4474 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 432 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2021–0736; FRL–8885–01– 

OW] 

RIN 2040–AG22 

Clean Water Act Effluent Limitations 

Guidelines and Standards for the Meat 

and Poultry Products Point Source 

Category 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of 

public hearing. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA or the Agency) is 

proposing a regulation to revise the 

technology-based effluent limitations 

guidelines and standards (ELGs) for the 

meat and poultry products (MPP) point 

source category. The proposed rule 

would improve water quality and 

protect human health and the 

environment by reducing the discharge 

of nutrients and other pollutants to the 

nation’s surface waters. EPA is 

proposing several regulatory options, 

including the preferred option 

discussed in this notice. The preferred 

option is estimated to cost $232 million 

annually and reduce pollutant 

discharges by approximately 100 

million pounds per year. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 25, 2024. 

Public hearing: EPA will hold two 

public hearings about this proposed rule 

on January 24, 2024 and January 31, 

2024. Visit EPA’s website at https://

www.epa.gov/eg/meat-and-poultryproducts-effluent-guidelines-2024- 

proposed-rule for additional 

information about the public hearings 

and for any potential changes to the 

public hearing schedule. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OW–2021–0736, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov/ (our 

preferred method). Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, 

Office of Water Docket, Mail Code 

28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: EPA 

Docket Center, WJC West Building, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket 

Center’s hours of operations are 8:30 

a.m.–4:30 p.m., Monday–Friday (except 

Federal Holidays). 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the Docket ID No. for this 

rulemaking. Comments received may be 

posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov/, including any 

personal information provided. For 

detailed instructions on sending 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

‘‘Public Participation’’ heading of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steve Whitlock, Engineering and 

Analysis Division, Office of Water 

(4303T), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number: 202–566–1541; email address: 

Whitlock.Steve@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Preamble Acronyms and 

Abbreviations. EPA uses multiple 

acronyms and terms in this preamble. 

While this list may not be exhaustive, to 

ease the reading of this preamble and for 

reference purposes, EPA defines terms 

and acronyms used in Appendix A of 

this preamble. 

Supporting Documentation. The 

proposed rule is supported by several 

documents, including: 

• Technical Development Document 

for Proposed Effluent Limitations 

Guidelines and Standards for the Meat 

and Poultry Products Point Source 

Category (TDD), Document No. 821–R– 

23–011. This report summarizes the 

technical and engineering analyses 

supporting the proposed rule including 

cost methodologies, pollutant removal 

estimates, non-water quality 

environmental impacts, and calculation 

of the proposed effluent limitations. 

• Environmental Assessment 

Analysis for Proposed Effluent 

Limitations Guidelines and Standards 

for the Meat and Poultry Products Point 

Source Category (EA Report), Document 

No. 821–R–23–012. This report 

summarizes the potential environmental 

and human health impacts estimated to 

result from implementation of the 

proposed rule. The report also describes 

the environmental justice analysis 

conducted. 

• Benefit and Cost Analysis for 

Proposed Effluent Limitations 

Guidelines and Standards for the Meat 

and Poultry Products Point Source 

Category (BCA Report), Document No. 

821–R–23–013. This report summarizes 

the societal benefits and costs estimated 

to result from implementation of the 

proposed rule. 

• Regulatory Impact Analysis for 

Proposed Effluent Limitations 

Guidelines and Standards for the Meat 

and Poultry Products Point Source 

Category (RIA), Document No. 821–R– 

23–014. This report presents a profile of 

the MPP industry, a summary of 

estimated costs and impacts associated 

with the proposed rule, and an 

assessment of the potential impacts on 

employment and small businesses. 

• Docket Index for the Proposed 

Effluent Limitations Guidelines and 

Standards for the Meat and Poultry 

Products Point Source Category. This 

document provides a list of the 

additional memoranda, references, and 

other information EPA relied on for the 

proposed revisions to the MPP ELGs. 

Table of Contents 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of Rule 

B. Summary of Proposed Rule 

II. Public Participation 

III. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. What action is the Agency taking? 

C. What is the Agency’s authority for 

taking this action? 

D. What are the incremental costs and 

benefits of this action? 

IV. Background 

A. Clean Water Act 

B. Effluent Limitations Guidelines and 

Standards 

1. Best Practicable Control Technology 

Currently Available (BPT) 

2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control 

Technology (BCT) 

3. Best Available Technology Economically 

Achievable (BAT) 

4. Best Available Demonstrated Control 

Technology (BADCT) for New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS) 

5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing 

Sources (PSES) 

6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources 

(PSNS) 

C. Actions Leading to Revisions to the 

Meat and Poultry Products Rule 

1. National Review of Nutrient Discharges 

From Industrial Sources 

2. Detailed Study of Meat and Poultry 

Products 

3. Announcement of Rule in Preliminary 

Effluent Guidelines Plan 15 

4. Litigation and Consent Decree 

V. Meat and Poultry Products Industry 

Description 

A. General Description of Industry 

B. Control and Treatment Technologies 

1. Conventional Pollutant Removal 

2. Biological/Organic Pollutant Removal 

3. Phosphorus Removal 

4. Pathogen Removal 

5. Chlorides Removal 

6. Solids Handling 

VI. Data Collection 

A. Information From the Meat and Poultry 

Products Industry 

1. Survey 

2. Stakeholder Meetings and Outreach 

B. Economic Data 

1. Facility and Firm-Level Economic Data 

2. Industry and Sector-Level Economic 

Data 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4475 

C. Other Data Sources 

1. Site Visits 

2. Wastewater Sampling 

VII. Proposed Regulation 

A. Description of the Options 

B. Proposed Changes to Subcategories 

C. Rationale for the Preferred Option 

(Option 1) 

1. Direct Discharging Facilities (BAT) 

a. Availability of Nitrogen and Phosphorus 

Removal Technologies 

b. Economic Achievability of Nitrogen and 

Phosphorus Removal 

c. Non-Water Quality Environmental 

Impacts of Nitrogen and Phosphorus 

Removal 

2. Indirect Discharging Facilities (PSES/ 

PSNS) 

a. BAT Rationale for PSES/PSNS for 

Nutrients 

b. BPT/BCT Rationale for PSES/PSNS for 

Conventional Pollutant 

c. Technological Availability 

d. Costs of Conventional Pollutants 

Removal (BPT/BCT) 

e. Non-Water Quality Environmental 

Impacts (BPT/BCT) 

D. Rationale for Other Regulatory Options 

Proposed (Options 2 and 3) 

E. Rationale for Rejecting Options 2 and 3 

as the Preferred Option 

F. Additional Provisions 

G. Small Business Considerations From the 

Small Business Advocacy Review Panel 

VIII. Costs, BPT Wholly Disproportionate 

Cost Test, Economic Achievability, and 

Other Economic Impacts 

A. BPT Wholly Disproportionate Cost Test 

B. BCT Cost Test 

C. Economic Achievability Analysis for 

BAT 

1. Facility Closure Analysis (BAT) 

2. BAT Cost-to-Revenue Analyses 

D. Other Economic Analyses 

1. Facility Closure Analysis 

2. Facility and Firm Level Cost-to-Revenue 

Analyses 

3. Market Effects 

4. Employment Effects 

5. Chlorides Removal Costs and Impacts 

IX. Pollutant Loadings 

A. Estimate of Existing Industry Pollutant 

Discharges 

B. Summary of Incremental Changes of 

Pollutant Loadings From Regulatory 

Options 

X. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts 

A. Energy Requirements 

B. Air Pollution 

C. Solid Waste Generation 

XI. Environmental Assessment 

A. Introduction 

B. Summary of Environmental and Human 

Health Impacts 

C. Environmental Assessment 

Methodology 

D. Results From the Environmental 

Assessment 

1. Improvements in Surface Water Quality 

2. Improvements to Vulnerable Species 

Habitats 

3. Human Health Impact Improvements 

XII. Benefits Analysis 

A. Categories of Benefits Analyzed 

B. Quantification and Monetization of 

Benefits 

1. Human Health Effects From Surface 

Water Quality Changes 

2. Ecological Condition and Recreational 

Use Effects From Changes in Surface 

Water Quality Improvements 

3. Changes in Air Quality Related Effects 

4. Other Quantified and/or Monetized 

Benefits 

C. Total Monetized Benefits 

D. Non-Monetized Benefits 

XIII. Environmental Justice Impacts 

A. Literature Review 

B. Screening Analysis 

C. Community Outreach 

D. Distribution of Benefits 

1. Drinking Water Quality 

2. Fisher Population 

E. Results of the Analysis 

XIV. Development of Effluent Limitations 

and Standards 

A. Criteria Used To Select Data as the Basis 

for the Limitations and Standards 

B. Data Selection for Each Technology 

Option 

XV. Regulatory Implementation 

A. Implementation of New Limitations and 

Standards 

B. Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Requirements 

C. Applicability of PSNS/NSPS 

Requirements 

XVI. Related Acts of Congress, E.O.s, and 

Agency Initiatives 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory 

Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. E.O. 13132: Federalism 

F. E.O. 13175: Consultation and 

Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. E.O. 13045: Protection of Children From 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks 

H. E.O. 13211: Actions That Significantly 

Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 

Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. E.O. 12898: Federal Actions To Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income 

Populations; Executive Order 14096 

Revitalizing Our Nation’s Commitment 

to Environmental Justice for All 

Appendix A to the Preamble: Definitions, 

Acronyms, and Abbreviations Used in 

This Preamble 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of Rule 

EPA is proposing revisions to a 

regulation that would apply to 

wastewater discharges from meat and 

poultry products (MPP) facilities. The 

MPP industry discharges large 

quantities of nutrients, such as nitrogen 

and phosphorus, that enter the Nation’s 

waters. Nutrient pollution is one of the 

most widespread, costly, and 

challenging environmental problems 

impacting water quality in the United 

States. Excessive nitrogen and 

phosphorus in surface water can lead to 

a variety of problems, including 

eutrophication and harmful algal 

blooms, that have negative impacts on 

human health and the environment. 

EPA reported in Preliminary Effluent 

Guidelines Program Plan 15 

(Preliminary Plan 15. USEPA. 2021. 

EPA–821–R–21–003) that the MPP 

industry discharges the highest 

phosphorus levels and second highest 

nitrogen levels of all industrial 

categories. 

The MPP industry has an estimated 

5,055 facilities across the country that 

engage in meat and/or poultry slaughter, 

further processing, and/or rendering. 

Proposed requirements would reduce 

the amount of nutrients and other 

pollutants discharged from the MPP 

industry, both directly into waters of the 

United States under state or EPA-issued 

NPDES permits and indirectly via 

sanitary sewers or transport to and 

through municipal sewage treatment 

plants, also known as Publicly Owned 

Treatment Works (POTWs). Importantly, 

this rule would advance progress on 

environmental justice goals. 

EPA initially promulgated the MPP 

ELGs in 1974 and amended the 

regulation in 2004. It currently applies 

only to direct dischargers (those that 

discharge directly to a water of the 

United States), and only to about 150 of 

the 5,055 MPP facilities in the industry. 

Phosphorus is not regulated under the 

current ELGs. Pollutants in the 

wastewater from MPP indirect 

dischargers, which are not currently 

regulated by the ELGs, can interfere 

with or pass through POTWs. Research 

also shows communities near MPP 

facilities are likely to experience 

multiple environmental stressors, and in 

these communities, minority and lowincome percentiles exceed national 

averages. Additionally, some MPP 

facilities are already using available and 

affordable technologies that can be used 

at additional facilities nationwide to 

reduce pollutant discharges from the 

MPP industry. 

EPA is considering a range of options 

in this rulemaking. The options include 

more stringent effluent limitations on 

total nitrogen, new effluent limitations 

on total phosphorus, updated effluent 

limitations for other pollutants, new 

pretreatment standards for indirect 

dischargers, and revised production 

thresholds for some of the subcategories 

in the existing rule. EPA is also 

requesting comment on potential 

effluent limitations on chlorides for 

high chloride waste streams, 

establishing effluent limitations for E. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
4476 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

1See Section 3 of the Benefit and Costs Analysis 

for descriptions of the water quality modeling and 

monetized benefit calculations. See Appendix E of 

the Benefit and Costs Analysis for descriptions of 

the approach for extrapolating the regional water 

quality benefits to the rest of the country. 

2The terms nitrogen and phosphorus refer to total 

nitrogen and total phosphorus throughout this 

document. 

coli for direct dischargers, and including 

conditional limits for indirect 

dischargers that discharge to POTWs 

that remove nutrients to the extent that 

would be required under the proposed 

pretreatment standards in certain 

regulatory options. Each option would 

result in different levels of pollutant 

reduction and costs. 

EPA is proposing a preferred 

regulatory option (described in section 

VII below) and seeking comment on the 

other options. EPA estimates the 

preferred regulatory option (Option 1) 

would reduce pollutant discharges by 

approximately 100 million pounds per 

year. EPA predicts the preferred 

regulatory option would result in 

environmental and ecological 

improvements, including reduced 

adverse impacts to wildlife and human 

health. 

EPA estimates that the proposed rule 

based on the preferred regulatory option 

will cost $232 million per year in social 

costs and result in $90 million per year 

in monetized benefits using a 3 percent 

discount rate and $227 million per year 

in social costs and result in $85 million 

per year in monetized benefits using a 

7 percent discount rate. The benefit 

numbers are based on modeling water 

quality improvements in five regional 

water basins and then extrapolating the 

benefits results from those basins to 

remainder of the country.1 The benefit 

estimates also include the national 

effects of increased air pollution and 

greenhouse gas emissions under the 

rule. 

Not all costs and benefits can be fully 

quantified and monetized, and 

importantly, EPA anticipates the 

proposed rule would also generate 

important unquantified benefits (e.g., 

improved habitat conditions for plants, 

invertebrates, fish, amphibians, and the 

wildlife that prey on aquatic organisms). 

Furthermore, while some health benefits 

and willingness to pay for water quality 

improvements have been quantified and 

monetized, those estimates may not 

fully capture all important water 

quality-related benefits. 

B. Summary of Proposed Rule 

EPA proposes to revise the ELGs for 

the MPP industry based on Best 

Practicable Control Technology 

Currently Available (BPT), Best 

Conventional Pollutant Control 

Technology (BCT), Best Available 

Technology Economically Achievable 

(BAT), Best Available Demonstrated 

Control Technology (BADCT) for New 

Source Performance Standards (NSPS), 

Pretreatment Standards for Existing 

Sources (PSES), and Pretreatment 

Standards for New Sources (PSNS). 

BPT, BCT, and BAT would apply to 

existing facilities that directly discharge 

to waters of the U.S. BADCT/NSPS 

would apply to new sources that 

directly discharge to waters of the U.S. 

PSES and PSNS would apply to existing 

and new sources, respectively, that 

discharge indirectly via POTWs. 

EPA is proposing three regulatory 

options that build on the current MPP 

ELGs. Option 1, which is EPA’s 

preferred regulatory option in this 

proposed rule, would include new 

phosphorus limits and revised nitrogen 

limits 2 for large direct dischargers and 

new pretreatment standards on certain 

conventional pollutants for large 

indirect dischargers. Here, large refers to 

the existing production thresholds in 

the current MPP ELGs. Option 2 would 

include the requirements in Option 1 

and add nutrient limits for indirect 

discharging first processors and 

renderers above specified production 

thresholds. Option 3 would be similar to 

Option 2 but with lower production 

thresholds for the nutrient limits and 

conventional pollutant limits for both 

direct and indirect dischargers. In 

contrast to Options 1 and 2, Option 3 

would use lower production thresholds 

than those in the existing rule. All three 

options would minimize impacts to 

small firms, based on the impact 

thresholds described in EPA’s 

Regulatory Flexibility Act guidance for 

assessing impacts to small firms in 

terms of a cost to revenue ratio. While 

Option 3 includes limits for more 

facilities than Options 1 and 2, it is 

similarly structured to avoid significant 

impacts to small firms. Option 3 would 

achieve the greatest amount of pollutant 

reductions of the three options. Option 

3 would also simplify the existing rule 

by utilizing the same size thresholds for 

all subcategories. For example, total 

phosphorus limits would apply to direct 

discharging facilities in all subcategories 

producing greater than or equal to 10 

million pounds per year under Option 

3. Under Options 2 and 3, EPA also 

proposes to include ‘‘conditional 

limits,’’ which would allow an 

exemption from nutrient pretreatment 

standards for indirect dischargers that 

are discharging to POTWs that have 

nutrient removal capabilities that result 

in equivalent nutrient removal. 

The following discussion is organized 

by discharge type (direct or indirect) 

and by facility status (existing or new): 

Direct Discharges From Existing Sources 

Options 1 and 2: BAT would include 

new phosphorus effluent limitations 

based on chemical removal and more 

stringent nitrogen effluent limitations 

based on biological treatment to achieve 

full denitrification. BCT and BPT for the 

conventional pollutants (biochemical 

oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended 

solids (TSS), oil & grease, pH) limits 

would remain unchanged from the 

current MPP ELG. These limits would 

apply to direct discharging facilities 

based on the same production 

thresholds as the existing rule: 50 

million pounds per year of finished 

product produced for meat further 

processors (Subcategories F–I), 50 

million pounds per year of live weight 

killed (LWK) for meat slaughtering 

(Subcategories A–D), 100 million 

pounds per year of LWK for poultry 

slaughtering (Subcategories K), 7 

million pounds of finished product per 

year for poultry further processors 

(Subcategory L), and 10 million pounds 

per year of raw material processed for 

renderers (Subcategory J). The limits for 

facilities in Subcategory E would not be 

changed. 

Option 3: BAT would include the 

same BAT requirements as Option 1, 

with lower production thresholds for 

applicability. Specifically, BAT would 

include new phosphorus effluent 

limitations based on chemical removal 

for facilities in all subcategories that are 

producing greater than or equal to 10 

million pounds per year. Additionally, 

BAT would include new and/or more 

stringent nitrogen limits based on 

biological treatment to achieve full 

denitrification for facilities in all 

subcategories producing greater than or 

equal to 20 million pounds per year. 

BAT for ammonia as N limits and BCT 

and BPT limits for conventional 

pollutants (BOD, TSS, oil & grease, fecal 

coliform, pH) limits would remain 

unchanged from the current MPP ELGs. 

The limits for facilities in Subcategory 

E would not be changed. 

Indirect Discharges to POTWs From 

Existing Sources 

Option 1: PSES would include new 

conventional pollutant limits based on 

BPT and BCT limits for BOD, TSS, and 

oil & grease based on screening and 

dissolved air flotation (DAF) 

technology. Under this option, 

pretreatment standards would apply to 

facilities producing greater than: 50 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4477 

million pounds per year of finished 

product for meat further processors 

(Subcategories F–I), 50 million pounds 

per year of LWK for meat slaughtering 

(Subcategories A–D), 100 million 

pounds per year of LWK for poultry 

slaughtering (Subcategory K), 7 million 

pounds per year of finished product for 

poultry further processors (Subcategory 

L), and 10 million pounds per year of 

raw material processed by renderers 

(Subcategory J). No new PSES based on 

pretreatment standards for nitrogen and 

phosphorus would be established under 

Option 1. 

Option 2: Option 2 would include the 

same PSES requirements for 

conventional pollutants as Option 1. 

Additionally, PSES would include new 

pretreatment standards based on BAT 

for phosphorus based on chemical 

removal and new nitrogen pretreatment 

standards based on biological treatment 

to achieve full denitrification. The 

nitrogen and phosphorus PSES 

requirements would include facilities 

with production thresholds greater than 

or equal to: 200 million pounds per year 

of LWK for meat slaughtering 

(Subcategories A–D), 200 million 

pounds per year of LWK for poultry 

slaughtering (Subcategory K), and 350 

million pounds per year processed by 

renderers (Subcategory J). 

Option 3: Option 3 would include the 

same PSES requirements as Option 2, 

with lower production thresholds for 

applicability. Specifically, PSES would 

include new conventional pollutant 

pretreatment standards based on BPT/ 

BCT for BOD, TSS, and oil & grease 

based on screening and DAF techniques 

for all indirect MPP facilities producing 

greater than 5 million pounds per year. 

Additionally, PSES would include new 

phosphorus and nitrogen pretreatment 

standards based on BAT for all indirect 

MPP facilities producing greater than 30 

million pounds per year. 

Direct Discharges From New Sources 

Under all options, NSPS based on 

BADCT would be equal to BAT, BPT, 

and BCT. Thus, Options 1, 2 and 3 

would contain the same requirements 

for existing and new direct discharging 

facilities. 

Indirect Discharges From New Sources 

Under all options, PSNS would be 

equal to PSES. Thus, Options 1, 2, and 

3 would contain the same requirements 

for existing and new indirect 

discharging facilities. 

Additional details about the proposed 

ELGs are described in Section VII of this 

preamble. 

II. Public Participation

Submit your comments, identified by

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2021– 

0736, at https://www.regulations.gov 

(our preferred method), or the other 

methods identified in the ADDRESSES

section. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from the 

docket. EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. Do not 

submit to EPA’s docket at https://

www.regulations.gov any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI), Proprietary 

Business Information (PBI), or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e., 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). Please visit https://

www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epadockets for additional submission 

methods; the full EPA public comment 

policy; information about CBI, PBI, or 

multimedia submissions; and general 

guidance on making effective 

comments. 

III. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

Entities potentially regulated by any

final rule following this action include: 

TABLE III–1 

Category Example of regulated entity 

North American 

Industry 

Classification 

System 

(NAICS) Code 

Industry .................................................... Facilities engaged in slaughtering, further processing, or rendering of meat and 

poultry products, which may include the following sectors: 

Meat Packing Plants ................................................................................................ 31161 

Animal (except Poultry) Slaughtering ...................................................................... 311611 

Meat Processed from Carcasses ............................................................................ 311612 

Sausages and Other Prepared Meat Products ....................................................... 311612 

Poultry Slaughtering and Processing ...................................................................... 311615 

Meat & Meat Product Wholesalers .......................................................................... 422470 

Poultry Processing ................................................................................................... 311615 

Rendering and Meat By-Product Processing .......................................................... 311613 

Support Activities for Animal Production ................................................................. 11521 

Prepared Feed and Feed Ingredients for Animals and Fowls, Except Dogs and 

Cats.

311119 

Dog and Cat Food Manufacturing ........................................................................... 311111 

Other Animal Food Manufacturing .......................................................................... 311119 

All Other Miscellaneous Food Manufacturing ......................................................... 311999 

Animal and Marine Fats and Oils ............................................................................ 311613 

Livestock Services, Except Veterinary .................................................................... 311611 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this action. This table 

includes the types of entities that the 

EPA is now aware could potentially be 

regulated by this action. Other types of 

entities not included could also be 

regulated. To determine whether your 

entity is regulated by this action, you 

should carefully examine the 

applicability criteria found in 40 CFR 

432.1, 432.10, 432.20, 432.30, 432.40, 

432.50, 432.60, 432.70, 432.80, 432.90, 

432.100, 432.110, and 432.120 and the 

definitions in 40 CFR 432.2. If you have 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
4478 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

the person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

B. What action is the Agency taking? 

The Agency is proposing to revise the 

existing MPP ELGs and is soliciting 

comment on possible revisions and 

additions to the ELGs for existing and 

new sources in the MPP point source 

category. 

C. What is the Agency’s authority for 

taking this action? 

EPA is proposing to promulgate this 

rule under the authority of sections 301, 

304, 306, 307, 308, 402, and 501 of the 

Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1311, 

1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342, and 1361. 

D. What are the incremental costs and 

benefits of this action? 

This proposed action is estimated to 

cost $232 million per year in social 

costs and result in $90 million per year 

in monetized benefits using a 3 percent 

discount rate and $227 million per year 

in social costs and result in $85 million 

per year in monetized benefits using a 

7 percent discount rate. The current 

benefit numbers reflect the national 

effects of increased air pollution and 

greenhouse gas emissions under the 

rule. EPA also expects that there will be 

additional non-monetized benefits that 

result from the proposed action. See the 

Benefits Cost Analysis for additional 

information on monetization and 

quantification of health, ecological, 

market, and economic productivity 

benefits. 

IV. Background 

A. Clean Water Act 

Congress passed the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act Amendments of 

1972, also known as the Clean Water 

Act (‘‘CWA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’), to ‘‘restore 

and maintain the chemical, physical, 

and biological integrity of the Nation’s 

waters’’ (33 U.S.C. 1251(a)). The CWA 

establishes a comprehensive program 

for protecting our nation’s waters. 

Among its core provisions, the CWA 

prohibits the discharge of pollutants 

from a point source to waters of the 

United States (WOTUS), except as 

authorized under the CWA. Under 

section 402 of the CWA, discharges may 

be authorized through a National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permit. The CWA establishes a 

two-pronged approach for these permits: 

technology-based controls that establish 

the floor of performance for all 

dischargers, and water quality-based 

limits where the technology-based 

limits are insufficient for the discharge 

to meet applicable water quality 

standards. To serve as the basis for the 

technology-based controls, the CWA 

authorizes EPA to establish nationally 

applicable, technology-based effluent 

limitations guidelines and new source 

performance standards for discharges 

from different categories of point 

sources, such as industrial, commercial, 

and public sources. 

Direct dischargers must comply with 

effluent limitations in NPDES permits. 

Technology-based effluent limitations in 

NPDES permits are derived from 

effluent limitations guidelines (CWA 

sections 301(b) and 304, 33 U.S.C. 

1311(b) and 1314) and new source 

performance standards (CWA section 

306, 33 U.S.C. 1316) promulgated by 

EPA, or based on best professional 

judgment (BPJ) where EPA has not 

promulgated an applicable effluent 

limitations guideline or new source 

performance standard (CWA section 

402(a)(1)(B), 33 U.S.C. 1342(a)(1)(B); 40 

CFR 125.3(c)). The effluent limitations 

guidelines and new source performance 

standards established by regulation for 

categories of industrial dischargers are 

based on the degree of control that can 

be achieved using various levels of 

pollution control technology, as 

specified in the Act. 

The CWA also authorizes EPA to 

promulgate nationally applicable 

pretreatment standards that restrict 

pollutant discharges from categories of 

indirect dischargers (i.e., facilities that 

introduce wastewater to POTWs), as 

outlined in CWA sections 307(b) and 

(c), and 304(g) (33 U.S.C. 1317(b) and 

(c), and 1314(g)). EPA establishes 

national categorical pretreatment 

standards for those pollutants in 

wastewater from indirect dischargers 

that may pass through, interfere with, or 

are otherwise incompatible with POTW 

operations (CWA section 307(b), 33 

U.S.C. 1317(b)). Generally, in 

determining whether pollutants pass 

through a POTW when considering the 

establishment of categorical 

pretreatment standards, EPA compares 

the percentage of pollutant removed by 

typical POTWs achieving secondary 

treatment with the percentage of the 

pollutant removed by facilities meeting 

the candidate technology basis (e.g., 

BPT or BAT) (46 FR 9408, 9416 (Jan. 28, 

1981)). A pollutant is deemed to pass 

through a POTW when the average 

percentage removed by well-operated 

POTWs performing secondary treatment 

is less than the average percentage 

removed by direct dischargers operating 

the BPT/BAT technology basis. 

Pretreatment standards are designed to 

ensure that wastewaters from direct and 

indirect industrial dischargers are 

subject to similar levels of treatment 

(CWA section 301(b) and 33 U.S.C. 

1311(b). The legislative history of the 

1977 CWA amendments explains that 

pretreatment standards are technologybased and analogous to technologybased effluent limitations for direct 

dischargers. As further explained in the 

legislative history, the combination of 

pretreatment and treatment by the 

POTW is intended to achieve the level 

of treatment that would be required if 

the industrial source were making a 

direct discharge (Conf. Rep. No. 95–830, 

at 87 (1977), reprinted in U.S. Congress, 

Senate Committee on Public Works 

(1978), A Legislative History of the CWA 

of 1977, Serial No. 95–14 at 271 (1978)). 

For categorical pretreatment standards, 

EPA’s approach for passthrough satisfies 

two competing objectives set by 

Congress: (1) That standards for indirect 

dischargers be equivalent to standards 

for direct dischargers; and (2) that the 

treatment capability and performance of 

the POTWs be recognized and taken 

into account in regulating the discharge 

of pollutants from indirect dischargers 

(CWA sections 301(b)(1)(A) and 

301(b)(1)(E) (33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(1)(A) and 

1311(b)(1)(E)). In addition, POTWs are 

required to implement local treatment 

limits applicable to their industrial 

indirect dischargers to satisfy any local 

requirements (40 CFR 403.5). 

EPA promulgates national ELGs for 

major industrial categories for three 

classes of pollutants: (1) Conventional 

pollutants (i.e., BOD, TSS, oil & grease, 

fecal coliform, and pH), as outlined in 

CWA section 304(a)(4) (33 U.S.C. 

1314(a)(4) and 40 CFR 401.16); (2) toxic 

pollutants (e.g., toxic metals such as 

arsenic, mercury, selenium, and 

chromium; toxic organic pollutants such 

as benzene, benzo-a-pyrene, phenol, and 

naphthalene), as outlined in CWA 

section 307(a) (33 U.S.C. 1317(a), 40 

CFR 401.15, and 40 CFR 423 appendix 

A); and (3) nonconventional pollutants, 

which are those pollutants that are not 

categorized as conventional or toxic 

(e.g., ammonia-N, nitrogen, phosphorus, 

and total dissolved solids (TDS)). 

B. Effluent Limitations Guidelines and 

Standards (ELGs) 

EPA develops ELGs that are 

technology-based regulations for a 

category of dischargers. EPA bases these 

regulations on performance of control 

and treatment technologies in light of 

the factors specified in CWA section 

304(b) and 306 (33 U.S.C. 1314(b), 

1316), but after the limitations and 

standards are established, dischargers 

may use any technology that meets the 

limitations and standards. The 

legislative history of CWA section 

304(b) (33 U.S.C. 1314(b)), which is the 

heart of the effluent guidelines program, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4479 

describes the need to press toward 

higher levels of control through research 

and development of new processes, 

modifications, replacement of obsolete 

plants and processes, and other 

improvements in technology, taking into 

account the cost of controls. Congress 

has also stated that EPA does not 

consider water quality impacts on 

individual water bodies as the 

guidelines are developed (Statement of 

Senator Muskie, October 4, 1972, 

reprinted in A Legislative History of the 

Water Pollution Control Act 

Amendments of 1972, at 170. (U.S. 

Senate, Committee on Public Works, 

Serial No. 93–1, January 1973); 

Southwestern Elec. Power Co. v. EPA, 

920 F.3d at 1005, ‘‘The Administrator 

must require industry, regardless of a 

discharge’s effect on water quality, to 

employ defined levels of technology to 

meet effluent limitations.’’ (citations 

and internal quotations omitted). CWA 

sections 304(b), 304(g), and 306(b) (33 

U.S.C. 1314(b), 1314(g) and 1316(b)) 

authorize revision of ELGs where 

appropriate. 

The CWA specifies four types of 

technology-based ELGs applicable to 

direct dischargers and two types of 

pretreatment standards applicable to 

indirect dischargers, referred to 

collectively as ‘‘effluent limitations 

guidelines and standards (ELGs)’’. These 

ELGs are summarized below. 

1. Best Practicable Control Technology 

Currently Available (BPT) 

For existing direct dischargers, the 

Act specifies two increasingly-stringent 

levels of control. The first level of 

control, BPT, applies to all pollutants 

(conventional, toxic, and 

nonconventional pollutants). 

Traditionally, as is consistent with the 

statute, its legislative history and 

caselaw, EPA defines ‘‘currently 

available’’ based on the average of the 

best performance of facilities within the 

industry, grouped to reflect various 

ages, sizes, processes, or other common 

characteristics (Chem. Mfrs. Assn. v. 

EPA, 870 F.2d 177, 207–208 (1989)). 

The statute specifies a number of factors 

for consideration in establishing or 

revising BPT: the cost of achieving 

effluent reductions in relation to the 

effluent reduction benefits, the age of 

equipment and facilities, the processes 

employed, the engineering aspects of 

the control technologies, process 

changes, non-water quality 

environmental impacts (including 

energy requirements), and such other 

factors as the Administrator deems 

appropriate (CWA section 304(b)(1)(B), 

33 U.S.C. 1314(b)(1)(B)). If, however, 

existing performance is uniformly 

inadequate, EPA may establish 

limitations based on higher levels of 

control than what is currently in place 

in an industrial category, based on an 

Agency determination that the 

technology is available in another 

category or subcategory and can be 

practicably applied. 

2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control 

Technology (BCT) 

BCT represents the second level of 

stringency for controlling discharge of 

conventional pollutants. In addition to 

other factors specified in CWA section 

304(b)(4)(B) (33 U.S.C. 1314(b)(4)(B)), 

the CWA requires that EPA establish 

BCT limitations after consideration of a 

two-part ‘‘cost-reasonableness’’ test. 

EPA explained its methodology for the 

development of BCT limitations in July 

1986 (51 FR 24974 (July 9, 1986)). The 

Act designates the following as 

conventional pollutants: BOD, TSS, 

fecal coliform, pH, and any additional 

pollutants defined by the Administrator 

as conventional (CWA section 304(a)(4); 

33 U.S.C. 1314(a)(4)). The Administrator 

designated oil & grease as an additional 

conventional pollutant (44 FR 44501 

(July 30, 1979) and 40 CFR 401.16). 

3. Best Available Technology 

Economically Achievable (BAT) 

BAT represents the second level of 

stringency for controlling discharge of 

toxic and nonconventional pollutants 

(including nutrients). Courts have 

referred to this as the CWA’s ‘‘gold 

standard’’ for controlling discharges 

from existing sources (Southwestern 

Elec. Power Co. v. EPA, 920 F.3d at 

1003). In general, BAT represents the 

best available, economically achievable 

performance of facilities in the 

industrial subcategory or category, 

considering the factors specified in 

CWA section 304(b) (33 U.S.C. 1314(b)). 

As the statutory phrase intends, EPA 

considers the technological availability 

and economic achievability in 

determining what level of control 

represents BAT (CWA section 

301(b)(2)(A), 33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(2)(A)). 

The statute specifies a number of factors 

for consideration in establishing or 

revising BAT: the cost of achieving BAT 

effluent reductions, the age of 

equipment and facilities involved, the 

process employed, potential process 

changes, and non-water quality 

environmental impacts, including 

energy requirements, and such other 

factors as the Administrator deems 

appropriate (CWA Section 304(b)(2)(B), 

33 U.S.C. 1314(b)(2)(B)). The Agency 

retains considerable discretion in 

assigning the weight to be accorded 

these factors (Weyerhaeuser Co. v. 

Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1045 (D.C. Cir. 

1978)). EPA usually determines 

economic achievability based on the 

effect of the cost of compliance with 

BAT limitations on overall industry and 

subcategory financial conditions (Chem. 

Mfrs. Assn. v. EPA, 870 F.2d 177, 251– 

52 (5th Cir. 1988)). 

BAT reflects the highest performance 

in the industry and may reflect a higher 

level of performance than is currently 

being achieved based on technology 

transferred from a different subcategory 

or category, bench scale or pilot plant 

studies, or foreign plants (Southwestern 

Elec. Power Co. v. EPA, 920 F.3d at 

1006; American Paper Inst. v. Train, 543 

F.2d 328, 353 (D.C. Cir. 1976); American 

Frozen Food Inst. v. Train, 539 F.2d 

107, 132 (D.C. Cir. 1976)). BAT may be 

based upon process changes or internal 

controls, even when these technologies 

are not common industry practice 

(American Frozen Foods, 539 F.2d at 

132, 140; Reynolds Metals Co. v. EPA, 

760 F.2d 549, 562 (4th Cir. 1985); 

California & Hawaiian Sugar Co. v. 

EPA, 553 F.2d 280, 285–88 (2nd Cir. 

1977)). 

4. New Source Performance Standards 

(NSPS) 

NSPS reflect effluent reductions that 

are achievable based on BADCT. 

Owners of new sources have the 

opportunity to install the best and most 

efficient production processes and 

wastewater treatment technologies. As a 

result, NSPS should represent the most 

stringent controls attainable through the 

application of the BADCT for all 

pollutants (that is, conventional, 

nonconventional, and toxic pollutants). 

In establishing NSPS, EPA is directed to 

take into consideration the cost of 

achieving the effluent reduction and any 

non-water quality environmental 

impacts and energy requirements (CWA 

section 306(b)(1)(B), 33 U.S.C. 

1316(b)(1)(B)). 

5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing 

Sources (PSES) 

CWA section 307(b) (33 U.S.C. 

1317(b)), of the Act calls for EPA to 

issue pretreatment standards for 

discharges of pollutants to POTWs. 

PSES are designed to prevent the 

discharge of pollutants that pass 

through, interfere with, or are otherwise 

incompatible with the operation of 

POTWs. Categorical pretreatment 

standards are technology-based and are 

analogous to BPT and BAT effluent 

limitations guidelines, and thus, the 

Agency typically considers the same 

factors in promulgating PSES as it 

considers in promulgating BPT/BAT. 

The General Pretreatment Regulations, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
4480 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

which set forth the framework for the 

implementation of categorical 

pretreatment standards, are found at 40 

CFR part 403. These regulations 

establish general pretreatment standards 

that apply to all non-domestic 

dischargers (52 FR 1586 (January 14, 

1987)). 

6. Pretreatment Standards for New 

Sources (PSNS) 

CWA section 307(c) (33 U.S.C. 

1317(c)) calls for EPA to promulgate 

PSNS. Such pretreatment standards 

must prevent the discharge of any 

pollutant into a POTW that may 

interfere with, pass through, or may 

otherwise be incompatible with the 

POTW. EPA promulgates PSNS based 

on BADCT for new sources. New 

indirect dischargers have the 

opportunity to incorporate into their 

facilities the best available 

demonstrated technologies. The Agency 

typically considers the same factors in 

promulgating PSNS as it considers in 

promulgating NSPS. 

C. Actions Leading to Proposed 

Revisions to the MPP ELGs 

1. National Review of Nutrient 

Discharges From Industrial Sources 

(USEPA. 2019. EPA–821–R–19–005) 

EPA conducted a cross-industry 

review of publicly available discharge 

monitoring report (DMR) and toxics 

release inventory (TRI) data from 2015 

on nutrient discharges from industrial 

point source categories. This review 

identified industries, based on their 

discharges of nutrients in wastewater 

and the potential to reduce their 

nutrient discharges, that may be 

candidates for ELG development or 

revision and prioritized them for further 

review. EPA then ranked industrial 

categories by the nutrient loads in their 

wastewater discharges, specifically 

looking at the median facility load and 

number of facilities reporting 

discharges. The MPP industry ranked as 

one of the highest in the analysis for 

total nitrogen and total phosphorus, 

leading EPA to focus on this industry 

(USEPA. 2019. EPA–HQ–OW–2019– 

0618). 

To better understand the MPP 

industry and related nutrient sources, 

discharges, and treatment, EPA 

reviewed historical documentation 

supporting the development of the 

existing MPP ELGs, analyzed 2015 DMR 

and TRI data, and contacted several 

MPP facilities. Many MPP facilities 

discharging high amounts of nutrients 

are located in EPA Regions 4 and 5, 

which provided information on the 

development of nutrient permit limits 

and current practices for managing 

wastewater containing nutrients at MPP 

facilities. Many of these facilities had 

permits with water-quality-based 

ammonia limits more stringent than the 

existing 2004 MPP ELGs. More than half 

of the permits reviewed also included 

water quality-based limits or monitoring 

requirements for total Kjeldahl nitrogen 

(TKN), nitrate/nitrite, and/or total 

phosphorus, which are not regulated 

under the 2004 MPP ELG. 

EPA found that some MPP facilities 

are performing better than the existing 

2004 ELG for nutrient discharges 

(nitrogen and ammonia), as well as 

removing phosphorus, which is not 

regulated under the existing ELG. For 

nitrogen, the median annual average of 

97 direct discharging MPP facilities was 

32.8 mg/L, which is well below the 2004 

ELG monthly averages of 103 mg/L for 

poultry and 132 mg/L for meat 

processors. For ammonia, the median 

annual average for 119 facilities was 

approximately 0.5 mg/L, which is far 

lower than the 4 mg/L required under 

the ELG regulations. For phosphorus, 

which is not regulated under the 

existing ELGs, the median annual 

average of 140 MPP facilities was less 

than 2 mg/L indicating that some MPP 

facilities are meeting water-quality 

based low phosphorus limits of their 

NPDES permits using current treatment 

technologies. These initial results 

indicated that revised ELGs may be 

appropriate as the industry is capable of 

achieving effluent limitations well 

below the current 2004 regulations. 

2. Detailed Study of Meat and Poultry 

Products (USEPA. 2021. EPA–821–R– 

21–003) 

As a result of the cross-industry 

review of nutrients in industrial 

wastewater and the further review of the 

MPP category, EPA began a detailed 

study of the MPP industry. The goals of 

the MPP detailed study were to gain a 

better understanding of the industry and 

evaluate whether the ELGs should be 

revised. 

EPA began by collecting publicly 

available information about the MPP 

industry. To obtain a list of facilities 

that may be part of the MPP industry, 

EPA evaluated industry directories from 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) Food Safety Inspection Service 

(FSIS), the U.S. Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA), and the National 

Renderers Association (NRA). To further 

develop this list, EPA evaluated 

information from POTW Annual 

Reports, EPA’s Integrated Compliance 

Information System National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (ICIS– 

NPDES) database, and EPA’s TRI 

database. EPA also engaged with EPA 

regions, federal agencies, States, clean 

water organizations, industry 

stakeholders, environmental groups, 

and communities in close proximity to 

MPP facilities to understand different 

perspectives on the industry and effects 

of the industry on communities and to 

gain insights into the industry. 

EPA used the publicly available 

information to analyze the industry. 

EPA found that the MPP industry 

discharges the highest phosphorus 

levels and second highest nitrogen 

levels of all industrial categories. EPA 

found the nutrient discharges are from 

numerous facilities across the country 

and that the nutrient pollutants are at 

concentrations that can be reduced with 

current wastewater treatment 

technology. Further, some of the studied 

facilities were already removing 

nutrients and achieving effluent 

concentrations well below the 

limitations in the existing MPP ELGs. 

During the detailed study, EPA 

compiled a list of over 7,000 facilities 

from the sources listed above that 

potentially processed meat and poultry 

products and might be part of the MPP 

industry. Of these, EPA estimated that 

approximately 300 are likely direct 

dischargers. During the rulemaking 

process, EPA refined the list to 5,055 

MPP facilities, of which 171 are direct 

dischargers. As the existing ELGs only 

apply to a subset of the direct 

dischargers, the 2004 MPP ELGs cover 

approximately 150 facilities. As 

mentioned, the wastewater from the 

direct dischargers has high amounts of 

nutrients. Around 120 of the estimated 

150 direct dischargers discharge to 

waters listed as impaired, with much of 

the MPP total nitrogen and total 

phosphorus load discharging to waters 

impaired for algal growth, ammonia, 

nutrients, and/or oxygen depletion. 

As the majority of MPP facilities are 

indirect dischargers, which are not 

currently subject to national categorical 

pretreatment standards, EPA also 

studied POTWs that receive MPP 

wastewater. In reviewing permits for 

POTWs that receive MPP wastewater, 

EPA found the majority do not have 

limits for nitrogen or phosphorus. Thus, 

many POTWs may not be removing 

much of the nutrient load discharged by 

MPP industrial users because many 

POTWs do not have tertiary treatment 

designed to remove nutrients. 

Additionally, many of the POTWs 

(73%) had permit violations for 

pollutants found in MPP wastewater 

(analysis included BOD, TSS, chlorides, 

nitrogen, phosphorus, E. coli, total 

residual chlorine (TRC), coliforms, 

metals, ammonia, and oil & grease). The 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4481 

3Characteristics of concern in this analysis are 

defined as demographic or environmental indexes 

above the 80th percentile in a state based on data 

available in the 2020 release of EJSCREEN. Census 

block groups with one or more indexes above this 

threshold were considered communities of concern. 

collected data thus indicates MPP 

facilities may be causing or contributing 

to violations of POTW permit limits 

(EUSEPA. 2021. PA–HQ–OW–2021– 

0547–0110). 

National ELGs can help ensure that all 

people in the vicinity of industrial 

direct and indirect discharges receive 

the same degree of protection from 

environmental and health hazards, and 

equal access to the decision-making 

process to have a healthy environment 

in which to live, learn, and work. To 

assess information related to 

environmental justice, EPA conducted 

screening analyses of areas with MPP 

facilities and found 82% of MPP 

facilities that directly discharge 

wastewater to waters of the U.S. are 

within one mile of census block groups 

with demographic or environmental 

characteristics of concern. This 

indicates that such facilities may be 

disproportionately impacting 

communities of concern and therefore 

revised wastewater regulations may 

benefit these communities.3

3. Announcement of Rule in 

Preliminary Effluent Guidelines Plan 15 

In 2021, in the Preliminary Effluent 

Guidelines Program Plan 15 

(Preliminary Plan 15), EPA announced a 

rulemaking to revise the existing 

discharge standards for the MPP 

industry (USEPA. 2021. EPA–821–R– 

21–003). 

4. Litigation and Consent Decree 

On December 23, 2022, Plaintiffs Cape 

Fear River Watch, Rural Empowerment 

Association for Community Help, 

Waterkeepers Chesapeake, Waterkeeper 

Alliance, Humane Society of the United 

States, Food & Water Watch, 

Environment America, Comite Civico 

del Valle, Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Animal Legal Defense 

Fund filed a complaint alleging that 

EPA’s failure to revise ELGs and to 

promulgate pretreatment standards for 

the MPP category constituted failures to 

act by statutory deadlines in violation of 

the CWA and Administrative 

Procedures Act (‘‘APA’’) (Cape Fear 

River Watch et al. v. United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, No. 

1:22–cv–03809 (D. D.C)). 

Although EPA was in the process of 

conducting the MPP rulemaking, EPA 

had not publicly announced any 

specific timeline for completion. The 

parties initiated settlement discussions, 

resulting in a proposed consent decree 

with deadlines for completion of the 

rulemaking, which EPA entered into 

after public notice and comment (88 FR 

12930 (Mar. 1, 2023)). Under the 

consent decree, EPA has obligations to 

sign a notice of proposed rulemaking by 

December 13, 2023 and to sign a 

decision taking final action on the 

proposal by August 31, 2025 (Consent 

Decree, Cape Fear River Watch et al. v. 

EPA, Case No. 1:22–cv–03809–BAH (05/ 

03/23)). 

V. Meat and Poultry Products Industry 

Description 

A. General Description of Industry 

The MPP point source category 

includes facilities ‘‘engaged in the 

slaughtering, dressing and packing of 

meat and poultry products for human 

consumption and/or animal food and 

feeds. Meat and poultry products for 

human consumption include meat and 

poultry from cattle, hogs, sheep, 

chickens, turkeys, ducks and other fowl 

as well as sausages, luncheon meats and 

cured, smoked or canned or other 

prepared meat and poultry products 

from purchased carcasses and other 

materials. Meat and poultry products for 

animal food and feeds include animal 

oils, meat meal and facilities that render 

grease and tallow from animal fat, bones 

and meat scraps’’ (40 CFR 432.1). 

Based on industry responses to the 

2022 MPP Questionnaire, EPA estimates 

there are 5,055 MPP facilities currently 

in operation. Table V–1 shows the 

estimated number of MPP facilities 

based on facility process based on the 

2022 MPP Questionnaire and other 

publicly available data sources. ‘‘Meat 

First’’ refers to facilities that slaughter 

animals excluding poultry. ‘‘Meat 

Further’’ refers to facilities that further 

process animal products excluding 

poultry. ‘‘Poultry First’’ refers to 

facilities that slaughter poultry. ‘‘Poultry 

Further’’ refers to facilities that further 

process poultry. Facilities that process 

meat and poultry were classified by the 

type which they process the most. 

‘‘Render’’ refers to facilities that only 

process meat and poultry offcuts, 

trimmings, bones, dead animals, scrap 

materials, and other related usable byproducts. For more information on how 

facilities were classified, see the Meat 

and Poultry Products (MPP) Profile 

Methodology Memorandum (USEPA. 

2023. DCN MP00306). 

TABLE V–1—NUMBER OF FACILITIES IN MPP INDUSTRY BY PROCESS AND DISCHARGE TYPE

Process 

Number of facilities 

Direct 

dischargers 

Indirect 

dischargers 

Zero 

dischargers Total 

Meat First ......................................................................................................... 47 509 270 826 

Meat Further .................................................................................................... 29 2,741 690 3,460 

Poultry First ...................................................................................................... 70 168 52 290 

Poultry Further ................................................................................................. 6 169 119 294 

Render ............................................................................................................. 19 121 45 185 

Total .......................................................................................................... 171 3,708 1,176 5,055 

Source: DCNMP00306. 

As shown in Table V–1, there are a 

large number of MPP facilities in each 

sector. These facilities are located across 

the country. Although first processors/ 

slaughterhouses tend to be larger, there 

is a large range in production volumes 

across the industry. Based on the 

questionnaire, 171 facilities have 

NPDES permits and discharge 

wastewater directly to waters of the U.S. 

An additional 3,708 facilities discharge 

wastewater to POTWs, and 1,176 

facilities do not discharge process 

wastewater. MPP effluent discharges 

contain pollutants including nitrogen, 

phosphorus, ammonia, oil & grease, 

BOD, and chlorides. 

B. Control and Treatment Technologies 

EPA evaluated technologies available 

to control and treat wastewater 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
4482 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

4 Johns, M.R. 1995. Developments in wastewater 

treatment in the meat processing industry: A 

review. Bioresource Technology 54. EPA–HQ–OW– 

2002–0014–2410. DCN 300232. 5USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 

1974, February. Development Document for Effluent 

Limitation Guidelines and New Source Performance 

Standards for the Red Meat Processing Segment of 

the Meat Product and Rendering Processing Point 

Source Category. Washington, DC. DCN MP00348. 6USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 

1975, April. Development Document for Effluent 

Limitation Guidelines and New Source Performance 

Standards for the Poultry Segment of the Meat 

Product and Rendering Processing Point Source 

Category. Washington, DC. DCN MP00349. 7 Glenn, S.L., R.T., Norris, Jr., and J.T. 

Sommerfield. 1990. Discrete-event simulation in 

wastewater treatment. Journal of Environmental 

Science and Health, 25 (4). 

generated by the MPP industry. EPA has 

not identified any practical difference in 

types of treatment technologies between 

meat products and poultry products 

facilities. Some MPP processes result in 

wastewater streams with higher 

concentrations of pollutants, but 

facilities across the industry generally 

contain the same pollutants, including 

nitrogen, phosphorus, oil & grease, BOD, 

TSS, and chlorides. 

The pollutants in MPP wastewaters 

are similar to those in domestic 

wastewater. POTWs often have similar 

wastewater treatment technologies as 

direct discharging MPP facilities. 

However, some indirect MPP 

wastewater discharges have pollutant 

loads that the receiving POTW cannot 

handle. These indirect discharges may 

cause passthrough or interference as 

those terms are defined in EPA’s general 

pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR 

403.3(k) and (p). Also, many POTWs are 

not equipped to effectively treat all 

pollutants found in MPP wastewater 

such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and 

chlorides. Thus, indirect discharging 

MPP facilities may need to treat their 

wastewater before sending it to their 

POTW in order to meet any local limits 

established by the control authority 

under EPA’s general pretreatment 

regulations (40 CFR part 403). 

EPA evaluated available technologies 

that can be used to treat or remove MPP 

pollutants, individually and in 

treatment trains. This section is split 

into subsections based on type of 

pollutant removal, including 

conventional pollutants, phosphorus, 

nitrogen, pathogens, and chlorides. As 

the evaluated technologies result in 

sludge production, technologies for 

solids handling are also included. 

Discussions on treatment trains are 

included within applicable sections. 

1. Conventional Pollutant Removal 

MPP process wastewater contains oil 

& grease, TSS, and BOD, which are all 

conventional pollutants. These 

pollutants can be removed with primary 

treatment, which removes floating and 

settleable solids. Typical treatment 

technologies include screens and DAF. 

a. Screening: Screens are generally the 

first treatment unit in a wastewater 

treatment train. Screens are inexpensive 

and remove large solid particles from 

the wastewater that may otherwise 

damage or interfere with downstream 

equipment and treatment processes. At 

some facilities, the materials removed 

by the screens may be used as raw 

material at rendering facilities. 

b. Dissolved air flotation (DAF): DAF 

is used extensively in the primary 

treatment of MPP wastewaters to 

remove suspended solids and oil & 

grease. In a DAF unit, air is dissolved 

into the wastewater, forming small 

bubbles. As the air bubbles float to the 

surface, solids attach to the air bubbles, 

and rise to the top of the unit forming 

a layer of floating pollutants. A skimmer 

is used to continuously remove this 

layer of floating solids, while a bottom 

sludge collector removes any solids that 

settle to the bottom. In some facilities, 

such as renderers, the removed solids 

can be recycled to the facility as raw 

materials. 

c. Chemical Addition: Polymers, 

flocculants, and phosphorus 

precipitating chemicals may be added 

to, or prior to, the DAF. The chemical 

addition increases the removal of 

pollutants from the wastewater. Adding 

chemicals to remove phosphorus can 

help facilities meet phosphorus effluent 

limits. For facilities that recycle 

materials from the DAF to the facility, 

chemicals addition may not be possible 

as this would contaminate the raw 

material. 

2. Biological/Organic Pollutant Removal 

BOD, nitrogen, and phosphorus are 

removed through biological, physical, 

and chemical processes. Biological 

processes can be used to achieve low 

levels of BOD and nitrogen and are 

commonly used at MPP facilities. 

Microorganisms used in biological 

wastewater treatment require 

phosphorus for cell synthesis and 

energy transport and typically remove 

10 to 30 percent of influent phosphorus. 

Through biological treatment, organic 

compounds are broken down with 

bacteria into products including water, 

CO2, N2, and CH4. 

a. Anaerobic biological treatment: In 

anaerobic wastewater treatment, 

facultative and anaerobic 

microorganisms reduce organic matter 

and BOD into gaseous methane and 

carbon dioxide. The gases may be 

released into the atmosphere, captured 

and flared, or used as biogas. Anaerobic 

treatment systems have negligible 

energy requirements and can treat highstrength wastewaters. Anaerobic lagoons 

are a typical anaerobic system used at 

MPP facilities. Due to the detention 

time, these lagoons also equalize 

wastewater flow. The lagoons are not 

mixed to maintain anaerobic conditions. 

Anaerobic lagoons can reduce BOD by 

95 percent and suspended solids by 95 

percent (Johns. 1995; 4 USEPA. 1974; 5

USEPA. 1975).6

b. Aerobic biological treatment: In 

aerobic wastewater treatment, 

microorganisms require oxygen to 

degrade organic material into water, 

carbon dioxide, and organic 

compounds. Aerobic degradation is 

faster than anaerobic degradation. 

Soluble BOD reductions up to 95 

percent are possible. Aerated lagoons 

have fixed, floating, or diffused air 

systems to aerate the water. Aerobic 

lagoons (naturally aerated systems) use 

algae to aerate the system through 

photosynthesis. 

c. Anoxic biological treatment: 

Anoxic wastewater treatment systems 

are oxygen deficient, and bacteria break 

down nitrogenous compounds into 

oxygen and nitrogen gas. 

d. Activated sludge: This system 

includes an aeration tank followed by a 

settling tank. Settled solids from the 

second tank are recycled back into the 

aeration tank. Under optimal 

conditions, this process can achieve 95 

percent reductions in BOD, suspended 

solids, and reductions in ammonia 

nitrogen (Johns. 1995; USEPA. 1974; 

USEPA. 1975). 

e. Sequencing batch reactor (SBR): An 

SBR completes the activated sludge 

process in a single reactor. The system 

first fills with wastewater, then the 

reaction in which bacteria break down 

organic compounds in the presence of 

oxygen occurs for some time, then the 

system is given time to settle and 

separate the microorganisms from the 

treated effluent, and then the tank is 

discharged. SBR systems provide high 

removal rates of BOD and suspended 

solids, can be designed for nitrification, 

and can remove nitrogen and 

phosphorus. SBRs are ideal for low flow 

processes as they do not need to run 

continuously, and the systems allow for 

operational and loading flexibility 

(Glenn et al. 1990).7

f. Multistage biological treatment for 

nitrogen removal: Nitrogen removal is a 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4483 

8Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1991. Wastewater 

Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, and Reuse. 3rd 

Edition, McGraw-Hill, Inc. DCN MP00334. 

two-step process: nitrification and 

denitrification. 

i. Nitrification is a two-step aerobic 

process. First, ammonia is oxidized into 

nitrite by Nitrosomonas bacteria. Then, 

nitrite is oxidized into nitrate by 

Nitrobacter bacteria (Metcalf & Eddy, 

Inc. 1991).8

ii. Denitrification: Nitrite and nitrate 

are reduced by heterotrophic bacteria 

into nitrogen gas in anaerobic 

conditions. A carbon source, such as 

methanol, may need to be added to keep 

the microbes healthy. 

Biological treatment systems are often 

used in series to achieve high rates of 

nitrogen removal. Wastewater flows 

from one system to the next, with 

recycle streams and returned activated 

sludge returning to various locations of 

the system. Some examples include: 

i. Modified Ludzack-Ettinger (MLE): 

The MLE is a two-stage system in which 

an anoxic stage is followed by an 

aerobic stage, before wastewater goes to 

a clarifier. Mixed liquor with high levels 

of nitrate is recycled from the aerobic 

stage back to the influent. Activated 

sludge from the clarifier is also recycled 

back to the influent. The MLE process 

removes most of the BOD and can 

achieve a nitrogen removal of 80 

percent. 

ii. Bardenpho: This is a four-stage 

process: anoxic, aerobic, anoxic, 

aerobic, followed by a secondary 

clarifier. Mixed liquor with high levels 

of nitrate is recycled from the first 

aerobic stage back to the first anoxic 

stage. Activated sludge from the clarifier 

is recycled back to the influent. 

Nitrification occurs primarily in the 

second stage (aerobic). Denitrification 

occurs in the first and third stages 

(anoxic). The final aeration stage 

removes nitrogen gas from the system 

and increases the concentration of 

dissolved oxygen. The four-stage 

Bardenpho process achieves higher rates 

of nitrogen removal compared to the 

two-stage MLE process. 

iii. Modified Bardenpho: This is a 

five-stage process: anaerobic, anoxic, 

aerobic, anoxic, aerobic, followed by a 

secondary clarifier. As in the Bardenpho 

process, mixed liquor with high levels 

of nitrate is recycled from the first 

aerobic stage back to the first anoxic 

stage and activated sludge from the 

clarifier is recycled back to the influent. 

The anaerobic stage at the beginning of 

the system results in biological 

phosphorus removal. Phosphateaccumulating organisms (PAOs) are 

recycled from the aerobic stage in the 

mixed liquor to the anaerobic stage. In 

the following aerobic stages, PAOs 

uptake large amounts of phosphorus 

(USEPA. 2021. EPA 830–R–01–001). 

iv. Other: There are many other 

processes that use multiple stages of 

treatment to remove nitrogen. These 

include A2/O, step feed, University of 

Capetown (UCT) processes, oxidation 

ditches, and the Schreiber process, 

amongst others (USEPA. 2004. EPA– 

821–R–04–011). 

g. Membrane bioreactor (MBR): MBRs 

use membranes to separate liquids and 

solids. The liquid stream then passes 

through anoxic and aerobic zones, in 

similar processes to the biological 

treatment systems described above. As 

the membranes greatly reduce the 

suspended solids in the liquid stream, 

MBR removes nitrogen and phosphorus 

(USEPA. 2009. EPA/600/R-09/012). 

h. Enhanced Biological Phosphorus 

Removal: Microorganisms used in 

biological wastewater treatment require 

phosphorus for cell synthesis and 

energy transport. In the treatment of 

typical domestic wastewater, between 

10 and 30 percent of influent 

phosphorus is removed by microbial 

assimilation, followed by clarification or 

filtration. However, phosphorus 

assimilation in excess of requirements 

for cell maintenance and growth, known 

as luxury uptake, can be induced by a 

sequence of anaerobic and aerobic 

conditions (Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1991). 

As explained above, the modified 

Bardenpho process removes phosphorus 

biologically. 

3. Phosphorus Removal 

As mentioned in the biological/ 

organic pollutant removal section, some 

phosphorus is removed in biological 

treatment processes. To achieve low 

levels of phosphorus, chemical addition 

and/or tertiary filters can be used. 

a. Chemical addition: Phosphorus can 

be removed from wastewater by 

precipitation using metal salts [ferric 

chloride, aluminum sulfate (alum)] or 

lime. Polymers may also be added to 

increase the removal efficiency. The 

chemicals may be added prior to or in 

the DAF, in primary clarifier effluent, in 

biological treatment processes prior to 

secondary clarification, or after 

secondary clarification. The precipitated 

phosphorus is removed with other 

biosolids (Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1991). 

b. Tertiary Filters: Filters following 

chemical phosphorus removal can be 

used to achieve high removal rates of 

phosphorus. Tertiary filtration may 

include sand filters, ion-exchange, 

membranes, and others. 

4. Pathogen Removal 

Disinfection destroys remaining 

pathogenic microorganisms and is 

generally required for all MPP 

wastewaters being discharged to surface 

waters. Chlorination/dechlorination, 

Ultra-Violet (UV), and some filters can 

be used to meet effluent limits for 

pathogens and to inactivate pathogenic 

microorganisms prior to discharge to 

surface waters. 

a. Chlorination/dechlorination: 

Chlorine disinfects wastewater through 

oxidation reactions with cellular 

material which results in the 

destruction of pathogens. Mixing and 

contact time in a chlorine contact 

chamber are critical factors to ensure 

proper disinfection. The chlorine 

compounds commonly used for 

wastewater disinfection are chlorine 

gas, calcium hypochlorite, sodium 

hypochlorite, and chlorine dioxide 

(Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1991). Chlorine 

residuals are toxic to aquatic life, so 

dechlorination is often necessary. Sulfur 

dioxide can be added, as it reacts with 

both free chlorine and chloramines with 

chloride ions, lowering chlorine 

residuals (USEPA, 1999. EPA 832–F– 

99–062). 

b. Ultra-Violet (UV): Radiation 

emitted from UV light is an effective 

bactericide and virucide and does not 

generate any toxic compounds. 

Wavelengths between 250 and 270 nm 

inactivates cells (USEPA, 1999. EPA 

832–F–99–064). UV lamps can be 

submerged in the wastewater or 

suspended outside the wastewater. 

c. Tertiary Filtration: Filters and 

membranes with pore sizes smaller than 

pathogens can be used to remove 

pathogens from wastewater. 

Ultrafiltration, membranes, and reverse 

osmosis are options. 

5. Chlorides Removal 

Some MPP processes, including hides 

processing, meat and poultry koshering, 

and further processing techniques, such 

as curing, brining, and pickling, 

commonly produce wastewater streams 

with high levels of chlorides. Some 

facilities engage in water softening, 

which can also produce high chlorides 

wastestreams. Wastewater treatment 

technologies commonly found at 

POTWs and many MPP facilities do not 

remove chlorides. The optimal chlorides 

treatment technologies for a facility 

depends on wastewater strength, 

climate, land availability, and cost. High 

chloride wastestreams may be able to be 

separated from other wastestreams, 

which can reduce costs and energy 

required for treatment. 

a. Hauling: Facilities may choose to 

haul high chloride wastewater (also 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
4484 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

9Panagopoulos, A., Haralambous, K.J., and 

Loizidou, M. 2019. Desalination brine disposal 

methods and treatment technologies—A review. 

Science of The Total Environment, 693. https://

doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.351. 

10Zhang, C., Shi, Y., Shi, L., Li, H., Li, R., Hong, 

S., Zhuo, S., Zhang, T., Wang, P. 2021. Designing 

a next generation solar crystallizer for real seawater 

brine treatment with zero liquid discharge. Nature 

Communications, 12. https://www.nature.com/ 

articles/s41467-021-21124-4. 

called brine) offsite in tanker trucks. 

The wastewater may be taken to a 

renderer where it may be used for 

production purposes, transported to a 

facility equipped to treat and/or dispose 

of brine, or taken offsite for deep-well 

injection or other means of disposal. 

Hauling can be costly as compared to 

other options, especially for large 

amounts of wastewater. 

b. Evaporation ponds: Brine 

wastewater may be disposed into 

shallow ponds exposed to the sun. The 

water evaporates, leaving salt. The salt 

will need to be emptied from the ponds 

occasionally to allow the ponds to be 

reused. This technology relies on solar 

evaporation and is best in dry/semi-dry 

climates. Land space for the ponds is 

also necessary. Due to the potential for 

groundwater pollution, the ponds 

should be lined (Panagopoulos et al. 

2019).9

c. Evaporation systems/Crystallizers: 

Brine water is concentrated to near 

saturation, which results in salt 

crystallization. Heat is used to evaporate 

the water. The systems are often costly 

as compared to other options and 

corrosion is common if proper materials 

of construction are not utilized (Zhang 

et al. 2021).10

d. Deep-well injection: Fluids such as 

brine/salt water can be injected 

underground into porous geological 

formations. The well is normally 500 

to1500 meters deep. Constructing a well 

can be costly, and deep-well injection is 

not allowed in some parts of the U.S. 

(Panagopoulos et al. 2019). 

6. Solids Handling 

Some wastewater treatment 

technologies produce industrial sludge. 

In the MPP industry, sludge is primarily 

generated by the DAF and clarifiers. The 

sludge contains oil & grease, organic 

materials, nitrogen, phosphorus, and 

chemicals/polymers added in the 

treatment system. The sludge may have 

a high-water content, which can be 

reduced, to reduce volume and save 

hauling and landfilling costs. Common 

dewatering technologies include gravity 

thickening units and the belt filter press. 

The sludge may be incinerated, land 

applied, or landfilled, depending on 

State, local and federal regulations and 

disposal method availability. 

VI. Data Collection 

A. Information From the Meat and 

Poultry Products Industry 

The Agency evaluated the following 

databases online to locate data and 

information to support regulatory 

development: The Agency’s ICIS– 

NPDES database, USDA’s Food Safety 

and Inspection Service’s Hazard 

Analysis and Critical Control Point 

(HACCP) Databases, the 2020 U.S. 

Census of Manufactures, Dun & 

Bradstreet (D&B) Hoover’s database, and 

Experian’s Business TargetIQ database. 

In addition, the Agency conducted a 

thorough collection and review of 

secondary sources, which include data, 

reports, and analyses published by 

government agencies; reports and 

analyses published by the MPP industry 

and its associated organizations; and 

publicly available financial information 

compiled by both government and 

private organizations. 

EPA met with or consulted the 

following organizations for industry 

information including facility names, 

addresses and contact information: 

National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, 

National Pork Producers Council, North 

American Meat Institute, the North 

American Renderers Association, and 

the U.S. Poultry & Egg Association. 

The documents cited above were all 

used by EPA in developing the industry 

profile, a survey sampling frame, and for 

stratifying the survey sampling frame. In 

addition to these publications, EPA 

examined many other documents that 

provided useful overviews and analysis 

of the MPP industry. EPA also 

conducted general internet searches by 

company name. 

1. Survey 

Publicly available data on MPP 

facilities are limited. EPA has based the 

population of MPP facilities on data 

largely from the USDA FSIS. The FSIS 

dataset compiles information on facility 

name and location, type(s) of meat and 

poultry processed, and limited details 

on size (both employees and amount 

processed). USDA FSIS does not report 

details specific to wastewater generation 

or wastewater treatment. EPA also 

included a list of renderers from the 

NRA, and MPP facilities in the ICIS– 

NPDES dataset, in developing the list of 

MPP facilities. These data are limited 

since the NPDES data generally includes 

only those facilities directly discharging 

wastewater, although some individual 

States require pretreatment permits to 

also be reported. 

In order to supplement publicly 

available data sources, EPA conducted a 

survey of the MPP industry. EPA 

developed two questionnaires to collect 

site-specific technical and economic 

information to provide a more robust 

record to support developing regulatory 

options and conduct analyses required 

by statutes and executive orders. EPA’s 

Office of Water administered a Census 

Questionnaire and a Detailed 

Questionnaire to facilities engaging in 

meat and poultry processing, including 

those currently regulated under 40 CFR 

part 432, and facilities that discharge 

wastewater directly to waters of the 

U.S., indirectly to POTWs, or do not 

discharge wastewater. The Census 

Questionnaire was administered as a 

census of the industry to confirm the 

industry population, as well as general 

information on the industry, including: 

• Processing details (including type 

of meat or poultry and type of 

processing), 

• Type and size (both production and 

employees) of the facility, and 

• Wastewater generation and 

treatment information. 

EPA used information collected 

through the Census Questionnaire to 

confirm the list of facilities that fall 

within the MPP industry and to identify 

which MPP facilities generate, treat, 

and/or discharge wastewater. A 

statistically representative subset of 

different types of MPP facilities were 

asked to complete a more detailed set of 

questions. This Detailed Questionnaire 

collected the same information as the 

Census Questionnaire and additional 

details on processing operations, types 

and amount of wastewater generated by 

operation, wastewater treatment details, 

and economic data. In addition, EPA 

collected and analyzed wastewater 

samples from six MPP facilities that 

received the Detailed Questionnaire to 

characterize raw waste streams, 

wastewater treatment systems, and 

treated effluent for pollutants of interest. 

At the outset of EPA’s development of 

the questionnaires, based on data 

primarily from USDA FSIS and ICIS– 

NPDES, EPA estimated the MPP 

industry had between 7,000 and 8,000 

facilities. Because no one data source 

collects information from all MPP 

facilities, the exact number was unclear 

at the time the questionnaires were 

developed. EPA refined the list of 

facilities by identifying additional or 

duplicate facilities and working with 

trade associations to identify facilities 

that do not process meat or poultry. EPA 

conducted a statistical sample of 

facilities on the list and sent 1,565 

unique facilities the Detailed 

Questionnaire and the other facilities 

were sent the Census Questionnaire. 

EPA stratified the list of facilities (i.e., 

the sampling frame) into groups based 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4485 

11EPA ICR No. 2701.01, OMB Control No. 2040– 

NEW. 

on the stage of operation (i.e., slaughter, 

further processor, renderer), the meat 

type (i.e., meat, poultry), and 

production, to increase sample 

precision. Each facility fell within one 

or more strata. EPA estimated the 

number of facilities to sample from each 

stratum based on acceptable error, 

confidence level, and expected response 

rate using Cochran’s sample size 

formula. The target sample size was 

1,633 and these 1,565 represent the 

1,633 facility-strata combination as 

some facilities fell in multiple strata and 

represent multiple strata. The Detailed 

Questionnaire included all questions in 

the Census Questionnaire. Both 

questionnaires were issued at the same 

time and requested data for 2021. Data 

from 2021 represents the most recent 

year for which complete technical and 

economic data were available as EPA 

administered the survey in 2022. The 

Detailed Questionnaire also asked for 

some data from 2017 and 2019 to 

evaluate recent trends in industry 

operation and economics. EPA 

administered the data collection under 

the authority of section 308 of the 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 

U.S.C. 1318 and in accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501–3521.11 The questionnaires can be 

found in Docket ID Number EPA–HQ– 

OW–2021–0736. Additional details on 

the questionnaire methodology can be 

found in the TDD. 

2. Stakeholder Meetings and Outreach 

EPA encouraged the participation of 

all interested parties throughout the 

development of the MPP rule. The 

Agency conducted outreach to trade 

associations that represent the vast 

majority of the facilities that will be 

affected by the rule. EPA met with 

various stakeholders to discuss aspects 

of the regulation development. EPA also 

participated in industry meetings and 

gave presentations on the status of the 

regulation development. A 

comprehensive list and description of 

these meetings can be found in the TDD. 

EPA also met with environmental 

groups and Tribal communities and 

conducted environmental justice 

outreach. For details on these meetings, 

see the Environmental Assessment for 

the Proposed Effluent Limitations 

Guidelines and Standards for the Meat 

and Poultry Products Point Source 

Category (U.S. EPA, 2023. EPA 821–R– 

23–012). 

B. Economic Data 

EPA analyzed the economic impact of 

the proposed regulation on both 

discharging facilities and the firms that 

own them. These analyses form the 

basis of EPA’s proposed determination 

that the regulation is economically 

achievable. EPA also analyzed larger 

market wide impacts on production 

levels, prices, and employment. EPA 

relied on existing sources of economic 

data for these analyses and to 

supplement facility and firm 

information obtained from the industry 

survey. 

1. Facility and Firm-Level Economic 

Data 

When questionnaire responses were 

available for a facility and its owner, 

that information was used for the 

impact analyses, such as the closure 

analyses and the cost-to-revenue 

screening analyses that are described in 

detail in section VIII. When information 

from the questionnaire was not 

available, however, EPA relied on two 

primary sources of external data. The 

first data source was the USDA FSIS 

facility-level information. This 

information was used to supplement 

facility production and employment 

estimates. The second data source was 

D&B Hoovers database of business 

information. This source was used to 

supplement revenue, employment, and 

ownership information at both the firm 

and facility level. 

2. Industry and Sector-Level Economic 

Data 

After estimating facility and firm level 

costs, EPA analyzed the potential effect 

on market prices for major industry 

commodities such as, beef, pork, broiler 

chickens, and turkeys. EPA also 

analyzed the potential for changes to 

national and regional production-levels 

for these commodities. EPA estimated 

changes to both short-term and longterm employment levels. Finally, EPA 

also estimated potential changes to the 

barriers-to-entry for this industry as well 

as industry consolidation trends. 

The primary data source for the sector 

and industry-level analyses is USDA’s 

Economic Research Service (ERS). The 

ERS analyzes trends and emerging 

issues in the agricultural sector and 

regularly publish data on farm sector 

performance and farm households’ wellbeing; farm size and concentration; 

market analysis, data, and projections 

on commodity supply, demand, and 

prices; and Federal farm policies. EPA 

also used results from agricultural 

market studies published in peer 

reviewed journals. 

C. Other Data Sources 

EPA conducted several data collection 

activities in support of developing the 

proposed rule. EPA used these data to 

develop an industry profile, evaluate 

industry subcategorization, determine 

wastewater characteristics and potential 

pollution control technologies, review 

potential pollutant load reductions and 

costs associated with certain technology 

options, review environmental impacts 

associated with discharges from this 

industry, and develop pollutant 

limitations. 

1. Site Visits 

During 2022, EPA conducted site 

visits at nine different MPP facilities, 

specifically three meat facilities, five 

poultry facilities, and one independent 

rendering facility. In selecting 

candidates for site visits, EPA attempted 

to identify facilities with advanced 

wastewater treatment technologies 

across the different types of operations 

performed in the industry. During each 

visit, EPA collected information on 

facility process operations including 

recent changes and upgrades, 

wastewater treatment operations, water 

usage, and waste management 

operations. See the TDD for additional 

details on site visits. 

2. Wastewater Sampling 

Between August and November 2022, 

EPA conducted a sampling program at 

six MPP facilities located throughout 

the United States to collect wastewater 

characterization data and treatment 

performance data. 

EPA selected facilities based on 

nitrogen and phosphorus discharge data 

reported in DMRs and wastewater 

treatment information obtained from 

permits, permit application data, and 

site visits. EPA selected three meat 

facilities, two poultry facilities, and one 

independent rendering facility with low 

discharges of nutrients and/or 

phosphorus. All selected facilities were 

direct discharge facilities. 

During each sampling episode, EPA 

collected wastewater samples for five 

consecutive days. Sampling points 

varied by facility and wastewater 

treatment system, but in general, EPA 

collected the following samples at all 

selected facilities: 

• Treatment system influent 

(untreated wastewater). Sample 

collected downstream of screening (if 

present) to ensure large solids were 

removed to facilitate sampling. 

• Effluent from primary treatment (or 

influent to biological treatment). 

Primary treatment typically included a 

DAF unit or anaerobic basin/lagoon. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
4486 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

• Effluent from biological treatment 

(or influent to tertiary treatment). 

Biological treatment typically included 

complete nitrification/denitrification. 

• Effluent from tertiary treatment 

(e.g., filters, disinfection, and/or 

chlorination/dechlorination), if tertiary 

treatment was in place. 

• Final effluent from the treatment 

system, if different than effluent from 

last level of treatment (e.g., reaeration 

basin). 

EPA also collected operations data 

during the sampling episode to allow for 

an engineering assessment of the design, 

operation, and performance of treatment 

systems at MPP facilities. Specifically, 

EPA collected system design 

information, as well as daily operations 

data (e.g., production, wastewater flow, 

chemical additions, sludge generation). 

See the TDD and facility-specific 

sampling episode reports (USEPA. 2023. 

DCN MP00326, DCN MP00333, DCN 

MP00332, DCN MP00317, DCN 

MP00315, DCN MP00311) for details on 

the sampling points selected for each 

facility and the operational data 

collected. 

Based on conversations with industry, 

most MPP facilities use drinking water 

sources (public water supplies or well 

water) for all source water. Furthermore, 

facilities may treat their source water 

with sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) or 

water softeners before use as the 

facilities are generating food-grade 

products (USEPA. 2022. DCN MP00123, 

DCN MP00276, DCN MP00138, DCN 

MP00142). For these reasons and 

because EPA does not expect drinking 

water to contain nutrients or other 

pollutants at levels found in MPP 

wastewater, EPA did not collect source 

water samples. 

EPA identified pollutants of interest 

in MPP wastewater based on data from 

the previous MPP rulemaking (USEPA, 

2004) and literature searches. Below is 

a list of pollutant or pollutant groups 

chosen by EPA for the MPP sampling 

program. 

• Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) 

and carbonaceous biochemical oxygen 

demand (CBOD) 

• Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 

• Inorganic anions 

• Oil & grease 

• Nitrogen compounds 

• Total and ortho-phosphorus 

• TSS and TDS 

• Total organic carbon (TOC) 

• Bacteria (fecal coliform, Escherichia 

coli (E. coli)) and enterococci) 

• Metals 

See the Pollutants of Concern (POC) 

Analysis for the Meat and Poultry 

Products (MPP) Proposed Rule (USEPA. 

2023. DCN MP00190), which presents a 

table of the pollutants by analytical 

method and corresponding baseline 

values. See the Generic Sampling and 

Analysis Plan (GSAP) (USEPA. 2023. 

DCN MP00136) and the facility-specific 

sampling and analysis plans (SAPs) 

(USEPA. 2023. DCN MP00149, DCN 

MP00137, DCN MP00150, DCN 

MP00151, DCN MP00152, DCN 

MP00153) for more information on 

sampling procedures. EPA has included 

in the MPP Rulemaking Record all 

information collected for which each 

facility has not asserted a claim of CBI 

or which would indirectly reveal 

information claimed to be CBI. 

VII. Proposed Regulation 

A. Description of the Options 

As previously described, EPA’s 2019 

cross-cutting review of nutrient 

discharges from 59 industrial categories 

found that the MPP point source 

category discharged some of the highest 

nitrogen and phosphorus levels of all 

industries. OW initiated a detailed 

study in 2020 and announced a 

rulemaking to revise the ELGs in EPA’s 

Preliminary Plan 15 based on 

information suggesting facilities can do 

more to control nutrients and other 

pollutants and that revisions could 

reduce discharges affecting underserved 

and overburdened communities 

(USEPA. 2021. EPA–821–R–21–003). 

EPA identified technologies currently in 

use by MPP facilities that can further 

reduce nitrogen discharges below the 

levels that are found in the existing 

ELGs, which were last revised in 2004. 

In addition, MPP facilities are currently 

using technologies to remove 

phosphorus, which is not regulated 

under the existing MPP ELGs. This 

proposal evaluates three regulatory 

options as shown in Table VII–2 of this 

preamble. While developing these 

regulatory options, EPA’s goal was to 

reduce pollutant discharges to surface 

waters, reduce and/or eliminate 

interference and passthrough at POTWs 

receiving MPP wastewater, and 

establish effluent limits and 

pretreatment standards based on 

technologies that are available and 

economically achievable for the 

industry, while minimizing impacts to 

small business. 

EPA considered and continues to 

consider ways to minimize impacts to 

small business when developing the 

regulatory options consistent with the 

statutory factors. As described in 

Section V, EPA identified 5,055 MPP 

facilities generating process wastewater, 

and 3,879 of these facilities discharge to 

waters of the U.S. directly or indirectly. 

EPA carefully considered impacts of 

new or revised effluent limitations and 

pretreatment standards on small 

business by using facility production 

thresholds to distinguish smaller 

facilities with lower revenues from 

larger facilities. In developing the 

options, EPA evaluated differing 

thresholds for applicability of the 

proposed rule provisions to evaluate 

how impacts to small business would 

vary as more and smaller facilities 

would be subject to new and/or more 

stringent effluent limitations and 

pretreatment standards. The record 

supports that the impacts to small 

business from the preferred option 

(Option 1) would not be significant (see 

Section XVI.C). Under Option 1, most 

MPP facilities (79 percent) fall below 

the proposed production thresholds, 

and therefore, would have no new 

limitations. The proposed new 

limitations under Option 1 would 

impact 844 facilities, representing 21 

percent of the total number of MPP 

facilities discharging to waters of the 

U.S. and to POTWs. 

Under the most expansive option 

proposed (Option 3), new limitations 

would impact 1,618 facilities of the 

3,879, or 42 percent of facilities 

discharging to waters of the U.S. and to 

POTWs. EPA also considered 

minimizing impacts to small businesses 

by basing effluent limitations on lower 

cost wastewater treatment technologies 

for facilities with lower production. For 

example, in Option 3, indirect 

discharging facilities producing below 5 

million pounds per year would have no 

new requirements and indirect 

discharging facilities producing between 

5 and 30 million pounds per year would 

have effluent limitations based on lower 

cost pretreatment technologies 

consisting of screening and DAF to 

control conventional pollutants only. 

Facilities producing 30 million pounds 

per year or greater would have 

additional requirements that include 

both conventional pollutant removal 

and nitrogen and phosphorus removal, 

and this would impact only 21 percent 

of indirect discharging facilities. 

Table VII–1 shows the total number of 

MPP facilities that have discharges 

followed by the number of facilities that 

EPA estimates would incur costs to 

comply with the requirements of the 

various regulatory options. All options 

build on the existing MPP ELGs and are 

based on three technologies: 

conventional pollutant (e.g., BOD, TSS, 

Oil & Grease) removal by screening and 

DAF, phosphorus removal by chemical 

precipitation, and nitrogen removal by 

biological treatment to achieve full 

denitrification. Each option 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4487 

incrementally increases the 

subcategories and/or number of 

facilities to which the effluent 

limitations and pretreatment standards 

would apply. Nitrogen and phosphorus 

are two primary pollutants to be 

reduced with these regulatory options 

and the processes involved in removal 

are briefly described next. 

TABLE VII–1—NUMBER OF MPP FACILITIES—TOTAL DISCHARGING FACILITIES AND NUMBER THAT WOULD INCUR COSTS

UNDER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE REGULATORY OPTIONS

Regulatory option Discharge type Total # 

dischargers 

Total # facilities 

incurring costs 

under ELG 

Option 1 .................................................................. Directs .................................................................... 171 126 

Indirects .................................................................. 3,708 719 

Total 3,879 845 

Option 2 .................................................................. Directs .................................................................... 171 126 

Indirects .................................................................. 3,708 719 

Total 3,879 845 

Option 3 .................................................................. Directs .................................................................... 171 135 

Indirects .................................................................. 3,708 1485 

Total 3,879 1,620 

Nitrogen removal is carried out 

through a three-step biological process: 

(1) The conversion of ammonia from 

organic nitrogen by hydrolysis and 

microbial activities, called 

ammonification; (2) the aerobic 

conversion of ammonia to nitrate by 

reacting the ammonia with oxygen in a 

process called nitrification; and (3) the 

conversion of nitrate to nitrogen gas by 

reacting the nitrate with organic carbon 

under anoxic conditions in a process 

called denitrification. Phosphorus can 

be removed from wastewater by 

biological uptake by microorganisms 

and by chemical precipitation with a 

metal cation. Depending on the target 

concentration, a plant process might 

employ both technologies. Such a 

combined approach might be of 

particular benefit if the target 

concentration is very low and the 

starting concentration is high. In such a 

case, biological removal is used to 

remove the bulk of the phosphorus, and 

chemical polishing follows to achieve 

the final concentration; such an 

approach tends to reduce sludge 

formation from denitrification (USEPA. 

2008. EPA 832–R–08–006). 

For direct dischargers, all proposed 

options would establish revised effluent 

limitations that build upon the 

wastewater treatment systems that are 

the basis of the existing MPP ELGs. The 

ELGs that currently apply to these 

facilities are based on screens, DAF, 

anaerobic lagoons, biological treatment 

to achieve nitrification and partial 

denitrification, and chlorination/ 

dechlorination. The effluent limitations 

for direct dischargers in today’s 

proposal are based on more complete 

denitrification. Therefore, large facilities 

that already have denitrification 

technology for nitrogen removal would 

likely need to add more complete 

denitrification and chemical 

phosphorus removal technologies to 

comply with the proposed effluent 

limitations for total nitrogen and 

phosphorus. Smaller facilities could be 

subject to nutrient limits under the 

lower production thresholds in Option 

3 and would presumably need to install 

this technology for the first time, since 

these facilities are currently below the 

applicability threshold for the existing 

ELG. 

Since there are no national 

pretreatment standards applicable to the 

MPP category, indirect discharging 

facilities are currently only subject to 

any local limits established by the 

control authority under the general 

pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR part 

403. Wastewater treatment in place at 

indirect discharging facilities therefore 

ranges from no treatment to some 

treatment. Treatment ranges from basic 

treatment, such as screens and oil water 

separators, or more complex treatment 

such as DAF, anaerobic lagoons, 

biological treatment to achieve 

nitrification and denitrification, and 

phosphorus removal. To meet the 

proposed conventional pollutant 

pretreatment standards under the 

preferred Option 1, which is based on 

screens and DAF technology, existing 

indirect discharging facilities with no 

treatment in place now would likely 

need to install similar technologies. To 

meet the nitrogen and phosphorus 

pretreatment standards contained in 

Options 2 and 3, many indirect 

dischargers would likely need to add 

additional treatment such as anaerobic 

lagoons, biological treatment to achieve 

nitrification and full denitrification, and 

chemical phosphorus removal 

technologies. However, as described 

later in this preamble, EPA is proposing 

to include ‘‘conditional limits’’ under 

Options 2 and 3 which would allow an 

exemption from nutrient pretreatment 

standards for indirect dischargers that 

are discharging to POTWs that have 

nutrient removal capabilities that result 

in equivalent nutrient removal. 

Option 1 is EPA’s preferred option 

and builds on the existing MPP ELGs by 

adding new effluent limitations for large 

direct and indirect dischargers. Option 

1 would include new phosphorus limits 

for large direct dischargers based on 

chemical phosphorus removal 

technology, more stringent nitrogen 

limits for large direct dischargers based 

on full (not partial) denitrification, and 

new conventional pollution limits 

(pretreatment standards) for large 

indirect dischargers based on very basic 

wastewater treatment such as screening 

and DAF technologies to prevent 

passthrough and interference at POTWs. 

EPA requests comment on the concept 

of allowing POTWs, control authorities, 

or permit authorities to waive, under 

certain circumstances, the new 

conventional pollutant limits for large 

indirect dischargers. Although EPA is 

unclear how this would work in 

practice, it is possible that POTWs not 

experiencing passthrough and 

interference may be able to waive these 

pretreatment standards while 

continuing to prevent passthrough and 

interference. Additionally, POTWs that 

perform denitrification may want to 

waive BOD limits for their MPP 

industrial users so they can receive 

more carbon to support bacterial 

conversion of nitrates to nitrogen gas. 

EPA requests comment both on whether 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
4488 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

such waivers should be allowed, and 

the demonstration necessary to justify 

such waivers. 

Large refers to the existing rule 

production thresholds of greater than 50 

million pounds per year of finished 

product produced for meat further 

processors (Subcategories F–I) and in 

terms of LWK for meat slaughtering 

(Subcategories A–D). For poultry 

slaughtering (Subcategory K) large also 

refers to existing rule production 

thresholds of greater than 100 million 

pounds per year of LWK, greater than 7 

million pounds per year of finished 

product produced for poultry further 

processors (Subcategory L), and 10 

million pounds per year of raw material 

processed for renderers (Subcategory J). 

Option 2 builds on (includes all 

requirements in) Option 1 and would 

add nitrogen and phosphorus 

pretreatment standards for some large 

indirect discharging slaughterhouses 

and renderers. Specifically, Option 2 

would add phosphorus and nitrogen 

limits for indirect discharging 

slaughterhouses producing greater than 

or equal to 200 million pounds per year 

and indirect discharging renderers 

producing greater than or equal to 350 

million pounds per year. 

Option 3 extends the requirements for 

both direct and indirect discharging 

facilities under Options 1 and 2 to 

smaller facilities. For direct discharging 

facilities, Option 3 would apply 

phosphorus and nitrogen limits to all 

subcategories producing greater than or 

equal to 10 million pounds per year, 

and additional more stringent nitrogen 

limits in all subcategories producing 

greater than or equal to 20 million 

pounds per year. For all indirect 

discharging facilities, Option 3 would 

require conventional pollutant limits for 

facilities producing greater than 5 

million pounds per year, and nitrogen 

and phosphorus limits for facilities 

producing greater than 30 million 

pounds per year. 

Additionally, all options would 

include stricter fecal coliform limits for 

direct discharging facilities, based on 

chlorination/dechlorination and UV 

disinfection (which is the same 

technology basis for the existing 

limitations for fecal coliform). 

In addition to the options described 

above, EPA solicits comment on 

including three additional requirements 

in any final rule. First, limitations on 

the discharge of chlorides by 

establishing a zero discharge of 

pollutants requirement for certain high 

chlorides wastestreams. The technology 

basis for this requirement is segregation 

of these wastestreams from other 

process wastewater streams and 

management via sidestream 

evaporation. EPA solicits comment on 

including this provision for all facilities 

(both direct and indirect) producing 

more than 5 million pounds per year 

with high chlorides processes. Second, 

EPA solicits comment on conditional 

limitations for phosphorus and nitrogen 

discharges from indirect dischargers 

under Options 2 and 3. Third, EPA 

solicits comment on limitations on E. 

coli for direct discharging facilities. 

B. Proposed Changes to Subcategories 

As described above, EPA proposes to 

revise ELGs for facilities in the 

following MPP subcategories: Simple 

Slaughterhouses (Subcategory A), 

Complex Slaughterhouses (Subcategory 

B), Low-Processing Packinghouses 

(Subcategory C), and High-Processing 

Packinghouses (Subcategory D). 

Although the proposed options may 

establish differing production 

thresholds for applicability under these 

subcategories, EPA proposes to leave the 

definitions of these subcategories 

unchanged because the definitions are 

not based on production thresholds and 

effluent limitations in the proposed 

regulatory options would apply to a 

subset of these subcategories as they are 

currently defined. 

The Agency is not proposing revised 

ELGs for the small processor category 

(Subcategory E). Subcategory E is 

defined based on a size threshold of no 

more than 6,000 pounds per day (2.19M 

pounds per year) of any type or 

combination of finished product. EPA 

also proposes to leave applicability 

definitions for Subcategory E 

unchanged. 

EPA is proposing revised limitations 

and new pretreatment standards for 

facilities in the following MPP 

subcategories: Meat Cutters 

(Subcategory F), Sausage and Luncheon 

Meats Processors (Subcategory G), Ham 

Processors (Subcategory H), and Canned 

Meats Processors (Subcategory I). 

Subcategories F–I are currently defined 

based on a production rate greater than 

6,000 pounds per day (2.19 million 

pounds per year), and EPA proposes to 

leave the definitions for these 

subcategories unchanged. However, 

EPA proposes to apply effluent 

limitations to a subset of these 

subcategories based on production 

thresholds, which could change under 

the proposed regulatory options. 

EPA is also proposing retaining the 

Renderer (Subcategory J) subcategory 

and revising the limitations and 

proposing new pretreatment standards 

for facilities in this subcategory. EPA 

proposes to leave the applicability 

definitions for Renderers (Subcategory J) 

unchanged as facilities using raw 

material at rates greater than 10 million 

pounds per year. However, EPA 

proposes to apply effluent limitations to 

a subset of these subcategories based on 

production thresholds, which could 

change under the proposed regulatory 

options. 

EPA is proposing establishing revised 

limitations and new pretreatment 

standards for facilities in the poultry 

subcategories. The poultry subcategories 

(Subcategory K, Poultry First Processing 

and Subcategory L, Poultry Further 

Processing) are not defined based on 

production and EPA proposes to leave 

the applicability definitions unchanged. 

However, EPA proposes to apply 

effluent limitations to a subset of these 

subcategories based on production 

thresholds, which could change under 

the proposed regulatory options. 

In summary, EPA is retaining the 

existing subcategories and proposing 

revisions to applicable effluent 

limitations and addition of new 

pretreatment standards for most of these 

subcategories. The proposed ELGs apply 

to subsets of facilities in each 

subcategory based on production 

thresholds. In establishing the original 

ELGs for this industry and in the 2004 

revisions, EPA broke the industry down 

into subcategories with similar 

characteristics. This breakdown 

recognized the major differences among 

companies within the industry, which 

might reflect, for example, different 

processes or economies of scale. 

Subdividing an industry into 

subcategories results in more tailored 

regulatory standards, thereby increasing 

regulatory predictability and 

diminishing the need to address 

variations among facilities through a 

variance process (Weyerhaeuser Co. v. 

Costle, 590 F. 2d 1011, 1053 (D.C. Cir. 

1978)). EPA proposes to retain the 

subcategories in the rule as they reflect 

differences in processes and wastewater 

strength and composition and EPA has 

not identified any additional processes 

or changes in processes since the 2004 

rulemaking that would warrant revision 

of the existing subcategories or 

consideration of any additional 

subcategories. 

In addition to some specific requests 

for comment included throughout this 

proposal, EPA solicits comment on all 

aspects of this proposal, including the 

information, data, and assumptions EPA 

relied upon to develop the three 

regulatory options, as well as the 

proposed effluent limitations and 

pretreatment standards for existing and 

new facilities, and additional provisions 

(see Section F below) included in this 

proposal. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4489 

TABLE VII–2—SUMMARY OF REGULATORY OPTIONS

Direct dischargers Indirect dischargers 

Technology basis Applicable facilities Technology basis Applicable facilities 

Option 1 .......... Adds to existing ELG: full 

denitrification, chemical 

phosphorus removal, filter.

>50 million lbs/yr of finished 

product produced for meat 

further processors, >50 million lbs/yr LWK for meat 

slaughtering, >100 million 

lbs/yr of LWK for poultry 

slaughtering, >7 million lbs/ 

yr of finished product produced for poultry further 

processors, >10 million lbs/ 

yr of raw material processed for renderers.

Conventional pollution limits 

based on screening/grit removal, DAF, and 

dewatering/solids handling.

>50 million lbs/yr of finished 

product produced for meat 

further processors, >50 million lbs/yr LWK for meat 

slaughtering, >100 million 

lbs/yr of LWK for poultry 

slaughtering, >7 million lbs/ 

yr of finished product produced for poultry further 

processors, >10 million lbs/ 

yr of raw material processed for renderers. 

Option 2 .......... Same technology as Option 1 Same facilities as Option 1 ... Same technologies as Option 

1 plus anaerobic lagoon 

(BOD pretreatment), activated sludge (nitrification 

and full denitrification), 

chemical P removal, filter.

Option 1 facilities plus 

slaughterhouses producing 

≥200 million lbs/yr and renderers processing ≥350 

million lbs/yr raw material. 

Option 3 .......... Same technology as Option 1 Phosphorus and nitrogen limits for all direct discharging 

facilities producing ≥ 10 

million lbs/yr, and more 

stringent nitrogen limits to 

all facilities producing ≥20 

million lbs/yr.

Same technology as Option 2 Conventional limits for facilities producing >5 million 

lbs/yr plus nitrogen and 

phosphorus limits for all facilities >30 million lbs/yr. 

C. Rationale for the Preferred Option 

(Option 1) 

Considering the statutory criteria and 

factors described in Section IV above, 

EPA proposes to revise the ELGs based 

on BPT, BCT, BAT, PSES, PSNS, and 

BADCT (for NSPS) based on the 

technologies described in its preferred 

Option 1. EPA also solicits comment on 

the other proposed options (Options 2 

and 3), and any other permutation of 

these options, although they are not the 

preferred option in this proposed rule 

for the reasons discussed in section VII. 

E below. 

As described in section IV, the CWA 

defines two increasingly stringent levels 

of control to be used for developing 

limits for classes of pollutants and 

specifies factors that need to be 

considered. BPT is the first level of 

control and applies to all pollutants 

(Southwestern Electric Power Co. v. 

EPA, 920 F.3d 999, 1006 (5th Cir. 

2019)). BPT limits are set based on the 

facilities representing ‘‘the average of 

the best’’ wastewater treatment in use by 

the industry. Statutory factors include 

consideration of total cost in relation to 

benefits; costs cannot be ‘‘wholly 

disproportionate’’ to benefits (Chem. 

Mfrs. Assn. v. EPA, 870 F.2d 177, 205 

(5th Cir. 1989)). 

BAT represents the second level of 

control for toxic and non-conventional 

pollutants such as nitrogen and 

phosphorus. In setting BAT, EPA uses 

not the ‘‘average’’ plant, but rather the 

‘‘single best performing plant’’ in the 

industry (Chem. Mfrs. Assn. v. EPA, 870 

F. 2d at 226 (5th Cir. 1989)). Unlike 

BPT, the BAT factors omit a cost-benefit 

analysis, and replace it with a 

requirement to consider only the ‘‘cost 

of achieving such effluent reduction’’ 

(Southwestern Elec. Power Co. v. EPA, 

920 F.3d at 1006 (5th Cir. 2019)). The 

CWA requires that BAT be 

‘‘economically achievable,’’ which has 

been interpreted to mean that the costs 

of controls can be ‘‘reasonably borne’’ 

by the industry (Chem. Mfrs. Ass’n, 870 

F.2d at 262 (5th Cir. 1989); BP 

Exploration & Oil, 66 F.3d 784, 799–800 

(6th Cir. 1996)). BCT represents the 

second level of control for conventional 

pollutants such as oil & grease, BOD, 

TSS, fecal coliform, and pH. Statutory 

factors for BCT include a costreasonableness test. 

Under the preferred Option 1, for 

direct dischargers, EPA proposes to 

revise BPT/BAT for nitrogen and 

phosphorus and BPT/BCT for fecal 

coliform. For indirect dischargers, EPA 

proposes to establish PSES and PSNS 

based on BPT/BCT for TSS, BOD, and 

oil & grease. 

1. Direct Discharging Facilities (BAT) 

For direct dischargers, EPA proposes 

BAT effluent limitations for nitrogen 

based on biological treatment to achieve 

full denitrification and BAT effluent 

limitations for phosphorus based on 

biological treatment with chemical 

precipitation with filtration. After 

considering the factors specified in 

CWA section 304(b)(2)(B) (33 U.S.C. 

1314(b)(2)(B)), EPA proposes to find that 

this technology is technologically 

available, economically achievable, and 

has acceptable non-water quality 

environmental impacts. 

(a) Availability of Nitrogen and 

Phosphorus Removal Technologies 

‘‘In setting BAT, EPA uses not the 

average plant, but the optimally 

operating plant, the pilot plant which 

acts as a beacon to show what is 

possible’’ (Kennecott v. EPA, 780 F.2d 

445, 448 (4th Cir. 1985), citing A 

Legislative History of the Water 

Pollution Control Act Amendments of 

1972, 93d Cong., 1st Sess. (Comm. Print 

1973), at 798)). BAT is supposed to 

reflect the highest performance in the 

industry and may reflect a higher level 

of performance than is currently being 

achieved based on technology 

transferred from a different subcategory 

or category, bench scale or pilot plant 

studies, or foreign plants (Southwestern 

Elec. Power Co. v. EPA, 920 F.3d at 

1006; Am. Paper Inst. v. Train, 543 F.2d 

328, 353 (D.C. Cir. 1976); Am. Frozen 

Food Inst. v. Train, 539 F.2d 107, 132 

(D.C. Cir. 1976)). BAT may be based 

upon process changes or internal 

controls, even when these technologies 

are not common industry practice (Am. 

Frozen Foods, 539 F.2d at 132, 140; 

Reynolds Metals Co. v. EPA, 760 F.2d 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
4490 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

12U.S. Census Bureau. (2022). 2021 Annual 

Survey of Manufacturers: Summary Statistics for 

Industry Groups and Industries in the U.S.: 2018– 

2021. 13U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2021. 

Electric Power Annual Report. www.eia.gov/ 

electricity/annual. 

14https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/ 

climate-change-indicators-us-greenhouse-gasemissions. 

549, 562 (4th Cir. 1985); California & 

Hawaiian Sugar Co. v. EPA, 553 F.2d 

280, 285–88 (2nd Cir. 1977)). As 

recently reiterated by the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, ‘‘Under 

our precedent, a technological process 

can be deemed available for BAT 

purposes even if it is not in use at all, 

or if it is used in unrelated industries. 

Such an outcome is consistent with 

Congress’[s] intent to push pollution 

control technology’’ (Southwestern Elec. 

Power Co. v. EPA, 920 F.3d at 1031, 

citation and internal quotations 

omitted). The technology bases for BAT 

are currently in use by MPP facilities 

across the sector. EPA has identified 14 

facilities using enhanced nitrogen 

removal technologies and 22 using 

phosphorus removal technologies in 

both meat and poultry processing and 

rendering. These technologies are also 

widely used in municipal wastewater 

treatment in the U.S. and around the 

world. Accordingly, EPA proposes to 

find that such technologies are 

‘‘available’’ within the meaning of the 

statute. 

(b) Economic Achievability of Nitrogen 

and Phosphorus Removal 

EPA proposes to find that the 

proposed BAT effluent limitations for 

total nitrogen and total phosphorus 

under the preferred Option 1 are 

economically achievable. Courts have 

interpreted economic achievability to 

mean that the cost of the regulations can 

be ‘‘reasonably borne’’ by the industry 

as a whole (Chem. Mfrs. Ass’n v. EPA, 

870 F.2d 177, 262 (5th Cir. 1989); BP 

Exploration & Oil v. EPA, 66 F.3d 784, 

799–800 (6th Cir. 1996); see also Nat’l 

Wildlife Fed’n v. EPA, 286 F.3d 554, 570 

(D.C. Cir. 2002); CPC Int’l Inc. v. Train, 

540 F.2d 1329, 1341–42 (8th Cir. 1976), 

cert. denied, 430 U.S. 966 (1977)). 

‘Congress clearly understood that 

achieving the CWA’s goal of eliminating 

all discharges would cause ‘‘some 

disruption in our economy,’’ including 

plant closures and job losses’ (Chem. 

Mfrs. Ass’n v. EPA, 870 F.2d at 252, 

citations omitted; see also id. at 252 

n.337, reviewing cases in which courts 

have upheld EPA’s regulations that 

projected up to 50 percent closure 

rates). 

EPA assesses economic achievability 

using two primary approaches. The 

main approach is to use a discounted 

cash flow analysis to predict the number 

of possible closures resulting from 

implementation of the regulatory 

option. The closure analysis compares 

the future costs of compliance to the 

facility’s estimated future earnings 

during the same period. For this 

analysis, EPA is considering a facility 

that shows positive future earnings 

without the rule and negative future 

earnings with the rule (regardless of 

magnitude of the earnings) to be a 

potential closure. EPA often also uses a 

simple financial screening analysis to 

compare facility compliance cost-torevenue (CTR), in order to assess the 

relative magnitude of the economic 

impacts to each facility. The higher the 

ratio of cost to revenue, the greater the 

potential impact on the facility. 

Facilities experiencing significant 

economic impacts may, among other 

possibilities, reduce production levels, 

make changes to production and facility 

operations, forgo future expansion, or 

close. A cost-to-revenue analysis does 

not predict these responses but is a 

reasonable way to assess the likelihood 

of these types of impacts. On the other 

hand, some indirect facilities, 

depending on how their utility fees are 

structured, may incur lower payments 

to the receiving POTW due to lower 

pollutant loads being sent to the POTW. 

EPA proposes to find that the 

preferred Option 1 is economically 

achievable in terms of affordability to 

the industry as a whole because results 

from both the BAT analysis of potential 

closures and the BAT CTR analysis 

show that potential closures and 

financial impacts are limited to a single 

facility that accounts for approximately 

one percent of discharging facilities and 

less than one percent (0.02 percent) of 

the total universe of MPP facilities. See 

Section VIII and the Cost and Economic 

Impact Screening Analyses and the 

Facility Closure Analysis sections of the 

RIA for more detailed results. 

Additionally, EPA also performed a 

market analysis that estimates the 

proposed Option 1 would change 

market prices for major meat and 

poultry commodities by less than a 

tenth of a percent. See the Market 

Impact Analysis section of the RIA for 

more detailed results. 

The annualized social cost of the 

preferred option is $232 million and 

$227 million using a three percent and 

seven percent discount rate 

respectively. The total cost of a 

rulemaking does not in and of itself 

inform the Agency about its impact to 

the industry as a whole without 

understanding the economic conditions 

of that industry. For example, an 

industry with total annual sales of only 

$20 to $30 billion might experience 

disruptions due to annual costs of this 

magnitude. However, the MPP industry, 

as classified under NAICS 3116, is a 

relatively large industry. The American 

Survey of Manufacturers estimates that 

total sales for the industry in 2021 were 

$267 billion.12 Given the size of the 

MPP industry, EPA does not consider 

the total annual cost of the preferred 

Option 1 to be a determinative factor 

with respect to economic achievability. 

(c) Non-Water Quality Environmental 

Impacts of Nitrogen and Phosphorus 

Removal 

EPA proposes to find that the nonwater quality environmental impacts of 

the preferred Option 1 (full 

denitrification, chemical phosphorus 

removal, and filtering) are acceptable. 

For further discussion of these impacts, 

see Section X. 

EPA’s preferred Option 1 for direct 

dischargers, which EPA estimates 

would require 125 of 171 total direct 

dischargers to install additional 

wastewater controls, would add an 

estimated additional 78,989 MWh of 

demand to the U.S. power grid. This 

would increase the total power demand 

of the U.S. by 0.0000019 percent, based 

on the U.S. generating 4,108 billion 

MWh in 2021 nationwide (EIA, 2021).13

Preferred Option 1 for direct dischargers 

is also estimated to increase the US CO2

emissions by 34,898 tons per year, or an 

0.00058 percent increase of the 

nationwide total (Climate Change 

Indicators: U.S. Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions. USEPA. 2023).14 In 2020, 

U.S. CO2 greenhouse gas emissions 

totaled 5,981 million metric tons of CO2

equivalents. EPA also estimates that an 

additional 286,685 tons of sludge will 

be generated under preferred Option 1. 

EPA proposes to find that the additional 

energy requirements, greenhouse gas 

emissions and sludge production are 

acceptable under the Act. 

2. Indirect Discharging Facilities (PSES/ 

PSNS) 

To control pollutants discharged by 

indirect discharging facilities, EPA 

establishes categorical pretreatment 

standards for existing sources (PSES) 

and for new sources (PSNS). Before 

establishing PSES/PSNS for a pollutant, 

EPA examines whether the pollutant 

‘‘passes through’’ a POTW or interferes 

with the POTW operation or sludge 

disposal practices. In determining 

whether a pollutant passes through 

POTWs for these purposes, EPA 

typically compares the percentage of a 

pollutant removed by well-operated 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4491 

15U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2021. 

Electric Power Annual Report. www.eia.gov/ 

electricity/annual. 

POTWs performing secondary treatment 

to the percentage removed by direct 

dischargers operating the BPT/BAT 

technology basis. A pollutant is 

determined to pass through POTWs 

when the average percentage removed 

nationwide by well-operated POTWs 

performing secondary treatment is less 

than the average percentage removed by 

direct dischargers operating the BPT/ 

BAT technology basis. EPA establishes 

pretreatment standards for those 

pollutants regulated under BPT/BAT 

that pass through POTWs. In this way, 

the standards for indirect dischargers 

are equivalent to direct dischargers in 

that the treatment capability and 

performance of POTWs is recognized 

and taken into account in regulating the 

pollutants from indirect dischargers. 

The Meat and Poultry Products POTW 

Passthrough Analysis (the Passthrough 

Analysis) indicates that oil & grease, 

BOD, TSS, TN and TP pass through 

POTWs (USEPA. 2023. DCN MP00309). 

EPA did not conduct its traditional 

passthrough analysis for the 

management of high chloride 

wastestreams that are being included for 

consideration as an additional regulated 

waste stream under all the proposed 

regulatory options. Rather, for chlorides, 

because the BAT technology for the 

proposed zero-discharge limitations and 

standards would achieve 100 percent 

removal of chlorides, and POTWs do 

not remove chlorides, the record 

supports a finding of passthrough absent 

this analysis. 

(a) BAT Rationale for PSES/PSNS for 

Nutrients 

After considering all the relevant 

statutory factors and wastewater 

technologies presented in this preamble 

and the TDD, EPA is not proposing to 

establish pretreatment standards (PSES/ 

PSNS) for nitrogen and phosphorus 

removal for indirect dischargers under 

its preferred Option 1 for the reasons 

discussed in Section VII.E below. 

However, EPA is soliciting comment on 

the other proposed regulatory options 

(Options 2 and 3) and any other 

regulatory options that would include 

such pretreatment standards for 

nutrients (See Section VII.D below). 

(b) BPT/BCT Rationale for PSES/PSNS 

for Conventional Pollutants 

Under preferred Option 1, EPA 

proposes to establish PSES based on the 

BPT level of control for conventional 

pollutants (BOD, TSS, oil & grease) 

based on screening and DAF 

technologies. After considering all the 

relevant factors and wastewater 

technologies presented in this preamble 

and in the TDD, EPA proposes to find 

that this technology is available, 

imposes costs that are not wholly 

disproportionate to effluent reduction 

benefits, and has acceptable non-water 

quality environmental impacts. 

(c) Technological Availability 

Courts have interpreted BPT to 

represent the ‘‘average of the best’’ 

performance (EPA v. National Crushed 

Stone Assn., 449 U.S. 64, 76 (1977). See 

also, Kennecott Copper v. EPA, 612 F.2d 

1232, 1238 (10th Cir. 1979); 

Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 

1011, 1059, 1062 (D.C. Cir. 1978); 

American Petroleum Institute v. EPA, 

540 F.2d 1023, 1034 (10th Cir. 1976); 

American Frozen Food Institute v. 

Train, 539 F.2d 107, 117, 119 (D.C. 

Cir.1976); American Meat Inst. v. EPA, 

526 F.2d 442, 462 (7th Cir. 1975); cert. 

denied, 430 U.S. 922 (1977); Tanners’ 

Council of America, Inc. v. Train, 540 

F.2d 1188, 1191 (4th Cir.1976)). The 

technologies forming the bases for the 

proposed BPT revisions represent the 

average of the best performance as they 

are in use by MPP facilities across the 

subcategories. EPA has identified 21 

indirect discharging facilities using 

screening and DAF technologies in both 

meat and poultry processing and 

rendering. In addition, these 

technologies are widely used at direct 

discharging facilities. Most facilities use 

some type of oil & grease removal 

technology, and DAF is the most 

commonly used by MPP facilities. 

Furthermore, these technologies are 

widely used by a variety of industrial 

classes and in municipal wastewater 

treatment for the control of conventional 

pollutants. See the TDD for additional 

discussion of DAF. DAF technologies 

have a small footprint, and EPA has no 

data indicating that the facilities that 

would be subject to pretreatment 

standards for conventional pollutants 

under the preferred Option 1 would not 

be able to implement DAF technologies 

at existing and new facilities. 

(d) Costs of Conventional Pollutants 

Removal (BPT/BCT) 

Caselaw and the CWA’s legislative 

history indicate that to revise BPT, EPA 

is to employ a limited cost-benefit 

balancing test, applying controls unless 

the costs are wholly disproportionate to 

the effluent reduction benefits (Chem. 

Mfrs. Ass’n v. EPA, 870 F.2d 177, 204, 

205 (5th Cir. 1989); Kennecott Copper v. 

EPA, 612 F.2d 1232, 1238 (10th Cir. 

1979); American Meat Inst. v. EPA, 526 

F.2d 442, 453 (7th Cir. 1975); cert. 

denied, 430 U.S. 922 (1977); America 

Frozen Food v. Train, 539 F.2d 107, 117, 

119 (D.C. Cir. 1976). See also, A 

Legislative History of the Water 

Pollution Control Act Amendments of 

1972, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. at 169–170 

(Comm. Print 1973)). EPA’s analysis 

shows that the effluent reduction 

benefits are not wholly disproportionate 

to the costs of conventional pollutant 

removal technologies under the 

preferred Option 1 (see Section VIII.A 

for additional details). The costs are 

$32.84 million, and the effluent 

reduction is 234 million pounds per 

year of pollutants removed. 

Additionally, upgrading from the 

candidate BPT to BCT candidate 

technology (which is screening/grit 

removal, DAF, anaerobic lagoon, and 

biological treatment) did not pass the 

BCT cost test, and thus, EPA is 

proposing to set BCT as equal to BPT 

(see Section VIII B.). 

(e) Non-Water-Quality Environmental 

Impacts (BPT/BCT) 

The record supports that removal of 

conventional pollutants under the 

preferred Option 1 would have 

acceptable non-water quality 

environmental impacts, including 

energy requirements (see Section X of 

this preamble). 

EPA’s preferred Option 1 includes 

removal of the conventional pollutants 

BOD, oil & grease, and TSS from the 

meat and poultry facility’s discharge 

before sending it to the POTW for 

further treatment. Under Option 1, 719 

out of 3,708 indirect discharging 

facilities would incur an estimated 

1,699 MWh of energy demand. 

Although most of this energy demand 

would be a shift from the POTW to the 

MPP facility, some portion of this could 

result in an additional energy demand 

to the U.S. power grid. This total power 

demand under preferred Option 1 is 

0.000000041 percent of the U.S. power 

generation (based on 4,108 billion MWh 

in 2021 nationwide), which EPA 

proposes to find is acceptable (EIA, 

2021).15 EPA also proposes to find that 

the additional GHG increases would be 

acceptable. Preferred Option 1 for 

indirect dischargers is estimated to 

increase the U.S. CO2 emissions by 753 

tons per year, or an 0.000013 percent 

increase of the nationwide total (based 

on U.S. CO2 greenhouse gas emissions 

of 5,981 million metric tons of CO2

equivalents in 2020) (Climate Change 

Indicators: U.S. Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions. USEPA. 2023). Similarly 

preferred Option 1 for indirect 

dischargers would increase the sludge 

production by an estimated 11,961 tons 

of sludge per year, across 719 indirectly 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
4492 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

16https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/ 

statements-releases/2022/01/03/fact-sheet-thebiden-harris-action-plan-for-a-fairer-morecompetitive-and-more-resilient-meat-and-poultrysupply-chain/. 

17Hobbs J.E. (2021). The Covid–19 pandemic and 

meat supply chains. Meat science, 181, 108459. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2021.108459. 

18Whitehead, D., & Brad Kim, Y.H. (2022). The 

Impact of COVID 19 on the Meat Supply Chain in 

the USA: A Review. Food science of animal 

resources, 42(5), 762–774. https://doi.org/10.5851/ 

kosfa.2022.e39. 

discharging facilities, which EPA also 

proposes to find to be acceptable. 

D. Rationale for Other Regulatory 

Options Proposed (Options 2 and 3) 

EPA also evaluated the applicability 

of the statutory factors with respect to 

the other regulatory options proposed 

(Options 2 and 3), although EPA is not 

proposing these as the preferred option 

for the reasons discussed in Section 

VII.E below. With respect to 

technological availability, the 

technologies assessed for Options 2 and 

3 are widely used in municipal 

wastewater treatment in the U.S. and 

around the world. The record supports 

that such technologies are available in 

that they effectively remove the 

pollutants addressed in this rulemaking. 

However, there may be constraints on 

availability of nutrient removal 

technologies with respect to indirect 

dischargers (as discussed in Section 

VII.E below), and EPA solicits 

information about such potential 

constraints. With respect to the statutory 

cost tests for BPT, BCT and BAT for 

Options 2 and 3, see Section VIII below. 

EPA’s comparison of costs to benefits of 

the proposed BPT/BCT limitations 

under those options would historically 

support a finding that the costs are not 

‘‘wholly disproportionate’’ to the 

benefits. Similarly, the possible facility 

closures and cost to revenue ratio of the 

proposed BAT limitations are within the 

range of impacts that EPA has 

historically considered to be 

economically achievable, as required by 

CWA section 301(b)(2)(A) (33 U.S.C. 

1311(b)(2)(A)). EPA reasonably 

considered impacts on small businesses 

in setting production thresholds for 

applicability based on avoiding cost to 

revenue ratios indicating likelihood of 

economic impacts, as identified in the 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

guidance (CWA section 304(b)(2)(B), 

authorizing consideration of ‘‘such other 

factors as the Administrator deems 

appropriate’’ in establishing BAT). With 

respect to non-water quality 

environmental impacts of the BPT/BCT 

and BAT technologies under Options 2 

and 3, see Section X below. EPA solicits 

comment on whether these proposed 

options—or other regulatory options 

based on different production 

thresholds or technologies—would meet 

the applicable statutory factors and 

should form the basis of any final rule. 

E. Rationale for Rejecting Options 2 and 

3 as the Preferred Option 

As discussed above, EPA considered 

two proposed options (Options 2 and 3) 

that would be more expansive than 

Option 1. EPA did not select these as 

the preferred option due to several 

potential concerns. First, EPA is 

concerned that the more expansive 

options may impede the Biden 

Administration’s initiatives to expand 

independent meat and poultry 

processing capacity and enhance the 

resilience of the food supply chain, as 

reflected in Executive Order (E.O.) 

14036 (July 9, 2021). This is a crucial 

Administration priority to protect 

against the type of supply chain 

disruptions that arose during the 

COVID–19 pandemic. In issuing the 

E.O., the Administration explained that 

without such diversification, ‘‘our food 

supply chains are susceptible to 

shocks,’’ and that ‘‘[w]hen COVID–19 or 

other disasters such as fires or 

cyberattacks shutter a plant, many 

ranchers have no other place to take 

their animals’’ See Fact Sheet: The 

Biden-Harris Action Plan for a Fairer, 

More Competitive, and More Resilient 

Meat and Poultry Supply Chain (The 

White House. 2022) (noting that ‘‘our 

overreliance on just a handful of giant 

processors leaves us all vulnerable, with 

any disruptions at these bottlenecks 

rippling throughout our food 

system.’’).16

Relative to many other industries 

regulated by ELGs, the MPP industry 

plays a critical role in the nation’s food 

supply chain. The supply chain 

disruptions during the COVID–19 

pandemic highlighted the problems 

with the consolidation of the industry 

over the last 50 years and how 

susceptible it is to shocks. The 

pandemic disrupted both the market 

supply and demand patterns typically 

observed. As the demand for meat and 

poultry from restaurants declined 

dramatically in response to the public 

lock down efforts, the demand for meat 

from grocery stores and on-line sources 

rose.17 At the same time, COVID began 

to spread rapidly through meat and 

poultry processing facilities. This 

resulted in a significant short-run 

disruption to supply as facilities 

temporarily closed and many more 

reduced line speeds due to both worker 

shortages and safety concerns.18 These 

combined changes to demand and 

supply led to shortages and higher 

prices for many meat and poultry 

commodities (The White House. 2022). 

EPA’s analysis showed Options 2 and 

3 have more potential facility closures 

than Option 1 due to the requirements 

imposed on additional facilities, thus 

potentially harming the 

Administration’s priority to expand and 

diversify the meat and poultry 

processing industry. For this reason, 

EPA is selecting Option 1 as the 

preferred proposed option at this time, 

rather than more expansive options, as 

it would allow the Agency to achieve 

significant reductions in nutrients and 

conventional pollutants in a way that 

avoids potential supply chain 

disruptions in the nation’s food supply, 

consistent with the policy direction in 

the E.O. While EPA’s analysis shows 

Option 1 may result in 16 possible 

facility closures, this represents 0.03 

percent of total industry facilities, and 

thus, any supply chain disruptions from 

such possible closures would be 

minimal, temporary and localized. In 

addition, the forecasted change in 

industry production levels due to the 

preferred Option 1 is estimated to be 

only 0.01 percent. By comparison, 

EPA’s analysis shows that potential 

facility closures would be 22 under 

Option 2 and 53 under Option 3, 

supporting EPA’s selection of Option 1 

as the preferred proposed option. See 

the Other Economic Factors section of 

the RIA for a more in-depth discussion 

of this issue. 

The CWA gives EPA authority to 

consider these policy concerns in 

determining BAT (CWA section 

304(b)(2)(B) (authorizing consideration 

of ‘‘such other factors as the 

Administrator deems appropriate’’ in 

assessing BAT); Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 

590 F.2d 1011, 1045 (D.C. Cir. 1978) 

(Congress intended that EPA have 

discretion ‘‘to decide how to account for 

the consideration factors, and how 

much weight to give each factor.’’)). 

At the same time, EPA intends to 

consider any impact of federal financial 

assistance on wastewater treatment 

upgrades at these facilities. EPA seeks 

comment on whether other federal 

funds or other programs could reduce or 

minimize potential impacts of the more 

expansive options on the 

Administration’s efforts to support the 

meat and poultry supply chain. 

EPA has also heard from small entity 

representatives (SERs) during EPA’s 

SBREFA panel process (Final Panel 

Report of the Small Business Advocacy 

Review Panel on EPA’s Planned 

Proposed Meat and Poultry Products 

Effluent Limitations Guidelines 

Rulemaking. USEPA. 2023. DCN 

MP00347) that there are potential 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4493 

concerns about the availability of 

nitrogen removal technologies under 

Options 2 and 3, due to space 

limitations for such technologies at 

some facilities. Although these 

technologies are currently in use in the 

industry, these technologies require a 

greater land area than DAF (the 

conventional pollutant control 

technology that is the basis for the limits 

on indirect dischargers under Option 1), 

particularly at facilities with high 

wastewater flows. EPA has heard 

concerns from SERs with respect to 

facilities located in or near urbanized 

areas where sufficient space may not be 

available to install certain components 

of nitrification/denitrification 

technology, such as aerobic and 

anaerobic lagoons. Industry 

stakeholders have also indicated that 

zoning restrictions may prevent them 

from acquiring adjacent parcels of land 

that may be needed for installation of 

such technology. EPA estimates that 143 

indirect discharging facilities would 

incur costs to comply with nitrogen and 

phosphorus effluent limits under 

Option 2 and 777 such facilities would 

incur costs to comply with limits under 

Option 3, many of which would need to 

install nitrogen control technologies for 

the first time. EPA would like additional 

information about available space at 

such facilities, as well as information on 

other high rate/small footprint nutrient 

removal technologies that might be 

available to treat MPP wastewater. 

EPA also heard from SERs concern 

about the availability of nutrient control 

technologies for indirect dischargers 

under Options 2 and 3 due to ongoing 

supply chain issues and labor shortages 

in the wastewater treatment industry. 

While these technologies are widely 

available and have been used in many 

industrial and municipal wastewater 

treatment facilities across the country to 

remove nutrients, SERs have raised 

concerns about the timing of such 

availability. The amount of a good 

supplied for a market can take time to 

adjust to a sudden large increase in 

demand. In addition, if there is a 

temporary spike in demand resulting 

from many facilities needing to come 

into compliance at the same time, there 

may not be an incentive for the 

companies that make and install these 

technologies to increase their long-term 

capacity. Given the large number of 

indirect facilities that would need to 

install new nutrient removing treatment 

technologies under Options 2 and 3, 

there is a potential for implementation 

delays. These implementation delays 

could result in facilities operating out of 

compliance or temporarily closing until 

they are able to get the new control 

technology in place. See the Other 

Economic Factors Section of the RIA for 

a more in-depth discussion of this issue. 

Given the large number of indirect 

discharging facilities that would likely 

need to install nutrient removal 

technologies under Options 2 and 3, and 

the ongoing supply chain issues, it is 

not clear whether these technologies 

will be available in sufficient quantity to 

allow for installation within the threeyear statutory timeframe for 

pretreatment standards under CWA 

section 307(b) (33 U.S.C 1317(b)). EPA 

solicits additional information about 

production capacity for nutrient control 

technologies in the industry, given that 

the Nation is currently in the process of 

significant investments in water 

infrastructure as part of the Bipartisan 

Infrastructure Law. 

In addition, EPA is considering 

whether there are compliance 

flexibilities for indirect discharging 

facilities that would allow for additional 

time beyond the three-year statutory 

timeframe in CWA section 307(b) (33 

U.S.C. 1317(b)), in light of potential 

concerns about availability of 

technology due to supply chain issues. 

EPA solicits comment on how it could 

implement new pretreatment standards 

consistent with this provision 

recognizing that there could be supply 

chain issues preventing facilities from 

installing the treatment technologies. 

For example, one option could be to 

allow phased implementation based on 

size thresholds, whereby larger facilities 

would be required to install such 

technologies within three years of the 

effective date of the rule, while smaller 

facilities would be allowed additional 

time to install such technologies, based 

on a demonstration that the facility is 

contractually bound to procure the 

technology within a specified time of 

the effective date. EPA solicits comment 

on such an approach, or other 

implementation flexibilities for indirect 

discharging facilities, should the 

Agency decide to finalize a rule based 

on a more expansive option than the 

preferred Option 1. 

Should the Agency decide to 

promulgate a rule based on a more 

expansive option, EPA is considering 

conditional limits under these options 

(see Section VII.F) to reduce costs and 

eliminate the need for redundant 

treatment. To better understand the 

potential use of such conditional limits, 

EPA solicits information about how 

many POTWs that receive MPP 

wastewater have nitrogen and 

phosphorus removal technologies that 

could provide an equivalent level of 

treatment, and whether such flexibilities 

may result in significant cost savings, 

including any relevant data on 

incremental cost savings or other 

benefits. 

EPA has also heard from industry 

representatives that since nitrification/ 

denitrification technologies also remove 

organic pollutants (as measured by 

BOD5), there is some concern about the 

ability of POTWs to meet their discharge 

limitations should indirect discharging 

MPP facilities be required to meet 

nitrogen pretreatment standards. The 

secondary treatment regulations at 40 

CFR 133.102 require POTWs to achieve 

a 30-day average percent removal of 

BOD and TSS of not less than 85 

percent. If MPP facilities currently 

discharge a significant quantity of 

organic pollutants to a POTW, that load 

would be reduced after meeting any 

nitrogen pretreatment standards. That 

may therefore reduce the percent 

reduction in BOD achieved at the POTW 

since the POTW would be receiving 

more dilute flows. While EPA notes that 

the secondary treatment regulations at 

133.103(d) allow for consideration of 

less concentrated influent wastewater 

and the substitution of a lower percent 

removal requirement or a mass loading 

limit for the percent removal 

requirement by the Regional 

Administrator or State Director, which 

could address this issue, EPA solicits 

additional comments on this concern 

from the POTW community. 

F. Additional Provisions 

In addition to seeking comment on 

the three proposed regulatory options, 

EPA solicits public comment on three 

additional provisions that would apply 

with respect to some of these options: 

First, with respect to the pretreatment 

standards for nitrogen and phosphorus 

that would apply to indirect dischargers 

under Options 2 and 3, EPA solicits 

comment on a provision that would 

allow an exemption from these limits 

for indirect discharging MPP facilities 

discharging to POTWs that provide 

equivalent nutrient removal as would be 

required under the proposed PSES/ 

PSNS. Such ‘‘conditional limits’’ have 

been used in previous ELGs, such as the 

Iron and Steel Manufacturing Effluent 

Guidelines (40 CFR 420.15). EPA is 

considering including such a provision 

in any final rule that would contain 

nutrient pretreatment standards (such as 

under Options 2 or 3) because nitrogen 

and phosphorus removal technologies 

involve more costly, advanced treatment 

than is required for conventional 

pollutants and some facilities have 

already shared costs to upgrade their 

receiving POTW to remove nutrients to 

meet Water Quality Based Effluent 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
4494 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

19Odonkor, S.T.; Ampofo, J.K. 2013. Escherichia 

coli as an indicator of bacteriological quality of 

water: An overview. Microbiology Research, 4(1), 

e2. https://doi.org/10.4081/mr.2013.e2. 

20 Doyle, M.P.; Erickson, M.C. 2006. Closing the 

door on the fecal coliform assay. Microbe. 1, 162– 

163. 

Limits in the POTW’s discharge permits. 

If the receiving POTW is providing 

equivalent nutrient removal, then the 

MPP facilities may not need to pretreat 

their wastewater to remove nutrients to 

achieve an equivalent environmental 

outcome. Conditional provisions that 

allow this flexibility, provided the 

POTW agrees, would reduce costs for 

indirect dischargers where the POTW 

already has nutrient removal 

technologies and eliminate redundant 

treatment. For conditional limits 

applied to a MPP facility, EPA solicits 

comment on how to structure such a 

provision to include factors such as 

what treatment at the POTW could be 

considered equivalent, whether the 

POTW permit should contain nitrogen 

and phosphorus effluent limits at least 

as stringent as the pretreatment 

standards that would be required at the 

MPP facility, how to demonstrate 

compliance, how to ensure that the 

POTW has the capacity and ability to 

adequately treat such wastewaters while 

maintaining its design pollutant 

capacity reserved for the residential 

population, and the process by which 

the facility would request the 

conditional limits be applied and 

receive approval from their control 

authority. 

Second, EPA solicits comment on 

including E. coli as a regulated 

parameter for direct dischargers because 

the presence of E. coli is a more reliable 

indicator of pathogen pollution than the 

presence of fecal coliforms. E. coli, a 

predominate member of normal gut 

microflora in warm blooded animals, 

has a limited capacity for reproduction 

outside of the intestinal tract, making its 

presence in environmental samples a 

strong indicator of fecal contamination 

(Odonkor and Ampofo. 2013).19 Fecal 

coliforms, a large group of 

thermotolerant bacteria, include some 

bacterial species of environmental 

origin and therefore can result in false 

positives for fecal contamination (Doyle 

and Erickson. 2006).20 EPA updated its 

recreational water quality standards in 

2012 (USEPA. 2012. EPA–820–F–12– 

058) and the Revised Total Coliform 

Rule in 2013 (USEPA. 2013. EPA 815– 

B–13–001) to reflect the current state of 

knowledge for indicator bacteria. Given 

these updates in the use of bacterial 

indicators for water quality, and that 

current disinfection technology can 

consistently reduce the presence of 

these indicator bacteria below the 

current MPP ELGs, EPA is soliciting 

comment on more stringent fecal 

coliform limits for direct dischargers 

based on BCT/BPT as well as limits for 

E. coli for direct dischargers based on 

BAT as part of the preferred option in 

this proposed rule. EPA also solicits 

comment on replacing fecal coliform 

limits with E. coli limits in any final 

rule to reduce redundancy in 

monitoring and limit requirements. 

Third, EPA solicits comment on 

including BAT/NSPS/PSES/PSNS 

chloride limits for certain wastestreams 

to remove salts from facility discharges 

in any final rule based on BAT. In the 

meat processing industry, salts may be 

used in further processing and for water 

softening purposes. The presence of 

chlorides in discharges to surface waters 

can adversely affect aquatic organisms 

because of their sensitivity to 

concentrations of salt. A review of 

chlorides data in 2021 discharge 

monitoring reports from ICIS–NPDES 

showed about 70 percent of MPP 

facilities are discharging wastewater 

with chloride concentrations exceeding 

ambient water quality criteria of 230 

mg/L and secondary drinking water 

standards of 250 mg/L (the reported 

70th percentile of these data was 254 

mg/L). Although removing salt is 

difficult and can be expensive, and 

therefore treating the whole wastewater 

effluent may not be the most efficient 

way to control chlorides, some facilities 

have certain operations with process 

wastewater that is kept separate from 

the main waste stream. These processes 

include hide processing, water softening 

regeneration wastewater, meat and 

poultry koshering, and further 

processing operations involving 

marinating and curing. Segregation and 

treatment of these process wastestreams 

is currently in place at some MPP 

facilities. Segregation and management 

of these high chloride wastestreams 

could result in targeted reductions of up 

to 477 million pounds of salt discharges 

annually at a cost of $172 million 

annually if applied to 466 facilities 

under Options 1, 2 and 3. 

EPA is considering salt recycle/ 

evaporation systems as the technology 

basis for establishing BAT/NSPS/PSES/ 

PSNS limitations to control chlorides 

discharged in high chlorides waste 

streams in any final rule. EPA is 

considering effluent limitations for 

chlorides for direct and indirect 

discharging facilities in any subcategory 

with production greater than 5 million 

pounds per year with high chlorides 

processes. Analysis indicates that these 

technologies may be available, 

economically achievable, and have 

acceptable non-water quality 

environmental impacts. See section 12 

of the TDD for additional details on the 

non-water quality environmental 

impacts of this provision. EPA is not 

including this provision as part of the 

preferred option in today’s proposal, but 

rather is soliciting comment on 

including such a provision in any final 

rule. In particular, EPA solicits 

comment on the potential costs of such 

a provision, and specifically on the cost 

methodology and results contained in 

the TDD. 

G. Small Business Considerations From 

the Small Business Advocacy Review 

Panel 

Although this proposed rule would 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to 

reduce the impact of this proposed rule 

on small entities and completed the 

Small Business Advocacy Review 

(SBAR) panel to take input from small 

entities. EPA’s proposed preferred 

option would not expand applicability 

to smaller direct discharging facilities, 

but it would propose first-ever national 

pretreatment standards for indirect 

discharging facilities. EPA’s analysis 

(see Section VIII) shows that Option 1 

would apply to 96 small firms. This 

section discusses the 5 

recommendations from the SBAR panel. 

EPA recognizes that under all options 

considered some facilities will be 

subject to pretreatment standards and/or 

categorical discharge standards for the 

first time, and therefore, may not be 

familiar with certain aspects of NPDES 

permitting and/or pretreatment 

standards. EPA also heard concerns 

during the SBAR panel outreach 

meetings with SERs specifically related 

to a lack of familiarity with effluent 

guidelines and pretreatment standards. 

One of the five recommendations was 

for EPA therefore to solicit comments on 

what information small facilities would 

find beneficial (e.g., terms to know for 

determining applicability and 

compliance, information from the 

POTW or control authority, information 

on the general permitting process, 

wastewater operator requirements, and 

how to measure annual production) that 

could be addressed through guidance or 

other materials that EPA could provide 

should any final rule expand 

applicability to small firms beyond the 

current rule. EPA therefore solicits 

comment from small entities on this 

topic. 

EPA also heard from SERs about 

concerns related to production 

thresholds for applicability of the ELGs. 

While EPA’s proposed regulatory 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4495 

options minimize impacts on small 

entities, another recommendation that 

EPA also solicits comment on is 

whether the proposed production 

thresholds could be adjusted to further 

minimize such impacts, particularly 

with respect to Options 2 and 3 as those 

options expand coverage to additional 

facilities as compared to Option 1. A 

third recommendation that EPA also 

solicits comment on is for alternatives to 

production thresholds for determining 

regulation, such as water usage, 

specifically as a way to minimize 

impacts to small firms or to provide an 

alternative means of determining 

applicability to small firms that may not 

track production. 

Under Options 2 and 3, EPA is 

considering conditional limits for 

facilities that discharge to POTWs with 

nitrogen and phosphorus limits and 

treatment capabilities equivalent to the 

treatment that would be needed to 

comply with any new proposed 

requirements. For these indirect 

discharging facilities, with 

documentation and approval by the 

POTW/control authority, the MPP 

facilities would not need to treat the 

wastewater for nitrogen and phosphorus 

before discharging to the POTW. A 

fourth Panel recommendation that EPA 

also requests comment on is the 

inclusion of conditional limits, and 

specifically what documentation and 

approval by the POTW/control authority 

would be sufficient to establish 

conditional limits as a compliance 

mechanism. 

The fifth recommendation was for 

EPA to consider and take comment on 

a longer or flexible timeline for small 

entities to meet proposed regulations. 

EPA requests comment from small 

entities on what kind of timeline 

flexibilities would be helpful. See the 

SBREFA panel report for additional 

details regarding these and other 

considerations that were raised by SERs 

(USEPA. 2023. DCN MP00347). 

VIII. Costs, BPT Wholly 

Disproportionate Cost Test, Economic 

Achievability, and Other Economic 

Impacts 

This section provides an overview of 

the methodology EPA used to assess the 

costs and the economic impacts of the 

three options considered in the 

proposed rule and summarizes the 

results of these analyses. EPA separately 

assessed the cost and economic impacts 

of the BPT, BCT, and BAT requirements 

for each regulatory option proposed. 

Then EPA assessed the combined 

economic effects of all BPT, BCT, and 

BAT requirements for each option for 

purposes of implementing the 

Regulatory Impact Analysis required by 

E.O. See the RIA and supporting 

information in the docket for additional 

detail. The proposed rule would revise 

BPT for conventional pollutants and 

consider whether more stringent BCT 

limits pass the two-part BCT cost test 

(51 FR 24974 (July 9,1986)). For BPT, 

EPA performed a ‘‘wholly 

disproportionate’’ cost test for all direct 

and indirect discharging facilities that 

would be required to control 

conventional pollutants under the three 

proposed options. For BCT, EPA 

evaluated the reasonableness of BCT 

candidate technologies—those that 

remove more conventional pollutants 

than BPT—by applying a two-part cost 

test. The two-part ‘‘cost reasonableness’’ 

test requires: (1) The cost per pound of 

conventional pollutant removed by 

dischargers in upgrading from BPT 

limits to the candidate BCT option must 

be less than the cost per pound of 

conventional pollutant removal by 

upgrading POTWs from secondary 

treatment to advanced secondary 

treatment (‘‘the POTW test’’); and (2) an 

assessment of industry costs per pound 

removed in upgrading from BPT to BCT 

relative to the costs per pound removed 

in going from no treatment to BPT, 

followed by a comparison of that ratio 

to the analogous ratio for POTWs (‘‘the 

industry cost effectiveness test’’). The 

industry ratio must be less than the 

POTW ratio to pass the test. 

The proposed rule would also revise 

BAT for non-conventional pollutants 

(nitrogen and phosphorus). EPA 

assessed the economic achievability of 

BAT for all direct and indirect facilities 

that would have requirements for nonconventional pollutants under the 

proposed options. In developing ELGs 

reflecting BAT, and as required by CWA 

section 301(b)(2)(A) (33 U.S.C. 

1311(b)(2)(A)), EPA evaluates the 

economic achievability of the regulatory 

options to assess the impacts of 

applying the limitations and standards 

to the industry as a whole, which 

typically includes an assessment of 

incremental facility closures attributable 

to a regulatory option. As described in 

more detail below, this proposed ELG is 

expected to result in incremental costs 

when compared to baseline operations 

for many facilities. The cost and 

economic impact analysis for this 

proposed rulemaking focuses on 

understanding the magnitude and 

distribution of compliance costs across 

the industry and the broader market 

impacts. EPA used indicators to assess 

the impacts of the three regulatory 

options on the MPP industry. EPA 

considered the total cost to industry and 

change in the number and capacity of 

specific facilities expected to close 

under the proposed option, as well as 

the other options considered, compared 

to baseline. EPA also analyzed the ratio 

of compliance costs to revenue to see 

how the three options would change the 

number of plants and their owning 

entities that exceed thresholds 

indicating potential financial strain. In 

addition to the analyses supporting the 

economic achievability of the regulatory 

options, EPA conducted other analyses 

to (1) characterize other potential 

impacts of the regulatory options (e.g., 

on market prices) and (2) to meet the 

requirements of E.O.s or other statutes 

(e.g., E.O. 12866, Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, Unfunded Mandates Reform Act). 

A. BPT Wholly Disproportionate Cost 

Test 

EPA estimated facility-specific costs 

and loads for two levels of treatment 

technology reflected in the regulatory 

options developed. The first level of 

treatment was the use of DAF 

technology. This level of technology is 

already in place for direct discharging 

facilities reflecting the existing rule 

BPT, BCT and BAT requirements but 

would be a new requirement for indirect 

discharging facilities. The CWA requires 

that the EPA consider ‘‘the total cost of 

application of technology in relation to 

the effluent reduction benefits to be 

achieved from such application,’’ and 

these costs should not be wholly 

disproportionate to the corresponding 

effluent reduction benefits. As the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 

stated, ‘‘The courts of appeal have 

consistently held that Congress 

intended section 304(b) to give the EPA 

broad discretion in considering the cost 

of pollution abatement in relation to its 

benefits and to preclude the EPA from 

giving the cost of compliance primary 

importance’’ (Chemical Manufacturers 

Assn. v. U.S. EPA, 870 F.2d 177, 204, 

(5th Cir. 1989)). 

Table VIII–1 presents the annualized 

after-tax technology costs and associated 

pollutant load reductions for individual 

subcategories of facilities and the 

industry as a whole. Although BPT 

applies to both conventional and 

nonconventional pollutants, DAF 

technology is primarily employed to 

address conventional pollutants, so only 

conventional pollutant reductions are 

shown. Load reductions reflect the 

change in pollutants being discharged 

from regulated facilities to their 

receiving POTWs. The table 

demonstrates that under BPT, there 

would be significant reductions in 

conventional pollutant loading for each 

subcategory and the industry as a 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
4496 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

21All BPT and BAT costs were annualized using 

the weighted average cost of capital (WACC) for 

facilities. The WACC was derived based on facility 

responses to Industry Survey. See Section 5.2.3 of 

the Regulatory Impact Analysis for a detailed 

explanation of how the WACC was derived. 

whole, across all three options. Based 

on these results, EPA proposes to find 

that BPT costs for conventional 

pollutant reductions under the preferred 

Option 1 are not wholly 

disproportionate to the corresponding 

effluent reduction benefits. EPA also 

solicits comment on whether the BPT 

costs of conventional pollutant 

reductions under regulatory Options 2 

and 3, as reflected in the table below, 

are also not wholly disproportionate to 

the effluent reduction benefits. 

TABLE VIII–1 

Rule option Subcategories 

Total 

annualized 

BPT 

costs 21

(millions of 

$2022) 

Oil & grease BOD TSS Total 

pollutants Oil & grease BOD TSS Total pollutants 

BPT Reductions (M lbs/yr) BPT Ratio lbs/$ 

Option 1 ......... A–D ............... $2.00 3 7 3 13 $0.63 $0.31 $0.65 $0.16 

F–I ................. 2.46 6 0 0 6 0.43 18.15 36.31 0.41 

J .................... 0.74 0 2 1 3 2.91 0.42 0.83 0.26 

K .................... 7.08 3 61 100 164 2.65 0.12 0.07 0.04 

L .................... 1.66 0 8 13 22 4.60 0.20 0.12 0.08 

All ........... 13.93 12 77 118 207 1.14 0.18 0.12 0.07 

Option 2 ......... A–D ............... 2.00 3 7 3 13 0.63 0.31 0.65 0.16 

F–I ................. 2.46 6 0 0 6 0.43 18.15 36.31 0.41 

J .................... 0.74 0 2 1 3 2.91 0.42 0.83 0.26 

K .................... 7.08 3 61 100 164 2.65 0.12 0.07 0.04 

L .................... 1.66 0 8 13 22 4.60 0.20 0.12 0.08 

All ........... 13.93 12 77 118 207 1.14 0.18 0.12 0.07 

Option 3 ......... A–D ............... 15.76 7 14 7 28 2.25 1.10 2.32 0.56 

F–I ................. 6.89 11 0 0 11 0.64 27.30 54.60 0.62 

J .................... 0.79 0 2 1 3 3.10 0.45 0.88 0.27 

K .................... 7.75 3 63 104 170 2.78 0.12 0.07 0.05 

L .................... 1.66 0 8 13 22 4.60 0.20 0.12 0.08 

All ........... 32.84 21 88 126 234 1.55 0.37 0.26 0.14 

B. BCT Cost Test 

In July 1986, EPA explained how it 

developed its methodology for setting 

effluent limitations based on BCT (51 

FR 24974). EPA evaluates the 

reasonableness of BCT candidate 

technologies—those that remove more 

conventional pollutants than BPT—by 

applying a two-part cost test: a POTW 

test and an industry cost-effectiveness 

test. 

EPA first calculates the cost per 

pound of conventional pollutant 

removed by industrial dischargers in 

upgrading from BPT to a BCT candidate 

technology, and then compares this cost 

to the cost per pound of conventional 

pollutants removed in upgrading 

POTWs to advanced secondary 

treatment (i.e., ‘‘the POTW test’’). The 

upgrade cost to industry must be less 

than the POTW benchmark of $0.25 per 

pound (in 1976 dollars) or $1.48 per 

pound (in 2022 dollars). In the industry 

cost-effectiveness test, the ratio of the 

cost per pound to go from BPT to BCT 

divided by the cost per pound to go 

from raw wastewater to BPT for the 

industry must be less than 1.29 (that is, 

the cost increase must be less than 29 

percent). 

For purposes of this analysis, for the 

preferred Option 1, EPA compared the 

cost of upgrading from the candidate 

BPT (based on screens followed with 

DAF technology for 720 large indirect 

facilities) to BCT (based on biological 

treatment to achieve full denitrification 

and chemical precipitation with 

filtration as described for BAT in 

Section VII C.1). The cost for these 719 

facilities to upgrade from candidate BPT 

to candidate BCT would range from 

$0.26 to $1.32 per pound of pollutant 

removed depending on the subcategory. 

Option 2 involves the same 719 

facilities receiving conventional 

pollutant removal technology; thus, the 

cost and results of this test would be the 

same as Option 1. Option 3 would 

require 1,485 indirect facilities to 

implement conventional pollutant 

removal technology, and the cost for 

these facilities to upgrade from 

candidate BPT to candidate BCT would 

range from $0.30 to $1.03 per pound of 

pollutant removed depending on the 

subcategory. The section 9 of the TDD 

provides more details on the 

calculations of the BCT cost tests. 

In developing BCT limits, EPA 

considered whether there are 

technologies that achieve greater 

removals of conventional pollutants 

than the candidate for BPT, and whether 

those technologies are cost-reasonable 

according to the prescribed BCT tests. 

For Subcategories A through D, F 

through J, K, and L, EPA identified 

technologies that can achieve greater 

removals of conventional pollutants 

than the candidate BPT standards; 

however, this technology is full 

treatment (based on screening/grit 

removal, DAF, anaerobic lagoon, 

biological treatment, chemical 

phosphorus removal, sand filter, and 

solids handling), and EPA proposes to 

find that it does not pass the BCT cost 

test under any of the proposed options. 

Furthermore, since these limits are for 

indirect dischargers that send their 

wastewater to POTWs, and POTWs are 

designed to remove BOD, TSS, and oil 

& grease, EPA considers screens with 

DAF treatment an appropriate 

pretreatment technology for PSES/ 

PSNS. Accordingly, EPA proposes to 

establish BCT effluent limitations equal 

to the candidate BPT limitations based 

on screens followed with DAF for 

indirect dischargers in these 

subcategories. 

C. Economic Achievability Analysis for 

BAT 

For the second level of treatment for 

toxic and non-conventional pollutants, 

direct dischargers must meet BAT, and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4497 

indirect dischargers must meet 

pretreatment standards based on BAT. 

In setting BAT, EPA is required to 

evaluate costs and determine if they can 

be reasonably borne by the industry. 

EPA considers not only technology cost 

but also engineering and process 

changes as well as energy requirements 

of implementing the new technology. 

The cost estimates developed by EPA 

for the technologies considered for BPT, 

BCT, and BAT incorporate these factors 

as additional cost elements. 

1. Facility Closure Analysis (BAT) 

Estimates of possible facility closures 

are the traditional way EPA considers 

economic achievability. A discounted 

cash-flow analysis was performed on 

detailed questionnaire respondents and 

the results were then extrapolated to all 

facilities incurring costs under each 

option. For more information on this 

approach, see the RIA. Table VIII–2 

shows the number of facilities with BAT 

costs and the estimated possible 

closures by production subcategory for 

each option. The table also shows the 

relative percentage of facilities with 

costs and total discharging facilities that 

are estimated to close. EPA estimated 

that the preferred Option 1 would have 

only a single possible closure and 

proposes to find that this would be 

considered economically achievable 

under any reasonable measure of 

impacts. Under Options 2 and 3 EPA 

estimated that there are 19 and 29 total 

possible closures, respectively. This 

equates to 7 percent of the 269 facilities 

with BAT costs under Option 2, and 3 

percent of the 913 facilities with BAT 

costs under Option 3. However, to 

understand the economic impact of 

these options on the industry it is 

necessary to consider these possible 

closures within the context of the total 

number of industry facilities. Neither 

Options 2 nor 3 have estimated 

potential closures that exceed 1 percent 

of the 3,897 discharging facilities. If the 

zero discharge facilities were also 

factored in, these percentages would be 

smaller still. These two options were 

developed to limit BAT requirements to 

just the larger discharging facilities that 

tend to be better able to afford the 

nutrient reduction technologies. EPA 

solicits comment on whether Options 2 

and 3 would be economically 

achievable for the industry as a whole, 

based on the level of possible facility 

closures reflected in the table below. 

TABLE VIII–2—POSSIBLE FACILITY CLOSURES DUE TO BAT COSTS BY REGULATORY OPTION

Rule option 

Production sub-categories 

Total facilities 

Meat first Meat further Poultry first Poultry further Rendering 

1: 

Facilities with BAT Costs .................. 30 9 64 5 18 126 

Estimated Possible Closures ............ 0 0 1 0 0 1 

% of facilities with costs ................... 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.8 

% of all Discharging facilities ............ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

2: 

Facilities with BAT Costs .................. 85 9 142 5 28 269 

Estimated Possible Closures ............ 10 0 8 0 1 19 

% of facilities with costs ................... 11.8 0.0 5.6 0.0 3.6 7.1 

% of all Discharging facilities ............ 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 

3: 

Facilities with BAT Costs .................. 137 371 190 100 115 913 

Estimated Possible Closures ............ 11 3 11 1 3 29 

% of facilities with costs ................... 8.0 0.8 5.8 1.0 2.6 3.2 

% of all Discharging facilities ............ 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.7 

To assess the economic achievability 

of BAT technologies, EPA also 

compared facility level costs to 

estimated revenue to screen for 

potential financial impacts to facilities. 

EPA considered total facility costs 

relative to industry sales, the number of 

facilities that have costs greater than 1 

percent and 3 percent of revenue, and 

the number of potential facility closures. 

The next level of control beyond BPT is 

not feasible for facilities unless the BPT 

technology is in place, so EPA 

conservatively assessed both the costs of 

BAT assuming BPT is in place, called 

‘‘incremental,’’ and the costs including 

both costs to meet revised BPT and the 

revised BAT, called ‘‘additive’’ costs of 

BAT technologies. Table VIII–3 shows 

the incremental and additive BAT costs 

for each of the three options and the 

percentage of annual industry sales 

these costs comprise. 

TABLE VIII–3—TOTAL ANNUALIZED AFTER-TAX COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR BAT 

Regulatory option 

Incremental BAT BPT + BAT (additive) 

(millions, 2022$) % Industry annual 

sales * (millions, 2022$) % Industry annual sales * 

Option 1 ........................................................................... $196.39 0.07 $196.39 0.07 

Option 2 ........................................................................... 576.49 0.22 583.51 0.22 

Option 3 ........................................................................... 962.78 0.36 981.54 0.37 

* Based on U.S. Census Annual Survey of Manufacturers, 2021 sales for NAICS 3116. 

The difference between the 

incremental and Additive (BPT+BAT) 

costs are small, which reflects the 

relatively small cost of the DAF 

technology compared to the more 

expensive nutrient removal 

technologies. For assessing economic 

achievability, EPA is considering the 

additive BAT costs. Table VIII–4 shows 

these full BAT costs broken out by 

production sub-categories. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
4498 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE VIII–4—TOTAL ANNUALIZED AFTER-TAX BAT COSTS BY SUB-CATEGORY FOR RULE OPTIONS IN (2022$) 

Production sub-category Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 

Meat First ..................................................................................................................................... $62.47 $226.76 $255.60 

Meat Further ................................................................................................................................ 3.73 3.73 204.91 

Poultry First .................................................................................................................................. 114.00 324.51 381.48 

Poultry Further ............................................................................................................................. 6.06 6.06 72.21 

Renderer ...................................................................................................................................... 10.13 22.44 67.32 

Total Facility BAT costs ........................................................................................................ 196.39 583.51 981.53 

2. BAT Cost-to-Revenue Analyses 

Under the Agency’s Regulatory 

Flexibility Act Guidance for assessing 

impacts of EPA actions on small entities 

(Final Guidance for EPA Rulewriters: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act as Amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act. USEPA 

2006), facilities incurring costs below 

one percent of revenue are unlikely to 

face economic impacts, while facilities 

with costs between 1 percent and 3 

percent of revenue have a higher chance 

of facing economic impacts, and 

facilities incurring costs above three 

percent of revenue have a still higher 

probability of economic impact. 

Tables VIII–5, VIII–6, and VIII–7 show 

the number of facilities that have BAT 

CTR ratios that fall into the three above 

mentioned categories for each option. 

To provide context for these numbers, 

the tables display the percentage of 

facilities that fall into each group, by all 

facilities incurring cost and by all 

discharging facilities. For all options, 

the percentage of discharging facilities 

with a higher probability of financial 

impacts is less than one. When 

considering subcategories, all 

production types have less than one 

percent of discharging facilities in the 

higher-probability category, except for 

poultry slaughter which has 2.1 percent 

and 2.5 percent of discharging facilities 

in this category under options 2 and 3 

respectively. 

TABLE VIII–5—FACILITY-LEVEL BAT AFTER-TAX COMPLIANCE COST-TO-REVENUE ANALYSIS FOR OPTION 1 

Sub-categories 

Facilities 

that 

discharge 

Facilities 

with BAT 

costs 

Number of facilities 

with a ratio of 

Percentage of facilities with 

BAT costs with ratio of 

Percent of all discharging facilities 

with a ratio of 

0% <1% ≥1 to 3% ≥3% <1% ≥1 to 3% ≥3% 0% <1% ≥1 to 3% ≥3% 

Meat First ...................... 556 30 526 30 0 0 100.0 0.0 0.0 94.6 5.4 0.0 0.0 

Meat Further .................. 2,770 9 2,761 9 0 0 100.0 0.0 0.0 99.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 

Poultry First ................... 238 64 174 61 2 1 95.3 3.1 1.6 73.1 25.6 0.8 0.4 

Poultry Further .............. 175 5 170 3 2 0 60.0 40.0 0.0 97.1 1.7 1.1 0.0 

Rendering ...................... 140 18 122 17 1 0 94.4 5.6 0.0 87.1 12.1 0.7 0.0 

Total Number ......... 3,879 126 3,753 120 5 1 95.2 4.0 0.8 96.8 3.1 0.1 0.0 

TABLE VIII–6—FACILITY-LEVEL BAT AFTER-TAX COMPLIANCE COST-TO-REVENUE ANALYSIS FOR OPTION 2 

Sub-categories 

Facilities 

that 

discharge 

Facilities 

with BAT 

costs 

Number of facilities 

with a ratio of 

Percentage of facilities with 

BAT costs with ratio of 

Percent of all discharging facilities 

with a ratio of 

0% <1% ≥1 to 3% ≥3% <1% ≥1 to 3% ≥3% 0% <1% ≥1 to 3% ≥3% 

Meat First ...................... 556 85 471 85 0 0 100.0 0.0 0.0 84.7 15.3 0.0 0.0 

Meat Further .................. 2,770 9 2,761 9 0 0 100.0 0.0 0.0 99.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 

Poultry First ................... 238 142 96 130 7 5 91.5 4.9 3.5 40.3 54.6 2.9 2.1 

Poultry Further .............. 175 5 170 3 2 0 60.0 40.0 0.0 97.1 1.7 1.1 0.0 

Rendering ...................... 140 28 112 26 2 0 92.9 7.1 0.0 80.0 18.6 1.4 0.0 

Total Number ......... 3,879 269 3,610 253 11 5 94.1 4.1 1.9 93.1 6.5 0.3 0.1 

TABLE VIII–7—FACILITY-LEVEL BAT AFTER-TAX COMPLIANCE COST-TO-REVENUE ANALYSIS FOR OPTION 3 

Sub-categories 

Facilities 

that 

discharge 

Facilities 

with BAT 

costs 

Number of facilities 

with a ratio of 

Percentage of facilities with 

BAT costs with ratio of 

Percent of all discharging facilities 

with a ratio of 

0% <1% ≥1 to 3% ≥3% <1% ≥1 to 3% ≥3% 0% <1% ≥1 to 3% ≥3% 

Meat First ...................... 556 137 419 134 1 2 97.8 0.7 1.5 75.4 24.1 0.2 0.4 

Meat Further .................. 2,770 371 2,399 368 1 2 99.2 0.3 0.5 86.6 13.3 0.0 0.1 

Poultry First ................... 238 190 48 173 11 6 91.1 5.8 3.2 20.2 72.7 4.6 2.5 

Poultry Further .............. 175 100 75 97 2 1 97.0 2.0 1.0 42.9 55.4 1.1 0.6 

Rendering ...................... 140 115 25 103 12 0 89.6 10.4 0.0 17.9 73.6 8.6 0.0 

Total Number ......... 3,879 913 2,966 875 27 11 95.8 3.0 1.2 76.5 22.6 0.7 0.3 

The CTR analysis shows that under 

Option 1 the BAT costs would be less 

than 1 percent of revenue for 99.9 

percent of discharging facilities, and, 

per RFA guidance, would be unlikely to 

face economic impacts. Therefore, EPA 

proposes to find that Option 1 is 

economically achievable for the 

industry as a whole. Given that the BAT 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4499 

CTR results for options 2 and 3 show 

that 99.6 percent and 99.1 percent of 

discharging facilities would have costs 

less than 1 percent of revenues, 

respectively, EPA solicits comment on 

whether these options would also be 

economically achievable. 

D. Other Economic Analyses 

Sections A, B, and C above address 

the CWA requirements for determining 

BPT, BCT, and BAT. Economic effects of 

each of these technology levels was 

considered in isolation. This section 

presents the aggregate costs and impacts 

of each of the three options on regulated 

facilities. These analyses cover both 

facility-level and firm-level effects, 

employment effects, and market-level 

effects. 

1. Facility Closure Analysis 

Estimating the potential closures of 

existing facilities is the traditional way 

EPA assesses economic achievability 

under the CWA. This analysis is based 

first on financial data reported in the 

detailed questionnaire, and then 

extrapolated to the larger universe of 

facilities based on relevant facility 

financial and production characteristics. 

Under the preferred Option 1, EPA 

estimated that 16 facilities would 

potentially close. Under Option 2, EPA 

estimated that 22 facilities would 

potentially close. Under Option 3, EPA 

estimated that 53 facilities would 

potentially close. This corresponds 

respectively to 0.3 percent, 0.4 percent, 

and 1.0 percent of all facilities 

(including zero discharge facilities). 

Chapter 5 in the RIA provides more 

detailed results for the three regulatory 

options EPA analyzed. Table VIII–8 

presents the results of the facility 

closure analysis. 

TABLE VIII–8—POSSIBLE FACILITY CLOSURE ESTIMATES

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 

Number of Possible Facility Closures ......................................................................................... 16 (0.4%) 22 (0.6%) 53 (1.0%) 

Number of Facilities with Costs ................................................................................................... 845 845 1,620 

Number of Discharging Facilities ................................................................................................. 3,879 3,879 3,879 

% of Facilities with Costs ............................................................................................................ 1.9% 2.6% 3.3% 

Rather than close the facility, some 

firms may decide to reduce facility 

production levels to be below the 

production size thresholds included in 

each of the options. Although they 

would be avoiding compliance costs, 

they would incur the opportunity costs 

of forgone net revenues. Firms may 

choose this approach if it is seen as less 

economically burdensome than the 

regulatory cost of compliance. This 

approach is not costed because EPA 

assumes that it would only be chosen by 

the firm if it is less costly. However, 

reducing production to avoid 

compliance, if chosen by enough 

facilities could have a measurable effect 

on industry production. This potential 

change in quantity produced is different 

than the quantity effects discussed in 

the following market analysis. The 

potential costs of regulatory compliance 

could also affect future decisions to 

expand production at those existing 

facilities that currently produce below 

the threshold production levels that are 

part of each of the regulatory options. 

2. Facility and Firm Level Cost-toRevenue Analyses 

EPA conducted a screening-level 

analysis of each regulatory option’s 

potential impact on discharging MPP 

facilities and parent entities based on 

cost-to-revenue ratios. For each of the 

two levels of analysis (facility and 

parent entity), the Agency assumed, for 

analytic convenience and as a worstcase scenario, that none of the 

compliance costs would be passed on to 

retailers or back to producers (farmers) 

and would instead be absorbed by the 

processing facilities and their parent 

entities. This assumption overstates the 

impacts of projected compliance 

expenditures on a facility since it is 

more realistic to assume that a portion 

of these costs in most all cases may be 

passed up and down the supply chain 

resulting in small incremental cost 

increases to producers and consumers. 

It is, however, a reasonable assumption 

for a screening-level estimate of the 

potential cost impacts. 

(a) Facility-Level Cost-to-Revenue 

Analysis 

EPA used reported revenue estimates 

in the detailed surveys responses. EPA 

estimated revenue using reported 

annual production multiplied by the 

average revenue per unit of production 

from the detailed questionnaire for 

facilities producing the same output 

type, e.g., slaughtered poultry. 

Otherwise, EPA used external revenue 

estimates from proprietary sources such 

as Hoovers D&B where available or used 

the mid-point of the production level 

category assigned to the facility in the 

FSIS database to first estimate their 

production level, and then multiplied 

this by survey average revenue per unit 

of production, mentioned previously. 

EPA then calculated the change in the 

annualized after-tax costs of the three 

regulatory options presented in Tables 

VIII–6, 7 and 8 of this preamble as a 

percent of baseline annual revenues. See 

Chapter 4 of the RIA for a more detailed 

discussion of the methodology used for 

the facility-level cost-to-revenue 

analysis. Table VIII–9 presents the 

facility-level results for each of the three 

options. 

TABLE VIII–9—FACILITY-LEVEL AFTER-TAX COMPLIANCE COST-TO-REVENUE ANALYSIS RESULTS BY REGULATORY OPTION

Rule option 

Total 

dischargers 

Facilities 

with costs 

Number of facilities with a ratio of Percentage of facilities with 

costs with ratio of 

Percent of all dischargers with a ratio 

of 

0% <1% ≥1 and 

3% ≥3% <1% ≥1 and 

3% ≥3% 0% <1% ≥1 and 3% ≥3% 

1 .................................... 3,879 845 3,033 838 5 2 99 0.6 0.2 78.2 21.6 0.1 0.1 

2 .................................... 3,879 845 3,033 828 12 5 98 1.4 0.6 78.2 21.4 0.3 0.1 

3 .................................... 3,879 1,620 2,257 1,576 31 13 97 1.9 0.8 58.2 40.7 0.8 0.3 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
4500 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Under the preferred Option 1, EPA 

estimated that seven facilities (0.18 

percent of total dischargers) would 

incur incremental costs greater than or 

equal to one percent of revenue, 

including two facilities that have costs 

greater than or equal to three percent of 

revenue, and an additional 838 facilities 

would incur costs that are less than one 

percent of revenue. Under Option 2, 

EPA estimated that 17 (0.44 percent of 

total dischargers) facilities would incur 

incremental costs greater than or equal 

to one percent of revenue, including five 

facilities that have costs greater than or 

equal to three percent of revenue, and 

an additional 828 facilities would incur 

costs that are less than one percent of 

revenue. Under Option 3, EPA 

estimated that 44 facilities (1.13 percent 

of total dischargers) would incur 

incremental costs greater than or equal 

to 1 percent of revenue, including 13 

facilities that have costs greater than or 

equal to three percent of revenue, and 

an additional 1,578 facilities would 

incur costs that are less than 1 percent 

of revenue. For each of these three 

options, the remaining discharging 

facilities would incur no costs. Chapter 

4 in the RIA provides more detailed 

results for the three regulatory options 

EPA analyzed. 

(b) Firm-Level Cost-to-Revenue Analysis 

EPA also assessed the economic 

impact of the regulatory options at the 

parent entity level. The screening-level 

cost-to-revenue analysis at the parent 

entity level provides insight on the 

impact on those entities that own one or 

more MPP facilities. In this analysis, the 

domestic parent entity associated with a 

given facility is defined as the entity 

with the largest ownership share in the 

facility. For each parent entity or firm, 

EPA compared the incremental change 

in the total annualized after-tax costs 

and the total revenue for the entity to 

baseline (see Chapter 4 of the RIA for 

details). EPA based ownership and 

annual revenues directly on 

questionnaire responses for those 

facilities that completed detailed 

questionnaires. Ownership was also 

based on questionnaire responses. 

Revenue information, however, was 

based on external sources of financial 

information, mentioned above. Where 

questionnaire responses were not 

available, ownership and firm revenue 

information were based on matching 

these facilities with firms contained in 

the external firm data (Hoovers D&B) 

that have reported business activity 

under NAICS category 3116. For 

facilities where a match could not be 

made, facilities were assumed to be 

owned by a firm that owned no other 

businesses and has no other sources of 

revenue. This assumption likely leads to 

an overestimation of the cost-to revenue 

ratio for many of these entities that may 

also have additional sources of revenue. 

Table VIII–10 provides firm-level costto-revenue results. 

TABLE VIII–10—FIRM-LEVEL CTR SCREENING ANALYSIS RESULTS

Rule option 

Firms with 

MPP 

facilities 

Number firms with a ratio of Percent of firms with a ratio of 

0% a >0 and <1% ≥1 and <3% ≥3% 0% a >0 and <1% ≥1 and <3% ≥3% 

1 ................................................ 4,127 3,730 394 3 0 90 10 0.1 0.0 

2 ................................................ 4,127 3,730 393 3 1 90 10 0.1 0.0 

3 ................................................ 4,127 3,129 980 14 4 76 24 0.4 0.1 

aThese firms own only facilities that already meet discharge requirements for the wastestreams addressed by a given regulatory option and are therefore not estimated to incur any compliance technology costs. 

Like the facility-level analysis above, 

cost-to-revenue ratios provide 

screening-level indicators of potential 

economic impacts, this time to the 

owning entities; higher ratios suggest a 

higher probability of economic impacts. 

EPA estimates that the number of 

entities owning existing MPP facilities 

to be 4,127 firms. Under the proposed 

rule Option 1, there would be 3,730 

firms with no costs and 394 with costs 

less than one percent of revenue. EPA 

estimates that three firms would incur 

incremental costs greater than or equal 

to one percent of revenue and less than 

three percent of revenue. No firms are 

expected to incur costs greater than or 

equal to three percent of revenue. Under 

Option 2, there would be 3,730 firms 

with no costs and 393 with costs less 

than 1 percent of revenue. EPA 

estimates that four firms would incur 

incremental costs greater than or equal 

to 1 percent of revenue and only one of 

these would incur costs greater than or 

equal to 3 percent of revenue. Under 

Option 3, there would be 3,129 firms 

with no costs and 980 with costs less 

than 1 percent of revenue. EPA 

estimates that 18 firms would incur 

incremental costs greater than or equal 

to 1 percent of revenue and, of these, 

four would incur costs greater than or 

equal to 3 percent of revenue. Chapter 

4 in the RIA provides more detailed 

results for the three regulatory options 

EPA analyzed. 

(c) Small Business Impacts 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA) and Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), 

EPA is required to estimate the potential 

economic impacts of the rule on small 

businesses. The definition of small 

business varies by NAICS categories and 

for this industrial category the 

definition is based on employment 

levels provided in Table VIII–11 below. 

Firm employment levels are based on 

questionnaire responses when available. 

For non-respondents, firm employment 

estimates from Hoovers D&B are used if 

the firm was matched to one or more 

facilities. For remaining firms USDA 

facility inspection data employment 

categories for facilities are used to 

estimate if the owners are a small 

business. For more information on this 

approach see the SBREFA screening 

analysis section of the RIA. 

TABLE VIII–11—SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION SMALL BUSINESS SIZE STANDARDS FOR MEAT AND POULTRY

PROCESSING INDUSTRY

NAICS code NAICS industry description 

Size standard 

in employee 

#s 

311611 ........................... Animal (except Poultry) Slaughtering ..................................................................................................... 1,150 

311612 ........................... Meat Processed from Carcasses ............................................................................................................ 1,000 

311613 ........................... Rendering and Meat Byproduct Processing ........................................................................................... 750 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

I I I I I I I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4501 

TABLE VIII–11—SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION SMALL BUSINESS SIZE STANDARDS FOR MEAT AND POULTRY

PROCESSING INDUSTRY—Continued 

NAICS code NAICS industry description 

Size standard 

in employee 

#s 

311615 ........................... Poultry Processing .................................................................................................................................. 1,250 

For each of the three options, EPA 

estimated the number of small parent 

entities that incur annual compliance 

costs that fall into one of three 

categories: less than 1 percent of annual 

revenue; between 1 percent and less 

than 3 percent of annual revenue; and 

3 percent or more of annual revenue. 

Table VIII–12 presents the results of the 

CTR test for all small entities that own 

MPP dischargers. Table VIII–13 shows 

aggregate revenue and cost for small 

firms by process type. EPA 

conservatively assumes that entities 

with an unidentified size are large. 

While this assumption potentially 

reduces the number of identified small 

entities, it provides a conservative 

estimate of the percentage of small 

entities with impacts, since none of the 

entities with an unidentified size have 

a CTR ratio greater than one percent 

under any of the regulatory options. 

TABLE VIII–12—SMALL FIRM-LEVEL CTR SCREENING ANALYSIS RESULTS

Entity type Total # of 

small firms 

Number small firms with a ratio of Percent of small firms with a ratio of 

0% a >0 and <1% ≥1 and <3% ≥3% 0% a >0 and <1% ≥1 and <3% ≥3% 

Option 1 ..................................... 3,233 3,137 95 1 0 97 3 0.0 0.0 

Option 2 ..................................... 3,233 3,137 94 1 1 97 3 0.0 0.0 

Option 3 ..................................... 3,233 2,970 248 11 4 92 8 0.0 0.0 

aThese entities own only facilities that already meet discharge requirements for the wastestreams addressed by a given regulatory option and are therefore not estimated to incur any compliance technology costs. 

TABLE VIII–13—AGGREGATE REVENUE AND COSTS FOR SMALL FIRMS BY PROCESS TYPE

Process type a

Total # small 

firms with 

dischargers 

Total # small 

firms with 

costs 

Aggregate 

revenue 

(millions, 

2022$) 

Aggregate 

costs 

(millions, 

2022$) 

Option 1 

Meat first .......................................................................................................... 372 22 $83,328 $4.5 

Meat further ..................................................................................................... 1,799 31 61,517 0.1 

Poultry first ....................................................................................................... 55 16 20,008 13.6 

Poultry further .................................................................................................. 47 20 9,363 3.0 

Render ............................................................................................................. 23 7 6,019 1.0 

Total .......................................................................................................... 2,296 96 180,235 22.3 

Option 2 

Meat first .......................................................................................................... 372 22 83,328 32.7 

Meat further ..................................................................................................... 1,799 31 61,517 0.1 

Poultry first ....................................................................................................... 55 16 20,008 41.6 

Poultry further .................................................................................................. 47 20 9,363 3.0 

Render ............................................................................................................. 23 7 6,019 1.0 

Total .......................................................................................................... 2,296 96 180,235 78.5 

Option 3 

Meat first .......................................................................................................... 372 54 97,768 44.8 

Meat further ..................................................................................................... 1,799 149 151,897 38.8 

Poultry first ....................................................................................................... 55 25 20,627 63.1 

Poultry further .................................................................................................. 47 25 9,521 11.9 

Render ............................................................................................................. 23 9 6,029 10.0 

Total .......................................................................................................... 2,296 262 285,841 168.6 

aProcess type assigned to firms based on highest production. 

The results from the Small Firm-Level 

CTR Screening Analysis demonstrate 

that there is not a significant financial 

burden on a substantial number of small 

firms that own MPP facilities. Likewise, 

the results also show that small firms do 

not bear a disproportionate financial 

burden relative to large firms. These 

results demonstrate that the use of 

facility production size thresholds for 

each of the three options ensures that 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
4502 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

the primary economic burden of the rule 

is born by large facilities and firms. 

3. Market Effects 

The analyses thus far have focused 

either at the individual facility or firm 

level but have not directly addressed the 

cumulative effects of the rule options. 

EPA examined the effects of the 

regulatory options on the national 

markets for beef, pork, chicken, and 

turkey. EPA developed linear domestic 

and trade demand and supply equations 

for each meat product based on price 

elasticities from USDA data and other 

published sources. To estimate the 

impacts of the regulatory options, the 

domestic supply curves were adjusted 

to incorporate the after-tax annualized 

compliance costs incurred by producers 

in each meat product market, causing a 

shift in each supply curve and a 

decrease in domestic supply. After 

estimating the post-regulatory 

equilibrium for each meat product 

market, market-level impacts on prices 

and quantities were estimated. Tables 

VIII–14 and VIII–15 provide the 

percentage change in quantity and 

prices respectively for each meat 

product and rule option combination. 

The overall effects on meat product 

supplies and prices are sufficiently 

small under all three options that they 

are unlikely to have a noticeable effect 

on producer or consumer behavior. For 

more information on the market analysis 

methodology and results see Chapter 6 

of the RIA. 

TABLE VIII–14—POST-COMPLIANCE DECREASE IN MEAT MARKET SUPPLIES BY RULE OPTION

Meat product 

% Change total supply 

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 

Beef .............................................................................................................................................. ¥0.006 ¥0.018 ¥0.027 

Pork .............................................................................................................................................. ¥0.017 ¥0.051 ¥0.073 

Chicken ........................................................................................................................................ ¥0.014 ¥0.028 ¥0.086 

Turkey .......................................................................................................................................... ¥0.010 ¥0.021 ¥0.063 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... ¥0.012 ¥0.031 ¥0.065 

TABLE VIII–15—POST-COMPLIANCE INCREASE IN MEAT MARKET PRICES BY RULE OPTION

Meat product 

% Change in prices 

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 

Beef .............................................................................................................................................. 0.01 0.02 0.03 

Pork .............................................................................................................................................. 0.01 0.03 0.05 

Chicken ........................................................................................................................................ 0.01 0.02 0.05 

Turkey .......................................................................................................................................... 0.00 0.01 0.02 

4. Employment Effects 

In addition to addressing the costs 

and impacts of the regulatory options, 

EPA estimated the potential impacts of 

this rulemaking on employment. 

Employment effects can be both positive 

and negative as well as temporary or 

permanent. The employment analyses 

performed for the proposed rule 

measure labor changes in terms of full 

time equivalent (FTE) labor inputs. EPA 

measures the short-term employment 

effects directly due to estimated 

closures as well as the long-term 

employment effects from changes in 

production levels at the new market 

equilibrium. Employment loss due to 

facility closures is considered transitory 

as some of the production that occurred 

at these facilities will quickly move to 

other facilities with spare capacity. 

Eventually new and expanding existing 

facilities will take on much of the 

remaining production that would have 

occurred at the closed facilities. As 

these shifts in production occur so too 

will employment opportunities. 

Closures are not the only rule impact 

affecting employment. As just described 

in the preceding market analysis 

section, overall production is likely to 

go down slightly once the markets for 

meat products reach a new equilibrium 

of supply and demand. Lower 

production levels would likely result in 

long-term job losses. The number of 

long-term possible job losses across the 

whole industry due to decreased 

production are 65, 161, and 339 for 

options 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Relative 

to the total industry employment levels, 

these job losses translate to 0.0002 

percent, 0.001 percent, and 0.0032 

percent, respectively. The annual 

operation and maintenance costs for the 

new treatment technologies include 

labor costs, based on typical dollar per 

hour wage rates for the industry. These 

labor hours can be used to estimate the 

additional employees necessary to 

operate and maintain the treatment 

technologies. These new jobs more than 

offset those lost due to lower production 

levels for all three options, resulting in 

a net gain of 166, 669, and 1,603 jobs 

respectively. Table VIII–16 presents the 

possible short-term and long-term 

employment impacts of the three 

regulatory options being considered. For 

more on the employment analyses see 

Chapter 7 of the RIA. 

TABLE VIII–16—POSSIBLE EMPLOYMENT IMPACTS ESTIMATED BY REGULATORY OPTION

[FTE *] 

Employment impact category Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 

Short-term Employment Losses due to Possible Closures ......................................................... ¥16,917 ¥17,461 ¥20,205 

Short-term losses as % of total employment .............................................................................. ¥0.03% ¥0.03% ¥0.04% 

Long-term Employment Losses due to Decreased Production .................................................. ¥65 ¥161 ¥339 

Long-run/labor to Operate Treatment Technology ...................................................................... 166 669 1,942 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4503 

TABLE VIII–16—POSSIBLE EMPLOYMENT IMPACTS ESTIMATED BY REGULATORY OPTION—Continued 

[FTE *] 

Employment impact category Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 

Net Long-term Changes in Employment ..................................................................................... 101 508 1,603 

Total long-run as % of total employment .................................................................................... 0.0002% 0.001% 0.0032% 

* One FTE equivalent to 2,080 hrs/yr. 

5. Chlorides Removal Costs and Impacts 

EPA is taking comment on the 

inclusion of chlorides removal limits. 

EPA is considering establishing a zero 

discharge of pollutants requirement for 

high chloride waste streams for facilities 

producing more than 5 million pounds 

per year with high chlorides processes. 

The technology costs considered for this 

requirement involve segregating the 

high chloride waste streams from other 

process wastewater and managing these 

high chloride streams through 

sidestream evaporation. Details on the 

costs and economic impacts of the 

chlorides removal provision can be 

found in the TDD and the RIA, 

respectively. 

IX. Pollutant Loadings 

A. Estimation of Existing Industry 

Pollutant Discharges 

In developing ELGs, the CWA calls for 

EPA to identify the effluent reduction 

from each level of control (CWA section 

304(b)(2)(A)(BAT), (b)(4)(A)(BCT), and 

(b)(1)(A)(BPT). 33 U.S.C. 

1314(b)(2)(A)(BAT); 1314(b)(4)(A)(BCT), 

and 1314(b)(1)(A)(BPT)). To estimate 

effluent reduction, or removals, EPA 

first estimates on an annual, per facility 

basis, the pollutant load discharged 

today. EPA then estimates pollutant 

discharge loads and removals that 

would result from the proposed 

regulatory options. As described in 

section VII, the three proposed 

regulatory options apply different 

combinations of wastewater treatment 

technology to specific sets of facilities 

based on facility production size 

thresholds. EPA estimates pollutant 

discharge loads and removals for two 

MPP waste streams: (1) MPP process 

wastewater and (2) high chlorides 

wastewater (as a segregated waste 

stream). 

Supporting analyses and datasets for 

the MPP loadings calculations include 

the following: 

• MPP Industry Profile—identifies 

the MPP facilities impacted by the 

proposed rule and key inputs for the 

loadings/removal analysis including 

processing type, discharge status (i.e., 

direct, indirect, zero discharge), and 

discharge flow rate for both process 

wastewater and high chlorides 

wastewater (Meat and Poultry Products 

(MPP) Profile Methodology 

Memorandum. USEPA. DCN MP00306). 

• Treatment in Place (TIP) Analysis— 

identifies existing wastewater treatment 

based on facility-specific data, where 

possible, and assigns existing 

wastewater treatment to facilities 

without data based on MPP 

Questionnaire response data and 

engineering best judgment (Treatment 

in Place (TIP) Analysis for the Meat and 

Poultry Products (MPP) Proposed Rule. 

USEPA. DCN MP00191). 

• Pollutants of Concern (POC) 

Analysis—identifies the pollutants 

present in untreated MPP process 

wastewater at treatable levels 

(Pollutants of Concern (POC) Analysis 

for the Meat and Poultry Products (MPP) 

Proposed Rule. USEPA. DCN MP00190). 

• Analytical Database—compilation 

of all wastewater sampling from 

publicly available sources or collected 

as part of the proposed rule. The 

database includes facility-specific 

wastewater monitoring data from the 

MPP Questionnaire, EPA sampling, 

2021 Discharge Monitoring Report 

(DMR) data for select MPP facilities, 

responses to EPA’s CWA section 308 

data requests, and any other data on 

MPP process wastewater provided to 

EPA (e.g., from site visits or other 

discussions with industry) (Analytical 

Database Methodology for the Meat and 

Poultry Products Proposed Rulemaking. 

USEPA. DCN MP00303). 

For the MPP process waste stream, 

pollutant loads and removals were 

estimated for the wastewater treatment 

technology systems described in the 

regulatory options: phosphorus removal 

by chemical precipitation for direct and 

indirect dischargers, nitrogen removal 

by biological treatment to achieve full 

denitrification for direct and indirect 

dischargers, select conventional 

pollutant (e.g., BOD, TSS, Oil & Grease) 

removal by screening and dissolved air 

flotation (DAF) for indirect dischargers, 

and high chlorides sidestream 

evaporation for direct and indirect 

dischargers. EPA estimated facility 

pollutant discharge loads and removals 

that would result from these four 

technology systems. 

For the MPP high chlorides waste 

stream, pollutant loads and removals 

were estimated based on evaporation 

technology, and this was applied to both 

direct and indirect facilities with a high 

chlorides waste stream. 

Baseline pollutant loadings and 

removals were calculated using the 

facility flows and the effluent pollutant 

concentrations associated with the TIP 

analysis. Using data from the MPP 

Questionnaire and existing data, EPA 

identified facility-specific details on 

facility operations (type of processing), 

discharge status, and existing TIP. If no 

relevant treatment is currently in place 

at a facility, the raw process wastewater 

concentrations were used. 

Effluent loads for each facility were 

calculated for the POCs for the 

treatment system considered under the 

regulatory options by multiplying the 

pollutant concentration associated with 

the wastewater treatment technology by 

the wastewater flow rate. For indirect 

dischargers, (i.e., discharges to a 

POTW), EPA accounted for pollutant 

removal that occurs at the POTW to 

calculate the baseline and regulatory 

option loadings. Indirect discharge 

loads were estimated at the POTW 

effluent (i.e., following treatment at the 

POTW to account for pollutant removal 

that occurs at the POTW) to represent 

the pollutant load to the receiving 

water. The pollutant load removals were 

calculated as the difference between the 

baseline load and the load resulting 

with the treatment technology in place. 

B. Summary of Incremental Changes of 

Pollutant Loadings and Removals From 

Regulatory Options 

Table IX–1 summarizes the net 

reduction in annual pollutant loadings, 

compared to baseline, associated with 

each regulatory option. Removals for 

total nitrogen, total phosphorus, 

chlorides the conventional pollutants 

BOD, TSS, oil & grease are shown here. 

Additional pollutants are also removed 

by the technologies. More information 

on the pollutant loads is available in the 

TDD. Compared to the existing rule 

baseline, all proposed regulatory 

options result in decreased pollutant 

loadings to surface waters. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
4504 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

22https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/archive/ 

2021/pdf/epa.pdf. 

TABLE IX–1—NET REDUCTIONS IN ANNUAL POLLUTANT LOADINGS FOR KEY POLLUTANTS

Regulatory option 

Reductions c in annual pollutant loadings million lb/yr 

(% reduction) 

Nitrogen Phosphorus Conventional a Chlorides b

1 ....................................................................................................................... 9 (10%) 8 (37%) 80 (31%) 477 (98%) 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 45 (49%) 16 (78%) 167 (64%) 477 (98%) 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 76 (83%) 20 (94%) 226 (87%) 477 (98%) 

a Conventional Pollutant Removal includes BOD, O&G, TSS. 

b Chlorides has same removal under each option. 

cPollutant reductions include removals by POTWs. 

X. Non-Water Quality Environmental 

Impacts 

The elimination or reduction of one 

form of pollution may create or 

aggravate other environmental 

problems. Therefore, CWA sections 

304(b) and 306 require EPA to consider 

non-water quality environmental 

impacts (including energy requirements) 

associated with ELGs. To consider these 

factors, EPA considered the potential 

impact of the technology basis on 

energy consumption, air pollution, and 

solid waste generation. As shown 

below, EPA anticipates that all of the 

proposed rule options would produce 

minimal non-water quality 

environmental impacts and as such 

proposes that they are acceptable. 

Additional information about the 

analysis of these non-water quality 

impacts is contained in the TDD. 

A. Energy Requirements 

MPP Facilities use energy when 

operating processing equipment, 

operating the facility buildings, and 

operating wastewater treatment systems. 

For this proposal, EPA considers 

whether there would be an associated 

change in the incremental energy 

requirements compared to baseline. 

Energy requirements vary depending on 

the regulatory option evaluated and the 

current operations of the facility. 

Therefore, as applicable, EPA estimates 

the increase in energy usage in 

(megawatt hours, MWh) for equipment 

added to the plant systems or in 

consumed fuel (gallons). EPA sums the 

estimated increase to calculate the net 

change in energy requirements from 

baseline for the regulatory options. 

EPA estimates the amount of energy 

needed to operate the additional 

wastewater treatment systems based on 

conventional pollutant (e.g., BOD, TSS, 

Oil & Grease) removal by screening and 

DAF, phosphorus removal by chemical 

precipitation, nitrogen removal by 

biological treatment to achieve full 

denitrification, and high chlorides 

removal by sidestream evaporation. 

Table X–1 of this preamble shows the 

net change in annual electrical energy 

usage associated with the regulatory 

options compared to baseline. The table 

values assume a zero net increase for 

conventional pollutant treatment of 

indirect dischargers, as the burden of 

treatment is shifted from the POTW to 

the MPP facility. Table X–1 also does 

not include the additional energy 

demand for treatment of high chlorides 

wastewater, which is estimated to be an 

additional 349,000 MWh per year. 

TABLE X–1—ESTIMATED INCREMENTAL CHANGE IN ENERGY REQUIREMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH REGULATORY OPTIONS

COMPARED TO BASELINE

Non-water quality environmental impact 

Energy use associated with regulatory options 

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 

Increase in Electrical Energy usage (MWh) .............................................................. 104,208 386,448 557,538 

Increase as % of total US electric power generated in 2021 35 ................................ 0.0000025% 0.0000094% 0.0000136% 

By comparison, electric power 

generation facilities generated 4,108 

billion MWh of electric power in the 

United States in 2021 (EIA, 2021).22 All 

of the proposed options would result in 

a negligible increase in the amount of 

energy generation required nationwide. 

B. Air Pollution 

EPA proposes to find that wastewater 

treatment processes evaluated in this 

proposed rule would not generate 

significant air emissions above the 

current emissions, either directly from 

the facility or indirectly from the 

facilities that provide energy to MPP 

facilities. Possible non-odorous gases 

that may be emitted from these 

processes include nitrogen and carbon 

dioxide. EPA expects a slight increase in 

nitrogen gas generated over the current 

baseline because it would be formed 

during the denitrification process and 

would escape to the atmosphere. Since 

nitrogen comprises over 78 percent of 

the Earth’s atmosphere and is not 

considered a greenhouse gas, the 

additional generation is not considered 

to pose an environmental impact. 

Carbon dioxide will be released when 

BOD is oxidized by oxygen-containing 

compounds. However, the BOD being 

treated would generally not increase but 

rather just the location of treatment 

would change (POTW vs MPP facility). 

Therefore, there would generally be no 

significant incremental increase in 

carbon dioxide over current treatment 

levels. 

Odors are the only significant air 

pollution problem associated with the 

treatment of MPP wastewaters and 

generally are associated with anaerobic 

conditions. Thus, flow equalization 

basins, DAF units, and anaerobic 

lagoons are possible sources of 

malodors, especially for indirect 

dischargers who may not currently do 

pretreatment prior to discharging to a 

POTW. Potential odorous substances 

associated with MPP wastewater 

include ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and 

organic compounds. Ammonia in MPP 

wastewaters is typically due to 

breakdown of more complex substances 

and can be released under certain 

circumstances. However, aerobic 

nitrifying conditions will favor keeping 

ammonia in solution as it is converted 

to nitrate, meaning that odors will 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4505 

generally be suppressed. In addition, 

maintenance of pH around neutral 

conditions will disfavor stripping 

ammonia, leaving it in the wastewater to 

be oxidized or assimilated. Furthermore, 

denitrification processes will favor 

additional conversion of ammonia. 

Thus, any incremental ammonia 

generation would be minimal. The 

chemical precipitation process to 

remove phosphorus is not expected to 

generate any additional odors. 

Hydrogen sulfide can be formed 

under anaerobic and anoxic conditions 

such as in the denitrification reactors. 

Hydrogen sulfide generation requires 

the presence of sulfate in the 

wastewater, which is typically low in 

MPP wastes. (In most cases the source 

of sulfates in MPP wastewater is the 

source water supply.) In addition, the 

formation of sulfide is less favored than 

the reduction of nitrate to nitrogen, 

meaning that under most circumstances, 

sulfide would not be formed to a greater 

degree than is currently the case, 

especially if the facility is wellmanaged. 

Volatile odorous organic compounds 

can be generated in anaerobic lagoons. 

If specific facilities have odor 

difficulties, covers over the lagoons can 

be used to capture odorous substances 

that are then subsequently destroyed by 

some oxidation or combustion process. 

Some facilities capture anaerobically 

generated methane for fuel; if that gas 

stream must be scrubbed before use, the 

waste would be recycled to the 

wastewater treatment plant, resulting in 

no net environmental impact. Such 

oxidation and combustion processes 

would potentially result in additional 

carbon dioxide generation; however, 

that generation constitutes minimal 

incremental generation, since the 

organic substances involved would have 

gone through oxidation naturally. 

Typically, odorous organic compounds 

are well-destroyed in aerobic systems. 

Overall, the incremental change in odor 

problems associated with this proposed 

regulation are expected to be small. 

Odor problems usually are significant 

only when the sulfur content of MPP 

wastewaters is high, especially when 

treatment facilities are not well 

managed. Generally, MPP wastewater 

treatment facilities using anaerobic 

processes for treating wastewater with a 

low sulfur concentration have few odor 

problems. At such facilities, 

maintaining a naturally occurring layer 

of floating solids in anaerobic contact 

basins and lagoons generally minimizes 

odors. Thus, the technology options 

should not increase emissions of 

odorous compounds from well-managed 

MPP wastewater treatment facilities. If a 

facility uses nitrification to meet the 

ammonia limitations, then any ammonia 

odors would be minimal because the 

process keeps the ammonia in solution 

as it is converted to nitrate. However, 

using anaerobic treatment for initial 

BOD reduction before aerobic treatment 

would increase emissions of methane 

and volatile organic compounds, but the 

increases should be negligible given 

today’s extensive use of lagoons and 

other anaerobic processes in MPP 

wastewater treatment. In addition, 

covering anaerobic lagoons and flaring 

the gas captured can reduce these 

emissions. If the volume of captured gas 

is sufficient, it can be used as a fuel to 

produce process heat or electricity. EPA 

observed facilities capturing gas for use 

as fuel during site visits. 

C. Solid Waste Generation 

EPA estimates that compliance with 

the proposed rule would not 

significantly increase the amount of 

wastewater treatment sludge generated 

for the meat and poultry processing 

industry. Table X–2 estimates the 

incremental sludge production increases 

for the proposed rule. 

TABLE X–2—ESTIMATE OF INCREMENTAL SLUDGE PRODUCTION INCREASES

Non-water quality environmental impact 

Incremental sludge production associated with 

regulatory options 

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 

Sludge Production (tons/year) ..................................................................................................... 384,359 995,804 1,213,782 

The estimates of sludge production in 

Table X–2 are based on the 

concentrations of BOD entering the 

biological part of the treatment system 

after pretreatment (i.e., screening, DAF). 

The sludge yield coefficient for the 

denitrification process is lower than the 

coefficient for the aerobic process; 

therefore, the amount of sludge 

generated per BOD unit would be lower 

for the denitrification part than the 

nitrification part. 

The values presented in Table X–2 

represent the total sludge production for 

the modeled unit processes. The values 

in Table X–2 assume a zero net increase 

in solids production from conventional 

pollutant treatment at affected indirect 

dischargers, as the burden of treatment 

shifts from the POTW to the MPP 

facility. Additional solids are expected 

to be generated from chemical 

phosphorus removal as a result of this 

proposed rule. Generally, a facility will 

either combine the solids generated 

from this process with other process 

solids, or it may elect to process and 

resell the reclaimed phosphorus on the 

private market. If a facility selects an 

aluminum based chemical process for 

precipitation, this may limit the ability 

of the solids to be land applied. EPA 

also expects that more emphasis on 

pollution prevention (e.g., by increased 

segregation of waste) could further 

reduce sludge generation, though it is 

not expected to yield significant 

reductions. Examples of such pollution 

prevention practices include segregation 

of high chlorides wastewaters from the 

main treatment stream, allowing the 

solids to be extracted more 

economically from the waste steam and 

reducing the overall volume of sludge. 

XI. Environmental Assessment 

A. Introduction 

The environmental assessment for the 

proposed rule reviewed currently 

available literature on the documented 

environmental and human health 

impacts of MPP wastewater discharges 

and conducted modeling to estimate 

impacts of MPP discharge to surface 

waters and downstream environments at 

both localized and regional scales. 

EPA’s review of the scientific literature 

documents cases of the extensive 

impacts of MPP wastewater discharges 

on human health and the environment 

and a full description of EPA’s modeling 

methodology and results are provided in 

the Environmental Assessment 

document. EPA modeled the impacts of 

MPP discharges at baseline conditions 

(pre-rule conditions) and the 

improvements that may result if the 

proposed options were implemented. 

It is well established that effluent 

guidelines are not required to consider 

the impacts on receiving water quality 

See, e.g., Southwestern Electrical Power 

Co. v. United States, 920 F.3d 999, 1005 

(5th Cir. 2019). (The CWA ‘‘requires 

ELGs to be based on technological 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
4506 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

23Within 25 river miles downstream. 

24Li, H., Shi, A., Li, M., & Zhang, X. 2013. Effect 

of pH, Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, and Flow 

Rate of Overlying Water on Heavy Metals Release 

from Storm Sewer Sediments. Journal of Chemistry, 

2013, 434012. doi:10.1155/2013/434012. 

25Ward, M.H., Jones, R.R., Brender, J.D., de Kok, 

T.M., Weyer, P.J., Nolan, B.T., van Breda, S.G. 2018. 

Drinking Water Nitrate and Human Health: An 

Updated Review. International Journal of 

Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(7), 

1557. doi:10.3390/ijerph15071557. 

26Hoagland, P., Anderson, D.M., Kaoru, Y., & 

White, A.W. 2002. The Economic Effects of Harmful 

Algal Blooms in the United States: Estimates, 

Assessment Issues, and Information Needs. 

Estuaries, 25, 819–837. 

27Baskin-Graves, L., Mullen, H., Aber, A., 

Sinisterra, J., Ayub, K., Amaya-Fuentes, R., & 

Wilson, S. 2019. Rapid Health Impact Assessment 

of a Proposed Poultry Processing Plant in Millsboro, 

Delaware. International Journal of Environmental 

Research and Public Health, 16(18). doi:10.3390/ 

ijerph16183429. 

28Witkowska, D., S5owik, J., & Chilicka, K. 2021. 

Heavy Metals and Human Health: Possible 

Exposure Pathways and the Competition for Protein 

Binding Sites. Molecules, 26(19). doi:10.3390/ 

molecules26196060. 

29Weber-Scannell, P., & Duffy, L. 2007. Effects of 

Total Dissolved Solids on Aquatic Organisms: A 

Review of Literature and Recommendation for 

Salmonid Species. American Journal of 

Environmental Sciences, 3. doi:10.3844/ 

ajessp.2007.1.6. 

30 Gerber, M.D., Lucia, T., Correa, L., Neto, J.E.P., 

& Correa, E ́. K. 2017. Phytotoxicity of effluents from 

swine slaughterhouses using lettuce and cucumber 

seeds as bioindicators. Science of The Total 

Environment, 592, 86–90. doi: https://doi.org/ 

10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.075. 

31Amoatey, P., & Baawain, M.S. 2019. Effects of 

pollution on freshwater aquatic organisms. Water 

Environment Research, 91(10), 1272–1287. doi: 

https://doi.org/10.1002/wer.1221. 

feasibility rather than on water quality,’’ 

citing E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. 

Train, 430 U.S. 112, 130–31, (1977)). 

That is, the Administrator must ‘‘require 

industry, regardless of a discharge’s 

effect on water quality, to employ 

defined levels of technology to meet 

effluent limitations’’ Id., citing Am. 

Petroleum Inst. v. EPA, 661 F.2d 240, 

343–44 (5th Cir. 1981). ELGs are 

‘‘technology-based rather than harmbased’’ insofar as they ‘‘reflect the 

capabilities of available pollution 

control technologies to prevent or limit 

different discharges rather than the 

impact that those discharges have on the 

waters.’’ Id., citing Tex. Oil and Gas v. 

EPA, 161 F.3d 923, 927 (5th Cir. 1998). 

Nevertheless, there is great public 

interest in understanding the benefits of 

EPA’s effluent guidelines and E.O. 

12866, 12898, and 14096 require an 

assessment of the environmental 

benefits of Federal rulemakings. 

B. Summary of Environmental and 

Human Health Impacts 

As discussed in the Environmental 

Assessment document, current scientific 

literature as well as EPA’s own data 

indicated that MPP wastewaters contain 

large amounts of a wide range of 

harmful pollutants, which contribute to 

extensive environmental impacts and 

can have detrimental effects on human 

health through multiple exposure 

routes. 

Nutrient overloading of surface waters 

is a national issue, and this concern 

extends to surface waters receiving MPP 

wastewater, with 36 percent and 37 

percent of catchments downstream 23 of 

direct and indirect dischargers, 

respectively, are impaired for nutrients 

and/or oxygen demand. Excess nutrients 

in aquatic environments, or 

eutrophication, is the most documented 

impact and consequentially can result 

in the accelerated growth of bacteria 

and/or algae, reducing available 

dissolved oxygen (DO) and limiting the 

ability of the waterbody to support 

aquatic life. Examples include 

biodiversity loss, impacts to fish 

development and reproduction, as well 

as fish kills from hypoxic, or 

deoxygenated, waters. Low DO levels 

can also release toxic metals from 

sediments, further contaminating 

aquatic habitat (Li et al. 2013).24 Often 

spurred by eutrophication, some algal 

blooms release toxins into the water, 

which can result in sickness and/or 

death in exposed terrestrial animals and 

people. 

Excess nutrients can impact human 

health through several pathways, both 

direct and indirect. High nitrate 

concentrations in drinking water can 

lead to infant methemoglobinemia (blue 

baby syndrome), colorectal cancer, 

thyroid disease, and neural tube defects 

(USEPA. 2000. EPA–822–B–00–002) 

(Ward et al. 2018).25 High nutrient 

levels in drinking water sources can also 

lead to objectionable tastes and odors, 

and potentially increase drinking water 

treatment costs to remove nitrates. In 

terms of indirect health impacts, the 

growth of harmful algal and bacteria due 

to eutrophication can potentially result 

in the contamination of shellfish with 

fecal coliform bacteria or algal toxins. 

Adverse health impacts from the 

consumption of contaminated shellfish 

can include paralytic, diarrhetic, 

amnesic, and neurotoxic shellfish 

poisoning (USEPA. 2015. EPA– 

820R15102) (Hoagland et al. 2002).26

Drinking water quality can be 

impacted by several other pollutants 

present in MPP wastewater in addition 

to nutrients. Consumption of water 

contaminated with pathogenic bacteria 

can pose serious health risks, ranging 

from gastrointestinal illness like 

diarrhea, vomiting, and fever, to sepsis 

and toxic shock syndrome in extreme 

cases (Baskin-Graves et al. 2019).27 High 

levels of suspended solids can harbor 

bacteria in drinking water sources, 

making treatment more difficult. 

Arsenic, which is present in some 

sanitizers, may be introduced to MPP 

wastewater through contact with offal or 

during nightly equipment cleaning 

operations. Arsenic is both a carcinogen 

and a toxin and can have reproductive 

impacts if ingested via drinking water 

(Witkowska et al. 2021).28 Some heavy 

metals have been detected in MPP 

wastewater, which if then found at 

sufficient concentrations in drinking 

water can pose health risks. 

Pollutants found in MPP wastewater 

also compromise aquatic and terrestrial 

biota survival and reproduction. For 

example, biodiversity loss can occur 

when aquatic organisms are exposed to 

elevated levels of chlorides, killing or 

impairing freshwater species, and 

allowing for the proliferation of more 

salt tolerant organisms (Weber-Scannell 

and Duffy. 2007).29 Suspended solids 

increase turbidity, blocking light 

infiltration of surface waters and 

limiting primary production, thereby 

impacting food availability for higher 

trophic levels. Some metals common in 

MPP wastewater streams, such as zinc 

and copper, have been identified as 

toxic to crops when biosolids generated 

from MPP wastewater treatment were 

used as a soil supplement, and these 

metals can similarly limit primary 

production at low concentrations 

(Gerber et al. 2017) 30 (Amoatey and 

Baawain. 2019).31

C. Environmental Assessment 

Methodology 

The environmental assessment for the 

proposed rule reviewed currently 

available literature on the documented 

environmental and human health 

impacts of MPP wastewater discharges 

and conducts modeling to estimate the 

impacts of these discharge to surface 

waters and downstream environments at 

both localized and regional scales. EPA 

modeled the water quality impacts of 

MPP discharges at baseline conditions 

(pre-rule conditions) and the 

improvements that would likely result 

after the implementation of the rule in 

both a set of smaller case study 

watersheds as well as in larger 

watersheds that represent diverse land 

areas across the continental U.S. 

To evaluate the potential water 

quality impacts of the proposed rule, 

EPA developed models of both the 

selected case study watersheds and 

larger, watersheds using the Hydrologic 

and Water Quality System (HAWQS) 2.0 

and the Soil and Water Assessment Tool 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4507 

32Neitsch, S.L., Williams, J.R., Arnold, J.G. and 

Kiniry, J.R. 2011. Soil and Water Assessment Tool 

Theoretical Documentation Version 2009. Texas 

Water Resources Institute, College Station. 

33https://www.usgs.gov/tools/hydrologic-unitmaps. 

34An initial filter for ‘‘significant nutrient loads’’ 

was 100 kg/day. 

35The maximum amount of a pollutant allowed 

to enter a waterbody so that the waterbody will 

meet and continue to meet water quality standards 

for that particular pollutant. 

36HUC2 watersheds are regional divisions and 

average 177,560 square miles across the U.S. 

37Adequate observed data refers to in-stream 

flow, TSS, TN, and TP measurements taken within 

the watershed selected for modeling that allowed 

for calibration to be successfully completed. When 

available data was insufficient, calibration 

parameters from similar watersheds (as identified 

by a cluster analysis) within the same HUC2 region 

were applied. See Appendix A of the BCA for 

additional details. 38Within 25 river miles. 

(SWAT) (Neitsch et al. 2011).32 The 

model delineates subbasins and reaches 

at the resolution of 14-digit hydrologic 

unit codes (HUCs).33 While these 

models simulate impacts on 

eutrophication in receiving streams, 

they are limited to a daily timestep, and 

EPA is considering a more detailed 

model analysis of algal and DO kinetics. 

Additional details on model setup, 

including calibration results, can be 

found in Appendix A of the 

Environmental Assessment document. 

EPA identified three case study 

locations to help demonstrate the water 

quality effects of the proposed rule at a 

fine spatial scale. Case study locations 

were chosen based on the contributions 

of NPDES-permitted dischargers, areas 

of existing impairment(s), and 

availability of observed data to facilitate 

model calibration. Regarding NPDESpermitted discharger contributions, 

watershed locations were considered if 

they contained one or more discharger 

with significant nutrient loads 34 and 

were upstream or headwater locations 

as these areas were less likely to be 

overwhelmed by baseline nonpoint 

source loads or greatly dilute point 

source contributions with the volume of 

receiving water. Watersheds with 

previously documented water quality 

impairments or published Total 

Maximum Daily Loads 35 were also 

prioritized, especially if the 

impairments are due to common 

pollutants from the MPP industry, such 

as nutrients, pathogens, organic 

enrichment (i.e., BOD), or sediment. 

EPA also modeled larger watersheds 

to demonstrate the water quality 

impacts of the proposed rule over a 

greater portion of the nation covering a 

wider variety of land area types than the 

case studies. Three HUC2 watershed 36

were selected for modeling based on the 

presence of both MPP facilities routing 

wastewater effluent directly to waters of 

the U.S. (direct dischargers) and 

facilities discharging wastewater to an 

offsite POTW (indirect dischargers). 

Watersheds that had been previously 

calibrated and/or had adequate observed 

data 37 available were prioritized. 

To further understand the 

environments and waterbody use types 

which may be impacted by MPP 

wastewater discharge under baseline 

conditions, EPA conducted a GIS 

analysis to identify sensitive habitats 

downstream of direct and indirect MPP 

facility final wastewater outfalls across 

the nation. EPA used publicly available 

databases to identify impaired waters, 

fisheries (shellfishing, recreational, and 

commercial fishing), threatened and 

endangered species habitat and 

protected areas, priority waterbodies, 

and recreational areas within 25 river 

miles of a process wastewater outfall. 

EPA also identified the number of each 

sensitive environment type that would 

be expected to experience improved 

water quality under proposed rule 

Options. See Chapter 4 and Appendix B 

of the EA for details regarding datasets 

used and GIS methodologies. 

D. Results From the Environmental 

Assessment 

EPA focused its quantitative analyses 

on the environmental and human health 

impacts associated with exposure to 

pollutants via the surface water 

pathway. Both direct and indirect 

discharge sources were considered in 

these analyses and models. These 

analyses concentrated on improvements 

in surface water quality; impacts to 

sensitive environments, including 

wildlife habitat, fisheries, and impaired 

waters; and impacts to human health 

from consumption of contaminated 

drinking water or exposure to 

contaminated surface waters via 

recreational activities. 

1. Improvements in Surface Water 

Quality 

EPA estimated that reduced pollutant 

loadings to surface waters will improve 

water quality by reducing nutrient 

concentrations in all waters 

immediately downstream of MPP 

wastewater outfalls under proposed rule 

options in the case study modeling. 

When the most stringent technology 

options were applied (representing 

regulatory Option 3) nutrient 

concentrations changed minimally in 

certain watersheds (less than 1 percent 

reductions), while other receiving 

waters could on average see up to 81 

percent and 83 percent reductions in TP 

and TN, respectively. 

The pollutants associated with MPP 

wastewater causing the greatest number 

of impairments under baseline 

conditions were pathogens, nutrients, 

and oxygen depletion. EPA estimated 

that 70 percent and 75 percent of all 

stream segments 38 of direct and indirect 

wastewater outfalls, respectively, are 

impaired for at least one pollutant found 

in MPP wastewater. EPA estimated that 

within these impaired stream segments, 

63 percent and 5.83 percent of impacted 

river miles downstream of direct and 

indirect dischargers, respectively, 

would benefit from improved upstream 

water under Options 1 and 2. Because 

nutrient limits are included under 

Option 2 for indirect discharges, 

however, water quality improvements in 

these impaired catchments would likely 

be greater. Under proposed Option 3, 66 

percent and 29 percent of stream 

segments downstream of directs and 

indirect dischargers, respectively, 

would benefit from decrease upstream 

pollutant loadings. EPA did not estimate 

the number of catchments that would no 

longer be considered impaired under 

each proposed rule option as 

impairment status may be dependent on 

many factors beyond the scope of this 

rulemaking. 

2. Improvements to Vulnerable Species 

Habitats 

EPA identified 108 unique vulnerable 

animal and insect species that have 

habitat located in watersheds 

potentially impacted by MPP 

wastewater discharge. Species groups 

included amphibians, birds, clams, 

crustaceans, fishes, insects, mammals, 

reptiles, and snails. Of these species, 26 

percent were considered of lower 

vulnerability, 5 percent were 

moderately vulnerable, and 69 percent 

were found be of a high vulnerability 

status. EPA estimated that 88 percent 

and 90 percent of downstream 

waterbodies serving as habitat to these 

threatened and endangered species 

could see water quality improvements 

compared to baseline conditions, under 

Options 1 or 2, and 3, respectively. 

EPA’s analysis indicated that MPP 

wastewater discharges to surface waters 

pose the greatest risk to Quadrula 

cylindrica cylindrica, also known as the 

Rabbitsfoot clam, which is considered 

threatened, with 358 stream miles of 

habitat impacted by MPP discharges. 

Under all three rule options, 15 of the 

16 upstream MPP facilities would be 

required to adhere to new limits, and 

thus improve Q. cylindrica habitat in 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
4508 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

these reaches. EPA estimated that 29 

percent of the stream segments that 

serve as habitat to threatened and/or 

endangered species are also impaired 

for at least one pollutant found in MPP 

wastewater. Nationally, EPA estimated 

that 75 species with a high vulnerability 

(69 percent) to change in water quality 

currently are found in watersheds that 

are impaired under baseline conditions, 

and that all of these watersheds may 

experience improvements in water 

quality under the proposed rule Options 

2 and 3, and 98 percent under preferred 

Option 1. 

3. Human Health Impact Improvements 

Intentional or accidental consumption 

of water contaminated with pollutants 

such as pathogens and nitrate can cause 

health impacts in humans, ranging from 

gastrointestinal illness to thyroid 

disease. EPA estimated that 

implementation of the proposed rule 

options would result in improvements 

in source water quality to 121 drinking 

water service areas under Options 1 and 

2, and 147 under Option 3. EPA also 

estimated the number of recreational 

areas that may experience improved 

water conditions under each rule 

option. For Options 1 or 2, and 3, 58 

percent and 64 percent of recreational 

areas are expected to improve, 

respectively, the majority of which are 

classified as local parks. 

Impacts to fisheries and fishing 

habitat are also of concern to human 

health as the consumption of 

contaminated shellfish can cause 

illness. Also, some individuals rely on 

subsistence fishing for survival and the 

reduction of fish populations due to 

compromised habitat can threaten their 

wellbeing. EPA estimated that 26 

unique species used in commercial 

fishing may potentially be impacted by 

MPP wastewater release under baseline 

conditions, as well as 1 commercial 

oyster bed, and 9 recreational fishing 

areas. For preferred Option 1, 96 percent 

of all commercial fisheries, and 67 

percent of recreational fishing areas, 

may benefit from improved water 

quality. These statistics are the same for 

Options 2 and 3 as this analysis 

currently reflects impacts from direct 

discharging facilities only. EPA plans to 

expand this analysis to include impacts 

to fishing areas from indirect MPP 

wastewater discharge to support any 

final rule. 

XII. Benefits Analysis 

This section summarizes EPA’s 

estimates of the changes in national 

environmental benefits expected to 

result from changes in MPP facility 

wastewater discharges described in 

Section IX of this preamble, and the 

resultant environmental effects, 

summarized in Section XI of this 

preamble. The Benefit Cost Analysis 

(BCA) report provides additional details 

on the benefits methodologies and 

analyses. 

A. Categories of Benefits Analyzed 

Table XII–1 of this preamble 

summarizes benefit categories 

associated with the three regulatory 

options and notes which categories EPA 

was able to quantify and monetize. 

Analyzed benefits fall into four broad 

categories: (1) Human health benefits 

from surface water quality 

improvements, (2) ecological conditions 

and effects on recreational use from 

surface water quality changes, (3) 

market and productivity benefits, and 

(4) air-related effects. Within these 

broad categories, EPA assessed the 

benefits associated with the regulatory 

options in this proposal with varying 

degrees of completeness and rigor. 

Where possible, EPA quantified the 

expected changes in effects and 

estimated monetary values. However, 

data limitations, modeling limitations, 

and gaps in the understanding of how 

society values certain environmental 

changes prevented EPA from 

quantifying and/or monetizing some 

benefit categories. EPA notes that all 

human health and environmental 

improvements discussed in the EA also 

represent benefits of the proposal 

(whether quantified or unquantified), 

and the Agency will continue to 

enhance its benefits analysis methods 

where appropriate throughout the 

rulemaking process. 

TABLE XII–1—SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED BENEFITS CATEGORIES

Category Effect of regulatory options 

Benefits analysis 

Quantified Monetized Qualitative 

discussion 

Human Health Benefits from Surface Water Quality Improvements 

Changes in incidence of adverse human 

health effects (e.g., cases of gastrointestinal illness) from exposure to MPP 

pollutants via recreational use.

Reduced exposure to E. coli and HAB-related illnesses 

from primary contact recreation and recreationally 

caught and consumed fish and shellfish.

.................... .................... ✓ 

Changes in incidence of adverse human 

health effects (e.g., developmental effects, gastrointestinal illness, cancer) 

from exposure to MPP pollutants via 

drinking water.

Reduced exposure to high nitrate concentrations, E. 

coli, and DBPs (which may be generated indirectly 

due to nutrient enrichment and eutrophication) in 

drinking water.

.................... .................... ✓ 

Ecological Condition and Recreational Use Effects from Surface Water Quality Changes 

Benefits from changes in surface water 

quality, including: aquatic and wildlife 

habitat,a water-based recreation,a aesthetic benefits,a and nonuse values a.

Improved ambient water quality in receiving and downstream reaches, resulting in: enhanced value of 

swimming, fishing, boating, and near-water activities 

from water quality changes; improved aesthetics 

from shifts in water clarity, color, odor, including 

nearby site amenities for residing, working, and traveling; and Improved existence, option, and bequest 

values from improved ecosystem health.

✓ ✓ ✓ 

Benefits from the protection of threatened 

and endangered species.

Improved T&E species habitat and potential effects on 

T&E species populations.

✓ .................... ✓ 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4509 

TABLE XII–1—SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED BENEFITS CATEGORIES—Continued 

Category Effect of regulatory options 

Benefits analysis 

Quantified Monetized Qualitative 

discussion 

Market and Productivity Effects 

Changes in drinking water treatment costs Improved quality of source water used for drinking ...... .................... .................... ✓ 

Changes in wastewater treatment costs .... Reduced wastewater treatment costs at POTWs .......... .................... .................... ✓ 

Changes in the fees paid by MPP indirect 

dischargers to POTWs.

Reduced (concentration-based) fees paid to POTWs 

by MPP indirect dischargers for discharges of TN, 

TP, BOD, and TSS.

.................... .................... ✓ 

Livestock watering ...................................... Improved quality of surface waters used for livestock 

watering.

.................... .................... ✓ 

Changes in commercial fishing yields ........ Improved fisheries yield and harvest quality due to 

aquatic habitat changes.

✓ .................... ✓ 

Changes in subsistence harvesting yields Improved fisheries yield and harvest quality due to 

aquatic habitat changes; Reduced risk of consuming 

contaminated fish and shellfish.

.................... .................... ✓ 

Changes in tourism and participation in 

water recreation.

Changes in participation in water-based recreation, increases in visitation and purchases from supporting 

businesses.

.................... .................... ✓ 

Changes in property values ........................ Improved property values from changes in water quality..................... .................... ✓ 

Air Quality-Related Effects 

Changes in air emissions of PM2.5 ............. Changes in mortality and morbidity from exposure to 

particulate matter (PM2.5) emitted directly or linked 

to changes in NOX and SO2 emissions (precursors 

to PM2.5 and ozone).

✓ ✓ ✓ 

Changes in air emissions of NOX and SO2 Changes in ecosystem effects; visibility impairment; 

and human health effects from direct exposure to 

NOX, SO2, and hazardous air pollutants.

✓ ✓ ✓ 

Changes in air emissions of CO2 and CH4 Changes in climate change effects; Social cost of carbon and methane.✓ ✓ ✓ 

aThese values are implicit in the total WTP for water quality improvements. 

Source: Benefit Costs Analysis for Revisions to the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Point. 

USEPA. 2023. 

B. Quantification and Monetization of 

Benefits 

1. Human Health Effects From Surface 

Water Quality Changes 

Pollutants present in MPP wastewater 

discharges (e.g., pathogenic bacteria, 

nitrogen, and phosphorus) can cause a 

variety of adverse human health effects. 

The regulatory options affect human 

health risk by changing effluent 

discharges to surface waters and, as a 

result, reducing exposure to MPP 

pollutants in surface water via three 

exposure pathways: (1) Primary contact 

recreation in waters affected by MPP 

discharges, (2) consumption of drinking 

water sourced from surface waters 

affected by MPP discharges, and (3) 

consumption of shellfish taken from 

waters affected by MPP discharges. 

Due to data limitations and 

uncertainties, EPA was only able to 

monetize a subset of the health benefits 

associated with changes in pollutant 

discharges from MPP facilities resulting 

from the regulatory options in this 

proposal as compared to baseline. EPA 

anticipates monetizing benefits 

associated with a reduction in illness 

due to primary contact recreation for 

any final rule making. See the BCA, 

Chapter 3 and Appendix A for more 

details on the water quality index (WQI) 

used. 

2. Ecological Condition and 

Recreational Use Effects From Changes 

in Surface Water Quality Improvements 

EPA evaluated whether the regulatory 

options in this proposal would alter 

aquatic habitats and human welfare by 

changing concentrations of pollutants 

such as ammonia, nitrogen, phosphorus, 

BOD, DO, fecal coliform bacteria, 

chlorides, and suspended sediment 

relative to baseline. As a result, the 

usability of some recreational waters 

relative to baseline discharge conditions 

could improve under each option, 

thereby affecting recreational users. 

Changes in pollutant loadings can also 

change the attractiveness of recreational 

waters by making recreational trips 

more or less enjoyable. The regulatory 

options may also change nonuse values 

stemming from bequest, altruism, and 

existence motivations. Individuals may 

value water quality maintenance, 

ecosystem protection, and healthy 

species populations independent of any 

use of those attributes. 

EPA used a WQI to translate water 

quality measurements, gathered for 

multiple parameters that are indicative 

of various aspects of water quality, into 

a single numerical indicator that reflects 

achievement of quality consistent with 

the suitability for certain uses. The WQI 

included six parameters: DO, BOD, E. 

coli, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, 

and TSS. EPA modeled changes in all 

parameters, using modeled data for 

inputs for all parameters except E. coli, 

where monitoring data was used. 

Chapter 3 and Appendix A of the BCA 

discuss the WQI methodology in detail. 

EPA estimated the change in 

monetized benefit values using an 

updated version of the meta-regressions 

of surface water valuation studies used 

in the benefit analyses of the 2015 

(USEPA. 2015. EPA–821–R–15–005) 

and 2020 (USEPA. 2020. EPA–821–R– 

20–003) rules affecting the Steam 

Electric point source category. The 

meta-regressions quantify average 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

I I 
4510 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

39USEPA. 2023. Emissions & Generation 

Resource Integrated Database (eGRID). Retrieved 

from https://www.epa.gov/egrid. 

household willingness to pay (WTP) for 

incremental improvements in surface 

water quality. Chapter 4 and Appendix 

B of the BCA provides additional detail 

on the valuation methodology. 

Table XII–2 presents the main 

analysis results of WTP estimates, based 

on Model 1 of the meta regression 

analysis and using 3 percent and 7 

percent discount rates (USEPA. 2020. 

EPA–821–R–20–003). The total 

annualized values of water quality 

improvements from reducing nutrients, 

bacteria and pathogens, conventional 

pollutants, and other pollutants 

discharges from MPP facilities to 

affected HUC12s ranged from $0.52 

million under Option 1 (7 percent 

discount rate) to $33 million under 

Option 3 (3 percent discount rate). 

These results represent only a limited 

regional assessment of benefits and do 

not reflect national water quality 

benefits. See the Benefit Cost Analysis 

for a more detailed explanation. 

TABLE XII–2—ESTIMATED HOUSEHOLD AND TOTAL ANNUALIZED WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY FOR WATER QUALITY

IMPROVEMENTS UNDER THE REGULATORY OPTIONS MID-ATLANTIC REGION ONLY

[Note—Additional water quality modeling results and additional benefits to be completed week of October 23] 

Proposed regulatory option 

Affected 

population 

(millions) a

Average 

annual WTP 

per person 

(2022$) b

Total annualized WTP 

(millions 2022$) b c

3% Discount 

rate 

7% Discount 

rate 

Option 1 ........................................................................................................... 47.2 $0.01 $0.56 $0.52 

Option 2 ........................................................................................................... 47.2 0.39 18.4 17.4 

Option 3 ........................................................................................................... 47.2 0.70 33.0 31.1 

bEstimates based on Model 1, which provides EPA’s main estimate of non-market benefits. 

cEstimated benefits are regional-level rather than national-level since water quality modeling was limited to the Mid-Atlantic Region. 

Source: Benefit Cost Analysis for Revisions to the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Point 

Source Category. USEPA. 2023. B. 

3. Changes in Air Quality Related 

Effects 

The proposed rule has the potential to 

affect air pollution through three main 

mechanisms: (1) Indirect changes in 

CO2, NOX, SO2, and PM2.5 emissions 

associated with changes in electricity 

consumed to power wastewater 

treatment processes at MPP facilities 

and POTWs; (2) transportation-related 

air pollutant emissions (CO2, NOX, and 

SO2) due to changes in the trucking of 

solid waste for land application, 

landfilling, or composting; and (3) 

changes in direct process-related 

emissions or capture of methane (CH4) 

generated at MPP facilities and POTWs. 

EPA evaluated potential effects 

resulting from net changes in air 

emissions of five pollutants: CO2, CH4, 

NOX, SO2, and primary PM2.5. CO2 and 

CH4 are key GHGs that EPA has 

determined endanger public health and 

welfare through their contribution to 

climate change. NOX and SO2 are 

precursors to fine particles sized 2.5 

microns and smaller (PM2.5), which are 

also emitted directly, and NOX is an 

ozone precursor. These air pollutants 

cause a variety of adverse health effects 

including premature death, nonfatal 

heart attacks, hospital admissions, 

emergency department visits, upper and 

lower respiratory symptoms, acute 

bronchitis, aggravated asthma, lost work 

and school days, and acute respiratory 

symptoms. 

Table XII–3 of this preamble shows 

the changes in emissions of CO2, CH4, 

NOX, SO2, and primary PM2.5 under all 

proposed rule options relative to 

baseline. The proposed rule would 

result in a net increase in the emissions 

of CO2, CH4, NOX, and SO2 under 

preferred Option 1. Emissions of these 

pollutants increase incrementally under 

both Options 2 and 3, with the most 

notable changes estimated for methane, 

NOX, and CO2 emissions. These 

estimated increases in emissions are 

associated with changes in electricity 

consumption to power additional 

wastewater treatment processes; 

transportation-related air emissions due 

to changes in the trucking of solid waste 

for offsite land application, composting, 

and/or landfilling; and changes in direct 

process-related emissions. 

TABLE XII–3—ESTIMATED CHANGES IN AIR POLLUTION EMISSIONS UNDER THE PROPOSED RULE OPTIONS INCREMENTAL

INCREASE FROM BASELINE * 

Proposed regulatory option CO2

(tons/year) 

CH4

(tons/year) 

NOX

(tons/year) 

SO2

(tons/year) 

Option 1 ........................................................................................................... 27,560 2.25 17.85 16.60 

Option 2 ........................................................................................................... 100,890 8.30 63.26 61.21 

Option 3 ........................................................................................................... 145,030 11.89 90.18 88.21 

* Emissions are not additive between options. 

EPA followed the same methodology 

used in analyzing the revisions to the 

technology based ELGs for the steam 

electric generating point source category 

to monetize human health related 

impacts from changes in NOX, SO2, and 

PM2.5 emissions (USEPA. 2015. EPA– 

821–R–15–005). EPA used the 

Emissions & Generation Resource 

Integrated Database (eGRID) to estimate 

changes in the tons of NOX and SO2

emissions associated with changes in 

electricity consumed at MPP facilities 

and POTWs (USEPA. 2023).39 The 

eGRID database provides emission 

factors based on historical electricity 

generation (observed or estimated using 

2021 data). It is designed to be used to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4511 

estimate the emissions footprint of 

marginal changes in electricity 

consumption, assuming a constant 

generation mix. The Integrated Power 

Model (IPM) simulates future electricity 

generation (and associated emissions) to 

meet projected demand, given market, 

environmental, and other system 

constraints. Either approach can be used 

to estimate indirect emissions from 

electricity consumption. The eGRID 

database provides static emission 

factors, whereas the IPM can provide 

predicted changes in the profile of 

electricity generation. 

EPA’s use of EGRID values for the 

proposed rule analysis is conservative 

in that it would tend to overstate 

emissions associated with the increased 

power consumption to operate MPP 

wastewater treatment systems since 

emission factors are expected to decline 

in the coming decades (e.g., due to the 

2022 IRA). For the final rule, EPA plans 

to account for these changes by using 

future emission factors derived using 

EPA’s IPM model. EPA requests 

comment on using IPM results to 

estimate future emissions. 

4. Other Quantified and/or Monetized 

Benefits 

(a) Benefits to Threatened and 

Endangered Species 

To assess the potential for the rule to 

benefit threatened and endangered 

species (both aquatic and terrestrial) 

relative to the baseline, EPA analyzed 

the overlap between waters expected to 

see reductions in wildlife water quality 

criteria exceedance status under a 

particular option and the known critical 

habitat locations of high vulnerability 

threatened and endangered species. EPA 

examined the life history traits of 

potentially affected threatened and 

endangered species and categorized 

them by potential for population 

impacts due to surface water quality 

changes. Chapter 2 of the BCA and 

Chapter 4 of the EA provide additional 

detail on the methodology. EPA’s 

analysis showed that there are 113 

species whose known critical habitats 

overlap with surface waters downstream 

of facilities that may be affected by the 

proposed options. Of these species, 28 

were considered to be of lower 

vulnerability status, 5 were considered 

moderate vulnerable, and 78 were 

consider highly vulnerable. Principal 

sources of uncertainty include the 

specifics of how changes under the 

regulatory options will impact 

threatened and endangered species, 

exact spatial distribution of the species, 

and additional species of concern not 

considered. 

C. Total Monetized Benefits 

Using the analysis approach described 

above, EPA estimated annualized 

benefits of the three regulatory options 

for all monetized categories. Table XII– 

5 and Table XII–6 of this preamble 

summarize the total annualized benefits 

using 3 percent and 7 percent discount 

rates, respectively. The preferred option 

(Option 1) has monetized benefits 

estimated at $90 million using a three 

percent discount rate and $85 million 

using a seven percent discount rate. 

TABLE XII–5—SUMMARY OF TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED MONETIZED BENEFITS AT THREE PERCENT

[In millions, 2022$, at 2025] 

Benefit category a Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 

Human Health Effects from Water Quality Changes: 

Change in gastrointestinal illness rates from pathogen exposure.A ........................................ A ........................................ A. 

Ecological Conditions and Recreational Use Changes: 

Use and nonuse values for water quality improvements (for Mid-Atlantic Region only).$95.6 + B ........................... $166.1 + B ......................... $208.4 + B. 

Market and Productivity Effects: 

Changes in Drinking Water Treatment Costs .......... C ........................................ C ........................................ C. 

Air-Related Effects: 

Changes in CO2 and CH4 air emissions .................. ¥$1.9 ................................ ¥$7.0 ................................ ¥$10.1. 

Changes in human health effects from Changes in 

NOX and SO2 emissions.

¥$3.5 ................................ ¥$12.9 .............................. ¥$18.6. 

Total .................................................................. $90+A+B+C ....................... $146+A+B+C ..................... $180+A+B+C. 

a ‘‘A’’ represents unmonetized human health effects from water quality improvements. ‘‘B’’ represents the additional unquantified non-market 

water quality benefits. ‘‘C’’ represents the unmonetized market and productivity effects of improved water quality. 

TABLE XII–6—SUMMARY OF TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED MONETIZED BENEFITS AT SEVEN PERCENT

[In millions, 2022$, at 2025] 

Benefit ctegory a Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 

Human Health Effects from Water Quality Changes: 

Change in gastrointestinal illness rates from pathogen exposure.A ........................................ A ........................................ A. 

Ecological Conditions and Recreational Use Changes: 

Use and nonuse values for water quality improvements (for Mid-Atlantic Region only).$89.0 + B ........................... $154.4 + B ......................... $193.7 + B. 

Market and Productivity Effects: 

Changes in Drinking Water Treatment Costs .......... C ........................................ C ........................................ C. 

Air-Related Effects: 

Changes in CO2 and CH4 air emissions .................. ¥$1.9 ................................ ¥$7.0 ................................ ¥$10.1. 

Changes in human health effects from Changes in 

NOX and SO2 emissions.

¥$2.7 ................................ ¥$10.1 .............................. ¥$14.5. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
4512 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

40USEPA. 2016. Technical Guidance for 

Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory 

Analysis. https://www.epa.gov/environmental

justice/technical-guidance-assessingenvironmental-justice-regulatory-analysis. 

41Within 25 river miles. 

42Winders, D.J., & Abrell, E. 2021. 

Slaughterhouse Workers, Animals, and the 

Environment: The Need for a Rights-Centered 

Regulatory Framework in the United States That 

Recognizes Interconnected Interests. Health and 

Human Rights Journal. Vol. 23: No. 2. 

43Burkhart, K., Bernhardt, C., Pelton, T., 

Schaeffer, E., and Phillips, A. 2018. Water Pollution 

from Slaughterhouses. The Environmental Integrity 

Project. https://earthjustice.org/. 

44Environment America Center. 2020. 

Slaughterhouses Are Polluting Our Waterways. 

https://environmentamericacenter.org/sites/ 

environment/files/reports/Slaughterhouse%20

factsheet%20FINAL.pdf. 

45USEPA. March 2022. EJSCREENBatch. V2.0. 

Available online: https://github.com/USEPA/ 

EJSCREENBatch. 

TABLE XII–6—SUMMARY OF TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED MONETIZED BENEFITS AT SEVEN PERCENT—Continued 

[In millions, 2022$, at 2025] 

Benefit ctegory a Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 

Total .................................................................. $85+A+B+C ....................... $137+A+B+C ..................... $179+A+B+C. 

a ‘‘A’’ represents unmonetized human health effects from water quality improvements. ‘‘B’’ represents the additional unmonetized non-market 

water quality benefits. ‘‘C’’ represents the unmonetized market and productivity effects of improved water quality. 

D. Non-Monetized Benefits 

The monetary value of the proposed 

rule’s effects on social welfare does not 

account for all effects of the proposed 

options because, as described above, 

EPA is currently unable to quantify and/ 

or monetize some categories. EPA 

anticipates the proposed rule Options 

would also generate important 

unquantified benefits, including but not 

limited to: 

• Reduced incidence of adverse human 

health effects (e.g., developmental 

effects, gastrointestinal illness, 

cancer) from exposure to MPP 

pollutants via drinking water 

• Protection of threatened and 

endangered species 

• Reduction in wastewater treatment 

costs at some POTWs 

• Changes in fees paid by some MPP 

indirect discharges based on 

concentration of conventional 

pollutants 

• Improved quality of surface waters 

used for livestock watering 

• Changes in fisheries yield and harvest 

due to aquatic habitat changes, 

impacting subsistence fishing 

populations as well as commercial 

fishing operations 

• Changes in participation in waterbased recreation 

• Changes in property values from 

changes in water quality 

The BCA Report discusses changes in 

these potentially important effects 

qualitatively, indicating their potential 

magnitude where possible. EPA will 

continue to seek to enhance its 

approaches to quantify and/or monetize 

a broader set of benefits for any final 

rule and solicits comment on 

monetizing some of these additional 

benefits categories. 

XIII. Environmental Justice Impacts 

Consistent with EPA’s commitment to 

integrating environmental justice (EJ) in 

the Agency’s actions, the Agency 

analyzed the distribution of impacts of 

this action across all potentially affected 

communities and sought input from 

stakeholders representing communities 

with potential EJ concerns. EPA 

prepared this analysis to implement the 

recommendations of the Agency’s EJ 

Technical Guidance (USEPA. 2016).40

For this ELG rulemaking, this analysis 

was conducted as part of the EA 

alongside other non-statutorily required 

analyses, such as water quality 

improvements, with the discussion of 

quantified benefits to specific 

communities and community groups 

included in the BCA. This analysis is 

intended to inform the public of the 

distributional effects of this proposal 

and the input EPA received from 

communities with potential EJ concerns. 

E.O. 12898 and E.O. 14096 are 

discussed in Section XVI.J of this 

preamble. 

Overall, the analysis showed that 

communities near MPP facilities, 

surface waters downstream 41 of MPP 

wastewater discharge, those receiving 

drinking water from a potentially 

impacted service area, or potentially 

relying on subsistence fishing have 

greater proportions of low-income 

individuals and racial/ethnic minorities 

than the national average. Benefits 

associated with improvements to water 

quality resulting from pollutant 

reductions in surface water and 

drinking water are expected to accrue to 

low-income populations and some 

minorities at a marginally higher rate 

when compared to all impacted 

communities under all proposed 

regulatory options. 

A. Literature Review 

EPA conducted a literature review to 

identify studies, data, and research 

describing the environmental and 

human health impacts of MPP facilities 

on low-income individuals and racial/ 

ethnic minorities, focusing primarily on 

facility discharges of pollutants to 

water. EPA identified 21 papers 

published since 2005 that were relevant 

to this rule making. These sources 

suggested that MPP facilities are often 

located in rural areas with multiple 

large facilities in the same county or 

region, and that half of the communities 

surrounding slaughterhouses in the U.S. 

contain at least 30 percent of residents 

living below the poverty line, which is 

over twice the national average 

(Winders and Abrell. 2021) 42 (Burkhart 

et al. 2018).43 The review also 

highlighted the ecological and health 

impacts of pollutant contamination of 

surface waters from MPP wastewater, 

such as elevated nitrogen discharge 

contributing to algal bloom occurrence 

and causing methemoglobinemia, or 

blue baby syndrome, in infants 

consuming drinking water with high 

nitrate levels (Environment America 

Center. 2020).44 These findings suggest 

that wastewater discharge from MPP 

facilities differentially impacts various 

communities and population groups. 

EPA solicits comment on additional 

literature that discusses potential EJ 

concerns related to the specific changes 

being proposed to MPP wastewater 

discharges. For further discussion of the 

literature review, see Chapter 7 of the 

EA. 

B. Proximity Analyses 

EPA performed a set of proximity 

analyses using the EJSCREENBatch R 

package (USEPA. 2022) 45 to identify the 

environmental and socioeconomic 

characteristics of the communities that 

are expected to be impacted by 

discharges from MPP facilities via 

relevant exposure pathways. 

First, EPA analyzed communities 

located within a 1-mile radius of an 

MPP facility using facility coordinates. 

EPA found that communities within 1 

mile of an MPP facility have greater 

proportions of low-income individuals 

and individuals identifying as Asian, 

Black, and/or Hispanic than the national 

average. EPA also considered how these 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4513 

46Environmental indicator exposures were 

determined from raw indicator scores available in 

EJSCREEN V2.1. Each CBG score was population 

weighted before averaging across all communities. 

Environmental indicator score definitions are 

available in the EJSCREEN Technical 

Documentation (U.S. EPA. 2023. EJSCREEN 

Technical Documentation). 47EPA estimates that PM 2.5 will increase under 

Options 2 and 3 due to an increase in emissions 

from increased wastewater treatment. Diesel PM 

and traffic volume near facilities are predicted to 

rise as industrial sludge generation from treatment 

changes will increase under all proposed options, 

resulting in increased trucking for offsite land 

application. For further details on these estimates, 

refer to Section X of this document and the Section 

6 of the EA. 

48EPA defined downstream surface waterbodies 

as a segment 25 miles downstream of the initial 

common identifiers (COMIDs) identified for each 

direct discharge outfall. 

49SimpleLab, EPIC. 2022. U.S. Community Water 

Systems Service Boundaries, v2.4.0, HydroShare, 

http://www.hydroshare.org/resource/ 

20b908d73a784fc1a097a3b3f2b58bfb. 

50A recording of this meeting is available on the 

National Environmental Justice Community 

Engagement website through the ‘‘Previous Calls’’ 

link. 

51Studies of fishers’ behavior and practices have 

made similar observations (e.g., Sohngen, B., Zhang, 

W., Bruskotter, J., & Sheldon, B. 2015. Results from 

a 2014 Survey of Lake Erie Anglers. Columbus, OH: 

The Ohio State University, Department of 

Agricultural, Environmental and Development 

Economics and School of Environment & Natural 

Resources; Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant. 2018. Lake 

Michigan Anglers Boost Local Illinois and Indiana 

Economies.) 

communities’ exposure to relevant 

environmental indicators 46 of concern 

may change: PM 2.5, diesel PM, and 

traffic proximity.47 These indicators all 

exceeded the national average, with 

traffic proximity in these communities 

more than double that of the average 

person. 

Second, EPA examined the 

characteristics of communities located 

within a one-mile distance of a surface 

waterbody downstream of MPP 

facilities.48 EPA found that 

communities downstream of MPP 

wastewater outfalls are on average 

exposed to higher P.M 2.5 levels and 

have a heighted proximity to traffic 

compared to national averages. These 

communities also have greater 

proportions of low-income individuals 

compared to the national average. 

Lastly, EPA conducted an analysis of 

communities served by public water 

systems (PWSs) either with a source 

water intake within 25 miles 

downstream of an MPP wastewater 

outfall (direct PWS) or buying water 

from a direct PWS (buying PWS). 

Service areas were determined using a 

multi-tiered approach based on 

availability, first using service areas 

identified in the Hydroshare 

(SimpleLab, EPIC.2022),49 then 2022 

TIGER zip code tabulated areas, and 

finally county boundaries. Communities 

served by potentially impacted drinking 

water service areas have a greater 

proportion of individuals who identify 

as Black/African American when 

compared to the national average. This 

trend is most prominent in buying 

PWSs. 

For additional detail on the proximity 

analysis and drinking water service area 

methodologies, and further results of the 

screening analysis, please refer to 

Chapter 7 of the EA. 

C. Community Outreach 

Due to the large number of potential 

communities with EJ concerns who 

could be affected, as identified in the 

results of the screening analysis, EPA 

used a wide-reaching approach to 

community engagement to maximize 

awareness of the rulemaking and the 

potential impacts of proposed policy 

options. An overview of the rulemaking 

and its potential interest to communities 

was presented to the Office of 

Environmental Justice and External 

Civil Rights management team on May 

30, 2023 to increase national awareness 

of the proposed rulemaking. This team 

includes EJ National Program and 

Regional managers, who engage directly 

with communities across the country. 

EPA also presented a rulemaking 

overview and held a discussion session 

with participants of the National 

Environmental Justice Community 

Engagement Call on June 20th, 2023, 

which had over 200 attendees.50

D. Distribution of Benefits 

EPA evaluated the distribution of 

estimated benefits and costs of the 

proposed regulatory options across the 

affected population, with consideration 

of their distribution among communities 

with environmental justice concerns. 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) Circular A–4, which provides 

guidance to agencies on the 

development of regulatory analyses as 

required under E.O. 12866, states that 

regulatory analyses ‘‘should provide a 

separate description of distributional 

effects (i.e., how both benefits and costs 

are distributed among sub-populations 

of particular concern).’’ 

To determine how benefits from 

pollutant reductions in MPP wastewater 

may be distributed among communities 

with environmental justice concerns, 

EPA calculated the population-weighted 

averages of these groups for impacted 

drinking water service areas and 

communities potentially reliant on 

subsistence fishing from surface waters 

downstream of MPP wastewater 

outfalls. EPA then compared these 

community characteristics to the subset 

of these populations who are expected 

to benefit under each proposed 

regulatory option. 

1. Drinking Water Quality 

EPA estimated that 7,595,010 people 

receive drinking water from a Public 

Water System (PWS) that either directly 

intakes source water from a surface 

water potentially impacted by MPP 

wastewater (direct) or from a PWS that 

buys drinking water from a direct PWS 

(buying). The population of these 

service areas (SAs) receiving potentially 

impacted drinking water has greater 

proportions of individuals identifying as 

Black/African American than the 

national average. Under all proposed 

regulatory options, drinking water 

benefits from improved source water are 

expected to accrue at a higher rate to 

low-income and Black/African 

American individuals. For Options 1 

and 2, which impact the same direct 

discharging facilities and therefore the 

same service areas, 75.1 percent of the 

total receiving population would be 

impacted, 31.2 percent and 22.7 percent 

of which identify as low income and 

Black/African American, respectively. 

For Option 3, 82.7 percent of the total 

receiving population would be 

impacted, 30.5 percent and 22.1 percent 

of which identify as low income and 

Black/African American, respectively. 

For further discussion of changes in the 

distribution of drinking water benefits 

under proposed rule options, refer to 

section 3 of Chapter 7 of the EA. 

2. Fisher Population 

EPA estimated that 13,244,292 people 

live within a 50-mile distance of a 

downstream surface water potentially 

impacted by MPP wastewater.51 This 

population is representative of the 

group of people who may travel to these 

waterbodies for recreational or 

subsistence fishing opportunities. 

Communities in these areas have on 

average greater proportions of lowincome individuals than the national 

average. Under all regulatory options, 

benefits from improved fish habitat are 

expected to accrue at a higher rate to 

low-income individuals, although a 

greater number of individuals would 

potentially benefit under Option 3. See 

section 3 of Chapter 7 of the EA for a 

further discussion of these results. 

E. Results of the Analysis 

The results of EPA’s screening 

analyses found that communities near 

MPP facilities, downstream surface 

waters, and those using impacted 

surface waters have greater proportions 

of low-income and/or racial/ethnic 

minorities than the national average. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
4514 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

The results of EPA’s distributional 

analysis of impacts suggested that 

improvements in drinking water quality 

and to fishing areas will differentially 

accrue to minority and/or low-income 

populations under all proposed 

regulatory options. Remaining 

exposures, impacts, costs, and benefits 

analyzed are small enough that EPA 

could not conclude whether changes in 

differential impacts would occur. 

XIV. Development of Effluent 

Limitations and Standards 

This section describes the statistical 

methodology used to calculate the longterm averages (LTAs), variability factors, 

and limitations for BAT, BPT, new 

source performance standards and 

pretreatment standards for existing and 

new sources. EPA’s statistical 

methodology is well established and has 

been upheld by courts Chemical Mfrs. 

Assn. v. EPA, 877 F.2d 177, 211–12 (5th 

Cir. 1989). The methodology is based on 

LTA effluent values and variability 

factors that account for variation in 

treatment performance of the model 

technology. The LTAs, variability 

factors, and limitations were based upon 

pollutant concentrations collected from 

EPA sampling episodes, DMR data, data 

from State EPA offices, and data 

submitted by industry. 

The proposed ELGs, collectively 

referred to in the remainder of this 

section as ‘‘limitations,’’ for pollutants 

for each regulatory option, as presented 

in this preamble, are provided as ‘‘daily 

maximums’’ and ‘‘maximums for 

monthly averages.’’ Definitions 

provided in 40 CFR 122.2 state that the 

daily maximum limitation is the 

‘‘highest allowable ‘daily discharge,’ ’’ 

and the maximum for monthly average 

limitation is the ‘‘highest allowable 

average of ‘daily discharges’ over a 

calendar month, calculated as the sum 

of all ‘daily discharges’ measured during 

a calendar month divided by the 

number of ‘daily discharges’ measured 

during that month.’’ Daily discharges 

are defined to be the ‘discharge of a 

pollutant’ measured during a calendar 

day or any 24-hour period that 

reasonably represents the calendar day 

for purposes of sampling.’’ 

EPA first determines an average 

performance level (the ‘‘long-term 

average’’) that a facility with welldesigned and operated model 

technologies (which reflect the 

appropriate level of control) is capable 

of achieving. This LTA is calculated 

from the data from the facilities using 

the BPT, BCT, and BAT technologies for 

the regulatory option. EPA uses all 

values and a lognormal distribution to 

calculate the facility LTA, which is then 

used in calculations for both limitations. 

EPA expects that all facilities subject to 

the limitations will design and operate 

their treatment systems to achieve the 

LTA performance level on a consistent 

basis because facilities with welldesigned and operated BAT and BPT/ 

BCT technologies have demonstrated 

that this can be done. 

EPA then calculates the 99th 

percentile of daily measurements and 

the 95th percentile of monthly averages. 

The percentiles are chosen with the 

intention to accommodate reasonably 

anticipated variability within the 

control of the facility while also 

reflecting a level of performance 

consistent with the CWA requirement 

that these effluent limitations be based 

on the ‘‘best’’ available technologies. 

The daily maximum limitation is based 

on the 99th percentiles of the 

distribution of the daily measurements. 

The maximum monthly average 

limitation is based on the 95th 

percentile of the distribution of the 

monthly averages of the daily 

measurements and monthly averages. 

Using the LTA and the percentiles, EPA 

determines the daily and monthly 

‘‘variability factors’’ (VFs), which are 

allowances for the variation in pollutant 

concentrations when processed through 

well designed and operated treatment 

systems. The allowance for variance 

incorporates all components of 

variability including process and 

wastewater generation, sample 

collection, shipping, storage, and 

analytical variability. If a facility 

operates its treatment system to meet 

the relevant LTA, EPA expects the 

facility to be able to meet the 

limitations. VFs assure that normal 

fluctuations in a facility’s treatment are 

accounted for in the limitations. The 

daily VFs are calculated by dividing the 

99th percentile of daily measurements 

by the corresponding LTA. The monthly 

VFs are calculated by dividing the 95th 

percentile of monthly measurements by 

the corresponding LTA. 

EPA calculates LTAs and VFs for each 

facility with sufficient daily or monthly 

data. EPA then combines the LTAs and 

daily and monthly VFs across all 

facilities by calculating their median 

values. 

To calculate the limitations, the LTAs 

are multiplied by the corresponding 

VFs. This ensures the limitations 

account for these reasonable excursions 

above the LTA. EPA’s use of VFs results 

in limitations that are generally well 

above the actual LTA. For direct 

dischargers (BAT, BPT), EPA developed 

limits for total nitrogen, total 

phosphorus, E. coli, chlorides, and fecal 

coliform. For indirect dischargers 

(PSES, PSNS), EPA developed limits for 

oil and grease, BOD, TSS, total nitrogen, 

total phosphorus, and chlorides. 

A. Criteria Used To Select Data as the 

Basis for the Limitations and Standards 

In developing ELGs for any industry, 

EPA qualitatively reviews all the data 

before selecting data that represents 

proper operation of the technology that 

forms the basis for the limitations. EPA 

typically uses four criteria to assess the 

data. The first criterion requires that the 

facility have the BPT, BCT, or BAT 

treatment technology and demonstrate 

consistently diligent and optimal 

operation. Application of this criterion 

typically eliminates any facility with 

treatment other than the candidate 

technology. EPA generally determines 

whether a facility meets this criterion 

based upon site visits, discussions with 

facility management, and/or comparison 

to the characteristics, operation, and 

performance of treatment systems at 

other facilities. EPA often contacts 

facilities to determine whether data 

submitted were representative of normal 

operating conditions for the facility and 

equipment. As a result of this review, 

EPA typically excludes the data in 

developing the limitations when the 

facility has not optimized the 

performance of its treatment system to 

the degree that represents the 

appropriate level of control (e.g., BPT, 

BCT, or BAT). 

A second criterion generally requires 

that the influents and effluents from the 

treatment components represent typical 

wastewater from the industry, without 

incompatible wastewater from other 

sources. Application of this criterion 

results in EPA selecting those facilities 

where the commingled wastewaters did 

not result in substantial dilution, 

facilities without equalization where 

slug loads could result and cause 

frequent upsets and/or overloads, more 

concentrated wastewaters, or 

wastewaters with different types of 

pollutants than those generated by the 

waste stream for which EPA is 

proposing effluent limitations. 

A third criterion typically ensures 

that the pollutants are present in the 

influent at sufficient concentrations to 

evaluate treatment effectiveness. To 

evaluate whether the data meet this 

criterion for inclusion as a basis of the 

limitations, EPA often uses the longterm average test (or LTA test) for 

facilities where EPA possesses paired 

influent and effluent data (see section 

13 of the TDD for details of the LTA 

test). The test measures the influent 

concentrations to ensure a pollutant is 

present at a sufficient concentration to 

evaluate treatment effectiveness. If a 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4515 

dataset for a pollutant fails the test (i.e., 

pollutant not present at a treatable 

concentration), EPA excludes the data 

for that pollutant at that plant when 

calculating the limitations. 

A fourth criterion typically requires 

that the data are valid and appropriate 

for their intended use (e.g., the data 

must be analyzed with a sufficiently 

sensitive method). Also, EPA does not 

use data associated with periods of 

treatment upsets because these data 

would not reflect the performance from 

well-designed and well-operated 

treatment systems. In applying the 

fourth criterion, EPA may evaluate the 

pollutant concentrations, analytical 

methods and the associated quality 

control/quality assurance data, flow 

values, mass loading, plant logs, and 

other available information. As part of 

this evaluation, EPA reviews the process 

or treatment conditions that may have 

resulted in extreme values (high and 

low). As a consequence of this review, 

EPA may exclude data associated with 

certain time periods or other data 

outliers that reflect poor performance or 

analytical anomalies by an otherwise 

well-operated site. 

B. Data Selection for Each Technology 

EPA used specific data sources to 

derive limitations for pollutants for 

wastewater streams resulting from MPP 

process wastewater and high chlorides 

processes. The LTAs, VFs, and 

limitations for each waste stream were 

based on pollutant concentrations 

collected during EPA sampling 

episodes, DMR data, data provided by 

EPA Regions and State agencies, and 

data submitted by industry. EPA 

conducted six sampling episodes. 

Industry discharge data includes data 

submitted in the MPP Questionnaire, 

data submitted by facilities upon 

request, and publicly available 

discharge monitoring reports. 

EPA identified facilities that were 

operating the BAT technology for one or 

more of the proposed pollutants for 

regulation: total nitrogen, total 

phosphorus, E. coli, oil and grease, TSS, 

BOD, fecal coliforms. EPA calculated 

the BAT LTA for a given pollutant based 

on the facilities operating the BAT 

technology basis for that pollutant. 

Limitations may be based on 

technology transferred from a different 

subcategory within an industry or from 

another industrial category. Limitations 

based on transfer of technology must be 

supported by a conclusion that the 

technology is indeed transferable and a 

reasonable prediction that it will be 

capable of meeting the prescribed 

effluent limits (Tanners’ Council of 

America v. Train, 540 F.2nd 1188 (4th 

Cir. 1976)). 

For the proposed limitations, EPA 

combined data sets across all MPP 

processes to give a single limit per 

analyte for the industry. As the raw 

materials for MPP processes are 

animals/animal products, composed of 

carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus, EPA 

finds combining data from different 

MPP processes to be reasonable. 

Additionally, with the available data, 

EPA performed a comparison of influent 

from the different MPP processes and 

found the wastewater characteristics to 

be comparable. Therefore, EPA proposes 

to find that the combination is 

reasonable and solicits data to inform 

this analysis. 

Additional details on the data and 

methodology used to calculate the 

effluent limitations in today’s proposal 

can be found in TDD section 13. In 

addition, the proposed limitations for 

each level of control for the preferred 

Option 1 can be found in the proposed 

regulatory text following this preamble. 

In addition to the proposed 

limitations, as described earlier EPA is 

soliciting comment on including 

effluent limitations for E. coli in 

addition to, or in place of, limitations 

for fecal coliform for direct discharging 

facilities. Based on data available to 

EPA at the time of proposal, the 

monthly average limitation for E. coli 

would be 9 MPN or CFU per 100 mL 

(see the TDD for additional 

information). EPA solicits comment on 

this value as well as the data and 

methodology used to calculate the 

proposed effluent limitations in today’s 

proposal. EPA also solicits comment on 

including effluent limitations for 

chlorides, which are proposed as zerodischarge for high chlorides processes. 

In addition to general comments related 

to the calculation of proposed effluent 

limitations, EPA also solicits comment 

on combining data across subcategories 

in developing the proposed limitations. 

EPA also solicits additional daily and 

monthly data from facilities across the 

industry. 

XV. Regulatory Implementation 

A. Implementation of New Limitations 

and Standards 

ELGs act as a primary mechanism to 

control the discharge of pollutants to 

waters of the United States. This 

proposed rule would be applied to MPP 

wastewater discharges through 

incorporation into NPDES permits 

issued by the EPA or States under CWA 

section 402 (33 U.S.C. 1342) and 

through pretreatment program 

requirements under CWA section 307 

(33 U.S.C. 1317). 

The Agency has developed the 

limitations and standards for this 

proposed rule to control the discharge of 

pollutants from the MPP point source 

category. Once promulgated, those 

permits or control mechanisms issued 

after this rule’s effective date would be 

required to incorporate the effluent 

limitations guidelines and standards, as 

applicable. Also, under section 510 of 

the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1370), States may 

require effluent limitations under State 

law as long as they are no less stringent 

than the requirements of a final rule. 

Finally, in addition to requiring 

application of the technology-based 

ELGs promulgated in a final rule, CWA 

section 301(b)(1)(C) (33 U.S.C. 

1311(b)(1)(C)) requires the permitting 

authority to impose more stringent 

effluent limitations on discharges as 

necessary to meet applicable water 

quality standards. 

Categorical pretreatment standards for 

existing indirect dischargers, unlike 

effluent limitations guidelines 

applicable to direct dischargers, are 

directly enforceable and must specify a 

time for compliance not to exceed three 

years under CWA section 307(b)(1) (33 

U.S.C. 1317(b)(1)). Under EPA’s General 

Pretreatment Regulations for Existing 

and New Sources (40 CFR part 403), 

POTWs with flows in excess of 5 

million gallons per day (MGD) must 

develop pretreatment programs meeting 

prescribed conditions. These POTWs 

have the legal authority to require 

compliance with applicable 

pretreatment standards and control the 

introduction of pollutants to the POTW 

through permits, orders, or similar 

means. POTWs with approved 

pretreatment programs act as the control 

authorities for their industrial users. 

Among the responsibilities of the 

control authority are the development of 

the specific discharge limitations for the 

POTW’s industrial users. Because 

pollutant discharge limitations in 

categorical pretreatment standards may 

be expressed as concentrations or mass 

limitations, in many cases, the control 

authority must convert the pretreatment 

standards to limitations applicable to a 

specific industrial user and then include 

these in POTW permits or another 

control instrument. 

New source direct dischargers must 

comply with the new source 

performance standards (NSPS) of this 

rule when they commence discharging 

MPP process wastewater. CWA section 

306 (33 U.S.C. 1316) states that NSPS 

are effective upon promulgation. While 

arguably this language could mean that 

they are also enforceable upon 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
4516 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

promulgation, over the decades of CWA 

implementation, NSPS for direct 

dischargers have been implemented 

through NPDES permits. For facilities 

that are considered new sources, the 

CWA provides for a protection period 

from any more stringent technologybased standards. The protection period 

is generally 10 years from the 

completion of construction. See CWA 

section 306(d) (33 U.S.C. 1316(d) and 40 

CFR 122.29(d)). Thus, any source that 

commenced construction before 

promulgation of future NSPS will not be 

subject to any more stringent standard 

of performance until the protection 

period identified in 40 CFR 122.29(d) 

expires. 

Facilities that discharge wastewater 

from operations from more than one 

category may need to comply with 

limitations and standards from multiple 

subcategories. For these facilities, 

permit writers would use the ‘‘building 

block approach’’ based on production or 

wastewater discharge flow to combine 

the sets of limitations into one final 

effluent limitation in the facility’s 

permit. In cases where one part of the 

wastewater comes from operations with 

no national technology-based 

limitations, the permit writer must first 

establish BPJ limitations for this portion 

of the wastewater, and then combine 

these with any applicable national 

technology-based limitations using the 

building block approach. However, first 

processing subcategories (subcategories 

A, B, C, D, and K) are defined to include 

wastewater discharges from further 

processing and rendering operations at 

the same facility. These facilities will 

only be regulated by the relevant first 

processing subcategory or subcategories. 

In May 2000, EPA promulgated a 

regulation streamlining the NPDES 

regulations (Amendments to Streamline 

the National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System Program 

Regulations: Round Two. 65 FR 30886; 

May 15, 2000) which includes a 

monitoring waiver for direct dischargers 

subject to effluent guidelines. Direct 

discharge facilities may request a 

reduction in sampling a guidelinelimited pollutant if that discharger ‘‘has 

demonstrated through sampling and 

other technical factors that the pollutant 

is not present in the discharge or is 

present only at background levels from 

intake water and without any increase 

in the pollutant due to activities of the 

discharger’’ (65 FR 30908; 40 CFR 

122.44). EPA noted in the preamble to 

the final NPDES streamlining rule that 

the Agency is granting a waiver from 

monitoring requirements but not a 

waiver from the limit. In addition, the 

provision does not waive monitoring for 

any pollutants for which there are limits 

based on water quality standards. The 

waiver for direct dischargers lasts for 

the term of the NPDES permit and is not 

available during the term of the first 

permit issued to a discharger. Any 

request for this waiver must be 

submitted with the application for a 

reissued permit or a request for 

modification of a reissued permit. On 

receiving authorization from their 

NPDES permitting authority, direct 

discharge facilities covered by any 

effluent guidelines (including any final 

rule promulgated for this category) may 

use the monitoring waiver contained in 

the NPDES streamlining final rule. 

The CWA requires application of 

effluent limitations established pursuant 

to section 301 or the pretreatment 

standards of section 307 to all direct and 

indirect dischargers. However, the 

statute provides for the modification of 

these national requirements in a limited 

number of circumstances. The Agency 

has established administrative 

mechanisms to provide an opportunity 

for relief from the application of the 

national effluent limitations guidelines 

for categories of existing sources for 

toxic, conventional, and 

nonconventional pollutants. 

EPA may develop, with the 

concurrence of the State, effluent 

limitations or standards different from 

the otherwise applicable requirements 

for an individual existing discharger if 

it is fundamentally different with 

respect to factors considered in 

establishing the effluent limitations or 

standards applicable to the individual 

discharger. Such a modification is 

known as a Fundamentally Different 

Factor (FDF) variance. FDF variances 

are not available for new sources 

(DuPont v. Train, 430 U.S. 112 (1977)). 

EPA, in its initial implementation of 

the effluent guidelines program, 

provided for the FDF modifications in 

regulations, which were variances from 

the BPT effluent limitations, BAT 

limitations for toxic and 

nonconventional pollutants, and BCT 

limitations for conventional pollutants 

for direct dischargers. FDF variances for 

toxic pollutants were challenged 

judicially and ultimately sustained by 

the Supreme Court in Chemical 

Manufacturers Association v. Natural 

Resources Defense Council, 470 U.S. 

116, 124 (1985). 

Subsequently, in the Water Quality 

Act of 1987, Congress added a new 

section to the CWA—section 301(n) (33 

U.S.C. 1311(n)). This provision 

explicitly authorizes modifications of 

the otherwise applicable BAT effluent 

limitations, if a discharger is 

fundamentally different with respect to 

the factors specified in CWA section 304 

(other than cost) from those considered 

by EPA in establishing the effluent 

limitations. CWA section 301(n) also 

defined the conditions under which 

EPA may establish alternative 

requirements. Under section 301(n), an 

application for approval of a FDF 

variance must be based solely on (1) 

Information submitted during 

rulemaking raising the factors that are 

fundamentally different or (2) 

information the applicant did not have 

a reasonable opportunity to submit 

during the rulemaking. The alternate 

limitation must be no less stringent than 

justified by the difference and must not 

result in markedly more adverse nonwater quality environmental impacts 

than the national limitation. 

EPA regulations further detail the 

substantive criteria used to evaluate 

FDF variance requests for direct 

dischargers. 40 CFR 125.31(d) and 40 

CFR 403.13(d) identify six factors (e.g., 

volume of process wastewater, age and 

size of a discharger’s facility) that may 

be considered in determining if a 

discharger is fundamentally different. 

The Agency must determine whether, 

based on one or more of these factors, 

the discharger in question is 

fundamentally different from the 

dischargers and factors considered by 

EPA in developing the nationally 

applicable effluent guidelines. The 

regulation also lists four other factors 

(e.g., inability to install equipment 

within the time allowed or a 

discharger’s ability to pay) that may not 

provide a basis for an FDF variance. In 

addition, under 40 CFR 125.31(c), a 

request for limitations less stringent 

than the national limitation may be 

approved only if compliance with the 

national limitations would result in 

either (a) a removal cost wholly out of 

proportion to the removal cost 

considered during development of the 

national limitations, or (b) a non-water 

quality environmental impact 

(including energy requirements) 

fundamentally more adverse than the 

impact considered during development 

of the national limits. The legislative 

history of section 301(n) underscores 

the necessity for the FDF variance 

applicant to establish eligibility for the 

variance. EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 

125.32(b) and 403.13 impose this 

burden upon the applicant. The 

applicant must show that the factors 

relating to the discharge controlled by 

the applicant’s permit that are claimed 

to be fundamentally different are, in 

fact, fundamentally different from those 

factors considered by EPA in 

establishing the applicable guidelines. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4517 

52https://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/ 

OWM0469.pdf. 

In practice, very few FDF variances have 

been granted for past ELGs. 

CWA section 301(c) (33 U.S.C. 

1311(c)) authorizes a variance from the 

otherwise applicable BAT effluent 

guidelines for nonconventional 

pollutants due to economic factors. The 

request for a variance from effluent 

limitations developed from BAT 

guidelines must normally be filed by the 

discharger during the public notice 

period for the draft permit. 40 CFR 

122.21(m)(2) specifies that section 

301(c) variances must be filed within 

270 days of promulgation of an ELG. 

Specific guidance for this type of 

variance is provided in Draft Guidance 

for Application and Review of Section 

301(c) Variance Requests (USEPA. 

1984).52

CWA section 307(b)(1) (33 U.S.C. 

1317(b)) establishes a discretionary 

program for POTWs to grant ‘‘removal 

credits’’ to their indirect dischargers. 

Removal credits are a regulatory 

mechanism by which industrial users 

may discharge a pollutant in quantities 

that exceed what would otherwise be 

allowed under an applicable categorical 

pretreatment standard because it has 

been determined that the POTW to 

which the industrial user discharges 

consistently treats the pollutant. EPA 

has promulgated removal credit 

regulations as part of its pretreatment 

regulations (40 CFR 403.7). These 

regulations provide that a POTW may 

give removal credits if prescribed 

requirements are met. The POTW must 

apply to and receive authorization from 

the Approval Authority. To obtain 

authorization, the POTW must 

demonstrate consistent removal of the 

pollutant for which approval authority 

is sought. Furthermore, the POTW must 

have an approved pretreatment 

program. Finally, the POTW must 

demonstrate that granting removal 

credits will not cause the POTW to 

violate applicable federal, State, or local 

sewage sludge requirements or the 

POTW’s NPDES permit limits and 

conditions (40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)). 

The United States Court of Appeals 

for the Third Circuit interpreted the 

CWA as requiring EPA to promulgate 

the comprehensive sewage sludge 

regulations pursuant to CWA section 

405(d)(2)(A)(ii) (33 U.S.C. 

1345(d)(2)(A)(ii)) before any removal 

credits could be authorized (NRDC v. 

EPA, 790 F.2d 289, 292 (3d Cir., 1986); 

cert. denied., 479 U.S. 1084 (1987)). 

Congress made this explicit in the Water 

Quality Act of 1987, which provided 

that EPA could not authorize any 

removal credits until it issued the 

sewage sludge use and disposal 

regulations. On February 19, 1993, EPA 

promulgated Standards for the Use or 

Disposal of Sewage Sludge, which are 

codified at 40 CFR part 503. EPA 

interprets the Court’s decision in NRDC 

v. EPA as only allowing removal credits 

for a pollutant if EPA has either 

regulated the pollutant in Part 503 or 

established a concentration of the 

pollutant in sewage sludge below which 

public health and the environment are 

protected when sewage sludge is used 

or disposed. 

The 40 CFR part 503 sewage sludge 

regulations allow four options for 

sewage sludge disposal: (1) Land 

application for beneficial use, (2) 

placement on a surface disposal unit, (3) 

firing in a sewage sludge incinerator, 

and (4) disposal in a landfill which 

complies with the municipal solid 

waste landfill criteria in section 40 CFR 

503.4. Because pollutants in sewage 

sludge are regulated differently 

depending upon the use or disposal 

method selected, under EPA’s 

pretreatment regulations the availability 

of a removal credit for a particular 

pollutant is linked to the POTW’s 

method of using or disposing of its 

sewage sludge. The regulations provide 

that removal credits may be potentially 

available for the following pollutants: 

(1) If POTW applies its sewage sludge 

to the land for beneficial uses, disposes 

of it in a surface disposal unit, or 

incinerates it in a sewage sludge 

incinerator, removal credits may be 

available for the pollutants for which 

EPA has established limits in 40 CFR 

part 503. EPA has set ceiling limitations 

for nine metals in sludge that is land 

applied, three metals in sludge that is 

placed on a surface disposal unit, and 

seven metals and 57 organic pollutants 

in sludge that is incinerated in a sewage 

sludge incinerator. 

(2) Additional removal credits may be 

available for sewage sludge that is land 

applied, placed in a surface disposal 

unit, or incinerated in a sewage sludge 

incinerator, so long as the concentration 

of these pollutants in sludge do not 

exceed concentration levels established 

in Part 403, Appendix G, Table II. For 

sewage sludge that is land applied, 

removal credits may be available for an 

additional two metals and 14 organic 

pollutants. For sewage sludge that is 

placed on a surface disposal unit, 

removal credits may be available for an 

additional seven metals and 13 organic 

pollutants. For sewage sludge that is 

incinerated in a sewage sludge 

incinerator, removal credits may be 

available for three other metals (40 CFR 

403.7(a)(3)(iv)(B)). 

(3) When a POTW disposes of its 

sewage sludge in a municipal solid 

waste landfill that meets the criteria of 

40 CFR part 258, removal credits may be 

available for any pollutant in the 

POTW’s sewage sludge (40 CFR part 

403.7(a)(3)(iv)(C)). 

B. Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Requirements 

The proposed effluent limitations 

include pollutants not previously 

regulated in ELGs for direct and indirect 

MPP dischargers. NPDES permit writers 

and pretreatment control authorities 

must establish requirements for 

regulated MPP facilities to monitor their 

effluent to ensure that they are 

complying with the effluent limitations 

and pretreatment standards. As 

specified at 40 CFR 122.41, 122.44, and 

122.48, all NPDES permits must specify 

requirements for using, maintaining, 

and installing (if appropriate) 

monitoring equipment; monitoring type, 

intervals, and frequencies that will 

provide representative data; analytical 

methods; and reporting and 

recordkeeping. In addition, 40 CFR 

122.42 outlines additional conditions 

applicable to specified categories of 

NPDES permits. For example, during 

the NPDES permit cycle, POTWs must 

provide adequate notice to the 

permitting authority of any new 

introduction of pollutants into the 

POTW from an indirect discharger 

which otherwise would be subject to 

CWA section 301 or 306 if it were 

directly discharging those pollutants; 

any substantial change in the volume or 

character of pollutants being introduced 

into the POTW; and any anticipated 

impact to the POTW final discharge (40 

CFR 142.2(b)). 

The NPDES program requires 

permittees (with certain specific 

exceptions) to monitor for limited 

pollutants and report data at least once 

a year. 40 CFR 122.44(i)(2). Industrial 

users and POTWs have similar reporting 

requirements as specified at 40 CFR 

403.12. The general pretreatment 

regulations at 40 CFR part 403 require 

significant industrial users (which 

includes all industrial users subject to 

Categorical Pretreatment Standards, 

with certain specific exceptions) to 

monitor for limited pollutants and 

report data in June and December, 

unless required more frequently in the 

Pretreatment Standard or by the control 

authority or approval authority (40 CFR 

403.12(e)). POTW control authorities are 

also required by 40 CFR 403.8(f) to 

conduct annual inspections and 

sampling to independently assess 

compliance with standards. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
4518 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

EPA does not plan to promulgate 

specific monitoring requirements or 

monitoring frequencies in the MPP rule. 

Therefore, NPDES permit writers may 

establish monitoring requirements and 

monitoring frequencies at their 

discretion subject to the requirements of 

the NPDES regulations. Likewise, the 

control authority for indirect 

dischargers may establish monitoring 

requirements and monitoring 

frequencies at their discretion subject to 

the requirements of the pretreatment 

program regulations and in compliance 

with approved State and POTW 

program procedures. The Agency notes, 

however, that since the PRA requires it 

to estimate the incremental reporting 

and recordkeeping burden associated 

with any new regulation, in developing 

the proposed Part 432 limitations it 

considered a monthly sampling 

frequency for purposes of estimating 

this burden. EPA expects that facilities 

properly operating and maintaining the 

wastewater treatment technology system 

will be able to comply with the monthly 

average limitation/standard when they 

sample at the assumed monthly 

monitoring frequency, although 

compliance is required regardless of the 

number of samples analyzed and 

averaged in a month. EPA recommends 

that permitting authorities require 

monitoring samples at some regular, 

predetermined frequency. If a facility 

has difficulty complying with the 

standards on an ongoing basis, the 

facility should improve its equipment, 

operations, and/or maintenance. 

Facilities are required to use 

analytical methods specified in or 

approved under 40 CFR part 136 for 

compliance monitoring (40 CFR 

122.41(j)(4), 403.12(g)(3)). Of note, Part 

136 requires facilities to collect grab 

samples for oil & grease. In developing 

the Part 432 oil & grease limitations, 

EPA generally collected six grab 

samples in a 24-hour monitoring day. 

For pH, sample types can range from a 

one-time grab sample during a 

monitoring day to continuous sampling 

throughout a monitoring day where pH 

is a critical aspect of the wastewater 

treated or the wastewater treatment 

operation. 

C. Applicability of PSNS/NSPS 

Requirements 

In 2004, EPA promulgated NSPS/ 

PSNS for certain discharges from new 

units. Regardless of the outcome of the 

current rulemaking, those units that are 

currently subject to the 2004 NSPS/ 

PSNS will continue to be subject to such 

standards. In addition, EPA is proposing 

to clarify in the text of the regulation 

that, assuming the Agency promulgates 

BAT/PSES requirements as part of the 

current rulemaking, units to which the 

2004 NSPS/PSNS apply will also be 

subject to any newly promulgated BAT/ 

PSES requirements because they will be 

existing sources with respect to such 

new requirements. 

XVI. Related Acts of Congress, E.O’s 

and Agency Initiatives 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory 

Review 

This action is a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’, as defined under section 3(f)(1) 

of E.O. 12866, as amended by E.O. 

14094. Accordingly, EPA submitted this 

action to OMB for E.O. 12866 review. 

Documentation of any changes made in 

response to the E.O. 12866 review is 

available in the docket. The EPA 

prepared an analysis of the potential 

costs and benefits associated with this 

action. This analysis, ‘‘Benefit and Cost 

Analysis for Proposed Effluent 

Limitations Guidelines and Standards 

for the Meat and Poultry Products Point 

Source Category’’ EPA 821–R–23–013, is 

also available in the docket and is 

briefly summarized in Section VIII. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection activities 

in this proposed rule have been 

submitted for approval to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the PRA. The Information Collection 

Request (ICR) document that the EPA 

prepared has been assigned EPA ICR 

number 2701.02. You can find a copy of 

the ICR in the docket for this rule, and 

it is briefly summarized here. 

This Information Collection Request 

(ICR) seeks approval of the information 

requirements in the Proposed Rule for 

the Effluent Guidelines and Standards 

for the Meat and Poultry Products (MPP) 

Category. EPA is proposing revisions to 

Best Available Technology 

Economically Achievable (BAT), as well 

as new Pretreatment Standards for 

Existing Sources (PSES) and 

Pretreatment Standards for New Sources 

(PSNS) under the Clean Water Act 

(CWA) for MPP facilities. Under the 

proposed BAT, certain MPP facilities 

that discharge wastewater directly to 

waters of the U.S. would be required to 

monitor for additional pollutants, such 

as phosphorus. Under the proposed 

PSES/PSNS, certain MPP facilities that 

discharge wastewater into publicly 

owned treatment works (POTWs) would 

be required to control the discharge of 

conventional pollutants. The proposed 

rule would require all affected direct 

discharging MPP facilities to meet limits 

for nitrogen, and phosphorus before 

discharging wastewater to surface 

waters. These facilities are already 

required to monitor for nitrogen. The 

proposed rule would require all affected 

indirect MPP facilities to meet limits for 

biological oxygen demand (BOD), oil 

and grease, and total suspended solids 

(TSS) before discharging wastewater to 

POTWs through the use of wastewater 

treatment technologies and Best 

Management Practices (BMPs). 

The users of the data would be MPP 

facilities, State and local regulatory 

authorities, EPA, and, perhaps most 

importantly, the general public. 

Specifically for indirect dischargers, the 

users of the data would be MPP 

facilities and their Control Authorities. 

By establishing categorical pretreatment 

standards for the MPP category in 40 

CFR part 432, MPP dischargers to 

POTWs would become subject to certain 

reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 

403. These include a requirement to 

submit a baseline monitoring report, 90- 

day compliance report and on-going 

monitoring and reporting requirements 

including results of discharge sampling. 

Reports submitted to the Permitting or 

Control Authority may contain 

confidential business information. 

However, EPA does not consider the 

specific information being requested by 

the rule to be typical of confidential 

business or personal information. If a 

respondent does consider this 

information to be of a confidential 

nature, the respondent may request that 

such information be treated as such. All 

confidential data will be handled in 

accordance with 40 CFR 122.7, 40 CFR 

part 2, and EPA’s Security Manual Part 

III, Chapter 9, dated August 9, 1976. 

Respondents/affected entities: Entities 

affected by this information collection 

request are Meat and Poultry Products 

facilities and Control Authorities. 

The Meat and Poultry Products (MPP) 

point source category includes facilities 

‘‘engaged in the slaughtering, dressing 

and packing of meat and poultry 

products for human consumption and/ 

or animal food and feeds. Meat and 

poultry products for human 

consumption include meat and poultry 

from cattle, hogs, sheep, chickens, 

turkeys, ducks and other fowl as well as 

sausages, luncheon meats and cured, 

smoked or canned or other prepared 

meat and poultry products from 

purchased carcasses and other 

materials. Meat and poultry products for 

animal food and feeds include animal 

oils, meat meal and facilities that render 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4519 

grease and tallow from animal fat, bones 

and meat scraps’’ (See 40 CFR 432.1). 

Control Authorities have regulatory 

oversight for pollutant discharges to 

POTWs. The ‘‘Control Authority’’ refers 

to the POTW if the POTW has an 

approved pretreatment program, or the 

Approval Authority if it has not been 

approved, which may be the State or 

EPA. By establishing categorical 

pretreatment standards for the MPP 

category, control authorities would be 

subject to certain oversight requirements 

in 40 CFR part 403. 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: 

Mandatory (40 CFR 122.41, 122.44 and 

122.48, and 40 CFR parts 403 and 432.) 

Estimated number of respondents: 

485 meat and poultry product facilities 

and 360 control authorities 

Frequency of response: EPA is 

assuming a one-time burden per facility 

to develop baseline and 90-day 

compliance reports and review 

production as well as monthly data 

reporting. 

Total estimated burden: 15,133 hours 

(per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 

1320.3(b). 

Total estimated cost: $2,981,260 (per 

year), includes $1,339,530 annualized 

capital or operation & maintenance 

costs. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

Submit your comments on the 

Agency’s need for this information, the 

accuracy of the provided burden 

estimates and any suggested methods 

for minimizing respondent burden to 

the EPA using the docket identified at 

the beginning of this rule. The EPA will 

respond to any ICR-related comments in 

the final rule. You may also send your 

ICR-related comments to OMB’s Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

using the interface at www.reginfo.gov/ 

public/do/PRAMain. Find this 

particular information collection by 

selecting ‘‘Currently under Review— 

Open for Public Comments’’ or by using 

the search function. OMB must receive 

comments no later than February 22, 

2024. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. The small entities 

subject to the requirements of this 

action are meat and poultry products 

facilities that engage in meat and/or 

poultry slaughter, further processing, 

and/or rendering. The proposed rule 

would not affect any current small 

governmental jurisdictions or not-forprofit organizations. Only facilities that 

exceed the subcategory-specific 

production thresholds would be subject 

to this rule. The Agency has determined 

that under the proposed Option 1, of the 

estimated 3,233 small businesses that 

own MPP facilities, 96 small entities 

may experience an impact. Of the 96 

potentially regulated small entities, no 

entities are estimated to incur 

annualized post-tax compliance costs 

greater than 3 percent of revenues; only 

one entity is estimated to incur 

compliance costs between 1 to 3 percent 

of revenues; 95 small entities are 

estimated to incur compliance costs of 

less than 1 percent of revenues. Under 

the most stringent option (Option 3), 

263 small entities may experience an 

impact: 4 entities are estimated to incur 

costs greater than 3 percent of revenues, 

11 entities between 1 to 3 percent, and 

248 less than 1 percent. These results 

are summarized in Table XVI–2, below 

(same as Table VIII–12). Details of this 

analysis are presented in Section VIII 

and the RIA found in the docket. 

TABLE XVI–2—SMALL FIRM-LEVEL CTR SCREENING ANALYSIS RESULTS

Entity type Total # of 

small firms 

Number small firms with a ratio of Percent of small firms with a ratio of 

0% a >0 and <1% ≥1 and <3% ≥3% 0% a >0 and <1% ≥1 and <3% ≥3% 

Option 1 ..................................... 3,233 3,137 95 1 0 97 3 0.0 0.0 

Option 2 ..................................... 3,233 3,137 94 1 1 97 3 0.0 0.0 

Option 3 ..................................... 3,233 2,970 248 11 4 92 8 0.0 0.0 

aThese entities own only facilities that already meet discharge requirements for the wastestreams addressed by a given regulatory option and are therefore not estimated to incur any compliance technology costs. 

Although this proposed rule would 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to 

reduce the impact of this proposed rule 

on small entities. The proposed rule 

includes subcategory-specific 

production thresholds that would have 

less stringent effluent limitations for 

smaller production facilities. Facilities 

under certain production thresholds 

may have no national effluent 

limitations. 

Although not required by the RFA to 

convene a Small Business Advocacy 

Review (SBAR) Panel because the EPA 

has now determined that this proposal 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities, the EPA originally convened a 

panel to obtain advice and 

recommendations from small entity 

representatives potentially subject to 

this rule’s requirements. The 5 panel 

recommendations are briefly 

summarized here, and a copy of the 

SBAR Panel Report is included in the 

docket for this rulemaking (USEPA. 

2023. DCN MP00347). The Panel 

recommended EPA: (1) Exclude small 

and very small firms from regulation 

and take public comment on production 

thresholds so as not to cause substantial 

economic hardship on small entities; (2) 

Set regulations based on wastewater 

flows as an alternative to production 

thresholds; (3) Consider and take 

comment on a longer or flexible 

timeline for small entities to meet 

proposed regulations; (4) Consider and 

take comment on conditional limits for 

MPP facilities that discharge to POTWs 

that already have nitrogen and 

phosphorus treatment capabilities 

equivalent to the proposed rule in place; 

(5) Publish compliance guides to help 

facilities determine rule applicability 

and requirements and to take comment 

on what information would be 

beneficial for small entities. 

Although not required by the RFA, 

the EPA prepared an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis (IRFA) that examines 

the impact of the proposed rule on small 

entities along with regulatory 

alternatives that could minimize that 

impact. The IRFA describes why this 

action is being considered, the 

objectives and legal basis for the 

proposed rule, the small entities to 

which the proposed rule applies, the 

compliance requirements, other relevant 

Federal rules, potential economic 

impacts on small entities, how 

regulatory options developed by EPA 

served to mitigate the impact of the 

regulatory options on small entities, and 

uncertainties and limitations. The 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

I I I I I I I I 
4520 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

53SIUs are defined as Industrial Users subject to 

Categorical Pretreatment Standards, or those that: 

discharge an average of 25,000 gallons per day or 

more of process wastewater to the POTW 

(excluding sanitary, noncontact cooling and boiler 

blowdown wastewater); contributes a process waste 

stream which makes up 5 percent or more of the 

average dry weather hydraulic or organic capacity 

of the POTW Treatment plant; or is designated as 

such by the Control Authority on the basis that the 

Industrial User has a reasonable potential for 

adversely affecting the POTW’s operation or for 

violating any Pretreatment Standard. See 40 CFR 

403.3 for details. 

54Within 5 miles. 

55Within 50 miles of a 25-mile reach downstream 

of an MPP wastewater outfall. 

complete IRFA is available for review in 

the docket. 

In accordance with RFA requirements 

and as it has consistently done in 

developing effluent limitations 

guidelines and standards, EPA 

subsequently assessed whether the 

proposed regulatory options would have 

‘‘a significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities’’ (SISNOSE). 

EPA performed this assessment for each 

of the proposed options and as 

described above certified no SISNOSE. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains a federal 

mandate under UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538, that may result in expenditures of 

$100 million or more for State, local and 

Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

the private sector in any one year. 

Accordingly, the EPA has prepared a 

written statement required under 

section 202 of UMRA. The statement is 

included in the docket for this action 

and briefly summarized here. 

An industrial user (IU) is a 

nondomestic source of indirect 

discharge into a POTW, and in this rule 

is the meat and poultry products facility 

discharger. The Control Authority may 

be the POTW, the State, or EPA, 

depending on whether the POTW or the 

State is approved by EPA to administer 

the pretreatment program. The Control 

Authority is the POTW in cases where 

the POTW has an approved 

pretreatment program. The Control 

Authority is the State, where the POTW 

has not been approved to administer the 

pretreatment program, but the State has 

been approved. The Control Authority is 

EPA where neither the POTW nor the 

State have been approved to administer 

the pretreatment program. The Approval 

Authority is the State (Director) in an 

NPDES authorized State with an 

approved pretreatment program, the 

EPA regional administrator in a nonNPDES authorized State, or NPDES 

State without an approved State 

pretreatment program. 

Typically, an IU is responsible for 

demonstrating compliance with 

pretreatment standards by performing 

self-monitoring, submitting reports and 

notifications to its Control Authority, 

and maintaining records of activities 

associated with its discharge to the 

POTW. The Control Authority is the 

regulating authority responsible for 

implementing and enforcing 

pretreatment standards. The General 

Pretreatment Regulations require certain 

minimum oversight of IUs by Control 

Authorities. The required minimum 

oversight includes receipt and analysis 

of reports and notifications submitted 

by IUs, random sampling and analyzing 

effluent from IUs, and conducting 

surveillance activities to identify 

occasional and continuing 

noncompliance with pretreatment 

standards. The Control Authority is also 

responsible for taking enforcement 

action as necessary. 

For IUs that are designated as 

Significant Industrial Users (SIUs),53

Control Authorities must inspect and 

sample the SIU effluent annually, 

review the need for a slug control plan, 

and issue a permit or equivalent control 

mechanism. IUs subject to categorical 

pretreatment standards are referred to as 

Categorical Industrial Users (CIUs) and 

General Pretreatment Regulations define 

SIU to include CIUs. 

The Approval Authority is 

responsible for ensuring that POTWs 

comply with all applicable pretreatment 

program requirements. Among other 

things, the Approval Authority receives 

annual pretreatment reports from the 

Control Authority. These reports must 

identify which IUs are CIUs. In 

accordance with 40 CFR 122.44(j)(1) all 

POTWs are required to ‘‘identify, in 

terms of character and volume of 

pollutants, any SIU’’ and include them 

on their NPDES Application form, 

122.21(j)(6). Approved POTW Control 

Authorities have legal authority and 

procedures to identify and control such 

IUs (40 CFR 403.8(f)(1) & (2)). Therefore, 

this proposed MPP rule requires little 

extra burden on Control Authorities to 

identify the subset of SIUs that are 

subject to categorical pretreatment 

standards and to apply the requirements 

to them. 

This action is not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

E. E.O. 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. E.O. 13175: Consultation and 

Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have Tribal 

implications as specified in E.O. 13175. 

It would not have substantial direct 

effects on Tribal governments, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

Government and the Indian Tribes, or 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian Tribes as 

specified in E.O. 13175. EPA is not 

aware of any facility subject to these 

proposed ELGs that is owned by Tribal 

governments. Thus, E.O. 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

Consistent with the EPA Policy on 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribes, EPA consulted with 

Tribal officials during the development 

of this action. EPA initiated 

consultation and coordination with 

federally recognized Tribal governments 

in January 2023. EPA shared 

information about the Meat and Poultry 

Products effluent guidelines rulemaking 

(MPP ELG) with all federally recognized 

Tribes by sending a letter and detailed 

plan describing the rulemaking, the 

potential impact to Tribes, and 

opportunities for Tribal involvement. 

EPA performed a proximity-based 

screening analysis to determine which 

Tribes and Tribal lands are the most 

likely to be impacted by MPP industrial 

activity and/or changes to the MPP ELG. 

Tribes that were identified as being in 

proximity 54 to either 10 or more MPP 

facilities or a waterbody potentially 

impacted by MPP wastewater 

discharge,55 were notified of these 

screening results to promote awareness. 

EPA continued this government-togovernment dialogue by hosting two 

identical listening sessions as webinars 

on February 6th and 13th, 2023, where 

Tribal representatives were invited to 

participate in further discussions about 

the rulemaking process and objectives, 

with a focus on identifying specific 

ways the rulemaking may affect Tribes. 

The consultation process ended on 

March 10th, 2023. No Tribal 

governments requested direct 

government-to-government 

consultations, and EPA received no 

written comments from any Tribes. 

G. E.O. 13045: Protection of Children 

From Environmental Health Risks and 

Safety Risks 

E.O. 13045 directs federal agencies to 

include an evaluation of the health and 

safety effects of the planned regulation 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4521 

56Fears, Darryl. April 13, 2021. A Poultry Plant, 

Years of Groundwater Contamination And, Finally, 

A Court Settlement. The Washington Post. 

57Leah Baskin-Graves, Haley Mullen, Aaron 

Aber, Jair Sinisterra, Kamran Ayub, Roxana AmayaFuentes, and Sacoby Wilson. 2019. Rapid Health 

Impact Assessment of A Proposed Poultry 

Processing Plant in Millsboro, Delaware. 

International Journal of Environmental Research 

and Public Health, Vol. 16, Issue 3429. 

58U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2021. 

Electric Power Annual Report. www.eia.gov/ 

electricity/annual. 

59Winders, D.J., & Abrell, E. 2021. 

Slaughterhouse Workers, Animals, and the 

Environment: The Need for a Rights-Centered 

Regulatory Framework in the United States That 

Recognizes Interconnected Interests. Health and 

Human Rights Journal. Vol. 23: No. 2. 

60Burkhart, K., Bernhardt, C., Pelton, T., 

Schaeffer, E., and Phillips, A. 2018. Water Pollution 

from Slaughterhouses. The Environmental Integrity 

Project. https://earthjustice.org/. 

61Hall, J., Galarraga, J., Berman, I., Edwards, C., 

Khanjar, N., Kavi, L., Murray, R., Burwell-Naney, 

K., Jiang, C., & Wilson, S. 2021. Environmental 

injustice and industrial chicken farming in 

Maryland. International Journal of Environmental 

Research and Public Health, 18(21). https://doi.org/ 

10.3390/ijerph182111039. 

62The national average of people identifying as 

Asian, Black, and/or Hispanic are 5.6, 12.2, and 

18.4 percent, respectively, and is 29.8 percent for 

individuals considered to be of low-income status. 

(ACS 2017–2021). 

63Within 25 river miles of an MPP process 

wastewater outfall. 

64National averages are derived from the fiveyear 2017–2021 American Community Survey. 

on children in federal health and safety 

standards and explain why the 

regulation is preferable to potentially 

effective and reasonably feasible 

alternatives. This action is not subject to 

E.O. 13045 because the EPA does not 

believe the environmental health risks 

or safety risks addressed by this action 

present a disproportionate risk to 

children. 

EPA reviewed epidemiological 

studies to determine whether exposures 

to pollutants in MPP wastewater are 

associated with disproportionate health 

risks among children. EPA identified 

evidence of disproportionate health 

risks among children from exposure to 

nitrates, which can result from the 

discharge of nitrogen from MPP 

facilities. Research has shown an 

association between exposure to nitrates 

in drinking water and increased 

incidence of birth defects and 

methemoglobinemia (‘‘blue baby 

syndrome’’) in children (Fears. 2021),56

(Baskin-) 57 EPA analyzed changes in 

total nitrogen (TN) loadings from MPP 

facilities under the proposed regulation 

and found that the regulatory options all 

result in estimated reductions relative to 

the baseline in TN loadings into 

downstream receiving waters. 

Additionally, compared to the baseline, 

EPA found that modeled regulatory 

Option 3 resulted in reductions in 

average nitrate concentrations in all 

three case study watersheds. This result 

suggests that nitrate levels will decrease 

in source waters for intakes of drinking 

water systems downstream of MPP 

wastewater discharge. While reducing 

nitrogen species in source water may 

reduce the amount and cost of treatment 

needed, EPA does not anticipate 

changes in nitrate and nitrite 

concentrations in drinking water. This 

is because public water systems must 

meet the maximum contaminant level 

(MCL) in water for nitrates and nitrite 

(10 mg/L and 1 mg/L, respectively). 

These MCLs are equal to the Maximum 

Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) and 

were specifically based on levels 

considered low enough to protect 

infants from methemoglobinemia. The 

risk to children in households whose 

water supply comes from public water 

systems is therefore low. Because of this 

as well as data limitations, EPA did not 

quantify resulting changes in birth 

defects and methemoglobinemia but 

expects children to benefit from a 

reduced risk of these health impacts 

from lower nitrogen concentrations in 

source waters. 

Nutrient concentrations in private 

well water may be impacted by any 

increase in land application of sludges 

expected to occur under proposed rule 

options. Because land application 

locations and frequencies change over 

time, EPA was not able to estimate 

potential impacts of this rulemaking on 

private well water quality, and therefore 

the health of children in affected 

households. Taken together, it is 

underdetermined how children may be 

impacted under the implementation of 

this rule. 

H. E.O. 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a significant energy 

action under E.O. 13211, because it is 

not likely to have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution or use 

of energy. As discussed in Section X, 

EPA estimates that compliance with this 

proposed rule would create a small 

increase in nationwide energy 

consumption for MPP facilities. EPA 

estimates an approximate increase of 

104,208 MWh per year for wastewater 

treatment. By comparison, electric 

power generation facilities generated 

4,108 billion megawatt hours of electric 

power in the United States in 2021 (EIA. 

2021).58 Additional energy requirements 

for EPA’s selected options are 

acceptable (i.e., significantly less than 

0.001 percent of national requirements). 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 

J. E.O. 12898: Federal Actions To 

Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations; Executive Order 14096 

Revitalizing Our Nation’s Commitment 

to Environmental Justice for All 

The EPA believes that the human 

health or environmental conditions that 

exist prior to this action result in or 

have the potential to result in 

disproportionate and adverse human 

health or environmental effects on 

communities with environmental justice 

(EJ) concerns. Literature on the MPP 

industry showed that facilities are 

commonly (Winders and Abrell. 

2021) 59 in rural areas, often with 

multiple large facilities located in the 

same county (Burkhart et al. 2018).60

Exposure to pollutants released by 

facilities through air, water, and solid 

waste (Baskin-Graves et al. 2019) cause 

health effects in communities near or 

downstream of facilities (Hall et al. 

2021) 61 near MPP facilities have been 

documented to have greater proportions 

of vulnerable population groups and 

potential exposures to environmental 

stressors than the average community. 

The results of EPA’s proximity analysis 

support this finding. EPA determined 

that Census block groups (CBGs) located 

within one mile of an MPP facility had 

larger proportions of people identifying 

as Asian, Black, and or Hispanic, and 

more low-income individuals than the 

national average.62 Relevant indicators 

of pollution exposures expected to be 

impacted under proposed rule options 

(PM2.5, diesel PM, and traffic proximity) 

also exceeded the 50th percentile 

nationally on average for these 

communities. EPA also assessed 

community demographics along 

downstream receiving waters 63 of MPP 

facilities and areas served by public 

drinking water systems sourcing water 

from receiving waters. These analyses 

showed that CBGs served by impacted 

drinking water systems have greater 

proportions of Black/African American 

people than the national average, while 

CBGs within one mile of a downstream 

receiving waters have a larger 

proportion of low-income individuals 

than the national average.64 EPA 

believes that this action is likely to 

reduce existing disproportionate and 

adverse effects on communities with 

environmental justice concerns. Under 

all proposed regulatory options, the 

extent of MPP discharge impacts on 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
4522 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

drinking water sources decreases 

compared to the baseline, therefore 

reducing impacts to these drinking 

water distribution systems and the 

people served by them. The drinking 

water systems predicted to have 

improved intake water quality under the 

regulatory options evaluated serve an 

increasing fraction of the population 

identifying as Black/African American 

relative to baseline under preferred 

option 1 and option 2, but a decreasing 

fraction under option 3. However, this 

percentage exceeds the national average 

under all options. Additionally, lowincome individuals differentially benefit 

from improved drinking water resources 

under all regulatory options evaluated. 

When considering other analyses, such 

as the distribution of impacts to 

communities fishing in downstream 

receiving waters, the regulatory options 

do not create disproportionate or 

adverse effects relative to the baseline. 

For information regarding the 

distribution of anticipated benefits and 

a discussion of outreach and public 

engagement efforts, refer to Section XIII 

of this preamble. The information 

supporting this Executive Order review 

is contained in section 7 of the 

Environmental Assessment document, 

which is available in the public docket. 

Appendix A to the Preamble: 

Definitions, Acronyms, and 

Abbreviations Used in This Preamble 

The following acronyms, abbreviations, 

and terms are used in this preamble. These 

terms are provided for convenience to the 

reader, and they are not regulatory 

definitions with the force or effect of law, nor 

are they to be used as guidance for 

implementation of this proposed rule. 

Administrator. The Administrator of the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Agency. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

BAT. Best Available Technology 

economically achievable, as defined by CWA 

sections 301(b)(2)(A) and 304(b)(2)(B). 

BCA. Benefit Cost Analysis. 

BCT. The best control technology for 

conventional pollutants, applicable to 

discharges of conventional pollutants from 

existing industrial point sources, as defined 

by section 304(b)(4) of the CWA. 

Bioaccumulation. General term describing 

a process by which chemicals are taken up 

by an organism either directly from exposure 

to a contaminated medium or by 

consumption of food containing the 

chemical, resulting in a net accumulation of 

the chemical over time by the organism. 

BMP. Best management practice. 

BOD5. Biological oxygen demand measured 

over a five-day period. 

BPJ. Best Professional Judgement. 

BPT. The best practicable control 

technology currently available, as defined by 

CWA sections 301(b)(1) and 304(b)(1). 

CBI. Confidential business information. 

CFR. Code of Federal Regulations. 

CWA. Clean Water Act; The Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 

(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), as amended, e.g., by 

the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 95–217) 

and the Water Quality Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 

100–4). 

CWA Section 308 Questionnaire. A 

questionnaire sent to facilities under the 

authority of section 308 of the CWA, which 

requests information to be used in the 

development of national effluent limitations 

guidelines and standards. 

Conventional Pollutants. Section 304(a)(4) 

designates the following as conventional 

pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand, total 

suspended solids, fecal coliform, and pH, 

and any additional pollutants defined by the 

Administrator. The Administrator designated 

oil & grease as an additional conventional 

pollutant on July 30, 1979. 40 CFR 401.16. 

DAF. Dissolved Air Flotation. 

Daily Discharge. The discharge of a 

pollutant measured during any calendar day 

or any 24-hour period that reasonably 

represents a calendar day. 

Denitrification. Nitrite and nitrate are 

reduced by heterotrophic bacteria into 

nitrogen gas in anaerobic conditions. 

Direct discharge. (1) Any addition of any 

‘‘pollutant’’ or combination of pollutants to 

‘‘waters of the United States’’ from any 

‘‘point source’’ or (2) any addition of any 

pollutant or combination of pollutant to 

waters of the ‘‘contiguous zone’’ or the ocean 

from any point source other than a vessel or 

other floating craft that is being used as a 

means of transportation. This definition 

includes additions of pollutants into waters 

of the United States from surface runoff that 

is collected or channeled by man; discharges 

through pipes, sewers, or other conveyances 

owned by a State, municipality, or other 

person that do not lead to a treatment works; 

and discharges through pipes, sewers, or 

other conveyances that lead into privately 

owned treatment works. This term does not 

include addition of pollutants by any 

‘‘indirect discharger.’’ 40 CFR 122.2. 

DMR. Discharge Monitoring Report 

Effluent limitation. Under CWA section 

502(11), any restriction, including schedules 

of compliance, established by a State or the 

Administrator on quantities, rates, and 

concentrations of chemical, physical, 

biological, and other constituents that are 

discharged from point sources into navigable 

waters, the waters of the contiguous zone, or 

the ocean. 

EJA. Environmental Justice Analysis 

ELGs. Effluent limitations guidelines and 

standards. 

E.O. Executive Order. 

EPA. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

Existing Source. For this rule, any source 

that is not a new source as defined in 40 CFR 

122.2. 

Facility. Any NPDES ‘‘point source’’ or any 

other facility or activity (including land or 

appurtenances thereto) that is subject to 

regulation under the CWA. 

Finished Product. The final manufactured 

product produced on site, including products 

intended for consumption with no additional 

processing as well as products intended for 

further processing, when applicable. 

First Processing. Operations which receive 

live meat animals or poultry and produce a 

raw, dressed meat or poultry product, either 

whole or in parts. 

FTE. Full Time Equivalent Employee 

Further Processing. Operations which 

utilize whole carcasses or cut-up meat or 

poultry products for the production of fresh 

or frozen products, and may include the 

following types of processing: cutting and 

deboning, cooking, seasoning, smoking, 

canning, grinding, chopping, dicing, forming 

or breading. 

Groundwater. Water that is found in the 

saturated part of the ground underneath the 

land surface. 

Hazardous Waste. Any waste, including 

wastewater, defined as hazardous under 

RCRA, CERCLA, TSCA, or any State law. 

HEM. A measure of oil & grease in 

wastewater by mixing the wastewater with 

hexane and measuring the oils and greases 

that are removed from the wastewater with 

n-hexane. Specifically, EPA Method 1664, 

see, Table IB. 

Indirect discharge. Wastewater discharged 

or otherwise introduced to a POTW. 

Landfill. A disposal facility or part of a 

facility or plant where solid waste, sludges, 

or other process residuals are placed in or on 

any natural or manmade formation in the 

earth for disposal and which is not a storage 

pile, a land treatment facility, a surface 

impoundment, an underground injection 

well, a salt dome or salt bed formation, an 

underground mine, a cave, or a corrective 

action management unit. 

LTA (Long-Term Average). For purposes of 

the effluent guidelines, average pollutant 

levels achieved over a period of time by a 

facility, subcategory, or technology option. 

LTAs were used in developing the effluent 

limitations guidelines and standards in 

today’s proposed regulation. 

Live Weight Killed (LWK). The total weight 

of the total number of animals slaughtered 

during a specific time period. 

Maximum Monthly Discharge Limitation. 

The highest allowable average of ‘‘daily 

discharges’’ over a calendar month, 

calculated as the sum of all ‘‘daily 

discharges’’ measured during the calendar 

month divided by the number of ‘‘daily 

discharges’’ measured during the month. 

Meat. The term ‘‘meat’’ includes all animal 

products from cattle, calves, hogs, sheep, 

lambs, horses, goats and exotic livestock (e.g., 

elk, buffalo, deer) etc., except those defined 

as Poultry for human consumption. This 

category may include certain species not 

classified as ‘‘meat’’ by USDA FSIS and that 

may or may not be under USDA FSIS 

voluntary inspection. 

MPP. Meat and Poultry Products. 

Minimum Level. The level at which an 

analytical system gives recognizable signals 

and an acceptable calibration point. 

Mortality. Death rate or proportion of 

deaths in a population. 

NAICS. North American Industry 

Classification System. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4523 

Non-Conventional Pollutants. Pollutants 

that are neither conventional pollutants nor 

toxic/priority pollutants. 

Non-Water Quality Environmental Impact. 

Deleterious aspects of control and treatment 

technologies applicable to point source 

category wastes, including, but not limited to 

air pollution, noise, radiation, sludge and 

solid waste generation, and energy used. 

NPDES. National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System. 

NSPSs. New Source Performance 

Standards. 

Outfall. The mouth of conduit drains and 

other conduits from which a facility effluent 

discharges into receiving waters. 

Point source. Any discernible, confined, 

and discrete conveyance, including but not 

limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, 

conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, 

rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding 

operation, vessel, or other floating craft from 

which pollutants are or may be discharged. 

The term does not include agricultural 

stormwater discharges or return flows from 

irrigated agriculture. See CWA section 

502(14), 33 U.S.C. 1362(14); 40 CFR 122.2. 

Pollutants of Concern (POCs). Pollutants 

commonly found in meat and poultry 

processing wastewaters. Generally, a 

chemical is considered as a POC if it was 

detected in untreated process wastewater at 

5 times a baseline value in more than 10% 

of the samples. 

Poultry. Broilers, other young chickens, 

hens, fowl, mature chickens, turkeys, capons, 

geese, ducks, exotic poultry (e.g., ostriches), 

and small game such as quail, pheasants, and 

rabbits. This category may include species 

not classified as ‘‘poultry’’ by USDA FSIS 

and that may or may not be under USDA 

FSIS voluntary inspection. 

POTW. Publicly owned treatment works. 

Any device or system owned by a State or 

municipality that is used in the treatment 

(including recycling and reclamation) of 

municipal sewage or industrial wastes of a 

liquid nature. These include sewers, pipes, or 

other conveyances only if they convey 

wastewater to a POTW providing treatment. 

See CWA section 212, 33 U.S.C. 1292; 40 

CFR 122.2, and 403.3. 

Priority Pollutant. One hundred twenty-six 

compounds that are a subset of the 65 toxic 

pollutants and classes of pollutants outlined 

pursuant to section 307(a) of the CWA. They 

are listed at 40 CFR part 423 Appx A. 

PSES. Pretreatment Standards for existing 

sources of indirect discharges, under section 

307(b) of the CWA. 

PSNS. Pretreatment standards for new 

sources under section 307(c) of the CWA. 

Raw Material. The basic input materials to 

a renderer composed of animal and poultry 

trimmings, bones, meat scraps, dead animals, 

feathers and related usable by-products. 

RCRA. The Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. 

RO. Reverse osmosis. 

RFA. Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

SBA. Small Business Administration. 

SBR. Sequencing batch reactor. 

SBREFA. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. 

Sediment. Particulate matter lying below 

water. 

SER. Small Entity Representative. 

SIC. Standard Industrial Classification 

(SIC)—A numerical categorization system 

used by the U.S. Department of Commerce to 

catalogue economic activity. SIC codes refer 

to the products, or group of products, 

produced or distributed, or to services 

rendered by an operating establishment. SIC 

codes are used to group establishments by 

the economic activities in which they are 

engaged. SIC codes often denote a facility’s 

primary, secondary, tertiary, etc. economic 

activities. 

Surface water. All waters of the United 

States, including rivers, streams, lakes, 

reservoirs, and seas. 

TKN. Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen. 

Total Nitrogen. Sum of nitrate/nitrite and 

TKN. 

Toxic pollutants. As identified under the 

CWA, 65 pollutants and classes of pollutants, 

see 40 CFR 401.15, of which 126 specific 

substances have been designated priority 

toxic pollutants. See Appendix A to 40 CFR 

part 423. 

TSS. Total suspended solids. 

UMRA. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

USDA. United States Department of 

Agriculture. 

UV. Ultra-violet light. 

Variability factor. Calculated from the 

concentration data from the facilities using 

the BAT technologies that incorporates all 

components of variability including process 

and wastewater generation, sample 

collection, shipping, storage, and analytical 

variability. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 432 

Environmental protection; Meat and 

meat products; Poultry and poultry 

products; Waste treatment and disposal; 

Water pollution control. 

Michael S. Regan, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Environmental Protection 

Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR part 

432 as follows: 

PART 432—MEAT AND POULTRY 

PRODUCTS POINT SOURCE 

CATEGORY 

■ 1. The authority for part 432 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 

1317, 1318, 1342 and 1361. 

■ 2. Amend § 432.2 by: 

■ a. Removing paragraph (d). 

■ b. Redesignating paragraph (c) as (d) 

and adding new paragraph (c). 

■ c. Adding paragraphs (l)(7), (m), (n) 

and (o). 

The additions read as follows: 

§ 432.2 General definitions. 

* * * * * 

(c) E. coli means the bacterial count, 

as determined by approved methods of 

analysis for Parameter 4 in Table 1A in 

40 CFR 136.3. 

(d) Fecal coliform means the bacterial 

count, as determined by approved 

methods of analysis for Parameter 1 in 

Table 1A in 40 CFR 136.3. 

* * * * * 

(l)(7) Total Phosphorus means the 

total of particulate and soluble 

phosphorus 

(m) The term nitrification means 

oxidation of ammonium salts to nitrites 

(via Nitrosomas bacteria) and the further 

oxidation of nitrite to nitrate via 

Nitrobacter bacteria. 

(n) The term denitrification means the 

microbial process of reducing nitrate 

and nitrite to gaseous nitrous oxide, and 

nitrogen gas. 

(o) The term phosphorus removal 

means removal of particulate and 

soluble phosphorus by biological uptake 

and solids settling and removal. 

Subpart A [Amended] 

■ 3. Amend § 432.12(a)(1) by revising 

the table ‘‘Effluent Limitations [BPT]’’ to 

read as follows: 

§ 432.12 Effluent limitations attainable by 

the application of the best practicable 

control technology currently available 

(BPT). 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (a)—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

[BPT] 

Regulated parameter Maximum 

daily 1

Maximum 

monthly avg.1

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 0.24 0.12 

Fecal Coliform .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 50 2 22 

O&G 3 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0.12 0.06 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
4524 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (a)—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS—Continued 

[BPT] 

Regulated parameter Maximum 

daily 1

Maximum 

monthly avg.1

TSS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 0.40 0.20 

1Pounds per 1,000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK. 

2 MPN or CFU per 100 mL. 

3 May be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM). 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Amend § 432.13 by revising the 

table ‘‘Effluent Limitations [BAT]’’ to 

read as follows: 

§ 432.13 Effluent limitations attainable by 

the application of the best available 

technology economically achievable (BAT). 

* * * * * 

TABLE 1 TO § 432.13—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

[BAT] 

Regulated parameter Maximum 

daily 1

Maximum 

monthly avg.1

Ammonia (as N) ....................................................................................................................................................... 8.0 4.0 

Total Nitrogen .......................................................................................................................................................... 20 12 

Total Phosphorus ..................................................................................................................................................... 1.5 0.8 

E. Coli ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2 14 2 9 

1 mg/L (ppm). 

2 MPN or CFU per 100 mL. 

■ 5. Revise § 432.14 to read as follows: 

§ 432.14 Pretreatment standards for 

existing sources (PSES). 

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 

and 403.13, any existing source subject 

to this subpart that slaughters more than 

50 million pounds per year (in units of 

LWK) that introduces pollutants into a 

publicly owned treatment works must 

comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must 

achieve the following pretreatment 

standards for existing sources (PSES): 

TABLE 1 TO § 432.14—PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES

[PSES] 

Regulated parameter Maximum 

daily 1

Maximum 

monthly avg.1

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1,945 1,323 

TSS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,578 925 

Oil and grease ......................................................................................................................................................... 1,635 1,393 

1 mg/L. 

■ 6. Amend § 432.15 by revising the 

introductory text and paragraph (b)(1), 

and removing paragraph (c) to read as 

follows: 

§ 432.15 New source performance 

standards (NSPS). 

Facilities subject to the 2004 new 

source performance standards in 

§§ 432.15 of this part continue to be 

subject to those standards. These 2004 

new sources are also subject to revised 

BPT and BAT effluent limitations 

specified in § 432.12 and 432.13 of this 

part (for direct dischargers) or the 

revised pretreatment standards specified 

in § 432.14 of this part (for indirect 

dischargers). Except as provided in 

paragraph (c) of this section, any source 

that is a new source subject to this 

subpart must achieve the following 

performance standards: 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) In the case of process wastewater 

associated with the slaughtering of 

animals on-site or the processing of the 

carcasses of animals slaughtered on-site, 

the standards for BOD5, fecal coliform, 

O&G, and TSS are the same as the 

limitations specified in § 432.12(a)(1) 

and the standards for ammonia (as N) 

total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and E. 

coli are as follows: 

TABLE 5 TO PARAGRAPH (b)(1)—PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

[NSPS] 

Regulated parameter Maximum 

daily 1

Maximum 

monthly avg.1

Ammonia (as N) ....................................................................................................................................................... 8.0 4.0 

Total Nitrogen .......................................................................................................................................................... 20 12 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4525 

TABLE 5 TO PARAGRAPH (b)(1)—PERFORMANCE STANDARDS—Continued 

[NSPS] 

Regulated parameter Maximum 

daily 1

Maximum 

monthly avg.1

Total Phosphorus ..................................................................................................................................................... 1.5 0.8 

E. Coli ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2 14 2 9 

1 mg/L (ppm). 

2 MPN or CFU per 100 mL. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Revise § 432.16 to read as follows: 

§ 432.16 Pretreatment standards for new 

sources (PSNS). 

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 

and 403.13, any existing source subject 

to this subpart that slaughters more than 

50 million pounds per year (in units of 

LWK) that introduces pollutants into a 

publicly owned treatment works must 

comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must 

achieve the following pretreatment 

standards for existing sources (PSNS): 

TABLE 1 TO § 432.16—PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES

[PSNS] 

Regulated parameter Maximum 

daily 1

Maximum 

monthly avg.1

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1,945 1,323 

TSS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,578 925 

Oil and grease ......................................................................................................................................................... 1635 1393 

1 mg/L. 

Subpart B [Amended] 

■ 8. Amend § 432.22 (a)(1) by revising 

the table ‘‘Effluent Limitations [BPT] 

table to read as follows: 

§ 432.22 Effluent limitations attainable by 

the application of the best practicable 

control technology currently available 

(BPT). 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (a)(1)—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

[BPT] 

Regulated parameter Maximum 

daily 1

Maximum 

monthly avg.1

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 0.42 0.21 

Fecal Coliform .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 50 2 22 

O&G 3 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0.16 0.08 

TSS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 0.50 0.25 

1Pounds per 1,000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK. 

2 MPN or CFU per 100 mL. 

3 May be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM). 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Revise § 432.23 to read as follows: 

§ 432.23 Effluent limitations attainable by 

the application of the best available 

technology economically achievable (BAT). 

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 

through 125.32, any existing point 

source subject to this subpart that 

slaughters more than 50 million pounds 

per year (in units of LWK) must achieve 

the following effluent limitations 

representing the application of BAT: 

Limitations for ammonia (as N), total 

phosphorus, E. coli, and total nitrogen 

are the same as specified in § 432.13. 

■ 10. Revise § 432.24 to read as follows: 

§ 432.24 Pretreatment standards for 

existing sources (PSES). 

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 

and 403.13, any existing source subject 

to this subpart that slaughters more than 

50 million pounds per year (in units of 

LWK) that introduces pollutants into a 

publicly owned treatment works must 

comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must 

achieve the following pretreatment 

standards for existing sources (PSES): 

Limitations for BOD5, TSS, oil and 

grease are the same as specified in 

§ 432.14. 

■ 11. Amend § 432.25 by revising the 

introductory text and paragraph (b)(1), 

and removing paragraph (c). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 432.25 New source performance 

standards (NSPS). 

Facilities subject to the 2004 new 

source performance standards in this 

section continue to be subject to those 

standards. These 2004 new sources are 

also subject to revised BPT and BAT 

effluent limitations specified in 

§§ 432.22 and 432.23 (for direct 

dischargers) or the revised pretreatment 

standards specified in § 432.24 (for 

indirect dischargers). Except as 

provided in paragraph (c) of this 

section, any source that is a new source 

subject to this subpart must achieve the 

following performance standards: 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
4526 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

(1) In the case of process wastewater 

associated with the slaughtering of 

animals on-site or the processing of the 

carcasses of animals slaughtered on-site, 

the standards for BOD5, fecal coliform, 

O&G, and TSS are the same as the 

corresponding limitations specified in 

§ 432.22(a)(1) and the standards for 

ammonia (as N), total phosphorus, E. 

coli, and total nitrogen are the same as 

the limitations specified in 

§ 432.15(b)(1). 

* * * * * 

■ 12. Revise § 432.26 to read as follows: 

§ 432.26 Pretreatment standards for new 

sources (PSNS). 

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 

and 403.13, any existing source subject 

to this subpart that slaughters more than 

50 million pounds per year (in units of 

LWK) that introduces pollutants into a 

publicly owned treatment works must 

comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must 

achieve the following pretreatment 

standards for existing sources (PSES): 

Limitations for BOD5, TSS, oil and 

grease are the same as specified in 

§ 432.16. 

Subpart C [Amended] 

■ 13. Amend § 432.32 (a)(1) by revising 

the table ‘‘Effluent Limitations [BPT]’’ to 

read as follows: 

§ 432.32 Effluent limitations attainable by 

the application of the best practicable 

control technology currently available 

(BPT). 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (a)(1)—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

[BPT] 

Regulated parameter Maximum 

daily 1

Maximum 

monthly avg.1

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 0.34 0.17 

Fecal Coliform .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 50 2 22 

O&G 3 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0.16 0.08 

TSS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 0.48 0.24 

1Pounds per 1,000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK. 

2 MPN or CFU per 100 mL. 

3 May be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM). 

* * * * * 

■ 14. Revise § 432.33 to read as follows: 

§ 432.33 Effluent limitations attainable by 

the application of the best available 

technology economically achievable (BAT). 

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 

through 125.32, any existing point 

source subject to this subpart that 

slaughters more than 50 million pounds 

per year (in units of LWK) must achieve 

the following effluent limitations 

representing the application of BAT: the 

limitations for ammonia (as N), total 

phosphorus, E. coli, and total nitrogen 

are the same as specified in § 432.13. 

■ 15. Revise § 432.34 to read as follows: 

§ 432.34 Pretreatment standards for 

existing sources (PSES). 

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 

and 403.13, any existing source subject 

to this subpart that slaughters more than 

50 million pounds per year (in units of 

LWK) that introduces pollutants into a 

publicly owned treatment works must 

comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must 

achieve the following pretreatment 

standards for existing sources (PSES): 

Limitations for BOD5, TSS, oil and 

grease are the same as specified in 

§ 432.14. 

■ 16. Amend § 432.35 by revising the 

introductory text and paragraph (b)(1), 

and removing paragraph (c) to read as 

follow: 

§ 432.35 New source performance 

standards (NSPS). 

Facilities subject to the 2004 new 

source performance standards in 

§§ 432.35 of this part continue to be 

subject to those standards. These 2004 

new sources are also subject to revised 

BPT and BAT effluent limitations 

specified in §§ 432.32 and 432.33 (for 

direct dischargers) or the revised 

pretreatment standards specified in 

§ 432.34 (for indirect dischargers). 

Except as provided in paragraph (c) of 

this section, any source that is a new 

source subject to this subpart must 

achieve the following performance 

standards: 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) In the case of process wastewater 

associated with the slaughtering of 

animals on-site or the processing of the 

carcasses of animals slaughtered on-site, 

the standards for BOD5, fecal coliform, 

TSS, and O&G are the same as the 

corresponding limitations specified in 

§ 432.32(a)(1) and the standards for 

ammonia (as N), total phosphorus, E. 

coli, and total nitrogen are the same as 

the limitations specified in 

§ 432.15(b)(1). 

* * * * * 

■ 17. Revise § 432.36 to read as follows: 

§ 432.36 Pretreatment standards for new 

sources (PSNS). 

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 

and 403.13, any existing source subject 

to this subpart that slaughters more than 

50 million pounds per year (in units of 

LWK) that introduces pollutants into a 

publicly owned treatment works must 

comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must 

achieve the following pretreatment 

standards for existing sources (PSES): 

Limitations for BOD5, TSS, oil and 

grease are the same as specified in 

§ 432.16. 

■ 18. Amend § 432.42 (a)(1) by revising 

the table ‘‘Effluent Limitations [BPT]’’ to 

read as follows: 

§ 432.42 Effluent limitations attainable by 

the application of the best practicable 

control technology currently available 

(BPT). 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4527 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (a)(1)—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

[BPT] 

Regulated parameter Maximum 

daily 1

Maximum 

monthly avg.1

BOD5 2 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 0.48 0.24 

Fecal Coliform .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 50 3 22 

O&G 4 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0.26 0.13 

TSS2 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 0.62 0.31 

1Pounds per 1,000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK. 

2The values for BOD5 and TSS are for average plants, i.e., plants where the ratio of avg. wt. of processed meat products/avg. LWK is 0.55. 

Adjustments can be made for high-processing packinghouses operating at other such ratios according to the following equations: lbs BOD5/ 

1,000 lbs LWK = 0.21 + 0.23 (v¥0.4) and lbs TSS/1,000 lbs LWK = 0.28 + 0.3 (v¥0.4), where v equals the following ratio: lbs processed meat 

products/lbs LWK. 3 MPN or CFU per 100 mL. 

4 May be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM). 

* * * * * 

■ 19. Revise § 432.43 to read as follows: 

§ 432.43 Effluent limitations attainable by 

the application of the best available 

technology economically achievable (BAT). 

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 

through 125.32, any existing point 

source subject to this subpart that 

slaughters more than 50 million pounds 

per year (in units of LWK) must achieve 

the following effluent limitations 

representing the application of BAT: 

Limitations for ammonia (as N), total 

phosphorus, E. coli, and total nitrogen 

are the same as specified in § 432.13. 

■ 20. Revise § 432.44 to read as follows: 

§ 432.44 Pretreatment standards for 

existing sources (PSES). 

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 

and 403.13, any existing source subject 

to this subpart that slaughters more than 

50 million pounds per year (in units of 

LWK) that introduces pollutants into a 

publicly owned treatment works must 

comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must 

achieve the following pretreatment 

standards for existing sources (PSES): 

Limitations for BOD5, TSS, oil and 

grease are the same as specified in 

§ 432.14. 

■ 21. Amend § 432.45 by revising the 

introductory text and paragraph (b)(1), 

and removing paragraph (c) to read as 

follows: 

§ 432.45 New source performance 

standards (NSPS). 

Facilities subject to the 2004 new 

source performance standards in 

§§ 432.45 of this part continue to be 

subject to those standards. These 2004 

new sources are also subject to revised 

BPT and BAT effluent limitations 

specified in § 432.42 and 432.43 of this 

part (for direct dischargers) or the 

revised pretreatment standards specified 

in § 432.44 of this part (for indirect 

dischargers Except as provided in 

paragraph (c) of this section, any source 

that is a new source subject to this 

subpart must achieve the following 

performance standards: 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) In the case of process wastewater 

associated with the slaughtering of 

animals on-site or the processing of the 

carcasses of animals slaughtered on-site, 

the standards for BOD5, fecal coliform, 

O&G, and TSS are the same as the 

corresponding limitations specified in 

§ 432.22(a)(1) and the standards for 

ammonia (as N), total phosphorus, E. 

coli, and total nitrogen are the same as 

the limitations specified in 

§ 432.15(b)(1). 

* * * * * 

■ 22. Revise § 432.46 to read as follows: 

§ 432.46 Pretreatment standards for new 

sources (PSNS). 

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 

and 403.13, any existing source subject 

to this subpart that slaughters more than 

50 million pounds per year (in units of 

LWK) that introduces pollutants into a 

publicly owned treatment works must 

comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must 

achieve the following pretreatment 

standards for existing sources (PSES): 

Limitations for BOD5, TSS, oil and 

grease are the same as specified in 

§ 432.16. 

Subpart F [Amended] 

■ 23. Amend § 432.62 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 432.62 Effluent limitations attainable by 

the application of the best practicable 

control technology currently available 

(BPT). 

* * * * * 

(b) Facilities that generate more than 

50 million pounds per year of finished 

products must achieve the following 

effluent limitations: 

TABLE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (b)—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

[BPT] 

Regulated parameter Maximum 

daily 1

Maximum 

monthly avg.1

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 0.036 0.018 

Fecal Coliform .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 50 2 22 

O&G 3 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0.012 0.006 

TSS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 0.044 0.022 

1Pounds per 1,000 lbs (or g/kg) of finished product. 

2 MPN or CFU per 100 mL. 

3 May be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
4528 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

* * * * * 

■ 24. Amend § 432.63 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 432.63 Effluent limitations attainable by 

the application of the best available 

technology economically achievable (BAT). 

* * * * * 

(b) Facilities that generate more than 

50 million pounds per year of finished 

products must achieve the following 

effluent limitations: 

TABLE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (b)—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

[BAT] 

Regulated parameter Maximum 

daily 1

Maximum 

monthly avg.1

Ammonia (as N) ....................................................................................................................................................... 8.0 4.0 

Total Nitrogen .......................................................................................................................................................... 20 12 

Total Phosphorus ..................................................................................................................................................... 1.5 0.8 

E. Coli ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2 14 2 9 

1 mg/L (ppm). 

2 MPN or CFU per 100 mL. 

■ 25. Revise § 432.64 to read as follows: 

§ 432.64 Pretreatment standards for 

existing sources (PSES). 

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 

and 403.13, any existing source subject 

to this subpart that processes more than 

50 million pounds per year that 

introduces pollutants into a publicly 

owned treatment works must comply 

with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve 

the following pretreatment standards for 

existing sources (PSES): 

TABLE 1 TO § 432.64—PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES

[PSES] 

Regulated parameter Maximum 

daily 1

Maximum 

monthly avg.1

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1,945 1,323 

TSS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,578 925 

Oil and grease ......................................................................................................................................................... 1,635 1,393 

1 mg/L. 

■ 26. Amend § 432.65 by revising the 

introductory text and paragraph (b), and 

removing paragraph (c) to read as 

follows: 

§ 432.65 New source performance 

standards (NSPS). 

Facilities subject to the 2004 new 

source performance standards specified 

in § 432.65 continue to be subject to 

those standards. These 2004 new 

sources are also subject to revised BPT 

and BAT effluent limitations specified 

in §§ 432.62 and 432.63 (for direct 

dischargers) or the revised pretreatment 

standards in § 432.64 (for indirect 

dischargers). Except as provided in 

paragraph (c) of this section, any source 

that is a new source subject to this 

subpart must achieve the following 

performance standards: 

* * * * * 

(b) Facilities that generate more than 

50 million pounds per year of finished 

products must achieve the limitations 

for BOD5, fecal coliform, O&G, and TSS 

specified in § 432.62(b) and the 

limitations for ammonia (as N), total 

phosphorus, E. coli, and total nitrogen 

specified in § 432.63(b). 

■ 27. Revise § 432.66 to read as follows: 

§ 432.66 Pretreatment standards for new 

sources (PSNS). 

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 

and 403.13, any existing source subject 

to this subpart that processes more than 

50 million pounds per year that 

introduces pollutants into a publicly 

owned treatment works must comply 

with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve 

the following pretreatment standards for 

new sources (PSNS): 

TABLE 1 TO § 432.66—PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES

[PSNS] 

Regulated parameter Maximum 

daily 1

Maximum 

monthly avg.1

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1,945 1,323 

TSS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,578 925 

Oil and grease ......................................................................................................................................................... 1,635 1,393 

1 mg/L. 

Subpart G—Pretreatment Standards 

for Existing Sources [PSES] 

■ 28. Amend § 432.72 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 432.72 Effluent limitations attainable by 

the application of the best practicable 

control technology currently available 

(BPT). 

* * * * * 

(b) Facilities that generate more than 

50 million pounds per year of finished 

products must achieve the following 

effluent limitations: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4529 

TABLE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (b)—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

[BPT] 

Regulated parameter Maximum 

daily 1

Maximum 

monthly avg.1

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 0.56 0.28 

Fecal Coliform .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 50 2 22 

O&G 3 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0.20 0.10 

TSS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 0.68 0.34 

1Pounds per 1,000 lbs (or g/kg) of finished product. 

2 MPN or CFU per 100 mL. 

3 May be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM). 

* * * * * 

■ 29. Amend § 432.73 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 432.73 Effluent limitations attainable by 

the application of the best available 

technology economically achievable (BAT). 

* * * * * 

(b) Facilities that generate more than 

50 million pounds per year of finished 

products must achieve the following 

effluent limitations: 

TABLE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (b)—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

[BAT] 

Regulated parameter Maximum 

daily 1

Maximum 

monthly avg.1

Ammonia (as N) ....................................................................................................................................................... 8.0 4.0 

Total Nitrogen .......................................................................................................................................................... 20 12 

Total Phosphorus ..................................................................................................................................................... 1.5 0.8 

E. Coli ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2 14 2 9 

1 mg/L (ppm). 

2 MPN or CFU per 100 mL. 

■ 30. Revise § 432.74 to read as follows: 

§ 432.74 Pretreatment standards for 

existing sources (PSES). 

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 

and 403.13, any existing source subject 

to this subpart that processes more than 

50 million pounds per year that 

introduces pollutants into a publicly 

owned treatment works must comply 

with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve 

the following pretreatment standards for 

existing sources (PSES): 

TABLE 1 TO § 432.74—PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES

[PSES] 

Regulated parameter Maximum 

daily 1

Maximum 

monthly avg.1

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1,945 1,323 

TSS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,578 925 

Oil and grease ......................................................................................................................................................... 1,635 1,393 

1 mg/L. 

■ 31. Amend § 432.75 by revising the 

introductory text and paragraphs (b), 

and removing paragraph (c) to read as 

follows: 

§ 432.75 New source performance 

standards (NSPS). 

Facilities subject to the 2004 new 

source performance standards in 

§ 432.75 continue to be subject to those 

standards. These 2004 new sources are 

also subject to revised BPT and BAT 

effluent limitations specified in 

§§ 432.72 and 432.73 (for direct 

dischargers) or the revised pretreatment 

standards specified in § 432.74 (for 

indirect dischargers). Except as 

provided in paragraph (c) of this 

section, any source that is a new source 

subject to this subpart must achieve the 

following performance standards: 

* * * * * 

(b) Facilities that generate more than 

50 million pounds per year of finished 

products must achieve the limitations 

for BOD5, fecal coliform, O&G, and TSS 

specified in § 432.72(b) and the 

limitations for ammonia (as N), total 

phosphorus, E. coli, and total nitrogen 

specified in § 432.73(b). 

■ 32. Revise § 432.76 to read as follows: 

§ 432.76 Pretreatment standards for new 

sources (PSNS). 

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 

and 403.13, any existing source subject 

to this subpart that processes more than 

50 million pounds per year that 

introduces pollutants into a publicly 

owned treatment works must comply 

with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve 

the following pretreatment standards for 

new sources (PSNS): 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
4530 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1 § 432.76—PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES

[PSNS] 

Regulated parameter Maximum 

daily 1

Maximum 

monthly avg.1

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1,945 1,323 

TSS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,578 925 

Oil and grease ......................................................................................................................................................... 1,635 1,393 

1 mg/L. 

Subpart H [Amended] 

■ 33. Amend § 432.82 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 432.82 Effluent limitations attainable by 

the application of the best practicable 

control technology currently available 

(BPT). 

* * * * * 

(b) Facilities that generate more than 

50 million pounds per year of finished 

products must achieve the following 

effluent limitations: 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (b)—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

[BPT] 

Regulated parameter Maximum 

daily 1

Maximum 

monthly avg.1

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 0.62 0.31 

Fecal Coliform .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 50 2 22 

O&G 3 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0.22 0.11 

TSS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 0.74 0.37 

1Pounds per 1,000 lbs (or g/kg) of finished product. 

2 MPN or CFU per 100 mL. 

3 May be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM). 

■ 34. Amend § 432.83 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 432.83 Effluent limitations attainable by 

the application of the best available 

technology economically achievable (BAT). 

* * * * * 

(b) Facilities that generate more than 

50 million pounds per year of finished 

products must achieve the following 

effluent limitations: 

TABLE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (b)—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

[BAT] 

Regulated parameter Maximum 

daily 1

Maximum 

monthly avg.1

Ammonia (as N) ....................................................................................................................................................... 8.0 4.0 

Total Nitrogen .......................................................................................................................................................... 20 12 

Total Phosphorus ..................................................................................................................................................... 1.5 0.8 

E. Coli ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2 14 2 9 

1 mg/L (ppm). 

2 MPN or CFU per 100 mL. 

■ 35. Revise § 432.84 to read as follows: 

§ 432.84 Pretreatment standards for 

existing sources (PSES). 

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 

and 403.13, any existing source subject 

to this subpart that processes more than 

50 million pounds per year that 

introduces pollutants into a publicly 

owned treatment works must comply 

with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve 

the following pretreatment standards for 

existing sources (PSES): 

TABLE 1 TO § 432.84—PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES

[PSES] 

Regulated parameter Maximum 

daily 1

Maximum 

monthly avg.1

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1,945 1,323 

TSS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,578 925 

Oil and grease ......................................................................................................................................................... 1,635 1,393 

1 mg/L. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4531 

■ 36. Amend § 432.85 by revising the 

introductory text and paragraph (b), and 

removing paragraph (c) to read as 

follows: 

§ 432.85 New source performance 

standards (NSPS). 

Facilities subject to the 2004 new 

source performance standards in 

§ 432.85 continue to be subject to those 

standards. These 2004 new sources are 

also subject to revised BPT and BAT 

effluent limitations specified in 

§§ 432.82 and 432.83 (for direct 

dischargers) or the revised pretreatment 

standards specified in § 432.84 (for 

indirect dischargers). Except as 

provided in paragraph (c) of this 

section, any source that is a new source 

subject to this subpart must achieve the 

following performance standards: 

* * * * * 

(b) Facilities that generate more than 

50 million pounds per year of finished 

products must achieve the limitations 

for BOD5, fecal coliform, O&G, and TSS 

specified in § 432.82(b) and the 

limitations for ammonia (as N), total 

phosphorus, E. coli, and total nitrogen 

specified in § 432.83(b). 

■ 37. Revise § 432.86 to read as follows: 

§ 432.86 Pretreatment standards for new 

sources (PSNS). 

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 

and 403.13, any existing source subject 

to this subpart that processes more than 

50 million pounds per year that 

introduces pollutants into a publicly 

owned treatment works must comply 

with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve 

the following pretreatment standards for 

new sources (PSNS): 

TABLE 1 § 432.86—PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES

[PSNS] 

Regulated parameter Maximum 

daily 1

Maximum 

monthly avg.1

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1,945 1,323 

TSS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,578 925 

Oil and grease ......................................................................................................................................................... 1,635 1,393 

1 mg/L. 

Subpart I [ Amended] 

■ 38. Amend § 432.92 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 432.92 Effluent limitations attainable by 

the application of the best practicable 

control technology currently available 

(BPT). 

* * * * * 

(b) Facilities that generate more than 

50 million pounds per year of finished 

products must achieve the following 

effluent limitations: 

TABLE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (b)—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

[BPT] 

Regulated parameter Maximum 

daily 1

Maximum 

monthly avg.1

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 0.74 0.37 

Fecal Coliform .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 50 2 22 

O&G 3 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0.26 0.13 

TSS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 0.90 0.45 

1Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) of finished product. 

2 MPN or CFU per 100 mL. 

3 May be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM). 

* * * * * 

■ 39. Amend § 432.93 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 432.93 Effluent limitations attainable by 

the application of the best available 

technology economically achievable (BAT). 

* * * * * 

(b) Facilities that generate more than 

50 million pounds per year of finished 

products must achieve the following 

effluent limitations: 

TABLE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (b)—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

[BAT] 

Regulated parameter Maximum 

daily 1

Maximum 

monthly avg.1

Ammonia (as N) ....................................................................................................................................................... 8.0 4.0 

Total Nitrogen .......................................................................................................................................................... 20 12 

Total Phosphorus ..................................................................................................................................................... 1.5 0.8 

E. Coli ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2 14 2 9 

1 mg/L (ppm). 

2 MPN or CFU per 100 mL. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
4532 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

■ 40. Revise § 432.94 to read as follows: 

§ 432.94 Pretreatment standards for 

existing sources (PSES). 

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 

and 403.13, any existing source subject 

to this subpart that processes more than 

50 million pounds per year that 

introduces pollutants into a publicly 

owned treatment works must comply 

with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve 

the following pretreatment standards for 

existing sources (PSES): 

TABLE 1 TO § 432.94—PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES

[PSES] 

Regulated parameter Maximum 

daily 1

Maximum 

monthly avg.1

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1,945 1,323 

TSS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,578 925 

Oil and grease ......................................................................................................................................................... 1,635 1,393 

1 mg/L. 

■ 41. Amend § 432.95 by revising the 

introductory text and paragraph (b), and 

removing paragraph (c) to read as 

follows: 

§ 432.95 New source performance 

standards (NSPS). 

Facilities subject to the 2004 new 

source performance standards in 

§§ 432.95 of this part continue to be 

subject to those standards. These 2004 

new sources are also subject to revised 

BPT and BAT effluent limitations 

specified in § 432.92 and 432.93 of this 

part (for direct dischargers) or the 

revised pretreatment standards specified 

in § 432.94 of this part (for indirect 

dischargers). Except as provided in 

paragraph (c) of this section, any source 

that is a new source subject to this 

subpart must achieve the following 

performance standards: 

* * * * * 

(b) Facilities that generate more than 

50 million pounds per year of finished 

products must achieve the limitations 

for BOD5, fecal coliform, O&G, and TSS 

specified in § 432.92(b) and the 

limitations for ammonia (as N), total 

phosphorus, E. coli, and total nitrogen 

specified in § 432.93(b). 

■ 42. Revise § 432.96 to read as follows: 

§ 432.96 Pretreatment standards for new 

sources (PSNS). 

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 

and 403.13, any existing source subject 

to this subpart that processes more than 

50 million pounds per year that 

introduces pollutants into a publicly 

owned treatment works must comply 

with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve 

the following pretreatment standards for 

new sources (PSNS): 

TABLE 1 TO § 432.96—PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES

[PSNS] 

Regulated parameter Maximum 

daily 1

Maximum 

monthly avg.1

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1,945 1,323 

TSS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,578 925 

Oil and grease ......................................................................................................................................................... 1,635 1,393 

1 mg/L. 

Subpart J [Amended] 

■ 43. Amend § 432.102 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 432.102 Effluent limitations attainable by 

the application of the best practicable 

control technology currently available 

(BPT). 

(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 

125.30 through 125.32, any existing 

point source subject to this subpart must 

achieve the following effluent 

limitations representing the application 

of BPT: 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (a)—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

[BPT] 

Regulated parameter Maximum 

daily 1

Maximum 

monthly avg.1

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 0.34 0.17 

Fecal Coliform .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 50 2 22 

O&G 3 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0.20 0.10 

TSS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 0.42 0.21 

1Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) of raw material. 

2 MPN or CFU per 100 mL 

3 May be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4533 

* * * * * 

■ 44. Revise § 432.103 to read as 

follows: 

§ 432.103 Effluent limitations attainable by 

the application of the best available 

technology economically achievable (BAT). 

Except as provided by 40 CFR 125.30 

through 125.32, any existing point 

source subject to this subpart must 

achieve the following effluent 

limitations representing the application 

of BAT: 

TABLE 1 TO § 432.103—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

[BAT] 

Regulated parameter Maximum 

daily 

Maximum 

monthly avg. 

Ammonia (as N) 1 .................................................................................................................................................... 0.14 0.07 

Total Nitrogen 2 ........................................................................................................................................................ 20 12 

Total Phosphorus 2 .................................................................................................................................................. 1.5 0.8 

E. Coli ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3 14 3 9 

1Pounds per 1000 lbs (g/kg) of raw material (RM). 

2 mg/L (ppm). 

3 MPN or CFU per 100 mL 

■ 45. Revise § 432.104 to read as 

follows: 

§ 432.104 Pretreatment standards for 

existing sources (PSES). 

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 

and 403.13, any existing source subject 

to this subpart that uses raw material at 

rates more than 10 million pounds per 

year that introduces pollutants into a 

publicly owned treatment works must 

comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must 

achieve the following pretreatment 

standards for existing sources (PSES): 

TABLE 1 § 432.104—PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES

[PSES] 

Regulated parameter Maximum 

daily 1

Maximum 

monthly avg.1

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1,945 1,323 

TSS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,578 925 

Oil and grease ......................................................................................................................................................... 1,635 1,393 

1 mg/L. 

■ 46. Amend § 432.105 by revising 

paragraph (a) and removing paragraph 

(c) to read as follows: 

§ 432.105 New source performance 

standards (NSPS). 

(a) Facilities subject to the 2004 new 

source performance standards in 

§ 432.105 continue to be subject to those 

standards. These 2004 new sources are 

also subject to revised BPT and BAT 

effluent limitations specified in 

§§ 432.102 and 432.103 (for direct 

dischargers) or the revised pretreatment 

standards specified in § 432.104 (for 

indirect dischargers). Except as 

provided in paragraph (c) of this 

section, any source that is a new source 

subject to this subpart must achieve the 

following performance standards: 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (a)—PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

[NSPS] 

Regulated parameter Maximum 

daily 

Maximum 

monthly avg. 

Ammonia (as N) 1 .................................................................................................................................................... 0.14 0.07 

BOD5 1 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 0.18 0.09 

E. coli ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2 14 2 9 

Fecal coliform .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 50 2 22 

O&G 1 3 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 0.10 0.05 

Total Nitrogen 4 ........................................................................................................................................................ 20 12 

Total Phosphorus 4 .................................................................................................................................................. 1.5 0.8 

TSS1 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 0.22 0.11 

1Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) of raw material (RM). 

2 MPN or CFU per 100 mL.. 

3 May be measured as hexane extractable material (HEM). 

4 mg/L (ppm). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
4534 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

* * * * * 

■ 47. Revise § 432.106 to read as 

follows: 

§ 432.106 Pretreatment standards for new 

sources (PSNS). 

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 

and 403.13, any existing source subject 

to this subpart that uses raw material at 

rates more than 10 million pounds per 

year that introduces pollutants into a 

publicly owned treatment works must 

comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must 

achieve the following pretreatment 

standards for new sources (PSNS): 

TABLE 1 TO § 432.106—PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES

[PSNS] 

Regulated parameter Maximum 

daily 1

Maximum 

monthly avg.1

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1,945 1,323 

TSS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,578 925 

Oil and grease ......................................................................................................................................................... 1,635 1,393 

1 mg/L. 

Subpart K [Amended] 

■ 48. Revise § 432.112 to read as 

follows: 

§ 432.112 Effluent limitations attainable by 

the application of the best practicable 

control technology currently available 

(BPT). 

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 

through 125.32, any existing point 

source subject to this subpart that 

slaughters more than 100 million 

pounds per year (in units of LWK) must 

achieve the following effluent 

limitations representing the application 

of BPT: 

TABLE 1 TO § 432.112—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

[BPT] 

Regulated parameter Maximum 

daily 1

Maximum 

monthly avg.1

Ammonia (as N) ....................................................................................................................................................... 8.0 4.0 

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 26 16 

Fecal Coliform .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 50 2 22 

O&G (as HEM) ........................................................................................................................................................ 14 8.0 

TSS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 30 20 

1 mg/L (ppm). 

2 MPN or CFU per 100 mL. 

■ 49. Revise § 432.113 to read as 

follows: 

§ 432.113 Effluent limitations attainable by 

the application of the best available 

technology economically achievable (BAT). 

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 

through 125.32, any existing point 

source subject to this subpart that 

slaughters more than 100 million 

pounds per year (in units of LWK) must 

achieve the following effluent 

limitations representing the application 

of BAT: 

TABLE 1 TO § 432.113—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

[BAT] 

Regulated parameter Maximum 

daily 1

Maximum 

monthly avg.1

Ammonia (as N) ....................................................................................................................................................... 8.0 4.0 

Total Nitrogen .......................................................................................................................................................... 20 12 

Total Phosphorus ..................................................................................................................................................... 1.5 0.8 

E. Coli ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2 14 3 9 

1 (mg/L) (ppm). 

2 MPN or CFU per 100 mL. 

■ 50. Revise § 432.114 to read as 

follows: 

§ 432.114 Pretreatment standards for 

existing sources (PSES). 

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 

and 403.13, any existing source subject 

to this subpart that slaughters more than 

100 million pounds per year (in units of 

LWK) that introduces pollutants into a 

publicly owned treatment works must 

comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must 

achieve the following pretreatment 

standards for existing sources (PSES): 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4535 

TABLE 1 TO § 432.114—PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES

[PSES] 

Regulated parameter Maximum 

daily 1

Maximum 

monthly avg.1

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1,945 1,323 

TSS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,578 925 

Oil and grease ......................................................................................................................................................... 1,635 1,393 

1 mg/L. 

■ 51. Amend § 432.115 by revising the 

introductory text and paragraph (b) to 

read as follows: 

§ 432.115 New source performance 

standards (NSPS). 

Facilities subject to the 2004 new 

source performance standards in 

§ 432.115 continue to be subject to those 

standards. These 2004 new sources are 

also subject to revised BPT and BAT 

effluent limitations specified in 

§§ 432.112 and 432.113 (for direct 

dischargers) or the revised pretreatment 

standards specified in § 432.114 (for 

indirect dischargers). Any source that is 

a new source subject to this subpart 

must achieve the following performance 

standards: 

* * * * * 

(b) Facilities that slaughter more than 

100 million pounds per year (in units of 

LWK) must achieve the following 

performance standards: 

TABLE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (b)—PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

[NSPS] 

Regulated parameter Maximum 

daily 1

Maximum 

monthly avg.1

Ammonia (as N) ....................................................................................................................................................... 8.0 4.0 

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 26 16 

E. coli ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2 14 2 9 

Fecal Coliform .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 50 2 22 

O&G (as HEM) ........................................................................................................................................................ 14 8.0 

TSS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 30 20 

Total Phosphorus ..................................................................................................................................................... 1.5 0.8 

Total Nitrogen .......................................................................................................................................................... 20 12 

1 mg/L (ppm). 

2 MPN or CFU per 100 mL. 

■ 52. Revise § 432.116 to read as 

follows: 

§ 432.116 Pretreatment standards for new 

sources (PSNS). 

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 

and 403.13, any existing source subject 

to this subpart that slaughters more than 

100 million pounds per year (in units of 

LWK) that introduces pollutants into a 

publicly owned treatment works must 

comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must 

achieve the following pretreatment 

standards for new sources (PSNS): 

TABLE 1 TO § 432.116—PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES

[PSNS] 

Regulated parameter Maximum 

daily 1

Maximum 

monthly avg.1

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1,945 1,323 

TSS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,578 925 

Oil and grease ......................................................................................................................................................... 1,635 1,393 

1 mg/L. 

Subpart L [Amended] 

■ 53. Revise § 432.122 to read as 

follows: 

§ 432.122 Effluent limitations attainable by 

the application of the best practicable 

control technology currently available 

(BPT). 

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 

through 125.32, any existing point 

source subject to this subpart that 

further processes more than 7 million 

pounds per year (in units of finished 

product) must achieve the following 

effluent limitations representing the 

application of BPT: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
4536 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1 TO § 432.122—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

[BPT] 

Regulated parameter Maximum 

daily 1

Maximum 

monthly avg.1

Ammonia (as N) ....................................................................................................................................................... 8.0 4.0 

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 26 16 

Fecal Coliform .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 50 3 22 

O&G (as HEM) ........................................................................................................................................................ 14 8.0 

TSS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 30 20 

1 mg/L (ppm). 

2 MPN or CFU per 100 mL. 

■ 54. Revise § 432.123 to read as 

follows: 

§ 432.123 Effluent limitations attainable by 

the application of the best available 

technology economically achievable (BAT). 

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 

through 125.32, any existing point 

source subject to this subpart that 

further processes more than 7 million 

pounds per year (in units of finished 

product) must achieve the following 

effluent limitations representing the 

application of BAT: 

TABLE 1 TO § 432.123—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

[BAT] 

Regulated parameter Maximum 

daily 1

Maximum 

monthly avg.1

Ammonia (as N) ....................................................................................................................................................... 8.0 4.0 

Total Nitrogen .......................................................................................................................................................... 20 12 

Total Phosphorus ..................................................................................................................................................... 1.5 0.8 

E. Coli ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2 14 2 9 

1 mg/L (ppm). 

2 MPN or CFU per 100 mL. 

■ 55. Revise § 432.124 to read as 

follows: 

§ 432.124 Pretreatment standards for 

existing sources (PSES). 

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 

and 403.13, any existing source subject 

to this subpart that processes more than 

7 million pounds per year (in units of 

LWK) that introduces pollutants into a 

publicly owned treatment works must 

comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must 

achieve the following pretreatment 

standards for existing sources (PSES): 

TABLE 1 TO § 432.124—PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES

[PSES] 

Regulated parameter Maximum 

daily 1

Maximum 

monthly avg.1

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1,945 1,323 

TSS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,578 925 

Oil and grease ......................................................................................................................................................... 1,635 1,393 

1 mg/L. 

■ 56. Amend § 432.125 by revising the 

introductory text and paragraph (b) to 

read as follows: 

§ 432.125 New source performance 

standards (NSPS). 

Facilities subject to the 2004 new 

source performance standards in 

§§ 432.125 of this part continue to be 

subject to those standards. These 2004 

new sources are also subject to revised 

BPT and BAT effluent limitations 

specified in § 432.122 and 432.123 of 

this part (for direct dischargers) or the 

revised pretreatment standards specified 

in § 432.124 of this part (for indirect 

dischargers). Any source that is a new 

source subject to this subpart must 

achieve the following performance 

standards: 

* * * * * 

(b) Facilities that further process more 

than 7 million pounds per year (in units 

of finished product) must achieve the 

following performance standards: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4537 

TABLE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (b)—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

[NSPS] 

Regulated parameter Maximum 

daily 1

Maximum 

monthly avg 1

Ammonia (as N) ....................................................................................................................................................... 8.0 4.0 

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 26 16 

E. coli ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2 14 2 9 

Fecal Coliform .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 50 2 22 

O&G (as HEM) ........................................................................................................................................................ 14 8.0 

TSS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 30 20 

Total Phosphorus ..................................................................................................................................................... 1.5 0.8 

Total Nitrogen .......................................................................................................................................................... 20 12 

1 mg/L (ppm). 

2 MPN or CFU per 100 mL. 

■ 57. Revise § 432.126 to read as 

follows: 

§ 432.126 Pretreatment standards for new 

sources (PSNS). 

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 

and 403.13, any existing source subject 

to this subpart that processes more than 

7 million pounds per year (in units of 

LWK) that introduces pollutants into a 

publicly owned treatment works must 

comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must 

achieve the following pretreatment 

standards for new sources (PSNS): 

TABLE 1 TO § 432.126—PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES

[PSNS] 

Regulated parameter Maximum 

daily 1

Maximum 

monthly avg 1

BOD5 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1,945 1,323 

TSS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,578 925 

Oil and grease ......................................................................................................................................................... 1,635 1,393 

1 mg/L. 

[FR Doc. 2023–28498 Filed 1–22–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2