Final Report
of the
SBREFA Small Business Advocacy Review Panel
on EPA's Planned Proposed Rule for
Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and Pretreatment Standards
for the
Industrial Laundries Point Source Category
Augusts, 1997
-------
-------
AUG -8 1997
Ms. Carol iM. Browner
Administrator
United States Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Administrator Browner:
Enclosed for your consideration is the Report of the Small Business Advocacy Review-
Panel convened for EPA's proposed rulemaking entitled "Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Pretreatment Standards for the Industrial Laundries Point Source Category." These
proposed regulations arc currently being developed by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) under Clear Vk jtcr Act sections 304 and 307. They will control the discharge of
pollutants tha! p-i^- trirojjrri or interfere with the operation of publicly owned treatment works
(POTWs) b> cs'.jr-.;sh:r.^ {or the first time, pretreatment standards for industrial laundries.
The Panel *as comencd on June 6, 1997. by EPA's Small Business Advocacy
Chairperson ( Thorra^ 1. Kelh ) under Section 609(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as
amended by the Srr.a;. Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA). In
addition to its chairperson, the Panel consists of Sally Katzen, Administrator of the Office of
Management and Budget's (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs; Jere W.
Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SB A); and Tudor
Davies, Director of the Office of Science and Technology in EPA's Office of Water.
It is important to note that the Panel's findings and discussion are based on the
information available at the time this report was drafted. EPA is continuing to conduct analyses
relevant to the proposed rule, and additional information may be developed or obtained during
the remainder of the rule development process and from public comment on the proposed rule.
Any options the Panel identifies for reducing the rule's regulatory impact on small entities may
require further analysis and/or data collection to ensure that the options are practicable,
enforceable, environmentally sound and consistent with the Clean Water Act.
Summary of Small Entity Outreach
The proposed pretreatment standards for industrial laundries would apply to facilities that
launder industrial textile items from off site as a business activity (i.e., launder industrial textiles
items for other business entities for a fee or through a cooperative arrangement), unless they are
covered by one of the specific exclusions discussed below.
Industrial textile items include, but are not limited to: shop towels, printer towels,
furniture towels, rags, mops, mats, rugs, tool covers, fender covers, dust-control items, gloves,
buffing pads, absorbents, uniforms, filters and clean room garments. This rule would not apply
to laundering exclusively through dry cleaning; laundering exclusively of linen items (such as
sheets or blankets), denim prewash or other new items; oil-only treatment of mops; or to on-site
laundering at industrial facilities (e.g., laundering of industrial textile items originating from the
-------
same business entity).
Since the inception of this project in 1992. EPA has solicited input from the industry,
other federal agencies, the States, municipalities, and the environmental community to ensure the
quality of information, understand potential implementation issues, and explore regulatory
alternatives. EPA has performed over 35 site visits to industrial laundry facilities, including
small businesses, and has participated in numerous meetings, seminars and workshops that
included substantial small business representation. A more complete summary of EPA's
outreach activities is contained in the final Panel report.
In Januan o! thi> \car. EPA decided that it would convene a Small Business Advocacy
Review Panel for this proposal due to the large number of small businesses potentially affected
by the regulation Jr. F cf»ruar>. seven small entity representatives (SERs) were identified by EPA
to formally ad\ isc tne Kinci i>n this proposed rulemaking. Throughout the development of the
proposed rule. L P \ h-i- . r. \ i •! \ c«i these SERs in many aspects of regulatory development from
questionnaire dcv,:r. t. iJcr.titkation of regulatory options and compliance issues. An additional
SER identified K tnc Mi -x Chief Counsel for Advocacy and one identified through a public
meeting in March *err irx'.uJed in recent outreach activities directed toward reviewing the
projected impacts. >•: tr.c pr^P0^ on small businesses and advising the Pane! on regulatory
alternatives to mmimi/c these impacts. The SERs were sent extensive background materials
about the industrial laundries industry and the proposed regulation. A meeting for the SERs was
held on April 15, 19*>7. to discuss the background materials and provide an opportunity to submit
initial comments. Specific times were set aside during their eleven week review and comment
period to answer questions and provide clarification as needed. Additional information that was
requested by the Panel was also provided to the SERs in early June. They were given another
opportunity to provide their comments directly to Panel members during a conference call on
June 19, 1997. At the request of the Panel, EPA then performed additional analysis of regulatory
alternatives and provided this analysis to the SERs for comment on June 27,1997.
Altogether, six SERs provided written comments to the Panel. The full Panel Report lists
the SERs; summarizes their comments, oral and written; and appends their written comments and
the materials provided to the SERs. In light of these comments, the Panel considered the
regulatory flexibility issues specified by RFA/ SBREFA and developed the findings and
discussion summarized below.
Panel Findings and Discussion
Under the RFA, the Panel is to consider four regulatory flexibility issues related to the
preparation of an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) to determine potential impact of
the rule on small entities: (1) the type and number of small entities to which the rule will apply;
(2) record keeping, reporting and other compliance requirements applicable to those small
entities; (3) the rule's interaction with other Federal rules; and (4) regulatory alternatives that
would minimize the impact on small entities consistent with the stated objectives of the statute
-------
authorizing the rule. The Panel's findings and discussion with respect to each of these issues are
summarized below.
Tvpe and Number of Affected Small Entities. As indicated above, the types of small
entities to which the rule would apply include small entities that launder industrial textile items
from off site as a business activity. Based upon a survey of the industry. EPA anticipates that an
estimated 903 firms, representing approximately 1,747 facilities are involved in the commercial
laundering of industrial textile items. Of these 903 firms, 837 (93%) are small businesses under
SBA's small business definition for this industry. These 837 small firms operate 900 facilities.
SBA7s size standards define "small business" for SIC 7218 and 7213 as firms with less than
$10.0 and $10.5 million in annual revenues, respectively. EPA's IRFA for the industrial
laundries regulation uses the higher of these two revenue thresholds.
EPA examined possible exclusions from the regulation to eliminate significant and
disproportionate adverse economic impact on the smallest facilities (in terms of production and
processing of heavily contaminated textiles) without compromising environmental benefits, and
suggested an exclusion for facilities with less than I million pounds of total production and less
than 255,000 pounds of "heavy77 items (shop/printer towels) annually. Under this option, 141 of
the 1.747 facilities, accounting for about 2% of the pollutant removals that would be achieved
without an exclusion, would be exempted. An estimated 69 small firms would still incur
compliance costs exceeding three percent of revenues (one of the criteria used by EPA in its
small entity impact assessment), and 33 individual facilities affiliated with small firms would
still be projected to close. SERs generally favored such an exclusion, but recommended that it
apply to a larger number of facilities. The SERs also expressed concern about increased
competition as a result of the rule from on-site laundries (e.g., self-laundering by industrial
facilities of their own textile items) and disposable items, neither of which is covered by the
proposed rule. The Panel notes that EPA generally regulates on-site laundries as part of the
facility-wide effluent guidelines of the industries that operate them, and disposable items under
its solid waste program. At the same time, the Panel agrees that the existence of these
alternatives contributes to the need to consider regulatory relief for those small facilities that are
contributing relatively little of the total pollutant loadings and can least afford expensive new
treatment technology.
Record keeping. Reporting and other Compliance Requirements. The proposed rule
contains no specific record keeping or reporting requirements. Monitoring for compliance with
the limitations being established on eleven pollutant parameters will be determined under
existing Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 403.
Interaction with Other Federal Rules. The Panel received comments that the proposed
rule may impose or involve new Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Superfund
and Clean Air Act liabilities, compliance costs, and burden for laundries. The Office of Solid
Waste (OSW) is currently examining the use of shop towels and the disposal of "disposable"
shop towels for potential regulation as a hazardous waste under RCRA. The Panel recommends
-------
that any new requirements imposed on customers of laundries as a result of this proposed rule
and the OSW effort be coordinated.
Regulatory Alternatives. The Panel received comments supporting the exclusion of small
industrial laundries (using various definitions of small), as well as some suggesting that no
further regulation of the industry is needed because it is already subject to oversight by local
POTWs. During the course of the Panel discussions. EPA evaluated various small business
exclusion options, including its preferred option based on 1 million pounds of total production
and 255,000 pounds of shop/printer towel production annually. In light of the range of predicted
economic and environmental effects, and concerns that EPA may have overestimated pollutant
loadings from and underestimated economic impact on small businesses (see report for more
detail), the Panel discussed several production based exclusion options with higher thresholds
than the one initially suggested by EPA. In discussing these options the Panel considered, among
other factors, the total pollutant loadings from the industry, the cost effectiveness of pollutant
removals, and the fact that all facilities are indirect dischargers and thus already potentially
subject to local limits set by POTWs. Throughout the Panel discussions, EPA maintained that
the 1 million/255,000 pound combination was the most appropriate for the proposed rule based
upon analysis to date. EPA agreed with other Panel members that exclusion options based upon
higher production thresholds are worthy of serious consideration, but expressed concerns that
further analyses might not be completed in time for consideration in advance of proposal, given
its Court ordered deadline of September 30,1997. The Panel thus recommends that EPA
summarize its analysis of alternative exclusion options in the preamble to the proposed rule and
solicit comment on a range of alternative small business exclusions, specifically including total
production limits of from 3 to 5 million pounds annually and "heavy" (or shop/printer towel)
production limits of from 250,000 to 500,000 pounds. The Panel also recommends that EPA
complete analyses evaluating five specific additional small business exclusion options (described
in the report) and other appropriate options for future consideration in the regulatory
development process. The Panel further recommends that EPA solicit comment on the option of
not regulating all or part of this industry.
. Finally, the Panel report discusses several methodological issues involved in the
determination of economic impacts on small businesses. SBA and OMB recommend that EPA
consider additional or alternative methodologies for projecting facility closures, for determining
facility cash flow, and for evaluating the full impacts of the regulation on facilities that appear
not to be profitable even without the additional compliance costs imposed by the regulation.
EPA maintains that its current analysis is sound, but agrees to explore these issues further. It also
plans to consider alternate calculations of compliance costs, including the use of alternate interest
rates and amortization periods, and will modify analytical assumptions, as appropriate, based
upon data received subsequent to proposal.
-------
In addition to the above package of regulatory alternatives, the Panel believes EPA should
carefully consider all comments received during this outreach process on these and other issues
of concern to small entities. A full discussion of comments received and Panel recommendations
are included in the final report.
Sincerelv.
Thomas E. Kelly, Chair v .
Small Business Advocacy
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Sally Katzen, Administrator
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
Office of Management and Budget
Jere W. Glover
Chief Counsel for Advocacy
U.S. Small Business Administration
Tudor T. Davies, Director
Office of Science and Technology
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Enclosure
-------
-------
Report of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel
on
EPA's Planned Proposed Rule
for
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards
for
The Industrial Laundries Point Source Category
INTRODUCTION
This report is presented by the Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel
convened for the rulemaking entitled "Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Pretreatment
Standards for the Industrial Laundries Point Source Category" that the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is currently developing. The Panel was convened by EPA's Small
Business Advocacy Chairperson under Section 609(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA). In
addition to its chairperson, the Panel consists of the Director of the Office of Science and
Technology within EPA's Office of Water, the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
The purpose of the Panel is to collect the advice and recommendations of representatives
of small entities that will be affected by the rule and to report on those comments and the Panel's
findings as to issues related to the key elements of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA)
under Section 603 of the RFA. The elements of an IRFA are:
The number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply.
Projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the proposed
rule, including the classes of small entities which will be subjected to the requirements
and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record.
Other relevant Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed
rule.
Any significant 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.
Once completed, the Panel report is provided to the agency issuing the proposed rule and is
included in the rulemaking record. In light of the Panel report, the agency will consider changes
to the proposed rule or the IRFA for the proposed rule, where appropriate.
This report by the Panel for the Industrial Laundries proposed rule includes a summary of
the advice and recommendations received from each of the small entity representatives identified
for purposes of the panel process. Written comments submitted by the representatives are
provided in Attachment 1 to the report. The report also presents the Panel's findings and a
discussion of issues related to the elements of an IRFA identified above.
-------
BACKGROUND
The objective of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is to "restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." EPA is developing pretreatment
standards for existing and new industrial laundries (PSES and PSNS) to limit the discharge of
pollutants into waters of the United States and Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs).
EPA defines industrial laundries as certain facilities that launder industrial textile items
from off site as a business activity (i.e., launder industrial textile items for other business entities
for a fee or through a cooperative arrangement). Laundering means washing with water,
including water washing following dry cleaning. This rule would not apply to laundering
exclusively through dry cleaning. Industrial textile items include, but are not limited to: shop
towels, printer towels, furniture towels, rags, mops, mats, rugs, tool covers, fender covers, dust-
control items, gloves, buffing pads, absorbents, uniforms, filters and clean room garments.
For facilities covered under the industrial laundry definition, wastewater from all water
washing operations would be covered. This would include wastewater from washing linen items
except at facilities that wash only linens, since the proposed rule would exclude such facilities.
Linen items are specifically defined in the following list: sheets, pillow cases, blankets, bath
towels and washcloths, hospital gowns and robes, tablecloths, napkins, table skirts, kitchen
textile items, continuous roll towels, laboratory coats, family laundry, executive wear, mattress
pads, incontinence pads, and diapers.
Additionally, EPA does not plan to propose to regulate wastewater at facilities that
exclusively launder denim prewash, new items (i.e., items directly from textile manufacturers,
not yet used for intended purpose), any other items that come from hospitals, hotels, or
restaurants or any combination of linen, denim prewash, or new items. This proposed rule would
not apply to the discharges from oil-only treatment of mops. Also, the proposed rule would not
apply to on-site laundering at industrial facilities of industrial textile items originating from the
same business entity.
EPA found that certain wastestreams are responsible for the vast majority of priority
pollutant loadings. EPA would like to identify these "heavy" wastestreams and structure the
regulation to focus on them.1 For the analysis conducted to date, EPA has been able to identify
two items, shop and printer towels, that can be characterized consistently as "heavy" in terms of
pollutant loadings. Thus, in some of EPA's analysis, these two items were used to define
exclusions (identified throughout this report as shop/printer towels). These two items, however,
are not the only items that generate a large amount of the priority pollutant loadings discharged
'Specifically, the production-based exclusion would be limited to facilities with less than
a defined amount (in pounds per year) of production of shop/printer towels.
-------
by the industry, and an expanded list of five items was used in other exclusion scenarios
(identified as "heavy" in the table on page 7).
In the early stages of economic analysis for this proposed regulation, EPA divided the
industry into segments by annual revenue to look at various financial impacts and evaluate if
small facilities may be disproportionately affected. EPA relied on a set of economic assumptions
and on information obtained from the industry survey. EPA found that one revenue group,
facilities with less than $1 million a year in revenues, was the source of more than 50 percent of
the projected facility closures under most regulatory options, even though those facilities made
up less than 10 percent of the facilities in the closure analysis.. EPA determined that
approximately 29 percent of these low-revenue facilities might close as a result of the proposed
rule. Because of the disproportionate impact on this subset of small facilities (most of which are
single-facility firms), EPA investigated a number of options to minimize these impacts and
tentatively selected one, exclusion of facilities with less than 1 million pounds of total production
annually and less than 255,000 pounds of shop/printer towels (see below). EPA's evaluation of
whether or not the proposed rule would have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities and the decision to convene a SBAR Panel were based upon that recommended
exclusion. This evaluation considered a variety of economic measures at both the firm and
facility level.
PROFILE OF THE INDUSTRY
EPA conducted a survey of the industrial laundries industry, using a detailed
questionnaire that gathered technical, economic and financial data on potentially affected firms
and facilities. This survey was conducted under the authority of Section 308 of the Clean Water
Act and provides the data for EPA's profile of the industry, which is summarized below.
EPA estimates that the industry consists of approximately 1,747 facilities. Facilities in
this industry are in all 50 states and most are in urban areas. These facilities are owned by an
estimated 903 firms, 92 percent of which own only one facility. Of the 903 firms, 837 (93%) are
small businesses under SBA's definition for this industry. These 837 small firms operate 900
facilities. SBA's size standards define "small business" for SIC 7218 and 7213 as firms with less
than $10.0 and $10.5 million in annual revenues, respectively. EPA's IRFA for the industrial
laundries regulation uses the higher of these two revenue thresholds.
In addition to revenues, there are at least three other ways to categorize industrial
laundries by size. These are according to:
• The types and volume of items they clean,
• The amount of wastewater they generate, and
• The number of people they employ.
-------
Although the industrial laundries industry includes many single-facility firms, there are
also large corporations that operate many facilities nationwide. Employment ranges from one or
two employees at a single-facility firm to hundreds of employees at large, multi-facility
corporations. Annual laundry production per facility ranges from 107,000 to 47,300,000 pounds.
Annual revenues average $4.3 million per facility, with facilities owned by multi-facility firms
averaging about $5.0 million and single-facility firms averaging about $3.4 million.
APPLICABLE "SMALL BUSINESS" DEFINITIONS
SBA's size standards rely on the North American Industry Classifications System
(NAICS) to describe the industry. The predominant NAICS codes for industrial laundries are
812391 and 812331, which correspond to the old Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes
Industrial Launders 7218 and Linen Supply 7213. SBA's size standards define "small business"
for both SIC 7218 and 7213 as firms with less than $10.0 and $10.5 million in annual revenues,
respectively. EPA's IRFA for the industrial laundries regulation relies on the higher of the two
definitions.
SUMMARY OF OUTREACH ACTIVITIES
Outreach to the regulated community is an important part of regulatory development.
EPA has actively involved stakeholders in the development of this rule in order to ensure the
quality of information, identify and understand potential implementation and compliance issues,
and explore regulatory alternatives. EPA has performed over 35 site visits to industrial laundry
facilities and has participated in numerous meetings, seminars and workshops that included
substantial small business representation. EPA also conducted a survey of the industry and
received completed detailed questionnaires from 193 facilities, the vast majority of which are
operated by small businesses. Since this rulemaking effort began in 1992, EPA has involved the
two major trade associations (Textile Rental Service Association of America and the Uniform
and Textile Service Association) and representatives of several small businesses in a variety of
activities from questionnaire development to identification of regulatory options and compliance
issues.
SUMMARY OF SBREFA OUTREACH
As part of its SBREFA outreach, EPA tentatively identified 7 small entity representatives
(SERs) "for the purpose of obtaining advice and recommendations ... about the potential
impacts of the proposed rule;" (SBREFA, § 244(b)(2)) and provided the following list to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in February of 1997:
SERs
Mr. David Dunlap
Mr. David Trimble
Company or Trade Association
Uniform, and Textile Service Association
Textile Rental Service Association of America
-------
SERs
Mr. John Williamson
Mr. Jerry Blucher
Mr. Jim Vaudreuil
Ms. Marcia Kinter
Ms. Mary Scalco
Company or Trade Association
Milliken and Company
Industrial Towel Service, Inc
Huebsch Linen and Uniform
Screen Printing and Graphic Imaging Association
International
International Fabricare Institute
In March of I4lj~. two additional SERs were identified, the first through a public meeting
on the proposed rule onJ the other by the Chief Counsel:
SER>
Company or Trade Association
Mr. Gene Leonard
I Rtte-Wav Laundrv & Drv Cleaners, Inc
Mr. Douglas Grccr.nuu'- I National Automobile Dealers Association
The Panel's subsequent outreach to those 9 SERs consisted of the following:
• EPA sent background materials about the industrial laundries industry to the SERs
on February 20, 1997.
• EPA held a SER meeting to discuss the background materials and to address any
questions they might have on April 15, 1997.
• Deadline for SER comments on the initial materials was May 12, 1997.
• EPA provided additional information on projected impacts and regulatory options
to the SERs on June 4,1997.
• EPA held a SER conference call on June 11, 1997 to address any questions on the
June 4th information.
• The Panel held a SER conference call on June 19, 1997, to obtain additional input.
The conference call summary is Attachment 2 to this report.
• EPA sent Panel material on additional small business exclusion options to the
SERs on June 27,1997.
• SERs provided additional written comments through July 9,1997.
EPA requested information from the SERs about each of the areas specifically mentioned
in the RFA as amended by SBREFA:
• The number of small entities to which the proposed rule would apply.
• Projected reporting, record keeping, and other compliance requirements of the
proposed rule, including the classes of small entities which would be subject to
-------
the requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of
the report or record.
• Other relevant Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the
proposed rule,
• Any significant 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.
Of the nine representatives, six responded to EPA's request for comments. The majority
of comments did not specifically address all of the issues presented above but tended to focus on
the issue of significant alternatives. Most of the SERs focused their comments on suggesting
small business exclusions from the standards.
In the material initially presented to SERs for comment, EPA discussed four possible
exclusions to minimize impacts on small businesses: facilities with under $1 million in annual
revenues, facilities with fewer than 30 employees, facilities with less than 2.65 million gallons
per year in flow, and facilities processing fewer than 1 million pounds of laundry annually.
EPA expressed a preference for an exclusion based on pounds processed because EPA's
modeling showed it to be effective in reducing small business impacts (see discussion below) and
it would be relatively easy to implement. EPA subsequently provided the SERs with an
evaluation of various production-based regulatory exclusions that included an analysis of
economic impacts in terms of facility closures, costs to revenues, and costs to profits, and of
environmental impacts in terms of excluded pollutant removals. That information is presented
on the next page.2
EPA initially suggested a 1 million pound annual production exclusion. In response to
concerns raised at a public meeting, EPA subsequently examined the types of laundry processed
by these potentially excluded facilities to ensure that they were not processing large quantities of
heavily contaminated laundry (thus discharging larger pollutant loadings than other regulated
laundries). EPA then determined that limiting the exclusion to those facilities processing less
than 255,000 pounds of shop/printer towels would not change the number of projected plant
closures but would ensure that the wastestreams with the highest pollutant loadings are
adequately controlled.
EPA is thus currently considering an exclusion for facilities with less than 1 million
pounds of total production per year and less than 255,000 pounds of shop/printer towel
production. This exclusion balances three major concerns: that disproportionate small business
impacts be minimized, that the pollutant reduction benefits of the proposal not be lost, and that
the number of excluded facilities be small in order to minimize competitive impacts in a local
market. It would eliminate about half of the 71 facility closures projected to result from the rule,
2This information was also provided to the Panel members on June 27,1997.
6
-------
Ml
«
1
o
fr
a • «
I 11
11
I T
u (2 5
Ml
1113
* # * #
? ? 3 3
• s1n n i
^(•"^"""•^rK^gi *•* <^ v a •• « v -> a "
*^rtw n* O* *• J^
II
,i 1
s s a s
S 3 5 5' 8 5 S 5 S
I
S S S I ; g § S
§£$£i?ss
5 = = S ^ 2 S 2'
S S
as
'
O. .
i
1 Is'
f sr r?
I ~
t
-
| -a | § s 2-
I s a i i i
— JL_J4 rim
1 §
Sf 2'
vovvvvvvlvvv
El
81
S
5!
i
I
*! I
j
J 1
II I
tj 3
iii
, M
^ = rt
i IS
t i
-------
but would exclude only about 2% of the projected pollutant loading reductions, and would
exclude less than 8% of the covered facilities. A higher production cutoff (at 5 million pounds of
production per year) would be needed to eliminate most of the remaining closures; however, this
exclusion option would sacrifice over one third of the potential pollutant loading reductions,
which EPA considers unacceptable.
SUMMARY OF INPUT FROM SMALL ENTITY REPRESENTATIVES
General Comments
In general. SERs expressed concern that the proposed rule could well have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities, including not only industrial laundries
themselves, but their small business customers.
James F. Vaudreuil of Huebsch Services discussed local pretreatment requirements his
company has been required to meet for the past 10 years. Some of his competitors are not
required by their local POTW to pretreat their industrial laundry wastewater. He supports a
national standard to "level the playing field." He expressed concern that the standards should be
"reasonable," since unreasonable standards would result in additional costs that would place
reusable textiles at a distinct disadvantage compared with disposables. He was also concerned
that some firms that process health care or linens could be able to use dilution to avoid
pretreatment, and he wanted to know how EPA would enforce pretreatment standards.
Gene Leonard, President of Rite-Way Laundry and Dry Cleaners, Inc, gave a brief history
of the market fluctuation in the industrial laundry industry. He stated that the proposed rule has
the potential to eliminate the remaining few small laundries in the United States.
Douglas Greenhaus of the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) suggested
that the rule would include or involve new RCRA, Superfund, and Clean Air Act liabilities,
compliance costs, and burden for laundries.
David Dunlap from the Uniform & Textile Service Association (UTS A), stated that his
trade association has had very little access to information that EPA and others would use to make
decisions relative to this regulation's effect on small businesses. Because of the lack of data, he
posed several questions that he hopes will encourage further investigation. He asked for
pollutant discharge limits. (EPA explained b subsequent meetings that the limits were not yet
calculated.) He also expressed concern that UTSA did not have enough time to poll its
membership and committees to determine its final position on a small business exclusion for the
proposed rule.
David Trimble of the Textile Rental Services Association of America (TRSA) expressed
a concern about lack of data to evaluate the effect of the rule and of the exclusion for facilities
with less than 1 million pounds per year of production, which EPA is considering. He
-------
recommended that EPA provide commenters with information on how this exemption threshold
was derived.
Impacts on Customers
David Dunlap noted that the SBREFA review panel should not just consider small
laundries but also the many small businesses (including printers, food establishments, health
services, contractors, manufacturers, retail sales, and automobile repair shops) that launderers
service. Laundries touch the entire business community and thus any effects that categorical
standards have on the laundry industry may be felt by small businesses in other industries as well.
Marcia Y. Kinter from the Screenprinting & Graphic Imaging Association International
(SGIA), noted that their membership is not composed of industrial laundry facilities; therefore,
the initial impact of this new regulation would be minimal on their industry. The association's
concern is that the regulation will indirectly affect the printing industry due to its use of shop
towels. Provisions regarding ''best management practices'" for shop towels or any type of
language indicating the acceptance state of used shop towels should not be included in the
industrial laundries proposal.
Douglas Greenhaus (NADA) expressed concern that the rule would result in costly new
pretreatment technologies, the cost of which would be passed on to the laundries' customers. He
also noted that adoption of pollution prevention strategies may require laundry customers to
remove contaminants from materials prior to sending them to a laundry facility, resulting in
economic impacts on small business customers.
Reporting. Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements
David Dunlap (UTSA) stated that categorical standards are just another administrative
and bureaucratic burden adding costs to a small business' bottom line.
Gene Leonard (Rite-Way) noted that he would incur the increased cost of hiring a person
to oversee operations.
David Trimble (TRSA) stated that many small businesses lack the skills and resources to.
comply with additional record keeping and reporting requirements that they have not been
subject to in the past.
Interaction with other Federal Rules
David Duniap (UTSA) stated that all laundries are indirect dischargers and thus are
already burdened by complying with the national pretreatment program and local pretreatment
-------
limits. He believes categorical standards would be redundant. David Trimble (TRSA) made a
similar comment and suggested that EPA issue a finding that categorical pretreatrnent standards
are not necessary for the textile rental industry.
Marcia Kinter (SGIA) stated that inclusion of any type of language in this rule concerning
management practices for shop and printer towels might appear to set standards for ihe
acceptance and management of used towels from the end user (i.e., the printing facility) and
would be in direct conflict with a current effort being undertaken by the Office of Solid Waste on
this issue (OS W is looking at use of reusable and disposable shop towels and disposal of
disposable shop towels).
Suggested Regulatory Alternatives
The primary comments on regulatory alternatives dealt with EPA's consideration of
possible small business exclusions.
Gene Leonard (Rite-Way) discussed each method EPA considered to minimize impacts
on small facilities and how each would create a problem for small facilities.
Mr. Leonard began by addressing the revenue exemption option. He noted that other
federal programs define "small" as a company with revenues less than $10.5 million annually.
The revenue level EPA suggested, $1 million, is considerably lower. He also noted that his
company's annual revenues are $1.15 million, so they would exceed the limit. He went on to say
his industry is dominated by large multi-state and national companies and that he is indeed a very
small operation.
With respect to EPA's second option examined (to exempt facilities with 30 employees
or less), Mr. Leonard pointed out that small firms have less automation than large firms and may
be located in rural areas where customers are more spread out. For both of these reasons, they
may require more labor per pound of production than large facilities. He also noted that a large
percentage of his own business is from health care facilities, which also require more labor per
pound of production than shop towels or uniforms.
With respect to EPA's remaining options (based on wastewater flow and facility
production), Mr. Leonard gave a description of his company and how it would be affected by the
suggested exemptions. He also noted several ways in which the exclusions EPA considered were
inconsistent with each other:
1) One million pounds a year cannot generate enough dollars in sales to pay the
salaries of 30 employees.
2) Most firms cannot generate $1 in revenue for a pound produced, as EPA seemed
to imply by consideration of either 1 million pounds or $1 million sales.
10
-------
3) A facility can not produce 1 million po-unds of laundry with 2.65 million gallons
of wastewater flow.
Mr. Leonard recommended the following alternatives to EPA:
1) Allow the local POTW facility to determine if the laundry is contributing
pollutants that constitute a problem for the facility to treat. Require regular testing
by the laundry at the point of discharge into the sewer line. If the local POTW
determines that it can treat the effluent to EPA standards then the laundry does not
have to pretreat, regardless of size or volume.
2) Use concentration based limits. As a matter of survival, most small laundries
produce a mix of linen and industrial items. Linen items are not of concern to
EPA. jnJ concentration based limits allow for a mix of product types.
Corr.ph.inwf with concentration based limits would also be easier to monitor.
IX-YC !irrr^ rr.j> prefer mass-based limits because many of these firms are already
in v.vrrr:;.uKc with such limits, which may force small firms out of business.
3) II rc\ erv-c •,<. used, raise the cut-offs to $3 million. At this volume a facility may
he jr,c !.• a: vrJ installation and maintenance of treatment operations.
4) I: r.urr.*x:r» : employees is used, raise it to at least 50. This number has been used
m i^ther rrjuijiions, such as the Family and Medical Leave Act, to define
compame* exempt from regulations.
5) It" production is used, raise the cut-off to 4 or 6 million pounds. His facility
generates about 72 cents per pound for the "EPA items of concern" and 49 cents
per pound overall. Health care is being done at 27 cents per pound. It takes
6.000,000 pounds at 49 cents or 4,000,000 pounds at 72 cents to raise $3 million
in revenue. At 72 cents, the proposed 1,000,000 pounds limit will only raise
$720,000 and a pretreatment system cannot be supported with that sales volume.
6) Do not use gallons of wastewater as a measure of "small." It is not a good
indicator. Different laundries have vastly different products mixes, and some
products require more water per pound processed than others. Small laundries are
not as efficient with water use as are their larger counterparts. At the proposed
2,650,000 gallons and his facility's consumption rate, they could only bill for
77,941 pounds. At their average price of 49 cents, this would generate only
$38,191.09.
7) Eliminate the exemption for on-site facilities unless they process only "pure
linen." Any laundry contributing pollutants to the waste stream that creates a
compliance problem for the local treatment facility should be covered by this
regulation. If the intent of the regulation is to reduce pollution, any facility that
meets the criteria (e.g., prisons, military bases) should be covered.
8) Regulate shop towels only, since they constitute 90% of the problem.
11
-------
Mr. Leonard also raised concerns regarding EPA's recommended exclusion for facilities
under 1 million pounds of production. These included implementation by POTWs, enforcement,
and existing facilities versus new facilities.
Other SERs also commented on possible exclusions.
David Dunlap (UTS A) noted that the Agency needs to ensure the enforceability of any
exclusion. A threshold based on something other than production (Ib/yr) may be easier to
enforce and thus be less burdensome to the local authority and the launderer. Any exclusion
threshold should be based on a characteristic that the local authority can easily measure (e.g.,
wastewater flow rate, number of washers or design capacity of the washers [lb/load]). He also
commented that on-site facilities should not be excluded. He also asked EPA to consider the
competitive factors associated with reusable and disposable products.
James Vaudreuil (Huebsch Services) suggested an exclusion for facilities processing less
than 3 million pounds per year total and less than 255,000 pounds per year of shop towels.
PANEL FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
It is important to note that the Panel's findings and discussion are based on the
information available at the time this report was drafted. EPA is continuing to conduct analyses
relevant to the proposed rule, and additional information may be developed or obtained during
the remainder of the rule development process and from public comment on the proposed rule.
Any options the Panel identifies for reducing the rule's regulatory impact on small entities may
require further analysis and/or data collection to ensure that the options are practicable,
enforceable, environmentally sound and consistent with the Clean Water Act.
Disposable vs. Reusable Items
Several commenters expressed concern that the substitution of disposable items for
laundered ones could cause negative impacts on laundries whose customers chose to switch
rather than pay the higher laundering costs that could result from the rule. EPA investigated this
possibility during rule development. It found that for many of the applications where laundered
items are currently being used, disposable items would not necessarily be a suitable substitute.
Its economic modeling, based on data from its survey of the industry, shows only a 0.3 percent
decrease in production industry-wide in response to the estimated price increases that would
result from the rule. Finally, EPA notes that many of the disposable items that might compete
with laundered items are already regulated under other environmental statutes. However, in view I
of EPA's policy promoting resource conservation, the Panel would prefer to preserve the option
of reusing towels, rather than forcing customers to disposable towels that are likely to be
landfilled after use.
12
-------
The Panel is sympathetic to the concerns of small laundries about increased competition
from disposable items and OMB and SBA note that the impact on individual small facilities may
be significantly greater than the industry-wide effect estimated by EPA. At the same time, the
Panel also notes that the most significant competition involves items that are also responsible for
a large share of the pollutant loadings from this industry (i.e., shop towels). It would thus be
difficult to structure an exemption to fully address this concern while still achieving the rule's
primary purpose of eliminating the majority of loadings from the industry. However, this
concern does underscore the need for an effective small business exemption that excludes those
small facilities that are contributing relatively little of the total pollutant loadings and can least
afford expensive new treatment technologies.
Exclusion of On-Site Laundries
Commenters also expressed concern that the exclusion of on-site laundries would give
such facilities a competitive advantage over covered industrial laundries that compete with them.
EPA believes it is 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. These regulations apply to wastewater generated from on-site
laundering where appropriate. For industries not yet covered by effluent limitations guidelines
and standards, EPA believes it should address on-site laundry discharges along with other
wastewater at the time that guidelines and standards are promulgated. The economic impacts of
regulating on-site laundries in these industries can also best be evaluated in this wider context.
The Panel believes that EPA has sound reasons for regulating discharge from on-site
laundries along with the other wastewater of the facilities that operate them rather than in this
proposed rulemaking. Given that most such facilities are either already regulated or eventually
would be considered for regulation, the Panel does not believe that excluding them from the
current rulemaking will produce a long-term competitive advantage.
Record keeping. Reporting and other Compliance Requirements. The proposed rule
contains no specific record keeping or reporting requirements. Monitoring for compliance with
the limitations being established on eleven pollutant parameters will be determined under
existing Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 403.
Interaction with Other Federal Rules. The Panel received comments that the proposed
rule may impose or involve new Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Superfund
and Clean Air Act liabilities, compliance costs, and burden for laundries. The Office of Solid
Waste (OSW) is currently examining the use of shop towels and the disposal of "disposable"
shop towels for potential regulation as a hazardous waste under RCRA. The Panel recommends
-------
that any new requirements imposed on customers of laundries as a result of this proposed rule
and the OSW effort be coordinated.
Additional Small Business Exclusion Options
At the time the Panel convened. EPA identified a regulatory alternative to decrease
regulatory burden on small entities. For Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES),
EPA suggested an alternative that would exclude existing facilities processing less than 1 million
pounds of incoming laundry per calendar year and less than 255,000 pounds of shop/printer
towels per calendar year
During the coarse ot small entity outreach and as a result of Panel discussions, EPA
evaluated various other \rrui: business exclusion options; these are summarized in the table on
page 7. In light si ::;c rurve or predicted economic and environmental effects, and concerns that
EPA may have o\crcs:.r:.j:cJ pollutant loadings from and underestimated economic impacts on
small businesses w.:r r.^ncr thresholds than the one initially suggested by EPA. In discussing
these options the Pane. k>T.s.jercJ, among other factors, the total pollutant loadings from the
industry, the cost c::r.:;->c:Kss ot pollutant removals, and the fact that all facilities are indirect
dischargers and thus a.rejj> potentially subject to local limits set by POTWs. Throughout the
Panel discussions.. LP.A maintained that the 1 million/255,000 pound combination was the most
appropriate for the proposed rule based upon analysis to date. EPA agreed with other Panel
members that exclusion options based upon higher production thresholds are worthy of serious
consideration, but expressed concerns that further analyses might not be completed in time for
consideration in advance of proposal, given its Court ordered deadline of September 30,1997.3
The Panel thus recommends that EPA present the information in the table on page 7 in the
preamble to the proposed rule and solicit comment on a range of alternative small business
exclusions, specifically including total production limits of from 3 to 5 million pounds total and
"heavy" (or shop/printer towel) production limits of from 250,000 to 500,000 pounds.
The Panel also recommends that EPA complete analyses evaluating the following
additional small business exclusion options and other appropriate options for future consideration
in the regulatory development process:
• Less than 3 million pounds of production and less than 255,000 and 500,000
pounds of shop/printer towels production
• Less than 4 million pounds of production and less than 255,000 and 500,000
pounds of shop/printer towels production
3EPA and NRDC (the plaintiff in the original court case) recently petitioned the Court to
extend this deadline to November 7, 1997; the Court has not yet acted on this petition.
14
-------
• Less than 5 millions pounds of production and less than 500,000 pounds of
shop/printer towels production.4
No Regulation Option
SBA noted that the EPA has the authority to choose not to regulate a given industry or a
given subcategory of facilities based upon a variety of considerations. SBA expressed some
concerns that much of EPA's analysis of potential exclusions began with an analysis of
"economic achievability" in terms of facility closures and firm failures, and was then amended to
ensure that the environmental goals of the Clean Water Act were not compromised. SBA
pointed out that "economic achievability," though one of the statutory factors the Agency must
assess in establishing effluent limitations guidelines and standards on toxic and nonconventional
pollutants, is not the only decision criterion available to the Administrator with respect to
whether or not to regulate an industry or a specific subcategory of an industry.
The Panel understands that EPA may decline to regulate subcategories of facilities on a
national basis, based on considerations other than economic achievability, and has done so in the
past. For example, consistent with the June 1994 recommendations of the EPA Effluent
Guidelines Task Force, EPA may decline to regulate subcategories based on small total pollutant
loadings. In this manner, EPA may be able to exclude subcategories of small facilities from the
scope of the guidelines. The Panel recognizes that in the absence of national effluent limitations
guidelines and standards, direct dischargers would still be subject to BAT limits on their
discharges (determined on a best-professional judgment basis) and indirect dischargers would
still be subject to the general prohibitions In the general pretreatment regulations and potentially
subject to local limits on their discharges to POTWs. EPA could still provide nonbinding
guidance to permit writers in the event no effluent guidelines are promulgated for those
subcategories, an option also discussed by the Effluent Guidelines Task Force.
In considering no regulation options, the Panel notes that one of the SERs (Gene Leonard
of Rite-Way) believes that the small laundry share of the national market may have significantly
declined since EPA's survey of the industry was conducted. A significant shift in total or
"heavy" production away from small businesses would cause EPA's projections of loading and
environmental impacts attributable to them to be overstated and its projections of impacts
attributable to larger businesses to be understated. The Panel also notes that the total pollutant
loadings (pre-regulation) are not as high for this industry as they were (pre-regulation) 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.
4The impacts of an exclusion based on less than 5 million pounds of production and less
than 255,000 pounds of shop or printer towel/rag production has already been analyzed and is
part of the rulemaking record.
15
-------
I
SBA expressed interest in having EPA explore a "no regulation option" for small
facilities based on factors beyond facility closures and firm failures. Examples of such factors
include environmental impacts and other economic impacts considered by the Agency in its
regulatory analysis (e.g., cost to revenue ratio, community impacts, domestic market impacts).
The Panel recommends that EPA solicit comment on a no regulation option in the
proposal.
Methodological Issues
The Panel discussed the determination of "significant" impact, and agreed that this
analysis should go beyond the determination of facility closures and should include assessment of
other economic measures. Several such measures, including the ratio of costs to revenues, the
ratio of costs to profits, domestic market impacts, and local community impacts, were considered
by EPA in its analysis of small business impacts for the proposed rule.
The Panel also discussed some methodological aspects of the way closure analysis is
performed by EPA as part of its economic achievability determination under the Clean Water
Act. This analysis is typically based on the assumption that facilities will close only if net cash
flow becomes negative. SBA and OMB suggested that a return to assets test may be a more
appropriate way to estimate closures. (Presumably, if the return that the owner of an affected firm
might make by liquidating the firm's assets and investing them elsewhere is greater than the
return being made by continuing to operate the firm, liquidation may become an attractive option
and the firm may well be closed, even if it is earning a positive cash flow.) Although EPA does
not include a return to assets test in its facility closure analysis, EPA believes that the Altaian Z
test, which employs return to assets in its analysis of firm failures, is appropriately incorporated
into EPA's analysis.5 EPA, SBA, and OMB agreed to further explore this issue during inter-
agency review of the draft proposal.
5In the current proposal, for example, EPA used the Altman Z-score, which directly
incorporates numerous financial variables, including return on assets, for the firm-level failure
analysis of multifacility firms. In the case of single facility firms, EPA conducted both a negative
cash flow test and an Altman Z-score test. EPA also notes that although incorporation of the
salvage value of assets adjusted for any associated legacy costs is the most appropriate
methodological approach when reliable estimates of salvage values are available, EPA's
experience has indicated that firms are generally unable to provide usable estimates of salvage
value and legacy costs. Furthermore, EPA believes that for this industry, net salvage value is
rarely used to determine whether to liquidate a facility, since its analysis indicates that if salvage
value is taken into account, nearly a third of all facilities appear to be candidates for liquidation.
A complete discussion of EPA's rationale for not using salvage value in the closure analysis will
be contained in the Economic Assessment report.
16
-------
way the world «.
the Agency u- r,
implementator. .
conditions at the
In addition, SBA and OMB expressed concern with the measure of cash flow used by the
Agency. EPA uses net income, plus depreciation, as its measure of cash flow. SBA and OMB
believe that this approach overstates actual cash flow, as it does not account for the cost of
acquiring or replacing capital assets. In any given year, depreciation may be overstated (or
understated) but on average it should just cover the cost of new or replacement assets. It is
possible that an expanding business will consistently overstate "true" depreciation because of
front-loaded depreciation schedules allowed under the current tax code, but even in this case, it
would not be appropriate to add all of its reported depreciation back into cash flow. SBA and
OMB recommend that EPA revise this approach in future small entity economic impact analyses
to more accurateh retlect the cash flow that is actually available to regulated entities for
environmental compliance purposes. EPA agreed to explore ways to refine its cash flow analysis
to address this dvucrr.
FinalK . the f'^r.c: J>.;u5>sed the treatment of "baseline" closures. These are facilities or
firms that. accorJir..: :. I P A - modeling, should be closed already. As the first step in its
economic anah M-. L P \ Jcfir.e* the baseline. The baseline should be the best assessment of the
-. J I.s'k. absent the proposed regulation. The definition of the baseline requires
r.a • ^rurjes between the time of data collection and the time of
: ".c p- -rv^J rule. Baseline closures are facilities which, given the financial
rv.e o: Jj:u collection, the nature of the forecast (typically, a conservative
assumption or the tuiure resembling the present) and the structure of the economic and financial
analysis, are projected to close by the time of implementation of the rule. EPA does not usually
include baseline closures when determining the economic achievabiliry of a rule, but instead,
focuses on the incremental closures associated with compliance costs. EPA believes this
approach is consistent with the discussion of baseline selection in OMB's Economic Analysis of
Federal Regulations under Executive Order 12866. SBA and OMB are concerned that baseline
closures, to the extent that they do not close by the time a rule goes into effect, are precisely the
firms that may be most vulnerable to any economic stress the rule may impose. They believe a
more conservative approach is appropriate, that takes into account the inherent uncertainty of
projecting baseline closures in the future using survey data. One such approach would count
baseline closures among the casualties of the rule, along with closures which, according to
Agency modeling, result directly from the added costs of the rule. The Panel recommends that
EPA solicit comment on this issue in the proposal, and encourages EPA (resources permitting) to
conduct a retrospective analysis to determine the accuracy of past projections of baseline
closures.
In general, EPA follows the OMB guidelines for performing economic analysis, takes
into consideration lessons learned over the years, and adapts the analysis to the available data and
the industry's characteristics. EPA's economic analyses have received significant reviews by
both OMB and the affected industries. The Agency feeis they are sound and generally
conservative, and seeks to base regulatory decision-making on the best, most recent data
available. EPA will continue to explore alternative approaches, such as those suggested here by
SBA and OMB. Also, based on Panel discussions and SER comments, EPA plans to consider
17
-------
alternate calculations of compliance costs, including alternate interest rates and amortization
periods.
18
-------
ATTACHMENT A:
COMPLETE WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED
FROM SMALL ENTITY REPRESENTATIVES
-------
Uniform
^Textile
Service
ASSOCIATION
June 13, 1997
vwvjitsa.com
ToUFret
(800} 4864745
Telephone
(703)247.2600
Facsimile
(70.^8414:50
Mr. Susan Burns
Engineering and Analysis Division (4303)
J300 N«tlil?ih Sum U.S. EPA
S*i«75C 401 M Street, SW
,VA 22209 Washington, DC 20460
RE: SBREFA Comments - Industrial Laundries Effluent Guideline
The Uniform it Textile Service Association (UTSA) appreciates the opportunity to
submit additional comments on the effects of a categorical standard on snail business
launderers. The additional information distributed by EPA has been helpful but still
has not provided us with all that is necessary to adequately judge this regulation's effect
on small business. The actual pollutant discharge limits, the most telling piece of
information, havt not been released. The impact of this regulation cannot be
determined wuhout these numbers.
The SBREFA process is designed to allow an industry the opportunity to comment on
the impacts of a po*xnnal regulation on its smaller entities, prior to the making of
decisions. It is also intended to be an open exchange of pertinent information so that
each side can make informed recommendations. In this current effluent guideline
process, UTSA and other small business stakeholders are at a distinct disadvantage in
developing comments. We have had little or no access to the relevant data.
EPA has had the opportunity to evaluate the industry data and develop its own set of
conclusions. It is true that this data is industry data; it was provided to EPA by
laundries across the .country. UTSA and its members have spent considerable time and
expense assisting EPA's data collection. However, UTSA and other stakeholders have
not had the opportunity to view the data in aggregate, perform analysis nor develop its
own interpretations that would support any findings that may differ from EPA. This
does not seem to comport with SBREFA's intentions. This may be a function of the
timing of the SBREFA process and the effluent guidelines process. Yet, it would seem
that regardless of the timing, data relevant to the evaluation of small business impacts
should be released to stakeholder at any stage of either process. UTSA suggests that
the effluent guidelines process be modified to allow the release of more substantial data
earlier in the process.
The following comments are based on a review of released data as well as our
participation in the phone conference of June 11. Once again, UTSA hopes that these
comments provide the review panel with insight into the problems which small
businesses will face if this regulation, in its current form, becomes final.
65* Annual
MMIWR Eatwi Cmitt
Taniaie. Ciimia
'Keeping Businesses Looking Their Best"
-------
Ms. Susan Bums
June 13,1997
Page 2
Economic Feasibility
Tbe latest data indicates that the selected wastewater treatment option has a cost-
effectiveness (CE) rating of $528 (in 1996 dollars) per pound of pollutant removed.
This is about eight times less cost-effective, on average, than the technologies selected
for 26 other effluent guidelines promulgated by EPA (based on Table 5.1, Industry
Comparison of Cost Effectiveness Values for Indirect Dischargers.) EPA has explained
that they only use CE values to compare and select treatment options and that other
factors are used to decide if this regulation is economically feasible. Though this may
be the current procedure, UTSA questions its validity.
Because we are a service industry, our service can be provided by other means (i.e.
replaced with disposables). Launderers, therefore, also compete with other industries,
primarily the pulp and paper industry. UTSA believes EPA has not fully considered
the competitive factors involved with reusable and disposable products. The same
intense competition which exists between launderers also exists between launderers
(who rent textile items) and companies which sell disposable products. In most cases
disposables are cheaper than reusables. The additional cost burden on launderers will
shift the current balance.
EPA contends that this economic shift has not manifested itself through their data
manipulations. With no access to the EPA data on which these conclusions were
drawn, stakeholders can not judge or counter this assertion. Additionally, the EPA's
data may be characteristic of the present situation, but the injection of a cross-cutting
regulation will undoubtedly change the marketplace. This potential change should be
evaluated and forecasted, not merely dismissed because it has yet to occur.
100% of launderers are indirect dischargers (as shown by EPA's data), which means
mat 100% of laundry wastewater is discharged into sewers and treated by the biological
processes at the local publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). The National
Pretreatment Program, which regulates indirect discharges, is one of the most effective
environmental regulations ever. UTSA questions the use of an obviously cost-
ineffective treatment scheme to develop regulations for launderers when our wastewater
is already adequately regulated and managed by local pretreatmem limits and POTWs.
This latest data further supports my claim (May 8,1997 letter) thai a laundry industry
categorical standards is redundant The National Pretreatment Program and local
limits are adequate to control the actual or perceived impacts which launderers have on
POTWs. EPA has presented no documentation of laundry impacts on POTWs or the
environment.
EPA has provided no documentation of laundry impacts on POTWs or the environment.
They have based their assertion that these impacts exist on anecdotal information. It
seems a bit inconsistent that EPA may base certain conclusions about the existing
-------
Ms. Susan Burns
June 13,1997
Page 3
environmental impacts of the situation on undocumented information, while the laundry
industry has been asked to provide actual documentation of potential economic impacts
from a regulation yet unproposed.
We believe, based on the little information received to dale, that EPA's economic
analysis underestimates the impact on small business. EPA indicates that their
annualization of costs includes the amortizing of wastewater pollution control
equipment over 15 yean. UTSA believes this to be both incorrect and unrealistic. A
quick and informal survey of our membership indicates that launderers classify
industrial wastewater pollution control equipment as "machinery & equipment" and
thus amortize over ten years (with an actual useful life probably around seven years).
EPA cl?<«fies industrial wastewater pollution control equipment as "municipal
wastewater treatment system.* It is obvious to us the difference between municipal and
industrial wastewater equipment The industrial atmosphere, coupled with the higher
strength wastes which are encountered, make the useful life of industrial laundry
wastewater equipment less than municipal wastewater equipment. This change in
recovery period would increase the annualized costs incurred by launderers by between
$8 to $16K. This is a 22% to 33% increase over EPA's estimated annualized costs.
Enforcement
UTSA agrees that production (Ib/yr) is a characteristic to use in classifying laundries
and identifying those groups which may suffer advene economic impact from the
regulation. We disagree with the notion that production is the proper characteristic
with which to implement and enforce the regulation. As stated at EPA's March 4
public meeting, POTWs believe that a regulation based on production will be
burdensome to them. Li addition, POTW pretreatment inspectors do not have the
knowledge to adequately judge if a facility is properly reporting its production.
Finally, it has been brought to my attention, that many smaller laundries, may not even
track the weight of items processed, thereby, making production conclusions
impossible. This would cause additional problems with the enforcement of the
categorical standard as it is proposed. What does the 308 questionnaire data show
ting the collection of production data by small launderers?
During the phone conference, EPA noted that such a regulation relies on the honesty of
the regulated entity. Though mat may be true, it is not justification for promulgation
of a regulation which contains inherent flaws which create opportunities for deception.
If we were all honest and good hearted there would be no need for laws and
regulations. EPA will be doing a disservice to small launderers, especially the honest
ones, by implementing a regulation which requires the tracking of a value difficult for a
POTW to assess and so easily falsified.
-------
Ms. Susan Burns
June 13,1997
Page 4
Definition/Exemptions
The current standard exempts on-site laundering at industrial facilities. UTSA believes
that this will adversely affect small businesses. All industrial facilities, whether
private, government or military must comply with this guideline unless such a facility
is already covered by an existing guideline. This requirement prevents the loss of
business to on-site laundries which would be allowed to discharge their pollutants
unfettered by the categorical standard. A common response to this matter by EPA has
been that, under the National Pretreatment Program, POTWs have the authority to
regulate an on-site laundry and that they can adequately make such a decision when
necessary. Our response is, then why regulate any laundry which discharges into a
POTW when such confidence exists at the Agency? Why is a distinction between types
of business enaaa bong made when the pollutants discharge by all panics are
identical This distinction appears to purposefully unlevel a playing field at a
disproporoocatf disadvantage to small launderers.
DissemioatioB of Information
Multiple, regional public hearings need to be held in order to facilitate the full
participation of the small businesses in the laundry industry and those of its customers.
We hope that the above comments have been helpful. If you should have any questions
please contact me at (703) 247-2608 or dunlap@utsa.com.
David D. Dunlap, REM
Director, Environmental & Regulatory Affairs
cc:
B. Keegan
J. Schultz
D. Hobson
fc;VW\(HM«Brt\i' limn* tutJu
-------
4/15/97
To: Susan Bums, Project Manager
U.S. E.P.A
Fax 202-260-71 85
From: Jim Vaudreuil
Huebsch Services
Fax 71 5-836-6863
RE: Industrial Laundries Effluent Guidelines
Dear Ms. Bums,
Thank you for the oppofturon to participate in the small business conference call this morning. I was
advised prior to the meet .ng to fax any questions to be addressed. During the conference I made three
comments and I MU aiked to put them in writing for you.
1 . My compam is • famjlv owned business with 110 employees. We have been required to pretreat
our waste water for the pact ten years. Our primary competitors are large national chains which
operate plant* tn the Minneapolis St. Paul, Minnesota area. The sewer treatment agency there does
not require the induitnaJ laundries to pretreat their waste water. This creates unfair competition. We
support a federal standard which will level the playing field. Our concern is that the standard that is
inacted is reasonable If the standards are unreasonable, the additional costs will place reusable
textiles at a distinct disadvantage with disposables.
2. E.P.A. officials are welcome to tour our facilities.
3. I appreciate the problem the agency is having trying to provide regulatory relief for very small
firms. I am concerned about how some firms that process healthcare or linens will be able to use
dilution to avoid pretreatment. How would the agency enforce the pretreatment standards?
I process 1,000,000 pounds of shop towels annually. Could I open a new plant and not have to
pretreat at that plant if the poundage stays below the threshold?
Thank you for your consideration,
James F. Vaudreuil
-------
• Rite-Way Cleaners
• 16th St. Car Wash
P.O. Box 328
Concordia, KS 66901
KI°f
Laundry & Dry Cleaners, Inc.
SINCE 1045
(913)243-4432
FAX (913) 243-7808
May 6, 1997
Susan Burris
Engineering and Analysis Division (4303)
U.S. EPA
410 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
RE: Request to convene a SBREFA panel on Categorical Pretreatment Standards
Dear Ms. Burris,
I believe that some of the information you are using to determine the number of "SMALL" facilities
may be out of date. In recent years our trade area has seen a continual trend towards acquisition of
smaller companies by larger ones, many since the deadline for your initial survey of commercial
1 laundries. I believe that it is principally this survey and your later comprehensive questionnaire upon
which you base the number of SMALL facilities in the United States.
To the best of my recollections, I will relate the acquisitions in Kansas (not necessarily in order of
occurrence):
A. Since the initial survey was completed.
1. Ineeda, a single plant operation in Hutchinson, Ks was purchased by Aramark, who
operated the plant in Hutchinson for awhile, but has since closed it The work is
processed in Wichita at the old National Linen facility.
2. Domestic, a single plant operation in Wichita, Ks was purchased by Aramark. The plant
is closed, and the work is being done at the old National Linen facility.
3. National Linen, a large multi-plant company with a facility in Wichita, Ks was
purchased by Aramark. The Wichita plant is still open and is processing work
previously done by Ineeda, Domestic and all their combined previous acquisitions.
4. Todd Uniform, a large multi-plant company with a depot in Wichita was purchased by
Aramark. Todd processed the work in Oklahoma City but Aramark processes the
Wichita area work at the old National Linen facility.
5. MUST, a single plant operation in Wichita, Ks was purchased by RUS, who continues to
operate the facility.
6. Wee Care, a single plant operation in Lyons, Ks was purchased by Apparel Master. The
plant has been closed and the work is processed at Hoisington.
7. Winfield Laundry, a single plant operation in Winfield, Ks sold its Uniform, Entrance
Mat, Shop Towel, Dust Mop and other related business to Centas. Centas processes this
work in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Winfield still processes hospital linen.
8. Acme Towel, a single plant operation in Manhattan, Ks was purchased by American
Linen who processes the work in Topeka, Ks. The facility has been closed.
-------
B. In years prior to completion of the initial survey.
1. Hutchinson Towel & Linen, a single plant operation in Hutchinson, Ks sold to Ineeda.
The plant closed and the work was processed in Hutchinson.
2. Quality Laundry, a single plant operation in Pratt, Ks was purchased by Ineeda. The
plant was closed and the work processed in Hutchtnson.
3. New Process Laundry, a two plant operation in Emporia and Newton, Ks was purchased
by Ineeda. Both plants were closed and the work processed in Hutchinson. Ineeda has
sold to Aramark and the Hutchinson facility has closed.
4. Scotch Industries, a single plant operation in Lawrence, Ks sold to Centas, who operated
the plant in Lawrence for awhile, but has since closed it. The work is processed in
Olathe.
5. Suburban Laundry, a two plant operation in Hoisington and Hays, Ks, was purchased by
Apparel Master. Hays was closed and Hoisington is still in operation.
6. Triple A, a single plant operation in Moundridge, Ks was purchased by Apparel Master.
The plant was closed and the work is being done at Hoisington.
7. Dodge City Laundry, a one plant operation in Dodge City, Ks sold to Western Towel &
Uniform. They continue to operate the facility.
8. Whites Laundry, a one plant operation in Garden City, Ks sold to Western Towel &
Uniform. The plant was closed and the work is done in Dodge City
9. Goodland Laundry, a one plant operation in Goodland, Ks sold to Western Towel &
Uniform. The plant was closed and the work is done in Dodge City.
10, Keep Kleen, a two plant operation in Wichita and Hutchinson, Ks sold to Wichita Towel
& Linen. Both plants were closed.
11. Wichita Towel & Linen, a single plant operation in Wichita, Ks, sold to Domestic that
has since sold to Aramark. Both the Wichita Towel and Domestic plants are closed.
12. Peerless Laundry, a single plant operation in Wichita, Ks, sold to National Linen, a
company that has since sold to Aramark.
13. Rather than rebuild after a fire, Manhattan laundry a single plant operation in
Manhattan, Ks, sold its accounts to American Linen. The work is processed in Topeka.
14. American Uniform, a two plant operation in Wichita and Hutchinson sold to Misco. The
plant in Hutchinson was closed and all work done in the Wichita facility.
15. Misco, a one plant operation in Wichita sold to Servisco. They operated the facility.
16. Servisco sold the Wichita facility to American Linen. The plant is still in operation.
17. Laundry in Anthony, Kansas sold to a firm that I cannot identify. The plant is closed.
18. Laundry in Great Bend, Kansas sold to a firm that I cannot identify. The plant is closed.
To summarize the above: Eight facilities now operate where there were once at least thirty, and
Aramark alone operates one facility in the place of eleven. I am aware of operations in the western half
of the State, but I'm sure mat many plant sales have occurred in areas I am less familiar with. Over the
years, many other facilities have closed as the larger companies have priced mem out of business. For
example, Saiina, Ks (50,000 population) used to have two laundries and now has none. To the best of my
knowledge, In Kansas only three independent companies remain that launder products affected by the
proposed Categorical Pretreatment Standards. They are:
1. Western Towel & Uniform of Wichita, Ks: Western is a family owned business. They
service the entire state of Kansas through their plants in Wichita and Dodge City. Even
though Western is an independent, they are quite large in comparison.
2. Rite Way Laundry & Dry Cleaners Inc. of Concordia Kansas: A third generation family
business that is processing about 1,014,000 pounds of industrial and 1,344,000 pounds of
healthcare annually. Most of our healthcare work comes from one organization. If we were
to lose this healthcare account, we would barely be over the proposed exemption level. Our
-------
wastestream concentration would significantly increase and pretreatment would become an
immediate necessity. Please refer to my previous letter for what I believe will be the impact
of compliance.
3. O'Dell's of McPherson, Ks: A second generation family business that is considerably
smaller than Rite Way. I am certain that under the proposed exemption level, they will not
be required to pretreat.
Supply companies are also impacted by the closing of smaller facilities. Large corporations negotiate
directly with chemical companies, hanger manufacturers, equipment manufacturers and other suppliers
to the industry. This takes away volume from our supply companies/distributors and most have
eventually gone out of business. For example, we used to have three chemical supply firms call on us
and now we have just one that services our area. I only know of two that service the State, one in
Wichita and one in Kansas City, Missouri.
In our April 15th conference call, you stated that if we apply the Smalt Business Administration
definition of SMALL, our industry is dominated by SMALL businesses. I suggest that the high number
of acquisitions occurring over the last few years have significantly altered the number of SMALL
laundries actually in operation. This trend has been a cancer throughout the United States and is
continuing yet today. Instead of just counting the number of facilities when you consider the impact of
SMALLS, please compare the poundage they process as a group against the poundage processed by large
firms. As attrition continues to erode the number of SMALLS, their impact to the environment will be
even less of a factor-
Once again I must state that I believe these regulations have the potential to put us out of business.
There is a significant "gap" between those that will be exempt, and the size at which a company will be
able to absorb or pass on costs of compliance. Those that fall into the "gap" will be forced to close prior
to compliance date because they cannot be competitive at the prices they will need to charge. Please
reexamine the proposed exemption level and either raise it significantly or stage different levels of
treatment as industrial poundage increases.
Please don't let the EPA hurry the demise of the few SMALL laundries left. To the best of my
knowledge, Kansas is already down to two. I urge you to convene the SBREFA panel to look into this
further.
Respectfully,
Gene Leonard
President
CC:
Senator Pat Roberts
Senator Sam Brown back
Senator Christopher Bond
Representative Jerry Moran
Representative David Mclntosh
David Trimble - Textile Rental Services Assn.
-------
~^m T^B^- -^^^-^^•••V VHP
Scrnnprinting * ffrapft/c 101119/119
May 14,1997 Association International
10015 Main Street, f&tix, Virgmii Z2Q31-348!* USA
JO: Susan Bums, Project Manager JJJSJJ^Z^ "»»*«*
f*wK*c»w5p
FROM: Marcia Y. Kinter, Vice President-Government Affairs
Screenprinting and Graphic Imaging Assotiati
International
RE: Industrial Laundries Effluent Guidelines
I apologize for the tardiness of my response to your memo of Feb. 20,1997 to
the Small Entity Representatives regarding the proposed effluent guidelines for
industrial laundries. I offer the following brief comments to you in hopes that
you can still utilize the information.
You requested information on the number of small entities to which the rule will
apply. Due to the fact that the membership of the Screenprinting and Graphic
Imaging Association International (SGIA International) is not composed of
industrial laundry facilities, the initial impact of this new regulation will be
minimal on the small screen print facility.
You have also requested information on the projected reporting, recordkeeping
and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule. While the rule does
not directly impact the small printing facility, we are concerned with the
possibility that the proposed rule on effluent guidelines for laundry facilities will
contain requirements that may indirectly impact the printing industry. During the
teleconference held on April 15.1997, it was mentioned that 90 percent of the
laundries' pollutants come from used shop towels. Since a major user of shop
towels within the industrial setting is the printing industry, we have concerns that
requirements regarding whether or not laundry facilities will accept used shop
towels will be included in this rulemaking thereby creating an unknown
regulatory burden on the small printing industry. Inclusion of provisions
regarding "best management practices" for shop towels or any type of language
indicating the acceptance state of used shop towels should not be included in
this regulatory activity.
My rationale for this position lies in the fact that the printing industry is currently
working on a project with the Agency's Office of Solid Waste regarding the use
and disposal of used shop towels, both reusable and disposal towels. Your third
comment asks for information regarding other Federal activity that might overlap
or conflict with the proposed rule. Inclusion of any type of language in the
effluent guideline that might appear to set standards for the acceptance and
management of used shop towels from the end user's, i.e., the printing facility,
point of view would be in direct conflict with the current effort being undertaken
by the Office of Solid Waste on this issue. We would recommend that the Office
-------
of Water continue to work with the Office of Solid Waste on the development of
a program that seeks to clarify the U.S. EPA's policy position on used shop
towels, and not attempt to include any type of regulatory language in the effluent
guideline proposal that may conflict with current efforts.
Thank you for including SG1A International as one of the Small Business Entities
for this proposed rulemaking, and we look forward to continue working with you
in this capacity.
TOTflL P.03
-------
NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE DEALERS ASSOCIATION
8400 Wcstptrk Dmw • McUan, Virginia 22102
703/821-7040 • 703/821-7041
Ug.1 i fegutt*, Oroup
Ms. Susan Bums
Engineering and Analysis Division (4303)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Re: Industrial Laundries Effluent Guidelines Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) Process
Dear Ms. Bum's:
The National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) is a national trade association of
20,000 franchised automobile and truck dealerships involved in the retail sale of new and used.
motor vehicles, both foreign and domestically produced. NADA members also engage in
automotive service, repair and parts sales. Over 80% of NADA's members are "smali
businesses" as defined by the Small Business Administration.
I want to thank you for allowing NADA the opportunity to participate in the April 1!
Industrial Laundries Effluent Guidelines SBREFA meeting. It seems clear from the discussion
that EPA has not yet determined whether to certify mat the Guidelines "will not, if promulgated
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities." NADA urges EPA
to continue to carefully consider small business concerns prior to developing its proposed
Guidelines in order to eliminate any significant impacts on a substantial number of small
businesses and the need to convene a formal SBREFA Review Panel.
EPA has correctly identified bom thai the overwhelming majority of industrial laundries
potentially subject to the Guidelines are small businesses and mat they will be adversely impacted.
EPA's Guidelines also will impact on the many small business customers of these laundries.
Thus, if promulgated, they will impact on "a substantial number of small entities." For example:
1. EPA's performance-based Guidelines will likely result in new and costly pretreatmeni:
technologies. Small business customers faced with price increases resulting from the:
implementation of these new technologies can be expected to explore alternatives (i.e..
disposable rags and wipes), with laundry revenues decreasing commensurately.
-------
Ms. Susan Bums
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
April 18, 1997
Page 2
2. EPA's Guidelines are also likely to result in the adoption of pollution prevention
strategies. These strategies may require laundry customers to remove contaminants from
materials (i.e. solvents from rags and wipes) prior to sending them on to laundries. Such
up-front pollution "prevention" will involve economic impacts on small business.
3. EPA's Guidelines will likely involve new RCRA, Superfund, and Clean Air Act liabilities,
compliance costs, and burdens for laundries and/or their customers,
EPA should recognize, anm for, and where possible address the above-listed concerns
in its pre-proposal analysis and regulatory development. Although the Effluent Guidelines will
clearly impact on a substantial number of small entities, it is possible for EPA to take steps pre-
proposaJ to ensure that these impacts not be "significant." Otherwise, a formal initial regulatory
flexibility analysis will have to be prepared and a formal SBREFA panel will have to be convened.
NADA recognizes that small business will be afforded an opportunity to provide
substantive comment to EPA once the Guidelines are actually proposed. EPA must recognize that
its proposal and SBREFA will best be served if small business* concerns are addressed early on
in the regulatory development process. On behalf of NADA, I thank EPA for the opportunity to
comment on this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
Douglas Greenhaus
Director, Environment, Health and Safety
cc: Tom Kelly, US EPA
-------
• RKs-Way Cl«aner»
. 18th St. Car Wash
RITE-WAT
Laundry & Dry Cleaners, Inc.
•mcEms
P.O. Box 328 (913) 243*1432
Concordia, KS 66901 FAX (913) 243»?8Q8
March 7,1997
Susan Burns
Engineering and Analysis Division (4303)
U.S. EPA
410 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
RE: SBREFA comments - Effluent Limitations Guidelines/Standards for Industrial Laundries
Dear Ms. Burris,
Rite-Way is a third generation family business started by my Grandfather in 194S. I have been
involved in the industry since 1968 and during that time, have seen most small operators either
squeezed out through price wars or be bought out by larger, mostly national companies. There
are relatively few of us left! The proposed Categorical Pretreatment Standards have the potential
to eliminate the remaining small laundries in the United States, and I have serious concerns with
the proposed subcategorization defining small facilities. EPA has tentatively settled on less than
one million pounds as being exempt from regulation, however you have considered different
methods and I need to address each of them so that you are aware of the difficulties they create
for "SMALLS". I will use our own facility as representative of the problems and address the
scenarios presented at the March 4th meeting.
First is revenue. You considered exempting facilities with less than SI million in annual
revenues. We are currently at about SI.15 million in sales, so we exceed that limit The
SI million level is considerably less than the number used in other federal programs to define a
"SMALL" business; for example, the SBA considers SI0.5 million as the limit for a small
laundry (section 601 of the small business act). Our industry is dominated by large multi-state
and national companies and we are indeed a very small operation. In Kansas I know of only one
smaller operation that processes shop towels and uniforms. The company next up in size is an
independent that is large and coven the entire state. To my knowledge, all the rest are major
national companies.
Second is number of employees. You considered exempting facilities with 30 employees or
fewer. Counting myself we currently have 27 full and one pan time, so we are less than the
limit. Consider the following:
1. Small operations typically have less automation and use more employees per pound
of product produced than will a larger firm.
2. Consider mat many small firms are located in rural areas. These firms drive more
miles to service a customer and require more drivers to pick up and deliver the same
pounds of product as will a company located in an urban area.
3. A large percentage of the poundage we process is from hospitals or other healthcare
related customers. This type of work commands a lower price and requires more
hours of labor per pound of product produced than will shop towels or uniforms. If
-------
small firms are forced out of health care their customers will face problems,
especially in rural areas where they may not have another commercial alternative. If
they are unable to send soiled linen off premise, small clinics and mortuaries will
have difficulty in complying with the laundry requirements of OSHA's Bloodbome
Pathogens Rule. Hospitals may have to install on premise laundries, incurring
significant expense at a time when rural healthcare is already in financial crisis. An
even less desirable solution would be for each of these facilities to begin using
disposables, creating more solid waste problems.
Third is flow and fourth is production. These two issues are so interrelated that I will address
them together. You proposed that facilities with less than 265,000 gallons per year of waste water
flow or one million pounds of laundry per year be exempt This year we expect to consume over
8,300,000 gallons of water to process 2360,000 pounds of laundry. If we consume 4% of our
water in personal hygiene and other in plant needs, we will use approximately 8,000,000 gallons
in laundry processing If 90% of that total becomes wastewater, we could have over 7,000,000
gallons of effluent to treat The following is a breakdown of pounds processed by product type
and percent of sale*
30.0*
4.5
11.1%
45.6%
15.2%
6.5%
15.9%
7.8%
45.4%
PRODUCT TYPE POUNDS TOTALS
Healthcare (customer owned linen) 1,344,395
Motel & similar 107,506
Restaurant & Grocery linen 178,464
Subtotal of pure linen items 1,630,925
Entrance mats 403,401
Dust mops 86,007
Uniforms 145,125
Shop Towels 93,355
Subtotal of EPA items of concern 727,888
9.0% Outright sales of garments, loss charges, finance charges & misc.
100.0% TOTAL OF ALL POUNDS PROCESSED 2358,813
Please note that Healthcare accounts for 30% of our sales and 57% of our pounds processed.
Using ours numbers, which are obviously heavy with labor intensive healthcare laundry, there
does not appear to be a relationship between the various subcategories being considered. The
use of one million pounds per year as a limit has the following problems when comparing it to
the other proposed limits:
1. It cannot generate enough dollars in sales to pay the salaries of 30 employees.
2. As an industry; most firms cannot generate S1 in revenue for a pound produced, as
you seem to anticipate with the use of 1 million pounds or S 1 million in sales.
3. I have not seen a facility that can produce 1 million pounds with only 265,000
gallons of wastewater flow (265 gallons per pound). We average 3.4 gallons to
produce a pound. While we may not be as efficient as some plants, I don't believe
we use 12 times as much as others. Please see the attached copy of a page from an
equipment manual. This chart displays the gallons required to process different
types of laundry, with hospital at three and industrial at four gallons per pound of
work processed.
At the March 4th meeting you stated that "the cost increase to customers as a result of
compliance will be minimal". In trying to determine our cost for compliance, some pretty
-------
frightening numbers have come up. Our best estimate is that we will need to spend around
$500,000 in purchasing and installing a pretreatment process. We will need one additional fill]
time person to oversee and maintain its operation. Ongoing costs of operation are in the range of
3 '/> to 4 cents per gallon of treated effluent. To finance toe original investment over ten years @
9%, our monthly payment will be $6,333.80. If we split our waste stream and treat only 31 % of
our effluent at the minimal 3 K cents per gallon, our monthly cost will be $6329.16.
Maintenance on the system, cost of the additional employee and local property taxes will total
another $70,000. Total annual cost comes to $221,950, over 19% of our annual gross. I do not
believe that our customers will consider a 19% increase in prices to be "minimal". It is also not
likely that we could arrange financing for the original investment of equipment and installation.
Economy to scale plays a significant part in any laundry's ability to absorb the cost to comply
with the new regulations. Using the proposed definition of "SMALL", I believe that there is a
significant gap between those that will be exempt, and the size at which a company will be able
to absorb or pass on costs of compliance. Those that fall into the "gap" will be forced to close
prior to compliance date because they cannot be competitive at the prices they will need to
charge. I recommend the following:
1. Allow the local Publicly Owned Treatment Works facility to determine if the
laundry is contributing pollutants that constitute a problem for the facility to
treat. Require regular testing by the laundry at their expense, testing to be
performed at the point of discharge into sewer line. If the local POTW
determines that they can treat the effluent to EPA standards then the laundry
does not have to pretreat, regardless of size or volume.
2. Use concentration based limits. As a matter of survival, most "SMALL"
laundries produce a mix of linen and industrial. Linen is not of concern to the
EPA and concentration based limits allow for the mix of product types.
Concentration based limits will be easier for all regulating agencies to monitor
compliance. Larger firms within the industry will urge for "massed based
limits". Because of local POTW limits, many of these firms are already in
compliance with what the new categorical regulations may require under the
massed based method. Since massed based limits are more difficult to comply
with, these firms recognize that most "SMALL" firms will not be able to
comply, forcing them out of business and creating a windfall of new business
opportunities. These closures will reduce competition and possibly create
higher prices with a reduced level of quality.
3. If revenue is used, raise the limits to S 3 million. At this volume a facility
may be able to afford installation and maintenance of a treatment operation.
A. If number of employees is used, raise it to at least 50. This number has been
used in other regulations, such as the Family and Medical Leave Act, to define
companies exempt from regulations.
5. If poundage is used, raise the limit to 4 to 6 million pounds. We generate
about 72 cents per pound in the "EPA hems of concern" listed above, and 49
cents overall. Healthcare is being done at 27 cents per pound. It takes
6,000,000 pounds at 49 cents or 4,000,000 pounds at 72 cents to raise the sales
volume to $ 3 million. At 72 cents, your proposed 1,000,000 pounds limit will
only raise $720,000 and a pretreatment system cannot be supported with that
sales volume.
6. Do not use gallons of wastewater as a measure of "SMALL". It is not a good
indicator. Different laundries have vastly different product mixes, and some
products require more water per pound processed than others. Small laundries
are not as efficient with water use as are their larger counterparts. At your
-------
proposed 265,000 gallons and our consumption rate, we could only bill for
77,941 pounds. Our average price of 49 cents would generate only
S38.191.09.
7. Eliminate the OPL or CoOp laundry exemption for facilities that process
anything other than "pure linen". Any laundry contributing pollutants to the
wastestream which creates a compliance problem for the local treatment
facility, should be covered by this regulation. If the intent of me regulation is
to reduce pollution, any facility that meets the criteria should be covered,
including but not limited to prisons and military bases.
You stated at the March 4th meeting that 90% of a laundries wastewater problem comes from
shop towels. If 90% of the problem comes from shop towels, why not regulate just shop towels.
The cost to the regulating community and the industry would be significantly less and the "big"
problem is solved.
1 recognize that you fear a facility gearing up to produce as much as 999,999 pounds of shop
towels a year, be exempt and create a terrible concentration problem for the POTW. Less than
4% of our gross poundage comes from shop towels and because of the interrelationship of our
products to customers we cannot give it up and maintain our customer base. Please don't allow
the "fear "of a few trying to circumvent the regulations cause you to create an unnecessarily
burdensome set of regulations.
Rather than be forced out by the pretreatment standards I could sell my rental business to one of
the major players in our industry. They would pay us a good price and I could let someone else
deal with all the headaches. The problem is that they will close our plant and truck everything in
from Topeka or Wichita. Ours is a small community of less than 6000 population and we serve
33 other rural communities, some with populations as small as a few hundred. Some of the
services we offer would not continue to be offered and some of the towns would not continue to
be served by a larger national company. Very few of our employees would be offered positions
and our community would lose a significant employer.
Our City Water Treatment Facility has received awards for the level of treatment they achieve,
even though we have been processing shop towels and uniforms. The wastewater we currently
produce is apparently not a problem. Given that, please consider the following: If we are forced
to sell out or close because of the new regulations, how will the USA, Kansas or Concordia in
particular be better off by processing our laundry in Topeka or Wichita.
Respectfully,
Gene Leonard
President
CC:
Senator Pat Roberts
Senator Sam Brownback
Senator Christopher Bond
Representative Jerry Moran
Representative David Mclntosh
David Trimble
-------
.... .-. .:<*?. ?,-~-,± ••>.-«**•• ' ;T^^«.T.-S
: that EPA recommends basing the categorical
fcatment technology using chemical precipitation. Could you
2"\\nterms of what this technology consists of and how it differs
ient system, excepting the introduction of dissolved air.
more detail on what you mean by treated effluent
je, as discussed on page 5 under the sixth bullet. The
ajiiLtiS-be implying that redundant treatment is needed. If non-treated
^'-"v"~ " ' ' the POTW why require pretreatment?
use total post-tax annualized cost This concept is confusing.
detailed explanation of what this cost is as 1 have had
it and I can't explain it properly.
AAX sJtrtJSBf1;,. y>./,--^i"ti*|fc:V-»^'>^. .
1 ^'J^ ^;:\-%?4dMMi*j1iax purposes, the wastewater equipment could not be depreciated
^J.K, ^«MMiiji»-^'^;^i.!^»firiasSii'ija years. EPA's use of a 16-year amoritization period is therefore
' wrong. The per annum cost to the laundries should be revised
DON
• *«**# ':* :»iiftecti?f^w"a»oritization period to more accurately reflect annual industry
r5£P*¥^fer-.>3&£^£dfk£»«;- ..-
T^t«mbtJ»tip . ^..^-edStSV^
^flv"swfli.>-r'f7* »"ft-;:-S
-------
•»•;-^^*g*£'^*'.<':r^m~4^'<'i' '
w .^-jSsSitt^^s&i^jfcfaf ^g DAF-a system is less than that for the CP-a system,
:-a is significantly greater than the CP-a system.
discussed on page 16 under Regulatory Strategy, is this
'$ and dry cleaning or tumbling to remove organics, with
will categorical standards be developed based on the
_..^,.—„.«,, s or in combination with chemical precipitation?
1 r..- -;..,- ' . . .' '. •' •.„,* »'—T^ 5V'**' ' '
- ^. ^'^&*l:'~^'^'?^'-^
or to/
.'cbncemed that EPA's proposed definition of an industrial
Stomers to use disposables, to purchase textile items and install
laundering since these operations are specifically excluded
. JPOTW operators also have expressed similar concerns with the
numerous uncontrolled discharges rather than a limited
number df»gulaied-liijmi£ie^'iTlSA recommends changing the industrial laundry definition as
proposed by EPA t^&e-'j^i^wi^— Xny non-regulated facility that launders industrial textile
'iteni^^n-e^-sffe 3£$£jffiljfoitf-ets. This definition would cover any laundry, including on-
pteffii^;^ope^tiv^.OT:rM«^fbi:^profit laundries, that process a regulated textile item. Jt would
establlsh'-ai; 'e>^ri playiag^Ieid^nd close loopholes that would allow a facility to install its own
pn-prpnuse laundry »tf^«chiiied from the regulation, regardless of what ilems are being
pTOcessei. in ad^tio^.it^uld:.giye no incentive for customers to switch to cooperative or
nonp&fit iaun^nesiuelb ^y^tefans Affairs (VA) laundries since there would be no market
advantage to do ioi'Ti3l'^difii'tioa also provides the greatest environmental benefit because it
would c^ver^cTiajg^sJftjDim all Laundries that process regulated industrial items rather than just
-a p6|3b4 oftheiaundiipsss" iifc existing proposed definition does.
•'-'•/•.-'•.?:. •i;.,c>-v- ":t!i-*^:i-T*> •
-'"""
to comment on these issues and supports EPA's attempt to
the proposed rule is issued. If you have any questions,
-------
Uniform
^Textile
Service
Assocunov
May 8,1997
1300 \orth rah s«« Mr. James Covington
TebSite
'jitsi.com
TbflFiw
000)4864745
£03) 247-2600
Facsimile
65lh Annual
Convention
L»u* Ofitrr
U.S. EPA
401M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
RE: Comments oo Proposed Laundry Categorical Standard Relative to SBBEFA
The Uniform ft Textile Service Association (UTSA) would like to submit the following
comments discussing the affects of the proposed laundry categorical standards on •"•"
business. UTSA hopes that these comments provide the review panel wim greater insight
into the potential problems for small businesses.
UTSA and the industry in general have had acceti to Hale of the mfefmatirm upon «t»ch
the EPA and others wffl make their decisions relative to tins regulation's affect on small
business. We find tins situation disconcerting became we have ^ent a great Mpaqnt ftf
effort in assisting the Agency ingathering this data. We have not seen the data nor any of
EPA's interpretations. One of SBBEFA's important goals is to involve small business as
early as possible in the regulatory process. UTSA believes that access to this data would
allow the higher involvement of small business which the j
Because of the lack of data, suggestions concerning the affects of this regulation on small
business have been difficult to make. Therefore, we have also posed many questions
which we hope will encourage further investigation.
• The SBKEFA review panel should not just consider mall hundrie* hit dy* »h» many
small businesses which launderen service. Launderen provide service to many small
businesses including printers, food establishments, heahh services, contractors,
manufacturers, retail sales and automobile repair shops. Laundries touch the entire
business community and thus any affects which categorical standards have on the
laundry industry may be felt by the
we service.
All small launderen, in fact all launderen no matter their size, are indirect dischargers
and thus already burdened with the responsibility and costs ttryittfd with complying
whh the National Pretreatment Program and local pieueaunent gnats. ID today's
atmosphere of heightened environmental awareness, local pretreatment limits are
tighter thus making categorical standards redundant for an industry which sends all its
wastewater to publicly owned treatment works. Categorical standards are just another
administrative and bureaucratic burden adding costs to a small businesses* bottom line.
"Keeping Businesses Looking Their Best"
-------
Mr. James Covmgton
May J, 1997
Page 2
exempt from the categorical standard regulation. How does a laundry prove iti small
business status and how doe* a regulatory authority coosteently confirm mil status
with any confidence?
Over what time period o^ s busineu deterame to status? WIIU bu*me« use the
most recent fiscal year's data or multiple years?
Is this exemption based on a facility's size or a company's size?
Is the currently proposed 1 mfflion toJyt. exemption based on sofled or ckan weight?
Is it the Agency's intentions to exempt afl faculties which process lets man 1 million
IbJyr. even if said &cflity processes 100% shop towels? Such a facility could be
discharging a greater mass of poDutants than a facility 10 times its size which only
processes 10% shop towels.
How wiD this exemption be enforced by the local wastewater treatment authority?
How does aa exempt facflhy's status change when it exceeds the 1 miffionlbjyr.
threshold5 Does it become a new source or revert to aa existing source?
The Agency needs to ensure the enfbrceabflity of any exemption, A threshold based
on something other than production QbJyr.) may create a more feasible enforcement
scenario which is then less burdensome to the local authority and launderer.
threshold **•'?* be based on a characteristic which the local authority '***' easily
measure [eg wastewater flow rate, number of washers or design capacity of the
washers (TbTload).]
UTSA has not had enough time to poll its membership and committees to determine hs
final position on a small business exemption from the categorical fNTTftTft regulation. We
hope though, that the above comments have been helpful If should have any questions
please call me at (703) 247-2608 or dunlap@utsa.com.
David D. Dunlap, .
Director, Environmental & Regulatory Aflairs
cc:
S. Bums
B. Keegan
J.Schukz
D. Hobson
Attachment
-------
10S*3t$TST.NW.
4SMWCTON. OC 20007.4492
*AX- JOZ/W3-001B
Ofllcara:
MAXH ST6TTNER
TONY RlCHMAN
Patl P*Mtt*nt
SOBEBT E, SPENCE
T1MWIUIAMS
Tr«uur«r
WIU.1AM F AMA7O
GUNNARANDREEN
THOMAS R. BAILEY
STANLEY BIRER
ROBERT A BUCMHOLTZ
ALLEN OENORMANDlE
MALCOLM EDGAR
BRUC£R PtLOMAN
£ ft (SKIP) JACOBSEN III
JORN M. JENSEN
FRED LENWAY
DONALD L PROUDMAN.
MULRIG6Y
RANDY K ROLF
RICHARD A. SMITH
TIMOTHY £.p TOPORNICKt
SUSAN J. TROY
ROYCE £. WILLIE
JORN JENSEN
MUL RJQBY
TIM WILLIAMS
PAUL KREJCI
ROBERT SPENCE
ALANBUBES
ROBERT TABOUCH
Human Rtsourccs
MAX STiTTNER
JM DIVERS
DON DENNING
MAX STETTNER
MtMng*
RAT OEMP6EY
LARRY STEIN6R
Nominaiing
TIMTOPORNICKI
PIBN
ROGER COCIVERA
HANDY BAPTTSCH
ROBERT 6LCHMOLT2
Tmiw Mtna0*n«nf
JIM POMERANZ
TEXTILE RENTAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
HMdqiunart:
1 130 E. BEACH BLVO
SUITES
P.O. BOX t»J
•UlLLANOALE. R. 336M-12U
30S/457-7S55
KM 305MS7-4MO
JOHN j CONTNEY CAB
EiKufev* Oirtcmr
June 10,1997
Ms. Susan Bunis
Engineering and Analysis Division (4303)
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Ms. Bums:
Sent via facsimile
Attached is a copy of my letter dated May 8,1997 concerning small business
issues related to the industrial laundry effluent guidelines. Evidently the original
was lost in the mail. I also have sent another original in the mail.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 202/833-6395.
Sincerely,
David C. Trimble
Manager
Environmental Affairs
DCT/ss
Enclosure
-------
779SA
TEXTILE RENTAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
rife HantM Inaxiany: Unan SUM*. Urdtomi Same*. OuM Control. And Co
TIM WILLIAMS
PAUL KRgXI
ROfl£RT$PiNC6
ALAN BUSES
Government
ROBERT TABOLICH
MAX STETTNEB
JIM DIVERS
DON DENNING
MAX STETTN6R
MMIings
PAT DEMPSEY
LARRY STEINER
Nominating
TIM TOPORNICK1
SOGEB COCIVERA
RtMven A D*v»iopm««H
BARTSCM
ROBERT BUCHMOLT2
Tvflile Man*g«m»nl
JIM POMERANZ
1 130 E. BEACH BLVO
SUITE B
PO BOX 1283
ALLANOALE FL 3soo«-i283
30S'*S7-7SSS
JOHN J. CONTNEY CAE
EMCUIIV* Director
Washington, D.C., oWn:
1CS431STST,. N.W.
DC 20007-4*82
202433-639$
FAX 202433-001 6
OfHcwt:
MAX H. STETTNER
TONY RlCHMAN
ROBERT E. SPENCE
vietPrwiOMI
TIM WILLIAMS
WILLIAM F AMATO
GUNNAB ANDREEN
THOMAS » BAILEY
STANLEY BiRER
ROBERTA 8UCHHOLTZ
ALLEN DENORMANDIE
MALCOLM EDGAR
BRUCE R. FELDMAN
E.R (SKIP) JACOBSEN ill
JORN M. JENSEN
FRED LENWAY
DONALD L PROUOMAN
MUL RIQBY
RANDY K. ROLF
RICHARD A. SMITH
TIMOTHV i P TOPORNICKI
SUSAN J TROY
ROYCE E. WILUE
CommlKM ettalnnan:
JORN JENSEN
MUL RIOBY
lyScixe
May 8,1997
Ms. Susan Bums
Engineering and Ajnalysis Division (4303)
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Ms. Burris:
The Textile Rental Services Association (TRSA) would like to submit the
following comments in response to your letter concerning the potential effects the
industrial laundry effluent guidelines may have on small businesses. In your letter
you asked for responses on four items and I have addressed these below.
1) EPA's data (from the March 4 meeting) indicates that 96% or 1,682
facilities are considered small business using the Small Business
Administration's definition of SI 0.5 million in revenues for laundries.
These facilities are typically mixed plants, processing both linen and
industrial items and so the vast majority of these facilities will fall under
the effluent guidelines and categorical pretreatment standards.
TRSA and the industry do not have much of the data that EPA has
collected to assess the potential effects this regulation may have on small
laundries. In addition, I have had time to obtain input but from a limited
number of companies. Therefore, it is not possible to fully assess the
potential impact the effluent guidelines may have on the industry.
However, approximately 167 facilities would be excluded under EPA's
proposed onc-million-pound annual production exemption threshold,
leaving 1,515 facilities potentially affected. It is likely that at least 90% of
these facilities are mixed plants, which means approximately 1,364
facilities are potentially affected by the regulation. Assuming 50% of the
facilities would have to put in some type of treatment system, the cost of
compliance for small business laundries exceeds SI00 million, based on a
cost of $150,000 for a treatment system. Considering this analysis, it
appears that this regulation will have a significant impact on small entities.
In addition, this proposed rule will affect textile rental customers, many of
which are small businesses too. These customers will face price increases
resulting from the installation and operation of pretreatment systems in the
-------
Ms. Susan Bums
May 8,1997
Page 2
laundries, forcing them to consider other alternatives such as on-premise
laundries, direct sale items with employees laundering their own uniforms
at home, or switching to disposable items. EPA needs to evaluate these
small business effects too.
While TRS A supports a small business exemption, it is not possible to
make an informed decision as to whether the 1 million pound threshold is
an appropriate level for such an exemption, or whether production is the
right parameter to use for such an exemption. It is recommended that EPA
provide information to TRS A and the industry on how this exemption
threshold was derived so the industry can comment further on the subject.
2) Because of the lack of data, it is difficult to tell at this time what the
potential impact the reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance
requirements of the proposed rule will have on the industry. However, it is
know& that many of these small businesses lack the skills and resources to
comply with the reporting and recordkeeping requirements because many
of these operators have not had to keep such records in the past. A lot of
training will be needed to bring these operators up to speed and most do
not have the time to devote to this type of training and run their businesses
too.
3) & 4) All textile rental companies are indirect dischargers that must comply
with the requirements of the National Pretreatment Program (NPP) and
local pretreatment limits. Categorical pretreatment standards will only add
another level of bureaucracy and increase compliance costs for both the
industry and publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) while having
minimal beneficial effects on the environment
Many POTW operators have said that this regulation is unnecessary
because they feel they can control wastewater discharges from laundries
under the existing regulations. In fact, many laundries do not currently
have pretreatment systems installed because the POTWs can properly treat
the effluent The categorical standards will require many of these laundries
to install expensive pretreatment systems that only serve to duplicate the
operations of the POTWs. It was not Congress* intent to require
duplicative treatment when it passed the Clean Water Act
-------
Ms. Susan Bums
May 8, 1997
Page 3
EPA should put its efforts into revising the NPP to address issues that will
make it easier for POTWs to deal with industrial dischargers under the
existing programs instead of unnecessarily imposing further compliance
requirements and costs on industry. To minimize the economic impact of
the proposed rule on small businesses, EPA should issue a finding that
categorical pretreatment standards are not necessary for the textile rental
industry.
TRSA appreciates the opportunity to comment on this issue and supports EPA's
attempt to address small business concerns before the proposed rule is issued. If
you have any questions, please contact me 202/833-6395.
Sincerely,
David C. Trimble
Manager
Environmental Affairs
cc: John Contney, Executive Director, TRSA
-------
ATTACHMENT B:
REPORT OF THE CONFERENCE CALL
WITH SMALL ENTITY REPRESENTATIVES
FOR INDUSTRIAL LAUNDRIES
-------
Attachment B
Report on the
Conference call with Small Entity Representatives
for Industrial Laundries
The Small Business Advocacy Review Panel held a conference call with the Small Entity
Representatives (SERs) for the proposed Industrial Laundries Rule on June 19, 1997.
The purpose of the cvnterenctf call was to allow the Panel members an opportunity to speak with
the SERs directU . to hear their concerns, and to discuss possible alternatives regarding
exemptions or other rr.eon> ti> minimize impacts. A list of the participants is attached.
The meeting K:J:X".
allowing the SI Rs ;
I v>rr. Kelly, the Panel chair, introducing each person in the room and
themselves. The SERs raised the following issues and concerns:
Davui D^n-ar !- I vx Concerns are: (1) the exemptions of OPL's (On-Premise
Laundries > .ir.J p«>ss;He market shifts, (2}Not having adequate information to make a
decision or. possible cut offs for small businesses (3)Difficulty of enforcing a proposed
production cut off. (4) Economic feasibility of the industrial laundries proposed rule.
David Trimble, TRSA. Supports comments made by Mr. Dunlap. Additional concerns:
(1) Record keeping problems in the uniform rental business on pounds of production, (2)
Needed clarification on the differences in technology options(DAF vs. CP), (3) Use of the
1 6 yr amortization for capital costs, suggests 1 0-yr is industry standard.
Marcia Kinter, SGIA. Noted that her association does not represent industrial laundries,
but was concerned about: (1) possible secondary impacts, (2) Will the rule require any
BMPs to printers or industrial laundry customers. (2)WilI this rule have overlapping
issues with OSW and their project on shop towels.
Gene Leonard, Rite- Way, concerns are (l)Accuracy of the estimated numbers of facilities
(including small businesses) affected by the rule EPA is claiming to be in scope. (2)
Disagrees with the 16 year amortization, and with 9% interest.
Douglas Greenhaus, NAD A. Concerns are: (1) Secondary Impacts on customers (2)
Customers may turn to disposables.
The Panel had several questions for the SERs:
Kevin Bromberg, SB A, inquired about hiring additional people for operation of a wastewater
treatment system.
AttB-1
-------
Gene Leonard responded that he would have to hire an additional person to operate the
system and he believe this was the case for other facilities that currently have a
pretreatment system.
Kevin Bromberg asked if small businesses could afford an annual cost of $50,000?
Gene Leonard said he could afford an annual cost of $50,000 but believes that $50,000 is
too low of an estimate for the recommended technology .
Kevin Bromberg also wanted to know if there is a better way to distinguish small businesses than
on a production basis.
-David Dunlap said production is hard to measure and enforce. Suggested that flow
(which is alrciJ^ monitored by POTWs) or revenue might be better basis for exemption.
Jim Laity, OMB. askeJ afvui using revenue instead of production as a basis for identifying small
businesses.
-Gene Leorur J vuJ production is the best measure compared to flow, employment or
revenue
-David Dunlap commented about not having enough data to make a cut off decision. He
is concerned about a permit writer's ability to obtain production numbers from facilities.
-Gene Leonard said that production is the best way to determine cutoffs but agreed that
determining pounds produced may be a problem.
-Both Gene Leonard & David Dunlap suggested that entrance mats should be taken off
the list as possible items to regulate.
-David Dunlap suggested that EPA should only be concerned with soluble pollutants; if a
pollutant doesn't pollute the water, it should not be a concern.
-Tudor Davies, EPA, responded that sludge can be contaminated by loose metal and
grime and that solvents can be transferred to sludge.
Kevin Bromberg asked about regulating just those materials that have a high toxic content-the
heavy materials, for example.
-Marv Rubin, EPA, discussed the difficulty of trying to set separate limitations for heavy
materials versus light materials. EPA encountered problems in making this distinction in
the analysis of the technology performance data, since the facilities sampled for treatment
of heavy items only did not necessarily treat wastewater from items included in the draft
regulatory definition.
•Gene Leonard commented that regulating heavy only may force small businesses to get
out of that part of the business.
Jim Laity asked about the EPA hazardous (solid) waste regulation of shop towels on site (at the
point of use and in transit to laundry). Marv Rubin explained the coordination between the
Engineering and Analysis Division and the Office of Solid Waste and that EPA would continue
AttB-2
-------
to talk with Jim O'Leary in OSW, who is working on the shop towel report, and is a member of
the workgroup on the Industrial Laundries Effluent Guidelines.
Jim Laity, asked how will the 255.000 pounds of heavy only exemptions will impact small
entities.
-Marcia Kinter and Douglas Greenhaus explained how their industry already has
voluntary BMPs under which shop towels may not be used to clean up liquid hazardous
spills. They already have a requirements prohibiting free liquids in towels sent for
laundering.
-David Dunlap commented that regulating just shop towels would lessen the impacts on
small entities. He agrees, however, that it would be difficult to separate the heavy from
the light.
Kevin Bromberg was concerned about OPLs being a problem and how RCRA may change the
current practices of items going to laundries.
-Marcia Kinter discussed her concerns with OSW Report on shop towels (disposable and
reusable).
-David Dunlap also discussed industry wide practices and enforcement on customers.
Competition with disposables. Worried about increase cost of laundering reusable and
OSW action that might deregulate disposables.
-Marcia Kinter explained what she expects the OSW report or possible rule would require
her type of industry to comply with. There is no national policy on shop towels.
-David Dunlap talked about reusable vs. disposable and the issue of disposing them to
landfills.
-Douglas Greenhaus explained how laundries are not regulated as hazardous waste at the
laundry. He encouraged EPA not to change that status.
-Marcia Kinter suggests that EPA give the users options.
David Dunlap noted that the cost effectiveness results seemed especially high for laundries
compared to other regulated industries. Susan Bums, Project Manager, responded that the
comparison was between manufacturing industries and services and that some of the service
industries on the list had higher cost effectiveness.
Gene Leonard commented on economies of scale: large firms can use about 1.7 gallons of water
per pound. He can't do that. He uses about 3 gallons of water per pound. Large firms can get
financing more easily and they can usually get a lower interest rates. Overall costs are not the
same for large firms as for smalls.
Douglas Greenhaus wanted to know if emissions will be created by treatment. Marv Rubin
responded by saying that emission will be generated by the treatment technologies. Both air
AttB-3
-------
emission and residual sludge. The effects of these emission are being evaluated as part of the
assessment of non-water quality environment effects of proposed rule.
In closing the conference call, Tom Kelly asked the SERs if they had any additional information
they wanted to share with the panel.
-David Dunlap said that categorical standards are unnecessary for industrial laundries.
They already have some local limits since they discharge to POTWs. Why set national
standards.
-Gene Leonard suggested that EPA remember the economies of scale between small and
large facilities
-Douglas Grecnhaub suggested we take into consideration overlapping issues
List of participants
Tom Kelly, EPA (»PPE
Jim Laity, OMB OiRA
Jere Glover. S B A \ J u
Kevin Bromberg, SBA Ad\ocacy
DebraNicoll, EPA/OW
Susan Bums, EPA/OW
James C. Covington, III EPA/OW
Mary Ellen Levine, EPA/OGC
Richard Witt, EPA/OGC
Stuart Miles-Mclean, EPA/OPPE '
Marv Rubin, EPA/OW .
Tom McCully, EPA/OPPE
via conference call
David Dunlap, Uniform and Textile Service Association
David Trimble, Textile Rental Service Association of America
Marcia Kinter, Screen Printing and Graphic Imaging Association International
Gene Leonard, Rite-Way Laundry & Dry Cleaners, Inc
Douglas Greenhaus, National Automobile Dealers Association
AttB-4
------- |