National Perchloroethylene Air Emission Standards for Dry Cleaning Facilities, 42724-42746 [06-6447]
Download as PDF
42724
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 144 / Thursday, July 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0155; FRL–8200–2]
RIN 2060–AK18
National Perchloroethylene Air
Emission Standards for Dry Cleaning
Facilities
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is promulgating revised
standards to limit emissions of
perchloroethylene (PCE) from existing
and new dry cleaning facilities. On
September 22, 1993, EPA promulgated
technology-based emission standards to
control emissions of PCE from dry
cleaning facilities. EPA has reviewed
these standards and is promulgating
revisions to take into account new
developments in production practices,
processes, and control technologies. In
addition, EPA has evaluated the
remaining risk to public health and the
environment following implementation
of the technology-based rule and is
promulgating more stringent standards
for major sources in order to protect
public health with an ample margin of
safety. The final standards are expected
to provide further reductions of PCE
beyond the 1993 national emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants
(NESHAP), based on application of
equipment and work practice standards
and, in certain situations, disallowing
the use of PCE at dry cleaning facilities.
In addition, EPA is taking this
opportunity to make some technical
corrections to the 1993 Dry Cleaning
NESHAP.
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is
effective July 27, 2006.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0155. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available
(e.g., Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute).
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the EPA Docket Center, Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0155, EPA West
Building, Room B–102, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744,
and the telephone number for the Air
and Radiation Docket is (202) 566–1742.
At this time, the EPA/DC’s Public
Reading Room is closed until further
notice due to flooding. Fax numbers for
NAICS 1
code
Category
Coin-operated Laundries and Dry Cleaners ..................................
Dry Cleaning and Laundry Services (except coin-operated) .........
Industrial Launderers ......................................................................
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
1 North
812310
812320
812332
Docket offices in the EPA/DC are
temporarily unavailable. EPA visitors
are required to show photographic
identification and sign the EPA visitor
log. After processing through the X-ray
and magnetometer machines, visitors
will be given an EPA/DC badge that
must be visible at all times.
Informational updates will be
provided via the EPA Web site at https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm as
they are available.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
questions about the final rule
amendments, contact Mr. Warren
Johnson, EPA, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Sector Policies
and Programs Division, Natural
Resources and Commerce Group (E143–
03), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711;
telephone number (919) 541–5124; fax
number (919) 541–3470; e-mail address:
johnson.warren@epa.gov. For questions
on the residual risk analysis, contact Mr.
Neal Fann, EPA, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Health and
Environmental Impacts Division, Air
Benefits Cost Group (C439–02),
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711;
telephone number (919) 541–0209; fax
number (919) 541–0839; e-mail address:
fann.neal@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated
Entities. Categories and entities
potentially regulated by the final rule
are industrial and commercial PCE dry
cleaners. The final rule affects the
following categories of sources:
Examples of potentially regulated entities
Dry-to-dry machines Transfer machines.
Dry-to-dry machines Transfer machines.
Dry-to-dry machines Transfer machines.
American Industry Classification System.
This table is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
regulated by the final rule. To determine
whether your facility is regulated by the
final rule, you should examine the
applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.320
of subpart M (1993 Dry Cleaning
NESHAP). If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of the final
rule to a particular entity, contact the
person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Docket. The docket number for the
National PCE Air Emission Standards
for Dry Cleaning Facilities (40 CFR part
63, subpart M) is Docket ID No. EPA–
HQ–OAR–2005–0155.
Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition
to being available in the docket, an
electronic copy of the final rule is also
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:40 Jul 26, 2006
Jkt 208001
available on the WWW. Following the
Administrator’s signature, a copy of the
final rule will be posted on EPA’s
Technology Transfer Network (TTN)
policy and guidance page for newly
proposed or promulgated rules at
https://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN
provides information and technology
exchange in various areas of air
pollution control.
Judicial Review. Under section
307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA),
judicial review of the final rule is
available only by filing a petition for
review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit by
September 25, 2006. Under CAA section
307(d)(7)(B), only an objection to the
final rule that was raised with
reasonable specificity during the period
for public comment can be raised during
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
judicial review. Moreover, under CAA
section 307(b)(2), the requirements
established by this final action may not
be challenged separately in any civil or
criminal proceedings brought by EPA to
enforce these requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA
further provides that ‘‘only an objection
to a rule or procedure which was raised
with reasonable specificity during the
period for public comment (including
any public hearing) may be raised
during judicial review.’’ This section
also provides a mechanism for EPA to
convene a proceeding for
reconsideration, ‘‘if the person raising
the objection can demonstrate to the
EPA that it was impracticable to raise
such an objection [within the period for
public comment] or if the grounds for
such objection arose after the period for
E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM
27JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 144 / Thursday, July 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
public comment (but within the time
specified for judicial review) and if such
objection is of central relevance to the
outcome of the rule.’’ Any person
seeking to make such a demonstration to
the EPA should submit a Petition for
Reconsideration to the Office of the
Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000,
Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with
a copy to both the person(s) listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section, and the Director of the
Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of
General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A),
U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC 20004.
Outline. The information presented in
this preamble is organized as follows:
I. Background
A. What Is the Statutory Authority for
Regulating Hazardous Air Pollutants?
B. What Are PCE Dry Cleaning Facilities?
C. What Are the Health Effects of PCE?
D. What Does the 1993 NESHAP Require?
II. Summary of the Proposed Rule
A. What Were the Proposed Requirements
for Major Sources?
B. What Were the Proposed Requirements
for Area Sources?
C. What Were the Proposed Requirements
for Transfer Machines at Major and Area
Sources?
III. Summary of the Final Rule
A. What Are the Requirements for Major
Sources?
B. What Are the Requirements for Area
Sources?
C. What Are the Requirements for Transfer
Machines at Existing Major and Area
Sources?
D. What Are the Requirements for Coresidential Sources?
IV. Responses to Significant Comments
A. Statutory Authority
B. Methods Used for the Risk Assessment
C. Compliance Dates
D. Control Requirements for Major Sources
E. Area Sources
F. Co-Residential Sources
G. Technical Corrections to the 1993 Dry
Cleaning NESHAP
V. Impacts
A. Major Sources
B. Area Sources
C. Co-Residential Sources
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:51 Jul 26, 2006
Jkt 208001
I. National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act
J. Congressional Review Act
I. Background
A. What Is the Statutory Authority for
Regulating Hazardous Air Pollutants?
Section 112 of the CAA requires us to
regulate hazardous air pollutants (HAP)
emitted by categories of stationary
sources. For ‘‘major’’ sources of HAP,
the CAA directs us to first establish
technology-based standards reflecting
maximum achievable control
technology (‘‘MACT’’), and to second
establish residual risk standards if such
standards are required in order to
provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health or prevent an
adverse environmental effect. For nonmajor ‘‘area’’ sources of HAP, the CAA
allows us to establish standards
reflecting generally available control
technology (‘‘GACT’’), in lieu of MACT
and residual risk standards. The HAP
we must regulate are listed at CAA
section 112(b). The types of technologybased standards we must promulgate
differ based on whether the regulated
sources are ‘‘major’’ sources or ‘‘area’’
sources. Under CAA section 112(a)(1),
major sources are those that emit or
have the potential to emit 10 tons per
year or more of any HAP or 25 tons per
year or more of any combination of
HAP, including fugitive emissions.
Section 112(a)(2) of the CAA provides
that area sources are all other non-major
stationary sources of HAP. For major
sources, our initial technology-based
standards must reflect maximum
achievable control technology (MACT)
as set forth in CAA sections 112(d)(2)–
(3). For area sources, we may set less
stringent standards based on generally
available control technology (GACT)
under CAA section 112(d)(5). For both
MACT and GACT, CAA section 112(h)
allows us to establish design,
equipment, work practice, or
operational standards where we
determine it is not feasible to prescribe
or enforce an emission standard.
Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires
us to determine for each category of
major sources regulated under CAA
section 112(d) whether the MACT
standard protects public health with an
ample margin of safety, eight years after
we promulgate MACT for that source
category. Section 112(f)(5) of the CAA
provides that we are not required to
conduct this review for categories of
area sources regulated by GACT
standards. If the MACT standards for
HAP classified as a known, probable, or
possible human carcinogen do not
reduce lifetime excess cancer risks to
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
42725
the individual most exposed to
emissions from a source in the category
or subcategory to less than 1-in-1
million, we must promulgate ‘‘residual
risk’’ standards under CAA section
112(f) for the source category (or
subcategory) as necessary to protect
public health with an ample margin of
safety. We must also adopt more
stringent standards if required to
prevent an ‘‘adverse environmental
effect’’ as defined in CAA section
112(a)(7), after considering costs,
energy, safety, and other relevant
factors.
We are also required by CAA section
112(d)(6) to periodically review all
standards we promulgate under CAA
section 112 and to revise them as
necessary, taking into account
developments in practices, processes
and control technologies. The first such
review must occur eight years after we
promulgate MACT and GACT standards,
and can be combined with the residual
risk review performed under CAA
section 112(f)(2). The section CAA
112(d)(6) review is thereafter to be
repeated no less frequently than every
eight years.
B. What Are PCE Dry Cleaning
Facilities?
Most dry cleaners use PCE in a dry
cleaning machine to clean all types of
garments, including clothes, gloves,
leather garments, blankets, and
absorbent materials. There are
approximately 34,000 dry cleaning
facilities in the United States,
approximately 28,000 of which use PCE.
Of the 28,000 PCE-using dry cleaners,
12 of the facilities are major sources and
the remainder are area sources. As
defined in the 1993 Dry Cleaning
NESHAP, major source PCE dry cleaners
are those that purchase more than 2,100
gallons (gal) of PCE per year (1,800 gal
per year if the facility uses transfer
machines). In the 1993 Dry Cleaning
NESHAP, area sources were defined as
either large or small, with large area
sources defined as facilities that use
between 140 to 2,100 gal of PCE per year
(or 140 to 1,800 gal per year if the
facility uses transfer machines) and
small area sources defined as those
facilities using less than 140 gal per
year. Some area sources are located in
the same buildings where people live. In
the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP we did
not specifically discuss these sources,
but in this notice we refer to them as coresidential dry cleaners. A co-residential
dry cleaning facility is located in a
building in which people reside. Coresidential facilities are located
primarily in urban areas.
E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM
27JYR2
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
42726
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 144 / Thursday, July 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
In general, PCE dry cleaning facilities
can be classified into three types:
Commercial, industrial, and leather.
Commercial facilities typically clean
household items such as suits, dresses,
coats, pants, comforters, curtains, and
formal wear. Industrial dry cleaners
clean heavily-stained articles such as
work gloves, uniforms, mechanics’
overalls, mops, and shop rags. Leather
cleaners mostly clean household leather
products like jackets and other leather
clothing. The 12 major sources include
seven industrial facilities and five
commercial facilities. The commercial
facilities are each the central plant for
a chain of retail storefronts. We do not
expect any new PCE dry cleaning
facilities constructed in the future to be
major sources. Based on the emission
rates of current PCE dry cleaning
machines and the typical business
models used in the industrial and
commercial dry cleaning sectors, it is
unlikely that any new sources that are
constructed will emit PCE at major
source levels, or that any existing area
sources will become major sources due
to business growth.
PCE dry cleaning machines can be
classified into two types: Transfer and
dry-to-dry. Similar to residential
washing machines and dryers, transfer
machines have a unit for washing/
extracting and another unit for drying.
Following the wash cycle, PCE
containing articles are manually
transferred from the washer/extractor to
the dryer. The transfer of wet fabrics is
the predominant source of PCE
emissions in these systems. Dry-to-dry
machines wash, extract, and dry the
articles in the same drum in a single
machine, so the articles enter and exit
the machine dry. Because the transfer
step is eliminated, dry-to-dry machines
have much lower emissions than
transfer machines.
New transfer machines are effectively
prohibited at major and area sources
due to the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP
requirement that new dry cleaning
systems eliminate any emissions of PCE
while transferring articles from the
washer to the dryer. Therefore, transfer
machines are no longer sold. Existing
transfer machines are becoming an
increasingly smaller segment of the dry
cleaning population as these machines
reach the end of their useful lives and
are replaced by dry-to-dry machines.
There are approximately 200 transfer
machines currently being used, all at
area sources.
The primary sources of PCE emissions
from dry-to-dry machines are the drying
cycle and fugitive emissions from the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:51 Jul 26, 2006
Jkt 208001
dry cleaning equipment (including
equipment used to recycle PCE and
dispose of PCE containing waste).
Machines are designed to be either
vented or non-vented during the drying
cycle. Approximately 200 dry cleaners
(1 percent) use vented machines, and
the remaining facilities use the lowerpolluting, non-vented machines. (For
both major and area sources, the 1993
Dry Cleaning NESHAP prohibits new
dry cleaning machines that vent to the
atmosphere while the dry cleaning
drum is rotating.) In vented machines,
the majority of emissions from the
drying cycle are vented outside the
building. In non-vented machines, dryer
emissions are released when the door is
opened to remove garments. Currently,
the largest sources of emissions from
dry cleaning are from equipment leaks,
which come from leaking valves and
seals, and the loading and unloading of
garments.
C. What Are the Health Effects of PCE?
The main effects of PCE in humans
are neurological, liver, and kidney
damage following acute (short-term) and
chronic (long-term) inhalation exposure.
The results of epidemiological studies
evaluating the relative risk of cancer
associated with PCE exposure have been
mixed; some studies reported an
increased incidence of a variety of
tumors, while other studies did not
report any carcinogenic effects. Animal
studies have reported an increased
incidence of liver cancer in mice, via
inhalation and gavage (experimentally
placing the chemical in the stomach),
and kidney and mononuclear cell
leukemia in rats.
Although PCE has not yet been
reassessed under the Agency’s recently
revised Guidelines for Cancer Risk
assessment, it was considered in one
review by the EPA’s Science Advisory
Board to be intermediate between a
‘‘probable’’ and ‘‘possible’’ human
carcinogen (Group B/C) when assessed
under the previous 1986 Guidelines.
Since that time, the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services has
concluded that PCE is ‘‘reasonably
anticipated to be a human carcinogen,’’
and the International Agency for
Research on Cancer has concluded that
PCE is ‘‘probably carcinogenic to
humans.’’
Effects other than cancer associated
with long-term inhalation of PCE in
worker or animal studies include
neurotoxicity, liver and kidney damage,
and, at higher levels, developmental
effects. To characterize noncancer
hazard in lieu of the completed
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS) assessment, which is being
revised, we used the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry’s
(ATSDR) Minimum Risk Level (MRL).
This value is based on a study of
neurological effects in workers in dry
cleaning shops, and is derived in a
manner similar to EPA’s method for
derivation of reference concentrations,
including scientific and public review.
The Agency’s IRIS chemical
assessment for PCE is currently being
revised. A final IRIS determination on
PCE is not expected until 2008. Because
EPA has not yet issued a final IRIS
document for PCE, to estimate cancer
risk, we used the California EPA
(CalEPA) unit risk estimate (URE) as
well as a URE value developed by the
EPA’s Office of Prevention, Pesticides
and Toxics (OPPTS) in 1998. The final
IRIS reassessment may result in a URE
that is different than these two values.
Among the available Acute Reference
Levels (ARL), the one-hour California
Reference Exposure Level (REL) was
considered the most appropriate to use
in the assessment because it may be
used to characterize acute risk for
exposure an exposure duration of one
hour. In contrast, the ATSDR acute MRL
is appropriate to characterize acute risk
for up to 14 days of exposure.
See the risk characterization
memorandum in the public docket for
additional information regarding the
health effects of PCE.
D. What Does the 1993 NESHAP
Require?
The 1993 NESHAP prescribes a
combination of equipment, work
practices, and operational requirements.
The requirements for process controls
are summarized in table 1 of this
preamble. The 1993 Dry Cleaning
NESHAP defines major and area sources
based on the annual PCE purchases for
all machines at a facility. The
consumption criterion (which affects
the amount of PCE purchased) varies
depending on whether the facility has
dry-to-dry machines only, transfer
machines only, or a combination of
both. The affected source is each
individual dry cleaning system.
Consequently, under the 1993 Dry
Cleaning NESHAP, a single dry cleaning
facility could be comprised of multiple
affected sources, if it has multiple dry
cleaning systems onsite. As a result,
some of a facility’s systems could be
subject to ‘‘new’’ source requirements
under the NESHAP, and some could be
‘‘existing’’ sources, depending upon
when they were placed into service.
E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM
27JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 144 / Thursday, July 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
42727
TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF THE 1993 DRY CLEANING NESHAP PROCESS CONTROLS
Sources
Annual PCE
purchased
New 1
(installed after 12/9/91)
Existing 2
Major Sources .....................
Dry-to-dry only ..................................
> 2,100 gal/yr
Transfer only
>1,800 gal/yr
Dry-to-dry and Transfer
> 1,800 gal/yr
Dry-to-dry only 140 to 2,100 gal/yr ..
Transfer only 200 to 1,800 gal/yr
Dry-to-dry and Transfer 140 to
1,800 gal/yr
Dry-to-dry ONLY ...............................
< 140 gal/yr
Transfer ONLY
< 200 gal/yr
Dry-to-dry AND Transfer
< 140 gal/yr
Closed-loop, dry-to-dry machines
with a refrigerated condenser, and
carbon adsorber operated immediately before or as the door is
opened.
Dry-to-dry machines: Must have refrigerated condenser.3
Transfer machines: Must be enclosed in a room exhausting to a
dedicated carbon adsorber.
Closed-loop, dry-to-dry machines
with a refrigerated condenser..
Dry-to-dry machines: Must have a
refrigerated condenser 3
Transfer machines: No controls required.
No controls required.
Large Area Sources ............
Small Area Sources ............
1 No
Same as large area sources ............
new transfer machines are allowed after 9/23/93.
date = 9/23/96.
carbon adsorber is allowed only if installed before 9/22/93.
2 Compliance
3 Alternatively,
In addition, all sources must comply
with certain operating requirements,
including recording PCE purchases,
storing PCE and PCE-containing waste
in non-leaking containers, and
inspecting for perceptible leaks. Owners
or operators are required to operate and
maintain the control equipment
according to procedures specified in the
1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP and to use
pollution prevention procedures, such
as good operation and maintenance, for
both dry cleaning machines and
auxiliary equipment (such as filter,
muck cookers, stills, and solvent tanks)
to prevent liquid and vapor leaks of PCE
from these sources.
II. Summary of the Proposed Rule
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
A. What Were the Proposed
Requirements for Major Sources?
Under the proposal, the requirements
for all new and existing major sources
were the same. The proposed
requirements included the
implementation of an enhanced leak
detection and repair (LDAR) program
and the use of dry-to-dry machines that
do not vent to the atmosphere (closedloop) during any phase of the dry
cleaning cycle. A refrigerated condenser
and a secondary carbon adsorber were
proposed for all machines.
Under the proposed enhanced LDAR
program, the facility owner or operator
would be required to use a PCE gas
analyzer (photoionization detector,
flame ionization detector, or infrared
analyzer) and perform leak checks
according to EPA Method 21 on a
monthly basis. The facility owner or
operator would also continue the
weekly perceptible leak check according
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:40 Jul 26, 2006
Jkt 208001
to the requirements of the 1993 Dry
Cleaning NESHAP.
B. What Were the Proposed
Requirements for Area Sources?
For existing area sources (large and
small), the proposed requirements
included implementation of an
enhanced LDAR program and a
prohibition on the use of existing
transfer machines. For new area sources
(large and small), the proposed
requirements included implementation
of an enhanced LDAR program and use
of a non-vented dry-to-dry machine
with a refrigerated condenser and
secondary carbon adsorber.
The enhanced LDAR program for area
sources would require facilities to use a
halogenated leak detector (instead of a
more costly gas analyzer proposed for
major sources) to perform leak checks
on a monthly basis. The facility would
also continue to inspect for perceptible
leaks biweekly for small area sources
and weekly for large area sources
according to the requirements of the
1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP.
For co-residential area sources, we
proposed two options. The first option
would effectively prohibit new PCE
sources from locating in residential
buildings by requiring that owners or
operators eliminate PCE emissions from
the dry cleaning process. Existing coresidential sources, under this proposed
option, would be subject to the same
requirements proposed for all other
existing area sources (i.e., enhanced
LDAR and elimination of transfer
machines). Instead of a prohibition on
new co-residential sources, the second
option would require that existing and
new co-residential sources comply with
standards based on those required by
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)
in their Title 6 New York Conservation
Rules and Regulations (NYCRR) Part
232 rules, which include using
machines equipped with refrigerated
condensers and carbon adsorbers,
enclosed in a vapor barrier to help
prevent exposures to PCE emissions.
C. What Were the Proposed
Requirements for Transfer Machines at
Major and Area Sources?
The proposed rule included a
prohibition on the use of all existing
transfer machines 90 days after
publication of the final rule by requiring
owners or operators to eliminate any
PCE emissions from clothing transfer
between the washer and dryer. The
installation of new transfer machines
was prohibited by the 1993 Dry
Cleaning NESHAP.
III. Summary of the Final Rule
A. What are the Requirements for Major
Sources?
Under the final rule revisions, the
requirements for all new and existing
major sources are the same. In addition
to the previous 1993 NESHAP
requirements, the final revisions require
the implementation of an enhanced
LDAR program. Under the enhanced
LDAR program, the facility owner or
operator must use a PCE gas analyzer
(photoionization detector, flame
ionization detector, or infrared analyzer)
and perform leak checks according to
EPA Method 21 on a monthly basis. The
facility owner or operator is also
required to continue the weekly
perceptible leak check according to the
E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM
27JYR2
42728
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 144 / Thursday, July 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
requirements of the 1993 Dry Cleaning
NESHAP.
B. What Are the Requirements for Area
Sources?
For existing area sources (large and
small), in addition to the previous 1993
NESHAP requirements, the final rule
revisions require implementation of an
enhanced LDAR program and prohibit
the use of existing transfer machines.
This requirement and prohibition apply
to all types of existing area sources,
including co-residential sources (for the
remaining time in which the latter are
permitted to use PCE at all).
For new area sources (large and
small), the final rule revisions add to the
previous 1993 NESHAP by requiring
implementation of an enhanced LDAR
program and use of a non-vented dry-todry machine with a refrigerated
condenser and secondary carbon
adsorber. These added requirements do
not apply to new co-residential sources
since these sources are prohibited from
using PCE, as discussed later in this
notice. The enhanced LDAR program for
new and existing area sources requires
facilities to use a halogenated leak
detector (instead of a more costly gas
analyzer for major sources) to perform
leak checks on a monthly basis. The
facility is also required to continue to
inspect for perceptible leaks biweekly
for small area sources and weekly for
large area sources according to the
requirements of the 1993 Dry Cleaning
NESHAP.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
C. What Are the Requirements for
Transfer Machines at Existing Major
and Area Sources?
The final rule prohibits the use of all
existing transfer machines two years
from the effective date of the final rule
by requiring owners or operators to
eliminate any PCE emissions from
clothing transfer between the washer
and dryer. The installation of new
transfer machines was prohibited by the
1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP. We
estimate that about 200 transfer
machines remain in use within the
population of 28,000 PCE dry cleaning
sources. Most of these machines are
near the end of their useful economic
lives. The typical useful life of a dry
cleaning machine is 10 to 15 years. By
the end of 2008, the newest transfer
machines in the industry will be 15
years old.
D. What Are the Requirements for Coresidential Sources?
For co-residential area sources, the
final rule effectively prohibits new PCE
machines in residential buildings by
requiring that owners or operators
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:51 Jul 26, 2006
Jkt 208001
eliminate PCE emissions from dry
cleaning systems that are installed after
December 21, 2005. This requirement
applies to any newly installed dry
cleaning system that is located in a
building with a residence, regardless of
whether the dry cleaning system is a
newly fabricated system or one that is
relocated from another facility. In
addition, the final rule revisions include
a ‘‘sunset date’’ for the use of PCE at
currently operating co-residential
sources: All existing PCE machines in
co-residential facilities are prohibited
after December 21, 2020. This sunset
date allows owners of existing coresidential sources to operate their
machines for their maximum estimated
useful life, 15 years, assuming they were
first installed no later than the date of
the proposed rule. We have concluded
that it is reasonable to establish the
sunset date at that point to allow such
owners to recoup the cost of their
investment in their current machines.
We also decided not to allow for a later
sunset date since on the date of our
proposal owners were first placed on
notice that we were considering a sunset
provision for co-residential sources.
This sunset period, during which
existing machines will be required to
comply with the same revised
requirements that apply to other
existing area sources, will provide
adequate time for source owners and
operators to switch to non-PCE
equipment or move their PCE
equipment to a non-residential location.
In the interim before the sunset date,
existing co-residential sources are
subject to the same requirements that
apply to all other existing area sources
under the final rule revisions (i.e.,
enhanced LDAR and elimination of
transfer machines).
IV. Responses to Significant Comments
A. Statutory Authority
Comment: Two commenters
questioned whether we have the legal
authority to impose risk-based standards
on area sources that are regulated under
GACT. The commenters quoted sections
of the Congressional Record
(appropriate sections were attached to
the comments) concerning this point
and provided analysis to demonstrate a
legislative intent to exempt area sources,
specifically, dry cleaners from residual
risk standards.
Response: While we do not concede
that the commenter’s interpretation of
our authority under section 112(f) to
impose risk based standards on area
sources regulated under GACT is
correct, we note that since we are not
relying upon CAA section 112(f) as the
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
authority for any of the requirements
promulgated in this action for area
sources, the commenters’ arguments are
moot for purposes of this final
rulemaking.
Under CAA section 112(d)(6), we are
required to conduct a review and, if
appropriate, revise the dry cleaning
standard as necessary to reflect
advances in practices, processes, and
control technologies. At proposal, we
evaluated the emission reductions that
could be achieved under CAA section
112(d)(6). After assessing advances in
control technologies and considering
the public comments, we have
determined that, given the current
knowledge of the health effects of PCE,
additional requirements we proposed
under the combined authorities of CAA
sections 112(f)(2) and (d)(6) for area
sources are equally supportable under
CAA section 112(d)(6) alone. In light of
public comments we received regarding
possible risks posed by area sources,
and EPA’s pending IRIS review of PCE,
we have determined that we are able to
address the risks posed by area sources
by revising our standards under the
authority of section 112(d)(6). The
standards for all area sources in this
final rule are promulgated under the
authority of CAA section 112(d)(6), and
fulfill the Agency’s statutory
requirements under this authority for
these sources.
The Agency’s Office of Research and
Development is currently re-evaluating
the available information on human
health effects of PCE as part of a hazard
and dose-response assessment for the
Agency’s IRIS, which may result in
revised metrics which are different
enough from those used in our current
assessment to warrant a re-assessment of
risks from these sources. The project
schedule for completion of the IRIS
assessment is available at https://
cfpub.epa.gov/iristrac/index.cfm. Also,
additional information is needed to
accurately estimate chronic and shortterm exposures and risks to individuals
located next to area sources other than
co-residential (e.g., sources co-located
with schools and day care centers).
While we received some information on
measured PCE concentrations at such
area sources in public comments, much
of these data were collected based on
complaints and may not be
representative of PCE exposures from
sources in compliance with the relevant
regulations. EPA is aware of other data
collected to support a peer-reviewed
article; however, these data represent a
very limited number of samples and
sampling locations. As the results of the
Agency’s final PCE health assessment
and additional scientifically peer
E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM
27JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 144 / Thursday, July 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
reviewed data become available, we
may choose to further assess PCE risks
and may re-evaluate our decision for
area sources.
B. Methods Used for the Risk
Assessment
Comment: A commenter requested
that EPA account for any uncertainty in
the ATSDR MRL and the OPPTS
provisional Reference Concentration
(RfC) by providing a greater margin of
(public) safety when selecting a doseresponse value for PCE. Two
commenters requested EPA to use the
New York State Department of Health
(NYSDOH) non-cancer reference value.
Many commenters questioned the use of
the CalEPA and OPPTS URE in the
absence of the revised IRIS reassessment number. Several hundred
commenters, using a form letter,
questioned the carcinogenicity of PCE
and referenced a Nordic study.
Response: The ATSDR MRL and the
OPPTS provisional RfC, both based on
1992 occupational studies indicating
effects at essentially identical exposure
levels, are within a factor of two of each
other, which, given the precision of the
underlying data, is not a large
difference. Additionally, a recent
document by the World Health
Organization (World Health
Organization. 2006. Concise
International Chemical Assessment
Document 68.TETRACHLOROETHENE
Wissenchaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft
mbH, Stuttgart, Germany, available online at https://www.who.int/ipcs/
publications/cicad/cicad68.pdf)
included the derivation of a noncancer
value termed a ‘‘tolerable
concentration’’ which falls intermediate
between the OPPTS provisional RfC and
the ATSDR MRL. With regard to
addressing uncertainty in the
underlying database, both the ATSDR
and OPPTS values (and the WHO value)
were derived using similar approaches
which rely on the inclusion of
uncertainty factors to account for
recognized uncertainties in the
extrapolations from the experimental
data conditions to an estimate
appropriate to the assumed human
scenario. The method employed by
NYSDOH to derive their criterion differs
from that employed by ATSDR, which
is consistent with EPA methodology.
As the Agency has not yet completed
its own cancer assessment for PCE, we
have evaluated PCE cancer risk based on
consideration of both the CalEPA and
OPPTS cancer dose-response
assessments, as well as more recently
available data. Data are available from
the Japanese Industrial Safety
Association (1993) for rodent cancer
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:51 Jul 26, 2006
Jkt 208001
bioassays by inhalation, which were not
considered in either the CalEPA or
OPPTS assessments. These data were
considered in a recent WHO document,
which presented a range of inhalation
cancer unit risk estimates derived using
the various available data sets and
default methods for extrapolation to
humans. The highest unit risk estimate
derived from these data was quite
similar to the CalEPA estimate, while
the lowest was about an order of
magnitude lower, similar to the OPPTS
URE. While the Nordic study did not
find an association between PCE
exposures of the study population and
cancer risk, this study needs to be
thoroughly evaluated in the context of
all epidemiological studies to determine
whether or not it will change the weight
of evidence evaluation. The EPA IRIS
reassessment will include consideration
of this study as well. Since the last EPA
assessment of PCE carcinogenicity, the
United States Department of Health and
Human Services has concluded that PCE
is ‘‘reasonably anticipated to be a
human carcinogen’’ and the
International Agency for Research on
Cancer has concluded that PCE is
‘‘probably carcinogenic to humans.’’
C. Compliance Dates
1. Two Years for Existing Sources
Comment: Most of the comments
received on compliance dates for the
regulation were in favor of extending
the date to more than 90 days. Some
commenters asked for a one year
extension, while others asked that the
date be extended to three years. The
commenters cited references in the CAA
that stated that CAA section 112(i)(3)(A)
governs the compliance times for CAA
section 112, including residual risk
standards, and that compliance is
required as expeditiously as possible,
but in no event later than three years
from the effective date of the standard.
The commenters added that CAA
section 112(f)(4) merely states that EPA
may not set a compliance date earlier
than 90 days. The commenters believe
that the CAA section 112(f)(4)(b)
provision for waivers of up to two years
would apply only in cases where the
rule established a compliance date of
more than 90 days but less than two
years.
Another commenter, a State
representative, recommended that the
compliance deadline for area sources
that need to purchase new machines
should be extended to one year, because
State agencies need time to conduct
outreach. States do not have lists of area
source dry cleaners and will need to
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
42729
collect this information during facility
inspections.
Response: As we have recently
explained in another rulemaking, the
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Organic
Hazardous Air Pollutants From the
Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry; Proposed Rule,
published on June 14, 2006 (71 FR
34422), we have since revisited our
prior view regarding which CAA
provisions govern compliance dates for
residual risk rules. We hereby
incorporate that discussion by reference.
In response to the commenters, we are
adopting different compliance deadlines
for the existing source requirements
than we proposed. We interpret CAA
section 112(i) as providing the
comprehensive framework for
compliance deadlines for all rules
adopted under CAA section 112, even
where the provisions of CAA section
112(f)(4) may appear to conflict with
those of CAA section 112(i).
As explained in the proposed residual
risk rule for the HON source category,
for new sources, CAA section 112(i)(1)
requires that after the effective date of
any standard under subsections (d), (f)
or (h), no new source may be
constructed or reconstructed except in
compliance with the standard, as
determined by EPA or the applicable
permitting authority under title V of the
CAA. A new source, under CAA section
112(a)(4), is any stationary source that
commences construction or
reconstruction after EPA proposes
regulations applicable to the source
category under CAA section 112.
Sections 112(e)(10) and (f)(3) of the CAA
provide that CAA section 112(d)(6) and
residual risk standards, respectively,
become effective immediately upon
promulgation. This means generally that
a new source that is constructed after a
proposed rule is issued must comply
with the final standard, when
promulgated, immediately upon the
rule’s effective date or upon startup,
which ever occurs later.
Sections 112(i)(7) and 112(i)(2)(A)–(B)
of the CAA provide some exceptions to
this general rule. The former provision
essentially ensures that new sources
that are built in compliance with MACT
but before a residual risk rule is
proposed will not be forced to undergo
modifications to comply with a residual
risk rule unreasonably early. The second
set of provisions essentially treats new
sources as if they are existing sources,
where a final standard is more stringent
than its proposed version and a source
constructs after proposal but before final
promulgation: Such sources have three
years to comply with the final standard,
E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM
27JYR2
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
42730
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 144 / Thursday, July 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
provided they comply with the standard
as proposed in the meantime.
For existing sources, CAA section
112(i)(3) allows EPA to set compliance
deadlines of up to three years for ‘‘any
emission standard, limitation or
regulation promulgated under this
section.’’ This up-to-3-year compliance
period matches the 3-year period
provided under CAA section 112(i)(2),
which potentially applies to any
standard issued under CAA sections
112(d), (f) or (h). There is also an
exception to the 3-year deadline for
existing sources: CAA section
112(i)(3)(B) allows EPA or a State title
V permitting authority to issue a permit
granting an existing source an
additional year to comply with
standards under subsection (d), if it is
necessary for the installation of controls.
We believe that this reference to only
subsection (d) was accidental on
Congress’s part and presents a conflict
with the rest of the statutory scheme
Congress enacted in 1990 to govern
compliance deadlines under CAA
section 112.
In addition to adding section 112(i) in
the 1990 CAA Amendments, the
amended CAA section 112 included
provisions in section 112(f) left over
from the previous version of CAA
section 112 that in several ways differ
from those in CAA section 112(i). First,
CAA section 112(f)(4) includes a
requirement that new sources comply
immediately with CAA section 112(f)
final rules, which is redundant with
CAA section 112(i). This provision also
fails to account for the allowable
exceptions to the immediate compliance
requirement in CAA section 112(i) and
fails to refer to the new title V
implementation mechanism added in
the 1990 CAA Amendments. In light of
the overall statutory scheme regarding
compliance deadlines for new sources
reflected in CAA section 112(i), we
believe that where those provisions
conflict with the provisions of CAA
section 112(f)(4), the most reasonable
approach is to view CAA section 112(i)
as controlling.
In addition, for existing sources, CAA
section 112(f)(4)(A) imposes a 90-day
compliance deadline following
promulgation of residual risk rules.
Section 112(f)(4)(B) of the CAA then
states that EPA, without reference to a
title V permitting authority, may grant a
waiver for up to two years if such period
is necessary for the installation of
controls. Both of these provisions
conflict with CAA section 112(i). The
90-day deadline conflicts with the upto-3-year deadline available for existing
sources under ‘‘any’’ rule adopted under
CAA section 112 and has the result of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:51 Jul 26, 2006
Jkt 208001
imposing a shorter deadline on existing
sources than may apply for new sources
under CAA section 112(i)(2). The CAA
section 112(f)(4)(B) waiver provision
also fails to rely upon the new title V
implementation mechanism, even
though, of course, residual risk rules are
required to be reflected in title V
permits to the same extent as MACT
rules to which CAA section 112(i)(3)
clearly applies.
Notwithstanding CAA section
112(i)(3)(B)’s limited reference to
standards adopted under subsection (d),
we interpret CAA section 112(i)(3) as
applying to ‘‘any’’ standards
promulgated under CAA section 112,
including those under CAA section
112(f), since CAA section 112(i)(3)(A)
uses the term ‘‘any’’ without limitation.
Moreover, it is clear that Congress
intended the CAA section 112(i)
provisions applicable to new sources to
govern compliance under CAA section
112(f) standards, notwithstanding the
language of CAA section 112(f)(4), based
on their explicit reference to such
standards. Reading CAA section
112(i)(3)(B) as reaching only subsection
(d) standards, conversely, with CAA
section 112(f)(4)(B) governing
subsection (f) standards, would leave
unanswered the question of which
provision applies to subsection (h)
standards, which may also require the
installation of controls. A narrow
reading of the scope of CAA section
112(i)(3) would also ignore the fact that
in many cases, including this rule, the
enabling authority will be both CAA
sections 112(f)(2) and 112(d)(6). We
conclude that the only reasonable way
to avoid a conflict in the provisions
addressing compliance deadlines for
existing sources in these situations is to
read the more specific and
comprehensive set of provisions in CAA
section 112(i) as govern both the CAA
section 112(d) and CAA section 112(f)
aspects of the regulation.
In our proposed rule, we asked for
comments on the issue of whether a 90day compliance deadline was sufficient
for our proposed elimination of transfer
machines. In response to this, and in
response to our proposed deadlines for
other requirements for existing sources,
we received significant comments on
this compliance deadline issue
generally. Therefore, we believe that our
approach promulgated in this action is
a logical outgrowth of our proposed
rule. In anticipation of an objection
claiming that our resolution of the
conflict between CAA sections 112(i)
and 112(f)(4) was not adequately
noticed in our proposal, we note that
the same 2-year compliance deadline we
are adopting for existing sources in the
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
final rule is also fully supported under
an alternative interpretation that CAA
section 112(f)(4)(A)–(B) controls. This is
because CAA section 112(f)(4) would
allow us to grant a 2-year extension of
the compliance deadline for existing
sources, on top of the 90-day
compliance deadline otherwise
required. Since we find that the 2-year
total compliance deadline is necessary
for the installation of controls at existing
dry cleaners that would have to replace
transfer machines with equipment
compliant with new source standards
(as further discussed below), and as the
total 2-year compliance deadline falls
within the 2-year plus 90-day period
that would be allowed under CAA
section 112(f)(4)(A)–(B), the final rule
deadline is within the permissible range
of CAA section 112(f)(4), if it applies. In
addition, since we explicitly asked for
comment on the 90-day deadline
proposed under CAA section 112(f)(4)
for eliminating transfer machines and
received substantial comments on this
issue and on the compliance deadline
issue in general, our final decision, to
the extent it must rely on the authority
of CAA section 112(f)(4), is also a logical
outgrowth of our proposal.
We agree with the commenters that
existing sources will need more than 90
days to fully implement the
requirements of the rule. Existing area
sources will require up to two years to
comply with the revised standards.
Approximately 200 facilities will need
to replace their transfer machines with
dry-to-dry machines. These facilities
generally are small proprietorships that
will need a sufficient amount of time to
save the money to purchase new
machines. Also, due to the large number
of area sources in the U.S., time is
needed for outreach to inform these
facilities about the rule changes.
Moreover, there could be a supply
shortage if 28,000 area sources were
required to obtain a leak detection
instruments within 90 days of
promulgation. Similarly, major sources
will need additional time to obtain leak
detection equipment and fully
implement enhanced LDAR
requirements.
2. Clarification of New Source
Requirements
Comment: One commenter requested
clarification on whether the proposed
revisions for new sources apply to those
constructed after the proposal date of
the original NESHAP or of the date of
the current proposal.
Response: The revised requirements
for new sources apply only to new dry
cleaning machines that are constructed
or reconstructed after December 21,
E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM
27JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 144 / Thursday, July 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
2005. Under the general provisions, a
new source is any affected source that
commences construction or
reconstruction after the date that a
relevant emission standard is proposed
in the Federal Register. Therefore, new
dry cleaning machines build after the
proposal date of the original rule but
before December 21, 2005, are subject to
the new source requirements of the
original rule, and to any additional
requirements of the revised rule that
would apply to existing sources. New
machines built after December 21, 2005,
are subject to the requirements of the
rule as revised upon the effective date
of the final rule or upon their startup,
whichever occurs later.
D. Control Requirements for Major
Sources
Comment: Most comments received
about the requirements for major
sources supported EPA’s proposed
requirements of non-venting machines
with refrigerated condenser, secondary
carbon adsorber, and an enhanced
LDAR program. Most major sources
were estimated to incur an annual cost
savings by implementing these
requirements. We received a few
comments that asked us to require more
stringent requirements. These
commenters asked us to require all
major sources to upgrade their machines
with a PCE analyzer and lockout and
another asked to ban new PCE machines
at major sources, require PCE sensor and
lockout equipment for existing
machines, and adopt an equipment
standard that prohibits the use of PCE
machines more than 15 years old. One
commenter, a major source stated that
they would face substantial negative
economic impacts if required to replace
their existing equipment with closedloop systems with refrigerated
condensers and carbon adsorbers as
proposed.
Response: Since proposal, 3 major
source facilities, including the proposal
MIR facility, have been removed from
our risk analysis, which has affected our
risk estimates for existing major sources.
The MIR facility ceased operation due to
a change in ownership to a company
that does not use PCE in the cleaning
process. One additional facility ceased
operation, and another was determined
to have been an area source prior to the
compliance date for the original
NESHAP, and is therefore not subject to
major source requirements. The
resulting cancer risks at baseline for the
remaining facilities range between 50
and 400 in-1-million.
In assessing the appropriate level of
control to address these risks, we
revisited the proposal level of control,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:51 Jul 26, 2006
Jkt 208001
which included enhanced LDAR, along
with the requirements to use dry-to-dry
machines that do not vent to the
atmosphere (closed loop) during any
phase of the dry cleaning cycle, and to
have refrigerated condensers and
secondary carbon adsorbers to control
the PCE emissions during the final stage
of the dry cleaning cycle immediately
before and as the drum door is opened.
Enhanced LDAR alone, which will
require owners and operators to use a
PCE gas analyzer and perform leak
checks according to EPA Method 21 on
a monthly basis (as well as continue
weekly perceptible leak checks), is
expected to reduce MIR from existing
major sources to between 20 and 200 ina-million. We have determined that this
range of MIR levels is acceptable within
the meaning of the Benzene NESHAP
decision framework. In arriving at this
determination we considered the MIR
levels and other factors in making our
determination of acceptability, as
directed by the 1989 Benzene NESHAP.
Nearly all of the population living
within 10 km of each remaining major
source facility is estimated to be
exposed at risk levels of less than 1-in1 million at this level of control.
Considering the very small number of
individuals that are estimated to be
exposed at risk levels greater than 100in-1 million cancer risk coupled with
the exposure and dose response
assessment methodology that was
conservatively health protective, it is
likely that no actual persons are
exposed to PCE emissions from major
sources causing cancer risk levels above
100-in-1 million. Among the exposed
population of 9 million individuals, a
maximum of 2 people are estimated to
be exposed at risk levels of more than
100-in-1 million. In addition, no
significant non-cancer health effects are
predicted. The maximum HQ would be
reduced from 0.3 to 0.06, and no
adverse ecological impacts are predicted
from exposure to emissions at this level
of control. We expect that PCE usage
will continue to drop as has been the
trend over the past 10 years. This trend
has been caused by the greater use of
alternative solvents, older machines at
the end of their useful lives being
replaced with newer, lower emitting
dry-to-dry machines with refrigerated
condensers and secondary carbon
adsorbers, and State and industry
programs that improve machine
efficiency and reduce PCE consumption.
All of these factors will cause risks to
continue to decrease in the future in the
absence of further Federal regulatory
requirements. Therefore, we have
determined that the risks associated
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
42731
with enhanced LDAR at existing major
sources are acceptable after considering
MIR, the population exposed at different
risk levels, and the projected decline in
PCE usage. While not relevant in the
analysis of acceptable level of risks, the
costs for this option include a capital
cost of approximately $30,000, and an
annual cost savings of approximately
$250,000.
In the second step of the residual risk
process, we determined whether a
standard more stringent than enhanced
LDAR is warranted to protect public
health with an ample margin of safety.
We considered the estimate of health
risk and other health information along
with additional factors relating to the
appropriate level of control, including
costs and economic impacts of controls,
technological feasibility, uncertainties,
and other relevant factors, consistent
with the approach of the 1989 Benzene
NESHAP. The requirements to use
closed loop dry-to-dry machines and for
machines to be controlled with
refrigerated condensers and carbon
adsorbers as proposed would further
reduce MIR to between 10 and 100 ina-million. However, the additional costs
and associated impacts from application
of these controls at existing major
sources do not warrant the level of
incremental risk reductions this option
would achieve, especially when
considering the distribution of costs,
emissions and risk reductions among
the affected facilities. For example, of
the seven existing facilities with major
sources that would be impacted by this
additional level of control, the bulk of
the costs are incurred by one facility,
and would result in minimal risk
reductions from the facility. This facility
would incur costs of approximately $2
million to replace equipment which
could not be retrofitted to meet this
level of control. Annual costs for this
facility would be approximately
$200,000. The risk range associated with
this facility upon implementation of
enhanced LDAR is estimated to be
between 5 and 50 in-1 million. The risk
range with the additional level of
controls of closed loop dry-to-dry
machines and refrigerated condenser
and carbon adsorber would be between
2 and 20-in-1 million. While two of the
remaining six facilities would achieve
somewhat higher risk reductions that
would be realized from the example
facility, the remaining four are expected
to only achieve minimal risk reductions,
as represented by the range of
incremental emissions reductions from
the added layer of control (between 0
and 4 tons per year). The capital costs
to achieve these emissions and risk
E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM
27JYR2
42732
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 144 / Thursday, July 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
reductions would be $2.3 million, with
annual costs of $53,000. Consequently,
we have determined that the risks
associated with enhanced LDAR at
existing major sources represent an
ample margin of safety after considering
costs, remaining risks and population
cancer risk.
As proposed, new major sources
would be required to perform enhanced
LDAR in addition to the 1993 NESHAP
requirement of closed-loop, dry-to-dry
systems with refrigerated condensers
and carbon adsorbers. As explained in
the proposal, we do not expect that any
new major sources will be built, or that
any existing area sources will increase
PCE usage to major source levels.
However, if this situation occurs, the
additional LDAR requirements will
continue to reduce emissions from
equipment leaks. The risks posed by
major sources do not warrant further
control given the costs and the relatively
low levels of emission and risk
reduction that would be achieved by
these additional controls. The available
data indicated that closed-loop systems
with refrigerated condensers and carbon
adsorbers, as well as PCE analyzer and
lockout costs were unreasonably high
considering the range of impacts across
facilities. Consequently, we determined
that requiring these additional controls
was not a reasonable or economically
feasible option for all major sources.
The costs to eliminate PCE usage at
major sources would require a capital
cost to the industry of approximately
$8.2 million. This estimate was based
on the total costs of replacing all PCE
machines with machines using
hydrocarbon solvent, the most common
and lowest cost alternative in large-scale
operations.
1. Risks From Major Sources
Comment: One commenter stated that
the risk assessment is biased and does
not represent all sources. Data regarding
the performance of pollution control
equipment used at each facility is
critical. The commenter stated that the
control technology at their facility is
unlike that at any other facility. They
believe the risk assessment for the group
of major sources is invalid because it
depended heavily on the risk of one
outlier facility, ALAC, which recently
closed. Therefore, they contend ALAC
greatly increased the MIR for all major
sources.
Response: We disagree with the
commenter that the risk assessment is
biased and is driven by the results of the
assessment for a single facility. While
we did use this facility’s MIR at the time
of proposal, we assessed risks using data
from major source facilities that we
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:51 Jul 26, 2006
Jkt 208001
concluded were representative of all
major sources. Our final regulatory
decision is based on a revised MIR for
major sources, which ranges between
50-in-1 million and 400-in-1 million,
after excluding data from sources that
have ceased operation, such as the
ALAC facility. This revised MIR
supports our decision for major source
under both sections 112(f) and 112(d)(6)
of the CAA.
For the risk assessment, major sources
were subdivided into three cleaning
specializations-commercial, industrial
and leather. EPA collected site-specific
information from 10 of the 15 facilities
(9 surveys and 1 site visit) to develop a
cross-section of the three specializations
within the source category. Facilities
within each specialization tend to be
homogenous with respect to factors that
affect the emissions, pollutant
dispersion, and population size in the
modeling radius, allowing EPA to
extrapolate risks from the facilities it
modeled to those it did not.
The information EPA collected
included:
• Source locations and emission
points,
• Building dimensions,
• PCE consumption,
• Annual disposal of PCE in sludge or
residual waste (still bottoms),
• Annual facility operating hours,
and
• Locations of sensitive receptors,
including neighboring houses.
Based on these survey and site-visit
data, we estimated annual and hourly
emissions by performing a mass balance
calculation on PCE concentrations.
Using this mass balance data, we then
estimated annual average emission
rates. Finally, we estimated maximum
one-hour emissions by dividing the total
emissions level by the total number of
operational hours at that facility and
then accounting for hourly variation in
these emissions.
Comment: One commenter stated that
EPA should have informed the public
that two major sources recently ceased
operations.
Response: The largest major source
ceased operations in June 2005. One
other source ceased dry cleaning
operations and another source was
determined to have been an area source.
By the time we learned of the closures,
the proposed rule package was at the
later stages of senior-level Agency
review. Since proposal, we re-evaluated
the risk assessment without these
sources. The baseline estimate for MIR
eliminating the sources that ceased
operation ranges between 50 in-onemillion to 400 in-one-million. The MIR
at the level of control promulgated in
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
this final rule is between 20 in-onemillion and about 200 in-one-million.
2. Site Specific Risk Assessment
Comment: Two commenters
supported the concept of incorporating
a site-specific risk assessment (SSRA)
for both major and area sources. The
commenters believe that substantial
flexibility is needed to improve the costeffectiveness of the rules and to avoid
potentially adverse impacts on specific
sources. They believe that EPA has
published adequate guidance on
conducting an SSRA. The commenters
believe that the SSRA should be used
both to demonstrate equivalence to
specific emission reduction
requirements and to determine
applicability to the residual risk
requirements. The commenters believe
that the CAA allows EPA to focus the
applicability of the residual risk
requirements only on those sources
whose remaining risks after application
of MACT do not provide an ample
margin of safety (citing Senate Report
language to support their case).
Response: We have decided not to
adopt an SSRA option for major or area
sources as part of this action. As a result
of the revised risk analysis for major
source given the elimination of 3
sources from the analysis, including the
MIR facility, baseline risks from major
sources are much lower than estimated
for proposal, and the associated risk
reduction measures are less stringent
than originally proposed. Major sources
are required to perform enhanced
LDAR, which is expected to reduce MIR
from between 50 and 400 in a million,
to between 20 and 200 in a million,
which the Agency has determined meets
ample margin of safety considering cost,
population cancer risk at different
control levels and other factors.
Furthermore, an annual cost savings of
about $250,000 is estimated for major
sources from implementing enhanced
LDAR. Similarly, an annual cost savings
of about $2.7 million is estimated for
area sources from implementing
enhanced LDAR programs and
eliminating existing transfer machines.
We believe these requirements will be
cost-effective. Therefore, we have
determined that an option for major or
area sources to perform an SSRA is not
necessary.
For co-residential sources, we are
promulgating a ban on new sources and
a sunset date for existing sources. An
option for co-residential sources to
perform an SSRA to determine low risk
and avoid these requirements is not
feasible as part of this action. There is
no established protocol for self
assessment for co-residential sources
E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM
27JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 144 / Thursday, July 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
which would account for exposures
inside of co-located apartments.
Traditional methods of dispersion
modeling of emissions would not
accurately assess risks in this exposure
scenario, as no modeling methodology
exists that could determine dispersion
patterns throughout buildings. Also,
there may be practical difficulties for
these small businesses to pay for,
perform or obtain monitored samples of
PCE concentrations in private
residences, to be used as part of an
SSRA in the absence of a modeling
methodology. Therefore, an option for
an SSRA is not included in this action.
3. PCE Analyzer and Lockout
Comment: Six commenters
recommended that EPA require major
sources to install a PCE sensor and
lockout to further reduce health risk.
Among the six commenters, two
commenters suggested that if EPA
receives additional information they
should revisit the cost-effectiveness
analysis. Another commenter stated that
40 tons per year of PCE removed by this
control option at cost of $17,000 per ton
would be worthwhile. One commenter
stated that the sensor and lockout will
help to reduce the PCE emissions from
operator error, which is, along with
poorly maintained older machines, the
cause of the majority of emissions.
One commenter, a vendor of dry
cleaning machines, advised EPA to be
cautious regarding the use PCE
analyzers inside the drum because of
their high sensitivity to humidity, heat,
and vibration which necessitates
frequent recalibration. Another
commenter, a major source, noted that
a lockout system would increase cycle
times significantly thereby increasing
operating costs.
Response: Based on the revised risk
assessment for major sources post
proposal and the resulting cancer and
non-cancer risk estimates, we have
determined that the requirement for
enhanced LDAR in addition to the
existing requirements in the 1993
NESHAP are sufficient to protect public
health with an ample margin of safety.
We considered a variety of other factors
in making our determination, as
directed by the 1989 Benzene NESHAP
(described above). Consequently, we
believe that the additional costs of
further controls are not warranted.
We agree with the commenter about
the effect of operator error on emissions.
Because our estimated emission
reductions are based on subjective
estimates by industry experts of typical
performance over time, variations in
operations have been taken into account
in the emissions estimate. We also agree
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:51 Jul 26, 2006
Jkt 208001
with the comment about the potential
for unreliable readings from improperly
calibrated PCE analyzers. While PCE
analyzers are sometimes employed as
PCE sensors, PCE analyzers are typically
more advanced than sensors, as the
analyzers typically employ technologies
such as single-beam infrared
photometers, and tend to be more
sensitive instruments than those used as
sensors. We did not take into account
any additional costs associated with
performing periodic calibration tests. As
a result, the cost of the technology may
be more than what we estimated. Due to
the interlock, a high reading from a PCE
analyzer can unnecessarily prevent the
completion of a load. In a highthroughput operation, such increases in
cycle time can impose a considerable
decrease in production.
4. Economic Analysis
Comment: One major source
commenter stated that financial impacts
for his facility are much higher than
what EPA estimated. The commenter
contends that the Economic Impact
Analysis is based on underestimated
costs and revenue that is more than
double the company’s actual revenue.
The commenter also contends that his
company’s machines cannot be
retrofitted with a refrigerated condenser
and would need to be replaced, that the
cost to replace the machines has been
estimated by EPA to be $1.9 million,
that substantial lost revenue while
machines are under construction was
not considered, and that estimated
financing and permitting costs were also
not considered. This commenter
strenuously disagreed with the
conclusion of the Economic Impact
Analysis that no negative impact would
be incurred by major sources, and
contends that EPA used incorrect
revenue estimates. According to this
commenter, the requirements of the
proposed rule, if implemented within
90 days of promulgation, would result
in the closure of this facility and the
loss of 120 jobs in economically
desolate Detroit, Michigan.
Response: Our economic analysis of
the impacts associated with the
proposed level of control for major
sources from implementing the rule is
based on comparing the estimated
annualized compliance costs to the
estimated revenues for the parent firm.
The estimate for the rule is annualized
compliance costs of 0.4 percent of the
firm’s sales (or cost per sales hereafter).
This estimate is contingent on the
accuracy of the compliance costs and
the revenue estimate for the firm. Our
revenue estimate is from 2002 fiscal
year data collected for the firm. We
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
42733
collected this data for 2002 to be
consistent with the year for which the
costs are estimated. This is consistent
with how EPA has estimated economic
impacts in a variety of recent
rulemakings for residual risk and other
standards. Thus, the comment that the
revenue estimate is incorrect is not
accurate. If we were to recalculate the
compliance costs for this facility
assuming that all of their machines
would need to be replaced, then the cost
per sales will be 1.65 percent given the
annualized costs of about $240,000 for
the rule.
We have also adopted a 2-year
compliance schedule in the final rule.
This compliance schedule should
provide adequate time for this facility
fully implement requirements for
enhanced LDAR.
We have not concluded that there is
no negative economic impact on major
sources resulting from the final rule.
Rather, we have stated that there is not
a significant economic impact to a
substantial number of small entities (or
SISNOSE). The commenter’s facility is
not a small business according to the
SBA definition. While estimated cost
savings are expected for a number of
firms that are major dry cleaning
sources, some firms are likely to
experience some negative economic
impacts. The Agency does not believe
that such impacts are likely to be
unreasonable for the affected major
source-owning firms, however. This
statement is based on our impact
estimates that most of the affected major
source-owning firms have annualized
compliance cost to sales of less than 1
percent. These estimates can be found
in the economic impact analysis for this
final rule.
5. Performance-Based Standard for
Existing Major Sources
Comment: One commenter supported
incorporating a performance-based
standard for major sources in the final
rule. They believe a performance-based
standard provides an incentive for
sources to convert to safer alternatives
for some or all of the articles handled
by a source. Other commenters
supported the alternative compliance
option (facility-wide PCE usage or other
metrics) for existing major sources to
provide the maximum compliance
flexibility possible.
Response: We appreciate the
supportive comments regarding this
concept, however a performance-based
option has not been incorporated in the
rule in part because we did not receive
any indication from any of the major
sources to which this option would
have applied that they would have
E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM
27JYR2
42734
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 144 / Thursday, July 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
found it useful. None of the major
sources responded with comments
supporting the need for a performancebased option, which suggests to us that
their preferred compliance option
would be to meet the required
standards. Therefore, it is not necessary
for us to further pursue a performancebased option for this specific industry.
E. Area Sources
Most comments received about the
requirements for typical area sources
supported EPA’s proposed requirements
of banning transfer machines, requiring
existing facilities to implement an
enhanced LDAR program, and requiring
new sources to install a closed-loop dryto-dry machine with refrigerated
condenser and carbon adsorber. A few
commenters opposed the ban on transfer
machines based on the cost of the
machine replacement. We received a
few comments requesting more stringent
requirements. These commenters asked
EPA to require all typical area sources
to upgrade their machines with a
secondary carbon adsorber.
Based on our review of the advances
in technology since the 1993 rule, we
have determined that adopting the rule
revisions for area sources as proposed
satisfies the requirements of CAA
section 112(d)(6). The preponderance of
comments supported the proposed rule,
and we received very few negative
comments. Existing sources were
estimated to incur a cost savings
because both replacement of transfer
machines and enhanced LDAR will
reduce annual PCE consumption. The
reduction in annual PCE consumption
at the 200 businesses that would replace
transfer machines is more than
sufficient to offset the annualized cost of
the new equipment. In particular, we
believe most of the transfer machines
are at the end of their useful life and it
would be economically beneficial for
the facilities to replace the transfer
machines with dry-to-dry machines.
Thus, we believe the economic impacts
to the affected businesses and facilities
are negligible. Finally, these costs and
risk estimates do not consider the
impacts of future trends of declining
PCE usage. Therefore, consistent with
our analysis at proposal, we are not
requiring a secondary carbon adsorber
on existing area sources because the
emission and risk reduction would be
relatively minor and the costs would
impose unnecessary adverse economic
impacts on a number of small
businesses.
1. LDAR Program
Comment: One commenter believes
the proposed LDAR requirements are
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:51 Jul 26, 2006
Jkt 208001
not necessary, explaining that most
States now require the PCE dry cleaners
to inspect their equipment on a regular
basis and State inspectors make periodic
inspections.
Response: EPA disagrees. Most States
do not have requirements beyond the
1993 NESHAP and do not inspect dry
cleaners more than once every few
years. Sensory methods are ineffective
in identifying leaks early. Substantial
PCE emissions occur between the point
when failure begins and the leak can be
detected by sensory methods. An
instrument will enable earlier detection.
Comment: One commenter, a vendor
of dry cleaning equipment, disagreed
with the EPA’s conclusion that leaks are
the largest source of emissions. Leak
inspections are a waste of time because
serious leaks are repaired immediately
without need for an inspection. More
significant sources of emissions are:
1. Unloading incompletely-dried
garments.
2. Routine maintenance.
3. Cleaning distillation units.
4. Receipt of new PCE.
Response: Our analysis has shown
that the filling of PCE tanks is not a
significant source of emissions. We
agree that the first three sources named
can be significant if dry cleaning
systems are not operated properly.
Under the General Provisions of 40 CFR
63, all regulated sources have a general
duty to operate systems and control
devices according to good air pollution
control practices for minimizing
emissions. This requirement includes
following manufacturer’s specifications
for operation and maintenance of the
system. We have concluded that it is not
necessary at this time to specify in the
rule additional operating and
maintenance procedures. Leaks,
however, are an important source of
emissions, and controlling them is an
integral part of an effective pollution
prevention program. Leaks can be
detected and controlled at a reasonable
cost using an enhanced LDAR program.
In a study by the South Coast Air
Quality Management District, over half
of the dry cleaning machines tested had
leaky gaskets, which are replaceable
parts that can cause significant PCE
emissions. The enhanced LDAR
program requirement is expected to
result in earlier leak detection from
these types of emission points, and is
the best method to determine when
gaskets need replacing and when they
do not.
2. Banning PCE
Comment: Two commenters, a state
agency and a manufacturer of PCE
alternative solvent dry cleaning
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
machines, stated that EPA failed to
adequately assess the feasibility of
alternative solvents because the negative
impacts of alternative solvent
technologies were not sufficiently
considered. Any action that would
result in the ban of PCE at some or all
facilities requires the use of an
alternative solvent.
Response: We concur with the
commenter that each of the alternative
solvents that are currently available
have certain trade-offs or limitations
relative to PCE. Depending on the
system, these limitations may involve
cost, cleaning ability, ease of use,
applicability to certain fabrics, safety, or
others. No single alternative offers all of
the business advantages of PCE. Given
these factors and the current degree of
use of alternative solvents in the
industry, we did not consider it
appropriate to mandate the use of
alternative solvents as part of the CAA
section 112(d)(6) review, except in the
context of co-residential area source
settings as discussed below. For area
sources, the 1993 NESHAP was based
on the use of GACT. In our review of
this standard under CAA section
112(d)(6), we considered PCE emission
controls that are in widespread use by
the industry. We concluded that, based
on the current information before the
agency, we are not prepared to require
a ban of PCE at typical area sources (i.e.,
area sources other than co-residential)
under CAA section 112(d)(6). However,
we interpret CAA section 112(d)(6) as
allowing us to consider a broad range of
factors in determining what changes to
standards are ‘‘necessary,’’ after taking
into account developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies.
This interpretation is consistent with
those regarding other provisions of the
CAA that direct us to find the ‘‘best
balance’’ of emissions control, costs of
control, safety, and other factors. Such
factors may include whether sources’
emissions present different degrees of
risk. Due to the potential for high risks
posed by co-residential area source dry
cleaners, and in light of the availability
of non-PCE dry cleaning technologies in
the market, we determined that it is
necessary under CAA section 112(d)(6)
to treat this component of the area
source sector differently than we are
treating other area sources dry cleaners,
whose emissions present significantly
smaller risks.
3. Transfer Machines and Vented
Machines
Comment: One industry association
opposed the ban on transfer machines
because such a ban would result in a
significant economic impact to these
E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM
27JYR2
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 144 / Thursday, July 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
economically marginal businesses. To
require the replacement of transfer
machines in 90 days would result in the
closure of each of these small plants.
Response: The economic impact
analysis shows that there is an
economic impact on owners of transfer
machines from a ban on their operation,
but not a significant one. The results of
the analysis show impacts of
compliance costs of just under two
percent of sales. Given that these
transfer machines are all at least 13
years old due to the ban on new transfer
machines applied under the dry
cleaning NESHAP, these machines are
very likely close to or beyond their
expected equipment life of 15 years.
Thus, owners of these machines are
likely to consider replacing them in the
near future in any event without any
additional regulatory driver.
Comment: Two dry cleaners owning
transfer machines stated that transfer
machines should not be prohibited
because such a requirement would force
them to close because they cannot afford
a new machine. One of these
commenters stated he used the same
amount of PCE as dry cleaners using
third generation machines. The other
commenter requested that EPA phase
out transfer machines over 10 to 15
years and that EPA examine each dry
cleaner operating a transfer machine
individually.
Response: EPA’s cost and economic
impact analyses for this rule shows that
firms owning transfer machines will
have to pay $35,600 to purchase a new
dry cleaning machine with secondary
controls (refrigerated condenser and
carbon adsorber). The annualized
compliance costs are estimated at just
over one percent of the sales for an
average dry cleaning firm. We believe
these impacts are not significant overall,
but we recognize that individual firms,
especially small firms, may experience
greater impacts than the average. To
provide an adequate opportunity to
raise capital and in response to
comments, we are promulgating a
compliance period of two years, rather
than the 90 days that would have been
allowed under the proposal.
Comment: Two State representatives,
a vendor of dry cleaning equipment, and
an environmental group recommended
that EPA prohibit the use of vented
machines because their emissions are
considerably greater than closed-loop
machines. One commenter added that, if
a carbon adsorber for a vented machine
does not get frequent maintenance, its
emissions increase considerably. The
two State representatives said that their
states have already banned vented
machines without encountering
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:51 Jul 26, 2006
Jkt 208001
appreciable resistance from the dry
cleaning industry. One commenter
noted that according to EPA’s cost
estimates, dry cleaners replacing a
vented machine with a fourth
generation machine would reduce their
net cost because of reduced usage of
PCE. This commenter added that vented
machines are at the end of their useful
life.
Response: The final rule will not
prohibit the use of vented machines. We
have reviewed developments in
processes and control technology and
determined that an LDAR program will
be required on a monthly basis with a
leak detection instrument. These
requirements satisfy the requirements of
CAA section 112(d)(6). We did not find
any control technologies that could be
retrofitted at a reasonable cost on these
machines. We concluded that forced
replacement of these machines at
typical area sources is not warranted
given the costs and the relatively low
levels of emission and risk reduction
that would be achieved.
4. Co-Commercial Sources
Comment: One commenter, a State
representative, strongly disagreed with
the statement in the proposed rule
indicating that the existing NESHAP
level of control would result in an
acceptable level of risk for area sources
for co-commercial sources. The
commenter presented a summary of
results from complaint-based sampling
of facilities in strip malls that
demonstrate where PCE concentrations
ranged from 8 to 50,400 micrograms per
cubic meter (ug/m3), including a day
care facility with a mean concentration
of 2,100 ug/m3. Also, PCE
concentrations during the first hour of
operation are roughly four times the
average because vapor accumulates in
the drum of the machine overnight.
Response: While these measured
concentration results are high (relative
to what we would expect from the type
of dry cleaning equipment likely to be
in use at co-commercial sources), the
fact that they were measured as the
result of complaints may indicate that
the reason behind the elevated levels
may be lack of compliance with the
1993 NESHAP. This being the case, we
cannot confidently conclude that these
data as represent exposure levels that
reflect compliance with the NESHAP.
Therefore, we are choosing to not use
them to evaluate the success or failure
of the NESHAP level of control. In the
future, studies of PCE exposures should
be conducted to include a representative
sampling of facilities and indicate the
actual level of control being utilized and
achieved by each facility in question.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
42735
Comment: Several commenters
recommended additional controls
should be required at co-commercial
sources. A State representative
recommended the following
requirements for co-commercial sources:
1. Secondary carbon,
2. Vapor barriers,
3. Weekly leak inspections,
4. Annual third party inspections, and
5. Operator certification by an
approved training program.
Without these measures, the revised
NESHAP cannot achieve reductions in
PCE levels comparable to those
achieved by NYCRR Part 232.
Response: Additional information is
needed to accurately estimate exposures
and risks to individuals located next to
co-commercial sources (including, for
example, sources co-located with
schools and day care centers). Without
valid information that co-commercial
sources pose greater risks than typical
area sources, we are not prepared to
determine that the cost of additional
controls for co-commercial sources is
justified under CAA section 112(d)(6).
In their remarks, some commenters
quoted relatively high exposure
concentrations that are attributed to cocommercial sources. However, only one
study was referenced with the
comments. This study has not been peer
reviewed and has not had the
opportunity for public comment. The
study was completed on one cocommercial facility and without
documentation of the study, we cannot
analyze the methods of data collection,
the type of facilities sampled, the dry
cleaning systems used, or the conditions
under which the data were collected.
Accordingly, we do not know if these
reported measurements are valid or, if
so, whether these exposures are
representative of all co-commercial
facilities or only particular
configurations. In absence of these data,
we have no technical basis for requiring
additional control on these facilities.
Until more research is available on PCE
exposures at co-commercial sources, we
have determined to subject cocommercial sources to the same control
requirements as typical area sources that
are not collocated in the same buildings
with residences.
5. Economic Impacts
Comment: Two trade associations
stated that EPA has significantly
underestimated median revenue of dry
cleaners. According to the 2002
Economic Census, 87 percent of all dry
cleaning establishments had less
revenue than the median revenue used
by EPA. Further, one third of all dry
cleaners are so small that they have no
E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM
27JYR2
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
42736
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 144 / Thursday, July 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
payment to report and are not reflected
in census data.
Response: EPA’s economic analysis of
the impacts to affected dry cleaners is
based on comparing the estimated
annualized compliance costs to the
estimated revenues for the parent firm.
This estimate is contingent on the
accuracy of the compliance costs and
the revenue estimate for the firm. The
Agency chose to use the industry
revenue average for 1997 instead of the
data from the 2002 Census because it
was readily available to the model EPA
chose to employ for generating the
economic impact results at the time of
the analysis. The value used by EPA
from the Census reflects the average
revenue per firm and applying this
value is consistent with revenue
estimates used in economic impact
analyses that accompanied recent
agency rulemakings. This approach is
consistent with how EPA has estimated
economic impacts in a variety of recent
rulemakings for residual risk and other
standards. A review of average revenue
for firms in the dry cleaning industry
from the 2002 Economic Census showed
that this average revenue was 10 percent
higher than the value from the 1997
Economic Census. Hence, our economic
impact estimates will be lower using
average revenues per firm from the 2002
Census as compared to the revenues
used in the current economic impact
analysis.
The commenter’s point about the lack
of revenue data from many dry cleaners
that do not report payroll is a useful
point. Having such a lack of data means
some caution in applying Census
revenue data for these firms is
appropriate. However, collecting
revenue data from these firms or
estimating their revenues by some other
means is highly problematic and
impossible to incorporate in the current
economic impact analysis. The
commenter’s assertions of the ‘‘over
saturation of the industry with too many
plants’’ and that many ‘‘plants’’ are
having difficulty paying bills are ones
for which no data is provided. The
Agency’s current estimate of the number
of dry cleaning facilities is about 34,000.
This estimate is extremely close to the
estimate of 33,863 provided by the
Agency in its ‘‘Dry Cleaning Sector
Notebook Project’’ report published in
September 1995, which was before full
implementation of the dry cleaning
NESHAP took place. In addition, low
profit margins are typical for dry
cleaning operations; the ‘‘Dry Cleaning
Sector Notebooks Project’’ published by
the Agency over 10 years ago mentions
that ‘‘Commercial dry cleaning is not a
high profit business, and many dry
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:51 Jul 26, 2006
Jkt 208001
cleaners are barely able to stay in
business.’’ The fact that the number of
facilities in this industry are about the
same over a ten year periods leads to
skepticism as to whether the industry
was oversaturated at the current time
and whether firms in the industry are
having more difficulty staying in
business now than in the past.
F. Co-Residential Sources
Comment: We received several
hundred comments on the two proposed
options for co-residential sources.
Comments from the industry and one
mass-mailing campaign supported the
technology-based option for coresidential sources similar to the
technology requirements of New York’s
Part 232 regulations. Comments from
States, environmental groups, and
another mass-mailing campaign
supported the ban of PCE at coresidential facilities with either an
immediate ban or a phase-out over time.
These commenters wanted dry cleaners
to switch to alternative dry cleaning
solvents. Some commenters supported
the eventual phase-out of PCE and the
interim imposition of technology
requirements like New York’s Part 232
regulations for all existing co-residential
machines.
Response: Current technology
controls to reduce PCE emissions from
co-residential dry cleaning units—such
as those embodied in the NY Part 232
requirements—have been generally
effective in reducing exposures.
Nevertheless, empirical evidence
indicates that in certain cases PCE
exposures may remain relatively high.
We believe that further reductions are
warranted to reduce potential exposure
levels, but at the same time we believe
that more stringent requirements should
in part be based on considerations of
cost, technical feasibility, and the
availability of alternative technologies.
Therefore, we are requiring existing
sources to discontinue the use of PCE
machines no later than December 21,
2020. In addition, our consideration of
the relevant factors leads us to prohibit
additional PCE-using machines from
being installed.
We recognize that the industry has
made great strides in technology that
reduces PCE emissions since the 1993
NESHAP was established. If the
development of future technologies
produces one that is demonstrated to
adequately reduce PCE emissions and
related exposures to residents of
apartments co-located in buildings with
dry cleaners, we would consider
revisiting the necessity of the ban and
phase-out of PCE in co-residential
settings. Such a review could, for
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
example, occur in the next round of our
review of the developments in control
technologies, processes and practices
under section 112(d)(6) for this
NESHAP.
Some commenters suggest an
immediate elimination of PCE in coresidential settings and others suggested
phasing out PCE use over the natural
life of the equipment. An immediate ban
would impose significant adverse
impacts on owners and operators of
existing sources, as would a ban falling
within the three-year compliance
window we have traditionally allowed
for existing sources. For these small
businesses, which have substantial
investments in their current equipment,
we have concluded that it is appropriate
to allow them sufficient time to recover
the investment over the useful life of the
equipment and raise the needed capital
to fund alternative solvent systems.
The economic life of a PCE dry
cleaning system is typically 15 years.
One State commenter suggested that to
set a phase-out of existing sources based
on the purchase date of each machine
would be impracticable and a burden
for States to implement. This
commenter suggested picking a single
date by which all current systems would
need to be converted. Considering these
factors, the final rule establishes a date
15 years from the date of the proposed
rule, after which time all existing PCE
systems at co-residential sources are
prohibited. We selected this date since
it corresponds to the date when we first
publicly proposed the potential
requirements for PCE dry cleaners in coresidential settings. This amount of time
is necessary in order to phase out PCE
use in co-residential settings without
causing unacceptable adverse economic
impacts, which would be the result if
we imposed a 3-year compliance
deadline.
In addition, although it is unlikely
that any additional co-residential PCEusing sources came on-line between the
date of publication of the proposed rule
and the date the Administrator signed
the final rule (July 13, 2006), in this
rulemaking we are treating such sources
that commenced construction between
December 21, 2005, and July 13, 2006 (if
any exist), slightly differently than the
way we are treating either existing
sources discussed above or other new
sources (which are required to comply
with the PCE ban immediately upon
startup or the effective date of the final
rule, whichever is later). This is because
the requirements we have adopted in
the final rule for new co-residential
sources are more stringent than one of
the two options we proposed. Under
CAA section 112(i)(2)(A)–(B), these
E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM
27JYR2
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 144 / Thursday, July 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
uniquely situated new sources will also
be required to eliminate PCE use, but
not until three years after the effective
date of the final rule. In the interim,
they are required to comply with the
second option we proposed for new coresidential sources and use refrigerated
condensers and secondary carbon
adsorbers, with equipment housed
inside a vapor barrier with general
ventilation to the outside air, as
required by NYSDEC title 6 NYCRR Part
232 rules. These facilities will also have
to conduct weekly leak inspections
using a leak detection device such as a
halogenated hydrocarbon detector. To
require these sources, which may have
installed equipment compliant with
New York controls in reliance on our
co-proposal of that option, to dismantle
their PCE equipment immediately could
impose severe economic hardship for
these sources, contrary to the efforts we
have taken in the rest of the rulemaking
to avoid causing significant adverse
impacts on small businesses.
We anticipate that most existing
systems will be relocated to
nonresidential buildings or converted to
alternative solvents prior to this date,
given the range of ages of current coresidential sources. In the meantime,
existing co-residential sources must also
meet the additional control
requirements in the final rule revisions
for other area sources (i.e., eliminate
transfer machines and use enhanced
LDAR). We have decided not to impose
additional control requirements on
existing co-residential sources pending
the phase-out of PCE use, such as the
NYCRR Part 232 controls contained in
our second proposed option addressing
co-residential sources. While the
NYCRR Part 232 controls are currently
the most stringent technological
controls required in the U.S., there is
uncertainty about the precise effect of
the NYCRR Part 232 controls on risk.
Industry commenters claim that the
high risks are not representative, and
that dry cleaning systems using this
technology do not pose high risks.
Others point out that high risks
measured in New York buildings have
been assessed as being caused by poor
control equipment design, malfunctions
of control equipment, poor ventilation
designs, operator error, and other
unregulated activities. We do not
consider it necessary or appropriate to
impose the costs of the NYCRR Part 232
controls in the interim before PCE use
at co-residential sources is eliminated
entirely. Moreover, our economic
analysis indicates that imposing the
New York requirements on existing
sources elsewhere in the country,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:51 Jul 26, 2006
Jkt 208001
pending the PCE phase out, would
cause a significant adverse economic
impact on small businesses.
The health risks from co-residential
sources that we are concerned about are
from chronic exposures, not acute.
Thus, while short-term exposures from
some sources will not be immediately
reduced, this is not expected to result in
adverse health effects. Further, although
the full benefit of the ban (complete
removal of sources and their associated
risks from residential buildings) would
not be realized until year 15, we expect
that most sources would not wait until
the 15th year to retire their equipment
since many of these sources are nearing
the end of their useful lives. Thus, over
the next 15 years, the final rule will
systematically reduce exposures and
risks from current levels as old
equipment is retired and existing coresidential shops are either relocated or
converted to alternative solvents,
ultimately resulting in the elimination
of these chronic health risks.
About 80 percent of the co-residential
sources already have installed controls
similar to NYCRR Part 232 controls.
Imposing additional capital costs on the
approximately 250 remaining coresidential sources is not reasonable
given the significant costs of the
controls and the fact that even they
would be prohibited upon machine
replacement or the arrival of the sunset
date. For many of these shops, the
remaining useful life of the machine
would not allow full amortization of the
capital investment before the system
would have to be replaced. In addition,
it is not clear how much additional risk
protection would be achieved by the
controls and what would be the
significance of the emissions reduction,
which would be realized only over the
remaining useful life of each machine.
For shops with PCE equipment that
would be replaced within a few years,
the health benefits would be limited and
the capital costs would not be well
spent. Therefore, temporarily imposing
this control technology is not necessary
under section 112(d)(6).
1. Risk Assessment Data
Comment: Industry commenters
claimed that the New York City data
that EPA used to assess co-residential
exposures were biased and these
measured exposures are not
representative of typical exposure. The
sources of bias noted by the commenter
were that: Residences sampled were
selected based on complaints; sampled
facilities may not have been in full
compliance with NYCRR Part 232 rules;
some samples taken soon after
compliance with Part 232 and PCE
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
42737
would not have had time to dissipate to
routine levels characteristic of the
controls installed.
Response: The NYC study, as
described in McDermott (2005), states
that ‘‘indoor air perc levels in most
apartments in dry cleaner buildings
sampled were below, or only slightly
above, the NYSDOH residential air
guideline of 100 µg/m3. Higher levels
were found in dry cleaner buildings
located in low-income, minority
neighborhoods and in buildings
elsewhere that had been the subject of
a residential complaint. Since
successful completion of the NYC Perc
Project required that as many
apartments as possible with elevated
PCE levels be identified, the strategy for
identifying buildings for inclusion was
modified so that buildings located in
minority or low-income ZIP code areas
and those that had been the subject of
complaint were prioritized.’’ The article
goes on to state on that the sample
‘‘obtained is not truly a random sample
of all dry cleaners in the study area.
However, socioeconomic characteristics
of the census block groups where
sampled buildings are located reflect
socioeconomic characteristics of their
larger ZIP Code area, are equivalent to
census block groups where buildings
that were not sampled are located, and
are correlated with sampled household
self-reported socioeconomic
characteristics. Thus, conclusions
drawn with respect to sampled building
neighborhood characteristics and indoor
air PCE level are likely to be applicable
to other residential buildings matching
NYC Perc Project building inclusion
criteria (e.g., dry cleaner using PCE onsite; not other sources of VOC).’’
While the study authors believe that
their results are likely generalizable to
co-residential dry cleaners that meet
similar criteria with respect to
complaints and socioeconomic
characteristics, the results cannot be
generalized to all co-residential dry
cleaners in NYC or across the country.
We are not currently able to estimate the
extent to which this study provides
estimates that are biased. Nevertheless,
these empirical results provide a
representation of exposure levels that
exist in New York City (where the vast
majority of co-residential dry cleaners
are located) and adequately serve as one
basis for this rulemaking.
Our risk assessment has focused on
the exposures associated with dry
cleaning facilities that are in compliance
with the New York Part 232
requirements. We examined the
McDermott data, NYSDOH data, and
public comments. To identify the
compliant facilities, EPA ensured that
E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM
27JYR2
42738
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 144 / Thursday, July 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
the date by which the sample was taken
was after the date in which the facility
began operating a fourth generation dry
cleaning machine and had installed a
vapor barrier. While the sampling dates
are well documented, the compliance
records for certain dry cleaning facilities
are somewhat ambiguous; this is due to
some limitations in the compliance
records provided by NYSDOH. These
records are comprised of initial
notification letters that facilities have
submitted to the NYSDEC as well as
third-party inspection reports. EPA used
a combination of these data to assess
whether a particular facility was in or
out of compliance with NYCRR Part
232. The result of this evaluation was a
finding that 25 of the 65 sampled
apartments were in the 9 buildings with
potentially noncompliant dry cleaning
systems, while 40 of the apartments
were in the 14 buildings with compliant
dry cleaning systems, and these were
the values used to assess the risks
associated with well-controlled dry
cleaners. Nevertheless, we were unable
to definitively determine the
compliance status of one dry cleaner
that was associated with high exposure
level, as noted in the risk
characterization memorandum in the
docket. We believe that despite the
uncertainty about this particular dry
cleaner, our decision for the
requirements for co-residential dry
cleaners is warranted because it does
not hinge on the compliance status of
this particular facility.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
2. Part 232 Technology Requirements
Comment: Some commenters opposed
the use of Title 6 NYCRR Part 232
Technology Requirements for the final
rule requirements, because these
controls have not been effective in
reducing exposure in residences. In
addition this option would do nothing
to reduce current risks in New York,
where the majority of co-residential
facilities are located. These commenters
supported a ban of PCE because this is
the only way to protect the public with
an ample margin of safety. These
commenters suggested that a phase-out
of PCE should be accompanied by a
sunset provision for existing machines
or else co-residential dry cleaners would
have the incentive not to replace their
existing equipment. Rather, dry cleaners
would continue to use their old, highemitting equipment well beyond the
normal economic life, resulting in
continued high exposures to residences.
Response: We have concluded that,
based on available data, the NYCRR Part
232 controls have not been
demonstrated to be effective in
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:51 Jul 26, 2006
Jkt 208001
preventing significant exposures to PCE
in certain cases.
After reviewing technical
developments in the industry, available
public health risk information, and the
comments received, we have concluded
that the option that best satisfies the
requirements of CAA section 112(d)(6)
for existing co-residential area sources is
to phase out the use of PCE. In addition
to the potential for co-residential dry
cleaners to cause high individual cancer
risks (as fully discussed in the proposed
rule), we believe that the cancer
incidence estimates for these sources
also justifies the decision. Estimates of
cancer incidence are helpful in
characterizing cancer risks, because
such estimates account for the full range
of exposures that have been captured by
the monitoring and provide a metric of
the aggregate health impact taking into
account the number of people exposed
to varying levels of risk. Our estimate of
annual cancer incidence for the
approximately 1300 co-residential
sources currently in operation is in the
range of 0.2 to 2 cases per year, which
is on par with the estimated annual
incidence of 0.4 to 4 cases per year for
the approximately 27,000 other area
source cleaners. The near-parity of these
two estimates, notwithstanding the
much smaller number of co-residential
`
vis-a-vis other sources, suggests that coresidential sources pose a
disproportionate cancer incidence to
their residents. Further, this estimate of
total cancer incidence for the coresidential sources is at the high-end of
cancer incidence estimates that we have
generated for other source categories
reviewed by the residual risk program to
date.
As we have previously noted, these
cancer incidence estimates carry
significant uncertainties since they are
sensitive to assumptions regarding the
number of individuals exposed and the
level of exposure borne by residents of
un-monitored apartments. However,
when viewed in the context of the other
risk information and the availability of
alternative dry cleaning processes, we
believe that the incidence estimates
provide additional support for a
requirement for new installations at coresidential facilities to adopt a non-PCE
solvent.
We have determined that a phase out
that takes place too quickly would
impose significant adverse impacts on
dry cleaners. For these small businesses,
which have substantial investments in
their current equipment, it is
appropriate to allow them sufficient
time to recover the investment over the
useful life of the equipment and raise
the needed capital to fund alternative
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
solvent systems. The final rule
establishes a date 15 years from the date
of the proposed rule, after which time
all PCE systems at co-residential sources
are prohibited. We anticipate that most
systems will be relocated to
nonresidential buildings or converted to
alternative solvents prior to this date.
3. Economic Impact of PCE Phase-Out
Comment: Industry commenters
opposed the phase-out of new PCE
installations because it would cause a
significant effect on a substantial
number of small businesses. The
commenters said that the EPA
underestimated the costs of this option
because the EPA analysis overestimated
dry cleaner revenues, underestimated
the cost of hydrocarbon equipment,
underestimated the cost of meeting fire
codes, and used a 7 percent interest rate,
which is unrealistically low. In
addition, the commenters maintained
that any type of ban on PCE would send
a misleading signal that PCE is unsafe
and would cause landlords to not renew
leases of dry cleaners. This severe
economic impact was not accounted for
in EPA’s economic analysis.
Response: The estimates of impacts
provided in the Agency’s economic
analysis for the rule are in terms of
annualized compliance cost per
revenues for parent firms. It is not in
terms of compliance cost per profits as
asserted by the commenter. The
commenter states that the impact will be
a ‘‘substantial’’ increase in costs and a
decrease in profit margin far in excess
of the five percent impact on year-toyear profits accepted as a benchmark.
The benchmark of at least five percent
impact on year-to-year profits as a
benchmark for significant impacts is,
however, not a benchmark that the
Agency has recognized as such in the
recent past. The cost-to-sales calculation
provided in the economic impact
analysis has been an accepted approach
for indicating the potential economic
impacts to small and other businesses as
part of the process to determine the
degree of small business impacts
associated with a proposed rule.
We chose to use the industry revenue
average for 1997 instead of the data from
Census for 2002 because it was readily
available to the model we chose to
employ for generating the economic
impact results at the time of the
analysis. The value we used from the
Census does reflect the average revenue
per firm and applying this value is
consistent with revenue estimates used
in economic impact analyses that
accompanied recent Agency
rulemakings. A review of average
revenue for firms in the dry cleaning
E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM
27JYR2
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 144 / Thursday, July 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
industry from the 2002 Economic
Census showed that this average
revenue was 10 percent higher than the
value from the 1997 Economic Census.
Hence, our economic impact estimates
will be lower using average revenues
per firm from the 2002 Census as
compared to the values used in the
current economic impact analysis.
It should be noted that use of the
average revenue-per-firm estimate
suggested by the commenter of $204,000
in the Agency’s analysis would lead to
higher estimated impacts to small
businesses than calculated by EPA but
would not lead to any impacts above
three percent of sales, a benchmark
among others often considered as
significant in characterizing small
business impacts.
The incremental cost between a PCE
and a hydrocarbon machine is a
reasonable estimate of the cost of
eliminating PCE at a facility because, on
balance, the rule revisions will not
affect the economic life of a machine.
We assume that at the end of the
machine’s 15-year economic life, the
machine has no salvage value. Instead of
purchasing a PCE machine, the owner
incurs the incremental cost of
purchasing a hydrocarbon machine.
Some sources may be required by their
landlord to retire their PCE machine
before the end of its useful life; EPA
acknowledges that such premature
retirements may create a separate
additional burden on owners. Other
sources may choose to maintain their
machine beyond its normal economic
life. Because predicting these effects
would be very difficult, we assume that
these effects do not change our
assumption of a 15 year economic life
for these machines. A number of
commenters agreed with our estimate of
15 years for the economic life of these
machines.
Our cost estimate is a reasonable
appraisal of costs. Our estimate that 50
percent of facilities outside New York
that install hydrocarbon machines
would need a sprinkler system is similar
to the commenter’s estimate of 66
percent. The chart of fire code
geographic applicability provided by the
commenter is not a sure indicator of
whether a facility would need a
sprinkler system because machine
vendors are often able to obtain a caseby-case variance if they can demonstrate
fire protection features integral to the
machine. Regarding the cost per facility
outside of New York City, the cost in the
docket item cited by the commenter was
from a machine vendor. We used a
lower estimate provided by a sprinkler
contractor. Sprinkler system costs for
plants in New York City are particularly
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:51 Jul 26, 2006
Jkt 208001
difficult to estimate because of the fact
that actual costs are unavailable because
few if any systems have been built
because of their high cost. In addition,
by the time PCE machines in coresidential facilities need to be replaced,
between now and the sunset date in
2020, it is possible that a less
combustible solvent will be available,
and sprinkler systems not required for
plants that can no longer use PCE.
The use of 7 percent in annualizing
costs is consistent with the guidance of
OMB Circular A–94. Besides the quote
from Circular A–4 listed by the
commenter in footnote 56 on page 30,
the Circular also recommends that 7
percent be used for annualizing the
costs of regulatory analyses. As
mentioned in Circular A–4, ‘‘As a
default position, OMB Circular A–94
states that a real discount rate of 7
percent should be used as a base-case
for regulatory analysis. The 7 percent
rate is an estimate of the average beforetax rate of return to private capital in the
U.S. economy. It is a broad measure that
reflects the returns to real estate and
small business capital as well as
corporate capital. It approximates the
opportunity cost of capital, and it is the
appropriate discount rate whenever the
main effect of a regulation is to displace
or alter the use of capital in the private
sector. OMB revised Circular A–94 in
1992 after extensive internal review and
public comment. In a recent analysis,
OMB found that the average rate of
return to capital remains near the 7
percent rate estimated in 1992. Circular
A–94 also recommends using other
discount rates to show the sensitivity of
the estimates to the discount rate
assumption.’’ In addition to a 7 percent
discount rate, we have also analyzed
costs using a 3 percent discount rate,
consistent with the requirements of
Circular A–4.
4. Alternative Solvents
Comment: Some commenters opposed
the use of alternative solvents because
of the potential negative impacts. These
potential impacts include uncertainty
about the toxicity of cyclic siloxanes;
increased volatile organic compound
(VOC) emissions from hydrocarbons;
safety hazard of carbon dioxide (CO2);
large quantities of wastewater from wet
cleaners; and the fire hazard of
hydrocarbons and cyclic siloxanes (D5).
Response: We recognize that each of
the alternative processes has potential
drawbacks. However, with the variety of
choices of alternative systems that are
currently available, dry cleaners can
find a system that can work for their
individual circumstances. The potential
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
42739
concerns brought up by the commenters
are addressed below.
A dry cleaner that switches solvents
from PCE to a hydrocarbon solvent
would increase emissions of VOC,
because hydrocarbon solvents are
classified as a VOC and PCE is not.
Increased VOC emissions could result in
an increase in atmospheric ozone at
some locations, depending on the mix of
ozone precursors in the ambient air
locally. Any new hydrocarbon machines
would be subject to the new source
performance standard (NSPS) for
petroleum dry cleaners (40 CFR 60,
subpart JJJ). The NSPS limits VOC
emissions by requiring application of
the best demonstrated control
technology. The VOC emissions of a
hydrocarbon machine at an averagesized facility are approximately 0.2 tons
per year, which is a relatively small
quantity for non-HAP VOC. Given the
high risks posed by PCE in coresidential settings, we have concluded
that the public health benefit of using
alternative solvents, even if some of the
alternatives are ozone precursors,
supports elimination of PCE use in coresidential area sources (considering
developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies). In cases
where VOC emissions from hydrocarbon
machines would contribute significantly
to ozone formation, the responsible air
quality planning agency can require
additional emission controls for VOC, as
appropriate. Regarding HAP emissions,
although benzene was once a significant
component of Stoddard solvent
alternatives it is now present only in
trace amounts. We are unaware that any
of the other solvents currently used in
dry cleaning contain any of the CAA
listed HAP.
EPA is not currently in a position to
characterize the potential risks to
human health or the environment
associated with the use of
decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D5), an
odorless, colorless siloxane fluid, as a
dry cleaning solvent. In 2003, EPA
received from Dow Corning the
preliminary results of a two-year
chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity
study on D5 using rats. Preliminary
results suggest that female rats exposed
to the highest concentration of D5
exhibited a statistically significant
increase of uterine tumors. The final
results of the two-year study confirmed
the significant increase in uterine
tumors following exposure at the
highest concentration of D5, while no
significant increase in tumors was
observed at lower doses. EPA is in the
process of evaluating studies received
on the mode of action to help determine
whether a potential carcinogenic hazard
E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM
27JYR2
42740
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 144 / Thursday, July 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
is associated with D5. Subsequent
action may include external peer review
of data and a determination whether it
is appropriate to conduct a risk
assessment for D5. EPA has developed
a fact sheet describing its current state
of knowledge on D5 that is available on
the Garment and Textile Web site and
that can be used by industry to guide
decisions regarding the use of D5 in dry
cleaning.
Hydrocarbon solvents and cyclic
siloxanes can present a fire hazard
because of their combustibility.
However, hydrocarbon solvent dry
cleaning machines have a long history
of safety, as do cyclic siloxanes. We
know of no fires in this country from the
use of cyclic siloxanes or the synthetic
hydrocarbon solvents currently in use.
Dry cleaning machines that use these
solvents are designed with special safety
features, such as fireproof electrical
connections, nitrogen blanketing,
temperature controls to prevent
explosion, and others.
For CO2 systems, the commenters
were referring to possible hazards due to
the high pressure at which these
systems operate. However, we are
unaware of any safety-related accidents
regarding CO2 systems. The systems
currently in use are designed to
withstand the high pressures required.
The pressures at which these machines
operate are not extreme compared to
many other processes, and the
engineering to operate safely at these
pressures is well understood.
Wet cleaning systems are widely used
in the industry either to reduce PCE
consumption or as a replacement for
PCE dry cleaning. While wet cleaning
generates wastewater, we are not aware
of any health hazards from this waste.
We expect that waste generated by wet
cleaning systems will be significantly
less hazardous than waste from PCE
systems they replace.
G. Technical Corrections to the 1993 Dry
Cleaning NESHAP
Based on comments received, we have
made some technical corrections to the
NESHAP in addition to those proposed.
Many of these changes are needed to
update the rule to reflect advances in
PCE dry cleaning technology. Other
changes harmonize the revisions with
the existing NESHAP. The most
significant technical changes are listed
below. None of these changes affect the
stringency of the rule or increase
regulatory burden.
1. Additional Information Requested in
the Notice of Compliance Status Report
We have added a requirement to
indicate in the notice of compliance
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:51 Jul 26, 2006
Jkt 208001
report if the dry cleaning facility is a
major source or is located in a building
with a residence or a business. This onetime requirement will impose no
additional cost to the industry since the
notice of compliance report is already
required to be submitted.
2. Alternative Monitoring Requirement
We revised the monitoring
requirement for refrigerated condensers
to specify that owners and operators
must monitor the high and low pressure
of the refrigeration system, rather than
the exit temperature, in cases where the
system is equipped with pressure
gauges. The pressure readings of the
refrigeration system are the preferred
monitoring parameters since these
parameters are the most reliable
indicators that the condenser is
functioning properly during the drying
phase, which represents maximum load
conditions.
Virtually all machines have
instrumentation for measuring the high
and low pressures of the refrigeration
system and vendor specifications for the
pressure ranges that indicate proper
operation of the condenser. However,
for refrigeration systems that are not
equipped with pressure gauges, the rule
requires owners and operators to
monitor the temperature of the gasvapor outlet stream.
V. Impacts
A. Major Sources
The national capital cost of the final
rule for major sources is $30,000, with
an annual cost savings of about
$250,000. The capital costs for
individual facilities would range from
$0 to $3,300 with a median cost of
$3,300. Annualized costs would range
from a cost savings of $84,000,000 per
year to a cost of $1,319 per year. Most
facilities would recognize a cost savings
primarily from implementing the
enhanced LDAR program. Leak
detection and repair is a pollution
prevention approach where reduced
emissions translate into less PCE
consumption and reduced operating
costs because facilities would need to
purchase less PCE. The highest
maximum individual cancer risk are
estimated to be reduced from a range of
50-in-1 million (using OPPTS potency
values) to 400-in-1 million (using
CalEPA potency values) down to a range
of 20-in-1 million (using OPPTS
potency values) to 200-in-1 million
(using CalEPA potency values).
B. Area Sources
The final rule will reduce PCE
emissions by an estimated 5,700 tons
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
per year and will result in a net cost
savings.
The capital costs to implement these
requirements are $12 million. The
enhanced LDAR program would cost
about $5 million for an estimated 20,000
facilities to purchase a halogenated
hydrocarbon detector at a cost of $250
each. About 200 facilities would be
required to replace their existing
transfer machines with dry-to-dry
machines at a cost of about $36,000 each
for a total industry cost of $7.5 million.
Annually, we estimate a cost savings
to the industry of about $2.7 million per
year. This cost savings would be
realized because both replacement of
transfer machines and enhanced LDAR
will reduce annual PCE consumption.
The reduction in annual PCE
consumption at the 200 businesses that
would replace transfer machines is more
than sufficient to offset the annualized
cost of the new equipment. In
particular, most of the transfer machines
are beyond the end of their economic
life and it would be economically
beneficial for the facilities to replace the
transfer machines with dry-to-dry
machines. Thus, we conclude the
economic impacts to the affected
businesses and facilities are negligible.
C. Co-Residential Sources
By the fifteenth year, the final rule
will reduce PCE emissions from coresidential sources by an additional 317
tons/year. Cancer risks from all coresidential sources will be eliminated by
the fifteenth year.
The national capital costs for new coresidential sources are $63.4 million,
and the annualized costs are about $7.0
million in the fifteenth year. These cost
estimates reflect the incremental capital
and operating cost for 1,300 coresidential facilities to replace their PCE
machines with machines using
hydrocarbon solvent. The incremental
cost was estimated as the difference
between the costs of a new PCE machine
meeting the NESHAP and a new
machine using hydrocarbon solvents.
The operating cost includes the cost of
installing fire protection sprinklers in
jurisdictions that are estimated to
require sprinklers for hydrocarbon
machines. The cost will be lower at
facilities that already have sprinkler
systems in place, that choose a less
costly alternative garment cleaning
option utilizing non-combustible
solvents, or that choose to convert their
facility to a drop shop and conduct PCE
dry cleaning operations offsite.
An alternative calculation of the costs
to co-residential sources using a net
present value methodology shows that
these costs are $3.5 million per year at
E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM
27JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 144 / Thursday, July 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
a 7 percent interest rate and $3.9 million
per year at a 3 percent interest rate.
These cost estimates are derived from
the summing of the present value of the
costs from the co-residential phase-out
during the period over which the phaseout occurs, amortized over 15 years.
This estimate provides a measure of the
costs of the co-residential phase-out
over the time period in which the
phase-out takes place rather than an
estimate of the costs for the fifteenth
year.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), EPA must
determine whether the regulatory action
is ‘‘significant’’ and, therefore, subject to
OMB review and the requirements of
the Executive Order. The Executive
Order defines ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ as one that is likely to result in
a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more, or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive
Order 12866, OMB has determined that
it considers this final rule a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ within the meaning
of the Executive Order. The EPA has
submitted this action to OMB for
review. Changes made in response to
OMB suggestions or recommendations
will be documented in the public
record.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements in the final rule have been
submitted for approval to the OMB
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The Information
Collection Request (ICR) document
prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA
ICR number 1415.06 and OMB Control
Number 2060–0234.
The 2005 revisions to the Dry
Cleaning NESHAP contain
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:51 Jul 26, 2006
Jkt 208001
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements beyond the recordkeeping
and reporting requirements that were
promulgated on September 22, 1993.
Owners or operators will continue to
keep records and submit required
reports to EPA or the delegated State
regulatory authority. Notifications,
reports, and records are essential in
determining compliance and are
required, in general, of all sources
subject to the 1993 Dry Cleaning
NESHAP. Owners or operators subject
to the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP
continue to maintain records and retain
them for at least five years following the
date of such measurements, reports, and
records. Information collection
requirements that were promulgated on
September 22, 1993 in the Dry Cleaning
NESHAP prior to the 2005 proposed
amendments, as well the NESHAP
General Provisions (40 CFR part 63,
subpart A), which are mandatory for all
owners or operators subject to national
emission standards, are documented in
EPA ICR No. 1415.05.
The information collection
requirements described here are only
those notification, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements that are
contained in the 2005 revisions to the
Dry Cleaning NESHAP. To comply with
the 2005 revisions to the 1993 Dry
Cleaning NESHAP, owners or operators
of dry cleaning facilities read
instructions to determine how they are
affected. All sources will begin an
enhanced LDAR program that requires a
handheld portable monitor. Major
source facilities will purchase a PCE gas
analyzer and area sources will purchase
a halogenated hydrocarbon leak
detector. Owners and operators will
incur the capital/startup cost of
purchasing the monitors, plus ongoing
annual operation and maintenance
costs. The total capital/startup cost for
this ICR is $5,049,000. Annual operation
and maintenance cost are $552,825.
Owners and operators of major and
area sources conduct enhanced leak
detection and repair and keep monthly
records of enhanced leak detection and
repair events.
Approximately 28,000 existing area
sources and 12 existing major sources
are subject to the rule and are subject to
the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP. We
estimate that an average of 2,330 new
area sources per year will become
subject to the regulation in the next
three years, but that the overall number
of facilities will remain constant as the
new owners will take over old existing
facilities. No new major sources are
expected. The estimated annual labor
cost for major and area sources to
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
42741
comply with the 2005 rule is
approximately $3.9 million.
The recordkeeping and reporting
requirements are specifically authorized
by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414).
All information submitted to us
pursuant to the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements for which a
claim of confidentiality is made is
safeguarded according to our policies
set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
Burden means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons
to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose
or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop,
acquire, install, and utilize technology
and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing
and providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able
to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
For the purposes of assessing the
impacts of this final rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A
small business based on the following
Small Business Administration (SBA)
size standards, which are based on
annual sales receipts: NAICS 812310—
Coin-Operated Laundries and Dry
Cleaners—$6.0 million; NAICS
812320—Dry Cleaning and Laundry
Services (Except Coin-Operated)—$4.0
million; NAICS 812332—Industrial
Launderers—$12.0 million; (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a
E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM
27JYR2
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
42742
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 144 / Thursday, July 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
population of less than 50,000; and (3)
a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field. Under these
definitions, over 99 percent of
commercial dry cleaning firms are
small. For more information, refer to
https://www.sba.gov/size/
sizetable2002.html. The economic
impacts of the regulatory alternatives
were analyzed based on consumption of
PCE, but are described in terms of
comparing the compliance costs to dry
cleaning revenues at affected firms. In
addition, we used average revenues for
firms in the dry cleaning industry
instead of median revenues. This was
because the Census data source that we
utilized did not report medium
revenues for firms by industry. For more
detail, see the current Economic Impact
Analysis in the public docket.
After considering the economic
impacts of this final rule on small
entities, I certify that the final rule will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. This certification is based on
the economic impact of the final rule to
affected small entities in the entire PCE
dry cleaning source category and
considers the economic impact
associated with the options for coresidential facilities. Over 98 percent of
the approximately 20,000 small entities
directly regulated by the final rule,
including both major and area sources,
are expected to have costs of less than
one percent of sales. The cost impacts
for all regulated small entities range
from cost savings to less than 1.9
percent of sales. The small entities
directly regulated by the final rule are
dry cleaning businesses within the
NAICS codes 812310, 812320, and
812332. We have determined that all of
the major sources affected by the final
rule are owned by businesses within
NAICS 812332. The final rule is
expected to affect 11 ultimate parent
businesses that will be regulated as
major sources. Six of the parent
businesses are small according to the
SBA small business size standard. None
of the six firms has an annualized cost
of more than one percent of sales
associated with meeting the
requirements for major sources.
We have determined that virtually all
of the affected small businesses that
own area source dry cleaners are in
NAICS 812320. Small businesses
complying with the final area source
requirements are expected to have the
following impacts. Ninety-four percent
of the approximately 20,000 small
entities owning area sources directly
regulated by the final rule, are expected
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:51 Jul 26, 2006
Jkt 208001
to have costs of less than 0.9 percent of
sales. The one-time cost of $250 for
purchasing a halogenated hydrocarbon
detector is less than 0.10 percent of the
average annual revenues for dry
cleaning businesses in NAICS 812320,
and there are minimal annualized costs
associated with a detector’s use. Of the
nearly 200 small businesses that have to
replace their transfer machines (or one
percent of the total number of affected
small entities), most of these businesses
are expected to experience an annual
cost savings and the others are expected
to have compliance costs of less than 1.2
percent of sales. Of the remaining 1,000
affected small businesses (or 3.5 percent
of the total number of affected small
entities), all of which are owners of coresidential facilities, the compliance
costs based on the first option for coresidential area sources range from 0.9
to 1.9 percent of sales.
Cost impacts associated with the final
decision for major sources are presented
in section V.A of this preamble. These
impacts are also presented for area
sources in section V.B, and for coresidential sources in section V.C. These
impacts are detailed in the BID in the
public docket as memoranda five
through seven. For more information on
the small entity economic impacts
associated with the final decisions for
dry cleaners affected by the final rule,
please refer to the Economic Impact
Analysis in the public docket.
Although the final rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, we
nonetheless tried to reduce the impact
of the rule on small entities. When
developing the final standards, we took
special steps to ensure that the burdens
imposed on small entities were
minimal. We conducted several
meetings with industry trade
associations to discuss regulatory
options and the corresponding burden
on industry, such as recordkeeping and
reporting. In response to comments, we
revised the compliance period for major
and area sources from 90 days to two
years. Additionally, we added a
provision to the rule that allows
containers for separator water to be
uncovered while the containers are in
use.
Following publication of the final
rule, copies of the Federal Register
notice and, in some cases, background
documents, will be publicly available to
all industries, organizations, and trade
associations that have had input during
the regulation development, as well as
State and local agencies.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104–4, establishes requirements for
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on State, local,
and tribal governments and the private
sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,
EPA generally must prepare a written
statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules
with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may
result in expenditures to State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or to the private sector, of $100 million
or more in any one year. Before
promulgating an EPA rule for which a
written statement is needed, section 205
of the UMRA generally requires EPA to
identify and consider a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives and
adopt the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule. The provisions of section
205 do not apply when they are
inconsistent with applicable law.
Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to
adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least
burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final
rule an explanation why that alternative
was not adopted. Before EPA establishes
any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed
under section 203 of the UMRA a small
government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially
affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments
to have meaningful and timely input in
the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
We have determined that the final
rule does not contain a Federal mandate
that may result in expenditures of $100
million or more for State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
to the private sector in any 1 year. Thus,
the final rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of
the UMRA.
EPA has determined that the final rule
contains no regulatory requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments because it contains
no requirements that apply to such
governments or impose obligations
upon them. Therefore, the final rule is
not subject to section 203 of the UMRA.
E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM
27JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 144 / Thursday, July 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled
‘‘Federalism,’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999) requires EPA to develop an
accountable process to ensure
‘‘meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have
federalism implications’’ is defined in
the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.’’
The final rule does not have
federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132. None of the
affected dry cleaning facilities are
owned or operated by State or local
governments. Thus, Executive Order
13132 does not apply to the proposed
rule.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000) requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.’’ The final rule does not
have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal
governments, on the relationship
between the Federal government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.
No tribal governments own dry cleaning
facilities subject to the final standards
for dry cleaning facilities. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply
to the final rule.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:
(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically
significant’’ as defined under Executive
Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that
EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:51 Jul 26, 2006
Jkt 208001
the Agency must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of
the planned rule on children, and
explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency.
While these final rule amendments
are not subject to the Executive Order
because they are not economically
significant as defined in Executive
Order 12866, the Agency believes this
action represents reasonable further
efforts to mitigate risks to the general
public, including effects on children.
This conclusion is based on our
assessment of the imposed technological
controls that would reduce the PCE
impacts on human health associated
with exposures to dry cleaning
operations.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
The final rule is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ as defined in Executive
Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22,
2001) because it is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.
The final rule will have a negligible
impact on energy consumption because
less than one percent of the industry
will have to install additional emission
control equipment to comply. The cost
of energy distribution should not be
affected by the final rule at all since the
standards do not affect energy
distribution facilities. We also expect
that there would be no impact on the
import of foreign energy supplies, and
no other adverse outcomes are expected
to occur with regards to energy supplies.
Further, we have concluded that the
final rule is not likely to have any
significant adverse energy effects.
I. National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act
Section 12(d)of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–113,
12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs EPA
to use voluntary consensus standards
(VCS) in its regulatory activities unless
to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical.
VCS are technical standards (e.g.,
materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted
by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable VCS.
The final revisions to the 1993
NESHAP for PCE dry cleaners do not
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
42743
include requirements for technical
standards beyond what the NESHAP
requires. Therefore, the requirements of
the NTTAA do not apply to this action.
J. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. The EPA will
submit a report containing the final rule
amendment and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.
House of Representatives, and the
Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the final
rule amendment in the Federal Register.
The final rule amendment is not a
‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This final rule is effective on
July 27, 2006.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental Protection, Air
pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: July 13, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
For reasons stated in the preamble,
title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
I
PART 63—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart M—[Amended]
2. Section 63.320 is amended as
follows:
I a. By revising paragraph (b).
I b. By revising paragraph (c).
I c. By revising paragraph (d).
I d. By revising paragraph (e).
I
§ 63.320
Applicability.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) The compliance date for a new dry
cleaning system depends on the date
that construction or reconstruction
commences.
(1) Each dry cleaning system that
commences construction or
reconstruction on or after December 9,
1991 and before December 21, 2005,
shall be in compliance with the
provisions of this subpart except
§ 63.322(o) beginning on September 22,
E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM
27JYR2
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
42744
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 144 / Thursday, July 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
1993 or immediately upon startup,
whichever is later, except for dry
cleaning systems complying with
section 112(i)(2) of the Clean Air Act;
and shall be in compliance with the
provisions of § 63.322(o) beginning on
July 28, 2008, except as provided by
§ 63.6(b)(4), as applicable.
(2)(i) Each dry cleaning system that
commences construction or
reconstruction on or after December 21,
2005 shall be in compliance with the
provisions of this subpart, except
§ 63.322(o), immediately upon startup;
and shall be in compliance with the
provisions of § 63.322(o) beginning on
July 27, 2006 or immediately upon
startup, whichever is later.
(ii) Each dry cleaning system that
commences construction or
reconstruction on or after December 21,
2005, but before July 13, 2006, and is
located in a building with a residence,
shall be in compliance with the
provisions of this subpart, except
§ 63.322(o), immediately upon startup;
shall be in compliance with the
provisions of § 63.322(o)(5)(ii) beginning
on July 27, 2006; and shall be in
compliance with the provisions of
§ 63.322(o)(5)(i) beginning on July 27,
2009.
(3) Each dry cleaning system that
commences construction or
reconstruction on or after July 27, 2006,
shall be in compliance with the
provisions of this subpart, including
§ 63.322(o), immediately upon startup.
(c) Each dry cleaning system that
commenced construction or
reconstruction before December 9, 1991,
and each new transfer machine system
and its ancillary equipment that
commenced construction or
reconstruction on or after December 9,
1991 and before September 22, 1993,
shall comply with §§ 63.322(c), (d), (i),
(j), (k), (l), and (m); 63.323(d); and
63.324(a), (b), (d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3), (d)(4),
and (e) beginning on December 20,
1993, and shall comply with other
provisions of this subpart except
§ 63.322(o) by September 23, 1996; and
shall comply with § 63.322(o) by July
28, 2008.
(d) Each existing dry-to-dry machine
and its ancillary equipment located in a
dry cleaning facility that includes only
dry-to-dry machines, and each existing
transfer machine system and its
ancillary equipment, and each new
transfer machine system and its
ancillary equipment installed between
December 9, 1991 and September 22,
1993, as well as each existing dry-to-dry
machine and its ancillary equipment,
located in a dry cleaning facility that
includes both transfer machine
system(s) and dry-to-dry machine(s) is
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:51 Jul 26, 2006
Jkt 208001
exempt from §§ 63.322, 63.323, and
63.324, except §§ 63.322(c), (d), (i), (j),
(k), (l), (m), (o)(1), and (o)(4); 63.323(d);
and 63.324(a), (b), (d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3),
(d)(4), and (e) if the total PCE
consumption of the dry cleaning facility
is less than 530 liters (140 gallons) per
year. Consumption is determined
according to § 63.323(d).
(e) Each existing transfer machine
system and its ancillary equipment, and
each new transfer machine system and
its ancillary equipment installed
between December 9, 1991 and
September 22, 1993, located in a dry
cleaning facility that includes only
transfer machine system(s), is exempt
from §§ 63.322, 63.323, and 63.324,
except §§ 63.322(c), (d), (i), (j), (k), (l),
(m), (o)(1), and (o)(4), 63.323(d), and
63.324(a), (b), (d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3), (d)(4),
and (e) if the PCE consumption of the
dry cleaning facility is less than 760
liters (200 gallons) per year.
Consumption is determined according
to § 63.323(d).
*
*
*
*
*
I 3. Section 63.321 is amended by
revising the definition of Filter, and
adding in alphabetical order definitions
for Halogenated hydrocarbon detector,
PCE gas analyzer, Residence, Vapor
barrier enclosure, and Vapor leak to
read as follows:
§ 63.321
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Filter means a porous device through
which PCE is passed to remove
contaminants in suspension. Examples
include, but are not limited to, lint
filter, button trap, cartridge filter,
tubular filter, regenerative filter,
prefilter, polishing filter, and spin disc
filter.
Halogenated hydrocarbon detector
means a portable device capable of
detecting vapor concentrations of PCE of
25 parts per million by volume and
indicating a concentration of 25 parts
per million by volume or greater by
emitting an audible or visual signal that
varies as the concentration changes.
*
*
*
*
*
PCE gas analyzer means a flame
ionization detector, photoionization
detector, or infrared analyzer capable of
detecting vapor concentrations of PCE of
25 parts per million by volume.
*
*
*
*
*
Residence means any dwelling or
housing in which people reside
excluding short-term housing that is
occupied by the same person for a
period of less than 180 days (such as a
hotel room).
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Vapor barrier enclosure means a room
that encloses a dry cleaning system and
is constructed of vapor barrier material
that is impermeable to
perchloroethylene. The enclosure shall
be equipped with a ventilation system
that exhausts outside the building and
is completely separate from the
ventilation system for any other area of
the building. The exhaust system shall
be designed and operated to maintain
negative pressure and a ventilation rate
of at least one air change per five
minutes. The vapor barrier enclosure
shall be constructed of glass, plexiglass,
polyvinyl chloride, PVC sheet 22 mil
thick (0.022 in.), sheet metal, metal foil
face composite board, or other materials
that are impermeable to
perchloroethylene vapor. The enclosure
shall be constructed so that all joints
and seams are sealed except for inlet
make-up air and exhaust openings and
the entry door.
Vapor leak means a PCE vapor
concentration exceeding 25 parts per
million by volume (50 parts per million
by volume as methane) as indicated by
a halogenated hydrocarbon detector or
PCE gas analyzer.
*
*
*
*
*
I 4. Section 63.322 is amended as
follows:
I a. By revising paragraph (e)(3).
I b. By revising paragraph (j).
I c. By revising paragraph (k)
introductory text.
I d. By revising paragraph (k)(11).
I e. By revising paragraph (m).
I f. By adding paragraph (o).
§ 63.322
Standards.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(3) Shall prevent air drawn into the
dry cleaning machine when the door of
the machine is open from passing
through the refrigerated condenser.
*
*
*
*
*
(j) The owner or operator of an
affected facility shall store all PCE and
wastes that contain PCE in solvent tanks
or solvent containers with no
perceptible leaks. The exception to this
requirement is that containers for
separator water may be uncovered, as
necessary, for proper operation of the
machine and still.
(k) The owner or operator of a dry
cleaning system shall inspect the system
weekly for perceptible leaks while the
dry cleaning system is operating.
Inspection with a halogenated
hydrocarbon detector or PCE gas
analyzer also fulfills the requirement for
inspection for perceptible leaks. The
following components shall be
inspected:
*
*
*
*
*
E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM
27JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 144 / Thursday, July 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
(11) All Filter housings.
*
*
*
*
(m) The owner or operator of a dry
cleaning system shall repair all leaks
detected under paragraph (k) or (o)(1) of
this section within 24 hours. If repair
parts must be ordered, either a written
or verbal order for those parts shall be
initiated within 2 working days of
detecting such a leak. Such repair parts
shall be installed within 5 working days
after receipt.
*
*
*
*
*
(o) Additional requirements:
(1) The owner or operator of a dry
cleaning system shall inspect the
components listed in paragraph (k) of
this section for vapor leaks monthly
while the component is in operation.
(i) Area sources shall conduct the
inspections using a halogenated
hydrocarbon detector or PCE gas
analyzer that is operated according to
the manufacturer’s instructions. The
operator shall place the probe inlet at
the surface of each component interface
where leakage could occur and move it
slowly along the interface periphery.
(ii) Major sources shall conduct the
inspections using a PCE gas analyzer
operated according to EPA Method 21.
(iii) Any inspection conducted
according to this paragraph shall satisfy
the requirements to conduct an
inspection for perceptible leaks under
§ 63.322(k) or (l) of this subpart.
(2) The owner or operator of each dry
cleaning system installed after
December 21, 2005, at an area source
shall route the air-PCE gas-vapor stream
contained within each dry cleaning
machine through a refrigerated
condenser and pass the air-PCE gasvapor stream from inside the dry
cleaning machine drum through a nonvented carbon adsorber or equivalent
control device immediately before the
door of the dry cleaning machine is
opened. The carbon adsorber must be
desorbed in accordance with
manufacturer’s instructions.
(3) The owner or operator of any dry
cleaning system shall eliminate any
emission of PCE during the transfer of
articles between the washer and the
dryer(s) or reclaimer(s).
(4) The owner or operator shall
eliminate any emission of PCE from any
dry cleaning system that is installed
(including relocation of a used machine)
after December 21, 2005, and that is
located in a building with a residence.
(5)(i) After December 21, 2020, the
owner or operator shall eliminate any
emission of PCE from any dry cleaning
system that is located in a building with
a residence.
(ii) Sources demonstrating
compliance under Section
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
*
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:51 Jul 26, 2006
Jkt 208001
63.320(b)(2)(ii) shall comply with
paragraph (o)(5)(ii)(A) through (C), in
addition to the other applicable
requirements of this section:
(A) Operate the dry cleaning system
inside a vapor barrier enclosure. The
exhaust system for the enclosure shall
be operated at all times that the dry
cleaning system is in operation and
during maintenance. The entry door to
the enclosure may be open only when
a person is entering or exiting the
enclosure.
(B) Route the air-perchloroethylene
gas-vapor stream contained within each
dry cleaning machine through a
refrigerated condenser and pass the airperchloroethylene gas-vapor stream
from inside the dry cleaning drum
through a carbon adsorber or equivalent
control device immediately before the
door of the dry cleaning machine is
opened. The carbon adsorber must be
desorbed in accordance with
manufacturer’s instructions.
(C) Inspect the machine components
listed in paragraph (k) of this section for
vapor leaks weekly while the
component is in operation. These
inspections shall be conducted using a
halogenated hydrocarbon detector or
PCE gas analyzer that is operated
according to the manufacturer’s
instructions. The operator shall place
the probe inlet at the surface of each
component interface where leakage
could occur and move it slowly along
the interface periphery.
I 5. Section 63.323 is amended as
follows:
I a. By revising paragraph (a)(1).
I b. By revising paragraphs (b)
introductory text, (b)(1), and (b)(2).
I c. By revising paragraph (c).
§ 63.323
Test methods and monitoring.
(a) * * *
(1) The owner or operator shall
monitor the following parameters, as
applicable, on a weekly basis:
(i) The refrigeration system high
pressure and low pressure during the
drying phase to determine if they are in
the range specified in the
manufacturer’s operating instructions.
(ii) If the machine is not equipped
with refrigeration system pressure
gauges, the temperature of the airperchloroethylene gas-vapor stream on
the outlet side of the refrigerated
condenser on a dry-to-dry machine,
dryer, or reclaimer with a temperature
sensor to determine if it is equal to or
less than 7.2 °C (45 °F) before the end
of the cool-down or drying cycle while
the gas-vapor stream is flowing through
the condenser. The temperature sensor
shall be used according to the
manufacturer’s instructions and shall be
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
42745
designed to measure a temperature of
7.2 °C (45 °F) to an accuracy of ±1.1 °C
(±2 °F).
*
*
*
*
*
(b) When a carbon adsorber is used to
comply with § 63.322(a)(2) or exhaust is
passed through a carbon adsorber
immediately upon machine door
opening to comply with § 63.322(b)(3)
or § 63.322(o)(2), the owner or operator
shall measure the concentration of PCE
in the exhaust of the carbon adsorber
weekly with a colorimetric detector tube
or PCE gas analyzer. The measurement
shall be taken while the dry cleaning
machine is venting to that carbon
adsorber at the end of the last dry
cleaning cycle prior to desorption of
that carbon adsorber or removal of the
activated carbon to determine that the
PCE concentration in the exhaust is
equal to or less than 100 parts per
million by volume. The owner or
operator shall:
(1) Use a colorimetric detector tube or
PCE gas analyzer designed to measure a
concentration of 100 parts per million
by volume of PCE in air to an accuracy
of 25 parts per million by volume; and
(2) Use the colorimetric detector tube
or PCE gas analyzer according to the
manufacturer’s instructions; and
*
*
*
*
*
(c) If the air-PCE gas vapor stream is
passed through a carbon adsorber prior
to machine door opening to comply
with § 63.322(b)(3) or § 63.322(o)(2), the
owner or operator of an affected facility
shall measure the concentration of PCE
in the dry cleaning machine drum at the
end of the dry cleaning cycle weekly
with a colorimetric detector tube or PCE
gas analyzer to determine that the PCE
concentration is equal to or less than
300 parts per million by volume. The
owner or operator shall:
(1) Use a colorimetric detector tube or
PCE gas analyzer designed to measure a
concentration of 300 parts per million
by volume of PCE in air to an accuracy
of ±75 parts per million by volume; and
(2) Use the colorimetric detector tube
or PCE gas analyzer according to the
manufacturer’s instructions; and
(3) Conduct the weekly monitoring by
inserting the colorimetric detector or
PCE gas analyzer tube into the open
space above the articles at the rear of the
dry cleaning machine drum
immediately upon opening the dry
cleaning machine door.
*
*
*
*
*
I 6. Section 63.324 is amended as
follows:
I a. By revising paragraphs (d)(3), (d)(5),
and (d)(6).
I b. By adding paragraph (f).
E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM
27JYR2
42746
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 144 / Thursday, July 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
§ 63.324 Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(3) The dates when the dry cleaning
system components are inspected for
leaks, as specified in § 63.322(k), (l), or
(o)(1), and the name or location of dry
cleaning system components where
leaks are detected;
*
*
*
*
*
(5) The date and temperature sensor
monitoring results, as specified in
§ 63.323 if a refrigerated condenser is
used to comply with § 63.322(a), (b), or
(o); and
(6) The date and monitoring results,
as specified in § 63.323, if a carbon
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
*
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:51 Jul 26, 2006
Jkt 208001
adsorber is used to comply with
§ 63.322(a)(2), (b)(3), or (o)(2).
*
*
*
*
*
(f) Each owner or operator of a dry
cleaning facility shall submit to the
Administrator or delegated State
authority by registered mail on or before
July 28, 2008 a notification of
compliance status providing the
following information and signed by a
responsible official who shall certify its
accuracy:
(1) The name and address of the
owner or operator;
(2) The address (that is, physical
location) of the dry cleaning facility;
(3) If they are located in a building
with a residence(s), even if the
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
residence is vacant at the time of this
notification;
(4) If they are located in a building
with no other tenants, leased space, or
owner occupants;
(5) Whether they are a major or area
source;
(6) The yearly PCE solvent
consumption based upon the yearly
solvent consumption calculated
according to § 63.323(d);
(7) Whether or not they are in
compliance with each applicable
requirement of § 63.322; and
(8) All information contained in the
statement is accurate and true.
[FR Doc. 06–6447 Filed 7–26–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM
27JYR2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 144 (Thursday, July 27, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42724-42746]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6447]
[[Page 42723]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Perchloroethylene Air Emission Standards for Dry Cleaning
Facilities; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 144 / Thursday, July 27, 2006 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 42724]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155; FRL-8200-2]
RIN 2060-AK18
National Perchloroethylene Air Emission Standards for Dry
Cleaning Facilities
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is promulgating revised standards to limit emissions of
perchloroethylene (PCE) from existing and new dry cleaning facilities.
On September 22, 1993, EPA promulgated technology-based emission
standards to control emissions of PCE from dry cleaning facilities. EPA
has reviewed these standards and is promulgating revisions to take into
account new developments in production practices, processes, and
control technologies. In addition, EPA has evaluated the remaining risk
to public health and the environment following implementation of the
technology-based rule and is promulgating more stringent standards for
major sources in order to protect public health with an ample margin of
safety. The final standards are expected to provide further reductions
of PCE beyond the 1993 national emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants (NESHAP), based on application of equipment and work
practice standards and, in certain situations, disallowing the use of
PCE at dry cleaning facilities. In addition, EPA is taking this
opportunity to make some technical corrections to the 1993 Dry Cleaning
NESHAP.
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective July 27, 2006.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155. All documents in the docket are listed on the
www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available (e.g., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute). Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will
be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155, EPA West Building, Room B-102, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is
(202) 566-1742.
At this time, the EPA/DC's Public Reading Room is closed until
further notice due to flooding. Fax numbers for Docket offices in the
EPA/DC are temporarily unavailable. EPA visitors are required to show
photographic identification and sign the EPA visitor log. After
processing through the X-ray and magnetometer machines, visitors will
be given an EPA/DC badge that must be visible at all times.
Informational updates will be provided via the EPA Web site at
https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm as they are available.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about the final rule
amendments, contact Mr. Warren Johnson, EPA, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Natural
Resources and Commerce Group (E143-03), Research Triangle Park, NC
27711; telephone number (919) 541-5124; fax number (919) 541-3470; e-
mail address: johnson.warren@epa.gov. For questions on the residual
risk analysis, contact Mr. Neal Fann, EPA, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division, Air
Benefits Cost Group (C439-02), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711;
telephone number (919) 541-0209; fax number (919) 541-0839; e-mail
address: fann.neal@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. Categories and entities
potentially regulated by the final rule are industrial and commercial
PCE dry cleaners. The final rule affects the following categories of
sources:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS \1\ Examples of potentially
Category code regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coin-operated Laundries and Dry 812310 Dry-to-dry machines
Cleaners. Transfer machines.
Dry Cleaning and Laundry Services 812320 Dry-to-dry machines
(except coin-operated). Transfer machines.
Industrial Launderers............. 812332 Dry-to-dry machines
Transfer machines.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by the
final rule. To determine whether your facility is regulated by the
final rule, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR
63.320 of subpart M (1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP). If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of the final rule to a particular
entity, contact the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Docket. The docket number for the National PCE Air Emission
Standards for Dry Cleaning Facilities (40 CFR part 63, subpart M) is
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155.
Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of the final rule is also available on the WWW.
Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of the final rule will
be posted on EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN) policy and
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at https://
www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology
exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA), judicial review of the final rule is available only by filing a
petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit by September 25, 2006. Under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B),
only an objection to the final rule that was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during
judicial review. Moreover, under CAA section 307(b)(2), the
requirements established by this final action may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to
enforce these requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``only an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also
provides a mechanism for EPA to convene a proceeding for
reconsideration, ``if the person raising the objection can demonstrate
to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise such an objection [within
the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection
arose after the period for
[[Page 42725]]
public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and
if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.''
Any person seeking to make such a demonstration to the EPA should
submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the
Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the
person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section, and the Director of the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office
of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC 20004.
Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:
I. Background
A. What Is the Statutory Authority for Regulating Hazardous Air
Pollutants?
B. What Are PCE Dry Cleaning Facilities?
C. What Are the Health Effects of PCE?
D. What Does the 1993 NESHAP Require?
II. Summary of the Proposed Rule
A. What Were the Proposed Requirements for Major Sources?
B. What Were the Proposed Requirements for Area Sources?
C. What Were the Proposed Requirements for Transfer Machines at
Major and Area Sources?
III. Summary of the Final Rule
A. What Are the Requirements for Major Sources?
B. What Are the Requirements for Area Sources?
C. What Are the Requirements for Transfer Machines at Existing
Major and Area Sources?
D. What Are the Requirements for Co-residential Sources?
IV. Responses to Significant Comments
A. Statutory Authority
B. Methods Used for the Risk Assessment
C. Compliance Dates
D. Control Requirements for Major Sources
E. Area Sources
F. Co-Residential Sources
G. Technical Corrections to the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP
V. Impacts
A. Major Sources
B. Area Sources
C. Co-Residential Sources
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
J. Congressional Review Act
I. Background
A. What Is the Statutory Authority for Regulating Hazardous Air
Pollutants?
Section 112 of the CAA requires us to regulate hazardous air
pollutants (HAP) emitted by categories of stationary sources. For
``major'' sources of HAP, the CAA directs us to first establish
technology-based standards reflecting maximum achievable control
technology (``MACT''), and to second establish residual risk standards
if such standards are required in order to provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health or prevent an adverse environmental
effect. For non-major ``area'' sources of HAP, the CAA allows us to
establish standards reflecting generally available control technology
(``GACT''), in lieu of MACT and residual risk standards. The HAP we
must regulate are listed at CAA section 112(b). The types of
technology-based standards we must promulgate differ based on whether
the regulated sources are ``major'' sources or ``area'' sources. Under
CAA section 112(a)(1), major sources are those that emit or have the
potential to emit 10 tons per year or more of any HAP or 25 tons per
year or more of any combination of HAP, including fugitive emissions.
Section 112(a)(2) of the CAA provides that area sources are all other
non-major stationary sources of HAP. For major sources, our initial
technology-based standards must reflect maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) as set forth in CAA sections 112(d)(2)-(3). For area
sources, we may set less stringent standards based on generally
available control technology (GACT) under CAA section 112(d)(5). For
both MACT and GACT, CAA section 112(h) allows us to establish design,
equipment, work practice, or operational standards where we determine
it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard.
Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires us to determine for each
category of major sources regulated under CAA section 112(d) whether
the MACT standard protects public health with an ample margin of
safety, eight years after we promulgate MACT for that source category.
Section 112(f)(5) of the CAA provides that we are not required to
conduct this review for categories of area sources regulated by GACT
standards. If the MACT standards for HAP classified as a known,
probable, or possible human carcinogen do not reduce lifetime excess
cancer risks to the individual most exposed to emissions from a source
in the category or subcategory to less than 1-in-1 million, we must
promulgate ``residual risk'' standards under CAA section 112(f) for the
source category (or subcategory) as necessary to protect public health
with an ample margin of safety. We must also adopt more stringent
standards if required to prevent an ``adverse environmental effect'' as
defined in CAA section 112(a)(7), after considering costs, energy,
safety, and other relevant factors.
We are also required by CAA section 112(d)(6) to periodically
review all standards we promulgate under CAA section 112 and to revise
them as necessary, taking into account developments in practices,
processes and control technologies. The first such review must occur
eight years after we promulgate MACT and GACT standards, and can be
combined with the residual risk review performed under CAA section
112(f)(2). The section CAA 112(d)(6) review is thereafter to be
repeated no less frequently than every eight years.
B. What Are PCE Dry Cleaning Facilities?
Most dry cleaners use PCE in a dry cleaning machine to clean all
types of garments, including clothes, gloves, leather garments,
blankets, and absorbent materials. There are approximately 34,000 dry
cleaning facilities in the United States, approximately 28,000 of which
use PCE. Of the 28,000 PCE-using dry cleaners, 12 of the facilities are
major sources and the remainder are area sources. As defined in the
1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP, major source PCE dry cleaners are those that
purchase more than 2,100 gallons (gal) of PCE per year (1,800 gal per
year if the facility uses transfer machines). In the 1993 Dry Cleaning
NESHAP, area sources were defined as either large or small, with large
area sources defined as facilities that use between 140 to 2,100 gal of
PCE per year (or 140 to 1,800 gal per year if the facility uses
transfer machines) and small area sources defined as those facilities
using less than 140 gal per year. Some area sources are located in the
same buildings where people live. In the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP we
did not specifically discuss these sources, but in this notice we refer
to them as co-residential dry cleaners. A co-residential dry cleaning
facility is located in a building in which people reside. Co-
residential facilities are located primarily in urban areas.
[[Page 42726]]
In general, PCE dry cleaning facilities can be classified into
three types: Commercial, industrial, and leather. Commercial facilities
typically clean household items such as suits, dresses, coats, pants,
comforters, curtains, and formal wear. Industrial dry cleaners clean
heavily-stained articles such as work gloves, uniforms, mechanics'
overalls, mops, and shop rags. Leather cleaners mostly clean household
leather products like jackets and other leather clothing. The 12 major
sources include seven industrial facilities and five commercial
facilities. The commercial facilities are each the central plant for a
chain of retail storefronts. We do not expect any new PCE dry cleaning
facilities constructed in the future to be major sources. Based on the
emission rates of current PCE dry cleaning machines and the typical
business models used in the industrial and commercial dry cleaning
sectors, it is unlikely that any new sources that are constructed will
emit PCE at major source levels, or that any existing area sources will
become major sources due to business growth.
PCE dry cleaning machines can be classified into two types:
Transfer and dry-to-dry. Similar to residential washing machines and
dryers, transfer machines have a unit for washing/extracting and
another unit for drying. Following the wash cycle, PCE containing
articles are manually transferred from the washer/extractor to the
dryer. The transfer of wet fabrics is the predominant source of PCE
emissions in these systems. Dry-to-dry machines wash, extract, and dry
the articles in the same drum in a single machine, so the articles
enter and exit the machine dry. Because the transfer step is
eliminated, dry-to-dry machines have much lower emissions than transfer
machines.
New transfer machines are effectively prohibited at major and area
sources due to the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP requirement that new dry
cleaning systems eliminate any emissions of PCE while transferring
articles from the washer to the dryer. Therefore, transfer machines are
no longer sold. Existing transfer machines are becoming an increasingly
smaller segment of the dry cleaning population as these machines reach
the end of their useful lives and are replaced by dry-to-dry machines.
There are approximately 200 transfer machines currently being used, all
at area sources.
The primary sources of PCE emissions from dry-to-dry machines are
the drying cycle and fugitive emissions from the dry cleaning equipment
(including equipment used to recycle PCE and dispose of PCE containing
waste). Machines are designed to be either vented or non-vented during
the drying cycle. Approximately 200 dry cleaners (1 percent) use vented
machines, and the remaining facilities use the lower-polluting, non-
vented machines. (For both major and area sources, the 1993 Dry
Cleaning NESHAP prohibits new dry cleaning machines that vent to the
atmosphere while the dry cleaning drum is rotating.) In vented
machines, the majority of emissions from the drying cycle are vented
outside the building. In non-vented machines, dryer emissions are
released when the door is opened to remove garments. Currently, the
largest sources of emissions from dry cleaning are from equipment
leaks, which come from leaking valves and seals, and the loading and
unloading of garments.
C. What Are the Health Effects of PCE?
The main effects of PCE in humans are neurological, liver, and
kidney damage following acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term)
inhalation exposure. The results of epidemiological studies evaluating
the relative risk of cancer associated with PCE exposure have been
mixed; some studies reported an increased incidence of a variety of
tumors, while other studies did not report any carcinogenic effects.
Animal studies have reported an increased incidence of liver cancer in
mice, via inhalation and gavage (experimentally placing the chemical in
the stomach), and kidney and mononuclear cell leukemia in rats.
Although PCE has not yet been reassessed under the Agency's
recently revised Guidelines for Cancer Risk assessment, it was
considered in one review by the EPA's Science Advisory Board to be
intermediate between a ``probable'' and ``possible'' human carcinogen
(Group B/C) when assessed under the previous 1986 Guidelines. Since
that time, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has
concluded that PCE is ``reasonably anticipated to be a human
carcinogen,'' and the International Agency for Research on Cancer has
concluded that PCE is ``probably carcinogenic to humans.''
Effects other than cancer associated with long-term inhalation of
PCE in worker or animal studies include neurotoxicity, liver and kidney
damage, and, at higher levels, developmental effects. To characterize
noncancer hazard in lieu of the completed Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS) assessment, which is being revised, we used the Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry's (ATSDR) Minimum Risk Level
(MRL). This value is based on a study of neurological effects in
workers in dry cleaning shops, and is derived in a manner similar to
EPA's method for derivation of reference concentrations, including
scientific and public review.
The Agency's IRIS chemical assessment for PCE is currently being
revised. A final IRIS determination on PCE is not expected until 2008.
Because EPA has not yet issued a final IRIS document for PCE, to
estimate cancer risk, we used the California EPA (CalEPA) unit risk
estimate (URE) as well as a URE value developed by the EPA's Office of
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxics (OPPTS) in 1998. The final IRIS
reassessment may result in a URE that is different than these two
values. Among the available Acute Reference Levels (ARL), the one-hour
California Reference Exposure Level (REL) was considered the most
appropriate to use in the assessment because it may be used to
characterize acute risk for exposure an exposure duration of one hour.
In contrast, the ATSDR acute MRL is appropriate to characterize acute
risk for up to 14 days of exposure.
See the risk characterization memorandum in the public docket for
additional information regarding the health effects of PCE.
D. What Does the 1993 NESHAP Require?
The 1993 NESHAP prescribes a combination of equipment, work
practices, and operational requirements. The requirements for process
controls are summarized in table 1 of this preamble. The 1993 Dry
Cleaning NESHAP defines major and area sources based on the annual PCE
purchases for all machines at a facility. The consumption criterion
(which affects the amount of PCE purchased) varies depending on whether
the facility has dry-to-dry machines only, transfer machines only, or a
combination of both. The affected source is each individual dry
cleaning system. Consequently, under the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP, a
single dry cleaning facility could be comprised of multiple affected
sources, if it has multiple dry cleaning systems onsite. As a result,
some of a facility's systems could be subject to ``new'' source
requirements under the NESHAP, and some could be ``existing'' sources,
depending upon when they were placed into service.
[[Page 42727]]
Table 1.--Summary of the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP Process Controls
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New \1\ (installed
Sources Annual PCE purchased after 12/9/91) Existing \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Sources....................... Dry-to-dry only......... Closed-loop, dry-to-dry Dry-to-dry machines:
> 2,100 gal/yr.......... machines with a Must have refrigerated
Transfer only........... refrigerated condenser.\3\
>1,800 gal/yr........... condenser, and carbon Transfer machines: Must
Dry-to-dry and Transfer. adsorber operated be enclosed in a room
> 1,800 gal/yr.......... immediately before or exhausting to a
as the door is opened. dedicated carbon
adsorber.
Large Area Sources.................. Dry-to-dry only 140 to Closed-loop, dry-to-dry Dry-to-dry machines:
2,100 gal/yr. machines with a Must have a
Transfer only 200 to refrigerated refrigerated condenser
1,800 gal/yr. condenser.. \3\
Dry-to-dry and Transfer Transfer machines: No
140 to 1,800 gal/yr. controls required.
Small Area Sources.................. Dry-to-dry ONLY......... Same as large area No controls required.
< 140 gal/yr............ sources.
Transfer ONLY...........
< 200 gal/yr............
Dry-to-dry AND Transfer.
< 140 gal/yr............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No new transfer machines are allowed after 9/23/93.
\2\ Compliance date = 9/23/96.
\3\ Alternatively, carbon adsorber is allowed only if installed before 9/22/93.
In addition, all sources must comply with certain operating
requirements, including recording PCE purchases, storing PCE and PCE-
containing waste in non-leaking containers, and inspecting for
perceptible leaks. Owners or operators are required to operate and
maintain the control equipment according to procedures specified in the
1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP and to use pollution prevention procedures,
such as good operation and maintenance, for both dry cleaning machines
and auxiliary equipment (such as filter, muck cookers, stills, and
solvent tanks) to prevent liquid and vapor leaks of PCE from these
sources.
II. Summary of the Proposed Rule
A. What Were the Proposed Requirements for Major Sources?
Under the proposal, the requirements for all new and existing major
sources were the same. The proposed requirements included the
implementation of an enhanced leak detection and repair (LDAR) program
and the use of dry-to-dry machines that do not vent to the atmosphere
(closed-loop) during any phase of the dry cleaning cycle. A
refrigerated condenser and a secondary carbon adsorber were proposed
for all machines.
Under the proposed enhanced LDAR program, the facility owner or
operator would be required to use a PCE gas analyzer (photoionization
detector, flame ionization detector, or infrared analyzer) and perform
leak checks according to EPA Method 21 on a monthly basis. The facility
owner or operator would also continue the weekly perceptible leak check
according to the requirements of the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP.
B. What Were the Proposed Requirements for Area Sources?
For existing area sources (large and small), the proposed
requirements included implementation of an enhanced LDAR program and a
prohibition on the use of existing transfer machines. For new area
sources (large and small), the proposed requirements included
implementation of an enhanced LDAR program and use of a non-vented dry-
to-dry machine with a refrigerated condenser and secondary carbon
adsorber.
The enhanced LDAR program for area sources would require facilities
to use a halogenated leak detector (instead of a more costly gas
analyzer proposed for major sources) to perform leak checks on a
monthly basis. The facility would also continue to inspect for
perceptible leaks biweekly for small area sources and weekly for large
area sources according to the requirements of the 1993 Dry Cleaning
NESHAP.
For co-residential area sources, we proposed two options. The first
option would effectively prohibit new PCE sources from locating in
residential buildings by requiring that owners or operators eliminate
PCE emissions from the dry cleaning process. Existing co-residential
sources, under this proposed option, would be subject to the same
requirements proposed for all other existing area sources (i.e.,
enhanced LDAR and elimination of transfer machines). Instead of a
prohibition on new co-residential sources, the second option would
require that existing and new co-residential sources comply with
standards based on those required by New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) in their Title 6 New York
Conservation Rules and Regulations (NYCRR) Part 232 rules, which
include using machines equipped with refrigerated condensers and carbon
adsorbers, enclosed in a vapor barrier to help prevent exposures to PCE
emissions.
C. What Were the Proposed Requirements for Transfer Machines at Major
and Area Sources?
The proposed rule included a prohibition on the use of all existing
transfer machines 90 days after publication of the final rule by
requiring owners or operators to eliminate any PCE emissions from
clothing transfer between the washer and dryer. The installation of new
transfer machines was prohibited by the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP.
III. Summary of the Final Rule
A. What are the Requirements for Major Sources?
Under the final rule revisions, the requirements for all new and
existing major sources are the same. In addition to the previous 1993
NESHAP requirements, the final revisions require the implementation of
an enhanced LDAR program. Under the enhanced LDAR program, the facility
owner or operator must use a PCE gas analyzer (photoionization
detector, flame ionization detector, or infrared analyzer) and perform
leak checks according to EPA Method 21 on a monthly basis. The facility
owner or operator is also required to continue the weekly perceptible
leak check according to the
[[Page 42728]]
requirements of the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP.
B. What Are the Requirements for Area Sources?
For existing area sources (large and small), in addition to the
previous 1993 NESHAP requirements, the final rule revisions require
implementation of an enhanced LDAR program and prohibit the use of
existing transfer machines. This requirement and prohibition apply to
all types of existing area sources, including co-residential sources
(for the remaining time in which the latter are permitted to use PCE at
all).
For new area sources (large and small), the final rule revisions
add to the previous 1993 NESHAP by requiring implementation of an
enhanced LDAR program and use of a non-vented dry-to-dry machine with a
refrigerated condenser and secondary carbon adsorber. These added
requirements do not apply to new co-residential sources since these
sources are prohibited from using PCE, as discussed later in this
notice. The enhanced LDAR program for new and existing area sources
requires facilities to use a halogenated leak detector (instead of a
more costly gas analyzer for major sources) to perform leak checks on a
monthly basis. The facility is also required to continue to inspect for
perceptible leaks biweekly for small area sources and weekly for large
area sources according to the requirements of the 1993 Dry Cleaning
NESHAP.
C. What Are the Requirements for Transfer Machines at Existing Major
and Area Sources?
The final rule prohibits the use of all existing transfer machines
two years from the effective date of the final rule by requiring owners
or operators to eliminate any PCE emissions from clothing transfer
between the washer and dryer. The installation of new transfer machines
was prohibited by the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP. We estimate that about
200 transfer machines remain in use within the population of 28,000 PCE
dry cleaning sources. Most of these machines are near the end of their
useful economic lives. The typical useful life of a dry cleaning
machine is 10 to 15 years. By the end of 2008, the newest transfer
machines in the industry will be 15 years old.
D. What Are the Requirements for Co-residential Sources?
For co-residential area sources, the final rule effectively
prohibits new PCE machines in residential buildings by requiring that
owners or operators eliminate PCE emissions from dry cleaning systems
that are installed after December 21, 2005. This requirement applies to
any newly installed dry cleaning system that is located in a building
with a residence, regardless of whether the dry cleaning system is a
newly fabricated system or one that is relocated from another facility.
In addition, the final rule revisions include a ``sunset date'' for the
use of PCE at currently operating co-residential sources: All existing
PCE machines in co-residential facilities are prohibited after December
21, 2020. This sunset date allows owners of existing co-residential
sources to operate their machines for their maximum estimated useful
life, 15 years, assuming they were first installed no later than the
date of the proposed rule. We have concluded that it is reasonable to
establish the sunset date at that point to allow such owners to recoup
the cost of their investment in their current machines. We also decided
not to allow for a later sunset date since on the date of our proposal
owners were first placed on notice that we were considering a sunset
provision for co-residential sources. This sunset period, during which
existing machines will be required to comply with the same revised
requirements that apply to other existing area sources, will provide
adequate time for source owners and operators to switch to non-PCE
equipment or move their PCE equipment to a non-residential location. In
the interim before the sunset date, existing co-residential sources are
subject to the same requirements that apply to all other existing area
sources under the final rule revisions (i.e., enhanced LDAR and
elimination of transfer machines).
IV. Responses to Significant Comments
A. Statutory Authority
Comment: Two commenters questioned whether we have the legal
authority to impose risk-based standards on area sources that are
regulated under GACT. The commenters quoted sections of the
Congressional Record (appropriate sections were attached to the
comments) concerning this point and provided analysis to demonstrate a
legislative intent to exempt area sources, specifically, dry cleaners
from residual risk standards.
Response: While we do not concede that the commenter's
interpretation of our authority under section 112(f) to impose risk
based standards on area sources regulated under GACT is correct, we
note that since we are not relying upon CAA section 112(f) as the
authority for any of the requirements promulgated in this action for
area sources, the commenters' arguments are moot for purposes of this
final rulemaking.
Under CAA section 112(d)(6), we are required to conduct a review
and, if appropriate, revise the dry cleaning standard as necessary to
reflect advances in practices, processes, and control technologies. At
proposal, we evaluated the emission reductions that could be achieved
under CAA section 112(d)(6). After assessing advances in control
technologies and considering the public comments, we have determined
that, given the current knowledge of the health effects of PCE,
additional requirements we proposed under the combined authorities of
CAA sections 112(f)(2) and (d)(6) for area sources are equally
supportable under CAA section 112(d)(6) alone. In light of public
comments we received regarding possible risks posed by area sources,
and EPA's pending IRIS review of PCE, we have determined that we are
able to address the risks posed by area sources by revising our
standards under the authority of section 112(d)(6). The standards for
all area sources in this final rule are promulgated under the authority
of CAA section 112(d)(6), and fulfill the Agency's statutory
requirements under this authority for these sources.
The Agency's Office of Research and Development is currently re-
evaluating the available information on human health effects of PCE as
part of a hazard and dose-response assessment for the Agency's IRIS,
which may result in revised metrics which are different enough from
those used in our current assessment to warrant a re-assessment of
risks from these sources. The project schedule for completion of the
IRIS assessment is available at https://cfpub.epa.gov/iristrac/
index.cfm. Also, additional information is needed to accurately
estimate chronic and short-term exposures and risks to individuals
located next to area sources other than co-residential (e.g., sources
co-located with schools and day care centers). While we received some
information on measured PCE concentrations at such area sources in
public comments, much of these data were collected based on complaints
and may not be representative of PCE exposures from sources in
compliance with the relevant regulations. EPA is aware of other data
collected to support a peer-reviewed article; however, these data
represent a very limited number of samples and sampling locations. As
the results of the Agency's final PCE health assessment and additional
scientifically peer
[[Page 42729]]
reviewed data become available, we may choose to further assess PCE
risks and may re-evaluate our decision for area sources.
B. Methods Used for the Risk Assessment
Comment: A commenter requested that EPA account for any uncertainty
in the ATSDR MRL and the OPPTS provisional Reference Concentration
(RfC) by providing a greater margin of (public) safety when selecting a
dose-response value for PCE. Two commenters requested EPA to use the
New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) non-cancer reference
value. Many commenters questioned the use of the CalEPA and OPPTS URE
in the absence of the revised IRIS re-assessment number. Several
hundred commenters, using a form letter, questioned the carcinogenicity
of PCE and referenced a Nordic study.
Response: The ATSDR MRL and the OPPTS provisional RfC, both based
on 1992 occupational studies indicating effects at essentially
identical exposure levels, are within a factor of two of each other,
which, given the precision of the underlying data, is not a large
difference. Additionally, a recent document by the World Health
Organization (World Health Organization. 2006. Concise International
Chemical Assessment Document 68.TETRACHLOROETHENE Wissenchaftliche
Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, Stuttgart, Germany, available on-line at
https://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/cicad/cicad68.pdf) included the
derivation of a noncancer value termed a ``tolerable concentration''
which falls intermediate between the OPPTS provisional RfC and the
ATSDR MRL. With regard to addressing uncertainty in the underlying
database, both the ATSDR and OPPTS values (and the WHO value) were
derived using similar approaches which rely on the inclusion of
uncertainty factors to account for recognized uncertainties in the
extrapolations from the experimental data conditions to an estimate
appropriate to the assumed human scenario. The method employed by
NYSDOH to derive their criterion differs from that employed by ATSDR,
which is consistent with EPA methodology.
As the Agency has not yet completed its own cancer assessment for
PCE, we have evaluated PCE cancer risk based on consideration of both
the CalEPA and OPPTS cancer dose-response assessments, as well as more
recently available data. Data are available from the Japanese
Industrial Safety Association (1993) for rodent cancer bioassays by
inhalation, which were not considered in either the CalEPA or OPPTS
assessments. These data were considered in a recent WHO document, which
presented a range of inhalation cancer unit risk estimates derived
using the various available data sets and default methods for
extrapolation to humans. The highest unit risk estimate derived from
these data was quite similar to the CalEPA estimate, while the lowest
was about an order of magnitude lower, similar to the OPPTS URE. While
the Nordic study did not find an association between PCE exposures of
the study population and cancer risk, this study needs to be thoroughly
evaluated in the context of all epidemiological studies to determine
whether or not it will change the weight of evidence evaluation. The
EPA IRIS reassessment will include consideration of this study as well.
Since the last EPA assessment of PCE carcinogenicity, the United States
Department of Health and Human Services has concluded that PCE is
``reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen'' and the
International Agency for Research on Cancer has concluded that PCE is
``probably carcinogenic to humans.''
C. Compliance Dates
1. Two Years for Existing Sources
Comment: Most of the comments received on compliance dates for the
regulation were in favor of extending the date to more than 90 days.
Some commenters asked for a one year extension, while others asked that
the date be extended to three years. The commenters cited references in
the CAA that stated that CAA section 112(i)(3)(A) governs the
compliance times for CAA section 112, including residual risk
standards, and that compliance is required as expeditiously as
possible, but in no event later than three years from the effective
date of the standard. The commenters added that CAA section 112(f)(4)
merely states that EPA may not set a compliance date earlier than 90
days. The commenters believe that the CAA section 112(f)(4)(b)
provision for waivers of up to two years would apply only in cases
where the rule established a compliance date of more than 90 days but
less than two years.
Another commenter, a State representative, recommended that the
compliance deadline for area sources that need to purchase new machines
should be extended to one year, because State agencies need time to
conduct outreach. States do not have lists of area source dry cleaners
and will need to collect this information during facility inspections.
Response: As we have recently explained in another rulemaking, the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Organic
Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry; Proposed Rule, published on June 14, 2006 (71
FR 34422), we have since revisited our prior view regarding which CAA
provisions govern compliance dates for residual risk rules. We hereby
incorporate that discussion by reference. In response to the
commenters, we are adopting different compliance deadlines for the
existing source requirements than we proposed. We interpret CAA section
112(i) as providing the comprehensive framework for compliance
deadlines for all rules adopted under CAA section 112, even where the
provisions of CAA section 112(f)(4) may appear to conflict with those
of CAA section 112(i).
As explained in the proposed residual risk rule for the HON source
category, for new sources, CAA section 112(i)(1) requires that after
the effective date of any standard under subsections (d), (f) or (h),
no new source may be constructed or reconstructed except in compliance
with the standard, as determined by EPA or the applicable permitting
authority under title V of the CAA. A new source, under CAA section
112(a)(4), is any stationary source that commences construction or
reconstruction after EPA proposes regulations applicable to the source
category under CAA section 112. Sections 112(e)(10) and (f)(3) of the
CAA provide that CAA section 112(d)(6) and residual risk standards,
respectively, become effective immediately upon promulgation. This
means generally that a new source that is constructed after a proposed
rule is issued must comply with the final standard, when promulgated,
immediately upon the rule's effective date or upon startup, which ever
occurs later.
Sections 112(i)(7) and 112(i)(2)(A)-(B) of the CAA provide some
exceptions to this general rule. The former provision essentially
ensures that new sources that are built in compliance with MACT but
before a residual risk rule is proposed will not be forced to undergo
modifications to comply with a residual risk rule unreasonably early.
The second set of provisions essentially treats new sources as if they
are existing sources, where a final standard is more stringent than its
proposed version and a source constructs after proposal but before
final promulgation: Such sources have three years to comply with the
final standard,
[[Page 42730]]
provided they comply with the standard as proposed in the meantime.
For existing sources, CAA section 112(i)(3) allows EPA to set
compliance deadlines of up to three years for ``any emission standard,
limitation or regulation promulgated under this section.'' This up-to-
3-year compliance period matches the 3-year period provided under CAA
section 112(i)(2), which potentially applies to any standard issued
under CAA sections 112(d), (f) or (h). There is also an exception to
the 3-year deadline for existing sources: CAA section 112(i)(3)(B)
allows EPA or a State title V permitting authority to issue a permit
granting an existing source an additional year to comply with standards
under subsection (d), if it is necessary for the installation of
controls. We believe that this reference to only subsection (d) was
accidental on Congress's part and presents a conflict with the rest of
the statutory scheme Congress enacted in 1990 to govern compliance
deadlines under CAA section 112.
In addition to adding section 112(i) in the 1990 CAA Amendments,
the amended CAA section 112 included provisions in section 112(f) left
over from the previous version of CAA section 112 that in several ways
differ from those in CAA section 112(i). First, CAA section 112(f)(4)
includes a requirement that new sources comply immediately with CAA
section 112(f) final rules, which is redundant with CAA section 112(i).
This provision also fails to account for the allowable exceptions to
the immediate compliance requirement in CAA section 112(i) and fails to
refer to the new title V implementation mechanism added in the 1990 CAA
Amendments. In light of the overall statutory scheme regarding
compliance deadlines for new sources reflected in CAA section 112(i),
we believe that where those provisions conflict with the provisions of
CAA section 112(f)(4), the most reasonable approach is to view CAA
section 112(i) as controlling.
In addition, for existing sources, CAA section 112(f)(4)(A) imposes
a 90-day compliance deadline following promulgation of residual risk
rules. Section 112(f)(4)(B) of the CAA then states that EPA, without
reference to a title V permitting authority, may grant a waiver for up
to two years if such period is necessary for the installation of
controls. Both of these provisions conflict with CAA section 112(i).
The 90-day deadline conflicts with the up-to-3-year deadline available
for existing sources under ``any'' rule adopted under CAA section 112
and has the result of imposing a shorter deadline on existing sources
than may apply for new sources under CAA section 112(i)(2). The CAA
section 112(f)(4)(B) waiver provision also fails to rely upon the new
title V implementation mechanism, even though, of course, residual risk
rules are required to be reflected in title V permits to the same
extent as MACT rules to which CAA section 112(i)(3) clearly applies.
Notwithstanding CAA section 112(i)(3)(B)'s limited reference to
standards adopted under subsection (d), we interpret CAA section
112(i)(3) as applying to ``any'' standards promulgated under CAA
section 112, including those under CAA section 112(f), since CAA
section 112(i)(3)(A) uses the term ``any'' without limitation.
Moreover, it is clear that Congress intended the CAA section 112(i)
provisions applicable to new sources to govern compliance under CAA
section 112(f) standards, notwithstanding the language of CAA section
112(f)(4), based on their explicit reference to such standards. Reading
CAA section 112(i)(3)(B) as reaching only subsection (d) standards,
conversely, with CAA section 112(f)(4)(B) governing subsection (f)
standards, would leave unanswered the question of which provision
applies to subsection (h) standards, which may also require the
installation of controls. A narrow reading of the scope of CAA section
112(i)(3) would also ignore the fact that in many cases, including this
rule, the enabling authority will be both CAA sections 112(f)(2) and
112(d)(6). We conclude that the only reasonable way to avoid a conflict
in the provisions addressing compliance deadlines for existing sources
in these situations is to read the more specific and comprehensive set
of provisions in CAA section 112(i) as govern both the CAA section
112(d) and CAA section 112(f) aspects of the regulation.
In our proposed rule, we asked for comments on the issue of whether
a 90-day compliance deadline was sufficient for our proposed
elimination of transfer machines. In response to this, and in response
to our proposed deadlines for other requirements for existing sources,
we received significant comments on this compliance deadline issue
generally. Therefore, we believe that our approach promulgated in this
action is a logical outgrowth of our proposed rule. In anticipation of
an objection claiming that our resolution of the conflict between CAA
sections 112(i) and 112(f)(4) was not adequately noticed in our
proposal, we note that the same 2-year compliance deadline we are
adopting for existing sources in the final rule is also fully supported
under an alternative interpretation that CAA section 112(f)(4)(A)-(B)
controls. This is because CAA section 112(f)(4) would allow us to grant
a 2-year extension of the compliance deadline for existing sources, on
top of the 90-day compliance deadline otherwise required. Since we find
that the 2-year total compliance deadline is necessary for the
installation of controls at existing dry cleaners that would have to
replace transfer machines with equipment compliant with new source
standards (as further discussed below), and as the total 2-year
compliance deadline falls within the 2-year plus 90-day period that
would be allowed under CAA section 112(f)(4)(A)-(B), the final rule
deadline is within the permissible range of CAA section 112(f)(4), if
it applies. In addition, since we explicitly asked for comment on the
90-day deadline proposed under CAA section 112(f)(4) for eliminating
transfer machines and received substantial comments on this issue and
on the compliance deadline issue in general, our final decision, to the
extent it must rely on the authority of CAA section 112(f)(4), is also
a logical outgrowth of our proposal.
We agree with the commenters that existing sources will need more
than 90 days to fully implement the requirements of the rule. Existing
area sources will require up to two years to comply with the revised
standards. Approximately 200 facilities will need to replace their
transfer machines with dry-to-dry machines. These facilities generally
are small proprietorships that will need a sufficient amount of time to
save the money to purchase new machines. Also, due to the large number
of area sources in the U.S., time is needed for outreach to inform
these facilities about the rule changes. Moreover, there could be a
supply shortage if 28,000 area sources were required to obtain a leak
detection instruments within 90 days of promulgation. Similarly, major
sources will need additional time to obtain leak detection equipment
and fully implement enhanced LDAR requirements.
2. Clarification of New Source Requirements
Comment: One commenter requested clarification on whether the
proposed revisions for new sources apply to those constructed after the
proposal date of the original NESHAP or of the date of the current
proposal.
Response: The revised requirements for new sources apply only to
new dry cleaning machines that are constructed or reconstructed after
December 21,
[[Page 42731]]
2005. Under the general provisions, a new source is any affected source
that commences construction or reconstruction after the date that a
relevant emission standard is proposed in the Federal Register.
Therefore, new dry cleaning machines build after the proposal date of
the original rule but before December 21, 2005, are subject to the new
source requirements of the original rule, and to any additional
requirements of the revised rule that would apply to existing sources.
New machines built after December 21, 2005, are subject to the
requirements of the rule as revised upon the effective date of the
final rule or upon their startup, whichever occurs later.
D. Control Requirements for Major Sources
Comment: Most comments received about the requirements for major
sources supported EPA's proposed requirements of non-venting machines
with refrigerated condenser, secondary carbon adsorber, and an enhanced
LDAR program. Most major sources were estimated to incur an annual cost
savings by implementing these requirements. We received a few comments
that asked us to require more stringent requirements. These commenters
asked us to require all major sources to upgrade their machines with a
PCE analyzer and lockout and another asked to ban new PCE machines at
major sources, require PCE sensor and lockout equipment for existing
machines, and adopt an equipment standard that prohibits the use of PCE
machines more than 15 years old. One commenter, a major source stated
that they would face substantial negative economic impacts if required
to replace their existing equipment with closed-loop systems with
refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers as proposed.
Response: Since proposal, 3 major source facilities, including the
proposal MIR facility, have been removed from our risk analysis, which
has affected our risk estimates for existing major sources. The MIR
facility ceased operation due to a change in ownership to a company
that does not use PCE in the cleaning process. One additional facility
ceased operation, and another was determined to have been an area
source prior to the compliance date for the original NESHAP, and is
therefore not subject to major source requirements. The resulting
cancer risks at baseline for the remaining facilities range between 50
and 400 in-1-million.
In assessing the appropriate level of control to address these
risks, we revisited the proposal level of control, which included
enhanced LDAR, along with the requirements to use dry-to-dry machines
that do not vent to the atmosphere (closed loop) during any phase of
the dry cleaning cycle, and to have refrigerated condensers and
secondary carbon adsorbers to control the PCE emissions during the
final stage of the dry cleaning cycle immediately before and as the
drum door is opened. Enhanced LDAR alone, which will require owners and
operators to use a PCE gas analyzer and perform leak checks according
to EPA Method 21 on a monthly basis (as well as continue weekly
perceptible leak checks), is expected to reduce MIR from existing major
sources to between 20 and 200 in-a-million. We have determined that
this range of MIR levels is acceptable within the meaning of the
Benzene NESHAP decision framework. In arriving at this determination we
considered the MIR levels and other factors in making our determination
of acceptability, as directed by the 1989 Benzene NESHAP. Nearly all of
the population living within 10 km of each remaining major source
facility is estimated to be exposed at risk levels of less than 1-in-1
million at this level of control. Considering the very small number of
individuals that are estimated to be exposed at risk levels greater
than 100-in-1 million cancer risk coupled with the exposure and dose
response assessment methodology that was conservatively health
protective, it is likely that no actual persons are exposed to PCE
emissions from major sources causing cancer risk levels above 100-in-1
million. Among the exposed population of 9 million individuals, a
maximum of 2 people are estimated to be exposed at risk levels of more
than 100-in-1 million. In addition, no significant non-cancer health
effects are predicted. The maximum HQ would be reduced from 0.3 to
0.06, and no adverse ecological impacts are predicted from exposure to
emissions at this level of control. We expect that PCE usage will
continue to drop as has been the trend over the past 10 years. This
trend has been caused by the greater use of alternative solvents, older
machines at the end of their useful lives being replaced with newer,
lower emitting dry-to-dry machines with refrigerated condensers and
secondary carbon adsorbers, and State and industry programs that
improve machine efficiency and reduce PCE consumption. All of these
factors will cause risks to continue to decrease in the future in the
absence of further Federal regulatory requirements. Therefore, we have
determined that the risks associated with enhanced LDAR at existing
major sources are acceptable after considering MIR, the population
exposed at different risk levels, and the projected decline in PCE
usage. While not relevant in the analysis of acceptable level of risks,
the costs for this option include a capital cost of approximately
$30,000, and an annual cost savings of approximately $250,000.
In the second step of the residual risk process, we determined
whether a standard more stringent than enhanced LDAR is warranted to
protect public health with an ample margin of safety. We considered the
estimate of health risk and other health information along with
additional factors relating to the appropriate level of control,
including costs and economic impacts of controls, technological
feasibility, uncertainties, and other relevant factors, consistent with
the approach of the 1989 Benzene NESHAP. The requirements to use closed
loop dry-to-dry machines and for machines to be controlled with
refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers as proposed would further
reduce MIR to between 10 and 100 in-a-million. However, the additional
costs and associated impacts from application of these controls at
existing major sources do not warrant the level of incremental risk
reductions this option would achieve, especially when considering the
distribution of costs, emissions and risk reductions among the affected
facilities. For example, of the seven existing facilities with major
sources that would be impacted by this additional level of control, the
bulk of the costs are incurred by one facility, and would result in
minimal risk reductions from the facility. This facility would incur
costs of approximately $2 million to replace equipment which could not
be retrofitted to meet this level of control. Annual costs for this
facility would be approximately $200,000. The risk range associated
with this facility upon implementation of enhanced LDAR is estimated to
be between 5 and 50 in-1 million. The risk range with the additional
level of controls of closed loop dry-to-dry machines and refrigerated
condenser and carbon adsorber would be between 2 and 20-in-1 million.
While two of the remaining six facilities would achieve somewhat higher
risk reductions that would be realized from the example facility, the
remaining four are expected to only achieve minimal risk reductions, as
represented by the range of incremental emissions reductions from the
added layer of control (between 0 and 4 tons per year). The capital
costs to achieve these emissions and risk
[[Page 42732]]
reductions would be $2.3 million, with annual costs of $53,000.
Consequently, we have determined that the risks associated with
enhanced LDAR at existing major sources represent an ample margin of
safety after considering costs, remaining risks and population cancer
risk.
As proposed, new major sources would be required to perform
enhanced LDAR in addition to the 1993 NESHAP requirement of closed-
loop, dry-to-dry systems with refrigerated condensers and carbon
adsorbers. As explained in the proposal, we do not expect that any new
major sources will be built, or that any existing area sources will
increase PCE usage to major source levels. However, if this situation
occurs, the additional LDAR requirements will continue to reduce
emissions from equipment leaks. The risks posed by major sources do not
warrant further control given the costs and the relatively low levels
of emission and risk reduction that would be achieved by these
additional controls. The available data indicated that closed-loop
systems with refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers, as well as
PCE analyzer and lockout costs were unreasonably high considering the
range of impacts across facilities. Consequently, we determined that
requiring these additional controls was not a reasonable or
economically feasible option for all major sources. The costs to
eliminate PCE usage at major sources would require a capital cost to
the industry of approximately $8.2 million. This estimate was based on
the total costs of replacing all PCE machines with machines using
hydrocarbon solvent, the most common and lowest cost alternative in
large-scale operations.
1. Risks From Major Sources
Comment: One commenter stated that the risk assessment is biased
and does not represent all sources. Data regarding the performance of
pollution control equipment used at each facility is critical. The
commenter stated that the control technology at their facility is
unlike that at any other facility. They believe the risk assessment for
the group of major sources is invalid because it depended heavily on
the risk of one outlier facility, ALAC, which recently closed.
Therefore, they contend ALAC greatly increased the MIR for all major
sources.
Response: We disagree with the commenter that the risk assessment
is biased and is driven by the results of the assessment for a single
facility. While we did use this facility's MIR at the time of proposal,
we assessed risks using data from major source facilities that we
concluded were representative of all major sources. Our final
regulatory decision is based on a revised MIR for major sources, which
ranges between 50-in-1 million and 400-in-1 million, after excluding
data from sources that have ceased operation, such as the ALAC
facility. This revised MIR supports our decision for major source under
both sections 112(f) and 112(d)(6) of the CAA.
For the risk assessment, major sources were subdivided into three
cleaning specializations-commercial, industrial and leather. EPA
collected site-specific information from 10 of the 15 facilities (9
surveys and 1 site visit) to develop a cross-section of the three
specializations within the source category. Facilities within each
specialization tend to be homogenous with respect to factors that
affect the emissions, pollutant dispersion, and population size in the
modeling radius, allowing EPA to extrapolate risks from the facilities
it modeled to those it did not.
The information EPA collected included:
Source locations and emission points,
Building dimensions,
PCE consumption,
Annual disposal of PCE in sludge or residual waste (still
bottoms),
Annual facility operating hours, and
Locations of sensitive receptors, including neighboring
houses.
Based on these survey and site-visit data, we estimated annual and
hourly emissions by performing a mass balance calculation on PCE
concentrations. Using this mass balance data, we then estimated annual
average emission rates. Finally, we estimated maximum one-hour
emissions by dividing the total emissions level by the total number of
operational hours at that facility and then accounting for hourly
variation in these emissions.
Comment: One commenter stated that EPA should have informed the
public that two major sources recently ceased operations.
Response: The largest major source ceased operations in June 2005.
One other source ceased dry cleaning operations and another source was
determined to have been an area source. By the time we learned of the
closures, the proposed rule package was at the later stages of senior-
level Agency review. Since proposal, we re-evaluated the risk
assessment without these sources. The baseline estimate for MIR
eliminating the sources that ceased operation ranges between 50 in-one-
million to 400 in-one-million. The MIR at the level of control
promulgated in this final rule is between 20 in-one-million and about
200 in-one-million.
2. Site Specific Risk Assessment
Comment: Two commenters sup