05 24071

Wednesday,
December 21, 2005
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 63
National Perchloroethylene Air Emission
Standards for Dry Cleaning Facilities;
Proposed Rule
erjones on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:27 Dec 20, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\21DEP2.SGM 21DEP2
75884 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 21, 2005 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION the on-line instructions for submitting comment, EPA recommends that you
AGENCY comments. include your name and other contact
• E-mail: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov, information in the body of your
40 CFR Part 63 Attention Docket ID No. OAR–2005– comment and with any disk or CD–ROM
0155. you submit. If EPA cannot read your
[OAR–2005–0155; FRL–8008–4]
• Fax: (202) 566–1741, Attention comment due to technical difficulties
RIN 2060–AK18 Docket ID No. OAR–2005–0155. and cannot contact you for clarification,
• Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send EPA may not be able to consider your
National Perchloroethylene Air comments to: EPA Docket Center comment. Electronic files should avoid
Emission Standards for Dry Cleaning (6102T), Attention Docket ID No. OAR the use of special characters, any form
Facilities 2005–0155, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, of encryption, and be free of any defects
NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please or viruses. For additional information
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
include a total of two copies. In about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA
Agency (EPA).
addition, please mail a copy of your Docket Center homepage at http://
ACTION: Proposed rule. comments on the information collection www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm or
SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing revised provisions to the Office of Information see the Federal Register of May 31, 2002
standards to limit emissions of and Regulatory Affairs, Office of (67 FR 38102).
perchloroethylene (PCE) from existing Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Docket: All documents in the docket
and new dry cleaning facilities. In 1993, Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., are listed in the http://
EPA promulgated technology-based Washington, DC 20503. www.regulations.gov index. Although
• Hand Delivery: In person or by
emission standards to control emissions listed in the index, some information is
courier, deliver your comments to: EPA
of PCE from dry cleaning facilities. As not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
Docket Center (6102T), Attention Docket
required by section 112(d)(6) of the information whose disclosure is
ID No. OAR–2005–0155, 1301
Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA has reviewed restricted by statute. Certain other
Constitution Avenue, NW., EPA West
the standards and is proposing revisions material, such as copyrighted material,
Building, Room B–108, Washington, DC
to take into account new developments will be publicly available only in hard
20004. Such deliveries are only
in production practices, processes, and copy. Publicly available docket
accepted during the Docket’s normal
control technologies. In addition, hours of operation, and special materials are available either
pursuant to CAA section 112(f), EPA has arrangements should be made for electronically in http://
evaluated the remaining risk to public deliveries of boxed information. Please www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
health and the environment following include a total of two copies. the EPA Docket Center, Docket ID No.
implementation of the technology-based Instructions: Direct your comments to OAR 2005–0155, EPA West Building,
rule and is proposing more stringent Docket ID No. OAR–2005–0155. EPA’s Room B–102, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
standards in order to protect public policy is that all comments received NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket
health with an ample margin of safety. will be included in the public docket Center Public Reading Room is open
The proposed standards are expected to without change and may be made from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
provide further reductions of PCE available online at http:// through Friday, excluding legal
beyond the 1993 national emission www.regulations.gov, including any holidays. The telephone number for the
standards for hazardous air pollutants personal information provided, unless Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744,
(NESHAP), based on application of the comment includes information and the telephone number for the EPA
equipment and work practice standards. claimed to be confidential business Docket Center is (202) 566–1742. A
DATES: Comments. Comments must be information (CBI) or other information reasonable fee may be charged for
received on or before February 6, 2006. whose disclosure is restricted by statute. copying docket materials.
Public Hearing. A public hearing is Do not submit information that you Public Hearing: If a public hearing is
currently scheduled for January 5, 2006. consider to be CBI or otherwise held, it will begin at 10 a.m. and will
If this date falls on a weekend, the protected through http:// be held at EPA’s campus at 109 T.W.
hearing will be held the next business www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or Alexander Drive, Research Triangle
day. Under the Paperwork Reduction deliver information identified as CBI to Park, NC, or at an alternate facility
Act, comments on the information only the following address: Mr. Roberto nearby. Persons interested in presenting
collection provisions must be received Morales, OAQPS Document Control oral testimony or inquiring as to
by OMB on or before January 20, 2006. Officer, EPA (C404–02), Attention whether a public hearing is to be held
ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your Docket ID No. OAR 2005–0155, should contact Ms. Janet Eck, Coatings
comments, identified by Docket ID No. Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. and Consumer Products Group,
OAR–2005–0155, by one of the Clearly mark the part or all of the Emission Standards Division, EPA
following methods: information that you claim to be CBI. (C539–03), Research Triangle Park, NC
• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow The http://www.regulations.gov Web 27711, telephone (919) 541–7946, at
the on-line instructions for submitting site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, least 2 days in advance of the hearing.
comments. which means EPA will not know your If no one contacts Ms. Eck in advance
• Agency Web site: http:// identity or contact information unless of the hearing with a request to present
www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, EPA’s you provide it in the body of your oral testimony at the hearing, we will
electronic public docket and comment comment. If you send an e-mail cancel the hearing.
system, will be replaced by an enhanced comment directly to EPA without going FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
Federal-wide electronic docket through http://www.regulations.gov, questions about the proposed rule,
management and comment system your e-mail address will be contact Ms. Rhea Jones, EPA, Office of
located at http://www.regulations.gov. automatically captured and included as Air Quality Planning and Standards,
When that occurs, you will be part of the comment that is placed in the Emission Standards Division, Coatings
redirected to that site to access the public docket and made available on the and Consumer Products Group (C539–
docket and submit comments. Follow Internet. If you submit an electronic 03), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711;
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 21, 2005 / Proposed Rules 75885
telephone number (919) 541–2940; fax Assessment Group (C404–01), Research Regulated Entities. Categories and
number (919) 541–5689; e-mail address: Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone entities potentially regulated by the
jones.rhea@epa.gov. For questions on number (919) 541–0209; fax number proposed rule are industrial and
the residual risk analysis, contact Mr. (919) 541–0840; e-mail address: commercial PCE dry cleaners. The
Neal Fann, EPA, Office of Air Quality fann.neal@epa.gov. proposed rule affects the following
Planning and Standards, Emission categories of sources:
Standards Division, Risk and Exposure SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Category NAICS 1 code Examples of potentially regulated entities
Coin-operated Laundries and Dry Cleaners ............................................................ 812310 Dry-to-dry machines, Transfer machines.
Dry Cleaning and Laundry Services (except coin-operated) .................................. 812320 Dry-to-dry machines, Transfer machines.
Industrial Launderers ............................................................................................... 812332 Dry-to-dry machines, Transfer machines.
1 North American Industry Classification System.
This table is not intended to be Outline. The information presented in V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide this preamble is organized as follows: A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
for readers regarding entities likely to be Planning and Review
I. Background B. Paperwork Reduction Act
regulated by the proposed rule. To A. What is the statutory authority for C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
determine whether your facility is regulating hazardous air pollutants D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
regulated by the proposed rule, you (HAP)? E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
should examine the applicability B. What are PCE dry cleaning facilities?
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
criteria in 40 CFR 63.320 of subpart M C. What are the health effects of PCE?
and Coordination with Indian Tribal
D. What does the 1993 NESHAP require?
(1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP). If you II. Summary of Proposed Rule
Governments
have any questions regarding the G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
A. What are the proposed requirements for
applicability of the proposed rule to a major sources? Children from Environmental Health and
particular entity, contact the person B. What are the proposed requirements for Safety Risks
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER area sources? H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
C. What are the proposed requirements for Concerning Regulations That
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
transfer machines at major and area Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Submitting CBI. Do not submit sources? Distribution, or Use
information which you claim to be CBI III. Rationale for the Proposed Rule I. National Technology Transfer
to EPA through regulations.gov or e- A. What is our approach for developing Advancement Act
mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the residual risk standards? I. Background
information that you claim to be CBI. B. How did we estimate residual risk?
For CBI information in a disk or CD– C. What are the residual risks from major A. What is the statutory authority for
ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the sources? regulating hazardous air pollutants
D. What are the options for reducing risk, (HAP)?
outside of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI their costs, and risk reduction impacts
and then identify electronically within for major sources? Section 112 of the CAA establishes a
the disk or CD–ROM the specific E. What is our proposed decision on two-stage regulatory process to address
information that is claimed as CBI. In acceptable risk and ample margin of emissions of hazardous air pollutants
addition to one complete version of the safety for major sources? (HAP) from stationary sources. In the
comment that includes information F. What are the risks from typical area
sources? first stage, after EPA has identified
claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment categories of sources emitting one or
G. What are the options for reducing risk,
that does not contain the information their costs, and risk reduction impacts more of the HAP listed in the CAA,
claimed as CBI must be submitted for for typical area sources? section 112(d) calls for us to promulgate
inclusion in the public docket. H. What is our proposal for addressing the national technology-based emission
Information marked as CBI will not be remaining emissions for typical area standards for sources within those
disclosed except in accordance with sources? categories that emit or have the
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. I. What are the risks from co-residential
area sources?
potential to emit any single HAP at a
If you have any questions about CBI J. What is our proposed decision on co- rate of 10 tons or more per year or any
or the procedures for claiming CBI, residential area sources? combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons
please consult either of the persons K. What determination is EPA proposing or more per year (known as major
identified in the FOR FURTHER pursuant to review of the 1993 Dry sources), as well as for certain area
INFORMATION CONTACT section. Cleaning NESHAP under CAA section sources emitting less than those
Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to 112(d)(6)? amounts. These technology-based
L. What additional changes are we making
being available in the docket, an standards must reflect the maximum
to the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP?
electronic copy of the proposed rule is IV. Solicitation of Public Comments reductions of HAP achievable (after
also available on the WWW. Following A. Additional Requirements for Highest considering cost, energy requirements,
the Administrator’s signature, a copy of Risk Facilities and non-air health and environmental
the proposed rule will be posted on B. Requirement for PCE Sensor and impacts) and are commonly referred to
EPA’s Technology Transfer Network Lockout as New Source MACT for Major as maximum achievable control
(TTN) policy and guidance page for Sources technology (MACT) standards.
newly proposed or promulgated rules at C. Alternative Performance-based Standard For area sources, CAA section
for Existing Major Sources
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN D. Environmental Impacts of PCE 112(d)(5) provides that the standards
provides information and technology Emissions may reflect generally available control
exchange in various areas of air E. Additional Time for Complying with technology or management practices in
pollution control. Provisions for Transfer Machines lieu of MACT, and are commonly
referred to as generally available control are major sources and the remaining are predominant source of PCE emissions in
technology (GACT) standards. We area sources. Major source PCE dry these systems. Dry-to-dry machines
published MACT and GACT standards cleaners are those that emit 10 tons or wash, extract, and dry the articles in the
for PCE dry cleaning facilities on more of PCE per year upon the same drum in a single machine, so the
September 22, 1993 at 58 FR 49376. The compliance date of the 1993 Dry articles enter and exit the machine dry.
EPA is then required, pursuant to Cleaning NESHAP. The 1993 Dry Because the transfer step is eliminated,
section 112(d)(6), to review these Cleaning NESHAP defines this as dry-to-dry machines have much lower
technology-based standards and to facilities that purchase more than 2,100 emissions than transfer machines.
revise them ‘‘as necessary, taking into gallons (gal) of PCE per year (1,800 gal New transfer machines are effectively
account developments in practices, per year if the facility uses transfer prohibited at major and area sources
processes and control technologies,’’ no machines). Area sources are typically due to the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP
less frequently than every 8 years. the common neighborhood dry cleaner. requirement that new dry cleaning
The second stage in standard-setting Area sources were divided into large or systems eliminate any emissions of PCE
is described in section 112(f) of the small in the 1993 Dry Cleaning while transferring articles from the
CAA. This provision requires, first, that NESHAP, with large area sources washer to the dryer. Therefore, transfer
EPA prepare a Report to Congress defined as those facilities that use machines are no longer sold. Existing
discussing (among other things) between 140 to 2,100 gal of PCE per year transfer machines are becoming an
methods of calculating risk posed (or (or 140 to 1,800 gal per year if the increasingly smaller segment of the dry
potentially posed) by sources after facility uses transfer machines). Small cleaning population as these machines
implementation of the MACT standards, area sources use less than 140 gal per reach the end of their useful lives and
the public health significance of those year. Some area sources are collocated are replaced by dry-to-dry machines.
risks, the means and costs of controlling in the same building with residences. In There are approximately 200 transfer
them, actual health effects to persons in the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP we did machines currently being used, all at
proximity to emitting sources, and not specifically discuss these sources, area sources.
recommendations as to legislation but in this notice we refer to them as co- The primary sources of PCE emissions
regarding such remaining risk. The EPA residential dry cleaners. A co-residential from dry-to-dry machines are the drying
prepared and submitted this report dry cleaning facility is located in a
cycle and fugitive emissions from the
(Residual Risk Report to Congress, EPA– building in which people reside. Co-
dry cleaning equipment (including
453/R–99–001) in March 1999. The residential facilities are located
Congress did not act on any of the equipment used to recycle PCE and
primarily in urban areas.
recommendations in the report, thereby In general, PCE dry cleaning facilities dispose of PCE-laden waste). Machines
triggering the second stage of the can be classified into three types: are designed to be either vented or non-
standard-setting process, the residual commercial, industrial, and leather. vented during the drying cycle.
risk phase. Commercial facilities typically clean Approximately 200 dry cleaners (1
Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires household items such as suits, dresses, percent) use vented machines, and the
us to determine for each section 112(d) coats, pants, comforters, curtains, and remaining facilities use the lower-
source category whether the MACT formalwear. Industrial dry cleaners polluting, non-vented machines. (The
standards protect public health with an clean heavily-stained articles such as 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP prohibits
ample margin of safety. If the MACT work gloves, uniforms, mechanics’ new dry cleaning machines at major and
standards for HAP ‘‘classified as a overalls, mops, and shop rags. Leather area sources that vent to the atmosphere
known, probable, or possible human cleaners mostly clean household leather while the dry cleaning drum is rotating.)
carcinogen do not reduce lifetime excess products like jackets and other leather In vented machines, the majority of
cancer risks to the individual most clothing. The 15 major sources include emissions from the drying cycle are
exposed to emissions from a source in eight industrial facilities, five vented outside the building. In non-
the category or subcategory to less than commercial facilities, and two leather vented machines, dryer emissions are
1-in-1-million,’’ EPA must promulgate facilities. The five commercial facilities released when the door is opened to
residual risk standards for the source are each the central plant for a chain of remove garments. Currently, the largest
category (or subcategory) as necessary to retail storefronts. We do not expect any sources of emissions from dry cleaning
protect public health with an ample new source facilities constructed in the are from equipment leaks, which come
margin of safety. The EPA must also future to be major sources. Based on the from leaking valves and seals, and the
adopt more stringent standards if low emission rates of current PCE dry loading and unloading of garments.
required to prevent an adverse cleaning machines and the typical C. What are the health effects of PCE?
environmental effect (defined in section business models used in the industrial
112(a)(7) as ‘‘any significant and and commercial dry cleaning sectors, it The main health effects of PCE are
widespread adverse effect * * * to is unlikely that any new sources that are neurological, liver, and kidney damage
wildlife, aquatic life, or natural constructed will emit PCE at major following acute (short-term) and chronic
resources * * *.’’), but must consider levels, or that any existing area sources (long-term) inhalation exposure. Animal
cost, energy, safety, and other relevant will become major sources due to studies have reported an increased
factors in doing so. business growth. incidence of liver cancer in mice via
Dry cleaning machines can be inhalation, kidney cancer and
B. What are PCE dry cleaning facilities? classified into two types: Transfer and mononuclear cell leukemia in rats. PCE
Dry cleaners use PCE in a dry dry-to-dry. Similar to residential was considered to be a ‘‘probable
cleaning machine to clean all types of washing machines and dryers, transfer carcinogen’’ (Group B) when assessed
garments, including clothes, gloves, machines have a unit for washing/ under the previous 1986 Guidelines by
leather garments, blankets, and extracting and another unit for drying. the EPA Science Advisory Board. See
absorbent materials. There are Following the wash cycle, PCE-laden the risk characterization memorandum
approximately 28,000 PCE dry cleaning articles are manually transferred from in the public docket for additional
facilities in the United States. Of the the washer/extractor to the dryer. The information regarding the health effects
28,000 dry cleaners, 15 of the facilities transfer of wet fabrics is the of PCE.
D. What does the 1993 NESHAP are summarized in table 1 of this the amount of PCE purchased) varies
require? preamble. The 1993 Dry Cleaning depending on whether the facility has
The 1993 NESHAP prescribes a NESHAP defines major and area sources dry-to-dry machines only, transfer
combination of equipment, work based on the annual PCE purchases for machines only, or a combination of
practices, and operational requirements. all machines at a facility. The both. The affected source is each
The requirements for process controls consumption criterion (which affects individual dry cleaning system.
TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF THE 1993 DRY CLEANING NESHAP PROCESS CONTROLS

Sources Annual PCE purchased New 1 (after 12/9/91) Existing 2
Major Sources ................................ Dry-to-dry ONLY > 2,100 gal/yr ... Dry-to-dry machines with a refrig- Dry-to-dry machines: must have
Transfer ONLY > 1,800 gal/yr ...... erated condenser, AND carbon refrigerated AND condenser.3
Dry-to-dry AND Transfer > 1,800 adsorber operated immediately Transfer machines: must be en-
gal/yr. before or as the door is opened. closed in a room exhausting to
a dedicated carbon adsorber.
Large Area Sources ....................... Dry-to-dry ONLY 140 to 2,100 gal/ Dry-to-dry machines with a refrig- Dry-to-dry with machines: must
yr. erated condenser. have a refrigerated condenser.3
Transfer ONLY 200 to 1,800 gal/ Transfer machines: No controls
yr. required.
Dry-to-dry AND Transfer 140 to
1,800 gal/yr.
Small Area Sources ....................... Dry-to-dry ONLY < 140 gal/yr ...... Same as large area sources ........ No controls required.
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 facility owner or operator would have to prohibit new PCE sources from locating
with certain operating requirements, use a PCE gas analyzer (photoionization in residential buildings by requiring that
including recording PCE purchases, detector, flameionization detector, or owners or operators eliminate PCE
storing PCE and PCE-containing waste infrared analyzer) and perform leak emissions from the dry cleaning
in non-leaking containers, and checks according to EPA Method 21 on process. Existing co-residential sources,
inspecting for perceptible leaks. Owners a monthly basis. The facility owner or under this option, would only be subject
or operators are required to operate and operator would also be required to to the same requirements proposed for
maintain the control equipment continue the weekly perceptible leak all other existing area sources (i.e.,
according to procedures specified in the check according to the requirements of enhanced LDAR and elimination of
1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP and to use the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP. transfer machines). The second
pollution prevention procedures, such proposed option would, instead of a
as good operation and maintenance, for B. What are the proposed requirements
prohibition on new co-residential
both dry cleaning machines and for area sources?
sources, require that existing and new
auxiliary equipment (such as filter, For existing area sources (large and co-residential sources comply with
muck cookers, stills, and solvent tanks) small), the proposed revisions would standards based on those required by
to prevent liquid and vapor leaks of PCE require implementation of an enhanced New York State Department of
from these sources. LDAR program and a prohibition on the Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)
II. Summary of Proposed Rule use of existing transfer machines. in their Title 6 NYCRR Part 232 rules,
For new area sources (large and which include using machines
A. What are the proposed requirements small), the proposed rule would require equipped with refrigerated condensers
for major sources? implementation of an enhanced LDAR and carbon adsorbers, enclosed in a
Under the proposed revisions, the program and use of a non-vented dry-to- vapor barrier to help prevent exposures
requirements for all new and existing dry machine with a refrigerated to PCE emissions. We expect to select
major sources would be the same. The condenser and secondary carbon one of these options, with possible
proposed revisions would require the adsorber. The enhanced LDAR program modifications in response to public
implementation of an enhanced leak for area sources would require facilities comments, in the final rule.
detection and repair (LDAR) program to use a halogenated leak detector
C. What are the proposed requirements
and the use of dry-to-dry machines that (instead of a more costly gas analyzer
for transfer machines at major and area
do not vent to the atmosphere (closed- proposed for major sources) to perform
sources?
loop) during any phase of the dry leak checks on a monthly basis. The
cleaning cycle. A refrigerated condenser facility would also be required to The proposed rule would effectively
and a secondary carbon adsorber would continue to inspect for perceptible leaks prohibit the use of all existing transfer
be required control equipment for all biweekly for small area sources and machines 90 days from the effective
machines. The secondary carbon weekly for large area sources according date of the final rule by requiring
adsorber would control the PCE to the requirements of the 1993 Dry owners or operators to eliminate any
emissions during the final stage of the Cleaning NESHAP. PCE emissions from clothing transfer
dry cleaning cycle immediately before For co-residential area sources, we are between the washer and dryer.
and as the drum door is opened. Under proposing two options. The first Similarly, the installation of new
the enhanced LDAR program, the proposed option would effectively transfer machines was prohibited by the
1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP. We In the Benzene NESHAP (54 FR for area sources. See the risk
estimate that about 200 transfer 38044, September 14, 1989), we stated characterization memorandum in the
machines remain in use within the as an overall objective: public docket for a complete discussion
population of 28,000 dry cleaning * * * in protecting public health with an of the major and area source risk
machines located at area sources ample margin of safety, we strive to provide assessment.
(estimated one PCE dry cleaning maximum feasible protection against risks to 1. How did we estimate the
machine per facility with approximately health from hazardous air pollutants by (1) atmospheric dispersion of PCE emitted
28,000 facilities). Most of these protecting the greatest number of persons from major and area sources?
machines will be at or near the end of possible to an individual lifetime risk level We used the Industrial Source
their useful economic life by the time no higher than approximately 1 in 1 million; Complex Short-term model, version 3
and (2) limiting to no higher than (ISCST–3) to estimate the dispersion of
final rule requirements are promulgated. approximately 1 in 10 thousand [i.e., 100 in
The typical life of a dry cleaning 1 million] the estimated risk that a person
PCE from facilities to receptor locations.
machine is 10 to 15 years. By the end living near a facility would have if he or she For a complete description of the
of 2006, the newest transfer machines in were exposed to the maximum pollutant dispersion modeling, please see the risk
the industry will be 13 years old. concentrations for 70 years. characterization memorandum.
2. How did we assess public health
III. Rationale for the Proposed Rule As explained more fully in our
risk associated with PCE emitted from
Residual Risk Report, these goals are not
A. What is our approach for developing PCE dry cleaners?
‘‘rigid line[s] of acceptability, but rather PCE has been associated with a
residual risk standards? broad objectives to be weighed ‘‘with a variety of health effects, including
Following our initial determination series of other health measures and cancer. Although PCE has not yet been
that the individual most exposed to factors.4’’ reassessed under the Agency’s recently
emissions from the category considered revised Guidelines for Cancer Risk
B. How did we estimate residual risk?
exceeds a 1-in-1 million individual Assessment,7 it was considered to be a
cancer risk, our approach to developing The ‘‘Residual Risk Report to
Congress’’ (EPA–453/R–99–001) ‘‘probable carcinogen’’ (Group B) 8
residual risk standards is based on a when assessed under the previous 1986
two-step determination of acceptable provides the general framework for
conducting risk assessments to support Guidelines by the EPA Science
risk and ample margin of safety. The Advisory Board. Since that time, the
first step, consideration of acceptable decisions made under the residual risk
program. The report acknowledged that United States Department of Health and
risk, is only a starting point for the Human Services has concluded that PCE
analysis that determines the final each risk assessment design would have
some common elements, including a is ‘‘reasonably anticipated to be a
standards. The second step determines human carcinogen,9’’ and the
an ample margin of safety, which is the problem formulation phase, an analysis
phase, and the risk characterization International Agency for Research on
level at which the standards are set. Cancer has concluded that PCE is
The terms ‘‘individual most exposed,’’ phase. The risk assessment for PCE dry
cleaners used both site-specific data for ‘‘probably carcinogenic to humans.10’’
‘‘acceptable level,’’ and ‘‘ample margin In our assessment of public health
of safety’’ are not specifically defined in many modeling parameters and
risk associated with PCE emitted from
the CAA. However, CAA section population characteristics derived from
PCE dry cleaners, we considered risks of
112(f)(2)(B) refers positively to the census data, as well as default
cancer and other health effects. Cancer
interpretation of these terms in our 1989 assumptions for exposure parameters—
risks associated with inhalation
rulemaking (54 FR 38044, September 14, some of which were assumed to be
exposure were assessed using lifetime
1989), ‘‘National Emission Standards for health protective (e.g., exposure
cancer risk estimates. The noncancer
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene frequency and exposure duration, 70-
risks were characterized through the use
Emissions from Maleic Anhydride year constant emission rates).5 6 To
of hazard quotient (HQ) and hazard
Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, estimate the cancer risk and non-cancer
index (HI) estimates. An HQ is
Benzene Storage Vessels, Benzene hazard for major source facilities, we
calculated as the ratio of the exposure
Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product performed refined modeling for a subset
concentration of a pollutant to its
Recovery Plants (Benzene NESHAP),’’ of major source facilities we determined
health-based non-cancer threshold.
essentially directing us to use the were representative of all major sources, In this assessment, values that are
interpretation set out in that notice 1 or including industrial cleaners, below 1.0 are not likely to be associated
to utilize approaches affording at least commercial cleaners, and leather with adverse health effects. An HI is the
the same level of protection.2 We cleaners. Facilities within each of these sum of HQ for pollutants that target the
likewise notified Congress in the three specializations tend to be same organ or system. For dry cleaners,
Residual Risk Report that we intended homogenous with respect to factors that PCE is the only HAP emitted, therefore,
to utilize the Benzene NESHAP affect the emissions, pollutant HI and HQ are the same.
approach in making CAA section 112(f) dispersion, and population size in the
residual risk determinations.3 modeling radius, allowing us to 7 USEPA. 2005. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk
extrapolate risks from facilities modeled Assessment. EPA/650/P–03/001B. Risk Assessment
1 This reading is confirmed by the Legislative to those that were not modeled. We Forum, Washington, DC.
History to CAA section 112(f); see, e.g., ‘‘A used a combination of modeling and 8 March 9, 1988 letter to Lee Thomas,
Legislative History of the Clean Air Act Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection
Amendments of 1990,’’ vol. 1, page 877 (Senate
monitoring approaches to analyze risks Agency, from Norton Nelson, Chair, Executive
Debate on Conference Report). Committee of EPA Science Advisory Board.
2 Legislative History, vol. 1, p. 877, stating that: 4 Id. 9 USDHHS. 1989. Report on Carcinogens, Fifth
‘‘* * * the managers intend that the Administrator 5 Additional details are provided in the risk Edition; U.S. Department of Health and Human
shall interpret this requirement [to establish characterization memorandum in the rulemaking Services, Public Health Service, National
standards reflecting an ample margin of safety] in docket. Toxicology Program.
a manner no less protective of the most exposed 6 Residual Risk Report to Congress, pp. B–18 and 10 IARC. 1995. Monographs on the evaluation of
individual than the policy set forth in the B–22. The approach used to assess the risks carcinogenic risks to humans. Volume 63. Dry
Administrator’s benzene regulations * * *.’’ associated with standards for the dry cleaning Cleaning, Some Chlorinated Solvents and Other
3 Residual Risk Report to Congress. March 1999. industry are consistent with the technical approach Industrial Chemicals. ISBN 9283212630. Geneva,
EPA–453/R–99–001, page ES–11. and policies described in the Report to Congress. Switzerland.
Several sources were considered for (1986), there are several factors a study of kidney effects in workers in
cancer and noncancer dose-response contributing to the differences in dry cleaning shops 19 that reported
assessment information. In a 1998 magnitude among them. One significant effects at similar exposure
assessment of PCE cancer risks contributing factor is characterization of concentrations than those elsewhere
associated with dry cleaners, EPA’s human metabolism of PCE. This is an reported associated with neurological
Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and area in which widely diverging effects. The OPPTS value was termed a
Toxic Substances (OPPTS) derived and quantitative estimates have been provisional RfC because it was derived
used a lifetime inhalation unit risk published, and their use leads to notable by a single EPA program office with
estimate (URE) of 7.1 × 10¥7 per differences in human cancer dose- limited cross-office review. This value is
microgram per cubic meter (ug/m3).11 response value derived from animal based on a study of neurological effects
This reflected an update of the URE of data, illustrated to some extent by the in workers in dry cleaning shops. Since
5.8 × 10¥7 per ug/m3 that was derived range of values presented above. that time, more recent studies have been
by EPA in the 1980s.12 The PCE cancer As an interim approach in lieu of the published, particularly with regard to
dose-response assessments developed completed IRIS assessment, we used more sensitive neurological effects at
by others include a lifetime URE of 5.9 two dose-response values to lower exposures.20 We are reviewing
× 10¥6 per ug/m3 developed by the characterize cancer risk. These two these and all of the available
California Environmental Protection values were chosen to represent the best information on the noncancer health
Agency (CalEPA),13 and a lifetime URE available peer-reviewed science. As we effects of PCE as part of the IRIS
of 3.8 × 10¥7 per ug/m3 developed by have stated previously, we will not be assessment.
Clewell and others.14 relying exclusively on IRIS values, but The proposed rule is based on both
We are currently reevaluating the will be considering all credible and the risk estimates derived using both the
available information on health effects readily available assessments.17 We CalEPA cancer dose-response values
of PCE, including cancer, as part of a used the CalEPA URE (5.9 × 10¥6 per and the ATSDR noncancer MRL. The
hazard and dose-response assessment ug/m3) and the estimate developed by CalEPA cancer dose-response value is
for the Agency’s Integrated Risk OPPTS (7.1 × 10¥7 per ug/m3). Both are higher than the value derived by
Information System (IRIS). The cancer derived with consideration of findings OPPTS, leading to higher cancer risk
component of this evaluation is being of liver tumors in mouse laboratory estimates. Given our uncertainty
conducted in accordance with the 2005 bioassays, with the OPPTS value regarding the pending IRIS dose-
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk additionally considering laboratory response values, we have considered the
Assessment. Data have become available findings of mononuclear cell leukemia range of available potencies with which
from the Japanese Industrial Safety in rats, and both have received public to calculate inhalation cancer risk. We
Association (1993) that includes rodent comment and scientific peer review by calculate cancer risk using both values,
inhalation studies with a cancer bio- external panels. Dose-response but propose to use the CalEPA value.
assay which was not considered by the modeling performed in both We request comment on both this
sources above.15 The document assessments involved use of approach of using the more health
describing the evaluation is expected to metabolized doses with different protective end of the dose-response
be released for external scientific peer estimates of human PCE metabolism range and our selection of dose-response
review and public comment. The contributing to differences in the values. Based on the findings and status
projected schedule for completion of the resulting URE. of the IRIS assessment at the time of
IRIS assessment is available at http:// Effects other than cancer associated
promulgation, we may reassess our
cfpub.epa.gov/iristrac/index.cfm. with long-term inhalation of PCE in
estimates of cancer risk and noncancer
While all of the available lifetime URE worker or animal studies include
neurotoxicity, liver and kidney damage, hazard. The Agency is aware that some
are based on the same animal bioassay 16 stakeholders have suggested that we
and, at higher levels, developmental
11 USEPA. 1998. Cleaner Technologies effects. To characterize noncancer defer certain action pending completion
Substitutes Assessment: Professional Fabricare hazard in lieu of the completed IRIS of the IRIS assessment for PCE. In
Processes. EPA 744–B–98–001. U.S. Environmental assessment, we used the Agency for today’s notice, we request comment on
Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry’s our proposal to use the available
and Toxics, Washington, DC. CalEPA and OPPTS potency values, and
12 USEPA. 1996. Addendum to the Health (ATSDR) Minimum Risk Level (MRL)
Assessment Document for Tetrachloroethylene (270 ug/m3.18 This value is based on a we request comments on whether we
(Perchloroethylene), Updated Carcinogenicity study of neurological effects in workers should defer further development of the
Assessment for Tetrachloroethylene
in dry cleaning shops, and is derived in risk assessment and any rulemakings
(Perchloroethylene, PERC, PCE). EPA/600/8–82/ under section 112(f)(2) for area sources
005FA. External Review Draft. U.S. Environmental a manner similar to EPA’s method for
Protection Agency, Office of Health and derivation of reference concentrations pending completion of the IRIS
Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. (Rfc), and with scientific and public assessment for PCE.
13 CDHS. 1991. Health Effects of
review. The ATSDR MRL is quite
Tetrachloroethylene (PCE). California Department 19 V. Vu. 1997. Memorandum titled ‘‘Provisional
of Health Services (subsequently CalEPA, Office of
similar to the provisional RfC (170 ug/
RfC for perchloroethylene’’ From Vanessa Vu,
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment), m3) derived by OPPTS in 1997 based on Acting Director, Health and Environmental Review
Berkeley, CA. Division, to William Waugh, Acting Directory,
14 H.J. Clewell, P.R. Gentry, J.E. Kester, and M.E. Research Triangle Park, NC. NTP TR 311, NIH Chemical Screening and Risk Assessment Division,
Andersen. 2005. Evaluation of physiologically Publication No. 86–2567. August 1986. OPPT, USEPA. As cited in OPPTS 1998. Cleaner
based pharmacokinetic perchloroethylene. 17 USEPA. March 1999. Residual Risk Report to Technologies Substitutes Assessment: Professional
15 JISA (Japan Industrial Safety Association). Congress. Office of Air Quality Planning and Fabricare Processes. EPA–744–B–98–001. USEPA,
1993. Carcinogenicity Study of Tetrachloroethylene Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. EPA– Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
by Inhalation in Rats and Mice. Data No. 3–1. 453/R–99–001; available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ Washington, DC.
Available from: EPA–IRIS Information Desk. oarpg/t3/meta/m8690.html. 20 USEPA. 2004. Summary report of the peer
16 NTP. 1986. NTP technical report on the 18 ATSDR. 1997. Toxicological Profile for review workshop on the neurotoxicity of
toxicology and carcinogenesis of Tetrachloroethylene. Department of Health and tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene) discussion
tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene) (CAS No. Human Services, Public Health Services, Agnecy for paper. National Center for Environmental
127–18–4) in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, Assessment, Washington, DC; EPA–600–R–04–041.
(inhalation studies). National Toxicology Program, Georgia. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/ncea.
3. How did we assess environmental TCAA is the subject of great debate, consider actual emissions when
impacts of major sources and typical with potential conversion efficiencies available, as a factor in both steps of the
area sources? estimated to be on the order of 5 to 15 residual risk determination, to avoid
The chemical properties of PCE percent. However, there are very few unrealistic inflation of risk levels or
suggest that once it is emitted into the data quantifying TCAA concentrations where other factors suggest basing the
atmosphere as a vapor, it is not likely to in the air, precipitation, water, soil, or evaluation solely on allowables is not
partition significantly into soil, water, or sediment in the United States. This appropriate. Essentially, the existing dry
sediment. Based on fugacity modeling, scarcity of data makes it difficult to cleaning MACT standard is comprised
we estimate that 99.8 percent of ambient determine whether there is any of equipment standards and various
PCE remains in the atmosphere, with potential for adverse ecological impacts work practices. Compliance with the
the remainder partitioning into water on plant life from PCE emissions from existing MACT standard is
(0.17 percent), and soil (0.05 percent). dry cleaners due to conversion to demonstrated by use of the required
Thus, PCE emitted from major TCAA. While we have no direct equipment and implementation of the
stationary sources is not likely to pose evidence that this will present a required work practices, and there are
a significant ecological risk due to any significant ecological risk, we no numeric emissions levels to model.
exposure pathway other than inhalation. nonetheless invite public comment and Therefore, the seven facilities were
Further, to assess the potential solicit additional scientific information modeled using actual 2000–2002
inhalation risk to mammals from PCE on this issue. Since our results showed emissions and are representative of the
inhalation, we compared the minimum no screening level ecological effects, we emissions from major sources. We
lowest observable adverse effect level do not believe that there is any potential conclude that the sampled facilities
(LOAEL) for rats with the highest level for an effect on threatened or represent characteristics of the major
of modeled ambient concentration from endangered species or on their critical source facility population, including
PCE cleaners; the rat LOAEL for PCE habitat within the meaning of 50 CFR commercial, industrial, and leather
can be found in the ATSDR 402.14(a). Because of these results, we facilities. The risk analysis shows that
toxicological profile that documents the concluded a consultation with the Fish each of the seven modeled facilities
development of the MRL (http:// and Wildlife Service is not necessary. poses a cancer risk of 1-in-1 million or
www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/ greater. The highest maximum
C. What are the residual risks from
tp18.html). The lowest rat LOAEL (9 individual cancer risk (MIR) is between
major sources?
parts per million (ppm), or 60 mg/m3) is 300-in-1 million and 2,400-in-1 million.
about 2,000 times higher than the Table 2 of this preamble summarizes The MIR is the lifetime risk of
highest modeled post-control ambient the estimated risks remaining for the developing cancer for the individual
concentrations from major stationary seven modeled major source facilities facing the highest estimated exposure
sources. after compliance with MACT. In over a 70-year lifetime. Five of the
This large margin of exposure leads us performing residual risk assessments modeled facilities pose a risk greater
to conclude that risks to mammals from under the CAA section 112(f)(2), EPA than 100-in-1 million (the presumptive
PCE inhalation are likely insignificant, believes it may evaluate potential risk unacceptable risk level), and about 550
obviating the need to further quantify based on consideration of both emission people are exposed at this level. One
ecological risks to any degree. levels allowed under the MACT facility has a HQ of greater than 1.0. As
In the atmosphere, PCE is known to standard and actual emissions levels described below in section III.E, we
degrade into many compounds, achieved in compliance with MACT. expect a continuing decline in PCE
including trichloroacetic acid (TCAA). See, e.g., 70 FR 19992, 19998 (April 15, emissions even in the absence of
TCAA is a persistent, known 2005). Generally, allowable emissions additional Federal regulation. These
phytotoxin, which has been are the maximum levels sources could baseline risk estimates do not reflect
discontinued as a herbicide. emit and still comply with existing such a trend, therefore; baseline risks
Atmospheric transformation of PCE to standards. It is also reasonable that we are likely to be overestimated.
TABLE 2.—MAJOR SOURCE BASELINE RISK ESTIMATES FOR MODELED FACILITIES AFTER APPLICATION OF 1993 DRY
CLEANING NESHAP, BASED ON 70-YEAR EXPOSURE DURATION 1
MACT level MACT level
Parameter (OPPTS URE) (CalEPA URE)
MIR from facility with highest risk ........................................................................................... 300-in-1 million .............. 2,400-in-1 million.
Maximum HQ from facility with highest risk based on ATSDR MRL ..................................... 2 ..................................... 2.
Population at risk across all modeled facilities [modeled to 10 kilometers (km)]:
> 1-in-1 million ................................................................................................................. 16,000 ............................ 175,000.
> 10-in-1 million ............................................................................................................... 800 ................................. 12,500.
> 100-in-1 million ............................................................................................................. 10 ................................... 550.
Total population exposed ................................................................................................ 3,300,000 ....................... 3,300,000.
1 In this table, all risk and population estimates are rounded.
To account for the fact that Exposure model (TRIM.Expo, also associated daily activity patterns. The
individuals may move through areas known as the Air Pollutant Exposure model output provides a distribution of
(microenvironments) of differing Model 3, or APEX3). The TRIM.Expo exposure estimates which are intended
concentrations during their daily model uses a personal profile approach to be representative of the study
activities, EPA conducted an exposure in which it stochastically simulates population with respect to their
variability analysis in which it used the exposures for individuals of differing demographically based behavior, in
Total Risk Integration Methodology demographic characteristics and terms of the microenvironments through
which they move during a day and estimate cancer risk, EPA assumes that population risk for the worst-case
throughout a year (see http:// this 1-year exposure scenario continues facility, using the CalEPA URE; this
www.epa.gov/ttn/fera for more for 70 years. Table 3 contrasts ISCST– example is illustrative only.21
information regarding the model). To 3 and TRIM.Expo estimates of
TABLE 3.—COMPARISON OF ISCST–3 EXPOSURE ESTIMATES WITH ACTIVITY-PATTERNED/DAY, LIFETIME EXPOSURE

[ISCST–3+Trim.Expo]
Total population at cancer risk

Model >100-in-1 >10-in-1 >1-in-1
million million million
ISCST–3 ...................................................................................................................................... 900 14,000 75,000

TRIM.Expo ................................................................................................................................... 400 9,000 80,000
TRIM.Expo provides a more central major source facilities. One limitation of For illustrative purposes, below we
tendency estimate of risk by accounting this analysis is that we assume provide estimates of individual
for variability in personal exposure. The continuous 70-year exposure when inhalation cancer risk based on different
table above shows a smaller number of calculating cancer risk, and some assumptions regarding exposure
individuals exposed at the higher levels individuals are likely to move away duration. In contrast to the TRIM.Expo
of cancer risk and a slightly larger from the facility. However, given the estimates above, the risk estimates
number of individuals exposed at a large number of area source dry cleaners below do not account for personal
cancer risk of at least 1-in-1 million. nation wide, and the consequent activity patterns and assume that
While we performed this analysis for ubiquity of PCE exposure, it is unlikely individuals receive continuous
the worst-case facility, it is reasonable to that the PCE exposure of individuals
exposure for the duration noted.
infer that the risk distribution above moving out of the TRIM.Expo study area
would be similar to the remainder of the would fall to zero.
TABLE 4.—ESTIMATES OF INDIVIDUAL INHALATION CANCER RISK BASED ON DIFFERENT EXPOSURE DURATIONS
Assumed exposure duration 1
Estimated lifetime cancer risk
70 50 30 20 10
Risk per Million (CalEPA) ............................................................................................ 2,400 1,700 1,030 700 340
Risk per Million (OPPTS) ............................................................................................. 300 210 130 90 40
1 Risk estimates derived using maximum exposure concentration.
D. What are the options for reducing Cleaning NESHAP. A nominal amount operating at lower temperatures than
risk, their costs, and risk reduction of additional labor would be required as water-cooled condensers, refrigerated
impacts for major sources? a result of the proposed requirement to condensers recover more PCE from the
We evaluated several methods for use a gas analyzer. We estimated 1 hour drying air and reduce emissions. By the
reducing risks. These methods include of labor per machine per month to end of the cool-down cycle, refrigerated
enhanced LDAR and three emission perform the leak inspection. The condensers can reduce PCE
control technologies. estimated total capital cost to the concentrations in the drum to between
Enhanced LDAR. Enhanced LDAR industry to establish an enhanced LDAR 2,000 and 8,600 ppm. Refrigerated
would require the facility owner or program is $40,000, with a annual cost condensers require relatively little
operator to use a portable PCE gas savings of $390,000. The cost savings is maintenance, needing only to have their
analyzer to perform leak checks on a due to reduced PCE consumption. refrigerant recharged and to have lint
monthly basis. Two major sources and Control Technologies. Three types of removed from the coils (yearly or even
several State and local agencies emission control technologies can be less frequently).
currently use a photoionization used to reduce emissions from dry A secondary carbon adsorber controls
detector, one type of gas analyzer, for cleaning machines. The first two are a the PCE emissions during the final stage
leak inspections. The detection probe is refrigerated condenser and a secondary of the dry cleaning cycle just prior to the
moved slowly along the equipment part, carbon adsorber. The third technology is drum door opening. A carbon adsorber
and if PCE is detected, the device gives a PCE sensor and lockout. By using the removes organic compounds from air by
a concentration reading of the leak. The first two control technologies together, adsorption onto a bed of activated
proposed leak definition is a and by operating them properly, a carbon as the air passes over the bed.
concentration of 25 ppm. Portable gas significant amount of PCE can be Carbon adsorbers have a PCE removal
analyzers cost about $3,300 and have a recovered. efficiency of 95 percent or greater.
10-year life expectancy. The facility Refrigerated condensers are the most Properly designed and operated
would be required to continue to effective method for reducing PCE from secondary adsorbers have been shown
perform the weekly perceptible leak the drying cycle. They are used to to reduce the PCE concentration in the
checks as required by the 1993 Dry condense PCE vapor for reuse. By drum from several thousand ppm to less
21 Note that the ISCST–3 modeling results do not used an earlier set of ISCST–3 modeling results for results are retained here so that the comparison
match earlier risk estimates due to the fact that EPA the TRIM.Expo analysis. The original ISCST–3 with TRIM.Expo will be consistent.
than 100 ppm, and in some cases, to less depending on the remaining useful life ensures that the PCE set-point has been
than 10 ppm. Most new dry cleaning of each existing machine. The costs to attained before the machine door can be
machines sold today are equipped with add control technologies range from opened.
secondary carbon adsorbers. Carbon $13,000 to $40,000 per machine, Regulatory Options. We considered
adsorbers require periodic desorption to depending on the size of the existing three options for reducing risk from
recover PCE and maintain their peak machine and the level of control of the major source dry cleaners. Option I
PCE collection efficiency. machine. Machine replacement costs are would require all major sources to use
The technologies currently in use by approximately $900 to $1,000 per an enhanced LDAR program and have
major and area source dry cleaners pound of capacity. Additional analysis
dry-to-dry machines with a refrigerated
include vented dry-to-dry machines of costs can be found in the Background
with water-cooled condensers and condenser and a secondary carbon
Information Document in the public
carbon adsorbers, non-vented (closed- adsorber. Option II would require a PCE
docket.
loop) dry-to-dry machines with A PCE sensor is the third control sensor and lock-out in addition to the
refrigerated condensers, non-vented dry- technology used in machines with a Option I controls. Option III would
to-dry machines with refrigerated secondary carbon adsorber. The sensor require no PCE emissions from major
condensers and secondary carbon controls the carbon adsorption cycle to sources (a ban on the use of PCE).
adsorbers and transfer machines. To achieve a set PCE concentration in the Table 5 of this preamble shows the
meet a standard requiring a refrigerated drum. This device uses a single-beam costs and risk estimates for each
condenser and secondary carbon infrared photometer to measure the regulatory option. The population risk
adsorber, existing dry cleaning concentration of PCE in the drum, and estimates were extrapolated from the
machines without this control could be prolongs the carbon adsorption cycle seven modeled facilities to all 15 major
retrofitted, or new replacement until the concentration set point is source facilities. The cost estimates are
machines could be purchased achieved. An interlock (lock-out) also for all 15 major source facilities.
TABLE 5.—RISK ESTIMATES AND COSTS OF CONTROL OPTIONS FOR MAJOR SOURCES BASED ON 70-YEAR EXPOSURE
DURATION 1
Parameter MACT level Option I Option II Option III
MIR from facility with highest risk (CalEPA 2,400-in-1 million ....... 270-in-1 million .......... 150-in-1 million .......... NA.2
URE).
MIR from facility with highest risk (OPPTS 300-in-1 million .......... 30-in-1 million ............ 20-in-1 million ............ NA.
URE).
Maximum HQ from facility with highest risk .. 2 ................................. 0.2 .............................. 0.1 .............................. NA.
Population at Risk Across All Facilities 3 (Population Risk Range Represents Difference Between OPPTS and CalEPA URE)
> 1-in-1 million ............................................... 35,000 to 375,000 ...... 2,000 to 55,000 .......... 1,000 to 26,000 .......... NA.
> 10-in-1 million ............................................. 2,000 to 27,000 .......... 20 to 1,800 ................. 10 to 900 .................... NA.
> 100-in-1 million ........................................... 10 to 1,200 ................. 0 to 13 ........................ 0 to 6 .......................... NA.
Total population exposed (within 10 km) ....... 9,300,000 NA.
Capital Cost ($1000) ...................................... .................................... 830 ............................. 5,700 .......................... 8,200.
Annualized Cost ($1000) ............................... .................................... (220) ........................... 420 ............................. Not Estimated.
Emission Reduction (tons per year (tpy)) ...... .................................... 209 ............................. 249 (40 incremental) .. 293 (44 incremental).
1 In this table, risk estimates are based on both OPPTS and the CalEPA URE. All risk and population estimates are rounded.
2 NA = not applicable. Under Option III, risk from PCE would be eliminated, however, potential risks from alternative solvents were not ana-
lyzed.
3 Modeled to 10 km.
E. What is our proposed decision on emit a possible to probable human 38045, 1987, quoting the Vinyl Chloride
acceptable risk and ample margin of carcinogen, and, as shown in table 3 of decision at DC Circuit Courts Decision
safety for major sources? this preamble, we estimate that the MIR in NRDC vs. EPA, 824 F.2d at 1165)
associated with the 1993 Dry Cleaning recognizing that our world is not risk-
Section 112(f)(2)(A) of the CAA states
NESHAP limits is between 300-in-1 free.
that if the MACT standards for a source In the 1989 Benzene NESHAP, we
million and 2,400-in-1 million.
emitting a: stated that a MIR of approximately 100-
Therefore, we believe a residual risk
* * * known, probable, or possible human standard is necessary. in-1 million should ordinarily be the
carcinogen do not reduce lifetime excess In the 1989 Benzene NESHAP, the upper end of the range of acceptable
cancer risks to the individual most exposed first step of the residual risk decision risks associated with an individual
to emissions from a source in the category framework is the determination of source of pollution. We characterized
* * * to less than one in one million, the acceptable risk (i.e., are the estimated the MIR as ‘‘the estimated risk that a
Administrator shall promulgate [residual risks due to emissions from these person living near a facility would have
risk] standards * * * for such source facilities ‘‘acceptable’’). This if he or she were exposed to the
category.
determination is based on health maximum pollutant concentrations for
The residual risk to the individual considerations only, without 70 years.’’ We explained that this
most exposed to emissions from PCE consideration of costs. The measure of risk ‘‘is an estimate of the
dry cleaners is estimated at 1-in-1 determination of what represents an upper bound of risk based on
million or greater at each major source ‘‘acceptable’’ risk level is based on a conservative assumptions, such as
dry cleaner modeled. Major source dry judgment of ‘‘what risks are acceptable continuous exposure for 24 hours per
cleaners subject to the proposed rule in the world in which we live’’ (54 FR day for 70 years.’’ We acknowledge that
the MIR ‘‘does not necessarily reflect the Considering the very small number of The second step in the residual risk
true risk, but displays a conservative individuals that are estimated to receive decision framework is the determination
risk level which is an upper bound that greater than 100-in-1 million cancer risk of standards that are equal to or lower
is unlikely to be exceeded.’’ coupled with the exposure and dose- than the acceptable risk level and that
Understanding that there are both response assessment methodology that protect public health with an ample
benefits and limitations to using MIR as was conservatively health protective, it margin of safety. In making this
a metric for determining acceptability, is likely that no actual persons are determination, we considered the
we acknowledged in the 1989 Benzene exposed at risk levels above 100-in-1 estimate of health risk and other health
NESHAP that ‘‘consideration of million. Among the exposed population information along with additional
maximum individual risk * * * must of 9.3 million individuals, a maximum factors relating to the appropriate level
take into account the strengths and of between 0 and 13 people are of control, including costs and
weaknesses of this measure of risk.’’ estimated to receive risks of more than economic impacts of controls,
Consequently, the presumptive risk 100-in-1 million. Under option I, the technological feasibility, uncertainties,
level of 100-in-1 million provides a exposure to maximum exposed and other relevant factors, consistent
benchmark for judging the acceptability individuals would be reduced from with the approach of the 1989 Benzene
of MIR, but does not constitute a rigid between 300-in-1 million to 2,400-in-1 NESHAP.
line for making that determination. In million to between 30-in-1 million and We evaluated regulatory option II as
establishing a presumption for the 270-in-1 million. Total combined cancer the first level of control more stringent
acceptability of maximum risk, rather incidence would be between 0.002 and than the acceptable risk level for this
than a rigid line for acceptability, we 0.003 cases per year for all seven major source category. Our analysis showed a
explained in the 1989 Benzene NESHAP source facilities that were modeled. In relatively small incremental risk
that risk levels should also be weighed addition, no significant non-cancer reduction beyond that achieved by
with a series of other health measures health effects are predicted. The option I. Under option I, one of the
and factors, including the following: maximum HQ would be reduced from 2 seven modeled facilities would pose
• The numbers of persons exposed to 0.2, and no adverse ecological risks greater than 100-in-1 million using
within each individual lifetime risk impacts are predicted under option I. In the CalEPA URE and no facility would
range and associated incidence within, addition, we expect that PCE usage will pose risks greater than 100-in-1 million
typically, a 50 km (about 30 miles) continue to drop as has been the trend using the OPPTS URE. Under option II,
exposure radius around facilities. over the past 10 years. This trend has this facility would still have risks above
• The science policy assumptions and been caused by the greater use of 100-in-1 million using the CalEPA URE
estimation uncertainties associated with alternative solvents, older machines at only. For the other six modeled
the risk measures. the end of their useful lives being facilities, the risks would remain in the
• Weight of the scientific evidence for range of 10-in-1 million under option II
replaced with newer, lower emitting
human health effects. using the CalEPA URE and risks would
• Other quantified or unquantified dry-to-dry machines with refrigerated
condensers and secondary carbon drop below the range of 10-in-1 million
health effects. for three of seven facilities using the
• The overall incidence of cancer or adsorbers, and State and industry
programs that improve machine OPPTS URE.
other serious health effects within the The national capital cost for option II
exposed population. efficiency and reduce PCE consumption.
(all 15 major sources) is $5.7 million
In some cases, these health measures All of these factors will cause risks to
with an annualized cost of $420,000.
and factors taken together may provide continue to decrease in the future in the
These costs include retrofitting PCE
a more realistic description of the absence of further Federal regulatory sensors and lockout systems on
magnitude of risk in the exposed requirements. Therefore, we have machines that were manufactured in
population than that provided by MIR determined that the risks associated 1998 or later, and the costs of replacing
alone. with regulatory option I are acceptable machines installed before 1998, which
Based on use of the criteria identified after considering MIR, the population cannot reliably meet the same level of
above, we judge the level of risk exposed at different risk levels, the emission reduction with a PCE sensor.
resulting from regulatory option I to be projected absence of noncancer effects Overall, option II has high costs
acceptable for this source category (table and adverse ecological effects, and the considering the relatively low risk
3 of this preamble). This option requires projected decline in PCE usage. reduction for most of the major sources.
dry cleaning machines at all major While not relevant for determining These costs do not achieve a significant
sources to have an enhanced LDAR the acceptable risk level, the national risk reduction for most sources.
program and closed-loop, dry-to-dry capital costs of regulatory option I are Consequently, we determined that
machines with refrigerated condensers $830,000 and annualized cost savings of requiring the addition of a PCE sensor
and secondary carbon adsorbers. The $220,000. Most facilities would and lock-out was not a reasonable or
calculated MIR is between 30-in-1 recognize a cost savings primarily from economically feasible option for all
million and 270-in-1 million. While the implementing the enhanced LDAR major sources.
upper-end of this risk range is greater program. Leak detection and repair is a We also evaluated regulatory option
than the presumptively acceptable level pollution prevention approach where III, a ban on PCE use, as a level of
of MIR under the 1989 Benzene reduced emissions translate into less control more stringent than the
NESHAP formulation (100-in-1 million), PCE consumption and reduced acceptable risk level for this source
we also considered other factors in operating costs because facilities would category. This would completely
making our determination of need to purchase less PCE. The capital eliminate risk from PCE for the
acceptability, as directed by the 1989 costs for individual facilities would population around the 15 major source
Benzene NESHAP. The principal factors range from $0 to $313,000, with a facilities by essentially eliminating the
that influenced our decision were that median cost of $51,000. Annualized sources of PCE. The costs to eliminate
nearly all of the population living costs would range from a cost savings of PCE usage at major sources would
within 10 km of each facility receive $106,000 per year to a cost of $22,000 require a capital cost to the industry of
cancer risk at less than 1-in-1 million. per year. approximately $8.2 million. This
estimate was based on the total cost of for certain cleaning applications. of the remaining risk for these sources.
replacing all PCE machines with However, there is not enough In estimating the inhalation cancer risk
machines using an alternative solvent experience to determine that these that area sources pose, we considered
(not an incremental cost of a new PCE technologies are sufficiently the risks from facilities co-located with
machine versus a new alternative demonstrated for all applications such residences (co-residential area sources)
solvent machine). Alternative solvents that PCE should be eliminated from the separately from those located in all
currently being used in the industry marketplace. Therefore, we have other settings (typical area sources).
include cyclic siloxanes, liquid carbon determined that regulatory option III is To assess risks from area sources, we
dioxide, wetcleaning, and synthetic not a viable option at this time first analyzed readily available data. The
hydrocarbon. There are some considering cost, economic impacts, 1999 National Air Toxics Assessment
uncertainties that these solvents do not technical feasibility, and uncertainties. (NATA) provides census tract level
have the cleaning power (kB value) of Based on the information analyzed for estimates of cancer risk and noncancer
PCE for the heavy soiled or greasy the three options, we are proposing that hazard across the United States for a
garments like leather work gloves and option I provides an ample margin of subset of the 188 HAP. Using this
aprons which are the typical garments safety to protect public health for major assessment, we were able to generate a
cleaned by industrial major sources. sources in the dry cleaning industry. course-scale estimate of population risk
There are some fabrics that cannot be for PCE area source dry cleaners by
F. What are the risks from typical area
cleaned in the alternative solvents. scaling the NATA cancer for PCE by the
sources?
There are also some uncertainties about relative contribution of area source
whether the waste from alternative We are not mandated to develop cleaners to PCE emissions. See table 6
solvent systems would be classified as residual risk standards for area sources below for a summary of the NATA-
hazardous. Alternative solvents have a regulated by GACT. Under our derived estimated risks for area source
role in the industry, and are being used discretion, we have developed estimates cleaners.
TABLE 6.—ESTIMATED NATA-DERIVED POPULATION CANCER RISK FOR PCE AREA SOURCE DRY CLEANERS
Estimated cancer risk at least:
Dose-response value 100-in-1 10-in-1 1-in-1
million million million
OPPTS ......................................................................................................................................... 0 0 960,000

CalEPA ........................................................................................................................................ 0 400,000 56,000,000
This assessment provides a screening- facility size and dispersion parameters complete description of the two
level estimate of PCE risk to the general and average and upper-end emissions of modeling methodologies. Table 7 of this
population. a facility meeting the 1993 Dry Cleaning preamble summarizes the cancer and
Next, we performed a ‘‘model facility’’ NESHAP to create a set of ‘‘model noncancer risk for typical area sources
assessment. In this modeling scenario, facilities.’’ See the risk characterization (excluding transfer machines).
we used information regarding typical memorandum in the public docket for a
TABLE 7.—ESTIMATED INCREMENTAL LIFETIME INDIVIDUAL CANCER RISK AND NON-CANCER HAZARD FOR TYPICAL AREA
SOURCES USING A RANGE OF EMISSIONS AND WORST-CASE DISPERSION MODELING
Model facility emissions
Maximum
Risk estimate Average 99th percentile (8 tons)
(.05 tons) (4 tons)
MIR (OPPTS URE) .......................................................... 2-in-1 million ...................... 20-in-1 million .................... 30-in-1 million.
MIR (CalEPA URE) ......................................................... 15-in-1 million .................... 120-in-1 million .................. 220-in-1 million.
Noncancer HQ 1 ............................................................... 0.001 .................................. 0.07 .................................... 0.1.
1 HQ estimates have been rounded.
G. What are the options for reducing at area source dry cleaners in the United concentration. This device can be
risk, their costs, and risk reduction States. The three control measures were particularly useful in pinpointing leaks
impacts for typical area sources? used to develop two regulatory options at major sources that have high
We evaluated three control measures to reduce risk. background concentrations of PCE. The
to reduce risks from typical area The enhanced LDAR program for area halogenated leak detector is a non-
sources. These measures are an sources would require the use of a quantitative device that provides an
enhanced LDAR program for area halogenated leak detector instead of a audible or visual display when it detects
sources, elimination of emissions from gas analyzer, which is being proposed a leak above 25 ppm. We have
existing transfer machines, and the use for major sources. The cost of a concluded that a halogenated leak
of a refrigerated condenser and halogenated leak detector ($250) is detector is sufficient for detecting leaks
secondary carbon adsorber (same significantly less than a gas analyzer at area source dry cleaners and will
control technologies described above for ($3,300). A gas analyzer is a more provide a significant improvement in
major sources). These control measures accurate device that provides a reducing emissions compared to the
have been commercially demonstrated quantitative reading of PCE
current requirement to inspect for the population of 28,000 dry cleaning amendments would reduce PCE
perceptible leaks only. machines located at area sources emissions substantially.
Transfer machines have substantially (estimated one PCE dry cleaning We developed two regulatory options
higher emissions than dry-to-dry machine per facility with approximately to evaluate area source risk reductions.
machines. The 1993 Dry Cleaning 28,000 facilities). Most of these Option I would require enhanced LDAR
NESHAP effectively bans new transfer machines will be at or near the end of and eliminate emissions from existing
machines, but existing machines were their useful economic life by the time transfer machines by requiring that they
grandfathered. In 1993, we determined final rule requirements are promulgated. be replaced with new machines. This
that the capital costs required to replace The typical life of a dry cleaning option would apply to both large and
all transfer machines would have machine is 10 to 15 years. By the end small area sources. Option II would
created an adverse economic impact on of 2006, the newest transfer machines in require all area sources to use a
a substantial portion of the industry, the industry will be 13 years old. refrigerated condenser and secondary
especially small businesses that had carbon adsorber in addition to option I.
Replacing these machines with new
recently purchased new transfer Table 8 of this preamble summarizes the
machines meeting the requirements for
machines. We estimate that about 200 cancer and noncancer risks from these
transfer machines remain in use within new sources under the proposed control options.
TABLE 8.—ESTIMATED MAXIMUM1 CANCER RISK AND NONCANCER HAZARD FOR TYPICAL AREA SOURCES
Control option
Risk metric Option II—LDAR +
1993 NESHAP Option I—LDAR secondary controls
Estimated Lifetime Cancer Risk (OPPTS URE) ............. 30-in-1 million .................... 20-in-1 million .................... 15-in-1 million.
Estimated Lifetime Cancer Risk (CalEPA URE) ............. 220-in-1 million .................. 175-in-1 million .................. 110-in-1 million
Noncancer HQ ................................................................. 0.1 ...................................... 0.1 ...................................... 0.1
Capital Cost—($1,000,000) ............................................. ............................................ $12.4 .................................. $85.7
Annualized Cost—($1,000,000) ...................................... ............................................ ($2.7) ................................. $7.9
Emission Reduction (tpy) ................................................ ............................................ 3,236 .................................. 5,749
1Assumes a facility using a dry-to-dry machine with a refrigerated condenser emitting 8 tons of PCE a year (highest known emitting dry-to-dry
machine). Risks from transfer machines are not included in the tables. The costs and risk estimates in this table do not consider the impacts of
future trends of declining PCE usage.
H. What is our proposal for addressing source, which emits approximately 0.5 an instrument like a halogenated
the remaining emissions for typical area ton of PCE per year, is estimated at hydrocarbon leak detector.
sources? between 4-in-1 million and 15-in-1 Therefore, to protect public health
We are considering adopting a million. In addition, the assessment with an ample margin of safety, we are
residual risk decision process for area showed no significant acute health proposing to eliminate the use of
sources which is based on that used for effects (HQ of 1.0 for the highest transfer machines and require an
major sources. This involves first emitting area source facility). enhanced LDAR program for dry-to-dry
determining an acceptable level of risk Considering the relatively low level of machines (option I). This option would
to the public and then determining an risk posed by the great majority of area reduce PCE emissions by 3,200 tpy and
ample margin of safety to protect public sources, the projected absence of reduce risks to the public from between
health, considering costs and economic significant noncancer and ecological 30-in-1 million and 220-in-1 million to
impacts of controls, technological effects, and the projected decline in PCE between 20-in-1 million and 175-in-1
feasibility, uncertainties, and other usage, we believe that the 1993 Dry million.
relevant factors. We request comments Cleaning NESHAP level of control Option I would require total capital
on this approach for area sources. results in an acceptable level of risk to costs of $12 million. The enhanced
As part of this rulemaking, we have the public. LDAR program would cost about $5
determined that exposure to emissions Replacing transfer machines with new million. About 20,000 facilities would
under the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP dry-to-dry equipment would reduce be required to purchase a halogenated
constitutes an acceptable level of risk risks from the potentially highest- hydrocarbon detector at a cost of $250
for typical area sources. Currently, we emitting sources. Under either option I each. About 200 facilities would be
estimate that more than 98 percent of or II, transfer machines would be required to replace their existing
28,000 existing dry cleaners use a dry- replaced with dry-to-dry machines with transfer machines with dry-to-dry
to-dry machine with a refrigerated a refrigerated condenser and a machines with refrigerated condensers
condenser to comply with the 1993 Dry secondary carbon adsorber (i.e., the and carbon adsorber at a cost of about
Cleaning NESHAP or State emission proposed new source requirements for $36,000 each for a total industry cost of
standards. Using the most health area sources, which are discussed $7.3 million. Annually, option I is
protective modeling assumptions for below). expected to result in a cost savings to
meteorology and location, the model For dry-to-dry machines, equipment industry of about $2.7 million per year.
facility analysis indicated that the leaks are the largest source of emissions, Cost saving would be realized because
highest known emitting area source particularly from older dry cleaning both replacement of transfer machines
would pose cancer risks of between 30- machines. While the perceptible leaks and enhanced LDAR will reduce annual
in-1 million and 220-in-1 million. The program under the 1993 Dry Cleaning PCE consumption. The reduction in
risk from the vast majority of area NESHAP may prevent major leaks, a annual PCE consumption at the 200
sources would be substantially less. For substantial emission reduction can be businesses that would replace transfer
example, cancer risk for the typical area achieved by earlier leak detection using machines is more than sufficient to
offset the annualized cost of the new than a minimal burden; however, we the United States. Residents in these
equipment. In particular, we believe specifically ask for comment on buildings can receive elevated PCE
most of the transfer machines are at the methods by which EPA could focus the concentrations because PCE vapor
end of their useful life and it would be additional regulatory requirements travels through the building walls and
economically beneficial for the facilities being proposed by this rule to only up elevator and pipe shafts into
to replace the transfer machines with those area sources (typical and co- residences. Emissions of PCE also can
dry-to-dry machines. Thus, we believe residential) which pose significant risks enter from the ambient air into
the economic impacts to the affected to human health. For example, we seek residences via open windows. Even
businesses and facilities are negligible. comments on whether there could be a after the dry cleaner closes, PCE
Finally, these costs and risk estimates methodology by which facilities could absorbed onto surfaces can continue to
do not consider the impacts of future conduct site specific risk assessments to be emitted throughout the day and
trends of declining PCE usage. demonstrate that their PCE emissions night. To assess potential risks, we used
We are not proposing the option of pose cancer risk levels that are less than indoor air monitoring data collected by
requiring existing area sources to install 1-in-1 million, with a HI of less than 1, the New York Department of Health and
secondary carbon adsorbers (option II). and with no acute human health risks the New York State Department of
Secondary carbon adsorbers would or adverse environmental effects, and Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)
reduce maximum risks at the highest thereby avoid the additional
between 2001–2003 as part of an
risk area sources from between 20-in-1 requirements that would otherwise
million and 175-in-1 million under epidemiological study examining
apply under the proposed rule
option I to between 15-in-1 million and neurological endpoints. In considering
revisions. Comments should address
110-in-1 million under option II. Under the New York data, it should be
whether such an approach is feasible
option II, about 7,500 facilities would be recognized that the data resulted from
(for example, if facilities would be able
required to raise capital to install carbon an epidemiological study, and dry
to conduct these risk assessments), the
adsorbers (27 percent of the industry). cleaner building and apartment
legal authority for such an approach, the
For these sources, the capital costs for inclusion and exclusion criteria
methodology sources would use for
compliance would be about $85 million influenced buildings that were
conducting risk assessments, the
with an annualized cost of about $8 specific criteria by which potential ultimately sampled. Also, certain
million. The capital cost for individual ‘‘low-risk’’ sources would be evaluated, buildings were identified in order to
facilities would range from $4,000 to the mechanism for evaluating and potentially increase the likelihood of
$45,000. A majority of sources that determining whether source risk finding apartments with elevated PCE
would be affected by option II are small assessments meet those criteria, how the levels. Data collected during this period
businesses. For these small businesses, process would be implemented by indicate that resident exposures ranged
the annualized costs would average Federal and/or State and local agencies, from a geometric mean of 33 ug/m3 to
from 10 to 20 percent of sales, and this how it would be enforced (for example, a maximum of 5,000 ug/m3. The New
amount is much higher than the average through a permitting program or other York Department of Health collected
profit per unit of sales that small dry regulatory structure to ensure that any these data during the final
cleaners normally experience (1 to 3 sources found to be ‘‘low-risk’’ remain implementation of title 6 NYCRR Part
percent). This cost would lead to a high so), and what would be the 232 rules, which require the use of a
number of small businesses owning consequences if and when a source, for refrigerated condenser and secondary
affected facilities that will likely close whatever reason, is found to no longer carbon adsorber, and a vapor barrier or
due to the lack of available capital for qualify as a ‘‘low-risk’’ source. room enclosure around co-residential
the needed investment in carbon dry cleaning machines. We extrapolated
adsorbers. Therefore, we are not I. What are the risks from co-residential these 24-hour samples to lifetime
proposing to require a secondary carbon area sources? exposure to estimate inhalation cancer
adsorber on existing area sources, Residents living in the same building risk and noncancer hazard. For a full
because the risk reduction would be with a dry cleaner may receive description of the methodology that we
relatively minor and the costs would significantly higher exposures to PCE used, see the risk characterization
impose adverse economic impacts on a than people not living above or in the memorandum in the public docket.
number of small businesses. same building as a dry cleaner. We Table 9 of this preamble summarizes the
We do not believe that the proposed estimate there are approximately 1,300 inhalation cancer risk and noncancer
requirements for area sources pose more co-residential dry cleaning facilities in hazard of co-residential area sources.
TABLE 9.—ESTIMATED INCREMENTAL LIFETIME INDIVIDUAL CANCER RISK AND NONCANCER HAZARD FOR CO-RESIDENTIAL
AREA SOURCES USING A RANGE OF MONITORED EXPOSURES
Distribution of Monitored Exposure
Risk metric 3 Lower 5th Upper 95th
Median Geometric mean Maximum
percentile 2 percentile
Estimated Lifetime Cancer Risk 4-in-1 million ......... 10-in-1 million ...... 20-in-1 million ....... 500-in-1 million ..... 4,000-in-1 million.
(OPPTSURE).
Estimated Lifetime Cancer Risk 30-in-1 million ....... 50-in-1 million ....... 200-in-1 million ..... 4,000-in-1 million .. 30,000-in-1 million.
(CalEPAURE).
Noncancer HQ 1 .................................. 0.02 ...................... 0.06 ...................... 0.1 ........................ 3 ........................... 20

1 HQ estimates have been rounded.
2 The lowest 5th percentile of exposure is equal to the non-detect limit of the monitors, which is 5 ug/m 3.
3 These estimates reflect only facilities in full compliance with Title 6 NYCRR Part 232.
To better characterize inhalation cleaners, we performed a sensitivity assumed exposure duration. Table 10
cancer risk among residents of analysis in which we varied the illustrates the results from this analysis.
apartments co-located with area source
TABLE 10.—ESTIMATED HIGH-END CANCER RISKS FOR RESIDENTS OF CO-LOCATED APARTMENTS: EXPOSURE DURATION
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 1
Assumed Exposure Duration
Estimated Lifetime Cancer Risk
70 years 50 years 30 years 20 years 10 years
Risk per million (CalEPAURE) ............................................. 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 600
Risk per million (OPPTSURE) ............................................. 500 400 200 100 80
HQ ........................................................................................ 7 5 3 2 1
Inhalation cancer risk estimates using the 95th percentile exposure level range from a maximum of between 4,000 and 500-in-1 million, as-
suming 70-year expsure to between 600 and 80-in-1 million assuming 10-year experience.
1 Cancer risk estimates derived using 95th percentile PCE exposures for monitoring data from facilities in full compliance with NYSDEC
requirements.
The PCE exposure concentrations million and 30,000-in-1 million, which times higher than the maximum major
presented in table 11 of this preamble is higher than the maximum risk at both source risks and about 140 times higher
show the potential risk levels that co- major sources and typical area sources. than the maximum typical area source
residential sources may pose. The MIR This table suggests that maximum co- risk.
was predicted at between 4,000-in-1 residential area source risks are about 13
TABLE 11.—COMPARISON OF PCE EXPOSURE CONCENTRATIONS BY TYPE OF FACILITY 3

Co-residential area
Facility Typical area source Major source
source
Maximum Exposure Concentration (ug/m 3) ............................................ 5,000 1 ....................... 37 .............................. 405

Geometric Mean Exposure Concentration (ug/m 3) ................................. 33 .............................. 1 ................................ 1.3
Maximum Inhalation Risk (per million) .................................................... 3,000 to 30,000 2 ....... 30 to 220 ................... 300 to 2,400
Maximum Noncancer HQ ........................................................................ 20 .............................. 0.1 ............................. 2
Geometric Mean Noncancer HQ ............................................................. 0.1 ............................. 0.004 ......................... 0.004
1 New York Department of Health monitoring data.
2 Inhalationcancer risks were extrapolated from 24-hour monitoring data, assuming continuous exposure for 70 years at the maximum mon-
itored concentration.
3 Estimate range represents difference between estimated risk using OPPTS and CalEPA URE.
J. What is our proposed decision on co- proposing a second option to achieve For new co-residential sources, the
residential area sources? emissions reductions through a most stringent possible control option
We are proposing two options for co- technology based standard for both with the greatest risk reduction is a
residential area sources in today’s existing and new co-residential sources prohibition of PCE use at such sources.
proposal. We expect to select one of relying only on our Section 112(d)(6) This option would eliminate PCE risks
these options, with possible authority, as discussed below and in for new sources and require that any
modifications in response to comments, section III.K. We request comment on new dry cleaning machines located in a
in the final rule. The first option alternative approaches that might residential building would have to use
addresses both risks and technological protect public health with an ample an alternative cleaning solvent. We
developments for new co-residential margin of safety. believe the owner/operator can choose
area sources as a combined CAA Section As our first option, we are proposing from other alternative solvent dry
112(f) residual risk and Section different requirements for new and cleaning systems to use in a residential
112(d)(6) rulemaking, and is described existing co-residential sources. For new building.
further in this section. This is consistent sources, we propose not to allow any The national capital costs of this
with the approach we are taking for new co-residential machines that emit regulatory option for new co-residential
typical area sources and for major PCE. Our proposal is based on the high- sources are $8.6 million, and the
sources. However, for existing co- end estimated MIR of between 4,000-in- annualized costs are approximately
residential area sources under this 1 million and 30,000-in-1 million, and $950,000. These cost estimates are based
option, we are not exercising our on our conclusion that risks from new on the assumption that existing facilities
discretion to impose a section 112(f) co-residential sources should be will replace PCE machines that have
residual risk standard, but only a substantially reduced. These risk reached the end of their useful lives (15
section 112(d)(6) standard. We estimates are based on monitored years) and are estimated for facilities
recognize that developing residual risk concentrations taken from apartments affected within the first 5 years after the
standards for area sources is above co-residential dry cleaners with final rule takes effect. These costs reflect
discretionary under the CAA, and that the level of equipment control required the incremental cost between replacing
emissions reductions can also be by NYSDEC in their title 6 NYCRR Part existing machines with PCE machines
achieved under CAA section 112(d)(6) 232 rules (e.g., a refrigerated condenser with refrigerated condensers and carbon
that do not rely upon our section 112(f) and secondary carbon adsorber, and a adsorbers, and replacing them with
authority. Therefore, we are also vapor barrier or room enclosure). machines using hydrocarbon solvents.
This analysis includes costs for all estimated 1,300 co-residential sources and risks. We request comment on ways
affected facilities, such as the cost are located in New York and California. to minimize these biases. In evaluating
incurred to install fire protection These sources are controlled with the the potential impact of NYSDEC
sprinklers required by most applicable technology equivalent to the requirements, our analysis focused on
fire codes to operate a hydrocarbon requirements of the 1993 Dry Cleaning those facilities which were deemed to
technology, that would not be necessary NESHAP for new major sources; plus, be in compliance with the NYSDEC part
with other options. Cost estimates the facilities in New York have installed 232 regulations. However, it is not
would be much lower if facilities using room enclosures to reduce exposure always clear from the available data
this option have sprinkler systems in from residual emissions. what the exact compliance status of the
place, or if they choose a less costly At this time we have limited data on facilities was at the time that
alternative garment cleaning option co-residential sources outside of New measurements were taken. For example,
utilizing non-flammable solvents, or York and California. We do not know we note that the highest measured
conducting dry cleaning operations off- how representative the dataset is of all exposure level (5,000 ug/m3), which is
site from the co-residential facility. We facilities in New York City. We do not associated with a facility that was
estimate that this control option for new know how many people are exposed at reported to be in full compliance with
co-residential sources may, after about other sources and if the exposure and the NYSDEC regulations at the time of
15 years, result in the elimination of risk levels in other parts of the United the measurements, has been called into
cancer risks from all co-residential States are similar to those in New York question by industry stakeholders based
sources, as existing sources would be City buildings. We have little on evidence that the facility was
replaced by new non-PCE sources. This information on the distribution of PCE inspected and found to be out of
means that maximum individual risk concentrations, the number of persons compliance (due to equipment
levels due to these sources would living in co-residential buildings, or the operation problems) approximately 2
decline from between 30,000- and number of persons exposed to various months after the measurements were
4,000-in-1 million to 0; average PCE concentration levels. Based on the taken. These problems were remedied
individual risk would decline from New York monitoring data, we know the and compliance was certified a week
between 1,000- and 200-in-1 million to level of PCE concentrations can vary later. This uncertainty in exact
0; and annual incidence would decline substantially within co-residential compliance status leads to an
from between 2.2 and 0.3 cases per year buildings. While we believe that the uncertainty in whether the measured
to 0. These risk reduction estimates for dataset used for this risk assessment concentration values actually reflect a
all co-residential dry cleaners are represents a high-quality set of level of control consistent with
subject to a number of limitations, the measurements which is appropriate for implementation of the NYSDEC
greatest of which are likely: (1) The estimating risks, we are also aware that requirements. Thus, we request
degree to which the small sampled the dataset may contain a selection bias comment on whether and to what extent
subset of co-residential dry cleaners (16) due to the fact that the study from temporal variability or compliance
is representative of the full set (about which the data were taken was an problems among the facilities located in
1,300) of all co-residential dry cleaners; epidemiological study aimed at buildings with the sampled apartments
(2) our uncertainty of the size of the identifying high exposures within may have biased the sampled
affected population; and (3) the possible minority and economically- measurements high or low and
range of cancer potency factors used in disadvantaged populations. Moreover, influenced the results of the risk
our analysis, which is reflected in the we are also aware that variable attention
assessment.
ranges of the risk metrics reported to work practices, difficulties in
above. achieving compliance with newly- We believe that the risk assessment
We also recognize that a proposal to installed equipment, and poor underlying the proposal of our first
prohibit new co-residential sources ventilation in sampled apartments may option is appropriate for rulemaking
could encourage continued operation of also have increased the measured purposes, however, given the
existing co-residential PCE machines concentration values relative to the uncertainties discussed above, we are
beyond their useful lives rather than remaining population of apartments co- proposing a second option solely under
replacement with new machines. We located with area source dry cleaners. the authority of section 112(d)(6) of the
request comment on a sunset provision, Thus, we specifically request comment CAA. We propose the NYSDEC title 6
where, after some period of time that on the appropriateness of using this NYCRR Part 232 rules (or similar
reflects the typical lifetime of a dry dataset to develop a risk assessment standards) as the basis for control
cleaning machine, existing co- which represents the population of co- standards for both new and existing
residential sources would have to be residential facilities. We also request sources, instead of prohibiting any new
replaced with new machines that do not any additional data that might be used co-residential machines that emit PCE
emit PCE. to characterize these risks. and the standards proposed for typical
As part of this first option, we are If a long-term time series dataset of area sources and existing co-residential
proposing no additional control concentration measurements were sources. The NYSDEC requires that co-
requirements for existing co-residential available, we would estimate chronic residential dry cleaning machines have
dry cleaners beyond the proposed exposure based on it to take into refrigerated condensers and secondary
requirements for existing area sources. account the true temporal variability of carbon adsorbers, and that equipment be
However, we also request comment on exposures. However, we do not have housed inside a vapor barrier with
the appropriateness of adopting other such a dataset. Instead, we base our general ventilation to the outside air for
alternatives. In particular, we are exposure and risk estimates on snapshot both new and existing facilities.
continuing to analyze the potential data available, recognizing that an Facilities must conduct weekly leak
health risks at co-residential sources extrapolation from short-term inspections using a leak detection
and the range of options to reduce these monitoring values can lead to an device such as a halogenated
risks. Options under consideration upward bias of the high-end chronic hydrocarbon detector. Facilities are
range from voluntary initiatives to exposures and risks and a downward required to obtain annual third party
regulatory action. About 1,100 of the bias of the low-end chronic exposures inspections by a professional engineer,
and must make available the most from residual risks with an ample carbon adsorbers, and by 2003 nearly all
recent inspection report to interested margin of safety. The system would of the PCE machines sold would have
individuals for their review. The reduce emissions by 40 tpy. Total this technology. New York and,
NYSDEC also requires that the facility capital costs are estimated to be $5.7 beginning in 2007, California, will
owner and/or manager and the dry million for the 15 major sources with an require this technology for all existing
cleaning machine operator be certified annualized cost of $420,000. Additional major and area sources. Due to the vast
by an organization that offers a training analysis of costs can be found in the number of area sources compared to
program approved by the State agency. Background Information Document in major sources, the majority of the new
Most co-residential facilities meet the the public docket. The incremental cost- PCE machines are purchased by area
New York standards (of the 1,300 co- effectiveness of the option is $17,000 sources to replace older technology
residential facilities nationwide, per ton of PCE removed (overall, machines. Therefore, we are proposing
approximately 900 are in New York), considering all 15 facilities). the use of dry-to-dry machines with
but approximately 240 facilities across Consequently, we propose that requiring refrigerated condensers and secondary
the country would need to upgrade their enhanced LDAR and a refrigerated carbon adsorbers for new machines at
equipment to comply with this second condenser/secondary carbon adsorber area sources to meet the requirements of
proposal option. The capital cost of this would meet the requirements for CAA CAA section 112(d)(6).
option is approximately $3 million, and section 112(d)(6). For co-residential area sources, the
the annual cost is $0.5 million. These Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA also most stringent standards currently in
estimates include the cost for requires that we review and, if place are those enforced by NYSDEC
approximately 240 existing facilities to necessary, revise the technology-based
(described in section III.J). In some
either upgrade or replace their existing standards for area sources. The 1993 Dry
cases, these and related requirements
equipment to include a refrigerated Cleaning NESHAP for area sources was
have been effective in reducing
condenser and carbon adsorber, install a based on the use of GACT. The options
exposure levels; the mean exposure has
vapor barrier and conduct the leak selected for evaluating GACT for
dropped by tenfold since 1997
detection and repair described above. existing area sources are the same two
(McDermott, et al., 2005). However, as
These estimates do not include the cost options that we discussed above;
described earlier, a monitoring study in
of third party inspections and operator enhanced LDAR and eliminating
New York City suggests that risk levels
training, so cost impacts may be transfer machines (option I on table 8 of
after implementation of these standards
understated. Emissions reduction is this preamble), and the use of secondary
carbon adsorbers (option II on table 8 of may remain relatively high. Under our
estimated to be about 48 tons per year
this preamble). Option I would reduce first option for addressing co-residential
from the use of refrigerated condensers
emissions by an estimated 3,200 tpy and area sources discussed above in section
and carbon adsorbers. Vapor barriers do
would result in a net cost savings to area III.J of this preamble, we are not
not remove emissions, but contain them
sources. Option II would reduce proposing the NYSDEC levels of control
to help prevent exposures to emissions.
For this second option, we request emissions by an additional 3,000 tpy. under Section 112(d)(6). However,
data on the emission levels, exposure, However, as explained above, under the second option for co-
and risks associated with meeting the retrofitting a secondary carbon adsorber residential sources, we are proposing
level of control required by the NYSDEC would not be cost-effective for many under CAA section 112(d)(6) standards
standards and for any other control existing area source dry cleaners. based on those required by NYSDEC
options for co-residential sources that Consequently, we propose that requiring Part 232 for new and existing co-
may substantially reduce emissions enhanced LDAR and eliminating residential sources, which would be
from co-residential sources (e.g., transfer machines at existing area modified, as appropriate, to function as
periodic gasket replacement in lieu of sources would meet the requirements of nationally applicable Federal standards
inspections). CAA section 112(d)(6). rather than State standards. While the
For new machines located at area first proposed option would eventually
K. What determination is EPA proposing source dry cleaners, we are proposing eliminate PCE exposures from co-
pursuant to review of the 1993 Dry the use of refrigerated condensers, residential sources, this second option
Cleaning NESHAP under CAA section secondary carbon adsorbers, and would initially reduce exposures from
112(d)(6)? enhanced LDAR. Requiring the use of existing co-residential sources more
Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA requires secondary carbon adsorbers on new than the first option to require enhanced
us to review and revise MACT machines will not impose any LDAR for all area sources. This second
standards, as necessary, every 8 years, significant new costs to the industry, option for co-residential sources
taking into account developments in because the majority of new machines eliminates the continued use of
practices, processes, and control today are sold with secondary carbon equipment without secondary carbon
technologies that have occurred during adsorbers. Vented machines, water- adsorbers at new and existing co-
that time. If we find relevant changes, cooled condensers, and transfer residential sources; this contrasts with
we may revise the MACT standards and machines are no longer sold. Many area the first option discussed in section J
develop additional standards. We do not source dry cleaners are buying this above, which prohibits the use of new
interpret CAA section 112(d)(6) as latest technology (dry-to-dry machine PCE machines and may give facilities
requiring another analysis of MACT with refrigerated condenser and the incentive to prolong the use of
floors for existing and new sources. secondary carbon adsorber) because existing machines rather than purchase
For major sources, we considered as they are easier to operate, use less PCE, newer, lower emitting PCE machines at
a MACT alternative the same options and produce less hazardous waste. In existing sources. With respect to new
considered above for residual risk (table addition, several States require the use facilities, this option would allow new
5 of this preamble). The use of a PCE of this technology. A machine co-residential facilities to use PCE only
sensor/lock system (option II on table 5 manufacturer stated that 70 percent of if they also use equipment with
of this preamble) is an option more the new PCE machines sold in the year refrigerated condensers and secondary
stringent than the level of control that 2000 were dry-to-dry machines with carbon adsorbers housed in a vapor
we are proposing to protect the public refrigerated condensers and secondary barrier. EPA is seeking comment and
additional information in section III.J to A. Additional Requirements for Highest several industry experts. Facilities using
help assess risk reductions that could be Risk Facilities a PCE sensor and lockout system could
achieved through application of For one of the modeled major source possibly observe a wide range of
standards similar to NYSDEC part 232. facilities, the estimated emissions after emission reduction potential. For
installing controls required by the example, facilities that use good
L. What additional changes are we maintenance procedures and follow
making to the 1993 Dry Cleaning proposed rule would pose a MIR greater
than 100-in-1 million using the CalEPA manufacturers specifications would
NESHAP? achieve lower emission reductions than
URE. An alternative approach we are
considering is establishing more facilities with poor maintenance
In 40 CFR 63.322(e), we are deleting
stringent requirements for this source. procedures. This control technology
the term ‘‘diverter valve,’’ but retaining
We would like information about ensures optimal operation of the carbon
the requirement to prevent air drawn adsorber by preventing the door from
into the door of the dry cleaning whether such an approach would be
being opened until the PCE
machine from passing through the appropriate and what would be a
concentration in the drum is less than
refrigerated condenser. We are suitable regulatory basis for creating a
300 ppm at the end of the drying cycle.
proposing this change because some separate class for this major source. We
Facilities with good maintenance
newer machines accomplish this are considering requiring this facility to
procedures will have fewer high
objective without a diverter valve. This install a PCE sensor and lockout on each
emission episodes caused by premature
change does not subject sources to any dry cleaning machine.
Under the proposed rule, this facility termination of the drying cycle.
new requirements and does not change We solicit comments on the
the requirement for machines with would be required to install a
appropriateness of requiring greater
diverter valves. refrigerated condenser and secondary
emission reduction at the highest risk
carbon adsorber. Most dry cleaning source, the performance of the PCE
In 40 CFR 63.322(m) and 40 CFR machines with secondary carbon
63.324(d), we are changing ‘‘perceptible sensor and lockout system and its
adsorbers sold in this country since effectiveness in reducing risks from this
leaks’’ to ‘‘leaks’’ because the 1998 are equipped with a lockout that
requirements now apply to both the source, and the basis for creating a
prevents the drum from being opened separate class for this major source dry
monthly inspection for vapor leaks, until the completion of the timed
which would require the use of a leak cleaner. We also request information on
adsorption cycle. These machines have the feasibility, cost, and amount of
detection instrument, as well as the been demonstrated to achieve a emission reduction that could be
weekly or biweekly inspections for concentration inside the drum of less achieved at this source through other
perceptible leaks. This harmonizing than 300 ppm without a PCE sensor. techniques, such as the use of
change would not change the nature of The addition of a sensor ensures that alternative solvents or other approaches.
existing inspection requirements. To this target concentration will be met for
support the proposed requirements for every load, thereby preventing episodes B. Requirement for PCE Sensor and
monthly vapor leak inspection, we have of high emissions caused by operator Lockout as New Source MACT for Major
proposed to add definitions of ‘‘vapor error or machine malfunction. Sources
leak,’’ ‘‘PCE gas analyzer,’’ and The PCE sensor and lockout system We are considering making PCE
‘‘halogenated hydrocarbon detector.’’ originally was developed to meet the 2. sensor and lockout controls a
The 40 CFR 63.323(b) would be BImSchV German Emission Control requirement for new machines installed
revised to add PCE gas analyzers as an Law, which requires a PCE at major sources. The decision to select
acceptable monitoring instrument in concentration in the dry cleaning option I instead of this control option
addition to colorimetric tubes. Major machine drum of less than 2 grams per for major sources was based on the
cubic meter (∼300 ppm) at the end of the relatively small emission reduction
sources would need a PCE gas analyzer
drying cycle. Dry cleaning machines estimated to result from the installation
for enhanced leak detection and repair.
equipped with PCE sensors are widely of PCE sensor and lockout controls. We
This analyzer could also be used for
used in Germany and are available in would like additional data on the
monitoring a carbon adsorber. Also, the
the United States. However, there is amount of PCE reduction achieved by
phrase ‘‘or removal of the activated
limited experience with this technology these controls in both industrial and
carbon’’ would be added to clarify that
in the United States. We are aware of commercial applications, and about
any major source required to use a only two commercial dry cleaners in the
carbon adsorber is required to monitor how site-specific factors influence the
United States and one industrial dry reduction achieved.
the adsorber exhaust weekly for PCE. cleaner in Canada that use a PCE sensor.
Previously, this requirement was Because of the limited United States C. Alternative Performance-Based
unclear for sources that disposed of the experience, we do not have emission Standard for Existing Major Sources
carbon instead of desorbing it. test data to evaluate the performance of We are considering establishing an
IV. Solicitation of Public Comments this system relative to machines with a alternative performance-based standard
timed lockout system, particularly with for existing major sources. The
We request comments on all aspects industrial articles such as work gloves. alternative standard would be a facility-
of the proposed amendments. We are The emissions reductions that we used wide PCE use limitation (e.g., gal PCE
also considering additional rule to evaluate the PCE sensor and lockout per year, solvent mileage or other
amendments and specifically solicit system were based on estimates of metrics), which would be determined as
comments on these potential solvent mileage (pounds garments a percent reduction of actual PCE use
amendments. The additional cleaned per gal of PCE used) compared from a baseline year. If adopted, a
amendments are described in the to machines with a refrigerated source could elect to comply with either
following sections. All significant condenser and secondary carbon the proposed process vent controls (i.e.,
comments received will be considered adsorber. The estimated mileage of the closed loop machine with refrigerated
in the development and selection of the various dry cleaning systems was condenser and secondary carbon
final amendments. obtained from engineering judgment by adsorber) or the performance-based
alternative. Facilities that use the and the residual risk requirements compliance to assure that the health of
performance-based alternative still adopted in the final rule. persons will be protected from
would be required to comply with the The performance-based alternative imminent endangerment, consistent
operating controls (i.e., enhanced leak would apply only to existing major with section 112(f)(4)(B) of the CAA.
detection and repair, etc.) in the sources. New major sources are not
eligible for these performance-based V. Statutory and Executive Order
proposed rule.
alternative standards because no Reviews
The alternative standard would
provide more flexibility in choosing the baseline PCE data exists for determining A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
method of reducing emissions. This a required emission reduction level. Planning and Review
flexibility provides the opportunity to This alternative also would not be
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
decrease compliance costs, reduce practicable for area sources because the
proposed rule has no process vent 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA must
recordkeeping, and simplify compliance determine whether the regulatory action
and enforcement. We anticipate that any requirements for existing area sources.
The only requirements for existing area is ‘‘significant’’ and, therefore, subject to
facility selecting this alternative would OMB review and the requirements of
reduce emissions by replacing some sources are the ban on transfer
machines, enhanced LDAR, and the the Executive Order. The Executive
machines with alternative solvent Order defines ‘‘significant regulatory
machines and continuing to operate operating requirements. Moreover, most
area sources operate only one dry action’’ as one that is likely to result in
some PCE machines without secondary a rule that may:
controls. Additional emission cleaning machine.
We solicit comments on whether such (1) Have an annual effect on the
reductions could also be achieved by economy of $100 million or more, or
more aggressive maintenance and leak an approach would be appropriate for
major sources. We would also like adversely affect in a material way the
detection programs. economy, a sector of the economy,
comments from affected sources
The performance-based alternative we productivity, competition, jobs, the
regarding the likelihood that they would
are considering would limit annual PCE environment, public health or safety, or
select this alternative standard. In
consumption on a facility-wide basis. State, local, or tribal governments or
addition, we welcome comments on
Usage of PCE correlates directly with communities;
other options for a performance-based
PCE emissions. The limit would be (2) create a serious inconsistency or
alternative. Please include in your
based on the average fraction of otherwise interfere with an action taken
comments how the option ensures
emissions reduced by the control or planned by another agency;
equivalent emission reductions to the
technology requirement for the different (3) materially alter the budgetary
proposed equipment standards and how
types of affected sources. For the three impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,
the option could be enforced, including
major source industrial facilities that or loan programs or the rights and
any recordkeeping needed.
would be required to make equipment obligations of recipients thereof; or
changes to comply with the proposed D. Environmental Impacts of PCE (4) raise novel legal or policy issues
rule, the average estimated facility-wide Emissions arising out of legal mandates, the
emission reduction, including enhanced As discussed above, due to the large President’s priorities, or the principles
leak detection and repair, would be 76 margin of exposures relative to known set forth in the Executive Order.
percent. For the four affected major thresholds, risks to mammals from PCE Pursuant to the terms of Executive
source commercial facilities, the average inhalation are likely insignificant. Also, Order 12866, OMB has determined that
estimated total emission facility-wide the scarcity of data makes it difficult to it considers this proposed rule a
reduction would be 67 percent. These identify any potential for adverse ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ within
reductions are relative to estimated ecological impacts to plant life from the meaning of the Executive Order. The
emissions from these facilities in 2002. PCE emissions from dry cleaners due to EPA has submitted this action to OMB
Therefore, we envision that facilities conversion to TCAA. While we have no for review. Changes made in response to
that clean industrial articles such as direct evidence that this will present a OMB suggestions or recommendations
work gloves would be required to significant ecological risk, we will be documented in the public
reduce PCE usage by at least 76 percent. nonetheless, invite public comment and record.
For facilities that do not clean work solicit additional scientific information
gloves or shop rags, we envision a PCE B. Paperwork Reduction Act
on this issue.
reduction of 67 percent. For a The information collection
description of how the emission E. Additional Time for Complying With requirements in this proposed rule have
reduction percentages were estimated, Provisions for Transfer Machines been submitted for approval to the OMB
refer to the Background Information As discussed in section III.H of this under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
Document in the public docket. The preamble, we are proposing to eliminate U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The Information
baseline year for determining the PCE the use of transfer machines. Per section Collection Request (ICR) document
usage limit would be 2002. Annual PCE 112(f) of the CAA, sources have 90 days prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA
usage would be calculated based on the to comply with health based standards. ICR number 1415.06 and OMB Control
amount of PCE purchased during the However, we are soliciting comment on Number 2060–0234.
calendar year, adjusted for the PCE in what additional time beyond the 90-day The 2005 proposed revisions to the
use and storage at the beginning and compliance period, if any, might be Dry Cleaning NESHAP contain
end of the calendar year. necessary for area sources to replace recordkeeping and reporting
If the performance alternative is existing transfer machines with dry-to- requirements beyond the recordkeeping
selected, the required PCE usage percent dry machines, and on whether, if EPA and reporting requirements that were
reduction levels will be prescribed in were to grant area sources replacing promulgated on September 22, 1993.
the final rule. The percent reductions transfer machines additional Owners or operators will continue to
would be selected to be equivalent to compliance time in the final rule, any keep records and submit required
the emission reductions achieved by the further steps should be taken by these reports to us or the delegated State
technology based MACT requirements area sources before achieving regulatory authority. Notifications,
reports, and records are essential in reporting requirements for which a economic impact on a substantial
determining compliance and are claim of confidentiality is made is number of small entities. Small entities
required, in general, of all sources safeguarded according to our policies include small businesses, small
subject to the 1993 Dry Cleaning set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. organizations, and small governmental
NESHAP. Owners or operators subject Burden means the total time, effort, or jurisdictions.
to the 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP financial resources expended by persons For the purposes of assessing the
continue to maintain records and retain to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose impacts of today’s proposed rule on
them for at least 5 years following the or provide information to or for a small entities, small entity is defined as:
date of such measurements, reports, and Federal agency. This includes the time (1) A small business based on the
records. Information collection needed to review instructions; develop, following Small Business
requirements that were promulgated on acquire, install, and utilize technology Administration (SBA) size standards,
September 22, 1993 in the Dry Cleaning and systems for the purposes of which are based on annual sales
NESHAP prior to the 2005 proposed collecting, validating, and verifying receipts: NAICS 812310—Coin-Operated
amendments, as well the NESHAP information, processing and Laundries and Dry Cleaners-$6.0
General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, maintaining information, and disclosing million; NAICS 812320—Dry Cleaning
subpart A), which are mandatory for all and providing information; adjust the and Laundry Services (Except Coin-
owners or operators subject to national existing ways to comply with any Operated)-$4.0 million; NAICS
emission standards, are documented in previously applicable instructions and 812332—Industrial Launderers-$12.0
EPA ICR No. 1415.05. requirements; train personnel to be able million; (2) a small governmental
The information collection to respond to a collection of jurisdiction that is a government of a
requirements described here are only information; search data sources; city, county, town, school district or
those notification, recordkeeping, and complete and review the collection of special district with a population of less
reporting requirements that are information; and transmit or otherwise than 50,000; and (3) a small
contained in the 2005 proposed disclose the information. organization that is any not-for-profit
revisions to the Dry Cleaning NESHAP. An agency may not conduct or enterprise which is independently
To comply with the 2005 proposed sponsor, and a person is not required to owned and operated and is not
revisions to the 1993 Dry Cleaning respond to a collection of information dominant in its field. Under these
NESHAP, owners or operators of dry unless it displays a currently valid OMB definitions, over 99 percent of
cleaning facilities would read control number. The OMB control commercial dry cleaning firms are
instructions to determine how they numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 small. For more information, refer to
would be affected. All sources would CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. http://www.sba.gov/size/
begin an enhanced leak detection and To comment on EPA’s need for this sizetable2002.html. The economic
repair program that requires a handheld information, the accuracy of the impacts of the regulatory alternatives
portable monitor. Major source facilities provided burden estimates, and any were analyzed based on consumption of
would purchase a PCE gas analyzer and suggested methods for minimizing PCE, but are described in terms of
area sources would purchase a respondent burden, including the use of comparing the compliance costs to dry
halogenated hydrocarbon leak detector. automated collection techniques, EPA cleaning revenues at affected firms. For
Owners and operators would incur the has established a public docket for the more detail, see the current Economic
capital/startup cost of purchasing the proposed rule, which includes this ICR, Impact Analysis in the public docket.
monitors, plus ongoing annual under Docket ID No. OAR–2005–0155. After considering the economic
operation and maintenance costs. The Submit any comments related to the ICR impacts of today’s proposed rule on
total capital/startup cost for this ICR is for the proposed rule to EPA and OMB. small entities, I certify that the proposed
$5,049,000. Annual operation and See the ADDRESSES section at the rule will not have a significant
maintenance cost would be $552,825. beginning of today’s notice for where to economic impact on a substantial
Owners and operators of major and submit comments to EPA. Send number of small entities. This
area sources would conduct enhanced comments to OMB at the Office of certification is based on the economic
leak detection and repair and keep Information and Regulatory Affairs, impact of the proposed rule to affected
monthly records of enhanced leak OMB, 725 17th Street, NW., small entities in the entire PCE dry
detection and repair events. Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk cleaning source category and considers
Approximately 28,000 existing area Office for EPA. Since OMB is required the economic impact associated with
sources and 15 existing major sources to make a decision concerning the ICR both proposed options for co-residential
are subject to the proposed rule and are between 30 and 60 days after December facilities. Over 98 percent of the
subject to the 1993 Dry Cleaning 21, 2005, a comment to OMB is best approximately 20,000 small entities
NESHAP. We estimate that an average of assured of having its full effect if OMB directly regulated by the proposed rule,
2,330 new area sources per year will receives it by January 20, 2006. The including both major and area sources,
become subject to the regulation in the final rule will respond to any OMB or are expected to have costs of less than
next 3 years, but that the overall number public comments on the information 1 percent of sales. The cost impacts for
of facilities will remain constant as the collection requirements contained in the all regulated small entities range from
new owners will take over old existing proposed rule. cost savings to less than 1.9 percent of
facilities. No new major sources are sales. The small entities directly
expected. The estimated annual labor C. Regulatory Flexibility Act regulated by the proposed rule are dry
cost for major and area sources to The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) cleaning businesses within the NAICS
comply with the 2005 proposed rule is generally requires an agency to prepare codes 812310, 812320, and 812332. We
approximately $3.9 million. a regulatory flexibility analysis of any have determined that all of the major
The recordkeeping and reporting rule subject to notice and comment sources affected by the proposed rule
requirements are specifically authorized rulemaking requirements under the are owned by businesses within NAICS
by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). Administrative Procedure Act or any 812332. The proposed rule is expected
All information submitted to us other statute unless the agency certifies to affect 14 ultimate parent businesses
pursuant to the recordkeeping and that the rule will not have a significant that would be regulated as major
sources. Eight of the parent businesses standards, we took special steps to informing, educating, and advising
are small according to the SBA small ensure that the burdens imposed on small governments on compliance with
business size standard. None of the small entities were minimal. We the regulatory requirements.
eight firms would have an annualized conducted several meetings with We have determined that the
cost of more than 1 percent of sales industry trade associations to discuss proposed rule does not contain a
associated with meeting the regulatory options and the Federal mandate that may result in
requirements for major sources (option corresponding burden on industry, such expenditures of $100 million or more
I noted earlier in this preamble). as recordkeeping and reporting. for State, local, and tribal governments,
We have determined that virtually all Following publication of the proposed in the aggregate, or to the private sector
of the affected small businesses that rule, copies of the Federal Register in any 1 year. Thus, the proposed rule
own area source dry cleaners are in notice and, in some cases, background is not subject to the requirements of
NAICS 812320. Small businesses documents, will be publically available sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
complying with the proposed area to all industries, organizations, and EPA has determined that today’s
source requirements (area source option trade associations that have had input proposed rule contains no regulatory
I described earlier in this preamble) are during the regulation development, as requirements that might significantly or
expected to have the following impacts. well as State and local agencies. We uniquely affect small governments
Over 98 percent of the approximately continue to be interested in the because it contains no requirements that
20,000 small entities owning area potential impacts of the proposed rule apply to such governments or impose
sources directly regulated by the on small entities and welcome obligations upon them. Therefore, the
proposed rule, are expected to have comments on issues related to such proposed rule is not subject to section
costs of less than 1 percent of sales. The impacts. 203 of the UMRA.
one-time cost of $250 for purchasing a E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
halogenated hydrocarbon detector is
less than 0.10 percent of the average Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
annual revenues for dry cleaning Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public August 10, 1999) requires EPA to
businesses in NAICS 812320, and there Law 104–4, establishes requirements for develop an accountable process to
are minimal annualized costs associated Federal agencies to assess the effects of ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
with a detector’s use. Of the nearly 200 their regulatory actions on State, local, State and local officials in the
small businesses that would have to and tribal governments and the private development of regulatory policies that
replace their transfer machines (or 1 sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies
percent of the total number of affected EPA generally must prepare a written that have federalism implications’’ is
small entities), most of these businesses statement, including a cost-benefit defined in the Executive Order to
would experience an annual cost analysis, for proposed and final rules include regulations that have
savings and the others would have with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may ‘‘substantial direct effects on the States,
compliance costs of less than 1.2 result in expenditures to State, local, on the relationship between the national
percent of sales. Of the remaining 200 and tribal governments, in the aggregate, government and the States, or on the
affected small businesses (or 1 percent or to the private sector, of $100 million distribution of power and
of the total number of affected small or more in any 1 year. Before responsibilities among the various
entities), all of which are owners of co- promulgating an EPA rule for which a levels of government.’’
residential facilities, the compliance written statement is needed, section 205 The proposed rule does not have
costs based on the first proposed option of the UMRA generally requires EPA to federalism implications. It will not have
for co-residential area sources range identify and consider a reasonable substantial direct effects on the States,
from 0.9 to 1.9 percent of sales. For the number of regulatory alternatives and on the relationship between the national
second proposed option for co- adopt the least costly, most cost- government and the States, or on the
residential area sources, there are 240 effective, or least burdensome distribution of power and
small firms that will be affected, and alternative that achieves the objectives responsibilities among the various
these firms will have compliance costs of the rule. The provisions of section levels of government, as specified in
ranging from 0.4 to 1.9 percent of sales. 205 do not apply when they are Executive Order 13132. None of the
Cost impacts associated with the inconsistent with applicable law. affected dry cleaning facilities are
proposed decision for major sources are Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to owned or operated by State or local
presented in Section III.E of this adopt an alternative other than the least governments. Thus, Executive Order
preamble. These impacts are also costly, most cost-effective, or least 13132 does not apply to the proposed
presented for area sources in Section burdensome alternative if the rule. In the spirit of Executive Order
III.H, and for co-residential sources in Administrator publishes with the final 13132, and consistent with EPA policy
Section III.J. These impacts are detailed rule an explanation why that alternative to promote communications between
in the BID in the public docket as was not adopted. Before EPA establishes EPA and State and local governments,
memos 5 through 7. For more any regulatory requirements that may EPA specifically solicits comment on
information on the small entity significantly or uniquely affect small the proposed rule from State and local
economic impacts associated with the governments, including tribal officials.
proposed decisions for dry cleaners governments, it must have developed
affected by today’s action, please refer to under section 203 of the UMRA a small F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation
the Economic Impact and Small government agency plan. The plan must and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Business Analyses in the public docket. provide for notifying potentially Governments
Although the proposed rule would affected small governments, enabling Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
not have a significant economic impact officials of affected small governments November 9, 2000) requires EPA to
on a substantial number of small to have meaningful and timely input in develop an accountable process to
entities, we nonetheless tried to reduce the development of EPA regulatory ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
the impact of the proposed rule on small proposals with significant Federal tribal officials in the development of
entities. When developing the revised intergovernmental mandates, and regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.’’ The proposed rule does distribution facilities. We also expect 1991 and before December 21, 2005,
not have tribal implications as specified that there would be no impact on the shall be in compliance with the
in Executive Order 13175. It will not import of foreign energy supplies, and provisions of this subpart except
have substantial direct effects on tribal no other adverse outcomes are expected § 63.322(o) beginning on September 22,
governments, on the relationship to occur with regards to energy supplies. 1993 or immediately upon startup,
between the Federal government and Further, we have concluded that the whichever is later, except for dry
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of proposed rule is not likely to have any cleaning systems complying with
power and responsibilities between the significant adverse energy effects. section 112(i)(2) of the Clean Air Act;
Federal government and Indian tribes. and shall be in compliance with the
No tribal governments own dry cleaning I. National Technology Transfer provisions of § 63.322(o) beginning on
facilities subject to the proposed Advancement Act [90 DAYS AFTER DATE FINAL RULE
standards for dry cleaning facilities. Section 112(d) of the National IS PUBLISHED IN THE Federal
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not Technology Transfer and Advancement Register] or immediately upon startup,
apply to the proposed rule. EPA Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law No. whichever is later, except as provided
specifically solicits additional comment 104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), by § 63.6(b)(4).
on this proposed rule from tribal directs EPA to use voluntary consensus (2) Each dry cleaning system that
officials. standards (VCS) in its regulatory commences construction or
activities unless to do so would be reconstruction on or after December 21,
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 2005 and before [DATE FINAL RULE IS
Children From Environmental Health inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. VCS are PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register],
and Safety Risks shall be in compliance with the
technical standards (e.g., materials
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, specifications, test methods, sampling provisions of this subpart except
April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: procedures, and business practices) that § 63.322(o) immediately upon startup,
(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically are developed or adopted by VCS and shall be in compliance with the
significant’’ as defined under Executive bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provisions of § 63.322(o) beginning on
Order 12866, and (2) concerns an provide Congress, through OMB, [DATE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN
environmental health or safety risk that explanations when the Agency decides THE Federal Register] or immediately
EPA has reason to believe may have a not to use available and applicable VCS. upon startup, whichever is later.
disproportionate effect on children. If The proposed revisions to the 1993 (3) Each dry cleaning system that
the regulatory action meets both criteria, NESHAP for PCE dry cleaners do not commences construction or
the Agency must evaluate the include requirements for technical reconstruction on or after [DATE FINAL
environmental health or safety risk of standards beyond what the NESHAP RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE Federal
the planned rule on children, and requires. Therefore, the requirements of Register], shall be in compliance with
explain why the planned regulation is the NTTAA do not apply to this action. provisions of this subpart, including
preferable to other potentially effective § 63.322(o) immediately upon startup.
and reasonably feasible alternatives List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 (c) Each dry cleaning system that
considered by the Agency. Environmental Protection, Air commenced construction or
The proposed rule is not subject to the pollution control, Hazardous reconstruction before December 9, 1991,
Executive Order because it is not substances, Reporting and and each new transfer machine system
economically significant as defined in Recordkeeping requirements. and its ancillary equipment that
Executive Order 12866, and because the commenced construction or
Dated: December 9, 2005. reconstruction on or after December 9,
Agency does not have reason to believe
the environmental health or safety risks Stephen L. Johnson, 1991 and before September 22, 1993,
addressed by this action present a Administrator. shall comply with §§ 63.322(c), (d), (i),
disproportionate risk to children. This For the reasons stated in the (j), (k), (l), and (m); 63.323(d); and
conclusion is based on our assessment preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code 63.324(a), (b), (d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3), (d)(4),
of the information on PCE effects on of Federal Regulations is proposed to be and (e) beginning on December 20,
human health and exposures associated amended as follows: 1993, and shall comply with other
with dry cleaner operations. provisions of this subpart except
PART 63—[AMENDED] § 63.322(o) by September 23, 1996; and
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions shall comply with § 63.322(o) by [DATE
Concerning Regulations That 1. The authority citation for part 63
90 DAYS AFTER DATE FINAL RULE IS
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, continues to read as follows:
PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register].
Distribution, or Use Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. (d) Each existing dry-to-dry machine
The proposed rule is not a and its ancillary equipment located in a
‘‘significant energy action’’ as defined in Subpart M—[Amended] dry cleaning facility that includes only
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 2. Section 63.320 is amended by dry-to-dry machines, and each existing
May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to revising paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and (e) transfer machine system and its
have a significant adverse effect on the to read as follows: ancillary equipment, and each new
supply, distribution, or use of energy. transfer machine system and its
The proposed rule would have a § 63.320 Applicability. ancillary equipment installed between
negligible impact on energy * * * * * December 9, 1991 and September 22,
consumption because less than 1 (b) The compliance date for a new dry 1993, as well as each existing dry-to-dry
percent of the industry would have to cleaning system depends on the date machine and its ancillary equipment,
install additional emission control that construction or reconstruction located in a dry cleaning facility that
equipment to comply. The cost of commences. includes both transfer machine
energy distribution should not be (1) Each dry cleaning system that system(s) and dry-to-dry machine(s) is
affected by the proposed rule at all since commences construction or exempt from §§ 63.322, 63.323, and
the standards do not affect energy reconstruction on or after December 9, 63.324, except paragraphs 63.322(c), (d),
(i), (j), (k), (l), (m), (o)(1), and (o)(4); Vapor leak means a refrigerated condenser and shall pass
63.323(d); and 63.324 (a), (b), (d)(1), perchloroethylene vapor concentration the air-perchloroethylene gas-vapor
(d)(2), (d)(3), (d)(4), and (e) if the total exceeding 25 parts per million by stream from inside the dry cleaning
perchloroethylene consumption of the volume (50 parts per million by volume machine drum through a carbon
dry cleaning facility is less than 530 as methane) as indicated by a adsorber or equivalent control device
liters (140 gallons) per year. halogenated hydrocarbon detector or immediately before or as the door of the
Consumption is determined according perchloroethylene gas analyzer. dry cleaning machine is opened. The
to § 63.323(d). * * * * * carbon adsorber must be desorbed in
(e) Each existing transfer machine 4. Section 63.322 is amended by accordance with manufacturer’s
system and its ancillary equipment, and revising paragraphs (e)(3), (k) instructions.
each new transfer machine system and introductory text, and (m), and adding (3) The owner or operator of each dry
its ancillary equipment installed paragraph (o) to read as follows: cleaning system installed after
between December 9, 1991 and December 21, 2005 at an area source
September 22, 1993, located in a dry § 63.322 Standards. shall route the air-perchloroethylene
cleaning facility that includes only * * * * * gas-vapor stream contained within each
transfer machine system(s), is exempt (e) * * * dry cleaning machine through a
from §§ 63.322, 63.323, and 63.324, (3) Shall prevent air drawn into the refrigerated condenser and pass the air-
except paragraphs 63.322(c), (d), (i), (j), dry cleaning machine when the door of perchloroethylene gas-vapor stream
(k), (l), (m), (o)(1), and (o)(4), 63.323(d), the machine is open from passing from inside the dry cleaning machine
and 63.324 (a), (b), (d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3), through the refrigerated condenser. drum through a carbon adsorber or
(d)(4), and (e) if the perchloroethylene * * * * * equivalent control device immediately
consumption of the dry cleaning facility (k) The owner or operator of a dry before the door of the dry cleaning
is less than 760 liters (200 gallons) per cleaning system shall inspect the system machine is opened. The carbon adsorber
year. Consumption is determined weekly for perceptible leaks while the must be desorbed in accordance with
according to § 63.323(d). dry cleaning system is operating. manufacturer’s instructions.
* * * * * Inspection with a halogenated (4) The owner or operator of any dry
3. Section 63.321 is amended by hydrocarbon detector or cleaning system shall eliminate any
revising the definition of Filter, and perchloroethylene gas analyzer also emission of perchloroethylene during
adding in alphabetical order definitions fulfills the requirement for inspection the transfer of articles between the
for Halogenated hydrocarbon detector, for perceptible leaks. The following washer and the dryer(s) or reclaimer(s).
Perchloroethylene gas analyzer, components shall be inspected: (5) The owner or operator shall
Residence, and Vapor leak to read as * * * * * eliminate any emission of
follows: (m) The owner or operator of a dry perchloroethylene from any dry
cleaning system shall repair all leaks cleaning system that is installed after
§ 63.321 Definitions.
detected under paragraph (k) or (o)(1) of December 21, 2005 and that is located
* * * * * this section within 24 hours. If repair in a building with a residence.
Filter means a porous device through parts must be ordered, either a written 5. Section 63.323 is amended by
which perchloroethylene is passed to or verbal order for those parts shall be revising paragraphs (b) introductory
remove contaminants in suspension. initiated within 2 working days of text, (b)(1), (b)(2), and (c) to read as
Examples include, but are not limited detecting such a leak. Such repair parts follows:
to, lint filter, button trap, cartridge filter, shall be installed within 5 working days
tubular filter, regenerative filter, after receipt. § 63.323 Test methods and monitoring.
prefilter, polishing filter, and spin disc * * * * *
filter. * * * * *
(o) Additional requirements: (b) When a carbon adsorber is used to
Halogenated hydrocarbon detector comply with § 63.322(a)(2) or exhaust is
means a portable device capable of (1) The owner or operator of a dry
cleaning system shall inspect the passed through a carbon adsorber
detecting vapor concentrations of immediately upon machine door
perchloroethylene of 25 parts per components listed in paragraph (k) of
this section for vapor leaks monthly opening to comply with § 63.322(b)(3)
million by volume and indicating a or § 63.323(o)(2), the owner or operator
concentration of 25 parts per million by while the component is in operation.
(i) Area sources shall conduct the shall measure the concentration of
volume or greater by emitting an audible perchloroethylene in the exhaust of the
or visual signal that varies as the inspections using a halogenated
hydrocarbon detector or carbon adsorber weekly with a
concentration changes. colorimetric detector tube or
perchloroethylene gas analyzer that is
* * * * * operated according to the perchloroethylene gas analyzer. The
Perchloroethylene gas analyzer means manufacturer’s instructions. The measurement shall be taken while the
a flame ionization detector, operator shall place the probe inlet at dry cleaning machine is venting to that
photoionization detector, or infrared the surface of each component interface carbon adsorber at the end of the last
analyzer capable of detecting vapor where leakage could occur and move it dry cleaning cycle prior to desorption of
concentrations of perchloroethylene of slowly along the interface periphery. that carbon adsorber or removal of the
25 parts per million by volume. (ii) Major sources shall conduct the activated carbon to determine that the
* * * * * inspections using a perchloroethylene perchloroethylene concentration in the
Residence means any dwelling or gas analyzer operated according to EPA exhaust is equal to or less than 100 parts
housing in which people reside Method 21. per million by volume. The owner or
excluding short-term housing that is (2) The owner or operator of a dry operator shall:
occupied by the same person for a cleaning system at any major source (1) Use a colorimetric detector tube or
period of less than 180 days (such as a shall route the air-perchloroethylene perchloroethylene gas analyzer designed
hotel room). gas-vapor stream contained within each to measure a concentration of 100 parts
* * * * * dry cleaning machine through a per million by volume of
perchloroethylene in air to an accuracy (1) Use a colorimetric detector tube or § 63.324 Reporting and recordkeeping
of ±25 parts per million by volume; and perchloroethylene gas analyzer designed requirements.
(2) Use the colorimetric detector tube to measure a concentration of 300 parts * * * * *
or perchloroethylene gas analyzer per million by volume of (d) * * *
according to the manufacturer’s perchloroethylene in air to an accuracy (3) The dates when the dry cleaning
instructions; and of ±75 parts per million by volume; and system components are inspected for
leaks, as specified in § 63.322(k), (l), or
* * * * * (2) Use the colorimetric detector tube
(o)(1), and the name or location of dry
or perchloroethylene gas analyzer
(c) If the air-perchloroethylene gas cleaning system components where
according to the manufacturer’s leaks are detected;
vapor stream is passed through a carbon
instructions; and
adsorber prior to machine door opening * * * * *
to comply with § 63.322(b)(3) or (3) Conduct the weekly monitoring by (5) The date and temperature sensor
§ 63.323(o)(2), the owner or operator of inserting the colorimetric detector or monitoring results, as specified in
an affected facility shall measure the perchloroethylene gas analyzer tube into § 63.323 if a refrigerated condenser is
concentration of perchloroethylene in the open space above the articles at the used to comply with § 63.322(a) or (b);
the dry cleaning machine drum at the rear of the dry cleaning machine drum and
end of the dry cleaning cycle weekly immediately upon opening the dry (6) The date and monitoring results,
with a colorimetric detector tube or cleaning machine door. as specified in § 63.323, if a carbon
perchloroethylene gas analyzer to * * * * * adsorber is used to comply with
determine that the perchloroethylene § 63.322(a)(2), (b)(3), or (o)(2).
6. Section 63.324 is amended by
concentration is equal to or less than revising paragraphs (d)(3), (d)(5), and * * * * *
300 parts per million by volume. The (d)(6) to read as follows: [FR Doc. 05–24071 Filed 12–20–05; 8:45 am]
owner or operator shall: BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

05 24071

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

05 24071

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wednesday,

December 21, 2005

Category NAICS 1 code Examples of potentially regulated entities

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

TABLE 3.—COMPARISON OF ISCST–3 EXPOSURE ESTIMATES WITH ACTIVITY-PATTERNED/DAY, LIFETIME EXPOSURE

Total population at cancer risk

ISCST–3 ...................................................................................................................................... 900 14,000 75,000

OPPTS ......................................................................................................................................... 0 0 960,000

Noncancer HQ 1 .................................. 0.02 ...................... 0.06 ...................... 0.1 ........................ 3 ........................... 20

TABLE 11.—COMPARISON OF PCE EXPOSURE CONCENTRATIONS BY TYPE OF FACILITY 3

Maximum Exposure Concentration (ug/m 3) ............................................ 5,000 1 ....................... 37 .............................. 405

You might also like