National
Clothesline
In a decision bound to leave industry
groups and environmentalists alike unhappy, the Environment
Protection Agency last month issued updated rules for
drycleaners who use perc.
While acknowledging that “the
potential health effects from most drycleaners across the
country are generally low,” EPA took action to further
reduce perc emissions in most drycleaning plants. For a smaller
number of plants, the agency took more drastic action in the
form of a phase-out of perc in co-residential locations.
 | ||
The new rules also require that new
drycleaning facilities use at least fourth-generation
equipment. The fourth-generation requirement would also apply
to about a dozen very large perc drycleaners who would also be
subject to even more extensive leak detection programs.
The handful of cleaners — EPA
estimates there are 200 — still using transfer machines
will have two years to replace their equipment with new,
closed-loop models.
None of those aspects of the rules
stirred much controversy after EPA initially published its
proposal last December. The issue of greatest contention was
how EPA would address perc cleaners located in the same
buildings as residences — co-residential, in the
regulatory terminology.
Industry groups argued that EPA should
allow these cleaners to continue using perc indefinitely
provided they meet certain equipment requirements and enclose
the machines in vapor barriers to keep perc fumes from
neighboring apartments.
Environmentalists, and in some cases
state-level regulators, urged EPA to ban perc in these
locations and some wanted the agency to go further by
curtailing the use of perc in “co-commercial”
locations.
EPA decided instead to ban new perc
installations in co-residential locations while giving existing
locations until 2020 to convert to a non-perc alternative.
However, EPA refused to go further than
that, saying that “Without valid information that
co-commercial sources pose greater risks than typical area
sources, we are not prepared to determine that the cost of
additional controls for co-commercial sources are
justified.”
Some environmentalists had also urged EPA
to simply ban or phase out the use of perc in drycleaning
entirely, not unlike action taken in May by the California Air
Resources Board to phase out perc in that state by some as yet
undetermined date.
EPA said it is not ready to go that far.
Each of the solvents currently available as alternatives to
perc have trade-offs or limitations, EPA said. These include
cost, cleaning ability, ease of use, applicability to certain
fabrics and safety.
“No single alternative offers all
of the business advantages of perc,” EPA said.
“Given these factors and the current degree of use of
alternative solvents in the industry, we did not consider it
appropriate to mandate the use of alternative
solvents.”
EPA noted that since implementation of
its 1993 air toxics standard drycleaners have reduced perc
emission by about 15,000 tons through replacement of older
machines, use of alternative solvents and state and industry
programs to improve efficiency and reduce perc use. The new
rules will additionally reduce perc emissions by another 400
tons.
The cost to the industry to implement the
new rules for area sources will be $12 million, EPA estimates.
The enhanced leak detection will cost about $5 million, EPA
said, figuring that about 20,000 drycleaning plants will have
to purchase halogenated hydrocarbon detectors at a cost of $250
each. The balance of the $12 million would be borne by cleaners
who have to replace old transfer machines. EPA noted that
existing transfer machines are near the end of the life
expectancy and would have to be replaced soon anyway.
EPA believes there are about 1,300
co-residential cleaners in the country and that the national
capital costs of them would be $63.4 million, based on the
assumption that they would replace their perc machines with
hydrocarbon solvent machines.
In a Fact Sheet accompanying the new
rules, EPA noted that its Science Advisory Board has identified
perc “as a possible to probable human carcinogen.”
“Exposure to perc has been linked
to the development of liver tumors in mice,” EPA said.
“Epidemiological studies have shown mixed results, with
some studies reporting increased incidence of a variety of
tumors and other studies not reporting carcinogenic
effects.”
One such study that was not considered by
EPA as it evaluated the health risks of perc for the new
drycleaning rule was the recently published study sponsored by
the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance and the Danish
Medical Research Council.
That study concluded that the incidence
of several important cancer types among drycleaning workers in
the Nordic countries does not appear to be related to exposure
to perc.
HSIA noted that a reassessment of perc,
which will include the results of the Nordic study, is underway
in the agency.
EPA said that a final determination on
perc is not expected until 2008.
 |