[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