INFORMATION
COLLECTION
REQUEST
U.
S.
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
2000
MEAT
PRODUCTS
INDUSTRY
SURVEYS
August
2000
PART
A
i
1.
IDENTIFICATION
OF
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
1
1(
a)
Title
of
The
Information
Collection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
1(
b)
Short
Characterization
/
Abstract
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
2.
NEED
FOR
AND
USE
OF
THE
COLLECTION
2
2(
a)
Need/
Authority
for
the
Collection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2
2(
b)
Practical
Utility/
Users
of
the
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
3.
NONDUPLICATION,
CONSULTATIONS,
AND
OTHER
COLLECTION
CRITERIA
8
3(
a)
Nonduplication
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
3(
b)
Public
Notice
Required
Prior
to
ICR
Submission
to
OMB
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10
3(
c)
Consultations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
11
3(
d)
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
12
3(
e)
General
Guidelines
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
12
3(
f)
Confidentiality
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
12
3(
g)
Sensitive
Questions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
12
4.
THE
RESPONDENTS
AND
THE
INFORMATION
REQUESTED
14
4(
a)
Respondents/
NAICS
Codes
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
14
4(
b)
Information
Requested
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
14
5.
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTED­­
AGENCY
ACTIVITIES,
COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY
AND
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
27
5(
a)
Agency
Activities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
27
5(
b)
Collection
Methodology
and
Management
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
28
5(
c)
Small
Entity
Flexibility
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
30
5(
d)
Collection
Schedule
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
31
6.
ESTIMATING
THE
BURDEN
AND
COST
OF
THE
COLLECTION
31
6(
a)
Estimating
Respondent
Burden
and
Cost
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
31
6(
b)
Estimating
Agency
Burden
and
Cost
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
36
6(
c)
Bottom
Line
Burden
Hours
And
Cost
Table
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
38
6(
d)
Reasons
for
Change
in
Burden
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
39
6(
e)
Burden
Statement
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
39
PART
B
1.
SURVEY
OBJECTIVES,
KEY
VARIABLES,
AND
OTHER
PRELIMINARIES
1(
a)
Survey
Objectives
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
40
1(
b)
Key
variables
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
40
1(
c)
Statistical
Approach
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
40
1(
d)
Feasibility
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
41
ii
2.
SURVEY
DESIGN
2(
a)
Target
Population
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
41
2(
b)
Sample
Design
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
41
2(
c)
Sample
Size
and
Precision
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
43
2(
d)
Survey
Design
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
45
3.
PRETESTS
AND
PILOT
TESTS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
45
4.
COLLECTION
METHODS
AND
FOLLOW­
UP
4(
a)
Collection
Methods
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
45
4(
b)
Survey
Response
Follow­
up
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
45
5.
ANALYZING
AND
REPORTING
SURVEY
RESULTS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
46
5(
a)
Data
Preparation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
46
5(
b)
Analysis
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
46
5(
c)
Reporting
Results
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
46
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment
1
2000
Meat
Products
Industry
Detailed
Survey
Attachment
2
2000
Meat
Products
Industry
Screener
Survey
Attachment
3
First
Federal
Register
Notice
Attachment
4
Summaries
of,
and
Responses
to,
Public
Comments
Attachment
5
Draft
of
Second
Federal
Register
Notice
Attachment
6
Copies
of
the
relevant
sections
of
statutes,
regulations
or
judicial/
administrative
decrees
mentioned
in
Section
2
1
PART
A
1.
IDENTIFICATION
OF
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
1(
a)
Title
of
The
Information
Collection
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
2000
Meat
Products
Industry
Survey
1(
b)
Short
Characterization
/
Abstract
The
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA
or
the
Agency),
through
this
Information
Collection
Request
(
ICR)
package,
requests
that
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
review
and
approve
an
industry
survey
of
meat
products
facilities.
Through
this
survey,
the
Agency
will
obtain
data
essential
to
the
review
and
revision
of
the
Meat
Products
Effluent
Limitations
Guidelines
(
40
CFR
Part
432)
This
data
collection
is
authorized
by
Section
308
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA).

The
Engineering
and
Analysis
Division
(
EAD)
of
EPA's
Office
of
Water
will
administer
the
development,
dissemination
and
collection
of
the
2000
Meat
Products
Industry
Surveys.
The
Detailed
Survey,
located
in
Attachment
1,
is
designed
to
collect
technical
and
economic
data
from
meat
products
operations.
The
Screener
Survey,
located
in
Attachment
2,
is
designed
to
collect
basic
characterization
information
on
facilities
in
the
industry.
The
information
received
in
the
surveys
will
be
stored
on
a
database
at
EPA.
EPA
will
administer
the
Detailed
Survey
to
approximately
350
facilities
and
will
administer
the
Screener
Survey
to
approximately
1,650
facilities.
EPA
does
not
anticipate
sending
any
follow­
up
surveys.

EPA
has
determined
that
the
data
that
will
be
obtained
through
the
Surveys
is
necessary
for
EPA
to
review
and
revise
the
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
standards
for
the
meat
products
industry.
These
data
will
be
used
to
perform
detailed
technical
and
economic
analyses
that
will
support
the
Agency's
development
of
technically
achievable
regulatory
options
for
the
meat
products
industry.
Ultimately,
EPA
will
select
appropriate
regulatory
options
based
on
economic
achievability,
implementation,
cost­
effectiveness,
and
projected
environmental
benefits
associated
with
the
options.

The
Meat
Products
Industry
will
devote
time
and
resources
to
respond
to
the
Surveys.
EPA
estimates
that
this
survey
will
involve
approximately
2000
respondents
and
place
a
total
cost
burden
of
$
858,780
on
the
Meat
Products
Industry.
Also,
the
data
collection
efforts
for
the
development
of
these
guidelines
will
place
an
additional
burden
of
approximately
2,800
hours
and
$
193,760
on
the
Meat
Products
Industry
for
data
collected
by
industry
and
submitted
to
EPA
labs
for
20
facilities.
The
survey
designs
represent
a
culmination
of
the
Agency's
efforts
not
only
to
gather
sufficient
data
to
perform
the
analyses
required
by
the
CWA,
related
Acts,
and
various
executive
orders,
but
also
to
cooperate
with
the
meat
products
industry
to
administer
a
clear
and
concise
data
collection
that
places
the
lowest
possible
burden
on
all
respondents.
2
2.
NEED
FOR
AND
USE
OF
THE
SURVEY
2(
a)
Need/
Authority
for
the
Survey
The
Federal
Water
Pollution
Control
Act
Amendments
of
1972
("
Clean
Water
Act,"
or
CWA),
33
U.
S.
C.
1251
et
seq.,
established
a
comprehensive
program
to
"
restore
and
maintain
the
chemical,
physical,
and
biological
integrity
of
the
Nation's
waters"
(
Section
101(
a)).
Under
the
authority
of
the
Act,
EPA
is
required
to
issue
effluent
limitations
guidelines,
pretreatment
standards,
and
new
source
performance
standards
for
industries
that
generate
wastewater.
Section
304(
m)
of
the
CWA,
added
by
the
Water
Quality
Act
of
1987
(
P.
L.
100­
4,
February
4,
1987),
calls
for
EPA
to
publish
biennial
effluent
guidelines
plans,
and
to
establish
a
schedule
for
the
review
and
revision
of
promulgated
guidelines.

The
Agency
published
its
first
biennial
plan
on
January
2,
1990
(
55
FR
80).
The
Natural
Resources
Defense
Council
(
NRDC)
and
others
filed
suit
against
EPA
for
alleged
inadequacies
in
the
plan.
See
NRDC,
et
al.
v
Reilly,
Civ.
No.
89­
2980
(
D.
C.
Cir.).
The
courtapproved
consent
decree
between
EPA
and
NRDC
(
January
31,
1992)
required
the
Agency
to
propose
and
take
final
action
on
seven
effluent
guidelines
already
under
development,
four
effluent
guidelines
already
identified,
and
eight
additional
effluent
guidelines
that
had
not
yet
been
identified
by
EPA.

In
accordance
with
Section
304(
m)
of
the
CWA,
EPA
is
reviewing
the
meat
products
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
standards
(
40
CFR
Part
432).
The
Agency
originally
promulgated
effluent
guidelines
covering
the
Meat
Products
Point
Source
Category
in
1974.
These
guidelines
have
never
been
revised
to
reflect
the
changes
in
the
industry
over
the
past
25
years.
In
addition,
poultry
processing
was
not
included
in
the
guidelines,
although
limitations
were
proposed
for
poultry
processors
in
a
separate
rulemaking
on
April
24,
1975
(
80
FR
18150).
Final
effluent
guidelines
for
the
poultry
processing
were
never
promulgated.

Since
promulgation
of
regulations
in
1975,
the
meat
products
industry,
particularly
poultry
processing,
has
dramatically
increased
in
capacity,
with
fewer,
but
larger
and
more
efficient
processing
facilities.
The
existing
limitations
for
the
meat
products
industry
also
do
not
address
environmental
problems
such
as
nutrient
pollution
that
have
emerged
as
issues
of
concern
during
the
last
25
years.
Specifically,
Subparts
A
through
D
of
the
meat
products
guidelines
promulgated
in
1975
do
not
include
technology­
based
limits
for
ammonia
nitrogen
and
other
potential
nutrients
that
can
degrade
water
quality.
Along
with
concentrated
animal
feeding
operations
(
CAFOs),
meat
product
facilities
have
been
identified
as
potentially
significant
contributors
to
nutrient
loadings
in
the
Nation's
surface
waters.
The
Surveys
will
provide
valuable
information
on
how
facilities
currently
treat
their
wastewater
so
that
the
Agency
may
more
accurately
establish
baseline
conditions
under
the
current
regulatory
framework.
The
2000
Meat
Products
Industry
Surveys
are
an
essential
portion
of
the
detailed
information
gathering
process
necessary
for
EPA
to
determine
if
the
regulations
remain
appropriate
in
light
of
changes
throughout
the
industry.
3
EPA
plans
to
conduct
a
mail
survey
of
approximately
2000
facilities
conducting
operations
that
fall
within
the
meat
products
industry,
including
those
that
are
currently
regulated
by
40
CFR
Part
432.
Approximately
350
facilities
will
receive
the
Detailed
Survey
and
1,650
facilities
will
receive
the
Screener
Survey.
The
surveys
request
data
for
1999,
the
most
recent
year
for
which
complete
technical
and
economic
data
are
available.
The
data
collection
will
be
administered
under
the
authority
of
Section
308
of
the
Federal
Water
Pollution
Control
Act,
33
U.
S.
C.,
Section
1318.

2(
b)
Practical
Utility/
Users
of
the
Data
Under
the
effluent
guidelines
program,
EPA
must
establish
technology­
based
limitations
guidelines
(
based
on
the
Best
Practicable
Control
Technology
(
BPT),
Best
Conventional
Pollutant
Control
Technology
(
BCT),
and
Best
Available
Technology
Economically
Achievable
(
BAT)),
and
standards
(
Pretreatment
Standards
for
Existing
Sources
(
PSES),
New
Source
Performance
Standards
(
NSPS),
and
Pretreatment
Standards
for
New
Sources
(
PSNS)).
BPT,
BCT,
BAT,
and
NSPS
apply
to
direct
dischargers
(
i.
e.,
sites
that
discharge
directly
to
navigable
waters
of
the
United
States),
while
PSES
and
PSNS
apply
to
indirect
dischargers
(
i.
e.,
sites
that
discharge
to
publicly
owned
treatment
works
(
POTWs)).

To
develop
technology­
based
limitations
and
standards,
EPA
will
collect
and
analyze
information
pertaining
to
wastewater
characteristics
(
e.
g.,
pollutants
discharged,
wastewater
flows),
wastewater
treatment
technologies
(
e.
g.,
pollution
prevention
techniques,
endof
pipe
treatment
systems),
and
the
economic
impacts
of
these
treatment
technologies.
Specifically,
EPA
will
use
responses
to
the
2000
Meat
Products
Industry
Detailed
Survey
to
assist
in
characterizing
the
pollution
discharged
from
meat
product
facilities
sites
and
to
develop
technology
options
to
control
these
pollutant
discharges.
The
Agency
will
use
the
data
collected
to
assist
in
establishing
current
baseline
estimates
of
industry­
wide
production­
normalized
wastewater
flow
rates,
pollutant
concentrations,
and
pollutant
loadings
in
order
to
estimate
the
engineering
costs
of
compliance
and
analyze
the
economic
impacts
and
environmental
benefits
associated
with
each
regulatory
option.
EPA
will
select
among
appropriate
technology
options
and
associated
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
standards
for
the
meat
products
industry
based
on
the
results
of
these
analyses.
Facilities
affected
by
the
regulations
ultimately
promulgated
will
have
the
choice
of
implementing
any
combination
of
technologies
that
enable
them
to
comply
with
the
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
standards.

EPA
has
identified
the
following
types
of
red
meat
and
poultry
operations
to
be
included
in
the
2000
Meat
Products
Industry
Surveys.


Slaughtering;


By­
product
processing;


Rendering;


Further
processing.

Under
the
current
regulations
(
40
CFR
Part
432,
Subparts
A
through
I),
poultry
processing
is
not
specifically
regulated.
Instead,
these
regulations
apply
to
only
red
meat.
EPA
anticipates
that
any
4
new
limitations
would
explicitly
cover
poultry
processing
operations,
and
therefore
these
facilities
are
included
in
the
Survey.
Subpart
J
of
40
CFR
Part
432
regulates
rendering
of
both
red
meat
and
poultry
by­
products.


Analyses
Supported
by
the
2000
Meat
Products
Industry
Survey

Technical
Analyses
Supported
by
the
2000
Meat
Products
Industry
Detailed
and
Screener
Surveys
EPA
engineers,
economists,
statisticians,
and
contractors
will
perform
detailed
analyses
of
the
data
collected
through
the
Surveys.
The
technical
data
will
include
basic
site
information,
manufacturing
process
information,
water
use
data,
wastewater
characterization
summaries,
wastewater
treatment
system
data,
and
pollution
prevention
data.
Specific
analyses
using
the
technical
data
are
described
below.

(
i)
Subcategorization
The
Agency
will
survey
facilities
from
the
meat
products
industry
to
fully
capture
the
range
of
processes,
wastewater
types,
and
in­
place
treatment
technologies
for
the
entire
sector.
Data
from
the
respondents
will
help
the
Agency
determine
whether
subcaterorization
of
the
industry
is
necessary
for
establishing
effluent
limitations.
Under
such
a
regime,
the
Agency
would
develop
estimates
of
pollutant
loadings,
and
estimates
of
compliance
costs
associated
with
proposed
regulatory
options
for
each
subcategory.
It
is
important
that
EPA
fully
understand
these
differences
to
construct
subcategories
that
are
meaningful,
and
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
standards
that
incorporate
the
differences
in
production.

(
ii)
Evaluation
of
Meat
Product
Industry
Processes
and
Wastewaters
EPA
will
use
data
collected
through
the
Surveys
to
analyze
meat
products
industry
manufacturing
processes,
pollution
prevention
practices,
and
wastewater
treatment
systems.
Specifically,
EPA
will
analyze
each
manufacturing
process,
including
the
water
use,
production,
and
wastewater
discharge
rates;
pollution
prevention
techniques
associated
with
each
process;
and
the
characteristics
of
wastewater
generated
from
each
process.
EPA
will
also
analyze
plant­
wide
pollution
prevention
practices
and
wastewater
treatment
systems
to
determine
the
wastewaters
5
that
require
treatment,
the
treatment
technologies
that
are
applicable
to
those
wastewaters,
the
effectiveness
of
these
systems,
and
the
final
discharge
characteristics
from
meat
products
facilities.

(
iii)
Technical
Feasibility
Analysis
EPA
will
select
technically
feasible
technology
options,
including
control
technologies
and
pollution
prevention
and
recycle
practices,
for
all
subcategories.
The
Agency
will
assess
the
technical
feasibility
of
each
technology
option
by
determining
its
availability
within
the
industry,
as
well
as
the
degree
to
which
it
effectively
eliminates
the
generation
of
pollutants
and/
or
removes
or
destroys
specific
pollutants.

(
iv)
Assessment
of
Technology
Costs
EPA
will
use
data
collected
through
the
Surveys
to
estimate
the
direct
costs
of
the
wastewater
treatment
and
control
technologies
and
pollution
prevention/
management
practices
selected
as
the
technology
basis
options
for
meat
products
industry
effluent
guidelines.
These
data
include
wastewater
flow
rates,
production
rates,
data
related
to
treatment
technologies
already
in
place,
and
pollutant
concentrations.
EPA
will
use
data
collected
through
the
Surveys
to
assess
the
following
direct
costs:
treatment
equipment
capital
costs;
annual
operating
expenses
(
e.
g.,
power
costs,
chemical
costs);
and
waste
disposal
costs.

(
v)
Calculation
of
Effluent
Limitations
EPA
will
develop
preliminary
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
standards
for
each
technology
option
it
has
developed.
The
Agency
will
base
these
preliminary
limitations
upon
a
detailed
statistical
analysis
of
treated
effluent
data
from
sites
that
implement
the
recommended
control
technologies
and
pollution
prevention/
management
practices
and
that
have
well­
operated
treatment
systems.
EPA
will
develop
preliminary
effluent
limitations
for
maximum
daily
and
average
monthly
discharge
levels.

In
addition,
EPA
will
evaluate
the
volume
of
wastewater,
as
well
as
the
mass
of
pollutant
generated
per
ton
of
product
(
e.
g.,
gallons
of
wastewater
per
pounds
of
meat
slaughtered,
pounds
of
ammonia
generated
per
pound
of
raw
material
processed).
This
evaluation
will
be
used
to
determine
if
certain
product
types
generate
different
types
of
wastewater,
and
if
subcategorization
is
appropriate.
EPA
will
develop
production­
normalized
flows
and/
or
pollutant
loadings
on
which
to
base
the
limitations
calculations
for
each
subcategory.

(
vi)
Environmental
Assessment
EPA
will
perform
an
environmental
assessment
to
determine
the
potential
impacts
of
meat
products
industrial
discharges
on
aquatic
life
and
human
health,
as
well
as
on
the
proper
operation
of
POTWs
and
other
treatment
works.
This
assessment
will
characterize
the
potential
risk
posed
by
the
discharges
and
will
assist
the
Agency
in
projecting
the
environmental
and
economic
benefits
of
the
regulation.
6
(
vii)
Development
of
Regulatory
Options
and
Selection
of
Final
Option
After
technology
options
are
assessed,
preliminary
effluent
limitations
are
calculated,
and
economic
analyses
are
performed,
EPA
will
develop
regulatory
options.
For
each
option,
EPA
will
assess
the
amount
of
each
pollutant
removed,
the
potential
costs
to
the
industry,
the
economic
impacts
of
these
costs
on
businesses
(
e.
g.,
if
businesses
may
be
forced
to
close
because
of
the
regulatory
costs),
the
cost­
effectiveness,
and
the
non­
water
quality
impacts.
Based
upon
these
assessments,
EPA
will
select
the
best
regulatory
option
for
each
type
of
guideline
or
standard
for
each
subcategory
of
the
meat
products
industry.


Economic
Analyses
Supported
by
the
Surveys
EPA
economists,
engineers,
statisticians,
and
contractors
will
perform
detailed
economic
analyses
of
the
data
collected
through
the
2000
Meat
Products
Industry
Surveys.
The
economic
data
will
include
corporate
structure,
discount
rate,
quantities
produced,
income
statement
information
such
as
revenues,
costs,
interest,
depreciation,
taxes,
and
net
income,
balance
sheet
information
such
as
current
and
noncurrent
assets,
current
liabilities,
long­
term
debt,
and
retained
earnings.
These
data
are
collected
for
two
levels­
the
site
and
the
company.
Specific
analysis
using
the
economic
data
are
described
below.

(
i)
Estimation
of
Impacts
on
Sites
One
element
of
the
economic
analysis
will
be
a
determination
of
the
proposed
regulation's
impacts
on
individual
sites.
The
analysis
will
combine
site­
specific
costs
of
compliance
with
site
financial
data
suitably
weighted
for
survey
respondents.
These
results
will
be
statistically
weighted
to
estimate
the
total
costs
and
impacts
of
the
proposed
regulation.

A
goal
of
the
analysis
will
be
to
identify
sites
that
might
close
due
to
pollution
control
requirements.
A
standard
financial
decision
model
would
predict
closure
if
the
net
present
value
of
future
income
is
negative.
The
forecasted
income
for
the
site
is
a
major
determinant
of
the
net
present
value
of
continued
operations.
The
income
projections
are
calculated
using
the
revenue
information
collected
in
the
survey,
including
the
tax
status
of
the
site
or
its
business
entity.
An
estimated
percentage
of
costs
that
the
market
will
allow
to
pass
through
to
the
consumer
will
be
incorporated
into
the
projected
revenue
estimates.
To
complete
the
closure
analysis,
the
survey
also
provides
data
relevant
to
calculating
the
salvage
value
of
the
site,
such
as
current
assets,
and
the
book
value
of
land,
buildings,
and
equipment,
if
deemed
appropriate.
Direct
losses
in
output,
revenue,
and
employment
are
calculated
directly
from
the
closure
analysis
results
and
survey
responses.

(
ii)
Estimation
of
Impacts
on
Companies
The
costs
for
all
meat
products
sites
that
a
given
company
owns
will
be
estimated
and
aggregated.
The
combined
cost
to
the
company
will
be
analyzed
in
the
context
of
the
company's
financial
status
to
evaluate
the
overall
impact.
The
company­
level
impact
analysis
allows
EPA
to
assess
the
effect
of
effluent
guideline
at
a
different
level
of
business
organization.
Companies
that
own
multiple
sites
may
not
be
able
to
afford
the
total
cost
of
upgrading
all
its
facilities,
even
if
it
makes
economic
sense
for
each
individual
site.
Because
such
financing
decisions
are
commonly
made
7
at
company­
level
rather
than
the
site­
level,
EPA
needs
to
assess
economic
impacts
at
the
company­
level
in
addition
to
the
site­
level.
In
the
case
of
single­
establishment
firms,
this
component
of
the
analysis
is
unnecessary
because
site­
level
and
company­
level
impacts
will
coincide.

Whenever
possible,
EPA
will
collect
data
needed
to
assess
company­
level
impacts
from
secondary
sources.
This
reduces
the
burden
on
survey
recipients.
Secondary
sources
provide
data
for
multi­
site,
publicly
reporting
companies
but
are
inadequate
for
single­
site
companies
or
multi­
site,
non­
publicly
reporting
companies.

(
iii)
Estimation
of
Secondary
Impacts
EPA
will
assess
the
secondary
impacts
of
projected
site
closures
on
other
segments
of
the
economy.
For
example,
employment
losses
and
reductions
in
derived
demand
for
input
goods/
services
could
potentially
erode
the
economic
condition
of
households
and
firms
in
communities
around
closing
Meat
Products
sites.
Estimation
of
these
community
impacts
depends
upon
employment
and
labor
income
data
from
the
Meat
Products
Industry
Detailed
Survey
effort,
macroeconomic
multipliers,
general
economic
data,
and
economic
data
from
secondary
sources.
EPA
also
plans
to
consider
the
secondary
impacts
felt
by
small
businesses
and
foreign
trade.
EPA
will
utilize
secondary
sources
whenever
possible
during
these
analyses
to
minimize
the
burden
placed
upon
survey
recipients.
Data
from
secondary
sources
will
include
detailed
industry
trade
statistics,
labor
cost
and
commodity
price
indices,
labor
and
commodity
input
requirement
coefficients,
regional
income
multipliers,
regional
employment,
small
business
statistics,
and
other
relevant
secondary
source
information.
8
3.
NONDUPLICATION,
CONSULTATIONS,
AND
OTHER
COLLECTION
CRITERIA
3(
a)
Nonduplication
The
Engineering
and
Analysis
Division
(
EAD)
of
the
Agency's
Office
of
Water
has
made
every
reasonable
attempt
to
ensure
that
the
2000
Meat
Products
Industry
Surveys
do
not
request
data
and
information
currently
available
through
less
burdensome
mechanisms.

Specifically,
EAD
has
explored
the
following
databases
Online
to
locate
data
and
information
significant
to
the
regulatory
development
process:
the
Agency
PCS
database,
USDA's
Food
Safety
and
Inspection
Service's
HACCP
Databases,
USDA's
Packers
and
Stockyards
Statistical
Report,
SEC's
EDGAR
Database,
the
1997
U.
S.
Census
of
Manufacturers,
Dun
&
Bradstreet
Million
Dollar
Directory
and
Hoover's.

USDA's
Food
Safety
and
Inspection
Service
maintains
databases
of
firms
participating
in
its
Hazard
Analysis
and
Critical
Control
Point
(
HACCP)
program.
The
databases
contain
information
on
names,
addresses,
and
meat
and/
or
poultry
inspection
numbers
of
facilities
participating
in
the
program.
This
information
was
used
in
developing
the
sampling
frame
for
the
survey,
but
no
financial
information
that
could
be
used
in
economic
impact
analysis
is
contained
in
the
databases.

EPA
reviewed
data
from
USDA's
Grain
Inspection,
Packers,
and
Stockyards
Administration
(
GIPSA).
GIPSA
publishes
the
Packers
and
Stockyards
Statistical
Report
on
the
cattle,
hog,
sheep,
and
lamb
slaughtering
industries.
While
this
source
provides
background
information
on
the
industry
it
does
not
identify
company
or
facility
specific
information
that
can
be
used
for
assessing
economic
impacts.

Without
an
industry­
wide
survey,
the
only
companies
with
available
detailed
financial
information
are
publicly­
traded
companies,
which
must
file
a
Form
10­
K
annually
with
SEC;
these
are
available
through
SEC=
s
EDGAR
database.
SEC
Form
10­
Ks
include
descriptions
of
the
company=
s
operating
and
financial
conditions.
The
limitation
of
this
data
for
the
estimation
of
firm
level
cost
impacts
is
that
it
includes
the
finances
of
the
entire
company,
not
solely
the
meat
processing
or
slaughtering
operations.

Data
from
the
1997
U.
S.
Census
of
Manufacturers
will
be
used
in
developing
the
aggregate
industry
profile,
including
data
on
the
number
of
companies
and
establishments,
value
of
shipments,
employment,
and
investment.
To
a
lesser
extent,
this
data
is
also
provided
at
the
state
level.
However,
no
data
is
provided
at
the
individual
facility
or
company
level
that
can
be
used
to
analyze
potential
regulatory
impacts.

The
Dun
&
Bradstreet
(
D&
B)
Million
Dollar
Database
provides
information
on
over
1.2
million
U.
S.
leading
public
and
private
businesses.
Companies
are
included
in
this
database
that
have
over
$
1
million
in
annual
revenues
and
branch
or
single
locations
with
more
than
20
employees.
Available
data
includes
company
address,
listings
of
locations
corresponding
to
SIC
code,
tradestyles,
9
line
of
business,
annual
revenues,
employee
data,
public
or
private
status,
date
of
ownership,
and
key
executives.
EPA
searched
the
Million
Dollar
Directory
for
SIC
codes
primary
to
meat
processing
(
SICs
2011,
2013,
2015).
The
financial
data
collected
through
D&
B
is
for
the
entire
company,
not
solely
the
meat
processing
or
slaughtering
operations.
For
many
of
the
largest
meat
processors,
the
slaughtering
and
processing
operations
are
a
small
part
of
the
company=
s
overall
revenues.
Information
is
not
provided
on
operating
costs.
Branch
locations
do
not
always
indicate
the
headquarters
name
and
location;
this
makes
it
difficult
to
track
companies
and
their
numerous
operations.

Hoover=
s
Online
(
www.
hoovers.
com)
provides
company
and
industry
information
on
approximately
14,000
public
and
private
companies,
as
well
as
cooperatives.
Similar
to
the
D&
B
database,
Hoover=
s
Online
provides
little
financial
data
at
the
company
level
suitable
for
conducting
impact
analyses.

In
addition,
the
Agency
has
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
meat
products
industry
and
its
associated
organizations;
and
publicly
available
financial
information
compiled
by
both
government
and
private
organizations.

EPA
used
the
listings
of
beef
processing
plants
from
Cattle­
Fax,
the
National
Cattlemen's
Beef
Association,
Iowa
State
University,
and
North
Dakota
State
University
to
identify
the
location
of
individual
beef
slaughtering
plants,
their
parent
corporation,
and,
in
some
cases,
the
operational
capacity
of
the
individual
facility.
EPA
used
the
National
Pork
Producers
Council
publication
to
identify
the
location
of
hog
slaughtering
plants,
the
name
of
their
parent
corporation,
and
the
operational
capacity
of
the
facility.
EPA
used
WATT
PoultryUSA's
publications
to
locate
individual
poultry
slaughtering
plants,
the
types
of
processes
at
those
plants,
and
the
name
of
their
parent
corporation.
Urner
Barry
provided
information
on
location,
parent
company,
and
types
of
processes
at
the
plant
for
all
three
sectors.
All
this
data
was
useful
for
developing
and
stratifying
the
sampling
frame,
and
for
developing
an
industry
profile.
However,
no
revenue,
cost,
or
employment
data
was
found
in
these
publications
that
could
be
used
in
assessing
potential
economic
impacts.

The
documents
cited
above
were
all
used
by
EPA
in
developing
the
industry
profile,
the
sampling
frame,
and
stratifying
the
sampling
frame.
In
addition
to
these
publications,
EPA
examined
many
other
documents
that
provided
useful
overviews
and
analysis
of
the
meat
processing
industry.

EPA
also
conducted
general
Internet
searches
by
company
name.
In
many
cases
EPA
was
able
to
locate
a
company
web
site
and
in
some
cases
these
did
provide
useful
information
on
plant
locations
and
operations.
Some
companies
make
copies
of
their
annual
reports
available
online.
Again,
this
information
is
provided
at
the
company
level,
not
at
the
level
of
the
individual
facility;
in
most
cases,
the
slaughtering
and
processing
operations
are
just
one
aspect
of
the
company's
overall
operations,
and
therefore
do
not
provide
information
adequate
to
conduct
a
impact
analysis
of
meat
processors.
Finally,
data
can
be
obtained
on
only
a
small
fraction
of
the
industry
through
this
means.
The
Agency
has
obtained
detailed
information
on
nutrient
removal
and
control
in
the
meat
products
industry
using
the
Uncover
database
to
identify
scientific
journals
and
papers
published
in
the
last
15
years.
Based
on
the
results
of
this
search,
the
Agency
has
acquired
information
on
new
10
and
existing
wastewater
treatment
technologies,
wastewater
recycle
and
reuse
practices,
and
other
potential
and
existing
pollution
prevention
practices.

EPA
has
consulted
the
American
Meat
Institute,
the
National
Renderers
Association
and
the
U.
S.
Poultry
&
Egg
Association
for
lists
of
all
member
companies
and
facilities.

Although
the
consulted
sources
have
provided
valuable
industry
information,
and
Agency
will
combine
this
information
with
data
gathered
through
the
meat
products
industry
Surveys,
none
of
these
sources
alone
can
provide
the
Agency
with
the
complete
and
up­
to­
date,
industry­
wide,
sitespecific
technical
and
economic
data
crucial
to
the
review
and
revision
of
the
meat
products
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
standards.

3(
b)
Public
Notice
Required
Prior
to
ICR
Submission
to
OMB
(
i)
Publication
of
the
Federal
Register
Notice
On
May
1,
2000,
EPA
published
a
notice
in
the
Federal
Register,
65
FR
25325,
announcing
the
Agency's
intent
to
submit
the
Meat
Products
Industry
Survey
ICR
to
OMB.
A
copy
of
this
notice
is
included
in
Attachment
2.
The
notice
includes
a
description
of
the
entities
to
be
affected
by
the
proposed
survey,
a
brief
explanation
of
the
need
for
the
survey,
identification
of
the
authority
under
which
the
survey
will
be
issued,
and
an
estimate
of
burden
to
be
incurred
by
survey
respondents.
Through
the
notice,
the
Agency
requested
comments
and
suggestions
regarding
the
survey
and
the
reduction
of
data
collection
burden,
and
asked
that
the
public
submit
all
comments
and
suggestions
within
60
days
of
the
Federal
Register
notice
publication.

(
ii)
Public
Response
to
the
Federal
Register
Notice
EPA
received
five
sets
of
comments
within
60
days
of
the
Federal
Register
Notice
publication
from
the
National
Chicken
Council,
the
National
Renderers
Association,
the
American
Meat
Institute,
BCR
Foods
and
the
U.
S.
Poultry
and
Egg
Association.
EPA
received
no
comments
after
the
close
of
the
60­
day
comment
period.
These
written
comments
are
summarized
in
Attachment
4.

(
iii)
EPA
Action
Resulting
from
Public
Comment
Only
minor
revisions
were
made
to
the
2000
Meat
Products
Industry
Survey
as
a
result
of
public
comments.
Most
of
the
revisions
to
the
survey
were
made
to
provide
clarification
for
the
respondent.
Attachment
4
presents
Agency
responses
to
all
written
comments
received.
This
attachment
also
includes
descriptions
of
the
survey
modifications
made
in
response
to
these
comments.

3(
c)
Consultations
11
Prior
to
publishing
the
Federal
Register
notice
announcing
the
Agency's
intent
to
submit
the
Meat
Products
Industry
Survey
ICR,
EPA
distributed
draft
copies
of
the
survey
to
three
trade
associations
representing
the
meat
products
industry.
These
associations
are
the
American
Meat
Institute;
the
National
Chicken
Council;
and
the
National
Renderers
Association.
The
Agency
requested
that
each
association
conduct
a
review
of
the
survey
and
provide
comments
prior
to
the
publication
of
the
Federal
Register
notice.
Only
minor
changes
were
made
to
the
content
and
format
of
the
survey
based
on
these
inititial
comments
received.
Further,
EPA
asked
each
association
to
submit
its
formal
comments
on
the
survey
by
the
deadline
published
in
the
Federal
Register
notice.
All
comments
and
suggestions
made
are
reflected
in
the
Agency
responses
presented
in
Attachment
4.

EPA
met
with
members
of
three
trade
associations
(
the
American
Meat
Institute;
the
National
Chicken
Council;
and
the
National
Renderers
Association)
at
one
meeting
to
discuss
the
Meat
Product
Industry
project
goals
with
its
administration.
This
meeting
provided
an
important
opportunity
for
Agency
attendees
and
trade
association
attendees
to
discuss
questions,
comments,
and
concerns
regarding
the
meat
products
industry
regulatory
development
process.

While
planning
and
developing
the
data
collection
activities
associated
with
the
Meat
Products
Industry
Survey,
project
team
members
have
combined
innovative
ideas
with
mechanisms
that
have
been
used
in
previous
effluent
guidelines
projects.
Several
members
of
the
EPA
meat
products
effluent
guidelines
project
team
have
extensive
experience
with
effluent
guidelines
projects.
Two
of
the
project
team
members
assisted
in
the
development
and
recent
administration
of
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
1997
Iron
and
Steel
Survey.
Several
of
the
team
members
have
assisted
in
the
extensive
data
collection,
maintenance,
and
analysis
activities
associated
with
the
development
of
effluent
guidelines
for
other
industrial
categories.
These
team
members
have
made
significant
contributions
to
the
development
of
the
survey,
and
to
the
team's
efforts
to
minimize
the
burden
that
the
survey
will
place
on
the
industry.

Non­
EPA
Persons
Consulted
on
Any
Aspect
of
the
Collection:
1.)
Dr.
James
Heminover,
DVM
of
USDA's
Food
Safety
and
Inspection
Service­­
phone
number
(
402)­
221­
7402.
2.)
Gary
Gaol
of
USDA's
Food
Safety
and
Inspection
Service
 
phone
number
(
202)­
720­
4856.
3.)
Sherry
Edwards
of
the
American
Meat
Institute­­
phone
number
(
703)­
841­
2400.
4.)
Rob
Sherman
of
Kraft
Foods
and
the
American
Meat
Institute­­
phone
number
(
608)­
285­
6882.
5.)
Paul
Halberstadt
of
ConAgra
and
the
American
Meat
Institute
 
phone
number
(
630)­
512­
1190.
6.)
John
Starkey
of
the
U.
S.
Poultry
and
Egg
Association
 
phone
number
(
770)­
493­
9401.

3(
d)
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection
12
EPA
will
distribute
the
2000
Meat
Products
Industry
Survey
once
for
the
purpose
of
gathering
the
necessary
data
to
review
and
revise
the
current
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
standards
for
the
Meat
Products
Industry.

3(
e)
General
Guidelines
The
2000
Meat
Products
Industry
Surveys
will
be
conducted
in
accordance
with
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
(
5
CFR
1320.5(
d)(
2)),
and
will
adhere
to
OMB
general
guidelines
for
information
collections.

3(
f)
Confidentiality
In
accordance
with
40
CFR,
Part
2,
Subpart
B,
Section
2.203,
the
2000
Meat
Products
Industry
Surveys
inform
respondents
of
their
right
to
claim
information
as
confidential.
Each
survey
provides
instructions
for
claiming
confidentiality,
and
informs
respondents
of
the
terms
and
rules
governing
the
protection
of
Confidential
Business
Information
(
CBI)
under
the
Clean
Water
Act
and
40
CFR
2.203(
B).
Each
survey
question
which
requests
potentially
confidential
information
is
accompanied
by
a
CBI
box.
Survey
respondents
are
requested
to
check
all
CBI
boxes
which
accompany
responses
they
claim
as
confidential.

EPA
and
its
contractors
will
follow
EAD's
existing
procedures
to
protect
data
labeled
as
CBI.
These
procedures
include
the
following:


Ensure
secure
handling
of
completed
surveys
to
preclude
access
by
unauthorized
personnel;


Store
completed
surveys
and
databases
in
secured
areas
of
offices,
and
restrict
access
to
authorized
EPA
and
contractor
personnel
only;


Restrict
any
publication
or
dissemination
of
confidential
study
results
or
findings
to
aggregate
statistics
and
coded
listings.
Individual
respondents
will
not
be
identified
in
summary
reports
and
EPA
contractors
will
not
release
respondents'
names
to
unauthorized
individuals.

Each
EPA
contractor
that
collects,
processes,
or
stores
CBI
is
responsible
for
the
proper
handling
of
that
data.
Each
contractor
shall
safeguard
information
as
described
in
Section
2.211
(
d)
of
Subpart
B
and
is
obligated
to
use
or
disclose
information
only
as
permitted
by
the
contract
under
which
the
information
is
furnished.

3(
g)
Sensitive
Questions
The
2000
Meat
Products
Industry
Survey
does
not
include
sensitive
questions
regarding
sexual
behavior
or
attitudes,
religious
beliefs,
or
other
personal
matters.
13
4.
THE
RESPONDENTS
AND
THE
INFORMATION
REQUESTED
4(
a)
Respondents/
NAICS
Codes
EPA
will
distribute
the
Surveys
to
Meat
Products
facilities
currently
regulated
under
40
CFR
432
Subparts
A
through
J.
In
addition,
the
Surveys
will
be
provided
to
facilities
classified
as
poultry
processing
sites.
The
Agency
believes
that
these
types
of
meat
products
facilities
sites
generate
and
discharge
the
majority
of
Meat
Product
Industry
wastewaters
and
pollutant
loadings.
The
following
list
of
North
American
Industrial
Classification
System
(
NAICS)
codes
are
associated
with
meat
products
industry
sites
that
are
affected
by
the
data
collection
effort
covered
under
this
ICR:


311611
­
Animal
(
except
Poultry)
Slaughtering;


311612
­
Meat
Processed
from
Carcasses;


311613
­
Rendering
and
Meat
By­
Product
Processing;
and

311615
­
Poultry
Processing.

4(
b)
Information
Requested
°
Detailed
Description
of
the
2000
Meat
Products
Industry
Detailed
Survey
The
Detailed
Survey,
presented
in
Attachment
1,
is
divided
into
five
parts.
The
first
four
parts
collect
general
facility
and
technical
data,
which
will
be
used
to
determine
industry
production
rates,
water
use
and
reuse
in
the
processes
(
including
factors
that
affect
water
use
and
reuse),
wastewater
generation
rates
(
including
factors
that
affect
wastewater
generation),
types
of
pollutants
and
pollutant
loadings
(
including
factors
that
affect
types
of
pollutants
and
pollutant
loadings),
pollution
prevention
and
wastewater
management
techniques,
and
treatment
and
disposal
costs
and
practices.
The
fifth
part
of
the
Detailed
Survey
collects
financial
and
economic
data,
which
will
be
used
to
characterize
the
economic
status
of
the
industry
and
to
estimate
potential
economic
impacts
of
wastewater
regulations.

The
introduction
to
the
Detailed
Survey
contains
instructions
for
completion,
as
well
as
one
question
and
a
choice
of
two
certification
statements.
The
question
asks
whether
the
site
is
engaged
in
meat
product
processes.
If
the
answer
is
"
no",
the
respondent
does
not
have
to
complete
the
survey,
but
must
certify
their
response
using
certification
statement
#
2
and
indicate
why
the
survey
is
not
applicable
(
e.
g.,
the
site
is
a
sales
office).
If
the
answer
is
"
yes",
the
respondent
is
directed
to
complete
the
Detailed
Survey
and
certify
their
response
using
certification
statement
#
1
when
that
part
is
complete.

In
the
technical
portion
of
the
Detailed
Survey,
the
Agency
requests
process
flow
diagrams
(
PFDs)
for
different
operations
at
the
site.
These
questions
include
a
checklist
of
required
information
to
include
on
the
PFD.
A
burden­
reducing
feature
included
by
EPA
allows
the
respondent
to
submit
existing
site
diagrams,
as
long
as
the
existing
diagrams
reflect
all
requested
information.
14
°
General
and
Technical
Information
The
first
four
parts
of
the
Detailed
Survey
collect
technical
data.
The
first
set
of
questions
request
general
facility
site
information.
The
second
set
of
questions
request
production
data,
while
the
last
two
sections
focus
on
wastewater
characteristics
and
current
treatment
practices,
respectively.
The
Agency
needs
information
collected
in
these
four
sections
in
order
to
evaluate
the
meat
products
industry
processes
and
wastewaters,
to
analyze
technically
feasible
control
technologies,
to
assess
technology
costs,
to
evaluate
the
current
and
potential
future
subcategorization
of
the
meat
products
industry,
to
calculate
pollutant
loadings
and
the
pollutant
reductions
associated
with
the
likely
technology­
based
options,
and
to
assess
environmental
impacts
made
by
the
meat
products
industry.

The
following
is
a
description
and
justification
of
each
question
in
technical
sections
of
the
Detailed
Survey.

Questions
1­
8:
General
Facility
Information
Questions
1­
8
request
general
facility
information,
including
mailing
and
site
addresses,
and
technical
and
financial
contact
information.
The
information
provided
in
response
to
these
questions
will
allow
EPA
to
better
characterize
the
industry
in
terms
of
geography,
distribution
among
sector
subcategories,
and
type
of
ownership.

Question
1
requests
verification
of
the
site's
mailing
address.
Likewise,
Question
2
requests
verification
of
the
site's
street
(
i.
e.,
physical)
address.
EPA
needs
this
verification
in
order
to
correct
or
complete
erroneous
or
incomplete
portions
of
meat
products
industry
addresses
on
the
survey
mailing
list,
and
to
ensure
that
proper
addresses
are
used
for
any
follow­
up
activities
performed
to
clarify
responses.
Due
to
the
significant
effort
the
Agency
has
already
made
to
ensure
the
accuracy
and
completeness
of
all
information
on
the
2000
Meat
Products
Industry
mailing
list,
the
Agency
expects
that
a
minimum
number
of
sites
will
have
to
provide
mailing
and
address
information
to
correct
EPA's
records.
In
addition,
EPA
relies
on
location
information
when
surveying
companies
that
operate
numerous
sites
throughout
the
United
States.
The
Agency
needs
accurate
site
location
information
in
order
to
address
possible
subcategorization
of
the
industrial
category
based
on
geographic
location,
and
to
evaluate
the
impact
that
meat
products
industry
sites
make
on
local
water
quality.

Question
3
requests
the
name
and
address
of
the
company
that
owns
the
site.
The
data
will
be
used
to
group
sites
by
company
in
order
to
aggregate
costs
and
evaluate
impacts
on
the
company
level.
Question
4
requests
names,
titles,
telephone
numbers,
and
facsimile
numbers
of
technical
and
financial
contacts
at
the
site
regarding
information
supplied
in
the
survey.
With
this
information,
EPA
will
be
able
to
contact
responsible
individuals
at
the
site
if
response
clarification
or
follow­
up
is
required.

Question
5
requests
the
year
during
which
site
operations
related
to
the
meat
products
industry
were
initiated.
EPA
needs
this
identification
in
order
to
consider
the
potential
impact
that
a
site's
age
may
have
on
the
feasibility
of,
or
cost
associated
with,
each
candidate
control
technology.
15
Question
6
asks
the
respondent
to
list
up
to
five
(
primary,
secondary,
and
other
applicable)
Standard
Industrial
Classification
(
SIC)
codes
or
North
American
Industrial
Classification
System
(
NAICS)
codes
which
apply
to
the
meat
products
operations
at
the
site
in
1999.
EPA
will
use
SIC
and/
or
NAICS
codes
to
assists
in
characterizing
and
categorizing
the
meat
products
industry
processes
at
the
site.

Question
7
requests
the
type
of
inspection
program
the
site
operates
under;
Question
8
asks
if
the
site
files
annual
reports
with
Grain
Inspection,
Packers
and
Stockyards
Administration
(
GIPSA).
The
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture's
Food
Safety
and
Inspection
Service
(
FSIS)
and
GIPSA
both
generate
large
amounts
of
publicly
available
information.
These
questions
will
permit
EPA
to
better
access
and
utilize
public
information
on
the
Meat
Products
industry.

Question
9­
12:
Production
Information
Questions
9
­
12
request
information
on
facility
production
processes
and
production
output
by
meat
type
(
i.
e.,
red
meat
or
poultry).
EPA
needs
production
data
in
order
to
understand
the
actual
production
that
could
be
expected
at
meat
products
facilities.
Production
is
also
used
to
determine
the
production
basis
for
technology­
based
options,
and
associated
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
standards
for
the
rule.

Question
9
asks
which
Subcategory
of
the
existing
effluent
guidelines
at
40
CFR
Part
432
(
Meat
Products
Point
Source
Category)
the
site
would
be
classified
in
for
1999.
If
the
respondent
answers
"
yes",
the
respondent
is
asked
to
identify
which
Subcategory
(
A
­
J)
of
40
CFR
Part
432
applies
to
the
facility.
If
the
respondent
answers
"
no"
they
are
directed
to
skip
to
Question
11
of
the
Survey.
EPA
needs
this
information
to
help
classify
meat
product
facilities
into
subcategories
so
that
differences
in
production
processes
can
be
taken
into
account
while
developing
technology­
based
options.

Question
10(
a)(
1)
asks
if
in
1999
the
site
slaughtered
or
further
processed
any
type
of
red
meat.
Four
additional
questions
identify
whether
the
facility
only
slaughtered
red
meat
on
site;
slaughtered
and
further
processed
red
meat
from
on­
site
slaughtering;
slaughtered
and
further
processed
red
meat
from
both
on­
site
and
off­
site
slaughtering;
further
processed
red
meat
that
had
been
slaughtered
off­
site.
This
question
assists
the
Agency
in
tracking
the
site's
red
meat
slaughtering
and
processing
operations.

Question
10(
a)(
2)
asks
if
in
1999
the
site
rendered
any
type
of
animal
by­
products.
Three
additional
questions
identify
whether
the
facility
only
rendered
by­
products
from
on­
site
operations;
rendered
by­
products
from
both
on­
site
and
off­
site
operations;
or
rendered
by­
products
from
off­
site
operations
only.
If
the
facility
only
rendered
by­
products
from
off­
site
operations,
the
Survey
points
out
that
they
should
have
checked
Question
9J
above
and
that
they
should
complete
Table
10.3
below.
This
question
assists
the
Agency
in
tracking
the
site's
rendering
operations.

Question
10(
a)(
3)
asks
how
many
days
in
1999
was
the
facility
in
operation.
This
information
is
necessary
to
provide
a
basis
for
EPA
to
calculate
production
and
waste
generation
on
a
daily
basis.
16
Question
10(
a)(
4)
asks
for
the
weight
of
meat
and
meat
by­
products
received
for
slaughtering
and
processing
and
the
weight
of
by­
products
processed
on
site
and
sent
off
site
in
red
meat
operations.
Respondents
are
asked
to
complete
Table
10.1,
entering
values
in
either
units
of
1,000
pounds
or
1,000
kilograms.
The
table
requests
data
by
animal
type
(
with
columns
for
cattle,
calves,
hogs,
sheep
and
lambs,
and
other)
and
by
each
listed
type
of
meat
product
(
rows).
Data
requested
for
each
primary
meat
product
include
weight
of
animals
slaughtered
on
site
as
Live
Weight
Killed
(
LWK),
and
the
slaughtered
animals,
animal
parts,
or
by­
products
received
from
off­
site
for
processing
at
the
facility.
Respondents
are
also
asked
to
provide
weights
of
all
by­
products
(
blood,
hides,
hair,
viscera)
derived
from
animals
slaughtered
on­
site,
and
whether
these
by­
products
were
rendered
on­
site
by
either
wet
or
dry
process.
Sites
are
also
asked
to
supply
the
total
annual
weight
of
all
finished
products
produced
at
the
site
in
1999
for
each
animal
type.
Finally,
sites
are
asked
to
provide
the
total
annual
weight
of
all
by­
products
sent
off
site
for
further
processing.
Collecting
the
weight
of
meat
products
processed
at
each
site
will
help
EPA
understand
the
size
of
the
production
operation,
and
will
assist
in
determining
the
relationship
between
meat
products
industry
operations
and
expected
effluent
characteristics.
Likewise,
data
concerning
quantity
of
meat
products
processed
at
a
site
may
be
used
to
establish
guidelines
based
on
production
at
the
site.
Finally,
collecting
the
weight
of
by­
products
sent
off
site
will
provide
EPA
with
the
knowledge
of
how
much
by­
product
is
produced
per
live
weight
killed
and
if
this
ratio
differs
greatly
between
facilities.

Question
10(
b)
asks
if
the
facility
is
classified
under
Subcategories
E
­
I
of
40
CFR
Part
432.
If
so,
sites
are
asked
to
specify,
in
Table
10.2,
which
Subcategory
(
E
­
I)
of
40
CFR
Part
432
applies
to
the
facility,
and
to
specify
the
products
produced
and
the
weight
of
these
final
manufactured
products
in
either
1,000
pound
or
1,000
kilogram
units.
Definitions
of
"
finished
product"
from
40
CFR
Part
432
Subcategories
E
­
I
are
supplied
as
part
of
the
question.
This
information
will
help
EPA
link
specific
production
processes
with
wastewater
types.
Data
concerning
quantity
of
finished
products
at
a
site
will
be
evaluated
as
a
potential
production­
normalizing
basis
for
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
standards.

Question
10(
c)
asks
if
the
site
is
classified
under
Subcategory
J
(
Renderer)
of
40
CFR
Part
432.
The
site
is
asked
to
list
in
Table
10.3
the
type
and
quantity
(
in
either
1,000
pound
or
1,000
kilogram
units)
of
raw
material
rendered
in
1999.
This
information
will
help
EPA
differentiate
between
rendering
wastewaters
and
wastewaters
generated
by
other
meat
products
facilities
(
e.
g.
slaughtering,
processing).
EPA
may
subcategorize
the
industry
based
on
processing
versus
rendering
operations,
as
was
done
in
40
CFR
Part
432.

Question
11(
a)
asks
if
in
1999
the
site
slaughtered
or
further
processed
any
type
of
poultry.
The
question
includes
four
specific
questions
which
ask
whether
the
facility
slaughtered
poultry
onsite
slaughtered
and
further
processed
poultry
on­
site;
slaughtered
and
further
processed
poultry
that
had
been
slaughtered
both
on­
site
and
off­
site;
or
further
processed
poultry
that
had
been
slaughtered
off­
site.
This
question
helps
the
Agency
track
the
site's
poultry
slaughtering
and
processing
operations.
If
the
site
did
not
slaughter
or
further
process
any
type
of
poultry,
respondents
are
instructed
to
skip
to
Question
13.
Question
11(
a)
is
particularly
necessary
because
poultry
processing
is
not
specifically
identified
under
current
regulations
(
40
CFR
Part
432).
Identifying
poultry
products
operations
and
poultry
processing
effluent
characteristics
will
be
an
important
part
of
the
development
of
EPA
effluent
guidelines
for
this
sector
of
the
meat
products
industry.
17
Question
11(
b)
asks
how
many
days
in
1999
did
the
facility
operate.
This
information
is
necessary
to
help
EPA
calculate
production
and
waste
generation
on
a
daily
basis.

Question
12
asks
for
the
total
annual
weight
of
poultry
slaughtered
or
further
processed
at
the
site
in
1999.
Respondents
are
asked
to
complete
Table
12.1
which
requests
the
weight
poultry
products
processed
by
the
poultry
type
(
broiler
and
other
young
chickens;
hens
and
other
chickens;
turkeys;
and
other
poultry
and
small
game).
Values
may
be
entered
in
units
of
either
1,000
pounds
or
1,000
kilograms.
Table
12.1
is
very
similar
to
Table
10.1
(
Question
10(
a)(
3))
in
the
red
meat
section
of
the
survey.
Respondents
are
also
asked
to
provide
weights
of
all
by­
products
(
blood
and
feathers)
derived
from
birds
slaughtered
on­
site,
as
well
as
the
weight
of
by­
products
rendered
on­
site
(
by
either
wet
or
dry
process).
Sites
are
asked
to
supply
the
weight
of
all
finished
products
produced
at
the
site
in
1999
for
each
poultry
type.
Finally,
sites
are
asked
to
supply
the
weight
of
by­
products
sent
off
site
for
rendering.
Collecting
the
weight
of
poultry
products
and
by­
products
processed
at
each
site
will
help
EPA
understand
the
size
of
the
production
operation,
and
will
assist
in
determining
the
relationship
between
poultry
products
industry
operations
and
expected
effluent
characteristics.
Likewise,
data
concerning
quantity
of
poultry
products
processed
at
a
site
will
be
evaluated
as
a
potential
production­
normalizing
basis
for
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
standards.
Finally,
collecting
the
weight
of
by­
products
sent
off
site
will
provide
EPA
with
the
knowledge
of
how
much
by­
product
is
produced
per
live
weight
killed
and
if
this
ratio
differs
greatly
between
facilities.

°
Wastewater
Information
Question
13
of
the
1999
Meat
Products
Industry
Detailed
Survey
asks
questions
concerning
the
wastewater
generated
by
the
site.
These
data
will
be
used
in
EPA's
analysis
of
baseline
impacts
of
meat
products
industry
effluents
on
the
environment,
the
effectiveness
of
current
treatment
practices's,
and
in
EPA's
assessment
of
candidate
technology
options
that
could
serve
as
a
basis
for
proposing
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
standards.

Question
13(
a)
requests
information
related
to
the
type(
s)
and
quantity
of
process
wastewaters
generated
from
red
meat
operations
at
the
site
in
1999.
Respondents
may
check
up
to
18
boxes
(
14
of
which
are
specific
to
red
meat
processing)
to
identify
applicable
types
of
wastewater
generated
during
red
meat
operations.
For
each
wastewater
type,
the
site
is
asked
to
provide
the
volume
of
wastewater
generated
(
in
gallons
of
wastewater
per
year),
whether
the
wastewater
is
treated
on­
site,
and
the
final
disposal
method.
A
list
of
final
disposal
method
codes
are
provided
in
Appendix
A
of
the
Detailed
Survey.
EPA
needs
to
identify
each
type
of
process
wastewater
generated,
the
volume
generated,
and
whether
it
is
treated
on­
site
in
order
to
consider
the
wastewaters
for
regulation.
The
ultimate
disposal
method
information
will
be
used
to
perform
the
environmental
benefits
analyses
and
in
order
to
evaluate
how
Meat
Products
Industry
wastewaters
discharges
are
ultimately
released
to
the
environment.

Question
13(
b)
characterizes
wastewater
from
poultry
operations
at
the
site
in
1999.
Respondents
may
check
any
of
22
boxes
to
identify
applicable
types
of
wastewater
generated
during
poultry
operations.
For
each
wastewater
type,
the
site
is
asked
to
provide
the
volume
of
wastewater
generated
(
in
gallons
of
wastewater
per
year),
whether
the
wastewater
is
treated
on­
site,
and
the
final
disposal
method.
A
list
of
final
disposal
method
codes
are
provided
in
Appendix
A
of
the
Detailed
Survey.
EPA
needs
to
identify
each
type
of
process
wastewater
generated,
the
volume
generated,
18
and
whether
it
is
treated
on­
site
in
order
to
consider
the
wastewaters
for
regulation.
The
ultimate
disposal
method
will
be
used
to
perform
the
environmental
benefits
analyses
and
in
order
to
evaluate
how
poultry
processing
wastewaters
discharges
are
ultimately
released
to
the
environment.


Treatment
Information
Questions
14
­
22
of
the
2000
Meat
Products
Industry
Detailed
Survey
asks
questions
concerning
the
treatment
of
Meat
Product
Industry
wastewater;
wastewater
disposal
practice
and
permit
information;
and
effluent
data
from
NPDES
permit
and
non­
permit
monitoring.
These
data
will
be
used
in
EPA's
analysis
of
baseline
impacts
of
meat
products
industry
effluents
on
the
environment,
the
effectiveness
of
current
treatment
practices's,
and
in
EPA's
assessment
of
candidate
technologies
for
the
proposed
effluent
guidelines.

Question
14(
a)
asks
the
respondent
to
identify
all
types
of
on­
site
treatment
used
to
treat
the
process
wastewater
stream(
s)
identified
in
Question
13.
To
assist
the
respondent,
a
list
of
55
potentially­
applicable
treatment
unit
processes
are
listed
below
the
question.
Question
14(
c)
asks
the
respondent
if
any
of
the
treatment
processes
listed
in
14(
a)
are
used
for
nutrient
removal
and
to
specify
which
ones
if
the
answer
is
"
yes."
Question
14(
c)
asks
the
respondent
if
trisodium
phosphate
is
used
in
their
wastewater
treatment
system.
Both
14(
b)
and
14(
c)
are
necessary
because
knowledge
of
nutrient
control
is
important
in
this
industry.
Question
14(
d)
asks
the
site
to
attach
any
readily
available
information
that
is
available
on
the
design,
construction
costs,
and
operation
and
maintenance
costs
pertinent
to
the
on­
site
treatment
processes.
EPA
is
not
soliciting
detailed
and
voluminous
design
specifications
and
cost
information,
but
instead
desires
general
information
related
to
the
design
and
operation
of
the
wastewater
treatment
system.
Knowledge
of
on­
site
wastewater
treatment
already
in
use
is
necessary
for
EPA
to
determine
the
treatment
basis
for
regulatory
options,
as
well
as
to
accurately
cost
out
these
options.
EPA
may
follow­
up
responses
from
a
limited
number
of
facilities
to
obtain
selected
details
of
design
and
cost
information
for
installed
systems
in
order
to
verify
Agency­
developed
cost
data
for
control
and
treatment
technologies.

Question
15
asks
for
the
average
amount
of
sludge
(
on
a
dry
weight
basis)
generated
from
the
treatment
of
process
waters
identified
in
Question
13
for
1999.
Question
blanks
are
provided
for
the
quantity
of
sludge
and
the
units
used
to
measure
this
quantity.
EPA
will
use
this
information
to
estimate
sludge
generation
rates
from
Meat
Product
Industry
wastewater
treatment,
which
will
assist
in
assessing
the
non­
water
quality
impacts
of
proposed
effluent
guidelines.

Question
16(
a)
asks
the
site
to
provide
the
total
land
area
occupied
by
the
site,
as
well
as
the
units
used
to
describe
land
area.
Questions
16(
b­
g)
ask
for
specific
land
area
occupied
by
first
processing,
further
processing,
by­
product
rendering,
waste
treatment,
warehousing,
parking,
administrative
facilities,
utilities,
undeveloped
land
and
other
uses.
Question
16(
h)
asks
if
undeveloped
area
is
suitable
for
the
construction
of
additional
wastewater
treatment
systems.
If
the
answer
is
no,
then
the
respondent
is
asked
to
provide
a
brief
written
explanation
of
why
the
undeveloped
area
is
unsuitable
for
construction
of
additional
wastewater
treatment
systems.
EPA
needs
this
information
to
determine
the
potential
capacity
of
existing
facilities
to
accommodate
additional
wastewater
treatment
systems
that
might
be
required
as
a
result
of
any
regulatory
options
considered.
19
Question
17
asks
how
many
discharge
locations
(
outfalls)
and
other
permit
monitoring
locations
are
present
at
the
site.
Respondents
are
instructed
to
include
discharges
to
surface
waters,
publically
owned
treatment
works
(
POTWs),
and
privately
owned
treatment
works
(
PrOTWs).
The
Detailed
Survey
contains
a
table
for
the
site
to
categorize
up
to
four
outfalls
by
wastewater
type
and
discharge
destination.
To
assist
the
respondent,
a
list
of
wastewater
types
with
checkoff
boxes
is
provided
in
the
table
for
each
outfall.
EPA
requires
this
information
to
understand
how
meat
product
facilities
discharge
their
effluents
into
the
environment.

Question
18(
a)
asks
if
the
site
discharges
wastewater
by
pipeline,
sewer,
or
other
conveyance
to
surface
water.
Question
18(
b)
asks
if
the
site
has
an
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
permit
or
a
state­
issued
discharge
permit
which
authorizes
and/
or
regulates
the
discharge
of
process
waters,
nonprocess
waters,
or
stormwaters.
If
yes,
the
respondent
is
instructed
to
provide
the
permit
number
and
attach
a
copy
of
the
NPDES
permit
to
the
survey.
EPA
will
use
permit
information
to
examine
the
site's
NPDES
permit
and/
or
state
issued
discharge
permit
for
additional
technical
data,
and
to
consult
with
the
permitting
authority
regarding
issues
associated
with
the
meat
products
regulatory
development
process.

Question
19(
a)
asks
the
respondent
to
indicate
the
type
of
facility
to
which
the
site
discharges
process
wastewater
by
pipeline,
sewer
or
other
conveyance.
Sites
indicate
whether
wastewater
is
discharged
to
a
POTW,
a
PrOTW,
or
neither
a
POTW
or
PrOTW.
If
respondents
indicate
"
neither",
then
they
may
skip
to
Question
20.
Question
19(
b)
asks
if
the
site
has
a
treatment
works­
written
control
mechanism
which
includes
the
discharge
of
process,
non­
process,
or
stormwater
wastewater.
If
yes,
then
the
site
is
asked
to
attach
a
copy
of
that
permit
or
agreement
to
the
survey.
If
no,
then
the
site
should
answer
Question
19(
c)
and
19(
d).
EPA
will
use
this
information
to
identify
sites
with
written
permits,
and
to
ensure
that
respondents
at
these
sites
have
provided
the
permit
information
requested
in
Question
19(
d).
If
the
site
is
regulated
under
a
local
ordinance,
the
respondent
is
directed
to
attach
the
applicable
portions
of
the
local
ordinance
to
the
survey
response
in
Question
19(
c).
If
the
site
does
not
hold
a
permit
with
the
POTW/
PrOTW,
the
respondent
is
directed
to
Question
19(
c)
and
19(
d)
to
provide
discharge
information.

Question
19(
d)
which
requests
the
identification
of
the
POTW/
PrOTW
and
contact
information,
the
permit
number
for
the
site,
the
permit
number
for
the
POTW/
PrOTW
(
only
if
known),
and
the
expiration
date
of
the
site's
permit.
EPA
needs
the
identification
of
the
POTW/
PrOTW
in
order
to
perform
the
environmental
benefits
analyses
and
in
order
to
evaluate
how
meat
products
discharges
are
ultimately
released
to
the
environment.
EPA
will
use
permit
information
to
examine
the
site's
discharge
permit
and
the
treatment
works'
NPDES
permit
for
additional
technical
data,
and
to
consult
with
the
permitting
authority
regarding
issues
associated
with
the
meat
products
industrial
category
regulatory
development
process.
EPA
needs
the
identification
of
a
contact
so
the
Agency
may
consult
with
the
contact
regarding
the
site's
permit,
or
regarding
discharges
that
the
treatment
works
accepts
from
the
site,
but
does
not
regulate
through
a
written
permit.

Question
20
requests
at
least
one
general
process
flow
diagram
(
PFD)
that
displays
the
onsite
production
process(
es)
and
the
final
product(
s),
as
well
as
the
input
of
the
starting
materials.
The
respondent
is
not
required
to
develop
a
new
diagram
if
an
existing
diagram
has
all
required
information.
The
respondent
is
asked
to
mark
each
diagram
with
the
site
ID
number
and
a
PFD
20
number,
so
EPA
survey
reviewers
may
effectively
locate
and
correlate
all
PFDs
included
in
the
survey
response.
If
the
site
wishes
the
PFD
to
be
treated
as
confidential,
the
respondent
may
stamp
or
write
"
Confidential"
across
the
top
of
the
attached
PFD.

A
PFD
presents
a
significant
amount
of
technical
data
in
a
simple
visual
representation.
EPA
needs
the
PFD(
s)
requested
in
this
question
in
order
to
better
understand
the
operations
performed
at
the
site
as
they
relate
to
the
volume
and
pollutants
contained
in
process
and
non­
process
wastewaters
that
are
generated.
EPA
will
use
the
information
presented
in
these
materials
to
supplement
information
gathered
through
the
survey
and
through
mechanisms
other
than
the
survey.
For
example,
the
Agency
will
use
site
layouts
to
identify
how
close
process
areas
are
to
each
other
to
identify
when
it
may
be
feasible
for,
and/
or
the
cost
for,
wastewater
to
be
reused
in
another
process
area.
The
reviewer
of
the
survey
may
also
use
these
overview
materials
to
become
familiar
with
the
site
before
reviewing
the
detailed
question
responses.

Question
21(
a)(
1)
asks
for
analytical
water
sampling
data
collected
for
purposes
of
NPDES
or
state
discharge
permit
compliance.
The
data
to
be
entered
in
the
Question
21(
a)(
1)
table
is
similar
to
the
information
requested
in
Question
21(
b)(
4).
Question
21(
a)(
2)
asks
what
percentage
of
process
wastewater
at
each
monitoring
location
is
from
meat
product
operations.

Question
21
requires
wastewater
data
collected
by
the
site
from
both
permitted
and
nonpermitted
monitoring
locations
in
1999
using
EPA­
approved
methods
(
40
CFR
Part
136)
or
alternative
methods.
Question
21(
b)(
1)
asks
if
the
site
has
collected
any
wastewater
data
collected
at
nonpermitted
monitoring
locations.
Question
21
(
b)(
2)
asks
the
site
to
indicate
whether
this
data
was
collected
simultaneously
at
both
influent
and
effluent
streams
from
a
wastewater
treatment
system
or
a
treatment
unit,
or
if
the
data
was
collected
at
a
separate
nonpermitted
location.
Question
21(
b)(
3)
also
asks
for
any
other
wastewater
characterization
data
the
site
may
have
collected
at
nonpermitted
monitoring
locations
in
1997
or
1998.

The
Detailed
Survey
provides
an
information
table
that
defines
28
pollutant
parameter
codes
that
are
necessary
for
the
completion
of
Question
21.
Standard
codes
help
speed
the
processing
of
this
survey.
In
addition,
two
other
information
tables
provide
instruction
concerning
the
method
for
calculating
average
concentration
when
some
or
all
samples
are
reported
as
not
detected
(
ND)
for
one
or
more
pollutant
parameters.
Since
laboratories
may
report
pollutant
parameters
as
ND,
EPA
expects
that
the
site
will
also
use
the
NDs
in
calculating
the
average
concentration.
There
are
several
methods
which
may
be
used
to
calculate
an
average
pollutant
parameter
concentration
when
ND
values
have
been
reported
by
the
laboratory.
EPA
requires
the
site
to
identify
which
method
the
site
used
to
calculate
an
average
pollutant
parameter
concentration.

If
any
of
the
data
requested
in
Questions
21(
a)
or
21(
b)
are
readily
available
in
the
requested
format,
the
respondent
may
attach
it
to
the
survey
in
lieu
of
responding
to
each
question
in
the
reply
table.
If
any
of
the
data
requested
in
Question
21(
a)
or
21(
b)
are
readily
available
in
an
electronic
format
(
e.
g.,
spreadsheet),
the
site
is
asked
to
submit
a
disk
along
with
the
hard
copy
output
of
the
electronic
file,
and
send
it
in
with
the
survey.

Question
21(
b)(
4)
asks
if
the
site
has
collected
any
water
quality
parameter
data
simultaneously
at
both
influent
and
effluent
streams,
or
if
the
site
has
collected
data
for
any
parameter
21
from
nonpermitted
monitoring
locations
at
the
facility.
A
table
is
provided
for
the
site
to
input
parameter
data.
Question
21(
b)(
4)
requires
the
site
to
assign
a
unique
sampling
point
(
SP)
number
to
each
sampling
location,
describe
the
location
the
unique
sampling
point,
identify
the
range
of
dates
in
which
data
were
collected,
and
provide
the
SP
number
at
the
top
of
the
table
for
each
question.
Each
part
of
this
question
is
formatted
in
a
table
to
specify
the
following
information:
the
pollutant
analyzed;
the
EPA
or
alternative
analytical
method
used;
whether
the
samples
were
collected
as
grabs
or
as
composites;
the
total
number
of
samples
collected
at
that
sampling
point
for
that
pollutant;
the
number
of
samples
in
which
the
pollutant
was
not
detected;
the
typical
detection
limit
or
range
of
detection
limits
for
that
sampling
point
for
that
pollutant;
the
average
concentration
of
the
pollutant;
the
calculation
methodology
used
to
determine
the
average
concentration
when
some
or
all
measurements
were
not
detected
(
see
the
following
detailed
description);
the
maximum
concentration
of
the
pollutant;
the
minimum
concentration
of
the
pollutant;
and
the
estimated
or
measured
average
flow
rate
at
this
sampling
point
during
the
sampling
period
for
that
pollutant.
Question
20(
b)(
5)
asks
what
percentage
of
process
wastewater
at
each
monitoring
location
is
from
meat
product
operations.

EPA
needs
this
information
to
support
its
effort
to
accurately
characterize
wastewater
influent
and
effluents
generated
at
meat
products
industry
facilities.
Carefully
reported
wastewater
flow
data
are
very
important
to
calculation
of
pollutant
mass
loadings.
Some
of
the
data
will
be
used
to
document
the
expected
performance
(
effectiveness)
of
treatment
processes
for
pollutants
of
concern
in
the
meat
products
industry.
EPA
will
combine
the
wastewater
sampling
data
requested
in
this
question
with
data
collected
through
other
mechanisms
to
characterize
meat
products
industry
wastewaters,
and
to
estimate
industry
pollutant
loadings.
Also,
EPA
will
use
the
requested
data
to
study
the
systems
that
meat
products
processing
sites
are
using
to
meet
the
requirements
of
the
current
rule.
As
part
of
the
rulemaking
effort,
EPA
may
sample
wastewater
to
characterize
treatment
system
technologies
at
some
meat
products
industry
sites.
Finally,
the
data
will
also
help
the
Agency
to
establish
a
baseline
from
which
the
benefits
of
proposed
treatment
alternatives
can
be
measured.

Question
22
requests
information
on
environmental
management
or
pollution
prevention
practices.
Site
information
to
address
this
question
could
include
and
description
of
affected
processes,
wastewater
streams,
targeted
pollutants,
cost
information.
EPA
will
use
the
information
requested
in
this
question
to
identify
and
study
operational
practices
that
minimize
the
generation
of
pollutants
of
concern,
and
that
minimize
the
presence
of
pollutants
of
concern
in
wastewater
streams.

°
Economic
Information
The
financial
and
economic
information
collected
in
the
survey
is
necessary
to
complete
the
economic
analysis
of
the
proposed
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
standards
for
the
Meat
Products
Industry.
To
minimize
the
burden
of
responding
to
the
survey,
EPA
has
limited
the
information
it
requests.
The
questions
are
phrased
with
commonly
used
terminology
and
the
tables
are
organized
in
formats
familiar
to
financial
officers
in
the
respondent
industry.

For
some
questions,
three
years
of
data
are
needed
to
provide
information
to
identify
industry
trends,
to
resolve
data
anomalies,
and
to
identify
potential
irregularities
caused
by
events
outside
of
the
Meat
Products
Industry's
control.
EPA
requests
financial
and
economic
information
for
the
fiscal
years
ending
1997,
1998,
and
1999­­
the
most
recent
years
for
which
data
are
available.
22
Information
contact
and
site
identification.
Question
1
requests
the
name
and
address
of
the
company
that
owns
the
site.
The
data
will
be
used
to
group
sites
by
company
in
order
to
aggregate
costs
and
evaluate
impacts
on
the
company
level.

Background
information.
Question
7
requests
the
type
of
inspection
program
the
site
operates
under;
Question
8
asks
if
the
site
files
annual
reports
with
Grain
Inspection,
Packers
and
Stockyards
Administration
(
GIPSA).
The
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture=
s
Food
Safety
and
Inspection
Service
(
FSIS)
and
GIPSA
both
generate
large
amounts
of
publicly
available
information.
These
questions
will
permit
EPA
to
better
access
and
utilize
public
information
on
the
Animal
Processing
industry.

Corporate
type.
Questions
23
and
24
request
the
site=
s
corporation
type
and
ask
whether
the
site
is
publicly
or
privately
owned.
This
information
is
necessary
to
determine
a
site=
s
tax
status
and
the
availability
of
public
data
for
the
economic
analysis.

Employment.
Question
25
requests
employment
data
for
fiscal
year
1999.
The
question
requests
data
on
the
average
number
of
full­
time
equivalent
(
FTE)
employees
at
the
site
and
at
the
company.
This
data
will
be
used
to
estimate
direct
employment
losses
as
the
result
of
site
closure.
The
number
of
employees
at
the
company
allows
EPA
to
identify
small
businesses
if
the
latter
are
in
an
SIC
code
with
that
criterion.
EPA
will
also
use
the
employment
data
to
develop
estimates
of
direct
community­
wide
impacts.

Work
Shifts.
Question
26
asks
if
the
site
typically
operates
on
a
single
shift
or
a
double
shift.
In
the
beef
and
hog
sectors,
double
shifts
are
associated
with
economies
of
scale.
Thus
the
information
in
Question
26
will
assist
EPA
in
evaluating
and
interpreting
the
cost
information
requested
in
Questions
31
through
33.

Discount
rate.
Questions
27
and
28
request
the
site=
s
discount
rate
or
cost
of
capital
and
the
estimated
interest
rate
to
finance
capital
improvements.
Question
29
asks
about
the
appropriate
mix
of
debt
(
Question
27)
and
equity
(
Question
28)
used
to
finance
capital
improvements.
The
economic
analysis
will
use
these
data
to
annualize
the
cost
of
future
wastewater
treatment
investments.

Other
Sites
Owned
by
the
Same
Company.
Question
30
asks
the
respondent
to
identify
the
number
of
meat
products
sites
owned
by
the
company.
The
response
to
Question
30
combined
with
Question
1
allows
EPA
to
verify
its
findings
when
it
aggregates
data
from
the
site
level
to
the
company
level.
Information
concerning
whether
a
site
was
constructed
or
acquired
will
enable
EPA
to
assess
the
rate
of
growth
and
concentration
in
the
Meat
Products
Industry,
as
well
as
allow
EPA
to
identify
sites
for
possible
site
visits.

Income
statement
information.
Questions
31,
32
and
33
request
income
statement
information
that
the
respondent
completes
for
the
company
and
site
in
fiscal
years
1997,
1998,
and
1999.
It
is
in
a
format
familiar
to
financial
officers.
Item
a,
sales,
is
used
in
SBREFA
tests.
Item
b,
other
income,
allows
EPA
to
evaluate
the
importance
of
business
activities
not
related
to
the
rule
to
the
site
and
company.
Item
c,
total
revenues,
is
the
sum
of
items
a
and
b.
Costs
are
requested
in
items
d
through
f.
Depreciation
is
requested
as
a
separate
entry
to
allow
EPA
to
calculate
cash
flow.
Item
g
is
the
total
of
costs
and
expenses.
Item
h,
earnings
before
interest
and
taxes
(
EBIT),
is
the
23
difference
between
revenues
(
item
c)
and
costs
(
item
g).
It
is
a
common
component
in
financial
ratios.
Items
i
and
jC
interest
expense
and
taxes,
respectivelyCmay
only
be
allocated
at
the
company
level
and
not
the
site
level.
The
inclusion
or
exclusion
of
interest
and
taxes
will
help
EPA
interpret
the
responses
given
for
net
income
for
the
company
and
site.
All
sites
are
expected
to
be
able
to
complete
an
income
statement
through
EBIT.
Sites
that
do
not
maintain
tax
and
interest
records
at
the
site
level
are
not
required
to
complete
the
question
from
EBIT
to
net
income,
but
all
companies
are
expected
to
provide
that
information.
Site
income
plays
a
crucial
role
in
the
site
closure
analysis.
Multiple
years
are
requested
so
that
EPA
can
identify
unusually
good
or
bad
years,
and
so
EPA
can
use
forecasting
techniques
to
predict
variations
in
site
cash
flow.

Balance
sheet
information.
Question
34
requests
1999
balance
sheet
information
for
both
the
site
and
the
company.
A
comparison
of
the
company
and
site
entries
allows
EPA
to
evaluate
the
relative
importance
of
the
site
to
the
company
and
what
liabilities
are
or
are
not
recorded
on
the
site=
s
books.
Entries
are
included
for
inventories,
current
assets
excluding
inventories,
land,
buildings,
equipment,
other
noncurrent
assets,
and
cumulative
depreciation
for
both
the
site
and
the
company.
Liability
data
is
also
requested.
Entries
are
included
for
current
liabilities,
long­
term
debt,
retained
earnings,
and
owner
equity.
The
balance
sheet
data
can
be
used
to
calculate
a
series
of
financial
ratios
that
indicate
financial
health
(
e.
g.,
current
ratio,
working
capital­
to­
debt,
and
debt­
to­
assets).
Combined,
Questions
31
through
34
supply
the
basic
information
for
evaluating
site
and
company
impacts
through
cash
flow
and
financial
ratio
analyses.

Total
quantities
of
meat
and
meat
byproduct
shipped
by
product
category.
Question
35
requests
the
total
quantities
of
meat
and
meat
byproducts
shipped
from
the
site
by
product
categories
and
in
total
for
fiscal
year
1999.
Question
36
allows
EPA
to
adjust
quantity
totals
for
shipping
between
sites
owned
by
the
same
company
to
prevent
double­
counting
of
output.
When
aggregated
over
all
sites,
the
information
will
be
cross­
referenced
with
industry
and
government
data
to
identify
and
understand
the
relationship
among
the
confidential
and
public
data.
This,
in
turn,
allows
EPA
to
make
better
use
of
public
data
for
2000
and
future
years.

Value
of
meat
and
meat
byproduct
shipments.
Question
37
requests
the
total
value
of
meat
and
meat
byproduct
shipments
from
the
site
by
product
category
and
in
total
for
fiscal
year
1999.
Question
37
is
necessary
to
determine
the
impact
of
regulation
on
certain
product
categories;
where
products
correspond
to
subcategories,
EPA
is
required
to
evaluate
economic
achievability
by
subcategory.
Combined
with
the
quantity
of
product
shipments
data
from
Question
35,
this
data
may
be
used
to
identify
the
relative
importance
of
each
revenue
source
to
the
site's,
and
the
industry=
s
financial
health.
Value
of
shipments
(
Question
37)
divided
by
quantities
shipped
(
Question
35)
estimates
unit
prices;
combined
with
the
quantity
data,
this
forms
the
basis
for
a
market
model
analysis.

Site
financial
statements.
Question
38
asks
respondents
to
provide
copies
of
1999
financial
statements
with
accompanying
notes
for
the
company
owning
the
site.
The
information
supplied
in
Question
38
allows
EPA
to
verify
the
information
provided
in
Questions
31
through
34.
The
notes
to
the
financial
statements
may
explain
any
potential
discrepancies
in
the
data
provided
in
Questions
31
through
34
prior
to
EPA
contacting
the
respondent
for
additional
data.

$
Detailed
Description
of
the
2000
Meat
Products
Industry
Screener
Survey
24
The
Screener
Survey,
presented
in
Attachment
2,
consists
of
7
questions.
The
Screener
Survey
collects
general
facility
and
technical
data,
which
will
be
used
to
describe:
industry
operations,
wastewater
generation
rates,
and
wastewater
disposal
practices.
Also,
the
number
of
employees
at
each
entity
will
identify
the
facility
as
small
or
large
according
to
the
small
business
regulations.

The
introduction
to
the
Screener
Survey
contains
instructions
for
completion,
as
well
as
one
question
and
a
choice
of
two
certification
statements.
The
introduction
question
asks
whether
the
site
is
engaged
in
meat
product
processes.
If
the
answer
is
"
no",
the
respondent
does
not
have
to
complete
the
survey,
but
must
certify
their
response
using
certification
statement
#
2
and
indicate
why
the
survey
is
not
applicable
(
e.
g.,
the
site
is
a
sales
office).
If
the
answer
is
"
yes",
the
respondent
is
directed
to
complete
the
Screener
Survey
and
certify
their
response
using
certification
statement
#
1
when
that
part
is
complete.

The
first
four
questions
request
general
facility
site
information.
The
fifth
and
sixth
questions
request
operational
data,
wastewater
production
data
and
wastewater
discharge
information.
The
last
question
asks
how
many
employees
are
at
the
site
and
at
the
company
which
owns
the
site.
The
Agency
needs
information
collected
in
these
seven
questions
in
order
to
characterize
the
Meat
Products
Industry.

The
following
is
a
description
and
justification
of
each
question
in
the
Screener
Survey.

Questions
1­
4:
General
Facility
Information
Questions
1­
4
request
general
facility
information,
including
mailing
and
site
addresses,
and
technical
and
financial
contact
information.
The
information
provided
in
response
to
these
questions
will
allow
EPA
to
better
characterize
the
industry
in
terms
of
geography,
distribution
among
subsector
categories,
and
type
of
ownership.

Question
1
requests
verification
of
the
site's
mailing
address.
Likewise,
Question
2
requests
verification
of
the
site's
street
(
i.
e.,
physical)
address.
EPA
needs
this
verification
in
order
to
correct
or
complete
erroneous
or
incomplete
portions
of
meat
products
industry
addresses
on
the
survey
mailing
list,
and
to
ensure
that
proper
addresses
are
used
for
any
follow­
up
activities.
Due
to
the
significant
effort
the
Agency
has
already
made
to
ensure
the
accuracy
and
completeness
of
all
information
on
the
2000
Meat
Products
Industry
mailing
list,
the
Agency
expects
that
a
minimum
number
of
sites
will
have
to
provide
mailing
and
address
information
to
correct
EPA's
records.
In
addition,
EPA
relies
on
location
information
when
surveying
companies
that
operate
numerous
sites
throughout
the
United
States.
The
Agency
needs
accurate
site
location
information
in
order
to
address
possible
subcategorization
of
the
industrial
category
based
on
geographic
location,
and
to
evaluate
the
impact
that
meat
products
industry
sites
make
on
local
water
quality.

Question
3
requests
the
name
and
address
of
the
company
that
owns
the
site.
The
data
will
be
used
to
group
sites
by
company
in
order
to
aggregate
costs
and
evaluate
impacts
on
the
company
level.
25
Question
4
requests
the
name,
title,
telephone
number,
and
facsimile
number
for
the
contact
at
the
site
regarding
information
supplied
in
the
survey.
With
this
information,
EPA
will
be
able
to
contact
responsible
individuals
at
the
site
if
response
clarification
or
follow­
up
is
required.

Question
5
asks
if
in
1999
the
site
slaughtered,
further
processed,
or
rendered
any
type
of
red
meat
or
poultry
and
to
identify
which
operations
were
performed
for
which
types
of
animals.
This
question
assists
the
Agency
in
characterizing
the
Meat
Products
Industry.

Question
6
asks
if
any
types
of
process
wastewater
were
generated
for
Meat
Products
Operations
for
1999.
If
the
answer
is
"
yes"
the
respondent
is
directed
to
indicate
the
discharge
status
of
the
process
wastewater(
s)
and
identify
the
amount
discharged
in
1999
in
gallons/
year.
EPA
needs
to
identify
if
process
wastewater
is
generated
and
the
volume
generated
in
order
to
determine
if
the
facility
would
potentially
be
covered
by
the
regulation
being
developed.
The
ultimate
disposal
method
information
will
be
used
to
perform
the
environmental
benefits
analyses
and
in
order
to
evaluate
how
Meat
Products
Industry
wastewaters
discharges
are
ultimately
released
to
the
environment.

Question
7
requests
employment
data
for
fiscal
year
1999.
The
question
requests
data
on
the
average
number
of
full­
time
equivalent
(
FTE)
employees
at
the
site
and
at
the
company.
This
data
will
be
used
to
estimate
direct
employment
losses
as
the
result
of
site
closure.
The
number
of
employees
at
the
company
allows
EPA
to
identify
small
businesses
if
the
latter
are
in
an
SIC
or
NAICS
code
with
that
criterion.
EPA
will
also
use
the
employment
data
to
develop
estimates
of
direct
community­
wide
impacts.
26
5.
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTED­­
AGENCY
ACTIVITIES,
COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY
AND
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
5(
a)
Agency
Activities
The
2000
Meat
Products
Industry
Detailed
Survey
has
been
developed
by
EPA's
Engineering
and
Analysis
Division
(
EAD).
EAD
has
planned
for
and
allocated
resources
for
the
efficient
and
effective
management
of
the
information
to
be
collected.
EPA
is
conducting
the
following
activities
in
administering
the
2000
Meat
Products
Industry
Surveys:


Design
the
survey
instrument;


Create
a
mailing
list
database;


Provide
copies
of
the
survey
instruments
to
industry
trade
associations
for
review;


Discuss
the
data
collection
and
the
burden
associated
with
its
administration
with
trade
association
representatives;


Publish
a
notice
in
the
Federal
Register
to
announce
the
upcoming
ICR;


Consider
and
respond
to
all
comments
received,
and
revise
the
data
collection
based
on
these
comments;


Develop
the
ICR
package,
and
submit
the
package
to
OMB;


Design
a
system
to
track
mailing
and
receipt
activities;


Mail
survey
instruments;


Develop
and
maintain
Help
Lines
and
Internet
addresses
for
technical
and
economic
assistance
(
budget
permitting);


Maintain
the
tracking
system;


Implement
appropriate
procedures
for
handling
CBI
responses;


Develop
guidelines
for
reviewing
and
coding
the
responses;


Develop
electronic
databases,
data
entry
systems,
and
documentation;


Review
and
code
survey
responses
for
input
to
an
electronic
database;


Collect
missing
information;


Enter
and
verify
data
in
the
database.
27
The
Agency
will
use
the
data
collected
through
the
2000
Meat
Products
Industry
Surveys
to
characterize
pollutant
discharges
from
meat
products
sites,
and
to
develop
regulatory
options
to
control
these
pollutant
discharges.
Specifically,
EPA
will
establish
current
baseline
estimates
of
industry­
wide
production­
normalized
wastewater
flow
rates,
pollutant
concentrations,
and
loadings
in
order
to
analyze
the
engineering
costs
of
compliance,
economic
impacts,
and
environmental
benefits
of
each
regulatory
option.
Ultimately,
the
Agency
will
select
appropriate
regulatory
options
for
the
industry,
and
will
revise
the
Meat
Products
Industry
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
standards
to
reflect
any
new
model
technologies
chosen
by
the
Agency
as
the
basis
for
these
guidelines
and
standards.

5(
b)
Collection
Methodology
and
Management
The
Agency
will
administer
the
Meat
Products
Industry
Detailed
Survey
to
approximately
350
of
7,981
sites
and
will
administer
the
Screener
Survey
to
approximately
1,650
sites;
including,
simple
and
complex
slaughterhouse
sites,
low
and
high
processing
packing
housing
sites,
small
processor
sites,
meat
cutters,
sausage
and
luncheon
meat
processors,
ham
processor
sites,
and
poultry
processing
sites.
The
Agency
specifically
designed
a
short
Detailed
Survey
for
the
Meat
Products
Industry
and
is
focusing
the
distribution
of
this
Detailed
Survey
on
slaughtering
facilities,
which
are
expected
to
contribute
a
majority
of
the
pollutant
loading
generated
by
this
industry.
This
collection
instrument
has
not
been
pretested
but
the
Agency
has
received
comments
from
the
industry
regarding
how
long
they
believe
it
will
take
to
complete
the
survey.
Also,
the
Agency
is
relying
on
past
experience
with
similar
surveys
to
determine
the
burden
on
the
industry.
The
Agency
designed
the
survey
mailing
list
database
using
information
from
the
following
sources:

°
The
United
States
Department
of
Agriculture,
Food
Safety
and
Inspection
Service,
Office
of
Field
Operations,
Field
Automation
and
Information
Management
Division(
FAIM)
list
of
facilities
covered
under
the
HACCP
guidelines
at
http://
www.
fsis.
usda.
gov/
OA/
haccp/
imphaccp.
htm
 
the
federally­
inspected
lists
were
dated
3/
9/
00
and
the
state­
inspected
lists
were
dated
5/
10/
00.
These
lists
are
updated
periodically.

!
The
United
States
Department
of
Agriculture,
Food
Safety
and
Inspection
Service,
Office
of
Field
Operations
publication
of
the
Meat
and
Poultry
Inspection
Directory
for
December
1999
!
Urner
Barry
Meat
and
Poultry
Directory
2000
!
Member
lists
from
the
following
trade
associations:

S
National
Renderers
Association
S
American
Meat
Institute
S
US
Poultry
and
Egg
Association
!
EPA
Permit
Compliance
System
(
PCS)
database
!
EPA
state
and
regional
personnel
28
!
Porkfacts
2000,
NPPC
!
The
Market
Advisor
report
on
top
meat
packers
for
1998
at
http://
www.
ag.
ndsu.
nodak.
edu/
cow/
topics/
marketshare.
htm
All
of
the
above­
listed
sources
were
used
to
determine
the
list
of
potential
recipients
for
the
Survey
(
7,981
sites).
Some
of
these
sources
were
cross­
referenced
with
one
another
to
obtain
site
level
information
and
to
ensure
the
accuracy
and
applicability
of
each
site's
information
before
inclusion
in
the
potential
survey
mailing
list.

Site
level
information
was
available
for
some
Survey
recipients.
Specifically,
site
level
information
was
available
for
large
and
small
facilities
in
the
USDA's
HACCP
database
that
had
corresponding
information
in
the
Urner
Barry
Meat
and
Poultry
Directory
2000.

EPA
will
administer
the
2000
Meat
Products
Industry
Surveys
in
hard
copy
format.
Respondents
may
download
additional
copies
of
the
surveys
from
EPA's
web
site
or
contact
EPA
if
additional
blank
copies
are
necessary.
However,
the
Agency
requires
that
respondents
submit
their
completed
surveys
in
signed,
certified,
hard
copy
format.

EPA
considered
administering
the
data
collection
surveys
in
an
interactive,
electronic
format.
However,
the
development
of
electronic
surveys
is
not
considered
efficient
for
the
following
reasons:


The
expense
of
developing
and
testing
an
electronic
survey
is
not
cost
effective
because
this
data
collection
is
a
one­
time
survey
effort.
Because
the
surveys
will
not
be
reused,
neither
the
respondents
nor
the
EPA
would
benefit
from
an
electronic
copy
of
the
survey.


Due
to
the
amount
of
detailed
information
required
for
the
effective
review
and
revision
of
meat
products
industry
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
standards,
the
Survey
is
complex.
EPA
has
used
several
features,
including
nested
questions,
to
increase
the
efficiency
with
which
the
respondent
can
complete
the
survey
form.
EPA
would
incur
an
increased
burden
in
programming
these
special
features
into
an
interactive,
electronic
format.


EPA
could
not
be
sure
the
software
at
respondent
facilities
would
be
compatible
or
that
electronic
responses
would
be
correctly
formatted.
If
the
survey
were
administered
in
interactive,
electronic
format,
it
may
be
necessary
for
EPA
to
make
an
increased
effort
to
clarify
responses.


The
Agency
would
incur
an
increased
burden
in
maintaining
a
computer
support
Help
Line,
in
addition
to
the
potential
(
budget
permitting)
technical
information
and
financial
and
economic
information
Help
Lines.


Through
other
effluent
guidelines
projects,
EPA
has
established
mechanisms,
including
double­
key
entry,
verification,
and
resolution
systems,
for
effective
and
efficient
data
entry
from
hard
copy
surveys.
If
the
surveys
were
administered
in
29
electronic
format,
EPA
would
incur
increased
burden
in
designing
a
front­
end
electronic
system.

EPA
has
determined
that
the
option
to
administer
the
2000
Meat
Products
Industry
Surveys
in
electronic
format
is
precluded
by
the
added
cost
and
increased
burden
that
would
be
incurred.

Although
EPA
has
chosen
not
to
administer
the
survey
in
an
interactive,
electronic
format,
the
Agency
has
used
information
technology
throughout
the
development
of
the
surveys,
and
will
continue
to
use
this
technology
to
optimize
the
efficiency
of
both
Agency
and
respondent
activities
associated
with
the
survey.
The
Federal
Register
notice
accompanying
the
ICR
submission
to
OMB
includes
an
Internet
address
at
which
commenters
and
interested
members
of
the
public
may
download
the
entire
2000
Meat
Products
Industry
Survey
ICR
package.
Finally,
EPA
will
provide
technical
information
and
economic
information
Internet
addresses
through
which
survey
respondents
may
obtain
Help
Line
assistance.

EPA
will
distribute
the
survey
instruments
via
Federal
Express
or
a
comparable
carrier
that
requires
a
signature
to
acknowledge
receipt
of
delivery.
Through
this
process,
EPA
will
ensure
that
each
designated
site
receives
the
survey,
and
that
a
preliminary
point­
of­
contact
(
the
signee)
has
been
identified.
From
the
date
of
receipt,
meat
products
industry
sites
will
have
60
calendar
days
to
respond
and
return
the
completed
Detailed
Survey
to
the
Agency.
Recipients
of
the
Screener
Survey
will
have
20
days
to
respond
and
return
the
completed
survey
to
the
Agency.

Budget
permitting,
EPA
will
maintain
a
toll­
free
technical
information
Help
Line
and
a
tollfree
financial
and
economic
information
Help
Line
for
all
survey
respondents.
These
Help
Lines
will
be
staffed
with
trained
contractor
personnel
during
normal
business
hours.
In
addition,
EPA
will
provide
Internet
electronic
mailing
addresses
that
respondents
may
use
to
obtain
assistance.
In
every
case,
Help
Line
and
Internet
staff
will
work
to
provide
respondents
with
immediate
assistance.

Each
mailed
survey
will
have
a
unique
site
identification
number.
EPA
will
use
an
electronic
tracking
system
to
record,
for
each
identification
number,
the
date
the
survey
package
was
distributed,
the
date
the
site
received
the
survey
package
(
i.
e.,
the
date
on
which
a
respondent
signed
for
the
delivery
of
the
survey
package),
the
dates
of
any
necessary
follow­
up
letters
or
telephone
calls
to
respondents,
and
the
date
EPA
receives
the
completed
survey.
The
identification
number
will
also
serve
as
a
site
identification
code
for
data
entry
in
the
survey
database.

EPA
and
its
contractors
will
review
completed
surveys
and
perform
coding
and
data
entry
of
survey
responses.
Follow­
up
phone
calls
will
be
made
to
survey
respondents
as
necessary
to
ensure
quality
responses.
The
coded
survey
responses
will
be
entered
into
a
database
designed
to
ensure
the
retrieval
of
all
data
necessary
for
thorough
technical
and
economic
analyses.

In
addition
to
these
surveys,
EPA
intends
to
request
wastewater
sampling
data
from
20
facilities
in
the
Meat
Products
Industry
that
are
in
the
identified
universe.
Specific
sites
to
be
sampled
for
5­
day
periods
will
be
identified
by
EPA
at
a
later
date.

5(
c)
Small
Entity
Flexibility
30
EPA
has
taken
many
steps
to
ensure
that
the
respondent
burden
is
minimized
for
small
entities,
while
collecting
sufficient
data
to
evaluate
regulatory
flexibility
for
small
entities.
EPA
will
identify
the
size
of
the
business
entity
according
to
Small
Business
Administration
definitions
from
survey
information
through
sales
revenues
or
company
employment.
The
financial
and
economic
information
collected
in
the
survey
is
necessary
to
perform
the
economic
analysis
of
the
proposed
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
standards
for
the
Meat
Products
industry
in
order
to
meet
the
requirements
of
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
(
SBREFA).
To
minimize
the
burden
of
responding
to
the
survey,
EPA
has
developed
a
Screener
Survey
consisting
of
only
seven
questions
to
send
to
the
majority
of
the
facilities
identified
as
most
likely
to
be
small
entities
and
has
limited
the
number
of
Detailed
Surveys
it
is
sending
to
these
facilities.
Also,
EPA
had
limited
the
information
it
requests
in
the
Detailed
Survey.
Finally,
the
questions
are
phrased
with
commonly
used
terminology
and
the
tables
are
organized
in
formats
familiar
to
financial
officers
in
the
respondent
industry.

5(
d)
Survey
Schedule
The
schedule
for
the
data
collection
activities
associated
with
the
2000
Meat
Products
Industry
Survey
is
presented
in
Table
5­
1:

TABLE
5­
1
SURVEY
SCHEDULE
Action
Approximate
Number
of
Calendar
Days
Following
OMB
Approval
Until
Action
is
Completed
Surveys
mailed
15
Receive
all
Survey
responses
80
Review
and
code
all
Survey
responses
100
Collect
all
missing
or
incomplete
information
115
Enter
all
coded
responses
in
database
130
6.
ESTIMATING
THE
BURDEN
AND
COST
OF
THE
SURVEY
6(
a)
Estimating
Respondent
Burden
The
2000
Meat
Products
Industry
Screener
Survey
and
Detailed
Survey
will
require
recipient
facilities
to
devote
time
(
i.
e.,
as
measured
by
staff
person­
hours)
and
resources
(
i.
e.,
copies
of
documents
and
response
mailings)
to
produce
acceptable
responses
to
the
EPA
surveys.
EPA
expects
that
engineers,
supervisors,
technical
and
administrative
staff
at
the
sites
will
devote
time
toward
gathering
and
preparing
the
final
responses.
The
costs
to
the
respondents'
facilities
associated
with
these
time
commitments
can
be
estimated
by
multiplying
the
time
spent
in
each
labor
category
by
an
appropriately
loaded
hourly
rate.
Because
labor
rates
vary
so
widely
among
the
personnel
involved
in
completing
the
survey,
EPA
generally
uses
an
average
loaded
hourly
rate
which
is
representative
31
of
the
average
salary
for
the
respondent
industry.
The
basis
for
the
labor
rate
that
will
be
used
for
purposes
of
this
cost
estimate
is
the
average
hourly
rate
for
white­
collar
workers
in
March
1999
in
the
goods­
producing
manufacturing
industries
($
30.77
per
hour).
These
average
hourly
rates
are
published
by
the
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
each
year.
Assuming
a
fringe
rate
of
50
percent
and
a
50
percent
overhead
and
profit
rate,
the
hourly
rate
for
a
goods
producing
manufacturing
white
collar
worker
would
be
$
69.23
per
hour.

To
develop
burden
estimates,
EPA
estimates
the
number
of
hours
that
will
be
required
to
complete
all
of
the
questions
in
the
Screener
Survey
and
Detailed
Survey
(
including
reviewing
instructions,
researching
data
sources,
typing
or
writing
the
information
requested,
reviewing
responses,
and
returning
the
survey)
and
then
multiplies
these
results
by
the
respondent
hourly
rate
to
generate
a
cost
estimate.
EPA
has
based
the
estimates
for
number
or
hours
necessary
to
complete
the
Screener
Survey
and
the
Detailed
Meat
Products
Industry
Survey
on
results
from
pretest
surveys
and
industry
comments
on
previous
EPA
surveys
of
similar
length.
The
Agency
estimates
that
the
1999
Meat
Products
Industry
Screener
Survey
should
take
1
hour
to
complete
and
that
the
Detailed
Survey
should
take
30
hours
to
complete.
Tables
6­
1
and
6­
2
breakdown
the
burden
(
in
hours)
per
anticipated
respondent
activity
presumed
necessary
to
complete
the
Screener
Survey
and
Detailed
Survey,
respectively.

TABLE
6­
1
RESPONDENT
AVERAGE
BURDEN
TO
COMPLETE
SCREENER
SURVEY
Respondent
Activity
Total
Burden
Per
Activity
(
Hours)

Read
Instructions
.25
Gather
Information
/
Data
.25
Complete
Survey
Form
.25
Review
Survey
Responses
.25
All
Activities
1.0
TABLE
6­
2
RESPONDENT
AVERAGE
BURDEN
PER
DETAILED
SURVEY
RESPONSE
ACTIVITY
Respondent
Activity
Total
Burden
Per
Activity
(
Hours)

Read
Instructions
1.0
Gather
Information
/
Data
14.0
Complete
Survey
Form
14.0
Review
Survey
Responses
1.0
All
Activities
30.0
Operation
and
maintenance
(
O&
M)
costs
estimates
are
based
on
the
one­
time
costs
each
respondent
will
incur
in
responding
to
the
surveys.
These
costs
are
assumed
to
include
the
cost
of
copying
and
mailing
each
survey.
Using
a
rate
of
$
0.05
per
impression,
the
average
cost
of
32
copying
the
3
page
Screener
Survey
and
the
30
page
Meat
Products
Industry
Survey
is
$.
15
and
$
1.50,
respectively.
To
determine
the
survey
mailing
rate
of
$
7.50
per
pound,
the
Agency
assumed
that
site
respondents
will
return
completed
surveys
and
attached
discharge
monitoring
reports
via
Federal
Express
economy
delivery
or
a
comparable
economy
delivery
carrier
that
requires
a
signature
to
acknowledge
receipt
of
delivery.
Because
survey
respondents
will
not
be
required
to
purchase
any
goods,
including
equipment
or
machinery,
to
respond
to
the
1999
Meat
Products
Industry
Screener
and
Detailed
Surveys,
the
Agency
does
not
expect
capital
costs
to
result
from
the
administration
of
the
data
collection
surveys.

Table
6­
3
presents
an
estimate
of
the
total
respondent
burden
and
costs
expected
for
completing
the
1999
Meat
Products
Industry
Screener
Survey
and
Detailed
Survey.
As
shown
in
Table
6­
3,
the
average
respondent
labor
costs
for
each
Screener
is
expected
to
be
about
$
69
and
the
respondent
labor
cost
for
the
detailed
survey
is
estimated
at
$
2,076.
Also
shown
in
the
table,
EPA
estimates
that
a
total
national
respondent
burden
of
12,150
hours
and
a
cost
of
$
844,543
(
including
O&
M
costs)
will
be
required
to
complete
the
Screener
and
the
Detailed
Survey.

TABLE
6­
3
1999
MEAT
PRODUCTS
INDUSTRY
SCREENER
AND
SURVEY
TOTAL
RESPONDENT
BURDEN
AND
COSTS
Survey
Total
Number
of
Responses
Average
Burden
per
Respondent
(
in
hours)
Total
Burden
(
in
hours)
Average
Labor
Costs
per
Respondent
(
in
dollars)
Total
Labor
Costs
(
in
dollars)
Average
O&
M
Costs
per
Respondent
(
in
dollars)
Total
O&
M
Cost
(
in
Dollars)
Total
Costs
(
in
dollars)

Screener
Survey
1,650
1
1,650
$
69
$
114,230
$
0.15
$
248
$
114,478
Detailed
Survey
350
30
10,500
$
2,076
$
726,915
$
9.00
$
3,150
$
730,065
Total
2,000
­­
12,150
­­
$
841,145
­­
$
3,398
$
844,543
In
addition
to
the
Screener
Survey
and
Detailed
Survey,
EPA
intends
to
seek
new
sampling
data
from
a
selected
group
of
20
facilities.
These
facilities
will
perform
one­
week
long
sampling
to
collect
data
on
meat
processing
effluent
characteristics.
Half
the
facilities
will
implement
a
sampling
protocol
estimated
to
require
120
person
hours
and
the
other
half
will
implement
a
sampling
protocol
estimated
to
require
156
person­
hours.
Tables
6­
4
and
6­
5,
present
estimated
burdens
on
a
per
facility
basis
to
conduct
the
5­
day
sample
(
120
hour
and
156
hour
sampling
protocol).
The
difference
in
hours
is
due
to
the
fact
the
sampling
at
10
facilities
will
take
place
at
two
locations
and
sampling
at
the
other
sites
will
take
place
at
four
locations
because
of
the
presence
of
rendering
operations
at
the
latter
sites.
33
TABLE
6­
4
ESTIMATED
BURDEN
FOR
5­
DAY
INTENSIVE
SAMPLING
EFFORT
FOR
A
MEAT
PROCESSING
AND
RENDERING
PLANT
.

Activity
Meat
Processing
and
Meat
Rendering
Influent
&
Effluent
#
of
hours
each
day
Preparatory
work
Hours
People
11Planning,
purchasing
supplies,
labeling
bottles,
organizing
packing
materials.
3
6
Sampling
Hours
People
Total
hours
12Take
2
grab
samples
at
each
site
every
4
hours
for
24­
hour
period,
and
adding
it
to
the
plastic
and
the
glass
composite
sample
bottles
 
do
this
at
both
processing
and
rendering
influent
and
effluent
sites
13Take
DO,
pH,
temp,
and
flow
with
multiprobe
at
the
beginning,
middle,
and
end
of
the
sampling
period.
Do
this
for
meat
processing
influent
and
effluent
and
rendering
influent
and
effluent
14Refill
buckets
with
ice
as
needed
6
1
6
Separating
into
bottles,
preserving,
packing,
and
shipping
Hours
People
Total
hours
15Collect,
label,
and
add
preservatives
to
bottles.
Seal
bottles
and
prepare
for
shipment
16For
each
cooler,
fill
out
traffic
report
for
the
lab,
with
all
sample
information
for
each
particular
cooler
and
seal
in
zip­
lock
bag;
fill
out
fedex
slip
for
the
lab
that
corresponds
to
each
cooler.
Prepare
and
seal
coolers
for
shipment
17Take
to
fed­
ex
and
ship
2.5
2
0.5
2
3
2
12
Total
hours
for
each
day
of
sampling
20
Total
hours
for
5­
day
sampling
period
120
34
TABLE
6­
5.
ESTIMATED
BURDEN
FOR
5­
DAY
INTENSIVE
SAMPLING
EFFORT
FOR
A
MEAT
PROCESSING
AND
RENDERING
PLANT
Activity
Meat
Processing
and
Meat
Rendering
Influent
&
Effluent
#
of
hours
each
day
Preparatory
work
Hours
People
1.
Planning,
purchasing
supplies,
labeling
bottles,
organizing
packing
materials.
3
6
Sampling
Hours
People
Total
hours
2.
Take
2
grab
samples
at
each
site
every
4
hours
for
24­
hour
period,
and
adding
it
to
the
plastic
and
the
glass
composite
sample
bottles
 
do
this
at
both
processing
and
rendering
influent
and
effluent
sites
3.
Take
DO,
pH,
temp,
and
flow
with
multiprobe
at
the
beginning,
middle,
and
end
of
the
sampling
period.
Do
this
for
meat
processing
influent
and
effluent
and
rendering
influent
and
effluent
4.
Refill
buckets
with
ice
as
needed
6
2
12
Separating
into
bottles,
preserving,
packing,
and
shipping
Hours
People
Total
hours
5.
Collect,
label,
and
add
preservatives
to
bottles.
Seal
bottles
and
prepare
for
shipment
6.
For
each
cooler,
fill
out
traffic
report
for
the
lab,
with
all
sample
information
for
each
particular
cooler
and
seal
in
zip­
lock
bag;
fill
out
fed­
ex
slip
for
the
lab
that
corresponds
to
each
cooler.
Prepare
and
seal
coolers
for
shipment
7.
Take
to
fed­
ex
and
ship
2.5
2.25
.5
2
3
2
13.25
Total
hours
for
each
day
of
sampling
31.25
Total
hours
for
5­
day
sampling
period
156.25
Table
6­
6
presents
estimates
of
the
total
burden
and
cost
to
all
facilities
performing
the
sampling
effort.
The
per
facility
cost
range
from
$
8308
to
$
10,800
depending
on
whether
a
facility
is
sampling
at
two
or
four
locations.
The
total
industry
burden
is
estimated
at
$
191,080.
35
TABLE
6­
6
MEAT
PRODUCTS
INDUSTRY
FACILITY
SAMPLING
TOTAL
RESPONDENT
BURDEN
AND
COSTS
Facility
Type
Total
Number
of
Sites
Average
Burden
per
Site
hours)
Total
Burden
(
in
hours)
Average
Labor
Costs
per
Responde
nt
(
in
dollars)
Total
Labor
Costs
(
in
dollars)
Total
Costs
(
in
dollars)

Processing
Only
10
120
1,200
$
8,308
$
83,080
$
83,080
Processing
and
Renderer
10
156
1,560
$
10,800
$
108,000
$
108,000
Total
20
­­
2,760
­­
$
191,080
$
191,080
6(
b)
Estimating
Agency
Burden
and
Cost
Table
6­
7
presents
an
estimate
of
the
burden
that
EPA
will
incur
to
administer
the
1999
Meat
Products
Industry
Screener
and
Survey.
The
table
identifies
the
collection
administration
tasks
to
be
performed
by
Agency
employees
and
contractors,
and
the
associated
hours
required
for
each
grouping
of
related
tasks.
EPA
determined
Agency
labor
costs
by
multiplying
Agency
burden
figures
by
the
hourly
Agency
labor
rate
of
$
52.91.
The
EPA
determined
this
rate
by
using
the
year
2000
GS­
13,
Step
5
hourly
rate
for
the
Washington­
Baltimore
Area
which
is
$
33.07,
and
then
multiplying
the
figure
by
a
benefits
multiplication
factor
of
1.6.
EPA
determined
contractor
labor
costs
by
multiplying
contractor
burden
figures
by
a
contractor
labor
rate
of
$
50.
This
rate
is
consistent
with
current
Agency
contracts.
Table
6­
7
also
includes
estimates
of
the
one­
time
operating
and
maintenance
(
O&
M)
costs
associated
with
printing,
photocopying,
and
postage
for
both
the
Agency
and
the
contractor.
EPA
estimated
these
costs
based
on
experience
with
similar
Surveys.
Total
Agency
costs
(
including
contractor
and
O&
M
costs
are
estimated
to
total
$
313,857.
Labor
costs
for
responding
to
comments
and
analyzing
survey
responses
contribute
to
the
majority
of
total
costs.

The
Agency
and
its
contractors
will
also
incur
cost
to
help
facilities
administer
the
anticipated
sampling
effort
at
20
meat
processing
facilities.
The
Agency
expects
to
incur
costs
associated
with
sampling
design,
coordination
of
data,
and
data
analysis.
These
estimated
burdens
and
costs
are
presented
in
Table
6­
8.
36
TABLE
6­
7
AGENCY
BURDEN
AND
COST
(
INCLUDING
CONTRACTOR
COST)
FOR
ADMINISTRATION
OF
SCREENING
AND
DETAILED
SURVEYS
Activities
Agency
Burden
(
Hours)
Agency
O&
M
(
Dollars)
Total
Agency
Labor
Cost
Contract
or
Burden
(
Hours)
Contractor
O&
M
(
Dollars)
Total
Contractor
Labor
Cost
$
52.91/
hr
$
50.00/
hr
Develop
the
collection
mechanism;
Provide
the
draft
Detailed
Survey
mechanism
to
industry
trade
associations
for
review;
Meet
with
trade
association
representatives;
Publish
notice
of
anticipated
ICR
in
Federal
Register;
Respond
to
all
comments
received;
Revise
Survey
mechanism
based
on
comments
from
reviewers.
200
$
10,582
120
$
6,000
Develop
a
mailing
list
database;
Develop
a
system
to
track
mailing
and
receipt
activities;
Mail
data
collection
surveys.
150
$
7,937
360
$
18,000
Develop
and
maintain
Help
Line
and
Internet
address.
120
$
6,349
360
$
18,000
Maintain
response
tracking
system;
Implement
appropriate
procedures
for
handling
CBI
responses;
Review
and
code
responses;
Collect
missing
information.
600
$
31,746
2,250
$
112,500
Enter
and
verify
data.
300
$
15,783
1,500
$
75,000
TOTAL
BURDEN
AND
COST
1,370
$
10,119
$
72,397
$
7,280
$
229,500
37
TABLE
6­
8
AGENCY
BURDEN
AND
COST
(
INCLUDING
CONTRACTOR
COST)
FOR
ADMINISTRATION
OF
SAMPLING
ACTIVITIES
Activities
Agency
Burden
(
Hours)
Agency
O&
M
(
Dollars)
Total
Agency
Labor
Cost
Contract
or
Burden
(
Hours)
Contractor
O&
M
(
Dollars)
Total
Contractor
Labor
Cost
$
52.91/
hr
$
50.00/
hr
Selecting
facilities
for
sampling
Compiling
and
entering
data
in
database
Analyzing
data
$
10,582
200
$
10,000
TOTAL
BURDEN
AND
COST
200
­­
$
10,582
10,000
­­
$
10,000
6
(
c)
Bottom
Line
Burden
Hours
And
Cost
Table
Tables
6­
9
summarizes
the
total
costs
that
the
meat
products
industry
and
the
EPA
will
incur
as
the
result
of
the
1999
Meat
Products
Industry
Screening
and
Detailed
Surveys
administration
and
administration
of
sampling
activities.

TABLE
6­
10
TOTAL
ESTIMATED
RESPONDENT
AND
AGENCY
BURDEN
AND
COST
SUMMARY
FOR
SCREENING
AND
DETAILED
SURVEYS
AND
SAMPLING
Surveys
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
Total
Labor
Cost
Total
O&
M
Cost
Total
Cost
All
Respondents
12,150
$
841,145
$
3,398
$
844,543
Agency
and
Contractor
5,960
$
301,987
$
11,870
$
313,857
Sampling
Effort
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
Total
Labor
Cost
Total
O&
M
Cost
Total
Cost
Selected
Facilities
2,760
­$
191,080­
­­
$
191,080
Agency
and
Contractor
400
$
20,582
­
$
20,582
Total
All
Activities
21,270
$
1,354,794
$
15,268
$
1,370,062
38
6(
d)
Reasons
for
Change
in
Burden
Because
the
1999
Meat
Products
Industry
Survey
Information
Collection
Request
is
not
associated
with
the
renewal
or
modification
of
any
existing
ICR,
the
burden
estimate
associated
with
this
survey
does
not
represent
a
change
in
any
existing
ICR
burden
estimate.

6(
e)
Burden
Statement
The
one­
time
public
reporting
and
record
keeping
burden
for
these
Surveys
is
estimated
to
be
30
hours
per
response
for
the
Detailed
Survey
and
1
hour
per
response
for
the
Screener
Survey
(
i.
e.,
a
total
of
12,150
hours
of
burden
divided
among
the
2000
respondents).
Also,
the
burden
for
the
sampling
is
estimated
to
be
120
to
156
hours
per
respondent
(
i.
e.,
a
total
of
2,760
hours
of
burden
divided
among
the
20
respondents).
Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;
develop,
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purposes
of
collecting,
validating,
and
verifying
information,
processing
and
maintaining
information,
and
disclosing
and
providing
information;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
be
able
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
search
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.
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
EPA's
regulations
are
listed
in
40
CFR
Part
9
and
48
CFR
Chapter
15.

Send
comments
on
the
Agency's
need
for
this
information,
the
accuracy
of
the
provided
burden
estimates,
and
any
suggested
methods
for
minimizing
respondent
burden,
including
through
the
use
of
automated
collection
techniques
to
the
Director,
Collection
Strategies
Division,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
2822),
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
D.
C.
20460;
and
to
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
725
17th
Street,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20503,
Attention:
Desk
Officer
for
EPA.
Include
the
EPA
ICR
number
and
OMB
control
number
in
any
correspondence.

TOTAL
ESTIMATED
RESPONDENT
COST
SUMMARY
FOR
SCREENING
AND
DETAILED
SURVEYS
AND
SAMPLING
Surveys
Total
Labor
Cost
Total
O&
M
Cost
Total
Cost
All
Respondents
$
841,145
$
3,398
$
844,543
Sampling
Effort
Total
Labor
Cost
Total
O&
M
Cost
Total
Cost
Selected
Facilities
$
191,080
­­
$
191,080
TOTAL
ESTIMATED
RESPONDENT
COST
SUMMARY
FOR
SCREENING
AND
DETAILED
SURVEYS
AND
SAMPLING
39
Total
All
Activities
$
1,032,225
$
3,398
$
1,035,623
PART
B
1.
Survey
Objectives,
Key
Variables,
and
Other
Preliminaries
1(
a)
Survey
Objectives
The
Meat
Products
survey
effort
will
provide
information
essential
to
establishing
a
need
for
and
developing,
as
necessary,
revised
regulations
under
Section
304(
m)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act.
Survey
data
is
essential
for
characterizing
the
nationwide
and
industry­
specific
status
of
meat
products
facility
location,
the
types
of
operations,
wastewater
characteristics,
wastewater
management
technology,
and
for
assessing
the
financial
status
of
meat
products
industry
potentially
affected
by
proposed
regulations.

1(
b)
Key
Variables
Please
refer
to
Part
A,
Section
4(
b),
of
this
ICR
for
information
on
this
topic
.

1(
c)
Statistical
Approach
The
objectives
of
the
survey
information
collection
effort
can
be
achieved
by
a
sample
survey
at
considerably
lower
cost
and
burden
(
to
EPA
and
respondents)
than
would
be
required
for
a
census.
A
statistically
designed
sample
survey
is
necessary
to
achieve
the
objectives,
in
particular
to
ensure
that
the
resulting
inferences
and
analyses
are
as
statistically
unbiased
and
as
precise
as
is
practicable.

Development
of
technical
questions
and
technical
analyses
of
the
Detailed
Survey
will
be
provided
by
Tetra
Tech,
Inc,
10309
Eaton
Place,
Suite
340,
Fairfax,
VA
22030.
This
support
will
be
provided
under
EPA
Contract
No.
68­
C­
99­
263,
which
is
monitored
by
the
Chemicals
Branch,
Engineering
Analysis
Division
of
EPA's
Office
of
Science
and
Technology.

Development
of
economic
and
financial
related
questions;
operation
of
a
help
line;
and
economic
and
financial
analyses
of
Detailed
Survey
data
will
be
provided
by
Eastern
Research
Group,
Eastern
Research
Group,
Inc.
(
ERG),
110
Hartwell
Avenue,
Lexington,
MA
02421­
3136.
This
support
will
be
provided
under
EPA
Contract
No.
68­
C6­
0022,
which
is
monitored
by
the
Economics
and
Statistics
Branch,
Engineering
Analysis
Division
of
EPA's
Office
of
Science
and
Technology.

Westat
will
conduct
the
surveys.
Westat,
at
1650
Research
Blvd,
Rockville,
MD
20850,
will
provide
technical
support
for
sample
frame
development
and
validation;
data
entry;
design
and
quality
assurance
(
QA)
review
of
the
survey
response
database;
and
statistical
analysis
and
40
reporting
of
survey
responses.
This
support
will
be
provided
under
EPA
Contract
No.
68­
C­
99­
242,
which
is
monitored
by
the
Economics
and
Statistical
Analysis
Branch,
Engineering
Analysis
Division
of
EPA's
Office
of
Science
and
Technology
(
OST).
Westat
will
also
provide
technical
support
for
collation,
mail­
out;
help­
line
operation;
development
and
maintenance
of
survey
tracking
systems;
and
analysis
of
survey
data.

1(
d)
Feasibility
The
survey
will
be
conducted
under
the
authority
of
Section
308
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
(
33
U.
S.
C.
1318).
Surveys
will
be
mailed
to
meat
and
poultry
facilities.
A
toll­
free
telephone
help
line
will
be
provided
by
contractors.
Respondents
are
provided
information
regarding
these
help
lines
in
the
General
Information
and
Instructions
sections
of
the
survey.

The
collection
schedule
(
see
Section
5(
d)
in
Part
A
of
this
ICR)
accounts
for
the
events
and
response
times
leading
up
to
final
analysis
of
survey
data.
This
project
will
involve
the
design
of
analyses,
computer
programs,
and
report
formats
in
advance
of
data
entry
of
survey
responses.
This
approach
will
ensure
that
key
results
are
reported
promptly
once
data
entry
and
data
quality
checks
are
finished.
Completion
of
these
tasks
will
require
planning
and
coordination
among
the
contractors
for
statistical,
technical,
and
financial
analyses.
It
will
also
require
that
the
survey
database
be
designed
(
and
a
mock­
up
of
the
database
be
completed)
well
before
data
entry
begins
so
that
analytical
programs
can
be
tested.

2.
Survey
Design
2(
a)
Target
Population
To
obtain
valuable
information
on
meat
products
industry's
wastewater
management
practice,
we
have
targeted
meat
and
poultry
product
facilities
with
slaughtering,
by­
product
processing,
rendering,
and
further
processing
operations.
The
basic
7
domains
of
interest
are:
1)
Poultry
slaughterers,
2)
Beef
slaughterers,
3)
Pork
slaughterers,
4)
Poultry
processors,
5)
Beef
processors,
6)
Pork
processors,
and
7)
Renderers.

2(
b)
Sampling
Design
The
survey
effort
sampling
design
will
be
a
stratified
random
probability
sample.

(
i)
Sampling
Frame
The
Hazard
Analysis
and
Critical
Control
Points
(
HACCP)
database
produced
by
USDA's
Food
Safety
and
Inspection
Service
(
FSIS)
will
be
used
as
the
primary
source
of
EPA's
sample
frame.
This
database
provides
a
list
of
7,891
federally
and
state­
inspected
meat
and
poultry
facilities.
The
list
is
dated
March
9,
2000
for
the
federally­
inspected
facilities
and
is
dated
May
10,
2000
for
the
state­
inspected
facilities.
The
eligible
HACCP
population
is
variable,
with
many
establishments
regularly
entering
and
leaving
the
population.
The
HACCP
database
provides
a
41
single
point
in
time
from
which
to
sample.
The
HACCP
database
will
be
supplemented
with
a
list
of
approximately
231
renderers
provided
by
the
National
Renderers
Association
(
NRA).

(
ii)
Sample
Size
and
Their
Allocation
The
entire
HACCP
frame
is
stratified
into
Large,
Small,
and
Very
Small
facilities,
corresponding
to
more
than
500
employees,
10­
500
employees,
and
less
than
10
employees,
respectively.
The
renderers
are
not
stratified
by
size.
Information
merged
onto
the
frame
from
Urner
Barry
Meat
and
Poultry
Directory
2000
identifies
the
stage
and
product
information
as
slaughterer/
processor
and
poultry/
beef/
pork/
other
for
at
least
242
of
the
292
large
facilities
(
82
percent)
and
1,236
of
the
2,381
small
facilities
(
52
percent).
No
stratification
information
is
available
for
the
remaining
large
and
small
facilities,
or
for
any
of
the
5,308
very
small
facilities.
Thus
stratification
information
is
available
for
19
percent
of
the
7,981
HACCP
facilities,
but
a
much
higher
proportion
of
the
larger
facilities.
Given
the
fluidity
of
the
eligibility
of
some
frame
members,
some
of
the
sampled
establishments
will
turn
out
not
to
be
eligible.
Also,
given
that
two­
thirds
of
the
establishments
are
missing
stratification
information,
it
is
impossible
to
accurately
predict
the
number
of
eligible
establishments
that
will
be
sampled
in
each
stratum.

EPA
will
survey
approximately
350
facilities
with
the
Detailed
Survey.
Also,
EPA
will
survey
approximately
1,650
facilities
with
the
Screener
Survey
(
7
questions)
to
collect
frame
stratification
data
that
will
be
used
to
improve
the
accuracy
of
estimates
from
the
Detailed
Surveys,
without
incurring
significant
respondent
burden.

(
iii)
Stratification
Variables
Stratification
increases
precision
(
reducing
one
source
of
uncertainty)
for
estimates
of
costs,
benefits
and
other
quantities.
The
strata
will
be
based
on
the
stage
of
operation
(
slaughter,
processor,
renderer)
and
the
animals
used
(
beef,
pork,
poultry).
The
frame
is
also
stratified
by
size,
based
on
number
of
employees.
A
size
measure
based
on
water
discharged
would
be
preferable,
but
this
information
does
not
exist
on
any
available
database.
It
is
assumed
that
the
largest
water
dischargers
will
have
a
large
number
of
employees,
so
using
employment
as
a
stratification
variable
is
a
logical
alternative.

(
iv)
Sampling
Methods
The
sample
for
the
Detailed
Survey
will
be
a
probability
sample
with
stratification
as
described
above.
The
sampling
unit
will
be
the
facility.

Approximately
50
facilities
will
be
selected
with
certainty
to
obtain
information
determined
to
be
necessary
for
evaluating
facility
operations
and
best
technology
options.
Since
most
of
the
interest
will
focus
on
the
characteristics
of
larger
facilities,
larger
facilities
will
be
oversampled
in
the
sample
design.
The
oversampling
rates
will
be
6:
3:
1,
meaning
that
the
large
facilities
will
be
sampled
at
6
times
the
rate
of
the
very
small
facilities,
and
the
small
facilities
at
3
times
the
rate
of
the
very
small.
Also,
it
is
anticipated
that
many
of
the
very
small
facilities
will
not
42
be
eligible
for
the
survey
(
e.
g.,
out
of
business,
not
discharging
water).
Thus,
EPA
will
sample
approximately
200
large,
1000
small,
and
750
very
small
facilities
with
additional
50
facilities
selected
with
certainty.
The
Detailed
Surveys
will
be
sent
to
approximately
32
of
the
200
large,
153
of
the
1000
small,
115
of
the
750
very
small
facilities;
and,
50
facilities
will
be
selected
with
certainty
for
the
Detailed
Survey.

In
drawing
a
sample,
EPA
will
use
systematic
sampling
(
with
a
random
starting
point
in
the
frame)
within
each
stratum.

2(
c)
Sample
Size
and
Precision
(
i)
Precision
based
on
Selected
Sample
Size
A
sample
of
2,000
facilities
will
receive
the
Surveys.
The
Detailed
Survey
will
be
sent
to
350
facilities
and
the
Screener
Survey
will
be
sent
to
1,650
facilities.
To
estimate
the
precision
of
the
estimates
from
the
sample,
it
is
necessary
to
make
assumptions
about
the
eligibility
rate.
The
precision
estimates
provided
in
Table
2­
1
are
based
on
the
following
assumptions:

!
All
large
facilities
are
eligible;

!
90%
of
small
facilities
are
eligible;

!
50%
of
very
small
facilities
are
eligible;

!
The
unstratified
small
and
very
small
facilities
will
be
slaughters
and
processors
in
the
same
proportion
as
the
stratified
small
facilities.
Similarly,
products
of
unstratified
facilities
will
occur
in
the
same
proportions
as
for
unstratified
facilities.
The
population
proportion
characteristics
of
large
unstratified
facilities
will
resemble
those
for
large
stratified
facilities.

The
results
indicate
that
increasing
the
sample
size
will
definitely
improve
the
accuracy
of
the
estimates.
Oversampling
the
large
facilities
at
6
times
the
rate
of
the
very
small
and
the
small
at
3
times
the
rate
of
the
very
small
(
the
middle
columns
of
the
table)
will
definitely
increase
the
number
of
completed
eligible
facilities
obtained
from
the
survey
(
assuming
the
stratification
is
correlated
with
eligibility).
However,
the
more
extreme
oversampling
rate
shown
in
the
right­
hand
column
does
not
show
any
advantage
over
the
6:
3:
1
oversampling
rate.

The
sample
size
of
2000
with
oversampling
ratio
6:
3:
1
will
result
in
confidence
intervals
for
proportionsx
that
are
in
the
range
of
8%
to
12%
for
the
proportion
of
all
slaughterers.
43
TABLE
2­
1
CONFIDENCE
INTERVAL
HALF­
WIDTHS
FOR
A
95%
CONFIDENCE
INTERVAL
FOR
A
POPULATION
PROPORTION
No
Oversampling
Oversampling
Larger
Facilities
(
6:
3:
1
)
Oversampling
Larger
Facilities
(
9:
3:
1
)

Sample
Size
Proportion
Eligible
Completes
Poultry
Slaughterers*
All
Slaughterers
Eligible
Completes
Poultry
Slaughterers*
All
Slaughterers
Eligible
Completes
Poultry
Slaughterers*
All
Slaughterers
250
0.5
177
0.31
0.19
202
0.26
0.19
203
0.26
0.19
0.1
177
0.19
0.11
202
0.16
0.11
203
0.16
0.11
300
0.5
210
0.26
0.17
240
0.23
0.17
243
0.24
0.17
0.1
210
0.16
0.10
240
0.14
0.10
243
0.14
0.10
400
0.5
273
0.21
0.14
315
0.20
0.14
319
0.20
0.15
0.1
273
0.13
0.08
315
0.12
0.09
319
0.12
0.09
2000
0.5
1289
0.09
0.06
1526
0.08
0.06
1550
0.08
0.06
0.1
1289
0.06
0.04
1526
0.05
0.04
1550
0.05
0.04
*
This
column
is
similar
for
the
other
two
slaughterer
domains,
beef
processors,
and
renderers.
Accuracy
will
be
better
for
poultry
and
pork
processors.

(
ii)
Nonsampling
Errors
Nonresponse
is
relatively
low
for
surveys
sent
under
the
authority
of
Section
308
of
the
Clean
Water
Act.
EPA
will
employ
several
measures
to
reduce
nonresponses.
The
cover
letter
and
instructions
for
the
surveys
will
explain
the
legal
authority,
responsibility
to
respond,
reasons
for
the
survey,
and
penalty
for
nonresponse.
Delivery
or
nondelivery
of
the
surveys
will
be
tracked
using
Federal
Express,
thus
a
signature
of
recipient
will
be
required.
A
help
line
will
be
operated
while
the
surveys
are
in
the
field
so
that
technical,
financial
and
administrative
questions
regarding
the
survey
can
be
addressed.
Recipients
not
responding
to
the
Detailed
Survey
by
the
deadline
date
may
be
telephoned
to
encourage
response,
to
answer
questions,
and
to
determine
the
reasons
for
the
nonresponse.

Inaccurate
or
incomplete
responses
can
occur
due
to
misunderstandings
or
the
misinterpretation
of
questions
and
the
unintentional
skipping
of
questions
by
respondents.
Errors
can
occur
when
responses
are
coded,
edited
and
entered
into
the
database.
The
design
and
44
implementation
of
the
Detailed
Surveys
will
employ
a
number
of
quality
assurance
techniques
to
reduce
the
frequency
of
such
errors.
These
techniques
include
the
following:


Review
of
questions
for
ambiguity
and
clarity

Use
of
an
easily­
followed
sequence
of
questions
and
stopping
points

Avoidance
of
questions
requiring
an
open­
ended
response

Provision
of
a
limited
number
of
carefully
considered
responses
to
each
question

Provision
of
clear
definitions
of
units
of
measurement
and
of
technical
terms

Provision
of
clear
instructions
with
references
to
the
definitions

Provision
of
a
"
help
line"
with
a
toll­
free
number
to
assist
respondents

Review
of
questions
by
engineers,
scientists,
and
economists
who
will
telephone
respondents
to
obtain
missing
information
and
resolve
problems
and
inconsistencies

Use
of
double­
entry
keypunch
verification
on
all
surveys

Conduct
of
computerized
comparison
of
selected
responses
to
detect
inconsistencies
and
illogical
responses

Conduct
of
computerized
analyses
to
screen
for
out­
of­
range
and
inconsistent
numerical
values

Conduct
of
computerized
analyses
to
detect
missing
numerical
data
and
missing
units
2(
d)
Survey
Design
Please
refer
to
Part
A,
Section
4(
b)
of
this
ICR
for
information
on
this
topic.

3.
Pretests
and
Pilot
Tests
Please
refer
to
Part
A,
Section
6(
a),
of
this
ICR
for
information
on
this
topic
.

4.
Collection
Methods
and
Follow­
up
4(
a)
Collection
Methods
Please
refer
to
Section
5(
b),
Part
A
of
this
ICR
for
information
on
this
topic.
45
4(
b)
Survey
Response
and
Follow­
Up
Please
refer
to
Section
5(
b),
Part
A
of
this
ICR
for
information
on
this
topic
5.
Analyzing
and
Reporting
Survey
Results
5(
a)
Data
Preparation
EPA
will
prepare
the
meat
products
industry
survey
data
in
a
manner
consistent
with
other
survey
efforts
at
the
agency
(
e.
g.,
past
effluent
guidelines
surveys).
Upon
receipt
of
the
completed
surveys,
the
data
will
be
entered
and
reviewed
for
coding
consistency,
missing
data,
and
obvious
inconsistencies
in
reported
data
by
engineering
and
economic
staff.
Any
inconsistencies
will
be
resolved
through
call
backs
and
any
changes
made
will
be
documented.
Contractor
resources
will
be
used
for
this
effort
as
well
as
for
data
entry.
Once
the
data
is
entered
into
a
database,
numerous
manual
and
electronic
QA
activities
are
performed
and
the
results
provided
to
engineering
and
economic
staff
for
further
resolution
and
documentation.

5(
b)
Analysis
Analyses
of
the
surveys
will
have
the
objectives
of
(
a)
producing
narrative
and
quantitative
characterizations
of
meat
and
poultry
product
industry
group,
meat
and
poultry
product
operations,
process
wastewater
and
treatment
technologies,
(
b)
characterizing
plant­
specific
and
site­
specific
factors
that
distinguish
potential
for
adverse
environmental
impact,
(
c)
characterizing
plant­
specific
and
site
specific
factors
that
distinguish
technology
options
and
costs
for
reducing
adverse
environmental
impact,
(
d)
estimating
costs
of
regulatory
options
and
impacts,
(
e)
estimating
benefits
of
regulatory
options.

5(
c)
Reporting
Results
All
responses
containing
or
consisting
of
CBI
will
be
so
identified
in
the
survey
database.
Regulations
governing
confidentiality
of
business
information
appear
at
40
CFR
Part
2
Subpart
B,
and
these
are
adhered
to
strictly
by
EPA
and
its
contractors.
Safeguards
and
procedures
for
CBI
are
described
in
written
plans
maintained
by
EPA
and
its
contractors.

Information
not
classified
as
CBI
could
potentially
be
shared
with
any
interested
parties.
Such
information
is
subject
to
Freedom
of
Information
Act
(
FOIA)
requests.
Results
of
EPA's
analyses
become
publicly
available
most
often
in
three
ways:
(
1)
within
proposed
and
final
rules
published
in
the
Federal
Register,
(
2)
within
development
and
supporting
documents
otherwise
published
in
support
of
rulemaking,
and
(
3)
within
materials
placed
in
the
rulemaking
docket.
The
first
two
classes
of
documents
are
being
made
available
by
EPA
on
the
Internet
with
increasing
frequency;
and
this
mode
of
reporting
is
a
possibility
for
the
results
of
the
surveys
described
in
this
ICR.
ATTACHMENT
6
Relevant
Sections
of
Statutes,
Regulations,
or
Judicial/
Administrative
Decrees
1.)
The
Federal
Water
Pollution
Control
Act
Amendments
of
1972
("
Clean
Water
Act"),
33
U.
S.
C.
can
be
found
at
www.
epa.
gov/
epahome/
laws.
htm.

2.)
The
Meat
Products
Effluent
Limitations
Guidelines
and
Pretreatment
Standards
published
at
40
CFR
Part
432
can
be
found
at
www.
epa.
gov/
docs/
epacfr40/
chapt­
I.
info/
subch­
N/.

3.)
The
proposed
Poultry
Processing
Effluent
Limitations
Guidelines
and
Pretreatment
Standards
published
on
April
24,
1975
at
80
FR
18150
are
attached.

4.)
The
January
31,
1992
court­
approved
consent
decree
between
EPA
and
NRDC
is
attached.
