It is questionable as to whether converting from Class II petroleum should be included in this analysis. Class II petroleum solvents contain some aromatic chemicals which are known to be carcinogenic. However, neither the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services nor the EPA has classified this class of solvents as toxic. Some interpreted the instructions in the legislation requesting this analysis to include conversion from all (both) current predominant processes; consequently, this table is included.
1) Reduce Petroleum Solvent Usage Further – Installation of the new refrigerated solvent recovery dryers has reduced the solvent usage in those facilities by about 85 – 90 percent. Those who have installed this new equipment have received a good return on investment (ROI). Consequently, the study group recommends that all Class II petroleum transfer operations be encouraged to install solvent recovery systems. The smaller facilities might need some temporary assistance in financing the purchase of these dryers.
2) More Wet Cleaning – This alternative is obviously feasible, as wet cleaning has been used in conjunction with all of the solvent processes for many years.
Additional capital investment of about $30,000 for the new high-tech washing and drying machines is required in order to raise the level of wet cleaning from the current level of about 10 percent to about 30 percent. It also would require in-depth employee training to properly sort and handle garments for this type of operation. The cost of operation may or may not be lower, as solvent costs should be lower, but labor costs will probably be higher.
Wet cleaning could be increased further to as high as about 70 percent of all dry cleaning with the additional purchase of specialized finishing equipment, but it is not a potential complete alternative. The costs of this additional equipment should be about $20,000.
Public perception problems could occur if the public doesn’t like knowing their good clothes were being washed. But they don’t know about the current level of 10 percent wet cleaning. Increasing the amount of wet cleaning will require significant changes in the operations, which are usually not well-received because of the capital costs and the need to change existing operating procedures and habits.
Financial incentives would help bring about an increased use of wet cleaning.
A grant program to better evaluate the potential of this alternative would be helpful. With its former grant program, DPPEA partially funded the trial of one of these new washer-dryer sets, which has been quite successful.
N.C. Dry Cleaning Alternatives Study
59 Converting from Petroleum – Table 6
3) Convert to Class IIIA Petroleum Plus Wet Cleaning – This alternative is similar to the Class II process, can be used in both transfer and dry-to-dry equipment, requires somewhere between $25,000 – 120,000 of additional capital investment, and is a feasible, complete alternative. This process is well tested and highly acceptable to the general public. This solvent costs about twice as much as the Class II solvent, and has a slightly longer drying cycle. It is a Class IIIA solvent, not a hazardous material by EPA standards but is by OSHA standards, it has a flash point and burns, and is a fire safety hazard. Some former PERC shops have already switched to this alternative.
The current investment in petroleum equipment may not be lost.
4) Convert to Cyclic Siloxanes Plus Wet Processing – This process appears to be a feasible, complete, innovative alternative that requires basically the same capital outlay of $45,000 - $120,000 as the conversion to the Class IIIA dry-to-dry petroleum process, because the equipment is essentially the same. The operating costs appear to be comparable to PERC and Class II petroleum processes. The solvent/detergent mixture, currently called D-5 and D-6, has been upgraded since it first came to market, and it appears to clean most garments acceptably. The detergent manufacturers continue to work on improving its cleaning performance. Public acceptance has been tested for about three years at this point, and it is reported that over 130 machines have been installed in the United States.
This type of solvent has been used in several industrial applications and in personal care products for several years. The personal care products have been tested extensively by other government agencies, but the EPA is still finalizing its evaluation for this application.
It is a Class IIIA solvent, has a flash point and burns, is a fire safety hazard, and is a hazardous material by OSHA standards, but not by EPA. If someone converted to this process and it didn’t work out, the equipment could be converted to a Class IIIA petroleum operation.
The current investment in petroleum equipment would probably be lost.
GreenEarth requires the purchase of approved stainless steel machines and has a $2,500/yr per machine licensing fee.
Converting from Petroleum – Table 6
5) Convert to Liquid Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Plus Wet Cleaning Plus Solvent Cleaning – Liquid CO2 also appears to be a new, feasible innovative cleaning process, which in many aspects is quite different from the other alternatives.
It apparently is not a complete alternative, as it is the understanding of the study group that some of the new plants have had to install solvent
machines or outsource some work in order to service all types of garments.
The CO2 alone does not process triacetates, acetates, and spandex well at this point in time, which are present in many tailored garments. Manufacturers continue to work on improving the hydrocarbon detergent mixture used in conjunction with the CO2 in an effort to make this a complete alternative.
This process operates at high pressures (750-800 psi) requiring heavy machinery; consequently, it has the highest capital costs. Thus, each of the processing facilities would need to become a higher volume business, relative to the other cleaning processes – perhaps with satellite stores – in order to be profitable. The base solvent, CO2, is not flammable, but the detergent mixture used with it is a Class IIIA solvent and a fire safety hazard.
According to an EPA publication, the operating costs are apparently
comparable to the PERC and petroleum processes, although the study group was not provided typical cost structures. It has been reported that 30 – 35 machines have been installed during the past three years in the United States.
The study group has estimated the capital requirements to be in the $100,000 -
$120,000 range if buying only one machine. Micell sells only Hangers®
franchises, which include protected territories of at least $4 million potential sales, certain store décor, etc. The study group was not provided a range of capital investments, but estimated a Hangers® operation to cost between
$200,000 and well over $1 million, depending on such factors as location, number of satellite stores, etc. This process appears to be the highest risk alternative, and may not be affordable by the small dry cleaner.
The current investment in petroleum equipment would be lost.
N.C. Dry Cleaning Alternatives Study
Barriers/Restrictions Feasibility Recommended Assistance
very little capital if any
Feasible – Many are of process to at least 600 lbs/gal. Essentially no risk to current business.
More Wet Cleaning
Train staff to route more to wet clean. Need new cost of claims; possible problem if people believe their clothes being “washed.”
Feasible to raise to about 30% with purchase of the new machines and to labor; if operator ruins a garment, must pay to replace it and damage to reputation. Can go to 30%
with just a small risk to being done by some who had old PERC machines alternative since it is a well-known process with
Need new machines similar to petroleum, so will lose
investment in PERC machines
Feasible – very similar to petroleum cleaning, but to this process because if it does not work,
equipment can be converted to petroleum.
Small dry cleaners could make this change as well as the other alternates.
Need potential territories of at least $4 M/yr; Probably need satellite stores if Hangers®; lose PERC machine investment
Feasible in large markets for “larger” investors, may be too expensive for small dry cleaners. Not
Converting from PERC to Various Alternatives
$K = $1,000
$M = $1million Table 5
Train staff to route more to wet clean. Need new high-tech machines
Takes more time and labor. If ruin a garment, must pay to replace it and reputation gets damaged. Can go to 30% with just a small risk to
This is a low risk alternative.
Convert to
A lessened risk of changing to this process exists because if it does not work, equipment can be converted to petroleum. Small dry cleaners could make this change as well as the other alternatives.
Higher risk; equipment usable for CO2 only; CO2 plants are installing solvent machines, so only a partial reduction. Assistance might be viewed as aid for large business.
$4M market is about 10 times larger than average.
Table 6
Converting from Class II Petroleum to Various Alternatives Table 6
N.C. Dry Cleaning Alternatives Study
64