[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 21, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 75884-75906]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-24071]
[[Page 75883]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Perchloroethylene Air Emission Standards for Dry Cleaning
Facilities; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 21, 2005 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 75884]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[OAR-2005-0155; FRL-8008-4]
RIN 2060-AK18
National Perchloroethylene Air Emission Standards for Dry
Cleaning Facilities
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing revised standards to limit emissions of
perchloroethylene (PCE) from existing and new dry cleaning facilities.
In 1993, EPA promulgated technology-based emission standards to control
emissions of PCE from dry cleaning facilities. As required by section
112(d)(6) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA has reviewed the standards
and is proposing revisions to take into account new developments in
production practices, processes, and control technologies. In addition,
pursuant to CAA section 112(f), EPA has evaluated the remaining risk to
public health and the environment following implementation of the
technology-based rule and is proposing more stringent standards in
order to protect public health with an ample margin of safety. The
proposed standards are expected to provide further reductions of PCE
beyond the 1993 national emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants (NESHAP), based on application of equipment and work
practice standards.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before February 6,
2006.
Public Hearing. A public hearing is currently scheduled for January
5, 2006. If this date falls on a weekend, the hearing will be held the
next business day. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the
information collection provisions must be received by OMB on or before
January 20, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No.
OAR-2005-0155, by one of the following methods:
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
Agency Web site: http://www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET,
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, will be replaced by
an enhanced Federal-wide electronic docket management and comment
system located at http://www.regulations.gov. When that occurs, you
will be redirected to that site to access the docket and submit
comments. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: [email protected], Attention Docket ID No.
OAR-2005-0155.
Fax: (202) 566-1741, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2005-
0155.
Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: EPA Docket
Center (6102T), Attention Docket ID No. OAR 2005-0155, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total
of two copies. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the
information collection provisions to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk
Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503.
Hand Delivery: In person or by courier, deliver your
comments to: EPA Docket Center (6102T), Attention Docket ID No. OAR-
2005-0155, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., EPA West Building, Room B-
108, Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information. Please include a total of two
copies.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. OAR-2005-0155.
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-
mail. Send or deliver information identified as CBI to only the
following address: Mr. Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer,
EPA (C404-02), Attention Docket ID No. OAR 2005-0155, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that
you claim to be CBI. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm or see the Federal Register of May 31, 2002 (67 FR
38102).
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center,
Docket ID No. OAR 2005-0155, EPA West Building, Room B-102, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA
Docket Center is (202) 566-1742. A reasonable fee may be charged for
copying docket materials.
Public Hearing: If a public hearing is held, it will begin at 10
a.m. and will be held at EPA's campus at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive,
Research Triangle Park, NC, or at an alternate facility nearby. Persons
interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to whether a
public hearing is to be held should contact Ms. Janet Eck, Coatings and
Consumer Products Group, Emission Standards Division, EPA (C539-03),
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-7946, at least 2
days in advance of the hearing. If no one contacts Ms. Eck in advance
of the hearing with a request to present oral testimony at the hearing,
we will cancel the hearing.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about the proposed rule,
contact Ms. Rhea Jones, EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Emission Standards Division, Coatings and Consumer Products
Group (C539-03), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711;
[[Page 75885]]
telephone number (919) 541-2940; fax number (919) 541-5689; e-mail
address: [email protected]. For questions on the residual risk
analysis, contact Mr. Neal Fann, EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Emission Standards Division, Risk and Exposure
Assessment Group (C404-01), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone
number (919) 541-0209; fax number (919) 541-0840; e-mail address:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by the proposed rule are industrial and commercial PCE dry cleaners.
The proposed rule affects the following categories of sources:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category NAICS 1 code Examples of potentially regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coin-operated Laundries and Dry 812310 Dry-to-dry machines, Transfer machines.
Cleaners.
Dry Cleaning and Laundry Services 812320 Dry-to-dry machines, Transfer machines.
(except coin-operated).
Industrial Launderers.............. 812332 Dry-to-dry machines, Transfer machines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by the
proposed rule. To determine whether your facility is regulated by the
proposed rule, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR
63.320 of subpart M (1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP). If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of the proposed rule to a
particular entity, contact the person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Submitting CBI. Do not submit information which you claim to be CBI
to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all
of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a
disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or
CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-
ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance
with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming
CBI, please consult either of the persons identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being
available in the docket, an electronic copy of the proposed rule is
also available on the WWW. Following the Administrator's signature, a
copy of the proposed rule will be posted on EPA's Technology Transfer
Network (TTN) policy and guidance page for newly proposed or
promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides
information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution
control.
Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:
I. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for regulating hazardous air
pollutants (HAP)?
B. What are PCE dry cleaning facilities?
C. What are the health effects of PCE?
D. What does the 1993 NESHAP require?
II. Summary of Proposed Rule
A. What are the proposed requirements for major sources?
B. What are the proposed requirements for area sources?
C. What are the proposed requirements for transfer machines at
major and area sources?
III. Rationale for the Proposed Rule
A. What is our approach for developing residual risk standards?
B. How did we estimate residual risk?
C. What are the residual risks from major sources?
D. What are the options for reducing risk, their costs, and risk
reduction impacts for major sources?
E. What is our proposed decision on acceptable risk and ample
margin of safety for major sources?
F. What are the risks from typical area sources?
G. What are the options for reducing risk, their costs, and risk
reduction impacts for typical area sources?
H. What is our proposal for addressing the remaining emissions
for typical area sources?
I. What are the risks from co-residential area sources?
J. What is our proposed decision on co-residential area sources?
K. What determination is EPA proposing pursuant to review of the
1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP under CAA section 112(d)(6)?
L. What additional changes are we making to the 1993 Dry
Cleaning NESHAP?
IV. Solicitation of Public Comments
A. Additional Requirements for Highest Risk Facilities
B. Requirement for PCE Sensor and Lockout as New Source MACT for
Major Sources
C. Alternative Performance-based Standard for Existing Major
Sources
D. Environmental Impacts of PCE Emissions
E. Additional Time for Complying with Provisions for Transfer
Machines
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
I. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for regulating hazardous air
pollutants (HAP)?
Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process
to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary
sources. In the first stage, after EPA has identified categories of
sources emitting one or more of the HAP listed in the CAA, section
112(d) calls for us to promulgate national technology-based emission
standards for sources within those categories that emit or have the
potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons or more per year
or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons or more per year (known
as major sources), as well as for certain area sources emitting less
than those amounts. These technology-based standards must reflect the
maximum reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy
requirements, and non-air health and environmental impacts) and are
commonly referred to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT)
standards.
For area sources, CAA section 112(d)(5) provides that the standards
may reflect generally available control technology or management
practices in lieu of MACT, and are commonly
[[Page 75886]]
referred to as generally available control technology (GACT) standards.
We published MACT and GACT standards for PCE dry cleaning facilities on
September 22, 1993 at 58 FR 49376. The EPA is then required, pursuant
to section 112(d)(6), to review these technology-based standards and to
revise them ``as necessary, taking into account developments in
practices, processes and control technologies,'' no less frequently
than every 8 years.
The second stage in standard-setting is described in section 112(f)
of the CAA. This provision requires, first, that EPA prepare a Report
to Congress discussing (among other things) methods of calculating risk
posed (or potentially posed) by sources after implementation of the
MACT standards, the public health significance of those risks, the
means and costs of controlling them, actual health effects to persons
in proximity to emitting sources, and recommendations as to legislation
regarding such remaining risk. The EPA prepared and submitted this
report (Residual Risk Report to Congress, EPA-453/R-99-001) in March
1999. The Congress did not act on any of the recommendations in the
report, thereby triggering the second stage of the standard-setting
process, the residual risk phase.
Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires us to determine for each
section 112(d) source category whether the MACT standards protect
public health with an ample margin of safety. If the MACT standards for
HAP ``classified as a known, probable, or possible human carcinogen do
not reduce lifetime excess cancer risks to the individual most exposed
to emissions from a source in the category or subcategory to less than
1-in-1-million,'' EPA must promulgate residual risk standards for the
source category (or subcategory) as necessary to protect public health
with an ample margin of safety. The EPA must also adopt more stringent
standards if required to prevent an adverse environmental effect
(defined in section 112(a)(7) as ``any significant and widespread
adverse effect * * * to wildlife, aquatic life, or natural resources *
* *.''), but must consider cost, energy, safety, and other relevant
factors in doing so.
B. What are PCE dry cleaning facilities?
Dry cleaners use PCE in a dry cleaning machine to clean all types
of garments, including clothes, gloves, leather garments, blankets, and
absorbent materials. There are approximately 28,000 PCE dry cleaning
facilities in the United States. Of the 28,000 dry cleaners, 15 of the
facilities are major sources and the remaining are area sources. Major
source PCE dry cleaners are those that emit 10 tons or more of PCE per
year upon the compliance date of the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP. The 1993
Dry Cleaning NESHAP defines this as facilities that purchase more than
2,100 gallons (gal) of PCE per year (1,800 gal per year if the facility
uses transfer machines). Area sources are typically the common
neighborhood dry cleaner. Area sources were divided into large or small
in the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP, with large area sources defined as
those facilities that use between 140 to 2,100 gal of PCE per year (or
140 to 1,800 gal per year if the facility uses transfer machines).
Small area sources use less than 140 gal per year. Some area sources
are collocated in the same building with residences. In the 1993 Dry
Cleaning NESHAP we did not specifically discuss these sources, but in
this notice we refer to them as co-residential dry cleaners. A co-
residential dry cleaning facility is located in a building in which
people reside. Co-residential facilities are located primarily in urban
areas.
In general, PCE dry cleaning facilities can be classified into
three types: commercial, industrial, and leather. Commercial facilities
typically clean household items such as suits, dresses, coats, pants,
comforters, curtains, and formalwear. Industrial dry cleaners clean
heavily-stained articles such as work gloves, uniforms, mechanics'
overalls, mops, and shop rags. Leather cleaners mostly clean household
leather products like jackets and other leather clothing. The 15 major
sources include eight industrial facilities, five commercial
facilities, and two leather facilities. The five commercial facilities
are each the central plant for a chain of retail storefronts. We do not
expect any new source facilities constructed in the future to be major
sources. Based on the low emission rates of current PCE dry cleaning
machines and the typical business models used in the industrial and
commercial dry cleaning sectors, it is unlikely that any new sources
that are constructed will emit PCE at major levels, or that any
existing area sources will become major sources due to business growth.
Dry cleaning machines can be classified into two types: Transfer
and dry-to-dry. Similar to residential washing machines and dryers,
transfer machines have a unit for washing/extracting and another unit
for drying. Following the wash cycle, PCE-laden articles are manually
transferred from the washer/extractor to the dryer. The transfer of wet
fabrics is the predominant source of PCE emissions in these systems.
Dry-to-dry machines wash, extract, and dry the articles in the same
drum in a single machine, so the articles enter and exit the machine
dry. Because the transfer step is eliminated, dry-to-dry machines have
much lower emissions than transfer machines.
New transfer machines are effectively prohibited at major and area
sources due to the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP requirement that new dry
cleaning systems eliminate any emissions of PCE while transferring
articles from the washer to the dryer. Therefore, transfer machines are
no longer sold. Existing transfer machines are becoming an increasingly
smaller segment of the dry cleaning population as these machines reach
the end of their useful lives and are replaced by dry-to-dry machines.
There are approximately 200 transfer machines currently being used, all
at area sources.
The primary sources of PCE emissions from dry-to-dry machines are
the drying cycle and fugitive emissions from the dry cleaning equipment
(including equipment used to recycle PCE and dispose of PCE-laden
waste). Machines are designed to be either vented or non-vented during
the drying cycle. Approximately 200 dry cleaners (1 percent) use vented
machines, and the remaining facilities use the lower-polluting, non-
vented machines. (The 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP prohibits new dry
cleaning machines at major and area sources that vent to the atmosphere
while the dry cleaning drum is rotating.) In vented machines, the
majority of emissions from the drying cycle are vented outside the
building. In non-vented machines, dryer emissions are released when the
door is opened to remove garments. Currently, the largest sources of
emissions from dry cleaning are from equipment leaks, which come from
leaking valves and seals, and the loading and unloading of garments.
C. What are the health effects of PCE?
The main health effects of PCE are neurological, liver, and kidney
damage following acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term) inhalation
exposure. Animal studies have reported an increased incidence of liver
cancer in mice via inhalation, kidney cancer and mononuclear cell
leukemia in rats. PCE was considered to be a ``probable carcinogen''
(Group B) when assessed under the previous 1986 Guidelines by the EPA
Science Advisory Board. See the risk characterization memorandum in the
public docket for additional information regarding the health effects
of PCE.
[[Page 75887]]
D. What does the 1993 NESHAP require?
The 1993 NESHAP prescribes a combination of equipment, work
practices, and operational requirements. The requirements for process
controls are summarized in table 1 of this preamble. The 1993 Dry
Cleaning NESHAP defines major and area sources based on the annual PCE
purchases for all machines at a facility. The consumption criterion
(which affects the amount of PCE purchased) varies depending on whether
the facility has dry-to-dry machines only, transfer machines only, or a
combination of both. The affected source is each individual dry
cleaning system.
Table 1.--Summary of the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP Process Controls
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources Annual PCE purchased New \1\ (after 12/9/91) Existing \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Sources........................ Dry-to-dry ONLY > 2,100 Dry-to-dry machines Dry-to-dry machines:
gal/yr. with a refrigerated must have refrigerated
Transfer ONLY > 1,800 condenser, AND carbon AND condenser.\3\
gal/yr. adsorber operated Transfer machines: must
Dry-to-dry AND Transfer immediately before or be enclosed in a room
> 1,800 gal/yr. as the door is opened. exhausting to a
dedicated carbon
adsorber.
Large Area Sources................... Dry-to-dry ONLY 140 to Dry-to-dry machines Dry-to-dry with
2,100 gal/yr. with a refrigerated machines: must have a
Transfer ONLY 200 to condenser. refrigerated
1,800 gal/yr. condenser.\3\
Dry-to-dry AND Transfer Transfer machines: No
140 to 1,800 gal/yr. controls required.
Small Area Sources................... Dry-to-dry ONLY < 140 Same as large area No controls required.
gal/yr. sources.
Transfer ONLY < 200 gal/
yr.
Dry-to-dry AND Transfer
< 140 gal/yr.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No new transfer machines are allowed after 9/23/93.
\2\ Compliance date = 9/23/96.
\3\ Alternatively, carbon adsorber is allowed only if installed before 9/22/93.
In addition, all sources must comply with certain operating
requirements, including recording PCE purchases, storing PCE and PCE-
containing waste in non-leaking containers, and inspecting for
perceptible leaks. Owners or operators are required to operate and
maintain the control equipment according to procedures specified in the
1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP and to use pollution prevention procedures,
such as good operation and maintenance, for both dry cleaning machines
and auxiliary equipment (such as filter, muck cookers, stills, and
solvent tanks) to prevent liquid and vapor leaks of PCE from these
sources.
II. Summary of Proposed Rule
A. What are the proposed requirements for major sources?
Under the proposed revisions, the requirements for all new and
existing major sources would be the same. The proposed revisions would
require the implementation of an enhanced leak detection and repair
(LDAR) program and the use of dry-to-dry machines that do not vent to
the atmosphere (closed-loop) during any phase of the dry cleaning
cycle. A refrigerated condenser and a secondary carbon adsorber would
be required control equipment for all machines. The secondary carbon
adsorber would control the PCE emissions during the final stage of the
dry cleaning cycle immediately before and as the drum door is opened.
Under the enhanced LDAR program, the facility owner or operator would
have to use a PCE gas analyzer (photoionization detector,
flameionization detector, or infrared analyzer) and perform leak checks
according to EPA Method 21 on a monthly basis. The facility owner or
operator would also be required to continue the weekly perceptible leak
check according to the requirements of the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP.
B. What are the proposed requirements for area sources?
For existing area sources (large and small), the proposed revisions
would require implementation of an enhanced LDAR program and a
prohibition on the use of existing transfer machines.
For new area sources (large and small), the proposed rule would
require implementation of an enhanced LDAR program and use of a non-
vented dry-to-dry machine with a refrigerated condenser and secondary
carbon adsorber. The enhanced LDAR program for area sources would
require facilities to use a halogenated leak detector (instead of a
more costly gas analyzer proposed for major sources) to perform leak
checks on a monthly basis. The facility would also be required to
continue to inspect for perceptible leaks biweekly for small area
sources and weekly for large area sources according to the requirements
of the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP.
For co-residential area sources, we are proposing two options. The
first proposed option would effectively prohibit new PCE sources from
locating in residential buildings by requiring that owners or operators
eliminate PCE emissions from the dry cleaning process. Existing co-
residential sources, under this option, would only be subject to the
same requirements proposed for all other existing area sources (i.e.,
enhanced LDAR and elimination of transfer machines). The second
proposed option would, instead of a prohibition on new co-residential
sources, require that existing and new co-residential sources comply
with standards based on those required by New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) in their Title 6 NYCRR Part 232
rules, which include using machines equipped with refrigerated
condensers and carbon adsorbers, enclosed in a vapor barrier to help
prevent exposures to PCE emissions. We expect to select one of these
options, with possible modifications in response to public comments, in
the final rule.
C. What are the proposed requirements for transfer machines at major
and area sources?
The proposed rule would effectively prohibit the use of all
existing transfer machines 90 days from the effective date of the final
rule by requiring owners or operators to eliminate any PCE emissions
from clothing transfer between the washer and dryer. Similarly, the
installation of new transfer machines was prohibited by the
[[Page 75888]]
1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP. We estimate that about 200 transfer machines
remain in use within the population of 28,000 dry cleaning machines
located at area sources (estimated one PCE dry cleaning machine per
facility with approximately 28,000 facilities). Most of these machines
will be at or near the end of their useful economic life by the time
final rule requirements are promulgated. The typical life of a dry
cleaning machine is 10 to 15 years. By the end of 2006, the newest
transfer machines in the industry will be 13 years old.
III. Rationale for the Proposed Rule
A. What is our approach for developing residual risk standards?
Following our initial determination that the individual most
exposed to emissions from the category considered exceeds a 1-in-1
million individual cancer risk, our approach to developing residual
risk standards is based on a two-step determination of acceptable risk
and ample margin of safety. The first step, consideration of acceptable
risk, is only a starting point for the analysis that determines the
final standards. The second step determines an ample margin of safety,
which is the level at which the standards are set.
The terms ``individual most exposed,'' ``acceptable level,'' and
``ample margin of safety'' are not specifically defined in the CAA.
However, CAA section 112(f)(2)(B) refers positively to the
interpretation of these terms in our 1989 rulemaking (54 FR 38044,
September 14, 1989), ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Benzene Emissions from Maleic Anhydride Plants,
Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene Storage Vessels, Benzene Equipment
Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery Plants (Benzene NESHAP),''
essentially directing us to use the interpretation set out in that
notice \1\ or to utilize approaches affording at least the same level
of protection.\2\ We likewise notified Congress in the Residual Risk
Report that we intended to utilize the Benzene NESHAP approach in
making CAA section 112(f) residual risk determinations.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This reading is confirmed by the Legislative History to CAA
section 112(f); see, e.g., ``A Legislative History of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990,'' vol. 1, page 877 (Senate Debate on
Conference Report).
\2\ Legislative History, vol. 1, p. 877, stating that: ``* * *
the managers intend that the Administrator shall interpret this
requirement [to establish standards reflecting an ample margin of
safety] in a manner no less protective of the most exposed
individual than the policy set forth in the Administrator's benzene
regulations * * *.''
\3\ Residual Risk Report to Congress. March 1999. EPA-453/R-99-
001, page ES-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989), we stated
as an overall objective:
* * * in protecting public health with an ample margin of safety, we
strive to provide maximum feasible protection against risks to
health from hazardous air pollutants by (1) protecting the greatest
number of persons possible to an individual lifetime risk level no
higher than approximately 1 in 1 million; and (2) limiting to no
higher than approximately 1 in 10 thousand [i.e., 100 in 1 million]
the estimated risk that a person living near a facility would have
if he or she were exposed to the maximum pollutant concentrations
for 70 years.
As explained more fully in our Residual Risk Report, these goals
are not ``rigid line[s] of acceptability, but rather broad objectives
to be weighed ``with a series of other health measures and
factors.\4\''
\4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. How did we estimate residual risk?
The ``Residual Risk Report to Congress'' (EPA-453/R-99-001)
provides the general framework for conducting risk assessments to
support decisions made under the residual risk program. The report
acknowledged that each risk assessment design would have some common
elements, including a problem formulation phase, an analysis phase, and
the risk characterization phase. The risk assessment for PCE dry
cleaners used both site-specific data for many modeling parameters and
population characteristics derived from census data, as well as default
assumptions for exposure parameters--some of which were assumed to be
health protective (e.g., exposure frequency and exposure duration, 70-
year constant emission rates).5 6 To estimate the cancer
risk and non-cancer hazard for major source facilities, we performed
refined modeling for a subset of major source facilities we determined
were representative of all major sources, including industrial
cleaners, commercial cleaners, and leather cleaners. Facilities within
each of these three specializations tend to be homogenous with respect
to factors that affect the emissions, pollutant dispersion, and
population size in the modeling radius, allowing us to extrapolate
risks from facilities modeled to those that were not modeled. We used a
combination of modeling and monitoring approaches to analyze risks for
area sources. See the risk characterization memorandum in the public
docket for a complete discussion of the major and area source risk
assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Additional details are provided in the risk characterization
memorandum in the rulemaking docket.
\6\ Residual Risk Report to Congress, pp. B-18 and B-22. The
approach used to assess the risks associated with standards for the
dry cleaning industry are consistent with the technical approach and
policies described in the Report to Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. How did we estimate the atmospheric dispersion of PCE emitted
from major and area sources?
We used the Industrial Source Complex Short-term model, version 3
(ISCST-3) to estimate the dispersion of PCE from facilities to receptor
locations. For a complete description of the dispersion modeling,
please see the risk characterization memorandum.
2. How did we assess public health risk associated with PCE emitted
from PCE dry cleaners?
PCE has been associated with a variety of health effects, including
cancer. Although PCE has not yet been reassessed under the Agency's
recently revised Guidelines for Cancer Risk Assessment,\7\ it was
considered to be a ``probable carcinogen'' (Group B) \8\ when assessed
under the previous 1986 Guidelines by the EPA Science Advisory Board.
Since that time, the United States Department of Health and Human
Services has concluded that PCE is ``reasonably anticipated to be a
human carcinogen,\9\'' and the International Agency for Research on
Cancer has concluded that PCE is ``probably carcinogenic to
humans.\10\''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ USEPA. 2005. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. EPA/
650/P-03/001B. Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC.
\8\ March 9, 1988 letter to Lee Thomas, Administrator, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, from Norton Nelson, Chair,
Executive Committee of EPA Science Advisory Board.
\9\ USDHHS. 1989. Report on Carcinogens, Fifth Edition; U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service,
National Toxicology Program.
\10\ IARC. 1995. Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic
risks to humans. Volume 63. Dry Cleaning, Some Chlorinated Solvents
and Other Industrial Chemicals. ISBN 9283212630. Geneva,
Switzerland.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our assessment of public health risk associated with PCE emitted
from PCE dry cleaners, we considered risks of cancer and other health
effects. Cancer risks associated with inhalation exposure were assessed
using lifetime cancer risk estimates. The noncancer risks were
characterized through the use of hazard quotient (HQ) and hazard index
(HI) estimates. An HQ is calculated as the ratio of the exposure
concentration of a pollutant to its health-based non-cancer threshold.
In this assessment, values that are below 1.0 are not likely to be
associated with adverse health effects. An HI is the sum of HQ for
pollutants that target the same organ or system. For dry cleaners, PCE
is the only HAP emitted, therefore, HI and HQ are the same.
[[Page 75889]]
Several sources were considered for cancer and noncancer dose-
response assessment information. In a 1998 assessment of PCE cancer
risks associated with dry cleaners, EPA's Office of Prevention,
Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) derived and used a lifetime
inhalation unit risk estimate (URE) of 7.1 x 10-\7\ per
microgram per cubic meter (ug/m\3\).\11\ This reflected an update of
the URE of 5.8 x 10-\7\ per ug/m\3\ that was derived by EPA
in the 1980s.\12\ The PCE cancer dose-response assessments developed by
others include a lifetime URE of 5.9 x 10-\6\ per ug/m\3\
developed by the California Environmental Protection Agency
(CalEPA),\13\ and a lifetime URE of 3.8 x 10-\7\ per ug/m\3\
developed by Clewell and others.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ USEPA. 1998. Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment:
Professional Fabricare Processes. EPA 744-B-98-001. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics, Washington, DC.
\12\ USEPA. 1996. Addendum to the Health Assessment Document for
Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene), Updated Carcinogenicity
Assessment for Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene, PERC, PCE).
EPA/600/8-82/005FA. External Review Draft. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment,
Washington, DC.
\13\ CDHS. 1991. Health Effects of Tetrachloroethylene (PCE).
California Department of Health Services (subsequently CalEPA,
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment), Berkeley, CA.
\14\ H.J. Clewell, P.R. Gentry, J.E. Kester, and M.E. Andersen.
2005. Evaluation of physiologically based pharmacokinetic
perchloroethylene.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are currently reevaluating the available information on health
effects of PCE, including cancer, as part of a hazard and dose-response
assessment for the Agency's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).
The cancer component of this evaluation is being conducted in
accordance with the 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment.
Data have become available from the Japanese Industrial Safety
Association (1993) that includes rodent inhalation studies with a
cancer bio-assay which was not considered by the sources above.\15\ The
document describing the evaluation is expected to be released for
external scientific peer review and public comment. The projected
schedule for completion of the IRIS assessment is available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/iristrac/index.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ JISA (Japan Industrial Safety Association). 1993.
Carcinogenicity Study of Tetrachloroethylene by Inhalation in Rats
and Mice. Data No. 3-1. Available from: EPA-IRIS Information Desk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While all of the available lifetime URE are based on the same
animal bioassay \16\ (1986), there are several factors contributing to
the differences in magnitude among them. One significant contributing
factor is characterization of human metabolism of PCE. This is an area
in which widely diverging quantitative estimates have been published,
and their use leads to notable differences in human cancer dose-
response value derived from animal data, illustrated to some extent by
the range of values presented above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ NTP. 1986. NTP technical report on the toxicology and
carcinogenesis of tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene) (CAS No.
127-18-4) in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice (inhalation studies).
National Toxicology Program, Research Triangle Park, NC. NTP TR 311,
NIH Publication No. 86-2567. August 1986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an interim approach in lieu of the completed IRIS assessment, we
used two dose-response values to characterize cancer risk. These two
values were chosen to represent the best available peer-reviewed
science. As we have stated previously, we will not be relying
exclusively on IRIS values, but will be considering all credible and
readily available assessments.\17\ We used the CalEPA URE (5.9 x
10-\6\ per ug/m\3\) and the estimate developed by OPPTS (7.1
x 10-\7\ per ug/m\3\). Both are derived with consideration
of findings of liver tumors in mouse laboratory bioassays, with the
OPPTS value additionally considering laboratory findings of mononuclear
cell leukemia in rats, and both have received public comment and
scientific peer review by external panels. Dose-response modeling
performed in both assessments involved use of metabolized doses with
different estimates of human PCE metabolism contributing to differences
in the resulting URE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ USEPA. March 1999. Residual Risk Report to Congress. Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC
27711. EPA-453/R-99-001; available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3/meta/m8690.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effects other than cancer associated with long-term inhalation of
PCE in worker or animal studies include neurotoxicity, liver and kidney
damage, and, at higher levels, developmental effects. To characterize
noncancer hazard in lieu of the completed IRIS assessment, we used the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry's (ATSDR) Minimum Risk
Level (MRL) (270 ug/m\3\.\18\ This value is based on a study of
neurological effects in workers in dry cleaning shops, and is derived
in a manner similar to EPA's method for derivation of reference
concentrations (Rfc), and with scientific and public review. The ATSDR
MRL is quite similar to the provisional RfC (170 ug/m\3\) derived by
OPPTS in 1997 based on a study of kidney effects in workers in dry
cleaning shops \19\ that reported effects at similar exposure
concentrations than those elsewhere reported associated with
neurological effects. The OPPTS value was termed a provisional RfC
because it was derived by a single EPA program office with limited
cross-office review. This value is based on a study of neurological
effects in workers in dry cleaning shops. Since that time, more recent
studies have been published, particularly with regard to more sensitive
neurological effects at lower exposures.\20\ We are reviewing these and
all of the available information on the noncancer health effects of PCE
as part of the IRIS assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ ATSDR. 1997. Toxicological Profile for Tetrachloroethylene.
Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Services,
Agnecy for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, Georgia.
\19\ V. Vu. 1997. Memorandum titled ``Provisional RfC for
perchloroethylene'' From Vanessa Vu, Acting Director, Health and
Environmental Review Division, to William Waugh, Acting Directory,
Chemical Screening and Risk Assessment Division, OPPT, USEPA. As
cited in OPPTS 1998. Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment:
Professional Fabricare Processes. EPA-744-B-98-001. USEPA, Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Washington, DC.
\20\ USEPA. 2004. Summary report of the peer review workshop on
the neurotoxicity of tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene)
discussion paper. National Center for Environmental Assessment,
Washington, DC; EPA-600-R-04-041. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/ncea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rule is based on both the risk estimates derived using
both the CalEPA cancer dose-response values and the ATSDR noncancer
MRL. The CalEPA cancer dose-response value is higher than the value
derived by OPPTS, leading to higher cancer risk estimates. Given our
uncertainty regarding the pending IRIS dose-response values, we have
considered the range of available potencies with which to calculate
inhalation cancer risk. We calculate cancer risk using both values, but
propose to use the CalEPA value. We request comment on both this
approach of using the more health protective end of the dose-response
range and our selection of dose-response values. Based on the findings
and status of the IRIS assessment at the time of promulgation, we may
reassess our estimates of cancer risk and noncancer hazard. The Agency
is aware that some stakeholders have suggested that we defer certain
action pending completion of the IRIS assessment for PCE. In today's
notice, we request comment on our proposal to use the available CalEPA
and OPPTS potency values, and we request comments on whether we should
defer further development of the risk assessment and any rulemakings
under section 112(f)(2) for area sources pending completion of the IRIS
assessment for PCE.
[[Page 75890]]
3. How did we assess environmental impacts of major sources and
typical area sources?
The chemical properties of PCE suggest that once it is emitted into
the atmosphere as a vapor, it is not likely to partition significantly
into soil, water, or sediment. Based on fugacity modeling, we estimate
that 99.8 percent of ambient PCE remains in the atmosphere, with the
remainder partitioning into water (0.17 percent), and soil (0.05
percent). Thus, PCE emitted from major stationary sources is not likely
to pose a significant ecological risk due to any exposure pathway other
than inhalation.
Further, to assess the potential inhalation risk to mammals from
PCE inhalation, we compared the minimum lowest observable adverse
effect level (LOAEL) for rats with the highest level of modeled ambient
concentration from PCE cleaners; the rat LOAEL for PCE can be found in
the ATSDR toxicological profile that documents the development of the
MRL (http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp18.html). The lowest rat
LOAEL (9 parts per million (ppm), or 60 mg/m\3\) is about 2,000 times
higher than the highest modeled post-control ambient concentrations
from major stationary sources.
This large margin of exposure leads us to conclude that risks to
mammals from PCE inhalation are likely insignificant, obviating the
need to further quantify ecological risks to any degree.
In the atmosphere, PCE is known to degrade into many compounds,
including trichloroacetic acid (TCAA). TCAA is a persistent, known
phytotoxin, which has been discontinued as a herbicide. Atmospheric
transformation of PCE to TCAA is the subject of great debate, with
potential conversion efficiencies estimated to be on the order of 5 to
15 percent. However, there are very few data quantifying TCAA
concentrations in the air, precipitation, water, soil, or sediment in
the United States. This scarcity of data makes it difficult to
determine whether there is any potential for adverse ecological impacts
on plant life from PCE emissions from dry cleaners due to conversion to
TCAA. While we have no direct evidence that this will present a
significant ecological risk, we nonetheless invite public comment and
solicit additional scientific information on this issue. Since our
results showed no screening level ecological effects, we do not believe
that there is any potential for an effect on threatened or endangered
species or on their critical habitat within the meaning of 50 CFR
402.14(a). Because of these results, we concluded a consultation with
the Fish and Wildlife Service is not necessary.
C. What are the residual risks from major sources?
Table 2 of this preamble summarizes the estimated risks remaining
for the seven modeled major source facilities after compliance with
MACT. In performing residual risk assessments under the CAA section
112(f)(2), EPA believes it may evaluate potential risk based on
consideration of both emission levels allowed under the MACT standard
and actual emissions levels achieved in compliance with MACT. See,
e.g., 70 FR 19992, 19998 (April 15, 2005). Generally, allowable
emissions are the maximum levels sources could emit and still comply
with existing standards. It is also reasonable that we consider actual
emissions when available, as a factor in both steps of the residual
risk determination, to avoid unrealistic inflation of risk levels or
where other factors suggest basing the evaluation solely on allowables
is not appropriate. Essentially, the existing dry cleaning MACT
standard is comprised of equipment standards and various work
practices. Compliance with the existing MACT standard is demonstrated
by use of the required equipment and implementation of the required
work practices, and there are no numeric emissions levels to model.
Therefore, the seven facilities were modeled using actual 2000-2002
emissions and are representative of the emissions from major sources.
We conclude that the sampled facilities represent characteristics of
the major source facility population, including commercial, industrial,
and leather facilities. The risk analysis shows that each of the seven
modeled facilities poses a cancer risk of 1-in-1 million or greater.
The highest maximum individual cancer risk (MIR) is between 300-in-1
million and 2,400-in-1 million. The MIR is the lifetime risk of
developing cancer for the individual facing the highest estimated
exposure over a 70-year lifetime. Five of the modeled facilities pose a
risk greater than 100-in-1 million (the presumptive unacceptable risk
level), and about 550 people are exposed at this level. One facility
has a HQ of greater than 1.0. As described below in section III.E, we
expect a continuing decline in PCE emissions even in the absence of
additional Federal regulation. These baseline risk estimates do not
reflect such a trend, therefore; baseline risks are likely to be
overestimated.
Table 2.--Major Source Baseline Risk Estimates for Modeled Facilities After Application of 1993 Dry Cleaning
NESHAP, Based on 70-Year Exposure Duration \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameter MACT level (OPPTS URE) MACT level (CalEPA URE)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MIR from facility with highest risk 300-in-1 million..................... 2,400-in-1 million.
Maximum HQ from facility with 2.................................... 2.
highest risk based on ATSDR MRL.
Population at risk across all
modeled facilities [modeled to 10
kilometers (km)]:
> 1-in-1 million............... 16,000............................... 175,000.
> 10-in-1 million.............. 800.................................. 12,500.
> 100-in-1 million............. 10................................... 550.
Total population exposed....... 3,300,000............................ 3,300,000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In this table, all risk and population estimates are rounded.
To account for the fact that individuals may move through areas
(microenvironments) of differing concentrations during their daily
activities, EPA conducted an exposure variability analysis in which it
used the Total Risk Integration Methodology Exposure model (TRIM.Expo,
also known as the Air Pollutant Exposure Model 3, or APEX3). The
TRIM.Expo model uses a personal profile approach in which it
stochastically simulates exposures for individuals of differing
demographic characteristics and associated daily activity patterns. The
model output provides a distribution of exposure estimates which are
intended to be representative of the study population with respect to
their demographically based behavior, in terms of the microenvironments
through
[[Page 75891]]
which they move during a day and throughout a year (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/fera for more information regarding the model). To
estimate cancer risk, EPA assumes that this 1-year exposure scenario
continues for 70 years. Table 3 contrasts ISCST-3 and TRIM.Expo
estimates of population risk for the worst-case facility, using the
CalEPA URE; this example is illustrative only.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Note that the ISCST-3 modeling results do not match earlier
risk estimates due to the fact that EPA used an earlier set of
ISCST-3 modeling results for the TRIM.Expo analysis. The original
ISCST-3 results are retained here so that the comparison with
TRIM.Expo will be consistent.
Table 3.--Comparison of ISCST-3 Exposure Estimates with Activity-Patterned/Day, Lifetime Exposure
[ISCST-3+Trim.Expo]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total population at cancer risk
-----------------------------------------------
Model >100-in-1 >10-in-1 >1-in-1
million million million
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISCST-3......................................................... 900 14,000 75,000
TRIM.Expo....................................................... 400 9,000 80,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRIM.Expo provides a more central tendency estimate of risk by
accounting for variability in personal exposure. The table above shows
a smaller number of individuals exposed at the higher levels of cancer
risk and a slightly larger number of individuals exposed at a cancer
risk of at least 1-in-1 million. While we performed this analysis for
the worst-case facility, it is reasonable to infer that the risk
distribution above would be similar to the remainder of the major
source facilities. One limitation of this analysis is that we assume
continuous 70-year exposure when calculating cancer risk, and some
individuals are likely to move away from the facility. However, given
the large number of area source dry cleaners nation wide, and the
consequent ubiquity of PCE exposure, it is unlikely that the PCE
exposure of individuals moving out of the TRIM.Expo study area would
fall to zero.
For illustrative purposes, below we provide estimates of individual
inhalation cancer risk based on different assumptions regarding
exposure duration. In contrast to the TRIM.Expo estimates above, the
risk estimates below do not account for personal activity patterns and
assume that individuals receive continuous exposure for the duration
noted.
Table 4.--Estimates of Individual Inhalation Cancer Risk Based on Different Exposure Durations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assumed exposure duration \1\
Estimated lifetime cancer risk ------------------------------------------------------
70 50 30 20 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Risk per Million (CalEPA)................................ 2,400 1,700 1,030 700 340
Risk per Million (OPPTS)................................. 300 210 130 90 40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Risk estimates derived using maximum exposure concentration.
D. What are the options for reducing risk, their costs, and risk
reduction impacts for major sources?
We evaluated several methods for reducing risks. These methods
include enhanced LDAR and three emission control technologies.
Enhanced LDAR. Enhanced LDAR would require the facility owner or
operator to use a portable PCE gas analyzer to perform leak checks on a
monthly basis. Two major sources and several State and local agencies
currently use a photoionization detector, one type of gas analyzer, for
leak inspections. The detection probe is moved slowly along the
equipment part, and if PCE is detected, the device gives a
concentration reading of the leak. The proposed leak definition is a
concentration of 25 ppm. Portable gas analyzers cost about $3,300 and
have a 10-year life expectancy. The facility would be required to
continue to perform the weekly perceptible leak checks as required by
the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP. A nominal amount of additional labor
would be required as a result of the proposed requirement to use a gas
analyzer. We estimated 1 hour of labor per machine per month to perform
the leak inspection. The estimated total capital cost to the industry
to establish an enhanced LDAR program is $40,000, with a annual cost
savings of $390,000. The cost savings is due to reduced PCE
consumption.
Control Technologies. Three types of emission control technologies
can be used to reduce emissions from dry cleaning machines. The first
two are a refrigerated condenser and a secondary carbon adsorber. The
third technology is a PCE sensor and lockout. By using the first two
control technologies together, and by operating them properly, a
significant amount of PCE can be recovered.
Refrigerated condensers are the most effective method for reducing
PCE from the drying cycle. They are used to condense PCE vapor for
reuse. By operating at lower temperatures than water-cooled condensers,
refrigerated condensers recover more PCE from the drying air and reduce
emissions. By the end of the cool-down cycle, refrigerated condensers
can reduce PCE concentrations in the drum to between 2,000 and 8,600
ppm. Refrigerated condensers require relatively little maintenance,
needing only to have their refrigerant recharged and to have lint
removed from the coils (yearly or even less frequently).
A secondary carbon adsorber controls the PCE emissions during the
final stage of the dry cleaning cycle just prior to the drum door
opening. A carbon adsorber removes organic compounds from air by
adsorption onto a bed of activated carbon as the air passes over the
bed. Carbon adsorbers have a PCE removal efficiency of 95 percent or
greater. Properly designed and operated secondary adsorbers have been
shown to reduce the PCE concentration in the drum from several thousand
ppm to less
[[Page 75892]]
than 100 ppm, and in some cases, to less than 10 ppm. Most new dry
cleaning machines sold today are equipped with secondary carbon
adsorbers. Carbon adsorbers require periodic desorption to recover PCE
and maintain their peak PCE collection efficiency.
The technologies currently in use by major and area source dry
cleaners include vented dry-to-dry machines with water-cooled
condensers and carbon adsorbers, non-vented (closed-loop) dry-to-dry
machines with refrigerated condensers, non-vented dry-to-dry machines
with refrigerated condensers and secondary carbon adsorbers and
transfer machines. To meet a standard requiring a refrigerated
condenser and secondary carbon adsorber, existing dry cleaning machines
without this control could be retrofitted, or new replacement machines
could be purchased depending on the remaining useful life of each
existing machine. The costs to add control technologies range from
$13,000 to $40,000 per machine, depending on the size of the existing
machine and the level of control of the machine. Machine replacement
costs are approximately $900 to $1,000 per pound of capacity.
Additional analysis of costs can be found in the Background Information
Document in the public docket.
A PCE sensor is the third control technology used in machines with
a secondary carbon adsorber. The sensor controls the carbon adsorption
cycle to achieve a set PCE concentration in the drum. This device uses
a single-beam infrared photometer to measure the concentration of PCE
in the drum, and prolongs the carbon adsorption cycle until the
concentration set point is achieved. An interlock (lock-out) ensures
that the PCE set-point has been attained before the machine door can be
opened.
Regulatory Options. We considered three options for reducing risk
from major source dry cleaners. Option I would require all major
sources to use an enhanced LDAR program and have dry-to-dry machines
with a refrigerated condenser and a secondary carbon adsorber. Option
II would require a PCE sensor and lock-out in addition to the Option I
controls. Option III would require no PCE emissions from major sources
(a ban on the use of PCE).
Table 5 of this preamble shows the costs and risk estimates for
each regulatory option. The population risk estimates were extrapolated
from the seven modeled facilities to all 15 major source facilities.
The cost estimates are also for all 15 major source facilities.
Table 5.--Risk Estimates and Costs of Control Options for Major Sources Based on 70-year Exposure Duration \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameter MACT level Option I Option II Option III
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MIR from facility with highest 2,400-in-1 million 270-in-1 million.. 150-in-1 million.. NA.\2\
risk (CalEPA URE).
MIR from facility with highest 300-in-1 million.. 30-in-1 million... 20-in-1 million... NA.
risk (OPPTS URE).
Maximum HQ from facility with 2................. 0.2............... 0.1............... NA.
highest risk.
---------------------------------
Population at Risk Across All Facilities \3\ (Population Risk Range Represents Difference Between OPPTS and
CalEPA URE)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 1-in-1 million................ 35,000 to 375,000. 2,000 to 55,000... 1,000 to 26,000... NA.
> 10-in-1 million............... 2,000 to 27,000... 20 to 1,800....... 10 to 900......... NA.
> 100-in-1 million.............. 10 to 1,200....... 0 to 13........... 0 to 6............ NA.
Total population exposed (within 9,300,000 NA.
10 km).
Capital Cost ($1000)............ .................. 830............... 5,700............. 8,200.
Annualized Cost ($1000)......... .................. (220)............. 420............... Not Estimated.
Emission Reduction (tons per .................. 209............... 249 (40 293 (44
year (tpy)). incremental). incremental).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In this table, risk estimates are based on both OPPTS and the CalEPA URE. All risk and population estimates
are rounded.
\2\ NA = not applicable. Under Option III, risk from PCE would be eliminated, however, potential risks from
alternative solvents were not analyzed.
\3\ Modeled to 10 km.
E. What is our proposed decision on acceptable risk and ample margin of
safety for major sources?
Section 112(f)(2)(A) of the CAA states that if the MACT standards
for a source emitting a:
* * * known, probable, or possible human carcinogen do not reduce
lifetime excess cancer risks to the individual most exposed to
emissions from a source in the category * * * to less than one in
one million, the Administrator shall promulgate [residual risk]
standards * * * for such source category.
The residual risk to the individual most exposed to emissions from
PCE dry cleaners is estimated at 1-in-1 million or greater at each
major source dry cleaner modeled. Major source dry cleaners subject to
the proposed rule emit a possible to probable human carcinogen, and, as
shown in table 3 of this preamble, we estimate that the MIR associated
with the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP limits is between 300-in-1 million
and 2,400-in-1 million. Therefore, we believe a residual risk standard
is necessary.
In the 1989 Benzene NESHAP, the first step of the residual risk
decision framework is the determination of acceptable risk (i.e., are
the estimated risks due to emissions from these facilities
``acceptable''). This determination is based on health considerations
only, without consideration of costs. The determination of what
represents an ``acceptable'' risk level is based on a judgment of
``what risks are acceptable in the world in which we live'' (54 FR
38045, 1987, quoting the Vinyl Chloride decision at DC Circuit Courts
Decision in NRDC vs. EPA, 824 F.2d at 1165) recognizing that our world
is not risk-free.
In the 1989 Benzene NESHAP, we stated that a MIR of approximately
100-in-1 million should ordinarily be the upper end of the range of
acceptable risks associated with an individual source of pollution. We
characterized the MIR as ``the estimated risk that a person living near
a facility would have if he or she were exposed to the maximum
pollutant concentrations for 70 years.'' We explained that this measure
of risk ``is an estimate of the upper bound of risk based on
conservative assumptions, such as continuous exposure for 24 hours per
day for 70 years.'' We acknowledge that
[[Page 75893]]
the MIR ``does not necessarily reflect the true risk, but displays a
conservative risk level which is an upper bound that is unlikely to be
exceeded.''
Understanding that there are both benefits and limitations to using
MIR as a metric for determining acceptability, we acknowledged in the
1989 Benzene NESHAP that ``consideration of maximum individual risk * *
* must take into account the strengths and weaknesses of this measure
of risk.'' Consequently, the presumptive risk level of 100-in-1 million
provides a benchmark for judging the acceptability of MIR, but does not
constitute a rigid line for making that determination. In establishing
a presumption for the acceptability of maximum risk, rather than a
rigid line for acceptability, we explained in the 1989 Benzene NESHAP
that risk levels should also be weighed with a series of other health
measures and factors, including the following:
The numbers of persons exposed within each individual
lifetime risk range and associated incidence within, typically, a 50 km
(about 30 miles) exposure radius around facilities.
The science policy assumptions and estimation
uncertainties associated with the risk measures.
Weight of the scientific evidence for human health
effects.
Other quantified or unquantified health effects.
The overall incidence of cancer or other serious health
effects within the exposed population.
In some cases, these health measures and factors taken together may
provide a more realistic description of the magnitude of risk in the
exposed population than that provided by MIR alone.
Based on use of the criteria identified above, we judge the level
of risk resulting from regulatory option I to be acceptable for this
source category (table 3 of this preamble). This option requires dry
cleaning machines at all major sources to have an enhanced LDAR program
and closed-loop, dry-to-dry machines with refrigerated condensers and
secondary carbon adsorbers. The calculated MIR is between 30-in-1
million and 270-in-1 million. While the upper-end of this risk range is
greater than the presumptively acceptable level of MIR under the 1989
Benzene NESHAP formulation (100-in-1 million), we also considered other
factors in making our determination of acceptability, as directed by
the 1989 Benzene NESHAP. The principal factors that influenced our
decision were that nearly all of the population living within 10 km of
each facility receive cancer risk at less than 1-in-1 million.
Considering the very small number of individuals that are estimated to
receive greater than 100-in-1 million cancer risk coupled with the
exposure and dose-response assessment methodology that was
conservatively health protective, it is likely that no actual persons
are exposed at risk levels above 100-in-1 million. Among the exposed
population of 9.3 million individuals, a maximum of between 0 and 13
people are estimated to receive risks of more than 100-in-1 million.
Under option I, the exposure to maximum exposed individuals would be
reduced from between 300-in-1 million to 2,400-in-1 million to between
30-in-1 million and 270-in-1 million. Total combined cancer incidence
would be between 0.002 and 0.003 cases per year for all seven major
source facilities that were modeled. In addition, no significant non-
cancer health effects are predicted. The maximum HQ would be reduced
from 2 to 0.2, and no adverse ecological impacts are predicted under
option I. In addition, we expect that PCE usage will continue to drop
as has been the trend over the past 10 years. This trend has been
caused by the greater use of alternative solvents, older machines at
the end of their useful lives being replaced with newer, lower emitting
dry-to-dry machines with refrigerated condensers and secondary carbon
adsorbers, and State and industry programs that improve machine
efficiency and reduce PCE consumption. All of these factors will cause
risks to continue to decrease in the future in the absence of further
Federal regulatory requirements. Therefore, we have determined that the
risks associated with regulatory option I are acceptable after
considering MIR, the population exposed at different risk levels, the
projected absence of noncancer effects and adverse ecological effects,
and the projected decline in PCE usage.
While not relevant for determining the acceptable risk level, the
national capital costs of regulatory option I are $830,000 and
annualized cost savings of $220,000. Most facilities would recognize a
cost savings primarily from implementing the enhanced LDAR program.
Leak detection and repair is a pollution prevention approach where
reduced emissions translate into less PCE consumption and reduced
operating costs because facilities would need to purchase less PCE. The
capital costs for individual facilities would range from $0 to
$313,000, with a median cost of $51,000. Annualized costs would range
from a cost savings of $106,000 per year to a cost of $22,000 per year.
The second step in the residual risk decision framework is the
determination of standards that are equal to or lower than the
acceptable risk level and that protect public health with an ample
margin of safety. In making this determination, we considered the
estimate of health risk and other health information along with
additional factors relating to the appropriate level of control,
including costs and economic impacts of controls, technological
feasibility, uncertainties, and other relevant factors, consistent with
the approach of the 1989 Benzene NESHAP.
We evaluated regulatory option II as the first level of control
more stringent than the acceptable risk level for this source category.
Our analysis showed a relatively small incremental risk reduction
beyond that achieved by option I. Under option I, one of the seven
modeled facilities would pose risks greater than 100-in-1 million using
the CalEPA URE and no facility would pose risks greater than 100-in-1
million using the OPPTS URE. Under option II, this facility would still
have risks above 100-in-1 million using the CalEPA URE only. For the
other six modeled facilities, the risks would remain in the range of
10-in-1 million under option II using the CalEPA URE and risks would
drop below the range of 10-in-1 million for three of seven facilities
using the OPPTS URE.
The national capital cost for option II (all 15 major sources) is
$5.7 million with an annualized cost of $420,000. These costs include
retrofitting PCE sensors and lockout systems on machines that were
manufactured in 1998 or later, and the costs of replacing machines
installed before 1998, which cannot reliably meet the same level of
emission reduction with a PCE sensor.
Overall, option II has high costs considering the relatively low
risk reduction for most of the major sources. These costs do not
achieve a significant risk reduction for most sources. Consequently, we
determined that requiring the addition of a PCE sensor and lock-out was
not a reasonable or economically feasible option for all major sources.
We also evaluated regulatory option III, a ban on PCE use, as a
level of control more stringent than the acceptable risk level for this
source category. This would completely eliminate risk from PCE for the
population around the 15 major source facilities by essentially
eliminating the sources of PCE. The costs to eliminate PCE usage at
major sources would require a capital cost to the industry of
approximately $8.2 million. This
[[Page 75894]]
estimate was based on the total cost of replacing all PCE machines with
machines using an alternative solvent (not an incremental cost of a new
PCE machine versus a new alternative solvent machine). Alternative
solvents currently being used in the industry include cyclic siloxanes,
liquid carbon dioxide, wetcleaning, and synthetic hydrocarbon. There
are some uncertainties that these solvents do not have the cleaning
power (kB value) of PCE for the heavy soiled or greasy garments like
leather work gloves and aprons which are the typical garments cleaned
by industrial major sources. There are some fabrics that cannot be
cleaned in the alternative solvents. There are also some uncertainties
about whether the waste from alternative solvent systems would be
classified as hazardous. Alternative solvents have a role in the
industry, and are being used for certain cleaning applications.
However, there is not enough experience to determine that these
technologies are sufficiently demonstrated for all applications such
that PCE should be eliminated from the marketplace. Therefore, we have
determined that regulatory option III is not a viable option at this
time considering cost, economic impacts, technical feasibility, and
uncertainties.
Based on the information analyzed for the three options, we are
proposing that option I provides an ample margin of safety to protect
public health for major sources in the dry cleaning industry.
F. What are the risks from typical area sources?
We are not mandated to develop residual risk standards for area
sources regulated by GACT. Under our discretion, we have developed
estimates of the remaining risk for these sources. In estimating the
inhalation cancer risk that area sources pose, we considered the risks
from facilities co-located with residences (co-residential area
sources) separately from those located in all other settings (typical
area sources).
To assess risks from area sources, we first analyzed readily
available data. The 1999 National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) provides
census tract level estimates of cancer risk and noncancer hazard across
the United States for a subset of the 188 HAP. Using this assessment,
we were able to generate a course-scale estimate of population risk for
PCE area source dry cleaners by scaling the NATA cancer for PCE by the
relative contribution of area source cleaners to PCE emissions. See
table 6 below for a summary of the NATA-derived estimated risks for
area source cleaners.
Table 6.--Estimated NATA-Derived Population Cancer Risk for PCE Area Source Dry Cleaners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated cancer risk at least:
-----------------------------------------------
Dose-response value 100-in-1 10-in-1 1-in-1
million million million
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPPTS........................................................... 0 0 960,000
CalEPA.......................................................... 0 400,000 56,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This assessment provides a screening-level estimate of PCE risk to
the general population.
Next, we performed a ``model facility'' assessment. In this
modeling scenario, we used information regarding typical facility size
and dispersion parameters and average and upper-end emissions of a
facility meeting the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP to create a set of
``model facilities.'' See the risk characterization memorandum in the
public docket for a complete description of the two modeling
methodologies. Table 7 of this preamble summarizes the cancer and
noncancer risk for typical area sources (excluding transfer machines).
Table 7.--Estimated Incremental Lifetime Individual Cancer Risk and Non-Cancer Hazard for Typical Area Sources
Using a Range of Emissions and Worst-Case Dispersion Modeling
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model facility emissions
--------------------------------------------------
Risk estimate 99th percentile (4 Maximum (8 tons)
Average (.05 tons) tons)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MIR (OPPTS URE)...................... 2-in-1 million......... 20-in-1 million........ 30-in-1 million.
MIR (CalEPA URE)..................... 15-in-1 million........ 120-in-1 million....... 220-in-1 million.
Noncancer HQ 1....................... 0.001.................. 0.07................... 0.1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 HQ estimates have been rounded.
G. What are the options for reducing risk, their costs, and risk
reduction impacts for typical area sources?
We evaluated three control measures to reduce risks from typical
area sources. These measures are an enhanced LDAR program for area
sources, elimination of emissions from existing transfer machines, and
the use of a refrigerated condenser and secondary carbon adsorber (same
control technologies described above for major sources). These control
measures have been commercially demonstrated at area source dry
cleaners in the United States. The three control measures were used to
develop two regulatory options to reduce risk.
The enhanced LDAR program for area sources would require the use of
a halogenated leak detector instead of a gas analyzer, which is being
proposed for major sources. The cost of a halogenated leak detector
($250) is significantly less than a gas analyzer ($3,300). A gas
analyzer is a more accurate device that provides a quantitative reading
of PCE concentration. This device can be particularly useful in
pinpointing leaks at major sources that have high background
concentrations of PCE. The halogenated leak detector is a non-
quantitative device that provides an audible or visual display when it
detects a leak above 25 ppm. We have concluded that a halogenated leak
detector is sufficient for detecting leaks at area source dry cleaners
and will provide a significant improvement in reducing emissions
compared to the
[[Page 75895]]
current requirement to inspect for perceptible leaks only.
Transfer machines have substantially higher emissions than dry-to-
dry machines. The 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP effectively bans new
transfer machines, but existing machines were grandfathered. In 1993,
we determined that the capital costs required to replace all transfer
machines would have created an adverse economic impact on a substantial
portion of the industry, especially small businesses that had recently
purchased new transfer machines. We estimate that about 200 transfer
machines remain in use within the population of 28,000 dry cleaning
machines located at area sources (estimated one PCE dry cleaning
machine per facility with approximately 28,000 facilities). Most of
these machines will be at or near the end of their useful economic life
by the time final rule requirements are promulgated. The typical life
of a dry cleaning machine is 10 to 15 years. By the end of 2006, the
newest transfer machines in the industry will be 13 years old.
Replacing these machines with new machines meeting the requirements for
new sources under the proposed amendments would reduce PCE emissions
substantially.
We developed two regulatory options to evaluate area source risk
reductions. Option I would require enhanced LDAR and eliminate
emissions from existing transfer machines by requiring that they be
replaced with new machines. This option would apply to both large and
small area sources. Option II would require all area sources to use a
refrigerated condenser and secondary carbon adsorber in addition to
option I. Table 8 of this preamble summarizes the cancer and noncancer
risks from these control options.
Table 8.--Estimated Maximum\1\ Cancer Risk and Noncancer Hazard for Typical Area Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control option
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Risk metric Option II--LDAR +
1993 NESHAP Option I--LDAR secondary controls
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Lifetime Cancer Risk (OPPTS 30-in-1 million........ 20-in-1 million........ 15-in-1 million.
URE).
Estimated Lifetime Cancer Risk 220-in-1 million....... 175-in-1 million....... 110-in-1 million
(CalEPA URE).
Noncancer HQ......................... 0.1.................... 0.1.................... 0.1
Capital Cost--($1,000,000)........... ....................... $12.4.................. $85.7
Annualized Cost--($1,000,000)........ ....................... ($2.7)................. $7.9
Emission Reduction (tpy)............. ....................... 3,236.................. 5,749
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Assumes a facility using a dry-to-dry machine with a refrigerated condenser emitting 8 tons of PCE a year
(highest known emitting dry-to-dry machine). Risks from transfer machines are not included in the tables. The
costs and risk estimates in this table do not consider the impacts of future trends of declining PCE usage.
H. What is our proposal for addressing the remaining emissions for
typical area sources?
We are considering adopting a residual risk decision process for
area sources which is based on that used for major sources. This
involves first determining an acceptable level of risk to the public
and then determining an ample margin of safety to protect public
health, considering costs and economic impacts of controls,
technological feasibility, uncertainties, and other relevant factors.
We request comments on this approach for area sources.
As part of this rulemaking, we have determined that exposure to
emissions under the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP constitutes an acceptable
level of risk for typical area sources. Currently, we estimate that
more than 98 percent of 28,000 existing dry cleaners use a dry-to-dry
machine with a refrigerated condenser to comply with the 1993 Dry
Cleaning NESHAP or State emission standards. Using the most health
protective modeling assumptions for meteorology and location, the model
facility analysis indicated that the highest known emitting area source
would pose cancer risks of between 30-in-1 million and 220-in-1
million. The risk from the vast majority of area sources would be
substantially less. For example, cancer risk for the typical area
source, which emits approximately 0.5 ton of PCE per year, is estimated
at between 4-in-1 million and 15-in-1 million. In addition, the
assessment showed no significant acute health effects (HQ of 1.0 for
the highest emitting area source facility). Considering the relatively
low level of risk posed by the great majority of area sources, the
projected absence of significant noncancer and ecological effects, and
the projected decline in PCE usage, we believe that the 1993 Dry
Cleaning NESHAP level of control results in an acceptable level of risk
to the public.
Replacing transfer machines with new dry-to-dry equipment would
reduce risks from the potentially highest-emitting sources. Under
either option I or II, transfer machines would be replaced with dry-to-
dry machines with a refrigerated condenser and a secondary carbon
adsorber (i.e., the proposed new source requirements for area sources,
which are discussed below).
For dry-to-dry machines, equipment leaks are the largest source of
emissions, particularly from older dry cleaning machines. While the
perceptible leaks program under the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP may
prevent major leaks, a substantial emission reduction can be achieved
by earlier leak detection using an instrument like a halogenated
hydrocarbon leak detector.
Therefore, to protect public health with an ample margin of safety,
we are proposing to eliminate the use of transfer machines and require
an enhanced LDAR program for dry-to-dry machines (option I). This
option would reduce PCE emissions by 3,200 tpy and reduce risks to the
public from between 30-in-1 million and 220-in-1 million to between 20-
in-1 million and 175-in-1 million.
Option I would require total capital costs of $12 million. The
enhanced LDAR program would cost about $5 million. About 20,000
facilities would be required to purchase a halogenated hydrocarbon
detector at a cost of $250 each. About 200 facilities would be required
to replace their existing transfer machines with dry-to-dry machines
with refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorber at a cost of about
$36,000 each for a total industry cost of $7.3 million. Annually,
option I is expected to result in a cost savings to industry of about
$2.7 million per year. Cost saving would be realized because both
replacement of transfer machines and enhanced LDAR will reduce annual
PCE consumption. The reduction in annual PCE consumption at the 200
businesses that would replace transfer machines is more than sufficient
to
[[Page 75896]]
offset the annualized cost of the new equipment. In particular, we
believe most of the transfer machines are at the end of their useful
life and it would be economically beneficial for the facilities to
replace the transfer machines with dry-to-dry machines. Thus, we
believe the economic impacts to the affected businesses and facilities
are negligible. Finally, these costs and risk estimates do not consider
the impacts of future trends of declining PCE usage.
We are not proposing the option of requiring existing area sources
to install secondary carbon adsorbers (option II). Secondary carbon
adsorbers would reduce maximum risks at the highest risk area sources
from between 20-in-1 million and 175-in-1 million under option I to
between 15-in-1 million and 110-in-1 million under option II. Under
option II, about 7,500 facilities would be required to raise capital to
install carbon adsorbers (27 percent of the industry). For these
sources, the capital costs for compliance would be about $85 million
with an annualized cost of about $8 million. The capital cost for
individual facilities would range from $4,000 to $45,000. A majority of
sources that would be affected by option II are small businesses. For
these small businesses, the annualized costs would average from 10 to
20 percent of sales, and this amount is much higher than the average
profit per unit of sales that small dry cleaners normally experience (1
to 3 percent). This cost would lead to a high number of small
businesses owning affected facilities that will likely close due to the
lack of available capital for the needed investment in carbon
adsorbers. Therefore, we are not proposing to require a secondary
carbon adsorber on existing area sources, because the risk reduction
would be relatively minor and the costs would impose adverse economic
impacts on a number of small businesses.
We do not believe that the proposed requirements for area sources
pose more than a minimal burden; however, we specifically ask for
comment on methods by which EPA could focus the additional regulatory
requirements being proposed by this rule to only those area sources
(typical and co-residential) which pose significant risks to human
health. For example, we seek comments on whether there could be a
methodology by which facilities could conduct site specific risk
assessments to demonstrate that their PCE emissions pose cancer risk
levels that are less than 1-in-1 million, with a HI of less than 1, and
with no acute human health risks or adverse environmental effects, and
thereby avoid the additional requirements that would otherwise apply
under the proposed rule revisions. Comments should address whether such
an approach is feasible (for example, if facilities would be able to
conduct these risk assessments), the legal authority for such an
approach, the methodology sources would use for conducting risk
assessments, the specific criteria by which potential ``low-risk''
sources would be evaluated, the mechanism for evaluating and
determining whether source risk assessments meet those criteria, how
the process would be implemented by Federal and/or State and local
agencies, how it would be enforced (for example, through a permitting
program or other regulatory structure to ensure that any sources found
to be ``low-risk'' remain so), and what would be the consequences if
and when a source, for whatever reason, is found to no longer qualify
as a ``low-risk'' source.
I. What are the risks from co-residential area sources?
Residents living in the same building with a dry cleaner may
receive significantly higher exposures to PCE than people not living
above or in the same building as a dry cleaner. We estimate there are
approximately 1,300 co-residential dry cleaning facilities in the
United States. Residents in these buildings can receive elevated PCE
concentrations because PCE vapor travels through the building walls and
up elevator and pipe shafts into residences. Emissions of PCE also can
enter from the ambient air into residences via open windows. Even after
the dry cleaner closes, PCE absorbed onto surfaces can continue to be
emitted throughout the day and night. To assess potential risks, we
used indoor air monitoring data collected by the New York Department of
Health and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) between 2001-2003 as part of an epidemiological study
examining neurological endpoints. In considering the New York data, it
should be recognized that the data resulted from an epidemiological
study, and dry cleaner building and apartment inclusion and exclusion
criteria influenced buildings that were ultimately sampled. Also,
certain buildings were identified in order to potentially increase the
likelihood of finding apartments with elevated PCE levels. Data
collected during this period indicate that resident exposures ranged
from a geometric mean of 33 ug/m\3\ to a maximum of 5,000 ug/m\3\. The
New York Department of Health collected these data during the final
implementation of title 6 NYCRR Part 232 rules, which require the use
of a refrigerated condenser and secondary carbon adsorber, and a vapor
barrier or room enclosure around co-residential dry cleaning machines.
We extrapolated these 24-hour samples to lifetime exposure to estimate
inhalation cancer risk and noncancer hazard. For a full description of
the methodology that we used, see the risk characterization memorandum
in the public docket. Table 9 of this preamble summarizes the
inhalation cancer risk and noncancer hazard of co-residential area
sources.
Table 9.--Estimated Incremental Lifetime Individual Cancer Risk and Noncancer Hazard for Co-residential Area Sources Using a Range of Monitored
Exposures
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution of Monitored Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Risk metric \3\ Lower 5th percentile Upper 95th
\2\ Median Geometric mean percentile Maximum
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Lifetime Cancer Risk 4-in-1 million........ 10-in-1 million....... 20-in-1 million...... 500-in-1 million..... 4,000-in-1 million.
(OPPTSURE).
Estimated Lifetime Cancer Risk 30-in-1 million....... 50-in-1 million....... 200-in-1 million..... 4,000-in-1 million... 30,000-in-1 million.
(CalEPAURE).
Noncancer HQ \1\................... 0.02.................. 0.06.................. 0.1.................. 3.................... 20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ HQ estimates have been rounded.
\2\ The lowest 5th percentile of exposure is equal to the non-detect limit of the monitors, which is 5 ug/m \3\.
\3\ These estimates reflect only facilities in full compliance with Title 6 NYCRR Part 232.
[[Page 75897]]
To better characterize inhalation cancer risk among residents of
apartments co-located with area source cleaners, we performed a
sensitivity analysis in which we varied the assumed exposure duration.
Table 10 illustrates the results from this analysis.
Table 10.--Estimated High-End Cancer Risks for Residents of Co-located Apartments: Exposure Duration Sensitivity
Analysis \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assumed Exposure Duration
Estimated Lifetime Cancer Risk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
70 years 50 years 30 years 20 years 10 years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Risk per million (CalEPAURE).... 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 600
Risk per million (OPPTSURE)..... 500 400 200 100 80
HQ.............................. 7 5 3 2 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inhalation cancer risk estimates using the 95th percentile exposure level range from a maximum of between 4,000
and 500-in-1 million, assuming 70-year expsure to between 600 and 80-in-1 million assuming 10-year experience.
\1\ Cancer risk estimates derived using 95th percentile PCE exposures for monitoring data from facilities in
full compliance with NYSDEC requirements.
The PCE exposure concentrations presented in table 11 of this
preamble show the potential risk levels that co-residential sources may
pose. The MIR was predicted at between 4,000-in-1 million and 30,000-
in-1 million, which is higher than the maximum risk at both major
sources and typical area sources. This table suggests that maximum co-
residential area source risks are about 13 times higher than the
maximum major source risks and about 140 times higher than the maximum
typical area source risk.
Table 11.--Comparison of PCE Exposure Concentrations by Type of Facility \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Co-residential area source Typical area source Major source
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Exposure 5,000 \1\................. 37........................ 405
Concentration (ug/m \3\).
Geometric Mean Exposure 33........................ 1......................... 1.3
Concentration (ug/m \3\).
Maximum Inhalation Risk (per 3,000 to 30,000 \2\....... 30 to 220................. 300 to 2,400
million).
Maximum Noncancer HQ........ 20........................ 0.1....................... 2
Geometric Mean Noncancer HQ. 0.1....................... 0.004..................... 0.004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ New York Department of Health monitoring data.
\2\ Inhalation cancer risks were extrapolated from 24-hour monitoring data, assuming continuous exposure for 70
years at the maximum monitored concentration.
\3\ Estimate range represents difference between estimated risk using OPPTS and CalEPA URE.
J. What is our proposed decision on co-residential area sources?
We are proposing two options for co-residential area sources in
today's proposal. We expect to select one of these options, with
possible modifications in response to comments, in the final rule. The
first option addresses both risks and technological developments for
new co-residential area sources as a combined CAA Section 112(f)
residual risk and Section 112(d)(6) rulemaking, and is described
further in this section. This is consistent with the approach we are
taking for typical area sources and for major sources. However, for
existing co-residential area sources under this option, we are not
exercising our discretion to impose a section 112(f) residual risk
standard, but only a section 112(d)(6) standard. We recognize that
developing residual risk standards for area sources is discretionary
under the CAA, and that emissions reductions can also be achieved under
CAA section 112(d)(6) that do not rely upon our section 112(f)
authority. Therefore, we are also proposing a second option to achieve
emissions reductions through a technology based standard for both
existing and new co-residential sources relying only on our Section
112(d)(6) authority, as discussed below and in section III.K. We
request comment on alternative approaches that might protect public
health with an ample margin of safety.
As our first option, we are proposing different requirements for
new and existing co-residential sources. For new sources, we propose
not to allow any new co-residential machines that emit PCE. Our
proposal is based on the high-end estimated MIR of between 4,000-in-1
million and 30,000-in-1 million, and on our conclusion that risks from
new co-residential sources should be substantially reduced. These risk
estimates are based on monitored concentrations taken from apartments
above co-residential dry cleaners with the level of equipment control
required by NYSDEC in their title 6 NYCRR Part 232 rules (e.g., a
refrigerated condenser and secondary carbon adsorber, and a vapor
barrier or room enclosure).
For new co-residential sources, the most stringent possible control
option with the greatest risk reduction is a prohibition of PCE use at
such sources. This option would eliminate PCE risks for new sources and
require that any new dry cleaning machines located in a residential
building would have to use an alternative cleaning solvent. We believe
the owner/operator can choose from other alternative solvent dry
cleaning systems to use in a residential building.
The national capital costs of this regulatory option for new co-
residential sources are $8.6 million, and the annualized costs are
approximately $950,000. These cost estimates are based on the
assumption that existing facilities will replace PCE machines that have
reached the end of their useful lives (15 years) and are estimated for
facilities affected within the first 5 years after the final rule takes
effect. These costs reflect the incremental cost between replacing
existing machines with PCE machines with refrigerated condensers and
carbon adsorbers, and replacing them with machines using hydrocarbon
solvents.
[[Page 75898]]
This analysis includes costs for all affected facilities, such as the
cost incurred to install fire protection sprinklers required by most
applicable fire codes to operate a hydrocarbon technology, that would
not be necessary with other options. Cost estimates would be much lower
if facilities using this option have sprinkler systems in place, or if
they choose a less costly alternative garment cleaning option utilizing
non-flammable solvents, or conducting dry cleaning operations off-site
from the co-residential facility. We estimate that this control option
for new co-residential sources may, after about 15 years, result in the
elimination of cancer risks from all co-residential sources, as
existing sources would be replaced by new non-PCE sources. This means
that maximum individual risk levels due to these sources would decline
from between 30,000- and 4,000-in-1 million to 0; average individual
risk would decline from between 1,000- and 200-in-1 million to 0; and
annual incidence would decline from between 2.2 and 0.3 cases per year
to 0. These risk reduction estimates for all co-residential dry
cleaners are subject to a number of limitations, the greatest of which
are likely: (1) The degree to which the small sampled subset of co-
residential dry cleaners (16) is representative of the full set (about
1,300) of all co-residential dry cleaners; (2) our uncertainty of the
size of the affected population; and (3) the possible range of cancer
potency factors used in our analysis, which is reflected in the ranges
of the risk metrics reported above.
We also recognize that a proposal to prohibit new co-residential
sources could encourage continued operation of existing co-residential
PCE machines beyond their useful lives rather than replacement with new
machines. We request comment on a sunset provision, where, after some
period of time that reflects the typical lifetime of a dry cleaning
machine, existing co-residential sources would have to be replaced with
new machines that do not emit PCE.
As part of this first option, we are proposing no additional
control requirements for existing co-residential dry cleaners beyond
the proposed requirements for existing area sources. However, we also
request comment on the appropriateness of adopting other alternatives.
In particular, we are continuing to analyze the potential health risks
at co-residential sources and the range of options to reduce these
risks. Options under consideration range from voluntary initiatives to
regulatory action. About 1,100 of the estimated 1,300 co-residential
sources are located in New York and California. These sources are
controlled with the technology equivalent to the requirements of the
1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP for new major sources; plus, the facilities in
New York have installed room enclosures to reduce exposure from
residual emissions.
At this time we have limited data on co-residential sources outside
of New York and California. We do not know how representative the
dataset is of all facilities in New York City. We do not know how many
people are exposed at other sources and if the exposure and risk levels
in other parts of the United States are similar to those in New York
City buildings. We have little information on the distribution of PCE
concentrations, the number of persons living in co-residential
buildings, or the number of persons exposed to various PCE
concentration levels. Based on the New York monitoring data, we know
the level of PCE concentrations can vary substantially within co-
residential buildings. While we believe that the dataset used for this
risk assessment represents a high-quality set of measurements which is
appropriate for estimating risks, we are also aware that the dataset
may contain a selection bias due to the fact that the study from which
the data were taken was an epidemiological study aimed at identifying
high exposures within minority and economically-disadvantaged
populations. Moreover, we are also aware that variable attention to
work practices, difficulties in achieving compliance with newly-
installed equipment, and poor ventilation in sampled apartments may
also have increased the measured concentration values relative to the
remaining population of apartments co-located with area source dry
cleaners. Thus, we specifically request comment on the appropriateness
of using this dataset to develop a risk assessment which represents the
population of co-residential facilities. We also request any additional
data that might be used to characterize these risks.
If a long-term time series dataset of concentration measurements
were available, we would estimate chronic exposure based on it to take
into account the true temporal variability of exposures. However, we do
not have such a dataset. Instead, we base our exposure and risk
estimates on snapshot data available, recognizing that an extrapolation
from short-term monitoring values can lead to an upward bias of the
high-end chronic exposures and risks and a downward bias of the low-end
chronic exposures and risks. We request comment on ways to minimize
these biases. In evaluating the potential impact of NYSDEC
requirements, our analysis focused on those facilities which were
deemed to be in compliance with the NYSDEC part 232 regulations.
However, it is not always clear from the available data what the exact
compliance status of the facilities was at the time that measurements
were taken. For example, we note that the highest measured exposure
level (5,000 ug/m3), which is associated with a facility that was
reported to be in full compliance with the NYSDEC regulations at the
time of the measurements, has been called into question by industry
stakeholders based on evidence that the facility was inspected and
found to be out of compliance (due to equipment operation problems)
approximately 2 months after the measurements were taken. These
problems were remedied and compliance was certified a week later. This
uncertainty in exact compliance status leads to an uncertainty in
whether the measured concentration values actually reflect a level of
control consistent with implementation of the NYSDEC requirements.
Thus, we request comment on whether and to what extent temporal
variability or compliance problems among the facilities located in
buildings with the sampled apartments may have biased the sampled
measurements high or low and influenced the results of the risk
assessment.
We believe that the risk assessment underlying the proposal of our
first option is appropriate for rulemaking purposes, however, given the
uncertainties discussed above, we are proposing a second option solely
under the authority of section 112(d)(6) of the CAA. We propose the
NYSDEC title 6 NYCRR Part 232 rules (or similar standards) as the basis
for control standards for both new and existing sources, instead of
prohibiting any new co-residential machines that emit PCE and the
standards proposed for typical area sources and existing co-residential
sources. The NYSDEC requires that co-residential dry cleaning machines
have refrigerated condensers and secondary carbon adsorbers, and that
equipment be housed inside a vapor barrier with general ventilation to
the outside air for both new and existing facilities. Facilities must
conduct weekly leak inspections using a leak detection device such as a
halogenated hydrocarbon detector. Facilities are required to obtain
annual third party inspections by a professional engineer,
[[Page 75899]]
and must make available the most recent inspection report to interested
individuals for their review. The NYSDEC also requires that the
facility owner and/or manager and the dry cleaning machine operator be
certified by an organization that offers a training program approved by
the State agency. Most co-residential facilities meet the New York
standards (of the 1,300 co-residential facilities nationwide,
approximately 900 are in New York), but approximately 240 facilities
across the country would need to upgrade their equipment to comply with
this second proposal option. The capital cost of this option is
approximately $3 million, and the annual cost is $0.5 million. These
estimates include the cost for approximately 240 existing facilities to
either upgrade or replace their existing equipment to include a
refrigerated condenser and carbon adsorber, install a vapor barrier and
conduct the leak detection and repair described above. These estimates
do not include the cost of third party inspections and operator
training, so cost impacts may be understated. Emissions reduction is
estimated to be about 48 tons per year from the use of refrigerated
condensers and carbon adsorbers. Vapor barriers do not remove
emissions, but contain them to help prevent exposures to emissions.
For this second option, we request data on the emission levels,
exposure, and risks associated with meeting the level of control
required by the NYSDEC standards and for any other control options for
co-residential sources that may substantially reduce emissions from co-
residential sources (e.g., periodic gasket replacement in lieu of
inspections).
K. What determination is EPA proposing pursuant to review of the 1993
Dry Cleaning NESHAP under CAA section 112(d)(6)?
Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA requires us to review and revise MACT
standards, as necessary, every 8 years, taking into account
developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that
have occurred during that time. If we find relevant changes, we may
revise the MACT standards and develop additional standards. We do not
interpret CAA section 112(d)(6) as requiring another analysis of MACT
floors for existing and new sources.
For major sources, we considered as a MACT alternative the same
options considered above for residual risk (table 5 of this preamble).
The use of a PCE sensor/lock system (option II on table 5 of this
preamble) is an option more stringent than the level of control that we
are proposing to protect the public from residual risks with an ample
margin of safety. The system would reduce emissions by 40 tpy. Total
capital costs are estimated to be $5.7 million for the 15 major sources
with an annualized cost of $420,000. Additional analysis of costs can
be found in the Background Information Document in the public docket.
The incremental cost-effectiveness of the option is $17,000 per ton of
PCE removed (overall, considering all 15 facilities). Consequently, we
propose that requiring enhanced LDAR and a refrigerated condenser/
secondary carbon adsorber would meet the requirements for CAA section
112(d)(6).
Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA also requires that we review and, if
necessary, revise the technology-based standards for area sources. The
1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP for area sources was based on the use of GACT.
The options selected for evaluating GACT for existing area sources are
the same two options that we discussed above; enhanced LDAR and
eliminating transfer machines (option I on table 8 of this preamble),
and the use of secondary carbon adsorbers (option II on table 8 of this
preamble). Option I would reduce emissions by an estimated 3,200 tpy
and would result in a net cost savings to area sources. Option II would
reduce emissions by an additional 3,000 tpy. However, as explained
above, retrofitting a secondary carbon adsorber would not be cost-
effective for many existing area source dry cleaners. Consequently, we
propose that requiring enhanced LDAR and eliminating transfer machines
at existing area sources would meet the requirements of CAA section
112(d)(6).
For new machines located at area source dry cleaners, we are
proposing the use of refrigerated condensers, secondary carbon
adsorbers, and enhanced LDAR. Requiring the use of secondary carbon
adsorbers on new machines will not impose any significant new costs to
the industry, because the majority of new machines today are sold with
secondary carbon adsorbers. Vented machines, water-cooled condensers,
and transfer machines are no longer sold. Many area source dry cleaners
are buying this latest technology (dry-to-dry machine with refrigerated
condenser and secondary carbon adsorber) because they are easier to
operate, use less PCE, and produce less hazardous waste. In addition,
several States require the use of this technology. A machine
manufacturer stated that 70 percent of the new PCE machines sold in the
year 2000 were dry-to-dry machines with refrigerated condensers and
secondary carbon adsorbers, and by 2003 nearly all of the PCE machines
sold would have this technology. New York and, beginning in 2007,
California, will require this technology for all existing major and
area sources. Due to the vast number of area sources compared to major
sources, the majority of the new PCE machines are purchased by area
sources to replace older technology machines. Therefore, we are
proposing the use of dry-to-dry machines with refrigerated condensers
and secondary carbon adsorbers for new machines at area sources to meet
the requirements of CAA section 112(d)(6).
For co-residential area sources, the most stringent standards
currently in place are those enforced by NYSDEC (described in section
III.J). In some cases, these and related requirements have been
effective in reducing exposure levels; the mean exposure has dropped by
tenfold since 1997 (McDermott, et al., 2005). However, as described
earlier, a monitoring study in New York City suggests that risk levels
after implementation of these standards may remain relatively high.
Under our first option for addressing co-residential area sources
discussed above in section III.J of this preamble, we are not proposing
the NYSDEC levels of control under Section 112(d)(6). However, under
the second option for co-residential sources, we are proposing under
CAA section 112(d)(6) standards based on those required by NYSDEC Part
232 for new and existing co-residential sources, which would be
modified, as appropriate, to function as nationally applicable Federal
standards rather than State standards. While the first proposed option
would eventually eliminate PCE exposures from co-residential sources,
this second option would initially reduce exposures from existing co-
residential sources more than the first option to require enhanced LDAR
for all area sources. This second option for co-residential sources
eliminates the continued use of equipment without secondary carbon
adsorbers at new and existing co-residential sources; this contrasts
with the first option discussed in section J above, which prohibits the
use of new PCE machines and may give facilities the incentive to
prolong the use of existing machines rather than purchase newer, lower
emitting PCE machines at existing sources. With respect to new
facilities, this option would allow new co-residential facilities to
use PCE only if they also use equipment with refrigerated condensers
and secondary carbon adsorbers housed in a vapor barrier. EPA is
seeking comment and
[[Page 75900]]
additional information in section III.J to help assess risk reductions
that could be achieved through application of standards similar to
NYSDEC part 232.
L. What additional changes are we making to the 1993 Dry Cleaning
NESHAP?
In 40 CFR 63.322(e), we are deleting the term ``diverter valve,''
but retaining the requirement to prevent air drawn into the door of the
dry cleaning machine from passing through the refrigerated condenser.
We are proposing this change because some newer machines accomplish
this objective without a diverter valve. This change does not subject
sources to any new requirements and does not change the requirement for
machines with diverter valves.
In 40 CFR 63.322(m) and 40 CFR 63.324(d), we are changing
``perceptible leaks'' to ``leaks'' because the requirements now apply
to both the monthly inspection for vapor leaks, which would require the
use of a leak detection instrument, as well as the weekly or biweekly
inspections for perceptible leaks. This harmonizing change would not
change the nature of existing inspection requirements. To support the
proposed requirements for monthly vapor leak inspection, we have
proposed to add definitions of ``vapor leak,'' ``PCE gas analyzer,''
and ``halogenated hydrocarbon detector.''
The 40 CFR 63.323(b) would be revised to add PCE gas analyzers as
an acceptable monitoring instrument in addition to colorimetric tubes.
Major sources would need a PCE gas analyzer for enhanced leak detection
and repair. This analyzer could also be used for monitoring a carbon
adsorber. Also, the phrase ``or removal of the activated carbon'' would
be added to clarify that any major source required to use a carbon
adsorber is required to monitor the adsorber exhaust weekly for PCE.
Previously, this requirement was unclear for sources that disposed of
the carbon instead of desorbing it.
IV. Solicitation of Public Comments
We request comments on all aspects of the proposed amendments. We
are also considering additional rule amendments and specifically
solicit comments on these potential amendments. The additional
amendments are described in the following sections. All significant
comments received will be considered in the development and selection
of the final amendments.
A. Additional Requirements for Highest Risk Facilities
For one of the modeled major source facilities, the estimated
emissions after installing controls required by the proposed rule would
pose a MIR greater than 100-in-1 million using the CalEPA URE. An
alternative approach we are considering is establishing more stringent
requirements for this source. We would like information about whether
such an approach would be appropriate and what would be a suitable
regulatory basis for creating a separate class for this major source.
We are considering requiring this facility to install a PCE sensor and
lockout on each dry cleaning machine.
Under the proposed rule, this facility would be required to install
a refrigerated condenser and secondary carbon adsorber. Most dry
cleaning machines with secondary carbon adsorbers sold in this country
since 1998 are equipped with a lockout that prevents the drum from
being opened until the completion of the timed adsorption cycle. These
machines have been demonstrated to achieve a concentration inside the
drum of less than 300 ppm without a PCE sensor. The addition of a
sensor ensures that this target concentration will be met for every
load, thereby preventing episodes of high emissions caused by operator
error or machine malfunction.
The PCE sensor and lockout system originally was developed to meet
the 2. BImSchV German Emission Control Law, which requires a PCE
concentration in the dry cleaning machine drum of less than 2 grams per
cubic meter (~300 ppm) at the end of the drying cycle. Dry cleaning
machines equipped with PCE sensors are widely used in Germany and are
available in the United States. However, there is limited experience
with this technology in the United States. We are aware of only two
commercial dry cleaners in the United States and one industrial dry
cleaner in Canada that use a PCE sensor. Because of the limited United
States experience, we do not have emission test data to evaluate the
performance of this system relative to machines with a timed lockout
system, particularly with industrial articles such as work gloves. The
emissions reductions that we used to evaluate the PCE sensor and
lockout system were based on estimates of solvent mileage (pounds
garments cleaned per gal of PCE used) compared to machines with a
refrigerated condenser and secondary carbon adsorber. The estimated
mileage of the various dry cleaning systems was obtained from
engineering judgment by several industry experts. Facilities using a
PCE sensor and lockout system could possibly observe a wide range of
emission reduction potential. For example, facilities that use good
maintenance procedures and follow manufacturers specifications would
achieve lower emission reductions than facilities with poor maintenance
procedures. This control technology ensures optimal operation of the
carbon adsorber by preventing the door from being opened until the PCE
concentration in the drum is less than 300 ppm at the end of the drying
cycle. Facilities with good maintenance procedures will have fewer high
emission episodes caused by premature termination of the drying cycle.
We solicit comments on the appropriateness of requiring greater
emission reduction at the highest risk source, the performance of the
PCE sensor and lockout system and its effectiveness in reducing risks
from this source, and the basis for creating a separate class for this
major source dry cleaner. We also request information on the
feasibility, cost, and amount of emission reduction that could be
achieved at this source through other techniques, such as the use of
alternative solvents or other approaches.
B. Requirement for PCE Sensor and Lockout as New Source MACT for Major
Sources
We are considering making PCE sensor and lockout controls a
requirement for new machines installed at major sources. The decision
to select option I instead of this control option for major sources was
based on the relatively small emission reduction estimated to result
from the installation of PCE sensor and lockout controls. We would like
additional data on the amount of PCE reduction achieved by these
controls in both industrial and commercial applications, and about how
site-specific factors influence the reduction achieved.
C. Alternative Performance-Based Standard for Existing Major Sources
We are considering establishing an alternative performance-based
standard for existing major sources. The alternative standard would be
a facility-wide PCE use limitation (e.g., gal PCE per year, solvent
mileage or other metrics), which would be determined as a percent
reduction of actual PCE use from a baseline year. If adopted, a source
could elect to comply with either the proposed process vent controls
(i.e., closed loop machine with refrigerated condenser and secondary
carbon adsorber) or the performance-based
[[Page 75901]]
alternative. Facilities that use the performance-based alternative
still would be required to comply with the operating controls (i.e.,
enhanced leak detection and repair, etc.) in the proposed rule.
The alternative standard would provide more flexibility in choosing
the method of reducing emissions. This flexibility provides the
opportunity to decrease compliance costs, reduce recordkeeping, and
simplify compliance and enforcement. We anticipate that any facility
selecting this alternative would reduce emissions by replacing some
machines with alternative solvent machines and continuing to operate
some PCE machines without secondary controls. Additional emission
reductions could also be achieved by more aggressive maintenance and
leak detection programs.
The performance-based alternative we are considering would limit
annual PCE consumption on a facility-wide basis. Usage of PCE
correlates directly with PCE emissions. The limit would be based on the
average fraction of emissions reduced by the control technology
requirement for the different types of affected sources. For the three
major source industrial facilities that would be required to make
equipment changes to comply with the proposed rule, the average
estimated facility-wide emission reduction, including enhanced leak
detection and repair, would be 76 percent. For the four affected major
source commercial facilities, the average estimated total emission
facility-wide reduction would be 67 percent. These reductions are
relative to estimated emissions from these facilities in 2002.
Therefore, we envision that facilities that clean industrial articles
such as work gloves would be required to reduce PCE usage by at least
76 percent. For facilities that do not clean work gloves or shop rags,
we envision a PCE reduction of 67 percent. For a description of how the
emission reduction percentages were estimated, refer to the Background
Information Document in the public docket. The baseline year for
determining the PCE usage limit would be 2002. Annual PCE usage would
be calculated based on the amount of PCE purchased during the calendar
year, adjusted for the PCE in use and storage at the beginning and end
of the calendar year.
If the performance alternative is selected, the required PCE usage
percent reduction levels will be prescribed in the final rule. The
percent reductions would be selected to be equivalent to the emission
reductions achieved by the technology based MACT requirements and the
residual risk requirements adopted in the final rule.
The performance-based alternative would apply only to existing
major sources. New major sources are not eligible for these
performance-based alternative standards because no baseline PCE data
exists for determining a required emission reduction level. This
alternative also would not be practicable for area sources because the
proposed rule has no process vent requirements for existing area
sources. The only requirements for existing area sources are the ban on
transfer machines, enhanced LDAR, and the operating requirements.
Moreover, most area sources operate only one dry cleaning machine.
We solicit comments on whether such an approach would be
appropriate for major sources. We would also like comments from
affected sources regarding the likelihood that they would select this
alternative standard. In addition, we welcome comments on other options
for a performance-based alternative. Please include in your comments
how the option ensures equivalent emission reductions to the proposed
equipment standards and how the option could be enforced, including any
recordkeeping needed.
D. Environmental Impacts of PCE Emissions
As discussed above, due to the large margin of exposures relative
to known thresholds, risks to mammals from PCE inhalation are likely
insignificant. Also, the scarcity of data makes it difficult to
identify any potential for adverse ecological impacts to plant life
from PCE emissions from dry cleaners due to conversion to TCAA. While
we have no direct evidence that this will present a significant
ecological risk, we nonetheless, invite public comment and solicit
additional scientific information on this issue.
E. Additional Time for Complying With Provisions for Transfer Machines
As discussed in section III.H of this preamble, we are proposing to
eliminate the use of transfer machines. Per section 112(f) of the CAA,
sources have 90 days to comply with health based standards. However, we
are soliciting comment on what additional time beyond the 90-day
compliance period, if any, might be necessary for area sources to
replace existing transfer machines with dry-to-dry machines, and on
whether, if EPA were to grant area sources replacing transfer machines
additional compliance time in the final rule, any further steps should
be taken by these area sources before achieving compliance to assure
that the health of persons will be protected from imminent
endangerment, consistent with section 112(f)(4)(B) of the CAA.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and,
therefore, subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive
Order. The Executive Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB has determined
that it considers this proposed rule a ``significant regulatory
action'' within the meaning of the Executive Order. The EPA has
submitted this action to OMB for review. Changes made in response to
OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the public
record.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR)
document prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 1415.06 and
OMB Control Number 2060-0234.
The 2005 proposed revisions to the Dry Cleaning NESHAP contain
recordkeeping and reporting requirements beyond the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements that were promulgated on September 22, 1993.
Owners or operators will continue to keep records and submit required
reports to us or the delegated State regulatory authority.
Notifications,
[[Page 75902]]
reports, and records are essential in determining compliance and are
required, in general, of all sources subject to the 1993 Dry Cleaning
NESHAP. Owners or operators subject to the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP
continue to maintain records and retain them for at least 5 years
following the date of such measurements, reports, and records.
Information collection requirements that were promulgated on September
22, 1993 in the Dry Cleaning NESHAP prior to the 2005 proposed
amendments, as well the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63,
subpart A), which are mandatory for all owners or operators subject to
national emission standards, are documented in EPA ICR No. 1415.05.
The information collection requirements described here are only
those notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements that are
contained in the 2005 proposed revisions to the Dry Cleaning NESHAP. To
comply with the 2005 proposed revisions to the 1993 Dry Cleaning
NESHAP, owners or operators of dry cleaning facilities would read
instructions to determine how they would be affected. All sources would
begin an enhanced leak detection and repair program that requires a
handheld portable monitor. Major source facilities would purchase a PCE
gas analyzer and area sources would purchase a halogenated hydrocarbon
leak detector. Owners and operators would incur the capital/startup
cost of purchasing the monitors, plus ongoing annual operation and
maintenance costs. The total capital/startup cost for this ICR is
$5,049,000. Annual operation and maintenance cost would be $552,825.
Owners and operators of major and area sources would conduct
enhanced leak detection and repair and keep monthly records of enhanced
leak detection and repair events.
Approximately 28,000 existing area sources and 15 existing major
sources are subject to the proposed rule and are subject to the 1993
Dry Cleaning NESHAP. We estimate that an average of 2,330 new area
sources per year will become subject to the regulation in the next 3
years, but that the overall number of facilities will remain constant
as the new owners will take over old existing facilities. No new major
sources are expected. The estimated annual labor cost for major and
area sources to comply with the 2005 proposed rule is approximately
$3.9 million.
The recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically
authorized by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information
submitted to us pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is
safeguarded according to our policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2,
subpart B.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
To comment on EPA's need for this information, the accuracy of the
provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection
techniques, EPA has established a public docket for the proposed rule,
which includes this ICR, under Docket ID No. OAR-2005-0155. Submit any
comments related to the ICR for the proposed rule to EPA and OMB. See
the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of today's notice for where to
submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is
required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days
after December 21, 2005, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its
full effect if OMB receives it by January 20, 2006. The final rule will
respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection
requirements contained in the proposed rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For the purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule
on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business
based on the following Small Business Administration (SBA) size
standards, which are based on annual sales receipts: NAICS 812310--
Coin-Operated Laundries and Dry Cleaners-$6.0 million; NAICS 812320--
Dry Cleaning and Laundry Services (Except Coin-Operated)-$4.0 million;
NAICS 812332--Industrial Launderers-$12.0 million; (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a population of less than
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field. Under these definitions, over 99 percent of
commercial dry cleaning firms are small. For more information, refer to
http://www.sba.gov/size/sizetable2002.html. The economic impacts of the
regulatory alternatives were analyzed based on consumption of PCE, but
are described in terms of comparing the compliance costs to dry
cleaning revenues at affected firms. For more detail, see the current
Economic Impact Analysis in the public docket.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that the proposed rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This certification is based on the economic impact of the proposed rule
to affected small entities in the entire PCE dry cleaning source
category and considers the economic impact associated with both
proposed options for co-residential facilities. Over 98 percent of the
approximately 20,000 small entities directly regulated by the proposed
rule, including both major and area sources, are expected to have costs
of less than 1 percent of sales. The cost impacts for all regulated
small entities range from cost savings to less than 1.9 percent of
sales. The small entities directly regulated by the proposed rule are
dry cleaning businesses within the NAICS codes 812310, 812320, and
812332. We have determined that all of the major sources affected by
the proposed rule are owned by businesses within NAICS 812332. The
proposed rule is expected to affect 14 ultimate parent businesses that
would be regulated as major
[[Page 75903]]
sources. Eight of the parent businesses are small according to the SBA
small business size standard. None of the eight firms would have an
annualized cost of more than 1 percent of sales associated with meeting
the requirements for major sources (option I noted earlier in this
preamble).
We have determined that virtually all of the affected small
businesses that own area source dry cleaners are in NAICS 812320. Small
businesses complying with the proposed area source requirements (area
source option I described earlier in this preamble) are expected to
have the following impacts. Over 98 percent of the approximately 20,000
small entities owning area sources directly regulated by the proposed
rule, are expected to have costs of less than 1 percent of sales. The
one-time cost of $250 for purchasing a halogenated hydrocarbon detector
is less than 0.10 percent of the average annual revenues for dry
cleaning businesses in NAICS 812320, and there are minimal annualized
costs associated with a detector's use. Of the nearly 200 small
businesses that would have to replace their transfer machines (or 1
percent of the total number of affected small entities), most of these
businesses would experience an annual cost savings and the others would
have compliance costs of less than 1.2 percent of sales. Of the
remaining 200 affected small businesses (or 1 percent of the total
number of affected small entities), all of which are owners of co-
residential facilities, the compliance costs based on the first
proposed option for co-residential area sources range from 0.9 to 1.9
percent of sales. For the second proposed option for co-residential
area sources, there are 240 small firms that will be affected, and
these firms will have compliance costs ranging from 0.4 to 1.9 percent
of sales.
Cost impacts associated with the proposed decision for major
sources are presented in Section III.E of this preamble. These impacts
are also presented for area sources in Section III.H, and for co-
residential sources in Section III.J. These impacts are detailed in the
BID in the public docket as memos 5 through 7. For more information on
the small entity economic impacts associated with the proposed
decisions for dry cleaners affected by today's action, please refer to
the Economic Impact and Small Business Analyses in the public docket.
Although the proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, we nonetheless tried
to reduce the impact of the proposed rule on small entities. When
developing the revised standards, we took special steps to ensure that
the burdens imposed on small entities were minimal. We conducted
several meetings with industry trade associations to discuss regulatory
options and the corresponding burden on industry, such as recordkeeping
and reporting.
Following publication of the proposed rule, copies of the Federal
Register notice and, in some cases, background documents, will be
publically available to all industries, organizations, and trade
associations that have had input during the regulation development, as
well as State and local agencies. We continue to be interested in the
potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome
comments on issues related to such impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
We have determined that the proposed rule does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the
private sector in any 1 year. Thus, the proposed rule is not subject to
the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
EPA has determined that today's proposed rule contains no
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments because it contains no requirements that apply to
such governments or impose obligations upon them. Therefore, the
proposed rule is not subject to section 203 of the UMRA.
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have
federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government.''
The proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the affected dry
cleaning facilities are owned or operated by State or local
governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the proposed
rule. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on the proposed rule
from State and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have tribal
[[Page 75904]]
implications.'' The proposed rule does not have tribal implications as
specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct
effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes. No
tribal governments own dry cleaning facilities subject to the proposed
standards for dry cleaning facilities. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does
not apply to the proposed rule. EPA specifically solicits additional
comment on this proposed rule from tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety risk of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
The proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it
is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866,
and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. This conclusion is based on our
assessment of the information on PCE effects on human health and
exposures associated with dry cleaner operations.
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
The proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined
in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.
The proposed rule would have a negligible impact on energy
consumption because less than 1 percent of the industry would have to
install additional emission control equipment to comply. The cost of
energy distribution should not be affected by the proposed rule at all
since the standards do not affect energy distribution facilities. We
also expect that there would be no impact on the import of foreign
energy supplies, and no other adverse outcomes are expected to occur
with regards to energy supplies. Further, we have concluded that the
proposed rule is not likely to have any significant adverse energy
effects.
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
Section 112(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The
NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when
the Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.
The proposed revisions to the 1993 NESHAP for PCE dry cleaners do
not include requirements for technical standards beyond what the NESHAP
requires. Therefore, the requirements of the NTTAA do not apply to this
action.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental Protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and Recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: December 9, 2005.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart M--[Amended]
2. Section 63.320 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (c), (d),
and (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.320 Applicability.
* * * * *
(b) The compliance date for a new dry cleaning system depends on
the date that construction or reconstruction commences.
(1) Each dry cleaning system that commences construction or
reconstruction on or after December 9, 1991 and before December 21,
2005, shall be in compliance with the provisions of this subpart except
Sec. 63.322(o) beginning on September 22, 1993 or immediately upon
startup, whichever is later, except for dry cleaning systems complying
with section 112(i)(2) of the Clean Air Act; and shall be in compliance
with the provisions of Sec. 63.322(o) beginning on [90 DAYS AFTER DATE
FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register] or immediately upon
startup, whichever is later, except as provided by Sec. 63.6(b)(4).
(2) Each dry cleaning system that commences construction or
reconstruction on or after December 21, 2005 and before [DATE FINAL
RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register], shall be in compliance with
the provisions of this subpart except Sec. 63.322(o) immediately upon
startup, and shall be in compliance with the provisions of Sec.
63.322(o) beginning on [DATE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE Federal
Register] or immediately upon startup, whichever is later.
(3) Each dry cleaning system that commences construction or
reconstruction on or after [DATE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE Federal
Register], shall be in compliance with provisions of this subpart,
including Sec. 63.322(o) immediately upon startup.
(c) Each dry cleaning system that commenced construction or
reconstruction before December 9, 1991, and each new transfer machine
system and its ancillary equipment that commenced construction or
reconstruction on or after December 9, 1991 and before September 22,
1993, shall comply with Sec. Sec. 63.322(c), (d), (i), (j), (k), (l),
and (m); 63.323(d); and 63.324(a), (b), (d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3), (d)(4),
and (e) beginning on December 20, 1993, and shall comply with other
provisions of this subpart except Sec. 63.322(o) by September 23,
1996; and shall comply with Sec. 63.322(o) by [DATE 90 DAYS AFTER DATE
FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register].
(d) Each existing dry-to-dry machine and its ancillary equipment
located in a dry cleaning facility that includes only dry-to-dry
machines, and each existing transfer machine system and its ancillary
equipment, and each new transfer machine system and its ancillary
equipment installed between December 9, 1991 and September 22, 1993, as
well as each existing dry-to-dry machine and its ancillary equipment,
located in a dry cleaning facility that includes both transfer machine
system(s) and dry-to-dry machine(s) is exempt from Sec. Sec. 63.322,
63.323, and 63.324, except paragraphs 63.322(c), (d),
[[Page 75905]]
(i), (j), (k), (l), (m), (o)(1), and (o)(4); 63.323(d); and 63.324 (a),
(b), (d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3), (d)(4), and (e) if the total
perchloroethylene consumption of the dry cleaning facility is less than
530 liters (140 gallons) per year. Consumption is determined according
to Sec. 63.323(d).
(e) Each existing transfer machine system and its ancillary
equipment, and each new transfer machine system and its ancillary
equipment installed between December 9, 1991 and September 22, 1993,
located in a dry cleaning facility that includes only transfer machine
system(s), is exempt from Sec. Sec. 63.322, 63.323, and 63.324, except
paragraphs 63.322(c), (d), (i), (j), (k), (l), (m), (o)(1), and (o)(4),
63.323(d), and 63.324 (a), (b), (d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3), (d)(4), and (e)
if the perchloroethylene consumption of the dry cleaning facility is
less than 760 liters (200 gallons) per year. Consumption is determined
according to Sec. 63.323(d).
* * * * *
3. Section 63.321 is amended by revising the definition of Filter,
and adding in alphabetical order definitions for Halogenated
hydrocarbon detector, Perchloroethylene gas analyzer, Residence, and
Vapor leak to read as follows:
Sec. 63.321 Definitions.
* * * * *
Filter means a porous device through which perchloroethylene is
passed to remove contaminants in suspension. Examples include, but are
not limited to, lint filter, button trap, cartridge filter, tubular
filter, regenerative filter, prefilter, polishing filter, and spin disc
filter.
Halogenated hydrocarbon detector means a portable device capable of
detecting vapor concentrations of perchloroethylene of 25 parts per
million by volume and indicating a concentration of 25 parts per
million by volume or greater by emitting an audible or visual signal
that varies as the concentration changes.
* * * * *
Perchloroethylene gas analyzer means a flame ionization detector,
photoionization detector, or infrared analyzer capable of detecting
vapor concentrations of perchloroethylene of 25 parts per million by
volume.
* * * * *
Residence means any dwelling or housing in which people reside
excluding short-term housing that is occupied by the same person for a
period of less than 180 days (such as a hotel room).
* * * * *
Vapor leak means a perchloroethylene vapor concentration exceeding
25 parts per million by volume (50 parts per million by volume as
methane) as indicated by a halogenated hydrocarbon detector or
perchloroethylene gas analyzer.
* * * * *
4. Section 63.322 is amended by revising paragraphs (e)(3), (k)
introductory text, and (m), and adding paragraph (o) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.322 Standards.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(3) Shall prevent air drawn into the dry cleaning machine when the
door of the machine is open from passing through the refrigerated
condenser.
* * * * *
(k) The owner or operator of a dry cleaning system shall inspect
the system weekly for perceptible leaks while the dry cleaning system
is operating. Inspection with a halogenated hydrocarbon detector or
perchloroethylene gas analyzer also fulfills the requirement for
inspection for perceptible leaks. The following components shall be
inspected:
* * * * *
(m) The owner or operator of a dry cleaning system shall repair all
leaks detected under paragraph (k) or (o)(1) of this section within 24
hours. If repair parts must be ordered, either a written or verbal
order for those parts shall be initiated within 2 working days of
detecting such a leak. Such repair parts shall be installed within 5
working days after receipt.
* * * * *
(o) Additional requirements:
(1) The owner or operator of a dry cleaning system shall inspect
the components listed in paragraph (k) of this section for vapor leaks
monthly while the component is in operation.
(i) Area sources shall conduct the inspections using a halogenated
hydrocarbon detector or perchloroethylene gas analyzer that is operated
according to the manufacturer's instructions. The operator shall place
the probe inlet at the surface of each component interface where
leakage could occur and move it slowly along the interface periphery.
(ii) Major sources shall conduct the inspections using a
perchloroethylene gas analyzer operated according to EPA Method 21.
(2) The owner or operator of a dry cleaning system at any major
source shall route the air-perchloroethylene gas-vapor stream contained
within each dry cleaning machine through a refrigerated condenser and
shall pass the air-perchloroethylene gas-vapor stream from inside the
dry cleaning machine drum through a carbon adsorber or equivalent
control device immediately before or as the door of the dry cleaning
machine is opened. The carbon adsorber must be desorbed in accordance
with manufacturer's instructions.
(3) The owner or operator of each dry cleaning system installed
after December 21, 2005 at an area source shall route the air-
perchloroethylene gas-vapor stream contained within each dry cleaning
machine through a refrigerated condenser and pass the air-
perchloroethylene gas-vapor stream from inside the dry cleaning machine
drum through a carbon adsorber or equivalent control device immediately
before the door of the dry cleaning machine is opened. The carbon
adsorber must be desorbed in accordance with manufacturer's
instructions.
(4) The owner or operator of any dry cleaning system shall
eliminate any emission of perchloroethylene during the transfer of
articles between the washer and the dryer(s) or reclaimer(s).
(5) The owner or operator shall eliminate any emission of
perchloroethylene from any dry cleaning system that is installed after
December 21, 2005 and that is located in a building with a residence.
5. Section 63.323 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)
introductory text, (b)(1), (b)(2), and (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.323 Test methods and monitoring.
* * * * *
(b) When a carbon adsorber is used to comply with Sec.
63.322(a)(2) or exhaust is passed through a carbon adsorber immediately
upon machine door opening to comply with Sec. 63.322(b)(3) or Sec.
63.323(o)(2), the owner or operator shall measure the concentration of
perchloroethylene in the exhaust of the carbon adsorber weekly with a
colorimetric detector tube or perchloroethylene gas analyzer. The
measurement shall be taken while the dry cleaning machine is venting to
that carbon adsorber at the end of the last dry cleaning cycle prior to
desorption of that carbon adsorber or removal of the activated carbon
to determine that the perchloroethylene concentration in the exhaust is
equal to or less than 100 parts per million by volume. The owner or
operator shall:
(1) Use a colorimetric detector tube or perchloroethylene gas
analyzer designed to measure a concentration of 100 parts per million
by volume of
[[Page 75906]]
perchloroethylene in air to an accuracy of 25 parts per
million by volume; and
(2) Use the colorimetric detector tube or perchloroethylene gas
analyzer according to the manufacturer's instructions; and
* * * * *
(c) If the air-perchloroethylene gas vapor stream is passed through
a carbon adsorber prior to machine door opening to comply with Sec.
63.322(b)(3) or Sec. 63.323(o)(2), the owner or operator of an
affected facility shall measure the concentration of perchloroethylene
in the dry cleaning machine drum at the end of the dry cleaning cycle
weekly with a colorimetric detector tube or perchloroethylene gas
analyzer to determine that the perchloroethylene concentration is equal
to or less than 300 parts per million by volume. The owner or operator
shall:
(1) Use a colorimetric detector tube or perchloroethylene gas
analyzer designed to measure a concentration of 300 parts per million
by volume of perchloroethylene in air to an accuracy of 75
parts per million by volume; and
(2) Use the colorimetric detector tube or perchloroethylene gas
analyzer according to the manufacturer's instructions; and
(3) Conduct the weekly monitoring by inserting the colorimetric
detector or perchloroethylene gas analyzer tube into the open space
above the articles at the rear of the dry cleaning machine drum
immediately upon opening the dry cleaning machine door.
* * * * *
6. Section 63.324 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(3), (d)(5),
and (d)(6) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.324 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(3) The dates when the dry cleaning system components are inspected
for leaks, as specified in Sec. 63.322(k), (l), or (o)(1), and the
name or location of dry cleaning system components where leaks are
detected;
* * * * *
(5) The date and temperature sensor monitoring results, as
specified in Sec. 63.323 if a refrigerated condenser is used to comply
with Sec. 63.322(a) or (b); and
(6) The date and monitoring results, as specified in Sec. 63.323,
if a carbon adsorber is used to comply with Sec. 63.322(a)(2), (b)(3),
or (o)(2).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 05-24071 Filed 12-20-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P