|
 |
|
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source
Performance Standards for the Concentrated
Aquatic Animal Production Point Source Category
[Federal Register: September 12, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 177)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 57871-57928]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12se02-25]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 451
[FRL--7263-2]
RIN 2040-AD55
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance
Standards for the Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production Point Source
Category
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action presents the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards
for wastewater discharges from the concentrated aquatic animal
production (CAAP) industrial point source category. The proposed
regulation proposes new technology-based effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for wastewater discharges associated with the
operation of new and existing concentrated aquatic animal production
facilities.
EPA estimates that compliance with this regulation, as proposed,
would reduce the discharge of total suspended solids (TSS) by at least
4.1 million pounds per year and would cost industry an estimated $1.5
million and Federal and State permitting authorities an estimated
$3,337 on an annual basis. EPA expects that the control of TSS would
reduce the discharge of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and nutrients
by at least 8.7 million pounds per year. EPA also believes that by
implementing the best management practices (BMP) plans any toxic and
non-conventional pollutants that may be discharged will be controlled.
EPA estimates that the annual quantifiable benefits of the proposal
would be approximately $22,000-$113,000.
DATES: Comments on the proposal must be postmarked by December 11,
2002. EPA will conduct two or three public meetings to discuss the
proposed rule. The information on dates, times and locations of the
public meetings will be published in a subsequent Federal Register
notice.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to Ms. Marta Jordan, Office of
Water, Engineering and Analysis Division (4303T), U.S. EPA, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. For hand-deliveries or
Federal Express, please send comments to Ms. Marta Jordan, Office of
Water, Engineering and Analysis Division, Room 6233M, 1201 Constitution
Avenue, NW., 6th Floor, Connecting Wing, Washington, DC 20004. Comments
may be sent by e-mail to the following e-mail address:
aquaticanimals@epa.gov. For additional information on how to submit
comments, see ``SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, How to Submit Comments.''
The public record for this proposed rulemaking has been established
under docket number W-02-01 and is located in the Water Docket, EPA
West Room B135,1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington DC, 20004.The
record is available for inspection from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. For access to the docket
materials, call (202) 566-2426 to schedule an appointment. You may have
to pay a reasonable fee for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information concerning
today's proposed rule, contact Ms. Marta Jordan at (202) 566-1049. For
economic information, contact Mr. Nicolaas Bouwes at (202) 566-1002.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
Entities potentially regulated by this action include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary
Category Examples of regulated NAICS
entities codes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry....................... Facilities engaged in
concentrated aquatic animal
production, which may
include the following
sectors:.
Finfish Farming and Fish 112511
Hatcheries.
Other Animal Aquaculture... 112519
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The preceding table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated
by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now
aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine
whether your facility would be regulated by this action, you should
carefully examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR part 451.1,
451.10, 451.20, and 451.30. You should also examine the description of
the proposed scope of each subpart in Section VI.B of this document. If
you have questions regarding the applicability of this proposed action
to a particular entity, contact the person listed for technical
information in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
How To Submit Comments
EPA requests an original and three copies of your comments and
enclosures (including references). Commenters who want EPA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments should enclose a self-addressed,
stamped envelope. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. Please submit
any copies of references cited in your comments.
Comments may also be sent via e-mail, see ADDRESSES. Electronic
comments must specify docket number W-02-01 and must be submitted as an
ASCII, Word, or WordPerfect file avoiding the use of special characters
and any form of encryption. Electronic comments on this proposal may be
filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries. No confidential
business information (CBI) should be sent via e-mail.
Protection of Confidential Business Information (CBI)
EPA notes that certain information and data in the record
supporting the proposed rule have been claimed as CBI and, therefore,
are not included in the record that is available to the public in the
Water Docket. Pursuant to EPA regulations at 40 CFR 2.203 and 2.211,
EPA treats all information for which a claim of confidentiality is made
as confidential unless and until it makes a determination to the
contrary under 40 CFR 2.205. Further, the Agency has not included in
the docket some data not claimed as CBI because release of this
information would indirectly reveal information claimed to be
confidential. To provide the public with as much information as
possible in support of the proposed rulemaking, EPA is presenting in
the public record certain information in aggregated form or,
alternatively, is masking facility identities or employing other
strategies in order to preserve confidentiality claims. This approach
ensures that the information in the public record both explains the
basis for today's proposal and allows for a meaningful opportunity for
public comment, without compromising CBI claims.
Some tabulations and analyses of facility-specific data claimed as
CBI are available to the company that submitted the information. To
ensure that all data or information claimed as CBI is protected in
accordance with EPA regulations, any requests for release of such
company-specific data should be submitted to EPA on company letterhead
and signed by a responsible official authorized to receive such data.
[[Page 57873]]
The request must list the specific data requested and include the
following statement, ``I certify that EPA is authorized to transfer
confidential business information submitted by my company, and that I
am authorized to receive it.''
Supporting Documentation
The rules proposed today are supported by several documents:
1. ``Economic and Environmental Impact Analysis of Proposed
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Concentrated
Aquatic Animal Production Industry Point Source Category'' (EPA-821-R-
02-015). Hereafter referred to as the CAAP Economic Analysis, this
document presents the analysis of compliance costs; facility, firm,
small business and market impacts; and water quality impacts and
potential benefits. In addition, this document presents an analysis of
cost-effectiveness. (DCN 20141)
2. ``Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production
Industry Point Source Category'' (EPA-821-R-02-016). Hereafter referred
to as the CAAP Development Document, the document presents EPA's
technical conclusions concerning the CAAP proposal. This document
describes, among other things, the data collection activities, the
wastewater treatment technology options, effluent characterization,
effluent reduction of the wastewater treatment technology options,
estimate of costs to the industry, and estimate of effects on non-water
quality environmental impacts. (DCN 61552)
3. ``Draft Guidance for Aquatic Animal Production Facilities to
Assist in Reducing the Discharge of Pollutants'' (EPA-821-B-02-002).
Hereafter referred to as the AAP Technical Guidance Manual, the
document presents best management practices (BMPs) in use at
concentrated aquatic animal facilities. The guidance manual presents
general BMPs that can be applied throughout the industry and BMPs that
apply to specific sectors of the industry. (DCN 61553)
How To Obtain Supporting Documents
All documents are available from the National Service Center for
Environmental Publications, P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419,
(800) 490-9198 and the EPA Water Resource Center. The supporting
technical documentation (e.g., CAAP Development Document, Economic
Analysis and AAP Technical Guidance Manual) can be obtained on the
Internet, located at http://www.epa.gov/ost/guide/aquaculture/. This
website is also linked to an electronic version of today's proposed
rule.
Overview
The preamble describes the legal authority for the proposal,
background information, the technical and economic methodologies used
by the Agency to develop these proposed regulations and, in an
appendix, the definitions, acronyms, and abbreviations used in this
document. This preamble also solicits comment and data generally, and
on specific areas of interest.
Table of Contents
I. Legal Authority
II. Background
A. Clean Water Act
B. Section 304(m) Consent Decree
III. Rulemaking History and Industry Profile
A. Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production Effluent Guideline
Rulemaking History
B. Environmental and Human Health Impacts
C. Industry Profile
IV. Summary of Data Collection
A. Primary and Secondary Sources of Data and Information
B. Industry Surveys
C. Site Visits and Wastewater Sampling
D. Pollutants Sampled and Analytical Methods
E. Other Data Collection
F. Summary of Public Participation
V. Scope/Applicability of Proposed Regulation
A. Facilities to be Subject to 40 CFR Part 451
B. Facilities Not Subject to 40 CFR Part 451
VI. Subcategorization
A. Factors Considered in Developing Proposed Subcategories
B. Proposed Subcategories
VII. Technology Options, Costs, Wastewater Characteristics, and
Pollutant Reductions
A. Description of Wastewater Treatment Technologies and
Management Practices in the CAAP Industry
B. Water Use and Wastewater Characteristics
C. Pollutants of Concern
D. Approach to Estimating Compliance Costs
E. Approach to Estimating Pollutant Reductions
VIII. Options Evaluated and Selected for Proposal
A. Introduction
B. Flow-through Systems
C. Recirculating Systems
D. Net Pen Systems
E. Ponds
F. No Regulation Option
G. CAAP Pretreatment Standards
IX. Economic Analysis
A. Introduction
B. Economic Data Collection Activities
C. Economic Impact Methodologies
D. Annualized Compliance Cost Estimates
E. Model Facility Impacts
F. Other Economic Impacts
G. BPT Cost Comparison Test and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
H. Small Business Analysis
I. Cost-Benefit Analysis
X. Water Quality Analysis and Environmental Benefits
A. CAAP Environmental Impacts
B. Environmental Benefits Analysis
XI. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts
A. Energy Requirements
B. Air Emissions Impacts
C. Solid Waste Generation
XII. Implementation
A. Regulatory Implementation of Part 451 through the NPDES
Permit Program and the National Pretreatment Program
B. Upset and Bypass Provisions
C. Variances and Modifications
D. Best Management Practices
E. Potential Tools to Assist with the Remediation of Aquaculture
Effluents
XIII. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866: ``Regulatory Planning and Review''
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
D. Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks''
E. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
F. Paperwork Reduction Act
G. Executive Order 13132: ``Federalism''
H. Executive Order 12898: ``Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations''
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 13211: ``Energy Effects''
K.Plain Language
XIV. Solicitation of Data and Comments
A. General and Specific Comment Solicitation
XV. Guidelines for Submission of Analytical Data
A. Types of Data Requested
B. Analytes Requested
C. Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Requirements
Appendix A: Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations Used in This
Document
I. Legal Authority
These regulations are proposed under the authority of sections 301,
304, 306, 308, 402, and 501 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311,
1314, 1316, 1318, 1342, and 1361.
II. Background
A. Clean Water Act
Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (1972),
also known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), to ``restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters.''
(33 U.S.C. 1251(a)).
[[Page 57874]]
The CWA establishes a comprehensive program for protecting our nation's
waters. Among its core provisions, the CWA prohibits the discharge of
pollutants from a point source to waters of the U.S. except as
authorized by a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit. The CWA also requires EPA to establish national technology
based effluent limitation guidelines and standards (effluent guidelines
or ELG) for discharges from different categories of point sources, such
as industrial, commercial and public sources.
Congress recognized that regulating only those sources that
discharge effluent directly into the nation's waters would not be
sufficient to achieve the CWA's goals. Consequently, the CWA requires
EPA to promulgate nationally applicable pretreatment standards that
restrict pollutant discharges from facilities that discharge wastewater
indirectly through sewers flowing to publicly-owned treatment works
(POTWs). See section 307(b) and (c), 33 U.S.C. 1317(b) & (c). National
pretreatment standards are established for those pollutants in
wastewater from indirect dischargers that may pass through, interfere
with or are otherwise incompatible with POTW operations. Generally,
pretreatment standards are designed to ensure that wastewaters from
direct and indirect industrial dischargers are subject to similar
levels of treatment. In addition, POTWs are required to implement local
treatment limits applicable to their industrial indirect dischargers to
satisfy any local requirements. See 40 CFR 403.5.
Direct dischargers must comply with effluent limitations in
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits.
Indirect dischargers, who discharge through POTWs, must comply with
pretreatment standards. Effluent limitations in NPDES permits are
derived from effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance
standards promulgated by EPA, as well as from water quality standards.
The effluent limitations guidelines and standards are established by
regulation for categories of industrial dischargers and are based on
the degree of control that can be achieved using various levels of
pollution control technology.
EPA promulgates national effluent limitations guidelines and
standards of performance for major industrial categories for three
classes of pollutants: (1) Conventional pollutants (i.e., total
suspended solids, oil and grease, biochemical oxygen demand, fecal
coliform, and pH); (2) toxic pollutants (e.g., toxic metals such as
chromium, lead, nickel, and zinc; toxic organic pollutants such as
benzene, benzo-a-pyrene, phenol, and naphthalene); and (3) non-
conventional pollutants (e.g., ammonia-N, formaldehyde, and
phosphorus). EPA considers development of six types of effluent
limitations guidelines and standards for each major industrial
category, as appropriate.
1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)--
Section 304(b)(1) of the CWA
EPA may promulgate BPT effluent limits for conventional, toxic, and
non-conventional pollutants. For toxic pollutants, EPA typically
regulates priority pollutants which consist of a specified list of
toxic pollutants. In specifying BPT, EPA looks at a number of factors.
EPA first considers the cost of achieving effluent reductions in
relation to the effluent reduction benefits. The Agency also considers
the age of the equipment and facilities, the processes employed,
engineering aspects of the control technologies, any required process
changes, non-water quality environmental impacts (including energy
requirements), and such other factors as the Administrator deems
appropriate. See CWA 304(b)(1)(B). Traditionally, EPA establishes BPT
effluent limitations based on the average of the best performances of
facilities within the industry, grouped to reflect various ages, sizes,
processes, or other common characteristics. If, however, existing
performance is uniformly inadequate, EPA may establish limitations
based on higher levels of control than currently in place in an
industrial category when based on an Agency determination that the
technology is available in another category or subcategory, and can be
practically applied.
2. Best Control Technology for Conventional Pollutants (BCT)--Section
304(b)(4) of the CWA
The 1977 amendments to the CWA required EPA to identify additional
levels of effluent reduction for conventional pollutants associated
with BCT technology for discharges from existing industrial point
sources. In addition to other factors specified in section
304(b)(4)(B), the CWA requires that EPA establish BCT limitations after
consideration of a two part ``cost-reasonableness'' test. EPA explained
its methodology for the development of BCT limitations in July 1986 (51
FR 24974).
Section 304(a)(4) designates the following as conventional
pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand measured over five days
(BOD5), total suspended solids (TSS), fecal coliform, pH,
and any additional pollutants defined by the Administrator as
conventional. The Administrator designated oil and grease as an
additional conventional pollutant on July 30, 1979 (44 FR 44501).
3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)--Section
304(b)(2) of the CWA
In general, BAT effluent limitations guidelines represent the best
economically achievable performance of facilities in the industrial
subcategory or category. The CWA establishes BAT as a principal
national means of controlling the direct discharge of toxic and
nonconventional pollutants. The factors considered in assessing BAT
include the cost of achieving BAT effluent reductions, the age of
equipment and facilities involved, the process employed, potential
process changes, and non-water quality environmental impacts including
energy requirements, and such other factors as the Administrator deems
appropriate. The Agency retains considerable discretion in assigning
the weight to be accorded these factors. An additional statutory factor
considered in setting BAT is economic achievability. Generally, EPA
determines economic achievability on the basis of total costs to the
industry and the effect of compliance with BAT limitations on overall
industry and subcategory financial conditions. As with BPT, where
existing performance is uniformly inadequate, BAT may reflect a higher
level of performance than is currently being achieved based on
technology transferred from a different subcategory or category. BAT
may be based upon process changes or internal controls, even when these
technologies are not common industry practice.
4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)--Section 306 of the CWA
New Source Performance Standards reflect effluent reductions that
are achievable based on the best available demonstrated control
technology. New facilities have the opportunity to install the best and
most efficient production processes and wastewater treatment
technologies. As a result, NSPS should represent the most stringent
controls attainable through the application of the best available
demonstrated control technology for all pollutants (that is,
conventional, nonconventional, and priority pollutants). In
establishing NSPS, EPA is directed to take into consideration the cost
of achieving the effluent reduction and any non-water quality
environmental impacts and energy requirements.
[[Page 57875]]
5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)--Section 307(b)
of the CWA
Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources are designed to prevent
the discharge of pollutants that pass through, interfere with, or are
otherwise incompatible with the operation of publicly owned treatment
works (POTW). Categorical pretreatment standards are technology-based
and are analogous to BAT effluent limitations guidelines.
The General Pretreatment Regulations, which set forth the framework
for the implementation of categorical pretreatment standards, are found
at 40 CFR part 403. These regulations establish pretreatment standards
that apply to all non-domestic dischargers. See 52 FR 1586 (Jan. 14,
1987).
6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)--Section 307(c) of the
CWA
Section 307(c) of the Act requires EPA to promulgate pretreatment
standards for new sources at the same time it promulgates new source
performance standards. Such pretreatment standards must prevent the
discharge of any pollutant into a POTW that may interfere with, pass
through, or may otherwise be incompatible with the POTW. EPA
promulgates categorical pretreatment standards for existing sources
based principally on BAT technology for existing sources. EPA
promulgates pretreatment standards for new sources based on best
available demonstrated technology for new sources. New indirect
dischargers have the opportunity to incorporate into their facilities
the best available demonstrated technologies. The Agency considers the
same factors in promulgating PSNS as it considers in promulgating NSPS.
B. Section 304(m) Consent Decree
Section 304(m) requires EPA to publish a plan every two years that
consists of three elements. First, under section 304(m)(1)(A), EPA is
required to establish a schedule for the annual review and revision of
existing effluent guidelines in accordance with section 304(b). Section
304(b) applies to effluent limitations guidelines for direct
dischargers and requires EPA to revise such regulations as appropriate.
Second, under section 304(m)(1)(B), EPA must identify categories of
sources discharging toxic or nonconventional pollutants for which EPA
has not published BAT effluent limitations guidelines under 304(b)(2)
or new source performance standards under section 306. Finally, under
304(m)(1)(C), EPA must establish a schedule for the promulgation of BAT
and NSPS for the categories identified under subparagraph (B) not later
than three years after being identified in the 304(m) plan. Section
304(m) does not apply to pretreatment standards for indirect
dischargers, which EPA promulgates pursuant to sections 307(b) and
307(c) of the Clean Water Act.
On October 30, 1989, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., and
Public Citizen, Inc., filed an action against EPA in which they
alleged, among other things, that EPA had failed to comply with CWA
Section 304(m). Plaintiffs and EPA agreed to a settlement of that
action in a consent decree entered on January 31, 1992. The consent
decree, which has been modified several times, established a schedule
by which EPA is to propose and take final action for four point source
categories identified by name in the decree and for eight other point
source categories identified only as new or revised rules, numbered 5
through 12. EPA selected the aquatic animal production industry as the
subject for New or Revised Rule #12. Under the decree, as
modified, the Administrator is required to sign a proposed rule for the
aquatic animal production industry no later than August 14, 2002, and
to take final action on that proposal no later than June 30, 2004.
III. Rulemaking History and Industry Profile
A. Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production Effluent Guideline Rulemaking
History
EPA actions to regulate aquatic animal production facilities under
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting
program date back to 1973, when EPA proposed and promulgated NPDES
permit application rules for concentrated aquatic animal production
facilities. 38 FR 10960 (May 3, 1973)(proposed), 38 FR 18000 (July 5,
1973). After some litigation over the NPDES regulations, EPA proposed
and took final action to re-establish the concentrated aquatic animal
production facility requirements. NRDC v. Costle, 568 F.2d 1369 (D.C.
Cir.1977); 43 FR 37078 (Aug. 21, 1978); 44 FR 32854 (June 7, 1979). The
1979 version of the regulations has not substantively changed since
then.
The NPDES regulations specify the applicability of the NPDES permit
requirement to a concentrated aquatic animal production facility. 40
CFR 122.24 and appendix C to part 122. To be a concentrated aquatic
animal production facility, the facility must either meet the criteria
in 40 CFR appendix C or be designated on a case-by-case basis. 40 CFR
122.24(b). A hatchery, fish farm, or other facility is a concentrated
aquatic animal production facility if it contains, grows, or holds,
aquatic animals in either of two categories: cold water or warm water.
The cold water species category includes ponds, raceways, or other
similar structures which discharge at least 30 days per year but does
not include: Facilities which produce less than 9,090 harvest weight
kilograms (approximately 20,000 pounds) per year; and facilities which
feed less than 2,272 kilograms (approximately 5,000 pounds) during the
calendar month of maximum feeding. The warm water category includes
ponds, raceways, or other similar structures which discharge at least
30 days per year but does not include: closed ponds which discharge
only during periods of excess runoff; or facilities which produce less
than 45,454 harvest weight kilograms (approximately 100,000 pounds) per
year. 40 CFR part 122, appendix C. EPA does not propose to revise the
NPDES regulation by today's action.
Prior to today's proposal, EPA had not proposed effluent
limitations guidelines and standards for the aquatic animal production
industry. In the early 1970s, however, EPA staff did evaluate fish
hatcheries and fish farms to develop recommendations on whether EPA
should propose effluent guidelines. Ultimately, EPA did not propose any
such regulations because the 1977 Clean Water Act amendments re-focused
the Agency's attention on establishing effluent limitations guidelines
for industry sectors with effluents containing toxic metals and
organics. EPA's evaluation of fish hatcheries and fish farms did not
reveal significant contributions of toxic metals or organic chemical
compounds in the wastes discharged from those hatcheries and farms.
That draft development document, however, did serve to assist NPDES
permit writers in the exercise of their ``best professional judgment''
to develop permits for those fish hatcheries and fish farms that were
considered ``concentrated aquatic animal production facilities,'' and
thus required to apply for NPDES permits under EPA regulations.
B. Environmental and Human Health Impacts
The operation of CAAP facilities may introduce a variety of
pollutants into receiving waters. Under some
[[Page 57876]]
conditions, these pollutants can be harmful to the environment.
According to the 1998 USDA Census of Aquaculture (USDA, 2000, DCN
60605), there are approximately 4,200 commercial aquatic animal
production (AAP) facilities in the United States. Aquaculture has been
among the fastest-growing sectors of agriculture until a recent
slowdown that began several years ago caused by declining or level
growth among producers of several major species. EPA analysis indicates
that many CAAP facilities have treatment technologies in place that
greatly reduce pollutant loads. However, in the absence of treatment,
pollutant loads from individual CAAP facilities such as those covered
by today's proposed rule can contribute up to several thousand pounds
of nitrogen and phosphorus per year, and tens to hundreds of thousands
of pounds of TSS per year (see CAAP Economic Analysis). These
pollutants, if discharged, can contribute to eutrophication and other
aquatic ecosystem responses to excess nutrient loads and BOD effects.
In recent years, Illinois, Louisiana, North Carolina, New Hampshire,
New Mexico, Ohio and Virginia have cited the AAP industry as a
potential or contributing source of impairment to water bodies (EPA,
2000, DCN 40319). State authorities in Idaho, Michigan, and Maine, for
example, have set water quality based permit requirements for CAAP
facilities in addition to technology based limits based on BPJ.
Another area of potential concern relates to non-native species
introductions from CAAP facilities, which may pose risks to native
fishery resources and wild native aquatic species from the
establishment of escaped individuals (Carlton, 2001, DCN 61434; Volpe
et al., 2000, DCN 60611). Some CAAP facilities may also employ drugs,
such as formalin, and chemicals, such as a variety of copper-containing
pesticides, that may be released into receiving waters. For some
applications of these drugs and chemicals, there is a belief that
further information is needed to fully evaluate risks to ecosystems and
human health associated with their use in some situations. Finally,
CAAP facilities also may inadvertently introduce pathogens into
receiving waters, with potential impacts on native biota. Today's
proposed rule attempts to address a number of these environmental
concerns.
C. Industry Profile
The concentrated aquatic animal production industry includes sites
that fall within the North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS) codes 112511 (finfish farming and fish hatcheries), 112512
(shellfish farming), 112519 (other animal aquaculture), and part of
712130 (aquariums, part of zoos and botanical gardens). SBA sets up
standards to define whether an entity is small and eligible for
Government programs and preferences reserved for ``small business''
concerns. Size standards have been established for types of economic
activity, or industry, generally under the NAICS. See 13 CFR part 121
for more detailed information. The first three groups (NAICS 112511,
112512, and 112519) have Small Business Administration (SBA) annual
revenue based size standards of $0.75 million while the SBA size
standard for NAICS 712130 is $6.0 million. EPA uses these SBA size
standards to conduct preliminary analyses to determine the number of
small businesses in an industrial category and whether the proposed
rule would have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
USDA reports that there were approximately 4,200 commercial
aquaculture facilities in the 1998 Census of Aquaculture (DCN 60605).
Based on revenues from aquaculture sales alone (not including other
farm-related revenues from other agricultural crops at the facility),
more than 90 percent of the facilities have revenues less than $0.75
million annually and thus may be considered small businesses. The Small
Business Administration's size standard is based on annual revenue at
the company level for all products, so using facility revenue from
aquaculture sales reported in the 1998 Census of Aquaculture is likely
to over-estimate the proportion of small businesses in the industry.
Although aquaculture facilities exist in every State, there tends to be
regional specialization by species as a result of local climate and the
quality and quantity of water available for aquaculture (for example,
catfish in the Southeast, salmon on the Northern coasts, and trout in
Idaho).
In 1999, commercial farm level aquatic animal sales totaled nearly
$1 billion (842 million pounds). The range of products includes:
Finfish raised for food and recreation (including food fish, sport or
game fish, baitfish, or ornamental fish); crustaceans and molluscs
raised for food; and other aquatic animals such as alligators, frogs,
and turtles. Catfish and trout sales account for nearly fifty percent
of the commercial market (£$400 million and $64 million in
production, respectively).
The industry includes several types of ownership structures: (1)
Commercial; (2) Federal and State; (3) Tribal; (4) academic and
research; and (5) nonprofit. Within the private or commercial sector,
ownership structures range from small family farms to large
multinational firms. The non-commercial sector is also diverse. The
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) operates 66 Federal hatcheries,
six Fish Technology Centers, and nine Fish Health Centers. Its goals
are to conserve, restore, enhance, and manage the Nation's fishery
resources and ecosystems for the benefit of future generations. FWS
distributes more than 50 aquatic species primarily to Federal, Tribal,
State, and local governments. Many States operate fish hatcheries for
stocking recreational fisheries, and EPA identified approximately 500
State hatchery facilities.
As an approximate measure of the size of the governmental aquatic
animal production, fish distributions from the FWS in 1999 totaled 5.5
million pounds. Fisheries magazine published an overview of State
coldwater fishery programs that listed 23.7 million pounds of trout and
salmon distributed from State hatcheries in 1996 (Epifanio, 2000, DCN
60851). EPA estimate that production from 17 Tribal programs is more
than 1.3 million fish.
EPA identified approximately 30 academic and research institutions
that maintain facilities ranging from small research projects to full-
scale systems for training the next generation of aquatic animal
producers. Information on the magnitude of these operations nationwide
is currently being sought by EPA through a detailed industry survey.
Nonprofit organizations in the CAAP industry that were identified
by EPA include Alaskan salmon hatcheries and non-taxable aquariums.
Alaskan salmon hatcheries are different from salmon and finfish
production facilities in the continental United States. Certain types
of production activities related to the farming of salmon and other
finfish in Alaska were outlawed in 1990 (ADFG, 2002, DCN 61556).
Instead, Alaska permits nonprofit ``ocean ranching'', where native
salmon species are reared from egg to fingerling (chum and pink salmon)
or smolt (coho, chinook, or sockeye salmon) stage in hatcheries. The
chum and pink salmon produced in the hatchery are then placed in pens
in the ocean waters, and after a short additional growing period
(approximately two months), are released into public waters to be
available as adults for harvest by fishermen. Two types of nonprofit
organizations exist--four regional aquaculture associations and eight
private nonprofit corporations--with a
[[Page 57877]]
total permitted production of approximately 2 billion smolts for ocean
release. EPA identified approximately 50 aquariums, some of which are
non-taxable establishments.
Aquatic animals raised for commercial purposes are very diverse,
ranging from species produced for human consumption as food to species
raised for their hides. As mentioned above, governments also produce
aquatic animals, usually for recreational purposes. The animals may be
raised in a variety of different production systems. The choice of a
production system is influenced by a variety of factors including
species, economics of production, markets, local water resources, land
availability, and operator preference. Some production systems,
especially those needed to produce species intended for release into
the wild or other natural environments, are intended to provide a
suitable environment that imitates the natural environment of the
species. CAAP systems include ponds, flow-through systems,
recirculating systems and open water systems. Each of these production
systems is described below.
1. Pond Systems
Pond systems are distinguished from other systems used to produce
aquatic animals by the frequency of discharge. Typically, ponds do not
have a continuous discharge. They will discharge water either as a
result of a storm event or when the pond is drained for harvest or to
make repairs. Aquatic animals produced in ponds include: catfish,
shrimp, hybrid striped bass, tilapia, crawfish, baitfish and many
ornamental and sport fish species. The largest species sector produced
in ponds is catfish.
Many pond producers must pump well water to fill their ponds and
are constantly balancing the need to conserve water and reduce pumping
costs with keeping ponds full. Most aquatic animal producers minimize
the frequency or degree to which the ponds are drained because the
water is a valuable asset. Some species require operators to drain the
pond to allow for harvesting, while others can be harvested without
draining by using seines (large nets) to capture the fish. Aquatic
animals that are more difficult to capture in the seines, may require
partial draining of the pond to harvest.
Pond system operators must maintain a level of water quality that
will support the aquatic animal population. In most cases, water
quality maintenance requires that the pond be mechanically aerated to
maintain sufficient oxygen levels. The growth of algae is promoted by
the presence of nutrients made available either through excess feed or
animal excretions. Planktonic algae (the desired form of algae) process
these nutrients and improve water quality. Too much, or the wrong kinds
of, algae can degrade water quality in ponds by contributing to excess
turbidity and reduced oxygen levels. Producers monitor the dissolved
oxygen and turbidity levels to evaluate pond water quality and protect
their animal crops from rapid shifts in oxygen or other important water
quality parameters. This monitoring also ensures that the pond is
serving as an efficient waste treatment system. The pond system itself
has the ability to decompose biological material and settle out solids
such as fecal materials, sediment, and uneaten feed. Drugs, such as
oxytetracycline (added in feed to treat certain diseases) and
chemicals, such as copper sulfate and other aquatic herbicides (used to
treat excessive aquatic vegetation or algae), readily bind to sediment
and other particles in the pond system. Thus, pond systems are capable
of treating and reducing the pollutants in the system. When the ponds
are drained, the pollutant loads are likely to have been significantly
reduced or contained within the sediment at the bottom of the pond.
Draining practices that minimize disturbance of the sediments at the
bottom of the pond will ensure that the water quality discharged is
relatively high in quality.
While most producers use drainage practices that minimize
disturbance of the pond bottom (e.g., catfish, hybrid striped bass, and
many sportfish), several species require specific drainage practices
that have the potential to discharge higher levels of sediments in
order to harvest. For example, shrimp require rapid draining. The
shrimp are carried along with the drainage water and captured in
external harvest structures. These harvest/draining practices are
likely to result in the disturbance of the sediment on the bottom of
the pond. To reduce pollutant loads and minimize escapement of the
valuable animal crop, the water drained from shrimp ponds is typically
routed through some type of sediment control structure (e.g.,
sedimentation basins, harvest boxes or vegetated ditches) prior to
discharge.
Most of the historical research on pond water quality and the
various management practices to improve pond effluent quality was
conducted in the catfish sector. Catfish production is the largest
aquatic animal production sector in the United States, and the dominant
species produced in ponds. Over the past few decades there has been
considerable research leading to the improvement of management
practices and the reduction of pollutants discharged from catfish
ponds. One of the most significant changes has been the reduced
drainage frequency in producing food sized catfish. Today, the
predominant practice is to drain only to repair or rework the pond
banks. Industry representatives indicate that ponds used to grow fish
to food size are drained, on average, once every 5 to 7 years. Other
practices that are being actively encouraged and promoted include water
level management to maximize the capture of rainwater. Water level
management minimizes the need for operators to pump well water to
refill ponds, especially during the drier summer months, and also
minimizes the occurrence of overflows (from precipitation). There are a
number of other best management practices (BMPs) that have been or are
being developed by various States to reduce pollutant discharges from
pond systems. For example, BMPs to reduce the impacts from erosion in
and around ponds include erosion control on pond banks through
establishment of vegetative cover on all pond banks and rip rap where
wave action is especially strong. Pond operators can also reduce
erosion by the proper positioning of stationary and emergency aerators
to prevent erosion during their operation, closing pond drains as soon
as possible after draining, and quickly repairing any damaged areas of
berms. Other BMPs include practices to reduce overflow and draining
effluent volumes, feed management, proper use and storage of chemicals
and therapeutic agents, and planning for emergencies.
Pollutants discharged in overflow from catfish production ponds
have been well studied in Mississippi and Alabama. The research shows
variation in pollutant concentration by season, with the summer months
having the highest levels of pollutants in effluent overflows and
discharges. The measured pollutants and seasonal average ranges
included settleable solids (0.01-0.2 mg/L), total suspended solids (29-
135 mg/L), total nitrogen (1.9-7.0 mg N/L), total ammonia (0.27-2.76 mg
N/L), total phosphorus (0.09-0.54 mg P/L) and biochemical oxygen demand
(5.3-26.1 mg O2/L) (Tucker et al., 2002, DCN 61555).
Hybrid striped bass is another species that is often produced in
pond systems. The body of knowledge needed for the culture of hybrid
striped bass for foodfish production grew from the expanded efforts
throughout the southeastern United States to provide
[[Page 57878]]
striped bass and hybrid Morone species for stocking public reservoirs
for recreational fishing and fisheries management. Responses to EPA's
screener survey indicates that 77% of striped bass/hybrid striped bass
producers use earthen ponds, 17% use recirculating systems, and 6% use
flow-through systems.
Ponds used to raise food sized hybrid striped bass must be
completely harvested before the pond can be restocked, otherwise the
larger fish will feed on the smaller fish. Ponds are drained for
harvest either annually or biennially, depending on stocking size. The
ponds must be completely drained to ensure that all fish are captured.
Some producers use an EPA registered pesticide to kill any remaining
fish after harvest. If a pesticide is used, water conservation is the
goal and the pond does not need to be drained. The most commonly used
pesticide is rotenone, which degrades fairly quickly allowing the pond
to be restocked within a short period of time.
Other species that are raised in ponds that must be drained either
partially or completely to be harvested include tilapia, baitfish, and
sport fish. Tilapia can escape seines or nets by jumping over or
swimming under them. Therefore, ponds are partially drained to make it
more difficult for the tilapia to escape the nets. Most baitfish are
harvested with seines, but ponds must be drained and all fish removed
prior to starting a new crop. However, most baitfish producers conserve
the water that is drained from a pond by moving it to another pond.
2. Flow-Through Systems
The predominant form of flow-through systems, raceways, are
constructed to mimic a stream, with fresh water continuously entering
at the top of the system and discharging from the bottom (or downstream
end) of the system. Between the top and the bottom of the raceway
system are a series of production units, which can be either small
ponds or raceways of earthen or concrete material. Smaller, younger
fish are typically placed in the units at the top of the system near
the water source, which is the highest quality water. As the fish grow
they can tolerate lesser quality water and they are moved to downstream
units.
Flow-through systems are used to produce species that must have
very high quality water. Trout and salmon are two examples of fish that
require very high quality water with high dissolved oxygen levels and
consistent cold temperatures. The predominant species raised in flow-
through systems is trout. Salmon fry are also raised in flow-through
systems until they are moved to a marine environment.
The most significant pollutant discharged from flow-through systems
is solids from uneaten feed and feces that settle to the bottom of the
raceways. These solids are primarily composed of organic matter
including BOD, organic nitrogen and organic phosphorus. Many flow-
through systems have barriers in the lower portion of each raceway to
create a quiescent zone. The quiescent zone allows the solids to settle
and be collected. Restricting the fish from entering the quiescent zone
keeps the solids from becoming resuspended. The captured solids are
periodically transferred to an off-line settling basin for additional
settling. Water is then typically decanted off and recombined with the
rest of the water being discharged from the facility. Some facilities
have installed additional solids polishing treatment, such as
filtration or an additional settling basin. Facilities that do not use
quiescent zones may treat the total flow-through a settling basin to
remove solids. Older and smaller facilities that have earthen raceways
or ponds generally use lower flow rates to prevent scouring and erosion
of the production unit, allowing solids to accumulate and decompose by
natural processes.
Flow-through facilities typically are fed by wells, springs, or by
diverting a portion of a stream. Springs and wells are preferred
because they usually provide water that is of consistent temperature,
high quality, and free from disease organisms. Free flowing springs
also have the advantage of little or no pumping costs. Some flow-
through system facilities require source waters to be pretreated to
remove substances such as sediment or iron and to add oxygen.
Fish in flow-through systems are fed on a scheduled basis, allowed
to self feed by activating a feeding mechanism. or a combination of the
two. Dead fish are removed from the raceways on a regular basis to
prevent accumulation at the end of the raceway that impedes the flow of
water from the facility.
3. Recirculating Systems
Recirculating systems are used to raise fish in a controlled
environment. The fish are raised in tanks with continuously flowing
water that is recirculated through a water treatment system and
returned to the production tanks. The treatment may include mechanical
filters to remove solids and biological filters to degrade the BOD and
nitrify the ammonia, and oxygenation. Most recirculating systems
replace about 10% of the system water volume daily to make up for
evaporation and water supply loss associated with solids filter
backwash, and to compensate for inefficiencies in the filtration
process. Several facilities reported treating their effluent with
primary solids settling and solids polishing filtration.
Because construction requires considerable capital investment, the
fish produced in these systems are generally high valued species.
Species produced include tilapia, hybrid striped bass, and ornamental
fish species. Recirculating systems are well suited to maintaining
water temperature and can be built almost anywhere.
4. Net Pen and Open Water Systems
Net pens and open water systems take advantage of an existing water
body's circulation to wash away wastes and bring fresh water to the
animals. Presently, the most common species raised in open water
systems are molluscan shellfish (oysters, clams, and mussels) that are
primarily grown on floating rafts or prepared bottoms, and salmon that
are grown to market size in net pens. Lobster pounds, found only in
Maine, are placed in coves along the shoreline to hold lobsters for
favorable markets. There is considerable interest and research being
conducted to raise additional species of fish in net pen systems.
In the case of molluscs, producers may plant the animals on the
bottom of an intertidal area or suspend them above the bottom in racks
or trays or on lines. The molluscs, which are filter feeders, reduce
concentrations of nutrients through feeding. Molluscs do excrete
wastes, but generally, this has a minimal impact on the environment.
Net pen structures are mostly used to grow finfish to food size and
are constructed in rectangular, octagonal or round shapes. Nets are
suspended from a floating structure to contain the crop of fish. The
mesh size of this net is usually increased as the fish grows to provide
more water circulating inside the net. The net pen structures are
designed to float at the surface and are constructed with ``jump nets''
that extend above the water line to prevent the fish from jumping out.
There is another net, which surrounds the primary net in the pen to
keep predators from reaching the confined fish. The pens are anchored
to the sea floor, but are designed to have some movement with the tidal
and wave action. These structures are often placed in bays and are
sited to benefit from tidal and current action to move wastes away from
the pens and bring oxygenated, high quality water to the net pen.
Because these systems are placed in
[[Page 57879]]
open waters, anything that is added to the system may contribute to
pollution. Feed and fish metabolic excretions will contribute solids,
BOD and nutrients to the water column. Other potential pollutants
include zinc, that is added in trace amounts to the feed as a mineral
supplement and copper from an antifouling compound that is used on some
of the nets. Pollutant discharges from some net pen operations have
been found to cause impacts to the benthic community. Net pen
facilities have also been linked to water circulation impacts and
changes in the natural flushing around the facility that occurs from
decreased tidal action when nets become fouled.
5. Feed, Diseases, and Non-Native Species
Some concerns about certain aspects of producing aquatic animals
have arisen. Among these are the feed (because of the nutrient
content), diseases and possible ways of treating diseases when they
occur through the use of drugs and chemicals, and escapement of non-
native species. Each of these is summarized below.
a. Feed. Most aquatic animal production requires active feeding of
the animals being raised. A few species, such as molluscs, feed from
naturally occurring sources. For some species, conditions are created
to promote the growth of natural sources of feed (such as fertilizing
ponds to stimulate the algae growth as the source of food). This is
common practice in the production of baitfish, ornamental, and finfish
fingerlings of many species. Commercial feed for the major species
produced has undergone substantial improvements in recent years. The
feed has been improved both in terms of its nutritional content
(allowing for the reduction in some ingredients that are not processed
by the fish, such as phosphorus), and its physical properties (a lower
density and moisture rate allows the feed to float longer, increasing
fish consumption and decreasing the amount of uneaten feed). Open water
facilities offer little, if any, opportunity for treatment and removal
of pollutants, such as excess feed, prior to discharge, thus feed
management is a very important component of pollution control at net
pen facilities. Pond facilities represent the other end of the
spectrum. Ponds, as described above, act as a waste treatment system
and have capacity to absorb pollutants resulting from uneaten feed and
feces. Recirculating systems and flow-through systems perform better
(i.e., discharge less waste) with the practice of proper feed
management. These systems can remove some of the pollutants associated
with uneaten feed, but most flow-through systems do not have the
technology to treat excess feed as it breaks down and releases
dissolved pollutants. The decomposition of uneaten feed will put a
greater demand on the filtration system used by recirculating systems
to clean the water as it is being recirculated. Feed is the most
expensive production input for most CAAP facilities, so operators have
a financial incentive to minimize excess feed, independent of concerns
about water quality.
b. Diseases. By providing food and oxygen, aquatic animal
production facilities can produce fish and other aquatic animals in
greater numbers than natural conditions would allow. This means that
system management is important to ensure that the animals do not become
overly stressed, making them more vulnerable to disease outbreaks. When
diseases do occur, facilities may be able to treat diseased aquatic
animals with drugs. Operators producing aquatic animals that are being
produced for human consumption must comply with requirements
established by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with respect to
the drugs that can be used legally to treat their animals, the dose
that can be used, and the withdrawal period that must be achieved
before the animals can be processed for consumption. Drugs can be
divided into four categories: approved drugs, investigational drugs,
extra-label use drugs, and unapproved drugs. Approved drugs have
already been screened by the FDA to determine whether they cause
significant adverse public health or environmental impacts when used in
accordance with label instructions. Currently, there are six approved
drugs for selected CAAP species and disease conditions. The currently
approved drugs are: (1) Chorionic gonadotropin (Chorulon[reg]) used for
spawning, (2) oxytetracycline (Terramycin[reg]) which is an antibiotic,
(3) Sulfadimethoxine, ormetoprim (Romet-30[reg]) which is an
antibiotic, (4) tricaine methanesulfonate (Finquel[reg]
and Tricaine-S)
which is an anesthetic, (5) formalin (Formalin-F[reg], Paracide-F[reg]
and PARASITE-S[reg]) used for fungus and parasite treatment, and (6)
sulfamerazine which is an antibiotic.
The FDA authorizes use of investigational drugs on a case-by-case
basis to allow a way of gathering data for the approval process. 21
U.S.C. 360b(j). Study protocols establish quantities and conditions of
use. NPDES permits sometimes have required reporting of the use of
drugs and chemicals. To EPA's knowledge, very few permits have
established limitations on the use of drugs and chemicals, probably due
to their intermittent use and the lack of analytical methods to measure
such drugs and chemicals in wastewater matrices. Extra-label drug use
is restricted to use of approved animal and human drugs only by the
order of a licensed veterinarian, and must be within the context of a
valid veterinarian-client-patient relationship. New unapproved animal
drugs are sometimes used in discrete cases where the FDA exercises its
regulatory discretion.
c. Non-Native Species. Many of the aquatic animal species in
commercial production are ``non-native'' to the geographic area of
production. These are species that have been brought into the United
States from abroad or into a region of the United States where they
would not occur naturally. When non-native species are introduced to an
area, there may be a potential for these species to become invasive,
out-competing and threatening the survival of the native species. There
may also be the potential that the introduction of non-native species
will introduce diseases against which native populations have no
natural defenses. The Department of Interior's Fish and Wildlife
Service along with the Department of Commerce's National Marine
Fisheries Service oversee the introduction of non-native species into
the United States. In addition, many State Departments of Fish and
Wildlife have established programs to control the introduction and
release of non-native species within their States. The United States,
however, has banned the importation of very few non-native species.
There are several examples of species becoming established in the wild,
in part through aquatic animal production, that some States have
defined as non-native to specific areas of the United States (e.g.,
Atlantic salmon--non-native to the Pacific Northwest, bighead and grass
carp, and some ornamental species). It should be noted that aquatic
animal production is one of several causes of non-native or invasive
species introductions; ballast water, for example, has been associated
with non-native or invasive species introductions.
IV. Summary of Data Collection
A. Primary and Secondary Sources of Data and Information
The Agency evaluated the following databases to locate data and
information to support regulatory development: the Agency's PCS
database, the Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts database, the
USDA's AGRICOLA
[[Page 57880]]
database, the 1998 USDA Census of Aquaculture, the SEC's EDGAR
Database, the Dun & Bradstreet Million Dollar Directory, and the
Hoover's database. In addition, the Agency conducted a thorough
collection and review of secondary sources, which include data,
reports, and analyses published by government agencies; reports and
analyses published by the aquatic animal production industry and its
associated organizations; and publicly available financial information
compiled by both government and private organizations.
EPA used all of the documents cited above in developing the
industry profile, a survey sampling frame, and for stratifying the
survey sampling frame. In addition to these publications, EPA examined
many other documents that provided useful overviews and analysis of the
aquatic animal production industry. EPA also conducted general Internet
searches by company name.
B. Industry Surveys
EPA developed a survey questionnaire because the existing primary
and secondary sources of information available to EPA did not contain
the information necessary to fully evaluate regulatory options. In
particular, EPA evaluates facility/site specific technical and economic
information to evaluate the costs and benefits of regulation. EPA made
every reasonable attempt to ensure that the AAP industry Information
Collection Request (ICR) did not request data and information currently
available through less burdensome mechanisms. Prior to publishing a
notice in the Federal Register on September 14, 2000(65 FR 55522), EPA
met with and distributed draft copies of the survey questionnaires to
the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture's Aquaculture Effluents Task
Force (JSA/AETF), which includes representatives from various
government agencies, industry and trade associations, academia, and
other interested stakeholders.
On September 14, 2000, EPA announced its intent to submit the
Aquatic Animal Production Industry Survey Information Collection
Request (ICR) to OMB (65 FR 55522). The September 14, 2000 notice
requested comment on the draft ICR and the survey questionnaire. EPA
received 44 sets of comments during the 60 day public comment period.
Commentors on the ICR included: National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Trout Farmers Association, American Farm Bureau
Federation, North Carolina State University, Louisiana Rice Growers
Association, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Mississippi Farm
Bureau Federation, Idaho Farm Bureau Federation, and the Freshwater
Institute. EPA made significant revisions to the survey methodology and
questionnaires as a result of these public comments. Based on the
comments, EPA revised the questionnaire and divided it into two survey
versions. The first version is the screener survey (short version) and
the second version is the detailed survey (the longer version). The two
primary reasons for the Agency splitting the survey were: (1) Comments
to the effect that the Agency would not know how much emphasis to place
on rarely occurring facility types without a census and (2) the need to
target specific types of aquatic animal production facilities that
could not be identified using information obtained from the databases
available to the Agency at that time. After evaluating the comments
received on the September 14, 2000 notice, EPA drafted a revised
detailed survey, which was sent to the JSA/AETF for review and comment.
EPA worked with the JSA/AETF via conference call and written comments
to further refine the detailed survey. EPA also conducted two
conference calls with the economic technical subgroup of the JSA/AETF
to discuss the economic and financial questions in the survey. To the
extent possible, EPA incorporated comments and suggestions from these
reviews into the survey.
EPA published a second notice in the Federal Register on June 8,
2001 (66 FR 30902), announcing the Agency's intent to submit another,
revised aquatic animal production industry Survey Information
Collection Request (ICR) to OMB. The June 8, 2001, notice requested
comment on the draft ICR supporting statement, the short screener
survey and the detailed survey questionnaire. EPA received 9 sets of
comments during the 30 day public comment period. Commenters on the ICR
included: North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services, Ohio Aquaculture Association, Catfish Farmers of America,
National Aquaculture Association, National Association of State
Aquaculture Coordinators, U.S. Trout Farmers Association, American Farm
Bureau Federation, and Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services. EPA obtained approval from OMB for the use and distribution
of the short screener survey on August 1, 2001 (66 FR 64817). EPA
obtained approval from OMB for the use and distribution of the detailed
survey on November 28, 2001 (67 FR 6519).
1. Description of the Surveys
In August 2001, EPA mailed a short screener survey, entitled
``Screener Questionnaire for the Aquatic Animal Production Industry''
to approximately 6,000 potential Aquatic Animal Production facilities.
A copy of the screener is included in the record (USEPA, 2001, DCN
10001). The screener survey consisted of eleven questions to solicit
general facility information, including confirmation that the facility
was engaged in aquatic animal production, species and size category
produced, type of production system, wastewater disposal method, and
the total production at the facility in the year 2000. EPA used the
information collected from the screener survey to describe industry
operations and wastewater disposal practices. EPA also used the
responses to the facility production question to classify whether or
not each facility is ``small'' according to the Small Business
Administration regulations at 13 CFR part 121.
EPA designed the second survey to collect detailed site-specific
technical and financial information. A copy of the detailed survey is
included in the record (USEPA, 2002e, DCN 10002). The detailed survey
is divided into three parts. The first two parts collect general
facility, technical, and cost data. The first set of questions in part
A request general facility site information, including facility contact
information, facility size, and NPDES permit information. The general
facility information questions also ask the facility to identify
species and production type and confirm that, in fact, it is engaged in
aquatic animal production. The second set of questions in part A
focused on system descriptions and wastewater control technologies.
The wastewater control technology section is divided into six
parts, one part for each type of production system (pond, flow-through,
recirculating, net pens and cages, floating aquaculture and bottom
culture, and other systems). The individual system sections have been
tailored with specific questions and responses. Each of these sections
asks the respondent to describe (1) the system, (2) water use, (3)
pollutant control practices, and (4) discharge characteristics.
The second part of the survey asks the respondent for facility cost
information. The cost information is intended to provide EPA with a
complete description of all cost elements associated with the pollution
control practices and technologies used at the facility. Separate
tables show the details
[[Page 57881]]
of capital and annual operating costs. The cost section also evaluates
the current discharge monitoring practices, product losses, and feed
information.
The third part of the detailed survey elicits site-specific
financial and economic data. EPA intends to use this information to
characterize the economic status of the industry and to estimate
potential economic impacts of wastewater regulations. The survey
requests financial and economic information for the fiscal years ending
1999, 2000 and 2001--the most recent years for which data are
available.
The Agency intends to use this information to refine the regulation
proposed today. The Agency also would use data that identifies
treatment technologies in place to determine the feasibility of
regulatory options, and to refine its estimates of compliance costs,
pollutant loading and load reductions associated with the technology-
based options, and potential environmental impacts associated with the
regulatory options EPA considers for final rulemaking. The data
gathered through this survey and any revisions to the proposed
regulation that may result from this additional data would subsequently
be published in a notice in the Federal Register to provide the public
an opportunity to comment on this data.
2. Development of Survey Mailing List
The mailing list (sample frame) for EPA's screener survey was
developed by synthesizing facility information found in the Dunn and
Bradstreet database, EPA's Permit Compliance System (PCS), contacts
with EPA regional permit writers, EPA site visits, State aquaculture
contacts, assistance from the Bureau of Indian Affairs on tribal
facilities, universities, recent issues of Aquaculture Magazine, and an
extensive collection of Web sites with aquaculture references. The
mailing list EPA developed contained approximately 6,000 facilities.
This number seemed to compare favorably with the roughly 4,000
commercial facilities found in the 1998 Census of Aquaculture and the
additional Federal, State, Tribal, research, and non-profit facilities
not found in the 1998 Census of Aquaculture (USDA, 2000, DCN 60605).
EPA believes that this mailing population was as current as possible
and reasonably complete.
3. Response to the Screener Survey
EPA sent the screener survey to all 6,000 facilities on its mailing
list. EPA received responses from 4,900 facilities, with about 2,300
facilities reporting that they do produce aquatic animals. The
discrepancy between the number of surveys sent and the number of
facilities reporting that they are aquatic animal producers is largely
attributed to the fact that the list was compiled from general industry
sources and included aquatic animal processors, retailers, etc.
As described in Section V, EPA is proposing to establish effluent
limitations guideline regulations for various segments of the
concentrated aquatic animal production sector, thus, the Agency sent
the detailed survey to a sample of 263 facilities. EPA used the results
of the screener survey to ensure that the facilities that received the
detailed questionnaire, in fact, produce aquatic animals and that a
high percentage are conducting operations that would be included in the
scope of today's proposal.
4. Sample Selection for the Detailed Survey
Respondents to the detailed questionnaire were selected at random
from within groups (stratified random selection) that were identified
using results of the screener survey. The sample and the questionnaires
described above are expected to provide EPA with the additional
information that will be used to re-estimate the costs and benefits
associated with the proposed regulatory options. These results along
with results from any additional evaluations based on comments on the
proposal will be published in the Notice of Data Availability (NODA)
prior to final action.
C. Site Visits and Wastewater Sampling
During 2000 and 2001, EPA conducted site visits at more than 70 AAP
facilities. EPA conducted some of these site visits as part of AAP
conferences that EPA attended to better understand the industry. The
purposes of these site visits were: (1) To collect information on
aquatic animal operations; (2) to collect information on the generation
of wastewater and waste management practices used by the AAP
facilities; and (3) to evaluate each such facility as a candidate for
multi-day sampling.
In selecting candidates for site visits, EPA attempted to identify
facilities that were representative of various CAAP operations, as well
as both direct and indirect dischargers. EPA specifically considered
the type of aquatic animal production operation (production method and
species produced), geographical region, age of the facility, size of
facility (in terms of production), wastewater treatment processes
employed, and best management practices/pollution prevention techniques
used. EPA also solicited recommendations for good-performing facilities
(e.g., facilities with advanced wastewater treatment practices) from
EPA Regional offices, State agencies, and members of the JSA/AETF. The
site-specific selection criteria are discussed in site visit reports
prepared for each site visited by EPA (DCN 30987-30998 and 61615-61652)
and summarized in the CAAP Development Document. The sites visited
reflect a cross section of the industry that is fairly complete and
proportionally representative of the industry.
During each site visit, EPA collected information on the facility
and its operations, including: (1) General production data and
information; (2) the types of aquatic animal production wastewaters
generated and treated on-site; (3) water source and use; (4) wastewater
treatment and disposal operations. EPA used the site visit reports to
prepare multi-day sampling and analysis plans (SAPs) for each facility
that would undergo multi-day sampling. For those facilities selected
for sampling episodes, EPA also collected information on potential
sampling locations for wastewater (raw influent, within the treatment
system, and final effluent); and other information necessary for
developing a sampling plan for possible multi-day sampling episodes.
Based on data collected from the site visits, EPA selected three
facilities for multi-day sampling (two flow-through systems and one
recirculating system). The purpose of the multi-day sampling was to
characterize pollutants in raw wastewaters prior to treatment as well
as document wastewater treatment performance (including selected unit
processes). Selection of facilities for multi-day sampling was based on
an analysis of information collected during the site visits as well as
the following criteria: (1) The facility activities and operations were
representative of CAAP facilities and (2) the facility utilized in-
process treatment and/or end-of-pipe treatment practices that EPA was
considering for technology option selection.
The Agency collected the following types of information during each
sampling episode: (1) Dates and times of sample collection; (2) flow
data corresponding to each sample; (3) production data corresponding to
each sample; (4) design and operating parameters for source reduction,
recycling, and treatment; technologies characterized during sampling;
(5) information about site operations that had changed since the site
visit or that
[[Page 57882]]
were not included in the site visit report; and (6) temperature, pH,
and dissolved oxygen (DO) of the sampled waste streams.
During each multi-day sampling episode, EPA sampled facility
influent and effluent wastestreams over a 5-day period. Samples also
were collected at intermediate points throughout the wastewater
treatment system to assess the performance of individual treatment
units. Samples were obtained using a combination of composite and grab
samples, depending upon the pollutant parameter to be analyzed. EPA
selected the duration for sampling the composites to reflect feeding
and non-feeding conditions at the facilities and to minimize risk to
sampling personnel. The composite time frames ranged from 12 hours to
24 hours. EPA had the samples analyzed for a variety of conventional
(BOD, TSS, oil and grease, and pH), nonconventional (nutrients,
microbiological, drugs and chemicals), and toxic (metals and organic
compounds) pollutants. When possible for a given parameter, EPA
collected 24-hour composite samples in order to capture the variability
in the waste streams generated throughout the day (e.g., production
wastewater during feeding and non-feeding periods.)
Data collected from the sampling episodes contributed to
characterization of the industry, development of the list of pollutants
of concern, and development of raw wastewater characteristics. EPA used
the data collected from the influent, intermediate, and effluent points
to analyze the efficacy of treatment at the facilities, and to develop
current discharge concentrations, loadings, and the treatment
technology options for the Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production
industry. EPA used effluent data to calculate the long-term averages
(LTAs) and limitations for each of the proposed regulatory options. EPA
intends to use industry-provided data from the CAAP detailed survey and
other sources to complement the sampling data for these calculations in
final rulemaking. During each sampling episode, EPA collected flow rate
data corresponding to each sample collected and production information
from each associated production system for use in calculating pollutant
loadings. EPA has included in the public record all information
collected for which a facility has not asserted a claim of Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or which would indirectly reveal information
claimed to be CBI.
After conducting the sampling episodes, EPA prepared sampling
episode reports for each facility and included descriptions of the
wastewater treatment processes, sampling procedures, and analytical
results. EPA documented all data collected during sampling episodes in
the sampling episode report for each sampled site. Non-confidential
business information from these reports is available in the public
record for this proposal. For detailed information on sampling and
preservation procedures, analytical methods, and quality assurance/
quality control procedures see the Quality Assurance Project Plan
(QAPP) (DCN 61558) and SAPs (DCN 61557, DCN 61710, and DCN 61711) for
today's proposed rule.
D. Pollutants Sampled and Analytical Methods
The Agency collected, preserved, and transported all samples
according to EPA protocols as specified in the AAP QAPP.
EPA collected composite samples for most parameters because the
Agency expected the wastewater composition to vary over the course of a
day. The Agency collected grab samples from unit operations for oil and
grease and microbiologicals (e.g., total and fecal coliform, fecal
streptoccocus, Aeromonas, Mycobacterium marinum, E. coli, and
Enterococcus faecium). Composite samples were collected either manually
or by using an automated sampler. Individual aliquots for the composite
samples were collected at a minimum of once every four hours over each
12-hour period. Oil and grease samples were collected two or three
times per composite time frame and microbiologicals were collected once
a day.
Table IV.D-1 lists the parameters sampled at the majority of the
facilities, some of which have not been identified as pollutants of
concern.
Table IV.D-1: CAAP Sampled Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Settleable Solids Oil and grease
pH Sulfate
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD\5\) Metals (e.g., arsenic, chromium,
Chemical oxygen demand (COD) copper, mercury, zinc)
Total organic carbon (TOC) Volatile Organics
Total suspended solids (TSS) Semivolatile Organics
Total dissolved solids (TDS) Total coliform
Total volatile solids (TVS) Fecal coliform
Chloride Escherichia coli
Total Chlorine Fecal streptococci
Ammonia as nitrogen Aeromonas
Nitrate/nitrite Mycobacterium marinum
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) Enterococcus faecium
Total phosphorus (TP) Oxytetracycline
Total dissolved phosphorus (TDP) Toxicity:
Orthophosphate Fathead Minnow, Pimephales promelas
Temperature Cladoceran, Ceriodaphnia dubia
Dissolved Oxygen Green Alga, Selenastrum
capricornatum
Turbidity
Conductivity
Salinity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All wastewater sample analyses, except for the field measurements
of temperature, turbidity, conductivity, salinity, total chlorine,
dissolved oxygen, settleable solids, and pH were completed by EPA
contract laboratories. EPA collected field measurements of temperature,
dissolved oxygen, and pH at the sampling site. The analytical chemistry
methods used, as well as the sample volume requirements, detection
limits, and holding times, were consistent with the laboratory's
quality assurance and quality control plan. Laboratories contracted for
CAAP sample analysis followed EPA approved analysis methods for all
parameters except some microbials and drugs (i.e., oxytetracycline) for
which no current EPA approved method has been formally developed. The
protocols used to measure those pollutants are available in the docket
to today's proposal.
The EPA contract laboratories reported data on their standard
report sheet and submitted them to EPA's sample control center (SCC).
The SCC reviewed the report sheets for completeness and reasonableness.
EPA reviewed all reports from the laboratory to verify that the data
were consistent with requirements, reported in the proper units, and
complied with the applicable protocol.
E. Other Data Collection
EPA conducted a number of other data collection efforts to
supplement information gathered through the survey process, facility
sampling activities, site visits, meetings with industry experts, the
general public, and government funded studies. The main purpose of
these other data collection efforts was to obtain information on
documented environmental impacts of aquatic animal production
facilities, additional
[[Page 57883]]
data on aquatic animal production waste characteristics, pollution
prevention practices, wastewater treatment technology innovation, and
facility management practices. These other data collection activities
included a literature search, a review of current NPDES permits, and a
review of NPDES Discharge Monitoring Reports.
1. Literature Search on Environmental Impacts
EPA conducted a literature search to obtain information on various
aspects of the aquatic animal production industry, including pollutants
causing environmental impacts, water quality and ecological impacts
from these pollutants, non-native species impacts, and other potential
impacts. EPA performed extensive Internet and library searches for
applicable information. EPA has included a summary of the case studies
in the public docket (DCN ) associated with today's proposal and in
Chapter 9 of the CAAP Economic Analysis (DCN 20141). The primary
sources for the case studies include technical journal articles,
newspaper articles, industry experts, and government contacts for
aquaculture.
EPA also conducted a separate literature search for case studies
that characterize the AAP industry, or more specifically the typical
effluents associated with different production system types and
species. The primary sources for the case studies were technical
journal articles.
2. Current NPDES Permits
EPA extracted information from the Agency's Permit Compliance
System (PCS) to identify concentrated aquatic animal production
industry point source dischargers with NPDES permits. This initial
extraction was performed by searching the PCS using reported Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) codes used to describe the primary
activities occurring at the site. Specifically, EPA used the following
SIC Codes: 0273Animal Aquaculture and 0921 Fish Hatcheries and
Preserves.
EPA identified a total of 1,174 concentrated aquatic animal
production facilities in the PCS database which does not include the
number identified in the screener. Some of these facilities may have
permits, but are not in the PCS database. Based on the NPDES permits
found in the PCS database, EPA estimates that 377 facilities have
active permits (i.e., facilities that are still in business and are
required to be permitted).
EPA selected a sample from this universe of dischargers. The Agency
then reviewed NPDES permits and permit applications to obtain
information on facility type, production methods and systems, species
produced, and effluent treatment practices for each of the aquatic
animal production sectors. EPA used this information as part of its
initial screening process to identify the universe of AAP facilities
that would be covered under the proposal. In addition, this information
was used to better define the scope of the information collection
requests and to supplement other information collected on waste
management practices in the industry. EPA will continue to refine its
estimates of direct dischargers to further incorporate information from
the PCS database.
3. Discharge Monitoring Reports
The Agency collected long-term effluent data from facility
Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) to supplement the PCS database in
an effort to perform a check on the achievability of today's proposed
requirements. DMRs summarize the quality and volume of wastewater
discharged from a facility under a NPDES permit. DMRs are critical for
monitoring compliance with NPDES permit provisions and for generating
national trends on Clean Water Act compliance. DMRs may be submitted
monthly, quarterly, or annually depending on the requirements of the
NPDES permit.
EPA extracted discharge data and permit limits from these DMRs to
help identify regulated pollutants and to identify better performing
facilities. EPA was able to collect DMR information on a total of 157
facilities. Of those 157 facilities, EPA was able to identify 57 flow-
through and 2 recirculating systems for which basic facility
characteristics are available. EPA does not have sufficient information
on the facility characteristics for the remaining 98 facilities. EPA
collected 38,096 data points on 126 separate pollutant parameters
(including nitrogen, phosphorus, solids, flow, chemicals such as
formalin, diquat, and copper).
Indirect dischargers file compliance monitoring reports with their
control authority (e.g., POTW) at least twice per year as required
under the General Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR 403) while direct
dischargers file discharge monitoring reports with their permitting
authority at least once per year. EPA did not collect compliance
monitoring reports for CAAP facilities that are indirect dischargers
because: (1) A vast majority of CAAP indirect dischargers add only
small volumes of wastewater to POTWs and typically do not discharge
toxic compounds and (2) this information is less centralized and much
harder to collect.
F. Summary of Public Participation
EPA encouraged the participation of all interested parties
throughout the development of the proposed aquatic animal production
effluent limitations guidelines and standards. EPA conducted outreach
to the major trade associations via the JSA/AETF (participants include
producers, trade associations, academics, federal and state agencies
and environmental organizations). EPA also participated in several JSA/
AETF meetings and gave presentations on the status of the regulation
development. EPA also met with environmental groups, including the
Natural Resources Defense Council, concerning this proposal.
In the development of the surveys, which were used to gather
facility specific information on this industry, EPA consulted with the
various JSA/AETF technical subgroups to ensure that the information
being requested was asked for in such a way as to be understandable and
that it would be available in the form requested.
EPA also met with representatives from USDA, FDA, National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) of Department of Commerce and United States
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) of Department of Interior to discuss
this regulation. EPA met with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS) of USDA to discuss potential regulations related to
aquatic pathogens. EPA met with FDA's Center of Veterinary Medicine to
discuss the new drug approval process. EPA met with NMFS and USFWS
representatives to discuss non-native species and the regulatory
authority various agencies have over non-native species. EPA met with
representatives from State and local governments to discuss their
concerns with concentrated aquatic animal production facilities and how
EPA should evaluate options to regulate discharges from these
facilities.
EPA learned about the regulatory framework that some of these
agencies operate under. Specifically, EPA's discussion with USFWS
focused on intentional and unintentional introductions and what
authority USFWS has to control unintentional releases of non-native
species. In discussions with FDA, the major concern raised was the use
of investigational new animal drugs and extra label use of drugs.
[[Page 57884]]
V. Scope/Applicability of Proposed Regulation
EPA solicits comments on various issues regarding applicability of
today's proposed national effluent limitations guidelines and
standards. The following discussion descibes the applicability for
three subcategories of concentrated aquatic animal production
facilities that would be subject to the regulations proposed today.
A. Facilities To Be Subject to 40 CFR Part 451
EPA is proposing new effluent limitations guidelines and standards
for three subcategories of the concentrated aquatic animal production
industry: Flow-through systems, recirculating systems, and net pens.
EPA does not propose to establish effluent limitations for CAAP
facilities in any subcategory that produce cold water species with
annual production between 20,000 pounds and 100,000 pounds annually.
EPA also does not propose to establish effluent limitations guidelines
for floating and bottom culture systems for molluscan shellfish (e.g.,
mussel rafts) or for ponds, but EPA does invite comment on whether EPA
should regulate rapid drain discharges from such ponds. EPA does not
propose categorical pretreatment standards for any production
subcategory.
B. Facilities Not Subject to 40 CFR Part 451
EPA developed the production rate thresholds based on 1998 Census
of Aquaculture data and the AAP screener survey data, which was
available prior to proposal. EPA used six production size categories
that correspond with the revenue classifications used in the 1998
Census of Aquaculture (i.e., $1,000-$24,999; $25,000-$49,999; $50,000-
$99,999; $100,000-$499,999; $500,000-$1,000,000; and
£$1,000,000) to develop model facilities representing these
size ranges for each species evaluated. EPA also used these size ranges
to group facility production data reported in the AAP screener surveys.
EPA used national average product prices taken from the 1998 Census of
Aquaculture to estimate the production (in pounds) for the dominant
species that were reported grown in flow-through (e.g., trout, salmon,
tilapia) recirculating (e.g., tilapia, hybrid striped bass) and net pen
(e.g., salmon) systems. For alligator systems reported in the AAP
screener survey, data from industry reports was used to estimate
production value and create groupings of the facilities. EPA used these
size classification groupings to more accurately estimate costs,
loadings, non-water quality impacts (NWQIs), and economic impacts of
the proposed limitations and standards for each of the size
classifications within the various species (or aquatic animal types)
cultured inthis industry. That is, rather than assume one model
facility for each of the three regulatory subcategories, EPA used a
minimum of 6 model facilities for each facility type (e.g., commercial,
government, research) and species size combinations (e.g., fingerlings,
stockers, food size) for better accuracy in its analyses (see also CAAP
Development Document for further details on how these production based
thresholds were developed). EPA applied these size classifications to
the AAP screener survey data to derive the model facility
characteristics that have been used to support this proposed
regulation.
In evaluating the AAP screener survey data related to facility
annual production, EPA identified several variables distinguishing
various types of facilities. Aquatic animal production facilities
varied by type of facility operation (i.e., species and production
method) and type of wastewater management (e.g., direct discharger,
indirect discharger, no discharge/wastes applied to land on site). EPA
identified annual production levels (by mass) at facilities and then
identified the corresponding model facility. For the purposes of
estimating costs, loads, economic impacts and Non Water Quality Impacts
(NWQIs), EPA only considered the data for the model facilities that
would meet the definition of a CAAP facility as defined in 40 CFR
122.24 and appendix C to part 122. EPA invites comments on the
appropriateness of using this method of estimating production
thresholds to characterize concentrated aquatic animal production
facilities and to determine applicability of the proposed regulations.
The production-based threshold in today's proposal were based on a
determination that the facilities below this threshold would likely
experience adverse economic impacts if they were subject to the
proposed requirements. EPA made this determination based on the results
of the model facility analysis and thus would likely find the
regulations not economically achievable. As described above, the model
facilities represent specific size ranges (in pounds) derived from
annual revenue ranges from the 1998 Census of Aquaculture, using price
data. Most of the impacts that EPA identified would adversely affect
trout producers below the 94,000 pounds annual threshold. Therefore,
the Agency proposes to establish the applicability threshold for this
effluent guideline at 100,000 pounds annually based on the trout model
facility. EPA believes it would needlessly complicate the regulation,
with little corresponding environmental benefit, to try to establish
different applicability thresholds for different species. EPA believes
this applicability threshold is reasonable and will minimize the
adverse economic impacts that would be imposed by this proposed
regulation. See Section IX of this notice for a more detailed
discussion of the economic impact analysis. EPA intends to conduct more
detailed evaluations of potential thresholds using responses to the
detailed survey. Further evaluation may warrant a change in the
proposed production-based applicability threshold.
Most smaller CAAP facilities (i.e., those producing below the
applicability threshold) are not included within the scope of today's
proposal for a number of reasons: (1) Small CAAP facilities, as a
group, discharge less than 18% of the total suspended solids (or 1.1
million lbs/year) and less than 18% of the nutrients and BOD (or 1.1
million lbs/year) when compared to all discharges from the entire CAAP
industry; (2) EPA determined that only a limited amount of loadings
removal would be accomplished by improved treatment at the BPT/BAT
level of control; and (3) EPA estimated that the small facilities would
experience compliance costs that exceeded 5% of their revenues which is
higher than for large facilities. Therefore, EPA is not proposing
limitations and standards for discharges from the smallest facilities.
Instead, an NPDES permit for such a smaller facility that is defined as
a CAAP facility under the NPDES regulations would include limits based
on the ``best professional judgment'' of the permit writer.
As explained above, EPA's proposed applicability is based on the
screener data available for this proposal. EPA invites comment on these
estimates and conclusions based on modeled data, especially because EPA
is aware that many permitted flow-through facilities producing less
than 100,000 pounds of cold water species in Idaho, in fact, can
achieve similar requirements that EPA is proposing for large
facilities. EPA invites comment on the cost-reasonableness of lower
cost BMP plans for smaller facilities (e.g., BMP option without numeric
limits on TSS). EPA will re-evaluate this size threshold based on new
data (i.e., the detailed survey responses) and intends to invite
comment on that data in a notice in the Federal Register. EPA is also
soliciting comment on alternative size thresholds
[[Page 57885]]
at different production levels. A supplemental analysis in the record
(CAAP Economic Analysis ) compares the proposed size categories in
terms of costs, pollutant removals, and economic impacts on the
affected facilities. EPA specifically is requesting comment on how
alternative thresholds might be justified using the factors discussed
above (e.g. economic impact, small pollutant loadings, etc.) and/or
other relevant factors.
By today's action, EPA also does not propose effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for certain species/production system
combinations for reasons unrelated to economics, specifically, either
because EPA does not believe the species/production system adds more
than trivial amounts of pollutants or because no feasible pollutant
control technologies are available to reduce pollutant loads in more
than de minimis amounts. EPA is not proposing regulations for
discharges from:
--Ponds. The culture of aquatic animals in ponds requires high quality
water to sustain and grow the aquatic animal crop. For many aquatic
animals raised in ponds, the pond itself serves as a natural biological
treatment system to reduce wastes generated by animals in the pond
(including excess feed, manure, and dead aquatic animals). The NPDES
regulations for warm water concentrated aquatic animal production
facilities exclude discharges from ``closed ponds which discharge only
during periods of excess runoff'' and does not apply to facilities that
discharge less than 30 days per year. Given these circumstances, and
given that overflow pipes in ponds tend to drain passively from the top
surface of the pond, discharges due to excess runoff should be of
comparatively high water quality. As such, EPA does not propose
nationally-applicable effluent guidelines regulations for pond system
discharges related to sediment, erosion, nutrients, or feeds. See
section VIII for additional discussion on pond systems. EPA invites
comment on its proposal not to adopt ELGs for ponds. In addition, EPA
specifically invites comments on effluent limitations related to the
use of drugs and chemicals in ponds should be considered, BMPs related
to escapement of non-native aquatic animal species raised in ponds, and
limits to control discharges from the technique of rapid pond drainage
used in certain pond production systems, particularly shrimp, should be
considered.
--Lobster pounds. Intertidal impoundments are used for live storage of
marine crustaceans (e.g., lobsters, crabs, etc.) to keep wild caught
animals alive pending sale. EPA is not proposing nationally-applicable
effluent limitations regulation at this time for lobster pounds because
the Agency has not found any applicable pollutant control technologies
to reduce discharges, EPA continues to evaluate BMPs that might apply
for these types of facilities (see AAP Technical Guidance Manual). EPA
invites comment, however, on whether controls and/or reporting of the
use of drugs and chemicals that EPA is proposing for other production
systems would be appropriate for intertidal pounds.
--Crawfish. Crawfish are typically raised in conjunction with plant
crops, as part of a rice, soybean, crawfish crop rotation because
crawfish maintain aeration of the growing media. EPA is not proposing
nationally-applicable effluent limitations guidelines regulation for
discharges associated with crawfish operations because crawfish
producers do not add feed, drugs, or chemicals to manage the crawfish
operations and because any associated pollutants tend to be assimilated
with the soils used to grow plant crops. EPA invites comment on not
proposing regulations for discharges associated with production of
crawfish.
--Molluscan shellfish production in open waters. For large-scale
production of molluscs for food, operators typically use bottom
culture, bottom anchored racks, or floating (but tethered to the
bottom) rafts in open waters. Because such operations do not typically
add materials to waters of the United States, and because EPA has not
found any generally-applicable pollutant control technologies to reduce
any discharge, the Agency is not proposing effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for discharges from open water mollusc
culture. EPA notes that molluscs are filter feeders and, in some cases,
are recommended not only as a food source, but also a pollution control
technology in and of themselves. Molluscs remove pollutants from
ambient waters via filtration. EPA also is aware that molluscs have
been incorporated into polyculture aquatic animal production operations
to minimize discharges of pollutants. EPA invites comment on not
proposing regulations for open water molluscan production.
--Aquariums. Public aquariums are AAP facilities that display a variety
of aquatic animals to the general public and conduct research on many
different threatened and endangered aquatic species. EPA has
determined, through the AAP screener survey and site visits, that most
aquariums are indirect dischargers and if these facilities discharge
directly into waters of the U.S., it is only done in emergency
situations requiring rapid dewatering of tanks. These systems maintain
low stocking densities and very clean, clear water to enhance the
visual display of the animals. Discharges from aquariums are likely to
be low in TSS and nutrients because of the low stocking densities.
Because most of the drugs used to treat stressed or ill animals are
injected directly into the animal, EPA believes that discharges of
drugs would be minimal. Few chemicals are used and include pH buffers
and chemicals used to make artificial sea salt. Based on these
preliminary evaluations, EPA proposes no regulation for discharges from
these types of operations. EPA is exploring the potential releases of
drugs and chemicals and technologies that can and are being used to
remove drugs and chemicals through the detailed survey. Pending results
from the detailed survey, EPA solicits comments on whether this
regulatory approach is appropriate and also requests any data on the
use of drugs and chemicals in public aquariums.
--Alligators. EPA evaluated screener survey data to determine the scope
of the alligator industry and the range of treatment technologies that
are currently used. Alligator production facilities range in size from
producers with less than 100 animals to some with many thousands of
animals. As described through contacts with industry experts
(Hochheimer 2002d DCN 61794), alligator production facilities do not
discharge effluents from their alligator production systems. Instead,
effluents are treated in one or two-stage lagoons and then land applied
to crop or forested land. EPA intends to verify this through the
collection of detailed survey information. Based on this information
EPA believes alligator producers would not meet the definition of a
CAAP because they would not exceed minimum threshold of discharging 30
days annually.
[[Page 57886]]
--Alaskan Net Pen Systems. In Alaska, salmon fry are raised for
stocking under an arrangement that does not exist elsewhere in the
United States. Non-profit, non-governmental salmon producers raise only
native species for the purpose of supplementing natural populations and
maintaining Alaska's fishing industry. Producers raise salmon in flow-
through systems, which are transferred to net pen systems as they
mature. Net pen rearing of salmon in Alaska occurs primarily for pink
and chum salmon for two months of the year (mid-March to mid-May). Fish
are placed in the pens weighing about 0.4 grams and reared until they
reach about 2.0 grams. The industry reports achieving about a 1:1 feed
conversion ratio since added feed is supplemented by naturally
occurring zooplankton. Once the fish are released into the ocean the
nets and pens are fallow until the following year. The Agency is not
aware of any drug or chemical use in these non-profit Alaska net pen
system operations. For these reasons the Agency proposes to exclude
from today's proposed regulation discharges from the net pen phase of
operations at non-profit Alaska salmon production based on the current
provisions of Alaska law. The Agency solicits comments on any
environmental impacts caused by these net pen facilities, in particular
the use of drugs or chemicals such as anti-foulants. EPA may consider
requiring these facilities to develop and implement BMP plans similar
to the plans included in today's proposal for other net pen discharges
in order to minimize the potential discharge of solids and other
pollutants associated with net pen systems generally. EPA would
consider the costs and economic impacts associated with the development
and implementation of BMPs and would provide prior notice and
opportunity for public comment on any such costs and impacts in a
subsequent notice. The Agency solicits comments on this possible
approach.
VI. Subcategorization
A. Factors Considered in Developing Proposed Subcategories
The CWA requires EPA, when developing effluent limitations
guidelines and pretreatment standards, to consider a number of
different factors. For example, when developing limitations that
represent the best available technology economically achievable for a
particular industry category, EPA must consider, among other factors,
the age of the equipment and facilities in the category, location,
manufacturing processes employed, types of treatment technology to
reduce effluent discharges, the cost of effluent reductions and non-
water quality environmental impacts. See Section 304(b)(2)(B) of the
CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1314(b)(2)(B). The statute also authorizes EPA to take
into account other factors that the Administrator deems appropriate and
requires the BAT model technology chosen by EPA to be economically
achievable, which generally involves consideration of both compliance
costs and the overall financial condition of the industry. EPA took
these factors into account in considering whether to establish
subcategories and found that dividing the industry into subcategories
leads to better tailored regulatory standards, thereby increasing
regulatory predictability and diminishing the need to address
variations among facilities through a variance process. See
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F. 2d 1011, 1053 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
EPA used published literature, site visit data, industry screener
survey data and EPA sampling data for the subcategorization analysis.
Various subcategorization criteria were analyzed for trends in
discharge flow rates, pollutant concentrations, and treatability to
determine where subcategorization was warranted. Equipment and facility
age and facility location were not found to impact wastewater
generation or wastewater characteristics; therefore, age and location
were not used as a basis for subcategorization. An analysis of non-
water quality environmental characteristics (e.g., solid waste and air
emission effects) showed that these characteristics also did not
constitute a basis for subcategorization (see Section XI).
Facility size (e.g., acreage, number of employees, production
rates) directly affects the effluent quality, particularly the quantity
of pollutants in the effluent and size was used as a basis for
subcategorization because more stringent limitations would not be
economically achievable for smaller aquatic animal production
facilities (see Section V for definition of ``small'' and ``non-small''
facilities for each subcategory). See SectionV for a description on how
and why EPA established production based thresholds for CAAP
facilities.
EPA also identified types of production system (e.g., pond, flow-
through system, net pen, etc) as a determinative factor for
subcategorization due to variations in operating practices, quality and
quantity of effluent type and discharge frequency. Based on the results
of an initial evaluation, EPA determined that using the production
system employed at each facility most appropriately subcategorizes the
CAAP industry. Additional subdivision was evaluated to better
characterize the influence of water management strategies on discharge
frequency, volume, and quality.
When subcategorized by production system, the AAP industry consists
of six major subcategories: Pond systems, flow-through systems,
recirculating systems, net pens and cages, floating aquaculture and
bottom culture, and alligator systems. AAP facilities can be
characterized by the relative amount of water used to produce a unit of
product, the general design of the facility, and the processes used to
treat production water. Wastewater flow rates, water usage, and water
requirements and characteristics are considered similar within each
subcategory.
EPA's analyses indicate that, in most cases, species is not a
significant factor in determining differences in production system
effluent characteristics. The management practices for a particular
species dictate stocking densities, feed types, feeding rates and
frequencies, and the overall management strategy. Species, however,
does not appear to be a major determinant in the quality or quantity of
effluent from the particular type of production system.
The following section describes the proposed Concentrated Aquatic
Animal Production industry subcategorization.
B. Proposed Subcategories
In today's notice, EPA proposes new limitations and standards for
facilities in the following CAAP subcategories: flow-through systems,
recirculating systems, and net pens. EPA developed the proposed limits
based on the differences in quality and quantity of discharges from
these types of facilities. Flow-through systems tend to have high
effluent flows. Some facilities may treat two discharge points: a bulk
discharge and a discharge from a settling basin referred to as off-line
settling. The solids generated from the production process are
collected and treated in the basin through settling. The discharge from
the off-line settling basin is small in volume and more concentrated in
pollutants such as TSS, BOD, or nutrients. Other facilities opt to
treat their entire discharge (full flow settling) which includes the
solids generated from the production process. Recirculating
[[Page 57887]]
systems have relatively small effluent volumes of treated effluents
that are high in TSS, BOD and nutrients. Net pen systems discharge TSS,
BOD and nutrients directly to receiving waters. See Section III. EPA
chose to further segment the subcategories by facility size (i.e. by
the amount of aquatic animals produced) because of economic
considerations (see Section IX).
VII. Control Technology Options, Costs, Wastewater Characteristics, and
Pollutant Reductions
A. Description of Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Management
Practices in the CAAP Industry
Most of the wastewater treatment technologies and management
practices evaluated as options for AAP facilities are potentially
applicable to all of the system subcategory types, including (1) feed
management; (2) health management; (3) control of non-native species
escapes; (4) drug and chemical use management; (5) water quality
monitoring; (6) primary solids settling; (7) disinfection; and (8)
additional solids removal. The following is a description of each of
these treatment technologies and management practices as they apply to
all systems followed by a description of any system-specific practices
evaluated. The descriptions of the practices below, however, do not
necessarily reflect what EPA proposes to require.
1. Treatment Technologies and Management Practices Considered for All
Systems
a. Feed Management. Feed management recognizes the importance of
effective, environmentally sound use of feed. All AAP operators should
continually evaluate feeding practices to ensure that feed placed in
the production unit is consumed. It is important to eliminate excess
feeding to reduce the input of solids and nutrients in the production
unit. The goal of good feed management is to increase the ability of
fish to efficiently convert food to flesh. By observing feeding
behavior and noting the presence of excess feed, operators can adjust
feeding rates to ensure minimal excess and waste. Use of high quality
feed that meets the nutritional requirements of the species being
cultured can also help to minimize excess feed. Proper storage and
handling can be important for some types of feed in order to reduce the
production of small feed particles (or fines) that most animals will
not eat. Uniform feeding applications are another tool for achieving
effective feed management. Feeding as much of the rearing unit (e.g.,
pond, raceway, or tank) surface as possible to ensure that all of the
animals have feed available to consume prevents waste and improves the
quality of fish production. Because feed is the most expensive
production input for most facilities, operators have a strong financial
incentive to minimize excess feed.
b. Health Management. As a practice to promote health management,
some operators have developed health management plans that include an
assessment of the potential animal health problems that may be
encountered at a facility and the environmental problems that may
result from disease outbreaks. The plan outlines the actions needed to
minimize the impacts of disease outbreaks, including the use of drugs
and chemicals.
As part of health management practices, AAP facility operators
sometimes conduct health screenings by collecting samples of the
cultured species and screening for diseases, parasites, and body
weight. Health screening allows for the early detection of certain
diseases and parasites, which would otherwise not be detected until the
outbreak had spread through the cultured population. Most States have
disease diagnostic services available to assist in screening aquatic
animals and identifying potential problems. Measuring weight allows
producers to evaluate general health, determine how well the crop is
performing, and constantly update the feeding regimes so that the most
efficient feed rates are used. Health screening can also reduce the
need for medicated feeds by detecting the disease problems early.
However, health screening can be expensive and its effectiveness is
highly site- and species-specific. Operators have a strong financial
incentive to conduct health screening to the extent that it is cost-
effective at their facility.
Mortality of the cultured species in small numbers is a common
occurrence in aquaculture systems. Mortality removal is another health
management practice that helps prevent the spread of disease and the
introduction of excess pollutants into the system. Many of the
mortalities float to the surface of the culture water and can be
collected by hand or using nets.
c. Control of Non-Native Species Escapes. When culturing non-native
species, it is important to control escapes of the cultured animals if
there is a potential for adverse impact on wild populations. Where this
potential exists, it can be minimized by the preparation of a non-
native species escapement plan to address control of escapes. This plan
would include a mechanism to minimize or prevent the potential for
escapement. Some examples in existing plans include screens or other
barriers over discharge pipes to prevent escapement of aquatic animals,
use of double nets in net pen operations, and training of employees to
carefully transfer fish when moving or harvesting animals to prevent
escapes.
EPA is considering requiring CAAPs to report escapes of non-native
species to the permitting authority. With this information, the
permitting authority, in coordination with the state agency responsible
for fisheries, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and/or the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) would evaluate the potential
for the escaped fish to become established and cause ecological harm.
Timely notification of any escapes would allow the State, USFWS, or
NMFS to take measures to control the spread of the non-natives.
EPA is also considering banning the intentional release of any non-
native species with the potential to cause adverse impacts on wild
species from CAAPs. EPA is aware of the possibility that non-native
species may be intentionally released, especially from net pens, if
they are not growing rapidly enough to justify continued feeding.
States or USFWS would determine which species the ban would be applied
to.
EPA is soliciting comment on the appropriateness and efficacy of a
ban on intentional releases, the appropriate entity to define which
species the ban should be applied to, and the practicality of reporting
requirements for escaped non-native species. EPA is aware of the
concern that national ELGs under the CWA may not be an effective
mechanism to address non-native species, since many facilities would be
outside the scope of the ELGs.
d. Drug and Chemical Use. Facility operators may develop drug and
chemical plans that list all of the drugs and chemicals that will be
used, the conditions for use, safe handling and storage practices, and
actions being taken to minimize their use (e.g., maintaining water
quality to minimize stress).
EPA is evaluating whether to include a whole effluent toxicity
(WET) test as a screening step for potential adverse environmental
effects when a facility uses investigational new animal drugs or an
extra label use drug. EPA solicits comment on: (1) The use of WET tests
to determine any toxic effects that the addition of drugs could have on
the receiving water body, (2) when such a test might be appropriate
(e.g., to reflect
[[Page 57888]]
how the investigational drug use might otherwise impair local benthos)
and (3) choice of test species.
e. Production Unit Water Quality Monitoring. Water quality
monitoring of the production unit water helps ensure that conditions
are optimal for the species being cultured. Good water quality
minimizes stress, which reduces the number of disease outbreaks.
Routine monitoring, especially for dissolved oxygen, ammonia, nitrite,
alkalinity, pH, and other key parameters will promote the health of the
fish. For flow-through and net pen systems, the volume of water that
flows through a system on a daily basis is quite large and the quality
of the process water changes slowly, if at all. For these systems, once
a baseline of water quality is determined, the operator rarely needs to
monitor process water quality. Because pond and recirculating systems
can have variable water quality, routine monitoring will also help
system operators monitor the quality of potential effluent from the
system.
f. Primary Solids Control. Solids, which come from feces and
uneaten feed, are the largest mass of pollutants generated in CAAP
facilities. There are several technologies that can be used for primary
solids removal from process waters, in addition to BMPs to control
solids generated at CAAP facilities. The general strategy is to combine
BMPs with the removal of solids from the bulk waste stream as
efficiently as possible and to treat these solids in an environmentally
sound way.
Ponds continually process solids by a combination of physical
(settling in pond) and biochemical (microbial decomposition of solids)
processes. Since high production AAP pond facilities use additional
aeration to keep the ponds well mixed and aerated, the processing of
solids in ponds results in low organic content solids that accumulate
on the pond bottom that can be periodically used to rebuild pond banks.
As a result of the long residence times of water and the accumulating
solids in a pond system, EPA believes in-pond solids settling to be an
effective form of primary solids control.
In flow-through systems, quiescent zones and other in-system solids
collection practices help reduce TSS and associated pollutants in the
effluent. The water velocities in most flow-through systems are rarely
high enough to keep solids entrained in the water column. The swimming
action of the cultured fish or the use of baffles to increase tank
bottom water velocities, however, tend to keep most of the solids
suspended in the effluent of the flow-through system. Quiescent zones
are an effective way to enhance solids settling in flow-through
systems, though they do reduce the production capacity of the system.
Because flow-through system animal production capacity is governed
by the flow rate of water into the rearing unit and species type and
stage of growth, most raceway flow-through systems utilize excess tank
volume for installing quiescent zones, which use approximately 10% of
the bottom of the raceway as a settling area for solids (Hochheimer,
2002a, DCN 61791). Quiescent zones usually have a wire mesh screen,
which extends from the bottom of the raceway to above the maximum water
height to prohibit the cultured species from entering the quiescent
zone. When the quiescent zones are cleaned, the solids collected in the
system are moved to the sedimentation basin for solids holding and
dewatering. This is called off-line settling. The goal of sedimentation
basins (referred to as off-line settling basins or OLSBs) is to collect
and store the solids captured in the quiescent zone. Some facilities
use sedimentation basins which are larger than those designed for
offline settling for treating all of the flow from the raceway. This is
called full flow settling.
EPA believes most flow-through systems collect solids in quiescent
zones and remove this concentrated solids stream to a settling basin
for further treatment. The water that is decanted off this settling
basin at many facilities is commingled with the full flow discharge
from the production system to be discharged through a single outfall.
EPA is proposing to establish monthly average and daily maximum limits
that would apply to the commingled effluent. EPA is also proposing to
allow, at the permitting authority's discretion, facilities to comply
with the TSS limits through development of a BMP plan designed to meet
the limits without having to monitor discharges to demonstrate
compliance. EPA solicits comment on this compliance alternative that
would allow compliance with a BMP plan designed to minimize sediment
discharges that was not explicitly tied to particular numeric limits.
g. Disinfection. Another water treatment technology option is
disinfection, which is used to remove most of the pathogens (both
aquatic animal and human health) from the effluent stream. Disinfection
is a process by which disease-causing organisms are destroyed or
rendered inactive. EPA's sampling events found elevated levels of some
indicator pathogens in effluents from sedimentation basins and solids
storage facilities. Disinfection was evaluated as a way to reduce the
discharge levels of these indicator organisms.
Disinfection is most often accomplished using bactericidal agents.
Three commonly used bactericidal agents are chlorine, ozone
(O3), and ultraviolet (UV) radiation (disinfection with UV
light). Chlorination, the use of chlorine, is the most commonly used
method of disinfection in the United States. Chlorine and ozone
function by being added at a concentration that effectively disinfects
the discharge stream. UV radiation disinfects by penetrating the cell
wall of pathogens with UV light and completely destroying the cell or
rendering it unable to reproduce.
h. Additional Solids Removal (Solids Polishing). Solids polishing
is the use of a secondary wastewater treatment technology to further
reduce solids discharged from flow-through and recirculating systems.
Several technologies are available, including microscreen filters and
polishing ponds. Microscreen filters are fine mesh filters with
automatic backwash that collect solids. Polishing ponds are secondary
sedimentation basins used to settle solids from the discharge of the
primary sedimentation basin.
Vegetated ditches are another effective means removing solids from
effluent. A vegetated ditch is an excavated ditch that serves as a
discharge conveyance, treatment, and storage system. The walls of the
ditch are excavated at an angle that supports the growth of a dense
vegetation layer. The vegetation layer aids in treating the discharge
and reduces the susceptibility of the ditch banks and bottom to
erosion. The length and width of the ditch are designed to allow for
the slowing and temporary storage of the discharge as it flows toward
the receiving water body. The vegetation layer increases the ability of
the ditch to remove both coarse and fine particulate matter and the
associated pollutants, such as BOD, settleable solids, and suspended
solids.
Constructed wetland treatment systems also promote solids removal
from pond system discharges. These systems consist of shallow pools
constructed on non-wetland sites with water at depths of usually less
than 2 feet. Constructed wetlands provide substrate for specific
emergent vegetation types such as cattail, bulrush, and reeds.
Constructed wetlands are designed to treat discharges through physical,
chemical, and biological processes. The vegetation causes the discharge
to slow and flow in a more
[[Page 57889]]
serpentine manner, increasing the likelihood of solids settling. The
vegetation also aids in the adsorption of potential pollutants through
plant and bacterial uptake, and it increases the oxygen level in the
discharge flowing through it. Constructed wetland treatment systems can
be designed to provide several different benefits, including treatment
of the discharge through biological and chemical processes, temporary
storage of discharges, recharge of aquifers, and reduction in discharge
volume to receiving water bodies.
2. Specific System Treatment Technologies and Practices
In addition to the technologies and practices evaluated for all
system types described in the previous section, EPA considered system
specific technologies and practices. The technologies and practices
that will be discussed in this next section apply to pond and net pen
systems only because those practices applying to other systems are
covered by the items in the previous section.
a. Pond Systems. 1. In-pond treatment (including aeration). The
objective of in-pond treatment is to use the natural carrying capacity
of earthen ponds to process the solids, nutrients, and other compounds
added to the pond water in the form of feed and chemicals for
maintaining water quality or animal health. When operated within the
limits of their carrying capacity, ponds can remove over 90% of solids,
phosphorous, and BOD, and over 70% nitrogen. Mechanical aeration is
used to enhance the natural assimilative processes of the pond by
raising dissolved oxygen levels and provides mixing of the pond waters.
Improving the quality of the water in the pond improves the quality of
any discharge leaving the pond.
2. Water management. Water management practices maintain the pond
water quality while minimizing pond overflows and drainage discharges.
One water management practices is not completely filling the pond to
the top. This allows the pond to store extra water during rainfall
events without overflowing. By leaving 3-6 inches in reserve, pond
operators can capture some or all rainfall. Another water management
practice is the infrequent draining of the ponds. This practice reduces
the volume of discharge from the pond and minimizes water use. The use
of seine nets (where practicable) to harvest ponds instead of draining
the ponds for harvest is another practice that improves water quality
in the pond. Pond facilities can also improve water quality by
minimizing erosion to reduce the amount of sediment in the water. To
minimize erosion, pond operators can use rip rap for pond banks,
although this may cause other problems such as interference with
feeding and aeration equipment or providing habitat for pests (e.g.,
snakes). Use of grass and other vegetation also reduces erosion into
the pond. Rapid repair of accidental damage to pond banks from
emergency aeration equipment or feeding operations will reduce
additional erosion. Finally, when possible, pond operators replace deep
water overflows, which discharge excess volume from the bottom of the
ponds, with surface overflow structures. Waters discharged from the
bottom of the pond have higher levels of dissolved nutrients and
sediments than waters discharged from the surface.
3. Discharge management. Discharge management practices reduce TSS,
in effluents and erosion, that discharges from ponds to surface waters.
Several practices can be used to reduce TSS and other pollutants that
reach receiving waters during draining and overflow events. Riprap
sometimes is placed around discharge points that are prone to erosion
to reduce scouring from the flowing water. Drainage ditches can be
constructed to convey water efficiently and minimize erosion, as does
the addition of vegetation to outside slopes of ponds, drainage
ditches, and other bare soil areas. Pond operators also use vegetated
ditches, at least 600 feet or longer when possible, to trap TSS, BOD,
and reduce nutrient loads that would otherwise discharge off site.
b. Net pen Systems. 1. Active Feed management. In addition to the
above practices, particularly the drug and chemical control practices,
net pen facilities can also use underwater cameras or other
technologies to monitor feeding rates in the net pens by identifying
when excess accumulation of solids occur. Excess feed is the primary
source of solids accumulation beneath net pens, which can have an
adverse effect on the benthic community. Some net pen facilities are
already monitoring feeding activities though the underwater and other
mechanisms.
B. Water Use and Wastewater Characteristics
1. Water Use
The quantity of water required for aquaculture is dependent on the
type of aquaculture system and facility management practices. For
aquaculture facilities, water is required to replace evaporative and
seepage losses, to replenish oxygen, and to flush waste from the
system.
Water supplies for ponds are typically wells, located on-site at a
facility. However, some pond-based facilities rely on pumped or free-
flowing water from surface water bodies such as lakes, streams, or
coastal waters. Pond operators relying on surface waters, however, are
careful not to introduce undesirable species or organisms into the
culture ponds. Water might need to be screened or filtered as it is
pumped into the pond. Rainwater falling directly on the pond is also
captured and can be a source for maintaining water levels, but most
commercial aquaculture ponds cannot be filled with rainfall alone
because rainfall events are sporadic.
Pond systems initially require a large supply of water to fill
ponds and then small amounts of water to regulate the water levels and
compensate for seepage and evaporation. Generally, ponds are drained
infrequently. Therefore, after initially filling the ponds, operators
do not use large volumes of additional water. For those systems that
rely on well water, water conservation and rainwater capture are
important management tools to minimize pumping costs.
Flow-through systems rely on a steady water supply to provide a
continuous flow of water for production. The water is used to provide
dissolved oxygen and to flush wastes from the system, which produces a
high volume of continuous discharge. Most flow-through systems use
well, spring, or stream water as a source of production water. These
sources are chosen to provide a constant flow with relatively little
variation in rate, temperature, or quality.
Flow-through systems require high volumes of water. Facilities with
this production system are located where a consistent volume of water
is available. They are the primary method used to grow salmonid species
such as rainbow trout. These species require high-quality cold water
with high levels of dissolved oxygen. Flow though systems are located
where water is abundant, enabling producers to efficiently produce
these types of fish.
Recirculating systems do not require large volumes of water because
water in these systems is filtered and reused prior to discharge. The
production water treatment process is designed to minimize fresh water
requirements, which leads to small-volume, concentrated waste streams,
which tend to be discharged daily. Solids removal from the
recirculating production water produces some effluent volume that is
high in solids, nutrients, and BOD. Facility operators rely on a supply
of
[[Page 57890]]
pumped groundwater from on-site wells. Most systems add make-up water
(about 5 to 10 percent of the system volume each day) to dilute the
production water and to account for evaporation and other losses.
Net pen systems rely on the water quality of the site at which the
net pens are located. Open systems, like net pen facilities, can
implement fewer practices than closed or semi-closed systems to control
water quality parameters like temperature, pH, and dissolved oxygen.
Net pens and cages rely on tides and currents to provide a continual
supply of high-quality water to the cultured animals and to flush
wastes out of the system. The systems may be located along a shore or
pier or may be anchored and floating offshore or in an embayment. State
or Tribal siting requirements typically restrict the number of units at
a given site to ensure sufficient flushing to distribute wastes and
prevent degradation of the bottom sediments near the net pens.
2. Wastewater Characteristics
CAAP facilities may discharge a variety of pollutants. For example,
pollutants commonly found in CAAP effluents are nitrogen, phosphorus,
organic matter, and solids, many of which are derived either directly
or indirectly from feeds. Other factors, in addition to feed added,
affecting the levels or types of pollutants in CAAP facilities may be
from the source waters such as pollutants picked up in runoff from a
watershed when surface waters are used as sources. The most significant
of these pollutants are nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), total
suspended solids (TSS), and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). CAAP
facilities also may discharge vitamins and minerals added to feeds for
proper nutrition, drugs to maintain animal health, and chemicals to
enhance water quality conditions. Some toxic and non-conventional
pollutants that may be discharged in small quantities from some types
of CAAP facilities include: metals (aluminum, barium, boron, copper,
iron, manganese, selenium, and zinc), and organic chemicals (hexanoic
acid), and microbiologicals (Aeromonas, fecal streptococcus, total
coliform).
Solids are the largest loading of pollutants generated in
aquaculture. However, most pond systems are managed to capture and hold
solids within the pond, where the solids naturally degrade.
Additionally, certain management practices in use at flow-through and
recirculating systems capture most of the generated solids, which must
then be properly disposed. While some solids are applied to land,
solids in effluent discharges from ponds have been estimated. Estimates
of TSS discharges from catfish farms were 5,170 lbs/acre/year for fry
and fingerling ponds and 2,418 lbs/acre/year for food fish production
from ponds that are drained frequently. (Boyd, 2000, DCN 30313). Many
aquaculture facilities with NPDES permits must control and monitor
their discharge levels of solids. In Idaho, NPDES permits for flow-
through systems typically specify a maximum average of 0.1 mL/L for
settleable solids and 5 mg/L for total suspended solids (TSS).
Nitrogen from CAAP facilities is discharged mainly in the form of
nitrate, ammonia, and organic nitrogen. Most of this nitrogen, however,
is in the form of ammonia. Some facilities with ponds and recirculating
systems also may, at certain times, have high levels of nitrite.
Organic nitrogen decomposes in aquatic environments into ammonia and
nitrate. This decomposition consumes oxygen, reducing dissolved oxygen
levels and can adversely affect aquatic life, particularly when
nitrogen levels are high enough for the decomposition to occur.
Phosphorus is discharged from CAAP facilities in both the solid and
dissolved forms. The dissolved form, however, poses a more immediate
risk because it is the form that is available to accelerate the growth
of plants. Although the insoluble form of phosphorus is generally
unavailable, depending on the environmental conditions, some phosphorus
may be released slowly from the insoluble form.
Increased levels of suspended solids and nutrients have very
different effects on aquatic plants. High levels of suspended solids
may kill off desirable species, while elevated nutrient levels may
cause too many plants to grow. In either situation, an ecosystem can be
changed by increases in either or both of these pollutants.
Carbon-based organic matter is discharged from CAAP facilities
primarily from feces and uneaten feed. Elevated levels of organic
compounds contribute to eutrophication and oxygen depletion. This
occurs because oxygen is consumed when microorganisms decompose organic
matter. Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) is used to measure the amount
of oxygen consumed by microorganisms when they decompose the organic
matter in a waterbody. The greater the BOD, the greater the degree of
pollution and the less oxygen available.
Some of the other pollutants that may be in CAAP effluents include
therapeutic drugs, process water treatment chemicals, escaping non-
native animals, and aquatic animal pathogens. There are a few drugs
that are FDA approved for use in aquatic animal production including
antibiotics, antifungal agents, and parasiticides. Investigational new
animal drugs pose an unknown threat to receiving waters because they
are often untested for environmental impacts.
A variety of chemicals are used in aquatic animal production
facilities for the treatment of process water and to maintain water
quality. Chemicals like salt, agricultural lime, and sodium hydroxide
are added to maintain system pH and reduce stress. Chemicals such as
aquatic herbicides are sometimes added to system water to reduce
aquatic vegetation and algae. When used properly, these chemicals pose
little risk to the aquatic environment, but improper treatments or
accidental spillage of chemicals can lead to negative environmental
impacts. Aquatic animals that are not considered to be native organisms
may carry exotic diseases, interbreed with other desirable native
species, and/or destroy the habitat used by the native species. Aquatic
animal pathogens may also be exported in effluent water from a CAAP
facility, particularly when outbreaks occur inside the facility. In
addition, pathogens can enter the facility by other means, such as
contaminated source water, bird droppings or stormwater runoff. The
effects and potential risks from pathogens in effluents are not well
understood.
C. Pollutants of Concern
EPA reviewed four sources of data to assess the pollutants of
concern: (1) Data from sampling events at two flow-through facilities;
(2) data from a sampling event at a recirculating facility; (3)
discharge monitoring report (DMR) data submitted to EPA from the EPA
Regional Offices; and (4) permit compliance system (PCS) data from
EPA's NPDES permit database.
EPA used two criteria to identify the list of pollutants of
concern. For the sampling data, the identification criteria were: (1)
Raw wastewaters with analytes that had three or more reported values
with an average concentration greater than ten times the nominal
quantitation limit (NQL); in general, the term ``nominal quantitation
limit'' describes the smallest quantity of an analyte that can be
measured reliably with a particular analytical method; and (2) treated
effluents with analytes that had at least one reported value with an
average concentration greater than five times the NQL.
For the PCS and DMR data sets, the original data were first
associated with
[[Page 57891]]
a system type as defined by NPDES permit information. Measurements for
parameters in the DMR and PCS data without a value or with a value of
zero were excluded from the data sets and assumed to be non-detectable.
All other data were summarized, by system type and analyte, with an
analysis for the average sampling value, the maximum sampling value,
the minimum sampling value, and the number of samples taken.
The PCS and DMR data, made up of mostly State and federal
facilities and large commercial facilities that have NPDES permits,
represent the best available information. One limitation of the data is
the lack of information on pond systems. Generally, the pollutants
identified in the DMR or PCS database are included in the list of
pollutants of concern listed below.
The pollutants of concern that are currently indicated for the CAAP
industry, based on the available data, include the following: TSS, BOD,
ammonia, biochemical oxygen demand, chemical oxygen demand, chlorides,
chlorine, dissolved oxygen, nitrate, nitrite, oil and grease,
orthophosphate, ozone, pH, settleable solids, sulfate, temperature,
total dissolved solids, total kjeldahl nitrogen, total organic carbon,
total phosphorus, total suspended solids, turbidity, and volatile
residue, metals including aluminum, arsenic, barium, boron, calcium,
copper, chromium, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, nickel,
selenium, sodium, titanium, vanadium, and zinc, and microbiologicals
including Aeromonas, fecal streptococcus, fecal coliform, and total
coliform, organic chemicals including bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate,
hexanoic acid, P-cresol, and phenol, and pesticides including diquat
and formalin.
1. Methodology for Proposed Selection of Regulated Pollutants
EPA selects the pollutants for regulation based on the pollutants
of concern (POCs) identified for each subcategory.
EPA selected a subset of pollutants for which to establish
numerical effluent limitations from the list of POCs for each regulated
subcategory. Generally, a pollutant or pollutant parameter is
considered a POC if it was detected in the untreated process wastewater
at 5 times the NQL as described in the previous section in more than 10
percent of samples.
Monitoring for all POCs is not necessary to ensure that Aquatic
Animal Production wastewater pollution is adequately controlled because
many of the pollutants originate from similar sources and are treated
with the same technologies and similar mechanisms. Therefore, it may be
sufficient to monitor for one pollutant as a surrogate or indicator of
several others.
Total coliform, fecal coliform, E. coli, fecal streptococci,
Enterococcus faecium, Mycobacterium marinum, and Aeromonas were sampled
at two of the sampling event facilities to determine the presence of
these indicator organisms in CAAP effluents. Sampling points included
influent water, process water, and treated effluents, and solids
storage effluents. Most of the data show non-detectable levels of these
organisms, including influent water. However, some of the indicators,
including Aeromonas, total coliform, and fecal streptococcus, had
average measured levels greater than 60,000 bacteria/100 mL in
effluents from primary settling treatment units. These levels compare
to total coliform levels of up to 1 billion bacterial counts/100mL in
untreated domestic waste water. EPA evaluated disinfection and found it
to be not economically achievable (see section VII). EPA is soliciting
comments on the presence of these indicator organisms and whether they
can and should be controlled in effluents from CAAP facilities.
Metals may be present in trace amounts in CAAP wastewaters for a
variety of reasons. Metals may be used as feed additives, occur in
sanitation products, or they may result from deterioration of CAAP
machinery and equipment. Although metals may serve useful purposes in
CAAP operations, many metals are toxic to algae, aquatic invertebrates
and/or fish. EPA observed that treatment systems used within the CAAP
industry provide substantial reductions of most metals. Because most of
the metals can be adequately controlled by controlling solids, and EPA
is proposing control of TSS, EPA is not proposing to regulate metals
directly.
Residuals from federally registered pesticides that may be used for
controlling animal parasites and aquatic plants, may be present in
wastewaters. Most treatment systems within the CAAP industry are not
specifically designed and operated to remove pesticides residuals. Many
of the pesticide residuals, however rapidly bind to sediment particles.
Pollution control technologies or management practices that control TSS
are expected also to control most pesticide residuals as well. EPA
encourages CAAP facility operators to always follow pesticide label
instructions, minimize the use of any aquatic pesticides by preventing
aquatic weed problems when possible, maintaining water quality to keep
algal blooms in check, and using other means, when possible, to control
aquatic weeds. Therefore, EPA is not proposing to regulate pesticide
discharges directly from CAAP facilities in today's action.
2. Selection of Proposed Regulated Pollutants for Existing and New
Direct Dischargers
EPA is proposing to establish effluent limitations for CAAP
facilities for total suspended solids (TSS) with an alternative to use
BMPs to control solids. The specific justifications for the pollutants
to be regulated for each subcategory are provided below. In general,
EPA selected the pollutant or pollutants based on its
representativeness of the characteristics of CAAP wastewaters generated
in the industry, and its capacity to measure the performance of
treatment processes that serve as the basis for the proposed effluent
limitations.
Total suspended solids (TSS) is a measure of the quantity of solids
in wastewater. Some CAAP facilities produce wastewaters high in organic
solids including uneaten feed and fish feces. These solids can cause a
high oxygen demand (both chemical and biochemical) and are high in
protein and nitrogen content. Because some nutrients bind to solids,
and solids often include oxygen-demanding organic material, limiting
the loading of solids will prevent degradation of surface waters. EPA
believes that by controlling TSS either through numerical limitations
or BMPs, BOD and nutrients will also be effectively controlled.
Parameters whose control through treatment processes or BMPs would lead
to control of a wide range of pollutants with similar properties are
generally good indicators of overall wastewater treatment performance.
EPA is considering including BOD limitations in addition to TSS for
recirculating systems although limits for BOD are not included in
today's proposal. Control of TSS alone may not provide effective
control of BOD in the effluent from recirculating facilities.
Recirculating facilities are different from flow-through facilities.
While the pollutants present in the wastewater from both systems are
largely derived from the solids introduced by the animal feed or feces,
at flow-through systems the water is flowing through the facility so
rapidly there is little opportunity for the solids to break down. Thus,
EPA believes that controlling TSS effectively controls the other
pollutants present in the wastewater. Recirculating systems,
[[Page 57892]]
however, recirculate 90 to 95 percent of their wastewater and treat the
water prior to returning it to the production systems. The
recirculating system's internal water treatment is designed to remove
solids and ammonia and add oxygen. The water recirculation provides an
opportunity for other pollutants to become more concentrated and EPA
believes that dissolved BOD may become concentrated in recirculating
systems. EPA's sampling data indicate that there are elevated levels of
BOD in the raw wastewater. The recirculating facility that EPA sampled
is using biological treatment to treat its wastewater prior to
discharge and has permit limits to control the BOD in their effluent.
EPA has not estimated the cost of installing biological treatment at
recirculating facilities and does not currently have sufficient data to
determine whether this technology is common at other recirculating
facilities. EPA will re-evaluate the need to establish BOD limitations
after the detailed surveys have been returned. It is also likely that
the Agency will conduct additional sampling at recirculating facilities
to obtain additional data on the raw wastewater characteristics and the
performance of wastewater treatment. EPA solicits comment on the
establishment of BOD limits for the Recirculating Subcategory and data
on the raw wastewater characteristics as well as any treated effluent
characteristics. The CAAP Development Document includes potential
values of such BOD limits.
Based on the methodology described above, EPA proposes to regulate
pollutants in each subcategory that will ensure adequate control of a
range of pollutants from all types of CAAP production systems. EPA is
proposing to regulate TSS for control of other pollutants present in
CAAP wastewaters such as metals, nutrients and BOD.
3. Approach to Determining Long Term Averages, Variability Factors, and
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
This subsection describes the statistical methodology used to
develop long-term averages, variability factors, and limitations for
the BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS numerical limitations option. The same
basic procedures apply to the calculation of all effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for this industry, regardless of whether the
technology is BPT, BCT, BAT, or NSPS. For simplicity, the following
discussion refers only to effluent limitations; however, the discussion
also applies to new source standards.
The proposed limitations for pollutants for each option, as
presented in today's notice, are provided as maximum daily discharge
limitations and maximum monthly average discharge limitations.
Definitions provided in 40 CFR 122.2 state that the ``maximum daily
discharge limitation'' is the ``highest allowable `daily discharge' ''
and the ``average monthly discharge limitation'' is the ``highest
allowable average of `daily discharges' over a calendar month,
calculated as the sum of all `daily discharges' measured during a
calendar month divided by the number of `daily discharges' measured
during that month.'' Daily discharge is defined as the `discharge of a
pollutant' measured during a calendar day or any 24-hour period that
reasonably represents the calendar day for purposes of sampling.''
EPA calculated the proposed limitations based upon percentiles
chosen with the intention, on one hand, to accommodate reasonably
anticipated variability within the control of the facility and, on the
other hand, to reflect a level of performance consistent with the Clean
Water Act requirement that these effluent limitations be based on the
``best'' technologies properly operated and maintained. The daily
maximum limitation is an estimate of the 99th percentile of the
distribution of the daily measurements. The maximum monthly average
limitation is an estimate of the 95th percentile of the distribution of
the monthly averages of the daily measurements. The percentiles for
both types of limitations are estimated using the products of long-term
averages and variability factors.
In the first of two steps in estimating both types of limitations,
EPA typically determines an average performance level (the ``long-term
average'' or LTA) that a facility is capable of achieving with well-
designed and operated model technologies (which reflect the appropriate
level of control). This long-term average is calculated from the data
from the facilities using the model technologies for the option. EPA
expects that all facilities subject to the limitations will design and
operate their treatment systems to achieve the long-term average
performance level on a consistent basis because facilities with well-
designed and operated model technologies have demonstrated that this
can be done. In the second step of developing a limitation, EPA
determines an allowance for the variation in pollutant concentrations
when processed through well-designed and operated treatment systems.
This allowance for variance incorporates all components of variability
including process and wastewater generation, sample collection,
shipping, storage, and analytical variability. This allowance is
incorporated into the limitations through the use of the variability
factors, which are calculated from the data from the facilities using
the model technologies. If a facility operates its treatment system to
meet the relevant long-term average, EPA expects the facility to be
able to meet the limitations. Variability factors assure that normal
fluctuations in a facility's treatment are accounted for in the
limitations. By accounting for these reasonable excursions above the
long-term average, EPA's use of variability factors results in
limitations that are generally well above the actual long-term
averages.
While the actual monitoring requirements will be determined by the
permitting authority, the Agency has assumed four samples per month
(i.e., monthly monitoring) in determining the proposed maximum monthly
average limitations.
The long-term averages (LTAs), variability factors, and limitations
for today's proposal were based upon pollutant concentrations collected
from two data sources: EPA sampling episodes and discharge monitoring
reports. The proposed limitations are based upon the modified delta-
lognormal distribution. For the final rule, EPA intends to evaluate its
appropriateness for these data and possibly consider other
distributions such as the censored lognormal distribution.
EPA used a combination of the data from sampling episodes and DMR
data to calculate the proposed limits. Two sampling episodes provided
information on flow-through systems and one sampling episode provided
information on recirculating systems. Additional DMR data from four
Virginia flow-through CAAP facilities taken over a period of several
years supplemented the EPA sampling data. The combination of sampling
data, from locations in Idaho and Michigan, and DMR data from Virginia
provided EPA with broad geographic and facility size coverage to
account for some variability when establishing the proposed limits. EPA
found the limited data to be adequate to establish proposed limits for
flow through systems. For option 1, flow-through systems, the proposed
limits were developed based on two EPA sampling episodes each with five
data points and DMR data from three facilities with the number of data
points used being 19, 34, and 37. For option 3 for the flow-through
systems, the proposed limits were developed from
[[Page 57893]]
DMR data from one facility with 16 data points and a sampling episode
with five data points from one of the facilities with data from
effluents prior to a polishing pond that also was used for the option 1
limits. EPA solicits comment on the amount of the data for calculation
of the proposed limits. While the proposed regulation includes
limitations for recirculating systems, EPA did not have enough detailed
data to adequately calculate numeric limits for recirculating systems.
The preliminary limitations for recirculating systems used the permit
limits for the one sampling episode facility. EPA intends to collect
additional data and solicits available data to further evaluate numeric
limits for both the flow-through systems and recirculating systems.
EPA also solicits comment on whether autocorrelation is likely to
be present in weekly measurements of wastewater data from the CAAP
industry. EPA also solicits data that demonstrate the presence or
absence of such autocorrelation (see Section XV for guidelines on
submitting data). When data are said to be positively autocorrelated,
it means that measurements taken at specific time intervals (such as 1
week or 2 weeks apart) are related. For example, positive
autocorrelation would be present in the data if the final effluent
concentration of TSS was relatively high one week and was likely to
remain at similar high values the next and possibly succeeding weeks.
In some industries, measurements in final effluent are likely to be
similar from one day (or week) to the next because of the consistency
from day-to-day in the production processes and in final effluent
discharges due to the hydraulic retention time of wastewater in basins,
holding tanks, and other components of wastewater treatment systems. To
determine if autocorrelation exists in the data, a statistical
evaluation is necessary and will be considered before the final rule.
To estimate autocorrelation in the data, many measurements for each
pollutant would be required with values for equally spaced intervals
over an extended period of time. If such data are available for the
final rule, EPA intends to perform a statistical evaluation of
autocorrelation and if necessary, provide any adjustments to the
limitations. This adjustment would increase the values of the variance
and monthly variability factor used in calculating the maximum monthly
limitation. However, the estimate of the long-term average and the
daily variability factor (and thus the maximum daily limitation) are
generally only slightly affected by autocorrelation.
D. Approach To Estimating Compliance Costs
EPA estimated the costs associated with regulatory compliance for
each of the regulatory options under consideration to determine the
economic impact of the effluent limitations guidelines and standards on
the CAAP industry. The economic burden is a function of the estimated
costs of compliance to achieve the proposed requirements, which may
include initial fixed and capital costs, as well as annual operating
and maintenance (O&M) costs. Estimation of these costs typically begins
by identifying the practices and technologies that can be used as a
basis to meet particular requirements. EPA estimated compliance costs
based on the implementation of the practices or technologies to meet
particular requirements.
EPA collected data from published research, meetings with industry
organizations, discussions with the Aquaculture Effluents Task Force of
the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture, a review of USDA's 1998 Census
of Aquaculture data, existing concentrated aquatic animal production
NPDES permits, site visits and sampling events at AAP facilities,
screener surveys, and detailed industry surveys. These data were used
to define model CAAP facilities for estimating national compliance
costs. The data were also used to determine estimates of pollutant
loads, discharge volumes, current best management practices and
treatment technologies being used, and the applicability of best
management practices and treatment technologies for the model farms.
EPA identified candidate best management practices and appropriate
treatment technologies for different industry segments that were
incorporated into regulatory options. The regulatory options serve as
the basis for compliance cost and pollutant loading calculations.
EPA developed cost equations for estimating capital, one-time
fixed, and annual O&M costs for the implementation and use of the
different best management practices and treatment technologies targeted
under the proposed regulatory options. Cost equations were developed
from information collected during the site visits, sampling events,
published information, vendor contacts, and engineering judgment.
EPA developed and used computer cost models to estimate compliance
costs and nutrient loads for each regulatory option. EPA used output
from the cost model to estimate total annualized costs and the economic
impact of each regulatory option on the CAAP industry. The AAP industry
was segmented into six subcategories, based on system type, which
include ponds, flow-through, recirculating, net pens and cages,
floating and bottom culture, and other systems.
For each regulatory option, EPA estimated the costs to install,
operate, and maintain specific techniques and practices. EPA
traditionally develops either facility-specific or model facility
costs. Facility-specific compliance costs require detailed process
information about many, if not all, facilities in the industry. These
data typically include production, capacity, water use, wastewater
generation, waste management operations (including design and cost
data), monitoring data, geographic location, financial conditions, and
any other industry-specific data that may be required for the analyses.
EPA then uses each facility's information to estimate the cost of
installing new pollution controls.
When facility-specific data are not available, EPA develops
``model'' facilities to provide a reasonable representation of the
industry. Model facilities were developed to characterize the AAP
facilities and reflect the different characteristics found in the
industry, such as the size or capacity of an operation, type of
operation, geographic location, and mode of operation. These models
were based on data gathered during site visits, information provided by
industry members and their associations, the 1998 Census of Aquaculture
and AAP screener survey data. Cost and financial impacts were estimated
for each model facility, and then industry-level costs were calculated
by multiplying model facility costs by the estimated number of
facilities within each model category. For the AAP industry, EPA has
chosen a model-facility approach to estimate compliance costs. For the
proposal, the model is based on the use of USDA's Census of Aquaculture
and EPA's AAP screener survey. More detailed information concerning
facilities in the CAAP industry that will enable EPA to further revise
the model facility characteristics is not available until after the
responses are received from the detailed survey. EPA plans to revise
the current dataset as a result of the detailed survey collection
efforts and public comments received on this proposal. The development
of the model facilities, and the process for determining
[[Page 57894]]
estimates of the number of facilities are described in more detail
below.
Model facilities were defined for various groupings of CAAP
operations based on system type, species, feed conversion ratio, size,
system specific factors, and regional location. EPA evaluated the major
species produced in the United States, including catfish, trout,
salmon, hybrid striped bass, sport or game fish, other food finfish,
shrimp, baitfish, molluscan shellfish, crawfish, and alligator. EPA
also evaluated the life stage differences among species in the modeling
analyses to determine the potential influence of life stage on model
output. EPA assigned an estimated feed conversion ratio for each
species and system combination in the definition of the model
facilities. The feed conversion ratios were the primary factor
affecting loadings in the model facilities. While these FCRs were
intended to be representative of the facilitiescorresponding to each
model, EPA recognizes that there is significant variability in FCRs
across facilities even within the same model facility type.
For the economic and cost analyses, the facility size groups were
based on the facility gross revenue for aquatic animal production.
These ranges represent the facility revenue categories used in the
USDA's 1998 Aquaculture Census. Model facilities were analyzed for each
of these revenue ranges. Data from the 1998 Aquaculture Census and
screener survey were used to estimate the number of facilities, by
system type, species, and facility size. (See preamble, Section V, CAAP
Development Document and Economic Analysis for more details) EPA
developed cost equations to estimate compliance costs for each model
facility and regulatory option. Costs were calculated for each
technology or practice that make up each regulatory option for each
model facility; based on model facility characteristics, including
system type, species, feed conversion ratio, size, and system specific
characteristics. The cost estimates generated contain the following
types of costs: (1) Capital costs--costs for facility upgrades (e.g.,
construction projects), including land costs and other capital costs
(equipment, labor, design, etc.); (2) one time non capital costs--one-
time costs for items that cannot be amortized (e.g., consulting
services or training); (3) Annual operating and maintenance (O&M)
costs--annually recurring costs, which may be positive or negative.
These costs provide the basis for evaluating the total annualized
costs, cost effectiveness, and economic impact of the regulatory
options proposed for the CAAP industry. For each best management
practice and treatment technology identified in the options selection
process, EPA developed a cost module to provide input to the model
facility calculations.
EPA recognizes that some individual facilities have already
implemented some treatment technologies or best management practices
that were described in the proposed options. As noted above, when
estimating costs for the implementation of the proposed options across
the entire subcategory nationwide, EPA did not include costs for best
management practices or treatment technologies already in place.
EPA estimated the current frequency of existing best management
practices and treatment technologies at CAAP facilities based on
screener survey responses, site visits, and sampling visits. This
occurrence frequency of practices or technologies was used to estimate
the portion of the operations that would not incur costs to comply with
the new regulation. For example, based on site visits, EPA believes
that all catfish operations using levee ponds to practice water level
management to capture rainfall and minimize overflows (the frequency
factor is 100 percent); therefore, no costs were included for water
level management for these operations. Another example is that EPA
estimated that 80 percent of trout facilities have quiescent zones
(based on site visits); therefore, only 20 percent of trout facilities
would incur a cost for installing quiescent zones to comply with the
proposed TSS limits.
Applying the frequency factors to the unit component costs reduces
the effective cost of that component for the model facility.
Essentially, EPA adjusts the component cost to account for those
facilities that already have the component in place, and those
facilities would not have to install and operate a new component as a
result of the proposed regulation.
While this approach should provide a reasonable estimate of
national costs, it has the drawback of underestimating facility level
costs for facilities that have not already installed a particular
technology. This may lead to an underestimate of impacted facilities.
EPA requests comment on this approach.
EPA estimated frequency factors based on the sources such as those
listed below (each source was considered along with its limitations):
(1) EPA site visit information--This information was used to assess
general practices of AAP operations and how they vary between regions
and size classes.
(2) Screener Survey--This information was used to assess general
practices of AAP operations and how they vary between regions and size
classes.
(3) Observations by industry experts--Experts on AAP operations
were contacted to provide insight into operations and practices,
especially where data were limited or not publicly available.
(4) USDA National Agricultural Statistical Service (NASS)--The data
currently available from 1998 Aquaculture Census were used to determine
the distribution of AAP operations across the regions by size class.
(5) USDA APHIS National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS)--
This source provides information on catfish production.
(6) State Compendium: Programs and Regulatory Activities Related to
AAP--This summary of State regulatory programs were used to estimate
frequency factors, based on current requirements for treatment
technologies and best management practices that already apply to CAAP
facilities in various states.
E. Approach To Estimating Pollutant Reductions
A model facility approach was designed to represent the industry.
Using this approach, every facility was classified according to its
production system. Additionally, pollutant loads, flow characteristics,
geographic, and culture species information were linked in the model,
creating an array of facilities by system type, pollutant loading,
size, location, and species. Technology options and best management
practices (BMPs) that were used to prevent the discharge of pollutants
into the environment were also linked in a similar way. In this case,
variables account for the applicability of the technologies and BMPs,
given the characteristics of the model facility (e.g. system type,
size). The user of the model can manipulate these variables to analyze
different management options. The model was capable of calculating an
estimated cost of the management option based on capital and land
costs, adjusted for geographic differences.
A benefit of the model facility approach was the option of using
the same model to represent the whole industry, sectors of the
industry, and even single facilities. No changes in the theoretical
model were needed to cope with this, only a manipulation of the input
data. The following information was used in the modeling approach:
[[Page 57895]]
(1) Number of facilities by system type, size, culture species, and
location
(2) Technologies and BMPs by system type and facility size
(3) National average capital cost, land requirements of technology
options, and best management practices
(4) Average flow (daily) by system type and facility size
(5) Estimates of annual production
(6) Data associated with feeding practices: feeding in pounds per day,
pollutant concentrations in feed, percentage of feed not consumed,
feces to feed ratio, and pollutant concentrations in feces
(7) Pollutants and flow reductions resulting from of technology options
and best management practices
Information obtained from a national survey (i.e. the detailed
survey) and EPA sampling data about the state of the industry will
constitute the primary input for establishing a baseline scenario. This
data has not yet been collected and analyzed but will be in the future,
followed by publication in the Federal Register of a Notice of Data
Availability for public comment. Specifically, EPA will use information
from the detailed survey to revise pollutant loadings and costs
estimated in today's proposal. Because EPA did not have the detailed
survey data for the proposed rule, EPA used information from a number
of published sources and unpublished sources such as comments received
from small entity representatives through the SBREFA process and
personal communications with industry representatives.
The model was based on several facts. First, feed offered to the
AAP species contributes to pollutant discharges in three ways, (1)
unmetabolized feed consumed by the cultured species is contained in the
feces, (2) urine contributes to dissolved ammonia, and (3) uneaten
feed, both dissolved and in particulate forms, increase the pollutant
load in the culture water. Second, technology options and BMPs have
typical efficiency rates of removing specific pollutants from water.
Third, certain technologies are more applicable to certain system types
and flows than others. Combining these three components of the effluent
discharge, the predicted pollution reduction can be estimated for every
system type and size.
VIII. Options Evaluated and Selected for Proposal
A. Introduction
For the proposed rule, EPA developed regulatory options using the
technologies and practices discussed previously (see section VII) based
on preliminary evaluations of the USDA Census of Aquaculture, screener
survey responses, site visits and sampling episodes. The initial
regulatory options included the following technology controls and best
management practices specific to each production system: feed
management; quiescent zones; settling basins; microscreen filters
(solids polishing); a best management practices (BMP) plan (based on a
modified Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) approach,
described later); water level management; in-pond treatment; active
feed monitoring and disinfection.
Initially, EPA evaluated options for the following production
systems: ponds, flow-through systems, recirculating systems, and net
pens. For ponds, EPA considered feed management, in-pond treatment,
water management, discharge management and the BMP plan based on the
HACCP approach as Option 1. Option 2 considered removals of
conventional and nutrient pollutants through the use of vegetated
ditches, in-pond, or settling basins. EPA assumed the following in
treating pond volumes: treating the first 5 percent of the volume on
all ponds with bottom drains; treating the last 20 percent of volume on
all ponds with any drain if harvest requires seining or rapid discharge
of pond volume and treating the last 5 percent of the volume on all
ponds. Option 3 considered removals of additional BOD and nutrients
through the use of constructed wetlands.
For flow-through systems, EPA considered feed management, quiescent
zones, sedimentation basins and primary settling of collected solids
and the BMP plan based on the HACCP approach as Option 1. Option 2
considered removals of additional solids through the use of mechanical
filtration such as microscreen filters, polishing ponds, and chemical
addition. Option 3 considered the removals of bacterial levels through
the use of disinfection such as chlorine, ozone, and UV.
For recirculating systems, Option 1 considered feed management,
sedimentation basins and primary settling of collected solids, and the
BMP plan based on the HACCP approach. Options 2 and 3 for recirculating
systems are the same as those for flow-through systems.
For net pen systems, Option 1 considered feed management and the
BMP plan based on the HACCP approach. Option 2 considered reducing
pollutant loads associated with feeding through the use of an active
feed monitoring system.
Based on the evaluation of the effluent concentration literature
values and research studies, in addition to the estimated costs of
compliance, EPA did not pursue or further modify some of the initial
regulatory options. However, EPA did develop a refined list of
regulatory options and estimated their costs in preparation for
analysis required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (discussed more
fully in Section XIII Administrative Requirements). Several of the
technologies that were considered in this analysis were also shown to
be impractical or too costly. This is described in greater detail in
the CAAP Development Document. For example, one regulatory option EPA
considered early on in its analysis, but did not pursue was based on
disinfection. The estimated costs for this technology to be applied
nationally would be cost prohibitive and would have imposed a severe
adverse economic impact on this industry. Also several technologies to
reduce pollutant discharges when pond systems are drained are no longer
being considered. These technologies were estimated to have a high cost
in proportion to revenues, and also were determined to provide limited
benefit in reducing wastewater pollutant loadings.
Other regulatory options were modified from those initially
considered. Option 1 initially estimated costs for solids removal as
well as the implementation of a best management plan based on the HACCP
approach. The HACCP like BMP approach was a more structured process for
identifying control points to minimize discharges of drugs, chemicals,
non-native species and pathogens and developing practices to address
them. In addition, it would have included a training component. After
evaluating these costs, EPA modified Option 1. Subsequently, Option 1
for flow-through includes primary settling (quiescent zones and
settling basins) and BMP plan development for solids control either as
an alternative or in lieu of numerical limitations for TSS. Option 1
for recirculating systems is a settling basin and BMP plan development
for solids control. Option 1 for net pens is feed management and BMP
plan development for solids control. For the BMP component for solids
control, EPA estimated costs assuming 40 hours to develop such a plan
and one hour of manager time and one hour of worker time per month to
implement. EPA solicits comment on the time and associated cost
required for BMP plan development as well as on the possibility of EPA
or the permitting authority developing a model BMP plan which the
operator would adopt or
[[Page 57896]]
modify, reducing the time and associated cost required.
Option 2 was the BMP plan addressing drugs, chemicals, pathogens,
and non-native species which would have been the same for all
facilities regardless of production system. Based on recommendations in
the SBREFA Panel Report, EPA further modified Option 2 to include
reporting requirements for drug and chemical use only. In the BMP
component for control of these toxic and non-conventional pollutants,
EPA estimated costs assuming 40 hours to develop and one hour of
manager time and one hour of worker time per month to implement. EPA
solicits comment on the time and associated cost required for BMP plan
development as well as on the possibility of EPA or the permitting
authority developing a model BMP plan which the operator would adopt or
modify, reducing the time and associated cost required. Option 3
technology for flow-through and recirculating systems is solids
polishing (i.e., microscreen filters) and for net pens is active feed
monitoring. The options are additive in nature, and represent
increasing stringency, thus, Option 2 limitations would be based on and
incorporate primary settling (Option 1) in addition to the limitations
based on BMP considerations under Option 2. Because some existing flow-
through facilities that produce between 20,000 and 100,000 pounds per
year are currently meeting NPDES requirements to report and implement a
BMP plan for the control of solids, EPA solicits comment on the
feasibility of requiring other facilities within this production range,
and new facilities, to meet the same requirements.
EPA is not proposing to establish phosphorus limits, but will
continue to evaluate the need for separate limitations for phosphorus.
The proposed TSS limitations should also ensure effective removal of
suspended or particulate phosphorus. EPA notes that a number of NPDES
permits issued to CAAP facilities do include phosphorus limits
presumably to comply with water quality standards. EPA solicits comment
on how the use of low phosphorus feeds or wastewater treatment
practices (including the actual practices used) meet current phosphorus
limits set by the permitting authority. EPA may consider establishing
separate phosphorus limits based on treatment of the wastewater to
precipitate dissolved phosphorus to achieve effective reduction of
phosphorus in the wastewater discharge from CAAP facilities and
solicits comment on the need to establish separate limits for
phosphorus and the costs associated with phosphorus treatment. EPA is
particularly interested in data documenting the costs of achieving such
limits, any increased sludge production as a result of treating to
remove phosphorus from wastewater and monitoring data including the
method used to analyze the phosphorus in the collected samples. The
Development Document includes potential values of such phosphorus
limits.
Discussion of the regulatory options by type of operation (i.e.,
subcategory) is contained below.
B. Flow-Through Systems
1. BPT
After considering the technology options described in Section VII,
and in light of the factors specified in section 304(b)(1)(B) of the
CWA, EPA is proposing: (1) No nationally-applicable effluent
limitations guidelines for facilities producing less than 100,000
pounds per year, (2) effluent limitations based on Option 1 for
facilities producing 100,000 pounds per year up to 475,000 pounds per
year, and (3) effluent limitations based on Option 3 for facilities
producing 475,000 pounds per year or more.
For small flow-through facilities (facilities that produce between
20,000 and 100,000 pounds of cold water species annually), the proposed
rule would not establish any national requirements for existing flow-
through facilities for the reasons described in Section V.B.
As described in Section IX, EPA's economic analysis is based on the
best existing data available to EPA, but the Agency will be collecting
financial data through the detailed survey, which should provide a
better basis for determining economic achievability. In addition, EPA
is soliciting information concerning the costs for developing and
implementing the BMP plan described in today's proposed regulation. EPA
will reconsider both the BMP costs and the economic achievability.
For facilities producing 100,000 pounds per year to 475,000 pounds
per year, the proposed rule would establish BPT limits based on primary
settling including quiescent zones and settling basins and/or BMP
development and implementation (Option 1) for existing flow-through
facilities. EPA considered the revenue classifications in the Census of
Aquaculture (National 1-6) to estimate economic impacts. EPA then
converted the revenue classifications into production categories using
prices for several different species. As EPA continued its impact
analysis, EPA determined that the 100,000 pounds per year threshold,
mainly driven by trout production (because of the number of small
facilities producing trout) would be an appropriate threshold because
the costs of compliance for the facilities producing above the
threshold would be affordable while facilities producing below this
threshold would experience disproportionate economic impacts.
For facilities producing 475,000 pounds per year or more, the
proposed rule would establish limits based on solids polishing and/or a
requirement to develop and implement a BMP plan (Option 3). EPA
considered the impacts of such proposal requirements on these larger
facilities and, based on the results, determined that the 475,000
pounds per year would be an appropriate threshold for which the costs
of compliance would remain economically achievable.
EPA is also proposing to establish limits for TSS at large flow-
through facilities discharged from separate off-line treatment systems
(i.e. physically separate and discharging from an outfall distinct from
the main flow of the system) based on Option 3 technology performance.
EPA would apply the percent reduction achieved by a microscreen filter
used as a solids polishing treatment at the recirculating system that
EPA sampled. The microscreen performance measured by EPA's sampling
data indicates that 20 percent reduction in the TSS concentration was
achieved with this technology by this facility. EPA has applied that
percent reduction to the long-term average representing treatment
through a separate off-line settling basin and applied the variability
factors developed from the off-line settling basin data to obtain the
monthly average and daily maximum values. EPA believes this transfer of
performance from recirculating system technology to flow-through system
discharges would be appropriate because the long term average
concentrations measured by EPA at both the separate off-line treatment
at a flow-through system and the influent to microscreen filtration at
a recirculating system are nearly identical (58.1 mg/L from the flow-
through system compared to 58.3 mg/L from the recirculating system).
Based on preliminary analysis, these options appear to be
technically available, economically achievable and cost-reasonable for
the existing flow-through facilities at these size thresholds. The BPT
cost comparison test demonstrates, as described in Section IX, that the
cost per pound
[[Page 57897]]
removed is $0.23/lb using only the removal loadings of the pollutant
BOD. (Also, see discussion of cost as a percent of revenues in section
IX.) EPA did not select more stringent options (Options 2 or 3) for
facilities between 100,000 and 475,000 pounds production per year
because, EPA determined that the cost impacts would not be reasonable
and affordable based on the number of facilities (9 out of 31
commercial facilities) estimated to experience compliance costs greater
than 10% of revenues from aquaculture sales. As discussed in more
detail in Section XI, the proposed option has acceptable non-water
quality environmental impacts. As described earlier in Section VII.C.3,
the specific effluent limitations guidelines proposed in this rule were
derived based on a statistical analysis of the performance of primary
settling and solids polishing at flow-through facilities that are
sufficiently similar to all of the flow-through facilities that would
be subject to the effluent limitations guidelines. Based on the
screener survey data, EPA estimates that primary settling and solids
polishing are currently used at 91 out of 102 (89%) and 5 out of 102
(5%), of all flow-through CAAP facilities, respectively.
EPA estimates that the proposed effluent limitations guidelines
would cause 8 out of 181 regulated flow-through facilities (4%) to
experience compliance costs greater than or equal to 5% of their
revenues.
As noted previously, the options selected for flow-through systems
include requirements to develop and implement a best management
practices (BMP) plan, as well as some reporting requirements. Option 1
includes a requirement for a BMP plan for solids control. As noted
previously, control of total suspended solids also controls non-
conventional and toxic pollutants that EPA believes bind with such
solids. Option 2 includes a requirement for a BMP plan addressing non-
conventional and toxic pollutants, specifically, discharges of certain
drugs, chemicals, and solids or aquatic animals that carry pathogens,
as well as escapes of non-native aquatic animals. Option 2 also
includes some reporting requirements on the use of certain drugs and
chemicals. For flow-through facilities producing between 100,000 pounds
per year and 475,000 pounds per year, EPA is proposing the Option 1 BMP
plan requirements (solids control). For flow-through facilities
producing more than 475,000 pounds per year, EPA proposes limitations
based on Option 3, which includes the Option 2 BMP plan requirements
for non-conventional and toxic pollutants. EPA proposes and solicits
comment on the use of the BMP plan, either in lieu of or as an
alternative to the numerical limitations in today's proposal. EPA also
solicits comments on whether the BMP plan for solids control only would
be sufficient to assure the pollutant reductions that EPA demonstrates
to be economically achievable. Many facilities already have developed
and implemented a BMP plan to control solids through feed management,
by removing solids regularly, and by treating solids from waste
handling operations. Identification and proper implementation of such a
BMP plan may be sufficient in and of itself to achieve the numeric
limitations EPA proposes today.
For the most part, the proposed BMP plan requirements would prevent
or minimize the discharge of pollutants, but also represent
economically sound aquatic animal production practices. For flow-
through facilities producing 100,000 pounds per year to 475,000 pounds
per year, the proposed BMP plan requirements would ensure supplemental
controls to prevent or minimize the discharge of solids. Proposed
section 451.15(a) would impose a requirement related to management of
removed solids and excess feed. Specifically, operators would need to
minimize the re-introduction of solids removed through the treatment of
the water supply and prevent excess feed from entering the aquatic
animal production system. Solids are removed from the water supply to
ensure high quality water supply for aquatic animal production. Given
the effort to remove solids from that water, re-introduction of those
solids would increase the amount of solids discharges. Similarly,
operators should prevent the introduction of excessive feed into the
production system; uneaten feed increases the total amount of solids
discharged. Operators have an economic incentive to optimize feed rates
(e.g., to ensure maximum animal growth at minimum costs), but in some
cases optimal feed rates from the operator's perspective may not be
optimal for water quality. To optimize water quality (though not
necessarily production), operators and laborers should observe feeding
when food is applied to the system and stop adding feed when the
animals are no longer eating. In cases where water quality and
production goals are in conflict, operators must find a reasonable
balance between the two. The proposed requirements in section
451.15(a)(1) for management of removed solids and excess feed and
451.15 (b)(1) & (3) for structural maintenance and disposal of
biological wastes, respectively, also prevent or reduce unnecessary and
avoidable solids discharges. Section 451.15(d) would assure that
personnel who implement the BMP, in fact, understand it.
For flow-through facilities producing more than 475,000 pounds per
year, the proposal would require additional BMP implementation to avoid
inadvertent spillage or release of drugs and chemicals stored at the
facility. Similar to the storage management practices required for
solids, proposed section 451.15(b)(2) would require sound management of
drugs and chemicals stored on-site in order to avoid accidental
spillage or release into the system. EPA proposes this requirement only
for the largest flow-through facilities because the Agency anticipates
that only the largest facilities have a need to maintain significant
volumes of drugs and chemicals on-site. The more important aspect of
drugs and chemicals storage would be that personnel working at the site
also would need to be familiar with proper storage practices.
EPA also proposes reporting requirements related to uses of certain
drugs and chemicals. Proposed section 451.3 (a) through (c) would only
apply to facilities producing more than 475,000 pounds per year because
drug and chemical discharges from such large facilities are more likely
to cause an adverse impact on receiving waters. EPA currently lacks
data on the total amount of unapproved drugs and chemicals released to
the environment from aquatic animal production facilities. For this
reason, EPA proposes reporting to ensure that permitting authorities
have the necessary information to impose any controls that may be
necessary to reduce or avoid adverse impacts to receiving waters on a
case-by-case basis using best professional judgment.
EPA proposes to define ``chemical'' and ``drug'' at section 451.2
(c) and (e), respectively, to include only those chemicals and drugs
that would be discharged and that have not been ``approved'' as safe
and effective. The proposed definition of drug, for example, would not
include injected drugs. As such, the proposal would only apply to
residual drugs and chemicals, e.g., after a drug or chemical no longer
serves its intended purpose. EPA likewise proposes reporting only for
drugs and chemicals about which little is known. Reporting would not be
required for EPA registered pesticides and drugs approved by the Food
and Drug Administration for aquatic animal
[[Page 57898]]
uses or water quality maintenance/restoration chemicals used according
to label instructions. Reporting would only be required for unapproved
drugs and/or drugs prescribed by a veterinarian for extra-label uses.
Reporting would also be required for extra-label uses of chemicals.
Because drugs that have not been evaluated by FDA may be discharged in
facility effluents, reporting information should enable informed
regulatory responses when environmental problems do occur. Under the
proposal, reports would be both oral and written, according to the use
that EPA anticipates for regulatory monitoring of those reports. Given
the intermittent and variable use of drugs and chemicals and given the
relative absence of data on such uses, EPA does not propose numeric
effluent limits, but rather only reporting requirements, for the drugs
and chemicals that would be regulated under today's proposal.
EPA anticipates that the BMP requirements would be implemented
through permits and, in many cases, standardized BMP provisions may be
applicable to all similarly sized flow-through facilities. EPA does not
anticipate that development or implementation of the proposed BMP
requirements would significantly interfere with a well-managed
operation. The proposed requirements, however, would establish a base
level of sound management practices that are not only economically
reasonable, but also environmentally protective.
2. BAT
EPA proposes to establish BAT at a level equal to BPT (i.e., Option
1 for existing facilities that produce between 100,000 and 475,000
pounds per year and Option 3 for existing facilities that produce more
than 475,000 pounds per year). For this subcategory, there are no
available technologies economically achievable that would achieve more
stringent effluent limitations than those considered for BPT. Because
of the nature of the wastewater and wastes generated from CAAP
facilities, advanced treatment technologies or practices to remove
additional solids (e.g., smaller particle sizes) in TSS that would be
affordable do not exist beyond those already considered.
3. BCT
Since the BCT cost test did not support a more stringent technology
basis that was economically achievable for BCT, EPA proposes to
regulate total suspended solids (TSS) using the same technology basis
as BPT. For more details about the BCT cost test, see Section IX.G.
4. NSPS
After considering all of the technology options described in
Section VII, and in light of the factors specified in sections 306 of
the CWA, EPA proposes standards of performance for new sources equal to
BPT, BCT, and BAT because no more stringent technologies are available
for NSPS without causing a barrier to entry for new facilities. Because
of the nature of the wastewater and wastes generated from CAAP
facilities, advanced treatment technologies or practices to remove
additional solids (e.g., smaller particle sizes) in TSS that would be
affordable do not exist beyond those already considered.
EPA believes that the proposed NSPS equal to BAT would not present
a significant barrier to entry. EPA believes that overall impacts from
the proposed effluent limitations guidelines on new sources would not
be any more severe than those on existing sources because the costs
faced by new sources generally should be the same as or lower than
those faced by existing sources. It is generally less expensive to
incorporate pollution control equipment into the design at a new plant
than it would be to retrofit the same pollution control equipment in an
existing plant. At a new plant, no demolition is required and space
constraints (which can add to retrofitting costs if specifically
designed equipment must be ordered) may be less of an issue.
Although EPA is not proposing performance for new sources for
smaller cold water facilities (i.e., those producing between 20,000 and
100,000 pounds per year ), EPA invites comment on whether downward
adjustments to the proposed thresholds would create a barrier to entry
for new sources. As described in the BPT discussion, EPA intends to
reevaluate the costs and potential barrier to entry for small new
sources and solicits comments on the basis for costs estimated for new
sources.
EPA solicits comments on its proposed finding that the proposed
thresholds would be appropriate and applicable to this subcategory.
5. No Regulation for Flow-Through Systems
EPA is also considering whether it should establish national
requirements for flow-through systems at all. If EPA were to decide not
to promulgate national effluent guidelines for flow-through systems, it
would likely be based on a combination of several factors. First, EPA
may conclude that the baseline pollutant discharges from flow-through
systems are not large enough to warrant national regulations. In
addition, EPA may conclude that due to significant regional and
facility-specific variations, it is more effective to continue to rely
on the BPJ of permit writers to establish appropriate limitations.
Finally, EPA may conclude that available technologies are either not
affordable or provide little reduction in pollutant discharges relative
to existing practice. EPA solicits comments on not regulating flow-
through systems and encourages commenters to support such arguments
with information and data, particularly data on the loadings,
efficiency of existing practices including best management practices
and treatment technologies and the costs associated with pollutant
removals.
In addition, EPA is soliciting comment specifically on an
alternative approach to the reporting and BMP requirements for the
control of drugs and chemicals. Under this alternative, EPA would issue
BMP guidance and recommendations in lieu of establishing the reporting
requirements and BMP requirements for these pollutants (i.e., Option
2). Both permit writers and CAAP facilities could use this guidance as
a reference source when evaluating various control practices to
minimize the discharge of pollutants. The Agency solicits comments on
the effectiveness of BMPs related to the use of drugs and chemicals or
practices that would minimize the need to use drugs and chemicals such
as health management plans (i.e., routine observations of fish
behavior, maintaining water quality) and the extent to which facilities
are already implementing BMPs. This approach could also be used to
address concerns related to pathogens and non-native species. The
Agency also solicits comments on practices used including record
keeping and contingency plans (i.e., preventive measures) to minimize
escapes and discharges of pathogenic bacteria (e.g., through proper
management of aquatic animal mortalities).
C. Recirculating Systems
1. BPT
After considering all of the technology options described above,
and in light of the factors specified in section 304(b)(1)(B) of the
CWA, EPA is proposing to establish BPT limits on the basis of solids
polishing (i.e., additional solids removal) including a settling basin
and the development of a BMP plan, and general reporting requirements
for drugs and chemical use (Option 3) for existing recirculating
facilities that produce more than
[[Page 57899]]
100,000 pounds per year. This option is technically available for
recirculating systems at this size threshold. Based on analysis to
date, the BPT cost comparison test indicates, as described in Section
IX, that the cost per pound removed is $0.07/lb using the removal
loadings of the pollutant TSS. Therefore, based on the analysis to date
EPA believes this option is economically achievable and cost
reasonable. This option, the most stringent of the options considered,
was chosen because no facilities experienced compliance costs greater
than 5 percent of revenues. Further, this option has acceptable non-
water quality environmental impacts.
As described earlier in Section VII.C.3, the specific effluent
limitations guidelines proposed in this rule were derived based on a
statistical analysis of the performance of solids polishing at existing
recirculating facilities that are sufficiently similar to all of the
recirculating facilities that would be subject to the effluent
limitations guidelines. Solids polishing is currently used at 33
percent of recirculating system production facilities, and these
technologies are widely used in other industries such as feedlots, food
processing, and POTWs. BPT does not mean that the technology needs to
be in routine use, but rather that the technology must be available at
a cost and at a time that the Administrator determines to be
reasonable, and that the technology has been adequately demonstrated if
not routinely applied.
EPA is not proposing to establish effluent limitations guidelines
for existing recirculating facilities that produce less than 100,000
pounds of aquatic animals per year because most recirculating systems
produce warm water species which would not meet the CAAPF point source
definition of 100,000 pounds per year and although EPA identified one
facility producing a cold water species between 20,000 pounds per year
and 100,000 pounds per year, the facility would experience significant
cost impacts even from Option 1. EPA also evaluated an option that
would apply to small recirculating facilities based on the development
and implementation of a BMP plan to control solids as described in
today's proposed regulation. EPA assumed 40 hours would be necessary to
develop this plan with an additional requirement to implement the plan
of two hours per month split evenly between labor and management time.
The cold-water facility described above would experience compliance
costs greater than 3% of its revenue for this BMP only option. Small
facilities that meet the definition of a CAAPF are subject to existing
NPDES regulations, and would be subject to permit limits based on the
permit writer's ``best professional judgment'' if the facility is a
``concentrated aquatic animal production facility'' under the
regulations. EPA invites comment on application of the proposed
applicability threshold and its estimations of cost reasonableness for
recirculating systems.
As described in Section IX, EPA's economic analysis is based on the
best existing data available to EPA, but we will be collecting
financial data through our detailed survey which should provide a
better basis for determining economic achievability. In addition, EPA
is soliciting information concerning the costs for developing and
implementing the BMP plan described in today's proposed regulation. EPA
will reconsider both the BMP costs and the economic achievability.
Therefore, EPA solicits comment on a requirement for small
recirculating facilities to develop and implement a BMP plan based on
the solids control practices included in today's proposal.
As noted previously, the options selected for recirculating systems
include requirements to develop and implement a best management
practices (BMP) plan, as well as some reporting requirements, for
solids control (including control of associated non-conventional and
toxic pollutants that EPA believes bind with such solids) and for other
non-conventional and toxic pollutants, specifically, discharges of
certain drugs and chemicals. For recirculating system facilities above
the applicability threshold, EPA is proposing BMPs under both Options 1
and 2. For discussion of EPA's rationale for BMPs and reporting, see
the discussion of BMPs in the BPT section regarding flow-through
systems. Recirculating systems are expected to have much better
opportunities to control such discharges. Likewise, recirculating
systems have better opportunities to control the discharge of excess
feeds.
2. BAT
EPA proposes to establish BAT equal to BPT for this subcategory.
For this subcategory, there are no available technologies economically
achievable that can achieve more stringent effluent limitations than
those considered for BPT. Because of the nature of the wastewater and
wastes generated from CAAP facilities, advanced treatment technologies
or practices to remove additional solids (e.g., smaller particle sizes)
in TSS that would be affordable do not exist beyond those already
considered.
EPA believes that the selected option for the recirculating system
subcategory is cost reasonable and ``economically achievable'' because
EPA estimates that the proposed effluent limitations guidelines would
cause no facilities to experience compliance costs greater than or
equal to 5% of their annual revenues. Finally, EPA has determined that
the selected option has acceptable non-water quality environmental
impacts.
3. BCT
EPA proposes to regulate BCT equal to BPT because EPA did not
identify any more stringent technologies beyond those considered. For
more details about the BCT cost test, see Section IX.G.
4. NSPS
After considering all of the technology options described above,
and in light of the factors specified in sections 306 of the CWA, EPA
proposes standards of performance for new sources equal to BAT (Option
3). For this subcategory, there are no current technologies that are
more stringent than those considered for BPT or BAT other than adding
disinfection. Because of the nature of the wastewater and wastes
generated from CAAP facilities, advanced treatment technologies or
practices to remove additional solids (e.g., smaller particle sizes) in
TSS that would be affordable do not exist beyond those already
considered.
EPA believes that the proposed NSPS would not present a barrier to
entry. EPA believes that overall impacts from the proposed effluent
limitations guidelines on new sources would not be any more severe than
those on existing sources because the costs faced by new sources
generally should be the same as or lower than those faced by existing
sources. It is generally less expensive to incorporate pollution
control equipment into the design at a new plant than it is to retrofit
the same pollution control equipment in an existing plant. At a new
source, no demolition is required and space constraints (which can add
to retrofitting costs if specifically designed equipment must be
ordered) may be less of an issue.
Although EPA is not proposing new source performance standards for
smaller facilities (i.e., that produce between 20,000 and 100,000
pounds per year), EPA invites comment on whether downward adjustments
to the proposed production thresholds would create a barrier to entry
for new sources. As described in the BPT discussion, EPA intends to
evaluate the costs and
[[Page 57900]]
potential barrier to entry for small new sources and solicits comments
on the basis for the costs estimated for new sources.
EPA solicits comments on its proposed finding that the proposed
threshold is appropriate and applicable to this subcategory.
5. No Regulation for Recirculating Systems
EPA is also considering whether it should establish national
requirements for recirculating systems at all. If EPA were to decide
not to promulgate national effluent guidelines for recirculating
systems, it would likely be based on several factors. EPA may conclude
that due to significant regional and facility-specific variations, it
is more effective to continue to rely on the BPJ of permit writers to
establish appropriate limitations. In addition, EPA may conclude that
available technologies are either not affordable or provide little
reduction in pollutant discharges relative to existing practice. EPA
solicits comments on not regulating recirculating systems and
encourages commenters to support such arguments with information and
data, particularly data on the loadings, efficiency of existing
practices including best management practices and treatment
technologies and the costs associated with pollutant removals.
In addition, EPA is soliciting comment specifically on an
alternative approach to the reporting and BMP requirements for the
control of drugs and chemicals. Under this alternative, EPA would issue
BMP guidance and recommendations in lieu of establishing the reporting
requirements and BMP requirements for these pollutants (i.e., Option
2). Both permit writers and CAAP facilities could use this guidance as
a reference source when evaluating various control practices to
minimize the discharge of pollutants. The Agency solicits comments on
the effectiveness of BMPs related to the use of drugs and chemicals or
practices that would minimize the need to use drugs and chemicals such
as health management plans (i.e., routine observations of fish
behavior, maintaining water quality) and the extent to which facilities
are already implementing BMPs. This approach could also be used to
address concerns related to pathogens and non-native species. The
Agency also solicits comments on practices used including record
keeping and contingency plans (i.e., preventive measures) to minimize
escapes and discharges of pathogenic bacteria (e.g., through proper
management of aquatic animal mortalities).
D. Net Pen Systems
1. BPT
After considering all of the technology options described above,
and in light of the factors specified in section 304(b)(1)(B) of the
CWA, EPA is proposing to establish BPT limits on the basis of active
feed monitoring (i.e., additional solids removal) and the development
of a BMP plan, and general reporting requirements for use of certain
drugs and chemicals (Option 3) for facilities that produce more than
100,000 pounds per year as the technology basis for the effluent
limitations guidelines for existing sources in the proposed rule. This
option is technically available for net pen systems at this size
threshold. The BPT cost comparison test indicates, as described in
section IX, that the cost per pound removed is $0.04/lb using the
removal loadings of the pollutant, BOD. Based on currently available
data, EPA believes this option is cost reasonable and economically
achievable. EPA selected this option, the most stringent of the options
considered, because no facilities are estimated to experience
compliance costs greater than or equal to 5% of annual revenues.
As discussed in more detail below, EPA believes that this option is
cost reasonable and ``economically achievable'' and represents the best
performance that is economically achievable for facilities producing
above the 100,000 pound threshold.
As discussed in more detail below, EPA is not proposing to
establish effluent limitations guidelines for existing facilities that
produce less than 100,000 pounds of aquatic animals per year because
EPA has not identified any facilities below the 100,000 pounds per year
threshold. If any facilities exist between the 20,000 and 100,000
pounds per year threshold, the facilities would be subject to existing
NPDES regulations, and would be subject to permit limits based on the
permit writer's ``best professional judgment'' if the facility is a
``concentrated aquatic animal production facility'' under the
regulations. EPA invites comment on the application of the proposed
production threshold and its estimation of cost reasonableness for net
pen systems.
Further, this option (including not applying nationally applicable
active feed monitoring requirements to smaller facilities) has
acceptable non-water quality environmental impacts. Active feed
monitoring, may also be a good business practice and it is already used
by some facilities to reduce feed costs.
As noted previously, the options selected for net pen systems
include requirements to develop and implement a best management
practices (BMP) plan for solids control (focused primarily on feed
management) and for other non-conventional and toxic pollutants,
specifically, discharges of certain drugs and chemicals. For net pen
facilities above the applicability threshold, EPA is proposing BMPs
under both Options 1 and 2. For discussion of EPA's rationale for BMPs
and reporting, see the discussion of BMPs in the BPT section regarding
flow-through systems. Net pen systems do not present the same
opportunities for solids control as do flow-through systems or
recirculating systems. Therefore, EPA proposes active feed monitoring
as the most effective and cost reasonable technology for solids
control.
2. BAT
EPA proposes to establish BAT equal to BPT. EPA has determined that
there are no more stringent options representing BAT that are
available.
3. BCT
EPA proposes to regulate BCT equal to BPT because EPA did not
identify any more stringent technologies beyond those considered. For
more details about the BCT cost test, see Section IX.G.
4. NSPS
After considering all of the technology options described above,
and in light of the factors specified in sections 306 of the CWA, EPA
proposes standards of performance for new sources equal to BAT.
EPA believes that the proposed NSPS would not present a barrier to
entry. EPA believes that overall impacts from the proposed effluent
limitations guidelines on new source net pens would not be any more
severe than those on existing net pens. The costs faced by new sources
generally should be the same as or lower than those faced by existing
sources. It would generally be less expensive to incorporate pollution
control equipment into the design at a new plant than it would be to
retrofit the same pollution control equipment in an existing plant. At
a new source, no demolition would be required and space constraints
(which can add to retrofitting costs if specifically designed equipment
must be ordered) may be less of an issue.
Although EPA is not proposing performance for new sources for
smaller cold water facilities (i.e., those producing between 20,000 and
100,000 pounds per year ), EPA invites comment on whether downward
adjustments to
[[Page 57901]]
the proposed thresholds would create a barrier to entry for new
sources.
EPA solicits comments on its proposed finding that the proposed
threshold is appropriate and applicable to this subcategory.
5. No Regulation for Net Pen Systems
EPA is also considering whether it should establish national
requirements for net pen systems at all. If EPA were to decide not to
promulgate national effluent guidelines for net pen systems, it would
likely be based on a combination of several factors. First, EPA may
conclude that the baseline pollutant discharges from net pen systems
are not large enough to warrant national regulations. In addition, EPA
may conclude that due to significant regional and facility-specific
variations, it is more effective to continue to rely on the BPJ of
permit writers to establish appropriate limitations. Finally, EPA may
conclude that available technologies are either not affordable or
provide little reduction in pollutant discharges relative to existing
practice. EPA solicits comments on not regulating net pen systems and
encourages commenters to support such arguments with information and
data, particularly data on the loadings, efficiency of existing
practices including best management practices and treatment
technologies and the costs associated with pollutant removals.
In addition, EPA is soliciting comment specifically on an
alternative approach to the reporting and BMP requirements for the
control of drugs and chemicals. Under this alternative, EPA would issue
BMP guidance and recommendations in lieu of establishing the reporting
requirements and BMP requirements for these pollutants (i.e., Option
2). Both permit writers and CAAP facilities could use this guidance as
a reference source when evaluating various control practices to
minimize the discharge of pollutants. The Agency solicits comments on
the effectiveness of BMPs related to the use of drugs and chemicals or
practices that would minimize the need to use drugs and chemicals such
as health management plans (i.e., routine observations of fish
behavior, maintaining water quality) and the extent to which facilities
are already implementing BMPs. This approach could also be used to
address concerns related to pathogens and non-native species. The
Agency also solicits comments on practices used including record
keeping and contingency plans (i.e., preventive measures) to minimize
escapes and discharges of pathogenic bacteria (e.g., through proper
management of aquatic animal mortalities).
E. Ponds
As described above, EPA initially developed three technology
options for pond facilities to control the discharge of pollutants.
Initial Option 1 included practices to minimize the discharge of solids
when ponds are drained and to minimize the frequency of overflows due
to storm events. Initial Option 1 also included the BMP practices to
minimize feed, reduce the need to use drugs and chemicals and prevent
the escape of non-native species. Initial Option 2 required more
extensive solids control with the establishment of a TSS limit that
would be achieved either with the application of a vegetated ditch or a
sedimentation pond to capture a portion of the pond drainage. Initial
Option 3 would have required more treatment to control BOD and
nutrients and was based on the application of constructed wetlands
through which the pond drainage would be treated. EPA estimated the
costs and pollutant reductions that could be expected to occur with
each of these options and presented them to the Small Business Advocacy
Review (SBAR) Panel, which is discussed in greater detail in Section
XIII. The SBAR Panel sought feedback on these options, their costs and
pollutant loading reductions from several Small Entity Representatives
(SERs) who were asked to provide comments from their perspective as
small businesses engaged in aquatic animal production in ponds.
EPA's preliminary estimates of costs for even Initial Option 1,
indicated that it would impose significant financial hardship on many
of the facilities. As noted previously, EPA estimated costs, for
example, of BMP plans assuming 40 hours for development and 2 hours per
month for implementation. The SERs noted that many of the structural
best management practices that EPA was considering as part of Inital
Option 1 were either inappropriate for their facilities or would be
even more costly than EPA estimated. SERs also noted that depending on
the configuration of the facility, it might not be possible to route
all discharges through a single settling basin as considered under
Initial Option 2. If several basins were needed, costs and land
requirements could become cost prohibitive. Finally, the industry
representatives argued that EPA's estimated baseline pollutant loadings
discharged from pond systems grossly overstated the pollutant loads
from ponds.
As a result of the feedback received from all of these sources, EPA
reconsidered technologies appropriate for pond systems and the minimal
impact these technologies would have in reducing pollutant discharges.
Most important, however, EPA anticipates that only a small number of
ponds have discharges that meet the NPDES definitions for CAAP
facilities. Therefore, EPA revised the options, accounting for the
comments received on the preliminary analysis. The revised options
assume that all existing pond facilities currently practice good
management and therefore minimize the discharge of solids when draining
ponds. This assumption regarding the water quality impacts of not
regulating ponds is based on information provided from the industry and
from representatives in EPA regional offices. Ponds are capable of
assimilating the pollutants that are added to the system, thus settling
basins generally would not be necessary for pond-based facilities where
the pond itself can provide adequate solids settling. EPA estimated
that 108 pond facilities met the CAAP facility definition and that
these facilities represented 27% of the total regulated CAAP facilities
and produce 73% of the production for the regulated CAAP facilities.
The pollutant discharges from the pond facilities represent about 4% of
the BOD, 12% of the total nitrogen, <1% of the total phosphorus, and
27% of TSS.
Nonetheless, EPA was concerned about potential pollutant discharges
from some pond facilities due to the rapid drainage when harvesting the
animals, in particular shrimp ponds. Shrimp are harvested through rapid
pond drainage and capture of the animals in harvest structures which
are external to the pond, to prevent the shrimp from burrowing into the
pond bottoms. This drainage practice has the potential to discharge
more solids because the pond bottom is disturbed during harvest. EPA
has obtained information on shrimp production in Texas where there are
many large producers. The State of Texas has issued discharge permits
to all shrimp producers, which incorporate requirements on the
discharge of wastewater from these facilities. Texas shrimp facilities
must comply with numeric limitations for inorganic TSS and typically
install sedimentation basins to capture the water that is removed from
a pond prior to its discharge to surface waters. In addition, the Texas
Department of Parks and Wildlife has concerns over the release of non-
native shrimp, thus facilities have a series of structural barriers to
prevent shrimp from escaping. There is also
[[Page 57902]]
shrimp production in South Carolina. Most of the shrimp in South
Carolina are produced at small facilities, but there is one producer
that is large enough to be considered a CAAP facility subject to NPDES
requirements. This facility does have an NPDES permit and its permit
includes a BMP directing it to treat its pond drainage to remove solids
prior to discharge. EPA's revised analysis of the regulatory options
took these practices into account in the baseline analysis.
Based on the information provided by the industry and permits
issued to pond facilities, EPA is not proposing to establish any
effluent guidelines requirements for discharges from pond facilities.
EPA believes there are very few pond facilities that meet the
definition of a CAAP facility and most of the pond discharges that do
occur add only than trivial pollutant loads because (1) the pond system
itself already must have high quality water to produce aquatic animals
and (2) surface drainage (due to excess precipitation) also will be of
high quality. EPA supports the efforts of the various State
agricultural extension services that have developed BMP recommendations
for discharges from pond facilities. EPA believes that BMPs are very
effective for controlling pollutant discharge from ponds and is also
developing BMP guidance for pond producers. EPA's guidance would focus
on practices to minimize solids in the discharges and to reduce the
need to use drugs and chemicals. EPA will consider comments on the
proposed BMP guidance manual that accompanies today's rule.
F. No Regulation Option
EPA solicits comments on the ``no regulation'' option for
discharges from all production facility types and encourages commenters
to support such arguments with information and data, particularly data
on the loadings, efficiency of existing practices including best
management practices and treatment technologies and the costs
associated with pollutant removals.
EPA considered an option which would be to establish no national
requirements for the entire point source category on a subcategory-by-
subcategory basis. EPA is proposing this option for four sectors: pond
operations, molluscan shellfish, alligators and aquariums, as described
in Section V. EPA is also seeking comment, however, on this option for
the other subcategories that today's proposed rulemaking would
regulate.
G. CAAP Pretreatment Standards
EPA is proposing to not regulate indirect dischargers under today's
effluent guidelines and standards. The indirect dischargers would be
discharging mainly TSS and BOD, which the POTWs are designed to treat.
In addition, the nutrients discharged from CAAP facilities that are in
concentrations similar to nutrient concentrations in human wastes
discharged to POTWs. The options EPA considered do not directly treat
for nutrients, but nutrients are incidentally removed through the
control of TSS. EPA believes that the POTW removals of TSS would get
the equivalent nutrient removals obtained by the options considered for
this proposed rulemaking and therefore concludes there would be no pass
through of pollutant amounts necessitating regulation.
IX. Economic Analysis
A. Introduction
This section describes the capital investment and annualized costs
of compliance with the proposed effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for the concentrated aquatic animal production industry and
the potential magnitude of those costs for the regulated community.
EPA's economic assessment is presented in detail in the report titled
``Economic and Environmental Impact Analysis of the Proposed Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Concentrated Aquatic
Animal Production Industry'' (hereafter ``EA'') and in the rulemaking
record. EPA conducted cost-reasonableness and nutrient cost
effectiveness analyses on all options evaluated and performed an
analysis of the economic impacts on small entities for the proposed
options.
B. Economic Data Collection Activities
EPA relied on four major sets of data for today's proposal. The
first set are the data collected in the screener survey titled
``Screener Questionnaire for the Aquatic Animal Production Industry''
OMB Control Number 2040-0237 (hereafter ``screener survey'') which EPA
distributed to nearly 6,000 potential aquatic animal production
facilities. The screener survey is described in more detail in Section
IV.B of this preamble. The screener survey collected facility
production data information, but no financial information (such as the
facility's annual revenue or operating costs). EPA used the production
data, combined with available price data, to estimate revenues for the
model facilities for which the Agency estimated costs. EPA also used
the screener survey data to estimate the frequency with which the
treatment practices that served as the technology basis for costing the
various options occurred in the CAAP industry.
The second and third sets of data are from the United States
Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service
(USDA/NASS). The second data source is USDA's Census of Aquaculture
(1998), (60605), which is the primary source of publicly available data
on the Nation's aquaculture industry (hereafter referred to as ``the
Census''). Specifically, the Census provides information on aquatic
animal production, revenues (sales), method of production, species
produced, sources of water, point of first sale outlets, cooperative
agreements and contracts, and aquaculture distributed for restoration
or conservation purposes. The third data source is a special tabulation
of the Census data generated by USDA/NASS for EPA. The special
tabulation did not collect new information on the industry, nor did it
provide information at a level of detail that would disclose
confidential information. The special tabulation rather provided data
already collected for the Census in a classification scheme more useful
for EPA's purposes. Specifically, the data provides facility counts and
statistical information (mean, median, standard deviation and
coefficient of variation) on a species basis for the six existing
Census revenue categories (<$24,999; $25,000 to $49,000; $50,000 to
$99,999; $100,000 to $499,999; $500,000 to $999,999, and $1 million or
more). The special tabulation also provides this information for a new
revenue category that corresponds to the Small Business
Administration's size standard for a small aquatic animal production
business (i.e., less than $750,000 annually). EPA used the special
tabulation data to examine the distribution of aquatic animal
operations by revenue and species and to estimate the number of
``small'' entities affected by the proposed rule.
The fourth set of data are enterprise budgets developed by experts
in aquacultural economics to depict financial conditions for
representative aquaculture facilities. Enterprise budgets are useful
tools for examining the potential profitability of an enterprise prior
to actually making an investment. To create an enterprise budget, an
analyst gathers information on capital investments, variable costs
(such as labor and feed), fixed costs (e.g., interest and insurance),
and typical yields and combines it with
[[Page 57903]]
price information to estimate annual revenues, costs and return for a
project. By varying different input parameters, enterprise budgets can
be used to examine the relative importance of individual parameters to
the financial return of the project or to identify breakeven prices
required to provide a positive return. The Economics Subgroup of the
JSA/AETF provided EPA with enterprise budgets for trout, shrimp, hard
clam, prawns, and alligators. In addition, EPA identified and collected
other budgets through literature searches of publications, reports and
analyses by regional aquaculture centers, universities and cooperative
extensions, the aquatic animal production industry and its associated
organizations.
EPA is currently in the process of collecting detailed facilty-
level technical and economic data on aquatic animal producers. This
data collection effort is the ``Detailed Questionnaire for the Aquatic
Animal Production Industry'' OMB Control Number 2040-0240 (hereafter
``detailed survey'') which EPA distributed in June 2002. The detailed
survey is described in Section IV of this preamble. EPA intends to
publish a Notice of Data Availability of its findings based on the
detailed survey.
C. Economic Impact Methodologies
1. Economic Description of the Aquatic Animal Production Industry
The aquatic animal production industry includes sites that fall
within the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes
112511 (finfish farming and fish hatcheries), 112512 (shellfish
farming), 112519 (other animal aquaculture), and part of 712130
(aquariums, part of zoos and botanical gardens). The first three groups
have Small Business Administration size standards of $0.75 million in
annual revenue while the size standard for NAICS 712130 is $6.0 million
in annual revenue.
USDA reports that there were approximately 4,200 commercial
aquaculture facilities in 1998 (DCN 60605). Based on revenues from
aquaculture sales alone (not including other farm-related revenues from
other agricultural crops at the facility), more than 90 percent of the
facilities have revenues less than $0.75 million annually and thus may
be considered small businesses. The Small Business Administration's
size standard is based on annual revenue at the company level for all
products, so using facility revenue from aquaculture sales is likely to
over-estimate the proportion of small businesses in the industry. EPA
intends to use company level revenue from the detailed survey data to
identify the number of small businesses impacted by the final rule.
Although aquaculture facilities exist in every State, there tends to be
regional specialization by species as a result of local climate and the
quality/quantity of water available for aquaculture (for example,
catfish in the southeast, salmon on the northern coasts, and trout in
Idaho).
In 1999, commercial farm-level aquatic animal sales totaled nearly
$1 billion (842 million pounds). The range of products includes:
finfish raised for food and recreation (including food fish, sport or
game fish, baitfish, or ornamental fish); crustaceans and molluscs
raised for food; and other aquatic animals such as alligators, frogs,
and turtles. Catfish and trout sales account for nearly fifty percent
of the commercial market (£$400 million annually and $64
million annually in production, respectively).
The industry includes several types of ownership structures: (1)
Commercial; (2) Federal and State; (3) Tribal; (4) academic and
research; and (5) nonprofit. Within the private or commercial sector,
ownership structures range from small family farms to large
multinational firms. The non-commercial sector is also diverse. The
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) operates 66 Federal hatcheries,
six Fish Technology Centers, and nine Fish Health Centers. Its goals
are to conserve, restore, enhance, and manage the Nation's fishery
resources and ecosystems for the benefit of future generations. FWS
distributes more than 50 species primarily to Federal, Tribal, State,
and local governments. Many States operate fish hatcheries for stocking
recreational fisheries, and EPA identified approximately 500 State
hatchery facilities. In addition, USDA-ARS and DOC-NOAA operate
aquaculture research facilities.
As an approximate measure of the size of the governmental aquatic
animal production, fish distributions from the FWS in 1999 totaled 5.5
million pounds. Fisheries magazine published an overview of state
coldwater fishery programs that listed 23.7 million pounds of trout and
salmon distributed from State hatcheries in 1996 (DCN 20014). EPA
estimates that production from 17 Tribal programs is more than 1.3
million fish annually.
EPA identified approximately 30 academic and research institutions
that maintain facilities ranging from small research projects to full-
scale systems for training the next generation of aquatic animal
producers. Information on the magnitude of these operations nationwide
is currently being sought by EPA through the detailed survey.
Nonprofit organizations in the CAAP industry include 30 Alaskan
hatcheries and non-taxable aquariums. Alaskan hatcheries are different
from other State hatcheries. The farming of salmon, per se, was
outlawed in 1990 (Alaska, 2001a; DCN 20002). Instead, Alaska permits
nonprofit ``ocean ranching'' where salmon are reared from egg to smolt
stage and then released into public waters to be available for harvest
by fishermen upon their return to Alaskan waters as adults. EPA has
identified two types of nonprofit organizations that exist in Alaska--
four regional aquaculture associations and eight private nonprofit
corporations--with a total annual permitted production of approximately
2 billion smolts for ocean release. EPA identified approximately 50
aquariums in the U.S., some of which are non-taxable establishments.
2. Methodological Overview
This section discusses potential impacts from the estimated
compliance costs. The analysis consists of several components: (1)
Assessing the number of facilities that could be affected by this rule;
(2) estimating the annualized incremental compliance costs for model
facilities to comply with the different requirements identified in the
rule; (3) calculating model facility impacts using the test measure of
the ratio of the estimated annual compliance costs to revenue from
aquaculture sales (hereafter referred to as a revenue test); and (4)
extrapolating from the individual model facility results to estimate
facility impacts at the national level (i.e., in the regulated
universe) using the revenue test. EPA also calculated industry-wide
costs and pollutant removals and performed cost-reasonableness and
nutrient cost-effectiveness tests.
EPA used the screener survey data to characterize the industry by
production system, species, ownership structure (commercial and non-
commercial, with the latter including Federal, State, Tribal, academic/
research, and other operators), and annual production at the
facilities. EPA used the information to construct its model facilities.
EPA converted the six revenue categories presented in the Census
(<$24,999; $25,000 to $49,000; $50,000 to $99,999; $100,000 to
$499,999; $500,000 to $999,999, and $1 million or more) to six
production categories (ranges in pounds) for each species using the
Census prices and assigned each screener survey facility to the
[[Page 57904]]
appropriate category. This conversion allows EPA to use information
from both data sources as appropriate. As discussed in Section VII, EPA
developed costs for 96 different combinations of production system/
species/ownership structure/production category. All costs are reported
in 2000 dollars, unless otherwise noted.
Neither the Census nor EPA's screener survey collected data on
farm-level operating costs. This absence of matched pairs of operating
cost and revenue data limited EPA's efforts in developing the economic
analysis for proposal. EPA considered alternative approaches to the
revenue test presented in today's preamble to examine economic impacts
to the industry, including developing representative model facilities
based on enterprise budget data. EPA determined these alternative
approaches to be infeasible given the lack of information on the
distribution of profits among aquatic animal producers. EPA intends to
perform a detailed financial analysis on actual farm-level data
collected in the detailed survey prior to final action on today's
proposal. In today's proposal, EPA is using the existing technical and
economic data to make preliminary evaluations of economic achievability
in advance of the detailed survey data. Prior to final action of the
rule, EPA plans to provide the public with an opportunity to review and
comment on the data received in response to the detailed survey.
EPA used information from the screener survey to calculate
``frequency factors,'' that is, the portion of facilities represented
by a model that already have a particular pollutant control practice in
place. For example, if three of every ten facilities already have a
particular pollutant control practice in place prior to the regulation,
the frequency factor for that practice would be 0.30. EPA estimated
costs for each pollutant control practice for each facility.
EPA used the frequency factors and pollutant control practice costs
in two ways. First, the Agency calculated national estimates by
calculating the weighted average of each pollutant control practice,
i.e., the product of the cost and (1 minus the frequency factor). The
weighted average cost for each control practice within an option were
summed to calculate the weighted average model facility cost for that
option. EPA multiplied the weighted average model facility cost times
the number of facilities represented by the model facility
configuration. EPA performed these calculations for each model facility
configuration and summed the results to estimate the national industry
compliance costs attributed to an option.
For the revenue tests, EPA assumed that a facility would incur the
full pre-tax annualized compliance cost of any pollution control
practices that it needed to implement to meet the proposed rule. For
example, suppose an option has three components: control practice A
with a cost of $10 and a frequency factor of 0.9; control practice B
with a cost of $100 and a frequency factor of 0.5; and control practice
C with a cost of $1000 and a frequency factor of 0.1. In this case, a
facility could incur any cost from $0 (all control practices are
already in place) to $1110 (none of the control practices are already
in place).
EPA used the frequency factors to calculate the probability of a
facility incurring a particular control practice cost combination.
Table IX.C.1 summarizes the probabilities of a facility incurring the
example costs. The example model facility has a 90 percent probability
of incurring a cost of $1,000 or more (the sum of all probabilities for
costs of $1,000 or more). If the example model facility represents 50
facilities and the $1,000 cost shows impacts at the 1 percent revenue
threshold, EPA estimates that 45 facilities (or 50 x 0.9) would show
impacts at the 1 percent revenue threshold.
Table IX.C.1--Example of Applying Frequency Factors for Revenue Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequency factor (or inverse)
Cost combination ------------------------------------------------ Facility cost Probability of
A B C facility cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABC............................. 0.1 0.5 0.9 $1,110 0.045
AB.............................. 0.1 0.5 0.1 110 0.005
AC.............................. 0.1 0.5 0.9 1,010 0.045
A............................... 0.1 0.5 0.1 10 0.005
BC.............................. 0.9 0.5 0.9 1,100 0.405
B............................... 0.9 0.5 0.1 100 0.045
C............................... 0.9 0.5 0.9 1,000 0.405
No cost......................... 0.9 0.5 0.1 0 0.045
-----------------
Sum of probabilities........ .............. .............. .............. .............. 1.000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While some non-commercial facilities--Federal and state hatcheries,
academic and research facilities, and tribal facilities--might sell
some of their production, most fish and egg distribution from these
facilities have no market transaction (that is, the fish are not sold).
The industry profile (Section III.C) indicates some of the differences
between commercial and non-commercial facilities, but the economic
analysis is constrained by the absence of cost and/or funding data for
non-commercial facilities until detailed survey data are available.
Given the data available at this time--production level from the
screener survey and market value from the Census--the only measure by
which to evaluate impacts is to impute a value to their production
based on annual harvest and commercial prices.
EPA considers the use of a revenue test for commercial and non-
commercial facilities appropriate for this stage of the rulemaking.
Government facilities might have the options of increasing user fees
and budgets or re-directing budget allocations. Academic and research
facilities might have the option of re-directing budget allocations. In
other words, the economic analysis for non-commercial facilities should
differ from that performed for commercial facilities. While this is not
possible with the information available at this time, EPA designed
different versions of the economic and financial portion of the
detailed questionnaire for government and academic/research facilities
with the intent of collecting the data necessary for the different
analyses.
D. Annualized Compliance Cost Estimates
As discussed in Secion III, a concentrated aquatic animal
production
[[Page 57905]]
facility (CAAP) is defined in 40 CFR 122.24 and appendix C. EPA has
identified approximately 136 direct discharging CAAPs that would be
regulated by this proposal. EPA calculated the economic impact on each
model facility based on the cost of compliance using the technology
basis for each of the options considered for the proposal. For existing
direct dischargers, EPA calculated impacts for compliance with BPT,
BCT, and BAT requirements; EPA is not proposing pretreatment standards
for indirect dischargers. As detailed in Section VIII, EPA based the
proposed standards for direct discharges on Option 3 for all net pen
systems and recirculating systems, as well as for flow-through systems
with annual production of 475,000 pounds and greater. EPA based the
proposed standards for direct dischargers for flow-through systems with
annual production between 100,000 and 475,000 pounds on Option 1. EPA
is not proposing standards for any production system with annual
aquatic animal production less than 100,000 pounds although EPA
calculated costs and impacts for these smaller facilities.
EPA estimates that the total pre-tax annualized compliance costs
attributed to the proposed rule are $1.10 million (see Table IX.D.1)
for facilities identified in the screener survey. More than half of the
estimated cost is projected to be borne by non-commercial facilities.
Among the commercial facilities, those with flow-through systems will
incur the greatest share of the cost ($0.16 million annually).
Table IX.D.1--Estimated Pre-Tax Annualized Compliance Costs Based on Screener Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-tax
Number of annualized
Production system Owner regulated CAAP cost
facilities (Millions,
2000 dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100,000-475,000 Pounds Production
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flow-Through.................................. Commercial...................... 31 $0.16
Flow-Through.................................. Non-Commercial.................. 57 0.30
Flow-Through.................................. Alaska Non-Profit............... 15 0.32
Recirculating................................. Commercial...................... 5 0.03
Net Pen....................................... Commercial...................... 0 NA
-----------------------------------------------
475,000 Pounds Production and Above
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flow-Through.................................. Commercial...................... 9 0.04
Flow-Through.................................. Non-Commercial.................. 6 0.09
Flow-Through.................................. Alaska Non-Profit............... 2 0.11
Recirculating................................. Commercial...................... 3 0.02
Net Pen....................................... Commercial...................... 8 0.03
-----------------------------------
Total..................................... ................................ 136 1.10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to estimate the national pre-tax annualized compliance
costs attributed to the proposed rule, EPA multiplied the commercial
facilities by a factor of 2.5. EPA believes it was able to identify all
public facilities in its screener survey mailing list, so these
compliance costs already represent national estimates and do not need
to be sealed. The results of scaling up to the national estimates are
presented in Table IX.D.2. This factor was estimated by calculating the
ratio of the number of potentially regulated facilities identified in
the Census to the number of potentially regulated facilities identified
in the screener survey results. EPA evaluated this comparison by system
type and found, for those potentially regulated facilities, that the
ratio was fairly consistent (approximately 2.5). A more detailed
explanation of this analysis can be found in the EA and rulemaking
record (DCN 61793). For the final rule, EPA intends to evaluate other
methods of estimating the number of potentially regulated facilities
either using the screener or detailed survey data (see approach in TDD
Appendix).
Table IX.D.2--Estimated National Pre-Tax Annualized Compliance Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-tax
Number of annualized
Production system Owner regulated CAAP cost
facilities (Millions,
2000 dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100,000-475,000 Pounds Production
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flow-Through.................................. Commercial...................... 78 $0.40
Flow-Through.................................. Non-Commercial.................. 57 0.30
Flow-Through.................................. Alaska Non-Profit............... 15 0.32
Recirculating................................. Commercial...................... 13 0.06
Net Pen*...................................... Commercial...................... NA NA
-----------------------------------------------
475,000 Pounds Production and Above
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flow-Through.................................. Commercial...................... 23 0.09
Flow-Through.................................. Non-Commercial.................. 6 0.09
Flow-Through.................................. Alaska Non-Profit............... 2 0.11
[[Page 57906]]
Recirculating................................. Commercial...................... 8 0.05
Net Pen....................................... Commercial...................... 20 0.09
-----------------------------------
Total..................................... ................................ 222 $1.51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* EPA did not identify any commercial net pens of this size category in the screener survey.
E. Model Facility Impacts
As mentioned in Section IX.C.2, EPA used the revenue test to make
preliminary determinations about economic achievability in advance of
the detailed survey data. EPA is not associating any particular
threshold of the revenue test with facility failure; such a
determination will be made on the basis of facility-specific
information collected in the detailed survey. For purposes of today's
proposal, EPA believes that a large percentage of facilities
experiencing impacts greater than 5% and/or a small percentage
experiencing impacts greater than 10% indicate disproportionate
economic burden.
1. Flow-Through Systems
a. BPT. Table IX.E.1 summarizes the results of the revenue test for
the three regulatory options at the 3, 5, and 10 percent thresholds.
The results are divided into two size categories based on annual
production of aquatic animals: facilities with annual production
between 100,000 and 475,000 pounds and facilities with annual
production greater than 475,000 pounds. The results are presented in
terms of the number of facilities whose test ratio is projected to
exceed the threshold level (i.e., the number of facilities that would
incur incremental annualized compliance costs that are greater than 3,
5, and 10 percent of their annual revenue from aquaculture sales). EPA
is proposing Option 1 for the smaller size category and Option 3 for
the larger size category. EPA estimates that under these options, no
facilities will incur compliance costs greater than 10 percent of
revenues and only a small number of facilities will incur compliance
costs greater than 5 percent.
Table IX.E.1--Revenue Tests for Flow-Through Facilities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
------------------------------------------------------------
Size Facilities £3% £ £3% £ £3% £ Option
regulated 5% £ 5% £ 5% £ selected
10% 10% 10%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100,000-475,000 lbs:
Commercial.................................................. 78 25 8 0 25 15 0 35 23 23 1
Non-Commercial.............................................. 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1
Alaska Non-Profit........................................... 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
£475,000 lbs:
Commercial.................................................. 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Non-Commercial.............................................. 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Alaska Non-Profit........................................... 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Numbers in the table represent the number of facilities projected to exceed the threshold level.
b. BCT. In July 1986, EPA developed its methodology for setting
effluent limitations based on BCT (51 FR 24974). EPA evaluates the
reasonableness of BCT candidate technologies--those that remove more
conventional pollutants than BPT--by applying a two-part cost test: a
POTW test and an industry cost-effectiveness test.
EPA first calculates the cost per pound of conventional pollutant
removed by industrial dischargers in upgrading from BPT to a BCT
candidate technology, and then compares this cost to the POTW
benchmark. The POTW benchmark is the cost per pound for a POTW to
upgrade from secondary to advanced secondary treatment. The upgrade
cost to industry must be less than the POTW benchmark of $0.25 per
pound (in 1976 dollars) or $0.65 per pound (in 2000 dollars). In the
industry cost-effectiveness test, the ratio of the cost per pound to go
from BPT to BCT divided by the cost per pound to go from raw wastewater
to BPT for the industry must be less than 1.29 (that is, the cost
increase must be less than 29 percent).
EPA is establishing BPT limitations for flow-through facilities
with an annual production of 100,000 pounds and greater. A BCT test can
be performed for the category with 100,000 to 475,000 in annual
production. (EPA is proposing the most stringent option for facilities
with 475,000 and greater in annual production. Hence, there is no more
stringent option to be considered for BCT for this group.) For purposes
of this analysis, EPA is assuming that the proposed BPT limits are
baseline. Thus, EPA is considering only Options 2 and 3 as BCT
candidate options.
Table IX.E-2 presents the calculations for the BCT cost test. The
cost per pound to upgrade from secondary to advanced secondary
treatment is less than $0.65 for Option 3, so Option 3 passes the first
part of the test. However, the cost per pound to go from raw wastewater
to BPT is $0.20, therefore the ratio of the cost per pound to go from
BPT to BCT divided by the cost per pound to go from raw wastewater to
BPT for the industry is 2.08 and Option 3 fails the second part of the
test. Based on these results, EPA is proposing that BCT be set equal to
BPT.
[[Page 57907]]
Table IX.E.2--POTW Cost Test Calculations for Flow-Through Systems (100,000-475,000 Pounds in Annual Production)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental
Incremental pre-tax total
conventional annualized Ratio of costs to BPT-BCT Raw-BPT
Option pollutants costs removals (POTW test) Pass POTW test? ratio (Industry Pass industry test?
removed (Millions, test)
(lbs.) 2000 $)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.............................. 0 $0.03 Undefined............ No.................. NA.................. NA
3.............................. 874,136 0.37 0.42................. Yes................. 2.08................ No
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. BAT. The technology options EPA considered for BAT are identical
to those it considered for BPT for existing dischargers. Because EPA
projects limited economic impacts associated with the BPT requirements,
EPA does not expect significant economic impacts for BAT. EPA did not
select the more stringent Option 2 for facilities between 100,000 and
475,000 pounds production per year because EPA was concerned about the
number of commercial facilities (15 out of 78) estimated to experience
compliance costs greater than 5% of revenues from aquaculture sales.
EPA also determined that Option 3 would not be economically achievable
for these facilities based on the high number of facilities (23 out of
78) estimated to experience compliance costs greater than the 10%
revenue threshold. EPA selected Option 3 for facilities with greater
than 475,000 pounds production because no facilities are estimated to
experience compliance costs that exceed the 5% revenue threshold.
2. Recirculating Systems
a. BPT. EPA is proposing Option 3 for recirculating systems with
annual production greater than 100,000 pounds. EPA estimates that under
this option, none of the 21 recirculating facilities will incur
compliance costs greater than 3 percent of revenues (which by
definition also implies that no facilities will incur compliance costs
greater than 5 percent or 10 percent).
b. BCT / BAT. EPA is proposing the most stringent option for
facilities with recirculating systems. Hence, there is no more
stringent option to be considered for BCT, so BCT is set equal to BPT.
The technology options EPA considered for BAT are identical to those it
considered for BPT. Because EPA projects limited economic impacts
associated with the BPT requirements, EPA expects only limited economic
impacts for BCT and BAT.
3. Net Pen Systems
a. BPT. None of the model facilities for net pen systems incur
compliance costs greater than 3 percent of revenues for any of the
regulatory options. EPA is proposing the most stringent option, Option
3, as BPT for net pen systems.
b. BCT / BAT. EPA is proposing the most stringent option for
facilities with net pen systems. Hence, there is no more stringent
option to be considered for BCT, so BCT is set equal to BPT. The
technology options EPA considered for BAT are identical to those it
considered for BPT for existing dischargers. Because EPA projects
limited economic impacts associated with the BPT requirements, EPA
expects only limited economic impacts for BAT.
5. New Source Performance Standards for All Production Systems
EPA is proposing new source performance standards that are
identical to those proposed for existing dischargers that meet the
100,000 pound production threshold. Engineering analysis indicates that
the cost of installing pollution control systems during new
construction is no more expensive than the cost of retrofitting
existing facilities and is frequently less expensive than the retrofit
cost. Because EPA projects the costs for new sources to be equal to or
less than those for existing sources and because limited impacts are
projected for these existing sources, EPA does not expect significant
economic impacts (or barrier to entry) for new sources that meet the
100,000 pound production threshold.
EPA is considering establishing new source performance standards
for smaller coldwater CAAP facilities that produce between 20,000 and
100,000 pounds per year. Based on the screener data, EPA initially
identified 110 facilities in this group. EPA intends to conduct further
analysis pertaining to this issue using detailed survey data. EPA
invites comment on whether compliance costs would represent a barrier
to entry to these facilities.
F. Other Economic Impacts
1. Firm-Level Impacts
For the final rule, EPA intends to conduct an analysis of firm-
level impacts with the detailed survey data. No firm-level analysis is
possible at this time due to data constraints that arise from the
predominance of privately-held (i.e. firm not required to file
financial information with the Securities and Exchange Commission) and
foreign-held firms. The salmon industry, for example, is predominantly
foreign-held. Due to differences in accounting standards, EPA does not
routinely consider foreign firms in its financial analysis. EPA also
intends to examine the potential cumulative impacts on non-commercial
concentrated aquatic animal production facilities, such as State and
Federal hatcheries, using information collected in the detailed survey.
2. Community-Level Impacts
EPA did not identify any data source with detailed employment
information for the aquatic animal production industry. Given that the
scope of the proposed regulation is focused on a limited number of
larger facilities, EPA believes that is not likely to cause severe
community impacts. EPA intends to examine community-level impacts based
on detailed survey data.
3. Foreign Trade Impacts
EPA believes that proposed regulations will have little, if any,
impact on foreign trade. Several species, including striped bass,
tilapia, trout, and salmon, face significant foreign competition.
However, no facilities in the striped bass sector are expected to incur
compliance costs that exceed the 1 percent revenue threshold, and no
tilapia or salmon facilities are expected to incur compliance costs
that exceed the 3 percent revenue threshold. EPA used its regulatory
flexibility and proposed different options for different levels of
production for the system most commonly used to raise trout (i.e.,
flow-through) to mitigate potential adverse impacts. EPA solicits
comments on the potential impacts of the proposed rule on foreign
trade.
[[Page 57908]]
G. BPT Cost Comparison Test and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
EPA is evaluating technology options for the control of only
conventional pollutants at BPT. CWA Section 304(b)(1)(B) requires a
cost-reasonableness assessment for BPT limitations. In determining BPT
limitations, EPA must consider the total cost of treatment technologies
in relation to the effluent reduction benefits gained by such
technology. This inquiry does not limit EPA's broad discretion to adopt
BPT limitations that are achievable with available technology unless
the required additional reductions are wholly out of proportion to the
costs of achieving such marginal reduction.
The BPT cost comparison test is based on the average cost per pound
of pollutants removed by a BPT regulatory option. The cost component is
measured as total pre-tax annualized costs in 2000 dollars. In this
case, the pollutants removed are conventional pollutants although, in
some cases, removals may include priority and nonconventional
pollutants. Historically, the cost comparison values have ranged from
$0.21 to $33.72 (2000 dollars).
For the CAAP industry, EPA has chosen to evaluate cost
reasonableness on the basis of the higher of TSS or BOD removals (not
the sum of these removals) to avoid possible double-counting of
removals. The costs and removals for the proposed options for the flow-
through, recirculating, and net pen subcategories are summarized in
Table IX.G.1. The cost comparison values range from $0.04/lb to $0.23/
lb, values that EPA considers to be acceptable.
Table IX.G.1.--BPT Cost Comparison Test
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional
Total pre-tax pollutant Average cost
Production system annualized removals per pound ($/
cost (2000$) (lbs) lb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flow-Through.................................................... $1,004,363 4,450,465 $0.23
Recirculating................................................... 45,071 638,365 0.07
Net Pens........................................................ 34,345 868,899 0.04
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Nutrient Cost-Effectiveness. EPA also has calculated the cost-
effectiveness of the removal of nutrients for the options considered in
today's proposal. As a benchmark for comparison, EPA has estimated that
the average cost-effectiveness of nutrient removal by POTWs with
biological nutrient removal is $4/lb for nitrogen and $10/lb for
phosphorus. Table IX.G.2 summarizes the nutrient cost-effectiveness by
production system for all the options considered. The removals are
given for total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) individually
and on a combined basis. Option 2 always has a higher nutrient cost-
effectiveness value than Option 1 because the additional requirement
for a health management plan adds costs but results in no nutrient
removals. For recirculating systems and net pen systems, all options
are more cost-effective than these benchmarks. For flow-through
systems, nutrient cost-effectiveness significantly exceeds these
benchmarks suggesting that the requirements are not very cost effective
for removing nutrients at flow-through systems. However, as noted
previously all options for all systems were within the BPT cost
comparison range that EPA considers to be acceptable.
Table IX.G.2--Costs, Nutrient Removals, and Cost-Effectiveness for Options Considered
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average nutrient cost Average nutrient cost- Average nutrient cost-
Total effectiveness (TN +TP, effectiveness (TN, $/ effectiveness (TP, $/
Option annualized $/lb) lb) lb)
cost -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2000$) Removals $/lb Removals $/lb Removals $/lb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flow-Through:
1........................................................ $946,796 5,121 $184.89 2,110 $448.72 3,011 $314.45
2........................................................ 998,269 5,121 194.94 2,110 473.11 3,011 331.54
3........................................................ 1,438,226 110,666 13.00 85,469 16.83 25,197 57.08
Recirculating:
1........................................................ 30,469 0 NA 0 NA 0 NA
2........................................................ 33,587 0 NA 0 NA 0 NA
3........................................................ 45,071 32,453 3.12 25,090 1.80 7,363 6.12
Net Pens:
1........................................................ 6,205 66,170 0.09 56,717 0.11 9,453 6.13
2........................................................ 9,322 66,170 0.14 56,717 0.16 9,453 31.04
3........................................................ 34,345 86,890 0.40 74,477 2.61 12,413 2.77
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is proposing a tiered approach for flow-through systems with Option
1 for systems with production levels between 100,000 and 475,000
pounds, and Option 3 for systems with production levels 475,000 pounds
and higher. Due to the absence of economies of scale, smaller
facilities bear a relatively higher cost per pound of pollutant
removal. EPA is proposing Option 3 for all recirculating and net pen
systems. Table IX.G.3 summarizes the nutrient cost-effectiveness for
the proposed options.
[[Page 57909]]
Table IX.G.3.--Costs, Nutrient Removals, and Cost-Effectiveness for Proposed Options
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average nutrient cost- Average nutrient cost- Average nutrient cost-
Total effectiveness (TN +TP, / effectiveness (TN, /lb) effectiveness (TP, /lb)
Production system annualized lb) ---------------------------------------------------
cost --------------------------
(2000) Removals /lb Removals /lb Removals /lb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flow-Through................................................. $1,004,363 66,103 $15.19 50,273 $19.98 15,830 $63.45
Recirculating................................................ 45,071 32,453 3.12 25,090 1.80 7,363 6.12
Net Pens..................................................... 34,345 86,890 0.40 74,477 2.61 12,413 2.77
--------------
Total.................................................... 1,083,779 185,446 5.84 149,840 7.23 35,606 30.44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Small Business Analysis
Based on the special tabulation from the Census discussed in
Section IX.B, EPA identified approximately 4,200 small commercial
aquatic animal producers, which represents over 90 percent of the total
AAP producers. Based on screener survey data, EPA identified: a total
of 999 small entities (including 26 small Alaskan flow-through
facilities that are non-profits); a total of 344 small entities that
met the definition of a CAAP facility; and 48 small entities that are
within the scope of the proposed rule (31 flow-through, 12 Alaskan, and
5 recirculating). That is, about 35 percent of facilities within the
scope of the proposed rule are small. Of the 36 regulated small CAAP
facilities that are commercially owned, approximately 17 (which
represents 5 percent of the total small CAAP facilities or 47 percent
of the regulated small CAAP facilities) incur compliance costs greater
than 1 percent of aquaculture revenue and 10 small commercial entities
(which represents less than 3 percent of the total small CAAP
facilities or 28 percent of the regulated CAAP facilities) incur
compliance costs greater than 3 percent.
For commercial facilities, EPA assumed that the facility is
equivalent to the business, an assumption that will be re-examined when
detailed survey data is available. However, because sufficient data is
available to determine the parent nonprofit association (and its
revenues) for the small Alaskan nonprofit facilities, EPA analyzed
small entity impacts at the level of the parent association. EPA
determined that 12 small Alaskan nonprofit facilities within scope of
the proposed rule are owned by 8 small nonprofit associations. Of the 6
small Alaskan nonprofit associations for which EPA had data, 3
associations incur compliance costs greater than 1 percent of revenues
and 1 association incurs compliance costs greater than 3 percent.
EPA intends to make its final determination of the impact of the
aquatic animal production rulemaking on small businesses based on
analyses of the detailed survey data. EPA did convene a Small Business
Advocacy Review Panel pursuant to section 609(b) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA). For a discussion of the Panel's
outreach and findings see Section XIII.B.
I. Cost-Benefit Analysis
Table IX.I.1 summarizes the total social costs and benefits of the
proposed rule. The estimated pre-tax annualized compliance cost is
$1.51 million in 2000 dollars for the proposed rule (see Table 6-5).
All CAAP facilities within the proposed scope are currently permitted,
so incremental administrative costs of the regulation are negligible.
However, Federal and State permitting authorities will incur a burden
for reviewing the BMP plan and reports on the use of drugs and
chemicals. EPA estimates these costs to be approximately $3,337 per
year (EPA ICR No. 2087.01). That is, the recordkeeping and reporting
burden to the permitting authorities is less than two-tenths of one
percent of the pre-tax compliance cost for the proposed rule. The
social costs are shown using both a 7 percent and 3 percent discount
rates.
The monetized benefits presented are based on the Mitchell and
Carson contingent valuation estimates of annual willingness to pay, so
the total willingness to pay derived from these values is an annual
amount. The model facility approach did not provide any intuition about
the timing of compliance or the dynamics of when benefits would accrue
so the benefit analysis is based on the environmental effects achieved
when the proposed regulation is fully implemented. There is no
variation through time. The annualized value of a level annual flow is
equal to the annual flow itself, when the rate for discounting and
annualization are the same. Thus, the annualized benefits are the same
as the annual benefits no matter what discount rate is applied. The
estimated monetized benefits of the rule range from $0.022 million to
$0.113 million. This is likely to be an underestimate because EPA can
fully characterize only a limited set of benefits to the point of
monetization. Section 10.6 describes several types of benefits--those
that can be both quantified and monetized; those that can be quantified
but not monetized; and those that cannot be quantified or monetized.
Table IX.I.1.--Estimated Social Costs and Monetized Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-tax annualized cost Annualized monetized benefits
Number of (Millions, 2000 dollars) * (Millions, 2000 dollars)
Production system regulated ---------------------------------------------------------------
CAAPFs 7% 3% Min Max
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flow-Through.................... 181 $1.31 $1.20 $0.019 $0.091
Recirculating................... 21 0.11 0.11 0.003 0.022
Net Pen......................... 20 0.09 0.08 .............. ..............
-----------------
Industry Total.............. 222 1.51 1.39 0.022 0.113
=================
State and Federal Permitting .............. 0.003 0.003 .............. ..............
Authorities....................
[[Page 57910]]
Estimated cost of the proposed .............. 1.513 1.393 0.022 $0.113
rule...........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Monetized benefits are not scaled to the national level.
The monetized benefits are based on the 128 flow-through and
recirculating systems from the screener data (i.e., are not scaled to
the national level) because EPA was not able to estimate a
representative national scaling factor. Hence, Table IX.I.1 compares
annualized compliance costs associated with 222 facilities to
annualized benefits from 128 facilities.
X. Water Quality Analysis and Environmental Benefits
A. CAAP Environmental Impacts
1. Nutrients, Solids, and Water Quality
As described earlier, some CAAP facilities may contribute
significant amounts of nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) and solids to
receiving waters. These discharges have the potential to contribute to
a number of water quality impacts related to eutrophication, defined as
an increase in the rate of supply of organic matter in an ecosystem
(Nixon, 1995, as cited in NSTC, 2000 (DCN 61562). The increase in
organic matter can be caused either by increased inputs from sources
outside of the ecosystem (e.g., agricultural runoff or industrial
effluents) or by enhanced organic matter production within the
ecosystem caused by increased nutrient inputs to the system. Adverse
environmental consequences of eutrophication include harmful algal
blooms, increased water column turbidity, low dissolved oxygen and
associated stresses to stream biota, increased water treatment
requirements, changes in benthic fauna, and stimulation of harmful
microbial activity with possible adverse consequences for human health.
These consequences have long been a concern in the protection and
development of water resources (e.g., Dunne and Leopold, 1978; DCN
61563).
As noted earlier in the Preamble, actual water quality impacts from
CAAP facilities vary greatly and depend on type and size of facility,
treatment processes and technologies, and physical, biological, and
chemical characteristics of the receiving water body. However, EPA
estimates of untreated (``raw'') model facility loadings shown in Table
X.A.1 suggest that large CAAP facilities can, in the absence of
treatment, contribute significant total annual pollutant loads.
Estimated loadings from large net pen facilities, not shown in Table
X.A.1, range from about 132,000 pounds to over four million pounds
annually. When multiple CAAP facilities are located on a single
receiving water, which occurs in such states as Idaho and Maine,
cumulative pollutant loadings to the receiving water may be
correspondingly higher and may be of concern from a stream ecology
perspective. EPA's Region 10 identified discharges from CAAP facilities
as contributors to phosphorus problems in the middle Snake River, where
over 70 CAAP facilities, several municipal treatment plants, and
several food processors were identified. The region adopted strict
numeric limits on phosphorus from the CAAP facilities that led to an
overall reduction in phosphorus over the past five years (Fromm and
Hill, 2002; DCN 31005).
Table X.A.1.--Typical Raw Pollutant Loadings for Individual Flow-Through and Recirculating Model Facilities
[FT = flow through; SB = striped bass; M = medium; L = large. (For definition of model facility size categories,
see Chapter 9 of the CAAP Development Document (DCN 61552))]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Total nitrogen Total suspended
BOD5 (lb/yr) (lb/yr) phosphorus solids (lb/
(lb/yr) yr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salmon FT L..................................... 2,019,852 8,678 19,707 1,731,301
SB FT M......................................... 62,149 267 606 53,271
Tilapia FT M.................................... 155,373 668 1,516 133,177
Tilapia FT L.................................... 388,433 1,669 3,790 332,943
Trout FT M...................................... 77,687 334 758 66,589
Trout FT L...................................... 1,009,926 4,339 9,853 865,651
Trout Stockers FT M............................. 77,687 334 758 66,589
Trout Stockers FT L............................. 466,120 2,003 4,548 399,531
SB Recirc L..................................... 383,564 1,650 4,181 328,770
Tilapia Recirc L................................ 127,855 550 1,394 109,590
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CAAP Economic Analysis (DCN 20141).
Seven States, reporting recently under CWA section 303(d), identify
CAAP facilities as a potential source of impairment for one or more
water bodies. These States include Illinois, Louisiana, North Carolina,
New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, and Virginia. None of these states,
excluding North Carolina and New Mexico, submitted a 2000 report of
impaired waters and their listings from 1998 are considered current.
North Carolina and New Mexico did submit a 2000 report, which updates
the impaired waters listed in the 1998 report. Nationwide, CAAP is
listed as one of numerous potential sources of impairment for 191 miles
of rivers and streams (less than 1% of all rivers and streams
nationwide that were reported to be impaired), and for 2,788 acres of
lakes, reservoirs, and
[[Page 57911]]
ponds (less than 1% of all lake, reservoir and pond acreage nationwide
reported to be impaired; EPA, 2002; DCN 40319). It should be noted that
other sources frequently also contribute to impairment of water bodies
where CAAP is cited as a potential source of impairment.
Several researchers in the United States have measured biological
variables downstream of aquaculture facilities. In some cases,
researchers observed impacts such as the presence of pollution-tolerant
benthic invertebrates and changes in biomass and species richness
(e.g., Kendra, 1991 (DCN 60366); Selong and Helfrich, 1998 (DCN
60542)). In other cases (e.g., Huggett et al., 2001 (DCN 61564)),
pollutants evaluated in this study were not found to negatively impact
the receiving stream. Although limited studies on biological impacts of
CAAP effluents have been published, States and other authorities have
taken regulatory action to address concerns with water quality impacts
from CAAP facilities (e.g., EPA, 2002 (DCN 61728)).
EPA solicits public comment and data regarding potential impacts of
nutrient and solids loadings from CAAP facilities on water quality,
biological, and other characteristics of the receiving waters.
2. CAAP Drugs and Chemicals and Water Quality
As noted earlier in this Preamble, some CAAP facilities utilize
animal drugs that are discharged directly into the receiving waters.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)/Center for Veterinarian
Medicine (CVM) regulates animal drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). While extensive toxicity studies are generally
required prior to drug approval from FDA, limited data on potential
environmental effects may be available for some medications that are
currently authorized for investigational use by FDA according to FFDCA
section 512(j), 21 U.S.C. section 360b(j). In addition, pesticides such
as a variety of copper compounds (used to kill unwanted algae or to
prevent the growth of fouling organisms) can impair aquatic organisms
in receiving waters depending on the rates being applied and other
factors such as the breakdown rate of the product or active ingredient.
EPA is not aware of research documenting or characterizing the
ecological significance of releases of drugs and chemicals at
aquaculture facilities in the United States. However, the presence of,
for example, residual antibiotics in the environment and in wild
organisms near salmon net pens in the United States has been documented
(Capone et al., 1996, as cited in Boxall et al., 2001 (DCN 61789)). EPA
furthermore recognizes that general concerns with residual antibiotics
and pesticides in the environment have been raised. Residual
antibiotics and pesticides may pollute the water and immunize the
organisms they are designed to control. The effects of these actions
can be distributed well outside the original area of use (NOAA, 1999
(DCN 31006)).
3. Pathogens
CAAP facilities are not considered to be a significant source of
pathogens that adversely affect human health (MacMillan et al., 2002
(DCN 61608)). CAAP facilities culture cold-blooded animals (fish,
crustaceans, molluscs, etc.) that are unlikely to harbor or foster
pathogens that would adversely affect warm-blooded animals (e.g.
humans) by causing disease (MacMillan et al., 2002 (DCN 61608)). CAAP
facilities could become contaminated with such pathogens, e.g., wastes
from warm-blooded animals contaminating CAAP facility waters or the
source waters used by CAAP facilities, but this is not considered a
substantial risk in the United States (MacMillan et al., 2002 (DCN
61608)).
It has been suggested that CAAP facilities may serve as sources of
infectious disease transmission to wild populations of aquatic
organisms. Such infectious diseases may include those from pathogens
that are exotic to native ecosystems, as well as the much larger group
from pathogenic microbes that already exist in wild fish populations.
For example, wastes and escapement of infected shrimp from CAAP
facilities is considered a potential pathway for wild shrimp exposure
to viral diseases (JSA Shrimp Virus Work Group, 1997 (DCN 61561)).
Blazer and LaPatra (2002; DCN 40361) cite several studies suggesting
that CAAP facilities may have been sources of disease transmission to
wild populations. An example they describe is that of the Asian
tapeworm (Bothriocephaus acheilognathi) which was identified in North
America in 1975 and became established in fish farms where golden
shiners Notemigonus crysoleucas, fathead minnows Pimephales promelas,
and grass carp were raised. They suggest that the more recent use of
poeciliids such as mosquitofish Gambusia affinis for mosquito control,
and possible releases of exotic fishes from aquaria, may have served as
mechanisms for the introduction of this parasite into native fish in
areas such as Hawaii. As described in Blazer and LaPatra (2002; DCN
40361), Font and Tate (1994) found that native Hawaiian fish from
streams where no exotic species were found were completely free of
adult helminthes, including the Asian tapeworm. Conversely, in two
rivers with exotic species, nematodes and Asian tapeworms were found in
both the exotic species and the native fish (Blazer and LaPatra, 2002
(DCN 40361)).
Blazer and LaPatra's (2002; DCN 40361) discussion on the potential
pathogen risks to wild fish populations from cultured fish also
provided a summary of risks from viruses, such as infectious
hematopietic necrosis virus (IHNV), infectious pancreatic necrosis
virus (IPNV), and infectious salmon anemia virus (ISAV), and bacteria,
such as Edwardsiella ictaluri and Renibacterium salmoninarum. Although
these viruses and bacteria are hazardous to wild fish populations, a
causative association between CAAP facilities and disease outbreaks in
wild populations was not clearly identified.
4. Non-Native (Exotic) Species
Introductions of non-native, or exotic, aquatic organisms from CAAP
facilities into the environment via intentional or accidental releases
is another area of concern. The health of wild populations of aquatic
animals can be affected by the release of cultured individuals or
spawning products into the surrounding environment (NOAA, 1999 (DCN
31006); Goldburg et al., 2001 (DCN 30788); Naylor et al., 2001 (DCN
61335); Carlton, 2001 (DCN 61434); Volpe et al., 1999 (DCN 60611)).
Concerns relate to potential impacts on native ecosystems and aquatic
biota from disease, parasitism, interbreeding, and competition that may
arise from the escaped organisms. Interbreeding among cultured and wild
individuals, as well as competitive interactions between released
populations and local wild populations can lead to declines in the wild
populations (NOAA, 1999 (DCN 31006)).
Escapement of Atlantic salmon from net pens in the Pacific Ocean
has been documented. Since a reporting regulation was imposed in 1996,
nearly 600,000 Atlantic salmon escaped in the state of Washington
between 1996 and 1999 (Nash, 2001 (DCN 40149)). In 1997, 300,000
Atlantic salmon escaped into Puget Sound when net pens were
accidentally breached (Weber, 1997 (DCN 40151)). Atlantic salmon have
also escaped from net pens in the Atlantic Ocean. In 2000, Atlantic
salmon escaped from a net pen off the coast of Maine, when a boat
slammed into the pen, causing a breach. Approximately 13,000 farmed
salmon were released near one of the rivers where wild
[[Page 57912]]
Atlantic salmon are listed as endangered (Clancy, 2000 (DCN 40139)).
Cultured aquatic animals have been released in the United States
with adverse ecological impacts. Carp, introduced from Asia for food
production and biological control, subsequently became established in
rivers in the Mississippi River basin and compete with native fish.
Non-native Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) now outnumber wild salmon in
some spawning rivers; and non-native salmon that become established in
the wild may increase pressure on endangered native salmon populations
(Naylor et al., 2001 (DCN 61335)). Adverse impacts to native species
may be of particular concern when the native species are endangered
(NOAA, 1999 (DCN 31006)). Recently, authorities in New England have
prohibited at one facility the use of non-North American strains of
Atlantic salmon and genetically modified salmonids to protect a
distinct population segment of federally-listed endangered species
(EPA, 2002a; DCN 61728)). Thus, while EPA is not aware of studies that
quantitatively characterize the overall significance of aquaculture's
contribution to non-native species issues, the Agency believes, based
upon the literature reviewed, that this is a potential area of concern
for this sector.
5. Other Impacts
Maintenance of the physical plant of aquaculture facilities can
generate organic materials ``which may be retained in the surrounding
waterbody. These materials can cause biological and physical alteration
of the surrounding environment. This type of waste is not widely
recognized, but can be quite severe'' (NOAA, 1999 (DCN 31006)). For
example, cleaning organisms that foul nets from net pens can contribute
solids, BOD, and nutrients although such inputs are generally produced
over a short period of time. Cleaning algae from flow-through raceway
walls and bottoms similarly generates pollutants in effluent. EPA
solicits comments or data relating to these, or other potential areas
of environmental impact.
B. Environmental Benefits Analysis
1. Environmental Endpoints Evaluated
EPA anticipates that improvements in water quality will result from
today's proposed action, and as a consequence, increases in both the
recreational as well as the non-use value of affected water bodies will
also result. This may include improvements in ecological and biological
endpoints in receiving waters as a result of the expected water quality
benefits of today's proposed action. Finally, today's proposed action
provides better information on the use of drugs and other chemicals.
EPA has quantified and monetized a subset of the anticipated
benefits of today's proposed action due to lack of assessment modeling
tools for some benefits categories. The central basis for the
quantitative benefits analysis is a water quality modeling assessment
that estimates water quality responses to the pollutant loading
reductions under technology options described earlier in this Preamble.
Specifically, the benefits that EPA has been able to quantify are (a)
water quality improvements in stream reaches downstream of flow-through
and recirculating systems, and (b) improvements in the recreational use
value of these same reaches. Benefits that were not quantified include
water quality and ecological responses to pollutant loading reductions
at marine net-pen systems and at other coastal facilities such as
Alaskan salmon hatcheries. Ecological and other water resource benefits
from reductions in releases of non-native species, aquatic animal
pathogens, and drugs and chemicals used at CAAP facilities may be only
partially captured in the monetized benefits analysis. Thus, the
estimated monetized benefits of today's proposed action may understate
the potential benefits of the proposed regulation.
As discussed at the end of the previous economic section, EPA
estimates the monetized benefits of today's proposed rule for flow-
through and recirculating systems to range from $22,000 to $113,000
based on an estimated 128 facilities. The range reflects uncertainty in
assumed background water quality and stream flow conditions in
receiving streams. Again, this estimated range does not include other
potential benefits such as those from net pen systems and other coastal
facilities. The following sections briefly describe the benefits
analysis.
2. Water Quality Modeling Approach
One approach to estimating water quality benefits of the proposed
rule involves simulation of water quality responses at potentially
regulated facilities and requires data on facility locations, baseline
effluent quality for regulated facilities, and data characterizing the
hydrologic and water quality conditions of the specific receiving
waters at these facilities. At proposal, data inputs required for a
detailed analysis were not available. Alternatively, EPA has developed
a representative case study approach to estimate water quality-related
benefits for model flow-through and recirculating facilities on a
``prototype'' stream reach. Under this approach, ranges of hydrologic
and water quality characteristics for a ``prototype'' stream reach
associated with flow-through and recirculating systems were developed.
These ranges were developed by (a) identifying a region where a
relatively large number of CAAP facilities are located, and where
streamflow, water quality, and facility location data are available,
and (b) using these data to develop generalized background streamflow
and water quality characteristics associated with the streams on which
CAAP facilities in this region are located. EPA was able to identify
sufficient data for facilities mainly in western North Carolina
(Central/Eastern Forested Uplands ecoregion). The development of the
``prototype'' stream reach characteristics is described in greater
detail in the CAAP Economic Analysis (DCN 20141). The results of this
case study may be of limited applicability to other ecoregions.
EPA then modeled water quality responses under regulatory Option1/
Option 2 (for the purposes of this analysis, no additional pollutant
reductions were assumed for Option 2) and Option 3 for flow-through and
recirculating model facilities. The pollutant load reductions
associated with these Options were described in Sections VII and VIII
of this Preamble. The pollutant concentrations scenarios (Baseline,
Option 1/Option 2, and Option 3) were each modeled for different
species types and facility production sizes (medium and large).
Finally, information from USDA's 1998 Census of Aquaculture (USDA,
2000; DCN 60605) on the total number of facilities for each facility
type was used to extrapolate the water quality results for the
prototype case study to all flow-through and recirculating systems
nationwide that fall under the scope of the proposed regulation.
EPA used the QUAL2E (Enhanced Stream Water Quality) model to
quantify water quality responses for 30 km downstream of modeled
facilities. QUAL2E is a one-dimensional water quality model that
assumes steady state flow but allows simulation of diurnal variations
in temperature, algal photosynthesis, and respiration. The basic
equation solves the advective-dispersive mass transport equation. Water
quality constituents simulated include conservative substances,
temperature, bacteria, BOD5, DO, ammonia, nitrate and organic nitrogen,
phosphate and organic phosphorus, and
[[Page 57913]]
algae. Simulated changes in DO, BOD5, and TSS calculated for the 30 km
downstream reach for pre- and post-regulatory scenarios were
subsequently used to estimate monetary benefits from water quality
improvements, as described below. Further details on the water quality
modeling are provided in the CAAP Economic Analysis (DCN 60605).
3. Monetized Benefits
Economic benefits associated with the CAAP regulatory options are
based on incremental changes in water quality use-support (i.e.,
boatable, fishable, swimmable) and the population benefitting from the
changes. A national contingent valuation survey relates changes in
water quality uses supported to households' willingness to pay for
water quality improvements (Carson and Mitchell, 1991). EPA used a
single consolidated water quality index (WQI) to represent water
quality. WQI is calculated from the water quality criteria estimated in
the case studies discussed above (BOD, DO, TSS) and fecal coliforms
which are not affected by today's regulation. Increases in WQI indicate
improvements in water quality and the ability of the river to support
more demanding uses. The Carson and Mitchell survey requested an
overall value so the total willingness to pay based on their survey
results encompasses aesthetic and non-use values, as well as
recreational and other use values.
The Carson and Mitchell survey found that people value changes in
waters closer to home more than more distant waters. Because of data
limitations, this evaluation could not distinguish between a local
population directly affected by water quality improvements and the
national population. Therefore, the analysis treated all of the changes
in water quality as if they were occurring far from the households'
locality. This simplification will reduce the monetized benefits
attributable to today's rule. EPA solicits comment on additional
methods for estimating and monetizing benefits.
Different flow regimes in the model CAAP facilities resulted in a
range of benefit estimates. As discussed above, data was only available
at this time to estimate benefits of flow-through and recirculating
systems. For this comparison, the monetized benefits are estimated to
range from $22,000 to $113,000 (2000 dollars). Regulation of the
relatively large number of trout flow-through systems generated the
largest benefits by this method.
XI. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts
Sections 304(b) and 306(b) of the Clean Water Act require EPA to
consider non-water quality environmental impacts (including energy
requirements) associated with effluent limitations guidelines and
standards. To comply with these requirements, EPA considered the
potential impact of the proposed CAAP rule on energy consumption, air
emissions, and solid waste generation. Considering energy use and
environmental impacts across all media, the Agency has determined that
the impacts identified in this section are justified by the benefits
associated with compliance with the proposed limitations and standards.
In reference to today's proposal, Section XI.A discusses energy
requirements, section XI.B discusses air emissions, and section XI.C
discusses sludge generation.
A. Energy Requirements
EPA estimates that implementation of today's proposal would result
in a net increase in energy consumption for aquaculture facilities. The
incremental increase would be based on electricity used to operate
wastewater treatment equipment at facilities that are not currently
operating wastewater treatment equipment (microscreen filters for flow-
through and recirculating systems and video cameras for net pens)
comparable to the regulatory options. To calculate incremental energy
consumption increases for the aquaculture industry, EPA examined the
wastewater treatment in place at the aquaculture facilities that would
be covered by this regulation. EPA used the aquaculture industry cost
models (described in section VII) to calculate the energy that would be
required to operate wastewater treatment equipment that would be
installed to comply with regulatory options. EPA used the information
obtained in the screener survey to determine if a facility would have
to install new equipment.
EPA determined that the incremental increase in energy consumption
for flow-through and recirculating systems is estimated at 232,000 kWh
and 64,500 kWh for net pen systems.
B. Air Emissions Impacts
Potential sources of air emissions from CAAP facilities include
primary settling operations (e.g., settling basins and lagoons) and the
land application of manure. EPA assumed that the additional air
emissions from primary settling operations would be minimal because
only about 10% of in-scope flow-through and recirculating CAAP
facilities (estimated from the AAP screener survey data and the 1998
Census of Aquaculture) would require the addition of primary settling
to meet Option 1 requirements. Primary settling treatment technologies
collect solids below the surface of the water, reducing their exposure
to the atmosphere. Although the proposed options do not require land
application of manure, the options do increase the amount of solid
waste collected from CAAP facilities. Land application is a common
solid waste disposal method in the CAAP industry; therefore, the amount
of ammonia released as air emissions would be expected to increase as
the quantity of waste applied to cropland increases. EPA estimated the
increase in ammonia emissions resulting from the implementation of each
proposed regulatory option to be 42,470 lbs of ammonia per year. This
is an increase of about 9.4% over the ammonia emissions presently
estimated for the industry. For additional details about air emissions
from CAAP facilities, see Chapter 11 of the CAAP Development Document
(DCN 61552).
C. Solid Waste Generation
EPA considered regulatory options based on primary settling
followed by solids polishing (e.g., microscreen filtration, vegetated
ditches). EPA estimated the incremental sludge generation from the
treatment options in a manner similar to estimating the energy
consumption incremental amounts. EPA estimated that sludge generation
would not increase at facilities that are currently operating treatment
systems comparable to the regulatory options. EPA used the cost models
to estimate the incremental sludge generation rates for facilities not
currently operating wastewater treatment and for facilities operating
wastewater treatment not comparable to the regulatory operations.
EPA calculated the volume of sludge that would be generated by the
183 in-scope flow-through and recirculating facilities after
implementation of the regulatory options. The sludge volume estimated,
on a wet basis (assuming 5% solids), would be an additional 856,576
pounds at Option 1 and an additional1,788,194 pounds at Option 3.
[[Page 57914]]
XII. Implementation
A. Regulatory Implementation of Part 451 Through the NPDES Permit
Program and the National Pretreatment Program
Under sections 301, 304, 306 and 307 of the CWA, EPA promulgates
national effluent limitations guidelines and standards of performance
for major industrial categories for three classes of pollutants: (1)
Conventional pollutants (i.e., total suspended solids, oil and grease,
biochemical oxygen demand, fecal coliform, and pH); (2) toxic
pollutants (e.g., toxic metals such as chromium, lead, nickel, and
zinc; toxic organic pollutants such as benzene, benzo-a-pyrene, phenol,
and naphthalene); and (3) non-conventional pollutants (e.g., ammonia-N,
formaldehyde, and phosphorus).
As discussed in Section II, EPA considers development of six types
of effluent limitations guidelines and standards for each major
industrial category, as appropriate:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effluent limitation guideline or
Abbreviation standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPT................................... Best Practicable Control
Technology Currently Available.
BAT................................... Best Available Technology
Economically Achievable.
BCT................................... Best Control Technology for
Conventional Pollutants.
NSPS.................................. New Source Performance
Standards.
PSES.................................. Pretreatment Standards for
Existing Sources.
PSNS.................................. Pretreatment Standards for New
Sources.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretreatment standards apply to industrial facilities with
wastewater discharges to POTWs. The effluent limitations guidelines and
new source performance standards apply to industrial facilities with
direct discharges to navigable waters.
1. NPDES Permit Program
Section 402 of the CWA establishes the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. The NPDES permit program is
designed to limit the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters of
the United States through a combination of various requirements
including technology-based and water quality-based effluent
limitations. This proposed regulation contains the technology-based
effluent limitations guidelines and standards applicable to the
concentrated aquatic animal production industry to be used by permit
writers to derive NPDES permit technology-based effluent limitations.
Water quality-based effluent limitations (WQBELs) are based on
receiving water characteristics and ambient water quality standards,
including designated water uses. They are derived independently from
the technology-based effluent limitations set out in this proposed
regulation. The CWA requires that NPDES permits must contain for a
given discharge, the more stringent of the applicable technology-based
and water quality-based effluent limitations.
Section 402(a)(1) of the CWA provides that in the absence of
promulgated effluent limitations guidelines or standards, the
Administrator, or her designee, may establish technology-based effluent
limitations for specific dischargers on a case-by-case basis. Federal
NPDES permit regulations provide that these limits may be established
using ``best professional judgment'' (BPJ) taking into account any
proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards and other
relevant scientific, technical and economic information.
Section 301 of the CWA, as amended by the Water Quality Act of
1987, requires that BAT effluent limitations for toxic pollutants are
to have been achieved as expeditiously as possible, but not later than
three years from date of promulgation of such limitations and in no
case later than March 31, 1989. See 301(b)(2). Because the proposed
revisions to 40 CFR Part 451 will be promulgated after March 31, 1989,
NPDES permit effluent limitations based on the revised effluent
limitations guidelines must be included in the next NPDES permit issued
after promulgation of the regulation and the permit must require
immediate compliance.
2. New Source Performance Standards
New sources must comply with the new source performance standards
and limitations of the CAAP rule (once it is finalized) at the time
they commence discharging CAAP process wastewater. Because the final
rule is not expected within 120 days of the proposed rule, the Agency
considers a discharger a new source if construction of the source
begins after promulgation of the final rule. EPA expects to take final
action on this proposal in June 2004.
3. Pollutants in Intake Water (Net limitations)
The TSS limitations being proposed today are based on the
implementation of production management controls and wastewater
treatment. Depending upon the quality of the intake water and the
specific needs and tolerance of the species being raised, some
facilities may or may not currently employ pre-treatment of intake
waters prior to their use in the production systems. EPA does not
intend that the limits being established today would force facilities
that otherwise would not be pre-treating their intake waters to do so.
EPA is proposing to apply the TSS limitations on a net basis, such that
the TSS content of the intake waters is subtracted from the TSS content
of the effluent in determining compliance with the limitation. This
credit for intake water pollutant content is consistent with the
provisions of 40 CFR 122.45(g) and more closely reflects the ability of
controls and treatment to minimize the addition of TSS by the
production systems. EPA solicits comment on whether facilities that
pre-treat intake waters in order to sustain growth of the aquatic
organisms should base the net calculations upon the content of the
intake waters subsequent to that pre-treatment, but prior to use in the
production system.
4. National Pretreatment Standards
40 CFR part 403 sets out national pretreatment standards which have
three principal objectives: (1) To prevent the introduction of
pollutants into publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) that will
interfere with POTW operations including use or disposal of municipal
sludge; (2) to prevent the introduction of pollutants into POTWs which
will pass through the treatment works or will otherwise be incompatible
with the treatment works; and (3) to improve opportunities to recycle
and reclaim municipal and industrial wastewaters and sludges.
The national pretreatment and categorical standards comprise a
series of prohibited discharges to prevent the discharge of ``any
pollutant(s) which cause Pass Through or Interference.'' [see 40 CFR
403.5(a)(1)]
Local control authorities are required to implement the
national pretreatment program including application of the federal
categorical pretreatment standards to their industrial users that are
subject to such categorical pretreatment standards, as well as any
pretreatment standards derived locally (i.e., local limits) that are
more restrictive than the federal standards. This proposed regulation
does not set federal categorical pretreatment standards (PSES and PSNS)
applicable to concentrated aquatic animal production facilities
regulated by 40 CFR part 451.
The federal categorical pretreatment standards for existing sources
must be achieved not later than three years
[[Page 57915]]
following the date of publication of the final standards. If EPA were
to promulgate PSNS in the final rule, CAAP new sources would be
required to comply with the new source performance standards of the
CAAP rule (once it is finalized) at the time they commence discharging
CAAP process wastewater. Because the final rule is not expected within
120 days of the proposed rule, the Agency considers an indirect
discharger a new source if its construction commences following
promulgation of the final rule (40 CFR 122.2; 40 CFR 403.3). EPA
expects to take final action on this proposal in June 2004.
In addition, Section 403.7 of the Clean Water Act provides the
criteria and procedures to be used by a Control Authority to grant a
categorical industrial user (CIU) variance from a pollutant limit
specified in a categorical pretreatment standard to reflect removal by
the POTW treatment plant of the pollutant. Procedures for granting
removal credits are specified in 40 CFR 403.11.
B. Upset and Bypass Provisions
A ``bypass'' is an intentional diversion of the streams from any
portion of a treatment facility. An ``upset'' is an exceptional
incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance
with technology-based permit effluent limitations because of factors
beyond the reasonable control of the permittee. EPA's regulations
concerning bypasses and upsets for direct dischargers are set forth at
40 CFR 122.41(m) and (n) and for indirect dischargers at 40 CFR 403.16
and 403.17.
C. Variances and Modifications
The CWA requires application of effluent limitations established
pursuant to Section 301 or pretreatment standards of Section 307 to all
direct and indirect dischargers. However, the statute provides for the
modification of these national requirements in a limited number of
circumstances. Moreover, the Agency has established administrative
mechanisms to provide an opportunity for relief from the application of
the national effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards
for categories of existing sources for toxic, conventional, and
nonconventional pollutants.
1. Fundamentally Different Factors Variances
EPA, with the concurrence of the State, may develop effluent
limitations or standards different from the otherwise applicable
requirements if an individual discharging facility is fundamentally
different with respect to factors considered in establishing the
limitation of standards applicable to the individual facility. Such a
modification is known as a ``fundamentally different factors'' (FDF)
variance. Early on, EPA, by regulation provided for the FDF
modifications from the BCT effluent limitations, BAT limitations for
toxic and nonconventional pollutants and BPT limitations for
conventional pollutants for direct dischargers. For indirect
dischargers, EPA provided for FDF modifications from pretreatment
standards. FDF variances for toxic pollutants were challenged
judicially and ultimately sustained by the Supreme Court. (Chemical
Manufacturers Assn v. NRDC, 479 U.S. 116 (1985)).
Subsequently, in the Water Quality Act of 1987, Congress added new
section 301(n) of the Act explicitly to authorize modifications of the
otherwise applicable BAT effluent limitations or categorical
pretreatment standards for existing sources if a facility is
fundamentally different with respect to the factors specified in
section 304 (other than costs) from those considered by EPA in
establishing the effluent limitations or pretreatment standard. Section
301(n) also defined the conditions under which EPA may establish
alternative requirements. Under section 301(n), an application for
approval of a FDF variance must be based solely on (1) information
submitted during rulemaking raising the factors that are fundamentally
different or (2) information the applicant did not have an opportunity
to submit. The alternate limitation or standard must be no less
stringent than justified by the difference and must not result in
markedly more adverse non-water quality environmental impacts than the
national limitation or standard.
EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 125, subpart D, authorizing the
Regional Administrators to establish alternative limitations and
standards, further detail the substantive criteria used to evaluate FDF
variance requests for direct dischargers. Thus, 40 CFR 125.31(d)
identifies six factors (e.g., volume of process wastewater, age and
size of a discharger's facility) that may be considered in determining
if a facility is fundamentally different. The Agency must determine
whether, on the basis of one or more of these factors, the facility in
question is fundamentally different from the facilities and factors
considered by EPA in developing the nationally applicable effluent
guidelines. The regulation also lists four other factors (e.g.,
infeasibility of installation within the time allowed or a discharger's
ability to pay) that may not provide a basis for an FDF variance. In
addition, under 40 CFR 125.31(b) (3), a request for limitations less
stringent than the national limitation may be approved only if
compliance with the national limitations would result in either (a) a
removal cost wholly out of proportion to the removal cost considered
during development of the national limitations, or (b) a non-water
quality environmental impact (including energy requirements)
fundamentally more adverse than the impact considered during
development of the national limits. EPA regulations provide for an FDF
variance for indirect dischargers at 40 CFR 403.13. The conditions for
approval of a request to modify applicable pretreatment standards and
factors considered are the same as those for direct dischargers.
The legislative history of Section 301(n) underscores the necessity
for the FDF variance applicant to establish eligibility for the
variance. EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 125.32(b)(1) are explicit in
imposing this burden upon the applicant. The applicant must show that
the factors relating to the discharge controlled by the applicant's
permit which are claimed to be fundamentally different are, in fact,
fundamentally different from those factors considered by EPA in
establishing the applicable guidelines. The criteria for applying for
and evaluating applications for variances from categorical pretreatment
standards are included in the pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR
403.13(h)(9). In practice, very few FDF variances have been granted for
past ELGs. An FDF variance is not available to a new source subject to
NSPS or PSNS.
2. Economic Variances
Section 301(c) of the CWA authorizes a variance from the otherwise
applicable BAT effluent guidelines for nonconventional pollutants due
to economic factors. The request for a variance from effluent
limitations developed from BAT guidelines must normally be filed by the
discharger during the public notice period for the draft permit. Other
filing time periods may apply, as specified in 40 CFR 122.21(1)(2).
Specific guidance for this type of variance is available from EPA's
Office of Wastewater Management. For the proposed rule, this variance
is not applicable since BAT equals BPT.
3. Water Quality Variances
Section 301(g) of the CWA authorizes a variance from BAT effluent
guidelines for certain nonconventional pollutants
[[Page 57916]]
due to localized environmental factors. These pollutants include
ammonia, chlorine, color, iron, and total phenols. For the proposed
rule, this variance is not applicable since BAT equals BPT and none of
the above authorized pollutants are being proposed for regulation for
this industry.
D. Best Management Practices
Sections 304(e), 308(a), 402(a), and 501(a) of the CWA authorize
the Administrator to prescribe BMPs as part of effluent limitations
guidelines and standards or as part of a permit. EPA's BMP regulations
are found at 40 CFR 122.44(k). Section 304(e) of the CWA authorizes EPA
to include BMPs in effluent limitations guidelines for certain toxic or
hazardous pollutants for the purpose of controlling ``plant site
runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, and drainage from
raw material storage.'' Section 402(a)(1) and NPDES regulations [40 CFR
122.44(k)]
also provide for best management practices to control or
abate the discharge of pollutants when numeric limitations and
standards are infeasible. In addition, Section 402(a)(2), read in
concert with Section 501(a), authorizes EPA to prescribe as wide a
range of permit conditions as the Administrator deems appropriate in
order to ensure compliance with applicable effluent limitations and
standards and such other requirements as the Administrator deems
appropriate.
The solids control best management plan includes components that
are designed to minimize the discharge of solids from the facility. The
goal of this plan is to control conventional and nutrient pollutants in
the discharge. The CAAP facility is expected to provide written
documentation of a best management plan and keep necessary records to
establish and implement the plan. This type of regulatory structure
will enable the individual facility operator to develop a plan tailored
to the unique conditions at the CAAP facility, which reduces the
discharge of pollutants consistent with the goals of the Clean Water
Act. See CAAP Development Document for this proposed rule for a
detailed discussion of pollution prevention and best management
practices used in the CAAP industry.
E. Potential Tools To Assist With the Remediation of Aquaculture
Effluents
A potential option to assist land owners with aquaculture effluent
quality is the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). This is
a voluntary USDA conservation program. EQIP was reauthorized in the
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Farm Bill 2002). The
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) administers EQIP funds.
EQIP applications are accepted throughout the year. NRCS evaluates
each application using a state and locally developed evaluation
process. Incentive payments may be made to encourage a producer to
adopt land management, manure management, integrated pest management,
irrigation water management and wildlife habitat management practices
or to develop a Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan (CNMP). These
practices would provide beneficial effects on reducing sediment and
nutrient loads to those aquaculture operations dependent on surface
water flows. In addition, opportunities exist to provide EQIP funds to
foster the adoption of innovative cost effective approaches to address
a broad base of conservation needs, including aquaculture effluent
remediation.
XIII. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866: ``Regulatory Planning and Review''
Under Executive Order 12866 [58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993], the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.''
It has been determined that this proposed rule is a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866. As such,
this action was submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in response
to OMB suggestions or recommendations are documented in the public
record.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that has no
more than $0.75 million in annual revenues; (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school
district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and
(3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impact of today's proposed rule on
small entities, including consideration of alternative regulatory
approaches being proposed, I certify that this action will not have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
We have determined that 17small commercial facilities (which represents
5 percent of the total small CAAPs or 47% of small CAAPs within the
scope of the rule), would incur compliance costs greater than 1 percent
of aquaculture revenue and 10 small commerical facilities (which
represents less than 3 percent of the total small CAAPs or 28% of small
CAAPs within the scope of the rule) would incur compliance costs
greater than 3 percent of aquaculture revenue. Of the 10 small
regulated CAAPs incurring costs in excess of 3 percent of revenues, the
highest impact is at 7 percent of revenues. EPA estimates that small
businesses own 36 facilities out of the 56 commercial facilities
identified from the screener survey data as being within the proposed
scope EPA based this estimate on information from the screener survey
and the 1998 Census of Aquaculture as described in Section IV. EPA
assumed that there were no multi-facility small businesses and that
aquatic animal production was the only source of revenues for a
facility. For this proposal, EPA is using the ratio of pre-tax
annualized compliance costs to revenues (hereafter referred to as a
revenue test) as its preliminary
[[Page 57917]]
determination of economic achievability in advance of detailed survey
data (see Section IX for discussion). (More detail on these estimates
is provided in the EA).
We have also determined that three of the six non-profit
associations for which EPA had reported revenue data would incur
compliance costs greater than 1 percent of revenue and one association
would incur compliance costs greater than 3 percent of revenue. Non-
profit organizations produce salmon for the State of Alaska and are
considered to be small non-profit organizations for the purpose of this
rulemaking. These non-profit facilities have assumed what is usually a
State function, which is to raise fish (in this case salmon) in
hatcheries to be released into the wild to supplement wild populations
and sustain the Alaska commercial and recreational fishing industries.
EPA identified 12 small Alaskan nonprofit facilities, owned by 8
nonprofit associations, within the proposed scope. These facilities
raise salmon in flow-through hatcheries and as discussed above we
propose to establish requirements for flow-through facilities with
annual production greater than 100,000.
Despite the determination that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
EPA prepared a small business flexibility analysis that examines the
impact of the proposed rule on small entities along with regulatory
alternatives that could reduce that impact. This small business
flexibility analysis would meet the requirements for an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and is available for review in
the docket and is summarized below.
The Agency is considering this action because the operation of CAAP
facilities may introduce a variety of pollutants into receiving waters.
Under some conditions, these pollutants can be harmful to the
environment. According to the 1998 USDA Census of Aquaculture (USDA,
2000), there are approximately 4,200 commercial aquatic animal
production (AAP) facilities in the United States that qualify as small
businesses. Aquaculture has been among the fastest-growing sectors of
agriculture until a recent slowdown that began several years ago caused
by declining or level growth among producers of several major species.
EPA analysis indicates that many CAAP facilities have treatment
technologies in place that greatly reduce pollutant loads. However, in
the absence of treatment, pollutant loads from individual CAAP
facilities such as those covered by today's proposed rule, can
contribute up to several thousand pounds of nitrogen and phosphorus per
year, and tens to hundreds of thousands of pounds of TSS per year (see
CAAP Economic Analysis). These pollutants, can contribute to
eutrophication and other aquatic ecosystem responses to excess nutrient
loads and BOD effects. In recent years, Illinois, Louisiana, North
Carolina, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio and Virginia have cited the
AAP industry as a potential or contributing source of impairment to
water bodies (EPA, 2000). Several state authorities have set water
quality based permit requirements for CAAP facilities in addition to
technology based limits based on BPJ (EPA, 2002b).
Another area of potential concern relates to non-native species
introductions from CAAP facilities, which may pose risks to native
fishery resources and wild native aquatic species from the
establishment of escaped individuals (Hallerman and Kapuscinski, 1992;
Carlton, 2001; Volpe et al., 2000). CAAP facilities also employ a range
of drugs and chemicals used both therapeutically that may be released
into receiving waters. For some investigational drugs, as well as for
certain applications of approved drugs, there is a concern that further
information is needed to fully evaluate risks to ecosystems and human
health associated with their use in some situations (EPA, 2002).
Finally, CAAP facilities also may inadvertently introduce pathogens
into receiving waters, with potential impacts on native biota. Today's
proposed rule attempts to address a number of these environmental
concerns. These regulations are proposed under the authority of
sections 301, 304, 306, 308, 402, and 501 of the Clean Water Act, 33
U.S.C.1311, 1314, 1316, 1318, 1342, and 1361.
The small entities that would be directly regulated by this
proposed rule are small commercial CAAP facilities and non-profit
organizations that produce salmon for the State of Alaska. EPA
estimates that small businesses own 36 facilities out ofthe 56
commercial facilities identified from the screener survey data as
within the proposed scope. We have determined that 17 small commercial
facilities (which represents 5 percent of the total small CAAPFs) would
incur compliance costs greater than 1 percent of aquaculture revenue
and 10 small commercial facilities (which represents less than 3
percent of the total small CAAPFs) would incur compliance costs greater
than 3 percent of aquaculture revenue. EPA identified 12 small Alaskan
nonprofit facilities, owned by 8 nonprofit associations, within the
proposed scope. We have determined that three of the six associations
for which EPA had reported revenue data would incur compliance costs
greater than 1 percent of revenue and one association would incur
compliance costs greater than 3 percent of revenue.
The proposed regulation includes reporting and recordkeeping
requirements as discussed in this section under Paperwork Reduction
Act.
EPA identified Federal rules that have an impact on the CAAP
industry and believe that there are no such rules that would duplicate,
overlap or conflict with the proposed rule. EPA has identified two sets
of Federal rules, however, the implementation of which would be
supplemented by the proposed requirements in today's notice--
specifically, the reporting requirements proposed for certain drugs and
chemicals. Today's rule would require reporting of investigational new
animal drugs and any drug that is not used according to label
requirements. Regulations administered by the Food and Drug
Administration published at 21 CFR part 511 impose restrictions on such
usage, but typically do not require reporting of the usage after
discharge to waters of the United States. Similarly, today's rule would
require reporting of the usage (and discharge) of chemicals when such
usage does not comply with label requirements. Some such chemicals
would be pesticides subject to regulatory requirements under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which is
administered by EPA. EPA has not published FIFRA requirements to
require the reporting proposed today for CAAP facilities.
EPA invites comment on whether there are other Federal rules that
may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the proposed rule.
EPA has tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities.
EPA is proposing production thresholds that would minimize
disproportionate economic impacts on small entities. EPA is not
proposing any new requirements for 95 percent of the small entities
producing aquatic animals (including facilities that are not defined as
CAAP facilities) or 86 percent of the small CAAPFs identified in the
screener data. Most of these are owned by small businesses and would
likely experience serious economic impacts if requirements were
imposed. EPA considered regulating all facilities that met the
definition of a CAAP facility but concluded that the potential for
impacts was great enough that CAAP facilities
[[Page 57918]]
which produce cold-water species with an annual production less than
100,000 pounds should not be subject to the proposed effluent
guidelines. EPA determined that even proposing the least stringent
option (Option 1) standards for these direct dischargers would have had
a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, see
Section VIII and IX.
Additionally, we conducted outreach to small entities and convened
a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel to obtain the advice and
recommendations of representatives of the small entities that
potentially would be subject to the rule's requirements. The Agency
convened the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on January 22, 2002.
Members of the Panel represented the Office of Management and Budget,
the Small Business Administration and EPA. The Panel met with small
entity representatives (SERs) to discuss the potential effluent
guidelines and, in addition to the oral comments from SERs, the Panel
solicited written input. In the months preceding the Panel process, EPA
conducted outreach with small entities that would potentially be
affected by this regulation. On January 25, 2002, the SBAR Panel sent
some initial information for the SERs to review and provide comment. On
February 6, 2002 the SBAR Panel distributed additional information to
the SERs for their review. On February 12 and 13, the Panel met with
SERs to hear their comments on the information distributed in these
mailings. The Panel also received written comments from the SERs in
response to the discussions at this meeting and the outreach materials.
The Panel asked SERs to evaluate how they would be affected and to
provide advice and recommendations regarding early ideas to provide
flexibility. See Section 8 of the Panel Report for a complete
discussion of SER comments.
The Panel evaluated the assembled materials and small-entity
comments on issues related to the elements of the IRFA. A copy of the
Panel report is included in the docket for this proposed rule [DCN
31019]. The Panel's most significant findings and discussion with
respect to each of these issues are summarized below. For a full
discussion of the Panel findings and recommendations, see Section 9 of
the Panel report.
Scope: Based on the data provided by EPA, the Panel was concerned
that small facilities could not afford technology-based discharge
limitations. For those facilities that do not meet the NPDES permit
applicability thresholds, the Panel strongly recommended that EPA not
lower these thresholds or otherwise change the definition of a point
source for this industry. For those that do meet the threshold but are
still considered small entities, the Panel recommended that EPA exclude
them from the scope of the proposed guidelines.
EPA Response: EPA is not proposing effluent guidelines for
facilities that do not meet the definition of a CAAP facility under the
NPDES permit program or modifying the definition of a point source.
Furthermore, EPA is not proposing effluent guidelines requirements for
any small CAAP facilities which produce cold water species between less
than 100,000 pounds annually or any CAAP facilities which use pond
systems. As described above EPA certifies that this proposal will not
impose a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
EPA is regulating small business above the threshold because further
analysis reveals best available technologies that are affordable.
Pond Systems: The Panel agreed that pond systems producing any
species as foodfish, stockers, sportfish, or baitfish did not pose any
significant risk to water quality or have technologies available that
were economically achievable to control their minimal discharges, and
thus recommended excluding them from the scope of the proposed
guidelines. For large pond systems, except for perhaps those which
rapidly drain for harvest, the Panel recommended that EPA not adopt any
requirements related to sediment discharge, erosion, nutrients, or feed
management, as the measures considered are either impractical, not
economically achievable, or would result in minimal pollutant
reductions. EPA is still exploring requirements for drugs, chemicals,
aquatic pathogens and exotic species, but based on information
developed to date, the Panel believed it unlikely that the measures
that have been identified so far would be effective in addressing these
concerns. The Panel thus recommended that EPA continue its research,
but that it carefully evaluate any potential measures to ensure that
they are both effective and economically achievable before including
them in proposed guidelines. Unless EPA identified such measures, the
Panel recommended that EPA exclude all ponds from coverage under the
proposed guidelines.
EPA Response: EPA followed this Panel recommendation.
Flow-through and Recirculating Systems: Because of their diversity
and/or the preliminary cost information, the Panel recommended that EPA
carefully consider economic achievability and technical feasibility
before proposing any regulation for these types of systems. If no
feasible and economically achievable technologies are identified, EPA
should exclude them from the scope of the proposed guidelines. In
particular, the Panel was concerned about Alaska Salmon facilities and
recommended that EPA carefully consider not proposing requirements for
them.
EPA Response: EPA's analysis of flow-through systems including the
salmon non-profit facilities in Alaska support the decision to propose
technology based requirements for the medium and large flow-through
systems. EPA is proposing to exclude from this regulation salmon net
pen production in the State of Alaska for the reasons stated previously
in Section V.B. EPA's analysis indicates that the medium sized
facilities cannot afford to achieve the same effluent limitations as
larger flow-through facilities and therefore, EPA proposes to establish
tiered requirements for the flow-through subcategory based on
production thresholds. EPA believes that the proposed requirements for
recirculating systems are also technically feasible and economically
achievable.
Net Pen Systems: SERs identified practical limitations and raised
concerns about the cost effectiveness of the measures under
consideration, and so the Panel recommended that EPA consider these
concerns before including them in proposed national effluent
guidelines.
EPA Response: EPA considers the proposed net pen system
requirements (BMPs, reporting, and active feed monitoring) to be cost
effective and economically achievable.
Other Systems: The Panel recommended that EPA exclude aquaria,
baitfish, and molluscan shellfish production from the scope of proposed
guidelines, unless new information prompted EPA to reconsider. For
ornamentals, the Panel recommended against inclusion unless drug or
chemical use or the release of non-native species is found to pose a
significant environmental risk and EPA identifies effective
economically achievable technologies to address them. As for alligator
systems, the Panel was concerned about the survival of the species and
thus recommended that EPA analyze the impacts on wild species and
consider such effects in its selection of options.
EPA Response: EPA is not proposing to establish effluent guidelines
requirements for any pond systems, which are the most common systems
[[Page 57919]]
used to produce baitfish and ornamentals. EPA does not believe
alligator producers are CAAP facilities and therefore would not be
subject to these proposed requirements. EPA is also proposing to
exclude aquaria from this regulation as described in Section V.B.
Health Management and Feed Management: The Panel was persuaded by
the SER comments and recommended that the proposed guidelines not
include any requirements related to animal health maintenance or feed
management. The only exception was for net pens, for which EPA is
proposing feed management requirements as described previously. The
Panel also agreed that EPA should consider providing guidance on
appropriate health and feed management practices.
EPA Response: EPA is not proposing to impose any requirement
related to health management for any facilities. EPA does not propose
feed management for flow-through and recirculating systems, except to
identify and implement practices that minimize the addition of excess
feed should facilities choose to comply with the alternative compliance
provision (40 CFR 451.4). Also for flow-through facilities that have
bulk flow discharged separately from the off-line settling, the bulk
flow is subject to BMPs to minimize solids including excess feed.
Active feed monitoring would be required for net pen systems.
Settling Basins: The Panel recommended, based on SER comments, that
limitations based on the use of settling basins not be included in the
proposed guidelines at pond-based systems that utilize slow, controlled
drainage techniques. For other systems, the Panel recommended that any
requirements related to solids removal be flexible enough to
accommodate facilities where settling basins are not a viable option.
Similarly, the Panel was persuaded that numeric sediment limits were
not appropriate for pond systems. For other systems, the Panel
recommended that EPA provide alternative requirements, such as BMPs, in
lieu of numeric limitations. Finally, the Panel recommended that any
monitoring requirements included in the effluent guidelines be kept to
a minimum and limited only to where useful to the operator.
EPA Response: EPA is not proposing to establish any requirements
for pond systems. EPA is proposing to establish limits for TSS based on
sediment control such as settling basins for medium and large flow-
through and recirculating systems, however, facilities are not
constrained to construct and use settling basins in order to comply
with the requirements. The Agency also proposes to provide an
alternative compliance provision which would allow producers to comply
with this regulation through the development and implementation of a
BMP plan instead of numerical limitations.
Groundwater Protection, Disinfection and Manure Application: The
Panel was persuaded by SER comments on groundwater protection,
disinfection, and land application of manure and recommended that EPA
not include any requirements for these topics.
EPA Response: EPA followed this Panel recommendation.
Microfiltration: The Panel was also concerned about the economic
achievability of limitations based either on microfiltration or
chemical precipitation and thus recommended that EPA reconsider any
such requirement. The Panel also recommended that any requirements
related to solids removal be flexible enough to accommodate facilities
where these technologies are not economically achievable.
EPA Response: EPA is proposing to establish effluent limits for TSS
based on the performance of microfiltration, but only for large flow-
through systems and recirculating systems. But these limitations do not
preclude the use of other technologies or practices to comply with
these limitations. EPA has estimated the cost of applying
microfiltration and found limitations to be economically achievable for
large flow-through and recirculating systems. EPA is proposing to
provide a compliance alternative that would allow facilities to develop
and implement a BMP plan in lieu of complying with the numeric
limitations.
Quiescent Zones: SERs raised compelling concerns about implementing
quiescent zones in existing earthen raceways and thus the Panel
recommended that EPA re-evaluate the need for and practicability of
such a requirement. The Panel also recommended that any requirements
related to solids removal be flexible enough to accommodate facilities
where quiescent zones are not a viable option.
EPA Response: EPA is not proposing any requirements for the
smallest flow-through facilities which are the facilities most likely
to be earthen. The proposed limitations for TSS for the medium and
large flow-through facilities are based on the application of quiescent
zones and off-line settling, but facilities may use other technologies
to achieve the limitations and may comply through the development and
implementation of a BMP plan in lieu of complying with the numeric
limitations.
Pathogens: The Panel questioned whether national effluent
guidelines would provide any additional environmental protection
relative to existing practice. The Panel thus recommended that EPA
address pathogen concerns through guidance rather than through effluent
guidelines requirements, unless subsequent analysis identifies control
strategies that can be effectively implemented through national
effluent guidelines that would be economically achievable for affected
facilities.
EPA Response: EPA is not proposing any specific requirements for
the control of pathogens. Control of diseases is managed by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's, Animal Plant Health Inspection Service.
This proposal would require large flow-through and other facilities to
establish practices as part of their BMP plan that address removing
mortalities from the system and properly disposing of them. This
provision should minimize the potential for discharging pathogens.
Drugs and Chemicals: The Panel found that drug and chemical use is
in most cases already adequately regulated, and was unable to identify
any particular technology or BMP that would be broadly applicable or
effective in addressing concerns related to discharge of drugs or
chemicals. Thus, unless subsequent analysis identifies control
strategies that can be effectively implemented through national
effluent guidelines that would be economically achievable for the
affected facilities, the Panel recommended that EPA address concerns
regarding the discharge of drugs and chemicals through guidance rather
than through effluent guidelines requirements.
EPA Response: EPA proposes to require regulated facilities to
report to the permitting authority the use of a drug or chemical that
is an investigational new animal drug, and any drug or chemical that is
not used in accordance with the label requirements. This would include
investigational new animal drugs or drugs that are being used under the
supervision and at the direction of a licensed veterinarian. EPA
believes these reporting requirements are necessary to provide the
permitting authority with sufficient information to determine whether
additional action is warranted, and to enable action to be taken to
control the discharge of these pollutants if so warranted.
Non-Native Species: The Panel found that national effluent
guidelines are not the best way to deal with non-native species, and
recommended that EPA
[[Page 57920]]
defer to the States or to other Federal agencies that have the
authority to prohibit or control the importation of exotic species. For
those species not prohibited that still have a potential to either
become a nuisance or non-native species or that may carry diseases that
pose a threat to native aquatic species, the Panel recommended that EPA
work with these agencies to develop and implement appropriate
protection and controls and provide guidance to States.
EPA Response: EPA proposes to require recirculatory, net pen and
large flow-through facilities to develop and implement practices which
minimize the potential escape of non-native species. EPA will consider
working with these agencies to develop and implement appropriate
protection and controls.
New Facilities: The Panel found that it unlikely that compliance
costs would be significantly lower for new facilities than for existing
facilities. Therefore, the Panel recommended that the New Source
Performance Standards not be any more stringent than existing source
requirements.
EPA Response: EPA followed this panel recommendation.
Through consultation with the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel
and the JSA/AETF, EPA has tried to reduce the impact of this proposed
rule on small businesses. For example, as described under Section XI,
EPA had considered technology options for pond systems. Based on
comments provided by the Small Entity Representatives (SERs), and
members of the JSA AETF, EPA has concluded that pond systems do not
pose a significant threat to the environment and is not proposing to
establish requirements for these facilities.
We invite comments on all aspects of the proposal and its impacts
on small entities.
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year.
Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative, if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted.
Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that this rule would not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any one year. The total annual cost of this rule is estimated
to be $1.5 million. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. The facilities which
are affected by today's proposal are direct dischargers engaged in
concentrated aquatic animal production. These facilities would be
subject to today's proposed requirements through the issuance or
renewal of an NPDES permit either from the Federal EPA or authorized
State governments. These facilities should already have NPDES permits
as the Clean Water Act requires a permit be held by any point source
discharger before that facility may discharge wastewater pollutants
into surface waters. Therefore, today's proposal could require these
permits to be revised to comply with revised Federal standards, but
should not require a new permit program be implemented.
EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. EPA is not proposing to establish pretreatment standards
for this point source category which are applied to indirect
dischargers and overseen by Control Authorities. Local governments are
frequently the pretreatment Control Authority but since this regulation
proposes no pretreatment standards, there would be no impact imposed on
local governments. EPA proposed requirements are not expected to impact
any tribal governments, either as producers or because facilities are
located on tribal lands. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the
requirements of section 203 of UMRA.
D. Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks''
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health and
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because
it is not economically significant under Executive Order 12866, nor
does it concern an environmental health or safety risk that may have a
disproportionate effect on children.
E. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes,
or on this distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
[[Page 57921]]
EPA does not believe any CAAP facility that would be subject to these
proposed requirements are located on tribal lands. Nor is EPA aware of
any tribes engaged in the production of aquatic animals subject to
these proposed requirements. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply
to this rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and tribal governments,
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from
tribal officials.
F. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in today's proposed rule
have been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information Collection Request (ICR)
document has been prepared by EPA (ICR No.2087.01, OMB No. 2040-NEW)
and a copy may be obtained from Susan Auby by mail at Collection
Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T); 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at
auby.susan@epa.gov, or by calling (202) 566-1672. A copy may also be
downloaded from the internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr. In today's
proposed regulation flow-through and recurculating facilities that
would be subject to compliance with numeric limitations, however, EPA
proposes to provide an alternative compliance provision that would
allow facilities to develop and implement a BMP plan to control solids
provided the permitting authority determines the plan will achieve the
numeric limitations. Also flow-through facilities that segregate the
bulk discharge from off-line settling discharge would develop and
implement the solids control BMP plan. Larger flow-through facilities
and all recirculating and net pen facilities within the scope of this
proposed rule would also develop a BMP plan to address mortalities,
non-native species, drugs and chemicals storage. These facilities would
also be required to report to the permitting authority whenever an
investigational new animal drug is used or drug or chemical is used for
a purpose that is not in accordance with its label requirements.
EPA estimates that each plan will require 40 hours per facility to
develop the plan. The plan will be effective for the term of the permit
(5 years). An additional two hours per month (comprised of 1 hour of a
manager's time and 1 hour of a laborer's time) or 24 hours per year are
assumed to be required for implementation. EPS does not believe that
the development and implementation of these BMPs will require any
special skills.
EPA estimates that half of the flow-through and recirculating
facilities (92 facilities) would choose to comply with the compliance
alternative provision and incur the estimated 40 hours for plan
development plus 24 hours per year for implementation. An estimated 10
percent of the flow-through facilities (10 facilities) may have
segregated discharges of bulk flow and off-line settling. These
facilities would also be required to develop the BMP plan for solids
control and incur the estimated 40 hours for plan development and an
additional 24 hours per year for implementation. All recirculating, net
pen and large flow-through facilities would be required to develop and
implement the BMP plan addressing non-native species releases, drug and
chemical storage and mortality removal. This BMP plan is estimated to
require 40 hours for development and 24 hours per year for
implementation.
Facilities that develop a BMP plan would be required to certify
that they have developed and are implementing the BMP plan. The burden
for CAAP facilities associated with this certification is included in
the 40 hours required to develop this plan. The estimated burden for
Federal and State permitting authorities to review, approve and file
these certifications is estimated to be 20 minutes per certification.
The Compliance Alternative Provision requires the permitting authority
to determine that the plan will achieve the numeric limits. EPA
estimates that permitting authorities will expend 16 hours per permit
to make this determination.
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.
Comments are requested 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. Send comments on the ICR to the
Director, Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (2822); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; and
to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503, marked
``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number (No.
2087.01) in any correspondence. Since OMB is required to make a
decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after September 12,
2002, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB
receives it by October 15, 2002. The final rule will respond to any OMB
or public comments on the information collection requirements contained
in this proposal.
G. Executive Order 13132: ``Federalism''
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
This proposed rule does not have Federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. EPA estimates that, when
promulgated, these revised effluent guidelines and standards will be
incorporated into NPDES permits without any additional costs to
authorized States.
Further, the revised regulations would not alter the basic State-
Federal scheme established in the Clean Water Act under which EPA
authorizes States to carry out the NPDES permitting program. EPA
expects the revised regulations to have little effect, if any,
[[Page 57922]]
on the relationship between, or the distribution of power and
responsibilities among, the Federal, State and local governments. Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communication between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule
from State and local governments.
H. Executive Order 12898: ``Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations''
The requirements of the Environmental Justice Executive Order are
that EPA will review the environmental effects of major Federal actions
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. For such
actions, EPA reviewers will focus on the spatial distribution of human
health, social and economic effects to ensure that agency decision
makers are aware of the extent to which those impacts fall
disproportionately on covered communities.'' This is not a major
action. Further, EPA does not believe this rulemaking will have a
disproportionate effect on minority or low income communities because
the technology-based effluent limitations guidelines are uniformly
applied nationally irrespective of geographic location. The proposed
regulation will reduce the negative effects of concentrated aquatic
animal production industry waste in our nation's waters to benefit all
of society, including minority and low-income communities. The cost
impacts of the rule should likewise not disproportionately affect low-
income communities given the relatively low economic impacts of the
rule.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub L. 104-113 Sec. 12(d) 15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standard bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
Today's proposed rule does not establish any technical standards,
thus NTTAA does not apply to this rule. It should be noted, however,
that the proposed rule would require certain facilities that produce
aquatic animal products to monitor for TSS. Consensus standards for TSS
were previously approved and are specified in the tables at 40 CFR
136.3.
J. Executive Order 13211: ``Energy Effects''
This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use''
(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. As part
of the Agency's consideration of Non-Water Quality Impacts, EPA has
estimated the energy consumption associated with today's proposed
requirements. EPA estimates that concentrated aquatic animal production
facilities would incrementally increase energy consumption for flow-
through and recirculating systems at 232,000 kWh and 64,500 kWh for net
pen systems. EPA estimated the annual electric energy use at an average
individual flow-through system facility to be about 30,000 to 136,000
kWh per year and at average individual recirculating system facilities
to be about 1.6 million kWh per year. The per facility annual increase
in electricity use ranges from 4.3 to 18.9 % in average flow-though
facilities and about 0.4% for average recirculating facilities. (See
Chapter 11 of the CAAP Development Document for more details).
Comparing the estimated annual increase in electric use associated with
these proposed requirements to national annual energy use, EPA
estimates the increase in electricity resulting from the proposed
regulation to be 6.4 x 10 -8 % of national energy use.
Therefore, we have concluded that this rule is not likely to have any
adverse energy effects.
K. Plain Language
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in
plain language. We invite your comments on how to make this proposed
rule easier to understand. For example, have we organized the material
to suit your needs? Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?
Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of
headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand? Would more
(but shorter) sections be better? Could we improve clarity by adding
tables, lists, or diagrams? What else could we do to make the rule
easier to understand?
XIV. Solicitation of Data and Comments
A. General and Specific Comment Solicitation
EPA solicits comments on various issues specifically identified in
the preamble as well as any other issues that are not specifically
addressed in today's notice. Specifically, EPA solicits information,
data, and comment on the following topics:
• Additional information and data on the performance and
associated costs of all wastewater treatment practices currently or
potentially capable of treating CAAP wastewaters;
•
The potential of CAAP facilities to reduce water
consumption and new technologies or practices that can effectively
reuse water;
• Additional methods for estimating and monetizing benefits
associated with the proposed rule;
• The economic analysis in this proposal and the methods EPA
is considering for subsequent analyses using detailed survey data,
particularly the use of cash flow as a measure of resources available
to finance environmental compliance and suggestions for alternative
methodologies;
• Whether controls for TSS are necessary and which industry
subcategories (if any) should be subject to these potential limitations
and standards;
• Additional data and information related to instances of
CAAP indirect dischargers causing POTW interference or pass through
especially of either drugs or chemicals used by the facility;
• Whether it would be appropriate and efficacious to ban the
intentional release of non-native species, the appropriate entity to
define non-native species, and the practicality of reporting
requirements for escaped non-native species.
• How to control non-native species releases, pathogens,
antibiotics and other chemicals with technologies or practices that are
available and affordable.
• How to characterize and quantify incidental benefits from
controlling non-native species, pathogens, antibiotic, chemical
releases.
• How to characterize economic and environmental impacts
associated with antibiotic releases.
• Feed back on the proposed BMP plan, particularly on how
record
[[Page 57923]]
keeping should be used and what it should entail.
• The establishment of a phosphorus limit for existing and
new concentrated aquatic animal production facilities; how the use of
low phosphorus feeds or wastewater treatment practices (including the
actual practices used) meet current phosphorus limits set by the
permitting authority. EPA is interested in data documenting the costs
of achieving such limits, any increased sludge production as a result
of treating to remove phosphorus from wastewater and monitoring data
including the method used to analyze the phosphorus in the collected
samples.
• The establishment of a BOD limit for existing and new
recirculating facilities, and how wastewater treatment practices
(including the actual practices used) meet current BOD limits set by
the permitting authority. EPA is interested in data documenting the
costs of achieving such limits, any increased sludge production as a
result of treating to remove BOD from wastewater and monitoring data
including the method used to analyze the BOD in the collected samples.
• The appropriateness of the scope of the effluent
limitations guidelines and standards and the parameters being
considered for regulation (TSS, BOD, and phosphorus only) and whether
autocorrelation is likely to be present in the wastewater data.
• A decision not establish effluent guidelines for the CAAP
point source category. This decision may be made based on the baseline
pollutant discharges not being large enough to warrant national
regulations. In addition, EPA may conclude that due to significant
regional and facility-specific variations, it is more effective to
continue to rely on the BPJ of permit writers to establish appropriate
limitations. Finally, EPA may conclude that available technologies are
either not affordable, or provide little reduction in pollutant
discharges relative to existing practice.
XV. Guidelines for Submission of Analytical Data
EPA requests that commenters to today's proposed rule submit
analytical, flow, and production data to supplement data collected by
the Agency during the regulatory development process. To ensure that
commenter data may be effectively evaluated by the Agency, EPA has
developed the following guidelines for submission of data.
A. Types of Data Requested
EPA requests paired influent and effluent treatment data for each
of the treatment practices identified in the technology options (see
Section VII.A) as well as any additional technologies applicable to the
treatment of CAAP wastewater. EPA prefers paired influent and effluent
treatment data, but also solicits unpaired data as well.
For the systems treating CAAP process wastewater, EPA requests
paired influent and effluent treatment data from 24-hour composite
samples of flowing wastewater streams (except for analyses requiring
grab samples, such as oil and grease). This includes end-of-pipe
treatment practices and in-process treatment, recycling, or water
reuse. Submission of effluent data alone is acceptable, but the
commenters should provide evidence that the influent concentrations
contain treatable levels of the pollutants. If commenters sample their
wastewaters to respond to this proposal, EPA encourages them to sample
both the influent and effluent wastestreams.
EPA prefers that the data be submitted in an electronic format. In
addition to providing the measurement of the pollutant in each sample,
EPA requests that sites provide the detection limit (rather than
specifying zero or ``ND'') if the pollutant is non-detected in the
wastestream. Each measurement should be identified with a sample
collection date, the sampling point location, and the flow rate at that
location. For each sample or pollutant, EPA requests that the chemical
analytical method be identified.
In support of the treatment data, commenters should submit the
following items if they are available: A process diagram of the
treatment system that includes the sampling point locations; treatment
chemical addition rates; laboratory reports; influent and effluent flow
rates for each treatment unit during the sampling period; production in
each subcategory (daily values are preferred, but either production or
estimated production during the sampling period are also acceptable);
sludge or waste oil generation rates; a brief discussion of the
treatment practice sampled; and a list of CAAP operations contributing
to the sampled wastestream. If available, information on capital cost,
annual (operation and maintenance) cost, and treatment capacity should
be included for each treatment unit within the system.
B. Analytes Requested
EPA considered metals, conventional, and other nonconventional
pollutant parameters for regulation based on analytical data collected.
EPA initially identified 30 pollutants of concern for the industry (see
Section VII.C and CAAP Development Document). The Agency requests
analytical data for any of the pollutants of concern and for any other
pollutant parameters that commentors believe are of concern in the CAAP
industry. Of particular interest are BOD5, TSS, total
phosphorus, and pH data. Commentors should use the methods listed in
Table XV.C-1 or equivalent methods (generally, those approved at 40 CFR
136 for compliance monitoring), and should document the method used for
all data submissions. The methods are described in more detail in the
CAAP Development Document.
C. Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Requirements
EPA based today's proposed regulations on analytical data collected
by EPA using rigorous QA/QC checks specified in the analytical methods
listed in Table XV.C-1. These QA/QC checks include procedures specified
in each of the analytical methods, as well as procedures used for the
CAAP sampling program in accordance with EPA sampling and analysis
protocols. These QA/QC procedures include sample preservation and the
use of method blanks, matrix spikes, matrix spike duplicates,
laboratory duplicate samples, and QC standard checks (e.g., continuing
calibration blanks). Because of these rigorous checks, EPA has high
confidence in its data. Thus, EPA requests that submissions of
analytical data include any available documentation of QA/QC
procedures. However, EPA will still consider data submitted without
detailed QA/QC information. If commenters sample their wastewaters to
respond to this proposal, EPA encourages them to provide detailed
documentation of the QA/QC checks for each sample. EPA also requests
that sites collect and analyze 10 percent field duplicate samples to
assess sampling variability, and sites provide data for equipment
blanks for volatile organic pollutants when automatic compositors are
used to collect samples.
[[Page 57924]]
Table XV.C-1.--Analytical Methods for Use With CAAP Wastewaters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Method used in EPA sampling
Parameter (alternative methods)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aeromonas................................. 9260L, EPA draft method 1605
Ammonia as Nitrogen....................... 350.1, 350.2, 350.3
BOD 5-Day................................. 405.1
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD).............. 410.1
410.2
410.4
5220B
Chloride.................................. 325.2, 325.3
E. coli................................... 9221F
Enteroccocus frecium...................... 9230 B or C
Fecal Coliforms........................... SM 9221 B
Fecal Streptoccocus....................... SM 9230 B
Metals.................................... 1620 (200.7, 245.1)
Mycobacterium marinum..................... SM 9260
Volatile Organics......................... 1624 Rev. C (624)
Semivolatile Organics..................... 1625 Rev. C (625)
Nitrate/Nitrite........................... 350.1, 350.2, 350.3
Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl.................. 351.1, 351.2, 351.3, 351.4
Oil and Grease............................ 413.2
Oil and Grease (as HEM)................... 1664 A
Oxytetracycline........................... NA
pH........................................ 150.1 (SM 4500 H+ B)
Phosphorus, Total......................... 365.2, 365.3
Salmonella................................ FDA-BAM
Settleable Solids......................... 160.5, SM 2540 F ??
Sulfate................................... 375.1, 375.3, 375.4
Total Coliforms........................... SM 9221 B
Total Dissolved Phosphorus................ 365.2, 365.3
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS).............. 160.1
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)................ Lloyd Kahn (solids only),
415.1
Total Orthophosphate...................... 365.1, 365.2, 365.3
Total Suspended Solids (TSS).............. 160.2
Total Volatile Solids..................... 160.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Standard Method (SM).
Appendix A: Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations Used in This
Document
Administrator--The Administrator of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Agency--The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
BAT--The best available technology economically achievable,
applicable to effluent limitations for industrial discharges to
surface waters, as defined by Section 304(b)(2)(B) of the CWA.
BCT--The best control technology for conventional pollutants,
applicable to discharges of conventional pollutants from existing
industrial point sources, as defined by Section 304(b)(4) of the
CWA.
BOD5--Biochemical Oxygen Demand measured over a five
day period.
BPJ--Best Professional Judgment.
BPT--The best practicable control technology currently
available, applicable to effluent limitations, for industrial
discharges to surface waters, as defined by Section 304(b)(1) of the
CWA.
CAAP--Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production.
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations.
Clean Water Act (CWA)--The Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 (33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq.), as amended.
Conventional Pollutants--Constituents of wastewater as
determined by Section 304(a)(4) of the CWA (and EPA regulations),
i.e., pollutants classified as biochemical oxygen demand, total
suspended solids, oil and grease, fecal coliform, and pH.
Daily Discharge--The discharge of a pollutant measured during
any calendar day or any 24-hour period that reasonably represents a
calendar day.
Direct Discharger--A facility that discharges or may discharge
treated or untreated wastewaters into waters of the United States.
DMR--Discharge Monitoring Report.
Existing Source--For this rule, any facility from which there is
or may be a discharge of pollutants, the construction of which is
commenced before the publication of the final regulations
prescribing a standard of performance under Section 306 of the CWA.
Facility--All contiguous property and equipment owned, operated,
leased, or under the control of the same person or entity.
FDF--Fundamentally Different Factor.
FTE--Full Time Equivalent Employee.
HEM--A measure of oil and grease in wastewater by mixing the
wastewater with hexane and measuring the oils and greases that are
removed from the wastewater with n-hexane. Specifically EPA Method
1664, see 40 CFR 136.3, Table IB.
Indirect Discharger--A facility that discharges or may discharge
wastewaters into a publicly-owned treatment works.
JSA/AETF--Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture, Aquaculture
Effluents Task Force.
LTA (Long-Term Average)--For purposes of the effluent
guidelines, average pollutant levels achieved over a period of time
by a facility, subcategory, or technology option. LTAs were used in
developing the effluent limitations guidelines and standards in
today's proposed regulation.
Maximum Monthly Discharge Limitation--The highest allowable
average of ``daily discharges'' over a calendar month, calculated as
the sum of all ``daily discharges'' measured during the calendar
month divided by the number of ``daily discharges'' measured during
the month.
Minimum Level--The level at which an analytical system gives
recognizable signals and an acceptable calibration point.
NAICS--North American Industry Classification System. NAICS was
developed jointly by the U.S., Canada, and Mexico to provide new
comparability in statistics about business activity across North
America.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit--
A permit to discharge wastewater into waters of the United States
issued under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System,
authorized by section 402 of the CWA.
Non-Conventional Pollutants--Pollutants that are neither
conventional pollutants nor priority pollutants listed at 40 CFR
401.15 and part 423 appendix A.
Non-Water Quality Environmental Impact--Deleterious aspects of
control and treatment technologies applicable to point source
category wastes, including, but not limited to air pollution, noise,
radiation, sludge and solid waste generation, and energy used.
NRDC--Natural Resources Defense Council.
NSPS--New Sources Performance Standards, applicable to
industrial facilities whose construction is begun after the
effective date of the final regulations (if those regulations are
promulgated after January 10, 2003. EPA is scheduled to take final
action on this proposal in June 2004. See 40 CFR 122.2.
NTTA--National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act.
NWPCAM--The National Water Pollution Control Assessment Model
(version 1.1) is a computer model to model the instream dissolved
oxygen concentration, as influenced by pollutant reductions of
BOD5, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, Total Suspended Solids,
and Fecal Coliform.
Outfall--The mouth of conduit drains and other conduits from
which a facility effluent discharges into receiving waters.
Pass Through--The term ``Pass Through'' means a Discharge which
exits the POTW into waters of the United States in quantities or
concentrations which, alone or in conjunction with a discharge or
discharges from other sources, is a cause of a violation of any
requirement of the POTW's NPDES permit (including an increase in the
magnitude or duration of a violation).
Point Source--Any discernable, confined, and discrete conveyance
from which pollutants are or may be discharged. See CWA Section
502(14).
Pollutants of Concern (POCs)--Pollutants commonly found in
aquatic animal production wastewaters. Generally, a chemical is
considered as a POC if it was detected in untreated process
wastewater at 5 times a baseline value in more than 10% of the
samples.
Priority Pollutant--One hundred twenty-six compounds that are a
subset of the 65 toxic pollutants and classes of pollutants outlined
pursuant to Section 307 of the CWA.
PSES--Pretreatment standards for existing sources of indirect
discharges, under Section 307(b) of the CWA, applicable (for this
rule) to indirect dischargers that commenced construction prior to
promulgation of the final rule.
PSNS--Pretreatment standards for new sources under Section
307(c) of the CWA.
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW)--A treatment works as
defined by Section 212 of the Clean Water Act, which is owned by a
State or municipality (as defined by Section 502(4) of the Clean
Water Act). This definition includes any devices and systems used in
the storage, treatment, recycling and reclamation of municipal
sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature. It also includes
sewers, pipes and other conveyances only if they convey
[[Page 57925]]
wastewater to a POTW Treatment Plant. The term also means the
municipality as defined in Section 502(4) of the Clean Water Act,
which has jurisdiction over the Indirect Discharges to and the
discharges from such a treatment works.
RFA--Regulatory Flexibility Act.
SAP--Sampling and Analysis Plan.
SBREFA--Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996.
SCC--Sample Control Center.
SER--Small Entity Representative.
SIC--Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)--A numerical
categorization system used by the U.S. Department of Commerce to
catalogue economic activity. SIC codes refer to the products, or
group of products, produced or distributed, or to services rendered
by an operating establishment. SIC codes are used to group
establishments by the economic activities in which they are engaged.
SIC codes often denote a facility's primary, secondary, tertiary,
etc. economic activities.
Total Nitrogen--Sum of nitrate/nitrite and TKN.
TKN--Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen.
TSS--Total Suspended Solids.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 451
Environmental protection, Concentrated aquatic animal production,
Wasste treatment and disposal, Water pollution control.
Dated: August 14, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 451 is
proposed to be added as follows:
PART 451--CONCENTRATED AQUATIC ANIMAL PRODUCTION POINT SOURCE
CATEGORY
Sec.
451.1 General applicability.
451.2 General definitions.
451.3 Reporting requirements specific to facility discharges under
the scope of this part.
451.4 Alternative compliance provision.
Subpart A--Flow-Through Systems
451.10 Applicability.
451.11 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
451.12 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
451.13 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best conventional technology (BCT).
451.14 New source performance standards (NSPS).
451.15 Best management practices (BMPs).
Subpart B--Recirculating Systems
451.20 Applicability.
451.21 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
451.22 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
451.23 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best conventional technology (BCT).
451.24 New source performance standards (NSPS).
451.25 Best management practices (BMPs).
Subpart C--Net Pen Systems
451.30 Applicability.
451.31 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
451.32 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
451.33 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best conventional technology (BCT).
451.34 New source performance standards (NSPS).
451.35 Best management practices (BMPs).
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342 and
1361.
Sec. 451.1 General applicability.
As defined more specifically in each subpart, this Part applies to
discharges from concentrated aquatic animal production facilities as
that term is defined at 40 CFR 122.24 and Appendix C. This Part applies
to the discharges of pollutants from production activities that occur
in the following systems: flow-through, recirculating and net pens.
Sec. 451.2 General definitions.
As used in this part:
(a) The general definitions and abbreviations in 40 CFR part 401
apply.
(b) Bulk discharge means wastewater from the areas of animal
confinement in a flow-through system that does not flow to off-line
settling. The bulk discharge is either treated effluent from full-flow
settling or the flow from the areas of animal confinement other than
the flows routed to offline settling, but does not include the flows
removed from the areas of animal confinement for offline settling.
(c) Chemical means any substance that is added to the concentrated
aquatic animal production facility to maintain or restore water quality
for aquatic animal production and that may be discharged to waters of
the United States.
(d) Concentrated aquatic animal production facility is defined at
40 CFR 122.24 and Appendix C.
(e) Drug means any substance that is added to the concentrated
aquatic animal production facility to maintain or restore aquatic
animal health or to affect the structure or any function of an aquatic
animal, and that may be discharged to waters of the United States. For
the purposes of this Part, the term does not include substances
injected directly into aquatic animals or used in immersion baths that
are not discharged to waters of the United States.
(f) Excess feed means feed that is added to a production system and
that is not consumed or is not expected to be consumed by the aquatic
animals.
(g) Flow-through system means a system designed for a continuous
water flow to waters of the United States through chambers used to
produce aquatic animals. Flow-through systems typically use either
raceways or tank systems. Water is supplied to raceways by nearby
rivers or springs and are typically long, rectangular chambers at or
below grade, constructed of earth, concrete, plastic, or metal. Tank
systems are similarly supplied with water and concentrate aquatic
animals in circular or rectangular tanks above grade. The term does not
include net pens.
(h) Full-flow settling means the treatment practice in which all of
the flow from a flow-through system is treated using solids settling
techniques prior to discharge.
(i) FWS means United States Fish and Wildlife Service, an agency
within the United States Department of the Interior.
(j) Net pen system means a stationary, suspended or floating system
of nets or screens in open marine or estuarine waters of the United
States. Net pen systems typically are located along a shore or pier or
may be anchored and floating offshore. Net pens and cages rely on tides
and currents to provide continual supply of high-quality water to the
animals in production.
(k) Non-native aquatic animal species mean an individual, group, or
population of a species:
(1) That is introduced into an area or ecosystem outside its
historic or native geographic range; and
(2) That has been determined and identified by the appropriate
State or Federal authority to threaten native aquatic biota. The term
excludes species raised for stocking by public agencies.
(l) Off-line settling means the treatment practice in which a
small, concentrated portion of the flow is diverted and treated before
being discharged; specifically, the portion of flow that is vacuumed or
removed from the bottom of a tank or raceway, which contributes high
levels of settled solids.
(m) Permitting authority means the agency authorized to administer
the
[[Page 57926]]
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permitting program for
the receiving waters into which a facility subject to this Part
discharges.
(n) Recirculating system means a system that filters and reuses
water in which the aquatic animals are produced prior to discharge.
Recirculating systems typically use tanks, biological or mechanical
filtration, and mechanical support equipment to maintain high quality
water to produce aquatic animals.
(o) TSS means total suspended solids that may be discharged to
waters of the United States.
Sec. 451.3 Reporting requirements specific to facility discharges
under the scope of this part.
(a) Drugs and chemicals. In accordance with the following
procedures, the permittee must notify the permitting authority of the
addition directly to an aquatic animal production facility subject to
this Part of any investigational new animal drug (i.e., a drug for
which there is a valid exemption in effect under 512(j) of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 360b(j)) and any drug that is
not used according to label requirements, as well as any chemical that
is not used according to label requirements:
(1) For drugs and chemicals that are not used according to label
requirements:
(i) The permittee must provide an oral report to the permitting
authority within 7 days after initiating application of the drug or
chemical. The oral report must identify the drug and/or chemical added
and the reason for adding the drug and/or chemical.
(ii) The permittee must provide a written report to the permitting
authority within 30 days after conclusion of the addition of the drug
or chemical. The written report must identify the drug and/or chemical
added and include: the reason for treatment, date(s) and time(s) of the
addition (including duration); the total amount of active ingredient
added; the total amount of medicated feed added (only for drugs applied
through medicated feed), and the estimated number of aquatic animals
medicated by the addition.
(2) For investigational new animal drugs: The permittee must
provide a written report to the permitting authority within 30 days
after conclusion of the addition of any investigational new drug. The
written report must identify the drug added including: the reason for
treatment, date(s) and time(s) of the addition (including duration);
the total amount of active ingredient added; the total amount of
medicated feed added (only for drugs applied through medicated feed),
and the estimated number of aquatic animals medicated by the addition.
(b) Best Management Practices (BMP) plan certification. The owner
or operator of any facility subject to this Part must certify that a
BMP plan has been developed and meets the objectives as defined in the
Sec. Sec. 451.15, 451.25, or 451.35 (as applicable). The plan will be
made available to the permitting authority upon request.
Sec. 451.4 Alternative compliance provision.
Facilities subject to the total suspended solids (TSS) numerical
limitations in this section may comply with these requirements through
the development and implementation of a BMP plan if the permitting
authority determines that the plan will achieve the numeric
limitations. For facilities subject to this section, the BMP plan also
must satisfy the provisions of Sec. 451.15(a) for flow-through systems
and Sec. 451.25(a) for recirculating systems.
Subpart A--Flow-Through Systems
Sec. 451.10 Applicability.
This subpart applies to the discharge of pollutants from a
concentrated aquatic animal production facility that produces aquatic
animals in a flow-through system according to the production level
thresholds in this subpart.
Sec. 451.11 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the application of BPT:
(a) Facilities that produce 475,000 pounds or more per year.
(1) For discharges from a full-flow facility, including a facility
that has flow from separate offline settling but that recombines such
separate flows prior to discharge; The permittee must meet the TSS
maximum daily and monthly average numeric limits:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSS (mg/l).................................... 10 6
Non-conventional and toxic pollutants......... (\1\) (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Develop and implement a BMP plan as specified in Sec. Sec.
451.15(b)-(d) and 451.3(b).
(2) For discharges from a facility that discharges from separate
offline settling.
(i) The permittee must meet the TSS maximum daily and monthly
average numeric limits for discharges from the separate offline
settling:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSS (mg/l).................................... 69 55
Non-conventional and toxic pollutants......... (\1\) (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Develop and implement a BMP plan as specified in Sec. Sec.
451.15(b)-(d) and 451.3(b).
(ii) For the remaining bulk discharge, the permittee must develop
and implement a BMP plan as described in Sec. 451.15 (a) through (d).
(b) Facilities that produce 100,000 pounds per year up to 475,000
pounds per year.
(1) For discharges from a full-flow facility including a facility
that has flow from separate offline settling but that recombines such
separate flow prior to discharge; The permittee must meet the TSS
maximum daily and monthly average numeric limits:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSS (mg/l).................................... 11 6
Non-conventional and toxic pollutants......... (\1\) (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Develop and implement a BMP plan as specified in Sec. Sec. 451.15
(b) and (d) and 451.3 (b).
(2) For discharges from a facility that discharges from separate
offline settling.
(i) The permittee must meet the TSS maximum daily and monthly
average numeric limits for discharges from the separate offline
settling:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSS (mg/l).................................... 87 67
[[Page 57927]]
Non-conventional and toxic pollutants......... (\1\) (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Develop and implement a BMP plan as specified in Sec. Sec. 451.15
(b) and (d) and 451.3 (b).
(ii) For the remaining bulk discharge, the permittee must develop
and implement a BMP plan as described in Sec. 451.15 (a), (b) and (d).
(c) Compliance with paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2)(i) or (b)(1) or
(b)(2)(i) of this section should be determined based on the net TSS
concentration (measuring the TSS added by the production system.)
(d) The reporting requirements in Sec. 451.3 (a) do not apply to
facilities that produce between 100,000 pounds per year up to 475,000
pounds per year.
Sec. 451.12 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, discharges from
a flow-through system subject to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations representing the application of BAT: The
limitations for Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and non-conventional and
toxic pollutants are the same as the corresponding limitation specified
in Sec. 451.11.
Sec. 451.13 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best conventional technology (BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, discharges from
a flow-through system subject to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations representing the application of BCT: The
limitation for Total Suspended Solids (TSS) is the same as the
corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 451.11.
Sec. 451.14 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Any new source flow-through system subject to this subpart must
achieve the following performance standards: The standards for Total
Suspended Solids (TSS) and non-conventional and toxic pollutants are
the same as the corresponding limitations specified in Sec. 451.11.
Sec. 451.15 Best management practices (BMPs).
Any flow-through system subject to this subpart must develop and
implement a Best Management Practices (BMP) Plan to achieve the
objectives and the following specific requirements:
(a) Management of removed solids and excess feed. The following
requirements only apply to waste streams that are not subject to
numeric limits for TSS. Minimize the re-introduction of solids removed
through the treatment of the water supply and minimize excess feed
entering the aquatic animal production system. Minimize the discharge
of unconsumed food. Minimize discharge of feeds containing high levels
of fine particulates and/or high levels of phosphorus. Clean raceways
at frequencies that minimize the disturbance and subsequent discharge
of accumulated solids during routine activities, such as harvesting and
grading of fish.
(b) Proper operation and maintenance of a concentrated aquatic
animal production facility:
(1) Structural maintenance. Maintain in-system technologies to
prevent the overflow of any floating matter and subsequent by-pass of
treatment technologies.
(2) Materials storage. Ensure the storage of drugs and chemicals to
avoid inadvertent spillage or release into the aquatic animal
production facility; and
(3) Disposal of biological wastes. Collect aquatic animal
mortalities on a regular basis. Store and dispose of aquatic animal
mortalities to prevent discharge to waters of the United States.
(c) The permittee must develop and implement practices to minimize
the potential escape of non-native species.
(d) The permittee must ensure that the facility staff are familiar
with the BMP Plan and have been adequately trained in the specific
procedures that the BMP plan requires.
Subpart B--Recirculating Systems
Sec. 451.20 Applicability.
This subpart applies to the discharge of pollutants from a
concentrated aquatic animal production facility that produces 100,000
pounds or more per year in a recirculating system.
Sec. 451.21 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, discharges from
a recirculating system subject to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations representing the application of BPT:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSS (mg/l).................................... 50 30
Non-conventional and toxic pollutants......... (\1\) (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Develop and implement a BMP plan as specified in Sec. Sec.
451.15(b)-(d) and 451.3(b).
Sec. 451.22 Effluent Limitations attainable by the application of the
Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, discharges from
a recirculating system subject to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations representing the application of BAT: The
limitations for Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and non-conventional and
toxic pollutants are the same as the corresponding limitations
specified in Sec. 451.21.
Sec. 451.23 Effluent Limitations attainable by the application of the
Best Conventional Technology (BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, discharges from
a recirculating system subject to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations representing the application of BCT: The
limitation for Total Suspended Solids (TSS) is the same as the
corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 451.21.
Sec. 451.24 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Any new source recirculating system subject to this subpart must
achieve the following performance standards: The standard for Total
Suspended Solids (TSS) and non-conventional and toxic pollutants are
the same as the corresponding limitations specified in Sec. 451.21.
Sec. 451.25 Best management practices (BMP).
Any recirculating system subject to this subpart must develop and
implement a Best Management Practices (BMP) Plan to achieve the
objectives and the following specific requirements:
(a) Management of removed solids and excess feed. The following
requirements only apply to waste streams that are not subject to
numeric limits for TSS. Minimize the re-introduction of solids removed
through the treatment of the water supply and minimize excess feed
entering the aquatic animal production system.
(b) Proper operation and maintenance of a concentrated aquatic
animal production facility:
[[Page 57928]]
(1) Structural Maintenance. Maintain in-system technologies to
prevent the overflow of any floating matter and subsequent by-pass of
treatment technologies.
(2) Materials storage. Ensure the storage of drugs and chemicals to
avoid inadvertent spillage or release into the aquatic animal
production facility; and
(3) Disposal of biological wastes. Collect aquatic animal
mortalities on a regular basis. Store and dispose of aquatic animal
mortalities to prevent discharge to waters of the United States.
(c)The permittee must develop and implement practices to minimize
the potential escape of non-native species.
(d) The permittee must ensure that the facility staff are familiar
with the BMP Plan and have been adequately trained in the specific
procedures that the BMP plan requires.
Subpart C--Net Pen Systems
Sec. 451.30 Applicability.
This subpart applies to the discharge of pollutants from a
concentrated aquatic animal production facility that produces 100,000
pounds or more per year in net pen systems, except for net pen
facilities located in the State of Alaska producing native species of
salmon.
Sec. 451.31 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, discharges from
a net pen system subject to this subpart must achieve the following
best management practice representing the application of BPT:
(a) The permittee must maintain a real-time monitoring system to
monitor the rate of feed consumption. The system must be designed to
allow detection or observation of uneaten feed passing through the
bottom of the net pens and to prevent accumulation.
(b) [Reserved]
Sec. 451.32 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, discharges from
a net pen system subject to this subpart must achieve the following
best management practice representing the application of BAT: Active
feed monitoring as specified in Sec. 451.31.
Sec. 451.33 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
Best Conventional technology (BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, discharges from
a net pen system subject to this subpart must achieve the following
best management practice representing the application of BCT: Active
feed monitoring as specified in Sec. 451.31.
Sec. 451.34 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Any new source net pen system subject to this subpart must achieve
the following performance standards: Active feed monitoring as
specified in Sec. 451.31.
Sec. 451.35 Best Management Practices (BMPs).
Any net pen system subject to this subpart must develop and
implement a Best Management Practices (BMP) plan to achieve the
objectives and the following specific requirements:
(a) The permittee must operate the facility so as to minimize the
concentration of net-fouling organisms that are discharged, for
example, changing and cleaning nets and screens onshore.
(b) The following discharges into waters of the United States
should be avoided to the maximum extent feasible:
(1) Blood, viscera, fish carcasses, or transport water containing
blood associated with the transport or harvesting of fish;
(2) Substances associated with in-place pressure washing nets. The
use of air-drying, mechanical, and other non-chemical procedures to
control net-fouling are strongly encouraged.
(c) The permittee must develop and implement practices to minimize
the potential escape of non-native species.
(d) The following discharges from a net pen system into waters of
the United States are prohibited :
(1) Feed bags and other solid wastes;
(2) Chemicals used to clean nets, boats or gear; and
(3) Materials containing or treated with tributyltin compounds.
[FR Doc. 02-21673 Filed 9-11-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
|
