Clean air lawsuit ready to move
Challenges to the Environmental Protection Agency’s amendments to the Clean Air Act rules for perchloroethylene drycleaners are
ready to move ahead more than a year after industry and environmental groups
filed their lawsuits.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia announced a schedule for
the case that calls for initial briefs to be filed by December 19. EPA will
have until March 4, 2008, to respond, then final briefs must be submitted by
April 28.
The Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance (HSIA), one of the industry parties
to the challenge, said a court decision could come sometime later next year.
For the drycleaning industry, the most contentious part of EPA’s new rules calls for phasing out the use of perc in drycleaning plants located
in residential buildings by 2020. No new perc machines of any type would be
allowed in these locations, according to EPA.
Also under the rules, all new drycleaning machines must be at least
fourth-generation and cleaners still using transfer machines are required to
replace them with new equipment. The rules also require all drycleaners who use
perc to conduct enhanced leak detection and repair programs.
HSIA was joined by the National Cleaners Association, the Drycleaning and
Laundry Institute and the Textile Care Allied Trades Association in filing a
lawsuit last year challenging EPA
’s authority to phase out perc in co-residential locations. The trade
associations argue that the Clean Air Act as it was adopted in 1991
specifically prevented EPA from imposing additional regulations on small
businesses such as phasing out perc in co-residential locations.
The industry groups are also arguing that EPA based its decision on a limited
amount of data. In particular, they complained that EPA did not consider a
study published in 2006 that surveyed Nordic drycleaning workers who had
occupational exposures to perc. The study, sponsored by HSIA and the Danish
Medical Research Council, showed that the incidences of several important
cancer types among drycleaning workers in Nordic countries do not appear to be
related to perc.
In a separate legal challenge, The Sierra Club sued EPA arguing that the agency
did not go far enough in establishing new regulations for perc. The Sierra Club
wants EPA to extend its phase-out of perc beyond co-residential locations.
Last November the court consolidated the industry and Sierra Club challenges.
The consolidation provides each party an opportunity to respond to the other
’s written briefs.
One reason the legal challenges have moved slowly is that the Sierra Club also
filed an administrative petition for reconsideration of the rule arguing that
EPA
’s final amendments raised issues that were not addressed in its original
proposal.
EPA rejected that petition last April, clearing the way for the judicial review
to proceed.
Also joining in the legal fray is the New York State Attorney General’s office which has indicated it will file amicus briefs in support of EPA’s new rules. Many of the cleaners who would be affected by the co-residential
are located in New York. EPA estimates that there are about 1,300
co-residential locations nationwide. The state attorney has until March 31 to
file those briefs.
Unless the court rules otherwise, the new Clean Air rules remain in force for
drycleaners. For the vast majority of the nation
’s drycleaners, the main requirement of the new rules is to use halogenated
carbon leak detectors to conduct monthly leak detections along with the already
required weekly inspection for leaks that can be identified without measuring
instruments.
Cleaners should also be aware that the new rules prohibit operation of transfer
equipment and that all new perc drycleaning machines must be closed-loop
equipment with integrated primary and secondary emission controls.
