FREE TRIAL UPGRADE!
Thank you for investing in EnvironmentalHazmatHuman ResourcesHuman Resources, Hazmat & Environmental related content. Click 'UPGRADE' to continue.
CANCEL
YOU'RE ALL SET!
Enjoy your limited-time access to the Compliance Network!
A confirmation welcome email has been sent to your email address from ComplianceNetwork@t.jjkellercompliancenetwork.com. Please check your spam/junk folder if you can't find it in your inbox.
YOU'RE ALL SET!
Thank you for your interest in EnvironmentalHazmatHuman ResourcesHuman Resources, Hazmat & Environmental related content.
WHOOPS!
You've reached your limit of free access, if you'd like more info, please contact us at 800-327-6868.
You'll also get exclusive access to:
Already have an account? .

86 FR 73207 National Perchloroethylene Air Emission Standards for Dry Cleaning Facilities Technology Review

2021-12-27T06:00:00Z

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155; FRL-8391-02-OAR]

RIN 2060-AV44

National Perchloroethylene Air Emission Standards for Dry Cleaning Facilities Technology Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for dry cleaning facilities using perchloroethylene (PCE) as the cleaning solvent (PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP). The proposed amendments address the results of the technology review for the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP, in accordance with section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Based on the findings of the technology review, the EPA proposes to add provisions to the rule which will require all dry-to-dry machines at existing major and area sources to have both refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers as secondary controls.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 10, 2022.

Public hearing: If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing on or before January 11, 2022, we will hold a virtual public hearing. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for information on requesting and registering for a public hearing.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155, by any of the following methods:

  • Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/ (our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
  • Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. Include Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155 in the subject line of the message.
  • Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155.
  • Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
  • Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket Center's hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday (except Federal holidays).

Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Out of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our staff, the EPA Docket Center and Reading Room are open to the public by appointment only to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff also continues to provide remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. Hand deliveries and couriers may be received by scheduled appointment only. For further information on EPA Docket Center services and the current status, please visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For questions about this proposed action, contact Brian Storey, Sector Policies and Programs Division (Mail Code D243-04), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-1103; fax number: (919) 541-4991; and email address: brian.storey@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Participation in virtual public hearing. Please note that because of current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations, as well as state and local orders for social distancing to limit the spread of COVID-19, the EPA cannot hold in-person public meetings at this time.

To request a virtual public hearing, contact the public hearing team at (888) 372-8699 or by email at SPPDpublichearing@epa.gov. If requested, the virtual hearing will be held on January 11, 2022. The hearing will convene at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Time (ET) and will conclude at 3:00 p.m. ET. The EPA may close a session 15 minutes after the last pre-registered speaker has testified if there are no additional speakers. The EPA will announce further details at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/dry-cleaning-facilities-national-perchloroethylene-air-emission.

If a public hearing is requested, the EPA will begin pre-registering speakers for the hearing upon publication of this document in the Federal Register . To register to speak at the virtual hearing, please use the online registration form available at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/dry-cleaning-facilities-national-perchloroethylene-air-emission or contact the public hearing team at (888) 372-8699 or by email at SPPDpublichearing@epa.gov. The last day to pre-register to speak at the hearing will be January 10, 2022. Prior to the hearing, the EPA will post a general agenda that will list pre-registered speakers in approximate order at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/dry-cleaning-facilities-national-perchloroethylene-air-emission.

The EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan for the hearings to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule.

Each commenter will have 5 minutes to provide oral testimony. The EPA encourages commenters to provide the EPA with a copy of their oral testimony electronically (via email) by emailing it to brian.storey@epa.gov. The EPA also recommends submitting the text of your oral testimony as written comments to the rulemaking docket.

The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written statements and supporting information submitted during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as oral testimony and supporting information presented at the public hearing.

Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the hearing will be posted online at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/dry-cleaning-facilities-national-perchloroethylene-air-emission. While the EPA expects the hearing to go forward as set forth above, please monitor our website or contact the public hearing team at (888) 372-8699 or by email at SPPDpublichearing@epa.gov to determine if there are any updates. The EPA does not intend to publish a document in the Federal Register announcing updates.

If you require the services of a translator or special accommodation such as audio description, please pre-register for the hearing with the public hearing team and describe your needs by January 3, 2022. The EPA may not be able to arrange accommodations without advanced notice.

Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155. All documents in the docket are listed in https://www.regulations.gov/. Although listed, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. With the exception of such material, publicly available docket materials are available electronically in Regulations.gov .

Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit electronically any information that you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. This type of information should be submitted by mail as discussed below.

The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission ( i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

The https://www.regulations.gov/ website allows you to submit your comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through https://www.regulations.gov/, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

Due to public health concerns related to COVID-19, the Docket Center and Reading Room are open to the public by appointment only. Our Docket Center staff also continues to provide remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. Hand deliveries or couriers will be received by scheduled appointment only. For further information and updates on EPA Docket Center services, please visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

The EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information from the CDC, local area health departments, and our federal partners so that we can respond rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID-19.

Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on any digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the digital storage media as CBI and then identify electronically within the digital storage media the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI directly to the public docket through the procedures outlined in Instructions above. If you submit any digital storage media that does not contain CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage media clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and the EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155. Note that written comments containing CBI and submitted by mail may be delayed and no hand deliveries will be accepted.

Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA. We use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:

CAA Clean Air Act

CBI Confidential Business Information

CDC Center for Disease Control

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

ECHO Enforcement and Compliance History Online

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EJ environmental justice

FR Federal Register

GACT generally available control technology

HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)

LDAR leak detection and repair

MACT maximum achievable control technology

NAICS North American Industry Classification System

NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

OMB Office of Management and Budget

ORCR Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery

PCE perchloroethylene

ppm parts per million

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act

RBLC RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act

SBA Small Business Administration

SBEAP Small Business Environmental Assistance Program

tpy tons per year

TTN Technology Transfer Network

UMRA Unfunded Mandate Reform Act

Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information?

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

B. What are these source categories and how does the current NESHAP regulate their HAP emissions?

C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this action?

D. What other relevant background information and data are available?

E. How does the EPA perform the technology review?

III. Proposed Rule Summary and Rationale

A. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology review, and what is the rationale for those decisions?

B. What compliance dates are we proposing, and what is the rationale for the proposed compliance dates?

IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

B. What are the air quality impacts?

C. What are the cost impacts?

D. What are the economic impacts?

E What are the benefits?

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

V. Request for Comments

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

The standards in 40 CFR part 63, subpart M, apply to industrial and commercial dry cleaning facilities that use PCE. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes applicable to 40 CFR part 63, subpart M, are 812310 (coin-operated laundries and dry cleaners), 812320 (dry cleaning and laundry services other than coin-operated services), and 812332 (industrial launderers). This list of categories and NAICS codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding the entities that this proposed action are likely to affect.

As defined in the Initial List of Categories of Sources Under Section 112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 31576, July 16, 1992) and Documentation for Developing the Initial Source Category List, Final Report ( see EPA-450/3-91-030, July 1992), the PCE dry cleaning source categories include any facility engaged in cleaning soiled apparel, leather, and other fine goods. These are usually small independently operated neighborhood shops, franchise shops, and small specialty shops. The source categories only include facilities that use PCE as a cleaning agent.

Federal, state, local, and tribal government entities would not be affected by this proposed action.

B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information?

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this action is available on the internet. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at https://www.epa.gov/dry-cleaning-facilities-national-perchloroethylene-air-emission. Following publication in the Federal Register , the EPA will post the Federal Register version of the proposal and key technical documents at this same website.

A redline version of the regulatory language that incorporates the proposed changes is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155).

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112 and 301 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. ). Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to develop standards for emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary sources. Generally, the first stage involves establishing technology-based standards and the second stage involves evaluating those standards that are based on maximum achievable control technology (MACT) to determine whether additional standards are needed to address any remaining risk associated with HAP emissions. This second stage is commonly referred to as the “residual risk review.” In addition to the residual risk review, the CAA also requires the EPA to review MACT and generally available control technology (GACT) standards set under CAA section 112 every 8 years and revise the standards as necessary taking into account developments in practices, processes, or control technologies. This review is commonly referred to as the “technology review,” and is the subject of this proposal. The discussion that follows identifies the most relevant statutory sections and briefly explains the contours of the methodology used to implement these statutory requirements. A more comprehensive discussion appears in the document titled CAA Section 112 Risk and Technology Reviews: Statutory Authority and Methodology, in the docket for this rulemaking.

In the first stage of the CAA section 112 standard setting process, the EPA promulgates technology-based standards under CAA section 112(d) for categories of sources identified as emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b). Sources of HAP emissions are either major sources or area sources, and CAA section 112 establishes different requirements for major source standards and area source standards. “Major sources” are those that emit or have the potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. All other sources are “area sources.” For major sources, CAA section 112(d)(2) provides that the technology-based NESHAP must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts). These standards are commonly referred to as MACT standards. CAA section 112(d)(3) also establishes a minimum control level for MACT standards, known as the MACT “floor.” In certain instances, as provided in CAA section 112(h), the EPA may set work practice standards in lieu of numerical emission standards. The EPA must also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor. Standards more stringent than the floor are commonly referred to as “beyond-the-floor” standards. For area sources, CAA section 112(d)(5) allows the EPA to set standards based on GACT standards in lieu of MACT standards. For categories of major sources and any area source categories subject to MACT standards, the second stage in standard-setting focuses on identifying and addressing any remaining ( i.e., “residual”) risk pursuant to CAA section 112(f) and concurrently conducting a technology review pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). For categories of area sources subject to GACT standards, there is no requirement to address residual risk, but, similar to the major source categories, the technology review is required.

CAA section 112(d)(6) requires the EPA to review standards promulgated under CAA section 112 and revise them “as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies)” no less often than every 8 years. In conducting this review, which we call the “technology review,” the EPA is not required to recalculate the MACT floors that were established in earlier rulemakings. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The EPA may consider cost in deciding whether to revise the standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). The EPA is required to address regulatory gaps, such as missing standards for listed air toxics known to be emitted from the source category, and any new MACT standards must be established under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3), or, in specific circumstances, CAA sections 112(d)(4) or (h). Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN) v. EPA, 955 F.3d 1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020).

B. What are these source categories and how does the current NESHAP regulate their HAP emissions?

The PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP was originally promulgated September 22, 1993 (58 FR 49376) as 40 CFR part 63, subpart M. Significant amendments were promulgated on June 3, 1996 (61 FR 27788), December 14, 1999 (64 FR 69643), July 27, 2006 (71 FR 42743), and July 11, 2008 (73 FR 39871). The PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP includes MACT standards which apply to major sources, and GACT standards which apply to area sources of dry cleaning that use the chemical PCE. The PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP regulates PCE emitted from the dry cleaning process.

Dry cleaning is any cleaning process for clothing and other garments using a solvent other than water. PCE, also known as perc, tetrachloroethene, or tetrachloroethylene has been, historically, the most widely used liquid solvent in dry cleaning. Dry cleaning facilities may provide dry cleaning and laundering services at the location, or the facility may be a drop-off only location that transports the garments to a separate location where the cleaning is performed. Establishments may also offer specialty cleaning services for garments and textiles such as fur, leather, suede, wedding gowns, draperies, and pillows.

PCE dry cleaning machines are classified into two types: Transfer and dry-to-dry. Similar to residential washing machines and dryers, transfer machines include a unit for washing and another unit for drying. Following the wash cycle, PCE-containing articles are manually transferred from the washer to the dryer. The transfer of wet fabrics is the predominant source of PCE emissions in these systems. Transfer machines are prohibited at all existing and new major and area sources due to the NESHAP's requirement that dry cleaning systems eliminate any emissions of PCE while transferring articles between the washer and the dryer or reclaimer. Therefore, transfer machines are no longer sold, and none are known to still be in operation as these machines have reached the end of their useful lives and should have been replaced by dry-to-dry machines. Dry-to-dry machines wash, extract, and dry the articles in a single machine. The articles enter and exit the machine dry. Because the transfer step is eliminated, dry-to-dry machines have much lower emissions than transfer machines.

“Fourth generation” dry-to-dry machines were introduced in the early 1990s. A fourth generation dry-to-dry machine is a closed-loop system that uses a refrigerated condenser(s) to recycle PCE from the wash cycle, and a carbon adsorption unit(s) to filter PCE from the drum at the end of the dry cycle. The refrigerated condenser is a vapor recovery system into which an air-PCE gas-vapor stream is routed and the PCE is condensed by cooling the gas-vapor stream. The air remaining in the machine at the end of the dry cleaning cycle then passes through a carbon adsorber prior to opening the machine door. The carbon adsorber is a bed of activated carbon into which the air-PCE gas-vapor stream is routed and PCE is adsorbed on the carbon. The use of the carbon adsorber in combination with the refrigerated condenser offers greater emissions reductions over a dry-to-dry machine equipped with only a refrigerated condenser because it reduces the PCE concentration in the air remaining in the machine once the dry cleaning cycle is complete instead of allowing those vapors to be vented or released at the end of the dry cleaning cycle.

The latest generation machines, or “fifth generation” machines were introduced in the late 1990s. They have the same control technology as fourth generation machines, but they are also equipped with an inductive fan, internal solvent vapor monitoring devices (sensor), and interlock (lockout) devices that will not allow access to the machine until solvent vapor concentrations are below 300 ppm. The lockout feature ensures that the PCE set-point has been attained before the machine door can be opened, but it does not remove additional PCE.

Per 40 CFR 63.320, a dry cleaning facility is a major source if the facility emits or has the potential to emit more than 10 tons per year of PCE to the atmosphere. A dry cleaning facility is considered an area source if it does not meet the criteria for major sources, as specified in 40 CFR 63.320. However, in lieu of measuring or determining a facility's potential to emit PCE emissions, a dry cleaning facility is a major source if: (1) It includes only dry-to-dry machine(s) and has a total yearly PCE consumption greater than 2,100 gallons as determined according to 40 CFR 63.323(d); or (2) it includes only transfer machine system(s) or both dry-to-dry machine(s) and transfer machine system(s) and has a total yearly PCE consumption greater than 1,800 gallons as determined according to 40 CFR 63.323(d).

As defined by the initial list of source categories publish on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576), the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP applies to the following major and area sources of HAP emissions:

Major Source Categories

  • Commercial Dry Cleaning [Perchloroethylene]—Transfer Machines
  • Industrial Dry Cleaning [Perchloroethylene]—Transfer Machines
  • Industrial Dry Cleaning [Perchloroethylene]—Dry-to-Dry Machines

Area Source Categories

  • Commercial Dry Cleaning [Perchloroethylene]—Transfer Machines
  • Commercial Dry Cleaning [Perchloroethylene]—Dry-to-Dry Machines

In general, the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP affects three types of dry cleaners that use PCE: Commercial, industrial, and co-residential. Commercial facilities clean household items such as suits, dresses, coats, pants, comforters, curtains, leather clothing, and formal wear. Industrial dry cleaners clean heavily stained articles such as work gloves, uniforms, mechanics' overalls, mops, and shop rags. Co-residential facilities are usually a subset of commercial operations and include dry cleaning operations located in buildings in which people reside. Co-residential facilities are generally found in urban areas where commercial and residential occupancy occur in a single building.

The PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP identifies all major sources as “large” industrial and commercial dry cleaners. These dry cleaners are subject to MACT standards under this NESHAP. It is estimated that there are five or fewer of these major source dry cleaners remaining in the United States. 1 The PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP requires new major source PCE dry cleaners operating dry-to-dry machines to:

1  Estimated quantity of major source PCE dry cleaners is based on details provided to EPA by state regulators, state small business environmental assistance providers' programs (SBEAP) personnel, and industry trade association representatives. Refer to the docket for this proposed rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155).

  • Operate with a refrigerated condenser and carbon adsorber process controls.
  • Use an enhanced leak detection and repair (LDAR) program to detect PCE leaks from the machines ( i.e., PCE gas analyzer operated according to EPA Method 21), repair the leaks, and maintain records.

The PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP requires existing major source PCE dry cleaners operating dry-to-dry machines to:

  • Operate with a refrigerated condenser or a carbon adsorber as process control.
  • Use an enhanced LDAR program to detect PCE leaks from the machines ( i.e., PCE gas analyzer operated according to EPA Method 21), repair the leaks, and maintain records.

Dry cleaners that are commonly found in community settings ( e.g., shopping centers and strip malls) are typically “area sources,” meaning they emit less than 10 tons of PCE each year, and are smaller in size in comparison to major source industrial and commercial PCE dry cleaners. The PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP standards for these area sources are GACT standards. The PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP requires existing area source PCE dry cleaners operating dry-to-dry machines to:

  • Use a halogenated hydrocarbon detector or PCE gas analyzer monthly to detect PCE leaks, repair the leaks, and maintain records.

New area source PCE dry cleaners operating dry-to-dry machines must:

  • Operate with a refrigerated condenser and carbon adsorber process controls.
  • Use a halogenated hydrocarbon detector or PCE gas analyzer to detect PCE leaks, repair the leaks, and maintain records.

The 2006 amendments to the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP eliminated the use of PCE by dry cleaners in co-residential buildings ( e.g., a dry cleaner found on the ground floor of an apartment building). EPA recognized that because co-residential dry cleaners are located very close to residences, residents' exposures and their cancer risks could be much higher than for typical area source dry cleaners. As such, the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP includes requirements to eliminate risks associated with PCE emissions from co-residential dry cleaners. Under 40 CFR 63.322(o)(5)(i), owners/operators were required to eliminate any PCE emissions from systems located in residential buildings by December 21, 2020. These dry cleaner owner/operators were allowed to replace PCE machines with newer available non-PCE technology. This sunset date allowed owners of existing co-residential sources to operate their machines for their maximum estimated useful life, 15 years, assuming they were first installed no later than December 21, 2005. Additionally, under 40 CFR 63.320(b)(2)(ii) and 63.322(o)(5)(ii), any PCE dry cleaning machines in co-residential buildings that began operating between December 21, 2005 and July 13, 2006, were required to install equipment to aggressively control PCE emissions ( i.e., refrigerated condensers, carbon adsorbers, and vapor barriers), and to conduct weekly inspections to detect PCE leaks, repair the leaks, and maintain records, before eliminating PCE emissions by July 27, 2009.

Petitions for judicial review of the 2006 amendments to the NESHAP were filed by the Sierra Club, Halogenated Solvents Industry, Neighborhood Cleaners Association, International Fabricare Institute, and Textile Care Allied Trades Association. Sierra Club et al. v. USEPA, No. 06-1330 (and consolidated cases) (D.C. Cir.). Petitioners questioned: Whether the EPA reasonably interpreted CAA section 112(d)(6) to allow consideration of risk and costs as factors in determining the extent to which it was necessary to revise standards regulating PCE; whether EPA reasonably determined under section 112(d)(6) that it was necessary to revise standards regulating PCE, and to require elimination of PCE emissions at co-residential systems but not at other systems; whether the EPA had complied with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA); and whether EPA had reasonably denied a petition for reconsideration of the rule submitted by the Sierra Club. Although the case was fully briefed, in 2009 before it could be argued at the D.C. Circuit, the parties agreed to EPA taking a voluntary remand of the rule in order for the then-new administration to consider whether further administrative action was warranted regarding the challenged issues, while leaving the rule in force. As discussed in section III.A of this preamble, we are proposing our response to the voluntary remand as part of this proposal.

C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this action?

For this technology review, the EPA investigated developments in practices, processes, and control technologies through communications and direct discussions with state agencies (including regional, state, and local regulators), Small Business Environmental Assistance Program (SBEAP) personnel, industry stakeholders, and trade association representatives. Details of these conversations are included in the memorandum titled Technology Review for the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP, December 2021, available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155).

We performed a search of the EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN) Clean Air Technology Center—RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC) database. The RBLC provides several options for searching the permit database on-line to locate applicable control technologies. We searched the RBLC database for specific dry cleaning process types (“49.002—Dry Cleaning, PERC/Chlorinated Solvents” and “49.003—Dry Cleaning, Petroleum Solvents”). In querying results dating back to January 1, 2000, no results were returned when searching for Process Type 49.002 and three results were returned for Process Type 49.003, however none of the information returned was more recent than 2005 or included any new or improved control technologies. In addition to searches conducted using the process type codes above, the RBLC was queried for any sources with “cleaning”, “cleaners”, or “dry cleaning” in their name. The NAICS and SIC codes for dry cleaners, 812320 and 7216, respectively, were also used to search the RBLC. None of these searches returned relevant information on new or improved control technologies used in dry cleaning facilities. Full details of the RBLC database search in support of this technology review are included in the memorandum titled Technology Review for the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP, December 2021, available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155).

The EPA also reviewed information and details for facilities that are subject to the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP using the Agency's Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) database. The ECHO database provides integrated compliance and enforcement information for approximately 800,000 regulated facilities nationwide. Using the features in the ECHO database, we searched for dry cleaning facilities by NAICS. The database identified approximately 7,900 facilities. However, these data are not likely to be comprehensive for the dry cleaning source category because not all states submit data on smaller sources to ECHO. Details of the ECHO database search in support of this technology review are included in the memorandum titled Technology Review for the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP, December 2021, available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155).

D. What other relevant background information and data are available?

To supplement the information collected from the ECHO search, the EPA collected information from the EPA's Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR) hazardous waste generator databases. ORCR is responsible for implementation and oversight of the hazardous waste program required by subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). As part of the hazardous waste program, hazardous waste generators must report hazardous waste quantities about a specified threshold, as required by RCRA, subtitle C. Active PCE dry cleaning facilities were identified in the ORCR hazardous waste generator databases, based on a search of reported PCE waste generation, and the NAICS for dry cleaning. Approximately 9,000 active hazardous waste generators were identified in the database. This list does not represent the full list of dry cleaning facilities or indicate the number of facilities subject to the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP. For many area sources in this source category the amount of PCE waste generated is below the threshold to notify or report under the RCRA regulations, therefore, there are potentially area source dry cleaning facilities that do not generate enough PCE waste to be included in the hazardous waste generator database. In this technology review, the EPA assumes that the total number of dry cleaning facilities is higher than the approximate 9,000 facilities we were able to identify by the RCRA hazardous waste generator database. A copy of the facility list developed for this technology review can be found in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155).

E. How does the EPA perform the technology review?

Our technology review primarily focuses on the identification and evaluation of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that have occurred since the MACT and GACT standards were promulgated. Where we identify such developments, we analyze their technical feasibility, estimated costs, energy implications, and non-air environmental impacts. We also consider the emission reductions associated with applying each development. This analysis informs our decision of whether it is “necessary” to revise the emissions standards. In addition, we consider the appropriateness of applying controls to new sources versus retrofitting existing sources. For this exercise, we consider any of the following to be a “development”:

  • Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was not identified and considered during development of the original MACT and GACT standards;
  • Any improvements in add-on control technology or other equipment (that were identified and considered during development of the original MACT and GACT standards) that could result in additional emissions reduction;
  • Any work practice or operational procedure that was not identified or considered during development of the original MACT and GACT standards;
  • Any process change or pollution prevention alternative that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not identified or considered during development of the original MACT and GACT standards; and
  • Any significant changes in the cost (including cost effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA considered during the development of the original MACT and GACT standards).

In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control technologies that were considered at the time we originally developed (or last updated) the NESHAP, we review a variety of data sources in our investigation of potential practices, processes, or controls to consider. We also review the NESHAP and the available data to determine if there are any unregulated emissions of HAP within the source category, and evaluate this data for use in developing new emission standards. See sections II.C and II.D of this preamble for information on the specific data sources that were reviewed as part of the technology review.

III. Proposed Rule Summary and Rationale

A. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology review, and what is the rationale for those decisions?

This section provides a brief discussion of our review of the various information sources listed sections II.C and II.D of this preamble, and our proposed decision pursuant to the CAA section 112(d)(6) technology review to require that all PCE dry-to-dry machines at existing major and area sources have both refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers as secondary controls. None of the searches of the RBLC database returned relevant information on new or improved control technologies related to reducing HAP emissions from dry cleaning machines used by facilities in the PCE Dry Cleaning source category. To further identify any developments in practices, processes, and emission control technologies and strategies, the EPA held several meetings with state agencies (including state agency representatives and SBEAP personnel), industry stakeholders and trade association representatives. The EPA asked several questions pertaining to developments since the last technology review on July 26, 2006 (71 FR 42724). The responses to this inquiry did not identify any developments in new or improved control technologies that had not previously been identified and considered that would warrant revision to the existing emission standards for the PCE dry cleaning source category.

Additionally, web search queries for technical literature pertaining to dry cleaning emissions controls, process controls, and work practices did not identify any new or improved practices, processes, or control technologies that were not previously addressed since the technology review performed in 2006.

However, there have been developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that had been identified and considered at the time of adoption of the original NESHAP and/or of the last technology review in 2006. These developments reflect a widespread transition away from some practices that had been allowed to continue for existing sources but were not permitted for new or reconstructed sources. In this technology review, for example, the EPA confirmed with industry representatives that the useful life of a dry-to-dry machine is 15 years. In accordance with the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP, PCE dry cleaning machines installed after 1993 for major sources and 2005 for area sources would be equipped with refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to require all sources subject to the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP, whether new or existing, to be equipped with refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers in order to reflect this development.

Refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers have been standard secondary controls on all new machines for the last 15 years. The information gathered during the technology review, including details obtained from PCE dry cleaning industry and trade association representatives, revealed that dry-to-dry non-vented dry cleaning machines with refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers are the machines that are overwhelmingly used in PCE dry cleaning operations. These fourth generation and newer machines reuse PCE within the machine, which reduces the PCE emissions from the dry cleaning process. These machines are much more effective at recovering solvent vapors than machines equipped with a carbon adsorber or refrigerated condenser alone. 2

2  Further details on the evolution of dry cleaning machines and detailed descriptions of the generations of these machines can be found in the refer to the Technology Review for the Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Source Category memorandum in the docket as well as at the following websites: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/hazardcontrol/hc18.html ; https://www.enviroforensics.com/blog/the-history-of-dry-cleaning-solvents-and-the-evolution-of-the-dry-cleaning-machine/ .

It has been over 25 years since the initial NESHAP was promulgated in 1993 (58 FR 66287) and 15 years since the last major revisions (71 FR 42724), which required certain machines to be equipped with refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers. Even though we expect that almost all currently operating dry cleaning machines have both of these controls, the EPA has determined that we should preclude any possible future use of any machines that do not have both controls. This revision to the standards is necessary to ensure that current improved PCE emissions control achieved by the widespread use of fourth generation (or better) machines is maintained and not compromised by permissible continued operation of earlier generation machines that have exceeded their useful lives. As such, the EPA is proposing to require that all PCE dry-to-dry machines at existing major and area sources have both refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers as secondary controls. This revision to the standards will ensure that all dry cleaning systems, both new and existing, will be similarly controlled.

Additionally, the EPA re-examined the use of alternative solvents in use by the dry cleaning industry. This includes the use of non-PCE containing products such as silica-based solvents and high flash point hydrocarbon solvents. As part of this assessment, the EPA reviewed the list of alternative solvents identified in the 2006 PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP risk and technology review (RTR) (71 FR 42743), and found that, for the purposes of the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP MACT or GACT standards, the list of alternative solvents available to the dry cleaning industry remains essentially the same. Since our 2006 assessment, there have been some products that are no longer marketed, and a few products added to the list. In the 2006 PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP RTR, we looked at the use of alternative solvents as it relates to a potential ban of PCE use. In the 2006 RTR, we identified limitations with the alternative solvents available, when compared to PCE use. These limitations included a comparison of costs, cleaning ability, ease of use, applicability to certain fabrics, safety, and others. After reviewing our assessment made for the 2006 final rule, and the limitations of the alternative solvents available in 2021, we find no new information that would change our 2006 assessment for purposes of the MACT or GACT standards for this industry.

In response to the voluntary remand of the 2006 rule, we are not proposing any amendments addressing the objections raised by the litigants in Sierra Club et al. v. USEPA, No. 06-1330 and consolidated cases (D.C. Cir.). Since the voluntary remand, EPA has conducted numerous subsequent RTRs for other NESHAPs and source categories and has consistently implemented section 112(d)(6) to take into consideration costs of revising standards and the environmental value of requiring additional HAP reductions when determining whether it is necessary to revise standards taking into consideration developments in practices, processes, and control technologies. We also maintain that we have the discretion to qualitatively consider as a relevant factor the benefits of requiring additional HAP emission reductions and their consequential effect on public health risk under 112(d)(6), as we considered them in the 2006 RTR. Although we are not further considering such reductions and their impacts in this current proposed action because we have not received additional information indicating such are necessary for CAA purposes related to dry cleaning sources beyond the review that we conducted in 2006, we stand by the analyses we conducted and conclusions we reached in the 2006 RTR. Moreover, subsequent reviewing courts have affirmed EPA's now well-established approach of considering costs and cost effectiveness in CAA section 112(d)(6) reviews and making judgments about whether to it is necessary to require additional HAP emissions reductions under CAA section 112(d)(6). See, e.g., National Association for Surface Finishing v. EPA, 795 F.3d 11-12 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (finding that EPA permissibly considered costs in revising standards under section 112(d)(6)); see also, Association of Battery Recyclers, et al. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667, 673-74 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (approving EPA's consideration of cost as a factor in its section 112(d)(6) decision-making and EPA's reliance on cost effectiveness as a factor in its standard-setting). In addressing industry petitioners' challenge to EPA's CAA section 112(d)(6) determinations, the National Association for Surface Finishing court explained that “[r]eductions in emissions are, of course, relevant to the cost effectiveness of emissions-control technologies in controlling emissions.” See 795 F.3d at 12. The court then affirmed that EPA's conclusions “that more stringent technology-based standards were cost effective and otherwise appropriate” was not arbitrary and capricious. Id (emphasis added). The EPA thus maintains that our approach in the 2006 RTR to base our decisions to revise the standards as necessary for dry cleaners located in residential settings, based in part on the unique public health impacts that the additionally mandated HAP reductions would mitigate in that particular context, was warranted under CAA section 112(d)(6).

Consequently, what may have appeared novel in 2006 to the litigants in the earliest stages of the EPA's development of the RTR program (the EPA's consideration of costs and HAP reduction along with the enumerated factors in CAA section 112(d)(6)) has become settled and judicially endorsed practice, and it is not necessary for the EPA to fundamentally re-evaluate that well-established process in this follow-up technology review or in response to the voluntary remand. Moreover, since the 2006 RTR, the EPA has not received any information calling into question the risk-based information that supported our action requiring elimination of PCE emissions from systems located in buildings with a residence. Nor has the EPA received additional information addressing the specific risks presented by PCE emissions to ambient air from co-commercial PCE dry cleaning systems ( e.g., those located in strip malls with adjacently located other commercial entities) that suggest that our decision in 2006 to limit the required elimination of PCE emissions to co-residential settings was unwarranted. The EPA requests public comments on our response to the remand, particularly on our proposed determination that no specific revisions to the standards are necessary in light of the remand.

B. What compliance dates are we proposing, and what is the rationale for the proposed compliance dates?

The EPA is proposing that existing affected sources would comply with the proposed amendments in this rulemaking no later than 180 days after the effective date of the final rule. The affected existing facilities would have to continue to meet the current requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart M, until the applicable compliance date of the amended rule. As discussed in section III.B of this preamble, the EPA is proposing to require all dry-to-dry machines at both major and area sources to have both refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers as secondary controls. The final action is not expected to be a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Therefore, the effective date of the final rule would be the promulgation date as specified in CAA section 112(d)(10). From our assessment of the timeframe needed for compliance with the entirety of the revised requirements, the EPA considers a period of 180 days to be the most expeditious compliance period practicable. We base this proposed compliance period on several factors. First, from our discussions with state and local agencies, trade association representatives, and other stakeholders, the EPA found that fourth and fifth generation dry-to-dry machines are standard throughout the industry. Additionally, the EPA confirmed that the useful life of a dry-to-dry machine is 15 years, and that new dry cleaning machines sold in the last 20 years are only fourth and fifth generation machines. Based on these findings, we believe that almost all of the industry is already in compliance with the proposed amendments. The 180 days is provided as a courtesy to allow familiarity with the proposed changes. We solicit comment on this proposed compliance period, and we specifically request submission of information from the sources in the major and area source categories regarding specific actions that would need to be undertaken to comply with the proposed amended requirements and the time needed to make the adjustments for compliance with any of the revised requirements. We note that information provided may result in changes to the proposed compliance date.

IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

The PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP prescribes a combination of equipment, work practices, and operational requirements. The NESHAP allows regulated sources to determine their major or area source status based on the annual PCE purchases for all machines at a facility. The consumption criterion (which affects the amount of PCE purchased) varies depending on multiple variables, including number of machines, size of business, etc. The affected source is each individual dry cleaning system that uses PCE. Consequently, a single dry cleaning facility could comprise multiple affected sources, if it has multiple dry cleaning systems onsite. As a result, some of a facility's systems could be subject to “new” source requirements under the NESHAP, and some could be “existing” sources, depending upon when they were placed into service.

The July 27, 2006, final rule amendments (71 FR 42743) indicate that at that time, there were approximately 34,000 dry cleaning facilities in the United States, approximately 28,000 of which used PCE. Those estimated counts of the number of overall dry cleaners and PCE dry cleaners are prior to business impacts from the 2008 financial crisis, the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic of 2020-2021, recent shifts in consumer demands, changes in garment technologies, fashion trends, dry cleaning machine conversions to alternative solvents, and other factors that have resulted in reductions in the number of PCE dry cleaning operations. Based on information provided by dry cleaning industry stakeholders, including trade organizations, the EPA estimates that the number of PCE dry cleaners decreased by 20 to 30 percent due to the 2008 financial crisis, the aforementioned demand trends in the industry, and increasing replacements of PCE operations with alternative solvent technologies. Additionally, the EPA estimates that another 10 to 15 percent of PCE dry cleaners have ceased operation due to financial impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic. As such, the EPA estimates that there are approximately 10,000 to 15,000 PCE dry cleaning facilities in the U.S.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

The EPA is proposing that all PCE dry-to-dry machines operate with both refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers as secondary controls ( i.e., be fourth or fifth generation machines). The PCE dry cleaning facilities that are in operation have most likely realized the reduction in emissions associated with operating both refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers. Additionally, any new machines have been required to have both refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers since the original promulgation of part 63, subpart M, in 1993 (for major sources) and the 2006 RTR (for area sources); any existing third generation or older machines at the time of those rules are now beyond their 15-year expected lifespan. For those facilities who may still be operating older machines, the proposed amendments of this rulemaking would reduce emissions by mandating the use of newer machines with the required controls.

Indirect or secondary air emissions impacts are impacts that would result from the increased electricity usage associated with the operation of control devices ( i.e., increased secondary emissions of criteria pollutants from power plants). Energy impacts consist of the electricity and steam needed to operate control devices and other equipment that would be required under this proposed rule. The EPA expects minimal secondary air emissions impacts or energy impacts from this rulemaking.

C. What are the cost impacts?

Any new PCE dry-to-dry machines purchased in the last 20 years for this source category are closed-loop dry-to-dry machines with a refrigerated condenser and a carbon adsorber  3 and thus would not be impacted by these proposed amendments. The PCE dry cleaning operations that would be impacted by the proposed amendments would most likely already have incurred the costs of installing and operating these fourth-generation machines. Specifically, any older machines ( i.e., third generation or prior transfer machines or dry-to-dry machines without refrigerated condenser and a carbon adsorber) would now be beyond their projected useful life, and we expect that operators would have already replaced these machines with fourth- and fifth-generation machines, as part of continued PCE dry cleaning operations. However, we also recognize that there may be some facilities that are still operating older PCE machines. We expect that if there are any facilities operating older machines, they would be area sources. For reasons previously discussed in section II.C and II.D of this preamble, the number of older machines in use is unknown. The EPA is soliciting comment on the number of sources operating older machines and will reassess the cost and economic impacts if we receive additional data.

3  U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Phone Conference Communication with Dry Cleaning & Laundry Institute (DLI) and National Cleaners Association (NCA) representatives. March 2021.

Based on available information, the EPA concludes that most or all existing PCE dry cleaning facilities that are subject to the NESHAP would be able to comply with the proposed requirements without incurring additional capital or operational costs because they have purchased newer machines as part of normal business operations. There may be small number of facilities operating older machines, but we do not have information on these facilities to determine the full cost impacts to these entities. We have assessed the costs associated with reading and understanding the proposed amendments as a total one-time cost of $108 per facility, using a labor rate for 4 hours of review time, as described in section IV. D of this preamble. Based on an estimate of 10,000 to 15,000 facilities that are subject to the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP, the total cost is estimated to be in a range of $1,080,000 to $1,620,000 nationwide.

D. What are the economic impacts?

Economic impact analyses focus on changes in market prices and output levels. If changes in market prices and output, such as clothes to be cleaned in the primary markets served by dry cleaners, are significant enough, impacts on other markets may also be examined. Both the magnitude of costs needed to comply with a proposed rule and the distribution of these costs among affected facilities can have a role in determining how the market would change in response to a proposed rule. To estimate the economic impacts of this proposal, the EPA reviewed the mean hourly wage of $12.29 per hour indicated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for laundry and dry cleaning workers in 2021. We then applied a benefits and overhead factor of 1.1 to calculate a total compensation rate of $26.86 per hour. Additionally, we estimated 4 hours for a dry cleaning worker to familiarize themselves with the proposed amendments to the rule, and calculated a cost of $108 per facility ($23.86/hr × 4 hr/facility = $107.44, or $108/facility). This is a conservative estimate. We anticipate that some facilities may not require 4 hours to review the proposed amendments to the rule. These costs are not expected to result in a significant impact to primary markets served by dry cleaners.

We do not anticipate any significant economic impacts from these proposed amendments to require all dry-to-dry machines to have both refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers as secondary controls. This is consistent with our assumptions made in the original rule development that the useful life of a machine is 15 years. Machines installed after 1993 for major sources and 2005 for area sources are to be equipped with refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers, in accordance with the NESHAP. Thus, given the useful life of a typical dry-cleaning machine, the EPA expects that most or all sources in the regulated source categories would have discontinued use of third generation or older machines by 2021.

E. What are the benefits?

Although the EPA does not anticipate reductions in HAP emissions as a result of the proposed amendments, the Agency believes that the action, if finalized as proposed, would result in improved clarity to the rule. Specifically, the proposed amendments would revise the standards such that it is clear that only fourth (or newer) generation machines can be used in PCE solvent dry cleaning operations. This requirement is implied in the useful life determination at the inception of the original NESHAP; however, this proposed amendment would make this assumption clear and would work to eliminate any older machines (third generation and prior) that could still be operating. This action would further protect public health and the environment and would ultimately result in less potential confusion or misinterpretation by the regulated community.

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

Executive Order 12898 directs the EPA, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994.) Additionally, Executive Order 13985 was signed to advance racial equity and support underserved communities through Federal Government actions (86 FR 7009, January 20, 2021). The EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that “no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and policies” ( https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice ). In recognizing that minority and low-income populations often bear an unequal burden of environmental harms and risks, the EPA continues to consider ways of protecting them from adverse public health and environmental effects of air pollution. To examine the potential for any EJ issues that might be associated with the source categories, we performed a demographic analysis, which is an assessment of individual demographic groups of the populations living within 5 kilometers (km) and within 50 km of the facilities. The EPA then compared the data from this analysis to the national average for the demographic indicators.

In the analysis, we evaluated the percentage of minority and low-income groups within the populations that live near identified PCE dry cleaning facilities. The PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP applies to sources often operating as small facilities, and limited location data for these small subject facilities were available, adding considerable uncertainty to the analysis. As described in the technology review memorandum, available in the docket for this action, and section II.C of this preamble, we did conduct searches for available information. The demographic results do not account for emission or risk impacts from sources and may not be fully representative of the full distribution of facilities across all locations and populations. This analysis provides an indication of the potential for disparities in human health or environmental effects.

Our analysis includes the general population of dry cleaners across the country and does not differentiate which facilities are PCE major and area source dry cleaners. As stated above, our analysis indicates that sources are likely to operate compliant technologies to meet the proposed standard. Based upon the number of facilities in this analysis (9,080 facilities), we find that approximately 48 percent of the U.S. population lives within 5 km of a facility, and approximately 87 percent live within 50 km of a facility. We find that dry cleaner facilities are generally located in areas where within the 5 km distance the category of minority demographics are higher than the national average, but demographics generally match the national average within 50 km. We also note that demographics analyses for individual urban facilities often show that the percentages of various minority and disadvantaged populations tend to exceed the national averages due to the urban locations. The results of the demographic analysis for populations within 5 km of the facilities within the source category indicate that the percentage of the minority population (the total population minus the white population) is higher when compared to the national percentage of people who are minority (an average of 48 percent versus 40 percent). These comparisons also hold true for other demographic groups (African American, Other and Multiracial Groups, and Hispanics), whose populations near dry cleaning facilities are approximately an average of 3 percent greater the national average. The demographic group composed of people living in linguistic isolation was an average of approximately 1 percent greater than the national average. The percentages of people in all the remaining demographic groups were below the national average for their respective demographic. The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are presented in a technical report, Technology Review— Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near the Dry-cleaners for Major and Area Sources, available in this docket for this action (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155).

Table 1—Proximity Demographic Assessment Results
Notes:
• The population numbers and demographic percentages are based on the Census' 2015-2019 American Community Survey five-year averages and include Puerto Rico. Demographic percentages based on different averages may differ.
• Minority population is the total population minus the white population.
• To avoid double counting, the “Hispanic or Latino” category is treated as a distinct demographic category for these analyses. A person is identified as one of five racial/ethnic categories above: White, African American, Native American, Other and Multiracial, or Hispanic/Latino. A person who identifies as Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic/Latino for this analysis, regardless of what race this person may have also identified as in the Census.
NationwideSource category
Population within 50 km of 9,080 facilities Population within 5 km of 9,080 facilities
Total Population328,016,242285,838,206156,313,800
White and Minority by Percent
White606052
Minority404048
Minority by Percent
African American121315
Native American0.70.50.4
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite)191822
Other and Multiracial8811
Income by Percent
Below Poverty Level131314
Above Poverty Level878786
Education by Percent
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma121212
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma888888
Linguistically Isolated by Percent
Linguistically Isolated557

This action is not likely to change levels of emissions near facilities. Based on our technology review, we did not identify, and are not requiring, any new add-on control technologies, process equipment, work practices or procedures that were not already in place when the NESHAP was promulgated in 1993 or considered when the NESHAP was last reviewed in 2006; and we did not identify other developments in practices, processes, or control technologies that would result in additional emission reductions for purposes of these MACT and GACT standards, beyond the transition to greater use of fourth and fifth generation machines. Given the useful life of a dry cleaning machine, and the fact that industry should already be operating the newer machines with both refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers as secondary controls, we do not anticipate reductions in HAP emissions as a result of the proposed amendments.

V. Request for Comments

We solicit comments on this proposed action. In addition to general comments on this proposed action, we are also interested in additional data that may improve the analyses. We are specifically interested in receiving any information regarding the number of third generation and earlier model dry cleaning machines that potentially could still be operating, and on other developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that reduce HAP emissions beyond the widespread shift to fourth generation (or better) machines.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, therefore, not submitted to OMB for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. The action does not contain any information collection activities.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The small entities subject to the requirements of this action are industrial and commercial dry cleaning facilities that use PCE. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes applicable to 40 CFR part 63, subpart M, are 812310 (coin-operated laundries and dry cleaners), 812320 (dry cleaning and laundry services other than coin-operated services), and 812332 (industrial launderers). The small business size definitions for those industries are $8.0 million, $6.0 million, and $41.5 million respectively. The costs associated with reading and understanding the proposed amendments are a one-time cost of $108 per facility and are not significant. In addition, the useful life of a PCE dry-to-dry machine is assumed to be 15 years, and the industry has already purchased fourth or fifth generation dry-to-dry machines that are in compliance with these amendments as part of normal operational costs. We have therefore concluded that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. While this action creates an enforceable duty on the private sector, the cost does not exceed $100 million or more.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the National Government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The action affects private industry and does not impose economic costs on state or local governments.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

This action has tribal implications. However, it will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. The EPA consulted with tribal officials under the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian tribes early in the process of developing this regulation to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its development. A summary of that consultation is provided in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155).

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.B of this preamble and the technical report, Risk and Technology Review Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Facility Source Category Operations.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Michael S. Regan,

Administrator.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 63 as set forth below:

PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

Authority:

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart M—National Perchloroethylene Air Emission Standards for Dry Cleaning Facilities

2. Section 63.322 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;

b. Adding paragraph (a)(4); and

c. Revising paragraph (o)(2).

The revisions and addition read as follows:

§63.322 Standards.

(a) Before [date 180 days after date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register ], the owner or operator of each existing dry cleaning system and of each new transfer machine system and its ancillary equipment installed between December 9, 1991, and September 22, 1993, shall comply with either paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section and shall comply with paragraph (a)(3) of this section if applicable. On and after [date 180 days after date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register ], the owner or operator of any existing dry cleaning system shall comply with paragraph (a)(4) of this section.

* * * * *

(4) The owner or operator of each existing dry cleaning system shall route the air-perchloroethylene (PCE) gas-vapor stream contained within each dry cleaning machine through a refrigerated condenser and pass the air-PCE gas-vapor stream from inside the dry cleaning machine drum through a non-vented carbon adsorber or equivalent control device immediately before the door of the dry cleaning machine is opened. The carbon adsorber must be desorbed in accordance with manufacturer's instructions.

* * * * *

(o) * * *

(2) The owner or operator of each dry cleaning system at an area source shall route the air-PCE gas-vapor stream contained within each dry cleaning machine through a refrigerated condenser and pass the air-PCE gas-vapor stream from inside the dry cleaning machine drum through a non-vented carbon adsorber or equivalent control device immediately before the door of the dry cleaning machine is opened. The carbon adsorber must be desorbed in accordance with manufacturer's instructions.

* * * * *

3. Section 63.324 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(5) and (6) to read as follows:

§63.324 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(5) The date and monitoring results (temperature sensor or pressure gauge), as specified in §63.323, when a refrigerated condenser is used to comply with §63.322(a), (b), or (o); and

(6) The date and monitoring results, as specified in §63.323, when a carbon adsorber is used to comply with §63.322(a)(2) or (b)(3).

* * * * *

4. Section 63.325 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(7) to read as follows:

§63.325 Determination of equivalent emission control technology.

(a) * * *

(7) Information on the cross-media impacts (to water and solid waste) of the candidate emission control technology and demonstration that the cross-media impacts are less than or equal to the cross-media impacts of a refrigerated condenser and carbon adsorber.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2021-26469 Filed 12-23-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

Specialized Industries

Go beyond the regulations! Visit the Institute for in-depth guidance on a wide range of compliance subjects in safety and health, transportation, environment, and human resources.

J. J. Keller® COMPLIANCE NETWORK is a premier online safety and compliance community, offering members exclusive access to timely regulatory content in workplace safety (OSHA), transportation (DOT), environment (EPA), and human resources (DOL).

Interact With Our Compliance Experts

Puzzled by a regulatory question or issue? Let our renowned experts provide the answers and get your business on track to full compliance!

Upcoming Events

Reference the Compliance Network Safety Calendar to keep track of upcoming safety and compliance events. Browse by industry or search by keyword to see relevant dates and observances, including national safety months, compliance deadlines, and more.

SAFETY & COMPLIANCE NEWS

Keep up with the latest regulatory developments from OSHA, DOT, EPA, DOL, and more.

REGSENSE® REGULATORY REFERENCE

Explore a comprehensive database of word-for-word regulations on a wide range of compliance topics, with simplified explanations and best practices advice from our experts.

THE J. J. KELLER INSTITUTE

The Institute is your destination for in-depth content on 120+ compliance subjects. Discover articles, videos, and interactive exercises that will strengthen your understanding of regulatory concepts relevant to your business.

ADD HAZMAT, ENVIRONMENTAL, & HR RESOURCES

Unlock exclusive content offering expert insights into hazmat, environmental, and human resources compliance with a COMPLIANCE NETWORK EDGE membership.

DIRECT ACCESS TO COMPLIANCE EXPERTS

Struggling with a compliance challenge? Get the solution from our in-house team of experts! You can submit a question to our experts by email, set up a phone or video call, or request a detailed research report.

EVENTS

Register to attend live online events hosted by our experts. These webcasts and virtual conferences feature engaging discussions on important compliance topics in a casual, knowledge-sharing environment.

Most Recent Highlights In Environmental

The spill on tiers for SPCC Plans
2025-06-20T05:00:00Z

The spill on tiers for SPCC Plans

When it comes to oil spill prevention, it’s a good thing to be in “tiers.” Why? It’s because Tier I or Tier II qualified facilities have simplified requirements for the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires facilities subject to the SPCC rule (40 CFR Part 112) to develop and implement a plan that describes how they will use operating procedures, control measures, and countermeasures to prevent oil spills from reaching navigable waters or adjoining shorelines. Typically, SPCC Plans must be certified by a professional engineer (PE), but qualified facilities can self-certify the plans.

Let’s compare Tier I and Tier II qualified facilities.

Qualified facilities

A qualified facility:

  • Has a total aboveground oil storage capacity of 10,000 gallons or less, and
  • Hasn’t had over the past three years either:
    • One oil discharge greater than 1,000 gallons, or
    • Two oil discharges greater than 42 gallons each within any 12-month period.

The SPCC rule identifies two types of qualified facilities:

  • A Tier I qualified facility has no aboveground oil containers greater than 5,000 gallons.
  • A Tier II qualified facility has an individual aboveground oil container greater than 5,000 gallons.

SPCC Tier Tip: EPA provides a fact sheet (Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan Qualified Facilities Applicability) to help facilities determine eligibility as a qualified facility and the applicable tier.

What are the similarities?

Tier I and Tier II qualified facilities are subject to many of the same requirements for SPCC Plans, including basic requirements, certification, and updates to qualification changes.

Basic requirements

All qualified facilities have to develop and implement a written SPCC Plan. Each plan is unique to the facility, but all plans must include:

  • Operating procedures to prevent oil spills;
  • Control measures to prevent oil spills from reaching navigable waters or adjoining shorelines; and
  • Countermeasures to contain, clean up, and mitigate oil spills that reach navigable waters or adjoining shorelines.

Certification

The primary similarity is that Tier I and Tier II qualified facilities may self-certify their SPCC Plans and amendments to the plan.

SPCC Tier Tip: Some states may not allow self-certification. EPA recommends checking with the state engineer licensing board to determine whether SPCC Plans may be self-certified.

Qualification changes

When the status of a facility changes, the owner or operator must prepare and implement an SPCC Plan according to the requirements that apply to its new designation within six months.

Tier I facilities may still be able to self-certify if they meet the Tier II criteria; if so, these facilities can comply with the Tier II rules. However, facilities that are no longer eligible as qualified facilities have to comply with the full SPCC Plan requirements, including obtaining PE certification of the plan.

What are the differences?

The primary difference between Tier I and Tier II facilities is the extent of the SPCC Plan. Additionally, Tier II facilities may employ certain alternative spill control methods.

Type of SPCC Plan

Tier I qualified facilities may use the template in Appendix G of Part 112 as their SPCC Plan. It’s a simplified plan that only contains the requirements applicable to Tier I facilities.

These facilities must also:

  • Add failure analysis to the plan (including predicted directions and total quantity of oil that could be discharged for each major equipment failure) if there’s a reasonable potential for equipment failure;
  • Install bulk storage secondary containment or an alternative system with a drainage trench enclosure (including for mobile or portable containers); and
  • Establish a system or procedure to prevent container overfills, describe the system or procedure in the SPCC Plan, and regularly test the system or procedure to ensure it works.

Tier II qualified facilities have to develop a full SPCC Plan that complies with 112.7 and the applicable requirements of Subparts B and C of Part 112. This includes developing facility diagrams.

Alternative compliance methods

Tier II qualified facilities (with certification) may implement certain alternative measures and methods that Tier I facilities can’t. Tier II facilities must obtain written certification from a PE to include:

  • Alternative spill prevention, control, or countermeasure methods that provide the same environmental protection as the required methods;
  • Alternative measures where secondary containment is impracticable; and
  • Alternative procedures for skimming produced water containers instead of using sized secondary containment.

Qualified facilities, whether Tier I or Tier II, benefit from the ability to self-certify their SPCC Plans. That’s something that can make owners and operators “tier” up with happiness.

Key to remember: Tier I and Tier II qualified facilities share many similarities under the SPCC rule, but knowing where the requirements differ is vital to maintaining compliance.

EHS Monthly Round Up - May 2025

EHS Monthly Round Up - May 2025

In this May 2025 roundup video, we'll review the most impactful environmental health and safety news.

Hi everyone! Welcome to the monthly news roundup video, where we’ll review the most impactful environmental health and safety news. Let's take a look at what happened over the last month!

OSHA will host an informal public hearing on its proposed Heat Injury and Illness Prevention rule on June 16. Information about the proposed rule and instructions on how to watch the hearing can be found on OSHA’s website.

OSHA’s National Safety Stand-Down to Prevent Falls in Construction event, held the week of May 5, raised awareness of fall hazards in an effort to help prevent injuries and fatalities. Slips, trips, and falls were the leading cause of death in the construction industry in 2023, accounting for 421 fatalities.

After concluding its investigation of a California chemical facility fire, the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board is calling for improved heater safeguards to prevent similar incidents. The fire was caused by an overheated refinery furnace. The Board also made several safety recommendations for chemical facilities.

Following a number of recent fall incidents, the Mine Safety and Health Administration issued a safety alert advising miners to use fall protection. The most recent incident occurred when a miner fell from the deck of a bulldozer.

Turning to environmental news, EPA further delayed the PFAS manufacturing report submission period. The date was moved from July 11, 2025, to April 13, 2026. This is a one-time reporting requirement for manufacturers of per- and polyfluoroalkyl, or PFAS, substances.

Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!

Agency again delays submission deadline for TSCA Section 8(d) health and safety data
2025-06-05T05:00:00Z

Agency again delays submission deadline for TSCA Section 8(d) health and safety data

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has again delayed the deadline for submitting data on 16 chemical substances required by the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Health and Safety Data Reporting rule. Manufacturers (including importers) now have until May 22, 2026, to report on all of the covered chemical substances.

What’s required?

The TSCA Section 8(d) Health and Safety Data Reporting rule (40 CFR Part 716) requires manufacturers (including importers) of 16 chemical substances to report data from:

  • Unpublished health and safety studies; and
  • Unpublished studies on environmental effects and occupational, general population, and consumer exposure.

The covered chemical substances include:

  • 4,4-Methylene bis(2-chloraniline),
  • 4-tert-octylphenol(4-(1,1,3,3-Tetramethylbutyl)-phenol),
  • Acetaldehyde,
  • Acrylonitrile,
  • Benzenamine,
  • Benzene,
  • Bisphenol A,
  • Ethylbenzene,
  • Hydrogen fluoride,
  • N-(1,3-Dimethylbutyl)-N’-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine (6PPD),
  • 2-anilino-5-[(4-methylpentan-2-yl) amino]cyclohexa-2,5-diene-1,4-dione (6PPD-quinone),
  • Naphthalene,
  • Styrene,
  • Tribomomethane (Bromoform),
  • Triglycidyl isocyanurate, and
  • Vinyl chloride.

Note that EPA’s first extension in March 2025 moved the submission deadline for vinyl chloride to June 11, 2025, and for the remaining 15 chemical substances to September 9, 2025. This rule pushes the submission deadline for all chemical substances (including vinyl chloride) to May 22, 2026.

Who’s covered?

The rule applies to manufacturers in the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes for chemical manufacturing (NAICS code 325) and petroleum refineries (NAICS code 324110) that:

  • Currently manufacture (including import) a covered chemical substance, or
  • Manufactured (including imported) or proposed to manufacture (including import) a covered chemical substance within the past 10 years.

The reporting requirement also applies to manufacturers of substances for commercial purposes that coincidentally produced a covered chemical substance during the manufacture, processing, use, or disposal of another substance or mixture (including byproducts and impurities).

How do you report?

Reporters submit the TSCA Section 8(d) data via the Chemical Information Submission System (or CISS) tool on the Chemical Safety and Pesticide Program (CSPP) system. The CSPP is accessed through EPA’s Central Data Exchange.

Key to remember: Manufacturers now have even more time to submit TSCA Section 8(d) health and safety data reports for 16 chemical substances.

Conduct AAI before you buy: Shield against Superfund liability
2025-06-03T05:00:00Z

Conduct AAI before you buy: Shield against Superfund liability

There’s one question that all potential purchasers should ask before buying an industrial or commercial property: Could the business be held liable for hazardous substance contamination? The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), also called “Superfund,” allows the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to make both current and past facility owners and operators responsible for cleaning up sites contaminated by hazardous substances.

However, CERCLA offers liability protections to landowners and potential purchasers who didn’t cause or contribute to property contamination if they meet specific requirements, including conducting All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI).

Here’s how AAI can shield your organization from Superfund liability.

What’s AAI?

EPA defines AAI as “the process of evaluating a property’s environmental conditions and assessing potential liability for any contamination.” It encompasses the activities required by the AAI rule (40 CFR Part 312) to:

  • Establish current and past uses and ownerships of the property; and
  • Identify conditions that indicate releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances on, at, in, or to the property.

Potential property owners must comply with the AAI rule to claim protection from CERCLA liability. They may use one of three landowner defenses:

  • Innocent landowners (who didn’t know and had no reason to know before purchase that the property was contaminated),
  • Contiguous property owners (who didn’t know and had no reason to know before purchase that the property is or may be contaminated by a neighboring property), or
  • Bona fide prospective purchasers (who knew or had reason to know before the purchase that the property was contaminated but were allowed to purchase it by meeting and continuing to meet certain criteria).

Who’s required to comply?

You must meet the AAI requirements if you plan to purchase a property for nonresidential use and may want to use CERCLA liability protections for hazardous substance releases or threatened releases after purchase.

The AAI rule requires an environmental professional to conduct most of the activities (312.21), but it also contains provisions that the potential owner must meet (312.22).

Who qualifies as an environmental professional?

An environmental professional has the needed background to identify conditions of a property that indicate releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances. According to 312.10, an environmental professional needs:

  • A current professional engineer’s or professional geologist’s license or registration and three years of relevant work experience,
  • A government-issued license or certification to perform environmental inquiries and three years of relevant work experience,
  • A bachelor’s degree or higher in engineering or science and five years of relevant work experience, or
  • Ten years of relevant work experience.

What’s required to comply?

The AAI rule lists the actions needed to qualify for CERCLA liability protection using the landowner defenses. All AAI tasks must be completed before acquiring the property. Most tasks need to be completed within one year prior to purchasing a property. However, a handful of actions must happen within 180 days before purchase:

  • Interviews,
  • Environmental cleanup lien searches,
  • Governmental record reviews,
  • Visual inspections, and
  • Declaration by the environmental professional.

The environmental professional:

  • Interviews current and past property owners, operators, and occupants;
  • Reviews historical information sources;
  • Reviews government records;
  • Conducts visual inspections of the facility and adjoining properties;
  • Reviews commonly known or reasonably ascertainable property information; and
  • Assesses the degree of obviousness of the presence or likely presence of property contamination and the ability to detect the contamination.

The potential landowner:

  • Searches for environmental cleanup liens not provided by the environmental professional,
  • Assesses any personal specialized knowledge or experience,
  • Assesses the relationship of the purchase price to the fair market value if the property isn’t contaminated, and
  • Obtains any commonly known or reasonably ascertainable property information not provided by the environmental professional.

Report the results

The AAI results must be documented in a written report that’s signed by the environmental professional. It must include:

  • The environmental professional’s determination of whether the property has conditions that indicate releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances,
  • Any data gaps that impacted the ability to identify such conditions and how the missing information impacted the determination,
  • The environmental professional’s qualifications, and
  • The required certification statements at 312.21(d).

Get guidance from industry standards

The regulations don’t provide specific requirements for the AAI format, and although the rules outline the actions you must take, it can be daunting to implement AAI without further guidance.

Consider using industry standards! EPA even references ASTM International Standards at 312.11 that you can use to comply.

Key to remember: Potential landowners can shield themselves from CERCLA liability for hazardous substance contamination by conducting All Appropriate Inquiries.

2025-05-27T05:00:00Z

Site Announcement: New Homepage Coming Soon!!!

Thank you to all our members that have taken the time to provide the Compliance Network team with feedback on what they like and do not like about the site. We have taken this feedback to heart and have redesigned the homepage to better serve our members. Our goal is to make finding the information you need easier and faster.

Let’s take a tour!

Sitewide Search

We heard you. Search has been brought front and center to help you find the information you need quickly.

Activity Overview

The Activity Overview will provide quick access to items that matter to you.

  • Profile Builder - Get the most from your membership. Complete your profile so the information important to you rises to the top.
  • My Saves - Organize and save your content of interest for quick access later.
  • Notifications - We will keep current with site updates, new content, network events, and most importantly, regulatory updates.
  • Top Stories now - Recent news in your areas of interest.

Latest in your favorite Topics

This section will highlight any new content added to your selected topics of interest.

Network Polls and Discussion Activity

See what other professionals in your field are saying.

Premium Content

Exclusive content only available to Compliance Network members.

Trending

Catch up with what other professional like yourself are reading.

The new homepage will go live in June. Don’t hesitate to let us know what you think: compliancenetwork@jjkeller.com

See More

Most Recent Highlights In Transportation

Title V operating permits: Comply, certify, repeat
2025-05-23T05:00:00Z

Title V operating permits: Comply, certify, repeat

A Title V operating permit is a legally enforceable document with the federal and state air emissions regulations that a facility must meet to operate. One requirement that applies to all Title V permit holders is the annual compliance certification. It answers whether a facility fulfills the permit’s terms and conditions (such as emissions limits, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting).

Whether the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or a state or local regulatory agency issues the Title V permit, your facility must complete the annual compliance certification.

Discover what your facility needs to comply, certify, and repeat.

What’s required?

Facilities submit annual compliance certifications to the Title V permitting authority, which is usually a state or local regulatory agency (40 CFR 70.6). An EPA Regional Office serves as the permitting authority (71.6) for federally issued permits.

Title V tip:Check the state or local regulations for Title V compliance certification rules. They may require more frequent submissions and additional information.

At a minimum, the annual compliance certification covers two major areas for every permit term or condition:

  • The compliance methods, and
  • The compliance status.

Let’s take a closer look at each element.

Compliance methods

Your facility’s compliance methods are the ways it tracks whether it’s meeting the Title V permit requirements or not. When a term or condition isn’t met (like exceeding an emission limit), it’s known as a deviation.

Compliance methods consist of monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting:

  • Monitoring includes the procedures, test methods, and equipment used to track compliance data.
  • Recordkeeping covers:
    • The date, place, and time of monitoring;
    • The date when monitoring results were analyzed, the entity that conducted the analysis, the analytical methods used, and the results; and
    • The operating conditions during monitoring.
  • Reporting consists of semiannual monitoring reports and deviation reports (which list the deviation, the applicable permit requirement, the probable cause, and any corrective or preventive actions).

Compliance status

Three questions determine the compliance status of each permit requirement during the covered period:

  • Did the facility comply with the requirement?
  • Was compliance continuous or intermittent?
  • Were any deviations a “possible exception to compliance"?

Intermittent vs. continuous compliance

For each permit term or condition, your facility has intermittent compliance if it doesn’t meet the requirements at any time during the covered period. Your facility achieves continuous compliance only if it:

  • Performs the necessary compliance methods,
  • Has no unexcused deviations, and
  • Records no contrary evidence.

Possible exception to compliance

EPA defines a possible exception to compliance as “any periods during which compliance is required and in which an excursion or exceedance … occurred” (70.6(c)(5)(iii)(C)).

Simply put, a possible exception to compliance is a deviation that occurs when compliance is mandated. If compliance isn’t required or another permit requirement excuses it, the deviation isn’t a possible exception.

How do I submit a compliance certification?

Your facility’s Title V permit provides instructions for how to submit the annual compliance certification, including the required forms and methods (via mail or electronic submission). You can also confirm requirements with your permitting authority. Generally, federally permitted facilities use the Annual Compliance Certification (EPA Form 5900-04).

Title V tip: Electronic submissions may be an option through the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) on EPA’s Central Data Exchange. Check with your permitting authority to determine whether you may submit the annual compliance certification electronically via CEDRI.

Annual compliance certification is vital to maintaining your Title V permit. Keep in mind: comply, certify, and repeat.

Key to remember: Facilities with a Title V operating permit must certify compliance with the requirements at least annually.

Compliance guide: Air regulations for emergency generator installation
2025-05-21T05:00:00Z

Compliance guide: Air regulations for emergency generator installation

In today's rapidly evolving energy landscape, businesses are turning to back-up emergency generators to keep operations running smoothly. Several key factors are driving this growing trend:

  • Extreme heat and weather events

Climate change has led to more intense weather like hurricanes, wildfires, and heatwaves. These events put pressure on power grids, causing outages that disrupt business operations. Generators help by providing backup power during unexpected failures.

  • Power demand from AI and data centers

Artificial intelligence (AI) and data centers need a lot of electricity. As these technologies grow, power grids struggle to keep up. Companies use generators to prevent power shortages and keep essential systems running.

  • Grid reliability concerns

Aging infrastructure and unsteady energy supply from renewable sources can make electrical supply unstable. Industries like manufacturing, healthcare, and finance need steady power to avoid costly interruptions. Generators act as a safety net when the grid fails.

Compliance considerations

Backup generators help keep businesses running, but they also impact the environment. Companies must follow air quality regulations to reduce pollution and operate safely.

Air permits

•State agencies usually oversee air permits, but The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has granted many county and city agencies the authority to issue them. For major permits such as New Source Review (NSR) and Title V, federal regulations apply, but state or local governments may still manage the process.

•In some areas, businesses can apply for a general permit or permit-by-rule for emergency generators. These permits are often easier to obtain and take less time to process. Checking air permitting regulations will help determine if this option is available.

•Businesses should find out if they need a pre-construction or construction air permit before setting up an emergency generator. These permits are based on the proposed equipment’s potential to emit (PTE) of criteria pollutants such as NOx, SO2, CO, and CO2 and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) such as formaldehyde and acrolein, which are emitted during the combustion of fuel. The type(s) of fuel used in the generator, such as diesel, natural gas, gasoline, or propane, will affect the calculated PTE. Read more about construction permits in this ezExplanation: NSR Permits.

(Note: many state and local permitting agencies allow for the use of 500 hours for calculating PTE from an emergency engine, as per EPA’s 2011 Fox Memo, but some agencies still require using 8,760 hours and only accept 500 hours as an enforceable limit defined in a permit.)

•Federal law sets a limit on emergency generators, allowing less than 100 hours of non-emergency use per year. This includes maintenance and testing. Some permits may also restrict the times of day when the generator can be used for non-emergency purposes.

•The permit may require businesses to use the generator according to the manufacturer’s specifications. This is especially important if the business used manufacturer guarantees to calculate PTE.

•Businesses must track fuel use and operating hours to stay within the limits used in emissions calculations. They can do this using fuel records, fuel measuring devices, and hour meters that log the generator’s usage time.

•After getting a construction permit, a facility may need to apply for an operating permit within a year of the generator beginning operation. Some state and local agencies have stricter rules and deadlines. Check out J. J. Keller’s ezExplanation for Operating Permits: Clean Air Act: Operating Permits

EPA emission standards

The EPA enforces strict emissions regulations for stationary engines. Businesses must ensure their generators meet the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for compression ignition (40 CFR 60 Subpart IIII) and spark ignition internal combustion engines (ICE) (40 CFR 60 Subpart JJJJ), which can be found here. Additionally, the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) apply to reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE). 40 CFR 63 Subpart ZZZZ can be found here.

These rules, depending on the specific type of generator engine, will be required even if a permit is not necessary.

Other Regulations

Keep in mind that using an emergency generator may also involve other factors depending on the type and amount of fuel stored:

•Aboveground Storage Tank (AST) Requirements

•Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans

•EPCRA Tier II Reporting

Key to remember: When installing an emergency generator, companies must navigate complex air quality regulations to ensure compliance. By selecting the right fuel type and securing necessary permits, businesses can maintain reliable power while minimizing environmental impact.

Expert Insights: Hazardous waste vs hazardous materials explained
2025-05-16T05:00:00Z

Expert Insights: Hazardous waste vs hazardous materials explained

Several questions we receive from our customers use the terms “hazardous waste” and “hazardous materials” interchangeably. At a recent event, a few attendees admitted that they didn’t think there was a difference between the two. This is a common point of confusion and we want to ensure that our readers know the difference. Let’s dive into it!

Hazardous materials

The term hazardous material is defined by the Department of Transportation and refers to any substance or material that poses an unreasonable risk to health, safety, and property during transportation. Hazardous materials include hazardous substances, hazardous wastes, marine pollutants, and elevated-temperature materials. Essentially, if it’s dangerous and transported, it’s considered a hazardous material.

Hazardous waste

On the other hand, hazardous waste is defined by the Environmental Protection Agency. It refers to contaminated chemicals or by-products that no longer serve their purpose and need to be disposed of. Hazardous wastes are either listed or exhibit characteristics like ignitability, corrosivity, toxicity, or reactivity. It’s essentially waste that poses a danger to health or the environment and requires special handling and disposal.

To put it simply, hazardous material is a broad term that includes various dangerous substances during transportation, while hazardous waste specifically refers to dangerous by-products that need disposal. Understanding these terms is crucial for compliance with environmental and safety regulations.

If you ever find yourself unsure, remember that hazardous materials are about transportation risks, and hazardous wastes are about disposal risks.

EPA further delays PFAS manufacturing report submission period
2025-05-13T05:00:00Z

EPA further delays PFAS manufacturing report submission period

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an interim final rule that further delays the submission period for the one-time reporting requirement for manufacturers of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). It pushes the starting submission period to April 2026.

Under Section 8(a)(7) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA requires any business that manufactured (including imported) any PFAS or PFAS-containing article between 2011 and 2022 to submit the report.

What’s the new timeline?

The Section 8(a)(7) PFAS report’s opening submission period was moved from July 11, 2025, to April 13, 2026. Most manufacturers have six months to submit the report. Small manufacturers reporting only as importers of PFAS-containing articles have one year.

TSCA Section 8(a)(7) PFAS report submission period
Most manufacturersApril 13, 2026–October 13, 2026
Small manufacturers reporting solely as PFAS article importersApril 13, 2026–April 13, 2027

About the report

Manufacturers (including importers) covered by the TSCA Section 8(a)(7) PFAS reporting rule (40 CFR Part 705) must provide information about:

  • Chemical identity, uses, and volumes;
  • By-products;
  • Environmental and health effects;
  • Worker exposure; and
  • Disposal.

It’s the second time EPA has postponed the reporting period. In September 2024, the agency moved the beginning submission period from November 2024 to July 2025. This latest interim rule pushes the starting period from July 2025 to April 2026.

Why the delay?

EPA needs more time to prepare the online reporting tool on the Central Data Exchange that businesses will use to submit the data. The agency will conduct tests to ensure that the application can accept submissions and that reporters don’t encounter technical issues.

Key to remember: EPA further delayed TSCA Section 8(a)(7) PFAS reporting. The submission period now begins on April 13, 2026.

EHS Monthly Round Up - April 2025

EHS Monthly Round Up - April 2025

In this April 2025 roundup video, we'll review the most impactful environmental health and safety news.

Hi everyone! Welcome to the monthly news roundup video, where we’ll review the most impactful environmental health and safety news. Let’s take a look at what’s happened over the last month!

On April 17, OSHA released 2024 injury and illness data. This includes information from more than 370,000 establishments that submitted Form 300A, as well as partial data from more than 732,000 Form 300 and Form 301 records. OSHA provides public access to the data in an effort to identify unsafe conditions and workplace hazards that may lead to occupational injuries and illnesses.

This year’s National Stand-Down to Prevent Struck-by Incidents took place the week of April 21. Struck-by incidents are the second leading cause of death among construction workers and the leading cause of nonfatal injuries in the construction industry. The stand-down emphasized the importance of training and prevention on worksites.

A safety alert from the Mine Safety and Health Administration urges the mining community to implement effective safety and health programs, with a focus on identifying and eliminating health and safety hazards. The alert was issued due to a high number of mining fatalities in the first quarter of 2025.

The Mine Safety and Health Administration temporarily paused its silica enforcement for coal mine operators until August 18, four months from its original compliance date of April 14. Under the agency’s silica rule, mine operators must update their respiratory protection programs. This may require them to obtain additional respirators and sampling devices. The agency says this four-month pause provides time for operators to come into compliance.

And finally, turning to environmental news, EPA updated the process for making data corrections to hazardous waste manifests. Waste handlers must correct errors on the manifest within 30 days of a request from EPA or a state agency. They also must submit corrections electronically.

And finally, EPA streamlined its pesticide registration process. The agency updated its MyPest app and made policy changes regarding how to submit two of its registration forms.

Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!

See More

Most Recent Highlights In Safety & Health

Small quantity generators: Ready for RCRA re-notifications?
2025-05-08T05:00:00Z

Small quantity generators: Ready for RCRA re-notifications?

You’ve likely never thought of “staying in touch” as a legal obligation, but that’s exactly what it is for facilities that generate small quantities of hazardous waste. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) mandates that small quantity generators (SQGs) give updates on their hazardous waste activities every four years. The next re-notification is right around the corner; it’s due by September 1, 2025.

Here's what SQGs need to know to stay in touch — and in compliance — with EPA.

What’s the re-notification requirement?

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) enables EPA to control hazardous waste from generation to disposal. The agency keeps tabs on SQGs through the re-notification regulation at 40 CFR 262.18(d). It requires SQGs to re-notify EPA or the state environmental agency of their generator status and activities every four years by submitting the:

  • Notification of RCRA Subtitle C Activities, also known as the Site Identification (ID) Form (EPA Form 8700-12), or
  • State-equivalent form.

How do SQGs re-notify?

Regulated SQGs must submit the Site ID Form. EPA and many states use the myRCRAid module on RCRA Information (RCRAInfo) for re-notifications.

Here’s how to submit the Site ID Form on myRCRAid:

  1. Log in to RCRAInfo.
  2. Click “Create New Submission” on the myRCRAid tab.
  3. Select the reason for submittal as “Obtaining or updating an EPA ID number for on-going regulated activities (Items 10–17) that will continue for a period of time."
  4. Review and update the information about your site as needed, including the facility’s:
    • EPA ID number,
    • Name and location address,
    • Mailing address,
    • Land type,
    • North American Industry Classification System (or NAICS) code,
    • Site contact information,
    • Legal owner/operator information,
    • Type of regulated waste activity,
    • Additional regulated waste activities, and
    • Status as:
      • An academic entity with laboratories,
      • An episodic generator,
      • A large quantity generator (LQG) consolidating very small quantity generator hazardous waste,
      • An LQG site closing a Central Accumulation Area or facility,
      • A secondary hazardous material manager, and
      • A contractor of an electronic manifest broker.
  5. Include any additional information in the comments section (Item 18).
  6. Click “Review.” Make any needed corrections to the information. Once this is complete, myRCRAid will display the Review Source Record page.
  7. Submit the re-notification:
    • If you don’t have Certifier permission, click “Mark Ready for Signature.” The application will save the form in the “In Progress” section on myRCRAid and notify individuals at your facility with Certifier and Site Manager permissions. The status will display “Ready for Signature."
    • If you have Certifier permission, confirm that the data is correct and click “Sign & Submit” to electronically sign the submission.

Once you submit the Site ID Form, its status on myRCRAid will display “Pending.” EPA or the state regulator will approve or reject the re-notification submission.

Re-notification recommendations

Consider these tips when preparing your SQG re-notification:

  • Most RCRA programs are implemented at the state level. Confirm the re-notification regulations with your state environmental agency. It may not use myRCRAid and may require more frequent submissions.
  • Ensure you have the necessary RCRAInfo permissions to submit the SQG re-notification. A Preparer can enter information into the Site ID form, but only a Certifier or Site Manager with Certifier permission may sign and submit it.
  • EPA accepts submission of the Site ID form at any time within the four years before the next re-notification deadline, so you can submit the re-notification before September 1. Verify with your state whether the same allowance applies.

Submitting the SQG re-notification properly keeps EPA updated and your facility compliant.

Key to remember: Small quantity generators of hazardous waste must re-notify EPA or the state agency by September 1, 2025.

UST release detection equipment: Testing 1, 2, 3
2025-04-24T05:00:00Z

UST release detection equipment: Testing 1, 2, 3

The next time you’re at a service station, consider the fact that you’re standing above underground tanks holding the fuel that you’re pumping into your vehicle. This brings up an important question about any underground tank: Since you can’t see the tank, how do you know if it starts to leak? The answer is a release detection system.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires that all regulated underground storage tanks (USTs) have release detection systems and that owners and operators of USTs test the equipment annually to ensure it operates correctly.

Let’s look at three aspects of release detection equipment testing: how to conduct testing, what to test for, and what to record.

1. How do I test the equipment?

UST owners and operators may conduct release detection equipment testing according to:

  • The manufacturer’s instructions,
  • Industry codes and standards, or
  • The implementing agency’s requirements.

Manufacturer’s instructions

Each piece of release detection equipment should have an associated manual or guide for owners to reference. The manual or guide will explain how to test the equipment.

Tip: Most equipment manufacturers provide online versions of their product manuals and guides, which you can likely find on the manufacturer’s website. If you can’t find guidance, contact the manufacturer directly.

Industry codes and standards

EPA’s regulations stipulate that UST owners and operators who follow industry codes and standards must choose ones developed by a nationally recognized association (like ASTM International or the Petroleum Equipment Institute (PEI)) or an independent testing laboratory.

For instance, the agency states at 280.40(a)(3) that UST owners and operators may use PEI/RP1200, Recommended Practices for the Testing and Verification of Spill, Overfill, Leak Detection and Secondary Containment Equipment at UST Facilities, to comply.

Implementing agency requirements

EPA’s rules for testing release detection equipment serve as the minimum standards. Most state regulatory agencies implement UST programs and may impose stricter or additional requirements. Plus, local regulations may apply.

Check state and local rules to ensure your UST complies with the right requirements.

2. What do I test?

At a minimum, UST owners and operators must test the following factors that apply to their release detection systems.

  • Automatic tank gauges and other controllers: Test the alarms and battery backups. Verify the system’s configuration.
  • Probes and sensors: Test alarm functionality and communication with the controller. Inspect the probes and sensors for residual buildup. Ensure that the floats move freely, the cables have no kinks or breaks, and the shaft isn’t damaged.
  • Automatic line leak detectors: Simulate a leak to determine whether the detector meets the operation requirements of 280.44(a).
  • Vacuum pumps and pressure gauges: Confirm correct communication with the sensors and controller.
  • Handheld electronic groundwater and vapor sampling equipment: Ensure the monitoring equipment operates properly.

3. What records do I have to keep?

The regulation at 280.45(b)(1) mandates that UST owners and operators keep records of the annual release detection equipment testing results for at least three years.

For each annual testing record, list:

  • Each device tested,
  • If the devices operated according to 280.40(a)(3) or had issues that needed attention, and
  • Any corrective actions applied.

Why is release detection equipment testing so important?

Petroleum and other hazardous substances that leak from USTs can endanger human and environmental health. A leaking UST’s primary threat is groundwater contamination. Groundwater supplies drinking water for almost half of Americans.

A release detection system enables a facility to respond sooner to accidental releases and, therefore, limit potential harmful impacts — only if the equipment used for the system operates properly.

Testing your UST’s release detection equipment is vital because it allows you to identify which components function accurately and which parts have problems that need correction. A well-functioning release detection system can help your facility:

  • Maintain regulatory compliance (and avoid enforcement actions like penalties),
  • Identify opportunities to upgrade existing equipment to improve operational efficiency, and
  • Protect your employees and the community in which your facility operates.

Key to remember: EPA requires facilities to test the release detection equipment used on underground storage tanks each year to make sure it operates properly.

EPA modernizes pesticide registration policy, tweaks tracking app
2025-04-23T05:00:00Z

EPA modernizes pesticide registration policy, tweaks tracking app

Pesticide registrations just became simpler, more modern, and more transparent! EPA recently updated an app and made policy changes regarding how to submit two forms. All these changes result in a streamlined pesticide registration process.

Pesticide registration tracking app

On April 18, EPA made enhancements to its MyPest app, which sources say was initially launched in mid-January. EPA is proud to say that MyPest already boasts over 1,200 registrants. The new app allows registrants of pesticide products to:

  • Monitor the status of their registration submissions in real-time,
  • Drill down to a detailed view of each application, and
  • Communicate directly with EPA staff about registration packages in review.

Updates to MyPest include an enhanced dashboard page. The page offers information about the registrant’s cases and products. More updates are planned later this year.

Policy changes impacting two forms

On April 4, EPA announced in the Federal Register the issuance of Pesticide Registration (PR) Notice 2025-1. The notice itself is dated effective March 27, 2025. Its subject line reads, “Revised Procedures for Citing Data to Support Pesticide Registrations (EPA Forms No. 8570-34 and 8570-35).”

The latest PR notice supersedes PR Notice 98-5, dated June 12, 1998. While the revisions were proposed last June, the agency only finalized them now. According to PR Notice 2025-1:

  • EPA Form 8570-34 — This is the Certification with Respect to Citation of Data. Pesticide registrants use this form to indicate how they will meet their data submission/citation obligations under the law. When a registrant refers to another company’s data, the registrant must certify that:
    • It offered compensation to the original data submitter, or
    • It has the original data submitter’s permission to cite the data.
  • EPA Form 8570-35 — This is the Data Matrix. Pesticide registrants use this form to indicate to whom they made offers of compensation.

The two forms — EPA Forms 8570-34 and 8570-35 — have not been modified. Only policies regarding the submission of the two forms have changed. The agency:

  • Eliminated the instruction to use “paper” submissions;
  • Says registrants should complete and submit the two forms electronically through the Pesticide Submission Portal;
  • Eliminated the instruction that registrants submit two versions of the Data Matrix, i.e., the ‘‘Internal Agency Use Copy’’ and the ‘‘Public File Copy’’; and
  • Requires that registrants submit a single Data Matrix without redactions.

EPA contends that none of the information on Form 8570-35 is confidential. Put another way, none of the information on the Data Matrix is protected from public release. Therefore, the agency claims there is no reason to submit two versions of the form.

According to EPA, entities potentially affected by the policy changes include, but are not limited to:

  • Crop production,
  • Animal production,
  • Food manufacturing, and
  • Pesticide manufacturing.

Efficiencies and transparencies gained

Using electronic reporting for EPA Forms 8570-34 and 8570-35 brings efficient data transmittal, argues EPA. A bonus is that electronic reporting will also reduce errors. That’s because of automated validation tools in the portal. Submitters should experience lower costs and faster review and transmission of data, the agency adds.

In 2024, EPA received a total of 3,309 Data Matrices. Moving from two versions to just one for the Data Matrix form should save registrants and EPA time. Specifically, completing, submitting, and processing the Data Matrix should be quicker. EPA will also experience time savings when providing the public access to the information. Extra steps under the Freedom of Information Act would not be needed.

The MyPest app update is a step forward in efficiency and transparency, concludes EPA. The app enhancements are part of the agency’s overall move toward digital and streamlined processes. EPA projects that the app will improve the timeliness of pesticide registration decisions.

Key to remember

Recent actions streamline the pesticide registration process and make it more transparent. These actions relate to the MyPest app and EPA Forms 8570-34 and 8570-35.

Workplace recycling in 2025: Why it matters now more than ever
2025-04-17T05:00:00Z

Workplace recycling in 2025: Why it matters now more than ever

Think recycling at work is just tossing paper in a blue bin? Think again. In 2025, workplace recycling is being redefined — from a basic office task to a strategic initiative that impacts your company’s bottom line, brand reputation, and environmental footprint.

From cardboard and plastics to e-waste and food scraps, today’s leading businesses are building smarter, circular systems that turn trash into opportunity — one department at a time.

Here are five reasons why recycling matters now more than ever.

1. Environmental responsibility impacts your brand reputation

Sustainability is no longer just a corporate social responsibility (CSR) talking point. It’s a core business differentiator. As a management or EHS leader, you’re often on the frontlines of implementing the visible changes that shape public perception. Recycling programs are a low-barrier, high-impact initiative that sends a clear message to customers, investors, and employees: We walk the talk.

Failing to prioritize environmental responsibility puts your company’s reputation at risk — especially in industries with public visibility or regulatory scrutiny. Forward-thinking competitors are already using circular economy models and zero-waste initiatives to win market share.

Champion a program that reflects your company’s values and positions you as a sustainability leader in your field.

2. Compliance with local, state, and federal regulations

Recycling is no longer a “nice-to-have.” Many jurisdictions now require commercial recycling, especially for packaging waste, e-waste, and food scraps. Increasingly, regulations also demand data transparency, such as tracking waste volumes, diversion rates, and sustainability goals.

Supervisors in environmental and safety roles are responsible for ensuring compliance and minimizing risk. Violations can result in hefty fines, bad press, or loss of contracts.

Stay ahead of compliance trends and implement a recycling program that satisfies current and future requirements while keeping auditreadiness top of mind.

3. Cost savings and operational efficiency

Landfill disposal is becoming more expensive due to tipping fees and transportation costs. By diverting materials through recycling or reuse programs, companies can reduce both their environmental footprint and their operational spend.

In addition, smart material handling and waste segregation can lead to process improvements — less clutter, fewer hauling pickups, and even opportunities to monetize recyclable materials like scrap metal, cardboard, or used electronics.

Use data from your waste audits and vendor reporting to identify high-volume waste streams and optimize for both cost reduction and resource efficiency.

4. Workforce engagement, retention, and culture

Today’s workforce, particularly younger employees, is drawn to employers who align with their values. A clean, green workplace that visibly supports recycling and sustainability reinforces a positive culture, boosts morale, and improves engagement — especially when employees feel like they’re contributing to something bigger.

Recycling initiatives are also an easy win for cross-departmental engagement. Whether through green teams, signage campaigns, or employee challenges, these programs offer hands-on ways to involve everyone.

Build internal buy-in by showing how your initiatives support company values, employee wellness, and sustainability goals through shared responsibility.

5. Alignment with data-driven ESG and sustainability goals

In 2025, companies are under increasing pressure from stakeholders to report measurable progress on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives. Waste reduction, recycling rates, and landfill diversion metrics are among the top data points requested in annual sustainability reports and RFPs.

Supervisors and EHS leaders are often the owners of the data. You're tasked with tracking, verifying, and reporting on these outcomes. Without a structured recycling program in place, those metrics are impossible to capture, and your ESG report falls flat.

Establish a system for measuring, improving, and communicating progress toward zero-waste or landfill diversion targets, and support leadership in meeting ESG benchmarks.

Key to remember: Embracing workplace recycling in 2025 isn’t just good for the planet — it’s a smart move that drives innovation, saves money, and positions your company as a leader in sustainability.

EHS Monthly Round Up - March 2025

EHS Monthly Round Up - March 2025

In this March 2025 roundup video, we'll review the most impactful environmental health and safety news.

Hi everyone! Welcome to the monthly news roundup video, where we’ll review the most impactful environmental health and safety news. Let’s get started!

Ladders were the cause of over 22,000 workplace injuries and 161 deaths in 2020. Each March, the American Ladder Institute promotes ladder safety awareness with the goal of reducing ladder-related injuries and fatalities. Every Step Matters was the theme of this year’s National Ladder Safety Month.

Stand Up 4 Grain Safety Week kicked off on March 24. This annual event brings attention to preventable grain handling hazards and promotes safety in this high-hazard industry.

Federal agencies must review their regulations and report back to the White House by April 20. The priority is on “significant” rules, generally considered to be those with an annual effect on the economy of 100 million dollars or more. Once the regulations have been identified, the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Government Efficiency will work with agency leaders to create a plan for rescinding or modifying the regulations and begin winding down their enforcement.

A highwall fatality at a surface mine prompted the Mine Safety and Health Administration to issue a safety alert. It outlines what miners should do to prevent similar incidents, including looking for hazards such as loose rocks and overhangs before beginning work.

The American Society of Safety Professionals revised its construction training standard. It outlines training requirements for new hires in construction and demolition operations, site procedures, regulatory compliance, and more.

And finally, turning to environmental news, EPA will reconsider a number of major rulemakings that may impact a variety of industries. This is in response to an executive order that federal agencies review their regulations. Among the rules under consideration include those related to clean power, oil and gas emission limits, greenhouse gas reporting, and risk management.

EPA’s Waste Emissions Charge on petroleum and natural gas facilities with high methane emissions is no longer in effect. The rule initially took effect in January and was then disapproved by Congress on March 14.

Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!

See More

Most Recent Highlights In Human Resources

Hazardous waste manifest errors? Follow RCRA’s correction process
2025-04-04T05:00:00Z

Hazardous waste manifest errors? Follow RCRA’s correction process

Hazardous waste manifests are like travel logs. They track the entire journey of regulated hazardous waste, from the starting point (the generator’s facility) to the final destination (the off-site waste management facility). Like travel logs, a manifest is only as accurate as the information provided. Thankfully, you can correct manifest errors.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized the Third Rule under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which took effect in January 2025. It made noteworthy changes to the manifest corrections process. Here’s what hazardous waste generators, transporters, and treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) need to know.

Who’s impacted?

The Third Rule impacts entities subject to RCRA’s manifest regulations. This article focuses on the manifest correction rules that apply to these waste handlers:

  • Small and large quantity generators,
  • Transporters, and
  • TSDFs.

Note that the final rule amends post-manifest correction regulations for other entities, such as exporters, that are beyond the scope of this article.

What are the Third Rule changes?

EPA’s final rule maintains most of the post-receipt manifest data corrections process.

What’s the same?

Specifically:

  • Any waste handler named on the manifest may voluntarily submit data corrections at any time,
  • Waste handlers can make an unlimited number of voluntary corrections,
  • Corrections may be applied to an individual record or batch of them, and
  • Submissions must include a signature compliant with the Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR).

What’s different?

Previously, when EPA or a state regulatory agency requested corrections to data on a manifest, waste handlers weren’t required to make them. The Third Rule now mandates that waste handlers:

  • Correct errors on the manifest within 30 days of a corrections request from EPA or a state agency, and
  • Make data correction submissions electronically for paper or electronic manifest records.

Post-receipt corrections are made via the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest System (e-Manifest) on the RCRA Information (RCRAInfo) system.

The Third Rule also clarifies that receiving facilities (TSDFs) can make corrections only after the manifest is completed (i.e., signed and submitted to the e-Manifest system).

What’s the post-receipt manifest correction process?

Waste handlers submitting voluntary or mandatory post-receipt corrections to hazardous waste manifests must follow the process established at 40 CFR 264.71(l).

Follow this general process on the e-Manifest System:

  • Certify that the manifest is complete. It must have the status “Signed-Completed."
  • Determine how to submit the corrected data to the e-Manifest system. You can enter the data directly into e-Manifest or upload a file with data corrections to the system.
  • Include for each correction submission:
    • The Manifest Tracking Number and date received by the facility associated with the data being corrected,
    • The Item Number(s) of the affected data fields on the manifest form (EPA Form 8700-22), and
    • The previously entered and corrected data.
  • Save your corrections. The manifest’s status will change to “Under Correction."
  • Re-sign the manifest to certify the corrections. The manifest’s status will change to “Corrected."

Manifest correction FAQs

Check out some top questions and answers about post-receipt manifest corrections.

What manifest information can I correct?

The type of waste handler your facility is determines which items on the manifest you can change for voluntary corrections or must change for mandatory corrections. Typically:

  • Generators correct data in Items 1–15;
  • Transporters correct data in Items 6–7, 14, and 17; and
  • TSDFs correct data in Items 14 and 18–20.

What user role do I need on RCRAInfo to submit manifest corrections?

You must be registered in RCRAInfo as a user with the e-Manifest Certifier or Site Manager role for the facility’s site to submit manifest corrections.

What’s the CROMERR certification?

EPA requires manifest correction submitters to use a CROMERR-compliant electronic signature, which requires a higher level of identity proofing than the Quick Sign signature.

Can I revert to a previous manifest version?

Once the corrected manifest has been signed, you can’t revert it to a previous version. The e-Manifest system does, however, let you view all versions of the manifest.

Can brokers sign corrected manifests?

Although brokers can initiate a manifest correction for generators, they may not sign a corrected manifest unless they (a) operate at the generator’s facility and (b) can sign the manifest as an offeror of the waste shipment.

Key to remember: EPA’s Third Rule updates the process for making data corrections to RCRA hazardous waste manifests.

The cost of cutting corners: What a toxic fire teaches us about waste management
2025-04-01T05:00:00Z

The cost of cutting corners: What a toxic fire teaches us about waste management

Are you storing and disposing of hazardous waste correctly or sitting on disaster? Hazardous waste storage is not just a regulatory headache – it is a time bomb for the environment and your company’s bottom line. A disaster in east London, England, is an ongoing issue for nearby residents that highlights the importance of hazardous waste management and why employers must take it seriously.

What happened?

Originally intended for construction waste disposal, the site eventually turned into a dumping ground for hazardous industrial materials. Investigations found plastics, asbestos, industrial chemicals, and carcinogenic substances illegally dumped, creating an environmental and public health hazard. These materials fuel the fires, continuously releasing toxic smoke into the air. Residents have reported respiratory problems, skin irritation, and other health issues while authorities struggle to contain the situation. Even though this incident occurred in London, we can learn plenty of valuable lessons from the incident. Here’s how employers can take proactive measures to ensure compliance, protect workers, and prevent environmental harm:

1. Implement a robust hazardous waste management plan

A hazardous waste management plan should:

  • Include waste classifications (reactive, corrosive, etc.) and an inventory of all hazardous materials used and generated.
  • Ensure all storage and handling procedures, including labeling, segregation of incompatible waste, spill prevention, and containment measures, are followed.
  • Document all waste accumulation and disposal methods. Specify the storage time limits for waste and the methods used for its disposal, such as incineration, recycling, or third-party handling.
  • Provide information on personal protective equipment (PPE) requirements, emergency contact information, reporting procedures, and an evacuation plan in case of a spill.

2. Train employees on hazardous waste handling

Train personnel on their roles and responsibilities when handling hazardous waste. Training should include:

  • Initial and refresher training that complies with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and state laws.
  • Identifying unsafe practices and reporting potential violations.

3. Conduct routine inspections and audits

  • Perform internal audits to ensure compliance with RCRA regulations.
  • Schedule third-party audits to identify risks and areas of improvement.
  • Create a corrective action plan for any violations or inefficiencies discovered during audits.

4. Use licensed and certified waste disposal services

The primary reason behind illegal waste dumping is financial. We all know it is not cheap to dispose of hazardous waste, but waste generators are responsible for their waste from “cradle to grave.”

  • Conduct due diligence to verify disposal methods to prevent third-party illegal dumping.
  • Maintain records of manifest, disposal certificate, and compliance documentation.

5. Secure and label waste properly

  • Labels should include “hazardous waste” clearly visible on the container, generator information, accumulation start date, proper shipping name, and waste identification.
  • Store hazardous waste in compatible containers to prevent leaks or spills.

6. Reduce hazardous waste by using safer alternatives

One of the most effective ways to prevent hazardous waste incidents is to reduce reliance on them in the first place. By switching to safer alternatives, employers can lower their risk of exposure. Industries now offer eco-friendly coatings, adhesives, and cleaning agents that perform well without all the side effects. Safer alternatives also reduce compliance costs by lowering the burdens for hazardous waste disposal.

The disaster near London is a stark reminder of the consequences of negligent hazardous waste management. Businesses that cut corners on waste disposal risk legal penalties and contribute to long-term environmental and public health damage.  

Keys to remember: Employers can protect their workforce, comply with regulations, and prevent environmental disasters by adopting proactive waste management strategies.

Congress disapproves EPA's excess methane fees on oil, gas facilities
2025-03-25T05:00:00Z

Congress disapproves EPA's excess methane fees on oil, gas facilities

A joint Congressional resolution disapproved the 2024 Final Waste Emissions Charge (WEC) Rule on oil and gas facilities with high methane emissions. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that the regulation, which initially took effect on January 17, 2025, is now no longer in effect.

Who’s impacted?

The WEC rule applied to facilities in the Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems category that:

  • Report emitting more than 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (or GHGRP),
  • Exceed specific waste emissions thresholds, and
  • Qualify for no exemptions.

Facilities that were subject to the rule are no longer required to comply (i.e., submit WEC filings by September 2, 2025).

What’s next?

EPA stated it’s “currently evaluating options and obligations for implementing Clean Air Act Section 136(c–g) and will provide additional information to the regulated community at an appropriate time."

Section 136, added by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, mandates that EPA implement a methane reduction incentive program for petroleum and natural gas systems, including imposing and collecting a WEC on methane emissions above waste emissions limits.

The disapproval occurred on March 14, 2025, just two days after the agency announced 31 deregulatory actions it plans to take.

Key to remember: EPA’s Waste Emissions Charge on petroleum and natural gas facilities for excess methane is no longer in effect.

EPA announces major regulatory reviews, overhauls
2025-03-19T05:00:00Z

EPA announces major regulatory reviews, overhauls

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on March 12, 2025, that it’s taking 31 actions to advance President Trump’s Day One executive orders and the new “Powering the Great American Comeback” Initiative. The agency’s actions will likely impact environmental regulations across various industries.

Rules under review

EPA will reconsider an assortment of rulemakings, including:

  • The Clean Power Plan 2.0 (which sets carbon dioxide emission limits on new gas-fired combustion turbines and emissions guidelines for existing coal, oil, and gas-fired steam generating units),
  • Oil and gas emission limits for new and existing sources (40 CFR Part 60 Subparts OOOOb and OOOOc),
  • The Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reporting Program (GHGRP) for petroleum and natural gas systems (Part 98 Subpart W),
  • The GHGRP overall (Part 98),
  • Mercury Air Toxics Standards for coal- and oil-fired power plants (Part 63 Subpart UUUUU),
  • Effluent limitation guidelines (ELGs) for the steam electric power generating industry (Part 423),
  • Treated wastewater use and discharge for coal-fired power plants (Part 435 Subpart E),
  • The Risk Management Program rule (Part 68),
  • Vehicle GHG rules (including the light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicle regulations),
  • The 2009 Endangerment Finding (relied on for seven federal vehicle rules) and related regulations and actions (Chapter I),
  • The Technology Transition Rule for refrigerant systems (Part 84 Subpart B),
  • The National Ambient Air Quality Standards for fine particulate matter (Parts 50, 53, and 58),
  • The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (Part 63) for:
    • Iron and steel manufacturing,
    • Rubber tire manufacturing,
    • Synthetic organic chemical manufacturing,
    • Commercial sterilizers for medical devices and spices,
    • Lime manufacturing,
    • Coke ovens,
    • Copper smelting, and
    • Taconite ore processing.
  • The Exceptional Events rulemaking related to allowing prescribed fires within State Implementation Plans (Parts 50–51),
  • The Regional Haze Program implementing regulations (51.308), and
  • The Good Neighbor Plan (Parts 52, 75, 78, and 97).

The agency will also take other actions, such as:

  • Working with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to finalize the definition of “waters of the United States” related to Clean Water Act permits,
  • Updating enforcement discretion by revising the National Enforcement and Compliance Initiatives, and
  • Prioritizing the coal ash program to expedite state permit reviews and update the coal ash regulations (including amending the Legacy Coal Combustion Residuals Surface Impoundments and CCR Management Units rule).

About EPA’s new initiative

In February 2025, the agency announced the Powering the Great American Comeback Initiative, which outlines EPA’s priorities. The initiative consists of five pillars:

  • Clean air, land, and water;
  • Restore energy dominance;
  • Permitting reforms, cooperative federalism, and cross-agency partnership;
  • Make the U.S. the artificial intelligence capital of the world; and
  • Protect and bring back American auto jobs.

EPA’s 31 actions will primarily address the first three pillars.

Key to remember: EPA will reconsider major rulemakings that may impact a variety of industries.

Lessons from blast: CSB video explores gas detection and emergency plans
2025-03-17T05:00:00Z

Lessons from blast: CSB video explores gas detection and emergency plans

Another riveting video is posted by the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB)! The animated video covers a massive explosion at a Texas machine shop. Two workers and a member of the public were killed. Over 450 neighboring homes/businesses were damaged.

Video supports investigative report

The 14-minute video, “No Detection: Explosion …,” follows a June 2023 investigation report. When the 56-page report came out, CSB Chairperson Steve Owens said, “Our investigation found that [the company] did not have an effective program in place to assess potential hazards in its propylene process and did not have a mechanical integrity program or written operating procedures.”

The incident was compounded by emergency planning failures, says CSB. Owens argued, “This tragic incident was made even worse due to the lack of emergency response training for employees at the facility.”

Deadly incident

CSB explains that a degraded and poorly crimped rubber welding hose disconnected from its fitting inside a coating booth. That prompted a release of propylene, a flammable vapor.

By the time workers arrived at the facility the early morning of January 24, 2020, an explosive concentration of propylene had formed inside the building. As workers entered and turned on the lights, the vapor ignited, triggering an explosion. It:

  • Killed two workers,
  • Injured two other workers,
  • Fatally injured a nearby resident, and
  • Damaged hundreds of structures.

The board’s investigation later found that the company had:

  • Disconnected gas detectors from a computer control system. This meant the automatic gas detection shutoff system would not alert operators to a leak. It also would not start up exhaust fans or trigger two shutoff valves to stop the flow of propylene.
  • Replaced a copper tubing connection with a rubber welding hose. Rubber hose is not recommended for propylene. Oils in the gas can cause a rubber hose to form cracks and lose pliability.

OSHA citations before/after the incident

OSHA cited the company 12 years earlier for failing to inspect gas system equipment for signs of deterioration or leaks. The 2008 OSHA visit was prompted by another explosion of propylene gas.

Following the later 2020 incident, OSHA issued citations for failing to:

Safety issues found by CSB

CSB explains that the shop’s propylene amount was below the threshold for OSHA’s Process Safety Management (PSM) standard at 29 CFR 1910.119 or EPA’s Risk Management Plan (RMP) standard at 40 CFR 68. Still, the CSB investigation identified these safety issues:

  • PSM — Had the company had an effective PSM program to identify and control hazards, it could have prevented the incident. Suggested PSM program elements included process safety information, process hazard analysis, management of change, mechanical integrity, and operating procedures.
  • Emergency planning — The company’s emergency response plan did not address responding to a propylene gas leak. The company also failed to train its workers to recognize or respond to a propylene gas release. Hence, workers did not evacuate from the area after suspecting a propylene leak nor contact responders for help.

Owens concludes that the deadly incident could have been mitigated if the company had implemented an effective PSM system for the hazards of its coating operation. Even if a leak occurred, Owens believes an emergency response plan could have prevented the tragic loss of life.

OSHA chemical emergency preparedness may include an emergency action plan and/or an emergency response plan.

Lessons for industry

To prevent chemical incidents, CSB urges you to:

  • Ensure the safety of workers who handle hazardous chemicals (and protect surrounding communities). This is regardless of whether or not the chemicals meet the threshold under PSM and RMP standards.
  • Ensure gas detection, alarm, exhaust, and shutdown systems are adequately designed, maintained, inspected, and tested. The idea is to ensure reliability if your facility handles hazardous chemicals.
  • Ensure a written emergency response plan is implemented. Also, ensure that it adequately addresses all actions to be taken in a release. Workers too need to be trained in the plan and participate in periodic drills.

Have questions about chemical safety or emergency planning? Pose them to our J. J. Keller® experts! Visit our Expert Help page today!

CSB videos are recognized

The latest video comes after the board received a “Silver Play Button” award. The CSB’s video channel boasts 364K subscribers and nearly 100 safety videos. The channel has had over 65M combined views since 2007. What’s more, CSB claims that the chemical industry itself and engineering schools use the videos for chemical safety training.

Key to remember

A new CSB video covers the 2020 massive explosion at a Texas machine shop. The board urges you to implement PSM systems even if not required. CSB also presses you to ensure that workers are trained in emergency response plans.

See More
New Network Poll
No active poll
Please come back soon!
See More
See More
See More
See More
Saved to my EVENT CALENDAR!
View your saved links by clicking the arrow next to your profile picture located in the header. Then, click “My Activity” to view the Event Calendar on your Activity page.