Welcome to the Clean Air Act Information Network

[____-__]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[AD-FRL- ]
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Source Categories:
Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Facilities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final Rule.
SUMMARY: National emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants (NESHAP) for perchloroethylene (PCE) dry cleaning
facilities were proposed in the Federal Register on
December 9, 1991 (56 FR 64382). 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 was published on October 1, 1992
(57 FR 45363). This action promulgates national emission
standards for PCE dry cleaning facilities. These standards
implement section 112 of the Clean Air Act (Act) and are
based on the Administrator's determination that PCE is a
hazardous air pollutant (HAP) and that emissions, ambient
concentrations, bioaccumulation, or deposition of PCE are
known to cause or may reasonably be anticipated to cause
adverse effects to human health or the environment.
The intended effect of this NESHAP is to require all
new and existing major source dry cleaning facilities
(emitting or with the potential to emit greater than
9.1 megagrams (Mg) [10 tons] per year of PCE) to control
emissions to the level of the maximum achievable control
technology (MACT), as specified in section 112 of the Act.
The intended effect of this NESHAP is also to require
all new and existing area source dry cleaning facilities
(emitting or with the potential to emit 9.1 Mg [10 tons] per
year or less of PCE) to control PCE emissions to the level
achieved by generally available control technologies (GACT)
or management practices.
EFFECTIVE DATE: [Insert date of publication in the Federal
Register].
Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act,
judicial review of the actions taken by this notice is
available only by filing a petition for review in the
U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
within 60 days of today's publication of this rule. Under
section 307(b)(2) of the Act, the requirements that are the
subject of today's notice may not be challenged later in
civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce
these requirements.
ADDRESSES: Background Information Document. The background
information document (BID) for the promulgated standards may
be obtained from the U. S. EPA Library (MD-35), Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number
(919) 541-2777. Please refer to "Dry Cleaning
Facilities--Background Information for Promulgated
Standards," EPA-450/3-91-020b. The BID contains: (1) a
summary of the public comments made on the proposed NESHAP
and the notice of availability of new information and the
Administrator's response to the comments; (2) a summary of
the changes made to the NESHAP since proposal; and (3) the
final Environmental Impact Statement, which summarizes the
impacts of the standards.
Docket. Docket No. A-88-11, containing information
considered by the EPA in development of the promulgated
standards, is available for public inspection between
8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays, at the EPA's Air Docket (LE-131),
Waterside Mall, room M1500, 1st Floor, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460. A
reasonable fee may be charged for copying.
Public Meeting. As discussed in more detail at the end
of this preamble, in order to gain additional understanding
of indoor air pollution, ground water contamination and
solid waste generation resulting from dry cleaning
facilities, the EPA will convene a public meeting at a place
and time to be announced. Information also will be sought
on the environmental impacts associated with the operation
of wastewater evaporators. The objective of this public
meeting will be to gather information on the magnitude of
these problems, as well as potential solutions to these
problems.
Individuals wishing to find out the date and location
of the meeting or to speak at this public meeting should
contact Ms. Julia Stevens at (919) 541-5578 by
October 22, 1993. Individuals wishing to submit written
comments in lieu of attending this public meeting should
forward their comments by [insert date 60 days following
date of publication in Federal Register] to: Mr. Bruce
Jordan, Director; Emission Standards Division (MD-13);
Environmental Protection Agency; Research Triangle Park,
NC 27711.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning
the standards, contact Mr. George Smith at (919) 541-1549 or
Mr. Fred Porter at (919) 541-5251, Standards Development
Branch, Emission Standards Division (MD-13),
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following outline is
provided to aid in reading the preamble to the final rule.
I. BACKGROUND
A. List of Categories and Subcategories
B. Source of Authority for National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants
C. Criteria for Development of National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
D. Categorization/Subcategorization: Determining
Maximum Achievable Control Technology "Floors"
E. Historical Development of the Standards
II. SUMMARY
A. Summary of Promulgated Standards
B. Selection of Basis of Standards for New and
Existing Sources--Selection of MACT or GACT
C. Selection of Format for the Final Rule
D. Summary of Changes Since Proposal
E. Potential to Emit
III. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL, ENERGY, AND ECONOMIC
IMPACTS
A. Affected Facilities
B. Air Impacts
C. Water, Solid Waste, Noise, and Radiation Impacts
D. Energy Impacts
E. Cost Impacts
F. Economic Impacts
IV. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
V. SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS AND CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED
STANDARDS
A. Regulatory Approach
B. Emission Control
C. Monitoring and Equivalency
D. Other Issues and Follow-up to Today's Action
VI. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS
A. Docket
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Executive Order 12291
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
E. Miscellaneous
I. BACKGROUND
A. List of Categories and Subcategories. The Act
requires, under section 112, that the EPA evaluate and
control emissions of HAP's. The control of HAP's is
achieved through promulgation of emission standards under
sections 112(d) and 112(f) for categories of sources that
emit HAP's. Section 112(c)(3) directs the Administrator to
list each category or subcategory of area sources which the
Administrator finds "presents a threat of adverse effects to
human health or the environment." Section 112(c)(3) also
directs the Administrator to list within 5 years "sufficient
categories or subcategories of area sources to ensure that
area sources representing 90 percent of the area source
emissions of the 30 HAP's that present the greatest threat
to public health in the largest number of urban areas are
subject to regulation." Section 112(c)(1) directed the EPA
to publish an initial list of major sources which emitted
one or more of the listed 189 HAP's. As described in the
proposal, [56 FR 64382, 64383 (December 9, 1991)], the EPA
identified 5 categories of major or area sources of dry
cleaners for regulation. These source categories were
included in the initial section 112(c)(1) list published on
July 16, 1992, (57 FR 31576) as follows:
Source Category Subcategory
Industrial (major) - Dry-to-dry machines
- Transfer machines
Commercial (major) - Transfer machines
Commercial (area) - Dry-to-dry machines
- Transfer machines
All sources in the industrial category are major
sources. The industrial category has two basic types of
machines: dry-to-dry and transfer. A major source includes
any source that emits or has the potential to emit,
considering controls, in the aggregate, 9.1 Mg/yr (10 tpy)
of any HAP [section 112(a)(1) of the Act]. The EPA proposed
that the industrial source category and those major sources
under the commercial source category be regulated under
MACT. The EPA also proposed that the commercial source
category, which includes area sources, be listed under
section 112(c)(3) for regulation under GACT.
B. Source of Authority for National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants Development. Title III of the
Act was enacted to help reduce the increasing amount of
nationwide air toxics emissions. Under title III,
section 112 was amended to give the EPA the authority to
establish national standards to reduce air toxics from
sources that emit one or more HAP. Section 112(b) contains
a list of HAP's, which are the specific air toxics to be
regulated by NESHAP. Section 112(c) directs the EPA to use
this pollutant list to develop and publish a list of source
categories for which a NESHAP will be developed. The EPA
must list all known categories and subcategories of "major
sources" (defined above) which emit one or more of the
listed HAP's. Area source categories selected by the EPA
for NESHAP development will be based on the Administrator's
judgment that the sources in a category, individually or in
aggregate, pose a "threat of adverse effects to health and
the environment." As noted above, the initial
section 112(c)(1) list of source categories was published on
July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576) and listed 5 source categories
of dry cleaners (three major and two area).
C. Criteria for Development of National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. The NESHAP are to
be developed to control HAP emissions from both new and
existing sources according to the statutory directives set
out in section 112. The statute requires the standards to
reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of
HAP's that is achievable for new or existing sources. The
NESHAP must reflect consideration of the cost of achieving
the emission reduction, and any nonair quality health and
environmental impacts, and energy requirements for control
levels more stringent than the MACT floors (described
below). The emission reduction may be accomplished through
application of measures, processes, methods, systems or
techniques including, but not limited to, measures which:
1. Reduce the volume of, or eliminate emissions of,
such pollutants through process changes, substitution of
materials or other modifications,
2. Enclose systems or processes to eliminate
emissions,
3. Collect, capture or treat such pollutants when
released from a process, stack, storage or fugitive
emissions point,
4. Are design, equipment, work practice, or
operational standards (including requirements for operator
training or certification) as provided in subsection (h), or
5. Are a combination of the above [section 112(d)(2)].
To develop a NESHAP, the EPA collects information about
the industry, including information on emission source
characteristics, control technologies, data from HAP
emission tests at well-controlled facilities, and
information on the costs and other energy and environmental
impacts of emission control techniques. The EPA uses this
information to analyze possible regulatory approaches.
Although NESHAP are normally structured in terms of
numerical emission limits, alternative approaches are
sometimes necessary. In some cases, physically measuring
emissions from a source may be impossible or at least
impracticable due to technological and economic limitations.
Section 112(h) authorizes the Administrator to promulgate a
design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard,
or combination thereof, in those cases where it is not
feasible to prescribe or enforce an emissions standard.
Section 112(h)(2) provides that, "the phrase `not
feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard' means
any situation in which the Administrator determines that
"the application of measurement methodology to a particular
class of sources is not practicable due to technological and
economic limitations." As described below, the
Administrator has determined that it is impracticable to
prescribe an emission standard for the sources subject to
this rule. Accordingly, this final rule is being issued as
a section 112(h) standard.
D. Categorization/Subcategorization: Determining MACT
"Floors" for NESHAP. The Act directs the Administrator to
list categories and subcategories of major sources and area
sources which emit one or more of the HAP's listed in
section 112(b) [section 112(c) of the Act]. The
Administrator shall list all major sources which emit HAP's.
The Administrator shall list those area source categories
and subcategories which she finds present a threat of
adverse effects to human health or the environment
warranting regulation. Once the EPA has identified the
specific source categories or subcategories of major sources
and area sources that it intends to regulate under
section 112, it must set MACT standards for each and must
set such standards at a level at least as stringent as the
"floor," unless it regulates area sources under
section 112(d)(5) as described below. Congress provided
certain very specific directives to guide the EPA in the
process of determining the regulatory floor.
Congress specified that the EPA shall establish
standards which require "the maximum degree of reduction in
emissions of the hazardous air pollutants . . . that the
Administrator, taking into consideration the cost of
achieving such emission reduction, and any nonair quality
health and environmental impacts and energy requirements,
determines is achievable. . ." [section 112(d)(2) of the
Act]. In addition, Congress limited the EPA's discretion by
establishing a minimum baseline or "floor" for standards.
For new sources, the standards for a source category or
subcategory "shall not be less stringent than the emission
control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled
similar source, as determined by the Administrator"
[section 112(d)(3) of the Act]. Congress provided that
existing source standards could be less stringent than new
source standards but could be no less stringent than the
average emission limitation achieved by the best performing
12 percent of the existing sources (excluding certain
sources) for categories and subcategories with 30 or more
sources or the best performing 5 sources for categories or
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources [section 112(d)(3)
of the Act].
Once the floor has been determined for new or existing
sources for a category or subcategory, the Administrator
must set MACT standards that are no less stringent than the
floor. Such standards must then be met by all sources
within the category or subcategory. However, in
establishing the standards, the Administrator may
distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of sources
within a category or subcategory [section 112(d)(1) of the
Act]. Thus, for example, the Administrator could establish
two classes of sources within a category or subcategory
based on size and establish a different emission standard
for each class, provided both standards are at least as
stringent as the MACT floor.
In addition, the Act provides the Administrator further
flexibility to regulate area sources. Section 112(d)(5)
provides that in lieu of establishing MACT standards under
section 112(d), the Administrator may promulgate standards
which provide for the use of "generally available control
technologies or management practices." Area source
standards promulgated under this authority (GACT standards)
would not be subject to the MACT "floors" described above.
Moreover, for source categories subject to standards
promulgated under section 112(d)(5), the EPA is not required
to conduct a residual risk analysis under section 112(f).
At the end of the data gathering and analysis, the EPA
must decide whether it is more appropriate to follow the
MACT or the GACT approach for regulating an area source
category. As stated previously, MACT is required for major
sources. If all or some portion of the sources emits less
than 9.1 Mg/yr (10 tpy) of any one HAP [or less than
22.7 Mg/yr (25 tpy) of total HAP's], then it may be
appropriate to define subcategories within the source
category and apply a combination MACT/GACT approach, MACT
for major sources and GACT for area sources. In other
cases, it may be appropriate to regulate both major and area
sources in a source category under MACT.
The next step in establishing a MACT or GACT standard
is the investigation of regulatory alternatives. With MACT
standards, only alternatives at least as stringent as the
floor may be considered. Information about the industry is
analyzed to develop model plant populations for projecting
national impacts, including HAP emission reduction levels,
costs, energy, and secondary impacts. Several regulatory
alternative levels (which may be different levels of
emissions control or different levels of applicability or
both) are then evaluated to determine the most plausible
regulatory alternative to reflect the appropriate MACT or
GACT level.
The regulatory alternatives for new versus existing
sources may be different, and separate regulatory decisions
must be made for new and existing sources. For both source
types, the selected alternative may be more stringent than
the MACT floor. However, the control level selected must be
technically achievable. In selecting a regulatory
alternative to represent MACT or GACT, the EPA considers the
achievable reduction in emissions of HAP's (and possibly
other pollutants that are co-controlled), the cost and
economic impacts, energy impacts, and other environmental
impacts. The objective is to achieve the maximum degree of
emission reduction without unreasonable economic or other
impacts.
The selected regulatory alternative is then translated
into a proposed regulation. The regulation implementing the
MACT or GACT decision typically includes sections of
applicability, standards, test methods and compliance
demonstration, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping.
The preamble to the proposed regulation provides an
explanation of the rationale for the decision. The public
is invited to comment on the proposed regulation during the
public comment period. Based on an evaluation of these
comments, the EPA reaches a final decision and promulgates
the NESHAP.
E. Historical Development of the Standards. On
November 25, 1980 (45 FR 78174), the EPA proposed new source
performance standards (NSPS) to limit emissions of volatile
organic compounds (VOC's) from new, modified, and
reconstructed PCE dry cleaners under the authority of
section 111 of the Act. On December 26, 1985 (50 FR 52880),
the EPA published a Notice of Intent to List PCE as a
potentially toxic air pollutant to be regulated under
section 112 of the Act and solicited information on the
potential carcinogenicity of PCE. Perchloroethylene is the
predominant solvent used in dry cleaning. It has chemical
and physical properties which make it the most desirable
solvent available for the dry cleaning of fabrics.
Information was also requested on applicable emission
control equipment and the associated level of control
achievable.
Subsequent to the EPA's issuance of the 1980 proposed
rule and to the EPA's Notice of Intent to List and possible
regulation of PCE emissions from dry cleaners under
section 112, a private citizens group from Oregon,
Francis P. Cook, et al., brought suit against the
Administrator of the EPA to compel him to issue a final rule
regulating emissions from PCE dry cleaners under the
authority of section 111 of the Act. The EPA and plaintiffs
negotiated a settlement of the lawsuit whereby the EPA
agreed to enter into a Consent Decree. The U. S. District
Court for the District of Oregon entered the Consent Decree
on March 16, 1990, [Cook v. Reilly, No. 89-630 7E (D. Ore)].
In the Consent Decree, the EPA Administrator agreed to sign
proposed NESHAP for PCE dry cleaning facilities within
1 year and promulgate the standards within 2 years following
enactment of the new amendments to the Act. In accordance
with the Consent Decree, on November 15, 1991, the
Administrator, William K. Reilly, signed the proposed
rulemaking. That notice appeared in the Federal Register on
December 9, 1991, (56 FR 64382).
In that notice, the EPA proposed to regulate PCE
emissions from dry cleaners under authority of section 112
of the Act because PCE is included on the list of HAP's
found in section 112(b).
A notice announcing the withdrawal of the proposed NSPS
for regulating VOC emissions from PCE dry cleaners under
section 111 was also published at that time (56 FR 64382).
The Consent Decree was amended twice to provide the EPA
additional time to complete this action, with the current
decree requiring the Administrator to sign a final
rulemaking notice not later than September 13, 1991. This
action completes the EPA's obligations to take regulatory
action in compliance with the Consent Decree.
II. SUMMARY
A. Summary of Promulgated Standards. The standards
being promulgated today will reduce emissions of PCE from
new and existing dry cleaning facilities in the industrial
and commercial sectors of the dry cleaning industry.
Coin-operated dry cleaning machines are exempt from the
standards. The requirements of the standards are discussed
below. The process vent control requirements of the
standards are presented in table 1.table 1 Owners and operators of all new dry cleaning machines
and existing uncontrolled dry cleaning machines located at
major sources, as well as those of many area sources, are
required to install and operate refrigerated condensers to
control PCE emissions from process vents. Owners and
operators of existing dry cleaning machines controlled with
carbon adsorbers that were installed prior to today's date
are not required to replace the carbon adsorber with a
refrigerated condenser. These owners and operators may
continue to operate their carbon adsorbers to control PCE
emissions from process vents. Owners and operators of all
dry cleaning machines are required to operate their PCE
emission control equipment and dry cleaning machines
according to the manufacturer's recommendations. New
transfer machine systems are effectively banned through a
requirement prohibiting any PCE emissions from clothing
transfer between the washer and dryer of transfer machine
systems.
Additional controls are required for new dry-to-dry
machines and existing transfer machine systems located at
major sources. Owners or operators of new dry-to-dry
machines located at major sources are required to install a
carbon adsorber in addition to a refrigerated condenser.
The PCE saturated air remaining in the dry cleaning drum
after completion of the refrigerated condenser cycle must be
passed through this carbon adsorber immediately before the
door of the dry cleaning machine is opened or as the door is
opened. Owners or operators of existing transfer machine
systems located at major sources are required to contain
their transfer machine systems inside a room enclosure.
This room enclosure must be vented to a carbon adsorber to
control PCE emissions captured by the room enclosure.
To determine if a dry cleaning facility is a major
source emitting over 9.1 Mg (10 tons) per year, total annual
PCE consumption of all of the dry cleaning machines at a
facility is used to determine PCE emissions. For the
purpose of these standards, PCE consumption during any
period is defined as the PCE purchased during that period.
A facility with only dry-to-dry machines consuming
8,000 liters (2,100 gallons) per year would emit 9.1 Mg
(10 tons) per year of PCE and is considered a major source.
Similarly, a facility with only transfer machine systems
consuming 6,800 liters (1,800 gallons) per year would emit
9.1 Mg (10 tons) per year of PCE and is considered a major
source. Finally, a facility with both dry-to-dry machines
and transfer machine systems consuming 6,800 liters
(1,800 gallons) per year would emit 9.1 Mg (10 tons) per
year and is also considered a major source.
The standards include yearly low solvent consumption
exemption levels for existing area sources (these low
solvent consumption levels do not apply to new sources).
The low consumption exemption level is 530 liters
(140 gallons) per year for an existing area source that
contains only dry-to-dry machines. The low consumption
exemption level is 760 liters (200 gallons) per year for an
existing area source that contains only transfer machine
systems. Finally, the low consumption exemption level is
530 liters (140 gallons) per year for an existing area
source that contains both dry-to-dry machines and transfer
machine systems. Existing area sources with a yearly PCE
consumption below these low solvent consumption exemption
levels are not required to install process vent controls.
To determine appropriate compliance requirements based on
PCE consumption, owners or operators of all dry cleaning
facilities must calculate a yearly rolling total of PCE
consumption (based on purchase receipts) on the first day of
each month.
The owner or operator of each dry-to-dry machine,
transfer machine dryer, or reclaimer using a refrigerated
condenser is required to monitor and record the temperature
on the outlet side of the refrigerated condenser once per
week. The owner or operator of each transfer machine washer
using a refrigerated condenser is required to monitor and
record the temperature on both the inlet side and the outlet
side of the refrigerated condenser once per week. The owner
or operator of each existing dry cleaning machine using an
existing carbon adsorber for process vent control, which was
installed prior to today, or each new major source
dry-to-dry machine using a supplemental carbon adsorber to
control PCE remaining in the machine drum, is required to
monitor the concentration of PCE in the carbon adsorber
exhaust outlet once per week.
All owners or operators of dry cleaning facilities are
subject to pollution reduction requirements for all dry
cleaning machines as well as auxiliary equipment (such as
emission control devices, pumps, filters, muck cookers,
stills, solvent tanks, solvent containers, water separators,
diverter valves, and interconnecting piping, hoses, and
ducts). To prevent liquid and vapor leaks from these
sources, a weekly leak detection and repair program is
required at all facilities except existing facilities with
annual receipts less than $75,000, where biweekly leak
detection and repair is required. All leaks detected must
be recorded in a log, must have their necessary repair parts
ordered, and must be repaired within 5 working days of
receiving the necessary part. Storage of waste containing
PCE in tightly sealed containers is also required to reduce
PCE emissions before disposal. Owners or operators of all
dry cleaning facilities must maintain monthly records of PCE
consumption, based on purchase receipts. Each month, the
annual PCE consumption for the preceding 12 months must also
be calculated and recorded.
Initial reports certified by a responsible official are
required, which include a brief description of and the
design capacity of all dry cleaning machines at the
facility, annual facility PCE consumption and, where
appropriate, the type of emission control device to be used
to achieve compliance for each machine at the facility. An
existing dry cleaning machine that commenced construction
prior to December 9, 1991 (the date of proposal of the PCE
dry cleaning NESHAP), must comply with pollution prevention
and recordkeeping-and-reporting requirements starting
90 days from today. An existing machine must comply with
other requirements within 36 months of today's date. In
general, a new dry cleaning machine for which construction
commenced on or after December 9, 1991, must achieve
compliance with this rule upon startup. However, a new dry
cleaning machine that was constructed after December 9,
1991, but prior to today's date may comply immediately with
the final rule or comply with section 112(i)(2) of the Act.
(Section 112(i)(2) allows qualifying new sources 3 years
from promulgation to comply with the final rule, if they
comply with the proposed rule in the interim.) A statement
signed by a responsible official certifying that compliance
is being achieved is required 30 days following the date of
compliance.
If a dry cleaning facility that initially met the
requirements for an area source exceeds the PCE consumption
level for an area source and becomes a major source, that
dry cleaning facility is required to achieve compliance with
the requirements for a major source by 180 days from the
date that the PCE consumption level is exceeded, or within
36 months following today's date, whichever date is later.
If an existing dry cleaning facility initially below
the low solvent consumption exemption level for an existing
area source exceeds this low solvent consumption exemption
level, that dry cleaning facility is required to achieve
compliance with the process vent requirements for an area
source above the low solvent consumption exemption level by
180 days from the date that the PCE consumption level is
exceeded, or within 36 months following today's date,
whichever date is later.
The recordkeeping requirements include documentation of
the volume of PCE purchased each month, results and
calculations of the yearly PCE consumption as determined
each month, results of weekly or biweekly PCE liquid and
vapor leak inspections and, where appropriate, results of
weekly control device monitoring (refrigerated condenser
outlet temperature, or refrigerated condenser inlet and
outlet temperatures, or carbon adsorber exhaust
concentration). All records must be retained for 5 years
and made available for inspection upon request. Owners and
operators of all dry cleaning facilities must retain onsite
a copy of the design specifications and operating manuals
for all dry cleaning machines and control devices.
Equivalent pollution prevention or emission control
technology may be used to achieve compliance with the
standards in lieu of the control devices required by the
standard if certain information is submitted to and approved
by the Administrator. The EPA notes that a dry cleaner
could, by replacing perchloroethylene with other cleaning
agents if available, be exempt from process vent controls or
the entire NESHAP. An alternative standard may be approved
through the section 112(l) approval process if the State
meets certain requirements as discussed in more detail in
section V. This information includes diagrams;
documentation of emission quantification; solvent mileage
information; identification of maintenance and monitoring
requirements to ensure proper operation; an explanation of
why the data regarding emission control is accurate and
representative of both short and long term performance; an
explanation of why the information supplied can be
extrapolated to dry cleaning systems other than the specific
systems examined; and documentation of cross-media (water,
solid waste) impacts. Upon approval, the Administrator will
publish a notice in the Federal Register.
Dry cleaners subject to today's rule should be aware of
a separate rule known as the "general provisions." The
general provisions, which were proposed in the Federal
Register on August 11, 1993 (58 FR 42760), are generic
requirements that sources subject to section 112 standards
must meet. Among other things, the proposed general
provisions rule contains a procedure for existing sources to
apply for a one-year compliance extension, preconstruction
review requirements for major sources, and definitions of
terms that will be used in many or all section 112
standards. The EPA currently plans to promulgate the final
general provisions in March 1994.
B. Selection of Basis of Standards for New and
Existing Sources--Selection of MACT or GACT. As prescribed
by section 112(c)(1), the promulgation of these standards
was preceded by the development and publication of a list
with all the categories and subcategories of major and area
sources emitting any of the HAP's listed in section 112(b)
of the Act. An initial list of such categories [required
under section 112(c)(1)] was published in the Federal
Register on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). Three
perchloroethylene dry cleaning major source categories were
included on this list: (1) Commercial dry cleaning
(perchloroethylene)--transfer machines; (2) industrial dry
cleaning (perchloroethylene)--transfer machines; and
(3) industrial dry cleaning (perchloroethylene)--dry-to-dry
machines. Two dry cleaning area source categories were
included on this list: (1) Commercial dry cleaning
(perchloroethylene)--transfer machines; and (2) commercial
dry cleaning (perchloroethylene)--dry-to-dry machines. The
Administrator found that these categories present "a threat
of adverse effects to human health or the environment."
As described above, the dry cleaning industry subject
to the NESHAP is subcategorized into major and area source
dry cleaners. The dry cleaning industry is also
subcategorized into industrial and commercial sectors. All
industrial dry cleaners are major sources. Commercial dry
cleaners can be either major or area sources. The dry
cleaning industry is further subcategorized into dry-to-dry
and transfer machines. Although two subcategories of
coin-operation dry-to-dry machines (plant and self-service)
were included in the preliminary source category list
published June 21, 1991 (56 FR 28548), these two
subcategories were deleted from the final source category
list published July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). These two
subcategories are exempt from this final NESHAP.
There were no differences in the types of control
technologies identified for the subcategories of industrial
and commercial dry cleaners; however, differences in control
technologies were identified between major and area sources,
and dry-to-dry and transfer machines. These differences
were used in determining the requirements of the NESHAP.
The rule requires new and existing dry-to-dry machines,
and transfer machine dryers, that are controlled with
refrigerated condensers to be closed-loop--in other words,
the gas-vapor mixture within the machine cannot be vented to
the atmosphere while the dry cleaning machine drum is
rotating. Although the refrigerated condenser can be
external or internal, the gas-vapor stream must be routed
back to (or contained within) the machine in a closed-loop
configuration, without venting to the atmosphere. This
ensures that the gas-vapor stream passes multiple times
through the refrigerated condenser and that high control
efficiency can be achieved. The EPA wishes to emphasize
that the rule does not prohibit fan-and-vent systems which
operate when the machine door is open to reduce worker
exposure to PCE vapors left inside the drum at the end of
the drying cycle.
The selection of the standards for this NESHAP based
upon the subcategorization of the dry cleaning industry
discussed above is summarized as follows.
1. Major Sources. Section 112 of the Act defines a
major source as any stationary source that emits 9.1 Mg/yr
(10 tpy) or more of any one HAP or 22.7 Mg/yr (25 tpy) or
more of total HAP's. The Act states that new major sources
must achieve the MACT, which is the level of emission
control already achieved in practice by the best controlled
similar source. The Act further states that emission
standards promulgated for existing major sources may be less
stringent than standards for new sources; however, standards
for existing major sources must not be less stringent than
the average level of emission reduction achieved by the
average of the best performing 12 percent of the existing
major sources.
For new major dry cleaning facilities, the only
significant factor for determining similarity in sources is
the type of machine used. Two basic types of machines are
used in the dry cleaning industry: dry-to-dry machines and
transfer machines. For dry-to-dry machines, it has been
demonstrated that the maximum degree of PCE emission
reduction from machine vents and exhausts can be achieved by
installing a refrigerated condenser.
At proposal, the EPA believed the performance of carbon
adsorbers to be equal to that of refrigerated condensers
when used to control emissions from dry-to-dry machines, and
proposed to allow major source dry-to-dry machines to
install either control device. Following proposal, however,
new information was provided to the EPA from a survey of dry
cleaners in California, which disputes these conclusions.
A more detailed discussion of this finding is presented in
section V.B.
The use of a refrigerated condenser and small carbon
adsorber together is considered MACT for new source
dry-to-dry machines. At present, both of these control
devices are used widely in the dry cleaning industry. They
are readily available and economically feasible as methods
of control.
The emissions remaining in a conventional dry-to-dry
machine, controlled with a refrigerated condenser, at the
end of the dry cleaning cycle can be further controlled by
drawing the air remaining in the machine through a small
carbon adsorber either before the door to the machine is
opened or venting the air through a carbon adsorber to the
atmosphere as the door is opened. Information was made
available to the EPA after proposal indicating that several
conventional vented dry-to-dry machines equipped with
refrigerated condensers currently operate in this manner
(i.e., the air remaining in the machine at the end of the
dry cleaning cycle is vented to a carbon adsorber as the
door to the machine is opened).
Use of a carbon adsorber for process vent control
represents the MACT floor for existing dry-to-dry machines
because this is the average level of emission reduction
achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing major
sources. In considering whether to require controls above
this floor, EPA distinguished between classes of machines.
As noted earlier, the maximum achievable control technology
for existing uncontrolled dry-to-dry machines is
refrigerated condensers. However, MACT for existing dry-to-
dry machines equipped prior to promulgation with carbon
adsorbers is either a refrigerated condenser or a carbon
adsorber. The final rule does not require the replacement
of these carbon adsorbers with refrigerated condensers. The
Administrator could not conclude, based on currently
available information, that requiring replacement of a well-
operated carbon adsorber with a refrigerated condenser was
justified.
For transfer machine systems located at a major source,
the NESHAP must be based on MACT. The Act states that MACT
for new sources must be no less stringent than the best
controlled similar source. The MACT may be more stringent,
however, if the Administrator believes the balance between
the additional economic, energy, and environmental impacts
of a more stringent requirement is reasonable. A transfer
machine system with a refrigerated condenser and a room
enclosure represents the best controlled similar source.
The only option more stringent than a transfer machine
system with a room enclosure is a new dry-to-dry machine.
Dry-to-dry machines provide complete control of
clothing transfer emissions (i.e., emissions released by
transfer of clothing from the washer to the dryer of a
transfer machine system). Dry-to-dry machines eliminate
these emissions by eliminating the need to transfer clothing
from a washer to a dryer (achieving 100 percent reduction of
clothing transfer emissions).
The MACT for new transfer machine systems located at a
major source is based upon the use of dry-to-dry machines,
thereby requiring new major source transfer machine systems
to eliminate all emissions from clothing transfer between
the washer and the dryer. Such a requirement effectively
bans or prohibits new transfer machine systems because no
technology has been identified to date (including the use of
hamper enclosures or room enclosures) that could be added to
a new transfer machine system to totally eliminate all PCE
emissions from clothing transfer. A more detailed
discussion of this finding is presented in section V.B.
For existing major source transfer machine systems, it
has been demonstrated that the maximum degree of PCE
emission reduction from machine vents and exhausts can be
achieved by installing a refrigerated condenser. At
proposal, the EPA believed carbon adsorbers outperformed
refrigerated condensers on transfer machine systems and
proposed to require carbon adsorbers on uncontrolled
transfer machine systems. Following proposal, however, new
information was provided to the EPA from a survey of dry
cleaners in California, which disputes these conclusions. A
more detailed discussion of this finding is presented in
section V.B.
Use of a carbon adsorber for process vent control
represents the MACT floor for existing transfer machines
because this is the average level of emission reduction
achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing major
sources. In considering whether to require controls above
this floor, the EPA distinguished between classes of
machines. As noted earlier, the maximum achievable control
technology for existing uncontrolled transfer machines is
refrigerated condensers. However, MACT for existing
transfer machines equipped prior to promulgation with carbon
adsorbers is either a refrigerated condenser or a carbon
adsorber. The final rule does not require the replacement
of these carbon adsorbers with refrigerated condensers. The
Administrator could not conclude, based on currently
available information, that requiring replacement of a well-
operated carbon adsorber with a refrigerated condenser was
justified. Room enclosures capture and vent the fugitive
PCE emissions from clothing transfer between the washer and
the dryer at transfer machine systems to a carbon adsorber.
Since 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. Section V provides a more detailed
discussion of these control devices.
Based on the results of further analysis, it was
considered reasonable to go beyond the floor to require room
enclosures for fugitive emission control in addition to
refrigerated condensers for process vent control for
transfer machine systems located at a major source.
2. Area Sources. Section 112 of the Act defines an
area source as any stationary source of HAP's that is not a
major source. Based on this definition, a dry cleaning
facility that emits less than 9.1 Mg/yr (10 tpy) of any one
HAP would be considered an area source. In
Section 112(d)(5), the Act further states that the
Administrator may elect to promulgate a standard based on
GACT or management practices to control HAP emissions from
area sources instead of applying the MACT.
Section 112(c)(3) requires a "finding" of a threat of
adverse effects to human health or the environment (by such
sources individually or in the aggregate warranting
regulation) in order to regulate area sources under NESHAP.
The large number of area source dry cleaning facilities
nationwide emit, in aggregate, a significant amount of PCE
emissions and, therefore, have the potential to have an
adverse effect on health and the environment.
Unlike MACT, no stringency "floor" is required for
GACT; and costs, economic impacts, and the technical
capabilities of dry cleaning facility owners and operators
to operate emission control equipment may be considered in
determining GACT. For the most part, the technology used to
achieve the level of emission control determined to achieve
MACT is also used widely by area source dry cleaning
facilities and could be considered GACT.
The GACT approach can be less stringent than MACT and
can consider costs and economic impacts. At proposal, GACT
for all area sources, except for existing refrigerated
condenser controlled transfer machines was determined to be
the use of either a refrigerated condenser or a carbon
adsorber. Subsequent to proposal, the EPA learned that
carbon adsorbers may not be operated as well as refrigerated
condensers. Based on this finding, all new and existing
uncontrolled area sources are required to install
refrigerated condensers for process vent control. However,
the Administrator determined that, based on existing
information, a requirement to replace existing carbon
adsorbers with refrigerated condensers is not justified at
this time. No new transfer machines are allowed. These
requirements were determined to be reasonable for area
sources and are identical to MACT requirements. The EPA
determined that the economic impacts of requiring the owner
or operator of a new area source dry-to-dry machine to
install a supplemental carbon adsorber to control PCE
emissions in the dry cleaning machine drum is not
reasonable. Further, the Administrator determined that the
economic impacts of requiring the owner or operator of an
existing area source transfer machine system to install a
room enclosure to capture transfer emissions are
unreasonable. Additional discussion of these findings is
presented in section V.
Therefore, GACT for area sources would be identical to
MACT for major sources except that the owner or operator of
a new dry-to dry machine would not be required to install a
supplemental carbon adsorber and the owner or operator of an
existing transfer machine system would not be required to
install a room enclosure.
C. Selection of Format for the Final Rule.
1. Equipment Exhausts and Vents. Emission standards
for controlling PCE allow for some flexibility in complying
with the standards because any control technique may be used
if it achieves the level of emission reduction represented
by the standards. An emission limitation format could be a
concentration limit, a percent reduction level, or a mass
emission rate limit.
Both the concentration limit and the percent reduction
level would require periodic performance testing by the
owner or operator to demonstrate that the dry cleaning
facility is achieving compliance. Because the cost of
requiring an owner to conduct even a single periodic
performance test is expensive ($3,000 to $5,000) compared to
the cost of control equipment ($6,000 to $8,000), it would
be economically unreasonable to require either of these two
emission limit formats for these standards.
A mass emission limit format would place a limit on the
total consumption of HAP per unit of articles cleaned, also
known as "solvent mileage." Some members of the dry
cleaning industry use the "solvent mileage," method to
compute the pounds of articles that can be cleaned per drum
of solvent. To determine "solvent mileage," a record of
gallons of solvent bought and amount of clothes cleaned
would have to be kept. However, the amount of recordkeeping
necessary to compute solvent mileage to comply with this
type of format (such as weighing each load of clothes prior
to cleaning and tracking the amount of solvent consumed)
would be burdensome for a small facility owner or operator.
In addition to being impractical and an economic burden
on dry cleaner owners or operators to measure emissions or
to compute solvent mileage for these sources, it would be
difficult to enforce emission standards at several thousand
dry cleaning facilities across the country, ensuring that
each dry cleaner is achieving the emission standards. For
these reasons, as authorized under section 112(h), an
equipment standard requiring the use of a refrigerated
condenser, or an equivalent control device was selected to
limit emissions from these sources.
2. Equipment Leaks. Based on dry cleaning machine
test data, as much as 25 percent of the PCE emissions from
an uncontrolled dry cleaning facility can be attributed to
leaks from the dry cleaning equipment. Two possible formats
for a standard to control these leaks are an emission limit
standard or a work practice standard under section 112(h).
To require an emission limit for a leak standard, the
leak sources would need to be enclosed so that the actual
emission rate could be measured. Because this procedure
would be impractical on the many potential leak sources on
dry cleaning equipment, an emission limit format is not the
preferred format for leaks.
Because control of fugitive equipment leaks requires
maintenance of the dry cleaning equipment, the EPA is
proposing a work practice with a program to detect and
repair leaks as the logical format. The work practice would
specify the inspection time intervals and an inspection
method to locate the leaks, and would limit the time period
allowed to perform the required maintenance and repairs.
The proposed inspection method requires only a quantitative
determination of the presence of a leak (i.e., visual or use
of a portable halogenated-hydrocarbon detector). Although
the effectiveness of this work practice cannot be quantified
precisely, the EPA believes it would result in a substantial
reduction of fugitive emissions. The work practice format
has been selected for the proposed equipment leak standard
because less time is required for demonstrating compliance,
and the recordkeeping and economic impacts associated with
this format are not burdensome.
D. Summary of Changes Since Proposal. Since proposal,
several 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 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 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 levels of PCE consumption distinguishing major from
area sources have been lowered from the proposed levels and
now apply to the total PCE consumption of all machines at
the facility rather than on a per machine basis. The levels
of PCE consumption distinguishing a major source from an
area source are 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. To track
PCE consumption, the owner or operator of any dry cleaning
facility subject to this rule is required on the first day
of each month to compute an annual PCE consumption by
summing PCE purchases over the previous 12 months.
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 refrigerated condenser
must be measured and recorded once per week. 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 detector tube must be
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.
The proposed rule would have required compliance within
18 months of publication of the final rule for existing dry
cleaning machines with a design capacity larger than
22.7 kilograms (50 lbs). The compliance deadline for
smaller machines would have been 36 months from
promulgation. The final rule requires each existing dry
cleaning system to be in compliance within 36 months of
publication of the final rule, except that compliance with
pollution prevention requirements and recordkeeping and
reporting requirements is required starting 90 days after
the rule's publication.
Section 112(i) of the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to
set compliance dates for existing sources that provide for
compliance as expeditiously as practicable, and no later
than 3 years after promulgation of the final rule (with
certain exceptions). As explained in the background
information document cited at the beginning of this notice,
the EPA is allowing 36 months for control technology to be
installed on all dry cleaning machines because of questions
about the market availability of an adequate supply of
refrigerated condensers. On the other hand, the EPA has
concluded that the pollution prevention requirements of the
rule do not require significant capital expenditures and are
feasible for dry cleaners to implement within 90 days.
These requirements consist of "good housekeeping" practices
such as inspecting for leaks and keeping the machine door
closed during operation. The earlier compliance date in the
final rule will result in earlier emissions reductions.
The 90-day applicability date for recordkeeping and
reporting requirements will enhance the enforceability and
effectiveness of the rule. One reason is that the
applicability of control technology requirements in the rule
depends on a facility's solvent consumption over a 12-month
period. If documentation of a facility's solvent
consumption was not required until 3 years after
promulgation, it would be impossible to determine reliably
which control technology requirements apply to a dry
cleaning facility. Second, requiring an initial report from
existing sources within 90 days will encourage these sources
to begin planning for compliance with the rule's control
technology requirements at an early date. This requirement
also will provide regulatory agencies with information about
regulated facilities in time to promote and monitor
compliance effectively.
VI. Potential to Emit. The annual major-source
consumption levels [8,000 liters (2,100 gallons) per year
for dry-to-dry machines and 6,800 liters (1,800 gallons) per
year for transfer machine systems] represent the EPA's
determination of the volumes of PCE that are used and
consumed by the two different types of machine in order to
emit 10 tons of PCE per year. Because it is not
economically and technically feasible to precisely monitor
and measure yearly PCE emissions at each of the dry cleaning
facilities affected by this rule, PCE consumption is an
appropriate surrogate measure. The EPA has found that PCE
emissions to ambient air are closely and predictably related
to the volume of PCE used and consumed in the dry cleaning
process. Accordingly, this rule does not require each dry
cleaning facility to test and calculate the maximum annual
rate of PCE stack and fugitive emissions for each particular
dry cleaning machine regulated under this rule. Instead,
the consumption level assigned to each type of dry cleaning
machine determines whether a facility is a major source
(that is, whether it emits or has the potential to emit
10 tons or more of PCE).
The consumption levels differ between dry-to-dry
(8,000 liters) and transfer machine systems (6,800 liters)
because the use of a dry-to-dry machine results in lower
fugitive emissions than the use of a transfer machine
system. Stated another way, a dry-to-dry machine is more
efficient in its use of PCE from an air emission
perspective. This higher efficiency means that for each
liter of PCE used for dry cleaning, a dry-to-dry machine
emits less PCE to the ambient air than a transfer machine
system. Accordingly, a dry-to-dry machine can use or
consume a greater volume of PCE than a transfer machine
system before emitting 10 tons or more of PCE to the ambient
air. Amounts of PCE used and consumed in dry cleaning
processes but not emitted to the ambient air at a dry
cleaning facility include amounts of PCE transferred offsite
as solid waste in used filters and spent carbon, amounts
transferred to wastewater streams, and amounts that remain
in cleaned clothing at the time of customer pickup.
The major source consumption levels established in the
final rule differ from the major source consumption levels
in the proposed dry cleaning rule of December 9, 1991. The
proposed major source PCE consumption levels were
11,700 liters (3,100 gallons) for dry-to-dry machines, and
7,600 liters (2,000 gallons) for transfer machine systems.
The difference is due to the EPA's determination that the
major source consumption levels for PCE established in the
final rule (8,000 liters or 2,100 gallons for dry-to-dry
machines and 6,800 liters or 1,800 gallons for transfer
machine systems) more accurately reflect the volume of PCE
that each type of machine uses or consumes in emitting
10 tons of PCE.
Under the rule, a dry cleaning facility will be
classified as a major or area source in the following
manner. As previously mentioned, a facility has the
potential to emit more than 10 tons of PCE only if its
solvent consumption exceeds the rule's solvent use cut-off
levels that divide major sources from area sources. The
owner or operator must certify to the regulating agency
whether or not the facility's solvent consumption will
exceed the cut-off level. If solvent consumption is greater
than or equal to this cut-off level, the facility is to be
considered a major source and must comply with all major
sources requirements. If solvent consumption is less than
the cut-off level, the facility is considered an area
source.
If a facility is found to be an area source, the next
determination is whether or not the facility must install
area-source technology controls. To be exempt from
technology controls, the facility's certification must
guarantee that solvent use is less than the low-solvent-use
exemption level. Otherwise, area-source control technology
requirements apply to the facility.
The rule's requirements are intended to ensure that all
dry cleaning facilities that have the potential to emit
10 tons of PCE considering controls are regulated as major
sources. If regulated as an area source, a facility will be
required to observe the limit on solvent consumption to
which it certified, as well as meet other requirements for
area sources. These are Federally enforceable requirements
that will prevent area sources from emitting more than
10 tons of PCE in a year. After its compliance date, if an
area source wishes to increase operations or add a dry
cleaning machine, and the result would be to increase
solvent consumption above the major-source cutoff level, the
facility must first comply with the rule's requirements for
major sources. Failure to do so would result in a violation
of the rule.
In this rule, the EPA is not establishing any
precedents or policies concerning the determination of a
facility's "potential to emit" or its classification as a
major or area source under section 112. The EPA believes it
would be unwise and inappropriate to resolve these complex
issues solely in the context of the PCE dry cleaning NESHAP
because the result could create numerous unforeseen problems
and inequities in regulation of other categories of sources.
The EPA is considering these issues in a comprehensive
fashion in light of the broad range of sources for which
NESHAP will be developed. The EPA is presently continuing
to consider these issues and will take whatever appropriate
actions that are necessary to resolve them.
III. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic
Impacts.
A. Affected Facilities. The number of new and
existing machines in 1996 (5 years from the date of
proposal) were projected in order to calculate the 5-year
impacts of the standards. Industry estimates indicate a
zero growth rate for commercial dry cleaning facilities.
For this reason, the only new facilities projected to be
constructed during the 5 years following the date of
proposal (between 1991 and 1996) are an estimated 7,700 new
commercial facilities which replace those that retire.
Industrial dry cleaning facilities are declining because
many of these facilities are switching from the use of PCE
to the use of water to wash linens and uniforms. For this
reason, no new industrial facilities are projected between
1991 and 1996. Approximately 28 industrial facilities would
retire during this period.
In 1996, based on the estimates of machine retirement,
approximately 17,400 existing commercial and industrial
facilities will be subject to the standards. Taking into
account the low solvent consumption exemption levels for
existing area sources, approximately 9,700 of these existing
facilities would be required to install process vent control
devices. Of these facilities, however, approximately 6,500
are expected to decide to install process vent control
devices to comply with State or local regulations. Thus, in
1996 approximately 3,200 existing facilities are estimated
to have to install process vent control devices solely to
comply with the standards promulgated today.
As mentioned above, between 1991 and 1996, 7,700 new
facilities are projected. All of these facilities are
required to install process vent controls. Of these new
facilities, approximately 7,300 are expected to decide to
install process vent control devices to comply with State or
local regulations. Thus, in 1996 approximately 400 new
facilities are estimated to install process vent control
devices solely to comply with the standards promulgated
today.
The following discussion presents the projected
environmental, energy, and economic impacts for 1996 based
on the estimated 3,200 existing and 400 new facilities that
would be required to install process vent control devices
solely to comply with the standards promulgated today.
B. Air Impacts. In 1996, the standards are expected
to reduce nationwide emissions of PCE from existing dry
cleaning facilities by a maximum of some 5,500 Mg
(6,000 tons) from process vent control and some 18,000 Mg
(19,800 tons) from leak detection and repair. This emission
reduction is based on projected nationwide PCE emissions
from existing facilities in 1996 of 42,000 Mg (46,500 tons)
in the absence of the standards. This emission reduction
corresponds to approximately 44 percent of the total PCE
emissions from all existing dry cleaning facilities. This
reduction is in addition to reductions achieved by controls
already in place in many of these facilities, and reductions
anticipated in the absence of the NESHAP.
In 1996, the standards are expected to reduce
nationwide emissions from new dry cleaning facilities by a
maximum of some 1,100 Mg (1,200 tons) from process vent
control and some 7,800 Mg (8,600 tons) from leak detection
and repair. This emission reduction is based on projected
nationwide PCE emissions in 1996 of 15,800 Mg (17,400 tons)
from new dry cleaning facilities in the absence of the
standards. This emission reduction corresponds to about
43 percent of the total PCE emissions from all new dry
cleaning facilities.
In 1996, annual emissions of PCE from a typical new or
existing dry cleaning facility located at an area source
with annual receipts of $200,000 operating a typical size
dry-to-dry machine with capacity of 15.9 kilograms (kg)
[35 pounds (lb)] controlled with a refrigerated condenser
are projected to be 0.77 Mg (0.85 tons) from process vent
control and 0.8 Mg (0.88 tons) from leak detection and
repair. This represents greater than 50-percent reduction
in emissions from an uncontrolled dry-to-dry machine of this
same size and receipt level.
C. Water, Solid Waste, Noise, and Radiation Impacts.
The requirement for use of refrigerated condensers minimizes
the impact on water quality resulting from the standards.
The projected impact on water quality results from the PCE
contained in aqueous wastes generated by the control
devices. When using a refrigerated condenser, a small
amount of PCE is generated and collected in the separator
water. A typical refrigerated condenser controlled
dry-to-dry machine is estimated to generate about 0.03 kg
(0.07 lb) of PCE in wastewater per year. Owners or
operators of all new dry cleaning machines and those
existing uncontrolled dry cleaning machines that are above
the low solvent consumption exemption levels would be
required to install refrigerated condensers.
When using a carbon adsorber, PCE is collected in the
steam condensate generated during desorption of the carbon.
A typical existing dry-to-dry machine with an existing
carbon adsorber is estimated to generate 0.85 kg (1.9 lb) of
PCE in wastewater per year. However, only owners or
operators of existing dry cleaning machines with existing
carbon adsorbers installed prior to the date of promulgation
would be allowed to continue to use a carbon adsorber as
primary process vent control.
In addition to process vent control, owners or
operators of existing transfer machine systems located at
major sources would be required to install a room enclosure
with a carbon adsorber. A carbon adsorber on the room
enclosure is estimated to be approximately one-third the
size of a typical carbon adsorber used to control process
vent emissions. A typical transfer machine system located
at a major source with a carbon adsorber on the room
enclosure is estimated to generate 0.28 kg (0.60 lb) of PCE
in wastewater per year. This amount is in addition to the
0.85 kg (1.9 lb) of PCE in wastewater generated if the
transfer machine system has a carbon adsorber controlled
process vent.
Owners or operators of new dry-to-dry machines at major
sources would be required to install a carbon adsorber to
control the PCE remaining in the dry cleaning machine drum
at the end of the dry cleaning cycle. This carbon adsorber
is also estimated to be approximately one-third the size of
a typical carbon adsorber used to control process vent
emissions. A typical dry-to-dry machine with a refrigerated
condenser controlled process vent and a carbon adsorber to
control the PCE emissions remaining in the machine drum is
expected to generate about 0.31 kg (0.68 lb) of PCE in
wastewater per year.
It is projected that the total amount of PCE in
wastewater generated on a national basis by dry cleaning
facilities in the absence of the standards in 1996 would be
5.9 Mg (6.5 tons). With the standards, the amount of PCE in
wastewater generated on a national basis by dry cleaning
facilities is projected to be about 6.1 Mg (6.7 tons) in
1996, an increase of about 0.2 Mg (0.2 ton) per year
(corresponding to an increase of about 3 percent).
The solid waste impact of the standards is considered
minimal. The main types of solid waste generated from
controlled dry cleaning machines are spent carbon from
carbon adsorbers, spent carbon from cartridge filters,
solvent sludge (muck), and still bottoms. Neither a carbon
adsorber nor a refrigerated condenser would affect muck,
still bottom, or cartridge filter carbon generation, so no
impact due to the control alternatives was calculated for
these waste types.
Periodic replacement of the carbon bed associated with
a carbon adsorber is necessary to maintain the performance
of a carbon adsorber in controlling PCE emissions.
According to carbon vendors, the carbon is likely to need
replacement approximately every 5 years.
For a typical 15.9 kg (35 lb) existing area source
dry-to-dry machine controlled with an existing carbon
adsorber installed prior to today's date, the amount of
solid waste generated from spent carbon is estimated to be
approximately 25 kg (55 lb) per year. For a typical 113 kg
(250 lb) existing major source dry-to-dry machine controlled
with an existing carbon adsorber, the amount is estimated to
be approximately 90 kg (198 lb) per year. These are the
same amounts that would be generated in the absence of the
standards.
New major source dry-to-dry machines with refrigerated
condenser and carbon adsorber control would also require
periodic replacement of the carbon bed. For a typical major
source dry-to-dry machine with both refrigerated condenser
and carbon adsorber control, the amount of solid waste
generated from spent carbon is estimated to be approximately
8.4 kg (19 lb) per year.
Existing major source transfer machine systems with
carbon adsorbers on their room enclosures would also require
periodic replacement of the carbon bed. For a typical major
source transfer machine system with refrigerated condenser
process vent control and carbon adsorber control on the room
enclosure, the amount of solid waste generated from spent
carbon is estimated to be about 8.4 kg (19 lb) per year.
For a typical major source existing transfer machine system
with carbon adsorber process vent control and carbon
adsorber control on the room enclosure, the amount of solid
waste generated from spent carbon is estimated to be about
98 kg (217 lb) per year.
It is projected that the amount of carbon discarded
every 5 years in the absence of the standards would be
880 Mg (970 tons) or an average of 175 Mg (193 tons) per
year. With the standards, the amount of carbon discarded on
a national basis every 5 years would be 890 Mg (980 tons) or
an average of 177 Mg (195 tons) per year. This corresponds
to an increase in national solid waste impacts from both new
and existing dry cleaning facilities of about 10 Mg
(10 tons) of carbon discarded approximately every 5 years,
or an average of about 2 Mg (2 tons) of carbon every year
(corresponding to an increase of about 1 percent).
There are no noise or radiation impacts associated with
these standards.
D. Energy Impacts. The energy impacts resulting from
the standards on a nationwide basis are considered minimal.
Electricity is required for cooling the coils of the
refrigerated condenser and for operating fans and generating
steam for desorbing existing carbon adsorbers. The total
increase in annual electricity use for existing dry cleaning
facilities in 1996 resulting from the standards would be
about 2,454,500 kilowatt-hours per year (KW-hr/yr)
[390,000 British thermal units per year (Btu/yr)]. The
total increase in annual electricity use for new dry
cleaning facilities in 1996 resulting from the standards
would be about 276,600 KW-hr/yr (44,000 Btu/yr). The total
increase in annual electricity use for all facilities
nationwide would be about 2,731,100 KW-hr/yr
(430,000 Btu/yr).
This increase in electricity requirement is equivalent
to about 700,000 liters [3,400 barrels (bbl)] of fuel oil
per year for electricity generation for existing facilities
and about 79,000 liters (380 bbl) of fuel oil per year for
new facilities. The total increase for all facilities would
be about 780,000 liters (3,800 bbl) of fuel oil per year,
corresponding to an increase of 0.7 percent.
By installing a refrigerated condenser as required by
the standards, the electricity requirement for a typical
uncontrolled dry cleaning facility with one 15.9 kg (35 lb)
dry-to-dry machine is expected to increase by about
600 KW-hr/yr (95 Btu/yr) in 1996.
E. Cost Impacts. The nationwide cumulative 5-year
capital costs in 1996 of complying with the standards would
be about $35 million. The cumulative 5-year capital costs
for existing facilities would be about $32 million and about
$3 million for new facilities.
The total nationwide annualized costs in 1996 of
complying with the standards for process vents would be
about $9 million. This estimate does not include credit for
solvent savings. If a credit for solvent savings is
included, the total nationwide annualized cost is about
$4 million. The annualized costs in 1996 including a credit
for solvent savings for existing facilities complying with
the standards would be about $3.4 million, and about
$0.5 million for new facilities.
The total nationwide annualized costs in 1996 for both
new and existing facilities complying with the standards for
pollution prevention, leak detection and repair, monitoring,
reporting and recordkeeping would be about $10 million.
This estimate does not include credit for solvent savings.
If a credit for solvent savings is included in this
estimate, these facilities would have a total annual cost
savings of $7.6 million.
For a typical new area source facility with annual
receipts of $200,000 with a 15.9 kg (35 lb) dry-to-dry
machine, the capital cost of a refrigerated condenser is
$6,300, and the resulting annualized cost of this process
vent control is $1,000. The resulting annualized cost for
the above typical new area source to perform pollution
prevention, leak detection and repair, monitoring,
reporting, and recordkeeping is about $460. This estimate
does not reflect credit received from solvent savings. If a
credit for solvent savings is included, this typical
facility would have a total cost of about $350.
F. Economic Impacts. 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 price adjustments are projected to range
between 0.15 and 2.3 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. 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 260.
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
projects between 0 and 830 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 environmental, energy, and economic impacts are
discussed in greater detail in the BID's and the economic
impact analyses for the proposed and promulgated standards:
"Dry Cleaning Facilities--Background Information for
Promulgated Standards," EPA-450/3-91-020b; "Dry Cleaning
Facilities--Background Information for Proposed Standards,"
EPA-450/3-91-020a; "Economic Impact of Regulatory Controls
in the Dry Cleaning Industry," EPA-450/3-91-021; and
"Economic Impact of Regulatory Controls in the Dry Cleaning
Industry," EPA-450/3-91-021b. Additional information on
impacts is found in supporting information for the notice of
availability of new information, "Information Package on
Transfer Enclosures," (Docket No. A-88-11, Item No. IV-M-1).
In addition to the economic impact analysis, the cost
effectiveness of alternative standards was also evaluated to
determine the least costly way to reduce emissions and to
ensure that the controls required by this rule are
reasonable relative to other regulations. In this case, the
promulgated standards would reduce the PCE dry cleaner's
operating costs and produce an average 5-year total cost
effectiveness of $550 per Mg ($500 per ton) of PCE emissions
reduced. Additional details on costs can be found in the
BID's.
IV. Public Participation. Prior to proposal of the
standards, interested parties were advised by public notice
in the Federal Register (56 FR 1186), January 11, 1991, of a
meeting of the National Air Pollution Control Techniques
Advisory Committee to discuss the NESHAP being developed for
the PCE dry cleaning industry. This meeting was held on
January 30, 1991. The meeting was open to the public and
each attendee was given an opportunity to comment on the
NESHAP recommended for proposal.
The standards were proposed and published in the
Federal Register on December 9, 1991 (56 FR 64382). The
preamble to the proposed standards discussed the
availability of the BID and the economic impact analysis:
"Dry Cleaning Facilities Background Information for Proposed
Standards," EPA-450/3-91-020a and "Economic Impact of
Regulatory Controls in the Dry Cleaning Industry
EPA-450/3-91-021," which described in detail the regulatory
alternatives considered and the impacts of those
alternatives. Public comments were solicited at the time of
proposal, and copies of the BID were distributed to
interested parties.
As a result of public comments received on the proposed
standards, additional information became available about
transfer enclosures used to control PCE emissions during the
transfer step for transfer machine systems. A notice of
availability of new information was published in the Federal
Register on October 1, 1992, describing this information and
requesting public comments.
Because no persons requested the opportunity for oral
presentation of data, views, or arguments concerning either
the proposed NESHAP or the notice of availability of new
information, a public hearing was not held.
The public comment period for the proposal NESHAP was
from December 9, 1991, to February 9, 1992. A total of
32 comment letters were received in response to the proposed
NESHAP. The public comment period was reopened for the
notice of availability of new information from October 1,
1992, to November 2, 1992. A total of seven comment letters
were received in response to the notice. All comments have
been carefully considered and, where determined to be
appropriate by the Administrator, changes have been made in
the proposed standards.
V. Significant Comments and Changes to the Proposed
Standards. Comments on the proposed NESHAP and the notice
of availability of new information were received mainly from
industry; State and local air pollution control agencies;
trade associations; and environmental groups. A detailed
discussion of these comments and responses can be found in
the promulgation BID, which is referred to in the ADDRESSES
section of this preamble. The summary of comments and
responses in the BID serves as the basis for the revisions
that have been made to the standards between proposal and
promulgation. The major comments and responses are
summarized in this preamble and, for ease of discussion,
have been divided into the following areas:
A. Regulatory Approach
1. MACT vs. GACT
2. Collocation
B. Emission Control
1. Performance of Refrigerated Condensers and Carbon
Adsorbers
2. Low Solvent Consumption Exemption Levels
3. MACT for New Dry-to-Dry Machines at Major Sources
4. Banning Transfer Machine Systems and Reclaimers
5. Room Enclosures on Transfer Machine Systems
6. Vapor Barriers
7. Dry Cleaning Ventilation Requirements
C. Monitoring and Equivalency
1. Monitoring Control Devices
2. Determining Equivalency
3. Delegation of Authority to Determine Equivalency
D. Other Issues and Follow-up to Today's Action
1. New York Study
2. California Well Investigation Program
3. Follow-up to Today's Action
A. Regulatory Approach.
1. MACT vs. GACT. Several commenters remarked on the
use of maximum achievable control technology (MACT) versus
generally available control technology (GACT) for regulating
dry cleaners. Most of these commenters believed that MACT
should be used to regulate all dry cleaners. One commenter,
however, believed that GACT was the appropriate basis of
regulation.
The commenters who felt MACT should be applied to all
dry cleaners argued 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, and 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.
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(c)(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 that the health effects
information regarding PCE is so compelling that it warrants
application of MACT to all small area source dry cleaners.
There are a range of opinions in the scientific community as
to the potential for PCE to cause cancer in humans.
Further, to the extent that PCE may be a human carcinogen,
existing evidence indicates that its potency is relatively
low.
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.
In commenting on the choice of GACT to regulate area
source dry cleaners, several commenters acknowledged that
section 112(k) of the Act outlines a comprehensive strategy
to reduce HAP's from area sources. These commenters did
not, however, believe that such a strategy would reduce PCE
emissions sufficiently from area source dry cleaning
facilities. Consequently, these commenters asserted that
residual risk review should be required for all dry cleaners
to ensure that public health is adequately protected. They
argued that it is bad public policy to apply GACT to the
vast majority of dry cleaning facilities, thus precluding a
residual risk assessment at a later date. Based on
knowledge gained on public exposure to PCE from dry cleaning
facilities, they maintained that it is absolutely necessary
that such a risk assessment be conducted for this source
category.
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 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.
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 states that residual risk
analysis is not required for area sources regulated under
GACT. This section, however, does not preclude area sources
from a residual risk analysis and, if warranted, the EPA
will undertake a residual risk analysis for the area source
dry cleaning source category.
The one commenter who agreed with the EPA's decision to
use GACT to regulate small area source dry cleaners stated
that much evidence exists in the Senate Committee report and
the legislative history of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments
to indicate that dry cleaning was considered an example of
an area source category for which regulations based on GACT
were appropriate.
2. Collocation. Commenters recommended that the
criteria for determining a major source be based on the PCE
solvent consumption of the entire dry cleaning facility
instead of each dry cleaning machine. They mentioned that
the definition of source used in the proposed NESHAP
referred only to the consumption of PCE for an individual
dry cleaning machine and that under this proposed definition
only certain machines would be considered major sources.
The commenters believe that the EPA should consider the
total consumption of PCE from all machines located within a
contiguous area under common control.
The final rule has been revised to base the
applicability of the NESHAP on the total annual PCE
consumption of all machines located at a dry cleaning
facility. For the purpose of these standards, PCE
consumption during any period is defined as the PCE
purchased during that period. 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.
B. Emission Control.
1. Performance of Refrigerated Condensers and Carbon
Adsorbers. At proposal, the EPA believed the performance of
carbon adsorbers to be equal to that of refrigerated
condensers when used to control emissions from dry-to-dry
machines, and proposed to allow dry-to-dry machines to
install either control device. In addition, the EPA
believed carbon adsorbers outperformed refrigerated
condensers on transfer machine systems and proposed to
require carbon adsorbers on uncontrolled transfer machine
systems. Following proposal, however, new information was
provided to the EPA from a survey of dry cleaners in
California, which disputes these conclusions.
In 1989, the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
conducted a voluntary survey of all dry cleaners in
California. The results of this survey indicate that dry
cleaning machines controlled by refrigerated condensers
achieve solvent mileages approximately twice as high as
machines controlled by carbon adsorbers.
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 likely to be
indicative of lower air emissions. Although the data do not
provide detailed information on how well the carbon
adsorbers were operated and maintained (for example,
frequency of desorbing the carbon bed), the EPA believes
this information indicates that refrigerated condensers will
achieve lower air emissions in actual practice than carbon
adsorbers.
Therefore, the final rule requires refrigerated
condensers for new major and area source dry-to-dry
machines. The EPA has also concluded that all existing
uncontrolled dry-to-dry machines and transfer machine
systems must install and operate refrigerated condensers.
The final rule does not require the replacement of
existing carbon adsorbers with refrigerated condensers. The
Administrator concluded, based on currently available
information, that the replacement of well-operated carbon
adsorbers with refrigerated condensers was not justified at
this time.
These sources are largely small businesses and could
face severe financial costs to replace these units. In
addition, the final rule includes additional monitoring to
ensure proper carbon adsorber operation. While replacement
of well-operated carbon adsorbers with refrigerated
condensers provides limited air benefits, EPA has recently
obtained additional information that suggests that there may
be other environmental impacts (for example, potential
groundwater contamination and solid waste generation)
associated with the use of carbon adsorbers over
refrigerated condensers (see section V.D). At this time,
those data are uncertain. EPA believes that these data and
their implications deserve further consideration. A public
meeting has been scheduled to discuss these issues. (See
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this preamble.) If
appropriate, the EPA may revisit the requirements of this
rule in the future.
2. Low Solvent Consumption Exemption Levels. Several
commenters believed that although the economic impact of
regulating small existing area source dry cleaners can be
significant, the proposed low solvent consumption exemption
levels would exempt existing small area source facilities
they believed pose the largest health threat to individuals.
These commenters stated that, as a result 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. Some believed that virtually all small
existing area source dry cleaners contributing to this
problem would be exempted under the proposed NESHAP. They
requested that the EPA reevaluate the low solvent
consumption exemption levels to ensure that a larger number
of small existing area source dry cleaning facilities is
subject to the NESHAP.
Neither the proposed nor the final NESHAP includes low
solvent consumption exemption levels for new area source dry
cleaning facilities. The proposed, as well as the final
NESHAP, however, includes low solvent consumption exemption
levels for existing area sources.
At proposal, the impacts of requiring the use of
refrigerated condensers or carbon adsorbers to control
process vent emissions from dry cleaning machines were
judged to be unreasonable for area sources consuming less
than 760 and 1,000 liters (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 these low
solvent consumption exemption levels. The EPA concluded
that lowering the exemption levels to 530 and 760 liters
(140 and 200 gallons) per year for dry-to-dry and transfer
machines, respectively (corresponding to annual receipts of
$75,000) was warranted and reasonable.
In 1996, this change would require approximately
500 more dry cleaners to install refrigerated condensers to
control process vent emissions from dry cleaning machines
and would reduce PCE emissions by an additional 450 Mg
(500 tons) per year. The cost of controlling those
facilities with annual receipts between $75,000 and $100,000
is $0.9 million. As many as 165 additional financial
failures are estimated to result from lowering the low
solvent consumption exemption levels. Also, there could be
as many as 65 additional business closures. The EPA judged
this change in the requirement to be generally achievable.
The EPA considered it unreasonable, however, to further
lower the low solvent consumption exemption levels due to
the high costs and excessive financial failures and closures
(up to 3,800 financial failures and 1,400 closures) that
would result. The decision to exempt certain low solvent
consumption facilities was based on the evaluation of the
potential economic impact of regulation. Many of the
smaller businesses are individually operated, single family-
owned establishments.
In addition to lowering the low solvent consumption
exemption levels for existing area source dry cleaning
facilities, the EPA reevaluated the impacts of extending
additional pollution prevention practices, such as leak
detection and repair, to all dry cleaning facilities and
concluded that these impacts are reasonable. Thus, in the
final NESHAP, all dry cleaning facilities are required to
implement additional pollution prevention practices, such as
leak detection and repair.
3. MACT for New Dry-to-Dry Machines at Major Sources.
Commenters stated that additional controls should have been
considered as MACT for dry-to-dry machines. A new German
machine, the Permac Consorba�, was mentioned by one
commenter. This machine uses a carbon adsorber in
conjunction with a refrigerated condenser for process vent
control. The commenter indicated that it made sense that a
dual control system would achieve better control than a
machine with one control device.
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 it reduces the PCE
concentration in the air remaining in the machine once the
dry cleaning cycle is complete.
Conventional dry-to-dry machines vent or release the
vapors remaining in the machine at the end of the dry
cleaning cycle. The Permac Consorba� controls these vapors
with a carbon adsorber before the machine door is opened.
The emissions remaining in a conventional machine at
the end of the dry cleaning cycle 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 to the atmosphere as the door is
opened. Indeed, information was made available to the EPA
after proposal indicating that several conventional vented
dry-to-dry machines equipped with refrigerated condensers
currently operate in this manner (i.e., the air remaining in
the machine at the end of the dry cleaning cycle is vented
to a carbon adsorber as the door to the machine is opened).
There is no difference in PCE emissions between a
Permac Consorba� and a conventional 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 is 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 adsorber
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 sources must be no less stringent than the average
emission limitation 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 costs, energy, and environmental impacts of choosing a
more stringent level of control are reasonable.
Assuming a 95-percent emission reduction for a carbon
adsorber, the incremental cost effectiveness of the
additional emission reduction achieved by requiring
conventional dry-to-dry machines with a refrigerated
condenser to also install a carbon adsorber would be in the
range of approximately $7,700 per Mg ($7,000 per ton) of PCE
for a typical existing dry-to-dry machine located at a major
source. If the efficiency of the carbon adsorber is less
than 95 percent (as the California survey data mentioned
earlier suggests), the cost effectiveness would be even
higher. Because this additional cost of control is quite
high for the additional amount of emission reduction
achieved, the EPA does not consider this level of control
reasonable for an existing dry-to-dry machine located at a
major source.
4. Room Enclosures on Transfer Machine Systems.
Commenters suggested that the EPA consider vapor containment
and control systems, commonly referred to as "room
enclosures," as MACT for transfer machine systems.
Room enclosures capture and vent the fugitive PCE
emissions from clothing transfer between the washer and the
dryer at transfer machine systems to a carbon adsorber.
Since 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
(i.e., the California survey) indicates that carbon
adsorbers achieve a lower level of emission reduction in
actual practice within the dry cleaning industry than
originally thought.
Assuming 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 $330 per Mg ($300 per ton) of PCE. In
fact, even if the control efficiency of the carbon adsorber
was as low as 20 percent, the incremental cost effectiveness
of requiring room enclosures on major source transfer
machine systems would be about $1,900 per Mg ($1,700 per
ton) of PCE.
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 additional financial failures or closures.
Initially, due to the limited number of vendors of room
enclosures, the EPA was concerned with the creation of a
market for these devices. With few vendors and a large
demand, the price of room enclosures could rise
significantly. However, if required only for those
few existing major source transfer machine systems, the
demand for room enclosures is not judged sufficient to cause
a significant rise in the price of a room enclosure.
For existing area sources, the impacts of requiring a
room enclosure are considered unreasonable. The incremental
cost effectiveness of requiring a room enclosure for a
typical area source could be as high as $9,800 per Mg
($8,900 per ton) of PCE, even if the carbon adsorber is
achieving a high percent emission reduction efficiency
(e.g., 95 percent). If the carbon adsorber is operating at
a lower control efficiency, the resulting incremental cost
effectiveness would be even higher. The number of
additional financial failures could be as high as 1,100 with
as many as 260 additional closures if room enclosures were
required on all existing area source transfer machine
systems. Up to 500 additional financial failures and as
many as 5 additional closures would result from such a
requirement on only the largest area sources (e.g., those
with annual receipts over $100,000). In addition, with only
a few vendors of room enclosures, the EPA remains concerned
with the impact that extending a requirement for room
enclosures to all existing transfer machine system area
sources would have on the price of room enclosures. For
these reasons, the Administrator considers room enclosures
unreasonable for existing transfer machine system area
sources.
5. Banning Transfer Machine Systems and Reclaimers.
Commenters recommended that the EPA impose a ban on the sale
of new or used transfer machine systems. One commenter
believed that transfer machine systems are still being
offered and sold to dry cleaners, and that only a ban on the
sale of transfer machine systems would prevent dry cleaners
from purchasing these systems.
Prior to proposal, the EPA believed that no new
transfer machine systems were being sold or had been sold in
recent years due primarily to the adoption of the OSHA
permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 25 parts per million
(ppm) (January 19, 1989). The OSHA PEL was intended to
reduce worker exposure to PCE. Based on the level of PCE
emitted during the clothing transfer step at transfer
machine systems, transfer machine systems were viewed as
incapable of meeting the OSHA PEL. Consequently, the EPA
believed it was not necessary to develop regulations that
effectively banned or prohibited the use of new transfer
machine systems.
Following proposal of the NESHAP for dry cleaners,
however, the Eleventh Circuit Appeals Court remanded the PEL
to OSHA. In addition, information provided to the EPA
following proposal indicates that many owners 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 transfer machine
systems, manufactured for use with petroleum solvents could
be used as PCE transfer machine systems.
Finally, information provided to the EPA following
proposal made it clear that, in some cases, reclaimers were
being sold for use with dry-to-dry machines to increase the
clothing throughput of the machines. A reclaimer is
essentially a dryer, and its use with a dry-to-dry machine
effectively converts the dry-to-dry machine to a washer,
thus creating a new transfer machine system.
Consequently, the EPA has reconsidered its position at
proposal, that a ban or prohibition of new transfer machine
systems is unnecessary.
For transfer machine systems located at a major source,
the NESHAP must be based on MACT. The Act states that MACT
for new sources must be no less stringent than the best
controlled similar source. A transfer machine system with a
room enclosure represents the best controlled similar
source. The MACT may be more stringent, however, if the
Administrator believes the balance between the additional
economic, energy, and environmental impacts of a more
stringent requirement is reasonable. The only option more
stringent than a transfer machine system with a room
enclosure is a new dry-to-dry machine.
Dry-to-dry machines provide complete control of
clothing transfer emissions (i.e., emissions released by
transfer of clothing from the washer to the dryer of a
transfer machine system). Dry-to-dry machines eliminate
these emissions by eliminating the need to transfer clothing
from a washer to a dryer (achieving 100 percent reduction of
clothing transfer emissions).
The MACT for new transfer machine systems could be
based on the use of new dry-to-dry machines, thereby
requiring new major source transfer machine systems to
eliminate all emissions from clothing transfer between the
washer and the dryer. Such a requirement would effectively
ban or prohibit new transfer machine systems because no
technology has been identified to date (including the use of
hamper enclosures or room enclosures) that could be added to
a new transfer machine system to totally eliminate all PCE
emissions from clothing transfer. Dry-to-dry machines offer
an effective pollution prevention alternative to transfer
machines. Promoting use of this equipment is consistent
with the Agency's commitment to pollution prevention.
The benefits associated with a requirement based on new
dry-to-dry machines would be 100 percent control of clothing
transfer emissions. Clothing transfer is estimated to
contribute up to as much as 25 percent of the PCE emissions
from an uncontrolled transfer machine system. For a typical
major source, the annualized costs for requiring a
dry-to-dry machine would be a net savings ($300) because
overall PCE consumption is lower with a dry-to-dry machine.
This lower cost is 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 control of clothing transfer emissions as
achieved by new dry-to-dry machines. Thus, the final NESHAP
prohibits any emissions between the washing and drying step
of the dry cleaning cycle for new transfer machine systems
located at major sources. This requirement effectively bans
or prohibits the use of new transfer machine systems 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 of
requiring a new dry-to-dry machine over a new transfer
machine system with a room enclosure at a typical new area
source is approximately $600 per year. The EPA does not
believe that the additional costs of purchasing a new
dry-to-dry machine over purchasing a new transfer machine
system with a room enclosure would deter entry (or
expansion) into the dry cleaning market. If a business
venture is viable and attractive with the purchase of a new
transfer machine system and room enclosure, the EPA believes
that the business venture would also be viable and
attractive with the purchase of a new dry-to-dry machine.
Consequently, requiring new area source transfer machine
systems to eliminate all clothing transfer emissions (i.e.,
purchase a new dry-to-dry machine) is considered generally
achievable. Thus, the final NESHAP also prohibits any
emissions between the washing and drying step of the dry
cleaning cycle for new transfer machine systems located at
area sources. As mentioned above for major sources, this
requirement effectively bans or prohibits the use of new
transfer machine systems at area sources. Thus, all new
transfer machines are effectively banned. Under the rule,
the addition of a reclaimer to an existing dry-to-dry
machine would constitute reconstruction of the dry cleaning
system. As a result, the addition of a reclaimer to a dry-
to-dry machine would be banned effective on today's date.
Reclaimers added to a dry-to-dry machine after December 9,
1991 (the date of the proposed dry cleaning NESHAP) and
prior to today's date are allowed to operate for up to three
years from today's date, if the dry cleaning system complies
in the interim with the proposed rule.
In addition to requiring that all new dry cleaning
machines be dry-to-dry machines, phasing out or replacing
existing transfer machine systems with dry-to-dry machines
was also considered. Commenters questioned why there was no
discussion of immediate or gradual replacement of existing
transfer machine systems in the proposal. They stressed
that the EPA cannot rely upon OSHA rules for a prompt phase
out of transfer machine systems.
There is little difference between the impacts of
immediate replacement of existing transfer machine systems
and replacement within three years, the maximum compliance
period for existing sources under the statute. In both
cases, the capital cost of the transfer machine system is a
"sunk" cost that has been incurred and is not a factor in
the analysis.
This "sunk" cost makes the analysis of replacing
existing transfer machine systems quite different from that
of banning or prohibiting new transfer machine systems. For
existing transfer machines systems, the cost of replacing
the existing system is the full cost of a new dry-to-dry
machine. For a new system, the cost of banning or
prohibiting the system is the difference in cost between a
new transfer machine system and a new dry-to-dry machine.
Consequently, the costs are much higher in the analysis of
replacing existing transfer machine systems than they are in
the analysis of banning or prohibiting new transfer machine
systems. The emission reduction achieved is the same for
either option.
The EPA analyzed the costs of requiring replacement of
existing transfer machine systems with dry-to-dry machines
in comparison with the additional fugitive emissions of PCE
that result from transfer machine systems. The incremental
cost effectiveness for replacing a typical existing major
source transfer machine systems with a dry-to-dry machine is
approximately $12,200 per ton of PCE reduced. For area
sources, the incremental cost effectiveness for replacing
the transfer machine system with a dry-to-dry machine is
approximately $41,000 per ton of PCE reduced. The EPA has
determined that based on this comparison, which relies on
currently available information, requiring replacement of
these transfer machine systems with dry-to-dry machines is
not justified at this time. However, the EPA is aware that
additional environmental impacts may be associated with the
continued use of transfer machine systems in certain
situations. For example, the impact on indoor air quality
may be of concern. At this time, however, the data are
insufficient to determine whether considering these other
impacts it may be appropriate to further limit the use of
transfer machine systems. The EPA will address this issue
further in the public meeting (see ADDRESSES section at the
beginning of this preamble) and will continue to examine
this issue. If appropriate, the EPA may revisit the
determinations made in this rule.
Commenters agreed with the EPA that use of a reclaimer
with a dry-to-dry machine effectively creates a new transfer
machine system. Therefore, they recommended a ban on the
sale of new or used reclaimers.
Accordingly, the NESHAP has been revised to define a
dry-to-dry machine used with a reclaimer as a transfer
machine system. In addition, the NESHAP does not allow
clothing transfer emissions to occur between the washing and
the drying step of the dry cleaning cycle for a new transfer
machine system. 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 an existing dry-to-dry machine creates a new
transfer machine system.
6. Vapor Barriers. In addition to room enclosures,
some commenters requested that vapor barriers be required to
prevent seepage of PCE to adjacent apartments. It was also
suggested that dry cleaning facilities located in close
proximity to residential buildings or food service
establishments be required to have vapor barriers on all
floors, walls, and ceilings to separate the dry cleaning
facility from other areas in the building and to deter
migration of PCE emissions.
Installing vapor barriers to prevent seepage of PCE
emissions into adjacent living or working areas merely
contains the emissions in the dry cleaning facility.
Installing vapor barriers could lead to elevated PCE
concentrations in the work areas and public areas of the dry
cleaning facility, resulting in increased worker and public
exposure at the dry cleaner. Vapor barriers could also be
very expensive for a dry cleaning owner or operator to
install. Estimates indicate that installation of a vapor
barrier in a 30 by 50 by 20 foot dry cleaning facility would
cost approximately $6,500. Based on available information,
vapor barriers are considered unreasonable for a national
standard due to their high cost and their failure to control
or reduce PCE emissions.
The Administrator agrees with the concerns expressed by
many commenters about the potential impact of fugitive
emissions. As mentioned earlier, to address these concerns,
the final NESHAP requires control of fugitive emissions by
leak detection and repair. As a result, the NESHAP will
significantly reduce fugitive PCE emissions from all dry
cleaning facilities.
In a few cases, local agencies may find situations
where they believe the use of vapor barriers may be
warranted, such as the situation of a very large dry
cleaning establishment without adequate ventilation located
in an apartment complex. Cases such as this are best
handled on a site-specific basis at the local level.
7. Dry Cleaning Ventilation Requirements. Commenters
recommended including dry cleaning ventilation requirements
in the final NESHAP. Specific dry cleaner exhaust or
ventilation requirements were recommended, such as adopting
the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 32
for dry cleaning plants (1990 edition). This would require
an air change within the dry cleaning plant every 5 minutes.
In addition, commenters recommended that all dry cleaning
machines install a ventilation system capable of maintaining
a minimum air velocity of 0.6 meters per second (100 feet
per minute) through the loading door of the dry cleaning
machine, whenever the door is open.
Ventilation requirements in and of themselves would not
reduce fugitive emissions. From the perspective of the
NESHAP, the EPA believes it is more appropriate to focus on
the use of equipment or techniques that prevents or controls
emissions rather than to focus on ventilation requirements
that merely divert, rather than reduce, emissions.
If dry cleaning plant ventilation systems were
installed and the resulting exhaust routed through a control
device, such as a carbon adsorber, this would reduce
fugitive emissions; however, it could be prohibitively
expensive. The NESHAP, therefore, does not include dry
cleaning plant ventilation requirements. On the other hand,
the NESHAP does not preclude a dry cleaning plant from
installing ventilation systems. Moreover, where local
authorities consider a ventilation system necessary, the
NESHAP does not prevent or hinder local authorities in any
way from requiring additional measures such as ventilation
systems.
The NESHAP requires the implementation of a leak
detection and repair program, to control fugitive PCE
emissions. These measures will achieve a substantial
reduction in fugitive emissions at dry cleaning facilities.
C. Monitoring and Equivalency.
1. Monitoring Control Devices. Many commenters stated
that the NESHAP should contain some type of emission limit
and performance testing. They asserted that requiring the
dry cleaning owner or operator to install certain equipment
and follow work practices without a performance test will
not necessarily reduce emissions. The commenters felt the
only way to ensure emission reductions was to establish and
enforce an emission limit through performance testing.
As discussed in the proposal preamble, the cost of
requiring an owner or operator to undertake a full-fledged
performance test to demonstrate compliance with emission
limits based on the use of a refrigerated condenser or a
carbon adsorber would be expensive ($3,000 to $5,000),
especially compared to the cost of this emission control
equipment ($6,000 to $8,000). The additional cost of such a
performance test, therefore, would create a significant
impact by almost doubling the cost that the NESHAP would
impose.
The economic analysis conducted prior to proposal
indicated that many operators will likely experience
difficulty in obtaining capital to purchase emission control
equipment. To preclude unreasonable economic impacts, the
NESHAP does not require vent controls on existing sources
with an annual PCE consumption of less than 530 liters
(140 gallons) per year for facilities with dry-to-dry
machines or 760 liters (200 gallons) per year for facilities
with transfer machine systems. Imposing additional costs by
requiring a full-fledged performance test to determine
compliance would add significantly to the economic impact of
the NESHAP and would result in raising the low solvent
consumption exemption levels for existing sources and
decrease the emission reductions achieved by the NESHAP.
Several commenters believed that the NESHAP should
include emission limitations and performance testing for
carbon adsorbers. They believed that an emission limit for
carbon adsorbers is necessary because operating requirements
alone are not enough. Examples were cited of carbon
adsorbers with damaged prefilters or leaking dampers
drastically reducing emission control efficiency.
The concerns of the commenters regarding poor operation
and maintenance of equipment are well founded. There is,
however, incentive for an owner or operator to properly
operate and maintain dry cleaning emission control
equipment. Having invested what for most dry cleaning
facilities will be a substantial sum of money in this
equipment, properly operating and maintaining it will
provide some return in terms of recovered PCE. Proper
operation and maintenance will result in lower PCE
consumption and reduce the dry cleaner's operating costs
attributable to PCE purchases.
Beyond this economic incentive, however, the final
NESHAP requires the owner or operator to follow the
equipment manufacturer's specifications regarding proper
operation and maintenance of equipment. In addition, the
NESHAP requires the owner or operator to maintain a log
containing information on the proper operation and
maintenance of control devices.
To help dry cleaners determine that the control devices
are operating properly, periodic monitoring is also required
in the final NESHAP. If the control device used to achieve
compliance is a refrigerated condenser, the owner or
operator is required to measure the temperature of the vapor
stream passing through the refrigerated condenser. For
refrigerated condensers used with transfer machine system
washers, the temperature on the inlet side and outlet side
of the refrigerated condenser 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 exiting the
refrigerated condenser must be measured. Measurements must
be taken once per week at the end of the cool down cycle
prior to door opening. Records of this temperature
measurement must be kept in a log maintained onsite.
If the control device used to achieve compliance is a
carbon adsorber, the owner or operator is required to
measure the PCE concentration at the exit of the carbon
adsorber. Measurements must be taken once per week during
the last aeration cycle prior to a scheduled desorption
using a colorimetric detector tube. Records must be kept in
a log (maintained on site) of the date and PCE concentration
measured using the colorimetric detector tube.
The NESHAP requires that copies of the equipment
manufacturer's operation and maintenance specifications be
retained onsite. 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.
2. Determining Equivalency. Guidance was requested
regarding what type of information must be included with any
request for a determination of equivalency (i.e., that the
equipment a dry cleaner proposes to use is equivalent to
that required by the NESHAP). Information was requested on
the type and duration of emission data needed and the method
for determining the control efficiency of the particular
technology.
It is difficult to specify what information must be
submitted for a determination of equivalency without knowing
some details of the emission control technology or system
for which the determination is requested. A description of
this type of information must be broad and general in nature
to accommodate all possibilities. It is possible, however,
to be more specific regarding some requirements and the
final NESHAP specifies that the following information must
be submitted:
a. Diagrams, as appropriate, illustrating the emission
control technology or system, its operation and integration
into or function with dry-to-dry machines or transfer
machine systems during each portion of the normal dry
cleaning cycle.
b. Information quantifying vented PCE emissions from
the dry-to-dry machines or transfer machine systems during
each portion of the dry cleaning cycle with and without the
use of the candidate emission control technology or system.
c. 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.
d. Identification of maintenance requirements and
parameters to monitor to ensure proper operation and
maintenance.
e. Explanation of why this submitted 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.
f. Explanation of why this information can be
extrapolated to dry cleaning systems other than the specific
system(s) examined.
g. 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.
3. Delegation of Authority to Determine Equivalency.
Concern was expressed by some commenters that States were
not delegated authority in the proposal to determine
equivalency. Commenters strongly opposed limiting the
authority for approving alternative control equipment and
procedures proposed by individual dry cleaning sources to
the EPA alone. It was believed that the EPA's retention of
this delegation of authority would negatively impact the
operating permit process. The emphasis in comments was that
States must retain the right to take appropriate actions to
implement effective emission control strategies to protect
public health within their jurisdictions.
The EPA agrees 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.
The EPA also agrees 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 are not warranted
because section 112(l) 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 alternative means of emission
limitation under section 112(h)(3), provided that the State
demonstrated that its program would be no less stringent and
that certain conditions were met. Section 112(l) of the Act
authorizes States to submit programs to the Administrator
for approval for implementing and enforcing emission
standards. Section 112(l) 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 Rule," publ