HSIA Solvents Update -- December 2007

Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance, Inc
UPDATE
Legislative and Regulatory News for the Solvents Industry

December 2007

Best wishes for a happy and healthy new year

EPA’s Paint Stripping Regulations Adopted

EPA recently adopted emission standards for paint stripping operations that will require all sources to implement management practice standards to reduce emissions of methylene chloride by minimizing evaporative losses of the solvent. As reported in the September/October issue of the Solvents Update, these practices include optimizing stripper application conditions, reducing exposure of stripper to air, and practicing proper storage and disposal of materials containing methylene chloride. In addition, all new and existing sources that consume more than 1 ton per year of methylene chloride will be required to develop and implement a minimization plan including criteria for evaluating the necessity of methylene chloride in stripping operations and management techniques to minimize emissions.

According to EPA, the plan’s evaluation criteria would involve only using methylene chloride-based paint stripper "when an alternative on-site stripping method or material is incapable of accomplishing the work as determined by the operator" (emphasis added). Sources using more than 1 ton of methylene chloride will be required to submit the minimization plan to EPA or the designated state permit authority, keep a written copy of the plan on site, and post a sign outlining the evaluation criteria and management techniques in the facility. Compliance with the new provisions is required within 2 years for existing paint stripping sources.

In the final rule, EPA responded to HSIA comments requesting a higher cutoff for facilities required to develop written management plans. The Agency originally proposed a cutoff of 150 gallons of paint stripper, regardless of the methylene chloride content. The revised one-ton cutoff provided in the final rule allows more stripper use before a written plan is required (250 gallons or more), and also provides flexibility to consider using lower methylene chloride content strippers, if practical.

According to EPA, most paint stripping facilities already comply with the final standards. The Agency estimates that only about 1,000 facilities will need to act to comply with the standards. The capital cost for these facilities is estimated to total about $1.5 million.

Industry Files Drycleaning Brief

In mid-December, HSIA, the Drycleaning and Laundry Institute (DLI), the National Cleaners Association (NCA), and the Textile Care Allied Trades Association (TCATA) filed their opening brief in the industry’s legal challenge of EPA’s July 2006 amendments to the national emission standard for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for perchloroethylene drycleaning. The industry challenge focuses on EPA’s decision to prohibit new perchloroethylene cleaners from locating in residential buildings and to phase out existing co-residential cleaners using perchloroethylene by the end of 2020. The Sierra Club also challenged the drycleaning NESHAP amendments, arguing that the perchloroethylene phaseout should have been extended to all drycleaners. The environmental group’s opening brief also was submitted in late December.

The industry brief notes that the 2006 amendments drastically changed the technology-based standards for co-residential drycleaners by phasing out all perchloroethylene machines in these facilities based solely on purported heath risks from emissions of the solvent. The brief points out that no other facilities, including larger drycleaners, are subject to this stringent prohibition. Although co-residential cleaners are all small businesses, the brief notes that EPA erroneously concluded that there would be no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses.

In its brief, the industry raises the following issues:

EPA contravened Congressional intent by considering risk-based factors to revise previously established emission standards for co-residential cleaners, rather than using technology-based factors as instructed by Congress when considering small (area) sources like drycleaners.
EPA’s requirements for co-residential cleaners are contrary to the Clean Air Act because they effectively impose risk-based standards that eventually prohibit all perchloroethylene emissions from co-residential drycleaners when the Act does not authorize such risk-based standards to displace previously established technology standards for area sources.

Even if EPA has the authority to consider risk-based factors, the standards for co-residential cleaners are arbitrary and capricious because the Agency -

based its estimates for alleged risks from exposure to indoor emissions, for which EPA has no regulatory authority,
rather than outdoor emissions,

used a scientifically questionable cancer risk estimate developed by the California EPA, rather than its own, lower estimate,

disregarded a recent study of drycleaning workers that suggests that perchloroethylene exposure is not associated with
increased cancer incidence, and

relied on limited, unrepresentative data on perchloroethylene exposures in co-residential buildings.

EPA failed to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the economic impact of the amendments on small co-residential cleaners.

Under the briefing schedule established by the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, EPA’s response to the industry and Sierra Club briefs is due in March 2008 and the deadline for an amicus brief from the New York State Attorney General in support of EPA’s decision, is early April. Final briefs from the parties must be submitted in May 2008. Oral argument will probably be scheduled in the fall of 2008, with the Court’s decision some time thereafter.

Information in this Update is believed to be correct as of the date of publication, but HSIA cannot guarantee its completeness or accuracy. In publishing this information, HSIA is not providing legal advice and does not assume or undertake any duty imposed by law or regulation. Mention of particular products, practices, or services does not constitute HSIA endorsement.