Air Quality; Revision to Definition of Volatile Organic CompoundsExclusion of Perchloroethylene

[[Page 4588]]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 51

[FRL-5416-7]

Air Quality; Revision to Definition of Volatile Organic

Compounds--Exclusion of Perchloroethylene

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action revises EPA's definition of volatile organic

compounds (VOC) for purposes of preparing State implementation plans

(SIP's) to attain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)

for ozone under title I of the Clean Air Act (Act) and for the Federal

implementation plan (FIP) for the Chicago ozone nonattainment area.

This action adds perchloroethylene (perc), also known as

tetrachloroethylene, to the list of compounds excluded from the

definition of VOC on the basis that it has negligible photochemical

reactivity. Perc is a solvent commonly used in dry cleaning, maskant

operations, and degreasing operations. This rule results in more

accurate assessment of ozone formation potential and will assist States

in avoiding exceedances for the ozone health standard. The rule does

this by causing control efforts to focus on compounds which are actual

ozone precursors, rather than giving credit for control of a compound

which has negligible photochemical reactivity.

Perc will continue to be regulated as a hazardous air pollutant

under section 112 of the Clean Air Act. EPA has already issued

regulations limiting emissions of perc from dry cleaning and

halogenated solvent cleaning and as a feedstock in the organic chemical

manufacturing industry.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective March 8, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Pursuant to section 307(d)(1) (B), (J), and (U) of the Act,

42 U.S.C. section 7607(d)(1) (B), (J), and (U), this action is subject

to the procedural requirements of section 307(d). Therefore, EPA has

established a public docket for this action, A-92-09, which is

available for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air

and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. William Johnson, Office of Air

Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Strategies and Standards

Division (MD-15), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, phone (919) 541-

5245.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On July 8, 1977, EPA published a recommended policy on control of

VOC (42 FR 3513) which discussed the photochemical reactivity of

organic compounds and their role in the formation of tropospheric

ozone. This policy statement identified several compounds that are

considered to be of negligible photochemical reactivity and which are

not required to be controlled in order to prevent the formation of

tropospheric ozone. The policy was subsequently amended on June 4, 1979

(44 FR 32042), May 16, 1980 (45 FR 32424), July 22, 1980 (45 FR 48941),

January 18, 1989 (54 FR 1988), and March 18, 1991 (56 FR 11418) to add

compounds to those already recognized by EPA as having negligible

photochemical reactivity.

On October 24, 1983, EPA proposed to add perc to the list of

negligibly-reactive compounds which would be exempt from regulation

under SIP's to attain the NAAQS for ozone. This proposal was based upon

a laboratory testing program that investigated perc's role in the

tropospheric ozone problem. The study concluded that perc contributes

less to the ambient ozone problem than equal concentrations of ethane

(one of the negligibly-reactive organic compounds previously exempted

from ozone SIP controls). The details of this investigation are

contained in the EPA report, ``Photochemical Reactivity of

Perchloroethylene,'' EPA-600/3-83-001, January 1983. A copy has been

placed in the docket (A-92-09) for today's action.

In the October 24, 1983 proposal, comments were solicited on the

proposed action. The EPA received 20 comments on the proposal. None of

the commenters questioned the technical judgment that perc is

negligibly reactive and has an insignificant impact on ozone formation.

However, there was quite a divergence of opinion as to the action EPA

should take in response to the new findings on the reactivity of perc,

many of which related to concerns about perc as a toxic air pollutant.

Because of these concerns, EPA determined at that time to take no final

action on the proposal.

Subsequently, the Act as amended listed perc as a hazardous air

pollutant (HAP) under section 112(b). Pursuant to section 112(d), EPA

has issued national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants

(NESHAP) for two major perc source categories: perc dry cleaning,

September 22, 1993 (58 FR 49354), and halogenated solvent cleaning,

December 2, 1994 (59 FR 61801). Additional releases which may result

from perc production or use as a feedstock are addressed by the NESHAP

for the hazardous organics (chemicals) industry promulgated April 22,

1994 (59 FR 19402). These two applications, together with the use of

perc as feedstock in chemical production, account for 90% of current

perc production. Pursuant to section 112(e) of the amended Act, the EPA

will be issuing hazardous pollutant emissions standards for various

other categories including several other perc sources through November

15, 2000. On January 28, 1992, the Halogenated Solvents Industry

Alliance (HSIA) petitioned EPA to exempt perc from regulation as an

ozone precursor under the Act. This request was based on HSIA's

contention that perc is negligibly photochemically reactive and does

not contribute to tropospheric ozone formation. The HSIA identified, as

the technical basis for its contention that perc is negligibly

reactive, the October 24, 1983 proposal (48 FR 49097) by EPA to amend

its ``Recommended Policy on Control of Organic Compounds'' to exempt

perc from regulation on the basis of its negligible photochemical

reactivity.

On February 3, 1992 (57 FR 3941), pursuant to a proposed rule

issued March 18, 1991 (56 FR 11418), EPA promulgated a general

definition of VOC (40 CFR 51.100(s)) as part of EPA's regulations

governing the development of SIP's. That action also incorporated the

VOC definition into various SIP-related rules, including EPA's new

source review rules and the FIP rules for the Chicago area. This 1992

regulatory definition superseded the July 8, 1977 policy statement as

well as the subsequent revisions to that policy. In accordance with the

policy on which it was based, the regulatory definition excludes a

number of organic compounds from the definition of VOC on the basis

that they are negligibly photochemically reactive and therefore

contribute negligibly to tropospheric ozone formation. This list of

negligibly-reactive compounds contained the compounds originally

identified in the 1977 policy statement plus other compounds that have

been recognized by EPA subsequent to the 1977 policy statement as

having negligible photochemical reactivity. Further, EPA has revised

this definition twice through rulemaking (59 FR 50693 and 60 FR

[[Page 4589]]

31633). Perc was not included in the list of negligibly photochemically

reactive compounds in this definition.

On October 26, 1992, EPA proposed to revise its definition of VOC

(40 CFR 51.100(s)) by adding perc to the list of compounds that are

regarded as negligibly photochemically reactive. Final action based on

that October 26, 1992 proposal is being taken today.

II. Comments on Proposal and EPA Responses

In accordance with section 307(d) of the Act, as amended in 1990,

today's action is accompanied by a response to each of the significant

comments, criticisms, and new data submitted in written or oral

presentations during the comment period. Eight commenters (a labor

union, an environmental organization, a municipal government, two trade

associations, and three manufacturing companies) submitted written

comments in response to EPA's October 26, 1992 proposal. Most of the

comments support the proposed action. Copies of these comments are

located in the docket (A-92-09) for this action. Significant comments

and EPA's responses are summarized below. Finally, in the proposal for

today's action, EPA indicated that interested persons could request

that EPA hold a public hearing on the proposed action (see section

307(d)(5)(ii) of the Act). The EPA did not receive any such requests

for a public hearing and, therefore, did not hold one.

Comment: Two commenters suggested that the proposal should be

delayed or withdrawn until it has been established that the public

health is adequately protected by controls on emissions of perc from

all sources. This concern is brought about, in part, by the fact that

perc is listed as a HAP in section 112 of the Act. These commenters

refer to the toxicity hazard of the compound and to the possibility

that it may be a human carcinogen. One of these commenters stated that

there are sources of perc, other than dry cleaning, for which EPA has

not yet proposed NESHAP which would define the maximum available

control technology level of control for the source. Such sources

include degreasing, use in paints and architectural coatings,

adhesives, use for maskants in the aerospace industry, and

miscellaneous uses in the manufacture of aerosol spray paints and

cleaners, pharmaceuticals, textiles, printing inks, and dielectric

fluids for power transformers. These sources will not be controlled as

VOC sources if perc is excluded from the definition of VOC.(Note--The

NESHAP for halogenated solvent cleaning had not yet been promulgated

when this comment was submitted.)

Response: The EPA's purpose in promulgation of the general

definition of VOC (40 CFR 51.100(s)) is for use in the preparation of

SIP's designed to achieve and maintain the NAAQS for ozone. That

definition of VOC lists several compounds which are considered to have

negligible photochemical reactivity and, therefore, are exempt from the

VOC definition. Based on the criteria used to judge the reactivity of

compounds for this list, EPA has determined that perc should be added

to the list of compounds as not contributing substantially to the

formation of ground level ozone. Further, EPA believes that based on

perc's non-reactivity it is inappropriate to allow States to continue

to take credit for perc reductions in ozone non-attainment planning.

Compounds that are defined as being HAP are required to be

controlled under section 112 of the Act which calls for EPA to develop

a NESHAP for sources of the listed compounds. Perc is listed as a HAP

in section 112 of the Act. The EPA believes that the control of HAP,

including perc, under section 112 of the Act is the proper approach to

controlling these emissions. EPA shares the concerns regarding perc's

toxicity. Acute and chronic inhalation exposure to perc results in

central nervous system effects. Further, EPA's science advisory board

(SAB) has advised the Agency that perc should be classified as a

carcinogen; the SAB found that the scientific evidence of

carcinogenicity falls on the continuum between ``B2'' probable and a

``C'' possible. For these reasons EPA believes that regulation under

section 112 of the Clean Air Act is appropriate. As noted previously,

EPA already has taken steps to regulate the great majority of perc

emissions and plans to issue further regulations for the remaining

major sources which release perc to the atmosphere. Further, EPA has

the authority to regulate additional source categories--if EPA

identifies any such sources. EPA today reaffirms its intention to

ensure that adequate public health protection from perc emissions is

provided through these programs.

Today's action improves our ability to provide public health

protection from the effects of ground level ozone. The rule does this

by causing control efforts to focus on compounds which are actual ozone

precursors, rather than giving credit for control of a compound which

has negligible photochemical reactivity. And since the Agency already

has made substantial progress in issuing necessary NESHAPs, EPA does

not agree that the proposal to add perc to the negligibly reactive list

in the definition of VOC should be delayed until all evaluations of

perc emissions under section 112 of the Act are complete. Further,

representatives of trade associations for manufacturers and end-users

of perchloroethylene have stated that they believe that

perchloroethylene consumption in consumer products and related products

(and therefore associated emissions) will not increase dramatically as

a result of this action. We have received commitments from industry

associations to survey or otherwise track how consumption of

perchloroethylene in these kinds of products changes. Should EPA become

aware of significant increases in perchloroethylene emissions or in

public exposure from such sources, EPA will then consider appropriate

regulatory action.

Comment: One commenter noted that exempting perc as a VOC would

mean that the control techniques guideline (CTG) for perc dry cleaning

(``Control of Volatile Organics Emissions from Perchloroethylene Dry

Cleaning Systems''; EPA 450/2-78-050, December 1978) would no longer

apply. In addition, the proposed NESHAP for the dry cleaning industry

(56 FR 64382, December 9, 1991) would exempt many small sources that

the CTG covers. Therefore, the public will have greater exposure to a

suspected carcinogen than if perc continues to be controlled as a VOC

for purposes of meeting reasonably available control technology.

(Note--Since these comments were received, the dry cleaning NESHAP has

been promulgated.)

Response: EPA is confident that the recently promulgated NESHAP

increases public health protection above levels achieved by the

formerly applicable CTG. It is true that the NESHAP for dry cleaning

exempts small-sized dry cleaners from additional control requirements

for process emissions, albeit fewer small sources than initially

proposed. The decision to limit requirements on these smallest sources

was made based on deliberations considering the extreme impacts of the

control costs on these very small sources. All sources must now comply

with pollution prevention requirements such as leak detection and

repair. EPA further notes that the control requirements for most

sources are considerably more stringent under the recent NESHAP than

under the CTG. The NESHAP results in nationwide decreases in perc

emissions of 32,400 Mg (35,700 T) each year beyond controls existing

due to the CTG or other State rules.

[[Page 4590]]

Comment: One commenter cited as unfair the section of the proposed

rule change that would prohibit the use of perc emission reduction

credits (ERC) which were achieved prior to the proposed revision as VOC

offsets or in netting transactions. The commenter asserted that such a

prohibition would have a negative financial impact on companies that

spent money in good faith to reduce perc emissions and to bank

emissions credits prior to the rule change. A second commenter

suggested that treating perc as a VOC may interfere with attainment of

the ozone NAAQS. This second commenter attached a January 8, 1992

letter from the San Diego Air Pollution Control District to EPA which

took a critical view of having to issue ERC for substantial reductions

in emissions of perc. This letter said:

Under the existing VOC definition, these ERC's may now be used

to offset emission increases from the new sources of VOC whose

photochemical reactivity is not negligible, resulting in a net

increase in ozone precursors. The use of perchloroethylene ERC's as

offsets exacerbates the District's severe ozone nonattainment

problem since the emission increase in reactive compounds would not

be truly offset.

Response: The EPA is deferring its decision concerning whether

credits for perc, which were banked prior to today's action, may be

used in future netting, offsetting or trading transactions with

reactive VOC. Because of the potential impact that banked emissions

could have on attainment demonstrations and reasonable further progress

showings, EPA needs to conduct further discussions with States on this

issue.

Comment: One commenter supported the withdrawal of the appropriate

CTG's simultaneously with any final rulemaking.

Response: There are two CTG's which refer to perc, the solvent

metal cleaning CTG and the perc dry cleaning CTG (``Control of Volatile

Organic Emissions from Solvent Metal Cleaning,'' EPA-450/2-77-022,

November 1977, and ``Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from

Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Systems,'' EPA-450/2-78-050, December

1978). The solvent metal cleaning CTG discusses a number of other

solvents in addition to perc, and the technology discussed in this CTG

would often apply to any of several solvents that are used for

degreasing. The perc dry cleaning CTG is aimed specifically at

controlling perc.

Today's action in promulgating this final rule means that, for

purposes of ozone control, the perc dry cleaning CTG no longer has the

legal status of a CTG. The solvent metal cleaning CTG is no longer

considered to be a CTG for controlling perc emissions. However, the

solvent metal cleaning CTG is still applicable as a CTG in regards to

all other solvents which are VOC. Although these two documents are no

longer regarded as CTG's as related to perc, they remain effective as

technical guidance documents; States may still use the documents as

sources of technical information when developing rules to control toxic

materials.

III. Final Action

Today's final action is based upon the material in Docket No. A-92-

09 and EPA's review and consideration of all comments received during

the public comment period. As provided in EPA's October 26, 1992

proposal and as modified in response to comments described above, EPA

hereby amends its definition of VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s) to exclude

perchloroethylene (also known as tetrachloroethylene) as a VOC for

ozone SIP purposes. The revised definition will also apply in the

Chicago ozone nonattainment area pursuant to the 40 CFR 52.741(a)(3)

definition of volatile organic material or volatile organic compounds.

States are not obligated to exclude from control as a VOC those

compounds that EPA has found to be negligibly reactive. However, after

the effective date of this final action, EPA will not enforce measures

controlling perc as part of a federally-approved ozone SIP. In

addition, after the effective date of this final action, States may not

take credit for controlling perc in their ozone control strategies.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify that this action will

not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small

entities because it relaxes current regulatory requirements rather than

imposing new ones. The EPA has determined that this rule is not

``significant'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is,

therefore, not subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review.

This action does not contain any information collection requirements

subject to OMB review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

Under sections 202, 203, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform

Act of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22,

1995, EPA must undertake various actions in association with proposed

or final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more to the private sector, or to

State, local and/or tribal government(s) in the aggregate. Since

today's action is deregulatory in nature and does not impose any

mandate upon any source, the cost of such mandates will not result in

estimated annual costs of $100 million or more.

Assuming this rulemaking is subject to section 317 of the Act, the

Administrator concludes, weighing the Agency's limited resources and

other duties, that it is not practicable to conduct an extensive

economic impact assessment of today's action since this rule will relax

current regulatory requirements. Accordingly, the Administrator simply

notes that any costs of complying with today's action, any inflationary

or recessionary effects of the regulation, and any impact on the

competitive standing of small businesses, on consumer costs, or on

energy use, will be less than or at least not more than the impact that

existed before today's action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations,

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: January 26, 1996.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For reasons set forth in the preamble, part 51 of chapter I of

title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 51--REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND SUBMITTAL OF

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

2. Section 51.100 is amended by revising paragraph (s)(1)

introductory text to read as follows:

Sec. 51.100 Definitions.

* * * * *

(s) * * *

(1) This includes any such organic compound other than the

following, which have been determined to have negligible photochemical

reactivity: methane; ethane; methylene chloride (dichloromethane);

1,1,1-trichloroethane (methyl chloroform); 1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-

trifluoroethane (CFC-113); trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11);

dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12);

[[Page 4591]]

chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC-22); trifluoromethane (HFC-23); 1,2-

dichloro 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane (CFC-114); chloropentafluoroethane

(CFC-115); 1,1,1-trifluoro 2,2-dichloroethane (HCFC-123); 1,1,1,2-

tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134a); 1,1-dichloro 1-fluoroethane (HCFC-141b);

1-chloro 1,1-difluoroethane (HCFC-142b); 2-chloro-1,1,1,2-

tetrafluoroethane (HCFC-124); pentafluoroethane (HFC-125); 1,1,2,2-

tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134); 1,1,1-trifluoroethane (HFC-143a); 1,1-

difluoroethane (HFC-152a); parachlorobenzotrifluoride (PCBTF); cyclic,

branched, or linear completely methylated siloxanes; acetone;

perchloroethylene (tetrachloroethylene) and perfluorocarbon compounds

which fall into these classes:

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 96-2495 Filed 2-6-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P