AMSA Regulatory Alert (RA 02-6)

To: Members & Affiliates, and Legal Affairs Committee
From: National Office
Date: March 21, 2002
Subject: PROPOSED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES FOR MEAT AND POULTRY PRODUCTS POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
Reference: RA 02-6

Action Please By:
April 12, 2002

On February 25, 2002, EPA proposed effluent limitations guidelines (ELGs) for the meat and poultry products point source category (67 Fed. Reg. 8582). Although EPA is not proposing categorical pretreatment standards for the meat and poultry industry at this time, the Agency solicits comment on a number of issues, including how to interpret a handful of reported POTW interference episodes and a number of regulatory options that may be used to establish pretreatment standards in the final rule. If the Agency receives new information suggesting that meat and poultry facilities are interfering with POTW operations, EPA may decide to promulgate pretreatment standards when the rule is finalized in December 2003. It is AMSA's objective to demonstrate that interference caused by meat and poultry facilities is rare and can be more appropriately handled through the local limits process. Copies of the Federal Register notice and supporting documentation can be obtained at: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide/mpp/.

Given that EPA has only provided a 60-day comment period (currently slated to end on April 26, 2002), AMSA has requested an extension of the comment period to ensure we have adequate time to collect comments and other relevant information from the membership. AMSA will attend a public meeting on April 9, 2002 in Washington, D.C. to discuss the rule with Agency officials (another meeting was held March 14, 2002 in Kansas City, Missouri), and will continue to develop comments on the rule while EPA considers our request for an extension.

AMSA Requests Member Input
In support of our comment efforts, AMSA requests input from member agencies that currently receive wastewater from meat or poultry facilities. It is imperative that we provide EPA with detailed information regarding interference events, pass through, and any local efforts (e.g., local limits) that have been implemented to control discharges from the industry. AMSA hopes to demonstrate that controls for indirect discharges are not necessary, and if problems do arise, local measures are more than adequate to control the problem. AMSA requests information on the following:

• For agencies that receive discharges from meat or poultry facilities, AMSA requests information on whether those discharges ever interfered with the operation of a treatment plant and what your agency did to control the discharges.
• If your agency has developed local limits for meat and poultry pollutants (e.g., oil and grease, ammonia), please tell us what those limits are.
• If your agency collects surcharges from meat and poultry facilities, please provide us with an estimate of the amount of revenue (in dollars and as a percent of total revenue) generated from the surcharges.

If you have feedback on these areas please contact Chris Hornback, AMSA 202/833-9106 or chornback@amsa-cleanwater.org by April 12, 2002, so that we may include your input in AMSA's comments. In addition, feel free to provide AMSA with comments on those elements of the proposal for which EPA is specifically seeking comment. The Proposed Rule Analysis below provides a brief overview of the proposed rule and highlights where EPA solicits comment.

AMSA also encourages member agencies that receive meat and poultry wastes to file comments on the rule independently. If your agency plans to file comments on the rule, please contact Chris Hornback, AMSA.

AMSA's Current Position
During discussions with EPA over the last six months, AMSA has maintained that POTWs are capable of handling the pollutants discharged from meat and poultry processing facilities, arguing that pollutants discharged by this industry are compatible with and amenable to treatment at a POTW. AMSA plans to focus its written comments on two major themes:

1. Interference and pass-through caused by meat and poultry products discharges are not national problems and do not warrant national categorical pretreatment standards. Categorical pretreatment standards for conventional pollutants, like oil and grease, would be duplicative of the treatment already provided by POTWs.
2. If interference and/or pass-through does occur, POTWs are in the best position to take the necessary steps to control the discharge, either through the development of new local limits or the enforcement of existing limits.

Proposed Rule Analysis/EPA's Comment Requests
While EPA has data indicating that pollutants from meat and poultry product (MPP) discharges may pass through, interfere with, or otherwise be incompatible with POTW operations, the Agency states that there is insufficient information at this time to justify proposing categorical pretreatment standards for the MPP industry. Nevertheless, EPA seeks input on a number of issues regarding the impacts of the MPP industry on POTW operations and solicits comment on several regulatory options that may be used if the Agency determines that interference problems are more widespread.

The following is AMSA's summary and assessment of the issues raised by EPA:

POTW Interference (67 Fed. Reg. 8634-8635)

• While EPA typically does not establish pretreatment standards for conventional pollutants, they did establish standards for new and existing sources with a one-day maximum concentration of 100 mg/L oil and grease in the Petroleum Refining Point Source Category. EPA identified this standard as necessary to minimize the possibility of slug loadings of oil and grease. Although EPA acknowledges that oil and grease from petroleum refineries is not the same material as oil and grease from MPP facilities, EPA solicits comments on the use of the 100 mg/L standard for preventing POTW interference by vegetable/animal oil and grease discharges.

• EPA states (based on petroleum refining information) that high organic loadings and grease may cause difficulty in POTW trickling systems, may clog pipes and promote growth of filamentous bacteria, inhibiting performance, and interfere with aerobic processes.

• EPA Regional and State permit writers identified 22 cases nationwide where MPP facilities have interfered with POTW operations. EPA does not have all of the details on these incidents and is seeking additional information to ascertain whether these incidents are indicative of a larger, industry-wide problem, or simply isolated cases that are more appropriately addressed by the general pretreatment prohibitions and local limits.

• EPA is especially concerned about small POTWs, including those not required to develop approved pretreatment programs, and whether they may have difficulty in properly treating MPP indirect discharges or in setting local limits.
  

POTW Pass Through (67 Fed. Reg. 8635-8636)

EPA determines whether a pollutant will pass through a POTW by comparing the percentage of the pollutant removed by well-operated POTWs achieving secondary treatment with the percentage of the pollutant removed by each of the indirect technology options. For this proposal, EPA used the following removal efficiencies:

The removal efficiency estimates are based on data from the "50 POTW Study" (Fate of Priority Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment Works, September 1982). AMSA has expressed concern over the use of this data as the basis for pretreatment standards, arguing that POTW performance has improved since 1982. Given this uncertainty and the fact that the overall pollutant levels are so low, EPA states in the proposed rule that the establishment of numeric categorical pretreatment standards is not justified at this time.

Pretreatment Options Considered (67 Fed. Reg. 8636-8637)

Before determining that pretreatment standards were not justified given the existing data, EPA considered several pretreatment options for both existing and new sources. If EPA receives information during the comment period that shows that there is sufficient interference or pass through to justify pretreatment standards, the Agency will rely on the comments received on these options when selecting a final standard.

The following regulatory options may be considered:

• Establish numeric pretreatment standards for oil and grease and/or ammonia as nitrogen based on PSES1 (Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources Option 1) (equalization and DAF (dissolved air flotation)) to prevent POTW interference;

• Establish numeric pretreatment standards for oil and grease and/or ammonia based on equalization alone to reduce MPP indirect discharge variable loads which can, in some cases, prevent POTW interference;

• Establish numeric pretreatment standards to prevent POTW pass through (e.g., oil and grease, nutrient, and/or metals);

• Establish narrative pretreatment standards for oil and grease and/or ammonia as nitrogen based on PSES1 (equalization and DAF) or equalization alone to prevent POTW interference;

• Allow POTWs to waive national categorical pretreatment standards for MPP indirect dischargers that do not interfere with POTW operation (e.g., MPP indirect discharger below 5% of POTW dry weather hydraulic or organic capacity of the POTW);

• Allow a POTW to waive national categorical pretreatment standards for ammonia for any MPP indirect discharges it receives when that POTW has nitrification capability;

• Allow MPP indirect dischargers to demonstrate compliance with either numeric pretreatment standards or with environmental management system (EMS)/best management practice (BMP) voluntary alternatives;

• Establish national categorical pretreatment standards for MPP indirect dischargers based on compliance with BMPs or a regulatory BMP alternative.

EPA also solicits comment on 100 mg/L as a potential pretreatment maximum daily standard for oil and grease and/or ammonia as nitrogen, and comment on how EPA should consider setting pretreatment standards for ammonia as nitrogen.

Regulatory Alternatives for MPP Industry (67 Fed. Reg. 8642)

Before EPA determined that it did not have enough information to justify categorical pretreatment standards, the Agency considered two alternative approaches to numeric standards. The purpose of the alternatives was to help MPP facilities comply with regulations and foster voluntary adoption of environmental management systems.

Under the first alternative, EPA would not issue pretreatment standards for indirect dischargers. Instead, the Agency would work with the industry to develop and implement voluntary environmental management systems. EPA would revisit the issue after a few years to evaluate the effectiveness of the voluntary program, and take steps to develop pretreatment standards or other alternatives if program performance was lacking.

Under the second alternative, EPA would promulgate pretreatment standards for indirect dischargers. Dischargers would have the option of meeting the regulations by implementing EMSs that include environmental audit programs, in lieu of meeting the numeric pretreatment standards.

This second alternative is unique in that an otherwise voluntary EMS would become a regulatory requirement. Control authorities would be responsible for evaluating the adequacy of an EMS to determine compliance. EPA seeks comment on whether such evaluations would be more difficult to perform on a national basis than a numeric standard, and whether rural or small POTWs are capable of adequately assessing compliance with the EMS regulatory option and effectively responding to significant deficiencies.

Next Steps
While EPA is proposing to take no action for indirect dischargers, they have left the door open and laid the groundwork for promulgating categorical pretreatment standards in the event the Agency receives information indicating that interference problems are more widespread. EPA plans to issue a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) next year to present any additional information received during the public comment period or through additional information collection activities. EPA must issue a final rule by December of 2003.

AMSA will continue to pursue an extension to the public comment period to give us additional time to collect meaningful data on the incidence of interference caused by MPP facilities. At the same time, AMSA will work to develop comments that demonstrate that categorical pretreatment standards are not needed for the MPP industry and to lay the groundwork for future discussions with the Agency following the comment period.