United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
EPA 450/3-91 -020b
September 1993
Air
Dry Cleaning Facilities - Final
Background Information EIS
for Promulgated Standards
-------
CONTENTS
Section
LIST OF TABLES,
1.0
2.0
SUMMARY
1.1 SUMMARY OF CHANGES SINCE'PROPOSAL '.''-'
1.2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF PROMULGATED ACTION.
1.2.1 Alternatives to Promulgated
Action,
Environmental Impacts of Promulgated
Action. ....
Energy and Economic Impacts of
Promulgated Action. ......
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS ....
1.2.2
1.2.3'
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
SELECTION OF POLLUTANTS
SELECTION OF AFFECTED FACILITY .
2.2.1 Collocation .......
2.2.2 Applicability Criteria.
2.2.3 Exempting Coin-Operated
Facilities
EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY.
2,
2,
1
2
2,
2.
2.
3
4
5
2.3.6
Refrigerated Condensers
Additional Requirements for Hamper
Enclosures and Room Enclosures. . .
Transfer Machine System Emissions
Fugitive Emissions
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration Permissible
Exposure Limit. ., . . . . .,
Diversitron Solvation® System . .* !
MODIFICATION AND RECONSTRUCTION. . .
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
2.5.1 Public Health ......
2.5.2 Control Costs . ]
2.5.3 Economic Considerations . .
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.. ., .. . ..,
SELECTION OF MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE CONTROL*
TECHNOLOGY AND GENERALLY AVAILABLE
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
Page
iv
1-1
1-1
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-5
2-1
2-10
2-12
2-12
2-14
2-15
2-16
2-16
2-18
2-19
2-19
2-20
2-20
2-24
2-27
2-27
2-27
2-28
2-29
2,
2,
2.
2.
2.
7,
7,
7,
7.
7,
1
2
3
4
5
Regulatory Considerations
Determining Threshold of Threat
of Adverse Effects
Indoor Air Pollution
Small Consumption Facilities. .
Banning of Transfer Machine
Systems . .=.. ... ..... ., . .... .
. 2-31
. 2-31
. 2-37
. 2-38
. 2-41
,. 2-43.
-------
CONTENTS (CONCLUDED)
Section
2.14 .2
2.14.3
as a volatile Organic'compound! ?
Carcinogen Risk Assessment
Classification of
Perchloroethylene .
Public Health Impact. * •-••-• • •
2. .8
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12
2..13:
2.14
2.7.6 Reclaimers .
2.7.7 Room Enclosures . .
2.7.8 Hamper and Room Enclosures
* • / . 9 Additional Controls for
Dry-to-Dry Machines . . .
SlON^O^MI^s- '
EMISSIONS LIMITS AND PERFORMANCE TEST]
2.10.1 Operator Training Course
2.10.2 Enf orceability .
l'\l'l Sa?°n Adsorbe* Requirements
2.10.4 Refrigerated Condenser
Requirements. . .
2.10.5 Purchase Orders
2.10.6 Saturated Lint and Cartridge*
2.10.7 Compliance Timetable. .
TEST METHODS AND MONITORING. . * "
WORDING OF THE REGULATION *
2.12.1 References to Other Subparts
2.12.2 Clarifications. . uoparrs-
2.12.3 English Units . * '
2.12.4 Definitions .
2.12.5 Applicability ...
2.12.6 Standards . * "
EQUIVALENCY. * " " *'
MISCELLANEOUS. .
2.14.1 Classification nf n«».<,ui ^-
2-49
2-49
2-51
...... 2-57
2-62
CNG . . . 2-67
CCE
- - . . 2-71
.... 2-71
.... 2-73
• ... 2-76
«... 2-80
-... 2-83
«... 2-85
.... 2-11
• • • . 2-87
..... 2-88
• 2-89
• • • .. .. 2-90-
.... 2-90
«... 2-97
2-97
2-98
2-101
gep.007
iii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
2-2
gep.007
XV.
-------
-------
1.0 SUMMARY
On December 9, 1991, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) proposed national emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants for perchloroethylene (PCE) emissions from dry
cleaning facilities (56 FR 64382) under authority of section 112
of the Clean Air Act. Public comments were requested on the '
proposal in the Federal Register. There were 34 commenters
composed mainly of States, environmental groups, industry trade
associations, and dry cleaning equipment vendors.
Public comments were also requested in a notice of
availability of new information on control of PCE emissions
during clothing transfer at dry cleaning facilities that use
transfer dry cleaning machines. This notice was published, on
October 1, 1992 (57 FR 45363). Eight comment letters were
received.
All of the comments that were submitted, along with
responses to these comments, are summarized in this document.
The summary of comments and responses serves as the basis for the
revisions made to the standards between proposal and
promulgation.
1.1 SUMMARY OF CHANGES SINCE PROPOSAL
Since proposal, several important changes have been made to
the regulation. The changes affect new and existing dry cleaning
machines located at major and area sources. At proposal, owners
or operators,of new; dry-to-dry machines located;at major or area
sources were given a choice of installing carbon adsorbers or
refrigerated condensers as process vent control. At
promulgation, all new dry cleaning machines located at major or
area sources are required to install refrigerated condensers.
The owner or operator of a new dry-to-dry machine located at
a major source is also required to install a carbon adsorber to
l-l
-------
control the PCE emissions remaining in the dry cleaning machine
drum at the end of the dry cleaning cycle.
At proposal, new transfer machine systems were allowed and
control requirements for these systems were specified. At
promulgation, new transfer machine systems are prohibited, through
a regulatory requirement prohibiting PCE emissions from clothing
transfer between the washer and the dryer. This requirement
cannot be met by new transfer machine systems even if these
systems are enclosed in room enclosures.
At proposal, existing uncontrolled dry-to-dry machines
located at major or area sources were given a choice of
installing carbon adsorbers or refrigerated condensers as process
vent control. Existing uncontrolled transfer machine systems
located at area sources were required to install carbon
adsorbers. At promulgation, existing uncontrolled dry-to-dry
machines and transfer machine systems are required to install
refrigerated condensers. Existing controlled machines that
already have a carbon adsorber, however, are not required to
install a refrigerated condenser for process vent control.
At proposal, existing uncontrolled transfer machine systems
located at major sources were required to install carbon
adsorbers. At promulgation, existing uncontrolled transfer
machine systems located at major sources are required to install
refrigerated condensers as process vent control. Existing
controlled transfer machine^ systems at- major sources that already
have a carbon adsorber, however, are not required to install a
refrigerated condenser for process vent control. For control of
fugitive emissions, all existing transfer machine systems located
at major sources,must be enclosed within a; room enclosure that
exhausts to- a carbon adsorber.
At proposal, the low solvent consumption exemption for
process vent control at area sources was 220 gallons of PCE per
year for a dry-to-dry machine and 300 gallons of PCE per year for
a transfer machine system. At promulgation, the low solvent
consumption exemption for process vent control has been lowered
and now applies to the total, PCE, solvent consumption of; all
1-2:
-------
machines at the dry cleaning facility rather than on a per
machine basis. At promulgation, the low solvent consumption
exemption for process vent control is 140 gallons of PCE per year
for a dry cleaning facility with only dry-to-dry machines or both
dry-to-dry machines and transfer machine systems, and 200 gallons
of PCE per year for a dry cleaning facility with only transfer
machines systems.
The level of PCE consumption distinguishing major from area
sources is the same as at proposal; however, this now applies to
the total PCE consumption of all machines at the facility rather
than on a per machine basis. The level of PCE consumption
distinguishing a major source from an area source is
2,100 gallons of PCE per year for a source with only dry-to-dry
machines, and 1,800 gallons of PCE per year for a source with
only transfer machine systems or both dry-to-dry machines and
transfer machine systems.
At proposal, pollution prevention practices (such as leak
detection and repair) were required only for those dry cleaning
machines above the low solvent consumption exemption for process
vent control. At promulgation, all PCE dry cleaning facilities
must implement pollution prevention practices and operate their
dry cleaning equipment according to the manufacturer's
specifications.
There were no monitoring requirements included at proposal
The> promulgated standards now require periodic monitoring of
process vent control equipment. When operating a refrigerated
condenser on a dry-to-dry machine, a transfer machine system
dryer, or a reclaimer, the temperature on the outlet side of the
refngerated condenser must be measured and recorded, once per
weak..... When operating- a refrigerated condenser on; a, transfer
machine system washer, the difference between the inlet and
outlet temperatures of the exhaust from the washer as it passes
through the refrigerated condenser must be measured and recorded
once per week.
When operating an existing carbon adsorber to control
process vent emissions, a colorimetric indicator tube must be
1-3
-------
used to measure and record the PCE level in the carbon adsorber
exhaust once per week. Periodic desorption for carbon adsorbers
is no longer specifically required. Instead, the owner or
operator must follow the manufacturer's specifications for the
proper operation of a carbon adsorber.
1.2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF PROMULGATED ACTION
1-2.1 Alternatives to Promulgation Action^
The regulatory alternatives are discussed in chapter 6.0 of
the background information document (BID) for the proposed
standards (EPA 450/3-91-020a). Included with these regulatory
alternatives are estimates of the level of emission control which
would be achieved if that alternative were selected as the basis
for standards.
At proposal, the estimated reduction in PCE emissions
achieved using a carbon adsorber was assumed to be equal to or
greater than that achieved by refrigerated condensers based on
measurements under optimal testing situations. Subsequent to
proposal, information on solvent mileage became available from
the results of a survey conducted by the California Air Resources
Board. This information (which included data from over 2,000 dry
cleaning facilities) clearly indicates that the performance of
carbon adsorbers in actual practice achieves lower emission
reduction than refrigerated condensers.
The estimates of control efficiency associated with
refrigerated condensers, however, have not changed since proposal
and are included in the proposal BID. As discussed above, the
promulgated regulation requires the use of refrigerated
condensers and, as a result, the estimates of the levels of
emission, control achieved by the promulgated standards remain:
.essentially the same as that associated with the proposed
standards.
1-2-2 Environmental Impacts of Promulgated Action
The environmental impacts are discussed in chapter 7.0 of
the BID of the proposed standards. The emission reduction
expected to occur as a result of the control devices required by
the promulgated standards is 6, 600 megagrams per year (Mg/yr)
1-4
-------
[7,300 tons per year (tpy)], an increase of 1,200 Mg/yr
(1,300 tpy) compared to proposal due to lowering the low solvent
consumption exemption for process vent control. The emission
reduction expected to occur as a result of leak detection and
repair required by the promulgated standards is 25,800 Mg/yr
(28,400 tpy).
Because all existing, uncontrolled dry cleaning machines are
required to install refrigerated condensers instead of carbon
adsorbers under the final standards, there will be a reduction in
water pollution and solid waste impacts from those impacts
projected at proposal. Note that the impacts for new dry
cleaning machines do not change between proposal and promulgation
because these impacts were based at proposal on the assumption
that all new machines would be dry-to-dry machines controlled by
refrigerated condensers.
Carbon adsorbers produce more wastewater and solid waste
than refrigerated condensers due to their use of steam for
desorption and periodic replacement of the carbon bed. The
additional water pollution impacts expected to occur as. a result
of the promulgated standards are 0.2 Mg/yr (0.2 tpy), a decrease
of O.l Mg/yr (0.1 tpy) compared to proposal. The additional
solid waste impacts expected to occur as a result of the
promulgated standards are 2 Mg/yr (2 tpy), a decrease of 2 Mg/yr
(2 tpy) compared to proposal.
With the changes noted in this section, the analysis of
environmental impact in the proposal BID now becomes the Final
Environmental Impact Statement for the promulgated standards.
1>2*3 Energy and Economic Impacts of Promulgated Action
The energy impacts are,discussed, in chapter 7.0 of the
Background Information Document of the proposed standards. The
additional energy requirements expected to occur as a result of
operating the control devices to meet the promulgated standards
are 430,700 British thermal units per year (Btu/yr) [3 gigawatts
per year (GW/yr)], an increase of 72,000 Btu/yr (l Gw/yr)
compared to proposal. This increase is due to lowering the low
solvent, consumption exemption for process vent control.
-------
The economic impacts are discussed in the proposal document
"Economic Impact of Regulatory Controls in the Dry Cleaning
Industry." The economic impact assessment includes a market
component and a financial component. The market component
focuses on the adjustment of market prices and quantity of dry
cleaning as a result of complying with the standards. The
financial component focuses on the ability of firms to obtain the
money to buy the control equipment.
The upward market price adjustment due to the promulgated
standards is projected to range between 0.25 and 2.5 percent in
various markets, with the largest increases being found in small
rural markets. The downward adjustment in total dry cleaning is
projected to be about 0.5 percent, an increase of 0.3 percent
since proposal. If the whole quantity adjustment were translated
into closures rather than reduction in output at many cleaners,
the net closures would be projected to be just under 300, an
increase of about 270 since proposal. This increase is due to
lowering the low solvent consumption exemption for process vent
control.
The financial analysis indicates that firms in below-average
financial condition may face difficulty in obtaining the required
funds to purchase control equipment from traditional loan sources
such as banks. The analysis of the promulgated standards
projects between 0 and 1,300 firms will be in this category.
These firms will either obtain other financing (vendor-aided,
relatives, personal assets, etc.), close, or sell their firm!
The analysis of the proposed standards projected between 0 and
670 firms would be in this category. The increase is due to
lowering the low solvent consumption exemption for process vent
control.
-------
2.0 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 42 letters commenting on the proposed standards,
the notice of availability of new information, and the background
information document (BID) for the proposed standards were
received. Because no one requested a public hearing on the
proposed standards, no public hearing was held. A list of
commenters, their affiliations, and the EPA docket number
assigned to their correspondence is given in Table 2-1.
For the purpose of orderly presentation, the comments have
been categorized under the following topics:
Selection of Pollutants;
1,
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Selection of Affected Facility;
Emission Control Technology;
Modification and Reconstruction;
Economic Impacts;
Environmental Impacts;
Selection of MACT and GACT;
Selection of Format for Standards;
Emission Limits and Performance Testing;
Selection of Equipment and Work Practice
Specifications;
11. Test Methods and Monitoring;-
12. Wording of the Regulation;
13. Equivalency; and
14. Miscellaneous.
2-1
-------
TABLE 2-1.
LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED NATIONAL
EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES:
PERCHLOROETHYLENE EMISSIONS FROM
DRY CLEANING FACILITIES
Docket item number*
Commenter and affiliation
D-l
D-2
D-3
D-4
D-5
D-6
Mr. John D'Aloia, Jr.
Senior Associate
Deuel & Associates, Incorporated
Environmental Science and Engineering
311 West Alma Street
St. Marys, Kansas 66536
Mr. Jeff Johnson
Equipment Sales Manager
PROS
420 North 5th Street
Suite 480
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
Mr. Michaeij. R. Lake
Chief, Engineering Division
Air Pollution Control District
County of San Diego
9150 Chesapeake Drive
San Diego, California 92123-1096
Mr. Kenneth W. Holt
Special Programs Group
Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Disease Control
Atlanta, Georgia 30333
Ms. Lorna S. McBarnette
Executive Deputy Commissioner
New York State Department of Health
Corning Tower
The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller
Empire State Plaza
Albany, New?York: 12237
Mr.,, Peter D... Venturini, Chief
Stationary Source Division
State of California
Air Resources Board
1102 Q Street
Sacramento, California 95812
2-2
-------
TABLE 2-1.
Docket item number3
LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED NATIONAL
EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES:
PERCHLOROETHYLENE EMISSIONS FROM
DRY CLEANING FACILITIES
(CONTINUED)
=====
Commenter and affiliation
D-7
D-8
D-9
D-10
D-ll
D-12
Mr. Michael R. Lake '
Chief, Engineering Division
Air Pollution Control District
County of San Diego
9150 Chesapeake Drive
San Diego, California 92123-1096
Mr. Kenneth Eng, Chief.
Air Compliance Branch
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II ' J
Jacob K. Javitz Federal Building
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278
Mr. Jack Lauber
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12233-3254
Mr. R. Darryl Banks
Deputy Commissioner
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12233-3254
Ms. Helen G. Goldberger
Ms. E. Gail Suchman
Assistant Attorneys General
State of New York
Department of Law
120 Broadway
New York, New York 10271
Mr. Robert G. Smith
President
Kleen-Rite
4444 Gustine Avenue
St. Louis, Missouri 63116
2-3
-------
TABLE 2-1.
LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED NATIONAL
EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES:
PERCHLOROETHYLENE EMISSIONS FROM
DRY CLEANING FACILITIES
(CONTINUED)
Docket item number3
Commenter and affiliation
D-13
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-17
D-18
Mr. Frank C. Torres
Keller and Heckman
1001 G Street, N.W.
Suite 500 West
Washington, D.C. 20001
Mr. Timothy A. Vanderver, Jr. et al
Patton, Boggs, & Blow
2550 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037-1350
Mr. Samuel A. Bleicher
Miles & Stockbridge
Metropolitan Square
1450 G Street, N.W.
Suite 445
Washington, D.C. 20005
Ms. Nancy Kim
Director
Division of Environmental Health
Assessment
State of New York Department of Health
Center for Environmental Health
2 University Place
Albany,, New York 12203-3399
Mr. Albert F. Appleton
Commi s s ioner
New York City
Department of Environmental Protection
59-17 Junction Boulevard
Elmhurst, New York: 113731-5107
Mr., Eric c. Mather
Petro Environmental, Incorporated
9267 Cincinnati-Dayton Road
West Chester, Ohio 45069
2-4
-------
TABLE 2-1.
Docket item numbera
D-19
LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED NATIONAL
EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES:
PERCHLOROETHYLENE EMISSIONS FROM
DRY CLEANING FACILITIES
(CONTINUED)
========
Commenter and affiliation
D-20
D-21
D-22
D-23
Ms. Connie L. Deford
Environmental Affairs
Chemicals & Metals
Dow U.S.A.
2020 Dow Center
Midland, Michigan 48674
Ms. Katy Wolf
Executive Director
Institute for Research and Technical
Assistance
3727 West 6th Street, Suite 505
Los Angeles, California 90020
Mr. W. Caffey Norman, III
Patton, Boggs, & Blow
2550 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037
Mr. William Juris
Engineering Section
Division of Air Pollution Control
State of Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency
1800 Watermark Drive
Columbus, Ohio 43266-0149
Mr. John Gove
Principal Air Pollution Control Engineer
Bureau of Air Management
State of Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection
165 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, Connecticut 06106
2-S-
-------
TABLE 2-1.
LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED NATIONAL
EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES:
PERCHLOROETHYLENE EMISSIONS FROM
DRY CLEANING FACILITIES
(CONTINUED)
Docket item number?
Commenter and affiliation
D-24
D-25
D-26
D-27
D-28
D-29
Ms. Margaret M. Round
Program Analyst
Northeast States for Coordinated
Air Use Management
85 Merrimac Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02114
Ms. Deborah A. Sheiman
Resource Specialist
Natural Resources Defense Council
1350 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Mr. Richard A. Valentinetti
Director
Vermont Air Pollution Control Division
Agency of Natural Resources
103 South Main Street, Building 3 South
Waterbury, Vermont 05671-0402
Mr. William L. Weissler
President
Diversitron Corporation
61-37 Fresh Meadow Lane
Fresh Meadows, New York 11365
Mr. Marvin Rosenstein.
Chief
Pesticides and Toxic Substance Branch
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region I
J. -F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston",, Massachusetts; 02203-2211.
Ms. Margaret M. Round
Program Analyst
Northeast States for Coordinated
Air Use Management
85 Merrimac Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02114
2-6-
-------
TABLE 2-1.
°F C°MMENTERS ON PROPOSED NATIONAI
L
E CATEGORIES:
PERCHLOROETHYLENE EMISSIONS FROM
DRY CLEANING FACILITIES
(CONTINUED)
Commenter and affiliation
Docket item number3
^—«—P^«™.
D-30
D-31
D-32
D-33
D-34
L-l
Mr. James D. Boyd
Executive Officer
Air Resources Board
1102 Q Street
Sacramento, California 95812
Mr: William E. Fisher
Fabricare Institute
Silver Spring, Maryland 20904
Mr. Peter D. Robertson
Patton, Boggs, & Blow
2550 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.c. 20037-1350
Mr. James D. Boyd
Executive Officer
Air Resources Board
1102 Q Street
Sacramento, California 95812
Ms. Nancy Kim
Director
Division of Environmental Health
Assessment
State- of New York Department: of Health
Center for Environmental Health Heaith
2 University Place
Albany, New York 12203-3399
Mr. Rob Raney
Division Engineer
Division of. Pollution Control
Metropolitan Government of
Nashville and Davidson County
3ii-23rd Avenue, North
Nashville, Tennessee 37203
2-7
-------
TABLE 2-1.
LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED NATIONAL
EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES:
PERCHLOROETHYLENE EMISSIONS FROM
DRY CLEANING FACILITIES
(CONTINUED)
Docket item number3
Commenter and affiliation
L-2
L-3
L-4
Mr. Edward O. Sullivan
Deputy Commissioner
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12233
Mr. Peter D. Robertson
Patton, Boggs, & Blow
2550 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037-1350
Mr. Michael A. Nash
Senior Counsel
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co
Post Office Box 33428
St. Paul, Minnesota 55133-3428
L-5
L-6-
L-7
Ms. Barbara Warren
Project Coordinator
NY Toxics Project
Consumer Policy Institute
101 Truman Avenue
Yonkers, New York 10703-1057
Mrv, Robert-D.. Fletcher, Chief
Toxic Air Contaminant Control Branch
Stationary Source Division
State of California
Air Resources Board
2020 L Street
Sacramento, California 95812
Ms., Katy Wolf
Executive Director
Institute for Research and Technical
Assistance
2800 Olympic Blvd., Suite 101
Santa Monica, California 90404
2-8
-------
TABLE 2-1.
QT™OMMENTERS °N PROPOSED NATIONAL
EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES:
PERCHLOROETHYLENE EMISSIONS FROM
DRY CLEANING FACILITIES
(CONCLUDED)
Coinmenter and affiliation
L-8
Mr. Frank Kean
Kean's The Cleaner
9323 Mammoth Avenue
Baton Rouge/ Louisiana
70814
aThe docket number for this proiect is A-SS-Ii
on file at EPA Headquarters^^WashJngton? D*c.
2-9
-------
2.1 SELECTION OP POLLUTANTS
stratosphere ozone depletion 0
sale these chemicals and ' ""
these chemicals.
offeri"9
using these lvents
*
e to purchass
This cbmmenter recognized that
authority under the clea! iir AcT*A
reconditioned CPC-113 unconvertible
°* ""'"
•••
authority to do so. "achxnes, if the EEA has the
that
Pointed out that e ce
standards that vill control e^ions l.
regulation =ou!d have, the: " " """
stratospheric
2-10,
-------
inconsistent with section 604(c) of the Act, which provides for a
scheduled phasing out in the production and consumption of
Class I ozone depleters.
Response; There are several reasons for not regulating
CFC-113. It is used less commonly than PCE because it is a less
aggressive cleaning solvent than PCE and it is more expensive.
As reported in a 1989 dry cleaning survey, only 6 percent of the
plants responding to the survey had CFC-113 machines. They used
them for special cleaning purposes, such as to clean leather.
Although CFC-113 may be well suited for cleaning special items,
in general, it may not clean other types of clothing as
efficiently as PCE. Moreover, the use of CFC-113 has been
declining in recent years.
As the commenter mentioned, because CFC-113 is not listed as
one of the 189 HAP's in section 112(b) of the Act, the EPA does
not have the authority under the dry cleaning NESHAP to regulate
the use of CFC-113 or equipment associated with its use.
However, as the commenter pointed out,- the use of CFC-113 is
being regulated elsewhere in the Act. Under Title VI, CFC-113 is
scheduled to be phased out by the year 2002 because of its
contribution to stratospheric ozone depletion.
There are several reasons for not regulating 1,1,1-TCA dry
cleaners. As discussed in the proposal preamble, there are. only
about 50 dry cleaning facilities in the United States that are
known to use 1,.1,1-TCA,. and all of these facilities, use equipment
to control the emissions- from these machines. The higher cost of
1,1,1-TCA (about $15 per gallon compared to about $3 per gallon
for PCE in 1989) gives owners or operators an incentive to extend
their, solvent mileage through, the use of- emission control to
recover and reuse 1,1,1-TCA. As a result, the national emissions
of 1,1,1-TCA from: dry cleaners are low (380 Mg/yr or less),
representing only about 0.1 percent of the total annual 1,1,I-TCA
emissions of 336,000 Mg.,
Similar to CFC-113, the chemical 1,1,1-TCA is also being
phased out by the year 1996 due to its contributions to
stratospheric, ozone depletion. It also has aggressive properties
2-11
-------
making it an unsuitable solvent for most dry cleaning purposes.
For these reasons, 1,1,1-TCA is unlikely to be the solvent of
choice for dry cleaning owners or operators purchasing new
machines.
2.2 SELECTION OF AFFECTED FACILITY
2.2.1 Collocation
Comment; Four commenters (IV-D-22, IV-D-25, IV-D-26,
IV-D-28) recommended that the criteria for determining a major
source be based on the entire dry cleaning facility instead of
each dry cleaning machine. One commenter (IV-D-28) stated that
the definition of source used in the proposed NESHAP refers only
to the consumption of PCE for an individual machine. This
commenter pointed out that by using this proposed definition of
source only certain machines would be considered major sources.
This commenter believed that the collective consumption of PCE
should be considered from all machines located within a
contiguous area under common control.
One commenter (IV-D-22) noted that the exemption criteria
given in paragraphs (b) and (c) of section 63.320 of the proposal
regulation are stated in terms of the amount of PCE consumed per
year by machine, but the exemption was established based on
annual receipts by facility. The commenter pointed out that
because a facility can have more than one machine, the exemption
criteria should be stated on a facility basis.
Three' commenters (IV-D-25, IV-D-26, IV-D-28) pointed out
that a potential problem could arise with the proposed definition
of source when a dry cleaning facility has more than one machine
located in the same building. The commenters emphasized that
each, machine individually may not be a major source; however,
when combined,- the machines could consume enough PCE to be
considered a major source.. Using the proposed definition of
source, these commenters explained that (in this particular case)
each machine would be required to meet only generally available
control technology (GACT) instead of maximum achievable control
technology (MACT). One commenter (IV-D-26) asked what would
happen if a dry cleaning operation has 4 dry-to-dry machines",
-------
each consuming 1,000 gallons of PCE per year. The commenter
pointed out that such a facility under the proposed rule would
not have to apply MACT to these units, only the less stringent
GACT, even though total PCE consumption by the facility as a
whole would exceed the cutoff for a major source.
One commenter (IV-D-24) requested that special permit
conditions be given to facilities that operate each machine at
levels less than the applicability thresholds, but which have the
potential to exceed such thresholds in total.
Response; The final rule has been revised to base the
applicability of the standard on the average aggregate annual PCE
consumption of all machines located at a dry cleaning facility
calculated on a monthly basis. The definition of a major source
in the Act includes sources "located within a common area and
under common control." Because multiple units located at a
single dry cleaning facility would be under common control, the
applicability of this NESHAP for major sources has been revised
to be consistent with the language of the Act. The final NESHAP
has also been revised to define an area source on a facility-wide
basis rather than a machine basis when determining solvent
consumption levels. This approach was selected to ensure
consistency and to simplify the rule.
No special permit requirements would be necessary for
.facilities with multiple machines. All sources with only
dry-to-dry machines: using more: than 2,100 gallons of PCE per year
would be required to meet MACT whether one machine or several
machines are located at that source. All other sources using
more than 1,800 gallons of PCE per year would also be required to
meet MACT, regardless of the number of machines located at that
source.. In,addition, all. sources must maintain monthly records
of their consumption and; calculate their: average annual PCE
consumption on a monthly basis.
In the proposed NESHAP, the applicability of the standard
was based on the annual PCE consumption of an individual dry
cleaning machine. Few dry cleaners, however, have more than one
machine per facility, and the majority of facilities with more
2-13
-------
than one machine are the larger commercial and industrial sized
dry cleaners. Few, if any/ of these larger facilities are
affected by revising the definition of applicability because each
machine used at these larger facilities would consume more PCE
than the low consumption exemption.
It is possible that a dry cleaning facility with two
machines that would have been subject to GACT under the proposed
rule may now be subject to MACT, considering their total PCE
consumption. it is also possible that a dry cleaning facility
with a large machine that is subject to MACT might also contain a
small dry cleaning machine that would now be subject to MACT
However, these situations are uncommon and the overall impact of
this revision is minimal.
2-2.2 Applicability Criteria
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-25) argued that the
applicability criteria given in the proposal NESHAP for small
existing area source dry cleaners are illegal. This commenter
cited the legislative history from the Congressional »„„«.
aU ±t h * in the final
1"
disapprove of EPA's
measures otherwise required. •Lffl-LT:ai:ions °r control
Based on this guidance, the commenter stated that the EPA must
apply its control standards to all existing area source dry
cleaning machines, regardless, of: solvent consumption: levels
Response: The Act clearly states, that all major sources are
to be regulated under MACT standards. Area sources, however, may
*" rTatSd "^ GACT ^ thS f inal rUle USeS GACT< rathir- than
MACT, to regulate area sources. The Act provides the
Administrator some discretion in regulating area sources under
GACT. For example, the Act does not state that every area source
2.-14:
-------
within an area source category must be regulated. In determining
GACT for area sources, the low solvent consumption exemptions
were established on the basis of cost versus benefits and
economic impacts. The smallest sources were exempt from
regulation because, in the .-judgment of the Administrator, the
balance between the costs and benefits of regulation, along with
the economic impacts in terms of business closures and financial
failures were considered unreasonable.
2.2.3 Exempting Coin-Operated Facilities
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-23, IV-D-25) stressed that
coin-operated (coin-op) facilities should not be exempted from
the NESHAP. one commenter (IV-D-23) believed, however, that
these facilities should be given special requirements. This
commenter pointed out that the State of Michigan specifies
minimum requirements for supervision, ventilation, operation, and
maintenance of coin-op facilities.
The other commenter (IV-D-25) pointed out that, by not
choosing to "list" coin-op machines, the EPA proposed to exempt
whole classes of dry cleaning machines. This commenter added
that public exposure is especially high from these types of dry
cleaners, which are typically found in laundromat settings. This
commenter added that people, often accompanied by young children,
may spend several hours a week in these settings. This commenter
explained that laundry workers, and their children, may be
present for many hours each day, particularly at. family-owned
cleaners. This commenter added that these facilities may be
located in shopping centers with stores, restaurants, and offices
nearby.
This commenter cited the criterion in section 112(c)(3):
The, Administrator shall list under this: subsection each
category or subcategory of area sources which the
Administrator finds presents a threat of adverse
effects to human health or the environment (by such
sources.• individually or in the aggregate) warranting
regulation under this section.
The commenter explained that coin-op machines satisfy this
criterion and must be regulated. The commenter argued that the
2-15
-------
EPA cannot rely on future trends to address a current public
health concern. The commenter stated that since 47 percent of
coin-op machines are currently controlled, the EPA must establish
MACT-based emissions control achieved by the best 12 percent of
existing sources in this subcategory.
Response; Considering aggregate PCE emissions of coin-op
dry cleaning facilities from a national perspective, these dry
cleaning facilities do not present a threat of adverse effects to
human health or the environment. The PCE emissions from these
facilities, on a national level, are 900 Mg/yr. Compared to the
overall PCE emissions of 84,600 Mg/yr from the PCE dry cleaning
category as a whole, coin-op facilities represent about 1 percent
of nationwide emissions. Because the PCE emissions from these
facilities are so low, they do not warrant regulation under this
NESHAP. If, however, local authorities feel that coin-op dry
cleaning facilities present problems in certain situations, then
nothing in the NESHAP prevents these authorities from adopting
local ordinances to address these problems.
2.3 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
2.3.1 Refrigerated Condensers
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-02) stated that the standards,
as currently written/ do not allow industrial dry-to-dry machines
to use refrigerated condenser vapor recovery devices. This
commenter asserted that a PROS refrigerated condenser
manufactured by his. company, if properly sized, would; be able to
cope with these large machines and should, therefore, be included
as an option for vapor recovery.
Response; The proposed NESHAP did not prevent industrial
dry-to-dry, machines at. major sources from using refrigerated
condensers. Previous information from dry cleaning machine and
control equipment manufacturers indicated that there were no
refrigerated condensers being used to, control PCE emissions from
industrial dry cleaning machines. Information provided by the
commenter and an industrial dry cleaner trade association
following proposal indicates that there are industrial sized
refrigerated condensers; in operation at dry cleaning facilities.
2-re
-------
In addition, information available since proposal from a
data base compiled from a survey of approximately 2,000 dry
cleaners conducted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
reveals that the solvent mileage achieved in actual practice by a
refrigerated condenser is greater than that achieved by a carbon
adsorber. Solvent mileage is the ratio of clothes cleaned to the
amount of solvent consumed. Although air emissions are only one
of several factors that determine solvent mileage, significantly
better solvent mileage is indicative of lower air emissions.
Consequently, this new information lends the EPA to conclude that
refrigerated condensers achieve significantly lower air emissions
in actual practice than carbon adsorbers. Because a refrigerated
condenser results in lower air emissions, all new and
uncontrolled major source dry cleaning machines are required by
the final standards to install refrigerated condensers.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-27) believed that the cost of
a refrigerated water chiller should be included in the cost of
operating a refrigerated condenser. The commenter noted that
cooling water for a refrigerated condenser must be below 75 OF to
keep the condenser operating properly. He added that plants that
use recirculating water towers to comply with local ordinances or
to conserve water to minimize-sewer costs, and that are located
in areas that are hot and humid, will not have inlet water below
75 OF. The commenter explained that they would be forced to
operate- with, a refrigerated water chiller.
Response; The range in the costs of refrigerated condensers
used in the cost analysis is quite broad and one reason for this
is that this range reflects the costs associated with
refrigerated condensers without water chillers, as well as
refrigerated condensers with-water chillers. The capital costs
estimates of a refrigerated condenser range from $6,300 to
$10,800, and the annual operating costs range from $1,670 to
$2,800. The standards, .however, do-not require the use of a
water cooled refrigerated condenser, and the condenser could be
water or air cooled.
2-17
-------
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-27) submitted data to support
his claim that refrigerated condensers achieve less than
95 percent reduction in PCE emissions when applied to a
dry-to-dry machine and less than 85 percent reduction in PCE
emissions when applied to a transfer machine system.
Response; As with any piece of equipment, a refrigerated
condenser may be poorly operated. For example, if the owner or
operator does not operate the refrigerated condenser to achieve
maximum performance (such as cooling to 45 °F) then it is very
likely it would not achieve high control efficiency. The
NESHAP, however, requires the owner or operator of a dry cleaning
system to operate and maintain the dry cleaning system, as well
as its emission control equipment, according to the
manufacturer's specifications and recommendations. Such
operation will ensure that refrigerated condensers achieve the
high emission control efficiencies they are capable of achieving.
2'3'2 Additional Requirements for Hamper Enclosures and Room
Enclosures
Comment; One commenter (IV-L-02) felt that additional
requirements for hamper enclosures and room enclosures should be
given in the final regulation. The commenter suggested the
following: exhaust velocities, typical local exhaust volumes to
properly ventilate the room, and exhausting the enclosures to an
air pollution control device that achieves 5 parts per million
(ppm) or less.
Response; The unique circumstances of each dry cleaner,
such as the size of the room, size and location of dry cleaning
machine(s), as well as the type of dry cleaning system(s),
including the ancillary and.emission control equipment used will
determine design and operating-parameters, such as; exhaust
velocities. It is-not possible, to include specific and detailed
design and operating requirements, such as those mentioned by the
commenter, in standards, which would apply to all dry cleaners
under all circumstances without exception.
2-18
-------
2.3.3 Transfer Machine System Emissions
Comment: One commenter (IV-L-03) disagreed with EPA's
estimate that nearly one third of all PCE emissions from transfer
machine systems occur during the clothing transfer step between
the washer and the dryer. This commenter stated that they are
currently gathering data to measure the PCE loss during transfer;
however, this work has not been completed. The commenter stated
that once completed, the data would be shared with EPA. One
commenter (IV-L-07) stated that the worker exposure levels and
the PCE emissions are higher for transfer machine systems than
for dry-to-dry machines.
Response; Due to the wide variation in operating
circumstances, there is substantial uncertainty in the emissions
estimates from transfer machine systems, and variation both above
and below the estimates used for an average transfer machine
system can be expected. It is estimated that an uncontrolled
transfer machine system on average emits a total of 9.0 Ib of PCE
per 100 Ib of articles cleaned. The emissions from the clothing
transfer step are estimated to be 2.5 Ib of PCE per 100. Ib of
articles cleaned. Based on these estimates, approximately
one-fourth (25 percent) of the PCE emissions from transfer
machine systems occur during the clothing transfer step between
the washer and the dryer.
The EPA agrees that the PCE emissions from uncontrolled
transfer machine systems are greater than; the PCE emissions from
uncontrolled dry-to-dry machines. In addition, the EPA agrees
that the clothing transfer emissions from a transfer machine
system contribute to worker exposure levels.
2.3.4 Fugitive Emissions
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-26) contended that because
about half of the PCE emissions at a dry cleaning facility are
fugitive emissions, the NESHAP should control emissions from all '
processes at a facility rather than only those from a particular
piece of equipment.
Response; There are two types of PCE emissions at dry
cleaning facilities: process vent emissions and fugitive
2-19
-------
emissions. Process vent emissions will be reduced by
requirements for process vent control devices. Fugitive
emissions will be reduced by requirements to implement pollution
prevention practices, such as leak detection and repair, the
proper handling of cartridge filters, and storing all PCE and
wastes that contain PCE in solvent tanks or containers with no
perceptible leaks.
2*3*5 Occupational Safety and Health Administration's
Permissible Exposure
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-27) refuted the EPA's
statement that transfer machine systems could not meet the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA's)
permissible exposure level (PEL) of 25 ppm and submitted data to
support his claim. This commenter also cited data showing
operator exposure from unvented dry-to-dry machines at 200 to
300 ppm during unloading and asserted that these types of
machines will have difficulty meeting the prescribed OSHA levels.
Response; As the commenter stated, it is possible for
transfer machine systems to achieve the OSHA PEL if the owners
tighten work practices and increase room ventilation. in fact,
claims have been made that as many as 40 percent of existing
transfer machine systems are currently meeting this requirement.
As the commenter mentioned, it is also possible that some
dry-to-dry, machines, may have difficulty meeting, the prescribed
OSHA levels.. Nothing in the, NESHAP, however, affects, the ability
of a dry cleaner or any dry cleaning machine to meet the OSHA
PEL.
2 • 3 • 6 Diversitron Solvafc-in^® System
Comment;. One, commenter (IV-D-27) submitted, data to support
his claim that the Diversitron Sol vat ion® System is capable of
achieving greater than 99 percent reduction in PCE: emissions. He
added that the capital cost of. a Solvation® System can be as low
as $6,000.
This commenter listed several advantages of the Solvation®
System over carbon adsorbers, explaining that steam for carbon
2-20
-------
adsorber regeneration requires a minimum of 227 gallons of water
whereas a Solvation® System uses about 20 gallons. The commenter
stated that each time a carbon adsorber is desorbed, between
4 and 8 gallons of contaminated separator water are generated.
The commenter added that, in some localities, this contaminated
water cannot be routed to a sewer and must be picked up by a
hazardous waste disposal company at a considerable cost. The
commenter claimed that the Solvation® System generated far less
contaminated water.
The commenter further explained that carbon adsorbers
require a fan motor to be run throughout the day. The commenter
explained that Solvation® System motors run only during the
deodorize/aeration and open door cycles, after which the motor is
turned off. The commenter noted that this results in no
additional electricity cost.
The commenter also claimed that plants that have replaced
carbon adsorbers with Solvation® Systems report an increase in
solvent mileage ranging between 30 and 60 percent, and a
commensurate reduction in PCE purchased.
The commenter added that the size, weight, and design of the
Solvation® System would eliminate rigging costs ($300 to $700);
eliminate large, custom ductwork costs ($300 to $1,000); and
reduce floor space requirements to 2.5 square feet. The
commenter also stated that electrical or self-contained plants
without the boiler capacity required for- a carbon adsorber
(3.5 to 4.5 horsepower) could be controlled with a Solvation®
System, which requires only fractional boiler capacity.
Response; As discussed in the volume I background
information document (BID),, data show that a carbon adsorber is
capable of achieving emission control efficiencies well in excess
of 95 percent under optimal testing conditions. It is not
surprising, therefore, that some data is available showing, a
control efficiency of 99 percent for the Diversitron Solvation®
System with an integral carbon adsorber under certain conditions.
The central question, however, is not what level of performance
this emission control equipment is, capable of achieving under
2-21
-------
some short-term .idealized period of operation, but what level of
performance this equipment is capable of achieving under normal
operating conditions over the long term.
The data submitted by the commenter suggests only that if a
Diversitron Solvation® System is equipped with a small integral
carbon adsorber it may be capable of achieving levels of
performance equivalent to those achieved under optimal testing
conditions by a large carbon adsorber alone. However, there
remain questions whether the Diversitron Solvation® System, as
currently sold, includes a carbon adsorber or not and, if so,
exactly how this carbon adsorber is operated. Questions also
remain concerning whether or not the Diversitron Solvation®
System with its small integral carbon adsorber can consistently
achieve high levels of emission reduction over the long term or
whether these levels can be achieved only under optimal, test
conditions.
This question of long term performance is very important.
Although carbon adsorbers have been demonstrated as capable of
achieving high levels of emission reduction under controlled,
optimal testing conditions, it has been shown that such levels of
control are difficult to duplicate in actual field practice over.
extended periods of time. Data available from a survey by GARB
(representing approximately 2,000 dry cleaners), which was
undertaken following proposal of the NESHAP, shows that the
solvent mileage, achieved in. actual, practice by a refrigerated,
condenser is much greater (i.e., twice as much) than that
achieved by a carbon adsorber. Although air emissions are only
one of several factors that determine solvent mileage,
significantly better solvent mileage is indicative of lower air
emissions.
This, commenter, however,- or any other manufacturer with a
technology capable of achieving levels of emission reduction
equal to MACT for major sources or GACT for area sources can
petition the Administrator for a determination of equivalency.
For an emission control system to be considered equivalent to the
emission control, systems required in the NESHAP, the petitioner
2-22
-------
must provide, data adequate to demonstrate that the technology is
equivalent in terms of long-term emission control performance and
does not have greater multi-media effects than the use of a
refrigerated condenser.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-27) pointed out that the
concentration of PCE in the vent exhaust from a refrigerated
condenser is 1,000 times greater than what the Diversitron
Solvation® System emits to the atmosphere and 200 times greater
than what carbon adsorbers emit. The commenter argued that
allowing these high levels of PCE emissions negates the purpose
of the regulation.
Response: Emissions from a vented dry-to-dry machine
controlled with a refrigerated condenser occur only when the
machine door is opened at the conclusion of the dry cleaning
cycle. A fan is used to draw fresh air from the room through the
machine door opening, venting the PCE remaining in the machine
drum vapor space to the atmosphere in a matter of seconds.
Consequently, although the concentration of PCE in these vapors
may be much higher than those from a carbon adsorber or a
Diversitron Solvation® System, the volume of vapor is small and
the quantity or amount of PCE emitted to the atmosphere is very
small.
As stated in the previous response, results from a survey of
dry cleaners conducted by GARB indicated that, in actual
practice, a refrigerated condenser achieves: much greater solvent
mileage (twice as much) than a carbon adsorber. Although air
emissions are only one of several factors that determine solvent
mileage, significantly better solvent mileage is indicative of
lower air emissions.
Without information about the flow rate and. the duration of.
the venting interval, in addition to the PCE concentration if. is
not possible to determine the performance of the Diversitron
Solvation® System and compare it to a refrigerated condenser or a
carbon adsorber.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-10) stated that, according to
the manufacturer of the Diversitron Solvation® Solvent Recovery
2-23
-------
system, a carbon adsorber is supplied as an integral part of that
Solvation® System. The commenter also related that Diversitron
has not manufactured the Solvation® System without a carbon
adsorber for over a decade. The commenter believed that the data
about the Diversitron Solvation® System used in developing the
NESHAP were outdated and requested that the EPA reevaluate the
appropriateness of considering this technology as MACT.
Response; if, as the commenter stated, an existing
Diversitron Solvation® Solvent Recovery System is operated in
conjunction with an existing carbon adsorber that is integral to
its system on an existing major source dry cleaning machine, and
if the existing carbon adsorber is properly maintained and
desorbed according to the manufacturer's specifications, then the
Diversitron Solvation® System may be equivalent to MACT for
existing sources. (Existing machines that already have carbon
adsorbers are not required to replace these adsorbers with
refrigerated condensers under the final rule).
The information submitted by the commenter, however, does
not clearly show whether or not existing Diversitron Solvation®
Systems always operate with a carbon adsorber. At this time, it
is uncertain whether an existing Diversitron Solvation® System
installed on an existing dry cleaning machine would be equivalent
to the requirements of the NESHAP. As mentioned earlier,
questions remain about whether a Diversitron Solvation® system
with a_ small integral carbon adsorber can consistently achieve
high levels of emission reduction over the long term. The
commenter can petition the Administrator for a determination of
equivalency with the requirements of the NESHAP; however, the
petitioner must provide data adequate to demonstrate that the
technology is equivalent in terms of long-term emission control
performance and does not have greater multi-media effects than
the use of a refrigerated condenser.
2.4 MODIFICATION AND RECONSTRUCTION
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-28) noted that under the
proposal if a source with a dry-to-dry machine consumes more than
220 gallons per. year of PCE or a source with; a transfer machine
• 2-24
-------
system consumes more than 300 gallons per year of PCE, then that
machine must comply with the requirements of the regulation
within 90 days. f
The commenter pointed out that the proposed regulation would
allow the following situation: A previously uncontrolled machine
that increases productivity after the regulation is promulgated
would be required to install a control device within 3 months,
whereas an uncontrolled machine that becomes subject to the
regulation once it is promulgated, would be allowed 36 months to
install a control device.
The commenter suggested that this situation could be avoided
by introducing a definition for modification in section 63.321 of
the proposal regulation. The commenter recommended that
section 63.325(d)(2) of the proposal regulation be rewritten to
read:
Each owner or operator who commences modification such that
™durfn9 any year the existing source consumes more than
830 liters per year (220 gallons per year) of
perchloroethylene for a dry-to-dry machine or 1,100 liters
per year (300 gallons per year) of perchloroethylene for a
transfer machine after (date of publication of the final
rule), then the source owner or operator shall comply with
the requirements of section 63.322(a) or section 63.322(b)
within X months or by the compliance date specified in
section 63.322(e), whichever is later.
The commenter added that the X months should be a reasonable
amount of time for the source to install controls.
Response; The EPA agrees that an inequity existed under the
proposed NESHAP since a facility previously subject to the low
consumption exemption would be allowed only 3 months to comply
with the regulation, where other facilities were given up to
3 6 months.. As suggested, by the, commenter, the standards have-
been revised to require that existing facilities that are not
required to install control equipment initially, but may later
expand their business sufficiently to become subject to the
requirements, are given more time to comply with the NESHAP. The
final rule requires that they achieve compliance either within
180 days of the date that they determine that they are exceeding
2-25
-------
the consumption levels or 36 months after the date of
promulgation in the Federal i^l^r, whichever date is later
The 36-month time period for initial compliance is given to ail
sources to allow for the increased demand for control devices
Sources exceeding the consumption levels after the initial 36-
month time period given for all sources to comply will be
monitoring their PCE consumption levels and the demand for
control devices will be much lower as during the initial 36-month
compliance period.
comment; One commenter (IV-D-14) noted that part of the
following phrase in the proposal preamble is incorrect:
be made at these Cdry cleaning]
o TO « may be deemed Construction under
40 CFR 63.5. For example, replacement of either the
washer or dryer would be considered a reconstruction.
The commenter estimated that a typical transfer machine washer
costs $12,000 and a dryer costs $6,000, for a total transfer
machine system cost of $18,000. The commenter pointed out that
although it is true that replacement of a washer will exceed
50 percent of the fixed capital cost required to construct a new
source, replacement of the dryer would not and, therefore, would
not be considered a reconstruction. The commenter added that
without this clarification, replacement of a transfer dryer alone
would result in the required installation of a dry-to-dry
machine.
Response: The intent of the reconstruction provision in the
proposed standard was to ensure that any facility that replaces
either the washer or the dryer unit in a transfer machine system
would be considered a new source and would be required to comply
with the applicable; MACT: or GACT requirements, for new sources,,
Therefore, replacement of either the washer or dryer would be
deemed reconstruction. Under the final NESHAP, no emissions are
allowed for new sources between washing and drying, in effect
this means that when either the washer or dryer needs to be
replaced, the owner or operator must purchase a new dry-to-dry
2-26
-------
machine. The purpose is to avoid prolonging the use of existing
transfer machine systems.
Comment: one cpmmenter (IV-D-14) recommended that the EPA
make it clear that a machine below the low solvent consumption
exemption level is not affected by reconstruction. The commenter
argued that dry-to-dry or transfer machine systems should retain
their exemption status as long as their PCE consumption levels
remain below the low solvent consumption exemption level.
Response; During the regulatory development process, the
EPA concluded that an exemption from installing process vent
control devices for facilities with very low solvent consumption
was warranted for existing sources, but that no exemption was
warranted for new sources. Because the dry cleaning standard has
no low solvent consumption exemption levels for new sources, a
source of any size (including one below the low consumption
exemption for existing sources) that undergoes reconstruction
would be subject to the standards for new sources.
2.5 ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-16, IV-D-24) expressed
concern that the economic impacts discussed in the proposal omit
estimates of the increased cost of health care for persons
adversely affected by PCE emissions from dry cleaners. These
commenters requested that the costs of adverse health affects be
included in the economic analysis.
Response; The benefits of emission reduction associated
with a regulation, if addressed, are discussed in a benefit
analysis as part of a regulatory impact analysis performed to
comply with Executive Order 12291 for major regulations. This
proposal,, however, is. not; a major regulation, and no benefit
analysis was undertaken.
2.5.2 Control Costg
Comment; Two commenters (IV-L-01, IV-L-05) disagreed with
the incremental cost of control for a dry-to-dry machine over a
transfer machine system given in the notice of availability of
new information on control of PCE emissions during clothing
2-27
-------
transfer at dry cleaning facilities that use transfer dry
cleaning machines. One commenter (IV-L-01) disagreed with the
EPA's method for determining the incremental cost effectiveness
of control for a dry-to-dry machine over a transfer machine
system. The other commenter (IV-L-05) stated that an assessment
of the health risks associated with transfer machine systems was
needed to put the control costs into perspective.
Response; The approach used by the first commenter to
calculate incremental cost effectiveness underestimates annual
control costs because several important cost factors were
excluded.. The commenter excluded the amortization of capital
costs, indirect operating costs (e.g., insurance costs) and
solvent costs. All of these factors were included in the EPA's
determination of the net annualized costs.
A NESHAP promulgated under section 112(d) of the Act is
based on MACT or GACT (i.e., demonstrated emission control
technology) and not on risk assessment. Nevertheless, the higher
emissions from a transfer machine system were considered in
examining the incremental cost effectiveness of a dry-to-dry
machine over a transfer machine system.
2.5.3 Economic Considerations
Comment: One commenter (IV-L-07) stated that reconditioned
dry-to-dry equipment is available at a much reduced cost and
suggested the EPA use those costs in its calculations.
Response; The commenter suggested developing cost estimates
for replacement of transfer machine systems with dry-to-dry
machines using the cost of reconditioned rather than new
dry-to-dry machines. At this time, the cost of a reconditioned
dry-to-dry machine, may: be lower than the,cost of a new machine;
however, it is highly questionable whether there are a sufficient
number of reconditioned machines to meet the demand created by
replacing, transfer machine systems. If demand increases, it is
likely that the price of a reconditioned dry-to-dry machine would
increase and approach the price of a new dry-to-dry machine. For
this reason, it is more appropriate to base cost estimates on new
rather than reconditioned dry-to-dry machines.
2-28
-------
2.6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Cosjment: TWO commenters (IV-D-Ol, iv-D-
concern about the wastewater impacts of the
expressed
One
,
The coxtnnenter
system are not insignificant.
thTZT ^ ^ ^ rSeValUate -ntation costs of
the dry cleaning NESHAP, taking into consideration the costs of
transferring PCE fro, air emissions to wastewater
One commenter (IV-D-10) reported that it is the
the regulation. Practice be
ResEonse: As stated in the preamble to the
and^th.commenters, noted, the, total amount of ast
effluent from refrigerated condenser or carbon adsorber
typical, existing, dry-to-dry machine with a carbon adsorber
O.S5
*** waouewctcer generate
condenser is very small. A.typical existing
. machine with a refrigerated condenser <
process vent generates about 0.03 kg (0.07 lb) of
wastewater per year.
2-29
-------
dry cleanxng machines however, will be required to install
refrigerated condensers. Therefore install
owner may dispose of PCE contaminated wastewa at an
approved hazardous waste faciXity consistent witn aPPLable
condenser. Moreover, whether the smaW anount of
1 routed to
One counter (IV-D-18) requested clarification
-------
This commenter questioned whether cartridge filters from the
dry cleaning industry may be thrown into the trash once they have
been drained or dried for 24 hours. He also questioned whether
these filters are considered an F-002 waste or other similar
waste under 40 CFR 261.31.
Response: As stated in the preamble to the proposal NESHAP,
all PCE containing waste generated at a dry cleaning facility
subject to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) must
be treated as a hazardous waste as specified under RCRA. Note
that PCE containing waste generated at a dry cleaning facility
includes spent carbon, used cartridge filters, PCE containing
lint, etc.
Nothing in the regulation permits PCE containing waste
generated by dry cleaners, including drained cartridge filters,
to be thrown into the trash. Oftentimes, however, a dry cleaner
may qualify as a conditionally exempt small quantity generator if
the dry cleaner generates no more than 100 kilograms of hazardous
waste per month and may be subject to less stringent requirements
under RCRA.
2.7 SELECTION OF MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY AND
GENERALLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
2.7.1 Regulatory Considerations
Comment: Five commenters (IV-D-10, IV-D-14, IV-D-24,
IV-D-25, and IV-D-26) remarked on the use of MACT versus GACT for
regulating dry cleaners. Four of these commenters (iv-b-io,
IV-D-24, IV-D-25, and IV-D-26) believed that MACT should be used
to regulate all dry cleaners, and one commenter (IV-D-14)
believed that GACT was the appropriate method for regulation.
One commenter (IV-D-25) believed that given the high public
exposure to air toxics caused,by dry cleaners, regulation of all
categories, of dry cleaners under MACT is necessary. This
commenter maintained that MACT standards offer greater protection
of public health, now, and in the future, and should be adopted
for all categories of dry cleaners. This commenter quoted the
Congressional Record to illustrate that the regulation of certain
2.-31
-------
categories and subcategories as area sources is optional under
the amended Act:
The Administrator can also list an area source category
}ust as he would a major source category and require
installation of maximum achievable control technology.
Two commenters (IV-D-24, IV-D-26) believed that there is
sufficient and compelling health effects information regarding
PCE to warrant application of MACT to all dry cleaning machines
regardless of type or size.
One commenter (IV-D-10) acknowledged that section 112(k) of
the Act outlines a comprehensive strategy to reduce HAP's from
area sources. However, this commenter believed that such a
strategy would not reduce PCE emissions sufficiently from area
source dry cleaning facilities. The commenter believed small .
existing dry cleaning facilities that have less than
state-of-the-art controls will adversely impact human health and
the environment. For this reason, the commenter believed that
section 112(c)(3), (i.e., a threat to human health and the
environment by sources individually, or in the aggregate)
warrants the application of MACT controls for all area source dry
cleaners.
Two commenters (IV-D-25, IV-D-26) asserted that residual
risk review should be required for all dry cleaners to ensure
that public health is adequately protected. One commenter
(IV-D-26) argued that it is, bad, public: policy to define, the vast-
majority of dry cleaning facilities as area sources and apply
GACT to them, thus precluding a residual risk assessment at a
later date. Based on the knowledge gained in the Northeast
States, on public exposure to PCE from dry cleaning facilities,
this commenter maintained that it is absolutely necessary that
such a risk assessment be conducted for this source category.
One commenter (IV-D-14) stated that GACT instead of MACT is
the appropriate control level, of PCE emissions from area sources.
This commenter referred to the citations from the Senate
Committee Report given in the preamble and also cited additional
legislative history to support: his, point. This commenter stated
2-32J
-------
that each of the three Senators (Senator Symms, senator McClure,
and Senator Moynihan) who spoke on the Act amendments mentioned
dry cleaners as one of the groups for which GACT was appropriate.
Response; As stated in the proposal, the EPA has concluded
that area source dry cleaners present a threat of adverse effects
to health or the environment. For this reason, commercial dry
cleaning facilities that are area sources were added to the list
of source categories under section 112(c)(3) to be regulated
under the Act. Listing an area source category under
section 112(0(3), however, does not require that regulations
developed for this source category must be based on MACT. These
regulations may be based on MACT or they may be based on GACT.
The EPA does not agree with the commenters who believe the
health effects information regarding PCE is so compelling that it
warrants application of MACT to all small area source dry
cleaners. As stated by the Science Advisory Board, "[t]he
available scientific evidence confirms that perchloroethylene •
should be considered as an animal carcinogen ... [however] we
do not consider the evidence strong enough to classify this
compound as a probable human carcinogen . . . .»
During development of the regulation, the EPA concluded that
many small area source dry cleaning facilities may experience
adverse economic impacts as a result of imposing a regulation
based on MACT. For this reason, the GACT approach was selected
as the basis for regulating small area source dry cleaning
facilities.
Although a residual risk analysis is required for sources
regulated under MACT, those sources regulated under GACT may also
receive a residual risk analysis. Section 112(f) (5) of, the Act
merely states that residual risk analysis is not required for
area sources regulated with GACT; it does not preclude area
sources from a residual risk analysis.
In addition, as mentioned by one of the commenters,
section 112(k) of the Act directs the EPA to develop a strategy
to control HAP emissions from area sources in urban areas. The
strategy, among other things, must achieve area source emissions
2-33
-------
reductions from the 30 HAP's that pose the greatest threat to
public health and achieve at least a 75 percent reduction in
cancer incidence from all stationary sources. Consequently, the
need for emission controls beyond GACT at dry cleaners will be
reconsidered in the context of the overall urban air strategy and
the relative contribution of PCE emissions from dry cleaning
facilities to urban exposures.
Finally, as pointed out by one commenter, much evidence
exists in the Senate Committee report and the legislative history
of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, that dry cleaning was
considered an example of an area source category for which
regulations based on GACT were appropriate.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-24) disagreed with the
conclusion given in the proposal preamble that, for economic
reasons, it is unreasonable to apply MACT to all sources. The
commenter stressed that existing State requirements have been
successfully implemented on the dry cleaners that the EPA
proposes to exempt. The commenter added that the reduction in
solvent usage (in some cases, a 50 percent reduction has been
reported) and associated savings have a net pay back period of
2 to 3 years.
Response; The economic analysis conducted prior to proposal
serves as the basis for the conclusion that it is unreasonable to
impose MACT on area source dry cleaners. Unlike the. MACT
approach: for major sources, which: specifies a regulatory floor
(i.e., minimum regulatory requirements), the GACT approach for
regulating area sources specifies no regulatory floor.
Development of any GACT requirement, therefore, takes into
consideration the costs: and economic; impacts as well as..-other-
potential impacts associated with its requirements. For this
reason, GACT for area sources, represents, a balance between
economic, energy, and environmental impacts. This consideration
is particularly important when regulating area source dry
cleaners because the majority of these facilities are small,
family-owned businesses that could be severely impacted by
regulatory requirements.
2-34;
-------
current «tT e -ntation of
current state requirements are not available; however as
discussed in the proposal preamble, analysis of the Impacts
associated with implementation of the standards with T^
solvent consumption exemption levels estimates a potential
20 percent closure rate for small dry cleaning facilitie"
impacts of this magnitude are considered unreasonable
Analyse of the solvent savings associated with controlling
emissions from the small machines exempted by the low solvent
level show toat solvent "
Four commenters (IV-D-lo, lv-D-24 IV-D
IV-0-26) believed, that Regulatory Alternative i, Ihe
ctt?^ rS9Ulat°ry alt-"ati- ^iven in the proposal
controlling process vents, should be selected to control
tTans'feTJT "" eXiSt±n9 ^ "" ^^-^ -"
transfer machine systems.
gesponse; At proposal, Regulatory Alters i™, TT
"
tnsr
transfer
ar
area source transfer machine systems and carbon
ol tprocess vent smiss-ions fL - r
systems, was selected as the basis
=
r:r
.,. » ;; -:::.
flcilitiesT / r*^ °£ aPPr°XiMte^ 2'°°° *y cleaning
facilities conducted by CARS. This information reveals that
solvent mileage achieved., in actual practice by
2-35
-------
condenser is much greater than that achieved by a carbon
adsorber. Although air emissions are only one of several factors
that determine solvent mileage, significantly better solvent
mileage is indicative of lower air emissions. The new
information leads the EPA to conclude that refrigerated
condensers achieve significantly lower air emissions in actual
practice than carbon adsorbers.
The final NESHAP, therefore, requires existing uncontrolled
transfer machine systems at area sources to install and operate
refrigerated condensers. The Administrator considers the
additional costs of replacing existing carbon adsorbers with
refrigerated condensers, however, to be unreasonable. As a
result, existing transfer machine systems already controlled by
carbon adsorbers are not required to replace their carbon
adsorbers with refrigerated condensers.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-24) stated that the proposal
NESHAP does not consider using the authority of section 112(a)(1)
of the amended Act to consider dry cleaners that emit less than
10 tpy to be major sources based on the potency of the HAP,
persistence, potential for bioaccumulation, or "other
characteristics of the air pollutant, or other relevant factors "
This commenter realized that the EPA has not established
guidelines yet for determining lesser quantity emission rates
(LQER's). However, this commenter believed that PCE satisfied
the criteria, for establishing a LQER, particularly with regard to
the inherent toxicity of PCE, its high potential for
bioaccumulation, and the extensive public exposure to PCE that
has been documented in the vicinity of dry cleaning facilities
The commenter cited these factors to support applying MACT to all
sizes; of dry cleaning;machines.
Responses Section 112(a)(1) of the Act is a discretionary
provision. The EPA has the authority to develop LQER's for some
hazardous, air pollutants "on the basis of the potency of the air
pollutant, persistence, potential for bioaccumulation, other
characteristics of the pollutant, or other relevant factors •'
The methodology for evaluating the need for and the approach for
2-36
-------
establishing LQER's is still under development. If an LQER
ultimately is adopted for PCE, then the dry cleaning NESHAP will
be reviewed and revised, as appropriate.
2.7.2 Determining Threshold of Threat of Adverse Effects
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-24) responded to the EPA's
request for comments on the appropriate threshold for determining
whether a particular source category or subcategory presents a
threat of adverse effects to health or the environment sufficient
to warrant regulation. This commenter argued that although the
EPA stated that this finding is required in the absence of an
area source strategy, the following direction exists (according
to the commenter) in the amended Act:
This study was not intended to replace or diminish
regulation of area sources, particularly in the case of
dry cleaners
and
provides that the requirements to develop area source
strategy shall not be interpreted to preclude or delay
implementation of action with respect to area sources
of HAP's under consideration pursuant to the Clean Air
Act that may be promulgated before the strategy is
proposed.
Based on this citation, this commenter stressed that Congress did
not intend for the urban area source strategy to be the sole
vehicle for regulating area sources. This commenter further
stated that economic impact analysis alone or national impacts of
emissions reductions do not permit the appropriate evaluation of
whether an area source presents an adverse threat to human health
or the environment. This commenter argued that in determining
the, health impacts of area sources, the inherent toxicity of the
HAP and the exposure potential of the population living in the
vicinity of the source must be considered. This commenter
concluded by saying that exposure conditions must include a
characterization of the fate and transport of the HAP once it is
released from the source and activity patterns of the exposed
population.
2-37'
-------
Response; The EPA agrees with the commenter that the urban
area source strategy was not intended to be the sole vehicle for
regulating area sources. The EPA is proposing to regulate PCE
dry cleaners, most of which are area sources, prior to the
completion of the urban area source strategy.
In order to regulate a category of area sources under
section 112(d), a finding must be made that the category presents
a threat of adverse effects to human health or the environment
sufficient to warrant regulation. Therefore, a finding of a
threat of adverse effects was presented in the proposed rule for
PCE dry cleaners.
The fate and transport of PCE emissions were not
specifically addressed in this finding. However, the EPA
believes that available health effects information is sufficient
to establish a finding of a threat of adverse effects for the
purpose of regulation under section 112(d). Furthermore, the EPA
believes standards under section 112(d) are the appropriate first
step and that further controls (considering fate and transport)
may be appropriate after completion of the national area source
strategy required by section 112(1) of the Act.
2.7.3 Indoor Air Pollution
Comment: Twelve commenters (IV-D-05, IV-D-08, IV-D-10,
IV-D-11, IV-D-14, IV-D-16, IV-D-17, IV-D-21, IV-D-23, IV-D-24,
IV-D-25, IV-D-26) had remarks on indoor air pollution. Ten
commenters (IV-D-05, IV-D-08, IV-D-10, IV-D-ll, IV-D-16, IV-D-17,
IV-D-23, IV-D-24, IV-D-25, IV-D-26) expressed concern about
indoor air pollution from neighborhood dry cleaners and thought
that the standards did not adequately address this problem. Five
commenters, (IV-D-10, IV-D-11,, IV-D-16, IV-D-24, IV-D-25) referred
to a New York State study which found high levels of PCE in
residences located above dry cleaning establishments. These
commenters urged the EPA to review this study. The commenters
believed this study clearly indicates that the risk to public
health in such situations is significant and should be targeted
for regulation.
2-38'
-------
One commenter (IV-D-05) stated that the proposed NESHAP does
not reduce this indoor air pollution problem and requested that
the standards be modified to prevent these problems from
occurring. Another commenter (IV-D-11) mentioned that although
the Act does not specifically address indoor air pollution,
indoor air emissions eventually become ambient air emissions.
One commenter (IV-D-14) disagreed with the concern that the
standards would not adequately control air pollution by stating
that the purpose of the Act is to address ambient air quality
rather than indoor air quality.
Response; The EPA was unaware of the New York study and its
findings of elevated PCE levels in residences located above dry
cleaning facilities prior to proposal. Many States and
environmental groups, however, referred to this study in their
public comments on the proposed NESHAP, and several commenters
submitted copies of the report attached to their public comments.
Subsequent discussions with the authors of the report indicate
that the dry cleaning trade associations are familiar with it.
Nevertheless, copies of the report were forwarded to these
associations to ensure they were aware of it. As a result, the
EPA believes that most people concerned with PCE emissions from
dry cleaning facilities are familiar with the study and, as such,
the study can be considered common knowledge.
The New York study indicates that PCE emissions can
accumulate in residences located above dry cleaning facilities,
leading to increased public exposure to PCE. It should be noted
that PCE accumulation in buildings would not be limited to
residences located above dry cleaning facilities. In fact, the
New York study can be viewed as demonstrating that PCE emissions
can accumulate in any building that includes a dry cleaning
facility.
While not definitive, in EPA's opinion, several observations
included in the New York study suggest that fugitive PCE
emissions—not process vent emissions—may be the major
contributor to the elevated PCE levels in the apartments located
above the dry; cleaning facilities.. For example, process vent
2-39
-------
emissions were generally released to the atmosphere at a point
outside the dry cleaning facility, yet the elevated PCE levels
observed in the apartments were essentially the same whether the
windows of the apartments were open or closed during the study.
This tends to discount the contribution of process vent emissions
to the elevated PCE levels.
On the other hand, observed PCE levels in the apartments
located above dry cleaning facilities with transfer machine
systems were significantly higher than PCE levels observed in
apartments above dry cleaning facilities with dry-to-dry
machines. This tends to highlight the contribution of fugitive
emissions to the elevated PCE levels, since fugitive emissions
from transfer machines systems are much higher than those from
dry-to-dry machines due to clothing transfer between the washer
and the dryer at transfer machine systems. Also, equipment leaks
and generally poor operation were observed at many of the dry
cleaning facilities, and these are major contributors to fugitive
emissions.
As a result, EPA reevaluated the costs and benefits of
extending those, provisions of the proposed standards which
focused on fugitive emission control (i.e., the pollution
prevention requirements) to dry cleaning facilities below the low
solvent consumption exemption levels. Such pollution prevention
requirements include leak detection and repair, and good
housekeeping practices such as keeping solvent tanks and
containers covered while not in use, and minimizing the time that
the doors on the dry cleaning machines remain open. These costs
were determined to be reasonable based on the additional emission
reduction., achieved.. Thus:, in the final., rule, all PCE dry
cleaning facilities are required to implement pollution
prevention practices. Such practices would help address the
indoor air problems indicated by the New York study-
Additional remedies to control indoor air emissions from PCE
dry cleaning facilities may also be necessary and appropriate.
Such remedies could be adopted on the Federal, State, or local
level.. At this time,, however, the EPA is unsure of; what these
2-40
-------
additional remedies might be. Consequently, the EPA will
continue to assess the problem highlighted by the New York study,
try to identify additional remedies, and decide how best to
proceed.
2.7.4 Small Consumption Facilities
Commenti Six commenters (IV-D-10, IV-D-ll, IV-D-16,
IV-D-17, IV-D-23, IV-D-25) believed that the proposed low solvent
consumption exemption levels would exempt existing area source
dry cleaning operations that endanger human health. One of these
commenters (IV-D-ll) stated that it is the small.volume area
source facility that poses the largest threat to individuals
because many existing area source dry cleaners are located in
residential areas. Another commenter (IV-D-25) argued that,
because of their location in proximity to human populations, more
people are exposed to air toxics from small existing area source
dry cleaners than from large industrial complexes, such as
chemical plants, which are not usually located in the midst of
population centers. Another commenter (IV-D-16) believed that
virtually all small existing area source dry cleaners
contributing to this problem would be sources exempted under the
proposed NESHAP.
Three commenters (IV-D-10, IV-D-ll, IV-D-23) requested that
the EPA reevaluate the low solvent consumption exemption levels
to ensure that small existing area source dry cleaning facilities
located in or near residences are subject to the standards..
One commenter (IV-D-17) recognized, that although the
economic impact of regulating the small existing area source dry
cleaners can be significant, the process and fugitive emissions
from these sources can endanger human health. This commenter
requested that, prior to promulgating the NESHAP, the EPA examine
low cost control technology and operating procedure alternatives
to reduce PCE emissions from small existing area source dry
cleaners.
Two commenters (IV-D-14, IV-D-22) recommended that small
existing area source dry cleaning machines exempted from the
2-41
-------
regulation not be exempted from certain inspection and repair
provisions.
Response: The Act provides the Administrator with a
considerable amount of flexibility in regulating small area
sources. For the small area source dry cleaning category, GACT
was selected as the vehicle for regulation consistent with the
Senate Committee report on the Act, which cited dry cleaning as
an example of a source for which GACT was the most appropriate
vehicle for regulation.
Standards developed under GACT represent the Administrator's
judgment of a reasonable balance between the cost, energy, and
environmental impacts of alternative control technologies. The
objective of GACT is to achieve the greatest degree of emission
reduction without imposing unreasonable impacts. Because very
small dry cleaners may suffer economic hardship if stringent
^regulation is imposed on them, the cost, economic and other
impacts on these sources were carefully evaluated.
There are no low solvent consumption exemption levels
included in the NESHAP for new area sources. The final NESHAP
requires all new area source dry cleaning machines to control
process vents, clothing transfer emissions, and fugitive
emissions.
Ml existing area source dry cleaning machines are required
to control fugitive emissions. Existing area sources are also
required to control process, vents; except where the economic,
energy, and environmental impacts were judged to be unreasonable.
At proposal these impacts were judged to be unreasonable for area
sources consuming less than 200 and 300 gallons of PCE per year
for dry-to-dry machines and transfer machine systems,
respectively (corresponding to annual receipts of $100,000).
In response to comments, the EPA reconsidered the low
solvent consumption exemption levels for process vent control and
decided to lower them to 140 and 200 gallons per year,
respectively. The cost effectiveness of process vent control at
these very small area sources ranges from $1,600 to $3,600 per
ton of PCE. As many as 165 additional financial, failures are
2-42;
-------
portion prevention pactices
Additional remedies to control
Two commenters (IV-D-20 iv-n
'
-
the EPA.i.pose, a, ban on 4 th* sale of n'
systems in the futm-. n "
JT m=> J.H "cne ruture. One commenter
*
—onunended that
tr*nsfe^
2^43
-------
This commenter believed
i.
-.
recondxtxoned machine can be purchased for between Sis
-
better capital investment ,or the dry cleaner ' """ "
Two counters (IV-D-14 and IV-L-03) urged the EPA to
appropriate to retire the purchase or dry-to-drTr^i^rat d
2-44,
-------
to the ™ted the EPA to ban the sale
of both new and used transfer machine systems, adding that both
new and used transfer machine systems are still being offered for
*° Pr°P°Sa1'
that no new
transr- ' -ed that no
transfer machine systems were being sold or had been sold in
Hel^H LearS.dUe ^ ^ adOPti0" °f ^ °^ P^ional Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA, permissible exposure level (pL, of
25 parts per million (ppm) for PCE (January 19, 1989)
pcE tm rduoe worker exposure ievais- Bas- « ^
PCE emitted during the transfer step, transfer machine systems
« blli daS PaWa °f meSting *"• °SHA PEL- B«-~ ^e
EPA believed no new transfer machine systems were being sold it
was not considered necessary to develop regulations that '
eeel **"*** " ^^^ «» "" * "- transfer machine
Following proposal, however, the Eleventh circuit Appeals
court remanded the PEL to OSHA. This action could certainly slow
the transition from transfer machine, systems, to dry-to-dry
machines. y
ooeraf "" /1S° lMrned f°^°«^ proposal that many o^ers or
operators of transfer machine systems, were meeting the OSHA PEL
by increasing ventilation or rotating the placement of their
workers. Moreover, it was learned that petroleum transfer
machine systems, which are still being manufactured for use with
2-45
-------
„
new
no less
source. A new transfer maohlne
enclosure represents the best control
However, M&CT may be more stringent if
the balance between the ^^^
env.ronmenta! impacts of a more stringent required is
2-46
-------
uncontrolled transfer machine system. The annualiZed costs for
such control would be a net savings ($300) because overall PCE
consumption is lower with a dry-to-dry machine. This lower cost
x« due to the increased amount of PCE that is recovered and
recycled within the machine.
The EPA believes it is reasonable to require new transfer
machine systems located at major sources to meet the same level
of emission control achieved by new dry-to-dry machines. Thus,
the final NESHAP prohibits any emissions between the washing and
dryxng step of the dry cleaning cycle for new transfer machine
systems located at major sources.
For new area source transfer machine systems, the NESHAP is
based on GACT. The GACT is a balance between environmental
economic, and energy impacts the Administrator considers
reasonable. The incremental cost effectiveness of requiring a
new dry-to-dry machine over a new transfer machine system at a
typical new area source is approximately '$3,600 per ton. The EPA
does not believe that the additional costs of purchasing a new
dry-to-dry machine over purchasing a new transfer machine system
would deter entry (or expansion) into the dry cleaning market
If a new business venture is viable and attractive with a new*
transfer machine system, the EPA believes that the business
venture would be equally viable and attractive with a new
dry-to-dry machine. Consequently, the impacts of requiring
transfer machine systems, to eliminate all. clothing transfer
emissions (i.e., purchase a new dry-to-dry machine) is considered
reasonable.
Commgni: one commenter (IV-D-25) stated that at one point
durxng the regulatory development process, the EPA was
considering immediate or gradual replacement of existing transfer
machine systems with new dry-to-dry machines. This commenter
noted that there was no mention of existing transfer machine
system phaseout in the proposed NESHAP. The commenter stressed -
that the EPA cannot rely Qn QSHA ^^ ^ accomplish & t
phaseout of existing transfer machine systems. The commenter
noted that OSHA's final rule contemplated an extension of the
2-47
-------
deadline by which engineering controls would be required, if a
trade association requests it.
This commenter believed that the NESHAP should provide a
schedule for the accelerated replacement of existing transfer
machine systems with well-controlled dry-to-dry machines, and not
simply rely on trends in the industry.
Two commenters (IV-L-05, and IV-L-06) believed that all
existing transfer machine systems should be phased out of use.
One commenter (IV-L-05) felt they should be phased out rapidly.
One commenter (IV-L-06) also recommended phasing out existing
transfer machine systems "and believed that MACT for all existing
transfer machine systems is replacement with dry-to-dry machines.
Response; The requirement for existing transfer machine
systems to be replaced with new dry-to-dry machines was a control
option considered by the EPA prior to proposal of the NESHAP.
From a cost-effectiveness viewpoint, there is little difference
in the impacts of requiring immediate replacement of existing
transfer machine systems or gradual, phased-in replacement, in
both cases, the capital cost of the existing transfer machine
system is a "sunk" cost that has been incurred and is not a
factor in the analysis.
This viewpoint makes the analysis of replacing or phasing
out existing transfer machine systems quite different from that
of banning or prohibiting new transfer machine systems. For
existing-transfer machine systems, the costs of replacing or
phasing out the existing system are the full costs of a new
dry-to-dry machine. For a new transfer machine system, the costs
of banning or prohibiting the new system is the difference in
costs between,the new transfer machine system and the, new
dry-to-dry machine. Consequently, the costs are much higher in
the analysis of replacing or phasing out; existing transfer •
machine systems, than they are in the analysis of banning or
prohibiting new transfer machine systems.. The incremental cost
effectiveness for replacing or phasing out a typical area source
existing transfer machine system with a dry-to-dry machine is
approximately $41,800 per ton of PCE reduced. The incremental
2-48
-------
cost effectiveness for replacing or phasing out a typical major
source existing transfer machine system with a dry-to-dry machine
is approximately $12,200 per ton of PCE reduced.
The high costs of either immediate or gradual replacement of
existing transfer machine systems is considered unreasonable for
both area and major sources. No additional information has been
presented to alter this conclusion. Consequently, the NESHAP
does not require replacement of existing transfer machine systems
with dry-to-dry machines.
2.7.6 Reclaimers
Comment; Five commenters (IV-L-02, IV-L-03, IV-L-05,
IV-L-06, IV-L-07) agreed with EPA that use of a reclaimer with a
dry-to-dry machine would make them a transfer machine system.
One commenter (IV-L-07) also wanted to ban the sale of new or
used reclaimers.
Response; The NESHAP has been revised to define a
dry-to-dry machine used with a reclaimer as a transfer machine
system. The NESHAP does not allow emissions to occur between the
wash and dry cycles for a new dry cleaning machine. This
requirement effectively bans or prohibits new transfer machine
systems. It also effectively bans or prohibits the use of new
reclaimers with new or existing dry-to-dry machines, because
adding a reclaimer to a new or existing dry-to-dry machine
creates a new transfer machine system.
2.7.7 Room Enclosures
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-25) suggested that, until
transfer machine systems are phased out, total vapor containment
(i.e., room enclosures) should be the control required for all
transfer machine systems. The: commenter requested that transfer
machine systems be enclosed to capture fugitive emissions and
channel them to control devices.
Two commenters (IV-D-10 and IV-D-24) suggested that the EPA
evaluate a new type of total vapor containment exhaust and
control system (i.e., room enclosure) that has been retrofitted
to an existing transfer machine in New York State. The commenter
2-49
-------
stated that this control system should be considered MACT for
transfer machine systems.
Response: As indicated in the previous response, the final
NESHAP effectively bans new transfer machine systems. At the
commenters' suggestion, the EPA reconsidered requiring room
enclosures on existing transfer machine systems. Room enclosures
capture and vent the fugitive PCE emissions to a carbon adsorber.
Because clothing transfer emissions are a significant portion of
overall transfer machine system emissions, control of these
through a room enclosure would achieve additional emission
reductions.
The only type of control device that could effectively
control PCE emissions on a room enclosure is a carbon adsorber.
As stated previously, however, new information emerged following
proposal indicating that in actual practice within the dry
cleaning industry, carbon adsorbers achieve a much.lower level of
emission reduction than originally thought.
Assuming, for the sake of discussion, a carbon adsorber
achieves a 95 percent reduction in PCE emissions, the incremental
cost effectiveness of requiring room enclosures with carbon
adsorbers on existing major source transfer machine systems would
be as low as $300 per ton of PCE. In fact, even if the control
efficiency of the carbon adsorber was as low as 10 percent, the
incremental cost effectiveness of requiring room enclosures on
major source transfer machine systems would be about $3,600 per
ton.
Although the EPA does not believe the control efficiency of
carbon adsorbers within the dry cleaning industry is as low as
10 percent, making such;an assumption for the purpose of
calculations; effectively indicates-that, even at low control
efficiencies, the: use of room enclosures: at major source transfer
machine systems is reasonable. Consequently, the final NESHAP
requires the use of room enclosures with carbon adsorbers at
existing major source transfer machine systems.
Requiring existing major source transfer machine system dry
cleaners to use room enclosures is not estimated to result in any
2.-50
-------
additional financial failures or- ^
limited number of vendors of V Cl°SUreS' **tlally, due to the
with * enclosure^ the EPA was
250
enclosures were r
systems
s
requirement on only the
receipts over $100
enclosures,
area sources.
2'7*8 Hampe
only for the
r iiures
*r«n such a
transfer machine system
2-51
-------
with the room enclosure during the transfer step and an exhaust
ventilation rate (such as 100 linear feet per minute inward air
velocity) should also be required.
Response; The use of both a hamper enclosure and a room
enclosure together is not estimated to reduce PCE emissions from
the clothing transfer step by any more than a room enclosure
alone. Little additional PCE reduction is estimated because the
hamper enclosure would be located inside the room enclosure.
Comment; One commenter (IV-L-05) believed that the use of
hamper and room enclosures should not be limited to new machines
because loans and leasing arrangements are made available by
major equipment manufacturers for small businesses.
Response; The availability of loans Or leasing arrangements
was not an issue in determining the reasonableness of requiring
hamper or room enclosures. Rather, the concern was the price of
such control devices in a monopolistic market created by
regulation when there is only one supplier (with a patent) of the
devices. This situation could cause the price of such control
devices to increase significantly if the widespread use of these
controls were mandated by the NESHAP.
Comment; One commenter (IV-L-03) believed that transfer
enclosures (e.g., hamper and room enclosures) would not be
economically feasible for existing area sources. This commenter
added that with a great demand for hamper enclosures, their price
could increase substantially-above the current price of $3,000.
The commenter added that the same would occur with room
enclosures, as they would also likely be sold in a monopolistic
market. Two commenters (IV-L-02, IV-L-05), however, stated that
economic concerns about the creation of a monopolistic market
were overstated..
Response; Initial concerns about the-emission-reduction
achievable, costs, and availability of hamper enclosures and room
enclosures made them unreasonable for area source dry cleaning
machines. In response to the comments, however, the EPA
reconsidered requiring room enclosures on existing major sources.
As discussed elsewhere, the. final NESHAP requires room enclosures,
2-52
-------
on existing major source transfer machine systems-those located
in a dry cleaning facility with an annual PCE consumption of. more
than 1,800 gallons). By limiting this requirement to major
sources, the demand for room enclosures is relatively small and
is unlikely to lead to excessive price increases.
Although two commenters believed the economic concerns
associated with requiring hamper enclosures or room enclosures
may be overstated, these commenters offer no reasoning or logic
to explain why they believe that to be the case.
2*7'9 Additional Controls for
Comment: TWO commenters (IV-D-25, IV-D-27) stated that
additional controls should have been considered for dry-to-dry
machines. One commenter (IV-D-25) mentioned a new German
machine, the Permac Consorba®, that uses a carbon adsorber in
conjunction with a refrigerated condenser for vent control The
commenter pointed out that this machine was mentioned in the
background document as achieving 98 to 99 percent control, but
was not evaluated further. The commenter stated that it made
sense that a dual control system would achieve better control
than a machine with one control device. The commenter felt that
this control was not evaluated sufficiently and quoted the
Congressional
^
assure that he has - collected data oS 5! o
~P Ofming sources within each category
dat*t
Another commenter (IV-D-27) stated that emissions to the
atmosphere from dry-to-dry; machines, with refrigerated: condensers
are Hmxted to the opening and closing of the loading door. This
commenter pointed out that some States, such as New Jersey
determined that emissions from dry-to-dry refrigerated condenser
controlled machines would exceed the levels prescribed in their
rule. These machines have installed mini-carbon adsorbers to
reduce PCE emissions for a capital cost of about $3,000. The
2-53;
-------
commenter suggested that the EPA should evaluate the use of such
devices and consider requiring them.
One commenter (IV-D-25) discussed the "floor" as described
in section 112(d)(3) of the amended Act:
Emission standards...shall not be less stringent, and
may be more stringent than the average emission
limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent
of the existing sources...(emphasis added by commenter)
The commenter quoted an explanation by the author of this
section, which appeared in the Congressional Record;
Subsection(d) specifically authorizes the Administrator
to go beyond the floor if he determines that a more
stringent standard is achievable. Indeed, the
Administrator is authorized and expected to set the
standard beyond the level achieved by any source in the
past if he determines that such a standard will be
achievable by the deadline for compliance. The
fundamental test is not whether the standard is at or
above the average for the best performing 12 percent of
the sources in the category, but whether the standard
reflects the maximum degree in reduction of emissions
that can be achieved by sources in the category.
This commenter argued that MACT for existing dry-to-dry machines
should consider the use of supplemental control systems, such as
carbon adsorber add-ons to a refrigerated condenser machine. The
commenter stated that this approach should be evaluated to
determine if it can achieve better levels of control for existing
sources.
Response; In the simplest sense, a Permac Consorba®. may be
described as a dry-to-dry machine equipped with two control
devices in series—a refrigerated condenser followed by a carbon
adsorber. The reported advantage of this system over a
conventional dry-to-dry machine, equipped with only a refrigerated
condenser is: that the Permac Consorba® reduces the PCE
concentration in the air remaining in the machine once the dry
cleaning cycle is complete;
With a conventional dry-to-dry machine equipped with a
refrigerated condenser, the air is saturated with PCE at the end
of the dry cleaning cycle. With the Permac Consorba®, because
2,-54
-------
air in the machine is lower an' °°ncentrat^» °f PCE in the
Tha Pennac Consorba«^s^lL theBsaturati°" concentration.
m other words, when the door L opM'T^ ^"'^ ^™-
dry cleaning cycle, no fan turns on t „ <*»***•**» of tha
dry cleaning machine and »ven^ the Ich
conventional dry-to-
a vent. Consequently
ary-to-dry
releases all the PCE
the
through
«*"9«ated condenser
to
;;
refrigerated condenser
-*-*«
equipped vlth
opened, the Permac Consor has
than a conventional dry-to-
***
- release of the
machine at the conclusion of the dry" le
is opened. "^ Oleanin9
=y=le when the door
2-55
-------
These emissions can be controlled by drawing the air
remaining in the machine through a small carbon adsorber either
before the door to the machine is opened (similar to the Permac
Consorba ) or venting the air through a carbon adsorber when the
door is opened, indeed, several vented dry-to-dry machines
equxpped with refrigerated condensers currently operate in this
manner (i.e., the air remaining in the machine is vented to a
carbon adsorber). There is no difference in PCE emissions
between a Permac Consorba* and a vented dry-to-dry machine
equipped with a refrigerated condenser and a small carbon
adsorber on the vent. Similarly, there would be no difference in
emissions between a Permac Consorba- and a conventional no-vent
dry-to-dry machine equipped with a refrigerated condenser that
passed the air remaining in the machine at the end of the dry
cleaning cycle through a carbon adsorber before the door to the
machine was opened.
Under the Act, MACT for new major sources must be no less
stringent than the best-controlled similar source. AS a result
the final NESHAP requires that new major source dry-to-dry
machines be equipped with a refrigerated condenser and that the
air remaining in the machine at the end of the dry cleaning cycle
be passed through a carbon adsorber prior to opening the machine
door or that the air remaining in the machine be passed through a
carbon absorber as soon as the door to the machine is opened.
Thus, the level of control required, for major new source dry
cleaning facilities is equivalent to that achieved by the Permac
Consorba® technology.
The MACT is also required for existing dry-to-dry machines
located at major sources. Under the Act, MACT for existing
souroe...»ust be, no, less stringent than,the level of control
achieved by the best 12 percent'of existing sources. Less than
12 percent of existing major source dry-to-dry machines are using
a refrigerated condenser in combination with a carbon adsorber to
control PCE process vent emissions. However, MACT can be more
stringent if the Administrator determines that the balance of
2-56
-------
effectiveness of the
cost
condenser to also install
of ar ii
with * refrigerated
XMey $per
major source dry-to-dry machine located « a
effectiveness vould even "^ ™ts> ' *h« «•*
of Control is o^ite high
reduction benefit achiLd tn ~
of control reasonable f« ant^L d"
at a major source ««*mg dry-to-dry fflachine located
°f
over the use of a
per ton of PCS ir
-control ef^ici
is achieving a lower
i^ental cost
result, the EPA does not consider this
adsorber
518,500
••
carbon adsorber
«-
"* "
^offiffierit: TWO commenters (lv-D-23 TV n ,«,
vapor barriers be required to nr- ! } requested that
--=»>"
2-57
-------
all floors, walls, and ceiliner« *•«
-» .,..,_ ' ceilings to separate the dry cleaning
facility from other areas in the building
*or .dry
of
of a. vapor barrier in a 30 by so by 20 foot dry
clearing facility would cost approxl **
Four counters (IV-D-10, iv-D-23, IV-D-24
,
one connenter (1V-D-10) requested that specific local
general exhaust or ventilation reo.ire.ents aL
2-58
-------
the NKPA
(199° edition) •
—
.» ...„.,
or
rr =- -
s that prevent or control fugitive
r -irr=.— • -
installlng -
2-59
-------
requirements. Moreover, where local authorities consider
ventilation systems necessary, the NESHAP does not prevent or
hinder local agencies in any way from requiring additional
measures such as ventilation systems.
As mentioned earlier, the NESHAP requires the implementation
of a leak detection and repair program, as well as other
additional pollution prevention measures, to control fugitive PCE
emissions at all dry cleaning facilities. These measures will
achieve a substantial reduction in fugitive emissions at dry
cleaning facilities.
Comment: One commenter (IV-L-01) referred to guidance for
nonattainment areas in 1979 that suggested carbon adsorbers be
installed on all dry cleaning facilities, regardless of their
size. This commenter stated that because this level of control
was considered reasonably available control technology (RACT) he
questioned how anything less stringent could be considered MACT.
MsEonse: The guidance concerning reasonably available
control technology (RACT) issued in 1979 was just that-guidance
to States concerning the emission control performance and costs
associated with the use of carbon adsorbers as a means of
reducing PCE emissions from dry cleaning facilities. The basic
objective was to provide States a source of information for use
« developing state Implementation Plans (siP's). The guidance
was not a rule or a regulation, states did not have to adopt
regulations as part of their SIP^ based, solely; on this guidance
tht !! °ne .I™1* 6XPeCt' ^ regUlations *d°Pted in response to
this the guidance vary from State to State.
On the other hand, a NESHAP is a uniform national rule. The
factors considered in developing a NESHAP are somewhat different
from: those considered in developing; guidance. As a result, it is
not surprising that the NESHAP differs, to some- extent from the
guidance, just as the rules developed by states differ from the
guidance.
the rff^f T° °°menters <™-°-2«. IV-D-25, requested that
the regulation include appropriate restrictions on selling Used
dry cleaning machines to ensure that these machines are subject
2-60
-------
to MACT or GACT requirements, one commenter (IV-D-25) thought
that the EPA should prohibit the sale of old machines.
Response: The NESHAP does not exempt used dry cleaning
machines. The NESHAP applies MACT or GACT to a dry cleaning
machine depending on whether the source is a major source or an
area source. All major sources (whether they use original or
used equipment) must meet MACT, and all area sources (whether
they use original or used equipment) must meet GACT.
Prohibiting the sale of old machines just because they are
old is unreasonable, with proper operation and maintenance, old
machines can operate as well, in terms of PCE emissions, as new
machines of the same type and will be required to meet the same
emission control requirements. No basis exists, therefore, to
restrict the sale of used equipment.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-25) identified one pollution
prevention option for industrial dry cleaners that he believed
the EPA did not consider: water wash and detergent. The
commenter asserted that this alternative, which can eliminate
emissions altogether, should have been considered as MACT.
Response; Water wash and detergent is a poor substitute for
PCE in many instances. Water may be an effective alternative to
cleaning certain types of clothes; however, there are many
fabrics—notably wools and silks—that can not be cleaned
effectively in water. Other solvents, such as PCE, must be used
in the Design for the Environment Program, the EPA is evaluating
the economic feasibility and performance of a potential
alternative wet cleaning process, which does not use PCE.
For the most part, water is not a substitutable alternative
for PCE. in some cases, as noted in the background,information
document,for the proposed NESHAP, industrial, sized machines are
switching over to water wash because water can be used
effectively to clean linens and uniforms. However, this is only
one small portion of the dry cleaning industry and this situation
has limited applicability.
Comment;; One commenter (IV-D-27) thought that no-vent
dry-to-dry machines should not be allowed as a control option in
2-61
-------
an inward draft of
*""
to
20° to
regulations.
oo,
: The NESHAP does not
and
comnenter
one
consumed.
This commenter added
than the amount of PCE
,
2-62
-------
whether affected facilities qualify for this exemption/ they haye
to keep records of the pounds of clothes cleaned. The counter
stated that since most facilities usually weigh and record the
amount of .clothes loaded into their machines to avoid
overloading, this additional recordkeeping for exempted
facilities would not be burdensome.
Three commenters (IV-D-24, IV-D-25, iv-D-26) stated that
they do not support the low solvent consumption exemption levels
-the proposed NESHAP because there is no adequate documentation
given to explain how these exemption levels were selected
One commenter (IV-D-24) asserted that PCE consumption rates
alone are not a valid surrogate for determining PCE emissions
from dry cleaning machines. This commenter pointed out that PCE
x. released during the dry cleaning process from uncontrolled
vents and exhaust pipes, auxiliary equipment that is used to
!ndT dl* diSt111 *"" PCE' eVaP°ration d-in* Clothing transfer
and handling, and equipment leaks during solvent transfer and
from stored solid waste. The commenter stated that relatively
small, improperly operated machines have the potential to emit
more PCE than well-controlled, industrial dry cleaning machines
and, for this reason, PCE consumption rates should not be used as
a surrogate for PCE emissions when determining which dry cleaners
are major sources. -«.««aners
0- p'^f22^1 AnnUal PCE ^^P^on is a reasonable indicator
of, PCE emissions, it: is, considered a better indicator of PCE
emissions than the amount of clothes cleaned at a facility
because it is a more direct measure of PCE emissions
emitt'd ^/^ Cleanin9 Pr°CeSS' a11 °f thS S°1Vent c"* i-
emitted either as process vent emissions, fugitive air emissions
or contained in solid; or liquid wastes. Air- emissions of PCE '
(process plus fugitive) represent, from 65 to 75 percent of PCE
consumption; the remaining 25 to 35 percent of PCE is lost
through PCE contained in wastes. Therefore, a reasonably direct
wLahTT "^ betWeen PCE ~a™**» «" ™ emissions.
Weighing the amount of clothes cleaned would not give as accurate
an indication of the resulting" PCE emissions or how well the
2-63
-------
cleaning facilities may weich ea!h ^ ! Although some dry
«... ~«. „ „„. r.«t ;"„':" "'"°- ••--' «
=
„.
„
2-64
-------
sentence of section 63.320(d) of the proposed NESHAP is not
necessary and should be deleted.
BesEonse: The low solvent consumption levels in the NESHAP
are based solely on the amount of PCE consumed at a facility and
have no relation whatsoever to the size of the dry cleaning
machine. Therefore, to avoid any confusion that may occur from
sectxon 63.320(d) of the proposal regulation, which refers to
machine size, this provision was deleted in the final rule
As discussed in the preceding comment, PCE emissions front a
dry cleanmg machine are most directly related to PCE
consumption. Machine size is not an accurate predictor of PCE
consumption or emissions.
comment: TWO commenters (IV-D-13 and IV-D-15) requested
clear guidance on the EPA's interpretation of "potential to emit"
because it would impact the major source or area source
distinction for future section 112 standards.
These commenters argued that a source's "potential to emit"
should be based on actual historical emission data and not on
theoretically projected emissions assuming continuous operations
One commenter (IV-D-13) urged the EPA to clarify that all
controls used to reduce emissions would be considered in
determining a source's "potential to emit."
Both commenters cited statutory language, the legislative
history of the Clean Air Act as amended, and recent court
decisions to support: the interpretation that a source's
"potential to emit" is based on actual historical operating
conditions and after application of installed controls.
First, the commenters quoted the definition of "major
source" from section 112 (a) (i). of the Act to include sources
that emit or has, the, potential to emit, considering controls "
Second, the commenters turned to: the legislative history
and P^r fT ^ RSPOrt °f ^ S6nate C0mmittee °n
and Public Works on S. 1630 (1989) to further support their
interpretation that potential to emit should reflect actual
operating conditions of the particular source
2.-6S
-------
Third, the commenters
seventh circuit Court o
<-
operating practices to
(7th
'°tUaI
asSesSment of a source -s
893 "• 2d
court had earlier
' S'
-
operating constraints as well s r ^ *°* PhySl°al
limits. Federally enforceable permit
2-66
-------
dry cleaning NESHAP, only in how interpretation of the Act would
affect future MACT standards that may be developed for their
industries .
The EPA believes that it would be unwise and inappropriate
to resolve these complex issues solely in the context of the POE
dry cleaning HESHAP. Resolving these issues here in the dry
cleans, NESHAP and then applying the result to all other source
nUMbrT'00"1* °reatS nU"erOUS Unf<™" *"*!— and impose a
number of inequities on other sources for which NESHAP's are
developed in the future.
„, „,""? iSSUeS ^ beSt conside«<* »d resolved in the context
of the General Provisions, which will apply to all NESHAP 's. The
General Provisions are currently under development and are
the^rf9 *""" iSSUM M We" M -«• °thSr 1SSUeS in "*t of
the broad range of sources for which NESHAP «s will be developed.
lair!"1 PrOViSi0"S Wi" atte»^ *° «-ol« these issues I a
manner that is reasonable and equitable with regard to all
sources.
Consistent with the Act, the statutory definition of a major
source xs Deluded in the PCE dry cleaning NESHAP to distinguish
ma.or sources froxn area sources, in light of the severe and
unreasonable impacts that would be ixnposed on the dry cleaning
industry by requiring each dry cleaner to perform a test to
determine if emissions exceed 10 tons per year, the NESHAP uses
annual PCS, consumption (in gallons) as a, surrogate for
determining sources that are likely to emit 10 tons per year or
2.9 EMISSION LIMITS AND PERFORMANCE TESTING
Comment: six commenters stated that the NESHAP should
contaxn some type- of, emission limits, and performance: testing
Three commenters (iv-D-24, IV-D-26,, and IV-D-27) believed tLre
should be requirements for both refrigerated condensers and
carbon adsorbers. The other three commenters (IV-D-io, iv-D-22
at nled'T T^* ^^ ^ ^ ^f— Bandar '
are needed only when using carbon adsorbers.
2-67
-------
Three comment ers (IV-D-24
NESHaP should include emission
standards. one colter
include a 5
.,
'
re "*
recomende'S «»t the NESHAP
uuction. Thls commenter aroued th*<- ^>,
control emissions and have .^T^LTT' "*
enforoe an emission limit thrlu^ S*andard ls to establish and
counter ventured that ^ P«forman=e testing. The
' r.~ = -
2-68
-------
" " "^ reqUeSted ttat the
organic emission detectors mentioned in the propose,
regulation should be further evaluated and required
freaueT C0™enter (IV-D-22) «""*- that although a desorption
frequency requirement in a standard is an important means to
avoid breakthrough of the carbon adsorber, establishing an
aTs7bPtable-r °UtlSt °°ncentr"ion' -<* « 100 pp., should
also be considered. This concentration level could indicate
problems with the carbon adsorber, such as reduced bed capacity
or improper steam stripping. pooi^y
. EMEOMS: AS discussed in the proposal preamble, the cost
of requiring an owner or operator to undertake a fulllfiedged
balTr:: '"* t0 ^^^ «•*"«« .«* emission limits
based on the use of refrigerated condensers or existing carbon
adsorbers would be expensive (S3,000 to $5,ooo,, especially
r
• ,
The additional cost of such a performance test
thecchld CrSata a Si9nlfi°ant ***«* ^ 1*»t doublin,
the cost that the standard would impose.
that ma" e°°n°^C a"alySiS C°ndU°ted Pri« *» P-POsal indicated
that many operators would likely experience difficulty in
obtaining capital to purchase emission control equipment. To
preclude, unreasonable economic impacts, the HESHAP does not
require vent controls on existing sources with annual PCE
d-dm .
dry to-dry machines or 200 gallons per year for sources with
a full flirf E T"3- ImP°Sing a*'lti°-1 ~f * requiring
sianii ?! Perf°raan0e tast to Determine compliance would ad!
Significantly to the economic impact of the NESHAP and would
resuit in raising these- low solvent consumption exemption levels
for existing sources and decrease the emission reductions
achieved by the NESHAP. Consequently, imposing such a
requirement on dry cleaning facilities was considered
unreasonable.
The concerns of the commenter regarding poor operation and
maintenance of equipment, however, are well founded. There is?
2-69
-------
recovered PCE. This
—-
result
°f
or oerato !T addlt""' the NESHaP requires the
NESHAP. „ the
temperature of the exhaust
Chines, the
=•===—=
,
2-70
-------
desorption, and the date and PCE concentrations measured using
colorimetric detector tubes.
Finally, the NESHAP requires that copies of the equipment
manufacturer's specifications be retained on site. All of the
above requirements will ensure proper operation and maintenance
of equipment and will also ensure this equipment achieves the
emission control performance it is capable of achieving.
One commenter suggested that a State enforcement agency
could purchase an instrument to measure the emissions (such as a
portable photoionization instrument, which the commenter
estimated would cost about $5,000) and undertake a performance
test on behalf of the dry cleaner. The costs would be recovered
through a permit fee imposed on the dry cleaner. Presumably, the'
State would not attempt to make a profit from this service, but
would recover the full costs of this service from the permit fee.
Also, presumably the State would employ professionally trained
personnel to undertake this test as well as impose the same
quality assurance or quality control procedures as a reputable
emission testing contractor employs to ensure the results' of the
testing are accurate.
In such a situation, the only difference in costs"to the dry
cleaning facility, whether the State performed the testing or a
contractor performed the testing, would be the profit factored
into the-contractor's service. Although this might lower the
costs of testing by some degree, the cost imposed on the dry
cleaner would still be substantial and, in the Administrator's
judgment, unreasonable. On the other hand, if a State wishes to
require performance testing the NESHAP does not preclude this
approach;
2.10 SELECTION OF EQUIPMENT AND WORK PRACTICE SPECIFICATIONS
2.10.1 operator Training Course
Comment: Four commenters (IV-D-10, IV-D-25, IV-D-27,
IV-D-28) stated that there is a need to specify and require dry
cleaning operator training and certification. One commenter
(IV-D-10) pointed out that many dry cleaning facility operators
are not properly trained to operate and maintain control
2-71
-------
equipment, often resulting in excessive process and fugitive PCE
emissions.
One commenter (IV-D-28) remarked that several States have
found that, even with adequate control devices, many dry cleaners
are still out of compliance with their regulations because of
poor work practice procedures. This commenter suggested that an
operator training course be developed by the EPA and then
implemented through the State permit programs. This commenter
added that the State permit fees collected under Title V could be
used to help subsidize the cost of the operator training or
certification. This commenter believed that such a training
program would significantly improve work practice procedures.
One commenter (IV-D-27) noted that to reduce PCE emissions
attributable to leaks from dry cleaning equipment due to improper
maintenance and repair, the proposed NESHAP requirements for
self-inspection and good housekeeping procedures might have a
chance of success if certification or a training program were
started to upgrade the performance level and knowledge of both
.plant owner or operator and repair mechanics. The commenter
suggested that a training or certification program be conducted
through the various existing dry cleaner associations at minimal
costs to the participants.
The commenter argued that unless the operator is
periodically tested, to maintain, certification, there is a good
chance that equipment will not be properly maintained. As an
illustration, the commenter cited the case of a no-vent
refrigerated condenser controlled dry-to-dry machine where
exhaust levels at the loading door exceeded 800 ppm, and the
refrigerated condenser was found, to; be not,operating properly.
Another commenter (IV-D-25) suggested, that vendors of dry
cleaning equipment could be required to train dry cleaners in
their correct operation. This commenter added that multi-lingual
instruction should be provided where necessary. The commenter
recommended that new equipment could be sold with service
contracts to ensure that machines are properly maintained.
2-72
-------
Response; Operator training is provided by vendors and
distributors. All provide training manuals with their equipment.
In addition, all of the distributors provide some type of on-site
operator training and are in close contact with owners during the
first weeks after installation of their equipment. Some also
offer follow-up or "refresher" training courses, and all provide
telephone numbers for owners to contact them with questions or
problems. Operator training, therefore, is already provided by
both vendors and distributors of dry cleaning equipment, and it
would be inappropriate and unnecessary to require additional
training.
Once an owner or operator has been trained in the proper
operation of the dry cleaning equipment, it is in his or her best
interest to train the employees and ensure they are also
operating the equipment properly. Proper operation has an
immediate payback in terms of the cost savings gained through
solvent recovery.
2.10.2 Enforceability
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-22, IV^D-28) questioned the
wording of section 63.322(h) of the proposal, which gave
requirements for the period of time in which repair parts needed
to be-installed after their receipt. One commenter (IV-D-28)
stated that section 63.322(h) of the proposal NESHAP would be
difficult, to enforce because of the: wording, "within a-reasonable
period of time after receipt." This commenter suggested that it
would be helpful to the agency responsible for enforcement and to
the dry cleaner if the regulation specified what is expected for
a reasonable amount of time. This commenter recommended that the
section be written to specify, a. specific time allowed for
repairs.
The other commenter (IV-D-22) stated that section 63.322(h)
requires the. immediate repair of, a leak, the purchase of repair
parts within 3 working days, and the installation of repair parts
within a reasonable period of time. If the EPA believes the
facility should be allowed to operate while repair equipment is
on order, the commenter suggested that a "delay of repair"
2-73
-------
provision be included along with appropriate recordkeeping and
possibly reporting of the "delay of repair."
Response; The EPA agrees with the commenter that the NESHAP
needs to be specific and not ambiguous. In addition, adding
specific time periods into, the regulation will make it easier for
dry cleaning owners or operators to achieve compliance with the
standards as well as for States and the EPA to enforce the
standards. For these reasons, the phrase in section 63.322(h) of
the proposal NESHAP, which reads "within a reasonable period of
time after receipt," has been changed in the final rule to read
"within 5 working days after receipt." This amount of time
should be sufficient for a dry cleaning owner or operator to
install a replacement part that has arrived for the machine.
During development of the standard, consideration was given
to a requirement that a dry cleaning machine be completely shut
down until repairs are completed. However, this approach was
rejected in favor of specifying a limited period of time in which
repairs must be made. Emissions from individual, specific leaks
are likely to be small. In comparison, the lost revenues of not
permitting the dry cleaner to clean clothes in the interim until
the repair is made would be large, and is considered
unreasonable.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-28) expressed concern that
section 63.322(i) of the proposal regulation, would be difficult
to enforce because of the wording "which are impervious to the
solvent and chemical reaction of the perchloroethylene." The
commenter suggested that the regulation specify which materials
are impervious to the solvent and chemical reaction of PCE so
that both the enforcer and the-dry cleaner know what; is
acceptable. The commenter also recommended changing the phrase
"tightly sealed containers" to "containers that allow no vapor
loss," because it would be easier to enforce.
Response; As the commenter pointed out, it is important to
clarify the requirements of the proposal regulation so that it
will be easier to enforce. It is also important to clarify the
requirements of the regulation so that it will be easier for dry
2-74
-------
cleaning owners and operators to understand. The commenter
suggested including a list in the regulation of all of the
materials that are impervious to the solvent and chemical
reaction of perchloroethylene; however, such a list would be
cumbersome and might be overly restrictive. Instead, the phrase
that reads "which are impervious to the solvent and chemical
reaction of perchloroethylene" has been changed in the final rule
to read as follows:
All perchloroethylene and wastes that contain
perchloroethylene shall be stored in solvent tanks or
solvent containers with no perceptible leaks.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-28) noted that
section 63.322 (j) of .the proposal regulation, which gave
requirements for the period of time that the door of the dry
cleaning machine remains open, would be hard to enforce because
of the wording: "minimize the time the door of the dry cleaning
machine remains open." The commenter recommended rewording this
provision to be more specific: "the door shall be shut
immediately after transferring clothes and shall remain closed at
all other times."
,j
Response; The EPA agrees that this provision as proposed
would be difficult to enforce. Therefore, as.the commenter
suggested, the wording of the regulation which reads, "minimize
the time the door of the dry cleaning machine remains open" is
being changed in the final rule to read as follows:
The door of each dry cleaning machine shall be closed,
immediately after transferring articles to or from the
machine, and shall remain closed at all other times.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-28) noted that
section 63.322(k) of the proposal regulation would be hard to
enforce because, of the wording "clean lint traps frequently."
The commenter stated.that the word "frequently" should be
replaced with a more specific time. The commenter suggested that
the regulation should specify that the owner or operator shall be
in compliance with the manufacturers' specifications regarding
the cleaning of lint traps.
2-75
-------
Response; In an effort to make the final rule more
effective and easier to follow, the EPA is combining several of
the equipment operating requirements previously listed in
section 63.322 of the proposal regulation into a single
requirement: r-_ .
Each dry cleaning system shall be operated and maintained
according to the manufacturer's specifications and
recommendations.
This requirement would also apply to the operation and
maintenance of the refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers
because they are listed as part of the ancillary equipment of the
dry cleaning system. By doing this, the list of individual
requirements given in the regulation will be greatly reduced.
Further, the requirement given in section 63.322(k) of the
proposal specifying how frequently lint traps must be cleaned is
no longer needed because the frequency of this activity will be
determined by the manufacturer's specifications and
recommendations.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-25) stated that the EPA's
definition of no "perceptible leaks" needs to be tightened. This
commenter thought that a visual inspection is not sufficient to
detect leaking components. The commenter requested that the EPA
require the use of monitoring devices for periodic emissions
testing.
Response; Leaks can be detected by visual, olfactory,
tactile, or monitoring instrument methods. Due to the high cost
associated with monitoring equipment, the EPA feels that it is
unreasonable to require the use of monitoring instruments to
detect leaks.
2.10.3 Carbon Adsorber Requirements
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-10, IV-D-14, IV-D-22)
questioned the desorption requirements given in the proposed
regulation.
One commenter (IV-D-10) agreed with the desorption pressure
specifications for carbon adsorbers required in
section 63.322(c)(l) and (2) of the proposal NESHAP, if the
2-76
-------
carbon adsorbers are full size. However, this commenter believed
that smaller carbon adsorbers could be steam stripped at a lower
pressure such as 5 pounds per square inch (psi) instead of the
required 170 kilopascals (Kpa) (or 25 psi).
The second commenter (IV-D-14) noted that the steam pressure
proposed in section 63.322(c)(2) of the proposal is approximately
double the pressure recommended by current manufacturers of
carbon adsorbers. The commenter argued that this proposed
pressure level is not appropriate and may exceed certification
levels for the adsorber as a pressure vessel. The commenter
further argued that this proposed level would produce twice the
amount of separator water, which would need to be sent to POTW's,
than is generated if operating at a pressure of 85 Kpa.
The third commenter (IV-D-22) questioned whether the
desorption frequency given in section 63.322(c)(l) of the
proposal applies only to carbon adsorbers on dry-to-dry machines
but not to carbon adsorbers on transfer machines. The commenter
added that the basis for the given desorption frequency is not
.clearly defined in the background documents. This commenter
stated that the basis for the desorption frequency appears in
EPA-340/1-80-007.
This commenter suggested that any desorption frequency
standards be stated as an equation or mathematical expression,
such, as • the- maximum- number of dryer cycles (N) before: desorption
should equal the weight of adsorber carbon, in pounds (W), times
3.3 and divided by the dryer capacity, in pounds (C), or
N = 3.3 W/C.
Response; In the final rule, new and uncontrolled dry
cleaning machines will be required to install refrigerated
condensers. Therefore, only existing dry cleaning machines with
existing carbon adsorbers will be allowed to use carbon adsorbers
to meet the requirements of the final rule.
The EPA agrees with the commenter that exceeding
certification levels for an existing carbon adsorber as a
pressure vessel is not desired, and the regulation does not
intend for the dry cleaner to operate an existing carbon adsorber
2-77
-------
in such a manner. In drafting the carbon adsorber operational
requirements that appeared in the proposal, information at that
time indicated that one basic size and type of carbon adsorber
was being used by dry cleaning owners and operators to control
PCE emissions. The operating requirements given in the proposal
were appropriate for operating this specific type of carbon
adsorber. However, since that time, it has become apparent that
other types of carbon adsorbers have been sold for use on dry
cleaning machines. Some of these carbon adsorbers have their own
specific operational requirements so that the requirements set
out in the proposal may not be applicable. Operation manuals,
operational specifications, and desorption schedules are provided
by the manufacturer or vendor which specify the appropriate
desorption steam pressure requirements for operating an
individual carbon adsorber. Because this information is readily
available, the owner or operator of an existing carbon adsorber
must obtain and follow these specifications in operating the
carbon adsorber.
The final NESHAP deletes all specific operational
requirements and instead requires that each existing carbon
adsorber be operated and maintained according to the
manufacturer's specifications and recommendations. in addition,
the dry cleaner must measure and record the concentration of PCE
in the exhaust from an existing carbon, absorber on a weekly
basis. This information will aid the dry cleaner in determining
if breakthrough has occurred. The manufacturer's specifications
as well as the log containing PCE concentration measurements must
be retained on site for 5 years.
Comment:. One„commenter (IV.-D-10V suggested that
specifications be included in;the regulation regarding proper
maintenance of carbon adsorber prefilters. The commenter
explained that if this prefilter is not properly maintained, and
the polyurethane foam filter type is replaced with an inferior
filter media, then the adsorption efficiency of the carbon
adsorber would be adversely affected by lint accumulation.
2-78
-------
Response; As discussed above, manufacturers and vendors
provide specifications for effective operation of existing .carbon
adsorbers, including requirements for proper maintenance of
carbon adsorber prefilters. For this reason, the final NESHAP
requires that each dry cleaning system including ancillary
equipment shall be operated and maintained according to the
manufacturers' specifications and recommendations.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-14) thought that, in some
cases, the interval required in section 63.322(c) of the proposal
regulation for desorbing a.carbon adsorber could be too long, and
the carbon bed, therefore, could become saturated before
desorption occurs.
The commenter noted that this situation could occur from
either greater than normal amounts of PCE vapor flowing to the
adsorber during the drying cycle or from reduction of adsorber
capacity with age. The commenter suggested that an optimal
desorption interval be determined based on individual adsorber
performance for a given machine.
The commenter recommended that the first desorption after a
permit is granted could use the 3 kilogram (kg) clothes per kg of
carbon guidance as outlined in the proposed regulation. However,
if this desorption frequency returns more PCE than 90 percent of
the rated PCE capacity of the adsorber, the commenter suggested
that the dry cleaner desorb more frequently until a desorption
return is reached that is less than 90 percent of the rated
capacity of the adsorber.
The commenter explained that the period between this optimal
desorption frequency could then be correlated with the amount of
clothes: cleaned. In this way, the dry cleaner could; adhere to
the desorption schedule by monitoring the amount of clothes
cleaned. The commenter also suggested that a periodic test
should be conducted to confirm that the selected desorption
interval is still appropriate. The commenter suggested amending
the recordkeeping requirement in section 63.325(a)(3) of the
proposal to require that ar record be made of the amount of PCE
2-79
-------
returned from each desorption so that adherence to the optimal
desorption schedule can be verified.
Response; As stated elsewhere, only existing dry cleaning
machines with existing carbon adsorbers will be allowed to use
carbon adsorbers to meet the requirements of the final NESHAP.
To control PCE emissions, existing carbon adsorbers must be
properly operated, particularly in terms of desorption frequency.
By following the manufacturers' specifications and
recommendations for a dry cleaning system and ancillary
equipment, the dry cleaner owner or operator should be able to
operate the existing carbon adsorber effectively. Because there
are several different types of carbon adsorbers being used to
control PCE emissions from dry cleaning machines and each one has
its own specific operational characteristics, the final NESHAP
requires that each existing carbon adsorber shall be operated and
maintained according to the manufacturer's specifications and
recommendations. In addition, the dry cleaner must measure and
record the concentration of PCE in the exhaust from the carbon
absorber on a weekly basis. This information would aid the dry
cleaner in determining if breakthrough has occurred and the
carbon adsorber needs to be desorbed.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-10) requested that the
regulation specify that all exhaust from the washer, the dryer,
the; filter and purification-system, the holding tanks, and,the
attendant piping and valves must be routed through the carbon
adsorber or a solvent reclamation tank.
Response; The EPA agrees with the commenter that the term
"entire exhaust," which is required to be routed through a carbon
adsorber, refrigerated condenser, or equally effective control
device, in section 63.322(b) of the proposal may be confusing.
The term "entire exhaust" has been deleted from the NESHAP. The
emissions from ancillary equipment are considered "equipment
leaks" which are addressed elsewhere in the final regulation.
2.10.4 Refrigerated Condenser Requirements
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-12) requested a clarification
in section E of the preamble that reads, "these operating
2-80
-------
specifications include maintaining the temperature of the outlet
side of the refrigerated condenser at less than or equal to
4.4 °C (40 °F)." The commenter stated that the word
"maintaining" does not describe the actual refrigerated condenser
air temperature cycle.
. The commenter thought that the preamble description needed
to be restated to include an outlet temperature level of 40 °F at
the end of the drying or cool down cycle. The commenter stressed
that the 95 percent efficiency for dry-to-dry vented machines
depends upon maintaining the refrigerated condenser outlet
temperature below 40 °F at the end of the drvina or cool down
cycle. The commenter attached a report with test data to support
this claim.
Another commenter (IV-D-14) recommended that the beginning
of section 63.322(d)(l) of the proposal be revised to read:
(1) No exhaust gases shall be vented to the atmosphere
or the door opened on a refrigerated machine until the
air-vapor stream temperature. . . .
The cqmmenter stated that the proposed wording could have been
read literally to prevent the drying cycle on a dry-to-dry
refrigerated machine from ever beginning because gases could not
be "circulating through a ventless machine" until the proper
temperature was reached. The commenter's suggested wording would
prevent the door from being opened on a dry-to-dry refrigerated
machine until the proper temperature is reached.
Response; The EPA agrees that the word "maintaining," which
was used in the proposal preamble, could be misinterpreted to
inaccurately describe the actual refrigerated condenser air-vapor
stream temperature..cycle. In addition, the EPA agrees that
section 63.322(d)(2) as proposed would have prevented air from
circulating through a dry-to-dry machine when the air-vapor
stream temperature was not cooled sufficiently. This was not the
intent of the regulation. Therefore, the final regulation
requires the owner or operator to.measure the temperature on the
outlet side of the refrigerated condenser. For refrigerated
condensers used with transfer machine system washers, the
2-81
-------
temperature difference between the inlet and outlet
air-perchloroethylene gas-vapor stream must be measured. For
refrigerated condensers used with transfer machine system dryers
or reclaimers, or dry-to-dry machines, the temperature of the
exhaust gas stream must be measured. Measurements should be
taken before the door on the dry cleaning machine is opened. The
temperature shall be less than or equal to 7.2 °c (45 OF).
The temperature requirement of 4.4 °C (40 °F) included in
the proposed NESHAP was an error. This requirement was intended
to be 7.2 oc (45 °F). Consequently, the temperature requirement
is 7.2 oc (45 OF) in the final rule. The measured temperature
must be recorded on a weekly basis in a log to be maintained on
site for five years.
In addition, the final NESHAP contains two other
requirements for ensuring the proper operation of refrigerated
condensers. The first requirement is that the dry cleaning
system (including ancillary equipment such as the refrigerated
condenser) shall be operated and maintained according to the
manufacturer's specifications and recommendations. The second
requirement is that there shall be no venting of the
air-perchloroethylene gas-vapor stream to the atmosphere during
any time the dry cleaning machine drum is rotating. These three
requirements help ensure that the dry cleaning machine and the
refrigerated condenser are being operated so as,to minimize PCE
emissions.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-12) objected to the wording of
section 63.322(a) of the proposal. This commenter submitted a
sketch of a dry-to-dry machine retrofitted with a refrigerated
vapor condenser to illustrate that an air tight diverter valve
must be mounted externally between the refrigerated; condenser and
the dry-to-dry machine.
The commenter explained that during the drying or cool down
portion of the machine cycle, the diverter valve is sealed to the
atmosphere, directing PCE-laden vapor to the refrigerated
condenser. The commenter explained that when the drying cycle is
completed and the vented dry-to-dry door is opened, the diverter
2-82
-------
valve damper automatically opens to the atmosphere and, at the
same instant, seals off the vapor condenser freezing coil. This
event allows the air to flow from the room into the dry cleaning
machine over the cleaned clothes and directly into the
atmosphere.
The commenter stated that if warmer, unsaturated room air is
exhausted through the refrigerated condenser as allowed in the
proposed rule, the air flow would pass over the frozen PCE/water
laden coils of the refrigerated condenser and would result in
uncontrolled PCE emissions.
, Response; The EPA agrees with the commenter that drawing
unsaturated room air over the coils of a refrigerated condenser
would lower the control efficiency of the refrigerated condenser.
For this reason, the final rule requires that a diverter valve be
installed and operated on each dry-to-dry machine, transfer
dryer, or reclaimer that draws room air into the machine when the
door is opened. As the commenter pointed out, the diverter valve
prevents room air from being drawn over the refrigerated
condenser coils. Refrigerated condensers installed on transfer
system•washers, however, are configured to be single pass rather
than multiple pass. In this instance, room air is drawn in
through the machine door and routed directly over the
refrigerated coil and vented out. The use of a diverter valve
could not be used with this equipment configuration. Therefore,
use of a diverter valve is not required on transfer machine
system washers.
2.10.5 Purchase Orders
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-14) reported that dry
cleaners, particularly smaller dry cleaners', frequently do not
use written purchase orders when ordering replacement parts. The
commenter noted that, instead, they typically telephone an order
to their distributors. For this reason, the commenter
recommended that written purchase orders not be required in the
repair provisions of section 63.322(h) or the recordkeeping
provisions of section 63.325(a)(2) of the proposal. The
commenter suggested that the word "purchase" be deleted from
2-83
-------
sections 63.322(h) and 63.325(a) and the words "verbal or
written" be inserted in section 63.322(h) of the proposal.
Response; The EPA agrees with commenter that the owner or
operator of a dry cleaning facility may not always use written
purchase orders when obtaining replacement parts for a dry
cleaning machine. For this reason, it would be inappropriate to
require that dry cleaning owners or operators always use written
purchase orders. The commenter noted that dry cleaning owners or
operators typically telephone in orders for parts to their
distributors. The EPA agrees that, if this is the case, a
written record of their telephone conversation would suffice
instead of a purchase order. The wording of this provision has
been revised as follows in the final NESHAP:
If repair parts must be ordered, either a written or
verbal order for those parts shall be initiated within
2 working days of detecting such a leak.
2-10.6 Saturated Lint and Cartridge Filter
Comment• one commenter (IV-D-14) recommended that
"saturated lint from the lint basket" be deleted from
section 63.322(g)(10) of the proposal because it is not a
component of a dry cleaning machine.
Response; The"EPA agrees with the commenter that the
saturated lint from the lint basket is not a component of a dry
cleaning machine. Therefore, this item has been deleted from the
list of dry cleaning system components that must be inspected for
perceptible leaks.
Commenti One commenter (IV-D-14) suggested that
section 63.322(g)(11) of the proposal be revised to read
"cartridge filter housings," because a cartridge filter is not a
component of a dry cleaning machine.,
Response; The EPA agrees with the commenter that the
cartridge filter housing is the component of the dry cleaning
machine that could be a potential source of leaks rather than the
cartridge filter. For this reason, the component listed in
section 63.322(g)(11) of the proposal has been changed to
cartridge filter housings in the final NESHAP.
2-84
-------
2.10.7 Compliance Timetable
Comment! One commenter (IV-D-25) requested that the EPA
accelerate the compliance timetable to 18 months for all sources.
The commenter cited a trade association as saying they can comply
more quickly. The commenter added that a year ago, the EPA had
stated that dry cleaners would be given 18 months to comply
because vendors had reported that they could supply the necessary
equipment within 1 year.
Response: As the commenter pointed out, at proposal vendors
did say that they could supply the necessary control equipment
within 1 year. Since proposal, however, the low solvent
consumption exemption levels have been lowered to include a
greater number of dry cleaning facilities that must comply with
the final rule. In addition, all new and existing uncontrolled
dry cleaning machines are required to install refrigerated
condensers, rather than given the option of refrigerated
condensers or carbon adsorbers. Based on the increased demand
anticipated for refrigerated condensers, vendors may no longer be
able to supply, control devices to all facilities requesting them
within 18 months. For this reason, the compliance date for all
existing facilities has been shifted to 36 months.
2.11 TEST METHODS AND MONITORING
Commentt One commenter (IV-D-28) stated that
section 63.322(f) of. the proposal NESHAP should be more specific
by specifying that the owner or operator shall be in compliance
with the manufacturer's specifications regarding how frequently
to drain or dispose of cartridge filters.
Response: The EPA believes that 24 hours is a reasonable
time to require for draining, cartridge, filters. For, this reason,
the proposed draining time has been retained in the final rule.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-28) noted that section 63.324
of the proposal does not specify at what reading a portable
halogenated-hydrocarbon detector triggers compliance. The
commenter recommended that the NESHAP specify a specific
concentration increment above the background level that would
represent a significant leak. The commenter further suggested
2-85
-------
that section 63.322 of the proposal require dry cleaners to use a
portable detector at some specific time frequency (such as every
3 months or every 6 months) to detect those leaks that are not
visually apparent.
Response; Leaks on dry cleaning machines can be detected
through-visual or olfactory inspection. The use of a portable
halogenated detector is not required and, therefore, there is no
reason to establish a specific leak detection level or a
frequency requirement.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-14) urged that the definition
of perceptible leak be revised to specifically state that use of
a halogenated hydrocarbon detector is permitted but not required.
The commenter thought that the definition of perceptible leak
read together with the inspection and repair requirements in
paragraphs (g) and (h) of section 63.322 of the proposal seemed
to nullify the option of inspecting leaks either visually or with
a detector.
Response; Visual and olfactory detection are very effective
for locating leaks, therefore, the use of a halogenated
hydrocarbon detector was not required in the proposal. Thus,
reference to a halogenated hydrocarbon detector in the definition
of perceptible leak has been deleted.
2.12 WORDING OF THE REGULATION
2.12.1 References to Other Subparts
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-28) stated that
section 63.322(1) of the proposal regulation refers to
63.9(b)(2)(vi), which is located in Subpart A. The commenter
suggested that this section be reworded to read "63.9(b)(2)(vi)
of Subpart A" to make it clearer that this: section is not located
in Subpart M. The commenter suggested the same rewording be
added in section 63.325(c) of the proposal regulation to clarify
that 63.9(h), is found in Subpart A.
Response; The EPA agrees with the commenter that
referencing section numbers that are found in other subparts
without mentioning that these sections are found in other
subparts may be confusing, especially for dry cleaning owners or
2-86
-------
operators that may not be familiar with the organization of the
Code of Federal Regulations. For this reason, every time a
citation from another subpart is given, the NESHAP now notes what
subpart contains that citation.
2.12.2 Clarifications
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-28) pointed out that
section 63.325(d)(2) of the proposal, which refers to "830 liters
per year (200 gallons per year) perchloroethylene" should read
(220 gallons per year) perchloroethylene.
Response; The conversion from liters to gallons should have
read 220 gallons per year.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-14, IV-D-28) noted that
section 63.325(c) in the proposal, which refers to "the
compliance dates given in section 63.322(c)" should read "the
compliance dates given in section 63.322(e)."
Response; The citation to compliance dates has been
corrected in the final NESHAP.
2.12.3 English Units
Commenti Two commenters (IV-D-10, IV-D-14) requested that
English units, which are more familiar to dry cleaners, be
included in the NESHAP for units of pressure and air flow. One
commenter (IV-D-10) noted that 170 Kpa equals approximately
25 pounds per square inch (psi) and the air flow capacity of
0.3 cubic meters per second equals approximately 630 cubic feet
per minute (cfm).
Response; The EPA agrees with the commenter that owners and
operators of dry cleaning facilities would be more familiar with
•English units than with metric units because these are the common
types of measurements that dry cleaners use. Because it is
important that the NESHAP be understandable and easy to read for
dry cleaner owners or operators, both English and metric units
have been included.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-12) questioned the English
conversion of 0.3 cubic meters per second (m3/sec) (0.1 cubic
foot per second [ft3/secs]) air flow through the carbon adsorber.
2-87
-------
Response; The English conversion for an air flow of
0.3 m3/sec through the carbon adsorber should be lb ft3/sec.
2.12.4 Definitions
comment; one commenter (IV-D-14) recommended several
changes be made in the definition section of the NESHAP. The
commenter suggested the following revised definitions to five
terms to remove any implication that filter elements can be
regenerated:
Cartridge filter means a discrete solvent filter unit,
inserted in a multi-unit housing, which must be replaced
periodically.
Muck cooker means a device for heating diatomaceous
earth filter material to drive off perchloroethylene
vapors for reclaiming.
Stills are defined as devices used to volatilize and
recover perchloroethylene from contaminated solvent.
Wet waste material means the filter muck from a
diatomaceous earth filter or the residue from a still.
The commenter suggested replacing the definition for "regenerable
filter material" with the following:
Filter muck means the residue from a filter using loose
diatomaceous earth which must be replaced periodically.
Response: In general, the EPA agrees with the commenter's
suggested changes to the definitions and has incorporated them
into the final -NESHAP, except for the reference to "multi-unit
housing" in the recommended definition of cartridge filter.
Because some dry cleaners may not place their cartridge filter in
a "multi-unit housing," this portion of the recommended
definition,has not been incorporated into, the final. NESHAP.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-14) suggested inserting the
word "system" after the word "transfer machine" in the definition
of dry cleaning system to make the use of the phrase "transfer
machine system" consistent throughout the NESHAP.
Response; The EPA agrees with the commenter that it would
be clearer if the phrase transfer machine system is-used
throughout the NESHAP to describe both the transfer washer and
2-88
-------
the transfer dryer. For this reason, the word "system" has been
inserted after the word "transfer machine" in the definition of
dry cleaning system to make the use of the phrase "transfer
machine system" consistent throughout the final NESHAP.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-22) requested that the word
"existing" be defined to clarify which equipment is affected.
The commenter noted that this term is used in paragraphs (b)
and (c) of section 63.320 and paragraphs (b)(2) and (e) of
section 63.322 of the proposal NESHAP.
Response; The term "existing" means any dry cleaning
machine that was built prior to the date of proposal. To clarify
the meaning of this term, a specific definition fpr "existing"
has been included in the definition section of the final NESHAP.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-22) requested that definitions
be given in the NESHAP to distinguish between three terms used in
section 63.322 of the proposal: "ventless machine," "vented
machine," and "no-vent machine."
Response; Although different descriptions (ventless,
vented, and no-vent) may have been used to describe the types of
dry-to-dry machines in the proposed NESHAP, these descriptions
are not necessary. Because requirements set out in the NESHAP
are the same for all dry-to-dry machines regardless of whether
they are vented or not, there is no need to differentiate between
these terms. There are no common definitions of these terms
throughout the dry cleaning industry. They mean something
slightly different to different dry cleaners. Therefore, using
the terms in the rule would be confusing to dry cleaners. For
this reason, all mention of these terms was deleted from the
final NESHAP.
2.12.5 Applicability
Comment; one commenter (IV-D-10) suggested revising
section 63.320(a) of the proposal to delete "dry cleaning
dryers," because dryers are a part of a transfer machine system,
and to replace the word "facilities" with the word "plants."
Response; The EPA agrees with the commenter that it is
redundant to include the phrase "dry cleaning dryers" in
2-89
-------
section 63.320(a) of the proposal because a transfer machine
system as defined in section 63.321 includes both a transfer
washer and a transfer dryer. Therefore, the phrase "dry cleaning
dryers" has been deleted from section 63.320 in the final NESHAP.
The term "facility" was selected over the term "plant" in
drafting the NESHAP because the word "plant" connotes a larger,
industrial sized dry cleaning establishment. Because the
majority of dry cleaning establishments are small, family
operated businesses, it is more appropriate to call them
facilities.
2.12.6 Standards
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-14) suggested that the word
"liquid" be inserted in front of the word "perchloroethylene"
each time it appears in paragraphs (i) and (k) of section 63.322
of the proposal. The commenter believed that this addition would
make the storage and lint-cleaning requirements more precise by
specifying that liquid PCE and waste containing liquid PCE are to
be stored in tightly sealed containers. The commenter observed
that, otherwise, dry lint containing only trace elements of PCE
would also have to be so stored, which would be unnecessary and
burdensome.
Response; Disposal of hazardous wastes must be conducted in
accordance with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). If the total wastes generated during the dry cleaning
process, including lint and filter muck, contain PCE in a
sufficient quantity to qualify as a hazardous waste under RCRA,
then that waste must be stored in a container that does not leak.
Because the requirements of section 63.322 apply to liquid PCE
wastes as well as to solid waste containing, PCE, it is not
appropriate to incorporate the commenter's suggestion into the
final NESHAP.
2.13 EQUIVALENCY
Comment; Three commenters (IV-D-24, IV-D-26, IV-D-30)
expressed concern that- States were not delegated authority in the
proposal to implement and enforce equivalent or more protective
State requirements. One commenter (IV-D-24) stated that the EPA
2-90
-------
should recognize that 22 States currently regulate PCE emissions
from dry cleaning facilities and that these facilities will be
required, at a minimum, to comply with these State regulations
even after a NESHAP for PCE is promulgated. Two commenters
(TV-D-24, IV-D-30) emphasized that States must retain the right
to take appropriate actions to implement effective emission
control strategies to protect public health within their
jurisdictions.
All of these commenters strongly opposed section 63.326 of
the proposal that limits the authority for approving alternative
control equipment and procedures proposed by individual dry
cleaning sources to the EPA alone. One commenter (IV-D-24)
believed that the EPA's retention of this delegation of authority
would also negatively impact the operating permit process.
One commenter (IV-D-30) insisted that States be allowed to
enforce a State standard that is different from the Federal
standard if it is of equivalent or greater stringency. This
commenter cited section 112(1)(1) of the amended Act, which
allows the EPA to approve a State program that provides for
"partial or complete" delegation of the Administrator's
authority. This commenter also cited section 112(d)(7) which
reads:
No emission standard or other requirement promulgated
under this section shall be interpreted. construed, or
applied to diminish or replace the requirements of a
more stringent emission limitation or other applicable
requirement established pursuant to ... this Act or a
standard issued under State authority. (emphasis added
by commenter)
This, commenter argued:that if, a State were.not allowed to
implement its own standard instead of the EPA's (and both
standards had.to be implemented simultaneously), then two
significant problems would occur: (1) it may be; physically
impossible for sources to comply with both standards; arid (2) it
likely would increase the administrative and financial burden on
sources and regulatory agencies, with no additional public health
benefit. The commenter mentioned that dual regulation could
2-91
-------
result in undue financial and administrative burdens on small
businesses. The commenter added that if a source is forced to
comply with two sets of incompatible requirements, the source may
not be able to operate at all in a particular State.
The commenter specifically suggested adding a new section to
the proposed NESHAP. This commenter explained that this new
section would explicitly allow a State to seek approval to
implement and enforce 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart M by implementing
and enforcing an alternative emission standard adopted by the
State. The commenter explained that to receive approval from the
Administrator, a State would have to demonstrate that the
alternative emission standard would provide the same public
health benefit as, or a greater benefit than, the standard
promulgated pursuant to section 112(d) of the Act. The commenter
added that the demonstration should include an analysis of the
overall emission and risk reductions associated with each
standard, specific to sources in the State.
The commenter also suggested modifying the first sentence in
section 63.323(a) of the proposal to read:
Upon written application from any person or Statef the
Administrator may approve the individual or Statewide
use of equipment or procedures that have been
demonstrated to his satisfaction to be equivalent in
terms of reducing perchloroethylene emissions to the
atmosphere, to those prescribed for compliance within a
specified paragraph of this subpart.
Response; The EPA agrees with the commenters that States
should be allowed to implement effective emission strategies to
protect public health within their jurisdictions. In some cases,
States may feel it is necessary to implement more protective air:
pollution control measures than those adopted in national
standards to control local problems.
In addition, the SPA also agrees with the commenters that if
different types of specific controls were required by the dry
cleaning NESHAP and a State's standard, then it might be
physically impossible to comply with both standards. For this
reason, the NESHAP includes provisions for determining
2-92
-------
equivalency that allow sources to use any means of controlling
emissions that result in an equal or greater level of emissions
reduction as that achieved through the use of the controls
required in the NESHAP. These provisions will permit sources to
achieve compliance with both State standards and the NESHAP. In
fact, this type of approach fosters advances in control
technology development and source reduction and other pollution
prevention alternatives as a means for achieving compliance.
Finally, the EPA also agrees with the commenters that
provisions limiting the authority to the EPA alone for making
judgments regarding the equivalency of different equipment to
control PCE emissions with the same or better performance than
the control equipment required by the NESHAP is not warranted
because section 112(1) of the Act would allow a State to request
approval of a State's program that permits a source to seek
permission to use an alterative means of emission limitation
under section 112(h)(3), provided that the State demonstrated
that is program would be no less stringent and that certain
conditions were met. Section 112(1) authorizes States to submit
programs to the Administrator for approval for implementing and
enforcing emission standards. Section 112(1) also goes on to
state that such programs may provide for partial, as well as
complete, delegation of the EPA's authorities and
responsibilities. The approval and delegation process is,
addressed in detail in the EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking:
"Approval of State Programs and Delegation of Federal
Authorities; Proposed Rules," published on May 19, 1993,
(58 FR 29296).
As a result, the. provision limiting the authority; to judge
the equivalency of different equipment to the EPA,has been
deleted from the final standards. Doing so, however, does not
mean that these provisions will be "automatically" delegated to
States upon application. In addition, delegating these
provisions will not preclude the EPA from considering petitions
submitted by various equipment suppliers or vendors and making
equivalency determinations on a national level.
2-93
-------
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-14) offered a suggestion for
section 63.323 of the proposal, which allows alternative
technologies to be used in lieu of the specified control devices.
The commenter stated that a properly operating carbon adsorber
exhausts approximately 25 parts per million (ppm) of PCE at
600 cubic feet per minute (cfm). The commenter included
calculations to show that this exhaust is equivalent to
3.1 pounds of PCE emissions per day, assuming the adsorber
operates 8 hours per day.
The commenter suggested that the EPA could specify in the
equivalency provision that one possible method for demonstrating
an alternative technology would be to show that emissions from a
given control device would result in no more than 3.1 pounds of
PCE emissions per day. The commenter pointed out that this
approach would achieve similar emissions reductions without tying
the alternative control to a particular PCE concentration,
exhaust flow rate, or total exhaust time. The commenter believed
that this approach could simplify the task of those considering
or engaged in the manufacture of alternative control devices.
The commenter believed that this equivalency approach could lead
to the design and construction of simpler and less expensive
alternative control technologies for controlling PCE emissions.
Response: As stated elsewhere, new and uncontrolled
existing dry cleaning machines are required to install
refrigerated condensers to comply with the requirements of the
final NESHAP. Existing dry cleaning machines with existing
carbon adsorbers built prior to promulgation will not be required
to replace their carbon adsorbers with refrigerated condensers,
but; new carbon;adsorbers are not allowed for process vent
control.. Therefore, potential alternative: technologies will be
evaluated based on equivalent performance to a refrigerated
condenser rather than a carbon adsorber.
With regard to carbon adsorbers, however, the EPA does not
agree with the commenter that 25 ppm is the normal exhaust
concentration when the dry cleaning machine is not venting to the
carbon adsorber and, in EPA's opinion, the assumption that a
2-94
-------
properly operated carbon adsorber exhausts at a constant 25 ppm
has not been verified. In any event, because the performance of
carbon adsorbers in actual practice has been shown to be inferior
to refrigerated condensers and because a refrigerated condenser
is configured differently from a carbon adsorber, the approach
suggested by the commenter is not appropriate for determining
equivalency with the performance of a refrigerated condenser.
Requiring the same approach for demonstrating the
equivalency of an alternative technology may not be appropriate
for all types of new control technologies introduced to the
market. For this reason, specific methods for demonstrating
equivalency are left to the requestor seeking equivalency, based
on the specific characteristics of the control technology.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-19) expected to be requesting
an equivalency determination for a new control technology in the
near future. For this reason, the commenter requested guidance
in seeking equivalency under section 63.323 of the proposal.
First, the commenter asked what type of information should
be included about the control technology. The commenter thought
that pertinent information would include: a general description
of the equipment; a schematic of the equipment denoting its size;
cost of the equipment (both when added to a new machine and when
a machine was retrofitted); and energy requirements of the
system.
Second, the commenter asked what was needed concerning
process or fugitive emission data. The commenter asked what type
of data must be collected and over what time period. The
commenter wanted to know if the applicant is responsible for
collecting baseline data on the: particular- piece of equipment
prior to the control being added. The commenter wondered if the
EPA would require monitoring data to be collected from more than
one machine. The commenter also questioned whether the EPA would
require the piece of equipment being used in the testing to
already be used on a commercial basis. The commenter asked
whether the EPA or its contractor would collect emissions data in
addition to the data being collected by the applicant.
2-95
-------
Third, the coramenter inquired about efficiency
determination. The commenter asked how the EPA would calculate
the efficiency of the particular control technology being
considered. The commenter also questioned that if a system
reduces both process and fugitive emissions, would the EPA
consider both reductions in its determination.
Fourth, the commenter asked about the overall approval
process. The commenter requested an outline of the steps and an
estimate of the time needed to undergo the equivalency approval
process.
Response: In answer to the commenters1 questions, it is
difficult to specify what information must be submitted without
knowing some details of the emission control technology or system
for which a determination of equivalency is requested. In
addition, a description of this information must be broad and
general in nature to accommodate all possibilities. It is
possible, however, to be more specific, and the final NESHAP
specifies that the following information must be submitted:
• Diagrams, as appropriate, illustrating the emission
control technology, its operation and integration into
or function with dry-to-dry machine(s) or transfer
machine system(s) during each portion of the normal dry
cleaning cycle;
• Information quantifying vented PCE.emissions from the
dry-to-dry machine(s) or transfer machine systems(s)
during each portion of the dry cleaning cycle with and
without the use of the candidate emission control
technology;
• Information on solvent mileage achieved with and
without the candidate emission control technology.
Solvent, mileage- is the, average weight of, articles
cleaned per volume of PCE used;
• Identification of maintenance requirements and
parameters to monitor to ensure proper operation and
maintenance;
• Explanation of why this information is considered
accurate and representative of both the short-term and
long-term performance of the candidate emission control
technology on the specific dry cleaning system
examined;
2-96
-------
• Explanation of why this information can be extrapolated
to dry cleaning systems other than the specific
system(s) examined;
• Information on the cross-media impacts (to water and
solid waste) of the candidate emission control
technology and demonstration that the cross-media
impacts are less than or equal to the cross-media
impacts of a refrigerated condenser.
2.14 MISCELLANEOUS
2.14.1 Classification of Perchloroethvlene as a Volatile Organic
Compound
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-03) agreed that PCE needs to
be controlled as an air toxic. However, the commenter believed
that including PCE as a volatile organic compound (VOC) has
created a problem. The commenter pointed out that the EPA
published a Federal Register notice on October 24, 1983,
(48 FR 49097) proposing to add PCE to the list of exempt VOC
compounds. The commenter stated that a final action on the PCE
photochemical reactivity issue is being withheld until the PCE
toxicity issue is resolved.
The commenter stated that, pursuant to the definition of VOC
(which includes PCE), and the EPA and State guidelines, his air
pollution control district was required to issue emission
reduction credits (ERC's) for substantial reductions in PCE
emissions at a single source (107 tons per year). The commenter
explained that, under the existing VOC definition, these ERC's
must be used to offset emission increases from new sources of VOC
whose photochemical reactivity is not negligible, resulting in a
net increase in ozone precursors. The commenter argued that the
use- of: PCE, ERC's- as: offsets, exacerbates- the severe, ozone
nonattainment problem in his area because the emission increases
in reactive compounds would not be truly offset.
The commenter recommended that the EPA finalize its proposal
to list PCE as an exempt VOC compound, concurrent with final
action to control PCE dry cleaners.
Response; The EPA recently proposed adding PCE to the list
of compounds exempt as a VOC on the basis that it has negligible
2-97
-------
photochemical reactivity and thus does not contribute to
tropospheric ozone formation. A proposed rulemaking describing
the addition of PCE to the VOC exempt list has been published in
the Federal Register (57 FR 48490, October 26, 1992). The
outcome of that rulemaking will have no impacts on the dry
cleaning NESHAP.
2.14.2 Carcinogen Risk Assessment Classification of
Perchloroethylene
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-14, IV-D-21) expressed views
on carcinogenic risk. One commenter (IV-D-14) urged the EPA to
recognize in the preamble to the final NESHAP the recommendations
of its own Science Advisory Board (SAB) regarding revisions in
the Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment pertaining to the
classification of PCE. The commenter quoted an excerpt from the
document, Health Effects Assessment of Perchloroethvlene.
EPA-SAB-EHC-91-013, which stated that there is "no compelling
evidence of human cancer risk" from exposure to PCE. The
commenter recognized that, at this time, it cannot be
conclusively stated whether or not PCE is a potential carcinogen
and, therefore, concurred with the SAB that further research be
pursued to study the health risks of PCE.
Another commenter (IV-D-21) submitted a paper and scientific
articles to support that no adverse health effects would be
expected at environmental or even workplace levels of PCE
exposure.
Response; In its evaluation of PCE, the SAB recognized the
difficulty of placing PCE into one of the categories designated
in the current Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment.
Therefore,., in: the-Health Effects Assessment of Perchloroethvlene.
the SAB recommended that, "when the Guidelines are revised, their
flexibility should be endorsed and strengthened, and that
exceptions to a strict categorization are a practical necessity"
(EPA-SAB-EHC-91-013; page 7).
The EPA is currently revising the guidelines. This effort
is not intended to be a solution to the uncertainty about the
carcinogenicity of PCE or any other specific agent. Revisions
2-98
-------
are being considered to ensure that the guidelines reflect
current knowledge about carcinogenic risk.
At this time, it is premature to discuss whether the
revisions to the guidelines may affect earlier classifications of
chemicals, and the EPA does not believe it pertinent to
speculate.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-24, IV-D-25) cited evidence
to support that perchloroethylene should be considered a probable
human carcinogen. One commenter (IV-D-24) objected to the
Science Advisory Board position presented in the proposal NESHAP
which stated that "in the spirit of flexibility encouraged by the
Guidelines, our best judgment places this compound on a continuum
between these two categories." This commenter asserted that the
qualitative assessment of the carcinogenicity of PCE (as
presented in the NESCAUM Health Evaluation Document for PCE,
1986) concludes that sufficient animal evidence would constitute
consideration of PCE as a probable human carcinogen. This
commenter further argued that evidence for carcinogenicity based
on qualitative indicators of possible cancer risk to humans
includes corroboration of carcinogenicity by more than one
investigator; multiple routes of exposure (oral, gavage, and
inhalation); multiple species; diversity of primary tumor
locations and types; evidence of genotoxicity and structure
activity relations with, other carcinogens. Based on findings of
this evaluation, this commenter concluded that PCE is a probable
human carcinogen and may present both an occupational and public
health risk to exposed populations, particularly to people living
near the dry cleaning facility.
The other commenter (IV-D-25) pointed out that, althouglr
there is some debate about the carcinogenic classification of
PCE, experts agree that exposure increases cancer risk and should
be limited. This commenter cited two studies by the National
Toxicology program, which recommended:
the overall carcinogenic evidence for
tetrachloroethylene would be elevated to Group B2
meaning that tetrachloroethylene should be considered a
"probable human carcinogen."
2-99
-------
This commenter stated that the International Agency for Research
on Cancer (IARC) also classifies perchloroethylene as a B2
carcinogen.
This commenter cited a letter from the SAB to the
Administrator:
As perchloroethylene illustrates, the distinction
between the B2 and C categories can be an arbitrary
distinction on a continuum of weight of evidence . . .
From a scientific point of view, it seems inappropriate
for EPA and other agencies to regulate substances that
are classified B2 and not to consider regulation of
compounds classified as c, regardless of the level of
human exposure ... A substance classified as c
(limited evidence in animals) for which human exposure
is high may represent a much greater potential threat
to human health.
EPA and other agencies (including those in state
governments) may, therefore, wish to take steps to
reduce high exposures to substances in the C category
whenever there appears to be a potentially significant
threat to human health . . . Indoor exposure to
perchloroethylene, such as might be found in dry
cleaning establishments not using the equivalent of
good industrial hygiene practices, could merit actions
under this criterion.
Response; The EPA uses the Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk
Assessmentf published in the Federal Register on September 24,
1986, to determine the appropriate weight-of-evidence
classification for a chemical. At the present time, with the
current guidelines, the EPA has not determined whether PCE would
be classified more appropriately as a B2 or as a C carcinogen.
Under the current guidelines, and with the present data, PCE
could be viewed as a B2 carcinogen, or probable human carcinogen.
This is-,, however-,, only; one; view in a range of views, which, cover
the C to B2 range. The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) presents
the position that, "in the spirit of flexibility encouraged by
the Guidelines, our best judgment places this compound on a
continuum between these two categories.H Uncertainty in the PCE
data base leads the SAB to recommend its being classified on a
continuum between B2 and C. The EPA has not adopted any
position, but is considering all views on the classification of
2-100
-------
PCE while also promoting research to reduce uncertainty in the
data base for PCE.
The SAB also states that Ma substance classified as c
(limited evidence in animals) for which human exposure is high
may represent a much greater threat to human health" than a
substance classified as B2. The EPA agrees that, since cancer
risk is likely to increase as exposure to the cancer-causing
agent increases, exposure to the agent should be limited. In
evaluating the cancer risk posed by a chemical, the EPA takes
into account the potency, weight-of-evidence classification,
potential for exposure to the chemical, and other factors
relating to behavior of the agent in the environment or in the
exposed individual. The high potential for exposure to PCE gives
support to its being regulated.
2.14.3 Public Health Impact
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-24) thought that the public
health impact of the proposal NESHAP was not evaluated
sufficiently. This commenter stated that the EPA presented a
public health impact analysis based on a qualitative
toxicological assessment of PCE but neglected to evaluate other
criteria for determining public health impacts from PCE exposure,
such as the location of emission points and the potential for
exposure, fate and transport of the emissions (half-life,
deposition characteristics, etc.) or the activity patterns of
potentially exposed populations.
This commenter asserted that the population model the EPA
used to project national impacts was not appropriate for
assessing the localized public health impact from area sources.
The commenter believed that this type•-. of analysis dilutes•-the-
actual public health impacts resulting from exposure to high
concentrations of fugitive PCE emissions from dry cleaners.
Response; The level of detail recommended by the commenter
for the evaluation of public health impacts is more extensive
than necessary for this particular rulemaking. A population
model that projects national impacts was not used to assess the
localized public health impact of emissions from area sources for
2-101
-------
this rulemaking. Estimated national emissions reductions are
discussed in the proposed standard, but impacts on public health
were considered in a qualitative assessment, as noted by the
commenter.
2-102
------- |