
0 20
0 10
pH
(')
(')
Fecal coliform
(')
(')
English units (lb/1.000 lb of
raw material)
BOD5
034
0 17
TSS
0 42
0 21
Oil and grease
0 20
0 10
pH
(')
(')
Fecal coliform
(>)
(>)
1 Within the range 6 0 to 9 0
-'Maximum at any time 400 mpn/100 ml
(b) The limitations given in para
graph (a) of this section for BOD5 and
TSS are derived for a renderer which
does no cattle hide curing as part of
the plant activities. If a renderer does
conduct hide curing, the following em
pirical formulas should be used to tie
rive an additive adjustment to the ef
fluent limitations for BOD5 and I SS.
BOD5 Adjust meat (kg/kkg KM) |8.0 x (nuni
bel of hides) / kg of raw material] (lb/1.000
11) KM) |17.(> x (number of hides) /lbs of
raw material]
TSS Adjust meat (kg/kkg KM) [11.0 x (mini
bel of hides)/kg of I aw material] (lb/1.000 lb
KM) |21.2 x (number of hides)/lbs of raw
material!
110 I K 010. Ian. 3. 1075: 10 I K 11871. Mar. I t.
137:"., as amended at (iO I K MOM. .June 20. 1!)!):".|
$432,103 Effluent limitations guide-
lines representing the degree of ef-
fluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best available
technology economically achiev-
able.
The following limitations establish
t he quant ity or qua lit y of pollut ant s or
pollutant properties, controlled by this
sect ion, which may be discharged by a
point source subject to the provisions
of this subpart after application of the
best available technology economically
achievable:
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Effluent characteristic Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kg/kkg of raw
material)
Ammonia 0 14 0 07
English units (lb/1.000 lb of
raw material)
Ammonia 0 14 0 07
1 11 I K 507-18. Aug. 20. 1979]
$432,104 | Reserved |
$432,105 Standards of performance for
new sources.
(a) Subject to the provisions of para
graph (b) of this section, the following
standards of performance establish the
quantity or quality of pollutants or
pollutant properties, controlled by this
sect ion, which may be discharged by a
new source subject to the provisions of
t his subpart:
C-26
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
§432.107
Effluent limitations
Average of daily
Effluent characteristics Maximum values for 30
for any 1 consecutive days
day shall not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kilograms per
1.000 kg of raw material)
BOD5
0 18
0 09
TSS
22
11
Oil and grease
10
05
Ammonia
14
07
PH
(')
(')
Fecal coliforms
P)
P)
English units (pounds per
1.000 lb of raw
material)
BOD5
0 18
0 09
TSS
22
11
Oil and grease
10
05
Ammonia
14
07
PH
(')
(')
Fecal coliforms
P)
P)
1 Within the range 6 0 to 9 0
-'Maximum at any time 400 mpn/100 ml
(b) The standards given in paragraph
(a) of this section for BOD5 and TSS
are derived for a renderer which does
no cattle hide curing as part of the
plant activities. If a renderer does con
duct hide curing, the following empir
ical formulas should he used to derive
an additive adjustment to the stand
ards for B()D5and I SS.
BOD5 adjust meat (kilograms per 1.000 kg of
raw material) 8.0x(number of hides)/kilo
grams of raw material (pounds per 1.000 lb
of raw material) 17.()x(numl>er of hides)/
pounds of raw mat el ial
TSS adjustment (kilograms per 1.000 kg of
raw material) 11.0 x (number of hides)/
kilograms of raw material (pounds per 1.000
lb of raw material) 21.2 x (number of
hides)/pounds of raw material
112 IK f>441<). Oct. (i. 1077]
S 432.106 Pretreatment standards for
new sources.
Any new source subject to this sub
part that introduces process waste
water pollutants into a publicly owned
treatment works must comply with 40
(T'R part 403. In addition, the following
pretreatment standard establishes the
quantity or quality of pollutants or
pollutant properties controlled by this
section which may be discharged to a
publicly owned treatment works by a
new source subject to the provisions of
t his subpart:
Pollutant or pollutant property
Pretreatment standard
BOD5
No limitation
TSS
Do
Oil and grease
Do
PH
Do
Fecal coliform
Do
140 I'K 010. Ian. 3. 107:"). as amended at (iO I'K
:i:«K)(i. .June 20. 100f>|
$432,107 Effluent limitations guide-
lines representing the degree of ef-
fluent reduction attainame by the
application of the best conventional
pollution control technology.
(a) l.xcept as provided in SS 125.30
through 125.32, and subject to the pro
visions of paragraph (b) of this sect ion,
the following limitations establish the
quantity or quality of pollutants or
pollutant properties, controlled by this
sect ion, which may be discharged by a
point source subject to the provisions
of this subpart after application of the
best conventional pollutant control
t echnology:
Effluent limitations
Average of
daily values
Effluent characteristic
Maximum
for 30 con-
for any 1
secutive
day
days shall
not ex-
ceed—
Metric units (kg/kkg of raw
material)
BOD5
0 18
0 09
TSS
0 22
0 11
Oil and grease
0 10
0 05
Fecal coliforms
(')
(')
PH
P)
P)
BOD5
0 18
0 09
TSS
0 22
0 11
Oil and grease
0 10
0 05
Fecal coliforms
(')
(')
PH
P)
P)
1 Maximum at any time 400 mpn/100 ml
-'Within the range 6 0 to 9 0
(b) llie limitations given in para
graph (a) of this section for BOD5 and
TSS are derived for a renderer which
does no cattle hide curing as part of
the plant activities. If a renderer does
conduct hide curing, the following em
pirical formulas should be used to tie
rive an additive adjustment to the ef
fluent limitations for BOD5 and TSS.
BOD5 Adjust ment (kg/kkgKM) 3.li x (iniin
ber of ilides)/kg of raw material (lb/1.000 lb
C-27
-------
§ 432.107
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-03 Edition)
KM) 7.9 x (number of bides)/Ibs of raw
material
ISS Adjustment (k«/kk« KM) (>.2x(number
of bides)/k« of raw material (lb/1.000 lb KM)
13.(j x (number of hides)/lbs of raw mate
rial
|:")1 I K 25001. July 9. 1986)
C-28
------- |