[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 246 (Wednesday, December 23, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71054-71062]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-34037]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 441
[FRL-6209-1]
Notice of Data Availability; Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Pretreatment Standards for the Industrial Laundries Point Source
Category
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of data availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On December 17, 1997, EPA proposed pretreatment standards for
pollutants discharged to publicly owned treatment works (62 FR 66181).
This notice presents a summary of the data received since the proposal,
and an assessment of the usefulness of the data in EPA's analyses;
presents a modified technology option suggested by commenters; presents
a modified no regulation option suggested by commenters; discusses a
voluntary industry program, and discusses other specific issues raised
by commenters including the methodology for the passthrough analysis.
EPA solicits public comments regarding any of the information presented
in this notice of data availability and the record supporting this
notice.
DATES: Submit an original and three copies of your comments postmarked
by February 8, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments to Ms. Marta E. Jordan at the following
address: US EPA, Engineering and Analysis Division (4303), 401 M. St.
SW, Washington, DC 20460.
The data and analyses being announced today are available for
review in the EPA Water Docket at EPA Headquarters at Waterside Mall,
room EB-57, 401 M. St. SW, Washington, DC 20460. For access to the
docket materials, call (202) 260-3027 between 9:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m.
for an appointment. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional technical information,
contact Ms. Marta E. Jordan at (202) 260-0817 or at the following e-
mail address: Jordan.M[email protected]. For information on economic
information contact Mr. George Denning at (202) 260-7374 or at the
following e-mail address: Denning.G[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Contents of This Document
I. Purpose of this Notice
II. Data Acquired Since the Proposal
A. POTW Data
B. Industrial Laundry Data and Trade Association Voluntary
Program
C. EPA Sampling Data From a Facility Operating Chemical
Precipitation Treatment
D. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) Characterization Study
Using Method
[[Page 71055]]
1664 and Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectroscopy (GC/MS)
III. Results of Analyses of Proposed and Newly Acquired Data with
Respect to Various Comment Issues
A. New Data Related to Passthrough Analysis of Regulated
Parameters Other Than TPH
B. TPH (measured as SGT-HEM) as an Indicator
IV. Analysis of Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)
Options Identified in the Proposal
A. Towel Only Option (Modified Heavy Option)
B. Clean Room Items
C. Summary of 1998 Data Collected by UTSA and TRSA
V. Solicitation of Data and Comments
A. Additional Data to Support Comments Received on the Proposed
Rule
B. Compliance Cost Estimates
C. Treatment Performance Data
D. Passthrough Analysis
E. Volatile Organic Treatment Technologies Used at Industrial
Laundries
F. In-Process Pollution Prevention Activities
G. Space Limitations and New Building Costs for Industrial
Laundries
H. Alternative Approach to ``No Regulation'' Option
I. Purpose of This Notice
On December 17, 1997 (62 FR 66181), EPA proposed regulations to
reduce discharges to publicly owned treatment works of toxic,
conventional, and nonconventional pollutants in wastewater from the
industrial laundries industry. EPA has received numerous comments and
data submissions concerning the proposal. In this notice, EPA is making
these new data submissions available for comment and is providing
discussion of the analyses performed relating to specific issues raised
by commenters. EPA also solicits information and comments on a variety
of other issues or questions.
II. Data Acquired Since the Proposal
Since proposal, EPA has obtained additional data and information
from the industry, publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), and the
Agency's continued data collection activities. The Agency has included
these new data and information and the preliminary results of the
evaluation of this data and information in Sections 14 through 22 of
the supporting record of this notice for review by interested parties.
The industry and POTW information and data submittals are related to
cost of treatment, effluent pollutant levels after treatment,
passthrough of pollutants at POTWs, and a presentation by the industry
of a voluntary environmental stewardship and pollution prevention
program. The new data collected by the Agency include: performance data
from a facility operating chemical precipitation technology and data
identifying some of the major individual constituents of the Total
Petroleum Hydrocarbon [TPH (measured as SGT-HEM)] parameter using
Method 1664. The study identifying constituents of TPH relates to EPA's
pass-through analysis and EPA's cost-effectiveness analysis.
EPA closed the comment period on March 19, 1998 for all aspects of
the proposed rule except for treatment performance data. EPA received
comments from approximately 300 commenters by the March 19 deadline.
Some of the comments received on or before the March 19 deadline
included data submittals.
In order to provide additional time for the generation of treatment
performance data, EPA extended the deadline for comments on the
proposed rule to April 20, 1998 for commenters who would be providing
data which could be used in calculating limits. EPA received three
comment submittals for the April 20 deadline, although none of the
submittals contained performance data that could be used in calculating
limits for either technology upon which the proposed rule was based.
One of these submittals contained five days of POTW treatment
performance data for TPH as measured by Method 1664. Other submittals
received by EPA included comments on EPA's analytical sampling data
validation procedures, an economic survey of the industry conducted by
Uniform and Textile Service Association (UTSA) and Textile Rental
Services Association (TRSA), and comments that some of the proposed
limitations were too stringent.
EPA received several comments after the April 20 deadline; however,
only one of these was a data submittal. This data submittal included 11
days of final effluent data from one industrial laundry for the
conventional pollutants (oil and grease, total suspended solids,
biochemical oxygen demand and pH). In addition to data submitted in
comments and data collected by EPA, the trade associations conducted a
survey to update treatment-in-place information contained in EPA's 1993
survey data base. The trade associations also developed and submitted
to EPA for consideration as an alternative to regulation, a voluntary
program for the industry. This voluntary program has five main
components: (1) the establishment of industry-wide program goals; (2) a
statement of environmental principles; (3) a menu of specific voluntary
initiatives; (4) an implementation plan; and (5) a system for assessing
program performance.
Below are brief descriptions of each type of new data and the
results of additional analyses of these data by the Agency, and a
summary of the environmental voluntary program initiative submitted by
the industry trade associations.
A. POTW Data
EPA received comment submittals from over 40 commenters pertaining
to POTW data that relate to the passthrough analysis. These commenters
included: individual POTWs, local control authorities, the Association
of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA), the Association of Nonwoven
Fabrics (INDA), the Uniform and Textile Service Association (UTSA) and
the Textile Rental Services Association (TRSA). Individual POTWs
primarily provided data related to the following subjects: the method
used to measure TPH, estimated POTW percent removals, influent and
effluent concentration values to be used in the calculation of POTW
percent removals for the passthrough analysis, industrial laundry
facility monitoring data, and local limits covering industrial laundry
facilities. These data and results of any evaluations of these data are
contained in Section 17 of the rulemaking record.
EPA's preliminary evaluation of the submitted POTW performance data
indicates that the only data that may be usable were submitted by one
of the local control authorities (Los Angeles County) and the industry
trade associations (UTSA and TRSA). The Los Angeles County pretreatment
control authority submitted five days of influent and effluent TPH data
(measured as SGT-HEM) using Method 1664. However, only three of the
days contained usable paired data for calculating TPH removals. Two of
the days of data could not be used because one day had an effluent
value greater than the influent value, and the other day did have a
reported influent concentration. An additional limitation of the three
paired data sets that were used to calculate the percent removal for
TPH did not result in a precise estimate, but only a lower bound
estimate. Because the effluent concentrations were below the method
detection level, a percent removal could only be calculated as
``greater than'' some value. The greater than values ranged from 37.5
percent to 73.7 percent. For the purpose of this Notice, EPA used the
daily data with the highest influent concentration, resulting in a
percent removal estimate of 74 percent for the revised passthrough
[[Page 71056]]
evaluation discussed in Section III. This value for POTW removal of TPH
is also used in the revised cost-effectiveness determination.
UTSA and TRSA provided the Final Report of Updated Local Discharge
Standards for the City of Portland, OR as an attachment to their
comments. Data in this report include historical POTW percent removals
over the past 18 years for 15 metals, percent removals for 21 metals
during a one-year sampling program, and influent and effluent data for
21 metals based on the one-year sampling program.
B. Industrial Laundry Data and Trade Association Voluntary Program
EPA received 65 data submittals from the industrial laundry and
related industries to be considered for use in developing the final
rule. These 65 data submittals were from 12 individual comment
submittals. These comment submittals were from nine industrial laundry
companies, the Uniform and Textile Service Association (UTSA), the
Textile Rental Services Association (TRSA), the National Ship Building
Association and the Association of American Railroads.
The data received included: effluent data, cost data, data
presenting the constituents of TPH, data on the analytical variability
of bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, and data on local limits. The
industrial laundries and the laundry trade associations also submitted
reports and case studies to be considered in the development of the
final rule. Reports and studies submitted by commenters ranged in
content from data pertaining to the calculation of the toxic weighting
factor for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) to general economic and
industry profiles for the industrial laundries industry. A general
summary of the data submitted by commenters is presented in Section 17
(Memorandum: Review of Data Submitted on the Proposed Pretreatment
Standards for Existing and New Sources for the Industrial Laundries
Point Source Category (DCN L06041)) of the Industrial Laundries record.
The data are contained in Section 14 of the rulemaking record.
EPA reviewed the effluent data submitted by industry and found that
in many cases the commenter did not provide enough detail for EPA to
use the data to revise its calculations of appropriate effluent limits.
EPA currently does not expect to use the data if the following
information was not included with the effluent data: the amount of
production at the facility, the item mix, type of treatment technology,
what portion of wastewater was being treated, performance (influent and
effluent concentrations) of the technology, and methods used for
analyzing the reported pollutant parameters. EPA is continuing to
evaluate whether any of this additional data can be used in evaluating
treatment technology performance and solicits comment on this issue.
Cost data submitted by commenters included: general annual and
capital costs for both chemical precipitation and DAF, the annual costs
associated with treating 1,000 gallons of wastewater with DAF,
analytical cost data, and the costs associated with the construction of
a new building for an industrial laundry facility. In most cases the
usefulness of this cost data is limited due to the lack of detail on
the equipment covered by the costs and indirect costs included.
The industrial laundries associations (UTSA and TRSA) submitted a
voluntary multi-media environmental stewardship and pollution
prevention program in order to support the ``no regulation'' option.
The centerpiece of the voluntary program is a series of initiatives
seeking to achieve a reduction of up to 25 percent in industry water,
energy, and washroom chemical usage (on a per pound of textiles
laundered basis) by the year 2002. According to the trade associations,
industrial laundries do not have direct control of a significant amount
of toxic pollutants contained in industrial laundry wastewater, since
these pollutants come primarily from their customers. The industry's
direct control is related to water, energy, and washroom chemical use,
thus the emphasis on voluntary control of these activities. The program
would be initiated by UTSA and TRSA surveying the industry to develop a
1998 ``benchmark'' against which progress towards these reduction goals
will be measured. In an effort to reduce further the amount of
pollutants in industrial laundries wastewaters, the industry also would
develop and implement a comprehensive customer pollution prevention
outreach program. The industry is not in a position to project specific
reduction goals from its customers at this time, but UTSA and TRSA
would establish a baseline and measure the success of the outreach
program in future years. EPA believes that goals setting a level of
reduction of pollutants in the discharge are an important element of
any such voluntary program.
UTSA and TRSA would guide implementation of the voluntary program.
Because the membership of the two trade associations accounts for over
90 percent of the sales generated by the laundry industry, leadership
at the association level would help ensure significant participation
from the industry as a whole. The proposed voluntary program would
cover the entire laundry industry, not just the sectors included in the
proposed pretreatment standards. The effort would be directed by an
implementation committee established under the auspices of UTSA and
TRSA and include representatives from the two trade associations,
industry suppliers, and customers. The industry's description of the
program is contained in Section 16 of the record for this notice.
C. EPA Sampling Data From a Facility Operating Chemical Precipitation
Treatment
After proposing the rule, EPA sampled an additional facility
operating a chemical precipitation (CP) unit to obtain more data
concerning treatment performance that could be used in evaluating
appropriate pretreatment standards based on chemical precipitation. The
sampling took place during the week of February 9, 1998; a detailed
report of the results can be found in the sampling episode report in
Section 16 of the rulemaking record. EPA has included this data in
recalculating the proposed pretreatment standards for the CP option and
in calculations of standards for other options being evaluated. EPA
recalculated the standards for all of the proposed regulated parameters
using the same methodology as in the proposal. For the proposed CP
option, the inclusion of the new data does not change the standards
significantly. EPA compared the proposed standards to the recalculated
standards and for TPH, the proposed standards were slightly higher than
the recalculated standards (e.g., the maximum daily values are 27.5 mg/
L versus 21.8 mg/L). For the metals EPA proposed to regulate, the
proposed standards were lower than the recalculated standards. For the
organics, the proposed standards were higher than the recalculated
standards for all except bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate and
tetrachloroethene . See Section 21 of the record for comparisons of
recalculated standards for all of the options and for more detail
describing the development.
Following the proposal, EPA received comments stating that the data
used to develop the proposed pretreatment standards were not
representative of chemical precipitation treatment because the data
source was a facility that operated steam tumbling for printer towels,
used chemical emulsion
[[Page 71057]]
breaking wastewater treatment prior to the chemical precipitation unit,
and that the influent levels of the regulated parameters were low. EPA
believes the data used for the proposed standards are representative of
chemical precipitation treatment for this industry for several reasons.
First, the chemical emulsion breaking unit was not operating properly
during the sampling episode. Second, the steam tumbling unit was not
effectively removing TPH or most of the organic pollutants as
demonstrated by comparing data for a steam tumbled load of printer
towels to data for a load of printer towels that was not steam tumbled.
The steam tumbling unit showed removals for only 6 of the 11 pollutants
proposed for regulation, with removal efficiencies ranging from 27 to
91 percent. Third, with respect to the influent levels identified at
the chemical precipitation treatment unit being too low, design and
operational characterization of chemical precipitation technology can
be varied such that the technology is capable of performing at a level
that enables a higher influent concentration to be reduced sufficiently
to meet the limitations. Finally, the additional chemical precipitation
data collected by EPA since proposal confirm that chemical
precipitation technology is capable of achieving the effluent pollutant
concentrations reflected by the proposed pretreatment standards with
much higher influent concentrations of the pollutants.
Commenters also stated that EPA did not account for variability in
wastewater concentrations among industrial laundries in setting the
limitations. EPA believes it has accounted for variability in
wastewater concentrations because the laundries used for developing
limits represented facilities with a wide range of items and production
reflecting what the industry as a whole launders. In examining priority
organics and metals, conventionals, and nonconventional parameters at
six facilities operating dissolved air flotation (DAF) or CP units, EPA
determined these facilities represented a broad range of influent
pollutant concentrations.
Commenters further criticized EPA for basing the TPH (measured as
SGT-HEM) on one CP facility data set. EPA recognizes that at proposal,
EPA only had data from one CP facility under the current method for
SGT-HEM upon which to base the proposed TPH limit under the CP-IL
option. In examining TPH concentrations from all five facilities used
for proposal, EPA found that DAF and CP treat TPH to approximately the
same effluent concentration level regardless of the concentration in
the influent. From an engineering standpoint, EPA would expect this to
be the case because both technologies rely on the efficiency of
chemical coagulation which can be adjusted for variable wastewater
pollutant concentrations through proper selection of coagulants and
proper mixing. Since proposal, EPA has evaluated and compared the TPH
results from an additional CP facility with those from the CP facility
used at proposal and the three DAF facilities. For the three facilities
operating DAF systems, the range of 5-day average influent and effluent
TPH concentrations were 245-681 mg/L and 10.4-41.4 mg/L, respectively.
For the facilities operating CP systems, the range of 5-day average
influent and effluent TPH concentrations were 164-2,280 mg/L and <7.20-
<10.6 mg/L, respectively. At the newly sampled CP facility, the
influent and effluent TPH concentrations were 987 and < 9.35 mg/L
respectively, which both fall within the concentration ranges found at
the other facilities EPA sampled operating DAF or CP.
Note that EPA does not conclude from the data above that the
chemical precipitation treatment systems are necessarily able to
achieve lower effluent levels than the DAF facilities since the DAF
facilities may not need to operate their treatment system optimally
because they are subject to higher local limits. For this reason and
based on the data EPA has concerning the comparative performance of DAF
and CP, EPA continues to believe that DAF and CP would both constitute
BAT and could form the basis for final effluent limits.
D. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) Characterization Study Using
Method 1664 and Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectroscopy (GC/MS)
In the proposed rule, EPA used TPH for two different analyses, the
passthrough analysis and the cost effectiveness analysis. EPA has
further analyzed the constituents of TPH to improve both analyses. Each
analysis is discussed in turn below.
As explained in the proposal, to set pretreatment standards, EPA
determines whether the pollutant passes through or interferes with the
operation of a POTW. In the proposed passthrough analysis, EPA compared
the performance of the candidate technology for PSES in removing TPH to
the performance of well-operated POTWs achieving secondary treatment in
removing TPH. In the proposal, EPA based the TPH removal at POTWs on
removals of three n-alkanes. EPA received comments that this was
inappropriate because, according to the commenters, EPA had no data on
TPH removals at POTWs and failed to explain its assumption that the
three selected n-alkanes are proper surrogates for TPH. In response to
these comments, EPA conducted a study to evaluate the TPH parameter in
order to identify the constituents comprising the TPH measurement. The
study was conducted by sampling the influents and effluents of the DAF
and CP treatment units at the facilities used in the proposal options
bases, analyzing these samples for TPH and oil and grease (as SGT-HEM
and HEM, respectively) using Method 1664 and evaluating the 1664
extracts using gas chromatography and mass spectroscopy (GC/MS)
methods. Based on this analysis, several constituents that are part of
the TPH measurement were identified. However, only a small portion of
the constituents of the TPH measurement could be identified. Results of
these analyses are shown in Section 16 of the record for this Notice.
Most of the constituents identified in the influent samples are
alkanes, as well as naphthalene, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate and 2-
methylnaphthalene. These constituents make up approximately 2 percent
of the measured SGT-HEM. EPA used the constituents analysis to examine
passthrough of the constituents rather than TPH. EPA also received data
following the proposal on POTW treatment of TPH. (See Section III
below).
EPA received comments on its cost effectiveness analysis
criticizing the toxic weighting factor (TWF) used for TPH arguing that
it overstated the toxicity of TPH. While cost effectiveness is not
required to be analyzed to establish BAT, NSPS, PSES, or PSNS, EPA
performs this analysis to compare options. According to the commenters,
EPA developed a TWF for TPH based on improper data and calculation
procedures and consequently inappropriately inflated the TWF, resulting
in an overestimate of the benefits and cost-effectiveness of the
proposed rule. As stated above EPA found that only 2% of the
constituents are identified and measured by the SGT-HEM method. Based
on only 2% of the constituents, EPA estimates an average toxic
weighting factor (TWF) for TPH measured as SGT-HEM of 0.009 for the
identified constituents. Given the small percentage of constituents
identified and measured by this method, EPA questions the usefulness of
the cost-effectiveness analysis. EPA
[[Page 71058]]
provides details for estimating the TWF in Section 22 of the record.
III. Analysis of Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)
Options Identified in the Proposal
A. New Data Related to the Passthrough Analysis of Regulated Parameters
Other Than TPH
EPA received data on POTW treatment performance from five separate
commenters. These commenters included the industrial laundries trade
associations (TRSA and UTSA), the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage
Agencies (AMSA), the Hampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD), the
Metropolitan Council Environmental Service (MCES), and the LA County
Sanitation District. EPA reviewed these submittals and determined the
potential uses and limitations of the data.
UTSA and TRSA provided the Final Report of Updated Local Discharge
Standards for the City of Portland, OR as an attachment to their
comments. Data in this report include historical POTW percent removals
over the past 18 years for 15 metals, percent removals for 21 metals
during a one-year sampling program, and influent and effluent data for
21 metals based on the one-year sampling program.
AMSA submitted average POTW removal rates for five organic
pollutants from seven POTWs in the Metropolitan Water Reclamation
District (MWRD) of Greater Chicago. AMSA also submitted average paired
influent and effluent data for bulk conventional and nonconventional
parameters for nine POTWs in the Hampton Roads Sanitation District
(HRSD). These data were also submitted by HRSD in a separate comment.
The MWRD data were provided as percent removals, with no individual
influent and effluent concentrations presented. The HRSD data do not
include any of the pollutants evaluated by EPA in the pass through
analysis, and therefore could not be used in calculating POTW percent
removals for the pass through analysis.
MCES presented POTW removal rates for metals, BOD, TSS, phenols,
toluene, and TPH in the text of the comment submittal. However, data
presented are general percent removals and in some cases are estimated.
More detailed information on the data submitted can be found in Section
17 of the rulemaking record.
EPA may use the data from UTSA/TRSA (City of Portland) and the data
from LA County in the final passthrough analysis. On average, the
difference between the POTW percent removals used in developing the
proposal and the City of Portland POTW percent removals is only minor
because only for a few parameters was the percent removal used for
proposal lower than the percent removal from the City of Portland data
set. For metals (copper, lead and zinc), the City of Portland percent
removals are close to or slightly lower than those used for proposal.
The percent removal for TPH using one day of data from LA County (the
day with the highest influent concentration) is 74 percent, compared to
65 percent POTW removal for TPH used in the proposed rule. This value
is still significantly lower than the 94-98 percent removals determined
for the pretreatment technologies.
B. TPH (measured as SGT-HEM) as an Indicator
Commenters stated that TPH is well treated by POTWs or does not
pass through and thus should not be regulated. EPA believes that
whether the final passthrough analysis shows pass through or not, that
TPH is a good indicator that pretreatment standards will affect
removals of significant pounds of toxic and nonconventional pollutants.
In addition, the variability of a relatively inexpensive monitoring
method for TPH justifies regulating TPH rather than the host of
pollutants controlled by a limitation on TPH.
IV. Results of Analyses of Proposed and Newly Acquired Data With
Respect to Various Comment Issues
A. Towel Only Option (Modified Heavy Option)
During the comment period, some commenters indicated that EPA
should consider regulating only facilities that launder shop and
printer towels, because these items have the highest pollutant loadings
of all items laundered by industrial laundries. In the proposal, EPA
evaluated ``heavy'' options based on the use of DAF and CP
technologies. The heavy options treated the heavy wastewater stream
which consisted of shop towels, printer towels, mops, filters, and
fender covers. As a result of the comments, EPA is evaluating and
soliciting comments on a modified heavy option that would require only
facilities that launder shop towels, printer towels, furniture towels,
or other industrial towels/rags to meet the proposed standards (``Towel
Only Option''). The Towel Only option is based upon treating only the
wastewater from laundering industrial towels, then mixing the treated
wastewater with other wastewater from laundering all other items prior
to monitoring and discharge from the facility.
The modified option is based on using DAF technology to set the
standards since EPA does not have treatment performance data
characterizing chemical precipitation treatment of only shop and
printer towels. EPA considered the same methodology as in the proposed
rule to calculate pretreatment standards for this option and these
calculated numbers are presented in Section 21 of the record.
The total estimated capital cost for the Towel Only option is $179
million (1997 dollars) and the annual operating and maintenance cost is
$72 million, for a total annualized pretax cost of $91.1 million per
year (1997 dollars) (posttax cost of $62.0 million per year). This is
significantly less than the estimated annualized compliance costs for
the CP-IL and DAF-IL options discussed in the proposed rule, which were
$136.4 million per year pretax ($93.9 million per year posttax) and
$176.8 million per year pretax ($118.6 million per year posttax),
respectively (adjusted to 1997 dollars). Under the Towel Only option,
1,333 facilities would be covered by the rule, while under the proposed
CP-IL or DAF-IL options 1,606 facilities would be covered by the rule.
The recalculated pollutant removals for the Towel Only option would be
28,000 toxic-weighted pounds per year, taking into consideration
treatment by POTWs. This is a reduction from the 51,000 toxic weighted
pounds per year for the proposed CP-IL option (These numbers reflect
the revised TWF for TPH). EPA believes that the Towel Only option would
reduce the economic impacts of the rule. EPA is today soliciting
comments on the Towel Only option.
EPA investigated the potential economic impacts of the Towel Only
option and found that the option would be economically achievable and
would improve the impacts discussed in the proposal. The analyses were
run assuming no other special exclusions such as the proposed exclusion
for facilities laundering less than 1 million pounds of total laundry
and less than 255,000 pounds of shop towels) applied and assuming the
worst-case scenario that no compliance costs could be passed through to
customers. As a result of this preliminary analysis, given the costs
currently estimated for the Towel Only option, EPA estimates that this
option would result in a maximum of 32 facilities closing as a result
of compliance costs. This is 2 percent of all facilities in the
facility-level analysis and 2.4 percent of all in-scope facilities.
EPA estimates a total direct job loss of 361 full time equivalents
(1 FTE= 2,080
[[Page 71059]]
hours) as a result of the facility closures projected under this
option. Total direct, indirect, and induced losses throughout all
sectors of the economy total 621 FTEs. The employment losses associated
with closures overstate actual net losses to the industry, because some
employment gains in the industry will occur (although the gains may not
occur in the same geographic location or at the same time as the
losses). These gains include operators of pollution control systems
that might be hired and additional labor to expand some production at
facilities located in market areas with facility closures (lost
production from closures is estimated to exceed the amount of the
reduction required to meet market equilibrium conditions). Under the
assumptions about production losses and employment gains expected to
occur as a result of the rule, as outlined in the economic analysis for
the proposal, EPA estimates the actual net losses in the industrial
laundries industry would be 212 FTEs lost (0.16 percent of total
industry employment), considerably less than the number of direct
losses predicted solely on the basis of closures.
In addition to these closures, EPA predicts this option would
affect the ability of a maximum of 44 firms (all of which are single-
facility firms) to raise the capital needed to purchase and install the
pollution control equipment. This impact may result in the loss of
financial freedom for these firms, up to and including the sale of the
firms to larger multifacility firms. This impact does not mean that
these firms will close; all these firms are viable at the facility
level and are thus considered likely to be of interest to other firms
for acquisition and possible continued operation.
The failure- and closure-based employment loss results indicate
that the direct losses at closing facilities and failing firms (under
the worst-case assumption that failing firms might close) total a
maximum of 1,186 full-time equivalents (FTEs), or about 0.9 percent of
total industry employment. Total direct, indirect and induced
employment losses throughout the economy total a maximum of 2,040 FTEs.
These losses do not include likely employment gains in the industry and
in the U.S. economy due to the need to manufacture, install, and
operate pollution control equipment. If gains are accounted for, there
will most likely be small gains in employment in the nonclosing
facilities and nonfailing firms and net gains in employment in the U.S.
economy.
EPA has also performed an economic impact analysis for the
industrial laundries industry to compare the impacts of the Towel Only
option with the Chemical Precipitation (CP-IL) and Dissolved Air
Flotation (DAF-IL) options. Note that the options that were discussed
at proposal (CP-IL and DAF-IL) reflect an exclusion for facilities
processing less than 1 million pounds of total laundry and less than
255,000 pounds of shop towels/printer rags, whereas the Towel Only
Option reflects a reduced scope which only covers facilities that
launder only shop towels/printer rags with no such similar production
cutoff. Under a zero cost pass through assumption, the CP-IL option is
estimated to result in 5 facility closures and 85 single-facility firm
failures (i.e., production ceases under closure; production continues
under failure). No multifacility firms fail under any option. The DAF-
IL option is estimated to result in 35 facility closures and 85 single-
facility firm failures. The closure numbers for the DAF-IL and CP-IL
options under zero cost pass through are different from those that were
presented at proposal due to an updated financial data element for one
facility. This facility has a survey weight of 31. In follow up to the
economic analysis presented in the proposal, EPA found that data
submitted by this facility for one data element for one year was an
extreme outlier, not only compared to the other two years of data
submitted by the same facility, but also compared to data submitted by
other facilities in the same strata. Furthermore, other financial
information in the survey did not support the data point reported. This
update resulted in 31 fewer facilities estimated to close under each of
the two options discussed at proposal.
Because these analyses assume that no compliance costs would be
passed through to customers, EPA considers this a worst-case scenario
and believes that, for all options and cutoffs, the impacts will be
considerably less than those estimated. See pages 5-9, 5-10 and
Appendix A from the economic assessment (EA) of the proposed rule.
EPA is also considering an exclusion in the Towel Only option, such
that facilities laundering small amounts of industrial towels per year
would be exempt from the rule, including reporting and monitoring
requirements. The exclusion would be based on laundering a certain
number of pounds of industrial towels per year. Facilities laundering
more than that amount in any year would no longer be excluded from the
rule. EPA is soliciting comment on a low production exclusion for the
Towel Only option.
EPA considered five low production cutoffs (4,800 pounds of
industrial towels, 26,000 pounds of industrial towels, 31,300 pounds of
industrial towels, 42,000 pounds of industrial towels, and 52,000
pounds of industrial towels) in its analysis. For these cutoffs, EPA
estimated the posttax annualized costs (1997 dollars) to be $60.9
million, $58.8 million, $50.0 million, $48.9 million, and $ 48.2
million, respectively. EPA also estimates 32 facilities closing as a
result of compliance costs for the 4,800 pound cutoff. For the
remaining cutoffs, EPA estimates a maximum of 25 facilities might close
as a result of incurring compliance costs. These low annual production
cutoffs within the Towel Only option would also affect the ability of a
maximum of 44 firms (all of which are single-facility firms) to raise
the capital needed to purchase and install the pollution control
equipment for all but the 52,000 pound cutoff, which would affect only
13 firms. For the 4,800 pound cutoff, direct losses at closing
facilities total a maximum of 361 FTEs, or about 0.3 percent of total
industry employment, and direct losses at closing facilities and
failing firms total 1,186 FTEs (0.9 percent of total industry
employment). For the remaining four cutoffs, EPA estimated direct
losses at closing facilities of a maximum of 246 FTEs, or about 0.2
percent of total industry employment. EPA estimated direct losses at
closing and failing firms of a maximum of 1,071 FTEs (0.8 percent of
total industry employment) for three of the remaining four cutoffs and
606 FTEs (0.5 percent of total employment) for the last cutoff.
In addition to these potential cutoffs, EPA is continuing to
investigate additional exclusions that would further mitigate impacts
of the rule. These additional exclusions might be used with or in place
of the various cutoffs used above. Examples of exclusions EPA is
considering include an exclusion for facilities, or possibly single-
facility firms only, who are exclusively industrial launderers (that
is, they undertake no other business at that firm or facility) and who
process less than 1 million pounds of laundry per year. EPA also is
considering a revenue exclusion. Under this approach, facilities, or,
more likely, single-facility firms, would be excluded if their revenues
are less than $1 million annually.
A somewhat higher cutoff for pounds of industrial towels might also
be considered. EPA solicits comments on these additional potential
exclusions.
[[Page 71060]]
B. Clean Room Items
As part of comments on the proposed rule, EPA received data on
clean room items. The term ``clean room items'' refers to specialty
items used in particle-and static-free environments by computer
manufacturing, pharmaceutical, biotechnology, aerospace, and other
customers to control contamination in production areas. EPA evaluated
the data and determined that the concentrations of pollutants found in
clean room item wastewater were lower than the concentrations found in
wastewater from most other items defined as industrial laundry items in
the proposed rule, and the characteristics of the clean room wastewater
were similar to linen supply laundry wastewater. Thus, the data support
the removal of clean room items from the definition of industrial
textile items, which would exclude laundering of clean room items from
the scope of the regulation. The clean room data are presented in
Section 17 of the record.
C. Summary of 1998 Data Collected by UTSA and TRSA
Since the publication of the proposed rule, the industrial
laundries trade associations, the Uniform and Textile Service
Association (UTSA) and the Textile Rental Services Association (TRSA),
have performed a survey of all facilities that were sent an EPA 1993
detailed questionnaire. The purpose of the survey as stated by UTSA and
TRSA was to provide EPA with updated data to calculate new baseline
information on the industry, because the EPA questionnaire data are for
the 1993 operating year. Of the 193 facilities that EPA used to model
compliance costs and pollutant loading reductions for the proposed
rule, 165 responded to the UTSA/TRSA survey. EPA has performed a
preliminary review of the data from the survey. To conduct this review,
EPA compared, for each facility, the treatment system description
contained in the UTSA/TRSA survey to the treatment system components
reported in the EPA 1993 detailed questionnaire. Treatment system
descriptions reported in the UTSA/TRSA questionnaire did not include
design parameters, and often did not include the portion of the
wastewater treated by the system. Based on this review, EPA has made
several assumptions to use the data the trade associations provided in
estimating compliance costs and pollutant removals discussed below.
In general, the trade association data show that 18 facilities that
did not have treatment at the time of EPA's 1993 detailed questionnaire
now have installed wastewater treatment for all or part of their
wastewater flow. Most facilities that have installed treatment since
1993 (13 of 18) have installed dissolved air flotation. Other types of
treatment installed include two facilities that have installed chemical
emulsion breaking, two facilities that have installed chemical
precipitation, and one facility that may have installed biological
treatment. In addition, some facilities have changed their main
treatment technology since 1993: four facilities have changed from
chemical precipitation to dissolved air flotation, one facility changed
from chemical emulsion breaking to dissolved air flotation, and one
facility changed from ultrafiltration to chemical emulsion breaking. To
incorporate the most accurate facility level information into the
baseline for compliance costs and pollutant loadings calculations, EPA
would have to perform extensive follow up with the facilities to obtain
more detailed information on production, treatment, and financial
status. Because EPA is under a court order to take final action on this
rule by June of 1999, EPA does not have sufficient time for such follow
up. However, in order to utilize the data in some capacity, EPA has
performed estimated calculations of the changes in compliance costs and
pollutant removals that would occur if the baseline were changed to
incorporate the trade association data given certain assumptions in
order to use the data. To calculate the changes in compliance costs and
pollutant removals, EPA made the following assumptions when reviewing
the UTSA/TRSA survey data:
For facilities that reported that they treat a portion of
their wastewater and did not indicate the percentage of wastewater
treated, EPA assumed that they are treating only a small portion of
their total wastewater.
For facilities that reported DAF, chemical precipitation,
or chemical emulsion breaking treatment, EPA assumed that the facility
is operating these systems in a manner equivalent to the treatment
technology options costed.
For facilities that provided treatment system descriptions
that were not detailed enough for EPA to make judgement regarding the
treatment system, EPA assumed that they are still operating the
treatment system reported in the 1993 detailed questionnaire.
For a facility that reported possible biological
treatment, EPA assumed that it does not have treatment in place
equivalent to any of the treatment technology options.
For a denim prewash facility that operated a partial
treatment system, EPA assumed that it treats wastewater from all items
except for the denim prewash, which is not included in the scope of the
rule.
EPA did not reduce costs to reflect for ancillary
treatment technologies (e.g., screens, filter presses, equalization
tanks); added since the 1993 detailed questionnaire.
EPA did not make any changes in the 1993 baseline year in
the costs for ten facilities that reported closing or rebuilding since
1993.
For facilities that reported that they planned to install
treatment systems in the future, EPA assumed that they are still
operating the treatment system reported in the 1993 detailed
questionnaire.
EPA solicits comments and additional data that would shed light on the
validity of these assumptions.
Based on these revisions since proposal, for the proposed CP-IL
option, total capital and annual costs for the 1,606 industrial laundry
facilities covered by the proposed rule would decrease by $17 million
and $6.7 million per year, respectively (1997 dollars). The
corresponding toxic weighted pollutant removals would decrease by
124,000 pound equivalents per year. For the proposed DAF-IL option,
total capital and annual costs for the 1,606 industrial laundry
facilities covered by the proposed rule would decrease by $100 million
and $11 million per year, respectively. The corresponding toxic
weighted pollutant removals would decrease by 135,000 pound equivalents
per year.
V. Solicitation of Data and Comments
In addition to soliciting comments and data relating to any of the
material presented in this notice, EPA is interested in receiving
comments and data regarding a number of specific issues which are
discussed below. In commenting or providing data with respect to a
specific issue, commenters should refer to the specific issue which the
comments address.
A. Additional Data To Support Comments Received on the Proposed Rule
As presented in Section II of this Notice, EPA received 302
individual comment submittals on the proposed rule. Of these 302
submittals, only 38 commenters (88 data submittals) provided data that
supported their claims. Many commenters stated that EPA underestimated
compliance costs and that EPA overestimated the treatment performance
of chemical
[[Page 71061]]
precipitation and DAF. However, many commenters did not present data to
substantiate these claims. Without additional data to support these
claims, EPA will rely on data obtained prior to proposal (vendor
quotes, previously submitted cost data, and sampling data) and data
acquired since proposal through EPA's data collection activities to
determine compliance costs and treatment performance.
In order to obtain data to support unsubstantiated comments made on
the proposed rule, EPA contacted some commenters directly to request
additional information. EPA developed a set of four questions that
requested specific information required by EPA to incorporate the
commenter's information into the final rule. In compliance with the
Paper Work Reduction Act, EPA was only able to send letters to nine
commenters that submitted unsubstantiated comments. The methodology
used to select these nine commenters and copies of the letters sent to
each of the commenters are presented in Section 14.6.1 of this
rulemaking record. As of November 20, 1998, EPA has received responses
from four of these commenters.
Because EPA was limited in the number of substantiation letters
that could be sent directly to commenters, EPA is at this time
requesting information from additional commenters who submitted
unsubstantiated comments. Commenters indicating that EPA underestimated
compliance costs or treatment performance are requested to provide
specific cost or performance data to support those claims. Additional
details on the information requested by EPA are provided below.
B. Compliance Cost Estimates
EPA received numerous comments on proposal indicating compliance
costs were underestimated. At this time, EPA is requesting additional
information from industry on costs for installing wastewater treatment
systems in industrial laundries. Ideally, EPA requests that the data
submitted be presented in the format used in the attachments to the
substantiation letters. (These attachments can be found in Section
14.6.1 of the rulemaking record.) This format will allow EPA to fully
analyze and incorporate industry data. At a minimum, EPA requests that
capital costs be broken down in terms of treatment system equipment
costs, installation costs, delivery costs, accessory costs (e.g.,
probes), instrumentation, piping, contractor fees, pumps, construction
of buildings or other structures to house major treatment units, and
engineering costs. EPA requests that annual costs be broken down into
the following components, if available: chemical costs, electric costs,
operation and maintenance (O&M) labor costs, O&M material costs, and
residual disposal costs. EPA also requests that general data pertaining
to the relevant facility be supplied. This includes a detailed
description of the treatment system (average operating days per year
and hours per day, treatment system unit descriptions and capacities,
average wastewater flows in and out of treatment units, chemical
addition type and location) and general production data for the
facility (include total annual production and a breakdown of annual
production by item type).
C. Treatment Performance Data
EPA received several comments indicating that the treatment
performance of both chemical precipitation and DAF were overestimated.
EPA's sampling data indicate that chemical precipitation can treat to
the proposed standards. However, in order to obtain more data, EPA is
requesting data on the treatment performance of chemical precipitation
and DAF. EPA is particularly interested in the treatment performance of
chemical precipitation and DAF technologies treating only industrial
towel (shop, furniture and/or printer towel) wastewaters.
EPA requests commenters provide any monitoring data (from self-
monitoring or POTW monitoring) that has not been previously submitted.
Data of particular use to EPA include paired influent and effluent data
related to chemical precipitation and DAF or, if these data are not
available, provide paired influent and effluent data for each overall
treatment system. In addition, commenters should provide a copy of
local limits and/or monitoring requirements including analytical
methods used and method detection limits for any non-detect values.
In order to fully evaluate the treatment performance data and the
appropriateness of its inclusion in the development of the final rule,
EPA requests that commenters provide information concerning each
wastewater treatment system design and each facility's laundry
production. Ideally, EPA requests that supporting data be provided in
the format requested in questions 1 and 2 of the attachments to the
substantiation letters. These attachments are found in Section 14.6.1
of the rulemaking record. At a minimum, EPA requests that general data
pertaining to the commenter's facility be supplied. This includes a
detailed description of your treatment system (average operating days
per year and hours per day, treatment system unit descriptions and
capacities, average wastewater flows in and out of treatment units,
chemical addition type and location) and general production data for
the commenter's facility (including total annual production and a
breakdown of annual production by item type).
D. Passthrough Analysis
EPA received a number of comments on its proposal to reconsider the
data used for the publicly owned treatment works (POTW) passthrough
analysis. The Agency solicits influent and effluent pollutant
concentration data from POTWs operating secondary treatment. These data
may be used in recalculating POTW passthrough. EPA is particularly
interested in any treatment data for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH
measured as SGT-HEM) measured using the proposed EPA Method 1664,
however EPA also solicits data resulting from existing (Freon
extraction) methods. While this is not the current method, this data
still provides essential information about performance. Commenters
should provide monitoring data, the portion of the total wastewater
treated at the POTW that is industrial (percentages and flow rates),
the number of industrial laundries currently discharging to the POTW
and the approximate flow rates of these laundries. In addition, provide
the sample date, the number of sampling points, and detection limits
for data below the detection limit in order to fully evaluate the data.
E. Volatile Organic Treatment Technologies Used at Industrial Laundries
At proposal, EPA analyzed the treatment performance and cost
effectiveness of volatiles control by steam tumbling printer towels
prior to water washing. At this time, EPA is requesting additional data
on volatiles control. This includes data on steam tumbling, carbon
adsorption, air stripping followed by a scrubbing device, and
filtration of water streams through sand or diatomaceous earth.
Commenters should provide treatment performance data, including paired
influent and effluent data, and corresponding flow and production data.
They should also provide, where available, the costs associated with
implementing the treatment technology. Ideally, EPA requests that the
data be provided in the format requested in the attachments to the
substantiation letters.
[[Page 71062]]
These attachments are found in Section 14.6.1 of the rulemaking record.
At a minimum, EPA requests that capital costs be broken down in terms
of treatment system equipment costs, installation costs, delivery
costs, accessory costs (e.g., probes), instrumentation, piping,
contractor fees, pumps, construction of buildings or other structures
to house major treatment units, and engineering costs. EPA requests
that annual costs be broken down into the following components, if
available: chemical costs, electric costs, operation and maintenance
(O&M) labor costs, O&M material costs, and residual disposal costs. EPA
also requests that general data pertaining to the commenter's facility
be supplied. This includes a detailed description of the treatment
system (average operating days per year and hours per day, treatment
system unit descriptions and capacities, average wastewater flows in
and out of treatment units, chemical addition type and location) and
general production data for the facility (include total annual
production and a breakdown of annual production by item type).
F. Pollution Prevention Activities
EPA proposed a no regulation option at the time of proposal. If EPA
decides to go forward with the no regulation option, EPA may require
specific pollution prevention/reduction activities to be implemented at
industrial laundry facilities. EPA is soliciting information on in-
process pollution prevention activities designed to minimize the level
of pollutants in the influent at industrial laundries. Commenters
should provide a description of the pollution prevention activity and
information on the pollutant reduction due to implementation of this
practice.
EPA also solicits comment on whether a best management practice
(BMP) option, in lieu of an end-of-pipe regulation using any of the
previously identified options controlling organic compounds, should be
promulgated. This option would require control of organic solvents
prior to the wash cycle by treating industrial towels only. In this
case, the BMP could specify a certain technology (e.g., centrifuges,
hydraulic presses, mechanical wringers) in lieu of a performance
standard and could be used in conjunction with the industry's proposed
voluntary program.
G. Space Limitations and New Building Costs for Industrial Laundries
EPA received several comments indicating that space requirements
and expansion costs for industrial laundries were underestimated. EPA
is soliciting comments and data from industrial laundry facilities that
in the past five years have installed pretreatment equipment that
required them to either purchase addition land and/or construct a
building to house pretreatment equipment. For facilities that purchased
additional land to install pretreatment equipment, please provide
information on the amount of land purchased, the cost of the land, and
the location of the facility. For facilities that constructed buildings
to house pretreatment equipment, please provide a detailed description
of the building (including size, construction materials, and any
additional uses of the building) and a detailed cost breakdown
(including construction costs, secondary containment costs, HVAC costs,
etc.).
H. Alternative Approach to ``No Regulation'' Option
EPA has received from UTSA and TRSA a proposal that would serve as
an alternative to the pretreatment standards proposed by EPA. This
document, which is available in Section 16 of the public record for
this rulemaking, outlines a voluntary multi-media environmental
improvement and pollution prevention program. The programs contains
five elements: (1) The establishment of industry-wide program goals;
(2) a statement of environmental principles; (3) a menu of specific
voluntary initiatives; (4) an implementation plan; and (5) a system for
assessing program performance. EPA solicits comment on whether this
program or some combination of elements of this program should take the
place of the final rule, or be part of an option for those facilities
excluded from numeric standards based on some sort of size cutoff to
embark upon in place of complying with standards contained in the final
rule. EPA has also received comments supporting EPA to go forward with
the promulgation of pretreatment standards for this industry. These
comments can be found in Section 14 of the record.
Dated: December 16, 1998.
J. Charles Fox,
Assistant Administrator for Water.
[FR Doc. 98-34037 Filed 12-22-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P