National Clothesline

Two actions from the Environmental Protection Agency that could effect the future regulation of perchloroethylene are expected soon, according to industry sources.

Industry representatives have been meeting with EPA to discuss possible changes to the national emission standards for perc. Revised rules for perc drycleaning operations have been under attack by both industry and environmental groups almost from the moment EPA released them in 2006.

Industry groups said the rules, which include a phase-out of the use of perc in plants located in buildings that also have residences, were too harsh and overstepped the bounds of the agency’s regulatory authority. Environmental groups said the rules did not go far enough, with some calling for an outright end to the use of perc in drycleaning.

EPA was sued by both sides and in 2009 the agency asked the court to give it further time to review the technical and legal ramifications of the regulation.

After recent meetings with interested parties, EPA said it would announce its decision by the end of 2011. With that deadline past, the agency is now expected to decide by April on further changes to the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for drycleaning, according to the Drycleaning and Laundry Institute.

Industry representatives from DLI, the National Cleaners Association, the Textile Care Allied Trades Association and the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance met with EPA staff to provide updates on current drycleaning solvents, types of equipment and other information about the industry.

Environmental activists continue to pressure EPA to further restrict drycleaning not only in residential co-locations but also for plants co-located with other businesses. Environmentalists also have urged EPA to require replacing drycleaning with wetcleaning.

The industry representatives explained to EPA the limits of wetcleaning and that cleaners are reticent to invest in new equipment given ever-changing regulations, according to the TCATA.

The industry representatives also discussed with EPA the need to modernize regulations governing emissions from petroleum solvent plants and the conflicts created between EPA regulations and building codes. There is no timeline for when those rules might be changed.

Another key ruling from EPA that could have wide ramifications for perc is also overdue. The Integrated Risk Information System assessment had been expected to come out in November, according to HSIA, but its release has been delayed.

DLI said the IRIS report is “due out any time” and that “it will highlight significant concerns with the use of the chemical.”

The publication Inside EPA reported that the Department of Defense raised concerns about the assessment.

Inside EPA said DOD was concerned that EPA used a different method for assessing perc’s risks than it did for a related solvent, trichloroethylene (TCE), even though the agency acknowledges the two compounds are similar.

The inconsistencies in EPA’s approach undermine the department’s confidence in both assessments, according to a DOD spokesperson cited in the article.

The TCE document, released last fall, tagged that chemical as “carcinogenic to humans.”

EPA’s draft of the perc document was released in 2008 and sent for peer review. The peer review panel completed its work two years ago, agreeing with EPA’s classification of perc as a “likely human carcinogen” but questioning some of the methodology used by EPA in determining risks for various types of cancer.

While the IRIS document is not in itself a regulation, it serves as a guide to EPA and other government agencies in deciding how to regulate chemicals. In the case of perc, it could affect site cleanup requirements for soil and groundwater and vapor intrusion as well as air emission regulations.

If EPA tightens its perc risk assessment, anyone emitting, discharging or remediating perc may need to increase controls or remediate to a greater extent.

Should the classification of perc as a “likely human carcinogen” hold in EPA’s final analysis, perc would be in the second highest of five categories under EPA’s cancer assessment guidelines, an elevation of EPA’s official evaluation of perc’s cancer risk. Previously, EPA has considered perc in between a “possible” and “probable” cancer risk.



								National Clothesline


						Future regulation of perc awaits two rulings from EPA



						Two actions from the Environmental Protection Agency that could effect the future regulation of perchloroethylene are expected soon, according to industry sources. Industry representatives have been meeting with EPA to discuss possible changes to the national emission standards for perc. Revised rules for perc drycleaning operations have been under attack by both industry and environmental groups almost from the moment EPA released them in 2006. Industry groups said the rules, which include a phase-out of the use of perc in plants located in buildings that also have residences, were too harsh and overstepped the bounds of the agency’s regulatory authority. Environmental groups said the rules did not go far enough, with some calling for an outright end to the use of perc in drycleaning. EPA was sued by both sides and in 2009 the agency asked the court to give it further time to review the technical and legal ramifications of the regulation. After recent meetings with interested parties, EPA said it would announce its decision by the end of 2011. With that deadline past, the agency is now expected to decide by April on further changes to the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for drycleaning, according to the Drycleaning and Laundry Institute. Industry representatives from DLI, the National Cleaners Association, the Textile Care Allied Trades Association and the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance met with EPA staff to provide updates on current drycleaning solvents, types of equipment and other information about the industry. Environmental activists continue to pressure EPA to further restrict drycleaning not only in residential co-locations but also for plants co-located with other businesses. Environmentalists also have urged EPA to require replacing drycleaning with wetcleaning. The industry representatives explained to EPA the limits of wetcleaning and that cleaners are reticent to invest in new equipment given ever-changing regulations, according to the TCATA. The industry representatives also discussed with EPA the need to modernize regulations governing emissions from petroleum solvent plants and the conflicts created between EPA regulations and building codes. There is no timeline for when those rules might be changed. Another key ruling from EPA that could have wide ramifications for perc is also overdue. The Integrated Risk Information System assessment had been expected to come out in November, according to HSIA, but its release has been delayed. DLI said the IRIS report is “due out any time” and that “it will highlight significant concerns with the use of the chemical.” The publication Inside EPA reported that the Department of Defense raised concerns about the assessment. Inside EPA said DOD was concerned that EPA used a different method for assessing perc’s risks than it did for a related solvent, trichloroethylene (TCE), even though the agency acknowledges the two compounds are similar. The inconsistencies in EPA’s approach undermine the department’s confidence in both assessments, according to a DOD spokesperson cited in the article. The TCE document, released last fall, tagged that chemical as “carcinogenic to humans.” EPA’s draft of the perc document was released in 2008 and sent for peer review. The peer review panel completed its work two years ago, agreeing with EPA’s classification of perc as a “likely human carcinogen” but questioning some of the methodology used by EPA in determining risks for various types of cancer. While the IRIS document is not in itself a regulation, it serves as a guide to EPA and other government agencies in deciding how to regulate chemicals. In the case of perc, it could affect site cleanup requirements for soil and groundwater and vapor intrusion as well as air emission regulations. If EPA tightens its perc risk assessment, anyone emitting, discharging or remediating perc may need to increase controls or remediate to a greater extent. Should the classification of perc as a “likely human carcinogen” hold in EPA’s final analysis, perc would be in the second highest of five categories under EPA’s cancer assessment guidelines, an elevation of EPA’s official evaluation of perc’s cancer risk. Previously, EPA has considered perc in between a “possible” and “probable” cancer risk.