On December 17, 1997, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA" or "the Agency") proposed pretreatment standards for the industrial laundries ("IL") point source category that are not legally, technically, or economically supportable. The notice of data availability ("NODA") issued by the Agency for this rulemaking on December 23, 1998, does not remedy these defects or provide justification for the issuance of national categorical standards for the IL industry.

The NODA presents a viable and environmentally beneficial alternative to technology-based national categorical standards for the IL industry: the voluntary laundry industry multi-media environmental improvement and pollution prevention program ("Pollution Prevention Program") proposed by the Uniform & Textile Service Association ("UTSA") and Textile Rental Services Association ("TRSA"). The Pollution Prevention Program will supplement the already effective regulation of the IL industry by local pretreatment authorities under the National Pretreatment Program and will provide environmental benefits that will exceed those from EPA's proposed options for best available technology economically achievable ("BAT").

EPA Has Not Demonstrated That Pollutants In IL Wastewater Pass Through

EPA's technical justifications for the proposed rule – that it will eliminate pass through, interference, and other forms of inhibition caused by pollutants discharged by ILs to publicly owned treatment works ("POTWs") – are erroneous and not supported by proper analysis. EPA has provided no new data challenging the comments submitted on the original proposal by UTSA and TRSA ("the March 1998 Comments") demonstrating that pollutants in IL wastewater do not pass through, interfere with, or inhibit the treatment works or sludge disposal options of POTWs. In addition, the Agency continues to distort its traditional methodology for assessing pass through (the percent removal comparison approach) and rely upon an illogical methodology that is contrary to Congress' intent for protecting the waters of the United States.

EPA's treatment of soluble volatile organic compounds in IL wastewater is flawed and inconsistent with the approach taken by EPA in promulgating effluent limitation guidelines for the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry.

EPA no longer considers total petroleum hydrocarbons ("TPH") to be a pollutant of concern ("POC") and has indicated that it proposes only to regulate TPH as an indicator or surrogate for other POCs, specifically a number of n-alkanes. Because POTWs treat n-alkanes to below detectable limits and the Agency cannot demonstrate that these pollutants are treated more effectively by the proposed BAT (chemical precipitation ("CP") or dissolved air flotation ("DAF") systems), neither TPH nor these other pollutants can be used to demonstrate pass through.

Despite its additional data collection efforts and comments in the NODA, EPA still has not demonstrated that CP and DAF technology can achieve the proposed limits. All of the Agency's data show that CP and DAF units need to be supplemented with other treatment technologies in order to attain the proposed limits. Moreover, flaws in EPA's new sample data analyses resulted in misleadingly high removal rates for TPH. EPA has failed to establish that the wastewater at facilities from which it has collected data is representative of industry wastewater, and, accordingly, that the proposed limits are achievable across the industry. This fundamental failure stems in part from the Agency's failure to perform an adequate subcategorization analysis of the industry.

The Proposed Rule Is Dramatically Cost-Ineffective

EPA's own revised analysis demonstrates that the Agency cannot cost-effectively regulate the IL industry and that the proposed rule is even less cost-effective than originally estimated. The dramatic cost-ineffectiveness of the proposed rule becomes even more clear, when EPA's analysis is corrected to reflect: (1) revised industry baseline pollutant loadings; (2) a more accurate toxic weighting factor for TPH; and (3) actual POTW removal rates for VOCs and TPH. EPA is not justified in promulgating such a cost-ineffective regulation. Instead, EPA should accept the "no ELG regulation" option while recognizing the benefits afforded by the industry's Pollution Prevention Program.

EPA Continues To Understate The Cost

In the NODA, there is no indication that the Agency has revised its economic analyses to account for the numerous errors and improper assumptions identified by UTSA/TRSA in the March 1998 Comments. Accordingly, EPA continues to underestimate both the compliance costs and the magnitude of the adverse economic impacts of the proposed rule for the IL industry. IL industry data show that the Agency's original estimate of baseline industry closures is grossly inaccurate, highlighting the fundamental inaccuracy of EPA's economic impact model as applied in this rulemaking. EPA also continues to understate compliance costs for a number of reasons, such as by erroneously assuming that facilities with treatment in place will not incur additional costs to comply with the proposed rule and failing to account for space limitations. Actual data regarding the costs of installing and operating CP and DAF systems show that the Agency has significantly underestimated compliance costs.

The Towel Only Option Is Not A Proper Regulatory Option

EPA has not provided adequate opportunity for meaningful and informed comment on the Towel Only option, including the Agency's failure to provide required background documentation and analyses. Moreover, the Towel Only option is not technologically supportable. EPA erroneously based the Towel Only limits solely on an analysis of the treatment of "heavy-soil" wastewater, rather than towel only wastewater, and it failed to consider the variability of "light soil" waste streams that may contain pollutant levels higher than the proposed limits. In addition, the wastewater from the single sample facility from which EPA collected data to establish the proposed limits is not representative of industry wastewater, and the Agency improperly manipulated the DAF data collected at this facility. EPA has failed to demonstrate that either DAF or CP systems are capable of achieving the Towel Only limits.

EPA's Regulatory Options Have No Net Environmental Benefit

EPA's regulatory options will have a negative net environmental impact. As demonstrated by the Agency's own cost-effectiveness analysis, the pollutant removals of the proposed regulatory options will provide minimal, if any, benefits to the environment. EPA has not demonstrated that any minimal pollutant removals resulting from additional regulation would result in any water quality or sludge disposal benefits. The non-water quality impacts, including increased energy usage, of the proposed rule more than cancel out any potential benefits. Significantly, the Agency's regulatory options simply would transfer pollutants in IL wastewater to treatment sludge that ultimately is land-disposed. POTW secondary biological treatment, on the other hand, destroys the organic compounds in IL wastewater and creates less sludge per gallon of IL wastewater treated. Furthermore, the proposed rule would encourage the use of substitutes, such as disposable rags, that are not environmentally beneficial.

In light of the negative net environmental impact of the Agency's technology-based regulatory options, EPA should adopt the "no ELG regulation" option as final Agency action in this rulemaking. If EPA believes that IL discharges require some form of action then EPA should recognize that the benefits of the Pollution Prevention Program offered by the IL industry would be superior to the Agency's proposed BAT options. The Pollution Prevention Program provides significant environmental benefits, focusing on resource conservation and source reduction as opposed to the cross-media transfer of pollutants. This approach is more consistent with the mandates of the Pollution Prevention Act than the Agency's proposed ELG rule. In addition, the Pollution Prevention Program promises more substantial, and cost-effective, water quality improvements and pollutant removals than EPA's proposed regulation. Given the environmental superiority of the industry program and the fact that the industry already is effectively regulated under the National Pretreatment Program, EPA clearly is justified in pursuing this alternative to national categorical standards.