FINAL DRAFT Fruits & Vegetables August 12, 2004 Page 1 of 33 Canned and Preserved Fruits and Vegetables Processing ( 40 CFR 407) Detailed Investigation for 2004/ 2005 Planning Process Executive Summary During the Screening Level Review phase of the 2004/ 2005 planning process, canned and preserved fruits and vegetables processing was one of eight industrial categories identified solely through Factor 4 concerns. Issues driving the concerns include 1) discharges of nutrients and conventional pollutants, 2) no limits for biochemical oxygen demand ( BOD), and 3) improvements in industry capacity to control discharges. Based on information reported to the Toxic Release Inventory ( TRI) and the Permit Compliance System ( PCS), toxic discharges from coal mining operations are low relative to other industrial categories. However, most of these pollutants do not have toxic weighting factors, so discharges of these substances cannot be assessed in terms of potential risk. For the toxic weighted pound equivalent ( TWPE) discharged, a few facilities generally drive these discharges for this industry. In addition, a number of potential new subcategories were identified by stakeholders and are discussed here. ( Note: the new subcategories are not included in any of the tables or analyses.)

The information in the record at this time does not support a decision to revise these effluent guidelines. In the event that stakeholders provide additional data and supporting information, on any of the issues identified above, EPA will reevaluate them at that time. In the absence of revisions to the effluent guidelines, these concerns could be addressed through improved information dissemination and outreach by EPA. The Agency could prepare a fact sheet with answers to frequently asked questions ( FAQs), including the names of current contacts within the Office of Water. In addition, the Agency could announce the availability of this fact sheet at the regular meetings for permit writers and pretreatment coordinators held by the Office of Wastewater Management ( OWM) and through internet postings and email alerts to the Engineering and Analysis Division ( EAD) stakeholders mailing list. Finally, due to the relatively small number of facilities discharging the bulk of the TWPE, EPA could also provide assistance to permit writers in preparing BPJ based permits.

Overview This report presents information for the following topics: Background Industry and Related Subcategories Wastewater Characteristics and Pollutant Sources Pollutants Discharged Treatment Technology and Pollution Prevention Concerns Identified Pre Proposal Concerns Identified in Comments to Proposal FINAL DRAFT Fruits & Vegetables August 12, 2004 Page 2 of 33 Additional Concerns Identified Post Proposal Followup Contacts Possible Solutions Attachments provide the following supporting information: EPA Databases and References Used in this Review Point Source Categories Identified Solely Through Factor 4 Guidelines Applicability and Regulatory History PCS Discharges TRI Discharges Reported Pollutant Loadings Background In preparation for proposing the Preliminary Effluent Guidelines Program Plan for 2004/ 2005 (" Preliminary Plan," published in February 2004), EPA analyzed four factors identified in the draft " National Strategy for Industrial Clean Water"( Edocket OW 2003 0074 0215). See Attachment A for more background about the 304( m) planning Process. The four factors focus on: 1 Potential impacts to human health and the environment. Preliminary results are summarized in the " Factor 1 Analysis: Human Health and Environmental Impacts   Status of Screening Level Review Phase" ( Edocket OW 2003 0074 0410). 2 Identification of an applicable and demonstrated technology, process change, or pollution prevention alternative that can effectively reduce pollutants discharged. Preliminary results are summarized in the " Factor 2 Analysis: Technology Advances and Process Changes   Status of Screening Level Review Phase." ( Edocket OW 2003 0074 0287). 3 Evaluation of the cost, performance, and affordability of the technology, process change, or pollution prevention measures identified using the second factor. 4 Implementation and efficiency concerns. Preliminary results are presented in the " Factor 4 Analysis: Implementation and Efficiency Considerations   Status of Screening Level Review Phase" ( Edocket OW 2003 0074 0329)

When all of the results were integrated prior to proposing the Preliminary Plan, EPA determined that 8 point source categories with existing effluent guidelines had been identified solely through Factor 4 concerns. ( See list in the Attachment B.) In order to determine the best course of action to address these concerns, EPA performed an analysis of issues and potential solutions for each of the 8 categories. The results of that analysis for Fruits and Vegetables Processing are presented in this report.

Industry and Related Subcategories FINAL DRAFT Fruits & Vegetables August 12, 2004 Page 3 of 33 The Canned and Preserved Fruits and Vegetables Processing point source category is regulated at 40 CFR 407. See Attachment C for the applicability and regulatory background. This point source category includes facilities reporting under Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) industry group 203, Canned, Frozen, and Preserved Fruits and Vegetables. Specifically, it includes SIC 2033 ( Canned Fruits, Vegetables, Preserves, Jams, and Jellies), 2034 ( Dried and Dehydrated Fruits, Vegetables, and Soup Mixes), 2035 ( Pickled Fruits and Vegetables, Vegetable Sauces, and Seasonings), SIC 2037 ( Frozen Fruits, Fruit Juices, and Vegetables), and SIC 2096 ( Potato Chips, Corn Chips, and Similar Snacks). Juice manufacturing ( covered by SIC 2033 and 2037) was identified at a subcategory of concern during the Factor 4 analysis.

Based on comments and information received by stakeholders, EPA also evaluated whether it should consider additional subcategories of the Canned and Preserved Fruits and Vegetable Processing ELG for Distilled and Blended Liquors, SIC Code 2085; Malt Beverages, SIC Code 2082; and Soybean Oil Mills, SIC Code 2075. EPA determined it was appropriate to consider these industrial operations as potential new subcategories of part 407 because the processes, operations, wastewaters, and pollutants at these plants are similar to those at fruit and vegetable processing plants. Each of these potential subcategories is discussed in the Possible Solutions section of this report. ° SIC 2033  Canned Fruits, Vegetables, Preserves, Jams, and Jellies Establishments primarily engaged in canning fruits, vegetables, and fruit and vegetable juices; and in manufacturing catsup and similar tomato sauces, or natural and imitation preserves, jams, and jellies.

° SIC 2034  Dried and Dehydrated Fruits, Vegetables, and Soup Mixes Establishments primarily engaged in sun drying or artificially dehydrating fruits and vegetables, or in manufacturing packaged soup mixes from dehydrated ingredients.

° SIC 2035  Pickled Fruits and Vegetables, Vegetable Sauces and Seasonings, and Salad Dressings Establishments primarily engaged in pickling and brining fruits and vegetables, and in manufacturing salad dressings, vegetable relishes, sauces, and seasonings.

° SIC 2037  Frozen Fruits, Fruit Juices, and Vegetables Establishments primarily engaged in freezing fruits, fruit juices, and vegetables. These establishments also produce important by products such as fresh or dried citrus pulp.

° SIC 2096  Potato Chips, Corn Chips, and Similar Snacks Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing potato chips, corn chips, and similar snacks.

The following tables present the facilities in this category that report to the Permit Compliance System ( PCS) and to the Toxic Release Inventory ( TRI). ( Note: Since this industry ranked low during the screening phase, EPA did not verify any of the information reported to PCS and TRI, and has used it as reported. Although information in PCS and TRI is limited, it can provide FINAL DRAFT Fruits & Vegetables August 12, 2004 Page 4 of 33 insight into this industry. See Attachment A for more details about PCS and TRI.) Table 1 shows the number of facilities identified for this industry. Table 2 lists the facilities reporting to PCS under these SIC codes. Table 3 lists those reporting to TRI under these SIC codes. Attachments D and E list these facilities along with their reported discharges.

Table1. Number of Facilities SIC 1997 Census PCS TRI Total Major Minor Total reporters No reported discharge Direct discharge Indirect discharge Both direct & indirect 2033 695 70 8 62 12 11 1 0 0 2034 152 1 0 1 8 5 0 3 0 2035 354 12 2 10 11 7 0 4 0 2037 258 20 7 13 57 42 9 5 1 2096 368 2 1 1 20 14 2 4 0 Source: PCSLoads2000, TRIReleases2000 Table 2. Canned and Preserved Fruits and Vegetables Processing Facilities Reporting to PCS, Sorted by State SIC NPDES ID FACILITY NAME CITY STATE 2033 CT0000850 FIS ( FOOD INGREDIENTS SPECIALI NEW MILFORD CT 2035 DE0000736 PINNACLE FOODS CORPORATION MILLSBORO DE 2033 FL0000043 TROPICANA NORTH AMERICA ( also reports to TRI) BRADENTON FL 2033 FL0002801 SFE CITRUS PROCESSORS AUBURNDALE FL 2033 FL0001457 FLORIDA JUICE INC. LAKELAND FL 2033 FL0000477 THE MINUTE MAID COMPANY DUNEDIN FL 2033 FL0001201 BARTOW HOLDING COMPANY INC. BARTOW FL 2037 FL0000485 PASCO BEVERAGE COMPANY ( also reports to TRI) DADE CITY FL 2037 FL0002755 FLORIDA SELECT CITRUS GROVELAND FL 2037 ID0000663 J R SIMPLOT CO ( also reports to TRI) HEYBURN ID 2037 ID0000612 MCCAIN FOODS INC BURLEY ID SIC NPDES ID FACILITY NAME CITY STATE FINAL DRAFT Fruits & Vegetables August 12, 2004 Page 5 of 33 ( also reports to TRI) 2033 MA0004936 VERYFINE PRODUCTS INC. LITTLETON MA 2035 NC0001074 MT. OLIVE PICKLE COMPANY MT. OLIVE NC 2033 NY0002585 BURNS PHILIP FOOD NORTH ROSE NY 2037 OR0002402 HEINZ FROZEN FOOD CO ( also reports to TRI) ONTARIO OR 2037 PA0010430 HANOVER FOODS CORP ( also reports to TRI) CENTRE HALL PA 2096 PA0007498 WISE FOODS INC. BERWICK PA 2037 WA0021067 QUINCY CITY OF QUINCY WA Table 3. Canned and Preserved Fruits and Vegetables Processing Facilities Reporting to TRI, Sorted by State SIC TRI ID FACILITY NAME CITY STATE 2034 95380RGRSF151SW ROGERS FOODS INC. TURLOCK CA 2034 95352GNRLF705EW GILROY FOODS MODESTO CA 2035 33126PRTYC1800N PURITY PRODS. INC. MIAMI FL 2037 34208TRPCN10011 TROPICANA PRODS. INC. BRADENTON FL 2037 33525LYKSPHWY30 PASCO BEVERAGE CO. DADE CITY FL 2037 31520RCHSK200GL RICH SEAPAK CORP. BRUNSWICK GA 2037 83318RDFDSHIGHW MCCAIN FOODS USA INC. BURLEY ID 2037 83336JRSMPHIGHW J. R. SIMPOLOT CO. HEYBURN FOOD GROUP HEYBURN ID 2033 61550NSTLS216NM NESTLE USA CONFECTIONS & SNACKS DIV. MORTON IL 2035 61821KRFTN1701W KRAFT FOODS N. A. INC. CHAMPAIGN IL 2035 46203RYLFD2322E ROYAL FOOD PRODS. INC. INDIANAPOLIS IN 2096 46041FRTLYROAD3 FRITO LAY INC. FRANKFORT IN 2096 66609FRTLY4236K FRITO LAY INC. TOPEKA KS 2037 04740MCCNFSTATI MCCAIN FOODS USA INC. EASTON ME 2037 04742TLNTC87HIG ATLANTIC CUSTOM PROCESSORS L. L. C. FORT FAIRFIELD ME 2037 58201JRSMP3630G J. R. SIMPLOT CO. GRAND FORKS ND 2037 13069GNRLF607PH AGRILINK FOODS INC. FULTON NY 2096 13904FRTLYCOLES FRITO LAY INC. KIRKWOOD NY 2034 97321RGNFR52525 OREGON FREEZE DRY INC., ALBANY OR SIC TRI ID FACILITY NAME CITY STATE FINAL DRAFT Fruits & Vegetables August 12, 2004 Page 6 of 33 PLANT # 2 2037 97818LMBWSCOLUM LAMB WESTON BOARDMAN OR 2037 97914RDFDS175NE H. J. HEINZ CO. L. P. HEINZ FROZEN FOOD DIV. ONTARIO OR 2037 16828HNVRFRTE45 HANOVER FOODS CORP. CENTRE HALL PA 2037 16428WLCHSSLAKE WELCH'S NORTH EAST PA 2035 75042KRFTN2340F KRAFT FOODS N. A. INC. GARLAND TX 2096 78218FRTLY4855G FRITO LAY INC. SAN ANTONIO TX 2037 99352LMBWS2013S LAMB WESTON RICHLAND FACILITY RICHLAND WA 2037 54467RDFDS1701H MCCAIN FOODS USA INC. PLOVER WI 2096 53511FRTLY2810K FRITO LAY INC. BELOIT WI Of the 40 reporting facilities, 8 are located in Florida. The rest are located in 18 states around the country. It is worth noting that Florida is in Region IV, and facilities are also located in Georgia and North Carolina, meaning that 25% ( 10) of the reporting facilities are located in this Region. The map on the following page shows the locations of the facilities reporting to TRI or PCS.

1997 U. S. Census data indicates the change in the number of the number of fruit and vegetable processing facilities between 1992 and 1997. Depending on sector, the value of goods shipped has declined by as much as 10% or increased by as much as 28% during the same time period. See Table 4 below. Advance comparative statistics for 1997 to 2002 for NAICS code 311 ( food manufacturing including grains, fruits and vegetables, dairy, meats, seafood, and miscellaneous food) a very small increase in the number of establishments ( less than 1%) and an 8% increase in the value of shipments ( not adjusted for inflation). See Table 5 below. FINAL DRAFT Fruits & Vegetables August 12, 2004 Page 8 of 33 Table 4. 1992 and 1997 Census Data SIC Industry Sector Number of Establishments Value of Goods Shipped ( millions of dollars)

1997 1992 % Change 1997 1992 % Change 2033 Canned Fruits, Vegetables Preserves, Jams, and Jellies 695 683 1.8 14.5 15.0  3.7 2034 Dried and Dehydrated Fruits, Vegetables, and Soup Mixes 152 159  1.9 2.9 2.8 1.3 2035 Pickled Fruits & Vegetables, Vegetable Sauces & Seasonings, and Salad Dressings 354 377  6.1 7.1 7.8  9.6 2037 Frozen Fruits, Fruit Juices, and Vegetables 258 255 1.2 9.6 7.5 27.9 2096 Potato Chips, Corn Chips, and Similar Snacks 368 408  9.8 9.1 7.3 25.6 Source: 1997 U. S. Economic Census Table 5. 1997 and 2002 Census Data NAICS Industry Segment Number of Establishments Value of Goods Shipped ( billions of dollars)

2002 1997 % Change 2002 1997 % Change 311 Food Manufacturing 26,374 26,302 0.27 457 422 8.4 Source: 2002 U. S. Economic Census Wastewater Characteristics and Pollutant Sources Fruit and vegetable processing is seasonal for most producers. Water use and wastewater pollutant loads vary according to the specific raw material processes ( e. g., 2,400 gal/ ton apples to 17,000 gal/ ton cauliflower). Total pollutant loads are directly correlated to the amount of water used in processing. Water conservation practices can reduce pollutant loads. Most processors employ secondary ( biological) treatment. FINAL DRAFT Fruits & Vegetables August 12, 2004 Page 9 of 33 Table 6 presents information about wastewater flows for this industry and Table 7 presents the sources of process wastewater in this point source category.

Table 6. Wastewater Flows SIC No. of Major Facilities Reporting Nonzero Flows Median Facility Flow 2000 ( MG) Range of Facility Flows ( MG) Total Flow ( MG)

2033 7 82 15 to 542 1,330 2034 none

2035 2 103 84 to 123 207 2037 7 889 9 to 1510 5,170 2096 1 101 NA 101 Source: PCSLoads2000. NA   no range was calculated, only 1 facility reported nonzero flow.

Table 7. Sources of Process Wastewater in Fruits and Vegetable Processing Process Wastewater Pollutants Washing: general cleaning and dirt removal of raw products suspended solids including fibers and soil particles; possibly pesticides residues Grading, stemming, pitting, and seeding dissolved organic material ( BOD 5), suspended solids including fibers and soil particles, and possibly pesticides residues Peeling, steam or lye and washing sodium hydroxide ( high pH), BOD 5, and suspended solids Blanching ( scald with water or steam) dissolved organic material ( BOD 5) and suspended solids Post blanching washing and cooling dissolved organic material ( BOD 5) and suspended solids Fluming ( conveyance) dissolved organic material ( BOD 5) and suspended solids Filling and packaging , including adding syrup, brine, etc. dissolved organic material ( BOD 5), salt, oil and grease ( depending on product) Process Wastewater Pollutants FINAL DRAFT Fruits & Vegetables August 12, 2004 Page 10 of 33 Sanitation and plant clean up dissolved organic material ( BOD 5) and suspended solids, residual disinfectant ( e. g., chlorine)

Sources: Waste Management and Utilization in Food Production and Process, 1995; State of the Art Report, 2004; Clean Technologies in U. S. Industries: Food Processing, 2004.

Pollutants Discharged Pollutant discharges to surface waters as reported to PCS and TRI were evaluated as part of the Factor 1 Analysis: Human Health and Environmental Impacts. Pounds reported as discharged were converted, wherever possible, to their toxic weighted pound equivalents to provide a sense of relative hazard associated with those discharges. ( Note: indirect discharge amounts reflect reductions that are expected to occur at the receiving treatment facility.) Both TRI and PCS contain information about pollutants discharged by fruits and vegetables processing facilities. ( This analysis does not include loading estimates for the three new subcategories distilled and blended liquors, malt beverages, and soybean oil mills. However, that information is evaluated in the Technical Support Document at 5.4.1.)

PCS: Of the 18 Facilities reporting discharges to PCS, 5 facilities account for over 95% of the pounds discharged. A single facility in Washington state accounts for 49% of the pounds discharged. When looking at toxic weighted discharges, 5 facilities account for 96% of the toxic weighted pound equivalents ( TWPE) discharged. A single facility in Massachusetts ( SIC 2033) accounting for over 70% of the total PCS TWPE.

TRI: Of the 28 facilities reporting discharges to TRI, 5 facilities ( 2 of which are in Idaho) account for over 90% of the pounds discharged. Of these, discharges from a single facility in Idaho account for 46% of the pounds discharged and a second facility in Idaho accounts for an additional 25%. When looking at toxic weighted discharges, 3 facilities account for 99% of the TWPE discharged. A single facility in Georgia ( SIC 2037) contributes almost 91% of the TWPE reported to TRI for this industry. The 2 facilities in Idaho contribute an additional 8%.

Overall: Of the 40 facilities ( 6 report to both databases), the 4 facilities in Region X ( 2 in Idaho and 2 in Washington) discharge 67% if the total pounds reported as discharged. The next highest discharge is a facility in North Carolina which accounts for an additional 17% of the pounds discharged. When looking at toxic weighted discharges, a single facility in Georgia accounts for 78% of the TWPE discharged by this industry. Another 10% is contributed by a single facility in Massachusetts. An additional 7% is discharged by the two facilities in Idaho.

Discharged pollutants that can be characterized as nonconventional, conventional, or priority pollutants. Table 8 below shows the relative contributions of each pollutant type. See Attachment D for the discharges in toxic weighted pounds as reported to PCS by each facility and see FINAL DRAFT Fruits & Vegetables August 12, 2004 Page 11 of 33 Attachment E for the discharges in toxic weighted pounds as reported to TRI by each facility See Attachment F for a breakout of these discharges by pollutant. A discussion of each pollutant type discharged follows the table.

Table 8. Pollutant Discharges Reported to PCS and TRI Pollutant Category & Primary Pollutants PCS LBS PCS TWPE TRI ALL Discharge lbs TRI ALL TWPE All Pollutants 16,020,109 2,905 7,713,669 17,674 Nonconventional 14,614,715 2,638 7,713,669 17,674 TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS 7,603,747 0 0 0 TOTAL SULFIDE 764 2,140 0 0 AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 73,127 134 21,022 32 CHLORINE, Total Residual 261 127 35,253 17,167 CHLORIDE 4,137,463 101 0 0 NITROGEN, Nitrate Total ( as N) 1,422,715 88 7,657,242 475 Conventional 1,404,936   0 0 TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 990,347   BOD 5 DAY ( CARBONACEOUS) 368,122   OIL AND GREASE 46,467   Priority 457 267 0 0 ARSENIC 34 117 COPPER 119 74 SELENIUM 34 38 Nonconventional Pollutants Nonconventional pollutants comprise over 91% of the pounds of discharged pollutants reported to TRI and PCS as well as over 91% of the TWPE discharged. Total sulfide contributes 74% of the total TWPE discharges. Other pollutants contributing to the TWPE discharges are ammonia as nitrogen, chlorine ( total residual) and chloride in PCS. In TRI, chlorine ( total residual) contributes 97% of the total TWPE discharged.

Conventional Pollutants Only 9% of the discharged pounds reported to PCS are conventional pollutants, primarily total suspended solids ( TSS) and biochemical oxygen demand ( BOD). However, toxic weights are not available for conventional pollutant parameters. No information on conventional pollutants is available through TRI.

Priority Pollutants Priority pollutants contributed about 9% of the total TWPE reportedly discharged by this industry. Among the priority pollutants, arsenic, copper, selenium, and FINAL DRAFT Fruits & Vegetables August 12, 2004 Page 12 of 33 lead accounted for 98% of the discharged TWPE. No priority pollutant discharges were reported in TRI.

For purposes of comparison, the TWPE for Canned and Preserved Fruits and Vegetables Processing are presented in the following tables along with the industries reporting the highest discharges in each database. ( Note: These tables do not include the loadings for three new subcategories.) Table 9 presents the information reported to PCS and Table 10 presents the information reported to TRI. For a description of the derivation of the values in these tables, see the memo in the public record titled " Description and Results of EPA Methodology to Synthesize Screening Level Results for the Effluent Guidelines Program Plan for 2004/ 2005," which is available through Edocket at document number OW 2003 0074 0391.

Table 9. Fruits and Vegetables Processing TWPE Reported to PCS Compared to Top Ranking Results 40 CFR Part Point Source Category PCS Reported TWPE PCS Rank 423 Steam electric power generation 2,933,209 1 414 Organic chemicals, plastics and synthetic fibers 1,805,928 2 422 Phosphate manufacturing 1,095,321 3 415 Inorganic chemicals manufacturing 853,568 4 421 Nonferrous metals manufacturing 434,925 5 440 Ore mining and dressing 383,560 6 410 Textile mills 296,601 7 419 Petroleum refining 198,251 8 455 Pesticide chemicals manufacturing, formulating 178,977 9 418 Fertilizer manufacturing 116,464 10 407 Canned and Preserved Fruits and Vegetables Processing 2,905 32 FINAL DRAFT Fruits & Vegetables August 12, 2004 Page 13 of 33 Table 10. Fruits and Vegetables TWPE Reported to TRI Compared to Top Ranking Results 40 CFR Part Point Source Category TRI Reported TWPE TRI Rank 414 Organic chemicals, plastics and synthetic fibers 7,303,782 1 423 Steam electric power generation 1,856,645 2 421 Nonferrous metals manufacturing 978,450 3 430 Pulp, paper and paperboard ( Phase II) 628,785 4 415 Inorganic chemicals manufacturing 624,250 5 429 Timber products processing 404,926 6 419 Petroleum refining 385,347 7 455 Pesticide chemicals manufacturing, formulating 324,393 8 428 Rubber manufacturing 166,343 9 463 Plastic molding and forming 106,189 10 407 Canned and Preserved Fruits and Vegetables Processing 17,675 23 Treatment Technology and Pollution Prevention Standard treatment is biological treatment with primary solids removal, oil and grease removal, and neutralization ( pH adjustment) depending on products. Treatment systems must be sufficiently robust to handle seasonal variations in pollutant loads.

Direct discharge plants may disinfect wastewater with chlorine prior to discharge. Advanced treatment would replace chlorine disinfection with ozone or ultraviolet light.

Most advances involve water conservation and other pollution prevention practices. See Table 11 for water conservation and pollution prevention alternatives. FINAL DRAFT Fruits & Vegetables August 12, 2004 Page 14 of 33 Table 11. Water Conservation and Pollution Prevention Alternatives Process Water Conservation and Pollution Prevention Alternatives Washing: general cleaning and dirt removal of raw products ° Perform washing and cleaning at the agricultural site, so wastes are reused at the farm. ° Air flotation to remove suspended debris from raw crop materials. ° Minimize water use.

Grading, stemming, pitting, and seeding ° Minimize water use.

Peeling, steam or lye and washing ° Use dry peeling methods.

Blanching ( scald with water or steam) ° Use steam blanching rather than water blanching. ° In the future, replace blanching with nonthermal means of destroying microbes.

Post blanching washing and cooling ° Use air cooling. ° Reuse relatively clean cooling water for peeling, primary washing, or post peeling washing.

Fluming ( conveyance) ° Replace water flumes with pneumatic ( air based) transport. ° Reuse relatively clean fluming water for peeling, primary washing, or post peeling washing.

Filling and packaging , including adding syrup, brine, etc. ° Minimize water use.

Sanitation and plant clean up ° Use low volume/ high pressure cleaning systems.

Sources: Waste Management and Utilization in Food Production and Process, 1995; State of the Art Report, 2004; Clean Technologies in U. S. Industries: Food Processing, 2004.

Concerns Identified Pre Proposal The Canned and Preserved Fruits and Vegetables Processing point source category was identified by several responders surveyed by the Agency in the process of preparing the 2004/ 2005 Plan. Their suggestions are summarized below. FINAL DRAFT Fruits & Vegetables August 12, 2004 Page 15 of 33 Previous Suggestions ( Section 2.4 of the " Factor 4 Analysis: Implementation and Efficiency Considerations   Status of Screening Level Review Phase" ( Edocket OW 2003 0074 0329) In general, responders were concerned with the discharge of nutrients, as well as overloading publicly owned treatment works ( POTWs) and small streams ( for direct dischargers) with conventional pollutants such as BOD. Responders identified several specific industries as having such characteristics, including vegetables processing. Other issues identified include non approved pretreatment processes in relation to juice manufacturing.

Permitting Authorities ( Section 2.5 of the " Factor 4 Analysis") State permitting authorities ( Washington) suggest updating these guidelines for both direct and indirect dischargers. Direct dischargers are performing well below the limits, and permitting authorities have found it difficult to address that gap effectively and lower discharges. In addition, permitting authorities suggest that revising these guidelines could address dissolved oxygen problems, since there are no water quality criteria for BOD ( biological oxygen demand) and no equitable way to determine the farfield impacts of BOD.

Concerns Identified in Comments to Proposal Stakeholders recommended that EPA consider additional subcategories for this industrial category: 1) Distilled and Blended Liquors, SIC Code 2085; 2) Malt Beverages, SIC Code 2082; and 3) Soybean Oil Mills, SIC Code 2075. Each is discussed in the paragraphs that follow.

Distilled and Blended Liquors Based on information in the 1997 economic census, EPA estimates there are 60 distilled and blended liquor facilities in the United States. EPA's primary sources of wastewater data for this industry is information reported to TRI and PCS for the year 2000. Three facilities reported information to TRI in 2000. Of these, two report zero discharge and one reports direct discharge. The total toxic pounds reported by the direct discharger in 2000 was driven by chlorine and was 78 toxic weighted pound equivalents ( TWPE). Twenty seven facilities reported direct discharges to PCS in 2000. Of these, 7 were major dischargers and 20 were minor discharges. Detailed discharge information for the 7 major dischargers in PCS indicates that the total toxic pounds discharged by these 7 facilities was 94 TWPE.

Malt Beverages Based on information in the 1997 economic census, EPA estimates there are 529 malt beverage facilities in the United States. EPA's primary sources of wastewater data for this industry is information reported to TRI and PCS for the year 2000. Twenty seven malt beverage facilities reported information to TRI in 2000. Of these, 13 were indirect dischargers, 5 were direct dischargers, and 9 were zero dischargers. The total toxic pounds reported by all malt beverage facilities in TRI was 7,594 TWPE with one indirect discharging facility contributing 97% of the TWPE from sodium nitrite. Eleven facilities reported direct discharges to PCS in 2000. Of these, 4 were major dischargers and 7 were minor discharges. Detailed discharge information for the 4 major dischargers in PCS indicates that the total toxic pounds discharged by these facilities was 25,781 TWPE. One facility contributed 97% of the TWPE from chlorine. Based on the FINAL DRAFT Fruits & Vegetables August 12, 2004 Page 16 of 33 information in TRI and PCS, EPA concludes that with a few exceptions, discharges from malt beverage facilities rank low in term of toxic pounds discharged.

Soybean Oil Mills Based on information in the 1997 economic census, EPA estimates there are 118 soybean oil mills in the United States. EPA's primary sources of wastewater data for this industry is information reported to TRI and PCS for the year 2000. Sixty five soybean oil mills reported information to TRI in 2000. Of these, 42 were indirect dischargers, 6 were direct dischargers, 4 were both indirect and direct dischargers and 13 were zero dischargers. The total toxic pounds reported by all malt beverage facilities in TRI was 12,991 TWPE with two direct discharging facility contributing 98% of the TWPE from sodium nitrite and chlorine. Nineteen facilities reported direct discharges to PCS in 2000. Of these, 1 was a major dischargers and the remainder were minor discharges. Detailed discharge information for the single major dischargers in PCS indicates that the facility's permit only includes limitations for conventional pollutants. Therefore, the TWPE estimate from the PCS facilities is zero ( 0) TWPE. Based on the information in TRI and PCS, EPA concludes that with a few exceptions, discharges from soybean oil mills rank low in term of toxic pounds discharged.

Additional Concerns Identified Post Proposal One stakeholder noted that POTWs would also benefit from more EPA assistance in managing high strength wastewater ( BOD, TSS, Ammonia). EPA lists these among the 15 POC's in the new Local Limits Guidance Manual, however conventional pollutant management it is not integrated into many aspects of this manual. In addition, the pretreatment community should be reminded of the relationship between accepting high strength BOD wastewater, and meeting ammonia limits.

Despite potential overloading, POTWs often continue to accept conventional pollutants such as BOD, due to their ability to collect surcharges on those pollutants. There is a tendency for them to continue to accept these pollutants in order to increase income. However, in addition to overloading the POTW and impairing its effectiveness, the pollutants and their by products are degrading the infrastructure of the POTWs. This leads to collapse of sewer pipes and the resulting damage to streets and to human health ( via the release of odors and volatile pollutants). The cost of repairs is often paid by taxpayers. In some areas, municipalities routinely clean lines clogged by oil and grease, again at taxpayer expense instead of controlling it at the source.

Followup Contacts Don Anderson, EPA/ OST/ EAD ( 202) 566 1021 Brian Trulear, EPA Region 3, ( 214) 814 5723 Carol Staniec, EPA Region 5, ( 312) 886 1436 Curt McCormick, EPA Region 8 ( juice), ( 303) 312 6377 Dave J. Knight, Washington State DEQ, ( 360) 407 6460 FINAL DRAFT Fruits & Vegetables August 12, 2004 Page 17 of 33 Possible Solutions EPA appreciates all comments and suggestions provided by the stakeholders and EPA Regional staff. However, as with any comments received by the Agency, EPA cannot address these suggestions without adequate supporting data. Some stakeholders identified nutrient discharges from fruit and vegetable processing plants as a concern. Information in PCS and TRI does not indicate that fruit and vegetable processing plants are discharging significant quantities of nutrients relative to other industrial categories. State permitting authorities also suggested that EPA should revise the existing guidelines because dischargers are performing well below the limits. Because TRI and PCS information indicate toxic discharges from fruit and vegetable processing plants are small relative to other industries, EPA has concluded that a revision would provide only small incremental gains, if any. In the event that stakeholders provide additional data and supporting information, on these or any of the issues identified above, EPA will reevaluate them at that time. In the absence of revisions to the effluent guidelines, these concerns could be addressed through improved information dissemination and outreach by EPA.

Discharges of nutrients and conventional pollutants: EPA could provide more assistance in managing high strength wastewater ( BOD, TSS, Ammonia). One way would be to integrate management of conventional pollutants into its new Local Limits Guidance Manual. An update of the 1971 document " Equitable Recovery of Industrial Waste Treatment Costs" could be helpful POTW's needing to manage their capacity and recover the costs for high strength users (& users with high peaking factors for flows or loadings). Water Environment Federation ( WEF) or its research arm ( WERF) may currently be working on producing a related document, and EPA could coordinate its efforts with them. The Engineering and Analysis Division ( EAD) can share these concerns with the Office of Wastewater Management ( OWM) to assist them in improving the implementation of these effluent guidelines.

Currently, Region V is addressing the problem of publicly owned treatment works ( POTWs) accepting conventional pollutants beyond the point of overloading by requiring POTWs with approved programs to include conventional pollutants in their local limits. This requires that the POTW set an upper limit on the amount of conventional pollutants it can receive based on plant design, and to allocate that load among its dischargers. For POTWs without approved programs, the Region has had to resort to legal action. They are also addressing oil & grease issues through SSO regulations. EPA could offer non regulatory assistance in the form of general guidance on ways to control BOD, and broader dissemination of the Agency's guidance on setting local limits. In addition, the Water Environment Federation ( WEF) is preparing a new Manual of Practice ( MOP) titled Financing and Charges for Wastewater Systems  MOP 27 which is expected to elaborate on how to establish a fair and effective surcharge program. Once this MOP is available, EPA could include it in it's informational materials.

No limits for BOD: See the suggestions discussed in the previous paragraphs. FINAL DRAFT Fruits & Vegetables August 12, 2004 Page 18 of 33 Improvements in industry capacity to control discharges: See the suggestions discussed in the previous paragraphs.

Additional subcategories: Based on the information available at this time, EPA has concluded it is not appropriate to develop new ELGs for distilled and blended liquors under part 407 because discharges from this potential subcategory rank low in terms of TWPE. EPA has also concluded it is not appropriate to develop new ELGs for malt beverages or for soybean oil mills under part 407, because only a few facilities drive the TWPE for each of these industries.

Summary of Potential Solutions: The concerns for overloading could be addressed through improved information dissemination and outreach by EPA. The Agency could prepare a fact sheet with answers to frequently asked questions ( FAQs), including available and upcoming guidance, which could be posted on EPA's web site. In addition, the Agency could announce the availability of this fact sheet, and the name of the current EAD staff available to answer questions at the regular meetings for permit writers and pretreatment coordinators held by OWM and also through email alerts to the EAD mailing list. Finally, due to the relatively small number of facilities discharging the bulk of the TWPE, EPA could also provide assistance to permit writers in preparing BPJ based permits. FINAL DRAFT Fruits & Vegetables August 12, 2004 Page 19 of 33 Attachment A EPA Databases and References Used in this Review Overview of the 304( m) Planning Process CWA Section 304( m)( 1) requires EPA to establish a schedule for the annual review and revision of all existing effluent guidelines and to identify categories of point sources discharging toxic or non conventional pollutants for which EPA has not published effluent guidelines. To accomplish this review, EPA conducted a screening level analysis using readily available information from EPA's Permit Compliance System ( PCS) and Toxics Release Inventory ( TRI) databases. EPA estimated the mass of pollutants discharged from each category, weighted the pollutant releases based on chemical toxicity, and ranked the categories based on the toxicweighted pollutant releases.

In addition to reported discharges in PCS and TRI, EPA used other readily available data, as well as information from public outreach, including industry categories recommended by stakeholders for regulatory development or regulatory revision, to evaluate implementation and efficiency considerations.

For additional details on EPA's screening level analysis refer the following documents in EPA Docket Number OW 2003 0074:

Memorandum: Description and Results of EPA Methodology to Synthesize Screening Level Results for the Effluent Guidelines Program Plan for 2004/ 2005, DCN 548, Section 3.0;

Development of PCSLoads 2000, DCN 620, Section 2.1.2 ( this document explains how pollutant loads were calculated from PCS data); and

Evaluation of RSEI Model Runs, DCN 618, Section 2.1.1.

Information from EPA's Permit Compliance System ( PCS) and Toxics Release Inventory ( TRI) databases were used to create the PCSLoads2000 and TRIReleases2000 databases. These databases were the primary source of information used to conduct this review. Since this industry ranked low during the screening phase, however, EPA did not verify any of the information reported to PCS and TRI, and has used it as reported.

TRIReleases2000 The Toxic Release Inventory ( TRI) is the major source of data for the TRIReleases2000 database. TRI is the common name for Section 313 of the Emergency Planning FINAL DRAFT Fruits & Vegetables August 12, 2004 Page 20 of 33 and Community Right to Know Act ( EPCRA). Each year, facilities that meet certain thresholds must report their releases and other waste management activities for listed toxic chemicals. That is, facilities must report the quantities of toxic chemicals recycled, collected and combusted for energy recovery, treated for destruction, or disposed of. A separate report must be filed for each chemical that exceeds the reporting threshold. The TRI list of chemicals for reporting year 2000 includes more than 600 chemicals and chemical categories. For this review, EPA used data for reporting year 2000, because they were the most recent available at the time the review began.

There are three criteria that a facility must meet to be required to submit a TRI report for that reporting year. The criteria are:

( 1) SIC Code Determination: Facilities in SIC Codes 20 through 39, seven additional SIC codes outside this range, and federal facilities must concern themselves with TRI reporting. EPA rarely checks or refutes facility claims regarding the SIC code identification. The primary SIC code determines TRI reporting.

( 2) Number of Employees: Facilities must have 10 or more full time employees or their equivalent. EPA defines a " full time equivalent" as a person that works 2,000 hours in the reporting year ( there are several exceptions and special circumstances that are well defined in the TRI reporting instructions).

( 3) Activity Thresholds: If the facility is in a covered SIC code and has 10 or more fulltime employee equivalents it must conduct an activity threshold analysis for every chemical and chemical category on the current TRI list. The facility must determine whether it manufactures, processes, OR otherwise uses each chemical at or above the appropriate activity threshold. Reporting thresholds are not based on the amount of release. All TRI thresholds are based on mass, not concentration. Different thresholds apply for persistent bioaccumulative toxic ( PBT) chemicals than for non PBT chemicals.

In TRI, facilities report annual loads released to the environment of each toxic chemical or chemical category that meets reporting requirements. They must report onsite releases to air, receiving streams, disposal to land, underground wells, and several other categories. They must also report the amount of toxic chemicals in wastes transferred to off site locations, including discharges to POTWs and other off site locations, such as commercial waste disposal facilities.

For this review, EPA focused on the amount of chemicals facilities reported either discharging directly to a receiving stream or transferring to a POTW. For facilities discharging directly to a stream, the loads were taken directly from the reported TRI data for calendar year 2000. For facilities that transfer toxic chemicals to POTWs, EPA first adjusted the TRI pollutant loads reported to be transferred to POTWs to account for pollutant removal that occurs at the POTW prior to discharge to the receiving stream. This adjustment was made using POTW FINAL DRAFT Fruits & Vegetables August 12, 2004 Page 21 of 33 removal efficiencies from EPA's Risk Screening Environmental Indicators ( RSEI) model ( see Section 2.1.1 of the docket for more information on TRI and the RSEI model).

Reporting facilities are not required to sample and analyze wastestreams to determine the quantities of toxic chemicals released. They may estimate releases based on mass balance calculations, published emission factors, site specific emission factors, or other approaches. Facilities are required to indicate, by a reporting code, the basis of their release estimate. TRI's reporting guidance is that for chemicals reasonably expected to be present but measured below the detection limit, facilities should use one half the detection limit to estimate the mass released. The guidance is slightly different for dioxins and dioxin like compounds in that it allows non detects to be treated as zero.

TRI provides the option for facilities to report releases as specific numbers or as ranges, if appropriate. Specific estimates are encouraged if data are available to ensure the accuracy; however, EPA allows facilities to report releases in the following ranges: 1 to 10 pounds, 11 to 499 pounds, and 500 to 999 pounds. For this analysis, EPA used the mid point of each reported range to represent a facility's releases.

EPA weighted the direct and indirect pollutant releases to surface waters using toxic weighting factors ( TWFs) developed by Office of Water/ Engineering and Analysis Division ( EAD), to calculate toxic weighted pound equivalents ( TWPE) for each reported release. See 4.2.3 and 4.2.4 for more discussion of TWFs and calculation of TWPE. EPA compiled data taken from TRI, the adjusted releases from POTWs to surface waters, the calculated TWPE, and the relationship between SIC codes and point source category into a Microsoft Access   database named TRIReleases2000. Some corrections were made to this database as further study was conducted on the TRI data. Limitations of TRI are discussed in Section IV of the Technical Support Document for this planning process.

PCSLoads2000 The Permit Compliance System ( PCS) is the major source of data for the PCSLoads2000 database. PCS is a computerized management information system maintained by EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance ( OECA). It was created to track permit, compliance, and enforcement status of facilities regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) program under the Clean Water Act ( CWA).

More than 65,000 industrial facilities and water treatment plants have obtained permits for water discharges of regulated pollutants. To provide an initial framework for setting permit issuance priorities, EPA developed a major/ minor classification system for industrial and municipal wastewater discharges. Major discharges almost always have the capability to impact receiving waters if not controlled and, therefore, have been accorded more regulatory attention than minor discharges. There are approximately 6,400 facilities ( including sewerage systems) with major FINAL DRAFT Fruits & Vegetables August 12, 2004 Page 22 of 33 discharges for which PCS has extensive records. Permitting authorities classify discharges as major based on an assessment of six characteristics:

( 1) toxic pollutant potential; ( 2) ratio of discharge flow to stream flow; ( 3) conventional pollutant loading; ( 4) public health impact; ( 5) water quality factors; and ( 6) proximity to coastal waters.

Facilities with major discharges must report compliance with NPDES permit limits via monthly Discharge Monitoring Reports ( DMRs) submitted to the permitting authority. The permitting authority enters the reported DMR data into PCS, including the type of violation ( if any), concentration and quantity values, and the Quarterly Non Compliance Report ( QNCR) indicators. Minor discharges may, or may not, adversely impact receiving water if not controlled. Therefore, EPA does not require DMRs for facilities with minor discharges. For this reason, the PCS database includes data only for a limited set of minor dischargers when the states choose to include these data. As a consequence, extensive data are not available for minor discharges in PCS.

Parameters in PCS include water quality parameters ( such as pH and temperature), specific chemicals, bulk parameters ( such as BOD 5 and TSS), and flow rates. Although other pollutants may be discharged, PCS only contains data for the parameters identified in the facility's NPDES permit. Facilities typically report monthly average pounds per day discharged, but also report daily maxima, and pollutant concentrations.

For this review, EPA used data for reporting year 2000, to correspond to the data obtained from TRI. EPA used its Effluent Data Statistics ( EDS) system program to calculate annual pollutant discharges using the monthly reports in PCS. Because units of measure vary widely in PCS, EPA developed the EDS system to estimate mass loadings based on data stored in PCS. The EDS system uses existing PCS reported mass loading values or multiplies reported discharge flows and effluent concentrations to estimate loadings for each outfall ( discharge pipe), taking into account the various units of concentration and flow rates.

Where concentrations were reported as below detection limit ( BDL) EPA assumed the parameter concentration was equal to zero for parameters never detected by the facility in 2000. For parameters sometimes detected and sometimes not, the " BDL" concentration was set equal to half of the detection limit. . The EDS system program sums the monthly loads to calculate annual discharges, interpolating ( using average reported loads) for months with missing reports.

EPA weighted the calculated annual pollutant discharges using EAD's TWFs to calculate TWPE for each reported discharge, as it did for the reported TRI releases. See sections 4.2.3 and 4.2.4 for more discussion of TWFs and calculation of TWPE. EPA compiled data taken from FINAL DRAFT Fruits & Vegetables August 12, 2004 Page 23 of 33 PCS, the calculated TWPE, and the relationship between SIC codes and point source category into a Microsoft Access   database named PCSLoads2000. As further study was conducted on the PCS data, some corrections were made.

Other Information Sources In addition to TRI and PCS, EPA used the following sources of information in its review of this industry:

° 1997 Economic Census data; and 2002 Economic Census data.

° Contacts with reporting facilities to verify reported releases and facility categorization.

° Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, 1995. Waste Manaagement and Utilization in Food Production and Process, Chapter 5, Water and Wastewater Use in the the Food Processing Industry. Accessed at: < http:// www. p2pays. org/ ref/ 01/ 0069205. pdf> on June 15, 2004.

° Food Manufacturing Coalition for Innovation and Technolgy Transfer, State of the Art Report, Wastewater Reduction and Recycling in Food Processing Operations. Accessed at: < http:// foodsci. unl. edu/ fmc/ 7wastewa. htm> on June 15, 2004.

° U. S. Asia Environmental Partnership, Clean Technologies in U. S. Indlustries: Food Processing. Accessed at < http:// www. p2pays. org/ ref/ 09/ 08853. htm> on June 15, 2004 ° World Bank Group, 1998. Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook, Fruit and Vegetable Processing. Accessed on June 15, 2004 at: < http:// ifcln1. ifc. org/ ifcext/ enviro. nsf/ AttachmentsByTitle/ gui_ fruitveg_ WB/$ FILE/ fruitandvg_ PPAH. pdf > FINAL DRAFT Fruits & Vegetables August 12, 2004 Page 24 of 33 Attachment B Point Source Categories Identified Solely Through Factor 4 Industry Formal Comment Process Previous Suggestions ( Sec. 2.4) Draft Strategy Outreach Comments on Draft Strategy ( Sec. 2.2) Comments on 2002/ 2003 Plan ( Sec. 2.3) Permitting Authorities ( Sec. 2.5) AMSA & ASIWPCA ( Sec. 2.6)

Coal Mining

Coil Coating

Dairy Products Processing

Electrical and Electronic Components

Fruits and Vegetable Processing

Metal Molding and Casting

Mineral Mining and Processing

Seafood Processing

FINAL DRAFT Fruits & Vegetables August 12, 2004 Page 25 of 33 Attachment C Applicability and Regulatory History Applicability of 40 CFR Part 407 The current effluent guidelines for the Fruits and Vegetable Processing Source Category, 40 CFR Part 407, contain 8 subcategories ( Subpart A  H).

Subpart A  Apple Juice Subcategory. The provisions of this subpart are applicable to discharges resulting from the processing of apples into apple juice or apple cider.

Subpart B  Apple Products Subcategory. The provisions of this subpart are applicable to discharges resulting from the processing of apples into apple products. The processing of apples into caustic peeled or dehydrated products is specifically excluded.

Subpart C  Citrus Products Subcategory. The provisions of this subpart are applicable to discharges resulting from the processing of citrus into citrus products.

Subpart D  Frozen Potato Products Subcategory. The provisions of this subpart are applicableto discharges resulting from the processing of white potatoes into frozen potato products.

Subpart E  Dehydrated Potato Products Subcategory. The provisions of this subpart are applicable to discharges resulting from the processing of white potatoes into dehydrated potato products.

Subpart F  Canned and Preserved Fruits Subcategory. The provisions of this subpart are applicable to discharges resulting from the processing of the following fruit products: apricots; caneberries; sweet, sour and brined cherries; cranberries; dried fruit; grape juice canning and pressing; olives; peaches; pears; fresh and processed pickles, and pickle salting stations; pineapples; plums; raisins; strawberries; and tomatoes.

Subpart G  Canned and Preserved Vegetables Subcategory. The provisions of this subpart are applicable to discharges resulting from the processing of the following vegetable products: beets; broccoli; carrots; canned and frozen corn; dehydrated onions and garlic; dehydrated vegetables; dry beans; lima beans; mushrooms; canned onions; peas; sauerkraut canning and cutting; snap beans; spinach; squash; and canned potatoes.

Subpart H  Canned and Miscellaneous Specialties Subcategory. Applicable to discharges resulting from the processing of the following specialty products: added ingredients; baby food; corn, potato, and tortilla chips; ethnic foods; jams and jellies; mayonnaise and dressings; soups; and tomato starch cheese canned specialties. definitions: The term chips, potato shall mean the processing of fried chips, made FINAL DRAFT Fruits & Vegetables August 12, 2004 Page 26 of 33 from fresh or stored white potatoes, all varieties. The term chips, corn shall mean the processing of fried corn, made by soaking, rinsing, milling and extruding into a fryer without toasting.

Potential new Subcategories: ° SIC 2075  Soybean Oil Mills; ° SIC 2082  Malt Beverages; and ° SIC 2085  Distilled and Blended Liquors REGULATORY BACKGROUND Regulatory History Final effluent limitations for Subparts A  E were promulgated March 21, 1974. Final effluent limitations for Subparts F, G, and H were promulgated April 16, 1976.

The technology basis of existing regulations ( BPT) was in plant waste management and operating methods and end of pipe preliminary screening, primary treatment, and secondary biological treatment. BAT and NSPS are the same as BPT followed by disinfection ( chlorination). For some facilities, more intensive biological treatment and final multi media or sand filtration may be required to meet BAT limits.

Existing Limitations ° BAT and NSPS limitations guidelines are normalized on the basis of metric ton ( kkg) of raw material.

° EPA established no limitations for PSES or PSNS.

° NSPS for Subparts F, G, and H is reserved. FINAL DRAFT Fruits & Vegetables August 12, 2004 Page 27 of 33 Table C 1. Effluent Guidelines for Canned and Preserved Fruits and Vegetables Processing, Part 407 Pollutant BPT 30 day averages ( kg/ kkg) NSPS 30 day averages ( kg/ kkg)

BOD 5 0.05 to 3.34 0.07 to 0.55 TSSb 0.00 to 5.09 0.1 to 0.55 Oil and Greasea 20 mg/ L none pH within the range 6 to 9c within the range 6 to 9b a Oil and grease limits for Subpart H, only. b BPT TSS limit for " added ingredients" in Subpart H is 0 kg/ kkg. NSPS limits for Subpart H are " reserved." c pH range 6 to 9.5 for subparts F, G, and H. FINAL DRAFT Fruits & Vegetables August 12, 2004 Page 28 of 33 Attachment D PCS Discharges SIC NPDES ID NAME CITY Flow( MGD) LBS/ YR1 TWPE1 Percent of Total SIC TWPE1 Cumulati ve Percent of Total SIC TWPE1 2033 MA0004936 VERYFINE PRODUCTS INC. LITTLETON 1 80,220 2,145 87% 87%

2033 FL0000043 TROPICANA NORTH AMERICA BRADENTON 1 295,363 305 12% 99%

2033 CT0000850 FIS ( FOOD INGREDIENTS SPECIALI NEW MILFORD 0 65,891 17 1%

2033 FL0002801 SFE CITRUS PROCESSORS AUBURNDALE 0 16,267 0 0%

2033 FL0001457 FLORIDA JUICE INC. LAKELAND 0 10,273 0 0%

2033 FL0000477 THE MINUTE MAID COMPANY DUNEDIN 0 1,249 0 0%

2033 NY0002585 BURNS PHILIP FOOD NORTH ROSE 0 22,562 2033 TOTAL 0 491,825 2,467 2035 NC0001074 MT. OLIVE PICKLE COMPANY MT. OLIVE 0.34 4,162,272 102 99% 99%

2035 DE0000736 PINNACLE FOODS CORPORATION MILLSBORO 0 13,414 1 2035 TOTAL 0 4,175,686 103 2037 PA0010430 HANOVER FOODS CORP CENTRE HALL 0.21 56,724 129 38% 38%

2037 WA0021067 QUINCY CITY OF QUINCY 3 8,024,960 102 30% 69%

2037 ID0000663 J R SIMPLOT CO HEYBURN 2 1,343,020 50 15% 84%

2037 ID0000612 MCCAIN FOODS INC BURLEY 4 1,245,541 31 9% 93%

2037 OR0002402 HEINZ FROZEN FOOD CO ONTARIO 2 625,288 22 7% 100%

2037 FL0000485 PASCO BEVERAGE COMPANY DADE CITY 3 215,989 1 0% 100%

2037 FL0002755 FLORIDA SELECT CITRUS GROVELAND 0 438 0 0% 100%

2037 TOTAL 0 11,511,959 335 FINAL DRAFT Fruits & Vegetables August 12, 2004 Page 29 of 33 Attachment E TRI Discharges SIC Code Facility TRI ID Facility Name Facility City Facility State Total lbs Total TWPE Percent Total of SIC TWPE Cumulative Percent Total of SIC TWPE 2033 61550NSTLS216NM NESTLE USA CONFECTIONS & SNACKS DIV. MORTON IL 50 0.003 100% 100%

2033 Total 50 0.003 2034 95380RGRSF151SW ROGERS FOODS INC. TURLOCK CA 72 1 83% 83%

2034 95352GNRLF705EW GILROY FOODS MODESTO CA 74 0.11 16% 99%

2034 97321RGNFR52525 OREGON FREEZE DRY INC., PLANT # 2 ALBANY OR 75 0.0047 1% 100%

2034 Total 221 1 2035 61821KRFTN1701W KRAFT FOODS N. A. INC. CHAMPAIGN IL 2,339 0.14 78% 78%

2035 46203RYLFD2322E ROYAL FOOD PRODS. INC. INDIANAPOLIS IN 20 0.035 19% 97%

2035 33126PRTYC1800N PURITY PRODS. INC. MIAMI FL 60 0.006 3% 100%

2035 75042KRFTN2340F KRAFT FOODS N. A. INC. GARLAND TX   0% 100%

2035 Total 2,418 0.19 2037 31520RCHSK200GL RICH SEAPAK CORP. BRUNSWICK GA 32,972 16,057 91% 91%

2037 83318RDFDSHIGHW MCCAIN FOODS USA INC. BURLEY ID 2,032,648 1,237 7% 98%

2037 83336JRSMPHIGHW J. R. SIMPOLOT CO. HEYBURN FOOD GROUP HEYBURN ID 3,742,491 233 1% 99%

2037 04740MCCNFSTATI MCCAIN FOODS USA INC. EASTON ME 1,082,400 68 0% 100% SIC Code Facility TRI ID Facility Name Facility City Facility State Total lbs Total TWPE Percent Total of SIC TWPE Cumulative Percent Total of SIC TWPE FINAL DRAFT Fruits & Vegetables August 12, 2004 Page 30 of 33 2037 54467RDFDS1701H MCCAIN FOODS USA INC. PLOVER WI 248,377 19 0% 100%

2037 97818LMBWSCOLU M LAMB WESTON BOARDMAN OR 11,759 18 0% 100%

2037 97914RDFDS175NE H. J. HEINZ CO. L. P. HEINZ FROZEN FOOD DIV. ONTARIO OR 96,267 7 0% 100%

2037 58201JRSMP3630G J. R. SIMPLOT CO. GRAND FORKS ND 33,977 4 0% 100%

2037 34208TRPCN10011 TROPICANA PRODS. INC. BRADENTON FL 21,486 3 0% 100%

2037 33525LYKSPHWY30 PASCO BEVERAGE CO. DADE CITY FL 725 1 0% 100%

2037 04742TLNTC87HIG ATLANTIC CUSTOM PROCESSORS L. L. C. FORT FAIRFIELD ME 357 1 0% 100%

2037 16828HNVRFRTE45 HANOVER FOODS CORP. CENTRE HALL PA 255 0.38 0% 100%

2037 99352LMBWS2013S LAMB WESTON RICHLAND FACILITY RICHLAND WA 3,564 0.22 0% 100%

2037 13069GNRLF607PH AGRILINK FOODS INC. FULTON NY 102 0.15 0% 100%

2037 16428WLCHSSLAKE WELCH'S NORTH EAST PA   0% 100%

2037 Total 7,307,380 17,649 FINAL DRAFT Fruits & Vegetables August 12, 2004 Page 31 of 33 Attachment F Reported Pollutant Loadings SIC Pollutant Name CAS Poll't Group Code PCS TRI Indirect TRI Direct Facilities Reportin g Pollutant Pounds TWPE Facilities Reportin g Pollutant Pounds TWPE Facilities Reportin g Pollutant Pounds TWPE 2033 OIL AND GREASE C035 CP 1 32,872 2033 BOD 5 DAY ( CARBONACEOUS) C003 CP 4 53,392 2033 TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 CP 8 158,899 2033 SUM OF CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS 245,163 0 0 0 0 0 2033 AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 NC 7 5,981 11 2033 TOTAL SULFIDE 18496258 NC 1 764 2,140 2033 TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON ( TOC) C012 NC 1 102,312 2033 TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 NC 4 9,719 2033 PHOSPHORUS 7723140 NC 5 5,890 2033 NITROGEN, NITRITE TOTAL ( AS N) 14797650 NC 1 1,471 2033 NITROGEN, NITRATE TOTAL ( AS N) 14797558 NC 1 17,655 1 1 50 0.0031 2033 IRON 7439896 NC 1 1,147 6 2033 HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM 18540299 NC 2 67 34 2033 CHLORINE, TOTAL RESIDUAL 7782505 NC 3 15 8 2033 NITROGEN, TOTAL ( AS N) 7727379 NC 5 48,656 2033 SUM OF NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS 193,678 2,200 0 0 50 0.0031 2033 NICKEL 7440020 PP 2 50 5 2033 LEAD 7439921 PP 2 7 15 2033 SELENIUM 7782492 PP 2 34 38 2033 THALLIUM 7440280 PP 1 7 7 2033 COPPER 7440508 PP 3 119 74 2033 CADMIUM 7440439 PP 2 1 2 2033 ZINC 7440666 PP 3 207 10 2033 ARSENIC 7440382 PP 2 34 117 SIC Pollutant Name CAS Poll't Group Code PCS TRI Indirect TRI Direct Facilities Reportin g Pollutant Pounds TWPE Facilities Reportin g Pollutant Pounds TWPE Facilities Reportin g Pollutant Pounds TWPE FINAL DRAFT Fruits & Vegetables August 12, 2004 Page 32 of 33 2033 SUM OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS 457 267 0 0 0 0 2034 PROPYLENE OXIDE 75569 NC 1 72 1 2034 NITROGEN, NITRATE TOTAL ( AS N) 14797558 NC 1 75 0.0047 2034 AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 NC 1 74 0.11 2034 SUM OF NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS 0 0 221 1 0 0 2035 TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 CP 2 4,728 2035 BOD 5 DAY ( CARBONACEOUS) C003 CP 2 5,020 2035 SUM OF CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS 9,747 0 0 0 0 0 2035 AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 NC 2 955 2 2035 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 NC 1 578 2035 TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 NC 1 2,904 2035 PHOSPHORUS 7723140 NC 2 3,299 2035 NITROGEN, TOTAL ( AS N) 7727379 NC 1 12,934 2035 NITROGEN, NITRATE TOTAL ( AS N) 14797558 NC 1 1,362 0.084 1 2,339 0.14 2035 NITRIC ACID 7697372 NC 2 0 2035 GLYCOL ETHERS N230 NC 1 60 0.0064 2035 DIETHANOLAMINE 111422 NC 1 20 0.035 2035 CHLORIDE 16887006 NC 1 4,137,463 101 2035 NITROGEN, NITRITE TOTAL ( AS N) 14797650 NC 1 1,156 2035 SUM OF NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS 4,160,651 103 2,418 0.19 0 0 2037 TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS C009 CP 7 776,749 2037 BOD 5 DAY ( CARBONACEOUS) C003 CP 6 283,765 2037 OIL AND GREASE C035 CP 2 10,142 2037 SUM OF CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS 1,070,656 0 0 0 0 0 2037 CHLORINE, TOTAL RESIDUAL 7782505 NC 3 261 127 1 32,972 16,057 1 2,281 1,111 2037 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 14265442 NC 2 420,198 2037 TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN C021 NC 4 60,514 2037 TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS C010 NC 1 7,603,747 2037 PHOSPHORUS 7723140 NC 4 696,510 SIC Pollutant Name CAS Poll't Group Code PCS TRI Indirect TRI Direct Facilities Reportin g Pollutant Pounds TWPE Facilities Reportin g Pollutant Pounds TWPE Facilities Reportin g Pollutant Pounds TWPE FINAL DRAFT Fruits & Vegetables August 12, 2004 Page 33 of 33 2037 NITROGEN, TOTAL ( AS N) 7727379 NC 1 9,268 2037 AMMONIA AS NITROGEN 7664417 NC 6 66,190 121 4 13,583 20 9 7,365 11 2037 NITRIC ACID 7697372 NC 1 0 2037 NITROGEN, NITRATE TOTAL ( AS N) 14797558 NC 3 1,403,697 87 1 32,357 2 7 7,218,822 448 2037 SUM OF NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS 10,260,386 335 78,912 16,079 7,228,468 1,569


April 4, 1996 EPA SAB CASAC LTR 96 006 Honorable Carol M. Browner Administrator U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 401 M. Street SW Washington, DC 20460 RE: Closure by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee ( CASAC) on the Secondary Standard Portion of the Staff Paper for Ozone Dear Ms. Browner:

A Panel of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee ( CASAC) of EPA's Science Advisory Board ( SAB) met on March 22, 1995, to review a draft of the primary standard portion of the document entitled Review of National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information  OAQPS Staff Paper. At that time, a draft of the secondary standard portion of the document was not completed. In August, 1995, a revised Staff Paper, which included a first draft of the secondary standard portion was sent to the CASAC panel members for review. On September 19 and 20, 1995, the Panel met to complete this review. The Panel members' comments reflect their satisfaction with the improvements made in the scientific quality and completeness of the primary standard portion of the Staff Paper and reached closure on that part ( see CASAC Letter Report: EPA SAB CASAC LTR 96 002, November 30, 1995). However, the Panel could not come to closure on the secondary standard portion of the Staff Paper which was a first draft. To facilitate further development of this part of the Staff Paper, the Panel members provided detailed comments to your staff. The Panel felt that the suggested revisions were extensive enough to warrant a review of the next draft.

On March 21, 1996, a subset of the Panel, consisting of all four of the Panel members with expertise in ozone effects on vegetation plus three additional CASAC members, met in Research Triangle Park, NC to review a second draft of the secondary 2 portion of the Staff Paper. In addition, a Panel member with expertise in economics reviewed the Staff Paper and provided written comments. Overall, the comments from the Panel members reflected their satisfaction that the Staff Paper was much improved; however, the verbal and written comments provided to your staff indicated that important, additional modifications are still required. Nevertheless, it was the consensus of the Panel that an additional review of the document by the Panel was not necessary. Consequently, the majority of the Panel agreed to come to closure on the Staff Paper assuming that the Agency would incorporate the Panel's latest comments. It was the opinion of six of the seven members of the Panel who were present that the Staff Paper will provide an appropriate scientific basis for making regulatory decisions concerning a secondary ozone standard once the additional changes are incorporated. The additional modifications are summarized below.

It should be pointed out that the Panel members all agreed that damage is occurring to vegetation and natural resources at concentrations below the present 1 hour national ambient air quality standard ( NAAQS) of 0.12 ppm. The vegetation effects experts were in agreement that plants appear to be more sensitive to ozone than humans. Further, it was agreed that a secondary NAAQS, more stringent than the present primary standard, was necessary to protect vegetation from ozone. However, agreement on the level and form of such a standard is still elusive for a number of reasons.

The first issue is the level of uncertainty associated with the crop loss risk assessment presented in Tables VII 5a d through VII 7 of the Staff Paper. While some of the sources of uncertainty are addressed earlier in the Staff Paper, other sources of uncertainty are not addressed at all. The estimates in these Tables should only be presented as rough estimates for a number of reasons. First, the dose response functions are based upon open top chamber studies which have the advantage of providing the least amount of environmental modification of any outdoor chamber, but, nevertheless, they still alter ambient microclimate conditions which will introduce uncertainty. In these studies, plant response to ozone has been optimized under conditions which do not reflect the real life ambient field conditions. Two of the plant experts said that the open top chamber experiments by their very design and execution produced results that overestimated the effects of ozone on plant yield. The other two experts agreed that the open top chambers do alter the environment in the chamber with respect to ambient field conditions but did not agree with there being a positive bias. Research has not yet provided methods that clearly are better than open top chambers for establishing ozone dose response relationships for a wide variety of 3 crops. Second, the estimated exposures are based on a non peer reviewed, empirical model which has not been subjected to any performance evaluation. In addition, insufficient details are given either in the Staff Paper or the unpublished Agency report for anyone to perform an evaluation. Third, the estimated exposures are then extrapolated to hypothetical scenarios where various secondary NAAQS are attained. Details of this extrapolation procedure are also insufficient to judge the appropriateness of the procedure. Fourth, the exposure estimates are then extrapolated to the entire coterminous U. S. using a Geographic Information System ( GIS) which is based on an unpublished, non peer reviewed, internal EPA memorandum that contains insufficient details to adequately evaluate the GIS. The exposure estimates and the dose response function estimates are then input into the economic models which introduce additional uncertainties. Furthermore, the losses are computed from an assumed 12 hr. background ozone concentration of 0.025 ppm which is too low and will over inflate the crop loss estimates. A more reasonable 12 hr. daylight, summertime background is more likely closer to the 8 hr. background of 0.03 0.05 ppm. As a result, the Panel felt that the absolute values of the numbers in Tables VII 5a VII 7 are highly uncertain estimates of crop losses and are a result of a propagation of uncertainties. They are rough estimates, and this should be explicitly stated in this discussion. The Panel believes, however, that these Tables can be of some use in identifying rough relative incremental benefits associated with a given NAAQS as long as it is recognized that small differences in benefits may have no significance because of these uncertainties.

A related issue is the estimated yield losses and seedling biomass losses displayed on the maps in Appendix E of the Staff Paper. Since these are also based on the results of open top chamber experiments as well as the results of the GIS technology approach, the uncertainties are large. The concern here is that the maps will be used out of context and the caveats ignored. The limitations and uncertainties of the data need to be clearly stated in the legend of each map.

The SUM06 standard reflects a change in thinking over the current 1 hour standard with respect to how plants respond to ambient ozone exposure. This proposed form of the standard implicitly recognizes that vegetation response to ambient ozone is cumulative. However, there is disagreement over whether this is the best form for a cumulative standard and what the level of the standard should be to protect vegetation from damage by ozone. One of the Panel's ecology experts thinks the form and the range of between 25 to 38 ppm hours proposed by the Agency is appropriate. A second expert thinks the form proposed by the Agency is appropriate 4 and biologically based, but feels that a level of 20 ppm hours is necessary to adequately protect natural resources. The other two experts are uncomfortable with a SUM06 form because they feel it lacks a biological basis. One member stated that he feels very uncomfortable with SUM06 and would not want to defend it because he feels there is too much uncertainty associated with its derivation. The fourth expert is concerned that a SUM06 form is unnecessarily complicated, and the level proposed by the Agency would not eliminate ozone damage. Instead, he proposes that the 1 hour average ozone should not exceed 0.05 ppm for more than one hour between the hours of 0700 1500. In his written comments, the Panel's economist noted that the welfare benefits of a secondary standard depend on the decision regarding the primary standard. For example, he points out that if the primary standard remains at 0.12 ppm for 1 hour, or is changed to an 8 hour standard of 0.09 ppm with one allowable exceedence, Table VII 5a suggests potentially significant incremental benefits associated with a secondary standard based on SUM06. He further states that if the primary standard is set at 0.07 or 0.08 ppm with one exceedence, there is little to be gained by establishing a separate secondary standard.

Although the three remaining CASAC members were neither biologists or economists, they offered their opinion on the secondary standard proposals. Two think the form proposed by the Agency is appropriate. One thinks that the level proposed by the Agency is appropriate, while the other feels that the Administrator's discretion should be broader than the range presented in the Staff Paper. One of these members pointed out, however, that the Staff Paper does not make it clear enough that the SUM06 standard as proposed is a practical choice being made as to the level of effects that will be tolerated and not a level that will prevent effects from occurring. The third is uncomfortable with SUM06 and based on the estimates in Tables VII 5a VII 7, recommends an 8 hour standard at the same level as the new primary standard. The three members also concurred that given the crudeness of the risk assessment estimates, policy decisions cannot be based firmly on science.

A number of the Panelists offered their insights as to why there are such divergent opinions on the recommended form and level of the standard. The main issues are the lack of sufficient rural ozone data, and the lack of relevant plant exposure studies. There are serious deficiencies in terms of the distribution of monitoring sites, particularly in rural areas that prevent us from accurately assessing exposure once ozone damage is observed. The Panel is in agreement that plants are being damaged by ozone and that the current secondary standard is not sufficiently protective, but there remain important limitations to our understanding of the extent of 5 the response of vegetation to ozone under field conditions. Five years from now, if we do not have the results of research coupling ozone air quality and plant biology under conditions more representative of ambient field conditions, to avoid the shortcomings of the open top chamber experiments, then we will continue to be hampered by our inability to come to consensus on the levels of air quality that are protective of vegetation and ecosystems at the most reasonable cost. In addition, a number of Panelists expressed the importance of knowing the consequences of decisions concerning National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Once a decision is made to change the standard or to maintain the status quo, we must be able to determine, by appropriate monitoring and research, what the consequences will be in terms of ambient air quality and effects on vegetation and ecosystems.

In summary, a majority of the Panel has come to closure on the secondary part of the ozone Staff Paper despite the desire of the Panel for additional significant revisions. These revisions have been communicated to your staff by this letter and in written comments by individual Panel members. The Panel trusts that your staff will address these concerns.

CASAC would appreciate being kept informed of progress on establishing a revised or new ozone standard, and plans for research on ozone effects. Please do not hesitate to contact me if CASAC can be of further assistance in this matter. We look forward to seeing the final version of the secondary standard portion of the Staff Paper.

Sincerely,

Dr. George T. Wolff, Chair Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee NOTICE This report has been written as part of the activities of the Science Advisory Board, a public advisory group providing extramural scientific information and advice to the Administrator and other officials of the Environmental Protection Agency. The Board is structured to provide balanced, expert assessment of scientific matters related to problems facing the Agency. This report has not been reviewed for approval by the Agency and, hence, the contents of this report do not necessarily represent the views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor of other agencies in the Executive Branch of the Federal government, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute a recommendation for use. SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD CLEAN AIR SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE OZONE PANEL ROSTER  MARCH 21, 1996 MEETING Secondary Standard Review Chair Dr. George T. Wolff, General Motors Environmental & Energy Staff, Detroit, MI Members Dr. Stephen M. Ayres, Office of International Health Programs, Virginia Commonwealth University, Medical College of Virginia, Richmond, VA Dr. Philip K. Hopke, Department of Chemistry, Clark University, Potsdam, NY Dr. Jay S. Jacobson, Boyce Thompson Institute, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY Dr. Joe L. Mauderly, Inhalation Toxicology Research Institute, Lovelace Biomedical & Environmental Research Institute, Albuquerque, NM Dr. James H. Price, Jr., Research & Technology Section, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Austin, TX Consultants to CASAC Dr. A. Myrick Freeman, Professor, Department of Economics, Bowdoin College, Brunswick, ME Dr. Allan Legge, Biosphere Solutions, Calgary, Alberta, CANADA Dr. William Manning, Department of Plant Pathology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA Dr. George Taylor, Biological Services Center, Desert Research Institute, University of Nevada, Reno, NV Science Advisory Board Staff Mr. A. Robert Flaak, Designated Federal Official, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board ( 1400F), Washington, DC 20460 Mrs. Dorothy Clark, Staff Secretary, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board ( 1400F), Washington, DC 20460 DISTRIBUTION LIST Administrator Deputy Administrator Assistant Administrators Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, OAR Director, Office of Science Policy, ORD EPA Regional Administrators EPA Laboratory Directors EPA Headquarters Library EPA Regional Libraries EPA Laboratory Libraries Library of Congress National Technical Information Service C:\ dmautop\ temp\ DCTM_ ARP. wpd


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 28 (Monday, February 11, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9709-9710]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02956]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2012-1066]

Draft Guidance Regarding Voluntary Inspection of Vessels for
Compliance With the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces the availability of a draft
Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) that sets forth the
Coast Guard's policies and procedures regarding the inspection of U.S.
vessels for voluntary compliance with the Maritime Labour Convention,
2006 (Convention), which enters into force on August 20, 2013. The NVIC
will provide guidance to the maritime industry, Coast Guard marine
inspectors, and other affected parties on how the Coast Guard intends
to implement the new voluntary inspection program. This notice solicits
public comment on the impacts that the policies and procedures
contained in the NVIC would have on applicable vessels and other
affected parties. This notice also solicits public comment on the
collection of information associated with the new voluntary inspection
program.

DATES: Comments and related material on the draft NVIC must either be
submitted to our online docket via  http://www.regulations.gov on or
before March 13, 2013 or reach the Docket Management Facility by that
date. For the collection of information associated with the new
voluntary inspection program, comments and related material must either
be submitted to our online docket via http://www.regulations.gov on or
before April 12, 2013 or reach the Docket Management Facility by that
date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2012-1066 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
email Lieutenant Commander Christopher Gagnon, Domestic Vessels
Division, U.S. Coast Guard at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions
on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Docket Operations
at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments and related material on the
draft NVIC on Voluntary Inspection of Vessels under the Maritime Labour
Convention, 2006 and the collection of information associated with the
issuance of the Statement of Voluntary Compliance, Declaration of
Maritime Labour Compliance--Part II. All comments received will be
posted, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you have provided.
    Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include the
docket number for this notice (USCG-2012-1066) and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and
material online, or by fax, mail or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. We recommend that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of
your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding
your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
use ``USCG-2012-1066'' as your search term. Locate this notice in the
search results and click the corresponding ``Comment Now'' box to
submit your comment. If you submit your comments by mail or hand
delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8[frac12] by
11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit
them by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility,
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period.

    Viewing the comments and draft NVIC: To view the comments and draft
NVIC, go to http://www.regulations.gov and use ``USCG-2012-1066'' as
your search term. Use the filters on the left side of the page to
search the docket for public comments and other documents. If you do
not have access to the Internet, you may view the docket online by
visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an agreement
with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management
Facility.
    Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a
Privacy Act, system of records notice regarding our public dockets in
the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Background and Purpose

    The 94th (Maritime) session of the International Labour Conference
(ILC) (Geneva, February 2006) adopted the Maritime Labour Convention,
2006, a new international agreement that consolidates almost all of the
70 existing International Labour Organization (ILO) maritime labour
instruments into a single, modern, globally applicable legal
instrument. The Convention establishes comprehensive minimum
requirements for working conditions of seafarers, including, among
other things, conditions of employment, hours of work and rest,
accommodations, recreational facilities, food and catering, health
protection, medical care, welfare, and social security protection. It
combines rights and principles with specific standards and detailed
guidance on how to implement these standards at the national level. The
Convention is comprised of three different, but related parts: The
Articles, the Regulations, and the Code. The Articles and Regulations
set out the core rights and principles, and the basic obligations of
members ratifying the Convention. The Code is comprised of a Part A
(mandatory standards) and a Part B (non-mandatory guidelines).
    To date, the U.S. government has not ratified the Convention.
Unless and until the U.S. ratifies the Convention, the Coast Guard will
not enforce Convention requirements on U.S. vessels or foreign vessels
while on the navigable waters of the U.S.
    Article V, paragraph 7 of the Convention contains a ``no more
favorable treatment clause,'' which requires the governments of
ratifying nations to impose Convention requirements on vessels from
non-ratifying nations. As a result, a U.S. vessel that is not able to
demonstrate compliance with the Convention may be at risk for Port
State Control actions (including detention) when operating in a port of
a ratifying nation.

Draft NVIC

    In order to assist U.S. vessels in avoiding Port State Control
actions in foreign ports of nations that have ratified the Convention,
the Coast Guard plans to implement a voluntary compliance inspection
program and issue Statements of Voluntary Compliance. To promote
consistency and standardization of Coast Guard policies and procedures,
this draft NVIC provides guidance to the maritime industry and Coast
Guard marine inspectors on how the Coast Guard intends to implement
this new voluntary inspection program. Applicable U.S. vessels are
highly encouraged to comply with the Convention and obtain Statements
of Voluntary Compliance.
    We request comments from all interested parties to ensure that the
full range and significance of issues addressed in the draft NVIC are
identified.

Collection of Information

    This notice contains a collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). As defined in 5
CFR 1320.3(c), ``collection of information'' comprises reporting,
recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and other, similar
actions. The title and description of the information collections, a
description of those who must collect the information, and an estimate
of the total annual burden follow. The estimate covers the time for
reviewing instructions, searching existing sources of data, gathering
and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection.
    This notice details a new collection of information. A summary of
the collection follows.
    Title: Various International Agreement Certificates and Documents.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-new.
    Summary of the Collection: This information collection is
associated with the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006. The Coast Guard
plans to establish a voluntary inspection program for vessels wishing
to document compliance with the requirements of the Convention. U.S.
commercial vessels that operate on international routes will be
eligible to participate.
    Need for Information: The information is needed to determine if a
vessel is in compliance with the Convention.
    Proposed Use of Information: The Coast Guard intends on issuing
voluntary compliance certificates as proof of compliance with the
Convention.
    Description of Respondents: Vessel owners and operators.
    Number of Respondents: 1,000.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion. We estimate two responses per
respondent, one for the Convention application and one for the
recordkeeping of a Coast Guard-issued Statement of Voluntary
Compliance.
    Burden of Response: 4.15 hours per respondent.
    Estimate of Total Annual Burden: 4,150 hours.
    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)), we will submit a copy of this notice to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for its review of the collection of
information.
    We ask for public comment on the proposed collection of information
to help us determine how useful the information is; whether it can help
us perform our functions better; whether it is readily available
elsewhere; how accurate our estimate of the burden of collection is;
how valid our methods for determining burden are; how we can improve
the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information; and how we can
minimize the burden of collection.
    If you submit comments on the collection of information, submit
them to the Docket Management Facility where indicated under ADDRESSES,
by the date under DATES.
    You need not respond to a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid control number from OMB. Before the Coast
Guard could enforce the collection of information requirements in this
notice, OMB would need to approve the Coast Guard's request to collect
this information.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1221(c)(3) and 5
U.S.C. 552(a).

    Dated: January 25, 2013.
Paul F. Thomas,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Inspections & Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2013-02956 Filed 2-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P