United States .
Environmental Protection
Agency
Pollution Prevention
and Toxics
, (TS-779) - .'
, EPA 744^93-004
.- September 1993
Multiprocess Wet Cleaning
Cost and Performance
Comparison of Conventional
Dry Cleaning and
An Alternative Process
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Printed on Recycled Pacer
-------
-------
MULTIPROCESS WET CLEANING:
COST AND PERFORMANCE COMPARISON OF CONVENTIONAL
DRY CLEANING AND AN ALTERNATIVE PROCESS
.'..-' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. .". ' ;
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
'.'; 401 M Street SW . -.
Washington, D.C. 20460
EPA Document 744-R-93-004
September, 1993
-------
-------
PROJECT STAFF
PROJECT MANAGER: Chad Jehassi . -''
EPA Office of pollution Prevention, and Toxics .
Economics,-Exposure and Technology Division
This report is the result of a collaboration between the EPA's Design for the Environment
Program and individuals and organizations from the clothes cleaning industry, environmental,
organizations, and academia. The demonstration project described in this report woud have
been impossible-without the generous contribution of time and materials from the fallowing
project participants: ... ;, .
ECOCLEAN International. Inc. .
The International Fabricare Institute . . . '
The Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Institute '.'.-,-.
The Neighborhood Cleaners Association (NCA) , .'/'.-'
' - In addition to these project participants, 'the following organizations made significant
contributions . to the project through their participation in the International Roundtable on
Pollution Prevention and Control in the Dry Cleaning Industry, and their assistance in the design
and review phases of the demonstration project.
Environment Canada
Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union ,
. The Dow Chemical Company
Greenpeace
Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance
Natural Resource Defense Council
Occupational .Health Foundation _ .
R.R. Street & Co. .
This material has-been funded in part by the Environmental Protection Agency under
contract # 68-D2-0175 to Abt Associates, Inc. It has been subject to the Agency's review, and
it has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or
commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use either by the
Environmental Protection Agency, Abt Associates, Inc., or other firms and individuals who have
participated in this project.
-------
-------
for the Environment
MULTIPROCESS WET CLEANING:
COST AND PERFORMANCE COMPARISON OF CONVENTIONAL
DRY CLEAMNG AND AN ALTERNATIVE PROCESS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) has been working with the
drv cleaning industry through its'Existing Chemicals Program to reduce exposure to
perchloroethylene (PCE). PCE, is the chemical solvent used by most dry cleaners to clean
clothes' With more than 34,000 commercial shops in neighborhoods and malls across the
country, dry cleaners are one of the largest groups of chemical users that come into, direct.
contact with the public. .
PCE is designated as a hazardous air pollutant under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act
and under many state air toxics regulations. On September 15, 1993, EPA set national emission
standards for new and existing PCE dry cleaning facilities. According to a -study conducted on
Staten Island and in New Jersey, PCE is among the toxic air pollutants found at the highest
concentrations in urban air. ;
The potential health and environmental concerns associated with the use of PCE led the
dry cleaning industry and the EPA, to form a partnership to explore ways to further reduce
exposure to dry cleaning chemicals. /
BACKGROUND
In May 1992, OPPT, under its Design for the Environment (DfE) program, convened
the International Roundtable on Pollution Prevention and Control in the Dry Cleaning Industry.
Researchers, industry representatives, and government officials met to exchange information on
a number of issues related to the dry;cleaning industry, including.exposure reduction, regulation,
and information dissemination.. A'variety of concerns were discussed including some newly
documented studies of residential exposures in apartment buildings where dry cleaning operations
are located. Also new concerns about soil and groundwater contamination from, dry cleaners
were .discussed. ' . '. . ' .
In order to evaluate a full range of exposure control options and alternative cleaning
methods, the DfE program and industry are collaborating on a Cleaner Technologies Substitute
Assessment (CTSA) for the dry cleaning industry. Through the CTSA;. the EPA is
systematically examining a number of. alternative cleaning technologies, substitute solvents, and
methods to control and limit chemical exposure from dry cleaning. The CTSA will also weigh
the" trade-offs of different options in terms of risk, performance, cost, energy impacts, and
resource conservation. As part of the CTSA, the EPA formed a partnership with the dry
cleaning industry to compare the.costs and performance of a potential alternative cleaning
process that relies on the controlled application of heat, steam, and natural soaps to clean clothes
-------
r_ ' Multiprocess Wet Cleaning
that are typically dry-cleaned. Characterization of any environmental concerns that may be
associated* with this process will be accomplished separately in the CTSA,
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
The DfE program in collaboration with the Neighborhood Cleaners Association (NCA),
the International Fabricare Institute (IFI) and a commercial vendor, ECOCLEAN International,
Inc., conducted a short term, high volume test in November and December 1992 to compare the
costs and performance of the conventional dry cleaning method that uses PCE and an alternative
"multiprocess wet cleaning" process. The EPA agreed to participate in the wet cleaning
demonstration, as part of the CTSA, to test the viability of a non-solvent alternative process.
The wet cleaning process tested is an aqueous based cleaning process that relies on heat,
steam, pressing anil soap to clean clothes. Although.the process uses water, garments are not
necessarily fully immersed or saturated with water. A wet cleaner selects among various
cleaning techniques (including steam cleaning, spot removing, hand washing, gentle machine
washing, tumble, drying, and vacuuming) to ensure that garments made of different fabrics are
cleaned without damage. The cleaning method selected is dependent on garment type, fabric
condition, and soiling. The wet process tested is only one of a number of potential alternative
wet and dry processes the EPA plans to evaluate as part of the CTSA.
During the test, nearly 1500 garments were collected from consumers employed in
government agencies in Washington D.C. and New York City, and transported to the
Neighborhood Cleaners Association New York School of Dry Cleaning in Manhattan, New
York. The clothes were separated into lots of 50 items each and random selection (flip of a
coin) determined which garments would be drycleaned with PCE and which would be cleaned
using the alternative wet cleaning process. No consideration of garment or fabric type
influenced the selection process. After the clothes were randomly divided between the wet and
dry process, 712 articles were wet cleaned and 787 were drycleaned. After cleaning, both sets
of clothes were pressed on the same equipment and returned to the customer. Attached to each
cleaned garment was a postage-paid evaluation form to solicit customer satisfaction information.
The customers were not informed of .which process was used to clean their clothes.
ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY STUDY _
The experimental results from the New York School of Dry Cleaning were first used to
conduct an engineering cost analysis comparison. of both cleaning processes used in the
demonstration project. The engineering cost analysis examined the raw operating costs and cost
of the equipment that was unique to each process.. Eleven cost items differed between the two
cleaning methods including equipment maintenance and repair, electricity, hazardous waste
disposal, and capital "recovery cost. Those costs that were similar to both processes, such as the
labor time needed to press the garments, were not compared. The engineering cbst analysis
-------
. ' -. ' - .--' ; . . . .' ' ES-iH
Design for the Environment - - - _ . _ .' _ ; ; - , - - - . -
found that the measured cost per lot (SCHtems of clothing) for cleaning at the dry cleaning school
was virtually identical. -.,;..
Conditions in the New York School of Dry Cleaning do not completely mirror those in
.a typical dry cleaning operation. -The size and age of the machines and the efficiency of the
location of spotting and finishing equipment is different for an operation set up to teach than for
a facility which must maintain a.production schedule. Therefore it was necessary to develop a
model that would be applicable to a wide variety of real world operations. Data was cpUected
from equipment vendors/industry organizations, and EPA reports to construct the hypothetical
model plant analysis. An annual sales volume of $5,000 per week was used to represent the size
of a typical large dry cleaning establishment. The costs for the model plant were calculated
using modern ^cleaning equipment, including dry,to-dry drycleaning machine equipped wuh
a refrigerated condenser (RC) control device. The financial results were examined.by estimating
the annual cost for 81 separate expense items. ^.*^^^«^f^"^
return to capital investment, and other financial measures were developed for each model
facility, ' : ' ' : . .'- ' . "'
The economic feasibility study examined the financial results for a facility exclusively
; performing drycleaning, a facility exclusively P6^^ ^WP^SS w^ d^?' ^^
mode" facilities offering both types of cleaning service. The mixed mode analysis examined a
rangeV facilities from a mix of 95 percent drycleaning and'five percent wet Cleaning (the
"95/5" facility), to a mix of five percent drycleaning and 95 percent wet cleaning. Thus there
are 19 mixed mode plants, plus the ^two dedicated facilities.
In addition to the mix of cleaning methods used at a facility, the feasibility analysis
examined two types of operations: new facilities and conversions. Conversions are existing PCE
drycleaning facilities that add multiprocess wet cleaning capabilities. The primary difference
between the two types of facilities is the size of the drycleaning equipment. The analysis ot the
mixed mode conversion facilities assumes the .plant uses the same size drycleaning equipment
as a dedicated drycleaning, while the new facility selects the best size equipment for the quantity
of clothes they ate planning on drycleaning. For each of these two types °f^ies the
. economic feasibility study estimates the annual costs for a total .of 40 different facilities.
dedicated drycleaning and wet cleaning plants (there is no "conversion analysis far the
dedicated plants), 19 mixed mode' new facilities, and 19 mixed mode conversion facilities.
Fgnnomic Feasibility Study Results . .
The principal results of the model plant analysis are estimates of the total annual private
costs for the various facilities. The dedicated dry cleaning facility serves as the basis for
comparison (the base case). The estimated annual cost for the dedicated dry cleaning facility
s nS $240^000 (aU facilities have annual revenues of $260,000). The estimated cost for the
dedicat wet cleaning facility is almost $1,000 (0.4 percent) less
dry cleaning facility. The costs for new mixed mode plants are generally shghty less than the
. cost of the dedicated dry cleaning plant for plants doing at least 50 percent dry cleaning. Costs
are higher for new facilities doing , less than 50 percent drycleaning, primarily because me
-------
£S-«v
Multiprocess Wet Cleaning
tin-cleaning equipment is 'being underutilized. Annual costs for Averting an existing
drycleanin; facility to mixed mode operations are generally $1,000 to 52,000 higher than the
dedicated drycleaning plant, even for plants doing over 50 percent drycleamng. When
drycleaning less than 50 percent of the garments, the difference in costs increases.
The estimated costs.can be used to estimate annual profit (revenues minus annual costs).
The profits for all the mixes at new"facilities are shown on Exhibit ES.l, and the profits for
conversion facility mixes are shown on Exhibit ES.2.
Exhibit ES.l
ANNUAL PROFIT: NEW FACILITY
Opocmg New Clothe* Clourinc Facility
Exhibit ES..2
ANNUAL PROFIT: CONVERSION
Addn^ Wet Cleanng «t «n Ergting Drycle»ner
ta.vn
Wet Clan
While profits are a very important
financial indicator, the return to
investment is also important and reveals
an important difference -in the cleaning
processes. Because multiprocess wet
cleaning uses substantially less expensive
equipment than dry cleaning, less capital
investment is required for the wet
cleaning plants.1 A dedicated wet
cleaning plant requires-41 percent less
Initial investment (almost $57,000. less)
than a dedicated drycleaning plant. The
combination of somewhat higher profit
and substantially less investment produces
a much greater return on investment for
wet cleaning: 26.3 percent versus 14.7
percent for drycleaning. The new mixed
Exhibit ES.3
RETURN ON INVESTMENT: NEW FACILITY
i NOT CMbM Ctaudns fudStr .
30*
25*
3D*
, 15*
o 10*
e
I 3*
26.4%
I
100*
Drydam
30% Dry/50* W«
100*
Wet Clem
'In spite of the difference m capital costs, total costs are similar between the processes because mult.process wet
cleaning uses nearly three times as much skilled labor as drycleaning.
-------
..,
Desien for the Environment
mode facilities have a modestly higher return on investment than the dedicated drycleaners for
plants doins at least 30 percent drycleaning. Below 30 percent drycleamng the underutilized
drvcleaning" equipment again results inpoorer financial performance, givuig a somewhat lower
return1' on investment.. The estimated return on investment in new facilities are shown in Exhibit
ES.2.
PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS
. In addition to an economic analysis of the wet cleaning process* performance evaluations
were'conducted during November, 19.92 through January, 1993 at the NCA New. York School
of Dry Cleaning, and at the University of Georgia Textiles, Merchandising and Interiors
Department There were three parts to the testing: general customer satisfaction survey, of
. cleaned garments, customer, satisfaction survey of 13 selected test garments, and a technical wear
study (using the same 13 test garments) measuring catastrophic and short term effects of both
the wet .and dry cleaning methods. , '"'"'.
For the general customer satisfaction survey, 900 of the garments collected from the
general public were returned to the owners with a brief, postage paid evaluation form attached.
The form consisted of multiple choice questions evaluating the consumer's perception of the
quality of the cleaning process including appearance, odor and overall acceptability.. The
consumer was not informed of which process was used to clean the garment. Over 350 cards
were returned. The results from the postcards were tallied and compared for each of the
cleaning processes. Both the wet and dry cleaning methods generated negative and positive
responses, with a statistical- preference shown by consumers for the wet cleaning process,
particularly in regard to odor. .
In the customer satisfaction survey of the 13 selected test garments, the clothes were.
worn by volunteers' and periodically cleaned by an assigned process over a period of four weeks.
Following the wear period, an independent group of consumers were asked to judge the-
garments cleaned by each process -and the control garment in terms of acceptability of the
cleaning process, that is, would they accept this garment from a cleaner. When participants
were asked to judge between three identical test garments; one that had been worn and wet
cleaned over a four week'period, one that had been .worn and dry cleaned over the same period
and a control garment that was never worn, both negative and positive responses were generated
for each process. In fact, there was no. statistical difference in the responses to the garments
cleaned by the two processes. \ . ; "
In the technical wear study, the shrinkage, stretching, color change, and odor of each of
the same 13 garment types, were measured and compared to an identical control garment that
was not worn. The results of this study are limited for- several reasons. The wear and cleaning
patterns of the test garments were not typical of normal consumer wear. In addition, the umited
quantity .of data due to the number of garments and the short duration of the test, make it
' difficult to draw firm, conclusions regarding the short term effects of either the wet or dry
-------
' , ' " Multiprocess We; Cleaning
processes on earments. The technical wear study, however, was able to characterize effects
such as shrinkage or stretching, and found no appreciable difference between the two processes.
During the course of the demonstration, a total 712 garments were wet cleaned. The
aarments were selected randomly, without regard to suitability for wet cleaning. Only one
iarment was reported to be damaged (due to a manufacturing defect), and no other garments
were reported to have been negatively affected.
performance Evaluation Limitations
When designing the performance evaluation portion of the demonstration project, EPA
and its study partners'understood that there were unavoidable limitations to what a limited
performance evaluation could achieve. Many of the limitations stem from the short term nature
of the study The general wear customer satisfaction survey was limited to a. single cleaning of
the garments. The technical wear study examined the effects on the garments of three cleanings
Thus the study was able to collect some information on short term effects of cleaning, but could
not famine the long term implications, such as effects on garment life or level of cleanliness
ovt. many cleanings. The results of the performance evaluation .must be considered as
preliminary findings.
One issue raised about multiprocess wet cleaning is how well the process actually cleans
garments There is not a clear scientific measure of cleanliness even under laboratory
conditions. Defining cleanliness for garments as they are typically worn is even more difficult.
The performance evaluation did not attempt to rigorously examine the level of cleanliness
achieved by either cleaning process, although the evaluation did collect information on whether
the customer was satisfied with the cleanliness. A garment may have been cleaned well enough
by the one time cleaning to satisfy the customer", but repeated cleanings, if incompletely
removing soils and stains, could allow such foreign materials to build up to an unacceptable
level A short term performance test cannot examine this- issue. The EPA is working with.
industry in developing a method to measure cleanliness, and will explore this issue- further in the
Cleaner Technology .Substitutes Assessment of clothes cleaning.
The 13 test garments used in the performance evaluation reflect what is sold in the
marketplace. However, the selection does not necessarily reflect the mix of garments typically
brought in to a drycleaner. The test garments were selected to have a range of care labels,
-including "Dry Clean Only", "Dry Clean or Machine Wash", and "Do Not Dry Clean .
Customers do bring garments to a cleaners that could be laundered at home, either for
convenience, stain removal, or to ensure professional finishing (pressing) of the garments which
is difficult or impossible to achieve using typical home equipment. However,-the majority ot
garments brought to a drycleaners cannot be readily cleaned at home.
The performance evaluation did not control the conditions under which the garments were
worn, although information was collected about the conditions. The general wear garments
cleaned in the experiment were collected at federal government facilities in Washington D.C.
'and New York City, and the test garments were worn by federal government employees.
-------
: " ' . " :" - ' 'ES-vii.
Design for the Environment^ ... .". ; ' ;
Information collected on the locations frnd activities that occurred while the garments>ere worn
(and getting dirty) indicates most of the garments were worn in offices, can, homes and
shopping. Thus the performance evaluation did not examine the cleaning effectiveness on
heavily spiled garments worn in industrial settings, construction siteSi etc.
The performance evaluation did not examine whether some detergents, solvent'based
chemicals or alkaline substances used as spotting agents in the multiprocess wet cleaning system
remain in the garments when returned to the customer. Such chemicals are typically removed
during the "rinse" cycle of PCE-based drycleaning, but some of the garments cleaned by the wet
process are not rinsed. The performance evaluation did not collect any information, or assess
whether any chemical residue remaining. in the garments is potentially hazardous. Such
information is beyond the scope of this current study, and additional research is needed on this
questipn. : ,
Information was not collected on the condition of the drycleaning equipment and solvent
during the performance test. The drycleaning equipment used in the study was equipment used
for instructional purposes at the New York School of Drycleaning. The study was conducted
using the equipment "as is", which may have influenced the results of the PCE drycleaning
process For example, some of the white garments in the performance garments cleaned with
PCE appeared to turn pink in color. Dry cleaning solvents kept in proper condition do not
discolor As clothes were sorted by color during the test, no discoloration should have occurred
because of clothes in the same load. However, there may have been a "bleeder" in previous
loads which may have left a dye residue in the PCE cleaning solvent which was reused.
Recommended solvent care procedures were followed during the cleaning demonstration.
However, complete information on the pre-existing condition of the solvent, including previous
distillation practices, filter replacements,-etc: were not available.
Industry commenters offered other recommendations for future performance evaluations
of alternative cleaning processes. For example, in addition to conducting the odor tests in a
closed room, the commenters also suggested that the odor test protocol could be enhanced by
steaming the garments prior to the test. Steaming will make slight or subtle odors more
apparent. These comments, and others received by the EPA in response to this report, will be
incorporated in any future tests that may further evaluate clothes cleaning methods.
CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS
The results of the cost and" performance studies indicate that under certain situations, the
wet Cleaning process is technically feasible and economically competitive with PCE dry cleaning.
Wet cleaning appears to be a viable option to reduce the usage" of dry cleaning solvents.
However, the EPA recognizes that obstacles exist to greater use of the wet cleaning process
For example, the wet process tested is a potential "low .tech" solution requiring more labor .and
greater skill, but dry cleaners may prefer a process allowing for greater automation. Finally,
U.S. Federal Trade Commission care labeling rules may prevent widespread wet cleaning of
garments with care instructions that read "Dry Clean Only".
-------
Multiprocess Wer Cleaning
Once the risk issues have been examined, this wet cleaning process may become a.
feasible pollution prevention option for a portion of the dry cleaning industry. The extent and
conditions of this wet cleaning demonstration may not be conclusive for all circumstances and
the assumptions used for modeling may require alteration. However, the lack of short term
catastrophic effects and the preliminary.comparability of costs suggest that careful consideration
should be eiven to this and other alternative cleaning methods as dry cleaners face increasingly
stringent federal, state, and local regulatory pressure to reduce exposures to dry cleaning
chemicals. Through the Design for the Environment Program, the EPA intends to work with
stakeholders to lower barriers to feasible pollution prevention options.
------- |