Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155-0480
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2006-07-07T04:00Z

Discussion
of
Perc
Drycleaning
Residual
Risk
and
Technology
Review
with
Senate
Environment
and
Public
Works
Committee
Staff
Conference
Call
Tuesday,
June
24,
2006
Meeting
Participants:
US
EPA/
OAQPS
Robin
Dunkins
Rhea
Jones
Senate
EPW
John
Shanahan
Meeting
Summary:
 
This
meeting
was
a
follow­
up
discussion
from
a
discussion
with
EPW
Staff
on
Thursday,
June
22,
2006.
 
Mr.
Shanahan
asked
EPA
staff
to
describe
the
regulatory
control
options
proposed
for
major,
area
and
co­
residential
sources.
 
EPA
staff
Rhea
Jones
described
the
options:
o
Major
sources,
existing
and
new,
would
be
required
to
use
machines
with
refrigerated
condensers
and
carbon
adsorbers,
and
to
perform
enhanced
leak
detection
and
repair
(
LDAR).
This
is
the
same
level
of
control
required
for
new
major
sources
in
the
original
NESHAP.
o
Existing
area
sources
that
are
not
co­
residential,
would
be
required
to
conduct
enhanced
LDAR,
and
discontinue
use
of
transfer
machines.
o
New
area
sources
would
be
required
to
conduct
enhanced
LDAR,
and
use
machines
with
refrigerated
condensers
and
carbon
adsorbers.
o
Option
1
for
co­
residential
sources
was
based
on
risks,
and
included
a
ban
on
new
sources.
EPA
solicited
comments
on
a
sunset
provision
for
existing
sources,
whereby
existing
sources
would
have
to
discontinue
perc
usage
in
residential
buildings
approximately
15
years
from
promulgation
of
the
rule.
This
is
under
consideration
as
part
of
Option
1.
o
Under
Option
1
for
co­
residential
sources,
existing
sources
would
be
subject
to
the
same
level
of
control
as
all
other
area
sources
until
the
sunset
date
(
enhanced
LDAR
and
elimination
of
transfer
machines).
o
Option
2
was
based
on
technology,
and
included
controls
and
practices
similar
to
those
required
by
New
York
State
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation.
EPA
does
not
expect
this
option
to
significantly
decrease
risks,
but
the
controls
would
help
reduce
emission
and
may
help
prevent
exposures.
o
For
the
final
rule,
the
option
selected
would
be
promulgated
under
section
112(
d)(
6).
 
Mr.
Shanahan
challenged
EPA's
legal
authority
to
promulgate
proposed
Option
1
under
section
112(
d)(
6),
since
it
is
supported
by
a
risk
assessment
evaluated
under
section
112(
f).
He
also
challenged
this
approach,
since
Option
1,
would
subject
area
sources
to
stricter
regulations
than
major
sources.
He
contends
this
was
not
the
intent
of
Congress
in
establishing
these
authorities,
as
supported
by
statements
in
the
Congressional
record
to
this
regard,
which
he
agreed
to
forward
to
EPA.
 
EPA
manager
Robin
Dunkins
suggested
that
further
evaluation
and
discussion
on
this
specific
matter
should
be
held
in
consultation
with
an
EPA
Office
of
General
Council
(
OGC)
representative.
The
records
Mr.
Shanahan
agreed
to
forward
would
be
provided
to
EPA
OGC
upon
receipt.