[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 17, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66182-66214]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30240]
[[Page 66181]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Part 441
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards for the
Industrial Laundries Point Source Category; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 17, 1997 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 66182]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 441
[FRL-5922-2]
RIN 2040-AB97
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards for
the Industrial Laundries Point Source Category
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would limit the discharge of pollutants
into waters of the United States and publicly owned treatment works
(POTWs) from existing and new industrial laundries by establishing
pretreatment standards for existing and new sources (PSES and PSNS,
respectively). These standards are based on a determination of the
degree to which pollutants pass through or interfere with POTWs; the
best available technology economically achievable for PSES; and best
available demonstrated control technology for PSNS. EPA estimates the
proposed rule would cost approximately $139.4 million ($1997 pretax
total social cost) annually (posttax compliance costs to affected
facilities would be $93.9 million annually) while it reduces the
discharge of toxic and nonconventional pollutants to POTWs by
approximately 13 million pounds resulting in reduced discharges of 5
million pounds per year of such pollutants as well as significant
amounts of other conventional pollutants per year to waters of the U.S.
This proposed rule would also reduce the impacts of these discharges to
aquatic life and human health and reduce potential interference with
POTW operations. EPA is reserving effluent limitations guidelines for
direct dischargers since EPA has identified no direct dischargers and
has no means to evaluate performance to determine the appropriate level
of control. If any such discharges were to occur, they would be subject
to limitations set on a best professional judgement basis.
DATES: EPA must receive comments on the proposal by February 17, 1998.
EPA will conduct a public hearing on pretreatment standards on
January 15, 1998 from 9am EST to 12 noon.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in writing to W-97-14, Ms. Marta Jordan,
Engineering and Analysis Division (4303), U.S. EPA, 401 M. St. SW,
Washington, DC 20460. Please submit any references cited in your
comments. EPA requests an original and three copies of your comments
and enclosures (including references). Commenters who want EPA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments should enclose a self-addressed,
stamped envelope. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. For
additional information on how to submit electronic comments see
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ``How to Submit Comments''.
The public record for this proposed rulemaking has been established
under docket number W-97-14 and is located in the Water Docket, Room
M2616, 401 M. St. SW, Washington, DC 20460. The record is available for
inspection from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. For access to the docket materials call (202)
260-3027 to schedule an appointment. You may have to pay a reasonable
fee for copying.
EPA will conduct a public hearing on pretreatment standards in
EPA's Auditorium, Waterside Mall, 401 M. St. SW, Washington, DC.
Persons wishing to present formal comments at the public hearing should
have a written copy for submittal.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact Ms.
Marta E. Jordan at (202) 260-0817. For economic information contact Mr.
George Denning at (202) 260-7374.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
This proposed rule would apply to industrial laundries. An
industrial laundry is any facility that launders industrial textile
items from off-site as a business activity (i.e., launders industrial
textile items for other business entities for a fee or through a
cooperative arrangement). Either the industrial laundry facility or the
off-site customer may own the industrial laundered textile items. This
definition includes textile rental companies that perform laundering
operations. For this proposed rule, laundering means washing with
water, including water washing following dry cleaning. This proposed
rule would not apply to laundering exclusively through dry cleaning.
Industrial textile items include, but are not limited to, industrial:
shop towels, printer towels/rags, furniture towels, rags, mops, mats,
rugs, tool covers, fender covers, dust-control items, gloves, buffing
pads, absorbents, uniforms, filters and clean room items. If any of
these items otherwise considered to be industrial textile items are
used only by hotels, hospitals, or restaurants, they are not industrial
items and would not be covered by this rule.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated
Category entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.................................. Facilities that launder
industrial textile items
from off-site as a business
activity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be regulated by this proposed
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this
proposed action, you should carefully examine the Industrial Laundries
Definition section of the proposed rule. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this proposed action to a particular
entity, consult the person(s) listed in the ``For Further Information
Contact'' section of this proposed rule.
The proposed rule would not apply to discharges from: on-site
laundering at industrial facilities, laundering of industrial textile
items originating from the same business entity, and facilities that
exclusively launder linen items, denim prewash items, new items (i.e.,
items directly from textile manufacturers, not yet used for intended
purpose), any other laundering of hospital, hotel, or restaurant items
or any combination of these items. This proposed rule would apply to
hotel, hospital, or restaurant laundering of industrial textile items
from off-site industrial users, (e.g., shop towels). In addition, this
proposed rule would not apply to the discharges from oil-only treatment
of mops.
By linen items, EPA means: sheets, pillow cases, blankets, bath
towels and washcloths, hospital gowns and robes, tablecloths, napkins,
tableskirts, kitchen textile items, continuous roll towels, laboratory
coats, household laundry (such as clothes, but not industrial
uniforms), executive wear, mattress pads, incontinence pads, and
diapers. This list is meant to be all inclusive. By linen items, EPA
does not mean to specify a particular type of fabric, but instead the
types of items listed above.
For facilities covered under the Industrial Laundry definition,
wastewater from all water washing operations would be covered,
including the washing of linen items as long as these items do not
constitute 100 percent of the items washed.
[[Page 66183]]
Exclusions
Under Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES), EPA is
proposing to exclude existing facilities that launder less than one
million pounds of incoming laundry per calendar year and less than
255,000 pounds of shop and/or printer towels/rags per calendar year.
EPA proposes this exclusion in order to eliminate unacceptable
disproportionate adverse economic impacts on these smaller facilities.
The excluded facilities would be disproportionately adversely affected
relative to all facilities covered by this proposed rule, as discussed
further below. If any excluded facility launders one million pounds or
more of incoming laundry per calendar year or 255,000 pounds or more of
shop and/or printer towels/rags per calendar year, it will no longer be
excluded from the standards. All of the excluded facilities are small
entities under the Small Business Administration (SBA) definition of
small entity. The excluded facilities account for less than three
percent of the pollutant removals from the waters of the U.S. than
would occur if the proposed rule were implemented without the
exclusion.
Under Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS), EPA is
proposing no exclusion since the economic projections indicate that
there would be no barrier to entry as a result of the proposed new
source standards.
Supporting Documentation
The basis for this proposed rule is detailed in five documents,
each of which is supported in turn by additional information and
analyses in the rulemaking record. EPA's technical foundation for the
regulation is presented in the Technical Development Document for
Proposed Pretreatment Standards for Existing and New Sources for the
Industrial Laundries Point Source Category. (Hereafter, ``Development
Document''; EPA Report No. EPA-821-R-97-007). EPA's economic analysis
is presented in the Economic Assessment for Proposed Pretreatment
Standards for Existing and New Sources for the Industrial Laundries
Point Source Category. (Hereafter, ``Economic Assessment''; EPA Report
No. EPA-821-R-97-008) and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Proposed
Pretreatment Standards for Existing and New Sources for the Industrial
Laundries Point Source Category (Hereafter, ``Cost-Effectiveness
Analysis''; EPA Report No. EPA-821-R-97-005). EPA's statistical
analysis is presented in the Statistical Support Document for Proposed
Pretreatment Standards for Existing and New Sources for the Industrial
Laundries Point Source Category. (Hereinafter, ``Statistical Support
Document''; EPA Report No. EPA-821-R-97-006). EPA's environmental
benefits analysis is presented in the Water Quality Benefits Analysis
for Proposed Pretreatment Standards for Existing and New Sources for
the Industrial Laundries Point Source Category. (Hereinafter, ``WQBA'';
EPA Report No. EPA-821-R-97-009). These background documents are
available from the Office of Water Resource Center, RC-4100, at the
U.S. EPA, Washington, DC address shown above; telephone (202) 260-7786
for the voice mail publication request line.
How to Submit Comments
Comments may be filed electronically to
Jordan.Marta@epamail.epa.gov. Electronic comments must be submitted as
an ASCII or WordPerfect 6.1 file avoiding the use of special characters
and any form of encryption. Electronic comments must be identified by
the docket number W-97-14 and must be received by midnight of February
17, 1998. Electronic comments on this notice may be filed online at
many Federal Depository Libraries. No confidential business information
(CBI) should be sent via e-mail.
Protection of Confidential Business Information
EPA notes that many documents in the record supporting the proposed
rule have been claimed as confidential business information (CBI) and
therefore, are not included in the record that is available to the
public in the Water Docket. To support the rulemaking, EPA is
presenting certain information in aggregated form or is masking
facility identities to preserve confidentiality claims. Further, the
Agency has withheld from disclosure some data not claimed as CBI
because release of this information could indirectly reveal information
claimed to be confidential.
Some facility-specific data, claimed as CBI, are available to the
company that submitted the information. To ensure that all CBI is
protected in accordance with EPA regulations, any requests for company-
specific data should be submitted to EPA on company letterhead and
signed by a responsible official authorized to receive such data. The
request must list the specific data requested and include the following
statement, ``I certify that EPA is authorized to transfer confidential
business information submitted by my company, and that I am authorized
to receive it.''
Organization of this Document
I. Legal Authority
II. Summary of Proposed Pretreatment Standards
III. Background
A. Clean Water Act Statutory Requirements
B. Pollution Prevention Act
C. Industrial Laundries Definition
D. Summary of Public Participation
IV. Description of the Industry
V. Summary of Data Gathering Efforts
VI. Development of the Pretreatment Standards
A. Wastewater Characteristics
B. Selection of Pollutant Parameters to be Regulated
C. Available Treatment Technologies
D. Technology and Regulatory Options Considered
E. Costs
F. Rationale for Selection of PSES and PSNS
G. Determination of Long-Term Averages (LTAs), Variability
Factors, and Limitations for PSES and PSNS
VII. Economic Analysis
A. Introduction
B. Economic Impact Methodology
C. Summary of Costs and Economic Impacts
D. Cost-Benefit Analysis
E. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
VIII. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts
IX. Environmental Benefits Analysis
A. Introduction
B. Overview of the Industrial Laundry Industry's Effluent
Discharges
C. Benefits of the Proposed Rule
D. Human Health Benefits
E. Ecological Benefits Valued on the Basis of Enhanced
Recreational Fishing Opportunities
F. Benefits From Reduced Cost of Sewage Sludge Disposal and
Reduced Incidence of Inhibition
G. Discussions With POTW Operators and Pre-Treatment
Coordinators
X. Related Acts of Congress, Executive Orders, and Agency
Initiatives
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as Amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)
B. Executive Order 12866
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
XI. Related Rulemakings
A. Office of Solid Waste (OSW) Activities Related to This
Effort
XII. Regulatory Implementation
A. Upset and Bypass Provisions
B. Variances and Modifications
Appendix A--Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Other Terms Used in This
Notice
I. Legal Authority
This regulation is being proposed under the authority of sections
301, 304, 306, 307, 308, and 501 of the Clean
[[Page 66184]]
Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. sections 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, and
1361.
II. Summary of Proposed Pretreatment Standards
EPA proposes to establish ``Pretreatment Standards for Existing
Sources'' (PSES), and ``Pretreatment Standards for New Sources''
(PSNS). Under PSES, EPA is proposing pretreatment standards for the
entire facility wastestream based on Chemical Precipitation treatment
of the portion of facility wastewater generated by laundering the
industrial items only (CP-IL). EPA's data shows that these standards
can be met by treating only this portion of wastewater. EPA finds this
option to be the best available technology economically achievable
based on the data collected during development of the proposed rule.
CP-IL also provides effective treatment to minimize/prevent pass
through and interference at POTWs. Under PSNS, EPA is also proposing
standards based on Chemical Precipitation treatment of the portion of
facility wastewater generated only by laundering of the industrial
items since it is the best available demonstrated technology for
pretreatment and the costs are not projected to be a barrier to entry.
EPA is not developing effluent limitations guidelines and New
Source Performance Standards for direct dischargers because EPA has
identified no direct dischargers and there is no available information
with which to accurately determine ``Best Available Technology
Economically Achievable'' (BAT) or ``Best Available Demonstrated
Control Technology'' (BADCT) performance for direct dischargers.
Proposed limitations based on pretreatment control technologies would
not likely represent best available technology or best available
demonstrated technology for direct dischargers because the treatment
technologies at existing industrial laundries that EPA evaluated were
not designed for treatment prior to discharging directly to surface
waters. The type or design (i.e., size) of treatment would not
represent BAT because in all cases facilities rely on additional
treatment at POTWs. For the pollutants evaluated in this proposed rule,
the POTW's biological treatment removes from 4%-99% depending on the
pollutant. Because EPA has not identified any POTWs receiving a very
large proportion of their load (70-100%) from an industrial laundry, a
determination of direct discharge effluent limitations cannot be
performed. Thus, EPA is reserving effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for direct dischargers in this rulemaking.
This proposed rule would not apply to discharges from: on-site
laundering at industrial facilities, laundering of industrial textile
items originating from the same business entity, and facilities that
exclusively launder linen items, denim prewash items, new items (i.e.,
items directly from textile manufacturers, not yet used for intended
purpose), any other laundering of hotel, hospital, or restaurant items
or any combination of these items. This proposed rule would apply to
hotel, hospital, or restaurant laundering of industrial textile items.
In addition, this proposed rule would not apply to laundering
exclusively through dry cleaning and the oil-only treatment of mops.
The rule also would not apply to certain small industrial
laundries; see ``Regulated Entities'' discussion above, industrial
laundries definition, and rule text below.
Pursuant to CWA section 307(b)(1), indirect dischargers are
required to comply with pretreatment standards for existing sources by
three years of the effective date of the final rule. For purposes of
this rule, indirect dischargers must comply with this rule by three
years after the date of publication of the final rule.
III. Background
A. Clean Water Act Statutory Requirements
The objective of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is to ``restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
Nation's waters.'' CWA section 101(a). To assist in achieving this
objective, EPA issues effluent limitation guidelines, pretreatment
standards, and new source performance standards for industrial
dischargers. These standards relevant to this rulemaking are summarized
here:
1. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)--Section
304(b)(2) of the CWA
BAT effluent limitations guidelines apply to direct dischargers of
toxic and nonconventional pollutants. In general, they represent the
best existing economically achievable performance of plants in the
industrial subcategory or category. The factors considered in assessing
BAT include the age of equipment and facilities involved, the process
employed, potential process changes, non-water quality environmental
impacts, including energy requirements, and such factors as the
Administrator deems appropriate. EPA retains considerable discretion in
assigning the weight to be accorded these factors. An additional
statutory factor considered in setting BAT is economic achievability.
Generally, the achievability is determined on the basis of total costs
to the industrial subcategory and the rule's effect on the overall
industry financial health. Where existing performance is uniformly
inadequate, BAT may be transferred from a different subcategory or
category. BAT may be based upon process changes or internal controls,
even when these technologies are not common industry practice.
2. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)--Section 306 of the CWA
NSPS are based on the best available demonstrated control
technology (BADCT) and apply to all pollutants (conventional,
nonconventional, and toxic). New facilities have the opportunity to
install the best and most efficient production processes and wastewater
treatment technologies. Under NSPS, EPA is to consider the best
demonstrated process changes, in-plant controls, and end-of-process
control and treatment technologies that reduce pollution to the maximum
extent feasible. In establishing NSPS, EPA is directed to take into
consideration the cost of achieving the effluent reduction and any non-
water quality environmental impacts and energy requirements.
3. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)--Section 307(b)
of the CWA
PSES are designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants that pass
through, interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the
operation of publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). The CWA authorizes
EPA to establish pretreatment standards for pollutants that pass
through POTWs or interfere with treatment processes or sludge disposal
methods at POTWs. Pretreatment standards are technology-based and
analogous to BAT effluent limitations guidelines.
The General Pretreatment Regulations, which set forth the framework
for the implementation of categorical pretreatment standards, are found
at 40 CFR part 403. Those regulations contain a definition of pass
through that addresses localized rather than national instances of pass
through and establish pretreatment standards that apply to all non-
domestic dischargers. See 52 FR 1586 January 14, 1987.
[[Page 66185]]
4. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)--Section 307(b) of the
CWA
Like PSES, PSNS are designed to prevent the discharges of
pollutants that pass through, interfere with, or are incompatible with
the operations of POTWs. New indirect dischargers have the opportunity
to incorporate into their plants the best available demonstrated
technologies. The Agency considers the same factors in promulgating
PSNS as it considers in promulgating NSPS.
5. Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Section 304(e) of the CWA gives the Administrator the authority to
publish regulations, in addition to the effluent limitations guidelines
and standards listed above, to control plant site runoff, spillage or
leaks, sludge or waste disposal, and drainage from raw material storage
that the Administrator determines may contribute significant amounts of
pollutants. Some industrial laundry facilities have BMPs in place and
these BMPs are further discussed in Sections III.B. and VI.C.1. below
and in more detail in the Development Document.
6. CWA Section 304(m) Requirements
Section 304(m) of the CWA requires EPA to establish schedules for
(I) reviewing and revising existing effluent limitations guidelines and
standards and (ii) promulgating new effluent limitations. On January 2,
1990, EPA published an Effluent Guidelines Plan (55 FR 80), in which
schedules were established for developing new and revised guidelines
for several industry categories, including the industrial laundries
point source category. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,
challenged the Effluent Guidelines Plan in a suit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia, (NRDC et al v. Reilly,
Civ. No. 89-2980). On January 31, 1992 the Court entered a consent
decree (the ``304(m) Decree''), which establishes schedules for, among
other things, EPA's proposal and promulgation of effluent guidelines
for a number of point source categories, including the industrial
laundries point source category. The most recent Effluent Guidelines
Plan Update was published in the Federal Register on February 26, 1997
(62 FR 8726). This plan requires, among other things, that EPA propose
the Industrial Laundries Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Pretreatment Standards by September 1997 and take final action on the
Guidelines and Standards by June 1999.
B. Pollution Prevention Act
The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA) (42 U.S.C. 13101 et
seq., Pub. L. 101-508, November 5, 1990) ``declares it to be the
national policy of the United States that pollution should be prevented
or reduced whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be prevented should
be recycled in an environmentally safe manner, whenever feasible;
pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled should be treated in an
environmentally safe manner whenever feasible; and disposal or release
into the environment should be employed only as a last resort * * *''
(Sec. 6602; 42 U.S.C. 13101(b)). In short, preventing pollution before
it is created is preferable to trying to manage, treat or dispose of it
after it is created. The PPA directs the Agency to, among other things,
``review regulations of the Agency prior and subsequent to their
proposal to determine their effect on source reduction'' (Sec. 6604; 42
U.S.C. 13103(b)(2)). This effluent guideline was reviewed for its
incorporation of pollution prevention.
According to the PPA, source reduction reduces the generation and
release of hazardous substances, pollutants, wastes, contaminants or
residuals at the source, usually within a process. The term source
reduction ``include[s] equipment or technology modifications, process
or procedure modifications, reformulation or redesign of products,
substitution of raw materials, and improvements in housekeeping,
maintenance, training or inventory control. The term ``source
reduction'' does not include any practice which alters the physical,
chemical, or biological characteristics or the volume of a hazardous
substance, pollutant, or contaminant through a process or activity
which itself is not integral to or necessary for the production of a
product or the providing of a service.'' 42 U.S.C. 13102(5). In effect,
source reduction means reducing the amount of a pollutant that enters a
waste stream or that is otherwise released into the environment prior
to out-of-process recycling, treatment, or disposal.
EPA has undertaken several pollution prevention related activities
involving the industrial laundries industry. Part of the efforts were
Agency wide, including the Office of Research and Development (ORD) and
EPA's Region 9, while other efforts were included as part of the
engineering studies in the development of the proposed rule.
The Agency-wide efforts, called the Industrial Pollution Prevention
Project (IP3), were multi-media and examined how industrial pollution
prevention can be incorporated into EPA's regulatory framework and how
the pollution prevention ethic can be promoted throughout industry, the
public and government. A report summarizing the results of these
efforts, entitled ``Summary Report of the Industrial Pollution
Prevention Project (IP3),'' EPA-820-R-95-007, July 1995, included the
results of two case studies involving industrial laundries. More
detailed discussions of the two studies are contained in the individual
reports, ``Pollution Prevention at Industrial Laundries: Assessment
Observations and Waste Reduction Options,'' EPA-820-R-95-010, July
1995, and ``Pollution Prevention at Industrial Laundries: A
Collaborative Approach in Southern California,'' EPA-820-R-95-012.
These studies identified a number of ``best management practices''
(BMP's) and water and energy savings technologies as potential
pollution prevention practices at industrial laundries.
Similarly, during the engineering study phase of the development of
the proposed rule, a number of potential pollution prevention practices
and technology applications were identified. Discussion of the
pollution prevention technologies and practices and their uses with
respect to this proposed rule are contained later in Section VI of this
preamble and in the Development Document.
C. Industrial Laundries Definition
An industrial laundry is any facility that launders industrial
textile items from off-site as a business activity (i.e., launders
industrial textile items for other business entities for a fee or
through a cooperative arrangement). Either the industrial laundry
facility or the off-site customer may own the industrial laundered
textile items. This definition includes textile rental companies that
perform laundering operations. For this proposed rule, laundering means
washing with water, including water washing following dry cleaning.
This proposed rule would not apply to laundering exclusively through
dry cleaning. Industrial textile items include, but are not limited to
industrial: shop towels, printer towels/rags, furniture towels, rags,
mops, mats, rugs, tool covers, fender covers, dust-control items,
gloves, buffing pads, absorbents, uniforms, filters and clean room
garments. If any of these items are used by hotels, hospitals, or
restaurants, they are not industrial items.
The proposed rule would not apply to discharges from: on-site
laundering at industrial facilities, laundering of
[[Page 66186]]
industrial textile items originating from the same business entity, and
facilities that exclusively launder linen items, denim prewash, new
items (i.e. items directly from textile manufacturers, not yet used for
intended purpose), any other laundering of hotel, hospital, or
restaurant items or any combination of these items. This proposed rule
would apply to hotel, hospital, or restaurant laundering of industrial
textile items. In addition, this rule would not apply to discharges
from the oil-only treatment of mops.
The focus of this rule is on industrial laundries that function
independently of other industrial activities that generate wastewater.
The reason EPA is excluding from applicability on-site laundries is
that EPA believes it is more appropriate to address on-site laundry
discharges at industrial facilities as part of the effluent from the
facility as a whole, for several reasons. First, many such facilities
commingle laundry wastewater with wastewater from other processes.
Second, EPA anticipates that contaminants removed from laundered items
can best be treated with process wastewater containing similar
contaminants. EPA has already established effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for 51 industries (see Development Document).
These regulations generally apply to wastewater generated from these
industries, including on-site laundering. For example, the OCPSF
effluent guidelines control discharges from garment laundering at OCPSF
facilities. For industries not yet covered by effluent limitations
guidelines and standards, it makes sense to examine these industries
and the wastewater treatment processes at these industrial facilities
in the context of the entire industrial facility, not just the
laundering portion of the facility. Addressing on-site laundering
discharges along with other industrial discharges in an industry allows
EPA to examine all of the production and processing equipment used by
the industry, all of the discharges in an industry, all the potential
wastewater treatment applicable to the industry, and all of the
economic impacts of any such national regulation for the industrial
subcategory as a whole. This is consistent with EPA's efforts to make
common-sense regulatory decisions.
EPA has also considered concerns expressed by industrial launderers
that by excluding on-site laundering of industrial items, EPA has
created an incentive for businesses to switch from using industrial
launderers covered by the rule to on-site laundering. EPA does not
believe this will happen because the average increased price per pound
of laundering as a result of the proposed rule ($0.003 per pound) is so
small that the cost of buying the equipment and operating the equipment
on-site (capital, operation and maintenance including labor, chemicals,
water) to do on-site laundering rather than using industrial launderers
would not be justified. Furthermore, an increase in pollutant loads at
the facility may necessitate additional changes in the facility's NPDES
permit if it is a direct discharger or its pretreatment permit issued
by the local POTW if it is an indirect discharger. See Section 8 of the
EA and Chapter 6 of the Development Document.
EPA also looked at the types of items that were water washed to
determine if any specific items should be excluded from regulation. EPA
reviewed the available data to determine differences in types of items
laundered, and determined that wastewater characteristics of denim
prewash items and linen items are significantly different from the
wastewater characteristics of industrial items, based on a statistical
comparison of untreated wastewater pollutant concentrations. The
pollutant concentrations in wastewater from laundering denim prewash
items and linen items are lower on average than industrial item
wastewater concentrations. The available data indicate that the
pollutant concentrations are lower for denim prewash items and linen
items, and POTWs can adequately treat wastewater streams generated from
these types of items. Therefore, EPA is excluding facilities
discharging 100 percent denim prewash items and linen item wastewater
from the scope of this proposed rule.
EPA is excluding new items from regulation since these items are
laundered prior to being used for their intended purpose and therefore
may not contain pollutants at concentrations that are incompatible with
or interfere with POTWs.
The rule also would not apply to certain small facilities; see
``Regulated Entities'' discussion above and rule text below.
D. Summary of Public Participation
EPA encouraged full public participation in developing the proposed
rule. During the data gathering activities that preceded development of
the proposed rule, EPA met with industry trade associations, state and
local governments, and industrial laundry and linen facilities. EPA has
also participated in numerous industry talks and meetings. To further
public participation on this rule, on March 4, 1997, EPA held a public
meeting about the content and status of the proposed regulation. The
meeting was announced in the Federal Register (62 FR 3849; January 27,
1997) and information packages were distributed at the meeting. The
public meeting also gave interested parties an opportunity to provide
information, data, and ideas or comments on key issues.
During the development of the proposed rule, EPA sent a screener
questionnaire to assess the number of facilities that could potentially
be considered industrial laundries, and followed this with a detailed
questionnaire to a stratified random sample of the industry under
authority of section 308 of the CWA. During the design of the detailed
questionnaire, EPA met with industry trade associations to discuss
EPA's plans to issue a questionnaire; and distributed several drafts of
the questionnaire to both the industry trade associations and the
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., for review and comment. The
detailed questionnaire was subsequently completed, reviewed and
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and sent to
industrial laundry facilities. Two trade associations, the Textile
Rental Services Association of America (TRSA) and Uniform and Textile
Service Association (UTSA) sent letters to OMB supporting EPA's data
collection efforts, particularly the detailed questionnaire. EPA held
workshops for the public on how to complete the detailed questionnaire.
EPA also sent a screener questionnaire to hotels, hospitals, and
prisons to assess whether these facilities should be included in the
scope of the industrial laundries regulation. Also, following receipt
of the detailed questionnaire responses and as part of the technology
performance data gathering effort, EPA requested detailed monitoring
data from 37 facilities that had already received the detailed
questionnaire so that data specific to these facilities could be
evaluated as part of EPA's analyses.
IV. Description of the Industry
Industrial laundry facilities are located in all 50 states and all
10 EPA regions. By State, the largest number of industrial laundries
are in California. By EPA Region, the largest concentration of
industrial laundries is in Region V. Most of the industrial laundering
facilities are in large urban areas. EPA estimates that there are 1,747
facilities nationwide.
Industrial laundries vary in size from one- or two-person
facilities to large corporations that operate many facilities
[[Page 66187]]
with hundreds of employees nationwide. Annual laundry production per
facility ranges from 44,100 to 32,620,000 pounds.
Facilities launder most items using water washing. Water washing
involves washing items in water. Some facilities launder items using
dry cleaning, which involves washing items in an organic solvent.
Facilities that only dry clean (with solvent washing) are not covered
by this proposed rule. Dry cleaning is not a water washing process and
generates little, if any, wastewater, therefore EPA excluded this
process from this proposed rule. The pollutants generated in the dry
cleaning operation are recovered from the solvent through distillation
and then disposed of off-site as a hazardous waste. Air emissions from
dry cleaning may be controlled by EPA in Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) standards issued under the Clean Air Act. In some
cases, facilities combine the two processes to wash items that have
large amounts of both water soluble and organic-solvent soluble soils.
When water washing and dry cleaning are performed in series without
drying the items between the solvent and water phases, the process is
called dual-phase washing. The order in which these processes are
performed depends on the solvent used, type of soil, and drying energy
requirements. Typically, in dual-phase washing, the solvent wash occurs
prior to the water wash; none of the facilities responding to the
detailed questionnaire reported performing water washing followed by
solvent wash. Facilities performing dual-phase washing of industrial
items are covered by this proposed rule if they process industrial
textile items.
At some facilities, dust mops are not water washed, but are cleaned
and treated with heated oil instead of water. After cleaning, the oil
is extracted from the mops, leaving them coated with the desired
quantity of oil. Since the oil treatment of mops is not a water washing
process and generates no wastewater, EPA excluded this process from
this proposed regulation.
A more detailed description of the industry is included in the
Industrial Laundries Development Document contained in the record for
this proposed rule.
V. Summary of Data Gathering Efforts
EPA has collected data from various sources. EPA has collected
industry-supplied data from industrial laundries through the screener
questionnaires, detailed questionnaires and the detailed monitoring
data requests. EPA has also collected data through site visits and
sampling activities. EPA distributed a screener questionnaire in 1993
and a supplemental screener questionnaire in 1994 to develop the scope
of the rule, identify the population of the industry, and select
facilities to receive the more-detailed questionnaire. Also, in
response to comments from industrial laundry and linen trade
associations, EPA mailed 100 screener questionnaires in January 1995 to
hospitals, hotels, and prisons, which potentially operate on-site
laundries.
The industrial laundries industry detailed questionnaires were sent
to a stratified random sample of facilities that were identified from
two sources: Trade association mailing lists and information obtained
from Dun & Bradstreet. These sources produced a list of 3,726 possible
facilities generating industrial laundry wastewater. Based on responses
to the screener questionnaires, EPA estimated there were 1,960
facilities generating industrial laundry wastewater.
To minimize the burden on the respondents to the trade association
screener questionnaire, EPA chose to send detailed questionnaires to
only a selected sample group of facilities. EPA grouped facilities by
the type of items they laundered, their 1992 revenues, and the type of
wastewater treatment they had in place. The Dun & Bradstreet detailed
questionnaire (which was identical to the trade association detailed
questionnaire in content) was based on groupings of Standard Industrial
Classification codes of 7218 (industrial laundering) and 7213 (linen
supply servicing). This technique is known as stratification of the
population. Depending on the number of facilities within the strata,
EPA either censused or chose a random sample of facilities within each
strata. The chosen facilities were given survey weights based on a
facility's probability of selection. If the stratum was censused, those
facilities represent themselves only. Otherwise, the facility is given
a survey weight that allows them to represent themselves and other
facilities, within that stratum, that were not selected to receive a
detailed questionnaire.
Of the 1,960 facilities generating industrial laundry wastewater,
255 received detailed questionnaires and were used to develop survey
weights. After analyzing responses to the questionnaires, EPA chose to
exclude facilities that launder 100% linen items. EPA was left with 193
complete responses representing 1,747 industrial laundry facilities
nationwide. After examining economic impacts, EPA then decided to
exclude existing facilities that launder less than one million pounds
of incoming laundry per calendar year and less than 255,000 pounds of
shop and/or printer towels/rags per calendar year. Therefore, EPA
estimates the total number of facilities that currently would be
subject to the standards in this proposed rule to be 1,606 facilities.
All analyses of impacts of the rule are based on 193 questionnaire
respondent facilities and then the survey weight is applied to develop
national estimates for all facilities. See the Statistical Support
Document for the Industrial Laundries Pretreatment Standards for
additional information on the development of survey weights.
The responses to the detailed questionnaires provided EPA with
detailed technical, economic, and financial information from industrial
laundry and linen supply facilities. EPA used the information reported
to develop an industry profile, characterize industry production and
water use, develop pollutant loadings and reductions estimates, and
develop compliance cost estimates.
In 1995, EPA mailed out 37 requests for detailed monitoring data to
a selected group of industrial laundries. EPA identified this selected
group of facilities because they indicated in their initial responses
in the detailed questionnaires that they had available monitoring data
that EPA determined might be useful in characterizing performance of
certain treatment technologies. EPA has also collected data through
site visits and sampling activities. EPA conducted more than 30 site
visits between 1992 and 1997 to collect information about industrial
laundry processes, water use practices, pollution prevention practices,
wastewater treatment technologies, and waste disposal methods. EPA
conducted eight sampling episodes to characterize industrial laundry
wastewaters and to assess treatment technology effectiveness. A more
detailed description of these data collection efforts can be found in
Chapter 3 of the Industrial Laundries Development Document.
VI. Development of the Pretreatment Standards
A. Wastewater Characteristics
Industrial laundry facilities generate wastewater discharges from
water washing industrial textile items. All of the facilities
identified in the data gathering phase of this rulemaking were found to
be indirect dischargers and discharge all laundry process wastewater to
publicly owned treatment works.
[[Page 66188]]
The detailed questionnaires requested information on the types of
analytes tested during wastewater sampling activities performed at the
facilities in 1993. The facilities reported analytes in the following
categories: oil and grease/total petroleum hydrocarbons (O&G/TPH),
conventional pollutants, metals, organics, and pesticides.
Based on data collected through the detailed questionnaires and
sampling and analysis of industry wastewater, EPA has determined that
67% of the total industry raw wastewater toxic pollutant loading is
generated from laundering of shop and printer towels. Shop and printer
towels represent 80% of the raw wastewater toxic pollutant loading from
industrial laundry items.
B. Selection of Pollutant Parameters To Be Regulated
1. Pollutants Regulated
EPA collected data to determine the conventional, toxic/priority,
and nonconventional pollutants present in industrial laundries
wastewaters. EPA analyzed industrial laundries wastewater for 315
pollutants consisting of four conventional, 98 toxic or priority, and
213 nonconventional organic and metal pollutants, during the 1993-1996
industrial laundries sampling program. This section of the preamble
discusses how EPA determined the pollutants to be regulated under the
selected option. Other options have the same list of regulated
pollutants, although EPA's rationale for regulating these pollutants
varies depending on the option. This is discussed in Chapter 7 of the
Development Document.
EPA reduced the list of 315 pollutants to 72 pollutants for further
consideration for control using the following criteria: eliminating
pollutants never detected in laundry wastewater, pollutants detected
only a small percentage of the time in laundry wastewater (less than
10% of the time), pollutants detected in source water at concentrations
similar to concentrations in laundry wastewater, pollutants analyzed
for screening purposes, but not analyzed in a quantitative manner due
to a lack of acceptable analytical methods, and pollutants likely to be
adequately regulated on a case-by-case basis by POTWs using the current
regulations on controlling pass through and interference. (See
Development Document, Chapter 7).
For the selected option (CP-IL), the 72 pollutants were
subsequently reduced to 59 pollutants by eliminating n-alkanes (11
separate pollutants), which make up part of TPH as measured by SGT-HEM,
as well as two pollutants used as treatment chemicals (Aluminum and
Iron). EPA also eliminated 31 pollutants from regulation because these
pollutants are not removed by the treatment technology for the selected
option or because these pollutants were present below treatable
concentrations in wastewaters influent to the treatment system and
therefore would not be substantially removed by the treatment
technology. For purposes of this rule, EPA considers treatable
concentrations to be greater than 10 times the method detection level.
Based on these analyses, this left EPA with 28 pollutants under
consideration for regulation.
Before proposing pretreatment standards, EPA examines whether the
pollutants discharged by the industry pass through a POTW to waters of
the U.S. or interfere with the POTW operation or sludge disposal
practices. Generally, in determining whether pollutants pass through a
POTW, EPA compares the percentage of the pollutant removed by well-
operated POTWs achieving secondary treatment with the percentage of the
pollutant removed by facilities meeting BAT effluent limitations. In
this case, where only pretreatment standards are being considered, EPA
compared the POTW removals with removals achieved by indirect
dischargers using the candidate technology that satisfies the BAT
factors. For specific pollutants, such as volatile organic compounds or
highly biodegradable compounds, EPA may use other means to determine
pass through. For volatile compounds, a volatile override test based on
the Henry's Law Constant is used to determine pass through. If a
pollutant has a Henry's Law Constant greater than 2.4 x 10-5 atm-m \3\/
mole, it is generally determined to pass through because it is assumed
to be sufficiently volatile such that a significant portion of the
compound would not be treated by the POTW. For highly biodegradable
compounds, the pass through determination may be conducted using
engineering modeling.
The primary source of POTW data was the Fate of Priority Pollutants
in Publicly Owned Treatment Works (also known as the 50 POTW Study).
Since the 50 POTW Study did not cover all the pollutants detected in
industrial laundry wastewater, EPA used additional data from the Risk
Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL) database. The RREL database EPA
used included data relating to activated sludge and aerated lagoons
reflecting POTW secondary treatment from domestic and industrial
wastewater sources.
EPA eliminated three conventional pollutants (O&G, BOD, and TSS)
from regulation without conducting the percent removal comparison
because EPA believes POTWs adequately treat these parameters in the
concentrations found in IL wastewaters. Thus, these parameters are
deemed to not pass through. EPA conducted the pass through analysis on
the remaining 25 pollutants.
For this proposed rule, the percent removal comparison between
indirect dischargers using the candidate PSES-BAT technology and POTWs
and the volatile override test were used to determine pass through.
Since EPA has not identified any direct dischargers, EPA used PSES
percent removals for evaluating pass through. EPA finds that a
pollutant passes through when the average percentage removed nationwide
by well-operated POTWs (those meeting secondary treatment requirements)
is less than the percentage removed by facilities meeting candidate
PSES standards for that pollutant.
EPA eliminated POTW and PSES data from the analysis where the
influent levels for the pollutant were less than 10 times the method
detection level because EPA reasoned that low removals may simply
reflect low influent rather than ineffective treatment. For pollutants
for which none of the POTW influent concentrations exceeded 10 times
the method detection level, in order to conduct the analysis using the
50 POTW Study, EPA modified its editing criteria to eliminate data
where the influent values were less than 20 g/L or the method
detection level. EPA selected 20 g/L or the method detection
level because for pollutants with low influent concentrations, i.e.,
less than 20 g/L or the method detection level, the effluent
concentrations were consistently below the detection level and could
not be precisely quantified.
EPA then averaged the remaining influent data and the remaining
effluent data. The percent removals achieved for each pollutant were
determined from these averaged influent and effluent levels. This
percent removal was then compared to each of the PSES treatment
technology options.
Of the 25 pollutants that were evaluated, 23 were found to pass
through. A more detailed description of the results of the pass through
analysis is provided in Chapter 7 of the Development Document.
The remaining 23 pollutants were reviewed in an attempt to
streamline the control and compliance process. To do this, EPA
determined whether certain pollutants could serve as ``indicator''
[[Page 66189]]
pollutants for others. Because many of the pollutants originate from
similar sources and have similar treatability properties, setting
standards for some ``indicator'' pollutants would effectively control a
broader set of pollutants. Based on this analysis, EPA determined that
setting limits for 11 pollutants would control the remaining 23
pollutants. The list of 11 pollutants is as follows: SGT-HEM, Copper,
Lead, Zinc, Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate, Ethylbenzene, Naphthalene,
Tetrachloroethene, Toluene, m-Xylene and o&p-Xylene. The limitations
for the Xylenes parameters contained in the proposed rule are based on
data obtained from EPA sampling episodes using EPA Method 1624 and
detailed monitoring questionnaires which reported EPA Method 624 which
are contained in Part 136 but not identified for use in measuring
Xylenes. A more detailed description of the selection of the regulated
pollutants and the pollutants controlled by regulation of these
pollutants is in Chapter 7 of the Development Document.
EPA is proposing to establish PSES and PSNS that would regulate
SGT-HEM as an indicator pollutant controlling the discharge of toxic
and nonconventional pollutants. Chemical precipitation technology has
shown that the SGT-HEM limitation is a good indicator reflecting the
correct operation of the control technology that results in removals of
both organic and metal compounds. EPA is regulating SGT-HEM rather than
total recoverable oil and grease since SGT-HEM more closely corresponds
to the toxic portion of oil and grease in industrial laundry
wastewaters, while POTWs can generally treat the other portions of oil
and grease consisting of vegetable oils, animal fats, soaps, etc. Also,
since petroleum-based oils degrade slowly at the POTWs, if sufficient
quantities exist in the influent, it can pass through the treatment
plant as discussed in Pretreatment of Industrial Wastes prepared by the
Water Environment Federation, 1994. The SGT-HEM measurement used to
develop the limitations is based on the proposed analytical method 1664
(Silica Gel Treated N-Hexane Extractable Material; ``SGT-HEM'') (61 FR
1730; January 23, 1996) and not on the current method contained in 40
CFR Part 136, which uses freon extraction. The data collected from the
detailed monitoring questionnaires are based on the current Part 136
method of measuring TPH, while the EPA sampling data are based on the
proposed Method 1664, which measures SGT-HEM. EPA proposes to regulate
SGT-HEM based on calculating limitations with EPA sampling data only.
EPA is soliciting comment or information on any additional data
regarding the use of this analytical method.
EPA is also regulating SGT-HEM based on interference. Petroleum-
based oils have a low rate of biodegradation at the POTWs. These oils
tend to coat the biological organisms, preventing or reducing oxygen
transfer and degradation of other organics as discussed in Pretreatment
of Industrial Wastes prepared by the Water Environment Federation,
1994. Pretreatment coordinators have indicated that interference can be
a problem at POTWs as discussed further in Section IX.G.
2. Pollutants Not Regulated
Tables 7-3,7-4, and 7-5 in Chapter 7 of the Development Document
list the pollutants EPA proposes not to regulate and the bases for
these decisions.
C. Available Treatment Technologies
1. Current Practice
Facilities in the detailed questionnaire reported having a range of
wastewater treatment equipment from no treatment to well-operated
Chemical Precipitation (CP) or Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) systems.
Many industrial laundry facilities currently have no treatment (approx.
87%). Although many facilities have no treatment, some facilities have
reported that they have best management practices in place to limit
pollution. Many laundries have adopted the practice of requiring
incoming laundry to have no free liquids. Liquids may be removed
through various mechanisms at the laundry or by the customer (e.g.,
hand wringing, mechanical wringing, or centrifuging).
EPA, based on responses to the detailed questionnaire, considered
several technologies to develop standards for this industry. The major
wastewater treatment technologies reported included: Chemical Emulsion
Breaking (CEB), DAF, and CP. Other technologies reported included:
screening, equalization, gravity settling, sludge dewatering, pH
adjustment, ultrafiltration, centrifugation, filtration, oil/water
separation, carbon adsorption, air stripping and vacuum degassing. In
addition, facilities reported dry cleaning and steam tumbling as in-
process treatment technologies to remove pollutants from items prior to
water washing.
During the site visit and field sampling phase of the proposed rule
development and as follow up to responses in the detailed
questionnaires, EPA identified three major technologies for further
evaluation. These major technologies, CEB, DAF and CP are described
below.
CEB is used primarily to remove oil and grease, as well as other
related pollutants, from process wastewater streams. CEB is effective
in treating wastewater streams having stable oil-in-water emulsions.
The treatment consists of lowering the pH of the wastewater to break
the emulsions, and skimming the surface of the water to remove the
floating substances.
DAF is used to remove suspended solids, oil, and some dissolved
pollutants from process wastewater. DAF treatment involves coagulating
and flocculating the solids and oil and grease and then floating the
resulting floc to the surface using pressurized air injected into the
unit and removing the floating material. Some DAF systems also have the
means to remove material that settles to the bottom of the tank on a
continuous basis.
CP is used to remove dissolved pollutants from process wastewater.
Precipitation aids, such as lime, work by reacting with the cations
(e.g., metals) and some anions to convert them into an insoluble form
(e.g., metal hydroxides). The pH of the wastewater also affects how
much pollutant mass is precipitated, as pollutants precipitate more
efficiently at different pH ranges. Coagulation and flocculation aids
are usually added to facilitate the formation of large agglomerated
particles that settle more readily and can be removed from the bottom
of the clarifiers.
In addition to these major technologies identified and described
above, a number of controls that are common to or make up part of the
treatment systems at many facilities include: screening, equalization,
gravity settling and pH adjustment or neutralization.
Screening is often performed prior to subsequent treatment to
remove grit and suspended solids that may potentially damage or clog
process equipment located downstream.
Equalization controls fluctuations in flow and pollutant loadings
in process wastewater prior to treatment to overcome operational
problems that may result from the fluctuations, reduce the size and
cost of the downstream treatment units, and improve the overall
performance of these units.
Gravity settling is primarily used to remove suspended solids,
including pollutants that are in insoluble particulate form such as
metals from industrial laundry process wastewater.
[[Page 66190]]
Most facilities currently have gravity settling alone without chemical
addition. The wastewater is typically collected in a catch basin where
the water is detained for a period of time, allowing solids with a
higher specific gravity to settle to the bottom of the tank and solids
with a lower specific gravity to float to the surface. The
effectiveness of the solids settling depends on the characteristics of
the laundry wastewater, the length of time the wastewater is held in
the catch basin and the regular maintenance of the basin, especially
regular removal of the solids.
pH adjustment is used to increase treatment effectiveness--since
many treatment technologies used in this industry are sensitive to pH
fluctuations--and to meet discharge requirements.
Other wastewater treatment technologies identified as being used in
this industry are carbon adsorption, air stripping with and without
carbon adsorption, ultrafiltration, centrifugation, sludge dewatering,
filtration, oil/water separation without chemical addition, and vacuum
degassing.
Carbon adsorption uses activated carbon to remove
dissolved VOCs from process wastewater.
Air stripping is normally performed in a countercurrent,
packed tower, or tray tower column. The wastewater is introduced at the
top of the column and allowed to flow downward through the packing
material or trays. Air is simultaneously introduced at the bottom of
the column and blows upward through the water stream. Volatile organics
are stripped from the water stream, transferred to the air stream, and
carried out of the top of the column with the air, preferably through
activated carbon. The treated water is discharged out of the bottom of
the column.
Ultrafiltration uses semipermeable polymeric membranes to
separate emulsified or colloidal materials suspended in the process
wastewater stream by pressurizing the liquid so that it permeates the
membrane.
Centrifugation applies centrifugal forces to settle and
separate higher density solids from process wastewater. Some facilities
use centrifugation as a method to separate solids from wastewater; and
centrifugation can be chemically enhanced to remove additional
pollutants.
Sludge dewatering processes remove water from sludge
generated from the wastewater treatment process. Many industrial
laundry facilities (31%), including some of those with only screening
or gravity settling but no additional treatment, reported dewatering
their sludge prior to disposal. The types of dewatering devices used in
the industrial laundries industry include: plate and frame filters,
rotary vacuum filters, and sludge dryers.
Industrial laundries use bag and sand filters to remove
solids from wastewater. Among the facilities visited or responding to
the detailed questionnaire, filtration most common to this industry
included bag filters and sand filters.
Oil/water separation without chemical addition technology
removes a separated oil layer. The oil layer can be removed by a
skimming device or decanted from the wastewater.
EPA sampled one facility using vacuum degassing. At this
facility the vacuum degasser was intended to remove organic compounds.
EPA identified the following in-process treatment technologies that
remove pollutants from industrial laundry items prior to water washing:
Dry cleaning involves cleaning soiled items with an
organic-based solvent that removes VOCs as well as organic pollutants
(e.g., oil and grease). The pollutants generated in the dry cleaning
operation are recovered from the solvent through distillation and then
disposed of off-site as a hazardous waste.
Steam tumbling involves agitating soiled items within a
modified washer/extractor while steam is injected into the chamber. The
tumbling items contact the steam, which removes the VOCs. The steam is
condensed, and the pollutants are recovered through a phase separation
and are then disposed of as a hazardous waste.
2. Technologies Rejected From Further Consideration
The technologies described above were those reported in the
detailed questionnaire. EPA then determined that certain major
technologies should be considered as best available in the industry and
chose to sample these candidate technologies.
Based on the data EPA gathered and evaluated, EPA rejected the
following technologies from further consideration: bag filtration, sand
filtration, ultrafiltration, oil/water separation and vacuum degassing.
EPA removed sand and bag filtration from the list of technology
options because data for both sand filtration and bag filtration showed
poor removals of most pollutants.
EPA sampled one facility using ultrafiltration. Based on
conversations with industrial laundries and corporate contacts, many
laundry facilities that have tried ultrafiltration as wastewater
treatment have reported problems with fouling, and solids building up
in the unit requiring constant maintenance and/or inhibiting the
performance of the unit. Some facilities have replaced ultrafiltration
units with dissolved air flotation or chemical precipitation units.
Therefore, EPA did not further consider ultrafiltration as a regulatory
option.
EPA investigated oil/water separation as part of the data analysis.
After some assessment, EPA determined that oil/water separation without
chemical addition to lower the pH is not nearly as effective as CEB.
EPA sampled one facility using CEB.
Vacuum degassing, which was sampled for the removal of organics,
did not remove organic pollutants effectively. Therefore, EPA did not
continue evaluating this technology as an option. See Chapter 9 of the
Development Document.
D. Technology and Regulatory Options Considered
1. Initial Regulatory Options for PSES and PSNS
For the proposed rule, EPA initially developed the following
regulatory options based on evaluating screener and detailed
questionnaire data submitted by industry. In addition to using the
major technologies described above (CEB, DAF, and CP), EPA considered
regulatory options using stream splitting, a common practice at some
facilities. Stream splitting provides a means of treating a portion of
the total wastewater generated at industrial laundries. Stream
splitting may be used to isolate and treat a stream with a higher
pollutant load, while a stream with a lower load is either recycled and
reused or discharged to the POTW without treatment. A divided trench
and sump system is used to split process wastewater streams. Washer
modification (dual valves) is also part of stream splitting.
The initial regulatory options included standards based on:
Chemical Emulsion Breaking of wastewater from the washing of heavy
industrial items only (CEB-heavy), Dissolved Air Flotation of
wastewater from the washing of heavy industrial items only (DAF-heavy),
Chemical Precipitation of wastewater from the washing of heavy
industrial items only (CP-heavy), Dissolved Air Flotation of all
wastewater (DAF-all), Chemical Precipitation of all wastewater (CP-all)
and a Combined Option establishing limits based on using either DAF or
CP of all wastewater (Combo-all). For the
[[Page 66191]]
``heavy'' options in this proposed rule, heavy is defined as wastewater
from the laundering of shop towels, printer towels, fender covers,
filters and mops. As part of the options listed above EPA also included
gravity settling, screening, equalization, pH adjustment, sludge
dewatering (for CP and DAF only), and the use of common pollution
prevention practices (or best management practices).
Based on evaluation of the effluent concentration data from these
site visits and sampling, some of the initial options were no longer
pursued, or were further modified. The DAF-heavy and CP-heavy options
were determined not to be appropriate because at some facilities the
untreated waste streams for those items not considered to be heavy by
the facility had higher concentrations of pollutants than the average
treated effluent concentrations for the same pollutants. This problem,
in part, was caused by the different mix of ``heavy'' items being
laundered at the different facilities from which wastewater data were
obtained. If sufficient treated effluent data could be obtained related
to the laundering of the same set of ``heavy'' items, the heavy option
may be a feasible alternative for the final rule. However, any option
that would regulate only the wastewater from washing heavy industrial
items would require an in-plant compliance monitoring location or a
separate discharge point to the sewer after the treatment system which
could increase the compliance burden on the control authority. In some
cases where the end-of-pipe monitoring for some parameters was still
required based on local limits, the costs of this option would increase
due to the in-plant plus end-of-pipe monitoring. At the same time, EPA
recognizes that targeting the rule to heavy items only could reduce
costs to the regulated community by removing some facilities from the
scope of the rule. Some facilities could also save money by segregating
heavy items from other items and treating only the heavy items. The
CEB-heavy option was determined not to be feasible due to less
pollutant removals at higher costs than the DAF-heavy and CP-heavy
options. See Chapters 9 and 10 of the Development Document. EPA
solicits comments and data on the feasibility of either the DAF or CP
heavy only options where the definition of heavy includes only the
laundering of printer rags, shop towels, mops, fender covers and
filters.
2. Modified Regulatory Options
EPA evaluated proposing pretreatment standards for the entire
facility wastestream based on only a portion being treated,
specifically only the portion of facility wastewater generated by
laundering industrial items was costed for treatment by DAF and CP. The
basis for costing partial treatment is that EPA's data shows these
standards can be met by treating only the portion of wastewater from
laundering industrial items. EPA called these options DAF-IL, CP-IL,
Combo-IL and Combo-IL2Lim.
EPA evaluated the combo option in two scenarios. Under the first
scenario (Combo-IL) either DAF or CP would form the basis of the
standards by establishing one set of standards based on the less
stringent of the two standards for each regulated pollutant for the two
technologies. Having one set of such standards would allow some
flexibility for facilities with either technology to meet the
limitations. This option would base the standard for each parameter on
the lesser performance between DAF and CP, and based on current data,
remove less total pollutants.
Under the second combo scenario (Combo-IL2Lim), facilities with DAF
in place as of the publication date of the proposal would have to
comply with the standards based on DAF and all other facilities would
have to comply with standards based on CP.
EPA additionally considered an organics control option, which
involves the use of steam tumbling for treatment of shop and printer
towels and mops for removal of organic pollutants.
EPA also considered proposing a no regulation option, but rejected
it because the available discharge loadings data identified a number of
pollutants that were estimated to pass through or have the potential to
interfere with POTW operations.
Under Section 307(b) of the CWA, EPA is directed to establish
pretreatment standards that prevent the discharge of pollutants to
POTWs that interfere with, pass-through, or are otherwise incompatible
with the operation of POTWs. EPA has interpreted the pass-through
provision to mean that a pollutant ``passes through'' the POTW if the
removal efficiency of an available pretreatment option is greater than
the removal efficiency of the POTW. Based on available data, EPA
believes that pretreatment technology is available to the industrial
laundries industry that removes some pollutants with greater efficiency
than is achieved by most POTWs.
Nonetheless, both the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act (SBREFA) panel, which is comprised of representatives from
three federal agencies (EPA, the Small Business Administration, and the
Office of Management and Budget), and small entity representatives
recommended that EPA solicit comments on a no regulation option. EPA
has the discretion under the CWA to decline to regulate an industrial
subcategory based on lack of pollutant loadings, the small number of
affected facilities, or other relevant factors, one of which could be a
determination that there is no pass through or interference due to the
pollutant discharges of the industry. The SBREFA Panel noted, among
other things, that ``the total pollutant loadings (pre-regulation) are
not as high for this industry as they were for most industries with
effluent guidelines in place and that the regulatory options are not as
cost-effective as those selected for most other effluent guidelines.''
In addition, EPA notes that if we did not use a toxic weighting factor
for TPH (see Section VII.E below), the cost per pound equivalent
removed of this rule relative to previous rules would be still higher.
As indirect dischargers, industrial laundries are subject to the
general prohibitions in the pretreatment requirements and any
additional pretreatment requirements set by local POTWs. Any pass-
through or interference problems potentially caused by a laundry can be
directly addressed by the POTW through the establishment of appropriate
local limits. Some POTWs support the no regulation option because it
provides them with the flexibility to design less stringent local
pretreatment requirements that are appropriate to local conditions.
Other POTWs prefer to have EPA establish uniform pretreatment standards
because of the resources required to determine and enforce local limits
on a case-by-case basis.
EPA solicits comments on the no regulation option and encourages
commenters to support such arguments with information and data,
particularly data on the loadings and the degree of pass through at
POTWs. Further, EPA encourages commenters to explain how the no
regulation option would be consistent with those requirements of
sections 301, 304 and 307 of the CWA that require the control of
pollutants discharged to POTWs that pass through or interfere with POTW
operations.
Based on the above evaluations, EPA decided to evaluate the
following options: organics control(OC), combo-IL, combo-IL2Lim, DAF-
IL, and CP-IL.
E. Costs
EPA estimated the cost for industrial laundries to implement each
of the
[[Page 66192]]
model technologies considered for the proposed standards. These
estimated costs are summarized in this section and discussed in more
detail in the Development Document. All cost estimates in this preamble
are expressed in 1997 dollars. The cost components reported in this
section represent estimates of the investment cost of purchasing and
installing equipment, and the annual operating and maintenance costs
associated with that equipment. In section VII, costs are expressed in
terms of a different cost component, total annualized costs, which are
used to estimate economic impacts. Annualized costs better describe the
actual compliance costs that a facility/company would incur, allowing
for interest, depreciation, and taxes. A summary of the economic impact
analysis for the proposed regulation is contained in section VII of
today's notice. See also the Economic Assessment.
EPA estimated the cost for implementing the candidate PSES by
calculating the engineering costs of meeting the required effluent
reductions for each industrial laundry facility. EPA used information
from the 193 in-scope facilities responding to the questionnaire as the
basis for the cost estimates calculated by the cost model for these
facilities. Using statistically calculated facility weighting factors,
EPA then extrapolated the results to the entire industrial laundries
industry. The facility-specific engineering cost assessment for PSES
began with a review of present wastewater treatment technologies at
each facility. For facilities without treatment-in-place equivalent to
the candidate PSES technology options, EPA estimated the cost to
upgrade the facility's existing treatment technology or if none was in
place install treatment to achieve the proposed discharge standards.
EPA based these estimates on vendor quotes and engineering judgment.
Facilities that had treatment in place equivalent to that option were
costed for monitoring only. EPA believes that this approach
overestimates the costs to achieve the candidate PSES standards because
many facilities can achieve the standards without using all of the
components of the technology basis or by treating wastewater from
certain items only. For the current options, EPA assumed treating all
wastewater except for wastewater from linen items, denim prewash items,
and new items. EPA solicits comments on these costing assumptions. See
Development Document for more details. The following table summarizes
by option, the capital expenditures, the annual operating and
maintenance costs, and the annual pretax cost for implementing PSES.
Note that pretax costs are presented here, but are not used in
determining economic achievability of the proposed rule on the
industrial laundries industry. Rather, the posttax costs, the costs
industry actually bears, are used to determine economic achievability
(see Table VII.C.3.1). The annual costs in this table below also
account for the ability of some facilities to haul wastewater at a
lower cost than the cost of installing and operating the pollution
control technology.
Table VI.E.1. Costs of Implementing PSES Regulations
[In millions of 1997 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual
operating
Options Capital and Annual
costs maintenance pretax cost
costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OC................................. 290 35.0 65.7
CP-IL.............................. 470 86.6 136.4
DAF-IL............................. 364 138.2 176.8
Combo-IL........................... 440 98.5 145.1
Combo-IL2Lim....................... 364-470 86.6-138.2 136.4-176.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to costs, EPA estimated the removals for industrial
laundry facilities for the following technology options.
Table VI.E.2. Removals for PSES Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option Removals (lb-eq)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OC................................................... 5,278
CP-IL................................................ 407,358
DAF-IL............................................... 402,921
Combo-IL............................................. 402,253
Combo-IL2Lim......................................... 402,921-407,358
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The estimated removals summarized in the table are discussed in
more detail in the Development Document. The removals are based on the
difference between each facility's current discharge load and each
facility's discharge load after implementation of the proposed rule.
F. Rationale for Selection of PSES and PSNS
1. Existing Sources
After considering all of the technology options described above,
and in light of the factors specified in section 304(b)(2)(B) of the
CWA, EPA has tentatively selected Chemical Precipitation-IL (CP-IL) as
the technology basis for the pretreatment standards for existing
sources in the proposed rule. As discussed in more detail below, the
proposed rule would exclude existing facilities laundering less than
one million pounds of incoming laundry per calendar year and less than
255,000 pounds of shop and/or printer towels/rags per calendar year.
However, these excluded facilities would still be subject to local
pretreatment standards where appropriate. If any excluded facility
launders one million pounds or more of incoming laundry or 255,000
pounds of shop and/or printer towels/rags per year, it will no longer
be excluded from the standards. Further, once a facility is subject to
the standards, even if the facility becomes ``small'' as defined by the
rule's exclusion, it would still be subject to the rule. This is
because once a facility has installed wastewater treatment to meet the
requirements of the rule, it is technologically available and
economically achievable for the facility to continue to comply with the
standards.
The record establishes that this option is technically available.
As discussed in more detail below, EPA also tentatively concludes that
this option is economically achievable and represents the best
performance that is economically achievable. Further, this option has
acceptable non-water quality environmental impacts.
The specific standards proposed in this rule were derived based on
a statistical analysis of the performance of
[[Page 66193]]
chemical precipitation in industrial laundries that are sufficiently
similar to all facilities that are subject to the standards, as
discussed below and in the Development Document. Although chemical
precipitation is currently only used at 3 percent of industrial laundry
facilities, chemical precipitation is a widely used technology in other
industries such as the metal products and machinery industry, chemicals
and allied products industry and centralized waste treatment industry.
Thus, although CP is only used at three percent of industrial
laundry facilities, EPA is well within its authority to select it as
BAT. BAT means not that the technology be in routine use, but rather
that the technology must be available at a cost and at a time that the
Administrator determines to be reasonable, and that the technology has
been adequately demonstrated if not routinely applied. See American
Frozen Food Institute v. Train, 539 F.2d 107, 132 (D.C. Cir. 1976),
citing ``A Legislative History of the Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972'' (Comm. Print 1973), at 1469-1470. See also
Kennecott v. United States EPA, 780 F.2d 445, 448 (4th Cir. 1985). (The
BAT standard reflects the intention of Congress to use the latest
scientific research and technology in setting effluent limits, pushing
industries toward the goal of zero discharge as quickly as possible. In
setting BAT, EPA uses not the average plant, but the optimally
operating plant--the pilot plant that acts as a beacon to show what is
possible.); Association of Pacific Fisheries v. EPA, 615 F.2d 794, 816
(9th Cir. 1980) (BAT can be based on statistics from a single plant).
EPA has determined that the selected option for the industrial
laundries category is economically achievable for the following
reasons. EPA estimates that the proposed standards would cause 33
industrial laundry facility closures and a direct loss of 2,872 jobs
from facility closure (although longer term, net direct losses are
estimated to total only 470 as the market equilibrates). The number of
incremental closures (33) is about 1.9 percent of in-scope industrial
laundry facilities (1,747) and 2.1 percent of the (1600) facilities in
the facility level analysis. The loss of jobs associated with these
closures is about two percent (short-term) or 0.4 percent (longer term)
of the category employment. EPA's bankruptcy analysis shows that 65
firms (of 681 total firms in the firm level analysis, or 9.5 percent)
move into the bankruptcy likely category under the proposed standards
(i.e., they would have trouble obtaining the financing necessary to
install the required pollution control equipment). In all cases, these
are single-facility firms where EPA's closure analysis shows that the
facility would still be financially viable (making money) after
complying with the rule if financing could be obtained. In this
industry in particular, where demand is relatively inelastic and
facilities are geographically tied to their service areas, production
is not easily shifted to another geographic area. Therefore, EPA
predicts that these bankruptcies do not mean that the facilities will
close down, but rather that they may be a target for acquisition by
another entity that has better access to financing for pollution
control equipment and continue to operate with all or nearly all
employees. Based on this analysis, EPA finds the standards to be
economically achievable as that term is used in the CWA.
EPA has concluded that application of the selected option is not
economically achievable for the smallest industrial laundries that
launder less than one million pounds of incoming laundry per calendar
year and less than 255,000 pounds of shop and/or printer towels/rags
per calendar year. If EPA were to require standards based on chemical
precipitation, the closure rate among facilities with annual revenues
less than $1 million, would be 28.9 percent, as compared to 4.4 percent
for the category as a whole without the size exclusion. This economic
impact is clearly disproportionate and EPA is exercising its discretion
under sections 301 and 304 of the CWA to determine what is economically
achievable to establish this exclusion.
Further, EPA believes that it is appropriate to establish this
exclusion because it alleviates the harshest economic impact, facility
closure, without excluding from the national standards a significant
pollutant load. A chart illustrating what EPA found follows:
Table VI.F.1.1--Closures and Removals With and Without Exclusion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Closures Pollutant Removals (lb-eq)
-------------------------------- taking POTW removals into
account
Option Without -------------------------------
exclusion With exclusion Without
exclusion With exclusion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CP-IL........................................... 70 33 416,920 407,358
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the chart demonstrates, the exclusion would alleviate closures
for the smallest facilities. EPA also notes that the excluded
facilities account for less than three percent of the pollutant
removals from the waters of the U.S. that would occur if the rule were
implemented without the exclusion. Thus, the exclusion represents a
reasonable approach to addressing the disproportionate adverse economic
impacts of the rule consistent with the objectives and requirements of
the CWA.
The Agency also evaluated higher thresholds reflecting up to 3 to 5
million pounds of total production and from 255,000 to 500,000 pounds
of shop and/or printer towels. See Section X.A. for more discussion of
the SBREFA panel findings. The Agency solicits comments on these
alternative exclusions as well as the exclusion proposed today.
Finally, EPA has determined that the selected option has acceptable
non-water quality environmental impacts discussed further in section
IX, below and in chapter 14 of the Development Document.
EPA evaluated the organics control option as a low cost
alternative, however, this technology was not effective in terms of
pollutant removals and was rejected.
EPA, based on the data gathered to date, did not select DAF-IL
because EPA's current data show that CP technology achieves slightly
higher toxic pollutant removals. While, DAF is currently more prevalent
in the industry than CP (EPA estimates that approximately eight percent
of the industry are currently using DAF compared to approximately four
percent using CP) EPA estimates that DAF is more costly to operate than
CP on an annualized basis. DAF requires a smaller initial capital
investment and
[[Page 66194]]
may be attractive to many facilities for this reason, however, EPA
estimates that its lower capital costs are more than offset by higher
operating and maintenance costs associated with the need to chemically
condition the flotation residual sludges, making it more expensive than
CP overall.
The Combo-IL option would base the standard for each parameter on
the lesser performance between DAF and CP, and current data indicate
that it would remove slightly fewer pounds of pollutants than if all
facilities were required to meet standards based on CP only.
EPA also rejected the Combo-IL2Lim option because current data
indicate that overall this option did not remove as many pollutants as
the CP option and would cost more than the selected CP-IL option. See
Chapters 9 and 12 of the Development Document. EPA solicits additional
information and data on the costs and performance of both CP and DAF
technologies used to treat wastewaters from laundering industrial
textile items. Although EPA rejected the options based on DAF, the
pollutant removals were similar enough for further consideration of the
DAF and Combo options. If additional data and information provides
support that DAF is generally comparable to CP in removing pollutants,
EPA would consider for the final rule basing standards on either the
less stringent of CP or DAF standards or on DAF for those facilities
that already have it in place and on CP for all other facilities.
If the standards for the final rule are based on the Combo-IL2Lim
option, the standards based on DAF technology would apply to those
facilities with DAF in place as of the publication date of this
proposal. Although EPA estimates that CP is cheaper to operate on an
annualized basis than DAF (even for facilities that already have DAF
installed), EPA's costing analysis for the Combo-IL and Combo-IL2Lim
options assumed that some facilities that already have DAF installed
would continue to operate it if given the choice because of constraints
on financing. This is the explanation for the results in Table VI.E.1
that a less stringent regulatory option would apparently have higher
compliance costs. EPA recognizes that while its cost estimates are
based on simplifying assumptions that it believes to be correct on
average, actual costs will vary from facility to facility, so that DAF
may in fact be the cheaper technology for some facilities. This is
particularly likely for facilities that already have DAF installed. In
this case, the Combo-IL and Combo-IL2Lim options would be expected to
entail lower national compliance costs than either the DAF-IL or the
CP-IL options. EPA is soliciting information that may help it refine
its estimates of the relative costs on a facility-by-facility basis of
DAF and CP. Given that EPA's estimates that CP's removals are only
slightly better than DAF, this could also be a factor in determining
whether CP only, or both CP and DAF represent BAT and/or BADCT in
addition to the other factors specified in Section III of this
preamble.
2. New Sources
After considering all of the technology options described above,
and in light of the factors specified in sections 306 and 307 of the
CWA, EPA has selected CP-IL as the technology basis for the
pretreatment standards for new sources in the proposed rule. As stated
in Section III.A. of the preamble, PSNS are analogous to NSPS, which in
turn are based on best available demonstrated control technology. New
facilities have the opportunity to install the most efficient treatment
technologies and under NSPS, EPA is to consider standards that will
eliminate pollution to the maximum extent feasible. These PSNS are
based on the performance of CP at one or more facilities using CP
depending on the pollutant. Although CP is currently only used at three
percent of industrial laundry facilities, CP is a widely used
technology in other industries such as the metals products and
machinery, chemicals and allied products, and centralized waste
treatment industries. See, e.g., American Iron and Steel Institute v.
EPA, 526 F.2d 1027, 1058 (3rd Cir. 1975) (By demonstration, it will be
sufficient that there be one operating facility which demonstrates that
the level can be achieved or that there is sufficient information and
data from a relevant pilot plant or semi-work plant to provide the
needed economic and technical justification for such new source).
EPA has determined that the proposed PSNS are economically
achievable and present no barrier to entry. EPA has found that overall
impacts from the proposed IL standards on new sources would not be any
more severe than those on existing sources, since the costs faced by
new sources generally will be the same as or less than those faced by
existing sources. It is typically easier to incorporate pollution
prevention technologies such as those identified in the Development
Document in Chapter 8 & 10, and it is less expensive to incorporate
pollution control equipment into the design at a new plant than it is
to retrofit the same pollution control equipment in an existing plant
because no demolition is required, and space constraints, which can add
to costs if specifically designed equipment must be ordered, are not an
issue in new construction. Because most new sources face either less or
similar costs than existing sources, EPA has determined that PSNS
requirements should not pose a barrier to entry on the basis of
competitiveness for new facilities based on available data. EPA also
has shown CP to be an economically achievable option for existing
sources. Therefore, the same requirements for PSNS also should have an
acceptable level of impact on new facilities.
EPA also examined whether there would be a barrier to entry for
small new sources. EPA's analysis showed no closures of new sources at
single-facility firms. See section VII.C.2.b of this preamble or the EA
for more details. Thus, EPA proposes not to exclude these new sources
based on a finding that it is economically achievable for these new
sources to comply with the CP standards contained in the proposed rule.
EPA solicits comments on its proposed finding that the proposed CP
option is economically achievable and does not constitute a barrier to
entry for new small sources and on its proposal not to include a small
facility exclusion for PSNS. See also section VII.B. below.
G. Determination of Long-Term Averages (LTAs), Variability Factors, and
Limitations for PSES and PSNS
Although chemical precipitation (CP) is widely used in other
industries, CP only exists at an estimated three percent of industrial
laundry facilities. EPA based the proposed standards on sampling data
EPA gathered at one industrial laundry facility using CP and from data
submitted by as many as four CP facilities (depending on the pollutant)
in response to EPA's detailed monitoring questionnaire. Because
effluent from even the best performers in an industry can reasonably be
expected to vary both above and below the long-term average (LTA)
concentration for a given pollutant, even when treatment systems are
operating optimally, EPA calculates limitations and standards by
multiplying LTAs by variability factors to insure that reasonable
excursions from the LTAs do not result in violation of the CWA.
The proposed limitations, as presented in today's notice, are
provided as daily maximums and monthly averages for SGT-HEM and daily
maximums for all other regulated pollutants. Monitoring was assumed to
occur four times per month for SGT-
[[Page 66195]]
HEM and one day per month for all other pollutants. Monitoring
requirements are determined by the pretreatment control authority, but
EPA has assumed a schedule that might be appropriate. However, EPA
notes the high costs to facilities ($20,000-$23,000 annually) of
monitoring at this frequency and requests comment on whether it should
recommend a less frequent schedule to pretreatment control authorities.
The limitations for a pollutant are the product of the pollutant
long-term average and the pollutant variability factor. The procedures
used to estimate the pollutant LTAs and variability factors are briefly
described below. A more detailed explanation is provided in the
Statistical Support Document.
The LTA of a pollutant for each facility was calculated based on
either an arithmetic average or the expected value of the distribution
of the samples, depending on the number of total samples and the number
of detected samples for that pollutant at that facility. The pollutant
long-term average for a treatment technology was the median of the
long-term averages from the facilities using CP.
EPA calculated variability factors by fitting a statistical
distribution to the data. The distribution was based on an assumption
that the furthest excursion from the LTA that a well operated plant
using chemical precipitation could be expected to make on a daily basis
was a point below which 99% of the data for that facility falls, under
the assumed distribution. The daily variability factor for each
pollutant at each facility is the ratio of the estimated 99th
percentile of the distribution of the daily pollutant concentration
values divided by the expected value of the distribution of the daily
values. The pollutant variability factor for a treatment technology was
the median of the pollutant variability factors from the facilities
with that technology. The daily maximum limitation is a product of the
pollutant long-term average and the pollutant variability factor.
The monthly maximum limitation is also calculated as the product of
the pollutant long-term average and the pollutant variability factor,
but the pollutant variability factor is based on the 95th percentile of
the distribution of daily pollutant concentrations.
By accounting for these reasonable excursions above the LTA, EPA's
use of variability factors results in standards that are generally well
above the actual LTAs. Thus, if a facility operates its treatment
system to meet the relevant LTA, EPA expects the plant to be able to
meet the standards. Variability factors ensure that normal fluctuations
in a facility's treatment are accounted for in the limitations.
As stated above, EPA rejected an option that would be based on one
set of standards for facilities with DAF currently in place and another
set of standards based on CP for all other facilities. Although EPA has
rejected this option for the reasons stated in section VI.D above, EPA
has also provided standards based on sampling data EPA gathered at two
facilities using DAF and from data submitted in response to EPA's
detailed monitoring questionnaire by as many as four facilities
(depending on the pollutant) that were using DAF. These DAF standards
are shown for comparative purposes below. EPA solicits comments on both
the proposed CP and DAF standards and encourages commenters to
substantiate their comments by submitting data.
Table VI.G.1--Pretreatment Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DAF CP
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant parameter Daily Monthly Daily Maximum Monthly
Maximum(mg/L) Average (mg/L) (mg/L) Average (mg/L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bis (2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate.................... 0.44 .............. 0.13 ..............
Ethylbenzene.................................... 0.73 .............. 1.64 ..............
Naphthalene..................................... 0.24 .............. 0.23 ..............
Tetrachloroethene............................... 1.35 .............. 1.71 ..............
Toluene......................................... 5.63 .............. 2.76 ..............
m-Xylene........................................ 2.11 .............. 1.33 ..............
o&p-Xylene...................................... 0.98 .............. 0.95 ..............
Copper.......................................... 1.83 .............. 0.24 ..............
Lead............................................ 0.52 .............. 0.27 ..............
Zinc............................................ 3.47 .............. 0.61 ..............
TPH (as measured by SGT-HEM).................... 42.9 21.3 27.5 15.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is proposing concentration-based limits. An alternative is
mass-based limits calculated by multiplying the concentrations in the
table above by the 75th percentile production normalized flow of 3.13
gallons per pound laundered. However, EPA found no relationship between
gallons per pound laundered and items washed, total production or the
amount of recycle/reuse. Because of this, even if operators were
employing the appropriate level of control, it would be difficult to
develop achievable mass limits.
Some stakeholders have advocated mass-based standards while others
prefer concentration-based standards. POTWs generally prefer
concentration-based standards because it is much easier for them to
implement. Mass-based standards require information about flow and/or
production both to set the standards and to enforce them, but have the
added advantage of encouraging flow reduction. EPA solicits comments on
this issue.
VII. Economic Analysis
A. Introduction
This section describes the capital investment and annualized costs
of compliance with the proposed industrial laundries pretreatment
standards and the potential impacts of these compliance costs on
current and future facilities and firms in the industrial laundries
industry. EPA's economic assessment is presented in detail in the
Economic Assessment (EA) included in the rulemaking record. The EA
estimates the economic effect of compliance costs on facilities, firms,
employment, domestic and international markets, inflation,
distribution, environmental justice and industrial laundries customers.
EPA also has conducted an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (),
[[Page 66196]]
which estimates effects on small entities, and a cost-effectiveness
analysis of all evaluated options. Except where otherwise noted, only
the results for the option used as the basis for the proposed rule are
presented here. Impacts for other options are presented in Section C.3
below and in the EA.
B. Economic Impact Methodology
1. Introduction
This section (and, in more detail, the EA and record for the
proposed rule) evaluates several measures of economic impacts that
result from compliance costs. The analysis in the EA consists of eight
major components: (1) an assessment of the number of facilities that
could be affected by this rule; (2) an estimate of the annual aggregate
cost for these facilities to comply with the rule using facility-level
capital and operating and maintenance (O&M) costs; (3) an evaluation,
using a financial model, of compliance cost impacts on facilities' cash
flow (closure analysis); (4) an evaluation, using a financial model, of
compliance cost impacts on the financial health of firms in the
industry (firm failure analysis); (5) an evaluation of secondary
impacts such as those on employment, markets, inflation, distribution,
environmental justice and industrial laundry customers; (6) an
assessment of the potential for impact on new sources (barrier to
entry); (7) an analysis of the effects of compliance costs on small
entities pursuant to the RFA as amended by; and (8) a cost-benefit
analysis pursuant to E.O. 12866.
All costs are reported in this preamble in 1997 dollars, with the
exception of cost-effectiveness results, which, by convention, are
reported in 1981 dollars. The EA report presents all costs in 1993
dollars. In the EA, any costs not originally in the base year (1993)
dollars have been inflated or deflated to 1993 dollars using the
Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index, unless otherwise noted
in that report (see the EA for details). This same cost index is used
to further inflate costs to 1997 dollars for this preamble. Generally,
other indices are used to inflate benefits to 1997 dollars, as cited in
the EA. The primary source of data for the economic analysis is the
1994 Industrial Laundries Industry Detailed Questionnaire (Section 308
Survey). Other sources include government data from the Bureau of the
Census, industry trade journals, and several preliminary surveys of the
industry, including the 1989 Preliminary Data Summary for Industrial
Laundries, the 1993 Industrial Laundries Industry Screener
Questionnaire, the 1994 Industrial Laundries Supplemental Screener
Questionnaire, and EPA's Development Document for this rulemaking.
2. Methodology Overview
Central to the EA is the cost annualization model, which uses
facility-specific cost data and other inputs (discussed in Chapter 12
of the Development Document) to determine the annualized capital and
operating and maintenance (O&M) costs of improved wastewater treatment.
This model uses these costs along with an annual compliance monitoring
cost with the industry-specific real cost of capital (discount rate)
over a 16-year analytic time frame to generate the annual cost of
compliance for the selected option, as well as the other options
considered during the course of the proposal effort. EPA chose the 16-
year time frame for analysis based on the depreciable life for
equipment of this type, 15 years according to Internal Revenue Service
(IRS) rules, plus approximately one year for purchasing and installing
the equipment. As an alternative to installing wastewater treatment,
facilities may choose, within many of the technology options
considered, to have wastewater hauled offsite (a decision handled
within the model, as discussed below). The model generates the
annualized cost for each option (including the annual cost of hauling
wastewater) for each facility in the survey, which is then used in the
facility and firm analyses, discussed below.
In the facility analysis, EPA models the economic impacts of
regulatory costs on individual industrial laundry facilities,
irrespective of ownership. In this part of the analysis, the model uses
the annualized costs of each option, compares them to the alternative
annual wastewater hauling costs (where this alternative is available),
and selects the lowest of the two.
EPA then reduces this resulting cost to take into account that
portion of compliance costs that can be passed through to customers.
Compliance costs are adjusted downward by a factor (the cost pass-
through factor) that is calculated using EPA's model of the industrial
laundries market. This model, which quantifies the price and quantity
changes in the industrial laundries market due to the proposed rule,
shows that the industry will be able to pass some portion of the
compliance costs of the proposed rule through to their customers and
calculates the percentage that can be passed through. The market model
is a simultaneous equation for determining price and quantity using
supply and demand curves for the industry that EPA developed based on
data in the Section 308 Survey and U.S. Census Bureau economic data.
EPA estimates, for this industry, that 32 percent of compliance costs
can be passed through to customers. Although EPA believes that its cost
pass-through projection is reasonable, an analysis in the EA shows that
a zero-cost pass through assumption produces nearly identical closure
analysis results.
EPA then converts the adjusted annual cost for each facility into a
present value change in cash flow, which is subtracted from the
estimated baseline present value of facility cash flow. Estimated
baseline present value of facility cash flow is based on the average of
three years of financial data from each facility in the Section 308
survey under an assumed no-growth scenario (i.e., the annual cash flow,
calculated as the 3-year average, is expected to remain the same over
the 16-year period of analysis). If the change in present value of cash
flow (which is derived from the adjusted annualized costs of
compliance) causes a facility's estimated cash flow to change from
positive in the baseline to zero or negative after implementing the
requirements of the proposed rule over the 16-year period of analysis,
EPA considers the facility likely to close (i.e., liquidate) as a
result of the regulation. This approach is somewhat different from
methodologies used in other EAs and economic impact analysis for
manufacturing industries, since salvage value is not considered in the
closure analysis here. For a number of reasons, outlined in the EA (see
Section 5 and Appendix C), EPA found that using salvage value in a
closure analysis for this industry is not the best way for determining
whether a facility would be liquidated. EPA found that baseline
closures calculated using salvage value accounted for a large
percentage (nearly 30 percent) of existing facilities. Furthermore, EPA
found that many of these closures using salvage value were driven by
current assets. EPA believes that firms would not be likely to
liquidate on the basis of high current assets (cash on hand) relative
to cash flow. EPA also believes that costs of liquidation could easily
equal or exceed salvage value in low-asset service industries such as
this one, unlike in the more highly capital-intensive manufacturing
industries.
Note that facilities that reported negative cash flow over the 3-
year period of the survey are considered baseline closures and are not
considered affected by the rule for several reasons:
(1) Many of these facilities (50 non-excluded facilities) are
nonindependent
[[Page 66197]]
facilities owned by multifacility firms. These facilities may be
transferring production (laundering services at or near cost) from
other facilities owned by the same parent company, or otherwise not
expected to be self-supporting by the parent. EPA analyzes the parent
firms of these facilities in the firm-level analysis and as long as the
parent firm can afford to install and operate compliance equipment in
these facilities, EPA assumes these facilities will close neither in
the baseline nor postcompliance. (2) OMB guidance suggests that
agencies develop a baseline that is ``the best assessment of the way
the world would look absent from the proposed regulation. That
assessment may consider a wide range of factors, including the likely
evolution of the market * * *'' EPA's best assessment is that some
facilities currently operating may not remain in business to install
and operate the pollution control equipment. EPA cannot say for certain
which facilities these may be, but can assert that those facilities
that are currently considered not financially viable because their cash
flow is zero or negative (among those not owned by multifacility
firms--57 non-excluded facilities) are the likeliest facilities to
close without ever installing and operating pollution control
equipment. It is possible that a facility estimated to be a baseline
closure may remain open, but the converse is also true--a facility
projected to remain open until it is subject to the rule may actually
close independently of the effects of the rule (both results might be
equally possible). Thus, consistent with OMB guidance, EPA estimated
postcompliance closures by counting closures that are projected to
close solely due to the effect of the proposed rule.
In the firm failure analysis, EPA uses the adjusted annualized
costs to compute a change in earnings, assets, liabilities, and working
capital at the firm level (accounting for costs for multiple
facilities, where applicable). These postcompliance financial figures
are used in a computerized model of financial health on a firm-by-firm
basis. The model uses an equation known as ``Altman's Z'', which was
developed based on empirical data to characterize the financial health
of firms. This equation calculates one number, based on the financial
data, that can be compared to index numbers that define ``good''
financial health, ``indeterminate'' financial health, and ``poor''
financial health. All firms whose ``Altman's Z'' number changes such
that the firm goes from a ``good'' or ``indeterminate'' baseline
category to a ``poor'' postcompliance category are classified as likely
to have significant difficulties raising the capital needed to comply
with the proposed rule, which can indicate the likelihood of firm
bankruptcy, or loss of financial independence.
As the panel noted, there is uncertainty associated with both the
methodology for predicting facility and firm closures, and the figures
used to make those projections, such as interest rate, assumption of
the life of the pollution control equipment and compliance costs. One
of the small entity representatives consulted during the outreach
process specifically questioned several of EPA's costing assumptions,
relating to interest rate, use life of equipment, and labor
requirements to operate a treatment system. EPA recognizes the
uncertainties associated with its analyses, and has performed
sensitivity analyses in the EA that addresses some of these issues. EPA
believes that its choice of methodology and input data is appropriate
and results in a conservative calculation of costs and facility and
firm closures, but solicits comments and data that would support more
refined analyses for the final rule.
EPA also notes that a methodological concern has been raised
regarding its facility closure analysis that relates to its use of cash
flow as the appropriate measure of funds available to cover the
compliance costs of the proposed rule. Cash flow is defined as income
plus depreciation. It has been suggested that calculating a facility's
costs without including depreciation fails to account for the future
cost of replacing existing capital as it wears out, and thus
underestimates long-term costs and overstates funds available for
compliance. EPA, however, believes it is appropriate to include
depreciation in the funds available for compliance because, while under
standard accounting practices depreciation is deducted from gross
revenue during the calculation of income, it does not represent an
expenditure actually incurred in the current period but rather an
amortization of costs incurred in a previous period. EPA requests
comments on its use of cash flow as an appropriate measure of funds
available for compliance.
In the employment analysis, EPA undertakes several types of
analyses, all based in part on a type of analysis known as input-output
analysis. These employment analyses include: (1) a national-level
analysis for estimating employment gains and losses throughout the U.S.
economy in all industry sectors using both compliance costs and
employment losses driven by facility closures to determine a range of
possible gross and net (losses minus gains) impacts at the national
level; (2) a regional impact analysis using employment losses driven by
facility closures (closure losses) to determine whether impacts on
individual communities might be experienced; and (3) an analysis using
EPA's estimate of market-determined production losses to derive an
estimate of direct, net employment losses in the industrial laundries
industry alone. This last analysis is undertaken to determine losses
within the industrial laundries industry alone because while closure
losses can be considered the immediate impact of the proposed rule on
the industry, production-driven losses might be greater or less than
closure losses over time, as equilibrium in the market is attained.
Furthermore, closure losses do not account for the fact that some
portion of production workers might transfer wholly or in part to
operating pollution control equipment, thus some accounting for
employment gains within the industry is necessary.
National-level analysis. EPA uses input-output analyses to
determine the effects of the regulation using national-level employment
and output multipliers. Input-output multipliers allow EPA to estimate
the effect of a loss in output in the industrial laundries industry on
the U.S. economy as a whole. Every loss in output in the industrial
laundries industry results in employment losses in that industry.
Additionally, these losses have repercussions throughout the rest of
the economy, and the output and employment multipliers allow EPA to
calculate the total losses in output and employment nationally using
the output loss estimated for the industrial laundries industry alone.
See Section Seven of the EA for more details.
Regional-level analysis. EPA also determines the impacts on
regional-level employment, which is estimated using facility closures
and employment at those closing facilities. These analyses are based on
the use of Bureau of Economic Analysis RIMS II input-output regional
(not national-level) multipliers, which allow EPA to determine
employment impacts on other sectors of the regionally economy that
depend on the industrial laundries industry. EPA uses the regional-loss
estimates using the facility closure-driven estimates of employment
losses to perform a community impact analysis, which investigates the
potential for impacts on community unemployment rates based on the
[[Page 66198]]
immediate dislocation effects of facility closures. Firm failures are
not considered in the job loss or community impact analyses because in
all cases, these firms are single-facility firms whose facility is
shown to be financially viable after complying with the rule. The
impact of the proposed rule on these facilities thus might be the loss
of their financial independence, as they would likely be purchased by a
larger firm and continue to operate with all or nearly all employees.
This is not always the case in all industries, but in this industry,
facilities are geographically tied to their service areas and thus
their production is not easily shifted to another geographic area.
Furthermore, they are generally not asset-rich and are thus not
suitable for acquisition for the purpose of selling off assets rather
than for operation.
EPA conducts a regional analysis because even if net employment
effects (losses minus gains) are relatively small on a national level,
an employment loss might still have a substantial negative effect on an
individual community (see the EA for more details).
Industry level analysis. Facility closure losses could overstate or
understate employment losses strictly within the industrial laundries
industry on a longer-term basis, since total longer-term employment
losses are driven by production losses and employment losses from
closures are driven by costs of compliance, and these two losses may
not be equal. Therefore, EPA uses its market model to predict any
reductions in production and the subsequent employment effects
(production-driven effects) within the industrial laundries industry
alone. This analysis also accounts for some gains within the industrial
laundries industry due to a need for operators of pollution control
equipment. This analysis also uses the national-level input-output
multipliers to compute a direct loss of employment on the basis of
output effects. EPA considers this employment loss the longer-term
impact of the rule on the industrial laundries industry.
EPA investigates additional secondary impacts qualitatively and
quantitatively. These impacts include impacts on domestic and
international markets, impacts on substitutes for industrial laundry
services, impacts on inflation, distributional impacts, and impacts on
environmental justice. EPA also investigates the impact of the rule on
domestic markets. The rule will affect domestic markets to the extent
that excluded facilities can affect market share. EPA makes an
assessment of the potential for effect on domestic market on the basis
of pounds of laundry processed by excluded facilities to the total
pounds processed by the industry.
EPA also looks at impacts on customers. The agency obtained IRS
data on the major customer groups and summed total operating costs for
their major customers. Under the worst-case assumption that all
compliance costs would be borne by only 10 percent of these major
customers, EPA conservatively determined a percentage by which total
operating costs might increase due to the proposed rule. Additionally,
EPA investigates the potential for any impacts on hotels, hospitals,
prisons and other such establishments should they be accepting
industrial items from off-site sources.
Another key analysis EPA performs is an analysis to determine
impacts on new sources, which is primarily a ``barriers-to-entry
analysis'' to determine whether the costs of the PSES would prevent a
new source from entering the market. This analysis looks at whether new
industrial laundries would be at a competitive disadvantage compared
with existing sources. Market effects and barriers to entry associated
with the small source exclusion also are qualitatively investigated.
Also, pursuant to E.O. 12866, EPA performs a cost-benefit analysis.
This analysis looks at the social cost of the regulation measured as
the pretax costs of compliance plus government administrative costs
plus the costs of administering unemployment benefits. See Section IX
of this preamble for more details of the benefits analysis.
C. Summary of Costs and Economic Impacts
1. Overview of the Economic Assessment Analyses
The EA focuses first on the costs and economic impacts of the
proposed rule, using the best data and information available--that
reported by industry in the Section 308 Survey data--as representative
of the regulatory baseline. The analysis addresses costs and economic
impacts of the pretreatment (PSES and PSNS) requirements for industrial
laundries wastewater. As noted earlier, EPA has elected to reserve Best
Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT), Best
Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT), BAT, and NSPS
requirements. Direct discharger requirements will be determined on a
case-by-case basis under CWA section 402(a)(1).
2. Total Costs and Impacts of the Proposed Rule
This section presents the total costs and impacts of the standards
in this proposed rule. EPA estimates that there are 1,747 industrial
laundries facilities (given the items processed, the definition of an
industrial laundry item in the proposed rule, and Section 308 Survey
statistical weights). Of these, 141 facilities meet the definition of
``small'' under EPA's proposed designation of the small industrial
laundries exclusion. This exclusion is defined as all facilities
laundering less than one million pounds of incoming laundry per
calendar year and less than 255,000 pounds of shop and/or printer
towels/rags per calendar year. Of these excluded facilities, all meet
the definition of ``small'' under Small Business Administration (SBA)
Guidelines. There are 903 firms owning the 1,747 facilities. A total of
837 out of the 903 firms or 93 percent are ``small businesses''
according to SBA Guidelines (revenues less than $10.5 million per
year). The analysis looks separately at single-facility firms (those
firms where the firm and the facility are a single entity) and
multifacility firms (firms that own more than one facility; generally,
these firms are larger than single facility firms). There are a total
of 830 single-facility firms out of 903 total firms in the industry (92
percent), the vast majority of which meet the SBA definition of small.
The total cost of the proposed rule is based on engineering cost
estimates. To develop these estimates, EPA identified candidate end-of-
pipe treatment technologies and grouped appropriate technologies into
regulatory options. EPA then developed cost equations for capital and
O&M costs for each of the technologies.
For each wastewater treatment technology, EPA developed a cost
module. The following cost modules make up the selected CP option:
screen, stream splitting, equalization, chemical precipitation, pH
adjustment, sludge dewatering, building and monitoring. For further
detail, see Chapter 12 of the Development Document.
Total costs of the proposed regulation are estimated to be $93.9
million (see Table VII.C.2.1).
Table VII.C.2.1.--Costs of Proposed PSES Option ($1997)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posttax
Annual
Option Costs ($
million)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PSES: CP-IL................................................ $93.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 66199]]
a. Impacts From Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)
EPA estimates that the proposed rule would result in 33 facilities
(2.1 percent of all facilities in the facility-level analysis and 1.9
percent of all in-scope facilities) closing as a result of compliance
costs. All are single-facility firms. EPA estimates total direct job
loss of 2,872 full-time equivalents (1 FTE = 2,080 hours of labor) as a
result of the facility closures projected under the proposed rule. 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 by facilities and
additional workers hired to expand some production at facilities
located in market areas with facility closures (lost production from
closures is estimated to exceed the amount of reductions required to
meet market equilibrium conditions). EPA estimates the actual net
direct losses in the industrial laundries industry would be 470 FTEs
(0.36 percent of total industry employment), considerably less than the
number of direct losses predicted solely on the basis of closures.
Additional to these closures, EPA predicts that the proposed
regulatory option would affect the ability of 65 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 operation.
EPA predicts employment impacts to the national-level economy on
the basis of input-output analysis described above. Based on this
analysis, which estimates both national employment losses stemming from
increased output in the industrial laundries industry and offsetting
gains stemming from increased output of pollution control equipment,
the proposed option would result in a net loss of employment at the
national level in all industry sectors of 582 to 5,534 FTEs, which is
about 0.0005 to 0.005 percent of the U.S. labor force in 1997. Net
output loss would be thus $100.7 million at most, which is about 0.001
percent of Gross Domestic Product in 1997. Thus EPA expects, at the
national level, that the IL Standards would have negligible impact on
U.S. employment and output.
EPA also investigated employment impacts in the industrial
laundries industry alone. EPA determined that within the industrial
laundries industry, many nonclosing facilities might actually
experience gains in production (and thus gains in output and
employment). This is because when facilities close, other nonclosing
facilities in the local market area might expand production to take
over a portion of the closing facility's production. Thus, while the
proposed rule is estimated to produce a long-term net employment loss
to the industrial laundries industry of 470 FTEs, this is less than the
short-term direct employment and output losses that would be calculated
on the basis of closures alone.
For the community-level analysis, under the conservative approach
for estimating community employment impacts described above, EPA
determined that most closures will result in a maximum change in a
community's unemployment rate of 0.32 percent or less and EPA estimates
no single community will sustain impact on its unemployment rate of
greater than one percent.
EPA expects the proposed rule to have a minimal impact on
international markets. Domestic markets might initially be slightly
affected by the exclusion for very small facilities, since these
facilities may not be subject to the same requirements; however, the
number of these facilities, the small volume of their production
relative to total industry production (0.7 percent), and the likelihood
that they are not concentrated in any one market area, are expected to
limit the effects of any competitive advantages they may have. EPA's
economic analysis shows that there is a very slight increase in price
($0.003 per pound) and that customers are not very sensitive to price
changes; therefore, dischargers subject to the proposed rule would be
able to compete with those dischargers excluded from the proposed rule.
Further, if any excluded facility annually launders more than one
million pounds of laundry or more than 255,000 pounds of shop and/or
printer towels/rags per calendar year, it will no longer be excluded
from the standards. The small excluded facilities are also the most
likely of any size group to exit the market regardless of the rule.
Given these observations, it is likely that this group of existing
sources would shrink in size over time, and any small market effects
would be reduced. As discussed below in the Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis section, EPA believes that the small impacts of the exclusion
on markets are far outweighed by the benefits of reducing adverse
economic impacts on the most vulnerable firms in the industry.
EPA also expects the proposed rule to have minimal impacts on
inflation, insignificant distributional effects, and no major impacts
on environmental justice. The rule also would have minimal impacts on
industrial laundries customers. The price increase expected as a result
of the proposed option is an average of $0.003 per pound, or 0.4
percent of current average price. Because this percentage increase is
so small compared to even the modest rates of inflation currently
experienced, it is unlikely that most customers would be able to
distinguish this effect from the effect of inflation. If EPA assumes
that only 10 percent of the customers in the major groups of customers
absorb 100 percent of the cost of the rule, total compliance costs
would increase customers' operating costs by an average of less than
0.02 percent. Therefore, EPA does not expect price increases to have a
major impact on customers.
EPA also investigated the likelihood that customers might
substitute disposable items for laundered items or begin operating on-
site laundries. Both the substitution of disposable items for laundered
items and the installation and operation of on-site laundries are
associated with potential negative impacts on customers that might
deter them from choosing these potential substitutes. Disposable items
can be more expensive to use than laundered items, may not meet quality
requirements (e.g., disposable printer towels tend to be linty) and
are, in certain circumstances, regulated under other environmental
statutes. Meanwhile because of the high initial costs to install
equipment on-site and the small increase in price of industrial laundry
services discussed earlier, on-site laundries could require years
before any cost savings might be realized. Also, EPA's market model
provides a means for estimating price increase and reduction in
quantity demanded for industrial laundering services at the higher
price. This analysis shows a very small decrease in production as a
result the proposed rule, 0.3 percent of baseline production. Given the
disincentives towards those substitutes indicated above, EPA does not
expect the proposed rule to cause customers to substitute disposable
items for laundered items or commence industrial laundering on-site for
industrial laundries services in any major way.
[[Page 66200]]
The small reduction in production of 0.3 percent is more likely to
occur from customers delaying cleaning (rather than weekly pickups of
mats, for example, some might substitute biweekly pickups) or dropping
certain rental items, such as uniforms used only for image purposes.
This decline in production is negligible compared to the approximate 4
percent per year growth in revenues seen for the industry between 1990
and 1993, according to Section 308 data.
EPA also determined that impacts on hotels, hospitals, and prisons,
which could be processing industrial laundry from offsite sources are
likely to be negligible. First, EPA's survey of a subset of hotels,
hospitals, and prisons turned up no facilities that were currently
accepting industrial items from offsite sources. Second, EPA's survey
shows that some of these sources could meet the definition of the small
industrial laundry exclusion. Several process considerably less than 1
million pounds of laundry per year, thus it is possible that if any of
these types of establishments do accept industrial items from offsite
sources, some might be excluded from coverage on the basis of pounds
laundered. Finally, if there were facilities large enough not to
qualify for an exclusion, their major source of revenues are from their
primary business, not from operating a laundry. Therefore, EPA expects
that these facilities can afford to comply with the proposed
limitations by offsite shipping of industrial laundry wastewater.
Because EPA's data on these types of establishments is not exhaustive,
however, the Agency solicits comment and additional data on this issue.
b. Impacts From Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)
EPA investigated all options considered under PSES as potential
PSNS options. EPA has tentatively selected the CP-IL option for both
sets of proposed standards. This section presents EPA's assessment of
impacts on new sources. EPA assesses impacts on new sources by
determining whether the proposed rule would result in a barrier to
entry into the market.
EPA has found that overall impacts from the proposed IL Standards
on new sources would not be any more severe than those on existing
sources, since the costs faced by new sources generally will be the
same as or less than those faced by existing sources. It is typically
less expensive to incorporate pollution control equipment into the
design at a new plant than it is to retrofit the same pollution control
equipment in an existing plant because no demolition is required, and
space constraints, which can add to costs if specifically designed
equipment must be ordered, are not an issue in new construction.
Because most new sources and existing sources face similar costs, EPA
has determined that PSNS requirements should not pose a barrier to
entry on the basis of competitiveness for most new facilities. EPA also
has shown CP-IL to be an economically achievable option, having an
acceptable level of impact on existing sources. Therefore, the same
requirements for PSNS also should have an acceptable level of impact on
most new facilities.
EPA also examined whether there would be a barrier to entry for
small new sources. EPA proposes not to exclude these new sources
because it has found it to be economically achievable for these new
sources to comply with the CP-IL standards contained in the proposed
rule. Based on the Section 308 Survey data, EPA expects that new
sources generally exceed the threshold size cutoff that EPA proposed
for existing sources. EPA investigated facilities in the Section 308
Survey that indicated they were new or relatively new at the time of
the survey. The number of new source facilities coming on line each
year is extremely small. Over a three year period (1991, 1992, and
1993), according to Section 308 Survey data, laundry operations began
only at about 80 facilities (and it is not absolutely clear from the
data whether these facilities were actually new dischargers or were
existing dischargers acquired in that year by a different firm). Over
the 3-year period, this amounts to 27 new sources a year at most, or
only 1.5 percent of existing facilities. Given the small level of
growth in the industrial laundries industry, EPA believes that new
sources are primarily replacing production from closing facilities that
exit the market.
Of these facilities identified as new or relatively new facilities,
EPA determined that the average revenues of this group exceeded $4
million per year, and the amount of laundry processed averaged over 5
million pounds per year. Only 24 facilities out of 80 total newer
facilities (weighted), or 30 percent, would meet the size threshold for
the exclusion applicable to existing sources. On a yearly basis (given
that 24 facilities started up over the 3 years of the survey) EPA
estimates that up to 8 facilities of the size that would meet an
exclusion similar to that for existing sources might be started up each
year. Overall, in the group of 80 facilities, only 6 facilities
(weighted) were identified as postcompliance closures (based on a
closure by one surveyed nonindependent facility). No single-facility
firm would close postcompliance. EPA is less concerned about a closure
of a nonindependent facility, since nonindependent facilities often can
fall back on their parent firm during the financially shaky first few
start up years. Furthermore, these 6 facilities are represented by a
survey facility that might, on the basis of the types of laundry
processed, be able to meet the requirements of the rule possibly
without having to install any pollution control whatsoever (that is,
their current effluent might not exceed the CP-IL based standards). EPA
has conservatively assigned this facility compliance costs because the
Agency has no sampling data from this facility to support this
assertion. Given the above results, EPA finds that not excluding new
sources laundering less than one million pounds of incoming laundry per
calendar year and less than 255,000 pounds of shop and/or printer
towels/rags per calendar year from PSNS will be economically achievable
and will present no barriers to entry.
EPA also investigated whether there might be a barrier to entry due
to competitive disadvantages for all new sources in markets where
excluded facilities are located. According to the Section 308 Survey,
excluded facilities process only 0.7 percent of the laundry processed
by all facilities represented in the survey. EPA thus concludes that
the market share of excluded facilities is so small that excluded
facilities are unlikely to have a measurable impact in the market for
industrial laundry services. Furthermore, EPA has shown that even if no
compliance costs are passed through to customers, the impacts are
similar to the results assuming cost pass-through does occur, and thus
new sources should be able to compete with excluded facilities on price
(by not raising prices) even if they perceive the need. EPA thus
concludes that competition with excluded facilities will not pose a
barrier to entry.
3. Economic Impacts of Rejected Options
The economic impacts from rejected options are as follows.
The OC option is associated with the lowest level of economic
impacts of all options considered. This option is associated with 3
facility closures, and only 22 firms are projected to be likely to fail
(but not close) and are thus likely to lose their financial
independence. A net direct total of 275 FTEs would be lost in the
industrial laundries industry (direct, production-driven losses) had
EPA chosen this option, and other
[[Page 66201]]
secondary impacts (effects on trade, inflation, and customers) would be
negligible. The option basing limits on the lesser performance between
DAF-IL and CP-IL is associated with nearly identical impacts as EPA's
preferred CP-IL option. Facility closures are estimated to be 33, and
65 firms are estimated to be likely to fail (but not close) and thus
are likely to lose their financial independence. A net total of 456
FTEs would be lost in the industrial laundries industry (direct,
production-driven losses), and, as for the CP-IL option, this option
would most likely have minimal additional secondary impacts.
EPA investigated a variant to the Combo option based on both CP-IL
and DAF-IL. In this option, rather than setting limits based on the
lesser performance, EPA would set limits based on DAF limits for all
those currently operating DAF systems, with CP limits for all others.
Costs would be very slightly less than the other CP/DAF option, with
impacts being approximately the same (in no case would costs or impacts
be less than CP-IL).
Under the DAF-IL option facility closures are estimated to total
34. A total of 66 firms are expected to be likely to fail (but not
close) and are thus likely to lose their financial independence. A net
421 FTEs would be lost in the industrial laundries industry (direct,
production-driven losses), if EPA had chosen this option. Other
secondary impacts would be greater than those for the proposed option,
but still minimal. Table VII.C.3.1 compares the economic impacts of the
rejected option with those of the preferred option.
Table VII.C.3.1.--Impacts of the Preferred Option vs. Rejected Options
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net direct
employment
Annualized Facility Firm losses (FTEs)
Option posttax costs closures failures as a result of
($ MM 1997) production
losses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OC................................................... $46.0 3 22 275
CP-IL................................................ 93.9 33 65 470
Combo-IL2Lim*........................................ 99 33 65 450
Combo-IL............................................. 99.5 33 65 456
DAF-IL............................................... 118.6 34 66 421
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*DAF-IL limits for existing DAF systems; CP-IL limits for all others.
D. Cost-Benefit Analysis
The proposed option is expected to have a total annual social cost
of $139.4 million ($1997), which includes $136.4 million in pretax
compliance costs, $2.9 million in administrative costs, and $0.1
million in unemployment benefits administration costs. Annual monetized
benefits are expected to range from $2.9 million to $10.6 million,
which includes $0.09 million to $0.5 million for human health benefits,
$1.9 million to $6.7 million for recreational benefits, $0.9 million to
$3.4 million from nonuse benefits, and $0.006 million to $0.01 million
for POTW sewage sludge benefits. Table VII.D.1 summarizes the results
of the cost-benefit analysis.
Table VII.D.1.--Results of the Cost-Benefit Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar value
Category (millions
$1997)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs:
Pretax Costs of Compliance.......................... $136.4
Administrative Costs of Permitting.................. 2.9
Administrative Costs of Unemployment Benefits....... 0.1
---------------
Total Social Costs.............................. 139.4
Monetized Benefits:
Human Health Benefits............................... $0.09-0.5
Recreational Benefits............................... 1.9-6.7
Nonuse Benefits..................................... 0.9-3.4
Benefits to POTWs................................... 0.006-0.01
---------------
Total Monetized Benefits........................ 2.9-10.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are a number of additional benefits associated with the
proposed IL Standards that could not be monetized. Examples include:
reduced noncancer health effects, reduced POTW operating and
maintenance costs, reduced administrative costs at the local level to
develop and defend individually derived local limits for industrial
laundries, improved aesthetic quality of near discharge outfalls,
enhanced water-dependent recreation other than fishing, benefits to
wildlife and to threatened or endangered species, tourism benefits, and
biodiversity benefits.
E. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
In addition to the foregoing analyses, EPA has conducted cost-
effectiveness analyses for all options it considered. Results of these
analyses are presented in the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (C-E), which
is included in the rulemaking record. C-E analysis evaluates the
relative efficiency of options in removing toxic and nonconventional
pollutants. Costs evaluated include the pretax direct compliance costs,
such as capital expenditures and O&M costs, including compliance
monitoring.
Cost-effectiveness results are expressed in terms of the
incremental and average costs per ``pound equivalent'' (PE) removed. PE
is a measure that addresses differences in the toxicity of pollutants
removed. Total PEs are derived by taking the number of pounds of a
pollutant removed and multiplying this number by a toxic weighting
factor (TWF). EPA calculates TWFs for priority pollutants and some
additional nonconventional pollutants using ambient water quality
criteria and toxicity values. The TWFs are then standardized by
relating them to a particular pollutant, in this case, copper. As of
1985 the water quality criterion for copper was revised, thus the TWF
for copper also has been revised. PEs are calculated only for
pollutants for which TWFs have been estimated, thus they do not reflect
potential toxicity of some nonconventional and, to date, any
conventional pollutants though the newly added TWF for TPH does capture
a large portion of the more toxic components of the conventional
pollutant, oil and grease. EPA's standard procedure is to rank the
options considered for each waste stream in order of increasing PE
removed. EPA then calculates incremental cost-
[[Page 66202]]
effectiveness as the ratio of the incremental annual costs to the
incremental PE removed under each option, compared to the previous
(less effective) option. Average cost-effectiveness is calculated for
each option as a ratio of total costs to total PE removed. In the case
of pretreatment standards, EPA does not include pollutant removals if
those pollutants could be removed at the POTW, but only includes the
removal of pollutants that would pass through the POTW in its cost-
effectiveness determination. (Note that EPA assumes for this analysis
that POTW removal efficiency is the same for treated influent as for
untreated influent. To the extent that the removal efficiency is lower
for influent that has already been pretreated this methodology could
overestimated removals resulting from the pretreatment standards. EPA
reports annual costs for all cost-effectiveness analyses in 1981
dollars, to enable limited comparisons of the cost-effectiveness among
regulated industries. Incremental cost-effectiveness is the appropriate
measure for comparing one regulatory option to an alternative, less
stringent regulatory option for the same rule. Some believe that it may
also be used to compare cost-effectiveness across rules when
considering how the last increment of stringency in one rule compares
to the last increment of stringency in another. For comparing the
overall cost-effectiveness of one rule to another, average cost-
effectiveness may be a more appropriate measure, but must be considered
in context with caution. (Average cost-effectiveness can be thought of
as the ``increment'' between no regulation and the selected option, for
any given rule).
As part of the cost-effectiveness analysis for this proposed rule,
the nonconventional pollutant parameter TPH (SGT-HEM) was included and
individual components of TPH, such as the alkanes, were removed from
the cost-effectiveness calculations to avoid double counting removals.
Although TPH has not been included in cost-effectiveness calculations
for past rules, EPA believes that it is appropriate to include it here
because, for this industry, a large portion of the toxic constituents
of TPH are compounds not specifically included in the database of toxic
substances and associated toxic weighting factors that past cost-
effectiveness calculation have relied upon. In fact, TPH constitutes
over 90 percent of the pounds equivalent removals that EPA has
estimated for this proposed rule.
The inclusion of TPH were based on alkanes data to estimate POTW
removal and soluble hydrocarbon data to represent toxicity of TPH to
calculate the toxic weighting factor (TWF). The POTW removal of 65
percent was estimated using the U.S. EPA Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory (RREL) Treatability Data Base's average percent removal for
the three N-alkanes with available percent removal data. EPA recognizes
that this approach may not adequately characterize removals of the
soluble hydrocarbons on which its TWF is based and requests comment on
how the estimate might be improved. The TWF was calculated using an
aquatic life toxicity value of 560 g/L for soluble
hydrocarbons (EPA's Water Quality Criteria, 1976) multiplied by an
application factor of 0.01 (EPA's 1986 Quality Criteria for Water) and
divided into the criteria for copper (5.6 g/L) to give a value
of 0.1. EPA solicits additional information and data related to these
results and the methodology used to calculate both the POTW removal
rate and the TWF. EPA also solicits comments on the appropriateness of
its inclusion of TPH in the cost-effectiveness calculation for this
proposed rule.
Table VII.E.1. presents the cost-effectiveness of the OC and CP-IL
options using TPH data in lieu of the alkanes data. The other options
considered for industrial laundries wastewater treatment, DAF-IL, and
Combo-IL (including Combo-IL2Lim), are not presented in this table
because they remove fewer pollutants at a greater cost. EPA's cost-
effectiveness methodology requires non cost-effective options to be
removed before incremental cost-effectiveness is calculated, since the
incremental cost per pound equivalent removed would be negative for the
next higher option. See the C-E for more details. As the table shows,
the incremental cost-effectiveness of the proposed option is $108 per
PE, and the average cost effectiveness of the proposed option is $206
per PE.
Table VII.E.1.--Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total annual Incremental
---------------------------------------------------- Incremental Average C-E
Option Cost ($Mil. Cost ($Mil. C-E $1981) ($1981) ($/
PE removed 1981) PE removed 1981) ($/lb. eq.) lb. eq.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OC................................ 5,278 $40.3 5,278 $40.3 $7,640 $7,640
CP-IL............................. 407,358 83.7 402,080 43.4 108 206
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4-1 in the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis compares the
incremental cost-effectiveness of this proposed rule with the
incremental cost-effectiveness of 21 other pretreatment standards that
EPA has promulgated previously. The table shows that 18 of these were
more cost-effective on an incremental basis than this proposed rule.
However, as noted earlier, average (rather than incremental) cost-
effectiveness is generally a more appropriate measure to use in
comparing the overall cost-effectiveness of one rule to another. Unlike
incremental cost-effectiveness, average cost-effectiveness is not
affected by the particular choice of alternative options that were
considered and rejected. In this proposed rule, the incremental or
marginal cost-effectiveness is lower than average cost-effectiveness
because the proposed option (CP) is being compared to the (OC) option
that costs about half as much as CP but removes only slightly more than
one percent of the pound equivalents that are removed by the CP option.
Due to data limitations and time constraints, EPA has not included in
the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis a comparison of the average cost
effectiveness of this proposed rule to that of previously promulgated
rules. Such a comparison may show this rule to be even less cost-
effective relative to other rules than appears from Table 4-1. Care
should be used in interpreting this comparison, however. Because the
initial focus of regulatory efforts was on highly polluting
manufacturing industries, it is not surprising that over time, fewer
and fewer toxic removals should come at higher and higher costs, as the
initial less treated, higher pollutant concentration wastewaters are
addressed and the focus of regulation move increasingly to less
polluting
[[Page 66203]]
service industries and those which are already regulated.
EPA also analyzed the cost effectiveness of these same options
using the alkanes data and not using the TPH toxic weighting factor and
POTW removal. Under this assumption, the incremental cost effectiveness
of the proposed option is $1,660 per PE, and its average cost
effectiveness is $2,664 per PE.
EPA recognizes that the proposed rule is not very cost-effective.
However, cost-effectiveness analysis only considers pollutants for
which a toxic weighting factor has been estimated. Although this
proposed rule would eliminate over 13 million pounds of toxic and
nonconventional pollutants to POTWs (See Table IX.C.1), only 1.3
million pounds of these pollutants are considered in the cost-
effectiveness analysis.
Furthermore, cost-effectiveness is not a factor to be directly
considered under the CWA in setting such standards. Elsewhere in this
preamble, EPA has requested comment on the option of not regulating
this industry and on whether such a decision would be consistent with
the CWA.
VIII. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts
As required by sections 304(b) and 306 of the Clean Water Act, EPA
has considered the non-water quality environmental impacts associated
with the treatment technology options for the industrial laundries
industry. Non-water quality impacts are impacts of the proposed rule on
the environment that are not directly associated with wastewater. Non-
water quality impacts include changes in energy consumption, air
emissions, and solid waste generation of oil and sludge. In addition to
these non-water quality impacts, EPA examined the impacts of the
proposed rule on noise pollution, and water and chemical use. Based on
these analyses, EPA finds the relatively small increase in non-water
quality impacts resulting from the proposed rule to be acceptable.
1. Air Pollution
Industrial laundry facilities generate wastewater that contains
significant concentrations of organic compounds, some of which are on
the list of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) in Title 3 of the Clean Air
Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990. Atmospheric exposure of the organic-
containing wastewater may result in volatilization of both volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) and HAPs from the wastewater. VOCs and HAPs
are emitted from the wastewater beginning at the point where the
wastewater first contacts ambient air. Thus, VOCs and HAPs may be of
concern immediately as the wastewater is discharged from the process
unit. Emissions occur from wastewater collection units such as process
drains, manholes, trenches, and sumps, and from wastewater treatment
units such as screens, equalization basins, DAF and CP units, and any
other units where the wastewater is in contact with the air.
EPA believes that air emissions from industrial laundry wastewater
would be similar before and after implementation of the proposed rule
because the wastewater from all industrial laundries currently has
contact with ambient air as it flows to the POTW. At facilities that do
not currently have treatment on site, the wastewater typically flows
from the washers to an open or partially open catch basin, then to the
sewer and on to the POTW, where the wastewater is typically treated in
open aerated basins or lagoons. Air emissions from the wastewater occur
as the wastewater flows from the facility to the POTW. At a facility
with treatment the wastewater would have more contact with air while
still at the facility as it is treated in open units such as
equalization basins and CP units prior to flowing through the sewer to
the POTW. Air emissions from the treated wastewater occur at the
treatment units at the facility, as well as while the wastewater flows
to the POTW. Thus, EPA expects that the location of a portion of air
emissions from industrial laundry wastewater would shift from the POTW
collection and treatment system to the facility treatment system, but
EPA believes that the overall amount of air emissions from industrial
laundries wastewater would not change.
EPA examined the total air emissions from one industrial laundry's
untreated wastewater stream assuming all volatile pollutants volatilize
from that stream. EPA considered whether this total amount of air
emissions would be acceptable assuming it represented incremental air
emissions due to the proposed rule. (EPA does not believe that the
total amount of air emissions, as calculated below, represents
incremental air emissions because the air emissions would be similar
before and after implementation of the rule.) EPA estimated that, in
the worst-case scenario, 14 Mg per year of HAPs would be emitted from
an industrial laundry's wastewater on an annual basis. Under the CAAA,
major sources of HAP(s) emissions are defined as having either a total
emission of 25 Mg per year or higher for the total of all HAP emitted
by a facility or an emission of 10 Mg per year or higher for a single
HAPs emitted by a facility.
Based on the worst-case scenario and this definition industrial
laundries would not emit HAP(s) to the degree that they would be
classified as a major source as defined by the CAAA. EPA also believes
that no adverse air impacts would be expected to occur due to the
proposed regulations. Thus, because EPA does not expect an overall
increase in the amount of air emissions as a result of the proposed
rule and based on EPA's determination of the total emissions from one
industrial laundry's untreated wastewater, EPA finds the air emissions
impacts of the proposed rule to be acceptable.
2. Solid Waste Generation
The proposed regulations are based on the use of CP followed by
dewatering of the sludge generated from CP. Based on information
collected in the industrial laundries detailed questionnaires, most
industrial laundry sludge from CP or DAF treatment systems is disposed
of in nonhazardous landfills. Based on site visits to industrial
laundries, EPA has found that some facilities voluntarily dispose of
their sludge as hazardous waste even though hazardous waste disposal is
not required by law.
EPA estimates that the incremental increase in sludge generation
(not including savings in the volume of sludge generated at POTWs that
would result from the proposed rule) for the 1,606 facilities in the
industry covered by the rule would be 74 thousand tons per year of wet
sludge, or 26,000 tons per year of dry solids. For more details, see
Chapter 14 of the Development Document. Approximately 430 million tons
(dry basis) of industrial nonhazardous waste was sent to landfills in
the U.S. in 1986 (Subtitle D Study Phase I: Report EPA No. 530SW86-
054). This proposed rule would result in only a 0.006% increase in
sludge generation. Data, from the Waste Treatment Industry Phase II:
Landfills, suggests that current landfill capacity can accept this
increase in solid waste generation. Therefore, EPA believes the solid
waste impacts of the proposed rule are acceptable.
3. Energy Requirements
EPA estimates that implementation of the proposed regulation would
result in a net increase in energy consumption for the industrial
laundries industry. The incremental increase is based on electricity
used to operate wastewater treatment equipment at facilities that are
not currently operating treatment
[[Page 66204]]
systems comparable with the proposed CP option.
EPA estimates that the incremental increase in electricity use for
the industrial laundries industry as a result of the proposed rule
would be 76 million kilowatt hours per year. Approximately 2,805
billion kilowatt hours of electric power were generated in the U.S. in
1990. The incremental increase in energy use for the industrial
laundries industry corresponds to 0.0027% of the national energy
requirements. EPA estimates the incremental energy increase to be a
small percentage of electricity currently used by the industrial
laundries industry to operate all washing, drying, and treatment
equipment. For these reasons, energy impacts of the proposed rule are
acceptable.
IX. Environmental Benefits Analysis
A. Introduction
This section describes results of EPA's environmental benefits
analysis. For more details, see the WQBA.
B. Overview of the Industrial Laundry Industry's Effluent Discharges
EPA's record indicates that industrial laundry facilities
nationwide currently discharge to POTWs 4.9 million pounds per year of
priority and nonconventional pollutants (excluding COD, TOC, and SGT-
HEM), and 35.9 million pounds of HEM. Of the 35.9 million pounds of
HEM, 13.2 million pounds are SGT-HEM (see Table IX.C.1 for loadings of
all pollutants). SGT-HEM, consisting of polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons, are components of HEM; SGT-HEM is being used as an
indicator for priority and nonconventional pollutants.
For this rulemaking, EPA evaluated the environmental benefits of
controlling the pollutant discharges from industrial laundries
facilities to POTWs through national analyses of the primary treatment
options: OC, DAF-IL, CP-IL, and Combo-IL. Since EPA determined that the
OC option removed smaller amounts of organics than the other options,
EPA did not perform a separate environmental assessment for this
option.
Discharges of priority and nonconventional pollutants into
freshwater and estuarine ecosystems may alter aquatic habitats,
adversely affect aquatic biota, and adversely impact human health
through the consumption of contaminated fish and water. Furthermore,
these pollutants may interfere with POTW operations through
contamination of sewage sludge, thereby restricting the method of
disposal, or through inhibition of the microbes present in activated
sewage sludge. Many of the pollutants of concern from industrial
laundries have at least one toxic effect (human health carcinogen and/
or non-cancer toxicant or aquatic toxicant). In addition, many of these
pollutants bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms and persist in the
environment.
C. Benefits of the Proposed Rule
EPA estimates that the proposed standards would significantly
reduce pollutant discharges to POTWs, as shown by the loadings
estimates in Table IX.C.1 for five categories of pollutants. Note that
there is significant overlap among some of the pollutants listed. These
five categories were segregated in order to minimize the double
counting of pollutants within each category, although some overlap
remains (e.g., some TOC is also measured as COD). It is not appropriate
to sum loadings across categories as there is overlap between
categories, for example, BOD and COD. Reductions in industrial laundry
pollutant discharges to POTWs would result in a number of benefits,
including: reduced cost of disposal or use of municipal sewage sludge
that is affected by industrial laundry pollutant discharges; and
reduced occurrence of biological inhibition of activated sludge at
POTWs. Resulting reductions in discharges from POTWs to surface waters
of the US would have additional benefits: improved quality of
freshwater, estuarine, and marine ecosystems; increased survivability
and diversity of aquatic life and terrestrial wildlife; and reduced
risks to human health through consumption of fish or water taken from
affected waterways.
Table IX.C.1.--Summary of Estimated Pollutant Loadings from Industrial Laundries to POTWs
[Natioal Estimates]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Other
Priority and HEM SGT-HEM conventional nonconventional
Regulatory option nonconventional (million lb/ (million lb/ pollutants pollutants
pollutants yr) \2\ yr) (million lb/ (million lb/yr)
\1\(million lb/yr) yr) \3\ \4\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................ 4.9 35.9 13.2 176 346
DAF-IL.......................... 2.9 15.9 2.6 137 252
CP-IL........................... 2.9 15.2 2.4 139 258
Combo-IL........................ 3.1 15.9 2.6 139 258
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes Total Organic Carbon (TOC), Silica Gel Treated N-Hexane Extractable Material (SGT-HEM), and
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD).
\2\ Includes the pounds of SGT-HEM.
\3\ Includes Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS).
\4\ Includes Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) and Total Organic Carbon (TOC).
EPA assessed the benefits from the expected pollutant reductions in
three broad classes: human health, ecological, and economic
productivity benefits. Each class is composed of a number of more
narrowly defined benefit categories. EPA expects that benefits will
accrue to society in all of these categories. However, because of data
limitations and the understanding of how society values some of these
benefit categories, EPA was not able to analyze all of these categories
with the same level of rigor. At the highest level of analysis, EPA was
able to quantify the expected effects for some benefit categories and
attach monetary values to them. Benefit categories for which EPA
developed dollar estimates include reduction in cancer risk from fish
consumption and increased value of recreational fishing opportunities,
reduced risk to aquatic life, and other non-use benefits. For other
benefit categories, reduced risk of non-cancer toxic effects to human
health from consumption of fish and drinking water; and reduced costs
of biological inhibition at POTWs, EPA was able to quantify expected
effects but not able to estimate monetary values for them. Finally,
there is an additional non-quantified, non-monetized benefit
[[Page 66205]]
categories of enhanced water-dependent recreation other than fishing.
Note that benefits to wildlife and to threatened or endangered species;
and biodiversity benefits are often included as non-quantified benefits
but in the current analysis an attempt has been made to monetize them.
D. Human Health Benefits
EPA analyzed the following measures of health-related benefits from
the proposed rule in the WQBA: reduced cancer risk from fish
consumption; reduced risk of non-cancer toxic effects from fish and
water consumption; and, reduced occurrence of in-waterway pollutant
concentrations in excess of human health-based ambient water quality
criteria (AWQC) or in excess of documented toxic effect levels for
those chemicals for which EPA has not published water quality criteria.
Of these measures, EPA was able to monetize only the reduction in
cancer risk.
EPA first predicted steady-state, in-stream pollutant
concentrations by assuming complete immediate mixing with no loss from
the system. Of the 172 in-scope respondent facilities, EPA was unable
to include 33 facilities in the benefits analysis because of incomplete
information on the POTWs to which these sample facilities discharge.
The remaining 139 facilities are discharging to 118 POTWs that in turn
discharge to 113 water bodies (88 rivers/streams, 21 bays/estuaries,
and 4 lakes).
EPA then extrapolated the environmental assessment results for the
sample facilities to the entire regulated population of industrial
laundry facilities nationwide (approximately 1,606 facilities
discharging to 1,178 POTWs). For this extrapolation, each sample
facility received a sample weight based on the varying number of
additional facilities of the same approximate size engaged in similar
activities under similar economic conditions. EPA then estimated the
change in aggregate cancer risk through consumption of fish in
waterbodies where the identified POTWs discharge. EPA predicted
pollutant concentrations in fish by using the in-stream pollutant
concentration based on modeled POTW effluent concentrations due to
pass-through, and pollutant-specific bioconcentration factors that
account for the degree to which the pollutant in the water will be
concentrated in fish tissue. EPA used data on licensed fishing
populations by state and county, presence of fish advisories, fishing
activity rates, and average household size to estimate the exposed
population of recreational and subsistence anglers and their families
that would benefit from reduced pollutant concentrations in fish. EPA
used fish consumption rates for recreational and subsistence anglers to
estimate the change in cancer risk among these populations.
For the proposed rule, the benefits associated with reduced
incidence of cancer from fish consumption are estimated to range from
$0.089 million to $0.50 million per year ($1997), depending on the
choice of willingness-to-pay value that is used to value the avoided
cancer events and depending on the treatment option considered. For
combined recreational and subsistence angler household populations, EPA
projects that the treatment options would eliminate approximately 0.04
cancer cases per year from a baseline of about 0.1 cases estimated at
the current discharge level (see Table IX.D.1). EPA valued the reduced
cancer cases using estimated willingness-to-pay values for avoiding
premature mortality. The values used in this analysis are based on a
range of values recommended by EPA's Office of Policy Analysis from a
review of studies quantifying individuals' willingness to pay to avoid
increased risks to life. In 1997 dollars, these values range from $2.4
million to $12.5 million per statistical life saved.
Table IX.D.1.--Estimated Annual Avoided Cancer Cases From Freshwater
Fish Consumption
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
cases
Regulatory option avoided
(National
estimates)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline................................................... --
CP-IL...................................................... 0.04
DAF-IL..................................................... 0.04
Combo-IL................................................... 0.04
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To estimate the reduced risk of non-cancer health effects (e.g.,
systemic effects, reproductive toxicity, and developmental toxicity)
from fish and water consumption for each treatment option, EPA used
risk reference doses, in conjunction with in-stream pollutant
concentrations, to calculate a hazard score. A value of one or greater
for a hazard score indicates the potential for non-cancer hazards to
occur. In this analysis, EPA analyzed only pollutant loadings from
industrial laundries to particular water bodies, i.e., EPA did not
consider background loadings from other sources. The hazard score,
which EPA calculated by summing over all pollutants, was less than one
for baseline conditions as well as for all treatment options.
EPA also evaluated reduced occurrence of in-waterway pollutant
concentrations in excess of human-health based AWQC. At current
discharge levels, in-stream concentrations of two pollutants--bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate and tetrachloroethene--are projected to exceed
human health criteria (developed for consumption of water and
organisms) in 9 receiving streams nationwide (see Table IX.D.2) for a
total of 17 exceedences. The proposed PSES regulated discharge levels
would eliminate the occurrence of pollutant concentrations in excess of
the human health-based AWQCs in 7 of 9 affected streams.
Table IX.D.2. Discharge Reaches with Pollutant Concentrations Exceeding
AWQC Limits for Protection of Human Health, and Reductions Achieved by
Regulatory Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
reaches with
concentrations
exceeding
health-based
Regulatory option AWQCs for
water and
organisms
(national
basis)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline................................................ 9
CP-IL................................................... 2
DAF-IL.................................................. 2
Combo-IL................................................ 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Ecological Benefits Valued on the Basis of Enhanced Recreational
Fishing Opportunities
EPA analyzed one measure of ecological benefits from the proposed
regulation: reduced occurrence of in-waterway pollutant concentrations
in excess of acute and chronic AWQCs that protect aquatic life. EPA
used the findings from the analysis of reduced occurrence of pollutant
concentrations in excess of both EPA's ecological and human health
AWQCs to assess improvements in recreational fishing habitats and, in
turn, to estimate a monetary value for the enhanced recreational
fishing opportunities.
To assess aquatic life benefits, EPA estimated the effect of
facility discharges of regulated pollutants on pollutant concentrations
in affected waterways. EPA compared the estimated concentrations on a
baseline and post-compliance basis, with the Agency's AWQCs for acute
and chronic exposure impacts to aquatic life. Pollutant concentrations
in excess of these values indicate potential impacts to aquatic life.
EPA's analysis found that
[[Page 66206]]
78 stream reaches exceed chronic AWQC values at baseline discharge
levels for a total of 93 exceedences (see Table IX.E.1). Under three
options, EPA estimates that the proposed regulation would eliminate
concentrations in excess of the chronic AWQC values for aquatic life in
66 affected reaches. EPA predicts that no pollutants under current or
proposed discharge levels would exceed acute AWQC.
EPA expects that society will value improvements in aquatic species
habitat, resulting from the reduction of pollutant concentrations in
excess of the chronic AWQC values, by a number of mechanisms. For this
analysis, EPA estimated a partial monetary value of ecological
improvements based on the value of enhanced recreational fishing
opportunities. Specifically, the elimination of pollutant
concentrations exceeding AWQC limits for protection of aquatic species
and human health is expected to generate benefits to recreational
anglers. Such benefits are expected to manifest as increases in the
value of the fishing experience per day fished or the number of days
anglers subsequently choose to fish the cleaner waterways. These
benefits, however, do not include all of the benefits that are
associated with improvements in aquatic life. For example, recreational
benefits do not capture the benefit of increased assimilative capacity
of a receiving waterbody, improvements in the taste and odor of the
instream flow, or improvements to other recreational activities such as
swimming and wildlife observation that may be enhanced by improved
water quality.
Table IX.E.1.--Discharge Reaches with Pollutant Concentrations Exceeding Chronic AWQC Limits for Protection of
Aquatic Species, and Reductions Achieved by Regulatory Options
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Number of reaches with Total
pollutants concentrations exceedences of
Regulatory option estimated to exceeding chronic AWQC
exceed chronic chronic AWQC limits
AWQC limits limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................................................ 3 78 93
CP-IL........................................................... 2 12 19
DAF-IL.......................................................... 2 12 19
Combo-IL........................................................ 2 12 19
None of the acute AWQC limits were estimated to be exceeded in the baseline.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA calculated the value of enhanced recreational fishing
opportunities from the proposed rule based on the concept of
achievement of a contaminant-free fishery. For this analysis, EPA
assumed for an affected waterway that elimination of all instances in
which industrial laundry pollutant concentrations exceed AWQCs that
protect human health or aquatic species may be interpreted as
approximately equivalent to the achievement of a contaminant-free
fishery. EPA first estimated a baseline value of those fisheries in
which all instances of industrial laundry pollutant concentrations in
excess of AWQCs are estimated to be eliminated by regulation. This
value is based on the number of annual fishing days at the affected
waterway and the value of a fishing day. Second, EPA estimated the
value of improving the water quality in these fisheries based on the
incremental percentage increase in value to anglers of freeing the
fishery of contaminants (Lyke, 1992). Estimates of the increase in
value of recreational fishing to anglers range from $1.9 million to
$6.7 million annually ($1997) for all three treatment options,
depending on the baseline value of the fishery and the estimated
incremental benefit values associated with freeing the fishery from
contaminants. This analysis does not account for sources of pollutant
contamination other than industrial laundries or for pollutants not
discharged by industrial laundries.
EPA also estimated non-market non-use benefits. These non-market
non-use benefits are not associated with current use of the affected
ecosystem or habitat; instead, they arise from (1) the realization of
the improvement in the affected ecosystem or habitat resulting from
reduced effluent discharges and (2) the value that individuals place on
the potential for use sometime in the future. Because nonuse value is a
sizable component of the total economic value of water resources, EPA
estimated change in nonuse values in proportion to recreational fishing
benefits. For this analysis, as was done in the Great Lakes Water
Quality Guidance, EPA conservatively estimated that nonuse benefits
compose one-half of recreational fishing benefits. For all three
treatment options, this method yields non-use benefits attributable to
the proposed regulation ranging from $0.94 million to $3.4 million
($1997) per year.
F. Benefits From Reduced Cost of Sewage Sludge Disposal and Reduced
Incidence of Inhibition
EPA expects that reduced effluent discharges from the industrial
laundries industry would also yield economic productivity benefits. For
this analysis, EPA estimated productivity benefits for two benefit
categories: (1) reduced pollutant contamination of effluent discharged
by industrial laundry facilities to sewage treatment systems and (2)
associated savings in sewage sludge use or disposal costs; and, a
reduction in biological inhibition of activated sludge. For the former
category, EPA examined the following: (1) whether industrial laundry
baseline discharges would prevent POTWs from being able to meet the
metals concentration limits required for certain lower cost sewage
sludge use or disposal practices--beneficial land application and
surface disposal; and (2) whether limitations on the selection of
management practices would be removed under regulatory options.
EPA has promulgated regulations establishing standards for sewage
sludge when it is applied to the land, disposed of at dedicated sites
(surface disposal), and incinerated (40 CFR Part 503). In addition, EPA
has also established standards for sewage sludge when it is disposed of
in municipal solid waste landfills (40 CFR Part 258). For land
application, the regulations include three sets of pollutant limits for
ten metals: (1) Pollutant Ceiling Limits, which all land applied sewage
sludge must meet with certain limitations, (2) Cumulative Pollutant
Loading Limits (which limit the cumulative amount of metal which may be
applied to the soil) and (3) more stringent Pollutant Concentration
Limits, which provide more favorable terms for land
[[Page 66207]]
application of sewage sludge. Sewage sludge that meets only the less
stringent Ceiling Limits may be applied to land; however, the use of
the sewage sludge is subject to pollutant loading limits, which
restrict the quantity of sewage sludge that may be applied to a given
site. If the sewage sludge meets the more stringent Concentration
Limits, it is considered high quality sewage sludge and is not subject
to the cumulative limits on land application and other regulatory
requirements in the land application subpart, i.e., general conditions
and certain management practices, such as more extensive recordkeeping
requirements. Thus, disposing of high quality sewage sludge costs less
than disposing of low quality sewage sludge that meets only the ceiling
concentrations for metals.
EPA estimated sewage sludge concentrations of ten metals for sample
facilities under baseline and post-regulatory options discharge levels.
EPA compared these concentrations with the relevant metal concentration
limits for the following sewage sludge management options: Land
Application-High (Concentration Limits), Land Application-Low (Ceiling
Limits), and Surface Disposal. In the baseline case, EPA estimated that
concentrations of one pollutant (lead) at 10 POTWs would fail the Land
Application-High limits while meeting the Land Application-Low limits.
EPA estimated that no POTWs would fail any of the Surface Disposal
limits. Under all three options, EPA estimated that all 10 POTWs would
meet the Land Application-High limits and that an estimated 6,200 dry
metric tons (DMT) of annual disposal of sewage sludge would newly
qualify for beneficial use under the Land Application-High limits. EPA
estimated the reduced time required for record-keeping for sewage
sludge meeting the more stringent Land Application-High criteria, and,
on this basis, developed a partial estimate of monetary benefits from
reduced metals contamination of sewage sludge. For all three options,
the proposed regulation is expected to result in benefits from sewage
sludge quality improvements of $0.006 million to $0.01 million ($1997)
annually. (EPA notes that the rule would also generate additional
metals-contaminated sludge at industrial laundries, but has already
included the costs of disposing of this sludge in the compliance costs
of the rule.)
EPA estimated inhibition of POTW operations by comparing predicted
POTW influent concentrations to available inhibition levels for 45
pollutants. At current discharge levels, EPA estimates POTW
concentrations of lead exceed biological inhibition criteria at two
POTWs. Under all treatment options, inhibition problems are eliminated.
EPA based the POTW inhibition and sludge values upon engineering
and health estimates contained in guidance or guidelines published by
EPA and other sources. Because the values used in this analysis are
not, in general, regulatory values, EPA did not base the proposed
pretreatment discharge standards directly on this approach. However,
the values and methodology used in this analysis are helpful in
identifying potential benefits for POTW operations and sludge disposal
that may result from the compliance with proposed pretreatment
discharge requirements.
G. Discussions With POTW Operators and Pre-Treatment Coordinators
To understand the frequency and characteristics of problems to
POTWs resulting from industrial laundry discharges, EPA obtained
information from discussions with EPA regional staff, and with POTW
operators representing 40 POTWs that receive discharges from industrial
laundries. Of these 40 POTWs, 11 encounter some difficulty resulting
from industrial laundry discharges either currently or in the recent
past. A number of the other POTWs that encountered problems with
industrial laundry discharges in the past have established local limits
applicable to laundries to address those problems. Problems encountered
by POTWs, as reported by the operators, included: oil and grease, which
may clog pipes and pump stations, inhibit activated sludge and
otherwise inhibit POTW operations; metals, which may also inhibit
activated sludge; and pH fluctuations, which can injure POTW workers
and deteriorate concrete pipes and manholes. The Water Quality Benefits
Analysis notes that there are solutions available to POTWs for these
problems, although they do entail costs to the POTWs. A further
analysis of three case studies do not document substantial problems
from industrial laundries discharges that would be reduced by
regulation.
X. Related Acts of Congress, Executive Orders, and Agency
Initiatives
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by SBREFA, EPA generally is required to conduct an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) describing the impact of the
proposed rule on small entities. Under section 605(b) of the RFA, if
the Administrator certifies that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA is not
required to prepare the IRFA.
EPA conducted an IRFA pursuant to section 603(b) of the RFA
addressing:
The need for, objectives of, and legal basis for the rule;
A description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the
number of small entities to which the rule would apply;
The projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other
compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the
classes of small entities that would be subject to the rule and the
types of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or
record;
An identification, where practicable, of all relevant
Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the
proposed rule;
A description of any significant regulatory alternatives
to the proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives of
applicable statutes and which minimize any significant economic impact
of the proposed rule on small entities. Consistent with the stated
objectives of the CWA, the analysis discusses significant alternatives
such as--
(1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities;
(2) clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance
and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities;
(3) the use of performance rather than design standards;
(4) an exclusion from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,
for such small entities. The IFRA is presented in Chapter 9 of the EA.
Based on the IRFA and other factors, this proposed rule incorporates an
exclusion to eliminate disproportionate impacts on small businesses and
also reduces the number of small businesses affected by the proposed
rule.
Pursuant to the RFA as amended by SBREFA, EPA convened a Small
Business Advocacy Review Panel. The Panel is comprised of
representatives from three federal agencies: EPA, the Small Business
Administration, and the Office of Management and Budget. The Panel
reviewed materials EPA prepared in connection with the RFA, and
collected the advice and recommendations of small entity
representatives. For this proposed rule, the small entity
representatives
[[Page 66208]]
included owners of small industrial laundries and trade association
representatives. The Panel prepared a report (available in the public
docket for this rulemaking) that summarizes the outreach to small
entities and the comments submitted by the small entity
representatives. The Panel's report also presents their findings on
issues related to the elements of an IRFA.
As part of the findings, the Panel recommended that the Agency
evaluate other thresholds for excluding small businesses, in addition
to the proposed one million pounds of total production and 255,000
pounds of shop and/or printer towels. Examples of alternative
thresholds that the Panel recommended EPA solicit comment on are three
to five million pounds of total production with shop and/or printer
towel thresholds between 255,000 and 500,000 pounds.
EPA evaluated a total of 17 threshold combinations as possible
bases for excluding small businesses. The analysis of 13 threshold
combinations are presented in a table in the final Panel report. In
response to the recommendations in the Panel report, EPA analyzed 4
additional threshold combinations. The results of all 17 threshold
combinations are found in Appendix E of the EA.
The thresholds (i.e., exemption cutoffs) ranged from one million to
five million pounds of production, both with and without cutoffs
related specifically to shop and/or printer towels. The shop and/or
printer towel cutoffs ranged from 255,000 to 500,000 pounds. In
addition, EPA analyzed threshold cutoffs involving only ``heavy
production,'' defined as shop and/or printer towels, mops, fender
covers, and filters, and excluding all small businesses (as defined by
revenues less than $10.5 million per year).
Results of these higher threshold analyses suggest that, by using
the three to five million pounds of production levels, between 15 and
34 percent of the pollutant removals would be excluded from regulation.
As noted earlier, with EPA's proposed exclusion, the excluded
facilities would account for less than 3 percent of the pollutant
removals from the waters of the U.S. than would occur if the proposed
rule were implemented without the exclusion. Furthermore, with the
higher thresholds, approximately 600 to 1000 facilities (depending on
the actual threshold) would be excluded from coverage by the proposed
regulation, while closures resulting from the proposed rule would be
reduced by only two facilities. Costs for the proposed rule could be
reduced by up to 60 percent with higher thresholds and cost per toxic
pound equivalent removed could also be reduced by up to 40 percent. See
the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. The total amount of removals excluded
under the highest threshold considered (about 150,000 PE), while a
significant share of potential removals from the industrial laundries
industry, is small compared to removals by other effluent guidelines
for primary manufacturing industries. The SBREFA Panel also noted the
statement by one of the small entity representatives that the number of
small facilities has declined since EPA surveyed the industry in 1993.
If this is true, it would mean that both the cost savings and the
amount of potential removals excluded for any particular small business
exclusion would be less than estimated. A table summarizing the results
of the 17 threshold analyses is contained in Appendix E of the EA and a
table summarizing the results of the original 13 threshold analyses is
contained in the Panel report. The Agency solicits comments on these
alternative exclusion levels as well as the exclusion level proposed
today.
B. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.''
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory action''. As
such, this action was submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in
response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in
the public record.
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L.
104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule would contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for the
private sector in any one year. Accordingly, EPA has prepared the
written statement required by section 202 of the UMRA. This statement
is contained in the EA for the rule and is summarized below. EPA has
determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments and thus this
rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA.
Nevertheless, EPA has consulted with state and local governments as
described in Section III of this preamble.
[[Page 66209]]
EPA prepared several supporting analyses for the proposed rule.
Throughout this preamble and in the supporting analyses, EPA has
responded to the UMRA section 202 requirements. As anticipated by OMB,
most considerations with respect to costs, benefits, and regulatory
alternatives are addressed in the EA, which is summarized in Sections
VII and IX of this preamble and presented in detail in Section Ten of
the EA. A very brief summary follows.
The statutory authority for this proposal is found in multiple
sections of the CWA (see section I of this preamble). In part, these
sections of the CWA authorize EPA to issue standards to address
effluent discharges.
EPA prepared a qualitative and quantitative cost-benefit assessment
of the federal requirements imposed by today's proposed rule. In large
part, the private sector, not other governments, will incur the costs.
Specifically, the costs of this federal mandate are compliance costs to
be borne by the regulated industrial laundry facilities. In addition,
although some States and local governments will incur costs to
implement standards, these costs to governments will not exceed the
thresholds established by UMRA and in general, these standards will
make it easier for POTWs to establish limits on discharges to POTWs.
EPA estimates that the total annualized costs for the private
sector to comply with the federal mandate are $93.9 million (post-tax)/
$136.4 million (pre-tax). The mandate's benefits are primarily in the
areas of reduced health risk and improved water quality. The EA
describes, qualitatively, such benefits. The analysis also quantifies a
portion of the benefits and monetize a subset of these benefits. EPA
estimates that annual monetized benefits would be $2.9 to $10.3
million.
EPA does not believe that there will be any disproportionate
budgetary effects of the rule on any particular areas of the country,
particular types of communities, or particular industry segments. EPA's
basis for this finding is the analysis of economic impacts, which is
summarized in section VII of the preamble and in the EA. A key feature
of the analysis is the estimation of financial impacts for each
facility incurring compliance costs. EPA considered the costs, impacts
and other effects and found no disproportionate budgetary effects on
any specific regions or individual communities. The EA also describes
the rule's effects on the national economy in terms of effects on
productivity, economic growth, and international competitiveness; EPA
found such effects to be minimal.
For each regulatory decision in today's proposal, EPA believes it
has selected the ``least costly, most cost-effective, or least
burdensome alternative'' that achieves the objective of the rule. This
satisfies the section 205 of the UMRA. Some, including members of the
SBREFA panel, have suggested that EPA consider other options including
no regulation or higher thresholds for the small business exclusion and
EPA is soliciting comments on those alternatives. EPA believes,
however, that the proposed option appropriately reflects what is
economically achievable for the reasons elsewhere discussed in this
preamble.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
The proposed industrial laundries pretreatment standards contain no
new information collection activities beyond that which is already
required in 40 CFR Part 403, and therefore, no information collection
request will be submitted to OMB for review in compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Under section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act, the Agency is required to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices,
etc.) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard
bodies. Where available and potentially applicable voluntary consensus
standards are not used by EPA, the Act requires the Agency to provide
Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, an explanation
of the reasons for not using such standards. This section summarizes
EPA's response to the requirements of the NTTAA for the analytical test
methods promulgated as part of today's effluent limitations guidelines
and standards. EPA performed literature searches to identify any
analytical methods from industry, academia, voluntary consensus
standard bodies and other parties that could be used to measure the
analytes in today's proposed rulemaking. The results of this search
formed the basis for EPA's analytical method development and validation
in support of this proposed rulemaking.
EPA's analytical test method development is consistent with the
requirements of the NTTAA. Although the Agency initiated data
collection for these effluent guidelines many years prior to enactment
of the NTTAA, traditionally, analytical test method development has
been analogous to the Act's requirements for consideration and use of
voluntary consensus standards.
The proposed rule would require dischargers to monitor for SGT-HEM,
Copper, Lead, Zinc, Bis (2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate, Ethylbenzene,
Naphthalene, Tetrachloroethene, Toluene, m-Xylene, and o-&p-Xylene.
Except for SGT-HEM and Xylenes, methods for monitoring these pollutants
are specified in tables at 40 CFR Part 136. When available, methods
published by voluntary consensus standards bodies are included in the
list of approved methods in these tables. Specifically, voluntary
consensus standards from the American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) and from the 18th edition of Standard Methods (published jointly
by the American Public Health Association, the American Water Works
Association and the Water Environment Federation) are approved for
Copper, Lead and Zinc. In addition, USGS methods are approved for these
three inorganic pollutants. Voluntary consensus standards from the 18th
edition of Standard Methods are also approved for Bis (2-Ethylhexyl)
Phthalate, Ethylbenzene, Naphthalene, Tetrachloroethene, and Toluene.
For SGT-HEM, EPA is proposing to use EPA Method 1664. This method
was proposed for promulgation in 40 CFR Part 136 on January 23, 1996
(61 FR 1730). Method 1664 was developed by EPA to replace previously
used gravimetric procedures (for determination of oil and grease and
total petroleum hydrocarbons) that employed Freon-113, as part of EPA's
efforts to reduce the dependency on the use of chlorofluorocarbons
pursuant to Title VI of the Clean Air Act. EPA is unaware of the
existence of an appropriate non-Freon method from a voluntary consensus
standards body.
For the Xylenes, EPA proposes to use EPA Methods 1624 and 624 which
are promulgated at 40 CFR Part 136. These analytical methods were used
in data collection activities in support of today's proposed
limitations although the xylenes are not specified as analytes in the
methods. EPA has not identified any methods from a voluntary consensus
standards body that could be used to measure these analytes.
EPA requests comments on the discussion of NTTAA, on the
[[Page 66210]]
consideration of various voluntary consensus standards, and on the
existence of other voluntary consensus standards that EPA may not have
found.
XI. Related Rulemakings
A. Office of Solid Waste (OSW) Activities Related to This Effort
Solvent-contaminated industrial shop towels have been a
longstanding issue within the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) program. As mentioned earlier, a free liquids inspection policy
exists in the industry. The industrial laundry trade association also
has established guidance for industrial laundries and their customers
to use in the management of solvent-contaminated shop towels--foremost
being that the industrial laundry not accept any shop towels bearing
free liquids and their customers use a collection system or other
process to remove any free liquids. OSW is currently collecting data to
better understand the use and management of both disposable and
reusable solvent-contaminated industrial shop towels. The objective of
this range-finding effort is to assist the Agency in determining
whether the Agency's rules and policies should be modified to address
current problems with the regulation of these materials. Questions
being addressed in this study include:
Site Visits
1. What are the demographics of industry using solvents and shop
towels/wipers; i.e., type of industry, size of firm, Material Safety
Data Sheets, type of wipers used, number of wipers used monthly or
annually, range of solvent amounts put on wiper, amount of solvent used
monthly or annually, RCRA regulatory status [Small Quantity Generator
(SQG)/Large Quantity Generator(LQG)], other environmental permits,
removal technology utilized, material disposition (municipal landfill,
laundry, incineration, etc.), etc.
2. What is the variability of solvent amounts placed on shop
towels?
3. What is the variability of solvent remaining on shop towels
immediately after usage and after 18-24 hours? How were shop towels
stored to derive results? What factors explain low evaporation rates?
4. What is the variability of solvents in usage? How often are
``high risk'' solvents used, at what percentage?
5. Does percolation occur during storage? What factors might
influence or explain any percolation seen?
6. What removal technologies were used in the site-visits? What are
their removal efficiencies?
7. How are shop towels managed after usage? Open containers/closed
containers/placed on shelves, etc.
Lab results
8. What are the absorbability rates for different types of shop
towels? What factors explain these findings?
9. What were the removal efficiencies for different types of shop
towels and solvents? What can we conclude in terms of variability or
consistency? What factors might explain these results?
10. What were the evaporation rates we found for different types of
solvents and shop towels? What factors help explain these results?
11. What were the percolation rates we found in our experiments?
What were the experiments we conducted? What factors might explain
results?
Risks
12. What are the relative risks to the air, ground water and
surface water for the solvent constituents? What was the methodology
used to derive these results?
13. Based upon the above analysis, are there solvent constituents
that deserve further analysis to clearly determine whether they pose
little or no risk to human health and the environment? Are there
solvent constituents that we should clearly discourage?
XII. Regulatory Implementation
A. Upset and Bypass Provisions
A ``bypass'' is an intentional diversion of wastestreams from any
portion of a treatment facility in an emergency situation. An ``upset''
is an exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and
temporary noncompliance with technology-based permit effluent
limitations because of factors beyond the reasonable control of the
permittee. EPA's regulations for indirect dischargers concerning
bypasses and upsets are set forth at 40 CFR 403.16 and 403.17.
B. Variances and Modifications
The CWA requires application of the pretreatment standards
established pursuant to sections 304 and 307 to all indirect
dischargers. However, the statute provides for the modification of
these national requirements in a limited number of circumstances.
Moreover, the Agency has established administrative mechanisms to
provide an opportunity of relief from the application of national
pretreatment standards for categories of existing sources.
1. Fundamentally Different Factors (FDFs) Variances
EPA may develop pretreatment standards different from the otherwise
applicable requirements for existing sources if an existing facility is
fundamentally different with respect to factors considered in
establishing the standards applicable to the individual facility. Such
a modification is known as a FDF variance. See 40 CFR 403.13.
Dischargers subject to PSNS are not eligible for an FDF variance.
In the Water Quality Act of 1987, Congress added new section 301(n)
of the Act to authorize modification of the otherwise applicable BAT
effluent limitations or categorical pretreatment standards for existing
sources if a facility is fundamentally different with respect to the
factors specified in 403 (other than costs) from those considered by
EPA in establishing the effluent limitations or pretreatment standards.
Section 301(n), also defined the conditions under which EPA may
establish alternative requirements. Under section 301(n), an
application for approval of FDF variance must be based solely on (1)
information submitted during the rulemaking raising the factors that
are fundamentally different or (2) information the applicant did not
have the opportunity to submit. The alternate limitation or standard
must be no less stringent than justified by the difference and not
result in markedly more adverse non-water quality environmental impacts
than the national limitation or standard.
EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 403, authorizing the Regional
Administrators to establish alternative standards, further detail the
substantive criteria used to evaluate FDF variance requests for
existing dischargers to POTWs. Thus, 40 CFR 403.13(d) identifies six
factors (e.g., volume of process wastewater, age and size of a
discharger's facility) that may be considered in determining if a
facility is fundamentally different. The Agency must determine whether,
on the basis of one or more of these factors, the facility in question
is fundamentally different from the facilities and factors considered
by the EPA in developing the nationally applicable pretreatment
standards. The regulation also lists four other factors (e.g.,
infeasibility of installation within the time allowed or a discharger's
ability to pay) that may not provide a basis for an FDF variance. In
addition, under 40 CFR 403.13(c)(2), a request for limitations less
stringent than the national limitation may be approved only if
compliance with the pretreatment standards would result in either (a) a
removal cost wholly out of proportion to the removal cost considered
during development of the
[[Page 66211]]
standards, or (b) a non-water quality environmental impact (including
energy requirements) fundamentally more adverse than the impact
considered during development of the standards.
The legislative history of section 301(n) underscores the necessity
for the FDF variance applicant to establish eligibility for the
variance. EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 403.13 are explicit in imposing
this burden upon the applicant. The applicant must show that the
factors relating to the discharge controlled by the applicant's permit
that are claimed to be fundamentally different are, in fact,
fundamentally different from those factors considered by the EPA in
establishing the standards. While EPA encourages facilities, or
categories of facilities, that believe they qualify for the FDF
variance to apply for it, EPA also recognizes that the circumstances
under which it can be granted are limited to specific statutory factors
that few applicants have satisfied.
2. Removal Credits
The CWA establishes a discretionary program for POTWs to grant
``removal credits'' to their indirect dischargers. This credit in the
form of a less stringent pretreatment standard, allows an increased
concentration of a pollutant in the flow from the indirect discharger's
facility to the POTW. See 40 CFR 403.7. EPA has promulgated removal
credit regulations as part of its pretreatment regulations. In
addition, currently five of the approximately 1500 authorized
pretreatment programs have the authority to issue removal credits.
Under EPA's pretreatment regulations, the availability of a removal
credit for a particular pollutant is linked to the POTW method of using
or disposing of its sewage sludge. The regulations provide that removal
credits are only available for certain pollutants regulated in EPA's 40
CFR Part 503 sewage sludge regulations (58 FR 9386). The pretreatment
regulations at 40 CFR Part 403 provide that removal credits may be made
potentially available for the following pollutants:
(1) If a POTW applies its sewage sludge to the land for beneficial
uses, disposes of it on surface disposal sites or incinerates it,
removal credits may be available, depending on which use or disposal
method is selected (so long as the POTW complies with the requirements
in Part 503). When sewage sludge is applied to land, removal credits
may be available for ten metals. When sewage sludge is disposed of on a
surface disposal site, removal credits may be available for three
metals. When the sewage sludge is incinerated, removal credits may be
available for seven metals and for 57 organic pollutants (40 CFR
403.7(a)(3)(iv)(A)).
For this proposed rule, removal credits would be available for the
following pollutant parameters being regulated under each of the
criteria discussed: (1) land application--Copper, Lead and Zinc; (2)
surface disposal--none; (3) incineration--in addition to Lead, removal
credits would also be available for Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate,
Ethylbenzene, Tetrachloroethene, and Toluene if the requirements in 40
CFR part 403, Appendix G.I.(1) are met.
(2) In addition, when sewage sludge is used on land or disposed of
on a surface disposal site or incinerated, removal credits may also be
available for additional pollutants so long as the concentration of the
pollutant in sludge does not exceed a concentration level established
in Part 403. When sewage sludge is applied to land, removal credits may
be available for two additional metals and 14 organic pollutants. When
the sewage sludge is disposed of on a surface disposal site, removal
credits may be available for seven additional metals and 13 organic
pollutants. When the sewage sludge is incinerated, removal credits may
be available for three other metals (40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)(iv)(B)).
Under this proposed rule, additional pollutant parameters that
would be available for removal credits are as follows: (1) land
application--none; (2) surface disposal--Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate,
Copper, Lead and Zinc and (3) incineration--Copper, and Zinc.
(3) When a POTW disposes of its sewage sludge in a municipal solid
waste landfill (MSWLF) that meets the criteria of 40 CFR Part 258,
removal credits may be available for any pollutant in the POTW's sewage
sludge (40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)(iv)(C)). Thus, given compliance with the
requirements of EPA's removal credit regulations,1 following
promulgation of the pretreatment standards being proposed today,
removal credits may be authorized for any pollutant subject to
pretreatment standards if the applying POTW disposes of its sewage
sludge in a municipal solid waste landfill that meets the requirements
of 40 CFR Part 258. If the POTW uses or disposes of its sewage sludge
by land application, surface disposal or incineration, removal credits
may be available for the following metal pollutants (depending on the
method of use or disposal): Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Iron,
Lead, Mercury, Molybdenum, Nickel, Selenium and Zinc. Given compliance
with Sec. 403.7, removal credits may be available for the following
organic pollutants (depending on the method of use or disposal) if the
POTW uses or disposes of its sewage sludge: Benzene; 1,1-
Dichloroethane; 1,2-Dibromoethane; Ethylbenzene; Methylene Chloride;
Toluene; Tetrachloroethene; 1,1,1-Trichloroethane; 1,1,2-
Trichloroethane and Trans-1,2-Dichloroethene.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Under 40 CFR 403.7, a POTW is authorized to give removal
credits only under certain conditions. These include applying for,
and obtaining, approval from the Regional Administrator (or Director
of a State NPDES program with an approved pretreatment program), a
showing of consistent pollutant removal and an approved pretreatment
program. See 40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)(I), (ii), and (iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some facilities may be interested in obtaining removal credit
authorization for other pollutants being considered for regulation in
this rulemaking for which removal credit authorization would not
otherwise be available under Part 403. Under Sections 307(b) and 405 of
the CWA, EPA may authorize removal credits only when EPA determines
that, if removal credits are authorized, that the increased discharges
of a pollutant to POTWs resulting from removal credits will not affect
POTW sewage sludge use or disposal adversely. As discussed in the
preamble to amendments to the Part 403 regulations (58 FR 9382-9383),
EPA has interpreted these sections to authorize removal credits for a
pollutant only in one of two circumstances. Removal credits may be
authorized for any categorical pollutant (1) for which EPA has
established a numerical pollutant limit in Part 503; or (2) which EPA
has determined will not threaten human health and the environment when
used or disposed of in sewage sludge. The pollutants described in
paragraphs (1)-(3) above include all those pollutants that EPA either
specifically regulated in Part 503 or evaluated for regulation and
determined would not adversely affect sewage sludge use and disposal.
Consequently, in the case of a pollutant for which EPA did not
perform a risk assessment in developing its Round One sewage sludge
regulations, removal credit for pollutants will only be available when
the Agency determines either a safe level for the pollutant in sewage
sludge or that regulation of the pollutant is unnecessary to protect
public health and the environment from the reasonably anticipated
adverse effects of such a pollutant. 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In the Round One sewage sludge regulation, EPA concluded,
on the basis of risk assessments, that certain pollutants (see
Appendix G to Part 403) did not pose an unreasonable risk to human
health and the environment and did not require the establishment of
sewage sludge pollutant limits. As discussed above, so long as the
concentration of these pollutants in sewage sludge are lower than a
prescribed level, removal credits are authorized for such
pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 66212]]
EPA has concluded that a POTW discharge of a particular pollutant
will not prevent sewage sludge use (or disposal) so long as the POTW is
complying with EPA's Part 503 regulations and so long as the POTW
demonstrates that use or disposal of sewage sludge containing that
pollutant will not adversely affect public health and the environment.
Thus, if the POTW meets these two conditions, a POTW may obtain removal
credit authority for pollutants other than those specifically regulated
in the part 503 regulations. What is necessary for a POTW to
demonstrate that a pollutant will not adversely affect public health
and the environment will depend on the particular pollutant, the use or
disposal means employed by the POTW and the concentration of the
pollutant in the sewage sludge. Thus, depending on the circumstances,
this effort could vary from a complete 14-pathway risk assessment
modeling exercise to a simple demonstration that available scientific
data show that, at the levels observed in the sewage sludge, the
pollutant at issue is not harmful. As part of its initiative to
simplify and improve its regulations, at the present time, EPA is
considering whether to propose changes to its pretreatment regulations
so as to provide for case-by-case removal credit determinations by the
POTWs' permitting authority.
EPA has already begun the process of evaluating several pollutants
for adverse potential to human health and the environment when present
in sewage sludge. In November 1995, pursuant to the terms of the
consent decree in the Gearhart case, the Agency notified the United
States District Court for the District of Oregon that, based on the
information then available at that time, it intended to propose only
two pollutants for regulation in the Round Two sewage sludge
regulations dioxins/dibenzofurans (all monochloro to octochloro
congeners) and polychlorinated biphenyls.
The Round Two sewage sludge regulations are not scheduled for
proposal until December, 1999, and promulgation in December 2001.
However, given the necessary factual showing, as detailed above, EPA
could propose that removal credits should be authorized for identified
pollutants before promulgation of the Round Two sewage sludge
regulations. However, given the Agency's commitment to promulgation of
effluent limitations and guidelines under court-supervised deadlines,
it may not be possible to complete review of removal credit
authorization requests by the time EPA must promulgate these
pretreatment standards.
Appendix A--Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Other Terms Used in This
Notice
Administrator--The Administrator of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Agency--The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Annually--For purposes of the exclusion, annually would mean per
calendar year.
AWQS--Ambient Water Quality Standards are provisions of State or
Federal law that consist of a designated use or uses for the waters
of the United States and water quality criteria for such waters
based upon such uses. Water Quality Standards are designed to
protect health or welfare, enhance the quality of the water and
serve the purposes of the Act (40 CFR 131.3).
BADCT--best available demonstrated control technology, as
described in section 306 of the CWA.
BAT--The best available technology economically achievable, as
described in section 304(b)(2) of the CWA.
BMPs--Best Management Practices--As authorized by section 304(e)
and 402 of the CWA. Gives the Administrator the authority to publish
regulations to control plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge
or waste disposal, and drainage from raw material storage.
BCT--Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology, as
described in section 304(b)(4) of the CWA.
BPT--Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available, as
described in section 304(b)(1) of the CWA.
CAA--Clean Air Act, 33 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
CBI--Confidential Business Information.
CEB--Chemical Emulsion Breaking.
C-E--Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Conventional pollutants--The pollutants identified in section
304(a)(4) of the CWA and the regulations thereunder
(BOD5, total suspended solids, oil and grease, fecal
coliform, and pH).
Cooperative--An enterprise or organization owned by and operated
for the benefit of those using its services. For purposes of this
rule, a laundry serving like facilities owned by and/or operated for
the benefit of those facilities.
CP--Chemical Precipitation.
CWA--Clean Water Act. The Federal Water Pollution Act, 33 U.S.C.
1251 et seq.
DAF--Dissolved Air Flotation.
Daily discharge--The discharge of a pollutant measured during
any calendar day or any 24-hour period.
Direct discharger--A facility that discharges treated or
untreated pollutants into waters of the United States.
Dry cleaning--The cleaning of fabrics using an organic-based
solvent rather than water-based detergent solution.
EA--Economic Assessment.
EIA--Economic Impact Analysis.
Effluent--Wastewater discharges.
Effluent limitation--Any restriction, including schedules of
compliance, established by a State or the Administrator on
quantities, rates, and concentrations of chemical, physical,
biological, and other constituents that are discharged from point
sources into navigable waters, the waters of the contiguous zone, or
the ocean. (CWA Sections 301(b) and 304(b)).
EPA--The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
E.O.--Executive Order.
Facility--A facility is all contiguous property owned, operated,
leased or under the control of the same person, or corporate or
business entity. The contiguous property may be divided by public or
private right-of-way.
FDF--Fundamentally Different Factor--Section 301(n) of the CWA.
This section authorizes modification of the otherwise applicable BAT
effluent limitations or categorical pretreatment standards for
existing sources if a facility is fundamentally different with
respect to the factors specified at 40 CFR 403.13.
FTE--Full-time Equivalent.
HAPs--Hazardous Air Pollutants.
HEM--N-Hexane Extractable Material.
Indirect discharger--A facility that discharges or may discharge
pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works.
IL--Industrial Laundry.
Industrial laundry facility--any facility that launders
industrial textile items from off-site as a business activity.
Either the industrial laundry facility or the off-site customer may
own the industrial laundered textile items. This includes textile
rental companies that perform laundering operations.
Industrial textile items--items such as, but are not limited to:
shop towels, printer towels/rags, furniture towels, rags, mops,
mats, rugs, tool covers, fender covers, dust-control items, gloves,
buffing pads, absorbents, uniforms, filters, and clean room
garments.
IRFA--Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
IRIS--Integrated Risk Information System.
IRS--Internal Revenue Service.
Laundering--washing items with water, including water washing
following dry cleaning.
Linen--items such as sheets, pillow cases, blankets, bath towels
and washcloths, hospital gowns and robes, tablecloths, napkins,
tableskirts, kitchen textile items, continuous roll towels,
laboratory coats, family laundry, executive wear, mattress pads,
incontinence pads, and diapers. This list is intended to be an
inclusive list.
LTA--Long Term Average. For purposes of the pretreatment
standards, average pollutant levels achieved over a period of time
by a facility, subcategory, or technology option. LTAs were used in
developing the standards in today's proposed rule.
MACT--Maximum Achievable Control Technology.
NTTAA--National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
[[Page 66213]]
New Source--``New source'' is defined in section 306 of the CWA
and at 40 CFR 122.12 and 122.29 (b).
Non-conventional pollutants--Pollutants that are neither
conventional pollutants nor priority pollutants listed at 40 CFR
part 401.
Non-detect value--A concentration-based measurement reported
below the sample specific detection limit that can reliably be
measured by the analytical method for the pollutant.
Non-water quality environmental impact--An environmental impact
of a control or treatment technology, other than to surface waters
(including energy requirements).
NPDES--The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
authorized under Section 402 of the CWA. NPDES requires permits for
discharge of pollutants from any point source into waters of the
United States.
NSPS--New Source Performance Standards--Based on BADCT and apply
to all pollutants (conventional, nonconventional, and toxic).
Section 306 of the CWA.
OC--Organics Control.
O&G--Oil and Grease.
OMB--Office of Management and Budget.
Off-Site--``Off-site'' means outside the boundaries of a
facility.
On-site--``On-site'' means within the boundaries of a facility.
OSW--USEPA Office of Solid Waste.
POTW/POTWs--Publicly owned treatment works, as defined at 40 CFR
403.3(o).
Pretreatment standard--A regulation that establishes industrial
wastewater effluent quality required for discharge to a POTW.
Priority pollutants--The pollutants designated by EPA as
priority in 40 CFR part 423, Appendix A.
PSES--Pretreatment standards for existing sources on indirect
discharges, under Section 307 (b) of the CWA.
PSNS--Pretreatment standards for new sources of indirect
discharges, under Section 307(b) and (c) of the CWA.
RCRA--Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (Pub. L. 94-580)
of 1976, as amended.
RFA--Regulatory Flexibility Act.
RREL--Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory.
SBA--Small Business Administration.
SBREFA--Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.
SGT-HEM--Silica Gel Treated N-Hexane Extractable Material.
SIC--Standard Industrial Classification.
Small Business--Businesses with annual revenues less than $10.5
million. This is the higher of the two Small Business Administration
definition of small business for SIC codes 7218 and 7213.
TPH--Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons.
TRSA--Textile Rental Services Association of America.
TSS--Total suspended solids.
TWF--Toxic Weighting Factor.
UMRA--Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (PL 104-4), establishes
requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their
regulatory actions on State, local and tribal governments and the
private sector.
UTSA--Uniform and Textile Service Association.
Variability factor--The daily variability factor is the ratio of
the estimated 99th percentile of the distribution of daily values
divided by the expected value, median or mean, of the distribution
of the daily data. The monthly variability factor is the estimated
95th percentile of the distribution of the monthly averages of the
data divided by the expected value of the monthly averages.
VOC--Volatile Organic Compound.
Water washing--The process of washing laundry items in which
water is the solvent used.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 441
Environmental protection, Industrial laundry discharges, Water
pollution control, Waste treatment and disposal.
Dated: November 7, 1997.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended by adding part
441 as follows:
PART 441--THE INDUSTRIAL LAUNDRIES INDUSTRY POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
General Provisions
Sec.
441.1 General definitions.
441.2 Applicability.
441.21 Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES).
441.22 Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS).
Table 1 to Part 441--Pretreatment Standards
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, and 1361.
General Provisions
Sec. 441.1 General definitions.
In addition to the definitions set forth in 40 CFR Part 401, the
following definitions apply to this part:
(a) Dry cleaning--The cleaning of fabrics using an organic-based
solvent rather than water-based detergent solution.
(b) Off-site--``Off-site'' means outside the boundaries of a
facility.
(c) On-site--``On-site'' means within the boundaries of a facility.
(d) Water washing--The process of washing laundry items in which
water is the solvent used.
Sec. 441.2 Applicability.
(a) Except as stated in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section,
the provisions of this part apply to wastewater discharges from
industrial laundry facilities. An industrial laundries facility is any
facility that launders industrial textile items from off-site as a
business activity (i.e., launders industrial textile items for other
business entities for a fee or through a cooperative arrangement).
Either the industrial laundry facility or the off-site customer may own
the industrial laundered textile items. This definition includes
textile rental companies that perform laundering operations. Laundering
means washing with water, including water washing following dry
cleaning. Industrial textile items include, but are not limited to
industrial: shop towels, printer towels/rags, furniture towels, rags,
mops, mats, rugs, tool covers, fender covers, dust-control items,
gloves, buffing pads, absorbents, uniforms, filters and clean room
garments. If any of these items are used by hotels, hospitals, or
restaurants, they are not industrial items.
(b) The provisions of this part do not apply to discharges from:
on-site laundering at industrial facilities, laundering of industrial
textile items originating from the same business entity, and facilities
that exclusively launder linen items, denim prewash items, new items
(i.e. items directly from textile manufacturers, not yet used for
intended purpose), any other items that come from laundering of hotel,
hospital, or restaurant items or any combination of these items. This
part does apply to hotel, hospital, or restaurant laundering of
industrial textile items. In addition, the provisions of this part do
not apply to discharges from the oil-only treatment of dust mops.
Furthermore, the provisions of this part do not apply to laundering
exclusively through dry cleaning.
(c) By linen items EPA means: sheets, pillow cases, blankets, bath
towels and washcloths, hospital gowns or robes, tablecloths, napkins,
tableskirts, kitchen textile items, continuous roll towels, laboratory
coats, household laundry, executive wear, mattress pads, incontinence
pads, and diapers. This list is an inclusive list.
(d) For facilities covered under the Industrial Laundry definition,
wastewater from all water washing operations is covered, including the
washing of linen items as long as these items do not constitute 100
percent of the items washed.
(e) The provisions of this part do not apply to industrial laundry
facilities that as of [the effective date of the final rule] always
launder less than one million pounds of incoming laundry per year and
launder less than 255,000 pounds of shop and/or printer towels/rags per
year. By per year, EPA means on a calendar year basis for the
industrial laundry facility. If any excluded facility launders one
million pounds or more of incoming laundry per year or 255,000 pounds
or more of shop and/or printer towels/rags per
[[Page 66214]]
year, it will no longer be excluded from the standards.
Sec. 441.21 Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES).
Pursuant to the CWA section 307(b)(1), indirect dischargers are
required to comply with pretreatment standards for existing sources by
three years of [the effective date of the final rule]. For purposes of
this part, indirect dischargers must comply with this part by three
years after [the date of publication of the final rule].
Sec. 441.22 Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any new source subject to this
part that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works
must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and achieve as pretreatment standards
for new sources (PSNS) the same standards as those specified in
Sec. 441.21 for existing sources (PSES).
Table 1 to Part 441--Pretreatment Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CP--Daily
Pollutant parameter maximum (mg/
L)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bis (2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate............................... 0.13
Ethylbenzene............................................... 1.64
Naphthalene................................................ 0.23
Tetrachloroethene.......................................... 1.71
Toluene.................................................... 2.76
m-Xylene................................................... 1.33
o&p-Xylene................................................. 0.95
Copper..................................................... 0.24
Lead....................................................... 0.27
Zinc....................................................... 0.61
SGT-HEM \1\................................................ 27.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Monthly average limitation for SGT-HEM under CP option is 15.4 mg/L.
[FR Doc. 97-30240 Filed 12-16-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
