Discussion
of
Perc
Drycleaning
Residual
Risk
and
Technology
Review
with
Senate
Environment
and
Public
Works
Committee
Staff
Conference
Call
Thursday,
June
22,
2006
Meeting
Participants:
US
EPA/
OAQPS
Alison
Davis
Rhea
Jones
Robin
Dunkins
Kelly
Rimer
Neal
Fann
Dave
Guinnup
Ron
Evans
(
EPA
Congressional
Affairs)
Josh
Lewis
Jeff
Clark
Larry
Sorrels
Senate
EPW
John
Shanahan
Mary
Ann
Dunlop
Meeting
Summary:
 
Senate
EPW
Staff
John
Shanahan
contacted
EPA
to
inquire
about
the
upcoming
promulgation
of
the
National
Perchloroethylene
Emission
Standards
for
Dry
Cleaning
Facilities.
 
US
EPA
Staff
Rhea
Jones
provided
a
summary
of
the
regulatory
effort,
including:
o
background
on
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA)
mandates
o
regulatory
authorities
that
govern
the
effort
o
health
effects
from
exposure
to
perchlorethylene
and
cancer
risk
levels
estimated
from
baseline
exposures
o
regulatory
options
proposed
to
reduce
these
risks
and
update
technology
controls
to
reflect
the
current
state
of
technology
in
the
industry.
 
In
regard
to
regulatory
authorities
that
govern
the
regulatory
effort,
Mr.
Shanahan
challenged
EPA's
decision
to
propose
or
attempt
to
promulgate
risk
based
standards
under
section
112(
f)
of
the
CAA
for
area
sources
regulated
by
GACT
under
section
112(
d)(
5),
stating
that
the
EPA
does
not
have
the
legal
authority
to
do
so
under
his
interpretation
of
the
statutes.
 
Mr.
Shanahan
also
questioned
any
attempt
by
EPA
to
promulgate
proposal
option
1
for
co­
residential
sources,
a
ban
on
new
sources,
under
the
authority
of
section
112(
d)(
6)
alone,
using
public
health
risk
as
a
basis
for
the
decision.
 
EPA
representatives
disagreed
with
these
challenges,
stating
that
both
regulatory
options
proposed
for
co­
residential
sources
would
be
equally
supported
under
both
authorities,
and
that
the
CAA
allows
EPA
discretion
in
using
section
112(
f)
to
regulate
area
sources.
 
EPA
representatives
confirmed
that
all
regulatory
options
promulgated
for
area
sources,
co­
residential
or
otherwise,
will
be
promulgated
under
the
authority
of
112(
d)(
6),
as
the
use
of
section
112(
f),
while
permissible
by
the
CAA,
is
not
necessary
to
achieve
the
level
of
emissions
control
needed
in
this
regulation.
The
Agency
will
consider
the
use
of
it's
discretion
to
regulate
area
sources
under
section
112(
f)
in
future
regulations
if
warranted.
 
EPA
representatives
also
commented
that
the
agency
has
the
authority
under
112(
d)
to
consider
public
health
risks
in
the
determination
of
the
level
of
regulatory
control
required
when
using
this
authority,
and
has
gone
on
record
in
previous
regulatory
actions
as
doing
so.
 
Senate
EPW
staff
requested
time
to
consider
this,
and
possibly
a
follow­
up
discussion
that
could
involve
a
representative
from
the
Agency's
Office
of
General
Council.
