Rule: Air Pollutants, Hazardous National Emission Standards: Dry Cleaning Facilities Perchloroethylene Emission Standards

Thursday,
July 27, 2006
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 63
National Perchloroethylene Air Emission
Standards for Dry Cleaning Facilities;
Final Rule
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:51 Jul 26, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM 27JYR2
42724 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 144 / Thursday, July 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION equipment and work practice standards Docket offices in the EPA/DC are
AGENCY and, in certain situations, disallowing temporarily unavailable. EPA visitors
the use of PCE at dry cleaning facilities. are required to show photographic
40 CFR Part 63 In addition, EPA is taking this identification and sign the EPA visitor
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0155; FRL–8200–2] opportunity to make some technical log. After processing through the X-ray
corrections to the 1993 Dry Cleaning and magnetometer machines, visitors
RIN 2060–AK18 NESHAP. will be given an EPA/DC badge that
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is must be visible at all times.
National Perchloroethylene Air
Emission Standards for Dry Cleaning effective July 27, 2006. Informational updates will be
Facilities ADDRESSES: EPA has established a provided via the EPA Web site at http://
docket for this action under Docket ID www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm as
AGENCY: Environmental Protection No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0155. All they are available.
Agency (EPA). documents in the docket are listed on FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
ACTION: Final rule. the www.regulations.gov Web site. questions about the final rule
Although listed in the index, some amendments, contact Mr. Warren
SUMMARY: EPA is promulgating revised information is not publicly available
standards to limit emissions of Johnson, EPA, Office of Air Quality
(e.g., Confidential Business Information Planning and Standards, Sector Policies
perchloroethylene (PCE) from existing (CBI) or other information whose
and new dry cleaning facilities. On and Programs Division, Natural
disclosure is restricted by statute). Resources and Commerce Group (E143–
September 22, 1993, EPA promulgated Certain other material, such as
technology-based emission standards to 03), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711;
copyrighted material, will be publicly telephone number (919) 541–5124; fax
control emissions of PCE from dry available only in hard copy form.
cleaning facilities. EPA has reviewed number (919) 541–3470; e-mail address:
Publicly available docket materials are johnson.warren@epa.gov. For questions
these standards and is promulgating available either electronically through
revisions to take into account new on the residual risk analysis, contact Mr.
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at Neal Fann, EPA, Office of Air Quality
developments in production practices, the EPA Docket Center, Docket ID No.
processes, and control technologies. In Planning and Standards, Health and
EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0155, EPA West Environmental Impacts Division, Air
addition, EPA has evaluated the Building, Room B–102, 1301
remaining risk to public health and the Benefits Cost Group (C439–02),
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
environment following implementation Research Triangle Park, NC 27711;
DC. The Public Reading Room is open
of the technology-based rule and is telephone number (919) 541–0209; fax
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
promulgating more stringent standards number (919) 541–0839; e-mail address:
through Friday, excluding legal
for major sources in order to protect fann.neal@epa.gov.
holidays. The telephone number for the
public health with an ample margin of Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated
safety. The final standards are expected and the telephone number for the Air Entities. Categories and entities
to provide further reductions of PCE and Radiation Docket is (202) 566–1742. potentially regulated by the final rule
beyond the 1993 national emission At this time, the EPA/DC’s Public are industrial and commercial PCE dry
standards for hazardous air pollutants Reading Room is closed until further cleaners. The final rule affects the
(NESHAP), based on application of notice due to flooding. Fax numbers for following categories of sources:
NAICS 1
Category Examples of potentially regulated entities
code
Coin-operated Laundries and Dry Cleaners .................................. 812310 Dry-to-dry machines Transfer machines.
Dry Cleaning and Laundry Services (except coin-operated) ......... 812320 Dry-to-dry machines Transfer machines.
Industrial Launderers ...................................................................... 812332 Dry-to-dry machines Transfer machines.
1 North American Industry Classification System.
This table is not intended to be available on the WWW. Following the judicial review. Moreover, under CAA
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide Administrator’s signature, a copy of the section 307(b)(2), the requirements
for readers regarding entities likely to be final rule will be posted on EPA’s established by this final action may not
regulated by the final rule. To determine Technology Transfer Network (TTN) be challenged separately in any civil or
whether your facility is regulated by the policy and guidance page for newly criminal proceedings brought by EPA to
final rule, you should examine the proposed or promulgated rules at enforce these requirements.
applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.320 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA
of subpart M (1993 Dry Cleaning provides information and technology further provides that ‘‘only an objection
NESHAP). If you have any questions exchange in various areas of air to a rule or procedure which was raised
regarding the applicability of the final pollution control. with reasonable specificity during the
rule to a particular entity, contact the Judicial Review. Under section period for public comment (including
person listed in the preceding FOR 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), any public hearing) may be raised
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. judicial review of the final rule is during judicial review.’’ This section
Docket. The docket number for the available only by filing a petition for also provides a mechanism for EPA to
National PCE Air Emission Standards review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for convene a proceeding for
for Dry Cleaning Facilities (40 CFR part the District of Columbia Circuit by reconsideration, ‘‘if the person raising
63, subpart M) is Docket ID No. EPA– September 25, 2006. Under CAA section the objection can demonstrate to the
HQ–OAR–2005–0155. 307(d)(7)(B), only an objection to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise
Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition final rule that was raised with such an objection [within the period for
to being available in the docket, an reasonable specificity during the period public comment] or if the grounds for
electronic copy of the final rule is also for public comment can be raised during such objection arose after the period for
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 144 / Thursday, July 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 42725
public comment (but within the time I. National Technology Transfer the individual most exposed to
specified for judicial review) and if such Advancement Act emissions from a source in the category
objection is of central relevance to the J. Congressional Review Act or subcategory to less than 1-in-1
outcome of the rule.’’ Any person I. Background million, we must promulgate ‘‘residual
seeking to make such a demonstration to risk’’ standards under CAA section
the EPA should submit a Petition for A. What Is the Statutory Authority for 112(f) for the source category (or
Reconsideration to the Office of the Regulating Hazardous Air Pollutants? subcategory) as necessary to protect
Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Section 112 of the CAA requires us to public health with an ample margin of
Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania regulate hazardous air pollutants (HAP) safety. We must also adopt more
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with emitted by categories of stationary stringent standards if required to
a copy to both the person(s) listed in the sources. For ‘‘major’’ sources of HAP, prevent an ‘‘adverse environmental
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION the CAA directs us to first establish effect’’ as defined in CAA section
CONTACT section, and the Director of the technology-based standards reflecting 112(a)(7), after considering costs,
Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of maximum achievable control energy, safety, and other relevant
General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), technology (‘‘MACT’’), and to second factors.
U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., establish residual risk standards if such We are also required by CAA section
NW., Washington, DC 20004. standards are required in order to 112(d)(6) to periodically review all
Outline. The information presented in provide an ample margin of safety to standards we promulgate under CAA
this preamble is organized as follows: protect public health or prevent an section 112 and to revise them as
I. Background adverse environmental effect. For non- necessary, taking into account
A. What Is the Statutory Authority for major ‘‘area’’ sources of HAP, the CAA developments in practices, processes
Regulating Hazardous Air Pollutants? allows us to establish standards and control technologies. The first such
B. What Are PCE Dry Cleaning Facilities? reflecting generally available control review must occur eight years after we
C. What Are the Health Effects of PCE? technology (‘‘GACT’’), in lieu of MACT promulgate MACT and GACT standards,
D. What Does the 1993 NESHAP Require? and residual risk standards. The HAP and can be combined with the residual
II. Summary of the Proposed Rule we must regulate are listed at CAA risk review performed under CAA
A. What Were the Proposed Requirements section 112(b). The types of technology- section 112(f)(2). The section CAA
for Major Sources?
based standards we must promulgate 112(d)(6) review is thereafter to be
B. What Were the Proposed Requirements
for Area Sources? differ based on whether the regulated repeated no less frequently than every
C. What Were the Proposed Requirements sources are ‘‘major’’ sources or ‘‘area’’ eight years.
for Transfer Machines at Major and Area sources. Under CAA section 112(a)(1),
B. What Are PCE Dry Cleaning
Sources? major sources are those that emit or
Facilities?
III. Summary of the Final Rule have the potential to emit 10 tons per
A. What Are the Requirements for Major year or more of any HAP or 25 tons per Most dry cleaners use PCE in a dry
Sources? year or more of any combination of cleaning machine to clean all types of
B. What Are the Requirements for Area HAP, including fugitive emissions. garments, including clothes, gloves,
Sources?
Section 112(a)(2) of the CAA provides leather garments, blankets, and
C. What Are the Requirements for Transfer
Machines at Existing Major and Area that area sources are all other non-major absorbent materials. There are
Sources? stationary sources of HAP. For major approximately 34,000 dry cleaning
D. What Are the Requirements for Co- sources, our initial technology-based facilities in the United States,
residential Sources? standards must reflect maximum approximately 28,000 of which use PCE.
IV. Responses to Significant Comments achievable control technology (MACT) Of the 28,000 PCE-using dry cleaners,
A. Statutory Authority as set forth in CAA sections 112(d)(2)– 12 of the facilities are major sources and
B. Methods Used for the Risk Assessment (3). For area sources, we may set less the remainder are area sources. As
C. Compliance Dates stringent standards based on generally defined in the 1993 Dry Cleaning
D. Control Requirements for Major Sources
available control technology (GACT) NESHAP, major source PCE dry cleaners
E. Area Sources
F. Co-Residential Sources under CAA section 112(d)(5). For both are those that purchase more than 2,100
G. Technical Corrections to the 1993 Dry MACT and GACT, CAA section 112(h) gallons (gal) of PCE per year (1,800 gal
Cleaning NESHAP allows us to establish design, per year if the facility uses transfer
V. Impacts equipment, work practice, or machines). In the 1993 Dry Cleaning
A. Major Sources operational standards where we NESHAP, area sources were defined as
B. Area Sources determine it is not feasible to prescribe either large or small, with large area
C. Co-Residential Sources or enforce an emission standard. sources defined as facilities that use
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires between 140 to 2,100 gal of PCE per year
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
us to determine for each category of (or 140 to 1,800 gal per year if the
B. Paperwork Reduction Act major sources regulated under CAA facility uses transfer machines) and
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act section 112(d) whether the MACT small area sources defined as those
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act standard protects public health with an facilities using less than 140 gal per
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism ample margin of safety, eight years after year. Some area sources are located in
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation we promulgate MACT for that source the same buildings where people live. In
and Coordination With Indian Tribal category. Section 112(f)(5) of the CAA the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP we did
Governments provides that we are not required to not specifically discuss these sources,
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of conduct this review for categories of but in this notice we refer to them as co-
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks

area sources regulated by GACT residential dry cleaners. A co-residential
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions standards. If the MACT standards for dry cleaning facility is located in a
Concerning Regulations That HAP classified as a known, probable, or building in which people reside. Co-
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, possible human carcinogen do not residential facilities are located
Distribution, or Use reduce lifetime excess cancer risks to primarily in urban areas.
In general, PCE dry cleaning facilities dry cleaning equipment (including Integrated Risk Information System
can be classified into three types: equipment used to recycle PCE and (IRIS) assessment, which is being
Commercial, industrial, and leather. dispose of PCE containing waste). revised, we used the Agency for Toxic
Commercial facilities typically clean Machines are designed to be either Substances and Disease Registry’s
household items such as suits, dresses, vented or non-vented during the drying (ATSDR) Minimum Risk Level (MRL).
coats, pants, comforters, curtains, and cycle. Approximately 200 dry cleaners This value is based on a study of
formal wear. Industrial dry cleaners (1 percent) use vented machines, and neurological effects in workers in dry
clean heavily-stained articles such as the remaining facilities use the lower- cleaning shops, and is derived in a
work gloves, uniforms, mechanics’ polluting, non-vented machines. (For manner similar to EPA’s method for
overalls, mops, and shop rags. Leather both major and area sources, the 1993 derivation of reference concentrations,
cleaners mostly clean household leather Dry Cleaning NESHAP prohibits new including scientific and public review.
products like jackets and other leather dry cleaning machines that vent to the The Agency’s IRIS chemical
clothing. The 12 major sources include atmosphere while the dry cleaning assessment for PCE is currently being
seven industrial facilities and five drum is rotating.) In vented machines, revised. A final IRIS determination on
commercial facilities. The commercial the majority of emissions from the PCE is not expected until 2008. Because
facilities are each the central plant for drying cycle are vented outside the EPA has not yet issued a final IRIS
a chain of retail storefronts. We do not building. In non-vented machines, dryer document for PCE, to estimate cancer
expect any new PCE dry cleaning emissions are released when the door is risk, we used the California EPA
facilities constructed in the future to be opened to remove garments. Currently, (CalEPA) unit risk estimate (URE) as
major sources. Based on the emission the largest sources of emissions from well as a URE value developed by the
rates of current PCE dry cleaning dry cleaning are from equipment leaks, EPA’s Office of Prevention, Pesticides
machines and the typical business which come from leaking valves and and Toxics (OPPTS) in 1998. The final
models used in the industrial and seals, and the loading and unloading of IRIS reassessment may result in a URE
commercial dry cleaning sectors, it is garments. that is different than these two values.
unlikely that any new sources that are Among the available Acute Reference
C. What Are the Health Effects of PCE?
constructed will emit PCE at major Levels (ARL), the one-hour California
source levels, or that any existing area The main effects of PCE in humans Reference Exposure Level (REL) was
sources will become major sources due are neurological, liver, and kidney considered the most appropriate to use
to business growth. damage following acute (short-term) and in the assessment because it may be
PCE dry cleaning machines can be chronic (long-term) inhalation exposure. used to characterize acute risk for
classified into two types: Transfer and The results of epidemiological studies exposure an exposure duration of one
dry-to-dry. Similar to residential evaluating the relative risk of cancer hour. In contrast, the ATSDR acute MRL
washing machines and dryers, transfer associated with PCE exposure have been is appropriate to characterize acute risk
machines have a unit for washing/ mixed; some studies reported an for up to 14 days of exposure.
extracting and another unit for drying. increased incidence of a variety of See the risk characterization
Following the wash cycle, PCE tumors, while other studies did not memorandum in the public docket for
containing articles are manually report any carcinogenic effects. Animal additional information regarding the
transferred from the washer/extractor to studies have reported an increased health effects of PCE.
the dryer. The transfer of wet fabrics is incidence of liver cancer in mice, via
inhalation and gavage (experimentally D. What Does the 1993 NESHAP
the predominant source of PCE
placing the chemical in the stomach), Require?
emissions in these systems. Dry-to-dry
machines wash, extract, and dry the and kidney and mononuclear cell The 1993 NESHAP prescribes a
articles in the same drum in a single leukemia in rats. combination of equipment, work
machine, so the articles enter and exit Although PCE has not yet been practices, and operational requirements.
the machine dry. Because the transfer reassessed under the Agency’s recently The requirements for process controls
step is eliminated, dry-to-dry machines revised Guidelines for Cancer Risk are summarized in table 1 of this
have much lower emissions than assessment, it was considered in one preamble. The 1993 Dry Cleaning
transfer machines. review by the EPA’s Science Advisory NESHAP defines major and area sources
New transfer machines are effectively Board to be intermediate between a based on the annual PCE purchases for
prohibited at major and area sources ‘‘probable’’ and ‘‘possible’’ human all machines at a facility. The
due to the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP carcinogen (Group B/C) when assessed consumption criterion (which affects
requirement that new dry cleaning under the previous 1986 Guidelines. the amount of PCE purchased) varies
systems eliminate any emissions of PCE Since that time, the U.S. Department of depending on whether the facility has
while transferring articles from the Health and Human Services has dry-to-dry machines only, transfer
washer to the dryer. Therefore, transfer concluded that PCE is ‘‘reasonably machines only, or a combination of
machines are no longer sold. Existing anticipated to be a human carcinogen,’’ both. The affected source is each
transfer machines are becoming an and the International Agency for individual dry cleaning system.
increasingly smaller segment of the dry Research on Cancer has concluded that Consequently, under the 1993 Dry
cleaning population as these machines PCE is ‘‘probably carcinogenic to Cleaning NESHAP, a single dry cleaning
reach the end of their useful lives and humans.’’ facility could be comprised of multiple
are replaced by dry-to-dry machines. Effects other than cancer associated affected sources, if it has multiple dry
There are approximately 200 transfer with long-term inhalation of PCE in cleaning systems onsite. As a result,
machines currently being used, all at worker or animal studies include some of a facility’s systems could be
area sources. neurotoxicity, liver and kidney damage, subject to ‘‘new’’ source requirements
The primary sources of PCE emissions and, at higher levels, developmental under the NESHAP, and some could be
from dry-to-dry machines are the drying effects. To characterize noncancer ‘‘existing’’ sources, depending upon
cycle and fugitive emissions from the hazard in lieu of the completed when they were placed into service.
TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF THE 1993 DRY CLEANING NESHAP PROCESS CONTROLS

Annual PCE New 1
Sources Existing 2
purchased (installed after 12/9/91)
Major Sources ..................... Dry-to-dry only .................................. Closed-loop, dry-to-dry machines Dry-to-dry machines: Must have re-
> 2,100 gal/yr with a refrigerated condenser, and frigerated condenser.3
Transfer only carbon adsorber operated imme- Transfer machines: Must be en-
>1,800 gal/yr diately before or as the door is closed in a room exhausting to a
Dry-to-dry and Transfer opened. dedicated carbon adsorber.
> 1,800 gal/yr
Large Area Sources ............ Dry-to-dry only 140 to 2,100 gal/yr .. Closed-loop, dry-to-dry machines Dry-to-dry machines: Must have a
Transfer only 200 to 1,800 gal/yr with a refrigerated condenser.. refrigerated condenser 3
Dry-to-dry and Transfer 140 to Transfer machines: No controls re-
1,800 gal/yr quired.
Small Area Sources ............ Dry-to-dry ONLY ............................... Same as large area sources ............ No controls required.
< 140 gal/yr
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 to the requirements of the 1993 Dry New York State Department of
with certain operating requirements, Cleaning NESHAP. Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)
including recording PCE purchases, B. What Were the Proposed
in their Title 6 New York Conservation
storing PCE and PCE-containing waste Requirements for Area Sources? Rules and Regulations (NYCRR) Part
in non-leaking containers, and 232 rules, which include using
inspecting for perceptible leaks. Owners For existing area sources (large and machines equipped with refrigerated
or operators are required to operate and small), the proposed requirements condensers and carbon adsorbers,
maintain the control equipment included implementation of an enclosed in a vapor barrier to help
according to procedures specified in the enhanced LDAR program and a prevent exposures to PCE emissions.
1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP and to use prohibition on the use of existing
pollution prevention procedures, such transfer machines. For new area sources C. What Were the Proposed
as good operation and maintenance, for (large and small), the proposed Requirements for Transfer Machines at
both dry cleaning machines and requirements included implementation Major and Area Sources?
auxiliary equipment (such as filter, of an enhanced LDAR program and use
of a non-vented dry-to-dry machine The proposed rule included a
muck cookers, stills, and solvent tanks) prohibition on the use of all existing
with a refrigerated condenser and
to prevent liquid and vapor leaks of PCE transfer machines 90 days after
secondary carbon adsorber.
from these sources. The enhanced LDAR program for area publication of the final rule by requiring
II. Summary of the Proposed Rule sources would require facilities to use a owners or operators to eliminate any
halogenated leak detector (instead of a PCE emissions from clothing transfer
A. What Were the Proposed more costly gas analyzer proposed for between the washer and dryer. The
Requirements for Major Sources? major sources) to perform leak checks installation of new transfer machines
on a monthly basis. The facility would was prohibited by the 1993 Dry
Under the proposal, the requirements Cleaning NESHAP.
also continue to inspect for perceptible
for all new and existing major sources
leaks biweekly for small area sources
were the same. The proposed III. Summary of the Final Rule
and weekly for large area sources
requirements included the
according to the requirements of the A. What are the Requirements for Major
implementation of an enhanced leak 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP.
detection and repair (LDAR) program Sources?
For co-residential area sources, we
and the use of dry-to-dry machines that proposed two options. The first option Under the final rule revisions, the
do not vent to the atmosphere (closed- would effectively prohibit new PCE requirements for all new and existing
loop) during any phase of the dry sources from locating in residential major sources are the same. In addition
cleaning cycle. A refrigerated condenser buildings by requiring that owners or to the previous 1993 NESHAP
and a secondary carbon adsorber were operators eliminate PCE emissions from requirements, the final revisions require
proposed for all machines. the dry cleaning process. Existing co- the implementation of an enhanced
Under the proposed enhanced LDAR residential sources, under this proposed LDAR program. Under the enhanced
program, the facility owner or operator option, would be subject to the same LDAR program, the facility owner or
would be required to use a PCE gas requirements proposed for all other operator must use a PCE gas analyzer
analyzer (photoionization detector, existing area sources (i.e., enhanced (photoionization detector, flame
flame ionization detector, or infrared LDAR and elimination of transfer ionization detector, or infrared analyzer)
analyzer) and perform leak checks machines). Instead of a prohibition on and perform leak checks according to
according to EPA Method 21 on a new co-residential sources, the second EPA Method 21 on a monthly basis. The
monthly basis. The facility owner or option would require that existing and facility owner or operator is also
operator would also continue the new co-residential sources comply with required to continue the weekly
weekly perceptible leak check according standards based on those required by perceptible leak check according to the
requirements of the 1993 Dry Cleaning eliminate PCE emissions from dry authority for any of the requirements
NESHAP. cleaning systems that are installed after promulgated in this action for area
December 21, 2005. This requirement sources, the commenters’ arguments are
B. What Are the Requirements for Area
applies to any newly installed dry moot for purposes of this final
Sources?
cleaning system that is located in a rulemaking.
For existing area sources (large and building with a residence, regardless of Under CAA section 112(d)(6), we are
small), in addition to the previous 1993 whether the dry cleaning system is a required to conduct a review and, if
NESHAP requirements, the final rule newly fabricated system or one that is appropriate, revise the dry cleaning
revisions require implementation of an relocated from another facility. In standard as necessary to reflect
enhanced LDAR program and prohibit addition, the final rule revisions include advances in practices, processes, and
the use of existing transfer machines. a ‘‘sunset date’’ for the use of PCE at control technologies. At proposal, we
This requirement and prohibition apply currently operating co-residential evaluated the emission reductions that
to all types of existing area sources, sources: All existing PCE machines in could be achieved under CAA section
including co-residential sources (for the co-residential facilities are prohibited 112(d)(6). After assessing advances in
remaining time in which the latter are after December 21, 2020. This sunset control technologies and considering
permitted to use PCE at all). date allows owners of existing co- the public comments, we have
For new area sources (large and residential sources to operate their determined that, given the current
small), the final rule revisions add to the machines for their maximum estimated knowledge of the health effects of PCE,
previous 1993 NESHAP by requiring useful life, 15 years, assuming they were additional requirements we proposed
implementation of an enhanced LDAR first installed no later than the date of under the combined authorities of CAA
program and use of a non-vented dry-to- the proposed rule. We have concluded sections 112(f)(2) and (d)(6) for area
dry machine with a refrigerated that it is reasonable to establish the sources are equally supportable under
condenser and secondary carbon sunset date at that point to allow such CAA section 112(d)(6) alone. In light of
adsorber. These added requirements do owners to recoup the cost of their public comments we received regarding
not apply to new co-residential sources investment in their current machines. possible risks posed by area sources,
since these sources are prohibited from We also decided not to allow for a later and EPA’s pending IRIS review of PCE,
using PCE, as discussed later in this sunset date since on the date of our we have determined that we are able to
notice. The enhanced LDAR program for proposal owners were first placed on address the risks posed by area sources
new and existing area sources requires notice that we were considering a sunset by revising our standards under the
facilities to use a halogenated leak provision for co-residential sources. authority of section 112(d)(6). The
detector (instead of a more costly gas This sunset period, during which standards for all area sources in this
analyzer for major sources) to perform existing machines will be required to final rule are promulgated under the
leak checks on a monthly basis. The comply with the same revised authority of CAA section 112(d)(6), and
facility is also required to continue to requirements that apply to other fulfill the Agency’s statutory
inspect for perceptible leaks biweekly existing area sources, will provide requirements under this authority for
for small area sources and weekly for adequate time for source owners and these sources.
large area sources according to the The Agency’s Office of Research and
operators to switch to non-PCE
requirements of the 1993 Dry Cleaning Development is currently re-evaluating
equipment or move their PCE
NESHAP. the available information on human
equipment to a non-residential location.
health effects of PCE as part of a hazard
C. What Are the Requirements for In the interim before the sunset date,
and dose-response assessment for the
Transfer Machines at Existing Major existing co-residential sources are Agency’s IRIS, which may result in
and Area Sources? subject to the same requirements that revised metrics which are different
The final rule prohibits the use of all apply to all other existing area sources enough from those used in our current
existing transfer machines two years under the final rule revisions (i.e., assessment to warrant a re-assessment of
from the effective date of the final rule enhanced LDAR and elimination of risks from these sources. The project
by requiring owners or operators to transfer machines). schedule for completion of the IRIS
eliminate any PCE emissions from IV. Responses to Significant Comments assessment is available at http://
clothing transfer between the washer cfpub.epa.gov/iristrac/index.cfm. Also,
and dryer. The installation of new A. Statutory Authority additional information is needed to
transfer machines was prohibited by the Comment: Two commenters accurately estimate chronic and short-
1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP. We questioned whether we have the legal term exposures and risks to individuals
estimate that about 200 transfer authority to impose risk-based standards located next to area sources other than
machines remain in use within the on area sources that are regulated under co-residential (e.g., sources co-located
population of 28,000 PCE dry cleaning GACT. The commenters quoted sections with schools and day care centers).
sources. Most of these machines are of the Congressional Record While we received some information on
near the end of their useful economic (appropriate sections were attached to measured PCE concentrations at such
lives. The typical useful life of a dry the comments) concerning this point area sources in public comments, much
cleaning machine is 10 to 15 years. By and provided analysis to demonstrate a of these data were collected based on
the end of 2008, the newest transfer legislative intent to exempt area sources, complaints and may not be
machines in the industry will be 15 specifically, dry cleaners from residual representative of PCE exposures from
years old. risk standards. sources in compliance with the relevant
Response: While we do not concede regulations. EPA is aware of other data
D. What Are the Requirements for Co- that the commenter’s interpretation of collected to support a peer-reviewed
residential Sources?
our authority under section 112(f) to article; however, these data represent a
For co-residential area sources, the impose risk based standards on area very limited number of samples and
final rule effectively prohibits new PCE sources regulated under GACT is sampling locations. As the results of the
machines in residential buildings by correct, we note that since we are not Agency’s final PCE health assessment
requiring that owners or operators relying upon CAA section 112(f) as the and additional scientifically peer
reviewed data become available, we bioassays by inhalation, which were not collect this information during facility
may choose to further assess PCE risks considered in either the CalEPA or inspections.
and may re-evaluate our decision for OPPTS assessments. These data were Response: As we have recently
area sources. considered in a recent WHO document, explained in another rulemaking, the
which presented a range of inhalation National Emission Standards for
B. Methods Used for the Risk Hazardous Air Pollutants for Organic
Assessment cancer unit risk estimates derived using
the various available data sets and Hazardous Air Pollutants From the
Comment: A commenter requested default methods for extrapolation to Synthetic Organic Chemical
that EPA account for any uncertainty in humans. The highest unit risk estimate Manufacturing Industry; Proposed Rule,
the ATSDR MRL and the OPPTS derived from these data was quite published on June 14, 2006 (71 FR
provisional Reference Concentration similar to the CalEPA estimate, while 34422), we have since revisited our
(RfC) by providing a greater margin of the lowest was about an order of prior view regarding which CAA
(public) safety when selecting a dose- magnitude lower, similar to the OPPTS provisions govern compliance dates for
response value for PCE. Two URE. While the Nordic study did not residual risk rules. We hereby
commenters requested EPA to use the find an association between PCE incorporate that discussion by reference.
New York State Department of Health exposures of the study population and In response to the commenters, we are
(NYSDOH) non-cancer reference value. cancer risk, this study needs to be adopting different compliance deadlines
Many commenters questioned the use of thoroughly evaluated in the context of for the existing source requirements
the CalEPA and OPPTS URE in the all epidemiological studies to determine than we proposed. We interpret CAA
absence of the revised IRIS re- whether or not it will change the weight section 112(i) as providing the
assessment number. Several hundred of evidence evaluation. The EPA IRIS comprehensive framework for
commenters, using a form letter, reassessment will include consideration compliance deadlines for all rules
questioned the carcinogenicity of PCE of this study as well. Since the last EPA adopted under CAA section 112, even
and referenced a Nordic study. assessment of PCE carcinogenicity, the where the provisions of CAA section
Response: The ATSDR MRL and the 112(f)(4) may appear to conflict with
United States Department of Health and
OPPTS provisional RfC, both based on those of CAA section 112(i).
Human Services has concluded that PCE
1992 occupational studies indicating As explained in the proposed residual
is ‘‘reasonably anticipated to be a
effects at essentially identical exposure risk rule for the HON source category,
human carcinogen’’ and the
levels, are within a factor of two of each for new sources, CAA section 112(i)(1)
International Agency for Research on
other, which, given the precision of the requires that after the effective date of
Cancer has concluded that PCE is
underlying data, is not a large any standard under subsections (d), (f)
‘‘probably carcinogenic to humans.’’
difference. Additionally, a recent or (h), no new source may be
document by the World Health C. Compliance Dates constructed or reconstructed except in
Organization (World Health compliance with the standard, as
Organization. 2006. Concise 1. Two Years for Existing Sources determined by EPA or the applicable
International Chemical Assessment permitting authority under title V of the
Comment: Most of the comments
Document 68.TETRACHLOROETHENE CAA. A new source, under CAA section
received on compliance dates for the
Wissenchaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft 112(a)(4), is any stationary source that
regulation were in favor of extending
mbH, Stuttgart, Germany, available on- commences construction or
the date to more than 90 days. Some
line at http://www.who.int/ipcs/ reconstruction after EPA proposes
commenters asked for a one year
publications/cicad/cicad68.pdf) regulations applicable to the source
extension, while others asked that the
included the derivation of a noncancer category under CAA section 112.
date be extended to three years. The
value termed a ‘‘tolerable Sections 112(e)(10) and (f)(3) of the CAA
commenters cited references in the CAA
concentration’’ which falls intermediate provide that CAA section 112(d)(6) and
between the OPPTS provisional RfC and that stated that CAA section 112(i)(3)(A)
residual risk standards, respectively,
the ATSDR MRL. With regard to governs the compliance times for CAA
become effective immediately upon
addressing uncertainty in the section 112, including residual risk
promulgation. This means generally that
underlying database, both the ATSDR standards, and that compliance is
a new source that is constructed after a
and OPPTS values (and the WHO value) required as expeditiously as possible,
proposed rule is issued must comply
were derived using similar approaches but in no event later than three years
with the final standard, when
which rely on the inclusion of from the effective date of the standard.
promulgated, immediately upon the
uncertainty factors to account for The commenters added that CAA
rule’s effective date or upon startup,
recognized uncertainties in the section 112(f)(4) merely states that EPA
which ever occurs later.
extrapolations from the experimental may not set a compliance date earlier Sections 112(i)(7) and 112(i)(2)(A)–(B)
data conditions to an estimate than 90 days. The commenters believe of the CAA provide some exceptions to
appropriate to the assumed human that the CAA section 112(f)(4)(b) this general rule. The former provision
scenario. The method employed by provision for waivers of up to two years essentially ensures that new sources
NYSDOH to derive their criterion differs would apply only in cases where the that are built in compliance with MACT
from that employed by ATSDR, which rule established a compliance date of but before a residual risk rule is
is consistent with EPA methodology. more than 90 days but less than two proposed will not be forced to undergo
As the Agency has not yet completed years. modifications to comply with a residual
its own cancer assessment for PCE, we Another commenter, a State risk rule unreasonably early. The second
have evaluated PCE cancer risk based on representative, recommended that the set of provisions essentially treats new
consideration of both the CalEPA and compliance deadline for area sources sources as if they are existing sources,
OPPTS cancer dose-response that need to purchase new machines where a final standard is more stringent
assessments, as well as more recently should be extended to one year, because than its proposed version and a source
available data. Data are available from State agencies need time to conduct constructs after proposal but before final
the Japanese Industrial Safety outreach. States do not have lists of area promulgation: Such sources have three
Association (1993) for rodent cancer source dry cleaners and will need to years to comply with the final standard,
provided they comply with the standard imposing a shorter deadline on existing final rule is also fully supported under
as proposed in the meantime. sources than may apply for new sources an alternative interpretation that CAA
For existing sources, CAA section under CAA section 112(i)(2). The CAA section 112(f)(4)(A)–(B) controls. This is
112(i)(3) allows EPA to set compliance section 112(f)(4)(B) waiver provision because CAA section 112(f)(4) would
deadlines of up to three years for ‘‘any also fails to rely upon the new title V allow us to grant a 2-year extension of
emission standard, limitation or implementation mechanism, even the compliance deadline for existing
regulation promulgated under this though, of course, residual risk rules are sources, on top of the 90-day
section.’’ This up-to-3-year compliance required to be reflected in title V compliance deadline otherwise
period matches the 3-year period permits to the same extent as MACT required. Since we find that the 2-year
provided under CAA section 112(i)(2), rules to which CAA section 112(i)(3) total compliance deadline is necessary
which potentially applies to any clearly applies. for the installation of controls at existing
standard issued under CAA sections Notwithstanding CAA section dry cleaners that would have to replace
112(d), (f) or (h). There is also an 112(i)(3)(B)’s limited reference to transfer machines with equipment
exception to the 3-year deadline for standards adopted under subsection (d), compliant with new source standards
existing sources: CAA section we interpret CAA section 112(i)(3) as (as further discussed below), and as the
112(i)(3)(B) allows EPA or a State title applying to ‘‘any’’ standards total 2-year compliance deadline falls
V permitting authority to issue a permit promulgated under CAA section 112, within the 2-year plus 90-day period
granting an existing source an including those under CAA section that would be allowed under CAA
additional year to comply with 112(f), since CAA section 112(i)(3)(A) section 112(f)(4)(A)–(B), the final rule
standards under subsection (d), if it is uses the term ‘‘any’’ without limitation. deadline is within the permissible range
necessary for the installation of controls. Moreover, it is clear that Congress of CAA section 112(f)(4), if it applies. In
We believe that this reference to only intended the CAA section 112(i) addition, since we explicitly asked for
subsection (d) was accidental on provisions applicable to new sources to comment on the 90-day deadline
Congress’s part and presents a conflict govern compliance under CAA section proposed under CAA section 112(f)(4)
with the rest of the statutory scheme 112(f) standards, notwithstanding the for eliminating transfer machines and
Congress enacted in 1990 to govern language of CAA section 112(f)(4), based received substantial comments on this
compliance deadlines under CAA on their explicit reference to such issue and on the compliance deadline
section 112. standards. Reading CAA section issue in general, our final decision, to
In addition to adding section 112(i) in 112(i)(3)(B) as reaching only subsection the extent it must rely on the authority
the 1990 CAA Amendments, the (d) standards, conversely, with CAA of CAA section 112(f)(4), is also a logical
amended CAA section 112 included section 112(f)(4)(B) governing outgrowth of our proposal.
provisions in section 112(f) left over subsection (f) standards, would leave We agree with the commenters that
from the previous version of CAA unanswered the question of which existing sources will need more than 90
section 112 that in several ways differ provision applies to subsection (h) days to fully implement the
from those in CAA section 112(i). First, standards, which may also require the requirements of the rule. Existing area
CAA section 112(f)(4) includes a installation of controls. A narrow sources will require up to two years to
requirement that new sources comply reading of the scope of CAA section comply with the revised standards.
immediately with CAA section 112(f) 112(i)(3) would also ignore the fact that Approximately 200 facilities will need
final rules, which is redundant with in many cases, including this rule, the to replace their transfer machines with
CAA section 112(i). This provision also enabling authority will be both CAA dry-to-dry machines. These facilities
fails to account for the allowable sections 112(f)(2) and 112(d)(6). We generally are small proprietorships that
exceptions to the immediate compliance conclude that the only reasonable way will need a sufficient amount of time to
requirement in CAA section 112(i) and to avoid a conflict in the provisions save the money to purchase new
fails to refer to the new title V addressing compliance deadlines for machines. Also, due to the large number
implementation mechanism added in existing sources in these situations is to of area sources in the U.S., time is
the 1990 CAA Amendments. In light of read the more specific and needed for outreach to inform these
the overall statutory scheme regarding comprehensive set of provisions in CAA facilities about the rule changes.
compliance deadlines for new sources section 112(i) as govern both the CAA Moreover, there could be a supply
reflected in CAA section 112(i), we section 112(d) and CAA section 112(f) shortage if 28,000 area sources were
believe that where those provisions aspects of the regulation. required to obtain a leak detection
conflict with the provisions of CAA In our proposed rule, we asked for instruments within 90 days of
section 112(f)(4), the most reasonable comments on the issue of whether a 90- promulgation. Similarly, major sources
approach is to view CAA section 112(i) day compliance deadline was sufficient will need additional time to obtain leak
as controlling. for our proposed elimination of transfer detection equipment and fully
In addition, for existing sources, CAA machines. In response to this, and in implement enhanced LDAR
section 112(f)(4)(A) imposes a 90-day response to our proposed deadlines for requirements.
compliance deadline following other requirements for existing sources,
promulgation of residual risk rules. we received significant comments on 2. Clarification of New Source
Section 112(f)(4)(B) of the CAA then this compliance deadline issue Requirements
states that EPA, without reference to a generally. Therefore, we believe that our Comment: One commenter requested
title V permitting authority, may grant a approach promulgated in this action is clarification on whether the proposed
waiver for up to two years if such period a logical outgrowth of our proposed revisions for new sources apply to those
is necessary for the installation of rule. In anticipation of an objection constructed after the proposal date of
controls. Both of these provisions claiming that our resolution of the the original NESHAP or of the date of
conflict with CAA section 112(i). The conflict between CAA sections 112(i) the current proposal.
90-day deadline conflicts with the up- and 112(f)(4) was not adequately Response: The revised requirements
to-3-year deadline available for existing noticed in our proposal, we note that for new sources apply only to new dry
sources under ‘‘any’’ rule adopted under the same 2-year compliance deadline we cleaning machines that are constructed
CAA section 112 and has the result of are adopting for existing sources in the or reconstructed after December 21,
2005. Under the general provisions, a which included enhanced LDAR, along with enhanced LDAR at existing major
new source is any affected source that with the requirements to use dry-to-dry sources are acceptable after considering
commences construction or machines that do not vent to the MIR, the population exposed at different
reconstruction after the date that a atmosphere (closed loop) during any risk levels, and the projected decline in
relevant emission standard is proposed phase of the dry cleaning cycle, and to PCE usage. While not relevant in the
in the Federal Register. Therefore, new have refrigerated condensers and analysis of acceptable level of risks, the
dry cleaning machines build after the secondary carbon adsorbers to control costs for this option include a capital
proposal date of the original rule but the PCE emissions during the final stage cost of approximately $30,000, and an
before December 21, 2005, are subject to of the dry cleaning cycle immediately annual cost savings of approximately
the new source requirements of the before and as the drum door is opened. $250,000.
original rule, and to any additional Enhanced LDAR alone, which will In the second step of the residual risk
requirements of the revised rule that require owners and operators to use a process, we determined whether a
would apply to existing sources. New PCE gas analyzer and perform leak standard more stringent than enhanced
machines built after December 21, 2005, checks according to EPA Method 21 on LDAR is warranted to protect public
are subject to the requirements of the a monthly basis (as well as continue health with an ample margin of safety.
rule as revised upon the effective date weekly perceptible leak checks), is We considered the estimate of health
of the final rule or upon their startup, expected to reduce MIR from existing risk and other health information along
whichever occurs later. major sources to between 20 and 200 in- with additional factors relating to the
D. Control Requirements for Major a-million. We have determined that this appropriate level of control, including
Sources range of MIR levels is acceptable within costs and economic impacts of controls,
Comment: Most comments received the meaning of the Benzene NESHAP technological feasibility, uncertainties,
about the requirements for major decision framework. In arriving at this and other relevant factors, consistent
sources supported EPA’s proposed determination we considered the MIR with the approach of the 1989 Benzene
requirements of non-venting machines levels and other factors in making our NESHAP. The requirements to use
with refrigerated condenser, secondary determination of acceptability, as closed loop dry-to-dry machines and for
carbon adsorber, and an enhanced directed by the 1989 Benzene NESHAP. machines to be controlled with
LDAR program. Most major sources Nearly all of the population living refrigerated condensers and carbon
were estimated to incur an annual cost within 10 km of each remaining major adsorbers as proposed would further
savings by implementing these source facility is estimated to be reduce MIR to between 10 and 100 in-
requirements. We received a few exposed at risk levels of less than 1-in- a-million. However, the additional costs
comments that asked us to require more 1 million at this level of control. and associated impacts from application
stringent requirements. These Considering the very small number of of these controls at existing major
commenters asked us to require all individuals that are estimated to be sources do not warrant the level of
major sources to upgrade their machines exposed at risk levels greater than 100- incremental risk reductions this option
with a PCE analyzer and lockout and in-1 million cancer risk coupled with would achieve, especially when
another asked to ban new PCE machines the exposure and dose response considering the distribution of costs,
at major sources, require PCE sensor and assessment methodology that was emissions and risk reductions among
lockout equipment for existing conservatively health protective, it is the affected facilities. For example, of
machines, and adopt an equipment likely that no actual persons are the seven existing facilities with major
standard that prohibits the use of PCE exposed to PCE emissions from major sources that would be impacted by this
machines more than 15 years old. One sources causing cancer risk levels above additional level of control, the bulk of
commenter, a major source stated that 100-in-1 million. Among the exposed the costs are incurred by one facility,
they would face substantial negative population of 9 million individuals, a and would result in minimal risk
economic impacts if required to replace maximum of 2 people are estimated to reductions from the facility. This facility
their existing equipment with closed- be exposed at risk levels of more than would incur costs of approximately $2
loop systems with refrigerated 100-in-1 million. In addition, no million to replace equipment which
condensers and carbon adsorbers as significant non-cancer health effects are could not be retrofitted to meet this
proposed. predicted. The maximum HQ would be level of control. Annual costs for this
Response: Since proposal, 3 major reduced from 0.3 to 0.06, and no facility would be approximately
source facilities, including the proposal adverse ecological impacts are predicted $200,000. The risk range associated with
MIR facility, have been removed from from exposure to emissions at this level this facility upon implementation of
our risk analysis, which has affected our of control. We expect that PCE usage enhanced LDAR is estimated to be
risk estimates for existing major sources. will continue to drop as has been the between 5 and 50 in-1 million. The risk
The MIR facility ceased operation due to trend over the past 10 years. This trend range with the additional level of
a change in ownership to a company has been caused by the greater use of controls of closed loop dry-to-dry
that does not use PCE in the cleaning alternative solvents, older machines at machines and refrigerated condenser
process. One additional facility ceased the end of their useful lives being and carbon adsorber would be between
operation, and another was determined replaced with newer, lower emitting 2 and 20-in-1 million. While two of the
to have been an area source prior to the dry-to-dry machines with refrigerated remaining six facilities would achieve
compliance date for the original condensers and secondary carbon somewhat higher risk reductions that
NESHAP, and is therefore not subject to adsorbers, and State and industry would be realized from the example
major source requirements. The programs that improve machine facility, the remaining four are expected
resulting cancer risks at baseline for the efficiency and reduce PCE consumption. to only achieve minimal risk reductions,
remaining facilities range between 50 All of these factors will cause risks to as represented by the range of
and 400 in-1-million. continue to decrease in the future in the incremental emissions reductions from
In assessing the appropriate level of absence of further Federal regulatory the added layer of control (between 0
control to address these risks, we requirements. Therefore, we have and 4 tons per year). The capital costs
revisited the proposal level of control, determined that the risks associated to achieve these emissions and risk
reductions would be $2.3 million, with concluded were representative of all this final rule is between 20 in-one-
annual costs of $53,000. Consequently, major sources. Our final regulatory million and about 200 in-one-million.
we have determined that the risks decision is based on a revised MIR for
2. Site Specific Risk Assessment
associated with enhanced LDAR at major sources, which ranges between
existing major sources represent an 50-in-1 million and 400-in-1 million, Comment: Two commenters
ample margin of safety after considering after excluding data from sources that supported the concept of incorporating
costs, remaining risks and population have ceased operation, such as the a site-specific risk assessment (SSRA)
cancer risk. ALAC facility. This revised MIR for both major and area sources. The
As proposed, new major sources supports our decision for major source commenters believe that substantial
would be required to perform enhanced under both sections 112(f) and 112(d)(6) flexibility is needed to improve the cost-
LDAR in addition to the 1993 NESHAP of the CAA. effectiveness of the rules and to avoid
requirement of closed-loop, dry-to-dry For the risk assessment, major sources potentially adverse impacts on specific
systems with refrigerated condensers were subdivided into three cleaning sources. They believe that EPA has
and carbon adsorbers. As explained in specializations-commercial, industrial published adequate guidance on
the proposal, we do not expect that any and leather. EPA collected site-specific conducting an SSRA. The commenters
new major sources will be built, or that information from 10 of the 15 facilities believe that the SSRA should be used
any existing area sources will increase (9 surveys and 1 site visit) to develop a both to demonstrate equivalence to
PCE usage to major source levels. cross-section of the three specializations specific emission reduction
However, if this situation occurs, the within the source category. Facilities requirements and to determine
additional LDAR requirements will within each specialization tend to be applicability to the residual risk
continue to reduce emissions from homogenous with respect to factors that requirements. The commenters believe
equipment leaks. The risks posed by affect the emissions, pollutant that the CAA allows EPA to focus the
major sources do not warrant further dispersion, and population size in the applicability of the residual risk
control given the costs and the relatively modeling radius, allowing EPA to requirements only on those sources
low levels of emission and risk extrapolate risks from the facilities it whose remaining risks after application
reduction that would be achieved by modeled to those it did not. of MACT do not provide an ample
these additional controls. The available The information EPA collected margin of safety (citing Senate Report
data indicated that closed-loop systems included: language to support their case).
with refrigerated condensers and carbon • Source locations and emission Response: We have decided not to
adsorbers, as well as PCE analyzer and points, adopt an SSRA option for major or area
lockout costs were unreasonably high • Building dimensions, sources as part of this action. As a result
considering the range of impacts across • PCE consumption, of the revised risk analysis for major
facilities. Consequently, we determined • Annual disposal of PCE in sludge or source given the elimination of 3
that requiring these additional controls residual waste (still bottoms), sources from the analysis, including the
was not a reasonable or economically • Annual facility operating hours, MIR facility, baseline risks from major
feasible option for all major sources. and sources are much lower than estimated
The costs to eliminate PCE usage at • Locations of sensitive receptors, for proposal, and the associated risk
major sources would require a capital including neighboring houses. reduction measures are less stringent
cost to the industry of approximately Based on these survey and site-visit than originally proposed. Major sources
$8.2 million. This estimate was based data, we estimated annual and hourly are required to perform enhanced
on the total costs of replacing all PCE emissions by performing a mass balance LDAR, which is expected to reduce MIR
machines with machines using calculation on PCE concentrations. from between 50 and 400 in a million,
hydrocarbon solvent, the most common Using this mass balance data, we then to between 20 and 200 in a million,
and lowest cost alternative in large-scale estimated annual average emission which the Agency has determined meets
operations. rates. Finally, we estimated maximum ample margin of safety considering cost,
one-hour emissions by dividing the total population cancer risk at different
1. Risks From Major Sources emissions level by the total number of control levels and other factors.
Comment: One commenter stated that operational hours at that facility and Furthermore, an annual cost savings of
the risk assessment is biased and does then accounting for hourly variation in about $250,000 is estimated for major
not represent all sources. Data regarding these emissions. sources from implementing enhanced
the performance of pollution control Comment: One commenter stated that LDAR. Similarly, an annual cost savings
equipment used at each facility is EPA should have informed the public of about $2.7 million is estimated for
critical. The commenter stated that the that two major sources recently ceased area sources from implementing
control technology at their facility is operations. enhanced LDAR programs and
unlike that at any other facility. They Response: The largest major source eliminating existing transfer machines.
believe the risk assessment for the group ceased operations in June 2005. One We believe these requirements will be
of major sources is invalid because it other source ceased dry cleaning cost-effective. Therefore, we have
depended heavily on the risk of one operations and another source was determined that an option for major or
outlier facility, ALAC, which recently determined to have been an area source. area sources to perform an SSRA is not
closed. Therefore, they contend ALAC By the time we learned of the closures, necessary.
greatly increased the MIR for all major the proposed rule package was at the For co-residential sources, we are
sources. later stages of senior-level Agency promulgating a ban on new sources and
Response: We disagree with the review. Since proposal, we re-evaluated a sunset date for existing sources. An
commenter that the risk assessment is the risk assessment without these option for co-residential sources to
biased and is driven by the results of the sources. The baseline estimate for MIR perform an SSRA to determine low risk
assessment for a single facility. While eliminating the sources that ceased and avoid these requirements is not
we did use this facility’s MIR at the time operation ranges between 50 in-one- feasible as part of this action. There is
of proposal, we assessed risks using data million to 400 in-one-million. The MIR no established protocol for self
from major source facilities that we at the level of control promulgated in assessment for co-residential sources
which would account for exposures with the comment about the potential collected this data for 2002 to be
inside of co-located apartments. for unreliable readings from improperly consistent with the year for which the
Traditional methods of dispersion calibrated PCE analyzers. While PCE costs are estimated. This is consistent
modeling of emissions would not analyzers are sometimes employed as with how EPA has estimated economic
accurately assess risks in this exposure PCE sensors, PCE analyzers are typically impacts in a variety of recent
scenario, as no modeling methodology more advanced than sensors, as the rulemakings for residual risk and other
exists that could determine dispersion analyzers typically employ technologies standards. Thus, the comment that the
patterns throughout buildings. Also, such as single-beam infrared revenue estimate is incorrect is not
there may be practical difficulties for photometers, and tend to be more accurate. If we were to recalculate the
these small businesses to pay for, sensitive instruments than those used as compliance costs for this facility
perform or obtain monitored samples of sensors. We did not take into account assuming that all of their machines
PCE concentrations in private any additional costs associated with would need to be replaced, then the cost
residences, to be used as part of an performing periodic calibration tests. As per sales will be 1.65 percent given the
SSRA in the absence of a modeling a result, the cost of the technology may annualized costs of about $240,000 for
methodology. Therefore, an option for be more than what we estimated. Due to the rule.
an SSRA is not included in this action. the interlock, a high reading from a PCE We have also adopted a 2-year
analyzer can unnecessarily prevent the compliance schedule in the final rule.
3. PCE Analyzer and Lockout This compliance schedule should
completion of a load. In a high-
Comment: Six commenters throughput operation, such increases in provide adequate time for this facility
recommended that EPA require major cycle time can impose a considerable fully implement requirements for
sources to install a PCE sensor and decrease in production. enhanced LDAR.
lockout to further reduce health risk. We have not concluded that there is
Among the six commenters, two 4. Economic Analysis no negative economic impact on major
commenters suggested that if EPA Comment: One major source sources resulting from the final rule.
receives additional information they commenter stated that financial impacts Rather, we have stated that there is not
should revisit the cost-effectiveness for his facility are much higher than a significant economic impact to a
analysis. Another commenter stated that what EPA estimated. The commenter substantial number of small entities (or
40 tons per year of PCE removed by this contends that the Economic Impact SISNOSE). The commenter’s facility is
control option at cost of $17,000 per ton Analysis is based on underestimated not a small business according to the
would be worthwhile. One commenter costs and revenue that is more than SBA definition. While estimated cost
stated that the sensor and lockout will double the company’s actual revenue. savings are expected for a number of
help to reduce the PCE emissions from The commenter also contends that his firms that are major dry cleaning
operator error, which is, along with company’s machines cannot be sources, some firms are likely to
poorly maintained older machines, the retrofitted with a refrigerated condenser experience some negative economic
cause of the majority of emissions. and would need to be replaced, that the impacts. The Agency does not believe
One commenter, a vendor of dry cost to replace the machines has been that such impacts are likely to be
cleaning machines, advised EPA to be estimated by EPA to be $1.9 million, unreasonable for the affected major
cautious regarding the use PCE that substantial lost revenue while source-owning firms, however. This
analyzers inside the drum because of machines are under construction was statement is based on our impact
their high sensitivity to humidity, heat, not considered, and that estimated estimates that most of the affected major
and vibration which necessitates financing and permitting costs were also source-owning firms have annualized
frequent recalibration. Another not considered. This commenter compliance cost to sales of less than 1
commenter, a major source, noted that strenuously disagreed with the percent. These estimates can be found
a lockout system would increase cycle conclusion of the Economic Impact in the economic impact analysis for this
times significantly thereby increasing Analysis that no negative impact would final rule.
operating costs. be incurred by major sources, and
Response: Based on the revised risk contends that EPA used incorrect 5. Performance-Based Standard for
assessment for major sources post revenue estimates. According to this Existing Major Sources
proposal and the resulting cancer and commenter, the requirements of the Comment: One commenter supported
non-cancer risk estimates, we have proposed rule, if implemented within incorporating a performance-based
determined that the requirement for 90 days of promulgation, would result standard for major sources in the final
enhanced LDAR in addition to the in the closure of this facility and the rule. They believe a performance-based
existing requirements in the 1993 loss of 120 jobs in economically standard provides an incentive for
NESHAP are sufficient to protect public desolate Detroit, Michigan. sources to convert to safer alternatives
health with an ample margin of safety. Response: Our economic analysis of for some or all of the articles handled
We considered a variety of other factors the impacts associated with the by a source. Other commenters
in making our determination, as proposed level of control for major supported the alternative compliance
directed by the 1989 Benzene NESHAP sources from implementing the rule is option (facility-wide PCE usage or other
(described above). Consequently, we based on comparing the estimated metrics) for existing major sources to
believe that the additional costs of annualized compliance costs to the provide the maximum compliance
further controls are not warranted. estimated revenues for the parent firm. flexibility possible.
We agree with the commenter about The estimate for the rule is annualized Response: We appreciate the
the effect of operator error on emissions. compliance costs of 0.4 percent of the supportive comments regarding this
Because our estimated emission firm’s sales (or cost per sales hereafter). concept, however a performance-based
reductions are based on subjective This estimate is contingent on the option has not been incorporated in the
estimates by industry experts of typical accuracy of the compliance costs and rule in part because we did not receive
performance over time, variations in the revenue estimate for the firm. Our any indication from any of the major
operations have been taken into account revenue estimate is from 2002 fiscal sources to which this option would
in the emissions estimate. We also agree year data collected for the firm. We have applied that they would have
found it useful. None of the major not necessary, explaining that most machines, stated that EPA failed to
sources responded with comments States now require the PCE dry cleaners adequately assess the feasibility of
supporting the need for a performance- to inspect their equipment on a regular alternative solvents because the negative
based option, which suggests to us that basis and State inspectors make periodic impacts of alternative solvent
their preferred compliance option inspections. technologies were not sufficiently
would be to meet the required Response: EPA disagrees. Most States considered. Any action that would
standards. Therefore, it is not necessary do not have requirements beyond the result in the ban of PCE at some or all
for us to further pursue a performance- 1993 NESHAP and do not inspect dry facilities requires the use of an
based option for this specific industry. cleaners more than once every few alternative solvent.
years. Sensory methods are ineffective Response: We concur with the
E. Area Sources commenter that each of the alternative
in identifying leaks early. Substantial
Most comments received about the PCE emissions occur between the point solvents that are currently available
requirements for typical area sources when failure begins and the leak can be have certain trade-offs or limitations
supported EPA’s proposed requirements detected by sensory methods. An relative to PCE. Depending on the
of banning transfer machines, requiring instrument will enable earlier detection. system, these limitations may involve
existing facilities to implement an Comment: One commenter, a vendor cost, cleaning ability, ease of use,
enhanced LDAR program, and requiring of dry cleaning equipment, disagreed applicability to certain fabrics, safety, or
new sources to install a closed-loop dry- with the EPA’s conclusion that leaks are others. No single alternative offers all of
to-dry machine with refrigerated the largest source of emissions. Leak the business advantages of PCE. Given
condenser and carbon adsorber. A few inspections are a waste of time because these factors and the current degree of
commenters opposed the ban on transfer serious leaks are repaired immediately use of alternative solvents in the
machines based on the cost of the without need for an inspection. More industry, we did not consider it
machine replacement. We received a significant sources of emissions are: appropriate to mandate the use of
few comments requesting more stringent 1. Unloading incompletely-dried alternative solvents as part of the CAA
requirements. These commenters asked garments. section 112(d)(6) review, except in the
EPA to require all typical area sources 2. Routine maintenance. context of co-residential area source
to upgrade their machines with a 3. Cleaning distillation units. settings as discussed below. For area
secondary carbon adsorber. 4. Receipt of new PCE. sources, the 1993 NESHAP was based
Based on our review of the advances Response: Our analysis has shown on the use of GACT. In our review of
in technology since the 1993 rule, we that the filling of PCE tanks is not a this standard under CAA section
have determined that adopting the rule significant source of emissions. We 112(d)(6), we considered PCE emission
revisions for area sources as proposed agree that the first three sources named controls that are in widespread use by
satisfies the requirements of CAA can be significant if dry cleaning the industry. We concluded that, based
section 112(d)(6). The preponderance of systems are not operated properly. on the current information before the
comments supported the proposed rule, Under the General Provisions of 40 CFR agency, we are not prepared to require
and we received very few negative 63, all regulated sources have a general a ban of PCE at typical area sources (i.e.,
comments. Existing sources were duty to operate systems and control area sources other than co-residential)
estimated to incur a cost savings devices according to good air pollution under CAA section 112(d)(6). However,
because both replacement of transfer control practices for minimizing we interpret CAA section 112(d)(6) as
machines and enhanced LDAR will emissions. This requirement includes allowing us to consider a broad range of
reduce annual PCE consumption. The following manufacturer’s specifications factors in determining what changes to
reduction in annual PCE consumption for operation and maintenance of the standards are ‘‘necessary,’’ after taking
at the 200 businesses that would replace system. We have concluded that it is not into account developments in practices,
transfer machines is more than necessary at this time to specify in the processes, and control technologies.
sufficient to offset the annualized cost of rule additional operating and This interpretation is consistent with
the new equipment. In particular, we maintenance procedures. Leaks, those regarding other provisions of the
believe most of the transfer machines however, are an important source of CAA that direct us to find the ‘‘best
are at the end of their useful life and it emissions, and controlling them is an balance’’ of emissions control, costs of
would be economically beneficial for integral part of an effective pollution control, safety, and other factors. Such
the facilities to replace the transfer prevention program. Leaks can be factors may include whether sources’
machines with dry-to-dry machines. detected and controlled at a reasonable emissions present different degrees of
Thus, we believe the economic impacts cost using an enhanced LDAR program. risk. Due to the potential for high risks
to the affected businesses and facilities In a study by the South Coast Air posed by co-residential area source dry
are negligible. Finally, these costs and Quality Management District, over half cleaners, and in light of the availability
risk estimates do not consider the of the dry cleaning machines tested had of non-PCE dry cleaning technologies in
impacts of future trends of declining leaky gaskets, which are replaceable the market, we determined that it is
PCE usage. Therefore, consistent with parts that can cause significant PCE necessary under CAA section 112(d)(6)
our analysis at proposal, we are not emissions. The enhanced LDAR to treat this component of the area
requiring a secondary carbon adsorber program requirement is expected to source sector differently than we are
on existing area sources because the result in earlier leak detection from treating other area sources dry cleaners,
emission and risk reduction would be these types of emission points, and is whose emissions present significantly
relatively minor and the costs would the best method to determine when smaller risks.
impose unnecessary adverse economic gaskets need replacing and when they
3. Transfer Machines and Vented
impacts on a number of small do not.
Machines
businesses.
2. Banning PCE Comment: One industry association
1. LDAR Program Comment: Two commenters, a state opposed the ban on transfer machines
Comment: One commenter believes agency and a manufacturer of PCE because such a ban would result in a
the proposed LDAR requirements are alternative solvent dry cleaning significant economic impact to these
economically marginal businesses. To appreciable resistance from the dry Comment: Several commenters
require the replacement of transfer cleaning industry. One commenter recommended additional controls
machines in 90 days would result in the noted that according to EPA’s cost should be required at co-commercial
closure of each of these small plants. estimates, dry cleaners replacing a sources. A State representative
Response: The economic impact vented machine with a fourth recommended the following
analysis shows that there is an generation machine would reduce their requirements for co-commercial sources:
economic impact on owners of transfer net cost because of reduced usage of 1. Secondary carbon,
machines from a ban on their operation, PCE. This commenter added that vented 2. Vapor barriers,
but not a significant one. The results of machines are at the end of their useful 3. Weekly leak inspections,
the analysis show impacts of life. 4. Annual third party inspections, and
compliance costs of just under two Response: The final rule will not 5. Operator certification by an
percent of sales. Given that these prohibit the use of vented machines. We approved training program.
transfer machines are all at least 13 have reviewed developments in Without these measures, the revised
years old due to the ban on new transfer processes and control technology and NESHAP cannot achieve reductions in
machines applied under the dry determined that an LDAR program will PCE levels comparable to those
cleaning NESHAP, these machines are be required on a monthly basis with a achieved by NYCRR Part 232.
very likely close to or beyond their leak detection instrument. These Response: Additional information is
expected equipment life of 15 years. requirements satisfy the requirements of needed to accurately estimate exposures
Thus, owners of these machines are CAA section 112(d)(6). We did not find and risks to individuals located next to
likely to consider replacing them in the any control technologies that could be co-commercial sources (including, for
near future in any event without any retrofitted at a reasonable cost on these example, sources co-located with
additional regulatory driver. machines. We concluded that forced schools and day care centers). Without
Comment: Two dry cleaners owning replacement of these machines at valid information that co-commercial
transfer machines stated that transfer typical area sources is not warranted sources pose greater risks than typical
machines should not be prohibited given the costs and the relatively low area sources, we are not prepared to
because such a requirement would force levels of emission and risk reduction determine that the cost of additional
them to close because they cannot afford that would be achieved. controls for co-commercial sources is
a new machine. One of these justified under CAA section 112(d)(6).
commenters stated he used the same 4. Co-Commercial Sources In their remarks, some commenters
amount of PCE as dry cleaners using Comment: One commenter, a State quoted relatively high exposure
third generation machines. The other representative, strongly disagreed with concentrations that are attributed to co-
commenter requested that EPA phase the statement in the proposed rule commercial sources. However, only one
out transfer machines over 10 to 15 indicating that the existing NESHAP study was referenced with the
years and that EPA examine each dry level of control would result in an comments. This study has not been peer
cleaner operating a transfer machine acceptable level of risk for area sources reviewed and has not had the
individually. for co-commercial sources. The opportunity for public comment. The
Response: EPA’s cost and economic commenter presented a summary of study was completed on one co-
impact analyses for this rule shows that results from complaint-based sampling commercial facility and without
firms owning transfer machines will of facilities in strip malls that documentation of the study, we cannot
have to pay $35,600 to purchase a new demonstrate where PCE concentrations analyze the methods of data collection,
dry cleaning machine with secondary ranged from 8 to 50,400 micrograms per the type of facilities sampled, the dry
controls (refrigerated condenser and cubic meter (ug/m3), including a day cleaning systems used, or the conditions
carbon adsorber). The annualized care facility with a mean concentration under which the data were collected.
compliance costs are estimated at just of 2,100 ug/m3. Also, PCE Accordingly, we do not know if these
over one percent of the sales for an concentrations during the first hour of reported measurements are valid or, if
average dry cleaning firm. We believe operation are roughly four times the so, whether these exposures are
these impacts are not significant overall, average because vapor accumulates in representative of all co-commercial
but we recognize that individual firms, the drum of the machine overnight. facilities or only particular
especially small firms, may experience Response: While these measured configurations. In absence of these data,
greater impacts than the average. To concentration results are high (relative we have no technical basis for requiring
provide an adequate opportunity to to what we would expect from the type additional control on these facilities.
raise capital and in response to of dry cleaning equipment likely to be Until more research is available on PCE
comments, we are promulgating a in use at co-commercial sources), the exposures at co-commercial sources, we
compliance period of two years, rather fact that they were measured as the have determined to subject co-
than the 90 days that would have been result of complaints may indicate that commercial sources to the same control
allowed under the proposal. the reason behind the elevated levels requirements as typical area sources that
Comment: Two State representatives, may be lack of compliance with the are not collocated in the same buildings
a vendor of dry cleaning equipment, and 1993 NESHAP. This being the case, we with residences.
an environmental group recommended cannot confidently conclude that these
that EPA prohibit the use of vented data as represent exposure levels that 5. Economic Impacts
machines because their emissions are reflect compliance with the NESHAP. Comment: Two trade associations
considerably greater than closed-loop Therefore, we are choosing to not use stated that EPA has significantly
machines. One commenter added that, if them to evaluate the success or failure underestimated median revenue of dry
a carbon adsorber for a vented machine of the NESHAP level of control. In the cleaners. According to the 2002
does not get frequent maintenance, its future, studies of PCE exposures should Economic Census, 87 percent of all dry
emissions increase considerably. The be conducted to include a representative cleaning establishments had less
two State representatives said that their sampling of facilities and indicate the revenue than the median revenue used
states have already banned vented actual level of control being utilized and by EPA. Further, one third of all dry
machines without encountering achieved by each facility in question. cleaners are so small that they have no
payment to report and are not reflected cleaners are barely able to stay in example, occur in the next round of our
in census data. business.’’ The fact that the number of review of the developments in control
Response: EPA’s economic analysis of facilities in this industry are about the technologies, processes and practices
the impacts to affected dry cleaners is same over a ten year periods leads to under section 112(d)(6) for this
based on comparing the estimated skepticism as to whether the industry NESHAP.
annualized compliance costs to the was oversaturated at the current time Some commenters suggest an
estimated revenues for the parent firm. and whether firms in the industry are immediate elimination of PCE in co-
This estimate is contingent on the having more difficulty staying in residential settings and others suggested
accuracy of the compliance costs and business now than in the past. phasing out PCE use over the natural
the revenue estimate for the firm. The life of the equipment. An immediate ban
Agency chose to use the industry F. Co-Residential Sources would impose significant adverse
revenue average for 1997 instead of the Comment: We received several impacts on owners and operators of
data from the 2002 Census because it hundred comments on the two proposed existing sources, as would a ban falling
was readily available to the model EPA options for co-residential sources. within the three-year compliance
chose to employ for generating the Comments from the industry and one window we have traditionally allowed
economic impact results at the time of mass-mailing campaign supported the for existing sources. For these small
the analysis. The value used by EPA technology-based option for co- businesses, which have substantial
from the Census reflects the average residential sources similar to the investments in their current equipment,
revenue per firm and applying this technology requirements of New York’s we have concluded that it is appropriate
value is consistent with revenue Part 232 regulations. Comments from to allow them sufficient time to recover
estimates used in economic impact States, environmental groups, and the investment over the useful life of the
analyses that accompanied recent another mass-mailing campaign equipment and raise the needed capital
agency rulemakings. This approach is supported the ban of PCE at co- to fund alternative solvent systems.
consistent with how EPA has estimated residential facilities with either an The economic life of a PCE dry
economic impacts in a variety of recent immediate ban or a phase-out over time. cleaning system is typically 15 years.
rulemakings for residual risk and other These commenters wanted dry cleaners One State commenter suggested that to
standards. A review of average revenue to switch to alternative dry cleaning set a phase-out of existing sources based
for firms in the dry cleaning industry solvents. Some commenters supported on the purchase date of each machine
from the 2002 Economic Census showed the eventual phase-out of PCE and the would be impracticable and a burden
that this average revenue was 10 percent interim imposition of technology for States to implement. This
higher than the value from the 1997 requirements like New York’s Part 232 commenter suggested picking a single
Economic Census. Hence, our economic regulations for all existing co-residential date by which all current systems would
impact estimates will be lower using machines. need to be converted. Considering these
average revenues per firm from the 2002 Response: Current technology factors, the final rule establishes a date
Census as compared to the revenues controls to reduce PCE emissions from 15 years from the date of the proposed
used in the current economic impact co-residential dry cleaning units—such rule, after which time all existing PCE
analysis. as those embodied in the NY Part 232 systems at co-residential sources are
The commenter’s point about the lack requirements—have been generally prohibited. We selected this date since
of revenue data from many dry cleaners effective in reducing exposures. it corresponds to the date when we first
that do not report payroll is a useful Nevertheless, empirical evidence publicly proposed the potential
point. Having such a lack of data means indicates that in certain cases PCE requirements for PCE dry cleaners in co-
some caution in applying Census exposures may remain relatively high. residential settings. This amount of time
revenue data for these firms is We believe that further reductions are is necessary in order to phase out PCE
appropriate. However, collecting warranted to reduce potential exposure use in co-residential settings without
revenue data from these firms or levels, but at the same time we believe causing unacceptable adverse economic
estimating their revenues by some other that more stringent requirements should impacts, which would be the result if
means is highly problematic and in part be based on considerations of we imposed a 3-year compliance
impossible to incorporate in the current cost, technical feasibility, and the deadline.
economic impact analysis. The availability of alternative technologies. In addition, although it is unlikely
commenter’s assertions of the ‘‘over Therefore, we are requiring existing that any additional co-residential PCE-
saturation of the industry with too many sources to discontinue the use of PCE using sources came on-line between the
plants’’ and that many ‘‘plants’’ are machines no later than December 21, date of publication of the proposed rule
having difficulty paying bills are ones 2020. In addition, our consideration of and the date the Administrator signed
for which no data is provided. The the relevant factors leads us to prohibit the final rule (July 13, 2006), in this
Agency’s current estimate of the number additional PCE-using machines from rulemaking we are treating such sources
of dry cleaning facilities is about 34,000. being installed. that commenced construction between
This estimate is extremely close to the We recognize that the industry has December 21, 2005, and July 13, 2006 (if
estimate of 33,863 provided by the made great strides in technology that any exist), slightly differently than the
Agency in its ‘‘Dry Cleaning Sector reduces PCE emissions since the 1993 way we are treating either existing
Notebook Project’’ report published in NESHAP was established. If the sources discussed above or other new
September 1995, which was before full development of future technologies sources (which are required to comply
implementation of the dry cleaning produces one that is demonstrated to with the PCE ban immediately upon
NESHAP took place. In addition, low adequately reduce PCE emissions and startup or the effective date of the final
profit margins are typical for dry related exposures to residents of rule, whichever is later). This is because
cleaning operations; the ‘‘Dry Cleaning apartments co-located in buildings with the requirements we have adopted in
Sector Notebooks Project’’ published by dry cleaners, we would consider the final rule for new co-residential
the Agency over 10 years ago mentions revisiting the necessity of the ban and sources are more stringent than one of
that ‘‘Commercial dry cleaning is not a phase-out of PCE in co-residential the two options we proposed. Under
high profit business, and many dry settings. Such a review could, for CAA section 112(i)(2)(A)–(B), these
uniquely situated new sources will also pending the PCE phase out, would would not have had time to dissipate to
be required to eliminate PCE use, but cause a significant adverse economic routine levels characteristic of the
not until three years after the effective impact on small businesses. controls installed.
date of the final rule. In the interim, The health risks from co-residential Response: The NYC study, as
they are required to comply with the sources that we are concerned about are described in McDermott (2005), states
second option we proposed for new co- from chronic exposures, not acute. that ‘‘indoor air perc levels in most
residential sources and use refrigerated Thus, while short-term exposures from apartments in dry cleaner buildings
condensers and secondary carbon some sources will not be immediately sampled were below, or only slightly
adsorbers, with equipment housed reduced, this is not expected to result in above, the NYSDOH residential air
inside a vapor barrier with general adverse health effects. Further, although guideline of 100 µg/m3. Higher levels
ventilation to the outside air, as the full benefit of the ban (complete were found in dry cleaner buildings
required by NYSDEC title 6 NYCRR Part removal of sources and their associated located in low-income, minority
232 rules. These facilities will also have risks from residential buildings) would neighborhoods and in buildings
to conduct weekly leak inspections not be realized until year 15, we expect elsewhere that had been the subject of
using a leak detection device such as a that most sources would not wait until a residential complaint. Since
halogenated hydrocarbon detector. To the 15th year to retire their equipment successful completion of the NYC Perc
require these sources, which may have since many of these sources are nearing Project required that as many
installed equipment compliant with the end of their useful lives. Thus, over apartments as possible with elevated
New York controls in reliance on our the next 15 years, the final rule will PCE levels be identified, the strategy for
co-proposal of that option, to dismantle systematically reduce exposures and identifying buildings for inclusion was
their PCE equipment immediately could risks from current levels as old modified so that buildings located in
impose severe economic hardship for equipment is retired and existing co- minority or low-income ZIP code areas
these sources, contrary to the efforts we residential shops are either relocated or and those that had been the subject of
have taken in the rest of the rulemaking converted to alternative solvents, complaint were prioritized.’’ The article
to avoid causing significant adverse ultimately resulting in the elimination goes on to state on that the sample
impacts on small businesses. of these chronic health risks. ‘‘obtained is not truly a random sample
About 80 percent of the co-residential of all dry cleaners in the study area.
We anticipate that most existing sources already have installed controls However, socioeconomic characteristics
systems will be relocated to similar to NYCRR Part 232 controls. of the census block groups where
nonresidential buildings or converted to Imposing additional capital costs on the sampled buildings are located reflect
alternative solvents prior to this date, approximately 250 remaining co- socioeconomic characteristics of their
given the range of ages of current co- residential sources is not reasonable larger ZIP Code area, are equivalent to
residential sources. In the meantime, given the significant costs of the census block groups where buildings
existing co-residential sources must also controls and the fact that even they that were not sampled are located, and
meet the additional control would be prohibited upon machine are correlated with sampled household
requirements in the final rule revisions replacement or the arrival of the sunset self-reported socioeconomic
for other area sources (i.e., eliminate date. For many of these shops, the characteristics. Thus, conclusions
transfer machines and use enhanced remaining useful life of the machine drawn with respect to sampled building
LDAR). We have decided not to impose would not allow full amortization of the neighborhood characteristics and indoor
additional control requirements on capital investment before the system air PCE level are likely to be applicable
existing co-residential sources pending would have to be replaced. In addition, to other residential buildings matching
the phase-out of PCE use, such as the it is not clear how much additional risk NYC Perc Project building inclusion
NYCRR Part 232 controls contained in protection would be achieved by the criteria (e.g., dry cleaner using PCE on-
our second proposed option addressing controls and what would be the site; not other sources of VOC).’’
co-residential sources. While the significance of the emissions reduction, While the study authors believe that
NYCRR Part 232 controls are currently which would be realized only over the their results are likely generalizable to
the most stringent technological remaining useful life of each machine. co-residential dry cleaners that meet
controls required in the U.S., there is For shops with PCE equipment that similar criteria with respect to
uncertainty about the precise effect of would be replaced within a few years, complaints and socioeconomic
the NYCRR Part 232 controls on risk. the health benefits would be limited and characteristics, the results cannot be
Industry commenters claim that the the capital costs would not be well generalized to all co-residential dry
high risks are not representative, and spent. Therefore, temporarily imposing cleaners in NYC or across the country.
that dry cleaning systems using this this control technology is not necessary We are not currently able to estimate the
technology do not pose high risks. under section 112(d)(6). extent to which this study provides
Others point out that high risks estimates that are biased. Nevertheless,
measured in New York buildings have 1. Risk Assessment Data these empirical results provide a
been assessed as being caused by poor Comment: Industry commenters representation of exposure levels that
control equipment design, malfunctions claimed that the New York City data exist in New York City (where the vast
of control equipment, poor ventilation that EPA used to assess co-residential majority of co-residential dry cleaners
designs, operator error, and other exposures were biased and these are located) and adequately serve as one
unregulated activities. We do not measured exposures are not basis for this rulemaking.
consider it necessary or appropriate to representative of typical exposure. The Our risk assessment has focused on
impose the costs of the NYCRR Part 232 sources of bias noted by the commenter the exposures associated with dry
controls in the interim before PCE use were that: Residences sampled were cleaning facilities that are in compliance
at co-residential sources is eliminated selected based on complaints; sampled with the New York Part 232
entirely. Moreover, our economic facilities may not have been in full requirements. We examined the
analysis indicates that imposing the compliance with NYCRR Part 232 rules; McDermott data, NYSDOH data, and
New York requirements on existing some samples taken soon after public comments. To identify the
sources elsewhere in the country, compliance with Part 232 and PCE compliant facilities, EPA ensured that
the date by which the sample was taken preventing significant exposures to PCE solvent systems. The final rule
was after the date in which the facility in certain cases. establishes a date 15 years from the date
began operating a fourth generation dry After reviewing technical of the proposed rule, after which time
cleaning machine and had installed a developments in the industry, available all PCE systems at co-residential sources
vapor barrier. While the sampling dates public health risk information, and the are prohibited. We anticipate that most
are well documented, the compliance comments received, we have concluded systems will be relocated to
records for certain dry cleaning facilities that the option that best satisfies the nonresidential buildings or converted to
are somewhat ambiguous; this is due to requirements of CAA section 112(d)(6) alternative solvents prior to this date.
some limitations in the compliance for existing co-residential area sources is
to phase out the use of PCE. In addition 3. Economic Impact of PCE Phase-Out
records provided by NYSDOH. These
records are comprised of initial to the potential for co-residential dry Comment: Industry commenters
notification letters that facilities have cleaners to cause high individual cancer opposed the phase-out of new PCE
submitted to the NYSDEC as well as risks (as fully discussed in the proposed installations because it would cause a
third-party inspection reports. EPA used rule), we believe that the cancer significant effect on a substantial
a combination of these data to assess incidence estimates for these sources number of small businesses. The
whether a particular facility was in or also justifies the decision. Estimates of commenters said that the EPA
out of compliance with NYCRR Part cancer incidence are helpful in underestimated the costs of this option
232. The result of this evaluation was a characterizing cancer risks, because because the EPA analysis overestimated
finding that 25 of the 65 sampled such estimates account for the full range dry cleaner revenues, underestimated
apartments were in the 9 buildings with of exposures that have been captured by the cost of hydrocarbon equipment,
potentially noncompliant dry cleaning the monitoring and provide a metric of underestimated the cost of meeting fire
systems, while 40 of the apartments the aggregate health impact taking into codes, and used a 7 percent interest rate,
were in the 14 buildings with compliant account the number of people exposed which is unrealistically low. In
dry cleaning systems, and these were to varying levels of risk. Our estimate of addition, the commenters maintained
the values used to assess the risks annual cancer incidence for the that any type of ban on PCE would send
associated with well-controlled dry approximately 1300 co-residential a misleading signal that PCE is unsafe
cleaners. Nevertheless, we were unable sources currently in operation is in the and would cause landlords to not renew
to definitively determine the range of 0.2 to 2 cases per year, which leases of dry cleaners. This severe
is on par with the estimated annual economic impact was not accounted for
compliance status of one dry cleaner
incidence of 0.4 to 4 cases per year for in EPA’s economic analysis.
that was associated with high exposure
the approximately 27,000 other area Response: The estimates of impacts
level, as noted in the risk provided in the Agency’s economic
characterization memorandum in the source cleaners. The near-parity of these
two estimates, notwithstanding the analysis for the rule are in terms of
docket. We believe that despite the annualized compliance cost per
uncertainty about this particular dry much smaller number of co-residential
vis-à-vis other sources, suggests that co- revenues for parent firms. It is not in
cleaner, our decision for the terms of compliance cost per profits as
requirements for co-residential dry residential sources pose a
disproportionate cancer incidence to asserted by the commenter. The
cleaners is warranted because it does commenter states that the impact will be
not hinge on the compliance status of their residents. Further, this estimate of
total cancer incidence for the co- a ‘‘substantial’’ increase in costs and a
this particular facility. decrease in profit margin far in excess
residential sources is at the high-end of
2. Part 232 Technology Requirements cancer incidence estimates that we have of the five percent impact on year-to-
generated for other source categories year profits accepted as a benchmark.
Comment: Some commenters opposed The benchmark of at least five percent
reviewed by the residual risk program to
the use of Title 6 NYCRR Part 232 date. impact on year-to-year profits as a
Technology Requirements for the final As we have previously noted, these benchmark for significant impacts is,
rule requirements, because these cancer incidence estimates carry however, not a benchmark that the
controls have not been effective in significant uncertainties since they are Agency has recognized as such in the
reducing exposure in residences. In sensitive to assumptions regarding the recent past. The cost-to-sales calculation
addition this option would do nothing number of individuals exposed and the provided in the economic impact
to reduce current risks in New York, level of exposure borne by residents of analysis has been an accepted approach
where the majority of co-residential un-monitored apartments. However, for indicating the potential economic
facilities are located. These commenters when viewed in the context of the other impacts to small and other businesses as
supported a ban of PCE because this is risk information and the availability of part of the process to determine the
the only way to protect the public with alternative dry cleaning processes, we degree of small business impacts
an ample margin of safety. These believe that the incidence estimates associated with a proposed rule.
commenters suggested that a phase-out provide additional support for a We chose to use the industry revenue
of PCE should be accompanied by a requirement for new installations at co- average for 1997 instead of the data from
sunset provision for existing machines residential facilities to adopt a non-PCE Census for 2002 because it was readily
or else co-residential dry cleaners would solvent. available to the model we chose to
have the incentive not to replace their We have determined that a phase out employ for generating the economic
existing equipment. Rather, dry cleaners that takes place too quickly would impact results at the time of the
would continue to use their old, high- impose significant adverse impacts on analysis. The value we used from the
emitting equipment well beyond the dry cleaners. For these small businesses, Census does reflect the average revenue
normal economic life, resulting in which have substantial investments in per firm and applying this value is
continued high exposures to residences. their current equipment, it is consistent with revenue estimates used
Response: We have concluded that, appropriate to allow them sufficient in economic impact analyses that
based on available data, the NYCRR Part time to recover the investment over the accompanied recent Agency
232 controls have not been useful life of the equipment and raise rulemakings. A review of average
demonstrated to be effective in the needed capital to fund alternative revenue for firms in the dry cleaning
industry from the 2002 Economic difficult to estimate because of the fact concerns brought up by the commenters
Census showed that this average that actual costs are unavailable because are addressed below.
revenue was 10 percent higher than the few if any systems have been built A dry cleaner that switches solvents
value from the 1997 Economic Census. because of their high cost. In addition, from PCE to a hydrocarbon solvent
Hence, our economic impact estimates by the time PCE machines in co- would increase emissions of VOC,
will be lower using average revenues residential facilities need to be replaced, because hydrocarbon solvents are
per firm from the 2002 Census as between now and the sunset date in classified as a VOC and PCE is not.
compared to the values used in the 2020, it is possible that a less Increased VOC emissions could result in
current economic impact analysis. combustible solvent will be available, an increase in atmospheric ozone at
It should be noted that use of the and sprinkler systems not required for some locations, depending on the mix of
average revenue-per-firm estimate plants that can no longer use PCE. ozone precursors in the ambient air
suggested by the commenter of $204,000 The use of 7 percent in annualizing locally. Any new hydrocarbon machines
in the Agency’s analysis would lead to costs is consistent with the guidance of would be subject to the new source
higher estimated impacts to small OMB Circular A–94. Besides the quote performance standard (NSPS) for
businesses than calculated by EPA but from Circular A–4 listed by the petroleum dry cleaners (40 CFR 60,
would not lead to any impacts above commenter in footnote 56 on page 30, subpart JJJ). The NSPS limits VOC
three percent of sales, a benchmark the Circular also recommends that 7 emissions by requiring application of
among others often considered as percent be used for annualizing the the best demonstrated control
significant in characterizing small costs of regulatory analyses. As technology. The VOC emissions of a
business impacts. mentioned in Circular A–4, ‘‘As a hydrocarbon machine at an average-
The incremental cost between a PCE default position, OMB Circular A–94 sized facility are approximately 0.2 tons
and a hydrocarbon machine is a states that a real discount rate of 7 per year, which is a relatively small
reasonable estimate of the cost of quantity for non-HAP VOC. Given the
percent should be used as a base-case
eliminating PCE at a facility because, on high risks posed by PCE in co-
for regulatory analysis. The 7 percent
balance, the rule revisions will not residential settings, we have concluded
rate is an estimate of the average before-
affect the economic life of a machine. that the public health benefit of using
tax rate of return to private capital in the
We assume that at the end of the alternative solvents, even if some of the
U.S. economy. It is a broad measure that
machine’s 15-year economic life, the alternatives are ozone precursors,
reflects the returns to real estate and
machine has no salvage value. Instead of supports elimination of PCE use in co-
small business capital as well as
purchasing a PCE machine, the owner residential area sources (considering
corporate capital. It approximates the
incurs the incremental cost of developments in practices, processes,
opportunity cost of capital, and it is the
purchasing a hydrocarbon machine. and control technologies). In cases
Some sources may be required by their appropriate discount rate whenever the
where VOC emissions from hydrocarbon
landlord to retire their PCE machine main effect of a regulation is to displace
machines would contribute significantly
before the end of its useful life; EPA or alter the use of capital in the private
to ozone formation, the responsible air
acknowledges that such premature sector. OMB revised Circular A–94 in
quality planning agency can require
retirements may create a separate 1992 after extensive internal review and
additional emission controls for VOC, as
additional burden on owners. Other public comment. In a recent analysis,
appropriate. Regarding HAP emissions,
sources may choose to maintain their OMB found that the average rate of
although benzene was once a significant
machine beyond its normal economic return to capital remains near the 7 component of Stoddard solvent
life. Because predicting these effects percent rate estimated in 1992. Circular alternatives it is now present only in
would be very difficult, we assume that A–94 also recommends using other trace amounts. We are unaware that any
these effects do not change our discount rates to show the sensitivity of of the other solvents currently used in
assumption of a 15 year economic life the estimates to the discount rate dry cleaning contain any of the CAA
for these machines. A number of assumption.’’ In addition to a 7 percent listed HAP.
commenters agreed with our estimate of discount rate, we have also analyzed EPA is not currently in a position to
15 years for the economic life of these costs using a 3 percent discount rate, characterize the potential risks to
machines. consistent with the requirements of human health or the environment
Our cost estimate is a reasonable Circular A–4. associated with the use of
appraisal of costs. Our estimate that 50 4. Alternative Solvents decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D5), an
percent of facilities outside New York odorless, colorless siloxane fluid, as a
that install hydrocarbon machines Comment: Some commenters opposed dry cleaning solvent. In 2003, EPA
would need a sprinkler system is similar the use of alternative solvents because received from Dow Corning the
to the commenter’s estimate of 66 of the potential negative impacts. These preliminary results of a two-year
percent. The chart of fire code potential impacts include uncertainty chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity
geographic applicability provided by the about the toxicity of cyclic siloxanes; study on D5 using rats. Preliminary
commenter is not a sure indicator of increased volatile organic compound results suggest that female rats exposed
whether a facility would need a (VOC) emissions from hydrocarbons; to the highest concentration of D5
sprinkler system because machine safety hazard of carbon dioxide (CO2); exhibited a statistically significant
vendors are often able to obtain a case- large quantities of wastewater from wet increase of uterine tumors. The final
by-case variance if they can demonstrate cleaners; and the fire hazard of results of the two-year study confirmed
fire protection features integral to the hydrocarbons and cyclic siloxanes (D5). the significant increase in uterine
machine. Regarding the cost per facility Response: We recognize that each of tumors following exposure at the
outside of New York City, the cost in the the alternative processes has potential highest concentration of D5, while no
docket item cited by the commenter was drawbacks. However, with the variety of significant increase in tumors was
from a machine vendor. We used a choices of alternative systems that are observed at lower doses. EPA is in the
lower estimate provided by a sprinkler currently available, dry cleaners can process of evaluating studies received
contractor. Sprinkler system costs for find a system that can work for their on the mode of action to help determine
plants in New York City are particularly individual circumstances. The potential whether a potential carcinogenic hazard
is associated with D5. Subsequent report if the dry cleaning facility is a per year and will result in a net cost
action may include external peer review major source or is located in a building savings.
of data and a determination whether it with a residence or a business. This one- The capital costs to implement these
is appropriate to conduct a risk time requirement will impose no requirements are $12 million. The
assessment for D5. EPA has developed additional cost to the industry since the enhanced LDAR program would cost
a fact sheet describing its current state notice of compliance report is already about $5 million for an estimated 20,000
of knowledge on D5 that is available on required to be submitted. facilities to purchase a halogenated
the Garment and Textile Web site and hydrocarbon detector at a cost of $250
that can be used by industry to guide 2. Alternative Monitoring Requirement each. About 200 facilities would be
decisions regarding the use of D5 in dry We revised the monitoring required to replace their existing
cleaning. requirement for refrigerated condensers transfer machines with dry-to-dry
Hydrocarbon solvents and cyclic to specify that owners and operators machines at a cost of about $36,000 each
siloxanes can present a fire hazard must monitor the high and low pressure for a total industry cost of $7.5 million.
because of their combustibility. of the refrigeration system, rather than Annually, we estimate a cost savings
However, hydrocarbon solvent dry the exit temperature, in cases where the to the industry of about $2.7 million per
cleaning machines have a long history system is equipped with pressure year. This cost savings would be
of safety, as do cyclic siloxanes. We gauges. The pressure readings of the realized because both replacement of
know of no fires in this country from the refrigeration system are the preferred transfer machines and enhanced LDAR
use of cyclic siloxanes or the synthetic monitoring parameters since these will reduce annual PCE consumption.
hydrocarbon solvents currently in use. parameters are the most reliable The reduction in annual PCE
Dry cleaning machines that use these indicators that the condenser is consumption at the 200 businesses that
solvents are designed with special safety functioning properly during the drying would replace transfer machines is more
features, such as fireproof electrical phase, which represents maximum load than sufficient to offset the annualized
connections, nitrogen blanketing, conditions. cost of the new equipment. In
temperature controls to prevent Virtually all machines have particular, most of the transfer machines
explosion, and others. instrumentation for measuring the high are beyond the end of their economic
For CO2 systems, the commenters and low pressures of the refrigeration life and it would be economically
were referring to possible hazards due to system and vendor specifications for the beneficial for the facilities to replace the
the high pressure at which these pressure ranges that indicate proper transfer machines with dry-to-dry
systems operate. However, we are operation of the condenser. However, machines. Thus, we conclude the
unaware of any safety-related accidents for refrigeration systems that are not economic impacts to the affected
regarding CO2 systems. The systems equipped with pressure gauges, the rule businesses and facilities are negligible.
currently in use are designed to requires owners and operators to C. Co-Residential Sources
withstand the high pressures required. monitor the temperature of the gas-
The pressures at which these machines By the fifteenth year, the final rule
vapor outlet stream.
operate are not extreme compared to will reduce PCE emissions from co-
many other processes, and the V. Impacts residential sources by an additional 317
engineering to operate safely at these tons/year. Cancer risks from all co-
A. Major Sources
pressures is well understood. residential sources will be eliminated by
Wet cleaning systems are widely used The national capital cost of the final the fifteenth year.
in the industry either to reduce PCE rule for major sources is $30,000, with The national capital costs for new co-
consumption or as a replacement for an annual cost savings of about residential sources are $63.4 million,
PCE dry cleaning. While wet cleaning $250,000. The capital costs for and the annualized costs are about $7.0
generates wastewater, we are not aware individual facilities would range from million in the fifteenth year. These cost
of any health hazards from this waste. $0 to $3,300 with a median cost of estimates reflect the incremental capital
We expect that waste generated by wet $3,300. Annualized costs would range and operating cost for 1,300 co-
cleaning systems will be significantly from a cost savings of $84,000,000 per residential facilities to replace their PCE
less hazardous than waste from PCE year to a cost of $1,319 per year. Most machines with machines using
systems they replace. facilities would recognize a cost savings hydrocarbon solvent. The incremental
primarily from implementing the cost was estimated as the difference
G. Technical Corrections to the 1993 Dry enhanced LDAR program. Leak between the costs of a new PCE machine
Cleaning NESHAP detection and repair is a pollution meeting the NESHAP and a new
Based on comments received, we have prevention approach where reduced machine using hydrocarbon solvents.
made some technical corrections to the emissions translate into less PCE The operating cost includes the cost of
NESHAP in addition to those proposed. consumption and reduced operating installing fire protection sprinklers in
Many of these changes are needed to costs because facilities would need to jurisdictions that are estimated to
update the rule to reflect advances in purchase less PCE. The highest require sprinklers for hydrocarbon
PCE dry cleaning technology. Other maximum individual cancer risk are machines. The cost will be lower at
changes harmonize the revisions with estimated to be reduced from a range of facilities that already have sprinkler
the existing NESHAP. The most 50-in-1 million (using OPPTS potency systems in place, that choose a less
significant technical changes are listed values) to 400-in-1 million (using costly alternative garment cleaning
below. None of these changes affect the CalEPA potency values) down to a range option utilizing non-combustible
stringency of the rule or increase of 20-in-1 million (using OPPTS solvents, or that choose to convert their
regulatory burden. potency values) to 200-in-1 million facility to a drop shop and conduct PCE
(using CalEPA potency values). dry cleaning operations offsite.

1. Additional Information Requested in An alternative calculation of the costs
the Notice of Compliance Status Report B. Area Sources to co-residential sources using a net
We have added a requirement to The final rule will reduce PCE present value methodology shows that
indicate in the notice of compliance emissions by an estimated 5,700 tons these costs are $3.5 million per year at
a 7 percent interest rate and $3.9 million recordkeeping and reporting comply with the 2005 rule is
per year at a 3 percent interest rate. requirements beyond the recordkeeping approximately $3.9 million.
These cost estimates are derived from and reporting requirements that were The recordkeeping and reporting
the summing of the present value of the promulgated on September 22, 1993. requirements are specifically authorized
costs from the co-residential phase-out Owners or operators will continue to by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414).
during the period over which the phase- keep records and submit required All information submitted to us
out occurs, amortized over 15 years. reports to EPA or the delegated State pursuant to the recordkeeping and
This estimate provides a measure of the regulatory authority. Notifications, reporting requirements for which a
costs of the co-residential phase-out reports, and records are essential in claim of confidentiality is made is
over the time period in which the determining compliance and are safeguarded according to our policies
phase-out takes place rather than an required, in general, of all sources set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
estimate of the costs for the fifteenth subject to the 1993 Dry Cleaning Burden means the total time, effort, or
year. NESHAP. Owners or operators subject financial resources expended by persons
to the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose
VI. Statutory and Executive Order or provide information to or for a
Reviews continue to maintain records and retain
them for at least five years following the Federal agency. This includes the time
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory date of such measurements, reports, and needed to review instructions; develop,
Planning and Review records. Information collection acquire, install, and utilize technology
requirements that were promulgated on and systems for the purposes of
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
September 22, 1993 in the Dry Cleaning collecting, validating, and verifying
51735, October 4, 1993), EPA must
NESHAP prior to the 2005 proposed information, processing and
determine whether the regulatory action
amendments, as well the NESHAP maintaining information, and disclosing
is ‘‘significant’’ and, therefore, subject to
General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, and providing information; adjust the
OMB review and the requirements of
subpart A), which are mandatory for all existing ways to comply with any
the Executive Order. The Executive
owners or operators subject to national previously applicable instructions and
Order defines ‘‘significant regulatory
emission standards, are documented in requirements; train personnel to be able
action’’ as one that is likely to result in
EPA ICR No. 1415.05. to respond to a collection of
a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the information; search data sources;
The information collection
economy of $100 million or more, or complete and review the collection of
requirements described here are only
adversely affect in a material way the information; and transmit or otherwise
those notification, recordkeeping, and
economy, a sector of the economy, disclose the information.
reporting requirements that are An agency may not conduct or
productivity, competition, jobs, the contained in the 2005 revisions to the sponsor, and a person is not required to
environment, public health or safety, or Dry Cleaning NESHAP. To comply with
State, local, or tribal governments or respond to a collection of information
the 2005 revisions to the 1993 Dry unless it displays a currently valid OMB
communities; Cleaning NESHAP, owners or operators
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or control number. The OMB control
of dry cleaning facilities read numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40
otherwise interfere with an action taken instructions to determine how they are
or planned by another agency; CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
affected. All sources will begin an
(3) Materially alter the budgetary enhanced LDAR program that requires a C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, handheld portable monitor. Major
or loan programs or the rights and The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
source facilities will purchase a PCE gas generally requires an agency to prepare
obligations of recipients thereof; or analyzer and area sources will purchase
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
a halogenated hydrocarbon leak rule subject to notice and comment
arising out of legal mandates, the
detector. Owners and operators will rulemaking requirements under the
President’s priorities, or the principles
incur the capital/startup cost of Administrative Procedure Act or any
set forth in the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive purchasing the monitors, plus ongoing other statute unless the agency certifies
Order 12866, OMB has determined that annual operation and maintenance that the rule will not have a significant
it considers this final rule a ‘‘significant costs. The total capital/startup cost for economic impact on a substantial
regulatory action’’ within the meaning this ICR is $5,049,000. Annual operation number of small entities. Small entities
of the Executive Order. The EPA has and maintenance cost are $552,825. include small businesses, small
submitted this action to OMB for Owners and operators of major and organizations, and small governmental
review. Changes made in response to area sources conduct enhanced leak jurisdictions.
OMB suggestions or recommendations detection and repair and keep monthly For the purposes of assessing the
will be documented in the public records of enhanced leak detection and impacts of this final rule on small
record. repair events. entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A
Approximately 28,000 existing area small business based on the following
B. Paperwork Reduction Act sources and 12 existing major sources Small Business Administration (SBA)
The information collection are subject to the rule and are subject to size standards, which are based on
requirements in the final rule have been the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP. We annual sales receipts: NAICS 812310—
submitted for approval to the OMB estimate that an average of 2,330 new Coin-Operated Laundries and Dry
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 area sources per year will become Cleaners—$6.0 million; NAICS
U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The Information subject to the regulation in the next 812320—Dry Cleaning and Laundry
Collection Request (ICR) document three years, but that the overall number Services (Except Coin-Operated)—$4.0
prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA of facilities will remain constant as the million; NAICS 812332—Industrial
ICR number 1415.06 and OMB Control new owners will take over old existing Launderers—$12.0 million; (2) a small
Number 2060–0234. facilities. No new major sources are governmental jurisdiction that is a
The 2005 revisions to the Dry expected. The estimated annual labor government of a city, county, town,
Cleaning NESHAP contain cost for major and area sources to school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) to have costs of less than 0.9 percent of D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
a small organization that is any not-for- sales. The one-time cost of $250 for
profit enterprise which is independently purchasing a halogenated hydrocarbon Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
owned and operated and is not detector is less than 0.10 percent of the Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
dominant in its field. Under these average annual revenues for dry Law 104–4, establishes requirements for
definitions, over 99 percent of cleaning businesses in NAICS 812320, Federal agencies to assess the effects of
commercial dry cleaning firms are their regulatory actions on State, local,
and there are minimal annualized costs
small. For more information, refer to and tribal governments and the private
associated with a detector’s use. Of the
http://www.sba.gov/size/ sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,
nearly 200 small businesses that have to
sizetable2002.html. The economic EPA generally must prepare a written
replace their transfer machines (or one
impacts of the regulatory alternatives statement, including a cost-benefit
percent of the total number of affected
were analyzed based on consumption of analysis, for proposed and final rules
small entities), most of these businesses with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may
PCE, but are described in terms of are expected to experience an annual
comparing the compliance costs to dry result in expenditures to State, local,
cost savings and the others are expected and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
cleaning revenues at affected firms. In to have compliance costs of less than 1.2
addition, we used average revenues for or to the private sector, of $100 million
percent of sales. Of the remaining 1,000 or more in any one year. Before
firms in the dry cleaning industry
affected small businesses (or 3.5 percent promulgating an EPA rule for which a
instead of median revenues. This was
of the total number of affected small written statement is needed, section 205
because the Census data source that we
entities), all of which are owners of co- of the UMRA generally requires EPA to
utilized did not report medium
revenues for firms by industry. For more residential facilities, the compliance identify and consider a reasonable
detail, see the current Economic Impact costs based on the first option for co- number of regulatory alternatives and
Analysis in the public docket. residential area sources range from 0.9 adopt the least costly, most cost-
After considering the economic to 1.9 percent of sales. effective, or least burdensome
impacts of this final rule on small Cost impacts associated with the final alternative that achieves the objectives
entities, I certify that the final rule will decision for major sources are presented of the rule. The provisions of section
not have a significant economic impact in section V.A of this preamble. These 205 do not apply when they are
on a substantial number of small impacts are also presented for area inconsistent with applicable law.
entities. This certification is based on sources in section V.B, and for co- Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to
the economic impact of the final rule to residential sources in section V.C. These adopt an alternative other than the least
affected small entities in the entire PCE impacts are detailed in the BID in the costly, most cost-effective, or least
dry cleaning source category and public docket as memoranda five burdensome alternative if the
considers the economic impact through seven. For more information on Administrator publishes with the final
associated with the options for co- the small entity economic impacts rule an explanation why that alternative
residential facilities. Over 98 percent of associated with the final decisions for was not adopted. Before EPA establishes
the approximately 20,000 small entities dry cleaners affected by the final rule, any regulatory requirements that may
directly regulated by the final rule, please refer to the Economic Impact significantly or uniquely affect small
including both major and area sources, governments, including tribal
Analysis in the public docket.
are expected to have costs of less than governments, it must have developed
one percent of sales. The cost impacts Although the final rule will not have under section 203 of the UMRA a small
for all regulated small entities range a significant economic impact on a government agency plan. The plan must
from cost savings to less than 1.9 substantial number of small entities, we provide for notifying potentially
percent of sales. The small entities nonetheless tried to reduce the impact affected small governments, enabling
directly regulated by the final rule are of the rule on small entities. When officials of affected small governments
dry cleaning businesses within the developing the final standards, we took to have meaningful and timely input in
NAICS codes 812310, 812320, and special steps to ensure that the burdens the development of EPA regulatory
812332. We have determined that all of imposed on small entities were proposals with significant Federal
the major sources affected by the final minimal. We conducted several intergovernmental mandates, and
rule are owned by businesses within meetings with industry trade informing, educating, and advising
NAICS 812332. The final rule is associations to discuss regulatory small governments on compliance with
expected to affect 11 ultimate parent options and the corresponding burden the regulatory requirements.
businesses that will be regulated as on industry, such as recordkeeping and We have determined that the final
major sources. Six of the parent reporting. In response to comments, we rule does not contain a Federal mandate
businesses are small according to the revised the compliance period for major that may result in expenditures of $100
SBA small business size standard. None and area sources from 90 days to two
of the six firms has an annualized cost million or more for State, local, and
years. Additionally, we added a tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
of more than one percent of sales provision to the rule that allows
associated with meeting the to the private sector in any 1 year. Thus,
containers for separator water to be the final rule is not subject to the
requirements for major sources. uncovered while the containers are in
We have determined that virtually all requirements of sections 202 and 205 of
use. the UMRA.
of the affected small businesses that
own area source dry cleaners are in Following publication of the final EPA has determined that the final rule
NAICS 812320. Small businesses rule, copies of the Federal Register contains no regulatory requirements that
complying with the final area source notice and, in some cases, background might significantly or uniquely affect
requirements are expected to have the documents, will be publicly available to small governments because it contains
following impacts. Ninety-four percent all industries, organizations, and trade no requirements that apply to such
of the approximately 20,000 small associations that have had input during governments or impose obligations
entities owning area sources directly the regulation development, as well as upon them. Therefore, the final rule is
regulated by the final rule, are expected State and local agencies. not subject to section 203 of the UMRA.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism the Agency must evaluate the include requirements for technical
Executive Order 13132, entitled environmental health or safety effects of standards beyond what the NESHAP
‘‘Federalism,’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, the planned rule on children, and requires. Therefore, the requirements of
1999) requires EPA to develop an explain why the planned regulation is the NTTAA do not apply to this action.
accountable process to ensure preferable to other potentially effective
J. Congressional Review Act
and reasonably feasible alternatives
‘‘meaningful and timely input by State The Congressional Review Act, 5
considered by the Agency.
and local officials in the development of U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
While these final rule amendments
regulatory policies that have federalism are not subject to the Executive Order Business Regulatory Enforcement
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have because they are not economically Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
federalism implications’’ is defined in significant as defined in Executive that before a rule may take effect, the
the Executive Order to include Order 12866, the Agency believes this agency promulgating the rule must
regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct action represents reasonable further submit a rule report, which includes a
effects on the States, on the relationship efforts to mitigate risks to the general copy of the rule, to each House of the
between the national government and public, including effects on children. Congress and to the Comptroller General
the States, or on the distribution of This conclusion is based on our of the United States. The EPA will
power and responsibilities among the assessment of the imposed technological submit a report containing the final rule
various levels of government.’’ controls that would reduce the PCE amendment and other required
The final rule does not have impacts on human health associated information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.
federalism implications. It will not have with exposures to dry cleaning House of Representatives, and the
substantial direct effects on the States, operations. Comptroller General of the United
on the relationship between the national States prior to publication of the final
government and the States, or on the H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That rule amendment in the Federal Register.
distribution of power and The final rule amendment is not a
responsibilities among the various Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.
levels of government, as specified in 804(2). This final rule is effective on
Executive Order 13132. None of the The final rule is not a ‘‘significant July 27, 2006.
affected dry cleaning facilities are energy action’’ as defined in Executive
owned or operated by State or local Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
governments. Thus, Executive Order 2001) because it is not likely to have a Environmental Protection, Air
13132 does not apply to the proposed significant adverse effect on the supply, pollution control, Hazardous
rule. distribution, or use of energy. substances, Reporting and
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation The final rule will have a negligible recordkeeping requirements.
and Coordination With Indian Tribal impact on energy consumption because
Dated: July 13, 2006.
Governments less than one percent of the industry
will have to install additional emission Stephen L. Johnson,
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, control equipment to comply. The cost Administrator.
November 9, 2000) requires EPA to of energy distribution should not be ■ For reasons stated in the preamble,
develop an accountable process to affected by the final rule at all since the title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by standards do not affect energy of Federal Regulations is amended as
tribal officials in the development of distribution facilities. We also expect follows:
regulatory policies that have tribal that there would be no impact on the
implications.’’ The final rule does not import of foreign energy supplies, and PART 63—[AMENDED]
have tribal implications as specified in no other adverse outcomes are expected ■ 1. The authority citation for part 63
Executive Order 13175. It will not have to occur with regards to energy supplies. continues to read as follows:
substantial direct effects on tribal Further, we have concluded that the
governments, on the relationship final rule is not likely to have any Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
between the Federal government and significant adverse energy effects.
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of Subpart M—[Amended]
power and responsibilities between the I. National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act ■ 2. Section 63.320 is amended as
Federal government and Indian tribes. follows:
No tribal governments own dry cleaning Section 12(d)of the National ■ a. By revising paragraph (b).
facilities subject to the final standards Technology Transfer and Advancement ■ b. By revising paragraph (c).
for dry cleaning facilities. Thus, Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–113, ■ c. By revising paragraph (d).
Executive Order 13175 does not apply 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs EPA ■ d. By revising paragraph (e).
to the final rule. to use voluntary consensus standards
(VCS) in its regulatory activities unless § 63.320 Applicability.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
to do so would be inconsistent with * * * * *
Children From Environmental Health (b) The compliance date for a new dry
applicable law or otherwise impractical.
and Safety Risks cleaning system depends on the date
VCS are technical standards (e.g.,
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, materials specifications, test methods, that construction or reconstruction
April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: sampling procedures, and business commences.
(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically practices) that are developed or adopted (1) Each dry cleaning system that
significant’’ as defined under Executive by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA commences construction or
Order 12866, and (2) concerns an to provide Congress, through OMB, reconstruction on or after December 9,
environmental health or safety risk that explanations when the Agency decides 1991 and before December 21, 2005,
EPA has reason to believe may have a not to use available and applicable VCS. shall be in compliance with the
disproportionate effect on children. If The final revisions to the 1993 provisions of this subpart except
the regulatory action meets both criteria, NESHAP for PCE dry cleaners do not § 63.322(o) beginning on September 22,
1993 or immediately upon startup, exempt from §§ 63.322, 63.323, and Vapor barrier enclosure means a room
whichever is later, except for dry 63.324, except §§ 63.322(c), (d), (i), (j), that encloses a dry cleaning system and
cleaning systems complying with (k), (l), (m), (o)(1), and (o)(4); 63.323(d); is constructed of vapor barrier material
section 112(i)(2) of the Clean Air Act; and 63.324(a), (b), (d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3), that is impermeable to
and shall be in compliance with the (d)(4), and (e) if the total PCE perchloroethylene. The enclosure shall
provisions of § 63.322(o) beginning on consumption of the dry cleaning facility be equipped with a ventilation system
July 28, 2008, except as provided by is less than 530 liters (140 gallons) per that exhausts outside the building and
§ 63.6(b)(4), as applicable. year. Consumption is determined is completely separate from the
(2)(i) Each dry cleaning system that according to § 63.323(d). ventilation system for any other area of
commences construction or (e) Each existing transfer machine the building. The exhaust system shall
reconstruction on or after December 21, system and its ancillary equipment, and be designed and operated to maintain
2005 shall be in compliance with the each new transfer machine system and negative pressure and a ventilation rate
provisions of this subpart, except its ancillary equipment installed of at least one air change per five
§ 63.322(o), immediately upon startup; between December 9, 1991 and minutes. The vapor barrier enclosure
and shall be in compliance with the September 22, 1993, located in a dry shall be constructed of glass, plexiglass,
provisions of § 63.322(o) beginning on cleaning facility that includes only polyvinyl chloride, PVC sheet 22 mil
July 27, 2006 or immediately upon transfer machine system(s), is exempt thick (0.022 in.), sheet metal, metal foil
startup, whichever is later. from §§ 63.322, 63.323, and 63.324, face composite board, or other materials
(ii) Each dry cleaning system that except §§ 63.322(c), (d), (i), (j), (k), (l), that are impermeable to
commences construction or (m), (o)(1), and (o)(4), 63.323(d), and perchloroethylene vapor. The enclosure
reconstruction on or after December 21, 63.324(a), (b), (d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3), (d)(4), shall be constructed so that all joints
2005, but before July 13, 2006, and is and (e) if the PCE consumption of the and seams are sealed except for inlet
located in a building with a residence, dry cleaning facility is less than 760 make-up air and exhaust openings and
shall be in compliance with the liters (200 gallons) per year. the entry door.
provisions of this subpart, except Consumption is determined according Vapor leak means a PCE vapor
§ 63.322(o), immediately upon startup; concentration exceeding 25 parts per
to § 63.323(d).
shall be in compliance with the million by volume (50 parts per million
provisions of § 63.322(o)(5)(ii) beginning * * * * * by volume as methane) as indicated by
on July 27, 2006; and shall be in ■ 3. Section 63.321 is amended by a halogenated hydrocarbon detector or
compliance with the provisions of revising the definition of Filter, and PCE gas analyzer.
§ 63.322(o)(5)(i) beginning on July 27, adding in alphabetical order definitions * * * * *
2009. for Halogenated hydrocarbon detector, ■ 4. Section 63.322 is amended as
(3) Each dry cleaning system that PCE gas analyzer, Residence, Vapor follows:
commences construction or barrier enclosure, and Vapor leak to ■ a. By revising paragraph (e)(3).
reconstruction on or after July 27, 2006, read as follows: ■ b. By revising paragraph (j).
shall be in compliance with the ■ c. By revising paragraph (k)
provisions of this subpart, including § 63.321 Definitions.
introductory text.
§ 63.322(o), immediately upon startup. * * * * * ■ d. By revising paragraph (k)(11).
(c) Each dry cleaning system that Filter means a porous device through ■ e. By revising paragraph (m).
commenced construction or which PCE is passed to remove ■ f. By adding paragraph (o).
reconstruction before December 9, 1991, contaminants in suspension. Examples
and each new transfer machine system include, but are not limited to, lint § 63.322 Standards.
and its ancillary equipment that filter, button trap, cartridge filter, * * * * *
commenced construction or tubular filter, regenerative filter, (e) * * *
reconstruction on or after December 9, prefilter, polishing filter, and spin disc (3) Shall prevent air drawn into the
1991 and before September 22, 1993, filter. dry cleaning machine when the door of
shall comply with §§ 63.322(c), (d), (i), the machine is open from passing
Halogenated hydrocarbon detector
(j), (k), (l), and (m); 63.323(d); and through the refrigerated condenser.
means a portable device capable of
63.324(a), (b), (d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3), (d)(4), detecting vapor concentrations of PCE of * * * * *
and (e) beginning on December 20, 25 parts per million by volume and (j) The owner or operator of an
1993, and shall comply with other indicating a concentration of 25 parts affected facility shall store all PCE and
provisions of this subpart except per million by volume or greater by wastes that contain PCE in solvent tanks
§ 63.322(o) by September 23, 1996; and emitting an audible or visual signal that or solvent containers with no
shall comply with § 63.322(o) by July varies as the concentration changes. perceptible leaks. The exception to this
28, 2008. requirement is that containers for
* * * * * separator water may be uncovered, as
(d) Each existing dry-to-dry machine
PCE gas analyzer means a flame necessary, for proper operation of the
and its ancillary equipment located in a
ionization detector, photoionization machine and still.
dry cleaning facility that includes only
detector, or infrared analyzer capable of (k) The owner or operator of a dry
dry-to-dry machines, and each existing
detecting vapor concentrations of PCE of cleaning system shall inspect the system
transfer machine system and its
25 parts per million by volume. weekly for perceptible leaks while the
ancillary equipment, and each new
transfer machine system and its * * * * * dry cleaning system is operating.
ancillary equipment installed between Residence means any dwelling or Inspection with a halogenated
December 9, 1991 and September 22, housing in which people reside hydrocarbon detector or PCE gas
1993, as well as each existing dry-to-dry excluding short-term housing that is analyzer also fulfills the requirement for
machine and its ancillary equipment, occupied by the same person for a inspection for perceptible leaks. The
located in a dry cleaning facility that period of less than 180 days (such as a following components shall be
includes both transfer machine hotel room). inspected:
system(s) and dry-to-dry machine(s) is * * * * * * * * * *
(11) All Filter housings. 63.320(b)(2)(ii) shall comply with designed to measure a temperature of
* * * * * paragraph (o)(5)(ii)(A) through (C), in 7.2 °C (45 °F) to an accuracy of ±1.1 °C
(m) The owner or operator of a dry addition to the other applicable (±2 °F).
cleaning system shall repair all leaks requirements of this section: * * * * *
detected under paragraph (k) or (o)(1) of (A) Operate the dry cleaning system (b) When a carbon adsorber is used to
this section within 24 hours. If repair inside a vapor barrier enclosure. The comply with § 63.322(a)(2) or exhaust is
parts must be ordered, either a written exhaust system for the enclosure shall passed through a carbon adsorber
or verbal order for those parts shall be be operated at all times that the dry immediately upon machine door
initiated within 2 working days of cleaning system is in operation and opening to comply with § 63.322(b)(3)
detecting such a leak. Such repair parts during maintenance. The entry door to or § 63.322(o)(2), the owner or operator
shall be installed within 5 working days the enclosure may be open only when shall measure the concentration of PCE
after receipt. a person is entering or exiting the in the exhaust of the carbon adsorber
* * * * * enclosure. weekly with a colorimetric detector tube
(o) Additional requirements: (B) Route the air-perchloroethylene or PCE gas analyzer. The measurement
(1) The owner or operator of a dry gas-vapor stream contained within each shall be taken while the dry cleaning
cleaning system shall inspect the dry cleaning machine through a machine is venting to that carbon
components listed in paragraph (k) of refrigerated condenser and pass the air- adsorber at the end of the last dry
this section for vapor leaks monthly perchloroethylene gas-vapor stream cleaning cycle prior to desorption of
while the component is in operation. from inside the dry cleaning drum that carbon adsorber or removal of the
(i) Area sources shall conduct the through a carbon adsorber or equivalent activated carbon to determine that the
inspections using a halogenated control device immediately before the PCE concentration in the exhaust is
hydrocarbon detector or PCE gas door of the dry cleaning machine is equal to or less than 100 parts per
analyzer that is operated according to opened. The carbon adsorber must be million by volume. The owner or
the manufacturer’s instructions. The desorbed in accordance with operator shall:
operator shall place the probe inlet at manufacturer’s instructions. (1) Use a colorimetric detector tube or
the surface of each component interface (C) Inspect the machine components
PCE gas analyzer designed to measure a
where leakage could occur and move it listed in paragraph (k) of this section for
concentration of 100 parts per million
slowly along the interface periphery. vapor leaks weekly while the
by volume of PCE in air to an accuracy
(ii) Major sources shall conduct the component is in operation. These
of 25 parts per million by volume; and
inspections using a PCE gas analyzer inspections shall be conducted using a
operated according to EPA Method 21. halogenated hydrocarbon detector or (2) Use the colorimetric detector tube
(iii) Any inspection conducted PCE gas analyzer that is operated or PCE gas analyzer according to the
according to this paragraph shall satisfy according to the manufacturer’s manufacturer’s instructions; and
the requirements to conduct an instructions. The operator shall place * * * * *
inspection for perceptible leaks under the probe inlet at the surface of each (c) If the air-PCE gas vapor stream is
§ 63.322(k) or (l) of this subpart. component interface where leakage passed through a carbon adsorber prior
(2) The owner or operator of each dry could occur and move it slowly along to machine door opening to comply
cleaning system installed after the interface periphery. with § 63.322(b)(3) or § 63.322(o)(2), the
December 21, 2005, at an area source ■ 5. Section 63.323 is amended as owner or operator of an affected facility
shall route the air-PCE gas-vapor stream follows: shall measure the concentration of PCE
contained within each dry cleaning ■ a. By revising paragraph (a)(1). in the dry cleaning machine drum at the
machine through a refrigerated ■ b. By revising paragraphs (b) end of the dry cleaning cycle weekly
condenser and pass the air-PCE gas- introductory text, (b)(1), and (b)(2). with a colorimetric detector tube or PCE
vapor stream from inside the dry ■ c. By revising paragraph (c). gas analyzer to determine that the PCE
cleaning machine drum through a non- concentration is equal to or less than
vented carbon adsorber or equivalent § 63.323 Test methods and monitoring. 300 parts per million by volume. The
control device immediately before the (a) * * * owner or operator shall:
door of the dry cleaning machine is (1) The owner or operator shall (1) Use a colorimetric detector tube or
opened. The carbon adsorber must be monitor the following parameters, as PCE gas analyzer designed to measure a
desorbed in accordance with applicable, on a weekly basis: concentration of 300 parts per million
manufacturer’s instructions. (i) The refrigeration system high by volume of PCE in air to an accuracy
(3) The owner or operator of any dry pressure and low pressure during the of ±75 parts per million by volume; and
cleaning system shall eliminate any drying phase to determine if they are in (2) Use the colorimetric detector tube
emission of PCE during the transfer of the range specified in the or PCE gas analyzer according to the
articles between the washer and the manufacturer’s operating instructions. manufacturer’s instructions; and
dryer(s) or reclaimer(s). (ii) If the machine is not equipped
(3) Conduct the weekly monitoring by
(4) The owner or operator shall with refrigeration system pressure
inserting the colorimetric detector or
eliminate any emission of PCE from any gauges, the temperature of the air-
PCE gas analyzer tube into the open
dry cleaning system that is installed perchloroethylene gas-vapor stream on
space above the articles at the rear of the
(including relocation of a used machine) the outlet side of the refrigerated
dry cleaning machine drum
after December 21, 2005, and that is condenser on a dry-to-dry machine,
immediately upon opening the dry
located in a building with a residence. dryer, or reclaimer with a temperature
cleaning machine door.
(5)(i) After December 21, 2020, the sensor to determine if it is equal to or
owner or operator shall eliminate any less than 7.2 °C (45 °F) before the end * * * * *
emission of PCE from any dry cleaning of the cool-down or drying cycle while ■ 6. Section 63.324 is amended as
system that is located in a building with the gas-vapor stream is flowing through follows:
a residence. the condenser. The temperature sensor ■ a. By revising paragraphs (d)(3), (d)(5),
(ii) Sources demonstrating shall be used according to the and (d)(6).
compliance under Section manufacturer’s instructions and shall be ■ b. By adding paragraph (f).
§ 63.324 Reporting and recordkeeping adsorber is used to comply with residence is vacant at the time of this
requirements. § 63.322(a)(2), (b)(3), or (o)(2). notification;
* * * * * * * * * * (4) If they are located in a building
(d) * * * (f) Each owner or operator of a dry with no other tenants, leased space, or
(3) The dates when the dry cleaning cleaning facility shall submit to the owner occupants;
system components are inspected for Administrator or delegated State (5) Whether they are a major or area
leaks, as specified in § 63.322(k), (l), or authority by registered mail on or before source;
(o)(1), and the name or location of dry July 28, 2008 a notification of (6) The yearly PCE solvent
cleaning system components where compliance status providing the consumption based upon the yearly
leaks are detected; following information and signed by a solvent consumption calculated
* * * * * responsible official who shall certify its according to § 63.323(d);
(5) The date and temperature sensor accuracy: (7) Whether or not they are in
monitoring results, as specified in (1) The name and address of the compliance with each applicable
§ 63.323 if a refrigerated condenser is owner or operator; requirement of § 63.322; and
used to comply with § 63.322(a), (b), or (2) The address (that is, physical (8) All information contained in the
(o); and location) of the dry cleaning facility; statement is accurate and true.
(6) The date and monitoring results, (3) If they are located in a building [FR Doc. 06–6447 Filed 7–26–06; 8:45 am]
as specified in § 63.323, if a carbon with a residence(s), even if the BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

Rule: Air Pollutants, Hazardous National Emission Standards: Dry Cleaning Facilities Perchloroethylene Emission Standards

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rule: Air Pollutants, Hazardous National Emission Standards: Dry Cleaning Facilities Perchloroethylene Emission Standards

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thursday,

July 27, 2006

and Safety Risks

TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF THE 1993 DRY CLEANING NESHAP PROCESS CONTROLS

(using CalEPA potency values). dry cleaning operations offsite.

You might also like