United States
Environmental Protection
Agency s.v r -
Pollution Prevention
and Toxics
(TS -779)
EPA744-R-93-004
September 1993
f/EFA Multiprocess Wet Cleaning
Cost and Performance
Comparison of Conventional
Dry Cleaning and
An Alternative Process
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
9
MULTIPROCESS WET CLEANING:
COST AND PERFORMANCE COMPARISON OF CONVENTIONAL
DRY CLEANING AND AN ALTERNATIVE PROCESS
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
U.
OPPT LIBRARY (7407)
WASHINGTON, !.\0 20460
.202-2f>0-y.'44
-------
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Supenntendent of Documents, Mail Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-9328
ISBN 0-16-043092-5
-------
PROJECT STAFF
PROJECT MANAGER: Ohad 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 would have
been impossible without the generous contribution of time and materials from the following
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.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-i
BACKGROUND ES-i
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT ES-ii
ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY STUDY ES-ii
Economic Feasibility Study Results , ES-iii
PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS . ES-v
Performance Evaluation Limitations , ES-vi
CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS ES-vii
1. INTRODUCTION l-l
DEFINITION OF CLOTHES CLEANING 1-3
DRY CLEANING PROCESS DESCRIPTION 1-4
Customer Delivery 1-5
Inspection and Spotting , 1-5
Sorting 1-5
Washing 1-6
Drying 1-6
Steaming and Ironing 1-7
MULTIPROCESS WET CLEANING METHOD DESCRIPTION 1-7
Chemical Products 1-9
2. A COMPARISON TEST AND INITIAL ENGINEERING COST EVALUATE, OF DRY
CLEANING AND AN ALTERNATIVE WET CLEANING PROCESS 2-1
TEST PREPARATION AND IMPLEMENTATION 2-1
Steps for the Dry Cleaning Process 2-2
Steps for Multiprocess Wet Cleaning 2-4
Steps for Pressing 2-6
DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES 2-7
Garment Allocation 2-8
Garment Log-In 2-9
Pre-Test Set-Up 2-9
Data Collection Procedures for the Dry Cleaning Process 2-10
Data Collection Procedures for Multiprocess Wet Cleaning 2-10
Data Collection Procedures for Pressing 2-11
COST ANALYSIS 2-11
Identification of Cost Inputs for Dry Cleaning 2-13
Identification of Cost Inputs for the Multiprocess Wet Cleaning 2-14
Comparison of Test Results 2-15
CHAPTER 2 REFERENCES 2-19
3. MODEL PLANT ANALYSIS 3-1
INTRODUCTION 3-1
The Model Facility 3-3
-------
MODEL RESULTS , , 3-7
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 3-16
Equal Profits Analysis 3-16
Purchasing Smaller Drycleaning Machines for Mixed Mode Facilities .. 3-18
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH 3-19
CHAPTER 3 REFERENCES 3-24
4. PERFORMANCE TESTS 4-1
BACKGROUND AND TEST DESCRIPTION 4-1
Test Garment Wear Survey , 4-2
Technical Wear Study 4-2
General Customer Satisfaction Survey 4-4
TEST RESULTS 4-4
Test Garment Wear Survey Results 4-4
Technical Wear Study Results 4-5
General Customer Satisfaction Survey Results 4-8
COMPARISON BETWEEN TEST GARMENT WEAR SURVEY AND
GENERAL CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY 4-9
5. ALTERNATIVE CLOTHES CLEANING DEMONSTRATION STUDY RESULTS 5-1
LIST OF APPENDICES
I EXAMPLE OF FORMS USED FOR ON-SITE DATA COLLECTION
H ON SITE TEST DATA
m COST CALCULATIONS
IV LINE BY LINE EXPLANATION KEY FOR MODEL PLANT
ANALYSIS
V DETAILED MODEL OUTPUTS FOR DEDICATED AND MIXED
MODE FACILITIES
VI SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
VH LIST OF GARMENTS USED IN WEAR TEST
Vm PROTOCOL FOR TEST GARMENTS WEAR STUDY
IX GARMENT WEAR LOG
X TEST GARMENT POSTCARD SURVEY
XI SHRINKAGE TEST: PERCENT CHANGE IN SIZE OF TEST GARMENT
XH VISUAL TESTING
Xm DETAIL OF VISUAL STANDARDS TESTING
XIV ODOR TEST RESULTS
XV GENERAL CUSTOMER SATISFACTION POSTCARD SURVEY
-------
Design for the Environment ES-i
MULTIPROCESS WET CLEANING:
COST AND PERFORMANCE COMPARISON OF CONVENTIONAL
DRY CLEANING AND AN ALTERNATIVE PROCESS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) has been working with the
dry 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 ETA 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
-------
ES-ii 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 and 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 cost analysis
-------
Design for the Environment ES-iii
found that the measured cost per lot (50 items 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 collected
from equipment vendors, industry organizations, and EPA reports to construct the hypothetical
model plant analysis. An annual saies 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 drycleaning equipment, including dry-to-dry drycleaning machine equipped with
a refrigerated condenser (RC) control device. The financial results were examined by estimating
the annual cost for 81 separate expense items. The annual cost, profit (revenue minus cost),
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 performing multiprocess wet cleaning, and "mixed
mode" facilities offering both types of cleaning service. The mixed mode analysis examined a
range of 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 of 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 are planning on drycleaning. For each of these two types of facilities, 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 for the
dedicated plants), 19 mixed mode new facilities, and 19 mixed mode conversion facilities.
Economic 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
is nearly S240,000 (all facilities have annual revenues of $260,000). The estimated cost for the
dedicated wet cleaning facility is almost $1,000 (0.4 percent) less than the cost of a dedicated
dry cleaning facility. The costs for new mixed mode plants are generally slightly less than the
cost of the dedicated dry cleaning plant for plants doing at least 50 percent drycleaning. Costs
are higher for new facilities doing less than 50 percent drycleaning, primarily because the
-------
ES-iv
Multiprocess Wet Cleaning
drycleaning equipment is being underutilized. Annual costs for converting an existing
drycleaning 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 drycleaning. 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
Opening a New Clothes Cleaning Facility
$22,500
^ $30,000
<*:
$17,300
Exhibit ES.2
ANNUAL PROFIT: CONVERSION
Adding Wet Cleaning at an Existing Drycleaner
$15,000
$21.400 •
$20,400
S22.SOO
e
a.
100%
Dry clean
50% Dty/50* Wet
100*
Wet Clean
J17.500
515,000
$21,400*
$20,400
100*
Dryclean
50% Dry'50* W«
100*
Wet Clean
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
Opening a New Clotheo Cleaning Facility
20*
•Ł, 15*
o
c
O 10*
E
t>
a 5*
26.4%
14.8* ,
100*
Dryclean
50* Dry50* W«
100*
Wet Clean
'in spite of the difference in capital costs, total costs are similar between the processes because multiprocess wet
cleaning uses nearly three times as much skilled labor as drycleaning.
-------
Design for the Environment ES-v
mode facilities have a modestly higher return on investment than the dedicated drycleaners for
plants doing at least 30 percent drycleaning. Below 30 percent drycleaning the underutilized
drycleaning equipment again results in poorer financial performance, giving a somewhat lower
return 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, 1992 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 limited
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
-------
ES-vi Multiprocess Wet Cleaning
processes on garments. 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
garments were selected randomly, without regard to suitability for wet cleaning. Only one
garment 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 examine the long term implications, such as effects on garment life or level of cleanliness
over 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 dry cleaner. 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 of
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.
-------
Design for the Environment ES-vii
Information collected on the locations and activities that occurred while the garments were worn
(and getting dirty) indicates most of the garments were worn in offices, cars, homes and
shopping. Thus the performance evaluation did not examine the cleaning effectiveness on
heavily soiled garments worn in industrial settings, construction sites, 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
question.
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".
-------
ES-viii Multiprocess Wet 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 given 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.
-------
Design for the Environment 1-1
MULTIPROCESS WET CLEANING:
COST AND PERFORMANCE COMPARISON OF CONVENTIONAL
DRY CLEANING AND AN ALTERNATIVE PROCESS
1. INTRODUCTION
The EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) has been working with
the dry 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. The potential health and environmental concerns associated with
exposure to PCE led the dry cleaning industry and the EPA to form a partnership to explore
ways to reduce exposure from dry cleaning chemicals.
OPPT, under its Design for the Environment (DfE) program, convened the
International Roundtable on Pollution Prevention and Control in the Dry Cleaning Industry
during May 1992. 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. The Roundtable participants
discussed a variety of concerns, including some newly documented studies of residential
exposures in apartment buildings where dry cleaning operations are located. Also discussed
were new concerns about groundwater contamination from dry cleaners.
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
will systematically examine the trade-offs in risk, performance and cost for the various
options. As part of that effort, the dry cleaning industry suggested testing a "wet cleaning"
process, which had received some attention, to evaluate its short term catastrophic effects
and economic feasibility. Characterization of any environmental concerns that may be
associated with this process will be accomplished in the CTSA.
Chapter Two of this report contains a description and the results of a cost analysis
of an alternative wet cleaning process compared to a conventional dry cleaning process. The
third chapter is a cost analysis of a model dry cleaning plant, a model wet cleaning plant and
a variety of mixed mode facilities capable of cleaning clothes using both processes.
Performed concurrently with these tests was a study to asses the potential for damage and
the final quality of the garments cleaned. A general customer satisfaction survey was also
conducted during these tests. A description of the tests for wear, catastrophic damage, and
general customer satisfaction is contained in Chapter Four,
-------
Exhibit 1.1
Clothes Cleaning Alternatives
Dry
Chemical
Substitutes
Existing
Under
Development
PCE
Petroleum
Solvents
* Chemicals '•.
: Phased Out by :
".Clean Air Act.'
'*
HCFCs:1
HFCs & PCs
•=HCFC-225
:HCFC-141b
;HCFC-123
Petroleum Solvents
New Solvents
•Higher Flash Point
Safer Technologies
• Nitrogen Injection
•Oxygen Vacuum
Supercritical CO2
Wet
Process
Substitutes
Existing
Newly
Available
Under
Development
Professional
Laundering
Hand Washing
Multiprocess
Wet Cleaning
Machine Wet Cleaning
Ultrasonics
Microwave Drying
-------
Design for the Environment 1-3
DEFINITION OF CLOTHES CLEANING
In order to examine the full range of risk reduction and pollution prevention opportunities
in dry cleaning, the basic function that is performed by dry cleaning must be defined.
Customers who bring their clothes into a dry cleaners are primarily interested in having their
clothes professionally cleaned. Professional cleaning includes both the cleaning and finishing
functions. Dry cleaning is a well known method to accomplish the cleaning function.
People desire professional cleaning for a variety of reasons. Some garments can be
damaged if improperly washed in water, and hence cannot be safely washed at home.
Customers also use dry cleaning for garments that could be handwashed or washed in the
delicate cycle of a washing machine because they want the convenience of having someone else
do the cleaning.
There is also a secondary function of commercial dry cleaning: "finishing". Finishing
includes steam ironing, hanging or folding garments, rearranging shoulder pads dislodged during
cleaning, etc. Ironing is a service partly related to cleaning (insofar as cleaning wrinkles the
garments), but is also a separate function in it's own right. Some people who bring washable
clothes to the dry cleaners are as much interested in finishing as cleaning, and travelers
sometimes want clothes merely pressed after getting wrinkled in a suitcase. Finishing is a labor
intensive service function provided by commercial dry cleaners, requiring both skill and
specialized equipment. The demand for dry cleaning is not only a matter of what people can't
do themselves with minimal equipment, but of what they choose not to do. People could wash
and iron all their washable garments, but some choose to hire someone else to do that job for
them. They select dry cleaning because that is the readily available choice, not because they
really care about the details of how the job is done. Currently, a variety of methods exist for
accomplishing the function of professional clothes cleaning.
The dry cleaning process was developed to control fabric shrinkage. Dry cleaning is
basically a method of washing clothes in a cleaning solution other than water (although some
water may be included in the solution). Two dry cleaning solvents currently dominate the
market in the United States (perchloroethylene (PCE2) and Stoddard Solvent). The two other
dry cleaning solvents with limited market penetration (CFC-113 and TCA) have been banned
beginning in 1995 because of their potential to damage the ozone layer. There are other solvents
that have been examined as possible substitutes for dry cleaning, but some of them have also
been banned (or are likely to be banned in the near future) because of ozone depletion. One
substitute solvent now in use in a small number of facilities is a petroleum solvent known as
"140 Degree Solvent", which is a less flammable form of Stoddard Solvent. Other substitute
solvents, including hydrofluorocarbons (MFCs) and fluorocarbons (PCs) continue to be
examined, but possible commercial applicability is farther in the future.
2 Perchloroethylene is also called PCE and tetrachloroethylene. The dry cleaning industry commonly refers to PCE
as "Perc"
-------
1-4 Multiprocess Wet Cleaning
In addition to dry cleaning, various other "wet" processes are possible process substitutes
that can accomplish the same functions as dry cleaning. Wet refers to the use of some water
during the process, but garments may never be fully immersed or saturated with water in some
processes. Some wet processes can be used on most garments, and thus are potential process
substitutes for dry cleaning. Others are designed only for certain types of garments, and
potentially could become an alternative for a part of the total clothes cleaning volume. The wet
process category includes processes already in commercial use, some that are now being
introduced, and some that are under development.
When completed, the Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment will describe each
alternative, and present information on the performance, basic chemical properties, exposure,
risks, costs, current regulations, resource use, pollution prevention and source minimization
opportunities, and international trade issues for each alternative. The EPA is currently collecting
information for these and other potential clothes cleaning substitutes.
DRY CLEANING PROCESS DESCRIPTION
The dry cleaning process avoids saturating fabrics with water. Certain fabrics, especially
wool, silk and rayon, may shrink or the dye may run if thoroughly saturated with water, agitated
and heated. Garments that are constructed from several materials can be damaged if the various
layers react differently to the cleaning process. Dry cleaning solvents do not saturate the fibers
of the fabric, thus avoiding the swelling and shrinking from water saturation. Nearly all types
of fabrics and garments can be safely dry cleaned.
The dry cleaning process is physically very similar to the home laundry process, except
clothes are washed in dry cleaning solvent instead of water. Garments are pre-treated for stains,
and then machine washed in a solution of a solvent, soaps and detergents. The solvent is
extracted by first draining, and then spinning, the clothes. Finally, the garments are dried
through a combination of aeration, heat and tumbling, and then pressed.
In order to better evaluate the various alternative processes available, and understand the
sources of environmental and occupational risks from garment cleaning, it is useful to consider
just what is involved in the garment cleaning process. Fabric or garment cleaning consists of
three basic functions: cleaning, drying and finishing. These functions are the core of any fabric
cleaning process, although the details vary and steps may even be minimized or omitted. All
three functions are readily recognizable in the full service dry cleaning process steps. Dry
cleaners also "refresh" garments, mainly concentrating on finishing. Home laundry may consist
of the cleaning action of water and detergent in the washing machine, drying in a dryer, and
finishing by putting the clothes on hangers or in drawers. Home laundry can also be more
elaborate, using pre-wash treatments, fabric softeners, outdoor line drying, and ironing.
While most people are all too familiar with the home laundry process, many dry cleaning
customers are not aware of the actual steps a dry cleaner takes. The following is a brief
description of the dry cleaning process, along with their equivalent in the home laundry process.
-------
Design for the Environment 1-5
Customer Delivery
Garments are received from the customer and tagged. The home laundry equivalent is
collecting the laundry and bringing it to the laundry room.
Inspection and Spotting
Garments are inspected for stains and heavily soiled areas. Extra cleaning techniques
known as "spotting" are used on these areas. Spotting refers to treating stains and exceptionally
dirty areas by using additional chemicals, steam, and scrubbing. Spot removal is a labor-
intensive process, and requires considerable skill and training. A successful commercial
"spotter" must quickly locate and identify areas needing special cleaning, and select an
appropriate method for cleaning the area quickly, inexpensively and without harming the
garment. Options include applying solvents, soaps, detergents, commercial spotting agents,
steam and scrubbing. PCE (and most other dry cleaning solvents) is a very good natural solvent
for oils and greases, but is less effective on dissolving water soluble materials. Spotters use
different spotting agents designed for water soluble stains ("wetside" agents) and non-soluble
stains ("dryside agents"). Clothes to be washed in PCE need to have material such as food,
grass, and blood removed during spotting, as well as difficult to clean materials such as paint
or ink. Conversely, water is not an effective solvent for grease or oils, and water washing
requires spot removal of these materials and difficult stains. Spotting can be performed either
before or after washing, or both. Spotters develop their own personal style; some carefully treat
spots before washing, re-spotting as necessary during the finishing process. Others prefer to
leave the majority of spotting until finishing, and spot as needed at that time. The home laundry
process is a simplified version of commercial spotting, using a less diverse set of cleaning
products. Stain removing products, liquid laundry detergent applied directly to problem areas,
and pre-soaking are all available for home use.
Sorting
Sorting can occur either as a separate step or during spotting. Sorting involves two basic
steps: deciding which washing method should be used for each garment, and further separating
into homogeneous groups. Not all items brought to a cleaners are actually dry cleaned. White
shirts are laundered (dry cleaning can give whites a grey color), and some delicate or heavily
decorated clothes must be handwashed. Dry cleaning machine washing can be adjusted for the
content of the load by setting the length of the wash cycle and the amount or type of soaps,
detergents, and other additives. Dry clean washing is most cost-effective with a full load, and
the sorting is sometimes limited to assure that each load is as near full as possible. At small
volume dry cleaners or on slow days a single load may be done, with no sorting by color.
Home laundry sorting is essentially identical, and for the same reasons.
-------
1-6 Multiprocess Wet Cleaning
Washing
The basic cleansing action in the wash cycle is the same in both dry cleaning and home
laundry processes: foreign material on the clothing fibers is removed by a combination of
physically being dislodged and dissolved in the solvent. A variety of substances (soaps,
detergents, wetting agents, etc.) are added to the washing solution to enhance the solubility of
the foreign material. Dry cleaning additives include a small amount of water to aid in removing
materials not soluble in the solvent. A dry cleaning machine is constructed similar to home
laundry machines. The key parts are a porous tub (known as the "wheel") rotating inside a
cylindrical container, an agitator, and the plumbing for filling and draining the solvent.
One very important difference between water washing and dry cleaning is that dry
cleaning solvent is reused. Reusing the solvent is necessary for both cost (PCE currently costs
$5.20/gallon) and to reduce emissions. Dry cleaners use a variety of equipment and procedures
to recover as much solvent as possible. The solvent must be cleaned in order to extend the
useable life of the solvent. Filtration, water separation and distillation are used to remove dirt,
lint, dye, soap and water from the recovered solvent.
After the wash cycle, a spin cycle extracts excess solvent. This removes much of the
solvent by centrifugal force. The solvent is returned to the holding tank. However, the clothes
are not fully dry: as much as six pounds of solvent can remain in a 50 pound load after
extraction.
Drying
The dry cleaning solvent remaining in the garments is removed by a process much like
a home laundry. Hot air and tumbling remove most of the solvent, followed by a cool-down
phase at the end where cool air is blown over the tumbling clothes. Many older dry cleaning
facilities dry the clothes in a separate machine known as a reclaimer. Some solvent is lost to
evaporation or dripping when the clothes are being transferred from the washer to the reclaimer.
The emissions during transfer can be avoided by using a combined wash and dry unit known as
a "dry-to-dry" machine. Most newer machines are dry-to-dry (about 70 percent of the PCE
machines in use), but transfer machines are still sold and many are in use.
Reclaimers are sometimes purchased for supplemental use with dry-to-dry machines.
During periods of peak demand, a larger volume of clothes can be cleaned by removing the
PCE-damp clothes from the dry-to-dry machine after the cleaning cycle, and drying the clothes
in the reclaimer. A new load can then be cleaned in the dry-to-dry machine while the first load
dries. This operation, which essentially turns a dry-to-dry machine into a transfer machine,
emits more PCE than normal operation of the dry-to-dry machine.
-------
Design for the Environment 1-7
Steaming and Ironing
Additional cleaning occurs during the steaming process typically performed by dry
cleaners. Steaming is a part of the finishing stage, and is effective for relaxing wrinkles and
enhancing pressing. Steam also can remove additional water soluble materials remaining after
washing, and kill bacteria. Thus steaming acts in both the cleaning and finishing functions.
Pressing completes the finishing process. The individual attention to a garment during pressing
allows a final inspection for remaining stains, and additional spotting can target any remaining
problems. Like spotting, pressing is a labor intensive process that requires skill and training.
MULTIPROCESS WET CLEANING METHOD DESCRIPTION
Unlike the dry cleaning process, where nearly every garment receives a standard cleaning
treatment, multiprocess wet cleaning, henceforth referred to as wet cleaning, treats each garment
individually. The term "multiprocess wet cleaning", as used in this report, is defined as a series
of textile cleaning steps which include spotting and wet cleaning, with predominantly water-
based cleaning solutions which are usually not recovered for reuse. Additional definitions are
of other terms used in this report are shown in the box on the next page.
ECOCLEAN International, Inc., a commercial vendor and franchiser of multiprocess wet
cleaning, worked closely with the EPA on the demonstration project described in this report.
The ECOCLEAN method is one example of multiprocess wet cleaning, but the process can be
implemented using simple equipment and a thorough understanding of the use of water in clothes
cleaning. Essentially, the wet cleaning process is simply a method for hand cleaning garments
that have traditionally been dry cleaned. The process utilizes a variety of different cleaning
techniques depending on the individual characteristics of the garment being cleaned. The
cleaning techniques can be classified into for,- broad categories:
1) Tumble drying only: for gamuts *hat have no detectable odor and stains and
simply need to be freshened and pressed;
2) extensive steaming, spotting, and tumble drying: for garments with difficult
stains, odors, and/or soiling;
3) immersion and gentle hand washing in soapy water: for delicate and washable
fabrics with spots, stains, odors, and/or soiling;
4) scrubbing: for soiled garments made of heavy fabrics.
The first and perhaps most important step in the wet cleaning process is inspecting the
incoming garment. During the inspection the spotter/cleaner will determine which of the four
categories listed above is most appropriate for the garment. It is not uncommon for a number
of different cleaning techniques to be used on any one garment; often the technique in use will
shift from one to another as the cleaning progresses.
-------
1-8 Multiprocess Wet Cleaning
DEFINITIONS OF CLOTHES CLEANING TERMS
DRY CLEANING The cleaning of textiles in a substantially nonaqueous liquid
medium (e.g., organic solvents such as perchloroethylene or petroleum)
charged with small amounts of cleaning agents (detergents) in a drycleaning
machine which purifies dirty solvent by filtration, distillation and adsorption
for reuse.
LAUNDERING The manual or machine cleaning of textiles in aqueous (water)
solutions of cleaning agents (detergents) which are usually discharged into the
sewer.
MULTIPROCESS WET CLEANING A series of textile cleaning steps which
include spotting and wet cleaning, with predominantly water-based cleaning
solutions which are usually not recovered for reuse.
SOILS Mixtures of solid and liquid materials which cling to textiles and impart
undesirable attributes.
SPOTTING OR STAIN REMOVAL The manual process of removing soils (stains
or spots) with specific stain removing agents before or after dry cleaning,
laundering or wet cleaning.
STAINS Localized soil on textiles which causes a visual and undesirable
discoloration.
TEXTILES Fibrous polymeric materials converted into a fabric or garment to fulfill
functional and social-psychological needs of people.
TEXTDLE CLEANING The process of soil and stain removal from textiles which
maintains or restores their original attributes.
WET CLEANING The process of cleaning textiles with water and water-soluble
cleaning agents suing precautions to prevent shrinkage, loss of color or fabric
distortion.
-------
Design for the Environment 1-9
At first, it might appear odd that the best method for cleaning some garments is simply
to run them through a tumble dryer. Many garments that are brought into cleaning
establishments aren't particularly dirty, they're just stretched out, wrinkled, or malodorous.
Subjecting such garment to a full dry cleaning machine cycle is unnecessary and may contribute
to the deterioration of the garment. Putting the garment through a tumble dryer with a sheet of
scented fabric softener (like Bounce™), removes any moisture from the garment and drives off
odors. As in a dry cleaning machine, any delicate or intricately sewn garments are placed in
net bags to avoid stretching or entangling the fabric.
For garments that are soiled or stained and need to be spotted, the cleaner/spotter uses
a steam gun to apply steam over the entire fabric surface. A nine percent soap solution may be
used directly on areas where there are stains, and rinsed with concentrated steam gun
applications. If the steam and soap alone do not remove the stains, then other spotting chemicals
are used in a manner similar to that of a dry clean spotter. As is always the case when spotting,
some stains are easy to remove while others are quite difficult and occasionally require
additional efforts, such as scrubbing with a dry piece of bone.
Garments made of delicate fabrics such as silks are immersed in a soapy solution and
gently hand washed. The immersion dissolves any perspiration that may have soiled the
garment. If necessary, the garments are spotted prior to hand washing. In order to protect the
delicate fabrics, these garments are hung to dry near the boiler instead of put into the dryer.
Garments such as raincoats or down jackets have difficult stains or that are heavily soiled
are cleaned by scrubbing. The cleaner/spotter applies a concentrated soap (100 percent solution)
and small amounts of water directly to the most soiled areas and scrubs with a wooden handled
wire brush until the stains are removed. These garments are also hung to dry in the boiler room
instead of being placed in the dryer.
Regardless of which methods are used to clean a garment, all clothing is pressed using
the same equipment and techniques that are employed by dry cleaners.
Chemical Products
The use of biodegradable products is an important part of the wet cleaning process as
implemented by ECOCLEAN International. The ECOCLEAN system was the multiprocess wet
cleaning system used in this report. To the greatest extent possible, ECOCLEAN International
uses natural soaps and detergents. For water washing, the Eco-Clean process uses a
biodegradable cleaner and degreaser called Vital Elements Fabric Cleanser, bottled in
concentrated form. For initial spotting, the Vital Elements soap is combined with a product
called KD4, a spot and stain remover. Both products are produced by Aveda Corporation on
Minneapolis, a supplier of all-natural hair and skin care products. According to Richard Simon,
the president and founder of ECOCLEAN International, both products are made from essential
oils derived from plants and flowers and are multi-purpose in nature (i.e., they can be used for
other cleaning jobs as well). The use of these two products are effective in spot cleaning most
garments; however, there are instances, particularly those involving difficult oil-based stains,
-------
1-10 Multiprocess Wet Cleaning
when only conventional solvent-type agents are successful. The more traditional solvent-based
spotting chemicals sometimes used by the wet cleaning process are amyl acetate, oxalic acid,
peroxide, sodium perborate, and ammonia.
-------
Design for the Environment 2-1
2. A COMPARISON TEST AND INITIAL ENGINEERING COST EVALUATION
OF DRY CLEANING AND AN ALTERNATIVE WET CLEANING PROCESS
A high volume comparison test between the wet and dry cleaning process was performed
in 1992. The test was designed by the EPA in conjunction with the Neighborhood Cleaners
Association (NCA), the International Fabricare Institute (IFI), and ECOCLEAN International
Inc., the provider of the wet cleaning process, and conducted over a 4-week period. During this
test, on-site labor and equipment data were gathered and translated into costs associated with
each type of cleaning process. Additional labor, equipment, and utility cost-related information
not directly available at the test site was obtained from equipment vendors and utility companies.
A preliminary low volume comparison test was performed in Florida in September 1992.3 This
chapter presents the results of an initial cost comparison between these two cleaning processes
based on data collected from both sources.
A test to assess the potential for catastrophic damage and the final quality of the garments
cleaned was performed concurrently with the high volume cost test. In addition, a customer
satisfaction survey was conducted during the test by attaching mail-in cards to the cleaned
garments. These performance tests are fully discussed in Chapter 4. This chapter is a
discussion of costs and does not address the final cleaning quality of the two processes.
The following section describes the test preparation and implementation, identification
of cost inputs, and a discussion of data collection procedures. In addition, this section details
the dry cleaning process, multiprocess wet cleaning, and pressing. The next section presents
the test results and the cost data summary.
TEST PREPARATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
The high volume comparison test was performed at the Neighborhood Cleaners
Association New York School of Dry Cleaning in Manhattan, New York. Test garments were
provided by two dry cleaning businesses located in Washington, D.C., and one located in
New York City. The test was conducted for eleven days between November 17 and
December 15, 1992 using equipment located at the dry cleaning school. The same person
functioned as the spotter/cleaner for both cleaning techniques to allow for direct comparison
between labor times. This spotter/cleaner had 15 years of experience working in dry cleaning
establishments. Although this spotter/cleaner was unfamiliar with the specifics of the wet
cleaning process, he was trained by the multiprocess wet cleaning representative who concluded
that after one day of training, he became proficient at performing the wet cleaning techniques.
3 Preliminary Cleaner Technology Substitute Assessment: Drvcleaning Alternative Process. September 8-14. 1992.
Prepared by Eastern Research Group, Incorporated for EPA.
-------
2-2 Multiprocess Wet Cleaning
Step-by-step descriptions of both cleaning processes and the pressing process followed
during the test are presented below. Also included is a discussion of how the cleaning
processes, as tested at the dry cleaning school, differed from that at a "real world" production
facility.
Steps for the Dry Cleaning Process
Before starting the dry cleaning process, the spotter/cleaner checked the dry cleaning
machine filter and, if needed, vacuumed it. This cleaning ensured that the PCE recirculating
inside the machine remained clean. The following steps outline the cleaning processes
performed after the initial garment allocation and log-in procedures had been completed.
Garment allocation and log-in are discussed in the data collection section of this chapter.
• The spotter/cleaner sorted the garments from the first 50-piece lot into two piles
by color: darks and lights.
• Starting with the pile of darks, the spotter/cleaner inspected each garment for
stains. If the garment had stains, the spotter/cleaner set it aside for stain removal
("prespotting"). The spotter/cleaner placed all of the darks that did not require
prespotting into a laundry basket resting on scales.
• The spotter/cleaner worked on prespotting stains from the dark garments that had
been set aside and added these garments to the laundry basket until the scale read
35 pounds.
• In prespotting, the spotter/cleaner first used the steam gun to remove the stain.
If the steam did not remove the stain, he used various spotting chemicals (such
as glycerin, ammonia, neutral lubricant, peroxide, amyl acetate, general formula,
oily type paint remover, oxalic acid, volatile dry solvent, or Rust-Go®) to remove
the stain. With this trial and error approach, some of the stains were easily
removed, others required more time for removal. Still others required more
effort to remove, such as scraping with a smooth piece of bone.
• Before running the dry cleaning load, the spotter/cleaner placed certain types of
garments inside nylon bags before putting them into the dry cleaning machine:
red garments (to prevent their dye from bleeding directly onto the
other garments);
garments with ornamentation (which might snag other garments);
and
garments of certain fabrics (which might stretch with machine
agitation, etc.).
-------
Design for the Environment 2-3
• This load then was cleaned in the 40-minute dry cleaning cycle.
• After the spotter/cleaner had started the dry cleaning machine for the first load,
he prespotted the remaining clothes and filled the laundry basket with the next
35-lb load.
• The dark load was always cleaned first in the dry cleaning machine because dark
garments typically require less prespotting.
• When the first load was placed in the machine and spotting was completed for all
loads, the spotter/cleaner had downtime until the 40-minute cycle finished. (At
this point during the test period, the spotter/cleaner switched and worked on the
garment lot to be multiprocess wet cleaned.)
• After the dry cleaning machine stopped, the spotter/cleaner unloaded the garments
from the machine into a laundry basket. The spotter/cleaner then started the
second dry cleaning load immediately.
• The spotter/cleaner then inspected each garment from the first load as he placed
it on a hanger. He set aside garments that needed post-spotting.
• After the garments from the first load had been placed on hangers, the
spotter/cleaner performed any needed post-spotting.
• Again, the spotter/cleaner had downtime until the second dry cleaning load was
finished. (At this point during the test period, the spotter/cleaner switched back
to work on the lot of garments being wet cleaned.)
• When the second load was finished, the spotter/cleaner put the garments into a
basket and started the third load (if there was a third load). Typically, there were
only two full loads. The occasional third load was less than full.
• The spotter/cleaner inspected and placed garments from the second load on
hangers. If needed, he performed post-spotting. Then he had downtime until the
third load was finished in the dry cleaning machine. He would follow the same
procedure for the third load as he used for the previous loads.
Differences Between the Dry Cleaning Test Setup and a "Real World" Operation
Several differences between the cost test and a "real world" application were noted. The
cost test was performed at the NCA dry cleaning school, which is set up for instructing students
rather than for production cleaning. The equipment configuration differed. This slightly
increased the overall labor time. However, the equipment configuration was not ideal for either
cleaning process and in both instances led to increased labor times. The spotting board was not
-------
2-4 Multiprocess Wet Cleaning
located adjacent to the dry cleaning machine. As a result, the spotter/cleaner was required to
shift back and forth.
Desks for the night class were packed into the room where the dry cleaning was
performed, making the work area congested. This congestion may have contributed slightly to
increased labor times for dry cleaning. Multiprocess wet cleaning was performed in a different
area so this congestion was not a factor for that process.
The test area for the dry cleaning process (including dry cleaning machine, nearby
spotting table, and hanging area) was shared with another spotter/cleaner. In some cases, the
congestion caused by sharing the work area may have contributed to slightly increased labor
times.
In a typical dry cleaning facility, during downtime the spotter/cleaner would press, bag
garments, or work at the counter. For purposes of this test, no such activities were included in
the cost analysis.
Steps for Multiprocess Wet Cleaning
At the beginning of the wet cleaning process, the spotter/cleaner inspected each garment
in the 50-piece lot for stains and initially segregated the garments into one of four cleaning
categories:
• Tumble drying only:
garments determined to have no odor and no detectable stains:
• Extensive steaming, spotting, and tumble drying:
Garments with difficult spots or stains or with odor or soiling:
• Immersion, gentle hand washing in soapy water:
Delicate and washable fabrics with spots, stains, odor, and/or soiling; and
• Scrubbing:
Very soiled garments made of heavy fabric.
These are not four discrete cleaning categories. While cleaning, the spotter/cleaner often
switched his cleaning approach based on fabric type and degree and type of stains. For
example, if he began by extensively steaming a garment, he may then decide that the garment
needed to be hand washed or scrubbed. These four variations of multiprocess wet cleaning are
described in detail below:
-------
Design for the Environment 2-5
Tumble drying only:
To remove moisture and drive off odors, the spotter/cleaner placed
garments into a front load tumble dryer with a sheet of Bounce ;
The first load of the day required about 18 minutes because the dryer was
cold. Subsequent loads required 10 to 15 minutes;
Delicate fabrics put in the dryer were placed in net bags to avoid
stretching the fabric; and
When the cycle finished, the articles were removed and placed on hangers
for pressing.
Extensive steaming, spotting and tumble drying:
The spotter/cleaner applied steam from the steam gun over the entire
fabric surface;
He put biodegradable soap (9 percent solution) and concentrated the
steaming on the stains and the areas most prone to soiling and perspiration
(such as collars, cuffs, or underarms);
If the steam did not remove the stain, the spotter/cleaner used the various
spotting chemicals to identify and remove the stain. Some of the stains
were easily removed, others required more effort;
Once the stains were removed, the garments were tumble dried (as
described above).
Immersion, gentle hand washing in soapy water:
Garments made of delicate fabrics (such as silks) with stains or soiling
were cleaned in the sink with cold water and added about an ounce of
Aveda soap. If necessary, garments were spotted first;
The cleaner gently washed the garments, concentrating on areas prone to
soiling and perspiration stains;
i
He rinsed the garments under the spigot in cold water and placed them in
the top loading extractor on low speed for about 1 minute to remove
excess water;
-------
2-6 Multiprocess Wet Cleaning
When removed, the garments were shaken to prevent excess wrinkling.
The garments were typically not put into the dryer; instead, they were
placed on hangers near the boiler to dry.
Scrubbing:
This cleaning approach was used only on heavily soiled garments of heavy
fabric (such as raincoats or down coats).
The spotter/cleaner put concentrated biodegradable soap (100 percent
solution) and small amounts of water on the most soiled areas of the
garment (such as around the cuffs and collars) and scrubbed with a
wooden handle wire brush until the stains or soiling were removed.
The garments were typically not put into the dryer; instead, they were
placed on hangers near the boiler to dry.
Differences Between the Multiprocess Wet Cleaning Test Setup and the "Real
World"
Several differences were identified between "real world" and classroom applications of
the wet cleaning process. An industry representative noted that having three dryers operating
simultaneously would decrease production time. Although the use of one dryer did not disrupt
the flow of the wet cleaning process during the test, the use of multiple dryers would be
preferable. The additional dryers would also increase the capital cost of the dryers threefold.
In a "real world" application, a flat marble table, used for hand washing and scrubbing,
would be located adjacent to the sink so that water would run back down into the sink. If such
a scrubbing board were used, its cost would have been added into the initial capital cost for
multiprocess wet cleaning.
The wet cleaning industry representative preferred to have the work area arranged in a
"U" shape around the spotter/cleaner so that each cleaning area is equally accessible. In this
set-up, the spotting table and sink are not in the same room, causing excessive switching back
and forth. As noted in the previous section on dry cleaning, neither cleaning process had ideal
equipment configuration, which may have contributed to slightly increased labor times in both
cases.
Steps for Pressing
After all of the garments in a lot had been cleaned, they were transferred from the
cleaning room to the pressing room. Throughout the test period, from one to three pressers
were working. Four different pressers participated in the test. All of the pressers were students
-------
Design for the Environment 2- 7
at the dry cleaning school. The steps for pressing were identical for both cleaning processes and
each presser followed the same procedure:
• The garment was removed from its hanger, pressed, and rehung. The steps taken
to press the garment varied by garment and fabric type.
• In general, all of the garments in"one 50-garment lot were pressed before starting
on the next lot. On any given test day, each lot was divided among the pressers.
• If the presser noticed a spot or stain he returned the garment to the spotter for
recleaning.
Differences Between the Pressing Test Setup and a "Real World" Operation
Several differences from a "real world" application were noted for the pressing test set-
up; however, none of the these differences had any impact on the cost comparison because the
same conditions existed for both processes.
The four pressers who participated in the test were students at the NCA's dry cleaning
school and were slower than experienced pressers. However, this did not affect the difference
between the recorded labor times because the same pressers worked on garments cleaned by both
processes.
The pressing room equipment used in the test was not arranged for most efficient
production. The room is a classroom with many types of pressing equipment available for
students to practice pressing. The area was cramped and the presser had to shift back and forth
across the room from one piece of pressing equipment to another. This equipment arrangement
contributed to slightly increased pressing times; however, the pressing times for garments
cleaned by either process were affected equally.
If pressing had not been completed when classes started in the evening, the entire class
would help press garments to meet the production turnaround schedule. This mostly impacted
the smaller last lots cleaned during a given test day. No pressing data were recorded during
such times because the large number of new pressers would not have provided meaningful data.
DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES
Several elements were considered in the design of the data collection procedures. The
need for timely cleaning and return of garments to participating dry cleaning establishments
resulted in a change in the original test plan. The original plan was to perform one cleaning
process from start to finish and then switch to the other process. Pressing was to be conducted
after cleaning.
-------
2-8 Multiprocess Wet Cleaning
Ensuring timely turnaround required switching back and forth between cleaning methods
at convenient points in each process. With agreement from the EPA, NCA, and the
ECOCLEAN representative, the spotter/cleaner was allowed to switch back and forth between
the cleaning processes to make efficient use of his time. In particular, this switching
arrangement allowed for the spotter/cleaner to perform the wet cleaning process during the
40-minute lag time when garments were in the dry cleaning machine and there were no other
dry cleaning activities to be performed. This switching was accomplished without impact on test
results.
Each test day began with the first lot to be dry cleaned. As soon as the spotter/cleaner
had placed the first load into the dry cleaning machine and had finished prespotting all of the
garments for the first dry cleaning lot, he would start the multiprocess wet cleaning. When the
dry cleaning load finished and he reached a stopping point with the first wet cleaning lot. he
could resume the dry cleaning process. This switching back and forth between the two processes
occurred throughout each test day. If these two cleaning processes had not been integrated in
this manner, the production schedule could not have been met.
Pressing began as soon as an entire lot had been cleaned. Often this meant that cleaning
and pressing were occurring simultaneously. As a result, two data recorders were required, one
to record data in the cleaning area and another to record data in the pressing area.
Garment Allocation
Data were collected during garment allocation to ensure that equal types and weights of
garments were being cleaned by each process each day. The labor time to complete the garment
allocation step was identical for both cleaning processes, so it was not included in the cost
analysis in this chapter. Each test day, the garments were allocated as follows:
• Garments (bagged by order) arrived via truck from dry cleaning businesses in
Washington, D.C., or New York City the night before a test cleaning day.
• For all bagged orders, data recorders pinned carbon copy order receipts located
inside the bag onto the outside of the bag.
• Based on garment descriptions written on the order receipts, garment types were
evenly distributed into two groups—Lot A and Lot B. One data recorder tallied
article types until two relatively equivalent 50 garment lots were achieved. A
copy of a blank tally sheet is presented in Appendix I.
• Each lot (with bags) was weighed on the scale cart to ensure that the resulting
weights were approximately equal. These weights were recorded on the tally
sheet.
• A coin toss determined which lot was assigned to which cleaning process.
-------
Design for the Environment 2-9
• This allocation procedure was repeated until all garments had been allocated into
lots of 50 garments, each lot roughly equal in weight and composition. Usually
there was a final odd lot of fewer than 50 garments.
• The cleaning process for the odd lots alternated per test day. It was dry cleaned
on the first test day, multiprocess wet cleaned the second test day, etc.
Garment Log-In
During garment log-in, data was collected to create a tracking system for all of the
garments and to record useful information about each garment. Each test day the following
information was recorded on the log-in sheet. A copy of an example log-in sheet used to record
this information is included in Appendix I. The labor time to complete the garment log-in step
was identical for both cleaning processes, so it was not included in the cost analysis. A
summary of some of the garment log-in data is provided in Appendix n.
• The information recorded on the log-in sheet included:
Date;
Lot number and garment number (assigned at test). These numbers were
stapled onto the garment so that the garment could be tracked through the
cleaning/pressing process and then matched with its invoice after
cleaning/pressing had been completed;
Name of participating dry cleaning business;
Invoice number (provided by participating dry cleaning business); and
Garment description (including garment type, such as pants, dress, or
coat, and fabric type). In addition, any other observations, such as
excessive soiling, rips, or missing buttons were noted. Such observation
ensured that the person conducting the final inspection would be alerted
to any incoming damage.
Pre-Test Set-Up
A data recorder completed a pre-test checklist each test day to ensure that the test area
was set up properly. This data collection procedure occurred after the garments were allocated
into lots and the garment log-in had started. The data recorder topped off and recorded the
volume of spotting chemical in each bottle and made sure all necessary bottles were on the
spotting table. This data recorder also made sure that there was steam for pressing. A copy of
this daily pretest check list is included in Appendix I.
-------
2-10 Multiprocess Wet Cleaning
Data Collection Procedures for the Dry Cleaning Process
The purpose of data collection procedures for the dry cleaning process was to collect
labor times, record solvent usage, and spot chemical usage. During the test, the data collector
recorded the following data:
• The exact overall time for dry cleaning an entire lot;
• Data from specific phases of the cleaning process, including:
Labor times for garment inspection and sorting into specific groups for
cleaning;
Labor times for steaming and spotting;
The types of spotting chemicals used for each garment;
Labor times for loading and unloading the machine;
Labor times for hanging the garments;
Labor times for post-spotting and inspection; and
Any unusual occurrences during the cleaning process.
To track the garments through the test, the spotter/cleaner called out the garment number
as he came across it.
Data Collection Procedures for Multiprocess Wet Cleaning
Data was collected during multiprocess wet cleaning to assess labor times required to
clean individual garments, and to record the volume of spotting chemicals and biodegradable
soaps used each day. The data collector recorded this information in a bound test notebook.
During the test, the following data were collected.
• The overall time to perform multiprocess wet cleaning on an entire lot was
recorded with a stopwatch;
• Data were collected from specific phases of the cleaning process, including:
Labor times for garment inspection and sorting into specific groups for
cleaning;
Labor times for steaming and spotting;
-------
Design for the Environment 2-11
The types of spotting chemicals used for each garment;
Labor times for loading and unloading the dryer;
Labor times and garment number for article immersion;
The types of spotting chemicals or biodegradable soaps used in the
immersion process, if any;
Labor times and garment number for garment scrubbing;
The types of spotting chemicals or biodegradable soaps used for garment
scrubbing, if any; and
Any unusual occurrences during the cleaning process.
The volume of spotting chemicals used was recorded each test day rather than on an
individual garment basis, as in the dry cleaning process, because the amount of spotting
chemicals used on a per garment basis would be small. To track the garments through the test,
the spotter/cleaner identified the garment and informed the data collector of the garment number.
Data Collection Procedures for Pressing
Labor times for garment pressing were collected during this study. Because up to three
pressers were working simultaneously, the data collector recorded this information on pressing
simultaneously using three columns on one page in the bound test notebook. During the test,
the following data were collected:
• Start and stop times were recorded with a stop watch. Timing started when the
presser removed the article from the hanging rack and stopped as the time when
the presser rehung the pressed article. Labor time spent between hanging up one
garment and selecting another was not included;
• Any unusual occurrences during pressing were also recorded, such as the garment
number of items sent back for responding; and
• The number of garments per lot sent back for respotting.
COST ANALYSIS
The cost analysis compared the capital and operating costs unique to each cleaning
process. All costs presented are specific to the actual test and reflect New York City costs. The
model plant analysis addressed in Chapter 3 evaluates typical facility costs. During the test, the
following costs were identified:
-------
2-72 Multiprocess Wei Cleaning
• Capital costs (such as the cleaning equipment); all capital costs used in this
analysis included tax, freight, and installation;
• Operating costs (such as steam and electricity to operate the equipment, hazardous
waste disposal, and raw material costs); and
• Labor costs for all activities that occurred after the garments were sorted, tagged,
and logged in, through final pressing. (The labor costs used in this analysis did
not include fringe benefits and overhead because the workers were temporary
employees.)
Costs that were assumed to be independent of the type of cleaning process used were not
included in this cost analysis. These costs include:
• Capital costs associated with the pressing equipment, spotting boards, boiler,
compressor, and vacuum pump, and the Unimac Model 202 washing machine;
• Maintenance and repair for the above equipment;
• Electricity to operate the lights, heating, and building utilities for the work area;
• Labor costs for receiving, sorting, and logging in garments; inspecting, invoice
matching, and bagging orders after pressing; and overall customer relations;
• Supplies, such as packaging material, hangers, pins, tissue paper, invoices, sales
slips, and marking supplies.
• Labor costs for managing store operations;
• Rent and realty taxes (it was assumed that the same general size work area was
needed for either cleaning process);
• Insurance; and
• Overhead charges, such as telephone and taxes.
Costs incurred to convert an existing dry cleaning facility to a multiprocess wet cleaning
facility are examined for the model plants in the following chapter.
Several assumptions were made about costs used in this cleaning comparison. First, that
the spotter/cleaner was sufficiently trained to perform either cleaning process. The
spotter/cleaner selected to participate in the test had 15 years of dry cleaning experience. This
experienced spotter/cleaner was trained to perform the wet cleaning process onsite during the
first day of the test. (Labor times recorded during the first day of the test for the wet cleaning
process are viewed as training times and are not included in the overall labor average totals).
-------
Design for the Environment 2-13
After this one-day training period, the ECOCLEAN representative concluded that the
spotter/cleaner performed multiprocess wet cleaning appropriately. Although training to perform
either cleaning process is available through schools and classes for a fee, costs for training were
considered external to this analysis.
Second, dry cleaning and multiprocess wet cleaning are sufficiently different methods of
cleaning that comparisons of these two approaches should be viewed broadly. Multiprocess wet
cleaning requires more thorough scrutiny of each individual garment by the spotter/cleaner and
more labor time to clean each garment once the spotter/cleaner has selected the appropriate
cleaning approach. The dry cleaning process relies more on the solvent and the dry cleaning
machine to clean the garments and labor time spent on individual garments is devoted only to
the worst stains. In addition, because of the specific characteristics of each lot (such as garment
assortment, degree of soiling, or fabric types cleaned) may vary, the results for any given lot
should not be compared. A more complete cost comparison could be made by examining the
results of many lots cleaned over the entire four-week test period.
Finally, this analysis does not attempt to compare the quality of the two cleaning
processes. A preliminary performance study comparing the short term and catastrophic effects
of dry cleaning and multiprocess wet cleaning as well as a customer satisfaction survey were
conducted concurrently with the collection of cost data. These results are presented in
Chapter 4. The cost comparison is based on the assumption that both processes perform equally
well.
Identification of Cost Inputs for Dry Cleaning
The only capital cost associated with dry cleaning that differed from multiprocess wet
cleaning is the cost for the dry cleaning machine. In this test, the equipment used was a 35-lb
VIC Model 1235 F/S no-vent dry-to-dry machine with a refrigerated condenser. In addition,
certain garments scheduled to be dry cleaned were either hand washed or cleaned in a
conventional washing machine because they contained plastic beads that would have been
destroyed by the solvent or had labels that read "do not dry clean." Therefore, the Unimac
model 202 washing machine was considered a capital cost for both cleaning processes. The
Unimac model 202 machine has three washing basins with an agitator in the middle basin for
spinning and rinsing garments. The two basins on either side of the agitator were used for hand
washing. The dry cleaning process used the washing machine very little, averaging less than
a half garment per lot, thus electricity and steam costs were scaled for each cleaning process
according to machine usage. Because the washing machine was used 18 times more frequently
for multiprocess wet cleaning, the maintenance costs are expected to be higher. However, such
differences in maintenance costs were assumed to be minimal, thus they were not included in
the cost analysis. In a "real world" setting, a washing machine may not always be available.
The presence or absence of a washing machine will be considered in the model plant analysis
presented in Chapter 3.
-------
2-14 Multiprocess Wet Cleaning
The operating costs for dry cleaning that differed from those for multiprocess wet
cleaning include:
• Raw material costs (PCE, spotting chemicals, and charging detergents);
• Machine filter costs;
• Hazardous waste disposal costs;
• Steam costs for spotting, pressing, and dry cleaning machine;
• Electricity costs for the dry cleaning machine and the Unimac Model 202 washing
machine;
• Water and sewer costs;
• Permit fee for the dry cleaning machine;
• Maintenance and repair costs of the dry cleaning machine; and
• Labor costs.
Identification of Cost Inputs for the Multiprocess Wet Cleaning
A 20-lb dryer is the only capital cost item associated with multiprocess wet cleaning that
differed from dry cleaning. The wet cleaning process used the Unimac Model 202 Washing
Machine to immerse an average of nine garments per lot. As discussed in the previous section,
the washing machine was considered a capital cost for both cleaning processes although the
electricity and steam costs were scaled according to the machine usage. Differences in
maintenance costs are not reflected in this analysis.
The operating costs for multiprocess wet cleaning that differ from those for dry cleaning
are presented below:
• Raw material costs (spotting chemicals, biodegradable soaps);
• Steam costs for spotting, steam cleaning, and pressing;
• Electricity costs for the 20-lb dryer;
• Maintenance/repair of the 20-lb dryer;
• Labor costs.
-------
Design for the Environment 2-15
Comparison of Test Results
The capital costs of dry cleaning far outweigh those of wet. Dry cleaning requires a dry
cleaning machine estimated to cost $47,200. A 20 pound dryer for the wet cleaning process is
estimated to cost $540. Exhibit 2.1 shows the capital costs. Estimates include taxes, freight,
and installation. This information was obtained from manufacturers and distributors in New
York City and represents costs for December 1992.
Although dry cleaning requires more capital investment than wet cleaning, wet cleaning
requires more labor. Annual labor costs were over three times greater for multiprocess wet
cleaning than dry cleaning. This estimate reflects cleaning time alone, since pressing times are
similar under both processes. The labor time presented for cleaning includes all activities
performed after the garments were allocated and logged in until they were pressed and placed
on hangers. This time includes sorting and inspecting; labor to perform either multiprocess wet
cleaning (steaming, spotting, immersing, scrubbing, and/or tumble drying) or dry cleaning
(prespotting, loading and unloading the machine, and postspotting); and time for placing the
garments on hangers before they are sent to the pressers. Exhibit 2.2 presents a comparison of
the average labor costs for dry and multiprocess wet cleaning. The actual cleaning and pressing
labor times recorded for each test lot are presented in Appendix n.
The pressing time shown in Exhibit 2.2 includes all activities performed after the
unpressed garments were removed from the hanger until the pressed garments were rehung. It
was suspected that the pressing time required for garments immersed during multiprocess wet
cleaning would be longer due to damp garments and excessive wrinkling. Surprisingly, no
appreciable difference was noted; therefore, pressing times for the two cleaning processes were
assumed equivalent. These pressing times reflect the combined labor times of all pressers
working on the entire lot. Because each presser worked at his own speed, the number of
garments pressed by each presser varied per lot. In addition, four different pressers participated
during the course of the test, so the pressers working at any given time varied from one day to
the next. Because of these factors, absolute measures of pressing time recorded by lot may not
be valid; although, this measure may be used to compare overall differences in pressing times
for each process. Pressing times recorded for an individual garment by a specific presser,
however, could be compared to give insight into the possible variations in pressing time for
certain fabric types based on cleaning process.
-------
S
u
H
M
Ł
&c
a
u
0
s
H
H
^^
^J
Q
§
^C
O
^-5
/^
U
a
•g
3
o
c.
o
60
c
rt
U
U
1
Ł
Z a
c -o
•-1 3
"u "S
S 'S
•C «i
^ 1
u c S
» « o
» ^
sS J3 c-j
> 2 ON
** "" 0\
OJ 73 —
r- S t-
5 * ID
'Sjsfl
U 60 U
.S '5 u
•g * Q
1 K' -S
u >< X
i 1 l-a
g coo
W> ° w
C -Q C(J >
'2 a -g o
| 2 3 z
1 1 j 1
c ^ 'o =
i Ł « S* §
E - . 1 x '•§
§ -5 « 4s g
o "§ » Ł i
C S r^ 0 ' =
2 ^ CM -O
« u . — s
rt CT" fsi
^S ON -a _2
E^ " .g c *
3 t, S t. u
x « Q « .
1 I'll
| S Q 1 |
— to >,< tS JC
o o T; o o
Ł U o u 3
j. > o a
,-s
O
S-
cc
u
•3
3
J
^
•^
i
CO
o
U
o
J
Z
[I]
U
u
60
c
a
n
d
c
'3
D
o
o
"I
CM
O
"1
(S
>n
(S
in
c-i
(N
o
q
in
in
^
m
"*
.f
Ł
s
i
u
a
60
o
in
ts containing
J2
u
u
E
a
u
X
—
60
2
U
•
X
u
CM
^v
""
1
«
X
X
is
u
u
u
€
5,
—3
o
(N
(5
•g
C
rt
JU
"u
D
U
1
H
a
—
u
2
^
•S
rA
h
Assume;
60
'Ł
|
"3
e
p^
.Sj
Z
2
u
^
•a
c
eS
60
C
'Ł
1
O
60
e
i
spotting, imi
garments.
»• ^3
tD JJ
C c
'E Jj
« o
1 §•
X 50
0 '60
O C
C. i
Z T)
3 !
'cS
^ c
§1
X
u i
u 0.
1)
•5 u
^ J
» «
•| E
0. rS
rting and ins
d unloading 1
g g
b 60
*• E
u "5
E J
b M
II
Ł Ł•
|i
u
3
U
73
O
g
C
a
V
Z
73
D
z 'c
73 u
C Ji
a Sj;
x "5
>Ł•
1> x
c
u E
.= S
Ł ^3
IT t;
s «
u E
u _
II
T3 ^
'« 1)
CM U
| fe
1) X
1 3
o *
"Ł O
u **t
s >•
Ł. u
"5 «
. E
- 'Z
u s
*-• k«
u C.
•s §•
50 -0
C U
3 Ł
1 "=
JU
1 I
JS u
- -o
73 U
'5 «
c. .c.
a S
« c.
_>, u
3 "^
•* ^
I Ł
I i
I!
-------
Design for the Environment 2-17
This study found a negligible difference between the operating costs for the dry cleaning
versus multiprocess wet cleaning. Exhibit 2.3 presents a summary of the operating costs.
Cleaning labor, pressing labor, spotting chemical usage, and detergent usage were determined
from actual data collected during the test. All of the other operating costs were determined
based on cost estimates given by NCA representatives and equipment vendors. Example
calculations and references for deriving these costs are found in Appendix IQ. This information
was obtained by assuming an annual capacity for a facility. To compare the costs of the two
cleaning processes for equally sized facilities, the values in Exhibit 2.3 were calculated assuming
that an equal number of garments would be cleaned with each process. To reflect the throughput
of a typical facility, it was assumed that each cleaner would clean four 50-garment lots per day,
five days per week, 50 weeks per year for a total of 1,000 lots per year.4 Although the
multiprocess wet cleaning method requires more time, it was assumed not to affect the number
of garments cleaned per day.
The percent difference in the measured costs has not been calculated, because it would
not accurately represent the difference in the total operating costs between the processes. Only
costs that differed between the two processes have been examined in this chapter. The model
plant analysis in Chapter 3 addresses the issue of total operating costs more directly.
"Dry Cleaning Facilities - Background Information on Proposed Standards. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park, NC. Publication number EPA 450/3-9l-020a. November 1991. p. 6-3.
-------
n
n '"^
5
-
**
k
o
0
h
1 3
C
C
<
II
II
b
»
i
u
°
J
1—
1
&
I a
h
-
05
0
U
n
ftfl
C 1
1
-2
u
1
i?
_
6J1
c
i,
>.
CT
Ql
,
M
•I
^i
II
1
g>|
II
-
u
Ł•,
Q
_J
1
r
1 0
0\
1
o
"*
^0
Is
0
1
1
2
VO
1
|| Capital recovery cost'
r
o
s
a
8
"i
<-!
CM
O
"1
CM
CM
0
in
CM'
CM
"L
1,
.r,
«J
cc
4)
4
1
v/^
O
>/•>
vi
o
o
m
X
0
Xl
.2
c0,
•ll
-
u
—
0
Tt
*"!
Tj^
o
o
"fr
•*
p->
•
"w
M
i
I
l^
o
R
o
f-
|| Electricityc'f
o
ri
O
O
O
r**,
q
o
8
1 Maintenance/Repair'
=
0
0
fl
^o
o
r>
\o
o
°CC
i
S
n
o
r-
o^
0
s
_r
5
e ^^ 1
| 1 1 I | S
>< }> o S, 2 *>
>Ł, g- 6, 5T c u
CX » D a) ;: 1
oo < u •**>•Ł
•a o 5 "2 •§ M
§ ? * 8 - •§
•S ^ Ł Ł " i
- 1 i -g fe ?
U "• !$ C 1J )K
* 8 - I1 §
« fe • c ^ S
S | 2 § Ł i
§ 1 «* i o I
•i? l i r 31 s
•=»T3 ™al•S^B^3
1 § fe fcE^-a^
J"g° suca3
^Łfe S-S^-oa
•* 3 c Q.J: u"« S
w>Ł>3§ »• 5 .g « g^
-• 1 1 J u ^ | •§ s1 f
= §S iE^-^ p'll
it! !l i 1 fl i
1?! 11 » i If -a
^1 Is & i 1-a i <
•5gS§.«^u^..S y
T3 — S UO >- tfr-C 2
III Jl »i jl v 1
uST-o^-^uoc'fi *
s^l'ssg'*!!! -g
„=".Ł c2.Su^= & |
s 1 3 ! ! 1 3 -i ? * . i
•sgs o § » g gr c g < -g
"SiEcg^-f^glUp
I s - i * i s t s 1 x 1
•s 1 i N •a § 1 f I ^ 1
« * 1 1 1 5 ! I8 111
oucx-~t> -g s "m cj;.c
"•g.Sgl.-3 .J*«fcŁc
4>Pft °P<4-. « ** » R^ O
s^l -8 'I 1 •§ t § ^Ł"S
Iillilr HI!
30 73 gc » 3MOut3
•3 ^ -S IB x ^ -3 c «^ E
3 1 S | S Ł S -S 2 fe "g "g
S S •§ - a&^l^§u
^.SS «oo 2 a g # a^»
K^C gc E ^ go to "3 o 1
^S2- =3 '5 2 '•§« SS°
liMijiSMH
°-° ° •= - «ji
-------
Design for the Environment 2-19
CHAPTER 2 REFERENCES
'Teleconference. McKinney, T., Radian Corporation, with Vukonich, M., VIC Manufacturing
Company. January 14, 1993.
teleconference. McKinney, T., Radian Corporation, with Nass, R., Direct Machinery Sales
Corporation. January 19, 1993.
teleconference. McKinney, T., Radian Corporation, with Pearce, B., Sears Roebuck &
Company. January 18, 1993.
teleconference. McKinney, T., Radian Corporation, with Edwards, C., ACW Management
Corporation. January 14, 1993 and January 20, 1993.
teleconference. McKinney, T., Radian Corporation, with Cascio, J., Consolidated Edison
Company. January 19, 1993.
^Teleconference. McKinney, T., Radian Corporation, with Haynes, C., Cleaner Sales
Company. December 23, 1992.
teleconference. McKinney, T., Radian Corporation, with Skinner, P., Aveda Corporation.
December 23, 1992.
"Teleconference. McKinney, T., Radian Corporation, with Smith, R., VIC Manufacturing
Company. January 20, 1993.
teleconference. McKinney, T., Radian Corporation, with Lichtmecher, E., New York City
Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Water & Energy Conservation. January 14.
1993.
-------
Design for the Environment 3-1
3. MODEL PLANT ANALYSIS
Because the conditions under which the Dry Cleaning Demonstration took place do not
fully represent the conditions under which a drycleaning plant typically operates, a "Model
Plant" analysis was developed to examine how operating conditions may affect the demonstration
cost results. The analysis presented in this chapter draws heavily on the information collected
in EPA's high volume experiment, and to a lesser degree, EPA's low volume comparison test,
as well as other information on the commercial clothes cleaning industry. These studies were
used to assess the private costs of operating a hypothetical retail clothes cleaning facility. The
model plant described here estimates the annual private costs for 81 expense categories of a
commercial cleaning establishment. The cost estimates are then used to estimate financial
performance measures including annual profit, profitability (profit/sales), and return on
investment. Such calculations are often made by business managers, lenders, and private
investors to track the performance of existing businesses, and to evaluate investment
opportunities. While every effort has been made to accurately reflect operating and cost
conditions for a typical drycleaning plant, different assumptions may yield different results.
Thus, the data and calculation methods are included so that others can examine the results for
themselves.
The costs examined in this report reflect the private costs of wet and dry cleaning, which
are one component of the full social cost. A full social cost analysis would include potential
costs that are not paid (and may not be considered) by the cleaner, but are paid by other people.
Such external costs include potential groundwater contamination, air pollution (both in the
workplace and in nearby residences), and pollution from improper hazardous waste disposal.
Evaluating the full social cost is crucial to properly assessing the cleaning process alternatives,
but is beyond the scope of this analysis.
INTRODUCTION
The model facility analysis was designed to represent today's cleaning facility market
profile and to adapt to potential future changes in this profile. The model examines the private
costs at dedicated drycleaning facility (exclusively cleaning clothes with modern drycleaning
equipment and techniques), a dedicated wet cleaning facility, and a dedicated drycleaning facility
that has been converted into a "mixed mode" facility, offering both dry and wet cleaning
services. The comparison of the dedicated facilities is analogous to the decision facing an
investor considering opening a new clothes cleaning facility, while the mixed mode analysis is
relevant to both new facilities and modifications of existing stores.
The retail drycleaning industry in the United States is presently composed of a diverse
mix of facilities. Some are quite small (less than $25,000 in annual sales), while others have
well over $500,000 in annual sales. Existing cleaners now use new and old equipment of
various sizes and conditions, with very different pollution control equipment installed. This
analysis does not examine the costs for all existing types of facilities.
-------
3-2 Multiprocess Wet Cleaning
The model facility design selected for this analysis focuses on a single facility size. The
specific facility was selected to represent a typical, successful drycleaner. The intention was to
design neither a "gold-plated" nor a "bare bones" facility, but a facility roughly similar to many
existing large cleaners. Decisions about the size, types, and quantities of equipment such a
drycleaner would be likely to have were driven by the selection of the annual sales volume.
Based on conversations with EPA staff, industry groups, equipment manufacturers and
distributors, and drycleaners, the annual sales volume for the model facilities was selected to be
$260,000 ($5,000 per week). Comments on earlier drafts of this report received from industry
sources suggest that the median weekly volume for existing drycleaners is smaller than the
$5,000 per week assumed here. These sources suggest $3,000 per week may be more
representative of the many small cleaners operating in this country. Therefore, the $5,000
weekly volume figure should be considered as representative of large facilities. Formal analysis
of such a smaller sized facility has not been included in this report. Preliminary analysis shows
that the smaller size tends to produce a wider gap between the costs of multiprocess wet cleaning
and drycleaning, with wet cleaning less expensive than drycleaning.
The relationship between the sales volume and the quantity of clothes cleaned is
determined by selecting a "base price". The base price is defined as the sales price for cleaning
a man's suit or one full garment (G). A man's suit is typically used to reflect the average type
of garment cleaned by commercial cleaners. A full garment is defined as consisting of two half
garments or two actual pieces of clothing (i.e., a man's suit would be a full garment, but the
pants or jacket alone would be a half garment). The information collected at EPA's experiment
at the Neighborhood Cleaners Association (NCA) New York School of Dry Cleaning in
Manhattan, New York, was based on the number of pieces of clothing cleaned. The experiment
data was converted into per-garment terms where appropriate for use in the model plant analysis.
Using information from the recent EPA analysis of the drycleaning industry prepared for the
proposed National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), the base price5
for the model plant is set at $7.17. Dividing the annual sales volume by the base price gives
the annual volume of clothes cleaned as 36,262 full garments. Assuming the facility cleans
clothes five days a week (with limited Saturday hours for drop off and pick up), the facility
cleans nearly 700 garments a week. The relationship between sales volume, number of garments
cleaned and equipment capacity was made by assuming a full garment weighs one kilogram (2.2
pounds). Thus, the model facility cleans nearly 700 kilograms (1540 pounds) per week. The
average daily volume is 139.5 garments per day (or 307 pounds a day), but the number of
required drycleaning machine loads is calculated on the weekly volume to minimize the number
of partial machine loads per week. In Appendix IV, where the model cleaning parameters are
defined, the clothing volume is often converted into half garments in order to make following
the calculations more intuitive. In addition, some cleaning parameters are based on the actual
number of pieces of clothing that are being handled, thus the conversion into half garments is
required.
5The Dry Cleaning NESHAP assumed a $6.34 base price in 1989 dollars. The base price is calculated in 1992
dollars by using the Consumer Price Index-All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) to adjust for inflation. All prices in this report
are in 1992 dollars.
-------
Design for the Environment 3-3
The model cleaning facility is assumed not to have the capability of commercially
laundering and pressing shirts. Shirts that do come in are sent out to be laundered. Additional
specialty items (such as leather goods) are also sent out. This assumption follows the
International Fabricare Institute (IFI) description of a "Package Plant" in their Survey of 1990
x Operating Costs. IFI defines a package plant as "dry-cleaning plants where work is processed
on the premises, and is basically cash and carry sales over the counter."
The wet cleaning process is examined by assuming the dedicated wet cleaning facility will
clean the same volume of clothes each week as the dedicated drycleaning plant. Selecting the
weekly volume on the basis of the typical size in the existing drycleaning market may result in
a less-than-optimal size for a wet cleaning facility. It is possible that different weekly volumes
would show somewhat different results for the wet process. The model plant analytical
framework is can accommodate different assumptions about volumes and configurations, but only
the results of a single facility size have been analyzed in depth.
The model plant analysis also examines mixed mode facilities. The same daily volume
of clothes are cleaned, but a specified portion of them are cleaned using the wet process, and
the rest are drycleaned. The mixed mode analysis is important because existing drycleaners
could potentially add the wet cleaning process to their suite of services offered. Relatively little
additional equipment is required, and drycleaners already have many of the skills to successfully
wet clean without damaging the garments.
The costs for mixed mode facilities are not as favorable when compared with either type
of dedicated facility, because the facilities must have all the equipment to do both types of
cleaning. It is particularly disadvantageous to do only a small amount of drycleaning, as the
expensive drycleaning machine is barely utilized. There are some savings from longer
equipment lifetime and reduced maintenance costs, but not enough to offset the annual costs of
the investment. This chapter highlights the results of a facility doing 50 percent drycleaning,
and 50 percent wet cleaning as an example of a mid-range mixed facility, although the results
for a full range of mixes, from 95/5 to 5/95 are also presented.
The Model Facility
The model examines a total of 81 line item costs. The line items can be grouped into
eight categories:
• cleaning equipment (drycleaning machine and associated equipment, washer,
dryer, air compressor, etc.; also includes electricity to operate the cleaning
equipment and annual maintenance costs),
• pressing equipment (including annual maintenance),
• start-up costs (installation of equipment, store front setup, hazardous waste start
up cost, etc.),
-------
3-4 Multiprocess Wet Cleaning
• supplies, (perchlorethylene, detergent, spotting agents, filters, hangers, bags,
etc.),
• utilities (water, gas or oil, and electricity other than for cleaning equipment),
• labor,
• hazardous waste disposal,
• operations and management.
The annual cost of all capital equipment is calculated by annualizing the purchase cost
over the expected life of the equipment using a seven percent per year marginal rate of return
on capital (private discount rate) as recommended in "Guidance on the Preparation of Economic
Analysis and Regulatory Impact Analysis in OPPT". Other start-up costs are also treated as an
investment, and annualized over an assumed 30 year life. The annual cost for other items are
calculated by multiplying the necessary annual quantity of the line item (generally estimated from
estimates of the quantity per garment, per machine load, or per week, as appropriate) times the
price of the item.
The annual costs of many line items are the same for all combinations of wet and dry
cleaning. Of the 81 line items, 32 of them are identical in each facility, accounting for over 80
percent of the total annual costs (see Exhibit 3.1). These process independent line items include
such things as the pressing equipment, rent, much of the labor (counter help, pressing and
managerial), lighting and heating, advertising, business insurance, etc. Other line items (e.g.,
water and electricity) are required in all facilities, but the quantities depend on which process
is used. Every line item is required in a mixed mode facility, but a dedicated facility does not
need every item. For example, an exclusively wet cleaning facility does not need a drycleaning
machine and associated equipment, nor does it pay for hazardous waste disposal or replacement
perchlorethylene. While the dedicated facilities avoid the annualized cost of unnecessary
equipment, as well as the operating costs for that equipment, the mixed mode facilities are
charged for annualizing the full complement of equipment required for both procedures.
Equipment at mixed mode facilities is likely to have a longer useful life and require less
maintenance than at dedicated cleaning plants where equipment is used exclusively.
Unfortunately, little information is available to estimate how useful life or maintenance varies
with usage. A simple approach is adopted to reflect the effects of diminished usage.
Information was collected about expected equipment life and annual maintenance for equipment
operating normally at a dedicated facility. The maximum possible usable life is assumed to be
twice the normal life, and the minimum annual maintenance cost is assumed to be half the
normal cost. As equipment usage declines in the mixed mode plants, expected life is increased
linearly (e.g., 20 percent less usage increases expected life by 20 percent), until the maximum
life span is reached (at half the normal usage). Further decreases in usage are assumed to have
no impact on usable life of the equipment. Increased equipment life results in lower annual
equipment costs in mixed mode plants by annualizing the purchase price over the longer
-------
cTi
02
U
$
JF
B3
Q* Mk
SB
2 3
U
5 u
B 2
2 |
I3
h
8
\
in
8
2
D
t
1
O
WANING FACILITY
idependent Costs
MODEL CLI
Process Ii
»
O
q
in
CO
in
(D
m
r-.
8
in
^j
o
p
spotting board with steam gun
o>
o
p
b
in
§
b
boiler maintenance
.EANING EQUIPMENT
d
o
CM
O
q
in
O)
o
in
in
*
«
^_"
0
q
ar compressor (5HP)
1
II
e
W)
N
O
O
If
to
o
0)
o
o
cr
CO
CO
CO
0
o
in
1
Q_
DC
'c
Q
Q
E
i
OJ
OJ
o
o
in
0
in
in
CO
in
in
OJ
Ł
CO
^r
o
0
'c
01
E
1
0
c
o
Ł
at
.c
5
VI
0>
S.
5
CO
OJ
o
p
CO
in
o
p
b
maintenance
B.
53
a.
*
OJ
o
o
in
o
OJ
OJ
8
in
o
CM
CM"
S
1 Pants Topper
1
II
vr>
*o
in
OJ
o
p
b
0
CO
o
o
o
| maintenance
CD
OJ
0
O
in
5
•»
to
o
in
CO
to
CO.
in"
o
p
"c
0)
.c
c
o
E
Ł
"w
.c
1
CO
01
h-
OJ
0
o
CO
CO
0
o
o
| maintenance
CO
CNJ
O
p
in
CO
to
o
in
m
h-
N.
CO
g
3 -Way Puff Iron
o>
OJ
o
p
CO
CO
o
o
o
maintenance
o
CO
o
p
CO
0)
in
OJ
OJ
o
0
CO
in
o.
Oj"
o
p
*o>
'N
3
0)
.C
w
'c
u_
E
u_
0>
35
S
o
o
o
CO
OJ
0
o
o
j maintenance
OJ
CO
§
0
CO
CO
(D
O)
CM
CO
O
O
O
O
in
in
IT
in
0
q
| BOO Slot Conveyer
a>
in
q
I
CO
a
o
b
CO
a
8
in
CD
o
a>~
CO
ffl
SUPPLIES
o
to
CO
CO
s
a
O)
c
a
**
s
b
S,
7»
o
CO
8
CO
OJ
co"
CO
hanagers
1
pf
OJ
CO
o>
u-
o
I
CO
o
d
0)
c
3
"3
IDITIONAL UTILITIES
S
CO
o
o
0
a
CO
Ł
§
10
1
0
q
CM
^
front counter help
m
CO
o
o
in
CO
N."
OJ
O
w
in
b
*
8
Q
-------
3-6 Multiprocess Wet Cleaning
expected life. A similar approach is used for annual maintenance costs. Maintenance costs are
assumed to decrease linearly with decreasing usage, until the equipment is used half the normal
amount. Further reductions in usage do not reduce maintenance costs. Because of their
relatively low cost and short life span, wet process equipment is assumed to have no annual
maintenance costs regardless of the amount of usage.
The assumption that a mixed mode plant operates the same equipment (in particular, a
fifty pound dry capacity drycleaning machine) as a dedicated facility is an appropriate approach
to examine the cost implications of expanding a dedicated drycleaner's services to include wet
cleaning. When converting to a mixed mode plant, the cleaner is assumed to use the same
drycleaning equipment less intensively than before. However, a cleaner designing a new mixed
mode facility may consider other sizes of drycleaning machines as well. The cost implications
of selecting the drycleaning machine capacity to match the expected weekly volume is discussed
later in this chapter.
As stated previously, much of the information on which the model plant is based derives
from the EPA's experiment at the NCA described in Chapter 2. In particular, the amount of
labor time required to clean a garment with the wet cleaning process, and the time it takes to
sort, spot treat, load and unload a garment using the drycleaning process, are very important
variables in the model plant analysis that are directly based on the experimental data. However,
additional research providing more detailed information on both the wet and drycleaning
processes in some cases suggested using different assumptions about other aspects of these
cleaning processes. The treatment of both the wet and drycleaning processes in the experiment
simplified the available variety of both cleaning processes. For example, the costs associated
with running a drycleaning machine, including consumption of cleaning solvent, detergent, and
electricity, generation of still bottoms6, lint, and separator water, are dependent to a large
degree on the individual preferences of the machine operator. Variables such as the type of
cleaning cycle the operator decides to run (single bath or double bath and/or prewash), combined
with the length of the drying cycle, which may be dependent on how quickly the next load needs
to be completed, effect many different cost categories, including labor time. Rather than using
the data from the experiment, information collected from knowledgeable industry sources was
used to formulate the assumptions about what would occur at a typical cleaning facility.
When designing a "model plant" it is important to select appropriate equipment for the
size and type of facility being modeled. The selection of cleaning equipment for EPA's
experiment at the NCA was determined by what was available at the site. While this equipment
was acceptable for the purposes of the experiment, further research suggests that it may not have
been the most efficient for either cleaning process. Information collected from drycleaning
machine manufacturers, distributors, operators, and industry representatives indicate that the size
of the drycleaning machine should be selected based on the daily amount of time the machine
must be operating in order to handle the facility's clothing throughput. It was suggested that a
'Still bottoms are the residual sludge remaining after distilling the dry cleaning solvent. Still bottoms are a mixture
of PCE, water, dyes, detergents, starch, fats and oils, and other materials removed from clothing during cleaning. Still
bottoms must be disposed of as a hazardous waste.
-------
Design for the Environment 3-7
drycleaning machine will be running no more that six hours per day in a typical facility. This
criterion was one of the most important factors used to select an appropriately sized drycleaning
machine for the model facility. The drycleaning machine selected for the model plant analysis
is a 50 pound, dry to dry machine with a refrigerated condenser. Such a machine is a popular
size for existing dry cleaners, and can meet current OSHA requirements and the requirements
of the proposed EPA NESHAP. See Appendix IV for a more detailed discussion of machine
size.
Information concerning appropriate equipment selection for a wet cleaning facility was
obtained primarily from Richard Simon of ECOCLEAN International, the owner and operator
of commercial wet cleaning operations. According to Simon, the UniMac model 202 washing
machine (a three section unit with two wash basins and a hydro-extractor in the middle) used
for wet cleaning in the NCA experiment is not commonly found at drycleaners, and is not
preferable for a commercial facility. While the UniMac machine performed well in the
experiment, it is considerably more expensive than equally effective substitutes. Instead, Simon
suggested using multiple washing machines and dryers designed for domestic use. Specific
details of the model facilities' equipment configurations, as well as a discussion of assumptions
and sources, may be found in Appendix IV.
MODEL RESULTS
The principal results of the model plant analysis are estimates of the total annual private
costs for dedicated wet and drycleaning facilities. The dedicated drycleaning facility serves as
the basis for comparison (the base case). This primary analytical framework is expanded to
examine mixed mode operations. Costs are estimated for mixed mode plants ranging from a
95/5 mix (95 percent of the clothes are drycleaned and five percent wet cleaned) to a 5/95 mix
in increments of five percent. Thus costs are estimated at a total of 21 facilities (including the
dedicated facilities) from a mix of 100/0 to 0/100. Exhibit V.I, in Appendix V, shows the line-
by-line costs for each mix. For ease of presentation, this section will focus on the results for
three facilities: the two dedicated facilities and the 50/50 mix as an example of the mixed mode
plants. Exhibit 3.2 shows the line-by-line cost for the three highlighted facilities. Exhibit V.2
shows the details for each line item of the estimated quantity, cost per unit, annual costs and
useful life for the three highlighted facilities.
The annual costs for the dedicated wet cleaning facility are $238,583, the lowest of all
the combinations. The next lowest cost is for the dedicated drycleaning facility, with annual
costs of $239,649, which is $1,066 more (0.45 percent higher) than the dedicated wet cleaning
facility costs. These fundamental results are similar to the results of the cost analysis of EPA's
experiment reported in Chapter 2: there is only a small difference between the costs for the
dedicated facilities, with the wet process being slightly less expensive.
The costs for mixed mode plants are consistently higher than the dedicated drycleaning
plant costs, although not by much. For example, the 50/50 plant's costs are $241,427, only
$1,778 more than the dedicated drycleaners. The full range of total costs are reported in Exhibit
3.3 and shown graphically in Exhibit 3.4. Over most of the range of mixed mode plants, the
-------
Exhibit 3.2
MODEL CLEANING FACILITY PROFILE
Summary of Model Output
CLEANING EQUIPMENT
PRESSING EQUIPMENT
START-UP COSTS
(EQUIPMENT * SUPPLIES)
SUPPLIES
ADDmONALUTOJTIES
LABOR
HAZARDOUS WASTE
DISPOSAL
OPERATION A MANAGEMENT
PROCESS INDEPENDENT
TOTALS PROCESS DEPENDENT
GRAND TOTAL
50-pound no-vent dry-to-dry machine with RC
maintenance
electricity
7 5-ton Refrigerated Chiller
maintenance
electricity
7 5-ton Integrated AeroCooling Unit
maintenance
etoctncjty
18-pound top loading washing machine (domestic use)
elect ricty
18-pound front load tumble dryer (domestic use)
electncjy
spotting boaitt with steam gun
scrubbing board / industrial sink w/drainer (3x2x2 ft)
4 HP
boiler 10 HP
20 HP
maintenance
air compressor (5HP)
vacuum pump unit (RP-5)
utility preaser with steam iron attachment
maintenance
pants Upper
maintenance
legger with steam Iron attachment
maintenance
3-way puff iron
maintenance
steam form finisher (tufa")
maintenance
installation and rigging (electrical, gas, water, etc.)
lease hold Improvements (const, decor, $ register, etc)
•Ignage
initial Inventory of supplies ( hangers, bags, spot chems)
Initial fill up of dry cleaning machine with perc
hazardous waste disposal start-up fees
bagging rack
scale kart
6 bu basket
8 bu basket
slick rails
800 slot conveyer
perchtorethytene ($/gal)
charging detergent tor the Dry Cleaning machine
fabric softener
ammonia
amyl acetate
general formula
moisture stock
neutral lubricant
oily type paint remover
peroxide
Vital Elements All Purpose Cleanser
Vital Elements Fabric Cleanser (1 00%)
Vital Elements Fabric Cleanser 10%
standard carbon core filters
double all carbon filters
bags
hangers
water and sewage
electricity (general)
gas / oil
front counter help
presser
Dry Cleaning spotter/cleaner
Wet Cleaning spoiler
manager
payroll taxes spotter/cleaner
& insurance all other labor
seperatorwater(ga|/yr)
filter disposal
still bottoms and lint disposal
insurance (non-labor)
rent or building overhead
advertising
outside work
claims
office expenses
adminsrtrarve expenses
bank charges
miscellaneous
PROCESS INDEPENDENT
COSTS
$165
$150
$151
$109
$535
$534
$242
$300
$544
$643
$107
$133
$226
$280
$1,330
$1,612
$403
$322
$8
$6
$7
$110
$448
$604
$1,593
$1,250
$31,200
$27,195
$25,000
$13,760
$9,100
$24,336
$5,928
$23,530
$884
$3,380
$4,056
$10,556
$7,670
$198,509
100% DRY
$4,979
$745
$677
$985
$150
$351
$198
negligble
$32
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$990
$65
$12
$20
$762
$1 ,679
$0
$15
$26
$35
$16
$52
$533
$8
$0
$0
$0
$1,081
$595
$2,626
$4,576
$14,040
$0
$2,317
$684
$2,050
$841
$198,509
$41,140
$239,649
SO%DRY
50% WET
I
$3,654
$373
$348
$653
$75
$181
$158
negligible
$16
$231
$28
$174
$349
$21
$0
$702
$0
$65
$12
$20
$381
$839
$94
$21
$20
$71
$8
$46
$280
$11
$326
$226
$28
$540
$298
$2,712
$4,543
$7,800
$12,480
$3.346
$342
$1 ,025
$420
$198,509
$42,918
$241,427
100% WET
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$419
$54
$306
$697
$21
$620
$0
$0
REFERENCE
LINE *
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$189
$27
$14
$107
$0
$41
$27
$13
$652
$451
$56
$0
$0
$2,792
$4,510
$0
$24.960
$4.118
$0
$0
$0
$198,509
$40,075
$238,583
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69 a
69 b
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
-------
cn
C/D
00
B]
A
O
OH
is
IX J
8
Ł
I
•n
*
(3
•n
vo
04
in
VO
00
00
vo
04
04
S
oi
tr,
ff.
0
o
•<*
tr-.
P;
ff.
&
04
VO
s
s
1
ON
vd
>n
O
vd
VO
VO
VO
%
<"i °°.
m
(N
o
VO
O
?
ON
fS
00
00-
VO
00
n
>n
oo
ON
oo
m
oo
oo
s
1
Si
Si
Si
w
•g
I
a
•g
a
•g
•g
0
W
bj
•g
<9
S
bl
s
•g
a1
•g
u
u
in
vo
Ł
tj
b(
bC
in
ON
S'
^ \J \J ^^ ^p/ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Łfifififilfi*5
0
o
in
oo
«
^
•n
VO
fiississssi
id ^Cl ».O. ^Cl wd wd *.Q ^Ci ^CS W
a
m
-------
Exhibit 3.4
TOTAL ANNUAL PRIVATE COST
FOR DEDICATED AND MIXED MODE FACILITIES
$265,000
$260,000
$255,000
$250,000
$245,000
$240,000
$235,000
100%
Annual Sales Receipts
I I I
J I
50%
Percent Dry Cleaning
Profit
J I
0%
Dedicated Dry Cleaner
Dedicated Wet Cleaner
-------
Design for the Environment 3-11
mixed mode costs are within $2000 dollars of the dedicated drycleaning cost. However,
facilities using less than 30 percent drycleaning are somewhat more expensive to operate than
a dedicated drycleaning plant. The most expensive mix is the 5/95 plant (but even that is only
$4,958 more expensive than the dedicated drycleaners). In general, the total costs increase as
the amount of clothes drycleaned decreases throughout the entire range of mixed mode plants.
This trend is caused by the relatively expensive drycleaning equipment being used less and less.
The effect of varying the size of the drycleaning equipment is explored as a part of the
sensitivity analysis later in this chapter.
The "bumps" in the cost curve are caused by certain line items in the model being
rounded up to a whole number. Both the required number of spotter/cleaner hours and the
number of machine loads per week are rounded to the next whole number. For example, at
some combinations shifting an additional five percent more clothing from dry to wet cleaning
can increase the number of hours a week the wet cleaner must work without decreasing the
number of loads the drycleaning machine does in a week. When calculated on an annual basis,
the model can magnify such increases into the bumps on the annual cost curve for different
mixes. Many of the bumps should be considered an artifact of the modelling approach,
especially the small anomalies that exist for only one mix, and then disappear.
Examining the model outputs in more detail is useful to understand the total cost results.
Total costs can be dissaggregated into eight categories, as reported in Exhibit 3.5, and depicted
in Exhibit 3.6. Two categories (Labor costs, and Operating and Maintenance costs) are by far
the largest cost components, accounting for between 83 percent and 90 percent of the total cost
(for the dedicated drycleaner and dedicated wet cleaner, respectively). The category with the
largest cost difference between the dedicated facilities is Labor. Because more spotter/cleaner
labor is needed for wet cleaning than for drycleaning, the wet cleaning total labor cost is more
expensive than the costs for drycleaning. The difference in Labor costs for wet cleaning is more
than offset by lower wet cleaning costs for cleaning equipment, supplies, utilities and hazard
waste disposal.
The comparison between the costs for the different types of facilities is somewhat masked
because many of the costs are identical for all facilities. Two categories (Pressing Equipment
and Operation and Maintenance) are identical, and the Start-up cost category differs by less than
$100 per year. Further, many components of the Labor category are also identical. While
spotter/cleaner costs differ for different mixes, each facility needs the same amount of (and
hence has the same costs for) front counter help, pressers and managers. Separating the process
dependent portion of each cost category gives a clearer picture of the cost components that are
driving the differences in the cost estimates. Exhibit 3.2 indicates which line items are process
dependent and which are process independent. Exhibits 3.5 and 3.6 show the breakdown of total
and process dependent costs into the 8 cost categories for the dedicated facilities and for the
50/50 mix.
The process dependent cost differences between the cleaning processes are dominated by
the costs of the skilled spotter/cleaner Labor category. The dedicated drycleaning facility needs
a spotter/cleaner 27 hours a week, while the dedicated wet cleaning plant requires 48 hours a
-------
V)
o
Ml
a*
"eS
U
o
U
u
*c?
s
-4—
JS
ec
a
VI
O
U
•+*
o
•a
a*
a
S
u
o
•o
a
"«
•4^
O
H
gg
ESS DEPEND
r COMPONE^
Ur*
O O
& u
Pi
CO
»
Z
TOTAL
COMPO
H
O
U
fc
>
o
o
o
in
O
in
p^
Q
o
o
•*••>
^^
o
o
o
>n
o
in
Q
O
o
K*
X.
O
o
<
H
<
U
H
CO
O
U
CN"
m
fee
00
o
ON
fee
m
ON
CN"
fee
oo
CO
fee
co
00
ON"
li
Ł
5-
t
OJ3
C
1
U
o
fee
o
fee
o
fee
in
^^
vo
fee
co"
fee
in
•n
o
o
fee
00
CN"
o
fee
m
oo
in
•*
oo
m
CN
fee
(^
CN
CN
fee
ON
Tfr
ON"
m
CN
fee
I
-------
Exhibit 3.6
Total Cost Components
Including Process Dependent & Independent Costs
$140,000
$120,000 -
$35,000
Cleaning Eq Start-up Utilities Haz Waste
Pressing Eq Supplies Labor O & M
Process Dependent Cost Components
Cleaning Eq Start-up Utilities Haz Waste
Pressing Eq Supplies Labor O & M
100% Dry IE 50/50 Mix D 100% Wet
-------
3-14 Multiprocess Wet Cleaning
week. As the model assumes that spotter/cleaners are paid the same hourly wage at all facilities,
the dedicated wet cleaning facilities costs ($29,078/year including wages, payroll taxes,
employment insurance and fringe benefits) for spotter/cleaners are 77 percent higher ($12,721
more) than the dedicated drycleaner ($16,357/year). Note that as reported in Chapter 2, the
experiment in New York found that the wet cleaning process required over three times as much
spotter/cleaner time to clean the same quantity of garments. The amount of time per garment
required for wet cleaning in the model plant analysis is identical to the average time per garment
recorded during the experiment. However, the amount of spotter/cleaner time for drycleaning
is changed to better reflect the actual job as it would be performed at a drycleaners. The times
reported in Chapter 2 are the total quantity of time the cleaner is active in spotting, loading and
unloading the machine, but do not reflect any time for morning startup, daily maintenance, and
to allow all drycleaning machine loads to be completed and unloaded each day. These
adjustments, plus a small impact from rounding the number of weekly drycleaning loads up to
a number of whole loads, account for the greater quantity of drycleaner spotter/cleaner time per
load used in the model plant analysis.
The second largest difference in process dependent costs is the capital costs of owning
and operating the cleaning equipment (and related equipment such as dryers, chillers and cooling
units). Although the drycleaning equipment cost nearly ten times as much as the wet cleaning
equipment, the effect is dampened by the longer expected usable life of the drycleaning machine.
The drycleaning machine, chiller and cooling unit has a total purchase cost of $54,368,
compared with a dedicated wet cleaners investment of $2,136 for three washers and dryers.
When annualized over the 15 year life of the drycleaning equipment, the annual cost of
drycleaning equipment is $5,969, while the annual cost over the three year life of the wet
process equipment is $814. With annual maintenance and differences in electricity usage are
added in, the process dependent costs for cleaning equipment are $6,991 higher for the dedicated
drycleaner (total annual cost of $9,108) than the dedicated wet cleaner ($2,117).
The cleaning equipment costs for the mixed mode facilities are between the costs for the
two dedicated plants (except for the 95/5 mix, with annual cleaning equipment costs $177 more
than the dedicated drycleaning plant). The model results indicate that costs fall steadily until the
50/50 split ($6,963), but then slightly rise for facilities using less drycleaning (the 5/95 mix costs
are $7,103). This pattern is the result of assumptions used about how decreasing the amount
of clothes drycleaned increases expected useful life and decreases annual maintenance for the
drycleaning machine. Both the life expectancy and maintenance are assumed to change linearly
until the machine is used only half as much as at a dedicated plant. Doubling the machine useful
life at a dedicated drycleaners, and halving the annual maintenance costs, are assumed limits to
the gains from less wear and tear on the drycleaning machine. Decreasing the drycleaning
machine usage below 50 percent is assumed to cause no additional changes in the useful life or
annual maintenance costs.
The portions of the other two cost categories (Supplies and Hazard Waste Disposal) that
contribute substantially to the difference between the process dependent costs for wet and dry
cleaning aid related to PCE, filters and the cost of detergent. Even with modern control
equipment, some PCE is still lost in the process. Losses potentially occur from PCE remaining
-------
Design for the Environment 3-15
in distillation residue, dissolved in the separator water, in lint captured by the various filters,
filter disposal, fugitive emissions, remaining on clothing, etc. PCE loss is measured in
"mileage": the amount of clothes that can be cleaned for each gallon or drum (55 gallons) of
PCE. PCE mileage is assumed to be 30,000 pounds of clothes per drum (545 pounds/gallon).
Additional PCE-related costs include filters (replaced as recommended) and appropriate
hazardous waste disposal of filters, distillation residue and separator water, and the annualized
costs for the initial fill-up of 161 gallons of PCE and the hazardous waste disposal start-up fee.
The costs at a dedicated drycleaner for all these PCE-related categories are $6,089 per year.
A dedicated wet cleaner would avoid all these costs, and mixed plants would be in between. In
addition, the cost of the dry process detergent ($l,679/year) is greater than the detergent costs
for the wet process detergent ($1,160, including some detergent used as a spotting agent).
In addition to comparing the costs of operating dedicated and mixed mode facilities, it
is also possible to examine financial measures related to profit. Because annual sales revenue
is available in the model plant analysis (and is one of the crucial assumptions of the model), it
is possible to estimate profit by subtracting annual costs from revenue. The projected revenues
minus estimated costs definition of profit is a key concept that a private business person would
use to evaluate investment opportunities and measure current performance. However,
economists define profit more narrowly by considering the returns to capital investment,
entrepreneurial activity and risk compensation to be real economic factors that must be
compensated.
Although profit can be directly calculated, it is not a very useful measure by itself.
Because the annual revenues in the model plant are selected to be $260,000, profit is just an
alternative way of presenting the cost estimates. Profit can be used to calculate two financial
performance measures that contain more information than just total annual cost: return on
investment (profit divided by investment, expressed as a percent) and profitability (profit divided
by sales, also expressed as a percent). Return on investment and profitability are shown on
Exhibit 3.3.
Return on investment can be compared with alternative investment opportunities,
including other business ventures and equity or debt (bond) investments. Investment is
calculated as the sum of the purchase price of all permanent equipment (including cleaning,
pressing and store-front equipment) and other initial costs such as installation, signs, etc. The
dedicated drycleaning plant has an estimated return on investment of 14.75 percent. This
compares reasonably well with other available investment opportunities. The return on
investment for the mixed mode plants are somewhat lower, with most "mid-range" mixes above
13 percent. Facilities doing relatively small amounts of drycleaning (less than 30 percent) have
returns as low as 11.2 percent.
Dedicated wet cleaning facilities have a markedly greater return on investment. A
portion of the increase comes from the higher profit (lower total costs) at the dedicated wet
cleaning facility. The additional profit earned by a wet cleaner ($1,066 more than a dedicated
drycleaner) would increase the return on the dedicated drycleaner's level of investment
($137,932) by 0.75 percent. However, the dedicated wet cleaners have a substantially smaller
-------
3-16 Multiprocess Wet Cleaning
investment ($81,098) than the dedicated drycleaners. The combination of the higher profit and
the lower investment results in the wet cleaning process having an estimated return on
investment of 26.3 percent. This high return on investment is consistent with wet cleaning being
a much more labor intensive process than drycleaning, but requiring considerably less capital
investment.
Another financial measure derived from the profit calculation is profitability, which is
defined as profit divided by annual sales revenue. Unlike return on investment, profitability
cannot be readily compared across industries or types of investment opportunities. However,
within an industry profitability is often used as a key financial indicator. Profitability for all of
the model facility combinations are shown on Exhibit 3.3. The dedicated drycleaner has an
estimated profitability of 7.83 percent. The mixed mode plants have somewhat lower
profitability, with most mixed mode plants above seven percent. As can be expected,
profitability at facilities doing little drycleaning falls considerably, reaching 5.92 percent for the
5/95 split. Dedicated wet cleaning facilities have the highest profitability (8.24 percent) of any
combination, reflecting the greater profits for dedicated wet cleaners.
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
The basic model plant analysis can be used as an analytical framework to explore various
questions about the effects of alternative assumptions. Three different variations are presented
here as a partial sensitivity analysis. Two of the sensitivity approaches investigate ways a mixed
mode plant or a dedicated wet cleaner could earn the same profit as the dedicated drycleaner.
The two approaches explored here are for 1) cleaning more garments and 2) charging a higher
price for the wet cleaned garments. The third alternative focuses on the decisions about the
appropriate size for the drycleaning equipment facing a potential new investor of a mixed mode
plant.
Equal Profits Analysis
The model plant analysis estimated that mixed mode plants have higher costs than a
dedicated drycleaning facility, and hence are earning less profit. An operator of a mixed mode
plant could potentially increase profits to the same level as for a dedicated drycleaner by either
decreasing costs or increasing revenues. Performing a sensitivity analysis of different cost
assumptions is beyond the scope of the current analysis. However, two approaches to varying
the revenue stream are examined: cleaning more garments and charging higher prices.
Drycleaning is a highly competitive industry, usually with multiple providers in a single
geographic market. The competition limits the ability of operators of facilities to increase their
market share or charge higher prices. Drycleaning operators are thus presently price takers.
However, intrc ducing a wet cleaning alternative as an additional service offered by the cleaners
may create product differentiation. The new product market, clothes cleaning service using the
wet cleaning method, may be a contestable product market, allowing cleaners to be price makers
for the new product unless (or until) sufficient competition in the new product market eliminates
-------
Design for the Environment 3-17
the price making possibility. In addition, if customers know that both services are available, and
if at least some customers prefer the wet process over the dry process (perhaps because of
environmental concern and/or due to effective advertising), the mixed mode facility may be able
to attract a greater volume of business than before. It is more likely that net increases in
demand at a single facility will be primarily demand transferred from other cleaners that do not
offer wet cleaning, rather than an increase in the overall demand for clothes cleaning services
in the geographic market. If an existing drycleaner adds the option of wet cleaning service, a
portion of their wet cleaning volume will be transferred from their own pre-existing dryclean
volume, and a portion from other competing stores.
The amount of increased annual sales volume that will result in the same profit as a
dedicated drycleaner varies for different mixes. As the difference in annual costs between the
mixed mode plants and the dedicated drycleaners is relatively small, the number of additional
garments required to earn the same profit is modest. For example, the 50/50 facility must clean
an extra 13.4 garments a week (in addition to the 697 garments/week already being cleaned) to
make the additional $469 in annual profits needed to match the profits at a dedicated drycleaning
plant. Exhibit 3.7 shows the amount of extra garments per year required to achieve the targeted
profit level. Note that the more profitable dedicated wet cleaning facilities could clean 3.4 fewer
garments per week to earn the same profit. Forcing the profit level to be the same as for a
dedicated drycleaner causes profitability to be lower than for a dedicated drycleaner (same profit
on a greater sales volume), but the rate of return on investment varies (because some mixed
mode facilities have a larger investment, and others have a smaller investment).
A second way a mixed mode facility can earn the same profit as a dedicated drycleaners
is to charge a premium for garments cleaned by the wet process. As a price taker in the
drycleaning market, the facility cannot effect the price they charge for drycleaning. However,
as a price maker in the wet cleaning contestable market, the facilities may be able to charge a
greater price for wet cleaning than for drycleaning. The market acceptance of a premium price
for wet cleaning service is unknown, but it is straightforward to calculate how much more the
facility would have to charge for wet cleaning to make the same profit. For example, the 50/50
plant would have to charge an extra $0.10 per garment to earn the target profit amount. The
necessary "wet cleaning premium" for other facilities are also shown in Exhibit 3.7. If the
market demand for wet cleaning is sufficient, cleaning facilities offering wet cleaning services
could be able to charge a larger wet cleaning premium and increase profits. A wet cleaning
premium is likely to be sustainable only in the short run, however, as increasing competition in
the wet cleaning market will reduce the premium a cleaner can charge.
-------
3-18
Multiprocess Wet Cleaning
Exhibit 3.7
Cleaning Facility
Description
90% Dry / 10% Wet
80% Dry / 20% Wet
70% Dry / 30% Wet
60% Dry / 40% Wet
50% Dry / 50% Wet
40% Dry / 60% Wet
30% Dry / 70% Wet
20% Dry / 80% Wet
10% Dry / 90% Wet
100% Wet Cleaning
# Extra Garments Weekly
to Make Same Profit as a
Dedicated Dry Cleaner
+ 2.7 Garments/week
+ 6.6 Garments/week
+ 10.5 Garments/week
+ 10.9 Garments/ week
+ 13.4 Garments/ week
+ 16.4 Garments/week
+ 19.6 Garments/ week
+ 16.1 Garments/week
+ 29.1 Garments/ week
— 3.4 Garments/ week
Additional Price for Wet
Cleaning Necessary to
Make Same Profit as a
Dedicated Dry Cleaner
+ $.13 / Garment
+ $.16/ Garment
+ $.!!/ Garment
+ $.13 / Garment
+ $.10/ Garment
+ $.11 / Garment
+ $.!!/ Garment
+ $.12 / Garment
+ $.12/ Garment
- $.03 / Garment
Purchasing Smaller Drycleaning Machines for Mixed Mode Facilities
This model estimates costs for a dedicated dry or wet cleaning facility or for a dedicated
drycleaner that is converted into a mixed mode facility. However, it may overestimate annual
costs for the mixed mode facilities. A dedicated drycleaner will originally purchase drycleaning
equipment that meets or exceeds their needs. When this facility is converted into a mixed mode
facility, it may have considerable excess capacity in its drycleaning operations. This will likely
result in annual costs that exceed those of a newly designed mixed mode cleaning facility that
would purchase drycleaning equipment to meet the requirements of their reduced drycleaning
needs. Thus, the model was modified to better represent the equipment configuration of a newly
designed mixed mode facility.
All of the modifications to the model stem from allowing the mixed mode facilities to
purchase drycleaning equipment to suit their specific needs. This allows many of the facilities
to purchase smaller (and less expensive) drycleaning machines. The smaller equipment require
smaller chillers, consume less electricity, and use fewer filters. The key assumption in selecting
the size of the drycleaning machine is that the cleaner wants a machine capable of handling the
-------
Design for the Environment 3-19
facilities designed daily volume of drycleaning in six hours or less. The specific changes to the
model are outlined by line number in Appendix VI.
Based on estimates of the typical drycleaning machine's run time, only the 100 percent
and 95 percent drycleaning facilities required a 50 pound machine and 7.5 ton chiller. The
90/10 and 85/15 mixed mode facilities would purchase 35 pound machines with a 5 ton chiller,
and all other mixed facilities (i.e., those preforming less than 85 percent drycleaning) would
purchase a 28 pound machine and a 5 ton chiller. Although smaller drycleaning machines are
available, they were not considered in this analysis.
The results of the annual cost estimates for the new facilities are shown in Exhibit 3.8,
along with the profit, profitability and return on investment calculations. Exhibit 3.8 depicts
these annual cost estimates, and also shows the costs for the primary results (costs for converting
an existing facility with a 50 pound capacity machine) for comparison. The cost savings
apparent in Exhibit 3.9 result primarily from the lower purchase price of smaller machines;
however, other cost items, including filter purchase and disposal, and electrical consumption,
also contribute to the savings. As in the original analysis, the cost curve for the modified model
also fluctuates due to a weekly rounding up of the number of drycleaning loads and
spotting/cleaning hours. It is important to note that, despite significant differences in the
purchase price of the different drycleaning machines, the actual cost savings is masked by the
lengthy amortization of its cost. Nevertheless, a newly designed mid range mixed mode facility
is clearly more cost effective than a converted dedicated drycleaner handling the same mix of
processes, and requires a lower capital investment. For example, a new 50/50 mixed mode
facility requires $12,267 less capital investment than a converted drycleaner (almost 9 percent
less capital).
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
Many of the assumptions that were necessary to incorporate in the model at this time do
not necessarily reflect the full implications of shifting from drycleaning to a wet cleaning
process. The line-by-line descriptions of the model plant in Appendix IV point out the strengths
and weaknesses of each modelling assumption. Additional information concerning the following
topics may change the results:
• There is considerable variation in the amount and types of equipment required to
reasonably equip a $5000/week cleaner. Is the mix and type of equipment selected for
the model plant analysis reasonable? In particular, is the 50 pound drycleaning machine
and the selection of pressing equipment reasonable?
• Any required amount of skilled spotter/cleaner labor is assumed to be available at the
prevailing wages. This implicitly assumes that spotter/cleaners are available for less than
full time employment. If this is not true, labor costs will be higher. Further, the model
assumes that the labor market can provide adequate numbers of cleaners for both
processes. While this may be true for drycleaning, wet cleaning may require additional
-------
00
en
J Ł
3 Ł
^ ^
H Ł3
E 2
o e^
as
OH
9 -
Pi u
OO
S
IT)
04
04
T?
ON
00
O
ni
bt
ON
ni
NO
ON
00
OO
r-
Tt
Tti —
NO
bt
w
bd
M
ra
w
M
bt
T?
bO
00
04
ON
T?
OH
04
04
04
04
NO
04
BBSS
04
NO
f,
oo
o o
bt
ex
.9
00
ON
O
So
««
00
04
-------
Exhibit 3.9
TOTAL ANNUAL PRIVATE COST FOR NEW
FACILITIES SELECTING DRYCLEANEVG MACHINE SIZE
$260,000
~ $255,000
O
U
^ $250,000
P
$245,000
$240,000
$235,000
Annual Sales Receipts
Conversion of an existing dry cleaning facility
New Cleaning Facility (model sensitivity)
i i i i i i i
100%
50%
Percent Dry Cleaning
Profit
i
%
Dedicated Dry Cleaner
Dedicated Wet Cleaner
-------
3-22 Multiprocess Wet Cleaning
training. For example, the wet cleaning spotter during EPA's experiment in New York
was an experienced drycleaner, but required approximately one day of training in wet
cleaning techniques. The cost of training the cleaners could be both a start-up cost and
a reoccurring annual cost due to labor turnover.
Are the quantities of the different labor categories reasonable? Are the wages (or per
piece cost for pressing) reasonable? Is 16.5 percent for wage-bill related taxes and
insurance reasonable?
Information on how to estimate the impact of decreased drycleaner usage on annual
maintenance costs and expected useable life is limited. The model now uses very simple
assumptions that linear relationships hold for decreasing usage up to half the normal full
time utilization, but that further decreases have no effect.
Differences in the start-up costs may actually vary for a dedicated wet clean facility.
Both labor related and non-labor related insurance may vary for a facility offering the
wet cleaning process. The potential future liability from drycleaning solvent harming
workers, customers and nearby residents is diminished in a mixed mode plant, and
eliminated entirely in a dedicated wet clean facility. Further, insurance on store contents
should be less at a dedicated wet cleaner, as the value of the installed capital equipment
is lower. However, insurance for damage to customers goods may increase for wet
cleaning due to insurers unfamiliarity with the magnitude of the potential claims.
The advertising budget may need to be increased to make customers aware of the
availability of the wet cleaning alternative. If a mixed mode facility charges a premium
for wet cleaning, advertising may be necessary to attract sufficient wet cleaning business.
Are there advantages for wet cleaning operations at a facility that already has the
equipment necessary to launder shirts?
If an existing drycleaner adds wet cleaning to the suite of services offered, it is unlikely
that the total volume of clothes will stay the same. Through successful advertising to
attract consumers interested in low-polluting cleaning services, the cleaner may be able
to increase the total clothing volume. Of the amount that is wet cleaned, some will be
new business, and some will be existing business shifted from drycleaning to the wet
process. Presently there is no information available to support a quantitative estimate of
either the increase in total volume or the amount of wet cleaning that is shifted from
drycleaning.
Several of the key assumptions used in this report are derived from EPA's wet and
drycleaning experiment in New York. In particular, the amount of cleaner/spotter labor
used for wet cleaning, and the finding that pressing takes essentially the same amount of
time for either process were directly derived from the experiment. If the experiment was
-------
Design for the Environment 3-23
not representative of "real world" conditions in important ways, the results of the model
plant analysis may not reflect a realistic commercial drycleaning facility.
• Certain start-up costs which are now assumed the same for all facilities may differ from
the estimates obtained for a dedicated dry cleaner.
-------
3-24 Multiprocess Wet Cleaning
CHAPTER 3 REFERENCES
Andrasik, Ivan, J. Distillation. International Fabricare Institute Focus on Drycleaning. Vol 14,
No. 1:2. March 1990.
Bogart, John. Boewe Passat/Permac. Sales Engineer. (817) 723-1065. Personal communication
with David Gorodetzky of Abt Associates. 3/26/93.
Cannon, Barry. Boewe Passat/Permac. Sales Engineer. (817) 723-1065. Personal
communications with David Gorodetzky of Abt Associates. 3/16/93-3/30/93.
Choe, Wan. Shin Sung Precision Corporation. President. (301) 927-1011. Personal
communication with David Gorodetzky of Abt Associates. 3/18/93.
Engstrom, Bob. VIC Manufacturing. Service Department. (800) 669-8777. Personal
communications with David Gorodetzky of Abt Associates. 3/18/93-3/30/93.
Forenta, Inc. Package Plant Training Manual.
Gustufson, Kim. VIC Manufacturing. Service Department. (612) 781-6601. Personal
communications with David Gorodetzky of Abt Associates. 3/11/93-3/30/93.
IFI 1992. International Fabricare Institute. Results of an International Fabricare Institute (IFI)
survey of 1991 operating costs.
Immanuel, Frank, Jr. District Cleaners Equipment. Sales Consultant. (202) 723-7616. Personal
communications with David Gorodetzky of Abt Associates. 3/26/93-3/30/93.
King, Stanley. Forenta, Incorporated. Vice President of Sales. (615) 586-5370. Personal
communications with David Gorodetzky of Abt Associates. 3/10/93-3/30/93.
King, Chris. Clean Rite. Vice President. (314) 353-1712. Personal communications with David
Gorodetzky of Abt Associates. 3/15/93-3/30/93.
Levine, Jerry. Neighborhood Cleaners Association (NCA). Associate Director. Personal
communications with David Gorodetzky of Abt Associates. 3/9/93-3/11/93.
Miller, Susan. Radian Corporation. Personal communications with David Gorodetzky of Abt
Associates. 2/24/93-3/30/93.
NCA (Neighborhood Cleaners Association). NCA's Cost Comparison Chart-1992. NCA
Bulletin. March, 1992.
Norris, Caroline. Radian Corporation. Personal communication with David Gorodetzky of Abt
Associates. 2/24/93-3/30/93.
-------
Design for the Environment 3-25
Pratt, Jerry. Boewe Passat/Permac. Eastern Manager, Permac Dry Cleaning Machinery. (919)
754-2620. Personal communications with David Gorodetzky of Abt Associates. 3/11/93-3/30/93.
Seitz, Bill. Neighborhood Cleaners Association (NCA). President. Personal communication with
David Gorodetzky of Abt Associates. 3/9/93.
Simon, Richard. ECOCLEAN International Incorporated. President. (407) 362-5281. Personal
communications with David Gorodetzky of Abt Associates. 3/17/93-3/30/93.
Stephens, John. Standard Pressing Machine Company Incorporated. Engineer. (301) 927-6030.
Personal communications with David Gorodetzky of Abt Associates. 3/17/93-3/30/93.
Tooney, John. Fulton Boiler Works. (315) 298-5121. Personal communication with David
Gorodetzky of Abt Associates. 3/12/93.
U.S. EPA. 1991. Economic Impact Analysis of Regulatory Controls in the Dry Cleaning
Industry. EPA-450/3-91-021. October, 1991.
U.S. EPA. 1993a. Guidance on the Preparation of Economic Analysis and Regulatory Impact
Analysis in OPPT. Daniel Axelrad, Regulatory Impacts Branch, Economics, Exposure and
Technology Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, January, 1993.
U.S. EPA. 1993b. Report of an initial cost evaluation of dry cleaning and an emerging wet
cleaning process. Prepared by Radian Corporation under contract 68-D2-0175/1. U.S. EPA,
Office of Pesticides, Prevention, and Toxic Substances, Washington, DC. February 19, 1993.
Williams, Mark. Safety-Kleen. Manager. (301) 622-2770. Personal communication with David
Gorodetzky of Abt Associates. 3/26/93.
-------
for the Environment
4. PERFORMANCE TESTS
Preliminary performance tests were run along with the Dry Cleaning Demonstration
project conducted by EPA. These tests were designed to collect information on consumer
satisfaction and fabric wear using both professional cleaning methods.
Three distinct evaluations were included in the performance tests. The first was a test
garment wear study. Using the same garments, test two evaluated several technical criteria.
The third test, using other garments, was a general customer satisfaction survey.
In both the test garment wear survey and the general customer survey, consumers were
asked to evaluate whether their clothes were satisfactorily cleaned and pressed. They were asked
specific questions on damage, spots and odors. Survey participants did not know whether the
garments had been wet or drycleaned. The tests were used to evaluate whether customers have
a preference between the two processes based solely on level of cleaning and finishing. These
surveys were performed at the Neighborhood Cleaners Association in NY during November and
December 1992 concurrently with the cost evaluation addressed in Chapter 2.
The technical wear study also evaluated the two cleaning processes for their end results.
Specifically, the test analyzed five areas of appearance and shrinkage from the dry and
multiprocess wet cleaning methods. Various aspects of this set of tests were performed at the
New York School of Dry Cleaning: other portions were performed at the University of Georgia.
BACKGROUND AND TEST DESCRIPTION
The test garment wear study and the technical wear study used thirteen selected garment
types. These garments were picked by the International Fabricare Institute as representing the
typical spectrum of clothes sold in today's marketplace or that could be sensitive to the
dn-cleaning process. The selection included, but was not limited to, men's suits, sweaters of
cotton, wool, and polyester, jackets, blouses, and skirts. (A complete listing appears in
Appendix VH.) The garments were purchased in triplicate - one only drycleaned, one only
multiprocess wet cleaned, and one used as a control garment that was never cleaned.
The general customer satisfaction survey was attached to approximately 900 of the 1500
garments used in the cost evaluation study examined in Chapter 2. A total of 353 surveys were
returned. These responses were reasonably divided between the wet and drycleaning process;
1~1 respondents had their garments drycleaned and 179 respondents had their garments
multiprocess wet cleaned. As in the cost evaluation, the garments in the general customer
satisfaction suney were of all types regularly seen in drycleaning establishments.
-------
4-2 Multiprocess Wet Cleaning
Test Garment Wear Survey
Thirteen volunteers were each given two identical test garments for the wear study. The
volunteer would wear a garment two full days before it was sent hi for cleaning. While one
garment was cleaned, the second garment was worn. Three such cycles took place. The
garments were tracked so that an individual garment received the same type of cleaning (either
multiprocess wet or dry) each tune it was sent in. Participants did not know which process was
used to clean each garment.
The volunteers completed garment wear logs for each of their garments. The garment
wear log included hours of wear, the activities performed while wearing the garment, and the
exposure of the garment to food, soil, smoke, etc. These logs helped determine whether wear
affects the results of the two cleaning processes.
The volunteers also filled out postcard surveys regarding such characteristics as overall
cleanliness, press and finish, removal of stains and spots, and change in color of the cleaned
clothes.
Technical Wear Study
The two sets of thirteen tect garments - one wet the other drycleaned - were evaluated
for appearance, odor, and shrinkage. All garments were compared to the identical control
garment. The shrinkage, standards, and odor tests were done at the drycleaning school. The
protocol for the shrinkage, standards, and odor tests was developed by Jody Siegel of the
University of Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Institute. The visual tests were designed and
directed by Dr. Theresa Perenich at the University of Georgia's Textiles, Merchandizing, and
Interiors Department (TMI) on January 7-8, 1993. A portion of these tests were conducted at
the New York of Dry Cleaning while others at TMI. Appendix VIE details the protocol for
each test measurement7.
Shrinkage Test
To test garment shrinkage during the cleaning process, garments were measured at four
different stages:
• Before garments were given to volunteers;
• After garments were worn;
• After garments were cleaned; and
• After garments were pressed.
7Most of the testing criteria are based on American Association of Textilists, Chemists, and Colonst guidelines.
-------
Design for the Environment 4-3
The measurements were taken after each of the three cleaning cycles.
Different measurements were taken for each garment type (e.g., trouser inseam or
sweater sleeve length) according to the predetermined protocol. All measurements were
recorded.
The initial measurements were made by International Fabricare Institute personnel at their
laboratory in Delaware, prior to giving the garments to the volunteers. All other measurements
were taken by various cleaners and pressers at the New York School of Dry Cleaning.
Appearance Tests
Two groups of tests analyzed visually acceptable appearance. One group used technical
standards of color, abrasions, damage, and feel. The other used a laboratory setting and a new
group of volunteers to give an objective analysis of garment cleanliness.
Visual Testing
For consumers, "visually acceptable appearance" refers not just to garment cleanliness,
but to pressing, finish, folding, and overall garment presentation. Consumers might judge a
garment to be deficient along one or more of these dimensions, but still judge a garment to be
visually acceptable overall. Conversely, a garment could be judged "unacceptable" for any one
of several reasons.
Garment evaluations were provided by 19 volunteers from university faculty (8), staff
(9), and students (2). A multiprocess wet cleaned and a drycleaned garment of a given type
were viewed separately and evaluated as either "acceptable" or "not acceptable". After
providing acceptability judgements, participants viewed all three garments of a given type and
provided a preference ranking. Participants were also able to provide comments accompanying
each of their judgements.
Participants viewed each garment for no longer than three minutes and viewed no more
than seven different garment types during one visit. Evaluations were carried out in a textile
conditioning room under strict laboratory settings.8 Participants made two visits to complete
their role in this study.
'Temperature was set at 70° F (plus or minus 2 degrees) and relative humidity at 65% (plus or minus 3 percent).
Test specimen setup followed American Association of Textiles, Chemists and Colorist Methods, consisting of two 4 foot
Type F40 cool white preheat fluorescent lamps mounted in a white enamel fluorescent light fixture. A light fixture was
mounted above and in front of the viewing board at a Leight of 7'9" (plus or minus one inch). An additional light, a
500 watt reflector flood lamp (GEO #DXC-RFL 2) was also placed at a 45° angle (plus or minus one degree), 6 foot
(plus or minus one inch) away from the viewing board at a height of 5 foot (plus or minus one inch).
-------
4-4 Multiprocess Wet Cleaning
Standards Testing
Inspection of garment appearance was done to examine "grey scale"9, color, garment
feel, distortions, abrasions, and trim and button damage. This test was performed after the third
cleaning cycle on both the multiprocess wet cleaned and drycleaned clothes. The processed
clothes were compared to the control garments. These evaluations were done by the drycleaning
school.
Odor Testing
Odor was detected and characterized after the third cleaning cycle by two objective
testers. Testers examined garments for any scent and whether or not the scent was acceptable.
General Customer Satisfaction Survey
Survey postcards were handed out to approximately 900 customers when they came to
pick up their garments at their drycleaners. The surveys consisted of eight multiple choice
questions aimed at customer satisfaction. Customers were asked if their garments were
damaged, if they smelled, if they were pressed and finished nicely, and if they were generally
clean.
Slightly over one third of the postcards, 353 surveys, were returned. Customers did not
know whether their garments were wet or drycleaned, but respondents were roughly evenly
divided. Multiprocess wet cleaned garments accounted for 51 percent of respondents, and
drycleaned 49 percent.
TEST RESULTS
The several varied tests and surveys that were conducted during this study suggests that
the two processes examined, drycleaning and multiprocess wet cleaning, perform similarly. The
tests, including shrinkage, visual and odor tests, as well as the customer surveys, all agree -
there are no outstanding differences between the processes that can be determined from the
results shown here.
The detailed results and limitations of the various tests are presented below.
Test Garment Wear Survey Results
The thirteen volunteers submitted garment wear logs and postcard surveys. The garment
wear logs indicated that the average time the participants wore the garments over the two-day
9Grey scale is a standard color measurement established by the American Association of Textilists, Chemists and
Colorists. The scale uses numerical rankings, 1 = worst to 5=best.
-------
Design for the Environment 4-5
periods was 14.4 hours. Most people wore their garments to an office job and changed out of
them after work. Further, most people did not wear the garments in a smoky room or get the
garments wet or stained. The substances spilled on the garments were tea, makeup, peanut
butter, coffee, flour, and salad dressing. Appendix IX provides an example of a garment wear
log and the responses.
In general, wear patterns were similar for garments which were multiprocess wet and
drycleaned. The garment wear logs were examined for any unusual activities or harsh treatment
of the garment during wear. There is nothing apparent in the logs that would significantly bias
the results.
Based on the responses to the postcard surveys, the multiprocess wet cleaned clothes are
judged slightly better than the drycleaned clothes. However, the differences are extremely
small. Results and data from the test garment postcard survey can be found in Appendix X.
Technical Wear Study Results
Drycleaned and multiprocess wet cleaned garments were evaluated for shrinkage and
appearance. All garments were compared to the identical control garment. In general, the
drycleaned garments and multiprocess wet cleaned garments scored similar results. There were
only two areas where the multiprocess wet cleaned garments achieved higher results - the
standards test and the odor test. The following section details the results of each specific test.
Shrinkage Test Results
There are no significant differences in the shrinkage performance of the drycleaned and
multiprocess wet cleaned garments. Both processes caused some shrinkage or stretch for
particular garments. Appendix XI details the results of the shrinkage tests.
Three classes of shrinkage were set:
Negligible: 0-1.0 percent shrinkage or stretch;
Moderate: 1.1 - 5.0 percent shrinkage or stretch;
Unacceptable: greater than 5.0 percent shrinkage or stretch.
Most garments showed equal performance with negligible shrinkage or stretch in both
multiprocess wet cleaning and drycleaning. There are slight differences in the numerical results,
showing sometimes a slight preference for multiprocess wet cleaning, sometimes for drycleaning.
All in all, these differences balance out. For example, the blue suit jacket and the green/brown
suit trouser performed slightly better in multiprocess wet cleaning, while the blue suit trouser
and the green/brown suit jacket performed better in drycleaning. This may demonstrate two
things: similarity in garment performance in both processes and potential operator error.
-------
4-6 Multiprocess Wet Cleaning
Limitations may exist in the shrinkage test data due to operator error and missed
measurements. Differences in measurements may arise from variations in use of a tape measure,
the way each person holds or stretches a garment, and a slightly different angle or line of the
fabric measured by each individual. Operator error may exist when one person is performing
all the tests, or when different people have done the measurements, as in this study.
Measurements were missed in twelve different instances. Half of these were the length by width
measurements. Seventy-five percent of the twelve missed measurements were of the drycleaned
garments. The navy crew neck sweater was missing for the full third cycle, so no measurements
could be taken.
Appearance Test Results
Slight preferences existed for the multiprocess wet cleaned garments over the drycleaned
garments when tested for appearance standards and odors. The visual testing exhibits no
discernable preference.
Visual Test Results
The study was designed to investigate consumer judgements regarding the visual
appearance of multiprocess wet cleaned garments. Specifically, are multiprocess wet cleaned
and drycleaned garments visually acceptable? Regardless of odor or feel, do wet cleaned
garments appear to be acceptably cleaned? Appendix Xn provides test evaluation forms and
results.
Certain assumptions were made considering the study design. First, acceptability would
be related only to the cleaning process rather than other physical characteristics. Second,
drycleaned garments are a realistic baseline for visual acceptability. Third, negative judgements
should largely represent judgements of cleanliness, and not pressing or other garment finishing.
Indications that study participants attended negatively to such characteristics would indicate that
garments were not properly prepared for the study. This assumption was violated, however,
because after cleaning, garments were tested for odor and touch and therefore received a good
deal of unintended handling that was not uniform for all garments.
The data show that all three design assumptions were consistently violated by the study.
For example, four or more "not acceptable" drycleaning judgements invalidate the assumption
that drycleaned garments are a realistic baseline. This means that about 20 percent of the total
group found the drycleaned garment type unacceptable, a proportion which certainly could not
be maintained in actual practice. Using this rule, 10 of the 12 garment types don't satisfy this
assumption. Therefore, the main study conclusion is that overall, violations of these assumptions
imply that the data contain a great deal of "noise" which prevents clear inferences from being
drawn.
However, in spite of the problems in drawing firm conclusions from the data, an informal
estimate of the overall performance of multiprocess wet cleaning is provided by the following
observations.
-------
Design for the Environment 4-7
• For 7 of the 12 garment types, wet cleaning received more "acceptable"
judgements than drycleaning;
• For 3 of the 12 garment types, wet cleaning received 16 or more "acceptable"
judgements, (compared to two garment types for drycleaning).
It appears that, overall, multiprocess wet cleaning did not do appreciably better or worse
than drycleaning, though both processes received negative comments. In addition, multiprocess
wet cleaning was judged to be at least as preferable as drycleaning by a majority of participants
(10 or more) for 9 of 12 garment types when the wet cleaned, drycleaned, and control garments
were presented together.
In summary, participants' acceptability judgements were confounded by factors not
intended to play a role in the study. Neither dry nor multiprocess wet cleaning were judged
significantly better or worse than the other, but the data do not support the conclusion that they
were judged equally acceptable. If the study is repeated, garments should be prepared more
carefully before testing, participants should provide a range of more detailed judgements, rather
than simple "acceptability", and a larger number of individuals should participate.
Standards Test Results
Inspection of garment appearance was done to examine "Grey Scale", color, garment
feel, distortions, abrasions, trim and buttons. This test was performed only after the third
cleaning cycle. The performance of the multiprocess wet cleaned garments was generally better
than that of the drycleaned garments. Tabular results from this test are found in Appendix XTTT
Multiprocess Wet Clean
Three of the wet cleaned garments (two suit jackets and the white knit skirt) were not
judged visually.
Grey Scale - The grey scale ratings (rated 1 = worst, 5= best) on all wet cleaned garments were
4-5 or 5.
Color - Seven of the eleven garments examined had negative remarks (darker, dingier) regarding
color. Two of the black garments were rated as looking brighter or better than the control.
Distortion/Abrasion - Negative comments regarding distortions or abrasions include stains or
marks on fabric, loss of color, slight fuzzing or pilling, and fraying of the collar. These
comments relate to six of the eleven garments.
Feel - All but two of the garments were judged softer than the control. The silk blouse and the
microfiber jacket were stiff and/or coarse.
-------
4-8 Multiprocess Wet Cleaning
Buttons/Trim - Three of the garments showed abrasion of beads or buttons or missing buttons.
The microfiber jacket was pressed poorly.
Dryclean
All of the drycleaned garments were judged visually.
Grey Scale - The majority of the garments received a grey scale rating of 4-5 or 5.
However, the white knit skirt, the cotton sweater and the microfiber jacket received inferior
ratings of 3, 3, and 3-4, respectively.
Color - All the garments received negative comments regarding color, with the exception
of the black beaded sweater. These comments include darker or lighter, redder, yellowed, pink,
dingy, unacceptable, looks old.
Distortion/Abrasion - Five of the fourteen garments received negative comments in this
category. Comments include streaks and staining, unraveled seam, and slight fuzzing or pilling.
The microfiber jacket looked crushed, with wrinkles all over.
Feel - All but two of the garments were reported to have a stiff hand. The black beaded
sweater felt the same as the control and the black wool skirt was softer (this may be negative,
i.e., a lost of sizing which keeps the garment's shape).
Buttons/Trim - On the beaded blouse and sweater, the beads and buttons melted. The
buttons on the microfiber jacket were fine as were the shoulder pads on the silk shirt.
Odor Test Results
Odors were detected and characterized after the third cycle by two objective testers. The
fourteen remaining garments (two pieces per suit, navy sweater missing) were characterized and
evaluated for acceptability. The multiprocess wet cleaned garments were rated better than the
drycleaned garments in this category. Tabular results from this test are found in Appendix XIV.
Both testers gave 100 percent acceptance to the multiprocess wet cleaned garments.
Some comments included light, desirable, and not objectionable. One tester rated four out of
the fourteen drycleaned garments unacceptable; the other tester gave only two an unacceptable
rating. The white knit skirt was rated unacceptable by Doth testers. The four other garments
(rayon blouse, silk blouse, polyester microfiber jacket and cotton sweater) were reported to have
either light or heavy odors characterized as objectionable PCE or chemical odors. In two of the
six unacceptable garments, the odor was described as body odor.
General Customer Satisfaction Survey Results
A statistical analysis of the General Customer Satisfaction Survey answers was used to
judge whether differences between multiprocess wet cleaning and dryclea|ning were significant.
-------
Design for the Environment 4-9
Both processes performed well according to the survey. Approximately 92 percent of the
respondents judged clothing to be clean overall. There were no significant problems reported
such as considerable shrinkage or dissatisfaction with pressing and finishing. Respondents
appear to be least satisfied with stain and spot removal. For both the multiprocess wet cleaning
and the drycleaning groups, of the people who had stains or spots, approximately 27 percent said
that they were not removed.
A cleaning process is said to "perform better" in the "Statistical Analysis" column if there
was a significantly greater (at the 90 percent confidence level or above) percentage of
respondents answering a question favorably. The processes were considered to have performed
equally on that question.
The statistical analysis displayed in Exhibit 4. 1 indicates that multiprocess wet cleaning
performed as well or better than drycleaning in all of the survey areas, except for color change
with respect to improvement in color.
• 99 percent confidence level: wet cleaning performed better with the most
significant difference with respect to odor, buttons and decorations, puckering and
bulging of the seams, and "no change" in color.
• 95 percent confidence level: wet cleaning performed better with respect to size
and the combination of "no change in color" and "some overall improvement"
• 90 percent confidence level: wet cleaning performed better with respect to press
and finish.
(^ was no significant difference observed for stain and spot removal, tears,
acceptability of odors present, and the overall cleanliness of the clothing.
A sample survey postcard and responses are provided in Appendix XV.
COMPARISON BETWEEN TEST GARMENT WEAR SURVEY AND GENERAL
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY
The key finding is that the results of the test garment wear survey are consistent with the
results of the General Customer Satisfaction Survey. In general, when a process performed
better in the general satisfaction survey according to the statistical analysis, the same process
scored better in percentage terms in the test garment study. For example, multiprocess wet
cleaning performed better in the general satisfaction survey with respect to press and finish. In
the test garment survey, 100 percent of respondents thought the drycleaned clothing was pressed
and finished nicely. The exceptions to this rule occurs with size, puckering, and bulging of
seams. However, because of the small sample size (about 24 for each process), the results in
these two areas are not statistically significant. Exhibit 4.2 compares the results of the two
surveys.
-------
4-10
Multiprocess Wet Cleaning
Exhibit 4.1
General Wear Qualitative Summary
Question
Are clothes pressed and finished nicely?
Were stains or spots removed?
How is color?
If best response = "no change"?
If best response - "no change" or "some improvement"?
If best response = "some improvement"?
How is size?
Any tears?
Do any seams pucker or bulge out?
Are buttons or decorations OK?
Is any odor present?
If odor is present, is it acceptable?
Is clothing clean overall?
Statistical Analysis
Wet cleaning performed better00
Processes performed equally'*
Wet cleaning performed better10
Wet cleaning performed better0"'
Processes performed equally0"'
Wet cleaning performed better0"'
Processes performed equally'*
Wet cleaning performed better*"'
Wet cleaning performed better*"'
Wet cleaning performed better*0'
Processes performed equally'*
Processes performed equally'*
'*' significant at approximately the 90 percent confidence level
°* significant at approximately the 95 percent confidence level
-------
Design for the Environment
4-11
Exhibit 4.2
Comparison of Responses: General Customer Satisfaction and Test Garment Wear
Postcard Surveys
Question
Are clothes pressed and finished nicely?
Were stains or spots removed?
How is color?
If best response = "no change"
If best response = "no change" or "some
improvement"
If best response = "some improvement"
How is size?
Any tears?
Do any seams pucker or bulge out?
Are buttons or decorations OK?
Is any odor present?
If odor is present, is it acceptable?
Is clothing clean overall?
Statistical Analysis for General
Survey""
Wet cleaning performed better
Processes performed equally
Wet cleaning performed better
Wet cleaning performed better
Drycleaning performed better
Wet cleaning performed better
Processes performed equally
Wet cleaning performed better
Wet cleaning performed better
Wet cleaning performed better
Processes performed equally
Processes performed equally
Test Garment
Wear Survey'1"
Dry (%) Wet (%)
92
86
84
88
4
100
Not
Asked
83
86
76
100
100
100
100
96
96
0
88
Not Asked
91
95
88
100
100
(a) A process is said to perform "better" if there was a significantly greater (at the 90 percent significance level or above)
percentage of respondents who answered the question favorably for one process versus the other. If there was no
significant difference in the percentage of respondents who answered a question favorably, the processes are considered
to have performed equally.
-------
Design for the Environment 5-1
5. ALTERNATIVE CLOTHES CLEANING DEMONSTRATION STUDY RESULTS
The results of the cost and performance studies point toward a few general conclusions.
In the demonstration study, 1,499 articles of clothing were collected from the public
representing a wide range c. fabric and garment types including delicate and dirty garments.
These garments were cleaned using either a conventional PCE drycleaning method or an
alternative wet process. A flip of a coin determined which method was used to clean the
clothes. The costs were evaluated by identifying and comparing eleven cost items that differed
between the two processes. The costs reflected those of cleaning under the conditions at the
NCA New York School of Dry Cleaning where the study was held. The results indicated that
the alternative process was slightly more economical at a cleaning cost of $43.88 per lot (50
garments) than the conventional drycleaning method at a cleaning cost of $43.92 per lot.
Because these results represent the costs of clothes cleaning itself and not the associated
costs of running a complete facility, further examination was needed.
In order to extrapolate the results from the New York Study to conditions more typical
of a drycleaning facility, typical plants were modeled based on data from the cleaning
demonstration and information gathered from drycleaning industry experts. This analysis shows
the alternative wet process to be economically comparable to traditional drycleaning when faced
with similar market conditions. When converting an existing facility to be capable of both wet
and drycleaning methods, the difference in the profitcompared to a 100 percent dedicated
drycleaning facility varied by only $1,778 (a profit of $20,351 for a dedicated drycleaner and
$18,573 for a 50 percent/50 percent mixed mode facility). The study results for a new mixed
mode facility estimate virtually identical profit for a dedicated drycleaning plant and a 50
percent/50 percent mixed mode facility. Facilities performing a higher percentage of
drycleaning earned slightly greater profits. The 100 percent dedicated wet cleaning plant showed
a higher profit than the drycleaning plant in the study for both the conversion of an existing
facility and the construction of a new wet cleaning plant. The total estimated investment for a
new wet cleaning facility would be $81,000, versus $138,000 for a dedicated drycleaning
facility. The estimates give the dedicated drycleaners a return on investment of 14.7 percent;
but higher profits on a smaller capital investment combine to produce a return of 26.4 percent
for the dedicated wet cleaners.
The Performance Survey of the 1,500 items cleaned also showed the wet cleaning process
to be worthy of further consideration. The 353 consumers responding to the blind post card
survey actually showed a slight preference for the wet cleaning alternative. In regard to the very
short term wear effects such as shrinkage, stretching or color changes on the 13 styles of test
garments, the study found no appreciable difference between the two cleaning methods.
When evaluating these results for general applicability, the assumptions used, based on
industry experts, must be considered. Some of these assumptions include equipment
configurations, the sizes of the equipment studied and the annual sales volume of the model
-------
5-2 Multiprocess Wei Cleaning
plants. Altering the assumptions may change the final results of the engineering cost and model
plant analyses.
The limitations of the performance survey must also be highlighted. Because the
consumer's responses to the peneral customer satisfaction survey were optional the results may
not reflect an exact cross-section of drycleaning consumers. For the performance tests on the
test garments, a limited set of data points was used and the garment wear patterns may not be
typical of the normal consumer. Also the long term effects of either dry or wet cleaning were
not included in this study and need to be considered.
Not addressed in this study were the health or ecological risks associated with either the
wet or drycleaning process. These factors are being examined, for dry and wet cleaning as well
as other cleaning methods, by the Cleaner Technology Substitutes Assessment currently
underway in a joint effort by the EPA and the drycleaning industry.
Although increased wet cleaning appears to be a viable option to reduce the need for
drycleaning solvents, the EPA recognizes that obstacles exist to greater use of the wet cleaning
process. The EPA understands that the wet process tested is a potential "low tech" solution
requiring more labor and greater skill. Drycleaners 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 "Dryclean Only".
Once the risk issues have been examined, multiprocess wet cleaning may become a
feasible pollution prevention option for a portion of the drycleaning 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 given to this and other alternative cleaning methods as drycleaners face increasingly
stringent federal, state, and local regulatory pressure to reduce exposures to drycleaning
chemicals. Through the Design for the Environment Program, the EPA intends to work with
stakeholders to lower barriers to feasible pollution prevention options.
-------
APPENDICES
LIST OF APPENDICES
I EXAMPLE OF FORMS USED FOR ON-SITE DATA COLLECTION
H ON SITE TEST DATA
m COST CALCULATIONS
IV LINE BY LINE EXPLANATION KEY FOR MODEL PLANT
ANALYSIS
V DETAILED MODEL OUTPUTS FOR DEDICATED AND MIXED
MODE FACILITIES
VI SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
VH LIST OF GARMENTS USED IN WEAR TEST
Vm PROTOCOL FOR TEST GARMENTS WEAR STUDY
IX GARMENT WEAR LOG
X TEST GARMENT POSTCARD SURVEY
XI SHRINKAGE TEST: PERCENT CHANGE IN SIZE OF TEST GARMENT
XH VISUAL TESTING
Xm DETAIL OF VISUAL STANDARDS TESTING
XIV ODOR TEST RESULTS
XV GENERAL CUSTOMER SATISFACTION POSTCARD SURVEY
-------
APPENDIX I
EXAMPLE OF FORMS USED FOR ON-SITE DATA COLLECTION
-------
Date:
Recorder:
Coats (Over/Top
Coats)
Coats (Raincoats)
Coats (Sport Jackets)
Coats (Ski Jackets/
Down Coats)
Dresses
Pants
Shirts/Blouses
Skirts
Skirts (Pleated)
Suits (Coats)
Suits (Pants)
Sweaters
Ties
Bedspreads
Blankets
Couch Covers
Drapes
TOTAL ITEMS
Total weight:
Lot # Wet or Dry
Ib (w/bags) Ib (w/o)
Total # of bags: ||
Lot # Wet or Dry
Ib (w/bags) Ib (w/o)
-------
-------
DAILY PRE-TEST CHECK LIST (check and initial each time)
DATE: LOT Nos.
Steam for pressing is turned on 1/2 hour before test begins. (Tie presser to do.)
Get test spotting chemicals (stored on top of metal shelf near the window).
All dry cleaning (orange dots) All wet cleaning spotting chemicals
spotting chemicals filled to filled to top line:
top line:
O.T.P.R. Peroxide
General Formula Picrin (1:10 Fabric Cleanser)
Glycerin Ammonia
V.D.S. Neutral Lubricant
Ammonia Vital Elements Fabric Cleanser
Neutral Lubricant Vital Elements All Purpose Cleanser
Peroxide Amyl Acetate
Amyl Acetate General Formula
Oxalic Acid Oxalic Acid
Rust-go (H2F) Rust-go (H2F)
Remove all dry cleaning school spotting chemicals away from test spotting table.
Place all test spotting chemicals on end of test spotting table—orange dots on one
side/no dots on other.
Fill base tank of dry cleaning machine to the top with PCE.
Tumbler of dry cleaning machine is empty.
Wet cleaning wash area is set up: sinks are empty and clean and dryer is empty.
Garment hanging area next to spotting tables is empty.
General check that entire test area is clean/accessible since dry cleaning school held the
previous evening.
Spotter/Cleaner Log-in/final inspector and bagger:
Radian: Pressers
-------
DAILY POST-TEST CHECK LIST (check and initial each time)
DATE: LOT Nos.
Measure and record volume (in fluid oz.) all spotting chemicals used during the day:
Dry cleaning (orange dots) All wet cleaning spotting chemicals:
spotting chemicals:
Peroxide
O.T.P.R.
Picrin (1:10 Fabric Cleanser) _
General Formula
Ammonia
Glycerin
Neutral Lubricant
V.D.S.
Vital Elements Fabric Cleanser
Ammonia
Vital Elements All Purpose
Neutral Lubricant Cleanser
Peroxide Amyl Acetate
Amyl Acetate General Formula
Oxalic Acid Oxalic Acid
Rust-go (H2F) Rust-go (H2F)
Refill all test spotting chemicals to the top line.
Replace all test spotting chemicals in boxes on top of metal shelf near the window.
Place dry cleaning school spotting chemicals back on spotting table.
Measure volume of PCE added to dry cleaning machine base tank to refill it to
"FULL".
General area is clean for evening dry cleaning class.
All garments cleaned during day have been moved to the pressing area.
-------
APPENDIX n
ON SITE TEST DATA
Table n. 1 Results of On-site Data Collection by Lot for the Wet Cleaning Process.
Table n.2 Results of On-site Data Collection by Lot for the Dry Cleaning Process.
Table n.3 Summary of Garment Log-in Data
-------
o P ° o'
01 ° 0> ••
41 _ 41 »M
Z *^ Z <\J •
woo 3
»~ o m
^,-° oo o^oo
o>uoi 01 01 01
4)4)4!4)4>dl 41 4) 4J 4J
! "> • fM •- *> " »- ' '
^ O O O
in o t>-
•* in KI
I " o « irt «
^ «- -o
0- «-
^ o
, - w « « 01 01 u
,_! O O CD O
in NO
-^i!;
M O
°°
^
r>4 o
» ° o> ° 01 01 °
I 4) 4) 41
• ^J V ^ Z Z '^
d ^ o
Xk
uj 4., § in in <
• •• to •« o •• o o
CO * «g
i0000
N
eri«<-1oi 01 °
' « «.-
(VI
o
z 5 - z — °-
o o o
X)
E2
TJ 01 *C *
| | -i 2
4* 4^ 2 IM Ł
« — o O *- E
"°?^sr "
c Ł
o a >- c. u
• 41 O
O — Z
O O O «
— -i -i a
O O O X Q- —
4.* M- M- •»- N- L. 3
« a c
a> o •
a
« c
S> I
41 O O
, ?-g P
i b o
. t5 <- «
> o
•«- s- o
41
Ol
a
-------
e
° -»
~ 0 S ~ ^ ^ l\l «j «- 10
—
of
i*J !dt tA f\J Q Kl »• KI KI
«- O 5- T" "*"IMCOI\JKIO>
-J KJ •*
rj
< ? «\i o. 40 «-
IV ^ ^ 0 o KI Ki o <»
«- o «- ^ "* •" sf iX w ** «v
•^ (NJ ** *™
»"
<\J
„ ui ^ M o r»
UJ .. ^f O* O^**^*.,-—.^?.
W* rt O *™ *~ uk n
~* Ł *"
KI o y\ ° "jj «., T
Uo^? ">"•"»-»-. o>
J KI
Sj^gsr goSfT.^K.T.
T-
t\J
-5^^j '"^'OpJM o
^"
rj
uj1"""^ om *"^ "
°o*? "~*~°IV^-'"KI
*~ ~* ^ ""
•D oj 'c
C — 1
41 *> "T3
41 4-» c ra
« _ 00^
4W O tt*" ^^
C 9 *• C
y •! C "^ 3 JJ
i Ł C « ? 3 K
w o a i- i- L. 41
~ - o o o x a
*4fO «^^-^>^-H-(.7
0 -. ar Ł o ~O
X *> 0 4) « « O
«j^«* ^- .ace • c
O OO4 41 O *^ *^ ••* O fl
N tsi (\|
tr\ ir\ o o tf\
K» u> oioioicfioi aiaioioi "KI
*°>t 0 zzzzztdzzzzC S^
0 o ^
*O IA *^ O O VA
f\j (\j ir\ o) 01 oi 01 01 01 o> 01 01 ** — .
*°<>jO-o"~o z^aEzzKzzzziC'[oin
o o u-i
O^O'M acin rt"-*
M>» KI <\j oiuuoiuoioioioiaiu •• o
^*40 Sf *4" Z^.Z^SEZZZZ, O*^
*~ *° O O O «- ^
CO «0 ° 0 ~*
^ ^T Ol OIOI0OIOIOIOIOIOI *>
^ CO Z-*ZZ^ZZZZZZ »-
*" 0 <= 0
N f>l Isl N O
^_o> oogoo o°
40 Jg zv»fCz-*orozzzlO ~in
O O ° O O *~ KI
•* S. -a Sagoo o °
M3 *?. A a 01 01 0101° .. o
51 § z.a:z'Ni,.zac^'Ni *n
o «- o o «- >»
rj"? o ooo J^oru
^Kl^ 01 01 Ol 0101° •• o
*~ O »— OO ^~ .— iA
O IA OIOI°OIOIOI°OIO1OIOI
'"(M0^00 ZZ^ZXZ^ZZZZ
"~ 00
o
•n 01 Ti
V flJ 4»
o) (/i .-' "O
I- D 0) — •
w i/i aaj oic^oiv 4) 4^«-E
(- 0101 « I/I t/l D — < — - 3 C V14I4) 4^
Ł_ >? D3CT4/°i4;3 =S'-i2Łc
C*^4[S(1"O — «l *l ffl — O ij — 3 *J«-co
4DCEEO (JQ3*-t-*< -4> O O ««T
•*.'«"*'•«->Ł o3--oi2'io"ni?rao — .O---«-a.
Out-— 'O — Q. C t-t- a — X «5 «! O
.ŁŁ»> -6 0— E>-OC3— 3«t- 41 • —
O E « O O — U— E E O 41 41 — X4IX1-O
z — o i— z »— <<<<.»-ozo oa.o*a.z
«
c
-------
rocess
PL,
bfi
c
'c
8
u
Q
%
•^
c
o
1
"o
U
rt
Q
^. in
Ł ^!^S-0
^ ^ Ł C* ^
o in in
0 0 •* °. K.
*-
in KI in
^ 0 in •* e\i
*~
i ?
S g-J
O — ^ « "D
— U U 4» *
U •*• O «w <>
•W « « — '
o o o
4^ H- **-*•- H-
II'III
O O (M
KI o *n
**"
~o:000^00
o -*
»™ rsj
*O 00
^^J000^00
<— -»
in eo
in iv
o o o
o o o
«- Kl
O> (Nl
•< in
«- Kl
-^
•i 1
a
0 <-
jj — 41 i. >
— — < E 41 O
V u — > •
4) E — «•" O O
e — «-. v « • ts
"f.*" « S — — -8 u
U Q. •*- *^ *^ O
« 3 »- w •«- -4-
E o (- I- — O
of oils «l
01° 0 „„» 2
41 41 41 in in
Z . . Z Z r- f^
oo 0- _'
rao o o ra° °
« M K, - ; « JQ Ł
000 o'rJ
CT3SS WSS
* KI KI — 41 in in
'*• , . . z «^ «-
000 Q pj
M M
O Kl
a, o o o o o o
^ ^ «VJ ^- 0- ^ -r-
O O O O O Kl
^OOOOOO
.J^rj^Ox^^
O O O O O Kl
N
01 Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol °
z z z z z z *~^
•-
N N N N
01 ° ° ° 01 01°
:z ^ *~ "~ z z *°
O'o'd ^
Ol in __ _. 4» 4f -.
4* *~ ^ . z z ^;
2 o ° °
4> (0
Ol 41 >
a oi o
41 VI « 41 E
41 Ol 3 (0 Ol 4)
Ol « 3 « «-
a «i a 01
M 3 -. * 3 C
3 41 DO —
01 41 E o V a
•*- « a o 01 "3
O •— « « 3 « *^
4< i "X C •- 3 —
O fc E 41 O 41 •—
< < < U Z z O
Ol d Ol Ol <• <-.
41 41 ft» aj v^ ^-^
Z Z Z Z 0 "">
01 ° 01 01° ^
z ^ z z rvj '^
0 M
M °°
01 ° 01 01^] o
Z "^ Z Z^ "">
O ^
Ol Ol Ol Ol
41 41 41 41 i •
Z Z Z Z
l°ll. .
d
Ol Ol Ol
41 _ 41 41 . •
Z . Z Z
o
0-
Ol Ol Ol Ol <*vj
Z Z Z Z 0
ru
° ° 01 Ol~
2V 2V .. o
__ __ *v 01 r^. j-.
. . Z Z Kl "^
00 -*
° ° oi oiŁ:
4t 41 •• ^*
O OJ 41
41 ~O «3 « C
3 (D *- <- C/) 4f • —
K 41 4-» O *- O
O Q. W> > O. Z
«
§
a>
o
m
c
•3 •
f "2
M
41
« 5
1_ Q
ai c
t_
O 41
C. S
! 5
1 ?
4-< Z
~I H
s ?
O Z
_J «
* *
-------
•q
S
3
_G
"•*-»
|
co
CO
3
JO
c
.2
4_»
QJ
~
"o
U
CS
§
U
'co
i
C
O
*o
CO
CO
p^
J ° - T. o o o o
CNJ O «M *- KI O-
o in « KI KI o
oo1**"45 •* ""OMO
•"""^inol oo ^ o
rj
«M (M O * «M KI O KI ~» KI
in o o> <
H-C. •«»4-'UCCEO
o a i- <- <_ .c «o — — T3 c_
O O O O Q. — *- *^ o
4^ H- «••<•-*•. 01 3^«»- Ol H- *•-
fo 6 o «- «- — • o
•Zolll df dl-ŁS dl
3X^- 4) Af N.
o *
0
N S M
01 01 ° 0) 01 °
4) 41 M 41 41 f^ M
O* ^
O
01 Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol °
4) 41 41 41 41 41 ...
Z Z Z Z Z Z "I
Q Q
O rj
H
01 ° ra 01 a ° °
41 _. 41 41 41 in ,,
z , z z z CM *-;
O ^ (M
010101° 0101°
41 41 41 » 41 4) -.
Z Z Z "* Z Z °
o ru
W N N
01 01 01 01 ° ° °
Z Z Z Z *~| C\J °
O ^J f\l
o,oS ??3S
z ( , z z n» F*-
00 cs ^
4) ~a
Ol 41 >
41 Ol O
4) «i a 4i E
4> 01 3 09 01 B
Ol 01 3 O] L.
a MO) vt
m 3 — • a 3 C
3 41 30
Ol 41 E O 4» OJ
TJ 0) 4- t. V 25 Q.
«- « a o 01 3
0 3 «•••«- — • 41
a 4i 4i a.
01 O — • 1- —f X
o — - C — 3 —
0 E E 41 O 41 •—
< < < 0 X Z 0
KI
in
01 01 Ol Ol ••
41 41 4) 41 00 «
Z Z Z Z -r^
o
SOI Ol Ol
41 41 41 « «
Z Z Z Z
M ^
OIOI° Ol •• Q
z z ^^ z ^r ^^
in
o
at a o> at « _
41 41 41 41 •» S
Z Z Z Z CJ •"
OO
Z Z Z Z
•*
o) 01 oi en
4) 41 41 4) • <
Z Z Z Z
o
KI
ai 01 01 01 •• ..
41 4) 41 41 O C;
Z Z Z Z 0 ">
^
00
oi at 01 01^ _
4> 41 41 41 O >?
z z z z «- "^
o
o
01 oi 01 oi •• N
z z z z «- l*1
1
rr
a M «
«l 41 41 4J
3 Ol 01 41 C Ol
a a .t | C
— 3 3 M i. *oi
o 41 aj 01
a u c en en 01 41
41 "O « a c t-
Ol O — 4-i <0 — H- Q.
a — x 4> 3 « o
M — • O 41 01 C
X 41 ~ Q »- O ~~
O a. vt > a. z
•»
Ł
^
«
Ol
o
in
1 '
" S
41
41 3
1. O
Ol E
h few«r o
egllgfble
X M
0 Z
• 4r
-------
.0
I
U
fl
O
2
1
(O
jn°o!0o>00 01 01 01 o> (
•- o o o .
CM
H
— O <-
*" "S ** S
o8" i
?«si ""
SS>^| 558
_ w < -n _. _ g
o c. « 2 « o —
— o«O4|E — «
w « •— C— «
U — 4J L.
01 «l
03 O)
41 (ft «0
Ol D «1
<0 3
at 9
*--\
_ gJ.5
Q. M- 4^ «
— •»- Q.
-------
Ml
5
«
(S
E
E
3
s
3
U
c •*•! u
«3 ss r?
O
0
<*« W
o ^
"S
C -g
"c3
-------
APPENDIX ffl
COST CALCULATIONS
m.l CAPITAL RECOVERY COST FOR DRY CLEANING
The capital cost is converted to a capital recovery cost (annualized capital cost) by
multiplying it by the capital recovery factor (CRF).
CRF = i(l + i)n / (1 + i)"-1
n = economic life of equipment (years)
i = interest rate (expressed as a decimal)
The manufacturer of the 35-lb VIC Model 1235 F/S dry-to-dry no-vent refrigerated
condenser machine reports that it has an economic life of 15 years. Assuming that the
interest rate is 7 percent.
CRF = 0.07(1 + 0.07)15/ (1 + 0.07)15-1 =0.11
The capital cost of the dry cleaning machine is $47,200.2 Thus, the capital recovery cost
is:
($47,200X0.11) = $5,190
m.2 CAPITAL RECOVERY COST FOR WET CLEANING PROCESS
A distributor of the 20-lb dryer reports that it has an economic life of 10 years.3 The
cost recovery factor is calculated as follows:
CRF = 0.07(1 + 0.07)10/ (1 + 0.07)'°-' = 0.14
The capital cost of the dryer is $540. Therefore, the capital recovery cost is $76:
($540)(0.14) = $76
IH.3 STEAM COST FOR DRY CLEANING
Steam is used in dry cleaning for spotting, pressing, and in the dry cleaning machine to
heat the air for the drying cycle. However, it was not possible to determine specific
steam usage for each of these activities because the boiler at the NCA provided steam
for all of these activities as well as heat for the building. The.efore, typical steam usage
was estimated based on discussions with equipment vendors. The ACW Management
Corporation has provided information about utility costs for a typical dry cleaning
business operating with a 35-lb VIC Model 1235 F/S with a refrigerated condenser. The
total annual utility bill for this business is approximately $8,000. This includes
approximately $2,800 (35 percent) for electricity, approximately $4,400 (55 percent) for
-------
natural gas to the boiler providing steam, and approximately $800 (10 percent) for water.
Assume that the annual cost for steam is $4,400 as discussed above. The ACW
Management Corporation estimates that $3,300 (75 percent) of this cost is for providing
steam to the pressing machines, $880 (20 percent) is for providing steam to the dry
cleaning machine, and $220 (5 percent) is steam for spotting.4
m.4 STEAM COST FOR THE WET CLEANING PROCESS
Steam is used in the wet cleaning process for spotting, steam cleaning, and pressing.
The estimated steam cost for dry cleaning can be used as a starting point for estimating
the steam cost for wet cleaning.
It was assumed that the steam usage for spotting and steam cleaning activities is
proportional to the labor time spent conducting these activities. Similarly, it was
assumed that the steam usage for pressing is proportional to the labor time spent
pressing. The steam cost for the wet cleaning process was then calculated using the
information on spotting, steam cleaning, and pressing times, and the steam cost estimates
for dry cleaning, which were discussed above.
The average time for spotting activities on a 50-piece lot for dry cleaning is 12.4 minutes
per lot, based on the test data presented in Appendix Table H.2. The average time for
spotting and steam cleaning on a 50-piece lot for the wet cleaning process is
58.4 minutes, which is also based on the test data presented in Appendix n. 1. The ratio
of these two time intervals (58.4/12.4) is then multiplied by the annual steam cost for
spotting in the dry cleaning process ($220) to estimate the steam cost for spotting and
steam cleaning in the wet cleaning process. This calculation is presented below.
(58.4 min / 12.4 min) X ($220/yr) = $l,040/yr
Therefore, the estimated annual cost for steam for spotting and steam cleaning in the wet
cleaning process is $1,040.
The steam cost for pressing in the wet cleaning process can be estimated in a similar
manner. Based on the test data presented in Appendix n, the ratio of the pressing times
for wet cleaning and dry cleaning was determined to be equal.
The annual steam cost for pressing in dry cleaning was estimated to be $3,300, as
discussed above. Therefore, the estimated annual cost tor steam for pressing in the Wet
cleaning process is also $3,300 per year.
The total steam cost for wet cleaning is the sum of the cost for spotting and steam
cleaning and the cost for pressing.
($l,040/yr) + ($3,300/yr) = $4,340/yr
-------
m.5 ELECTRICITY COST FOR DRY CLEANING MACHINE
The dry cleaning machine electricity cost is estimated based on information provided by
the manufacturer.1 The machine operates at 220 volts and 33 amps. A 50-piece lot
requires an average of two machine loads, based on the test data presented in
Appendix n. Each machine load has a duration of approximately 40 minutes, resulting
in 80 minutes (1.3 hours) of machine operation per lot. A representative of Consolidated
Edison Company reports that the cost of electricity for a small commercial business in
New York City is $0.1246 per kilowatt-hour.5
The cost of electricity per lot for the dry cleaning machine is calculated as shown below.
(220 volts) x (33 amps) x (1.3 hours/lot) x
(1 kilowatt/1000 volt-amp)
= 9.4 kilowatt-hours/lot
(9.4 kilowatt-hours/lot) x ($0.1246/kilowatt-hour) = $1.17/lot
m.6 ELECTRICITY COST FOR DRYER
The 20-lb dryer operates at 120 volts and 8 amps. There are an average of 3.5 dryer
loads per 50-piece lot, based on the test data presented in Appendix H. Each dryer load
has a duration of approximately 12 minutes, resulting in 42 minutes (0.7 hours) of
machine operation per lot. The cost of electricity is $0.1246 per kilowatt-hour. The cost
of electricity per lot for the dryer is calculated as shown below.
(120 volts) x (8 amps) x (0.7 hours/lot) x
(1 kilowatt/1000 volt-amp)
= 0.67 kilowait-hours/lot
(0.67 kilc-watt-hours/lot) x ($0.1246/kilowatt-hour)
= $0.08/loi
m.7 ELECTRICITY COST FOR THE UNIMAC WASHING MACHINE
Electricity is used to operate the Unimac washing machine's extraction unit. The
extractor was used for the immersion cleaning in both the dry cleaning and wet cleaning
processes. The Unimac operates at approximately 224 volts and 19 amps. There are an
average of 9 garments immersed per 50-piece lot in the wet cleaning process, based on
the test data presented in Appendix n. The extractor is operated for approximately
20 seconds (0.0056 hours) for each garment. This results in the Unimac operating for
180 seconds (0.05 hours) per lot. The cost of electricity per lot for the Unimac in the
vet cleaning process is calculated as shown below:
(224 volts) x (19 amps) x (0.05 hours/lot) x
-------
(1 kilowatt/1000 volt-amp)
= 0.21 kilowatt-hours/lot
(0.21 kilowatt-hours/lot) x ($0.1246/kilowatt-hour)
= $0.03/lot
Therefore, the total electricity cost per lot for the wet cleaning process is:
$0.08 + $0.03 = $0.11.
The electricity cost of the Unimac extractor for the dry cleaning process can also be
calculated. There are an average of 0.5 garments immersed per 50-piece lot in the dry
cleaning process, based on the test data presented in Appendix n. The extractor is
operated for approximately 20 seconds (0.0056 hours) for each garment, this results in
the Unimac operating for 10 seconds (0.0028 hours) per lot. The cost of electricity per
lot for the Unimac in the dry cleaning process is calculated as shown below.
(224 volts) x (19 amps) x (0.0028 hours/lot) x
(1 kilowatt/1000 volt-amp)
= 0.012 kilowatt-hours/lot
(0.012 kilowatt-hours/lot) x ($0.1246/kilowatt-hour)
= $0.0015/lot
Therefore, the electricity cost for the Unimac for the dry cleaning process is negligible.
m.8 SPOTTING CHEMICAL AND DETERGENT COST
The volume of each spotting chemical and detergent used for spotting and cleaning was
determined by taking the average of all test lots containing 50 pieces, as presented in
Appendix n. Price information obtained from the chemical supplier was used to
calculate the cost per lot for each chemical and detergent.6'7 Table in.l presents a
summary of the spotting chemical and detergent costs for dry cleaning. Table HI.2
presents a summary of costs for the wet cleaning process. The annual costs presented
in Tables ffl. 1 and EH.2 were determined by assuming that four lots per day are cleaned
for 250 days of the year.
The dry cleaning machine uses a detergent in combination with perchloroethylene to
effectively clean the clothing. The manufacturer of the VIC dry cleaning machine
reports that approximately one gallon of detergent is used by the machine for every 1,200
Ib of clothes cleaned.8 The manufacturer also reports that the price of the machine
detergent is approximately $20 per gallon. A 50-piece lot is assumed to have an average
weight of 47 Ib, based on the test data presented in Appendix n. The annual cost of
machine detergent is calculated as shown below.
-------
^
4
"*g
0
U
M
O
u
*e3
-5?
^
UJ
PH
2
3
||
"o "N
> o
;
^
c
u
0>
p
"c3
Chemic
I
t
I
I
i
I
i
i
I
JB
•8
'w)
• ^
Tib
u
fc
3
_o
d
o
o
d
oo
Os
*
r-
CM
d
|| Ammonia
en
r-'
.0
d
Os
oo
rt
^_^
d
o
>n
8
d
OO
en
•
oo
O
d
1 Peroxide
I
1
j
I
j>
2
!§>
"Hb
s
©"^
0
O
1
Is
^
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
JŁ
3
"5b
12
"HO
&
c
u
"o
1X1
*^
Volatile drj
o
>n
T*
vn
d
I
IH
O
o
'2 §§
S? >N
C u,
8O
p,
>> ^2
."§ I
1 ID
? ^
<— 2
en at
-5? ™
o "3
O C
•c H
p-
? ?
g J
s ^
s ^
I 1
OrvJ
V "*
•o is
'3 «*-
s -g
1 1
T3
OJO O
(^ p*
•^ N3 ^— •
rt o ,2
"i "0 m
T3 '3 g
s oo -a
CM
^~> . ,c!
cr1 c f>
^ o
-------
^_^
^«
-^*
^
.e
o
U
/_^
^o
• —
s-'
o
U
^•^
13
w>
(U
o
•c
OH
a
M -4— '
J .2
4) (Ł2
f"^
>
•4.^
C
D
ŁP
D
•4— »
0)
Q
^3
Chemica
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
1
4>
r2
'5b
"Si
/->
OO
m
d
| Ammonia
CN
ON
ON
O
o
d
IT)
ON
OO
CN
O
d
u
-4— »
S
vo
ON
VO
ON
CN
d
s
06
OO
*^*1
d
t^S>
B^
^ — '
1 Fabric cleanser
VO
^
r-
m
p
d
(N
vd
m
^O
t-
d
^
o\
^^
| Fabric cleanser
^
^
0
r-
o
d
o
^
^
o
rs
d
ca
| General formul
00
cs
r-
S
d
ON
12
»/->
T-H
r4
d
*•«•
e
| Neutral lubricai
""!
Ł
r-
o
d
ON
ON
CN
d
o
4>
u.
_C
a.
4>
•4— *
O
i
i
i
t
,
1
'*3 w
~ .C 3 C
D. *- -^ 'Ł!
1 ° " S.
E ^ w M
^ *i cC
O ^ ctf
1 S |^
O "^ C c/5
•W w, O 3
' " ° ° rt
c -n ^ rt
Nl— '"' Q^ t^ *^
•o S o
5 g . c
3 "o §" o
2 4) g S
E c3 m ^
,^ .^ *-? QN
o ^ "9 ^~^
> -o -o e
4) W. 2 °
2P J) gjj'S
C . °~ 4) —
(D -^ en "O O
> N *- O "*>
^ O O -- ..
VNJ <— * O Qj
uo TJ u. «! 3
"3 '3 § „ ••-
S oo -*-1 J2 4)
*™^ ^C C/3 ^
^11 '1 1
U C-< ^ a
-------
(1,000 lots/yr) x (47 Ib clothes/lot) x
(gallon of detergent/1200 Ib clothes)
= ($20/gallon of detergent)
= $780 per year for machine detergent
Therefore, the total annual cost for spotting chemicals and detergents for dry cleaning
is the sum of the machine detergent cost ($780) and the cost total presented in Table ffl. 1
($450).
($780) + ($450) = $1,230
Fabric softener sheets (Bounce®) are added to dryer loads in the wet cleaning process.
There are an average 3.5 dryer loads per 50-piece lot, based on the test data presented
in Appendix n. For this test, the ECOCLEAN representative purchased a box of
100 sheets (one sheet per dryer load) at a local grocery store for approximately $4.50.
Based on this cost, the cost of fabric softener per lot is calculated as shown below.
(3.5 dryer loads/lot)X(l sheet/dryer load)X($4.50/100 sheets)
= $0.16
Therefore, the cost of fabric softener per lot as used in this test is $0.16. However, a
wet cleaning production facility would be able to buy such fabric softener sheets
wholesale and thereby reduce this annual cost.
The total annual cost for spotting chemicals and detergents for wet cleaning is the cost
total presented in Table m.2 ($910), plus $160 for the fabric softener sheets, for a total
of $1,070.
ffl.9 HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL COST
The used filters and still bottoms from the dry cleaning machine must be disposed of as
hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The machine
manufacturer reports that the filters must be removed and replaced following every
15,000 Ib of clothes cleaned.1 The NCA reports that the disposal cost for one complete
removal and replacement of filters is $220. A 50-piece lot is assumed to have an average
weight of 47 Ib, based on the test data presented in Appendix n. Therefore, the machine
filter disposal cost on a per lot basis can be calculated as shown below.
(47 Ib clothes/lot) x ($220/15,000 Ib clothes) = $0.69/lot
A distributor reports that 3 gallons of still bottoms are generated for every 1,000 Ib of
clothes cleaned.4 The NCA reports that the disposal cost is $67 for every 13.5 gallons
of still bottoms. The still bottoms disposal cost is calculated as shown below.
(47 Ib clothes/lot) x (3 gal of still bottoms/1000 Ib clothes) x
($67/13.5 gal still bottoms) = $0.70/lot
-------
The hazardous waste disposal cost on a per lot basis is the sum of the machine filters and
still bottoms disposal costs.
Hazardous Waste Disposal Cost = ($0.69/lot) + ($0.70/lot)
= $1.39/lot
m.10 MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR FOR DRY CLEANING
Maintenance and repair costs are estimated for the dry cleaning machine used in the dry
cleaning process. The manufacturer estimated that the annual maintenance and repair
cost for the 35-lb VIC Model 1235 F/S refrigerated condenser machine is $1,000.' This
estimate includes parts and labor.
m.ll MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR FOR THE WET CLEANING PROCESS
Maintenance and repair costs are estimated for the 20-lb dryer used in the wet cleaning
process. A distributor has estimated an annual maintenance and repair cost of $30.3
This estimate includes parts and labor.
m.12 MACHINE FILTER COST
The manufacturer of the 35-lb VIC Model 1235 F/S 35-lb dry-to-dry refrigerated
condenser machine reports that there are 10 filters (8 standard carbon/core filters and
2 all-carbon filters) that must be removed and replaced following every 15,000 Ib of
clothes cleaned.1 A distributor reports that the cost of new filters for a complete removal
and replacement is approximately $200.4 A 50-piece lot is assumed to have an average
weight of 47 Ib, based on the test data presented in Appendix n. Therefore, the machine
filter cost on a per lot basis can be calculated as shown below.
(47 Ib clothes/lot) x ($200/15,000 Ib clothes) = $0.63/lot
DI.13 PERCHLOROETHYLENE COST
It was not possible to determine an accurate perchloroethylene (PCE) usage during the
test period using machine tank gauge readings for several reasons. As the machine
distilled and recovered the PCE used, the gauge level shifted during the machine cycle.
Also, discussions with the NCA representative revealed that based on machine design it
was not possible to use a dip stick reading to obtain an accurate measure of PCE in the
solvent base tank. Often during the test day the machine was used to clean other loads
of clothes (not related to the test). Because the PCE usage could not be measured
directly, another method of determining PCE usage was needed.
The manufacturer of the 35-lb VIC Model 1235 F/S dry-to-dry refrigerated condenser
machine reports that this machine will clean 35,000 Ib of clothes for every 55 gallons of
perchloroethylene (PCE).1 Solvent mileage can vary based on operator and maintenance
-------
practices and this quoted value is relatively high for the industry. However, because
observations during the test revealed that the machine was being operated optimally
(complete drying cycle achieved, filters cleaned, no detectable PCE smells from leaks)
and because this machine was used as a demonstration machine at the dry cleaning
school, it was believed that the machine could achieve the level of solvent mileage quoted
by the manufacturer. A 50-piece lot is assumed to have an average weight of 47 Ib,
based on the test data presented in Appendix EL The NCA reports that it is presently
paying $4.95 per gallon of PCE. Therefore, the volume of PCE used per lot can be
calculated as shown below.
(47 Ib clothes/lot) x (55 gallons PCE/35,000 Ib clothes)
= 0.074 gallons PCE/lot
The PCE cost per lot can now be calculated.
(0.074 gallons PCE/lot) x ($4.95/gallon PCE) = $0.37/lot
m.14 WATER AND SEWER COST FOR DRY CLEANING
There were an average of 0.05 articles immersed in water per 50-piece lot for dry
cleaning. Approximately 1 ft3 of water was used for every article immersed. The sum
of the water and sewer fees for New York City is $2.62 per 100 ft3 of water.9 The
water and sewer cost for immersion is calculated as shown below.
(0.5 articles/lot) x (1 ft3 water/article) x ($2.62/100 ft3)
- $0.01/lot
A distributor reports that a 35-lb VIC dry cleaning machine with a water saver uses
approximately 100 gallons of water per year. The water/sewer cost for the water used
with the dry cleaning machine is calculated as shown below.
(100 gallons of water/yr) x (yr/1000 lots) x
(ft3/$7.48 gallons) x ($2.62/100 ft3)
= $0.0004/lot
Therefore, the water and sewer cost for the dry cleaning machine is negligible. The
water sewer cost for immersion for dry cleaning is $0.01 per lot.
m.15 WATER AND SEWER COST FOR THE WET CLEANING PROCESS
There were an average of 9 garments immersed in water per 50-piece lot in the wet
cleaning process. Approximately 1 ft3 of water was used for every article immersed.
The sum of the water and sewer fees for New York City is $2.62 per 100 ft3 of water.9
The water and sewer cost is calculated as shown below.
(9 articles/lot) x (1 ft3 water/article) x ($2.62/100 ft3)
-------
= $0.24/lot
Therefore, the water and sewer cost per lot for the wet cleaning process is $0.24.
HL16 PERMIT FEE
The NCA reports that there is a 3-year dry cleaning permit fee of $250 paid to New
York City. This results in an annual permit fee of $83.
-------
APPENDIX IV
LINE BY LINE EXPLANATION KEY FOR MODEL PLANT ANALYSIS
All sample calculations presented here portray a cleaning facility that is either solely a
dry cleaning or a wet cleaning facility. Calculations on mixed mode facilities scale the relative
costs associated with either cleaning process depending on the percent of the facility's garments
that are being wet cleaned or dry cleaned (indicated in calculations as %DRY and %WET).
Information about the wet cleaning process was provided by either Richard Simon (ECOCLEAN
International, Inc.) or obtained from EPA's experiment conducted at the NCA dry cleaning
training facility in New York during November and December of 1992 (b). All washing
machine specifications were provided by the GE Answer Center. Because all calculations in the
model are carried out without rounding until the final value is reached, some final values in the
sample calculations may not match exactly the spreadsheet values.
rV.l MODEL CLEANING FACILITY DESIGN PARAMETERS
The design parameters are either input by the user (I) or calculated (C), as shown in the
text following the table. All of the model's calculations are keyed to these values.
Percent Dry Cleaning
Percent Wet Cleaning
Sales Volume ($/yr)
Base Price ($/kg = $/suit = $/G)
Dry Cleaning Machine Capacity (Ibs/load)
Operating Days/year
Sales Hours/week
Dry Cleaning Machine Loads/week
Dry Cleaning Machine Run Time/week (hours)
Washing Machine Full Cycles/week
Washing Machine Extra Spin Cycles/week
Washing Machine Run Time/week (hours)
Depreciation Rate (annual %age)
Electricity Rate ($/kw • hr)
Include Start-Up (Y/N)
variable (I)
variable (I)
260,000 (I)
7.17(1)
45(1)
260(1)
60(1)
variable (C)
variable (C)
variable (C)
variable (C)
variable (C)
7(1)
0.075 (I)
variable (I)
-------
% Dry Cleaning (I):
% Wet Cleaning (I):
Sales Volume (I) =
Base Price (I) =
Dry Cleaning Machine
Capacity (I) =
Operating Days per year (I)
Sales Hours per week (I) =
Dry Cleaning machine
loads per week (C):
Percentage of garments cleaned in the dry cleaning
machine. The model plant analysis can be done for
exclusive dry cleaning (% DRY = 100%), exclusive wet
cleaning (% DRY = 0%), or a mixed mode plant
performing both wet and dry cleaning.
Percentage of garments cleaned using the wet process.
$260,000/year
$7.17/suit (or $/full garment)
Source: U.S. EPA 1991 base price = $6.34/kg (1989 $),
adjusted for inflation to 1992 dollars using CPI.
50 pound dry cleaning machine, run at 90% capacity = 45
Ibs/load.
(5 days/week) x (52 week/year) = 260 days/year
11 hours/day, 5 days a week, plus 5 hours on Saturday,
totalling 60 hours/week. No cleaning is done on Saturday,
but the facility is open for customer drop off and pick up.
Calculated by determining how many 1 kg garments per
week will be cleaned, and then calculating how many 45
pound loads are needed to clean that quantity of garments.
We assume that the dry cleaner will only run full loads
whenever possible. If the amount of clothing that still
needs to be cleaned at the end of a day does not amount to
a full load, then we assume that it will be held over until
the next day and combined with newly arriving clothes to
make a full load. At the end of the week, however, all
clothing must be cleaned, even if there aren't enough to
make a full load; thus, on a weekly basis, any fractional
number of loads must be rounded up to a whole number.
This parameter must be calculated on a weekly basis
because the number of loads that will be run daily will vary
depending on the amount of clothing being carried over
from the previous days work.
($260,000/yr)x(l G/$7.17)x(% DRY)x(l kg/G)x(2.205 lb/kg)x
(1 load/45 lb)x(l year/52 wk) =34.17 loads/wk — > 35 loads/wk
-------
Dry Cleaning machine run time per week (C):
(35 loads/wk)x(45 minute/load) x(l hour/60 minute) = 26.25 hours/wk
Washing machine full For an explanation of this calculation, see text for line 11.
cycles per week (C): The approach that is outlined above for running fractional
loads in the dry cleaning machine are applicable to the
washing machine as well.
($260,000/year)x(2 %G/$7.17)x(% WET) x(18% of wet cleaned garments are fully
saturated) x (40% of saturated garments are machine washed) x(l full cycle/5 !/2G)x
(1 yr/52 wk) = 20.1 cycles/wk — > 21 cycles/wk
Washing machine extra For an explanation of this calculation, see text for line 11.
spin cycles per week (C): The approach that is outlined above for running fractional
loads in the dry cleaning machine are applicable to the
washing machine as well.
($260,000/yr)x(2 V2G/$7.17)x(% WET)x(18% wet cleaned garments are saturated)x
(60% of wet cleaned garments immersed) x(l cycle/5 ViG)x(l yr/52 wk) =
30.13 cycles/wk —> 31 cycles/wk
Washing machine run time per week (C):
(21 full cycles/wk)x (31 minutes/full cycle) + (31 extra spin cycles/wk)x (7 minutes/spin
cycle) = 868 min/wk = 14.47 hours/wk
Depreciation Rate (I): 7% used for Capital Recovery Factor to calculate
equipment depreciation based on lifetime of equipment.
Electricity Price (I): $0.075/kw-hr (1991 US average commercial price for
electricity, Electrical Sales and Revenue, April 1993
edition, Department of Energy, Energy Information
Administration)
Include Start-up (Y/N) (I): User Input key for including the start-up costs in facility's
annual cost estimates.
-------
IV.2 MODEL CLEANING FACILITY PROFILE
LINE BY LINE DESCRIPTION AND SOURCES
1 DRY CLEANING MACHINE PRICE
The price is based on a survey of four major dry cleaning machine manufacturers:
1) VIC Model 1250FS, a 50-lb Dry-to-Dry (D-t-D) no-vent machine with a
refrigerated condenser (RC), still, and either cartridge or spin disk filters; List
Price, $59,500 (Bob Engstrom, VIC); Purchase Price, $52,000 (John Stephens,
Standard Pressing Machine Co. Inc.).
2) UNIMAC Model UniClean50, a 50-lb D-t-D no-vent w/RC, still, and spin disk
filters; List Price, $52,500; Purchase Price, $36,750; (Art Wechsler, Skyline-
UniMac).
3) BOEWE PASSAT/Permac Model P546, a 46-lb D-t-D no-vent w/RC, still, and
spin disk filters; List Price, $54,650 (Jerry Pratt and Jerry Cannon, BOEWE
PASSAT); Purchase Price, $45,000 (Wan Choe, Shin Sung Precision
Corporation).
4) Multimatic Shop Star 400, a 55-lb D-to-D no-vent machine w/RC, still, and
either spin disk or cartridge filters; List Price, $49,500; Purchase Price, $39,000
(Frank Immanuel, Jr., District Cleaners Equipment).
Sales tax of 5% is added to the average price of $47,187.50, bringing the total to
$45,346.88. All manufacturers agreed that the machine should last at least 15 years with
proper maintenance.
2 DRY CLEANING MACHINE MAINTENANCE
Neither VIC nor UniMac were able to estimate annual maintenance for their machines.
The estimated annual maintenance costs for the BOEWE PASSAT/Permac Model P546
are: 6 hours of labor per year at roughly $60 per hour (for an approved technician), ~
$360 plus $385 per year for parts for the first 1 to 3 years. The maintenance cost for
parts derives from the cost of a spare parts package that the manufacturer sells for the
first 3 years. (Barry Cannon, BOEWE PASSAT/Permac). After the third year, the
estimated cost for parts and labor may increase, although a dollar value could not be
obtained. Therefore, maintenance costs are assumed to remain the same, a likely
underestimate of the costs for older machines.
3 DRY CLEANING MACHINE ELECTRICITY
The typical running electric load for a 50-lb dry cleaning machine (D-t-D, no-vent with
RC, still, and disk or cartridge filters) was estimated from the electrical specifications
of four representative machines:
1) VIC Model 1250FS: 28 amps at 240 volts (Bob Engstrom, VIC Manufacturing);
2) UniClean 50: 24 amps at 240 volts (Art Wechsler, Skyline-UniMac);
3) BOEWE PASSAT/Permec Model P546: 31 amps at 220 volts (Barry Cannon,
BOEWE PASSAT/Permac);
-------
4) Multimatic Shop Star 400: 32 amps at 220 volts.
Average electrical specs: 28.75 amps at 230 volts:
(35 loads/wk)x (45 min/load) = 1575 min/wk = 26.25 hours/wk
(28.75 amp)x(230 volt)x(26.25 hrs/wk)x(l kwatt/1000 volt-amp) = 173.578 kw-hr/wk
(173.578kwhr/wk)x(52wk/yr)x($0.075/kw-hr) = $l,124.65/yr
4 REFRIGERATED CHILLER
This piece of equipment recycles the water that is required to cool the refrigerated
condenser unit on the dry cleaning machine when the outside temperature is greater than
60°F. List Price $7990, with a typical discount of 15-20%; assuming a 17.5% discount,
Purchase Price $6591.75 (Chris King, Clean Rite). Sales tax of 5 % is added to the price
bringing the total to $6921.34. The estimated lifetime of this piece of equipment would
be about 8 years if it was being used by itself (without an AeroCooling Unit) and about
10 years if being used with an AeroCooling Unit (Chris King, Clean Rite).
5 REFRIGERATED CHILLER MAINTENANCE
The estimated annual maintenance costs of $150 for a 7.5 ton chiller was provided by
District Cleaners Equipment of Washington, DC.
6 REFRIGERATED CHILLER ELECTRICITY
The chiller will automatically turn on and off as needed throughout the dry cleaning
machine's cycle; thus, its maximum usage can be no greater than that of the dry cleaning
machine. The typical running electric load for a 7.5 ton chiller is 30-36 amps at 208
volts (Chris King, Clean Rite). Assuming that it is running whenever the dry cleaning
machine is running (an overestimate), the electric consumption is calculated as follows:
(33 amps) x (208 volt) x (5.25 hrs/day)x(l kwatt/1000 volt-amp) = 36.036 kw-hr/day
If the dry cleaner is in a temperate climate, where the average temperature is greater than
60 °F from approximately May until September, the unit will be in use for roughly 6
months of the year (Chris King, Clean Rite):
(36.036 kw • hr/day) X(5 day/wk) x(26 wk/yr) x($0.075/kw • hr) = $583.71/yr
-------
7 AEROCOOLING UNIT
During the cooler part of the year, when the outside temperature is less than about 60°F,
the larger refrigerated chiller unit is not needed to meet the necessary cooling
requirements of the refrigerated condenser and a smaller machine, like the AeroCooling
Unit, which uses considerably less electricity, can be used instead. List Price $2300,
Purchase Price $2000. Sales tax of 5 % is added to the price bringing the total to $2100.
The unit should last about 20 years if being used in combination with a chiller (Chris
King, Clean Rite).
8 AEROCOOLING UNIT MAINTENANCE
The estimated annual maintenance costs for this piece of equipment is negligible (Chris
King, Clean Rite).
9 AEROCOOLING UNIT ELECTRICITY
For a dry cleaner located in a temperate climate, where the temperatures are below 60
°F from approximately October until March, the AeroCooling Unit would probably be
in use for about 6 months of the year. Like the chiller, this machine automatically turns
on and off as needed throughout the dry cleaning cycle, and thus its maximum usage can
be no greater than that of the dry cleaning machine. The typical running electric load
for a 7.5 ton unit is 3 amps at 208 volts (Chris King, Clean Rite). Assuming that it is
running whenever the dry cleaning machine is running (an overestimate):
(3 amps) x (208 volt) x (5.25 hrs/day)x(l kwatt/1000 volt-amp) = 3.276 kw-hr/day
(3.276kw-hr/day)x(5 days/wk)x(26wk/yr)x($0.075/kw-hr) = $31.94/yr
10 WASHING MACHINE
Richard Simon suggested that a typical wet clean facility would have three domestic-use
washing machines, each with an 18-lb capacity. The multiple washing machines are not
required to handle the throughput, but to provide the flexibility necessary to preform the
wet cleaning process efficiently. Unlike a dry cleaner that can clean most every garment
in the same manner (i.e., in the dry cleaning machine), a wet cleaner must treat each
kind of garment individually. Based on the garment's fabric type, color and/or design,
and general condition, the wet cleaner must segregate certain types of garments into
groups that can be either soaked or machine washed together. In order to clean a variety
of garments in a timely fashion, multiple machines would be necessary. In fact, Richard
Simon estimates that the average number of '/2 Garments in each machine at any one time
would be about five, although this value may vary from one to eight depending on the
characteristics of the lot. He specifically stated that only a very basic machine would be
necessary (i.e., only one water temperature option-cold-and one clean cycle option) and
that a machine that was designed for use in the home would be preferable. The price
estimate for this type of machine is based on a GE Model WWA6600R Washing Machine
with a purchase price from a discount store (i.e., Circuit City) of $349. According to
-------
the GE Answer Center, this machine has no scheduled maintenance. Richard Simon
estimates that the washing machine would have a useful lifetime of about 3 years before
it needed to be replaced. Sales tax of 5 % is added to the price bringing the total to
$366.45 for one machine.
11 WASHING MACHINE ELECTRICITY
According to EPA's experiment at NCA, 18% of the garments that were wet cleaned
were immersed in water as part of their cleaning. Richard Simon estimates that in a
typical dedicated wet cleaning facility, with multiple washing machines and driers, this
18 % represents the total number of garments that would actually be completely saturated
with water during the cleaning process (either by soaking or cleaning in a conventional
machine); the remaining 82% of the wet cleaned garments would simply be spotted
without being saturated. Of this 18%, about 40% would actually go through a full
washing machine cycle, while 60% would simply be immersed. All of the completely
saturated garments, whether immersed or machine washed, would have to go through the
hydro-extraction or spin cycle in the washing machine. To estimate the total electrical
consumption for the washing machine, it was necessary to calculate the number of full
cycles that machine would have to complete (for the garments being washed in the
machine) as well as the number of additional spin cycles it would have to complete (for
the immersed garments). The specifications for a representative washing machine (the
GE WWA6600R) were provided by the GE Answer Center. The estimated running
electrical load for the washing machine is 8 amps at 120 volts, the full wash cycle takes
31 minutes, and the spin cycle alone takes 7 minutes.
($260,000/yr)X(2 %G/$7.17)X(1 yr/52 wk)X(% WET)x(18% sat) = 251 V4G/wk saturated
Full cycles: (251 V4G/wk)x(4096)x(l load/5 ViG)= 20.1 loads/wk — > 21 loads/wk
(21 loads/wk)x (31 min/load) x (hr/60 min)x(120 volt) x (8 amps)x
(1 kwatt/1000 volt-amp)X($0.075/kw-hr)x(52 wk/yr) = $67.49/yr
Spin cycles: (251 ViG/wk)x(6096)x(l load/5 '/2G)= 30.1 loads/wk —> 31 loads/wk
(31 loads/wk) x (7 min/load) x (hr/60 min) x (120 volt) x (8 amps) x
(1 kwatt/1000 volt-amp)x($0.075/kw-hr)x(52 wk/yr) = $22.50/yr
Total Electric Cost: ($67.49/yr) + ($22.50/yr) = $89.99/yr
12 DRYER
Richard Simon suggests that a typical dedicated wet cleaning facility would have two to
three domestic-use dryers. The multiple dryers are not required to handle the
throughput, but to provide the flexibility necessary properly dry the wet cleaned garments
efficiently. In order to dry the garments quickly, so as not to slow down the entire
production cleaning process, the dryers are not run at capacity, but are usually only half
full. In addition, often special garments will have to be dried alone, either to prevent
colors from bleeding onto other damp garments or to protect a delicate fabric.
-------
Therefore, if any wet cleaning is done, the facility will require multiple dryers. The
price for such a dryer is based on a GE Model DDE8200R Dryer with a purchase price
from a discount store (i.e., Circuit City) for $329. According to the GE Answer Center,
there is no scheduled maintenance for this type of dryer. Richard Simon estimates that
a dryer designed for in home use such as this would have a useful lifetime of about 4
years. Sales tax of 5 % is added to the price bringing the total price of one dryer to
$345.45.
13 DRYER ELECTRICITY
Richard Simon reports that in a typical wet cleaning facility the wet cleaned garments
that are fully saturated (whether immersed or machine washed) are hung in the boiler
room, allowing them to dry partially, before they are put into the drying machine; thus,
the fully saturated garments take only about 15 minutes to sufficiently dry. All of the
other garments will require even less dryer time (approximately 10 minutes each) because
they have only been spotted. Richard Simon also noted that in order to keep the drying
time to a minimum, the machine was usually only run at about half of its capacity
(approximately 9 Ibs). The specifications for a representative dryer were provided by
the GE Answer Center (based on GE Model DDE8200R): the estimated running electric
load is 24 amps at 240 volts. There is no need to round the total number of dryer loads
up to a whole number, as is necessary for the washing and dry cleaning machines,
because the operator can simply vary the length of the drying cycle based on the number
of garments in the machine (i.e., a fewer number of garments will take less time to dry).
Therefore, a fraction of a dryer load simply results in a fraction of a dry cycle.
Saturated: ($260,000/yr)x(l G/$7.17)x(% WET)x(lkg/G)x(2.205 lb/kg)x(l yr/260
operating days) x(18 % saturated) = 55.4 Ibs of clothes wet cleaned/day
(55.4 lbs/day)x(l load/9 lbs)x(15 minutes/load)x(l hr/60 min)x(24 amp)x(240 volt)x
(1 kwatt/1000 volt • amp) x ($0.075/kw • hr) x (260 operating day/year) = $286.93/yr
Spot & Steam only: ($260,000/yr)x(l G/$7.17)x(% WET)x(lkg/G)x(2.205 lb/kg)x
(1 yr/260 operating days) x (82% non-saturated) = 252.2 Ibs/day
(252.2 Ibs/day) x(l load/9 Ibs) x (10 min/load)x(l hr/60 min)x(24 amp) x(240 volt)x
(1 kwatt/1000 volt -amp) x($0.075/kw-hr)x (260 oper day/yr) = $871.41/yr
Total Electric Cost: ($286.93/yr) + ($871.41/yr) = $1158.34/yr
14 SPOTTING BOARD WITH STEAM GUN
List Price $2050, Purchase Price $1435 (Art Wechsler, Skyline-Unimac). Sales tax of
5% is added to the price making the total $1506.75.
-------
15 SCRUBBING BOARD
The price for this piece of equipment required for wet cleaning is estimated to be $250
and it should last as long as the facility is operating (Richard Simon). Sales tax of 5%
is added to the price making the total $262.50.
16-19 BOILER
4 HP natural gas boiler: List Price $6888, Purchase, $5855. 10 HP natural gas boiler:
List Price $7802, Purchase Price, $6632. 20 HP natural gas boiler: List Price $10836,
Purchase Price $9350. The estimated annual maintenance costs are $150 for any size and
the boiler should last between 15 and 20 years (John Tooney, Fulton Boiler Works). A
wet cleaning facility will need a 4 HP boiler (Richard Simon), while a dry cleaning
facility with the equipment configuration as shown would require a 20 HP boiler (Stan
King, Forenta). It is assumed that a cleaning facility that dry cleans only half of its
annual throughput will need an intermediate sized boiler of 10 HP. Sales tax of 5 % is
added to the price.
20-21 COMPRESSOR AND VACUUM PUMP
Equipment configuration and sizes were estimated by Stan King of Forenta. 5 HP Air
Compressor: List Price $1500 (Forenta), Purchase Price $1309 (Radian). 5 HP Vacuum
Pump: List Price $1100 (Forenta), Purchase Price, $946 (Radian). Sales tax of 5% is
added to the price.
22-31 PRESSING EQUIPMENT
The equipment configuration was suggested by Stan King of Forenta and Art Wechsler
of Skyline-UniMac. Utility Presser with Steam Iron Attachment: List Price $5341
(Forenta), Purchase Price $4645 (Radian). Pants Topper: List Price, $3000, Purchase
Price $2100 (Skyline-UniMac). Legger with Steam Iron Attachment: List Price, $6429
(Forenta), Purchase Price, $5590 (Radian). Three-way Puff Iron: List Price, $1330,
Purchase Price, $931. Steam Form Finisher: List Price, $2800, Purchase Price, $1960
(Skyline-UniMac). The annual maintenance cost of the pressing equipment is estimated
to be approximately 10% of the list price of the equipment, and the useful life of the
equipment is estimated to be 15 years (Forenta). Sales tax of 5% is added to the price.
32-35 START-UP COSTS
Costs estimated by Stan King of Forenta. The model assumes that these start up costs
are identical for any cleaning facility. In actuality, some of these costs, especially those
for installation and rigging, will likely vary as the mix of equipment varies.
Unfortunately, it was not possible to quantitatively estimate how these costs would vary
because data was scarce.
-------
36 INITIAL FILL UP OF DRY CLEANING MACHINE WITH PCE
The initial volume of PCE needed was estimated based on the tank sizes of four
representative machines:
1) VIC Model 1250FS: 80 gal (tank 1) + 50 gal (tank 2) + 80 gal (vol of cartridge
filters) = 210 gal;
2) UniClean 50: 74 gal (tank 1) + 82 gal (tank 2) = 156 gal;
3) BOEWE PASSAT/Permec Model P546: 46 gal (tank 1) + 63 gal (tank 2) = 109
gal;
4) Multimatic Shop Star 400: 66 gal (tankl) + 37 gal (tank 2) + 66 gal (tank 3) =
169 gal.
Average volume of work tanks and rinse tanks: 161 gal.
(161 gal)x($5.20/gal of PCE, including tax) = $837.20
37 HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL START UP FEES
According to Safety-Klean, the least expensive way of disposing of hazardous waste that
is being generated with regularity from a dry cleaner is to enroll in a scheduled pick up
service. Price quotes from Safety-Klean were treated as representative cost estimates.
New customers are charged an initial start up fee of $150 as well as a one-time service
fee of $67, which includes the first hazardous waste pickup, for which a customer
normally pays $71. In other words, the customer pays $150 and receives a $4 discount
on the first pickup:
+ $150 (start up fee)
+ $67 (service fee)
— $71 (what they would have had to pay for the first pick up)
$146
38-42 START-UP COSTS
Costs provided by Radian Corporation. It is assumed that the scale cart, used for
weighing the clothing for the dry cleaning machine, is a cost that will not be incurred for
a wet cleaning facility.
43 CONVEYER
List Price $6615, Purchase Price, $5295 (Art Wechsler, Skyline-UniMac). Sales tax of
5% is added to the price bringing the total price to $5559.75.
44 PERCHLOROETHYLENE
Estimates for the "milage" of the perchloroethylene cleaning solvent varied considerably
by source. Values ranged from 66,000 pounds of clothes cleaned per drum of
perchloroethylene (1200 Ibs of clothes/gallon) to 25,000 Ibs/drum (454.55 Ibs/gallon).
-------
The manufacturers that produced machines with regenerative spin disc filters tended to
provide higher estimates of solvent milage than those that made only cartridge filters.
There was also a difference of opinion among dry cleaning machine manufacturers as to
if there was a difference in solvent milage based on the type of filtration system in use.
Actual solvent milage varies based on how the dry cleaning machine is used and
maintained (e.g., the number of single baths compared to the number of double baths,
the time of the drying cycle, the frequency of operator maintenance, etc.). The
calculation of the perchloroethylene consumption used in this model plant analysis is
based on a solvent milage of 30,000 Ibs/drum (545.45 Ibs/gal), an estimate provided by
Kim Gustufson of VIC Manufacturing and John Stephens of Standard Pressing Machine
Company Inc. The cost of PCE ($4.95/gallon) was provided by Standard Pressing
Machine Co Inc and Radian:
($260,000/yr)x(l G/$7.17)x(l kg/G)x(2.205 lb/kg)x(55 gal PCE/30,000 Ibs clothes)
= (146.58 gal/yr)X($4.95/gal) = $725.57/yr
45 DRY CLEANING MACHINE DETERGENT
A small quantity of detergent and water (referred to as the "charge") is usually added to
the PCE solvent that is used in the washing cycle of the dry cleaning machine. The cost
of the detergent charge for the dry cleaning machine is calculated based on the amount
of detergent used times the price of detergent. The cost of the dry cleaning detergent is
approximately $20/gal (Radian). A maximum of 1% of the "charged cleaning solvent"
(i.e., the PCE plus the detergent plus the water) is detergent (Kim Gustufson, VIC
Manufacturing; Wan Choe, Shin Sung Precision Corp.) Approximately 1.5 gallons of
solvent per dry cleaning load is retained in the clothing and "reclaimed" as pure solvent
to the storage tank (Tank 2) during the drying cycle (Kim Gustufson, VIC
Manufacturing); thus, 1.5 gallons of cleaning solvent must be recharged and transferred
to the cleaning tank (Tank 1) per load cleaned:
(1.5 gal/load) X (7 loads/day) x (260 oper day/yr) = 2730 gal solvent/yr reclaimed
(2730 gal solvent) x(l % detergent) = 27.3 gal detergent/yr for the recharge
The International Fabricare Institute (IFI) recommends that 10 gallons of cleaning solvent
per 100 pounds of clothes cleaned be distilled in order to maintain the effectiveness of
the cleaning solvent (Andrasik 1990). The distillation process will remove any detergent
from the cleaning solvent before it is returned to the storage tank (Tank 2): thus, the
volume of PCE that is removed from the cleaning tank to be distilled will have to be
replaced with newly charged PCE:
($260,000/yr)x(lG/$7.17)x(l kg/G)x(2.205 lb/kg)x
(10 gal distilled/100 Ibs clothes cleaned) = 7996 gal PCE distilled/yr
Assuming that the solvent that is reclaimed through vaporization during the dry cleaning
machine's dry cycle is effectively distilled, the volume of additional PCE that would have
to be distilled would be:
(7996 gal/yr) - (2730 gal/yr) = 5266 gal/yr
(5266 gal/yr) x(l % detergent) = 52.66 gal detergent/yr for the recharge
-------
The total volume of detergent that would be consumed each year is then:
(27.3 gal/yr) + (52.66 gal/yr) = 79.96 gal/yr
(79.96 gal/yr)x($20/gal) - $1599.2/yr
46 FABRIC SOFTENER
One sheet of fabric softener is used per dryer load for wet cleaning. The fabric softener
used in EPA's experiment was Bounce, which retails for about $4.50 for a box of 100
sheets. Amoto Industries, a distributer of dry cleaning and laundry supplies, estimates
that a commercial facility might be able to purchase the fabric softener at a 10% discount
through a distributor. The annual cost of the fabric softener is calculated as follows:
($260,000/yr) x(1 G/$7.17) x(1 kg/G) x(2.205 Ib/kg) x
(.% WET)x(load/18 Ibs) = 4442 loads/yr
(4442 loads/yr) x(90% x $4.50/100) = $179.91/yr
47-56 SPOTTING CHEMICALS
The use volume and price of the spotting chemicals was obtained from EPA's experiment
at the NCA in New York City (US EPA 1993). A number of the spotting chemicals that
were provided for the experiment were not used by the spotter/cleaner for either cleaning
process; however, this should not be taken as an indication that these chemicals are no
longer used in the cleaning industry, as each individual spotter has his or her own
preference for spotting chemicals. These chemicals (acetic acid, oxalic acid, Streetan
(Rust-Go), volatile dry solvent, and glycerin) have been removed from the spreadsheet
calculations only because there is no available data indicating their use volume, thus we
are unable to estimate each chemicals' cost. The usage of the spotting chemicals were
reported in fluid ounces per lot, and were converted to gal per day as follows:
(fl oz/lot)x(l lot/50 '/2G)x(2 1/2G/G)x($260,000/yr)x
(1 yr/260 day)x(l G/$7.17) x (gal/128 fl oz) = gal/day
If the cleaner provides both dry cleaning services as well as wet cleaning services, the
usage of spotting chemicals was estimated as follows:
(% of garments dry cleaned) x (dry clean usage) +
(% of garments wet cleaned) x (wet clean usage) = composite usage volume
The quantity of detergent that is used in the immersion phase of the wet cleaning process
is included in the use volume estimate for "Vital Elements Fabric Cleanser (100%)" (line
55). Sales tax of 5% was added to the price of the spotting chemicals.
57-58 DRY CLEANING MACHINE FILTERS
A 50-lb dry cleaning machine that uses cartridge filters will have the following filter
configuration (based on the VIC Model 1250FS): 2 cartridge canisters, each containing
6 standard carbon core filters, and 2 double all carbon filters (used primarily for dye
-------
removal). In total, the machine operates with 14 filters (12 carbon core and 2 double all
carbon). According VIC Manufacturing, each carbon core filter will last through 1200
to 1400 Ibs of clothes cleaned; thus, the cartridge of 6 filters will need to be replaced
after 7200 to 8400 Ibs of clothes are cleaned. The double all carbon filters are typically
replaced at the same time the carbon core filter cartridge is replaced (i.e., they should
last 6 times longer than a single carbon core filter). Thus, after approximately 7800
pounds of clothes are cleaned (1300 pounds/filter X 6 filters), the operator will have to
replace one cartridge canisters (6 carbon core filters) and both double all carbon filters.
The prices of the filters were provided by Amoto Industries (including a 5% sales tax):
Puritan standard carbon core filters (4 by 1), $70.30 (or $17.57 each); Puritan double
all carbon filters (4 by 1), $116.13 (or $29.03 each); thus, the cost of the filters is
calculated as follows:
Carbon Core: ($17.57/C-core filter) X (6 C-core filters/cartridge) =
$105.42 for carbon core cartridges per machine
Double All Carbon: ($29.03/double all carbon filter) x (2 double all carbon filters/machine) =
$58.06 for double all carbon filters per machine
Cost of Filter Replacement:
$105.42/C-core cartridges + $58.06/double all carbon filters =
$163.48/replacement [per 7800 Ibs of clothes cleaned]
Frequency of Filter Replacement:
($260,000/yr)x(G/$7.17)x(l kg/G)X(2.205 Ib/kg) / (1300 Ibs/filter x 6 filters/cartridge)
= 10.25 replacements/yr
(10.25 replacements/year)x($l63.48/replacement) = $1675.67/yr
59 BAGS
The price for plastic "poly" bags varies by size (length). It was not possible to estimate
the number of bags of each length that would be used each year by a cleaning facility.
For this analysis, it was assumed that the cleaning facility would use an intermediate
sized bag 58 inches in length. The cost for the bags was provided by Amoto Industries,
a distributer of dry cleaning and laundry supplies: $33.95/roll of 535 bags. One bag is
used per order. Unfortunately, data was not available on the average number of
garments per order; it was estimated that the average value was 4 garments per order.
($260,000/yr)x(G/$7.17)x(l order/4 G)x(l bag/order) = 9,065.5 bags/yr
(9,065.5 bags/yr)x($33.95/535 bags) = $572.28/yr
60 HANGERS
One hanger is used for each full garment. There are more that 25 different kinds of
hangers used by the dry cleaning industry, each with a different price. A man's suit
-------
requires a different kind of hanger than a woman's dress. A typical prices for "suit
hanger" is $18.45 per box of 500 and for a "woman's apparel" hanger is $24.63 per box
of 500 (Amoto Industries). Stanley King, of Forenta, estimates that a about 30% of a
dry cleaners' throughput can be classified as women's apparel and about 10% as
miscellaneous (including wedding gowns and lacy clothing). Assuming that these two
categories will require a "woman's apparel" hanger and the remaining 60% of the
cleaners' garments will use a "man's" hanger:
($260,000/yr)X(G/$7.17)x((40% x $24.63/500) + (60% x $18.45/500)) = $1,517.26/yr
61 WATER AND SEWAGE UTILITIES
The water and sewer costs for a dry cleaning facility are derived from an IF! survey of
operating costs: 1.01% of annual sales volume = $2626/yr for a $260,000/yr facility
(IFI Survey of 1991 Operating Costs). This value accounts for the water added to the
dry cleaning machine with the detergent charge, the water required to fill the refrigerated
chiller, and that used to make steam for pressing, spotting, and heating the dry cleaning
machine and the still. A vast majority of the water consumed by the dry cleaner is used
to press and spot clothing. The data obtained from EPA's experiment suggest that a wet
cleaning facility would have nearly identical costs (and water consumption) for spotting
and pressing activities than would a dry cleaner (b). In order to estimate the water
consumption for a wet cleaning facility, the wet clean-specific water costs are combined
with that portion of the dry cleaning water costs that they would also encounter; thus, the
dry cleaning-specific water costs must be identified and subtracted out of the estimated
total water costs before the wet clean water costs are added. The combined cost of
purchasing and disposing of commercial water, $2.62/100 ft3, was obtained from b.
Water for the Detergent Charge: (Wan Choe, Shin Sung Precision Corp, and Bob
Engstrom, VIC Manufacturing)
Approximately 0.5% of the charged PCE used in the dry cleaning machine is water.
Approximately 1.5 gallons of charged PCE per dry cleaning load is retained in the
clothing and reclaimed to the storage tank (Tank 2) during the drying cycle; thus, 1.5
gallons of charged cleaning solvent must be transferred to the cleaning tank (Tank 1) per
load cleaned. In addition, IFI recommends that 10 gallons of cleaning solvent per 100
pounds of clothes cleaned be distilled in order to maintain the effectiveness of the
cleaning solvent (Andrasik 1990). Any water that is in the charged cleaning solution will
be removed by the still and separator; thus, the volume of cleaning solvent that is
distilled must also be recharged and added to the cleaning tank (Tank 1):
(1.5 gal/load)X(7 loads/day)x(0.5% water) = 0.0525 gal/day (re-charge of reclaimed PCE)
($260,000/yr)x(l G/$7.17)x(l kg/G)x(2.505 Ib/kg) = 79,958 Ibs clothes cleaned/yr
(10 gal distilled/100 Ibs clothes) x(79,958 Ibs clothes) x(0.5% water) = 39.98 gal water/yr
cost of charge water = (0.0525 gal/day) x(260 oper day/yr) + 39.98 gal/yr =
(53.63gal/yr)X(231 in3/gal)x(ft3/123 iri3)x($2.62/100 ft3) = $0.19/yr
-------
Water for the Refrigerated Chiller: (Chris King, Clean Rite; Stan King, Forenta)
A 50-lb dry cleaning machine would require a 11A ton chiller to recycle the water used
to cool the PCE in the refrigerated condenser. The volume of water used by the chiller
each year is approximately 12 gallons (based on the Clean Rite Model WC-7.5-TS-VOP):
(12 gal/yr) X(231 inVgal) X(ft3/123 in3) X($2.627100 ft3) = $0.04/yr
Steam for Heating the Dry Cleaning Machine and Still:
None of the equipment manufacturers were able to estimate the volume of water that was
needed to make the steam used for heating the dry cleaning machine and still. Until
further information is collected, we assume that this water usage volume is zero.
Thus, the dry cleaning water and sewer charges applicable to a wet clean facility total:
($2626/yr) - ($0.l9/yr) - ($0.04/yr) = $2625.77/yr * $2626/yr. In other words, the
cost of water and sewer utilities specific to a dry cleaning facility, as opposed to a wet
cleaning facility, is negligible. Essentially, the entire cost of water and sewer utilities
for a dry cleaner is attributable to pressing and spotting.
Wet Clean-specific Water Consumption:
Richard Simon estimates that approximately one-fifth of a wet cleaning facility's
throughput (excluding shirts that are being laundered) will be completely saturated with
water during their cleaning. The data collected by EPA in their experiment at NCA
closely matches this estimate, as 18% of the wet cleaned garments were immersed during
their cleaning. The volume of water consumed in a full cycle of a washing machine with
a capacity of 18 Ibs (suggested by Richard Simon as an appropriate size) is 40 gallons
(GE Answer Center):
(21 full cycles/wk)x(40 gal/full cycle) x(52 wk/yr) = 42,680 gal/yr
In addition, Richard Simon estimates that other wet cleaning techniques consume
approximately 10 gallons of water for every 200 '/2 garments cleaned:
($260,000/yr)x(2 >/2G/$7.17) x(10 gal/200 '/2G) = 3,626 gal/yr.
Total wet clean-specific water costs: 42,680 gal/yr + 3,626 gal/yr = 46,306 gal/yr
(46,306 gal/yr) x (231 in3/gal) x (ft3/123 in3) x($2.62/100 ft3) = $162/yr
Wet Clean Total Water Consumption:
Wet clean-specific + spotting/pressing = $163/yr + $2626/yr = $2788/yr
For a facility that offers both cleaning services, the wet clean-specific water consumption
costs are scaled back according to the percentage of garments that are being wet cleaned.
-------
62 ELECTRIC UTILITIES
The electric utility costs for a dry cleaning facility we derived from an IFI survey of
operating costs: 1.15% of the total annual sales volume = $2990/yr for a $260,000/yr
facility (data from IFI). Assuming that the only difference in electric utility costs for an
equivalent sized wet cleaning facility arises from using different cleaning machines, this
estimate can also be used to derive the electric costs for a wet cleaning facility. In order
to do this, it is first necessary to subtract out the electric costs specific to dry cleaning
(i.e. those resulting from running the dry cleaning machine and associated equipment,
as calculated previously in lines 3,6, and 9):
($2990/yr) - (DC machine + refrigerated chiller + AeroCooling Unit)
= ($2990/yr- ($1124.79/yr + $583.71/yr + $38.91/yr) = $1242.59/yr
This value represents a "generic" electric charge that any cleaning facility of this size
would encounter. The generic electric charge is intended to estimate the cost of
electricity that is consumed for all other purposes (i.e., lighting, heating and air
conditioning, etc.). The total electric charge for a wet cleaning facility would be
calculated by adding this generic charge to the wet clean-specific electric consumption
charges, as calculated in lines 11 and 13:
($1242.59/yr) + (washing machine electric -I- dryer electric)
= ($1242.59/yr) + ($39.40 + $579.17) = $1861.16/yr
63 FUEL UTILITIES
IFI's survey of operating costs estimates the costs for fuel to power the boiler for a dry
cleaner total 1.76% of the facility's annual sales volume, or $4576/yr for a $260,000/yr
cleaner. The steam produced by the boiler is used for a variety of purposes, including
spotting, pressing, and heating the dry clean machine and still. A wet cleaning facility
would also require steam for spotting and pressing; however, it would not need to be
producing steam for the dry cleaning machine. Data collected during EPA's experiment
indicate that there is no difference in the pressing time between the two cleaning
processes; however, there is a considerable difference in the spotting time, 58.4 min per
50 piece lot (per 25 garments) for wet cleaning compared to 12.4 min per lot for a dry
cleaner (US EPA 1993b). In order to calculate the fuel cost for a wet cleaning facility,
we must adjust the IFI estimate for a dry cleaner by adding the cost of the fuel that is
used to make steam for the additional spotting and subtracting the cost of the fuel used
to make steam for the dry cleaning machine. Radian reports that 75 % of the fuel is used
to provide steam to the pressing machines, 20% of the fuel is used to provide steam to
the dry cleaning machines, and 5 % of the fuel is used to provide steam for spotting (US
EPA 1993b). Thus, wet cleaning fuel costs are:
(75% x $4576) + [ (WET spotting min/DRY spotting min) X (5 % X $4576) ].
Wet cleaning spotting time: (58.4 min/25 G)x($260,000/yr)X(G/$7.17) = 84,708.5 min/yr
-------
Dry cleaning spotting time: (12.4 min/25 G)x($260,000/yr)X(G/$7.17) = 17,986.1 min/yr
(75%x$4576) + ((84,708.5 min/yr) / (17,986.1 min/yr)) x(5 % x$4575) =
($3432/yr) + ($1077.34/yr) = $4509.34/yr
A mixed mode facility would need steam for both the extra spotting (for the wet
cleaning) and heating the dry cleaning machine. These costs are scaled according to how
much wet and dry cleaning each facility does:
(75 %X$4576) + (% WET)X(58.4/12.4)x(5%x$4576) + (% DRY) x (5 % x$4576) +
(% DRY) x (20% x$4576) = MIXED MODE steam costs.
64 FRONT COUNTER HELP
Counter help time is fixed at 120 hours/week at $5.00/hr. Counter help is assumed to
also bag garments, assemble orders, and keep the front of the shop neat. Two counter
people are needed for each hour the store is open. Supporting evidence for the quantity
of counter help comes from NCA Cost Comparison Chart, and from the Forenza
"Package Plant Training Manual". Analysis of the NCA Cost chart indicates a range of
100 hours a week at $5.75/hr and 120 hours at $4.75/hr (for the $7.00 base price,
assuming $260,000 annual revenue). The Forenza manual suggests "a counter hostess,
an inspector assembler and a part time counter hostess" for dry cleaners doing this
volume of business.
65 PRESSER
Pressing labor cost is calculated as $.75/garment (equal to $.75/kg by maintained
assumption of 1 kg/garment). Based on NCA cost comparison chart, 1992. NCA
pressing cost data ranges from $.72/garment for a $6.00 base price (.772 =
12% x$6.00) to $.80/garment (for $8.00 base price or 10% x$8.00). Calculating as a
cost/garment rather than as a cost/hour captures the incentive-based payment system
common for pressers. For comparison, the pressers in the EPA experiment pressed
about 5 garments per hour (4.5 hours/50 pounds = .198 hours/kg, or 5.05 garments per
hour). At $.75/garment, they would have earned $3.75 per hour. The 5 garments per
hour is slower than commonly reported pressing rates, perhaps because the pressers were
students, and the set-up at the NCA training facility was less than ideal for production
pressing. NCA published "Finishing (Pressing) Production Standards" indicate average
pressing rates range from 8 garments an hour (mens winter suits, using only a utility
press) to nearly 16 an hour (mens summer suits, with a topper-legger press and a steam-
air finisher). At $.75/garment, the equivalent hourly wage for the NCA production
standard ranges from $6.00 to $12.00 an hour. The $.75/garment cost of pressing used
in this model plant analysis translates to nearly 70 hours of pressing time per week at
$7.50/hr (also equivalent to 105 hours/week at $5/hr or 52 hours/week at $10/hr).
-------
66 DRY CLEANING SPOTTER/CLEANER
Dry Cleaning Spotter/cleaner is calculated as $10/hr for the number of hours needed per
day. Hours/day are calculated as 3/4 hour per dry cleaning machine load, plus 3/4 of
an hour extra per day to keep the cleaner there until the final load of the day is finished
and unloaded. This sum is rounded up to the nearest whole number of hours. The 3/4
hour is based on the New York experiment measured time to spot, load, empty and hang
each load. The New York experiment required .5 hours to handle a 35-pound capacity
dry cleaning machine. We are using a 50 pound machine, so we scale the amount of
time up: (50/35) x (.5 hours) = .71 hours, rounded up to .75 hours/load. The 100%
dry clean facility requires 6 hours/day of a cleaner.
67 WET CLEANING SPOTTER/CLEANER
The cost of the wet clean Spotter/cleaner is calculated as $10/hour for the number of
hours needed per day. Hours/day are calculated based on the New York experiment,
where 1.55 hours were required to clean 50 pounds of garments (equal to 4.1
minutes per garment). The number of hours a day is 4.1 minutes times the number of
garments/day. The time/day is rounded to the next whole number of hours. A 100%
wet clean facility requires a spotter 10 hours a day.
68 MANAGER
The cost of a manager is calculated as one manager at $25,000/year. The manager's
duties include the daily management of the facility, recordkeeping, hiring and firing.
business decisions, etc. In many facilities, a single individual may work very long hours
and actually be the owner, manager and cleaner. Someone performing these roles in a
100% dry cleaning facility would earn a total of $40,600/year: $25,000 as manager, and
$15,600 as cleaner. Separating the manager's salary from the spotter/cleaner category
allows more accurate calculation of labor costs in the wet and dry process.
69 PAYROLL TAXES AND INSURANCE
Payroll taxes and insurance includes state and federal wage taxes paid by the employer
(e.g., Social Security andMedicaid), unemployment insurance, workmen's compensation
insurance, disability benefits, fringe benefits, and health and life insurance. This does
not include insurance not based on total payroll, such as fire, theft, casualty, liability and
business insurance (see line 82). Payroll taxes and insurance is calculated as 16.5% of
total wages and salaries. This is based on information in the NCA Cost Comparison
Chart, where Other Payroll Charges as a percentage of total payroll are 16.45% for a
$7.00 base price (the range across all base prices is 15.8% to 17.2%).
-------
70 SEPARATOR WATER
Volume of Separator Water:
Based on recommendations from Jerry Pratt of BOEWE PASSAT/Permac and Bob
Engstrom of VIC, the volume of separator water generated daily (from 4-6 hours of
machine time) from a 50-lb D-t-D no-vent machine w/RC and still is estimated to be 0.5
gallons. This amounts to 130 gallons of separator water per year.
There are two sources of the water: water added to the charge, and moisture in the
clothing. According to Wan Choe (Shin Sung Precision Corporation), the charged PCE
usually contains approximately 0.05% water and 1% detergent. The IFI recommends
distilling 10 gallons of PCE per 100 pounds of clothes cleaned in order to maintain the
effectiveness of the cleaning solvent (Andrasik 1990). For our facility:
($260,000/yr)x(lG/$7.17)x(lkg/G)x(2.2051b/kg) = 79,958.16 Ibs clothes/yr
(79,958.16 Ibs clothes/yr)x( 10 gal distilled/100 Ibs clothes) = 7,995.82 gal distilled/yr
(7,995.82 gal distilled/yr) x(0.05% water) = 4.0 gal water/yr
Thus, approximately four gallons of separator water generated each year is attributable
to the water added to the cleaning PCE for the detergent charge. The remaining 126
gallons of separator water derives from the detergent, the clothing itself (due to steam
spotting prior to cleaning, perspiration, humidity, etc), and unknown sources.
($260,000/yr)x(lG/$7.17) = 36,262 G/yr = 72,524 ViG/yr
(136 gal separator water/yr) x(yr/72,524 ViG) = 0.001875 gal/'AG = 0.24 fl oz water/'AG
Cost of Separator Water Disposal:
Safety-Klean reports that the cost of separator water disposal is $65/13.5 gal drum plus
a $6 service fee for providing the specially designed drum for the water's transportation
and disposal. The total cost of disposal is calculated as follows:
(130 gal/yr)x($71/13.5 gal) = $683.70/yr
71 FILTER DISPOSAL
Safety-Kleen reports that the cost for disposal of either kind of cartridge filter is
$23/filter plus a $6 service fee for providing a specially designed drum for their
transportation and disposal. Three filters can fit in each drum. The number of filters
per year that must be disposed of is equal to the number that are purchased (calculated
in lines 57 and 58):
(61.5 carbon core filters/yr) + (20.5 all carbon filters/yr) = 82 filters/yr
(82 filters/yr) x($23/filter + $6/3 filters) = $2050/yr
-------
72 STILL BOTTOMS AND LINT DISPOSAL
Estimates for the generation of stil] bottoms varied from 3 gal/1000 Ibs of clothes cleaned
(Radian) to 0.5 gal/1000 Ibs (Shin Sung Precision). We chose an intermediate value of
2 gal/1000 Ibs (John Bogart, BOEWE PASSAT/Permac) to calculate the cost of still
bottom disposal. Safety-Kleen will dispose of the still bottoms, along with any lint
collected by the machine filters, for $65 per 13.3 gallon drum plus a $6 service fee for
a specially designed drum for their transportation and disposal:
($260,000/yr)x(l G/$7.17)x(l kg/G)x(2.205 lb/kg)x
(% DRY)x(2 gal/1000 Ibs) =159.91 gal/yr
(159.91 gal/yr) x($71/13.5 gal drum) = $841.04/yr
73 INSURANCE (NON-LABOR)
Insurance not directly tied to the amount of labor employed includes fire insurance on
contents, customers goods, storage, liability, boiler, use and occupancy. This does not
include insurance on building (if owned by the dry cleaner), which is included in rent and
realty taxes (line 74). The insurance is calculated as 3.5% of annual sales, based on the
NCA Cost Comparison chart.
74-81 OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT COSTS
These costs estimates derive from IFI's survey of operation costs for dry cleaners:
rent or building overhead: 9.36% of total receipts ($24336/yr);
advertising: 2.28% of total receipts ($5928/yr);
outside work: 9.05% of total receipts ($23530);
claims: 0.34% of total receipts ($884/yr);
office expenses: 1.3% of total receipts ($3380/yr);
administrative expenses: 1.56% of total receipts ($4056/yr);
interest and bank charges: 4.06% of total receipts ($10556/yr);
miscellaneous: 2.95% of total receipts ($7670/yr).
82 TOTAL
This is the sum of all annual expenses.
-------
APPENDIX V
DETAILED MODEL OUTPUTS FOR DEDICATED AND MIXED MODE FACILITIES
EXHIBIT V. 1 Annual cost estimates for 82 line items for each combination of dry and
wet cleaning, including the dedicated facilities.
EXHIBIT V.2 Quantities, unit costs, annual cost estimates and equipment lifetime (if
applicable) for 82 line items for dedicated wet and dry cleaning facilities
and for a 50 percent dry cleaning / 50 percent wet cleaning facility.
-------
Exhibit V.I
MODEL CLEANING FACILITY PROFILE
Summary of Model Output
CLEANING EQUIPMENT
PRESSING EQUIPMENT
START-UP COSTS
(EQUIPMENT* SUPPUES)
SUPPLIES
ADDITIONAL UTUJTIES
LABOR
HAZARDOUS WASTE
DISPOSAL
OPERATION A MANAGEMENT
TOTAL
SO— pound no— vent dry— to— dry machine wflh RC
maintenance
eteclrlolty
7.5-ton Refrigerated Chiller
maintenance
electricity
7.5-too Integrated AeroCooilng Unit
maintenance
electricity
18— pound top loading washing machine (domestic use)
etoctncty
18— pound front load tumble dryer (domestic use)
electrlcty
spotting board wllh steam gun
scrubbing board / Industrial sink w/dramer (3x2x2 ft)
4 HP
boiler 10 HP
2O HP
maintenance
air compressor (SHP)
vacuum pump unit (RP-5)
utility presserwKh steam Iron attachment
maintenance
pants topper
maintenance
tagger with steam Iron attachment
maintenance
3— way puff iron
maintenance
steam form finisher (*suzie*)
maintenance
installation and rtgghg (electrical, gas, water, etc.)
lease hold Improvements (const, decor, $ register, etc)
signage
initial inventory of supplies (hangers, bags, spot chems)
initial fill up of dry cleaning machine with perc
hazardous waste disposal start— up fees
baggng rack
scale Karl
6 bu basket
8 bu basket
slick rails
8OO slot conveyer
perchloiethylene ($/gal)
chargng detergent for the Dry Cleaning machine
fabric softener
smmonla
amyl acetate
general formula
moisture stock
neutral lubricant
oily type paint remover
peroxide
Vital Elements All Purpose Cleanser
Vital Elements Fabric Cleanser (100%)
Vital Elements Fabric Cleanser 10%
standard carbon core filters
double all carbon filters
bags
hangers
water and sewage
electricity (general)
gas / oil
front counter help
presser
Dry Cleaning spotter/cleaner
Wet Cleaning spotter
manager
payroll taxes & insurance
seperator water (gal/yr)
filter disposal
still bottoms and lint disposal
Insurance (non-labor)
rent or builoing overhead
idvertisvig
outside work
claims
office expenses
adminsltrative expenses
bank charges
miscellaneous
1OO% DRY
14,971
$745
$677
Joes
$ise
$351
$19i
negllgble
$32
sc
$0
sc
$c
$165
$0
$C
$c
$980
$150
$151
$109
$535
$534
$242
$300
$644
$643
$107
$133
$226
$280
$1,330
$1,612
$403
$322
$65
$12
$8
$20
$6
$7
$110
$448
$762
$1,679
$0
$15
$26
$35
$16
$52
$533
$8
$0
$0
$0
$1,061
$595
$604
$1,593
$2,626
$1,250
$4,576
$31,200
$27,195
$14,O40
$0
$25,000
$16,077
$684
$2,050
$841
$9.100
$24,336
$5,928
$23,530
$884
$3,380
$4,056
$10,556
$7,670
$230,849
86% DRY
5% WET
$4,83C
S7OJ
$838
$951
$14!
$331
$19<
negligble
$3c
$231
$5
$174
$35
$1«5
$21
$C
$c
sesc
$150
$151
$109
$535
$534
$242
$300
$644
$643
$107
$133
$226
$280
$1,330
$1.612
$403
$322
$65
$12
$8
$20
$6
$7
$110
$448
$724
$1,595
$9
$16
$26
$39
$15
$51
$508
$8
$33
$23
$3
$1,027
$565
$604
$1,593
$2,641
$1,250
$4,573
$31 ,2OO
$27,195
$13,520
$1,560
S25.OOO
$16,248
$649
$1,948
$799
$9,100
$24,336
$5,928
$23,530
$884
$3,380
$4,056
$10,556
$7,87O
$240,710
90% DRY
1O% WET
$4,694
$671
$600
$917
$135
$311
$189
negligble
$28
$231
$8
$174
$70
$165
$21
SO
$0
$990
$150
$151
$109
$535
$534
$242
$300
$644
$643
$107
$133
$226
$280
$1.330
$1,612
$403
$322
$65
$12
$8
$20
$6
$7
$110
$448
$686
$1 ,51 1
$19
$17
$25
$42
$14
$51
$482
$9
$65
$45
$6
$973
$536
$604
$1,593
$2,649
$1,250
$4,569
$31,200
$27,195
$12,480
$2.600
$25,000
$16,248
$615
$1,845
$757
$9,100
$24,336
$5,928
$23,530
$884
$3,380
$4,056
$10,556
$7,670
$240,127
85% DRY
15% WET
$4,554
$633
$580
$883
$128
$301
$185
negligble
$27
$231
$10
$174
$105
$105
$21
SO
$0
$990
$150
$151
$1O9
$535
$534
$242
$300
$644
$643
$107
$133
$226
$280
$1,330
$1,612
$403
$322
$65
$12
$8
$20
$6
$7
$11O
$448
$648
$1,427
$28
$17
$25
$46
$13
$50
$457
$9
$98
$68
$8
$919
$506
$6O4
$1,593
$2,657
$1,250
$4,566
$31,200
$27,195
$12,480
$4,160
$25,000
$16,SO6
$581
$1,743
$715
$9, tOO
$24.338
$5,928
$23,530
$884
$3,380
$4,056
$10,556
$7,670
$241,302
80% DRY
20% WET
$4,416
$596
$542
$849
$12O
$281
$180
negligble
$26
$231
$13
$174
$139
$165
$21
$0
$0
$990
$15O
$151
$109
$535
$534
$242
$300
$644
$643
$107
$133
$226
$280
$1,330
$1,612
$403
$322
$65
$12
$8
$20
$6
$7
$11O
$448
$609
$1,343
$38
$18
$24
$49
$13
$50
$432
$9
$130
$90
$11
$865
$476
$604
$1,593
$2,665
$1,250
$4,563
$31,200
$27,195
$11,440
$5,200
$25,000
$16,506
$547
$1,640
$673
$9, tOO
$24,336
$5,928
$23,530
$884
$3,380
$4,OS6
$10.556
$7,670
$240,813
75% DRY
25% WET
$4,290
$559
$503
$815
$113
$261
$176
negligble
$24
$231
$15
$174
$174
$165
$21
$0
$0
$990
$150
$151
$109
$535
$534
$242
$300
$644
$643
$107
$133
$226
$280
$1,330
$1,612
$4O3
$322
$65
$12
$8
$20
$6
$7
$110
$448
$571
$1,259
$47
$18
$23
$53
$12
$49
$406
$10
$163
$113
$14
$811
$446
$SO4
$1,593
$2,673
$1,250
$4.559
$31,200
$27,195
$10,920
$6,240
$25,000
$16,592
$513
$1.538
$631
$9,10O
$24.336
$5,928
$23,530
$884
$3,380
$4,056
S1O.S56
$7,670
$240,842
-------
Exhibit V.I (Continued)
MODEL CLEANING FACILITY PROFILE
Summary of Model Output
CLEANING EQUIPMENT
PRESSING EQUIPMENT
START-UP COSTS
(EQUIPMENT & SUPPLIES)
SUPPLIES
ADDITIONAL UTILITIES
LABOR
HAZARDOUS WASTE
DISPOSAL
OPERATION & MANAGEMENT
TOTAL
50-pound no- vent dry-to-diy machine with RC
maintenance
electricity
7.5-ton Refrigerated Chiller
nt0int0nvtc9
electricity
7.5-ton Integrated AeroCoolina Unit
rnflintonsncft
electricity
IS— pound top loading washing machine (domestic uae]_
electricty
18— pound front load tumble dryer (domestic use)
spotting board with steam gun
scrubbing board / industrial sink w/drainer (3x2x2 ft)
4HP
boiler 10 HP
20 HP
maintenance
air compressor (SHP)
vacuum pump unit (RP-5)
utility presser with steam iron attachment
maintenance
pants topper
maintenance
logger witti steam iron attachment
maintenance
3— way puff Iron
maintenance
steam form finisher ("suae")
maintenance
installation and rlggng (electrical, gas, water, etc.)
lease hold improvements (const, decor, $ register, etc)
signage
initial inventory of supplies (hangers, bags, spot chems)
initial fill up of dry cleaning machine with perc
hazardous waste disposal start-up fees
baggng rack
scale kart
6 bu basket
a bu basket
slick rails
BOO slot conveyer
perchlorethylene (S/gal)
chargng detergent for the Dry Cleaning machine
fabric softener
ammonia
amyl acetate
general formula
moisture stock
neutral lubricant
oily type paint remover
peroxide
Vital Elements All Purpose Cleanser
Vital Elements Fabric Cleanser (1OO%)
Vital Elements Fabnc Cleanser 10%
standard carbon core filters
double all carbon filters
bags
hangers
water and sewage
electricity (general)
gas / oil
front counter help
presser
Dry Cleaning spotter/cleaner
Wet Cleaning spotter
manager
payroll taxes & insurance
separator water (gal/yr)
filter disposal
still bottoms and lint disposal
insurance (non-labor)
rent or bulking overhead
advertising
outside work
claims
„
oaminsnrative expenses
bank charges
miscellaneous
70% DRY
30% WET
14,147
SS22
$484
$782
$1O5
$241
$172
negligble
$22
$231
$18
$174
$2Ojf
$165
$21
$0
$0
$99O
$150
$151
$109
$535
$534
$242
$300
$644
$643
$1O7
$133
$226
$280
$1,330
$1,612
$4O3
$322
$65
$12
$6
$20
$6
$7
$110
$448
$533
$1,175
$57
$19
$23
$57
$11
$49
$381
$10
$196
$135
$17
$757
$417
$6O4
$1,593
$2,681
$1,250
$4,556
$31,200
$27,195
$9,880
$7,800
$25,000
$16,677
$479
$1,435
$589
$9,1OO
$24.336
$5,928
$23.530
$884
$3.380
$4,056
$10.556
$7,670
$240,874
65% DRY
35% WET
$4,017
$484
$445
$749
$98
$231
$168
negligble
$21
$231
$20
$174
$2441
$165
$21
$0
$0
$990
$150
$151
$109
$535
$534
$242
$300
$644
$643
$107
$133
$226
$280
$1,330
$1,612
$4O3
$322
$65
$12
$8
$20
$6
$7
$110
$448
$495
l_ $1,O91
$66
$20
$22
$60
$1O
$48
$356
$10
$228
$158
$19
$7O3
$387
$604
$1,593
$2,689
$1,250
$4,553
$31,2OO
$27,195
$9,36O
$8,840
$25,OOO
$16,763
$444
$1,333
$547
$9,100
$24.336
$5,928
$23,530
$884
$3,380
$4,O56
$10,556
$7,670
$240.940
60% DRY/
40% WET
$3,891
$447
$4O6
$716
$90
$211
$164
negligble
$19
$231
$23
$174
$165
$21
$0
$0
$990
$150
$151
$109
$535
$534
$242
$300
$644
$643
$107
$133
$226
$280
$1,330
$1,612
$403
$322
$65
$12
$8
$20
$6
$7
$110
$448
$457
$1,OO7
$76
$20
$21
$64
$9
$47
$330
$1O
$261
$181
$22
$649
$357
$604
$1,593
$2,697
$1,250
$4,549
$31,200
$27,195
$8,84O
$1O,4OO
$25,OOO
$16,935
$41O
$1,230
$505
$9,1OO
$24,336
$5,928
$23,530
$884
$3,380
$4,056
$10.556
$7.670
$241,586
55% DRY
45% WET
$3,770
$410
$367
$685
$83
$191
$161
negligble
$17
$231
$25
$174
$165
$21
$0
$0
$990
$150
$151
$109
$535
$534
$242
$300
$644
$643
$1O7
$133
$226
$280
$1,33O
$1,612
$403
$322
$65
$12
$8
$20
$6
$7
$110
$448
$419
$923
$85
$21
$21
$67
$9
$47
$305
$11
$294
$203
$25
$594
$327
$604
$1,593
$2,705
$1,250
$4,546
$31 ,2OO
$27,195
$7,800
$11,440
$25,000
$16,935
$376
$1,128
$463
$9,1OO
$24,336
$5,928
$23,530
$884
$3,380
$4,056
$10,556
$7,670
$241 ,026
50% DRY
50% WET
$3,654
$373
$348
$653
$75
$181
$158
negligble
$16
$231
$28
$174
$165
$21
$0
$702
$0
$150
$151
$1O9
$535
$534
$242
$300
$644
$643
$107
$133
$226
$280
$1,33O
$1,612
$403
$322
$65
$12
$8
$20
$6
$7
$110
$448
$381
$839
$94
$21
$20
$71
$8
$46
$280
$11
$326
$226
$28
$54O
$298
$604
$1,593
$2,712
$1,250
$4,S43
$31,200
$27,195
$7,800
$12.480
$25,000
$17,106
$342
$1,025
$420
$9,10O
$24,336
$5,926
$23,530
$684
$3,380
$4,056
$10,556
$7,67O
$241 ,427
45% DRY
55% WET
$3,654
$373
S3O9
$653
$75
$161
$158
negligble
$15
$249
$31
$187
saaa
$165
$21
$0
$702
$0
$150
$151
$109
$535
$534
$242
$30O
$644
$643
$1O7
$133
$226
$280
$1,330
$1,612
$403
$322
$65
$12
$8
$20
$6
$7
$110
$448
$343
$756
$104
$22
$20
$75
$7
$46
$255
$11
$359
$248
$31
$486
$268
$604
$1,593
$2,720
$1,250
$4,539
$31,200
$27,195
$6,760
$14,040
$25,000
$17,192
$308
$923
$378
$9,100
$24,336
$5,928
$23,530
$884
$3,380
$4.056
$10,556
$7.670
$241 ,705
-------
Exhibit V.I f Continued")
MODEL CLEANING FACILITY PROFILE
Summary of Model Output
CLEANING EQUIPMENT
PRESSING EQUIPMENT
START-UP COSTS
(EQUIPMENT & SUPPLIES)
SUPPLIES
ADDITIONAL UrUJTIES
LABOR
HAZARDOUS WASTE
DISPOSAL
OPERATION & MANAGEMENT
TOTAL
SO— pound no— vent dry— to— diy machine with RC
maintenance
electricity
7.5- ton Refrigerated Chiller
maintenance
electricity
7 5-ton Integrated AeroCoolinq Unit
maintenance
electricity
18— pound top loading washing machine (domestic use)
electrtcty
18— pound front load tumble dryer (domestic use)
electncty
spotting board with steam gun
scrubbing board / industrial sink w/drainer (3x2x2 ft)
A HP
boiler 10 HP
20 HP
maintenance
air compressor (5HP)
vacuum pump unit (RP— 5)
utility presser with steam iron attachment
maintenance
pants topper
maintenance
legger with steam iron attachment
maintenance
3- way puff iron
maintenance
steam form finisher ("suael
maintenance
installation and nggng (electrical, gas, water, etc.)
lease hold improvements (const, decor, $ register, etc)
signage
initial inventory of supplies (hangers, bags, spot chems)
initial fill up of dry cleaning machine with perc
hazardous waste disposal start-up fees
baggng rack
scale kart
6 bu basket
8 bu basket
slick rails
8OO slot conveyer
perchlorethylene ($/gaj)
chargng detergent for the Dry Cleaning machine
fabric softener
ammonia
amyl acetate
general formula
moisture stock
neutral lubricant
oily type paint remover
peroxide
Vital Elements All Purpose Cleanser
Vital Elements Fabric Cleanser (100%)
Vital Elements Fabric Cleanser 1O%
standard carbon core fitters
double all carbon filters
bags
hangers
water and sewage
electricity (general)
gas / oil
front counter help
presser
Dry Cleaning spotter/cleaner
Wet Cleaning spotter
manager
payroll taxes & insurance
seperator water (gal/yr)
filter disposal
still bottoms and lint disposal
nsuranos (non— labor)
rent or building overhead
advertising
outside work
claims
office expenses
adminsitrative expenses
bank charges
miscellaneous
4O%DRY
6O% WET
$3,654
$373
$271
$653
$75
$141
$158
negligble
$13
$268
$33
$200
$418
$165
$21
$0
$702
$0
$150
$151
$1O9
$535
$534
$242
$300
$644
$643
$107
$133
$226
$280
$1,330
$1,612
$4O3
$322
$65
$12
$8
$20
$6
$7
$110
$448
$305
$672
$113
$23
$19
$78
$6
$45
$229
$11
$391
$271
$33
$432
$238
$6O4
$1,593
$2,728
$1,250
$4,536
$31,200
$27,195
$6,240
$15,080
$25,000
$17,278
$273
$820
$336
$9,100
$24,336
$5,928
$23,530
$884
$3,380
$4,056
$10,556
$7,670
$241,985
35% DRY
65% WET
$3,654
$373
$232
$653
$75
$120
$158
negjigble
$11
$287
$36
$213
$453
$165
$21
$0
$702
$O
$15O
$151
$109
$535
$534
$242
$3OO
$644
$643
$1O7
$133
$226
$280
$1,330
$1,612
$4O3
$322
$65
$12
$8
$20
$6
$7
$110
$448
$267
$588
$123
$23
$18
$82
$6
$45
$204
$12
$424
$293
$36
$378
$208
$6O4
$1,593
$2,736
$1,25O
$4,533
$31,2OO
$27,195
$5,2OO
$16,120
$25,OOO
$17,278
$239
$718
$294
$9,100
$24,336
$5,928
$23,530
$884
$3,380
$4,056
$10,556
$7,670
$241 ,658
30% DRY
70% WET
$3,654
$373
$213
$653
$75
$110
$158
negligble
$10
$3O6
$39
$226
$488
$165
$21
$0
$702
$0
$150
$151
$1O9
$535
$534
$242
$3OO
$644
$643
$107
$133
$226
$280
$1,33O
$1,612
$403
$322
$65
$12
$8
$20
$6
$7
$110
$448
$229
$5O4
$132
$24
$18
$85
$5
$44
$179
$12
$457
$316
$39
$324
$179
$6O4
$1,593
$2,744
$1,250
$4,530
$31 ,2OO
$27,195
$4,680
$17,680
$25,000
$17.450
$2OS
$615
$252
$9,1OO
$24,336
$5,928
$23,530
$884
$3,380
$4,056
$10,556
$7,670
$242,574
25% DRY
75% WET
$3,654
$373
$174
$653
$75
$90
$158
negligble
$8
$325
$41
$239
$523
$165
$21
$0
$702
$0
$150
$151
$1O9
$535
$534
$242
$300
$644
$643
$107
$133
$226
$280
$1,330
$1,612
$403
$322
$65
$12
$8
$20
$6
$7
$110
$448
$190
$420
$142
$24
$17
$89
$4
$44
$153
$12
$489
$339
$42
$270
$149
$6O4
$1,593
$2,752
$1,250
$4,526
$31,200
$27,195
$4,160
$18,720
$25,OOO
$17,535
$171
$513
$210
$9,100
$24,336
$5,928
$23,53O
$884
$3,3SO
$4,056
$10,556
$7,670
$242,853
20% DRY
80% WET
$3,654
$373
$135
$653
$75
$70
$158
negligble
$6
$343
$44
$253
$558
$165
$21
$0
$7O2
$0
$150
$151
$1O9
$535
$534
$242
$300
$644
$643
$107
$133
$226
$280
$1,33O
$1,612
$403
$322
$65
$12
$8
$20
$6
$7
$110
$448
' $152
$336
$151
$25
$16
$92
$3
$43
$128
$12
$522
$361
$45
$216
$119
$6O4
$1,593
$2,760
$1.250
$4,523
$31,2OO
$27,195
$3,120
$20,280
$25,000
$17,621
$137
$410
$168
$9,100
$24,336
$5,928
$23,530
$884
$3,380
$4,O56
$10,556
$7,670
$243,132
15% DRY
85% WET
$3,654
$373
$116
$653
$75
$60
$158
negligble
$5
$362
$46
$266
$593
$165
$21
$0
$702
$0
$150
$151
$109
$535
$534
$242
$300
$644
$543
$107
$133
$226
$280
$1.330
$1,612
$403
$322
$65
$12
$8
$20
$6
$7
$110
$448
$114
$252
$161
$26
$16
$96J
$2
$42 I
$103!
$13
$555
$384
$47
$162
$89 j
$604
$1.5931
$2,768
$1,250
$4,520
$31,200
S27,195
$3,120
$21,320
$25,000
$17,793
$103
$308
$126
$9,100
$24,336
$5,928
$23,530
$884
$3,380
$4,056
$10,556
$7,670
$244,048
-------
Exhibit V.I (Continued)
MODEL CLEANING FACILITY PROFILE
Summary of Model Output
CLEANING EQUIPMENT
PRESSING EQUIPMENT
START-UP COSTS
(EQUIPMENT & SUPPLIES)
SUPPLIES
ADDITIONAL UTILITIES
LAFJOR
HAZARDOUS WASTE
DISPOSAL
OPERATION & MANAGEMENT
TOTAL
SO-pouna no-vent dry-to-diy machine with RC
maintenance
electricity
7 5- ton Refrigerated Chiller
maintenance
electricity
7 5-ton Integrated AeroCooling Unit
maintenance
electricity
18-pound top loading washing machine (domestic use)
electncty
18— pound front load tumble dryer (dci.iesttc use)
electncty
spotting board with steam gun
scrubbing board / industrial sink w/drainer (3x2x2 ft)
4 HP
boiler 10 HP
20 HP
maintenance
air compressor (5HP)
vacuum pump unit (RP— 5)
utility presser with steam iron attachment
maintenance
pants topper
maintenance
legger with steam iron attachment
maintenance
3— way puff iron
maintenance
steam form finisher ("suae")
maintenance
installation and riggng (electrical, gas, water, etc )
lease hold improvements (const, decor, $ register, etc)
signage
initial inventory of supplies (hangers, bags, spot chems)
initial fill up of dry cleaning machine with perc
hazardous waste disposal start— up fees
baggng rack
scale kart
6 bu basket
8 bu basket
slick rails
8OO slot conveyer
perchlorethylene ($/gal)
chargng detergent for the Dry Cleaning machine
fabric softener
ammonia
amyl acetate
general formula
moisture stock
neutral lubricant
oily type paint remover
peroxide
Vital Elements All Purpose Cleanser
Vital Elements Fabric Cleanser (1OO%)
Vital Elements Fabric Cleanser 10%
standard carbon core filters
double all carbon fillers
bags
hangers
water and sewage
electricity (general)
gas / oil
front counter help
presser
Dry Cleaning spotter/cleaner
Wet Cleaning spotter
manager
payroll taxes & insurance
seperator water (gal/yr)
filter disposal
still bottoms and lint disposal
insurance (non- labor)
rent or building overhead
advertising
outside work
claims
office expenses
adminsrtrative expenses
bank charges
miscellaneous
10% DRY
90% WET
$3,654
$373
$77
$653
$75
$40
$158
negligble
$4
$381
$49
$279
$627
$165
$21
$0
$702
$0
$150
$151
$1O9
$535
$534
$242
$300
$644
$643
$107
$133
$226
$280
$1,33O
$1,612
$403
$322
$65
$12
$8
$20
$6
$7
$11O
$448
$76
$168
$170
$26
$15
$100
$2
$42
$77
$13
$587
$406
$50
$1O8
$60
$6O4
$1,593
$2,776
$1,250
$4,516
$31,200
$27,195
$2,080
$22,360
$25,OOO
$17,793
$68
$205
$84
$9,1OO
$24,336
$5,928
$23,530
$884
$3,380
$4,O56
$10,556
$7,670
$243,722
5% DRY
95% WET
$3,654
$373
$39
$653
$75
$20
$158
negligfcle
$2
$400
$51
$293
$662
$165
421
$0
$702
$0
$150
$151
$109
$535
$534
$242
$300
$644
$643
$107
$133
$226
$280
$1,330
$1,612
$403
$322
$65
$12
$8
$20
$6
$7
$11O
$448
$38
$84
$179
$27
$15
$1O3
$1
$41
$52
$13
$620
$429
$53
$54
$30
$604
$1,593
$2,784
$1,250
$4,513
$31,200
$27,195
$1,56O
$23,920
$25,000
$17,964
$34
$103
$42
$9.1OO
$24,336
$5,928
$23,530
$884
$3,380
$4,056
$10.556
$7,670
$244,607
100% WET
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$419
$54
$306
$697
$165
$21
$620
$0
$0
$150
$151
$109
$535
$534
$242
$300
$644
$643
$107
$133
$226
$280
$1,330
$1,612
$4O3
$322
$0
$0
$8
$0
$b
$7
$11O
$448
$0
$0
$189
$27
$14
$107
$0
$41
$27
$13
$652
$451
$56
$0
$0
$6O4
$1,593
$2,792
$1,250
$4,510
$31,200
$27,195
$0
$24,960
$25,000
$17,879
$0
$0
$0
$9,100
$24.336
S5.928
$23,530
$884
$3,380
$4,056
$10,556
$7,670
$238,583
REFERENCE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
SO
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
' 61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
BO
81
82
-------
Exhibit V.2
MODEL CLEANING FACILITY PROFILE
Baseline Scenario: 100% Dry Cleaning
CLEANING EQUIPMENT
$9,883 = Total
PRESSING EQUIPMENT
$3,645 = Total
START-UP COSTS
(EQUIPMENT * SUPPLIES)
$4342 = Total
SUPPLIES
$7,000 = Total
ADDITIONAL UTaJTIES
$M32 = Total
LABOR
$1)3,312 =Total
HAZARDOUS WASTE
DISPOSAL
$2,734 = Total
OPERATION * MANAGEMENT
J89.440 = Total
TOTAL
SO- pound no-vent Ay-to—dry machno wflh RC
mantanance
electricity
7 5-ton Refrigerated Chiller
mantananee
electricity
7 5-ton Integrated AeroCooIng Unit
mantananca
electricity
18- pound top toadng washng machne (domastic use)
ektcfrety
18- pound front toad tumbla *yer (domastic usa)
alactricty
spottng board wilh steam gun
scrubbng board / ndustrial snk w/draner (3x2x2 ft)
4 HP
boiler 10 HP
20 HP
mantenance
ar comprassor (5HP)
vacuum pump unit (RP-5)
utility pressar with steam ron attachment
maintenance
pants topper
maintenance
logger with steam ron attachment
maintenance
3-way pufl ton
mantenance
steam form finisher ("surie")
mantanance
nstallation and riggng (electrical, gas, water, etc )
lease hold improvements (const, decor, $ register, etc)
wgnage
nitial rtventory of supplies (hangars, bags, spot chem?)
nitial fill up of dry cleanng machne with pare
hazardous waste disposal start-up fees
baggngrack
scale kart
6 bu basket
8 bu basket
slick rails
800 slot conveyer
perchtorelhylene (Vgal)
chargng detergent for the Dry Cleanng machne
abric softener
ammonia
amyl acetats
general formula
moisture stock
neutral lubricant
oily type pant remover
peroxide
Vital Elements All Purpose Cleanser
Vital Elements Fabric Cleanser (100%)
Vital Elements Fabric Cleanser 10%
standard carbon core fitters
double all carbon filters
bags
lanqers
water and sewage
electricity (general)
gas /oil
ront counter help
presser
Dry Cleanng spotter/cleaner
Wet Cleanng spotter
manager
payroll taxes & nsurance
operator water (gal/yr)
Her disposal
still bottoms and Int disposal
nsurance (non- labor)
ant or buildng overhead
aoVertisng
outside work
laims
office expenses
admnsrtratrve expenses
bank charges
miscellaneous
QUANTITY
100
173 5781 kwhr/wk
100
180 1800 kwhr/wk
1 00
163800 kwhr/wk
000
0 0000 kwhr/wk
000
00000 kwhr/wk
100
000
000
000
1 00
1 00
100
100
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
100
1 00
100
100
15475 gal
100
1 00
1 00
100
1 00
1 00
1 00
14658 gal/yr
39 38 fl oz/day
0 00 sheets/dy
0 009457 gal/day
0 005099 gal/day
0 002920 gal/day
0003617 gal/day
0011896 gal/day
0 097883 gal/day
0 004707 gal/day
0 000000 gal/day
0 000000 gal/day
0 000000 gal/day
61 50 filters/yr
20 50 filters/yr
9,06500 bags/yr
36.26000 hangers/yr
10022901 frVyr
12000 hrs/wk
36,26000 G/yr
27 hrs/wk
0 hrs/wk
1 00
13000 gal/yr
82 00 filters/yr
06150 gal/day
UNIT COST
45,348.88
0 0750 V kwhr
8,921 34
0 0750 V kwhr
2.10000
0 0750 V kwhr
36645
0 0750 V kwhr
34545
0 0750 $/ kwhr
1,506.75
26250
6,147 75
6,96360
9,817 50
1,37445
99330
4.87725
2,20500
5,86950
97755
2,05800
16,500 00
20,00000
5,00000
4.00000
5 20 Vgal
14600
10395
24465
7665
8505
1.36500
5.55975
520 Vgal
2100 $/gal
0 04 $/sheet
628 Vgal
1990 Vgal
4620 Vgal
1675 Vgal
1675 Vgal
2095 Vgal
670 Vgal
6300 S/gal
71 40 Vgal
643 Vgal
1757 Vfflter
2903 Vfitter
00666 Vbag
0 0439 Vhanger
262 VlOOfr"
00750 Vkwhr
500 Vhr
075 VG
1000 Vhr
1000 Vhr
25,00000 Vyear
1850 %labor$s
526 Vgal
2500 Vfiltar
526 Vqal
ANNUAL COST
$4,979
$745
$677
$985
$150
$351
$198
negligible
$32
$0
$0
$0
$0
$166
$0
So
$0
$990
$150
$151
$109
$535
$534
$242
$300
$644
$643
$107
$133
$226
$280
$1,330
$1,612
$403
$322
$65
$12
$8
$20
$6
$7
$110
$448
$762
$1,679
$0
$15
$26
$35
$16
$52
$533
$8
$0
$0
$0
$1,081
$595
$604
$1,593
$2,626
$1,250
$4,576
$31,200
$27,195
$14,040
$0
$25.000
$16.077
$684
$2,050
$841
$9,100
$24,336
$5,928
$23,530
$884
$3.380
$4,056
$10,556
$7,670
$239.649
EQUIPMENT
LIFETIME
1500
1000
2000
600
800
1500
3000
1750
1750
1750
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
REFERENCE
1
2
3
t
5
6
',
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
sa
59
60
61
62
63
64
as
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
60
61
82
-------
Exhibit V.2 rCoatinuedl
MODEL CLEANING FACILITY PROFILE
50% Dry Cleaning / 50% Wet Cleaning
CLEANING EQUIPMENT
(7.53* - Total
PRESSING EQUIPMENT
$3X3 = Total
START-UP COSTS
(EQUIPMENT * SUPPLIES)
$4,342 = Total
SUPPLIES
ISM1 = Total
ADDITIONAL UTILmES
$1.503 = Total
LABOR
$120,711 'Total
HAZARDOUS WASTE
DISPOSAL
tljtl = Total
OPERATION * MANAGEMENT
M9.440 - Total
TOTAL
SO- pound no-rant dry-to-dry machna w*i RC
•TMinMfuncw
eex»te»y
7.5-ton Refrigerated CMkar
maMsnanca
etocwefty
7.5-ton Integrated AaroCooHng Unt
mantonance
elect-lclty
It-pound top tearing washing mechho (domestic uta)
ehcWev
18-pound Iront load timMe dryer (domMtie use)
•tocffcty
tpotbng board w«h steam gun
scrubbkig board / hdusMal »lnk w/drainar (3x2x2 ft)
4 HP
boiler 10 HP
20 HP
mantenance
air compressor (5HP)
vacuum pump unit (RP-5)
uWty presser with steam Iron attachment
mahtenance
pants topper
mantananea
logger with steam Iron attachment
maintenance
3-wey putt Iron
mejntenanee
•team form finisher fsuzie*)
maintan«nc«
installation and rigghg (eleclrical. gat. water, Me )
lease hold Improvements (coral, decor, $ register, ate)
•ign.ge
nMal Invantory ol tuppllw (hangare. bag<, spot crwra)
InltW fW up of dry etowlng machkn w«h pwc
haurdou* wart* dbposal Mart-up tan
bagging rack
•catokart
ebutwk*
ebubaikvt
tlickra*
800 slot comoyar
^archkvtthvlarra (Vgal)
charging dstargant tor the Dry Cleanng machiw
fabric softsnw
ammonia
amyl acetate
general formula
moisture stock
neutral lubricant
oily type paint remover
peroxide
Vital Elements AH Purpose Cleanser
Vital dements Fabric Cleanser (100%)
Vital Elements Fabric deanser,1o%
standard carbon core filters
double an carbon filters
bags
hangers
water and sewage
electricity (general)
g«/oll
front counter help
presser
Dry Cleanng spotter/cleaner
Wet Cleanng spotter
manager
payroll taxes & naurance
separator water (gaVyr)
rater disposal
SIM bottoms and Itit disposal
insurance (non - labor)
rent or buHdhg overhead
advartMng
outside work
claims
office expanses
aoMraJfaUve expanses
bank charges
nlBcsnUnaous
QUANTITY
1.00
aueaa kwnr/wx
1.00
02.8MO kwhr/WX
1.00
8.4240 kwhr/wk
3.00
72480 kwnr/wk
3.00
89.3824 kwhr/wk
1.00
1.00
000
100
0.00
1.00
1.00
100
1.00
1.00
1.00
100
100
1.00
1.00
100
15475 gal
100
1 00
100
100
1 00
1.00
100
7329 gat/yr
1908 noz/day
854 sheets/dy
0013118 gal/day
0003901 gaVday
0005905 gaVday
0001809 gaVday
0 010634 gal/day
0051382 gaVday
0008210 gal/day
0019917 gal/day
0012159 gal/day
0018870 gal/day
3075 tilters/yr
1025 Alters/yr
9.08500 bags/yr
36.26000 hangsrs/yr
103529 98 frVyr
12000 hrs/wx
38.28000 Q/yr
15 hrs/wX
24 hrs/wX
1.00
6500 gal/yr
4100 filters/yr
0 3075 aaVday
UNIT COST
45,348.88
0.0750 Vkwhr
6,921 34
0.0750 Vkwhr
2,100.00
0.0750 S/kwhr
38645
0.07SO Vlmhr
345.45
0.0750 Vkwhr
1,508.75
282.50
6,147 75
6,98380
9,817.50
1,374 45
99330
4.877.25
2.205.00
5,889.50
977.55
2,05800
18,500.00
20,000.00
5,000.00
4,00000
520 Vgal
146.00
10395
24465
7665
85.05
1.36600
5,55975
5.20 $/gal
2100 $/gal
0.04 $/sheet
628 $/gal
1990 $/gal
40.20 Vgal
1675 J/gal
16.75 VgeJ
2095 $/gal
670 J/gal
6300 VgaJ
7140 $/gal
643 Vgal
1757 S/nner
29.03 VMter
00888 $/bag
00439 $/hanoer
2.62 1/100 ft"
00750 tfcwhr
500 $/hr
075 VG
1000 JAr
1000 $/hr
25,00000 J/year
18.50 «labor$e
526 Vgel
25.00 Milter
528 Vgal
ANNUAL COST
$3,854
$373
$348
$853
$75
$181
$158
negligible
$16
$231
$28
$174
$349
$185
$21
$0
$702
$0
$150
$151
$109
$535
$534
$242
$300
$844
$843
$107
$133
$226
$280
$1,330
$1,612
$403
$322
$65
$12
$8
$20
$6
$7
$110
$448
$381
$839
$94
$21
$20
$71
$6
$48
$280
$11
$326
$226
$28
$540
$298
$604
$1,5*3
$2,712
$1.250
$4,543
$31,200
$27,195
$7,800
$12,480
$25.000
$17,108
$342
$1,025
$420
$8,100
$24.336
$5,928
$23.530
$884
$3,380
$4,056
$10,558
$7,870
$241,427
EQUIPMENT
UFET04E
30.00
20.00
4000
6.00
8.00
15.00
30.00
17.50
1750
1750
15.00
15.00
1500
15.00
15.00
1500
15.00
30.00
3000
3000
30.00
3000
UO.OO
30.00
3000
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
REFGXENCE
1
2
3
4
5
8
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
4«
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
58
57
58
59
80
61
62
83
64
86
86
87
68
89
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
61
82
-------
Exhibit V.2 fContianodh
MODEL CLEANING FACILITY PROFILE
100% Wet Cleaning
CLEANING EQUIPMENT
$3.14O « Total
PRESSING EQUIPMENT
$3,645 = Total
START-UP COSTS
(EQUIPMENT * SUPPLIES)
*4.24« - Total
SUPPLIES
J3.775 = Total
ADDmONAL UnLmES
$8.551 = Total
LABOR
tl2>.234 =Total
HAZARDOUS WASTE
DISPOSAL
$0 = Total
OPERATION A MANAGEMENT
$19.440 = Total
TOTAL
50-pound no-vent dry-to-dry machne wSh RC
mantenanoa
etocfficHy
7 5-ton Refrigerated ChlHer
mahtenanca
electricity
7 5-ton Integrated AeroCoofng Unit
mantanance
elect/icily
16-pound top kttdng washng machne (domestic use)
elect-Ely
18-pound front load tumble dryar (domestic u
-------
APPENDIX VI
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
Exhibit VI. 1 Modifications to Model for Sensitivity Analysis
Exhibit VI. 2 Model Cleaning Sensitivity Profile
Exhibit VI. 3 Model Cleaning Sensitivity Summary Results
-------
VI. 1 Modifications to Model for Sensitivity Analysis
The details of the model changes are outlined by line number below. Due to limited time and
resources, it was not possible to consult multiple sources to provide price and electrical
consumption estimates for the equipment changes in this modified version of the model.
Further, modifications in the model that would have resulted in negligible changes in the output
(e.g., changing the volume of PCE required for the dry cleaning machine's initial fill up) were
not carried out.
1 DRY CLEANING MACHINE PRICE
The mixed mode facility will choose the least expensive (i.e., smallest) dry cleaning
machine that is capable of cleaning the facilities' dry cleaning throughput in no more than
6 hours of machine time per day. Two other common sizes of dry cleaning machines,
28 and 35 pound capacities, were chosen to provide alternatives to the 50 pound machine
used in the original analysis. The time required to run a full dry cleaning machine cycle,
as mentioned previously, varies depending on what type of clean cycle is chosen. The
average times for the cycles reported here were provided by the manufacturers.
28-pound BOEWE/PASSAT Permac P528, a 281b Dry-to-Dry (D-t-D) no-vent
machine with a refrigerated condenser (RC), still, and spin disk filters;
List Price, $39,325; with a 15-18% discount, Purchase Price, (at 16.5%)
$32,836.38; sales tax of 5% is added to the price. Run time
approximately 35 minutes per cycle (Barry Cannon, BOEWE/PASSAT
Permac).
35-pound VIC 1235FS, a 35-lb D-t-D, no-vent machine with a RC, still, and
cartridge or spin disk filters; List Price, $41,400; with a 10-15 % discount,
Purchase Price, (at 12.5 %) $36,225; sales tax of 5 % is added to the price.
Run time approximately 40 minutes per cycle (Bob Engstrom, VIC).
50-pound see Appendix IV, line 1 for price information; run time approximately 45
minutes per cycle.
As was done in the original analysis, it is assumed that the dry cleaning machine is only
used at 90% of its capacity. Based on this information, the dry cleaning machine run
time per week is calculated following the same method illustrated in Appendix IV. The
calculations indicate that the 28-pound machine would be purchased by mixed mode
facilities that preform 80% or less dry cleaning, and the 35-pound machine would be
purchased by mixed mode facilities that do more than 80% but less than 95% dry
cleaning. The only mixed mode facility that needs to purchase a 50-pound machine is
one that does 95% dry cleaning and 5 % wet cleaning.
2 DRY CLEANING MACHINE MAINTENANCE
As described in Appendix IV, information on maintenance costs for dry cleaning
-------
machines was difficult to obtain. Without further information on which to base a
judgement, it is assumed that the maintenance costs will not change from the original
analysis.
DRY CLEANING MACHINE ELECTRICITY
The typical running electric load for the two alternative dry cleaning machines was
provided by the manufactures:
28-pound BOEWE PASSAT/Pcrmcc Model P528: 21 amps at 220 volts.
35-pound VIC Model 1235FS 31 amps at 220 volts.
The calculations of electrical consumption are identical to those outlined in Appendix IV.
line 3.
REFRIGERATED CHILLER
According to Chris King of Clean Rite, both the 2* and 35 pound machines would
require only a 5-ton chiller. The list price for a chiller of this size (Clean Rite model
WC-5-TS-VIP) is $5790; Purchase Price. S5211. Sales tax of 5
-------
9 AEROCOOLING UNIT ELECTRICITY
The typical running electric load for a 5-ton unit is 2.2 amps at 208 volts (Chris King,
Clean Rite). The electrical consumption is calculated as shown in Appendix IV, line 9.
57-58 DRY CLEANING MACHINE FILTERS
Smaller dry cleaning machines operate with fewer filters, thus the estimate of the costs
associated with purchasing new filters and disposing of spent filters must be modified.
According to John Stephens of Standard Pressing Machine Company Inc, the 35-lb VIC
1235FS dry cleaning machine has the following filter configuration: 2 cartridge canisters,
each containing 4 standard carbon core filters, and 1 double all carbon filter. In total,
the machine operates with 9 filters (8 carbon core and 1 double all carbon), 5 fewer than
the 50-pound's 14 filters. The cost and longevity of each individual filter, however, is
identical in either machine.
Carbon Core: ($ 17.57/C-core filter) x (4 C-core filters/cartridge) x
(1 cartridges/machine) = $70.28 for C-core cartridges per machine
Double All Carbon: ($29.03/double all.carbon filter) x(l double all carbon filters/machine) =
$29.03 for double all carbon filters per machine
Cost of Filter Replacement:
$70.28/C-core cartridges + $29.03/double all carbon filters =
$99.31/replacement
Frequency of Filter Replacement:
($260,000/yr)x(G/$7.17)x(l kg/G)x(2.205 Ib/kg) / (1300 Ibs/filter x 4 filters/cartridge) =
15.37 replacements/yr
(15.38 replacements/year) x($99.31/replacement) = $1527.38/yr
The 28-pound dry cleaning machine for which information was available (the BOEWE
PASSAT/Permac P528) was designed to use a regenerative spin disc filter system instead
of cartridge filters. In the absence of any information about the filter configuration of
a 28-pound machine, it was assumed that such a machine would use the same number
and type of filters as the 35-pound machine described above.
71 FILTER DISPOSAL
The cost of filter disposal will be effected only by changing the number of filters that
need to be disposed. The formula for calculating the cost is identical to that described
in Appendix IV, line 71.
-------
Exhibit VI.2
MODEL CLEANING FACILITY PROFILE SENSITIVITY
50% Dry Cleaning 150% Wet Cleaning
CLEANING EQUIPMENT
$e.5oe = Total
PRESSING EQUIPMENT
$3.645 = Total
STAKF-UP COSTS
(EQUIPMENT * SUPPLIES )
$4,342 = Total
SUPPLIES
$5,313 = Total
ADDmONAL UTILITIES
J8J05 = Total
LABOR
$120.176 =Total
HAZARDOUS WASTE
DISPOSAL
$1303 = Total
OPERATION « MANAGEMENT
$89,440 = Total
TOTAL
28-pound no-vent dry-to-dry machine with RC
mantananca
•lectrcity
7 5-ton Refrigerated Chiller
mantananca
electricity
7 5-ton Intagratad AeroCoolhg Unit
mantananca
alactriclty
18- pound top toadng wasting machna (domestic u»a)
•letfrety
18-pound front load tumble dryar (domestic UM)
elect icty
spottng board with steam gun
scrubbng board / ndustrial shk w/draner (3x2x2 ft)
4 HP
boiler 10 HP
20 HP
mantananca
ar compressor (5HP)
vacuum pump unit (RP-5)
utility presser with steam ton attachment
mantanance
pants toppar
mantananca
laggar wnh steam ron attachment
mantananca
3-way puff ron
mantanance
staam form fnishar ("suzie")
mantenance
nstallation and riggng (eleclrical. gas, water, etc )
lease hold improvements (const, decor, $ register, etc)
signage
nrtial nventory of supplies (hangers, bags, spot chems)
nitial fill up of dry claanng machne with perc
hazardous waste disposal start-up fees
baggngreck
scale kart
6 bu basket
8 bu basket
slick rails
BOO slot conveyer
perchtorethylene ($/gal)
chargng detergent tor the Dry Cleanng machne
fabric softener
ammonia
amyl acetate
general formula
moisture stock
neutral lubricant
olty type paint remover
peroxide
Vital Elements All Purpose Cleanser
Vital Elements Fabric Cleanser (100%)
Vital Elements Fabric Cleanser 10%
standard carbon core filters
double all carbon filters
bags
hangers
water and sewage
electricity (general)
gas /oil
front counter help
presser
Dry Cleanng spotter/cleaner
Wet Cleanng spotter
manager
payroll taxes & nsurance
seperator water (gal/yr)
filter disposal
still bottoms and Int disposal
nsurance (non- labor)
rent or bulking overhead
advertisng
outside work
claims
office expenses
admnsilratrve expenses
bank charge*
miscellaneous
QUANTITY
1.00
83 5450 kwhr/wk
100
90.2720 kwhr/wk
100
82749 kwhr/wk
300
7 2480 kwhr/wk
300
89.3824 kwhr/wk
100
1,00
0.00
1.00
000
100
1.00
too
100
1 00
100
100
100
1 00
100
100
15475 gal
1 00
100
1 00
1 00
1 00
1.00
100
73 29 gal/yr
1968 floz/day
854 sheets/dy
0013118 gal/day
0 003901 gal/day
0 005905 gal/day
0 001 809 gal/day
0010634 gal/day
0 061 382 gal/day
0006210 gal/day
0019917 gal/day
0012159 gal/day
0016670 gal/day
30 75 filters/yr
7 69 filters/yr
906500 bags/yr
36.26000 hanqers/yr
10352998 ffVyr
12000 hrs/wk
36.26000 G/yr
14 his/wk
24 hrs/wk
1 00
6500 gal/yr
38 44 tilters/yr
0 3075 qal/day
UNIT COST
34,478.20
00750 $/kwhr
5,67999
0 0750 $/ kwhr
1,942.50
00750 Vkwhr
36645
0 0750 $/ kwhr
34545
0 0750 $/ kwhr
1,50875
26250
6,147 75
6,963.60
9,817 50
1.37445
99330
4,877 25
2,20500
5,86950
97755
2,05800
16,500 00
20.00000
5,00000
4,00000
520 S/gal
146.00
10395
24465
7665
8505
1,36500
5,55975
520 $/gal
21 00 $/gal
004 S/sheet
6 28 S/gal
1990 $/gal
46 20 S/gal
1675 $/gal
1675 $/gal
2095 S/gal
6 70 $/gal
6300 S/gal
71 40 S/gal
643 S/gal
1757 S/filter
2903 S/filter
00666 S/bag
0 0439 S/hanger
262 S/IOOfP
00750 $/kwhr
500 S/hr
075 S/G
1000 $Aw
1000 $/hr
25.000 00 S/year
1650 %labor$s
526 S/gal
2500 S/filter
526 S/gal
ANNUAL COST
$2.778
$373
$328
$536
$75
$176
S146
negligible
S16
$231
$28
$174
$349
$165
$21
$0
$702
$0
$150
$151
$109
$535
$534
$242
$300
$644
$843
$107
$133
$226
$280
$1,330
$1,612
$403
$322
$65
$12
$8
$20
$6
$7
$110
$448
$381
$839
$94
$21
$20
$71
$8
$46
$280
$11
$326
$226
$28
$540
$223
$604
$1.593
$2,712
$1,250
$4.543
$31,200
$27,195
$7,280
$12,480
$25,000
$17.021
$342
$961
$420
$9,100
$24,336
$5.928
$23,530
$884
$3,380
$4,056
$10,556
$7,670
$239,650
EQUIPMENT
LIFETIME
30.00
20.00
4000
600
800
1500
3000
1750
1750
1750
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
30.00
3000
3000
3000
3000
REFERENCE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
-------
Exhibit VI.3
MODEL CLEANING FACILITY PROFILE
Summary of Model Output
(LEANING EQUIPMENT
PRESSING EQUIPMENT
STAKt-UP COSTS
(EQUIPMENT A SUPPLIES)
SUPPLIES
ADDITIONAL UnLTTIES
LABOR
HAZARDOUS WASTE
DISPOSAL
OPERATION & MANAGEMENT
TOTAL
SO— Dound no— vent dry— to— dry machine with RC
maintenance
electricity
7.5-ton Refrigerated Chiller
maintenance
electricity
7.5-ton Integrated AeroCooling Unit
maintenance
electricity
1 8-pound top loading washing machine (domestic use)
electncty
18-pound front load tumble dryer (domestic use)
electncty
spotting board with steam gun
scrubbing board / industrial sink w/drainer (3x2x2 ft)
4 HP
boiler 1O HP
20 HP
maintenance
air compressor (5HP)
vacuum pump unit (RP-5)
utility presserwith steam iron attachment
maintenance
pants topper
maintenance
legger with steam iron attachment
maintenance
3— way puff iron
maintenance
steam form finisher ("suae")
maintenance
installation and nggng (electrical, gas, water, etc.)
lease hold improvements (const, decor, $ register, etc)
signage
initial inventory of supplies (hangers, bags, spot chems)
initial fill up of dry cleaning machine with perc
hazardous waste disposal start— up fees
baggng rack
scale kart
6 bu basket
8 bu basket
slick rails
BOO slot conveyer
perchlorethylene ($/gal)
chargng detergent for the Dry Cleaning machine
fabric softener
ammonia
amyl acetate
general formula
moisture stock
neutral lubricant
oily type paint remover
peroxide
Vital Elements All Purpose Cleanser
Vital Elements Fabric Cleanser (10O%)
Vital Elements Fabric Cleanser 1O%
standard carbon core filters
double all carbon filters
bags
hangers
water and sewage
electricity (general)
gas / oil
front counter help
presser
Dry Cleaning spotter/cleaner
Wet Cleaning spotter
manager
payroll taxes & insurance
separator water (gal/yr)
filter disposal
still bottoms and lint disposal
nsurance (non— labor)
rent or building overhead
advertising
outside work
claims
office expenses
admmsitrative expenses
bank charges
miscellaneous
1OO% DRY
$4,979
$745
$677
$965
$150
$351
$198
negligble
$32
$0
$0
to
$0
$165
$0
$0
$0
$990
$150
$151
$109
$535
$534
$242
$3OO
$644
$643
$107
$133
$226
$280
$1,330
$1,612
$403
$322
$65
$12
$8
$20
$6
$7
$110
$448
$762
$1,679
$0
$15
$26
$35
$16
$52
$533
$8
$0
SO
$0
$1,081
$595
$6O4
$1,593
$2,626
$1,250
$4,576
$31,200
$27,195
$14,040
$0
$25,000
$16,077
$684
$2,O50
$841
$9.100
$24,336
$5.928
$23,530
$884
$3,380
$4,056
$10.556
$7.670
$239,649
95% DRY
5% WET
$4,836
$708
$638
$951
$143
$331
$194
negligble
$22
$231
$5
$174
$35
$165
$21
$0
$0
$990
$150
$151
$1O9
$535
$534
$242
$300
$644
$643
$1O7
$133
$226
$28O
$1,33O
$1,612
$403
$322
$65
$12
$8
$20
$6
$7
$11O
$448
$724
$1.595
$9
$16
$26
$39
$15
$51
$508
$8
$33
$23
$3
$1,027
$565
$6O4
$1,593
$2.641
$1,250
$4,573
$31 ,2OO
$27.195
$13,520
$1,560
$25.0OO
$16,248
$649
$1,948
$799
$9.100
$24,336
$5,928
$23,530
$884
$3,380
$4,056
$10,556
$7,670
$240,702
80% DRY
10% WET
$3,937
$671
$705
$752
$135
$286
$175
negligble
$26
$231
$8
$174
$70
$165
$21
$0
$0
$990
$150
$151
$1O9
$535
$534
$242
$300
$644
$643
$107
$133
$226
$280
$1,33O
$1,612
$4O3
$322
$65
$12
$8
$20
$6
$7
$11O
$448
$686
$',511
$19
$17
$25
$42
$14
$51
$482
$9
$65
$45
$6
$973
$402
$604
$1.593
$2,649
$1,250
$4,569
$31,200
$27,195
$12,480
$2,600
$25,000
$16,248
$615
$1,73O
$757
$9,100
$24,336
$5,928
$23.530
$884
$3.380
$4,056
$10,556
$7.670
$239,019
85% DRY
15% WET
$3,82O
$633
$673
$724
$128
$273
$171
negligble
$25
$231
$10
$174
$105
$165
$21
$0
$0
$99O
$150
$151
$109
$535
$534
$242
$30O
$644
$643
$107
$133
$226
$280
$1,33O
$1,612
$403
$322
$65
$12
$8
$20
$6
$7
$11O
$448
$648
$1 ,427
$28
$17
$25
$46
$13
$5O
$457
$9
$98
$68
Ł8
$919
$379
$604
$1,593
$2,657
$1,25O
$4,566
$31,200
$27,195
$11,96O
$4,16O
$25,OOO
$16,420
$581
$1,634
$715
$9,100
$24.336
$5.928
$23.530
$884
$3,380
$4,O56
$10,556
$7,670
$239,706
80% DRY
2O% WET
$3,358
$596
$515
$697
$120
$278
$167
negligble
$26
$231
$13
$174
$139
$165
$21
$0
SO
$990
$150
$151
$109
$535
$534
$242
$30O
$644
$643
$107
$133
$226
$280
$1,330
$1,612
$403
$.**??
$65
$12
$8
$20
$6
$7
$110
$448
$609
$1,343
$38
$18
$24
$49
$13
$50
$432
$9
$130
$90
$11
$865
$357
$6O4
$1,593
$2,665
$1,250
$4,563
$31,200
$27.195
$11.440
$5.20O
$25,OOO
$16,506
$547
$1,538
$673
$9,100
$24.336
$5,928
$23,530
$884
$3,380
$4,O56
$10,556
$7,670
$239,338
75% DRY
25% WET
$3,254
$559
$483
$669
$113
$261
$163
negligble
$24
$231
$15
$174
$174
$165
$21
$0
$0
$99O
$150
$151
$109
$535
$534
$242
$300
$644
$643
$107
$133
$226
$28O
$1,330
$1,612
$403
$322
$65
$12
$8
$20
$6
$7
$110
$448
$571
$1,259
$47
$18
$23
$53
$12
$49
$406
$10
$163
$113
$14
$811
$335
$604
$1,593
$2.673
$1.250
$4.559
$31,20O
$27,195
$10,400
$6.240
$25,000
$16,506
$513
$1,441
$631
$9.10O
$24,336
$5.928
$23,53O
$884
$3.38O
$4,056
$10.556
$7,670
$238.824
-------
Exhibit VI.3 (Continued)
MODEL CLEANING FACILITY PROFILE
Summary of Model Output
CLEANING EQUIPMENT
PRESSING EQUIPMENT
STARt-VP COSTS
(EQUIPMENT & SUPPLIES)
SUPPLIES
ADDITIONAL UTILITIES
LABOR
HAZARDOUS WASTE
| DISPOSAL
OPERATION & MANAGEMENT
L _
[| TOTAL
50-pound no— vent dry— to— diy machine with RC
maintenance
electricity
7.5-ton Refrigerated Chiller
maintenance
electricity
7.5-ton Integrated AeroCooling Unit
maintenance
electricity
18-pound top loading washing machine (domestic use)
electncty^
1 8-pound front load tumble dryer (domestic use)
electrictv
spotting board with steam gun
scrubbing Board / Industrial sink w/drainer (3x2x2 ft)
4 HP
boiler 10 HP
20 HP
maintenance
air compressor (5HP)
vacuum pump unit (RP-5)
utility presser with steam iron attachment
maintenance
pants topper
maintenance
leggerwith steam Iron attachment
maintenance
3-way puff iron
maintenance
steam form finisher ("suzie")
maintenance
Installation and ngghg (electrical, gas, water, etc.)
lease hold Improvements (const, decor, $ register, etc)
signage
Initial inventory of supplies (hangers, bags, spot chems)
initial fill up of dry cleaning machine wttti perc
hazardous waste disposal start-up fees
baggng rack
scale Kart
6 bu basket
8 bu basket
slick rails
800 slot conveyer
perchlorethylene ($/gal)
chargng detergent for the Dry Cleaning machine
fabric softener
ammonia
amyl acetate
general formula
moisture stock
neutral lubricant
oily type paint remover
peroxide
Vital Elements All Purpose Cleanser
Vital Elements Fabric Cleanser (100%)
Vital Elements Fabric Cleanser 10%
standard carbon core filters
double all carbon filters
bags
hangers
water and sewage
electricity (general)
gas / oil
front counter help
presser
Dry Cleaning spotter/cleaner
Wet Cleaning spotter
manager
payroll taxes & insurance
separator water (gal/yr)
filter disposal
still bottoms and lint disposal
insurance (non-labor)
rent or building overhead
advertising
outside work
claims
office expenses
adminsitrative expenses
bank charges
miscellaneous
7O%DRY
30% WET
$3,153
$522
$452
$642
$105
$244
$159
negligble
$22
S2J1
$18
$174
$209
$165
$21
$0
$0
$99O
$150
$151
$1O9
$535
$534
$242
$300
$644
$643
$107
$133
$226
$280
$1,330
$1,612
$403
$322
$65
$12
$8
$20
$6
$7
$110
$448
$533
$1,175
$57
$19
$23
$57
$11
$49
$381
$10
$196
$135
$17
$757
$312
$604
$1.593^
$2,681
$1,250
$4,556
$31 ,2OO
$27,195
$9,880^
$7,800
$25,000
$16,677
$479
$1.345
$589
$9.100
$24,336
$5,928
$23,S3O
$884
$3,380
$4,056
$10,556
$7,670
65% DRY
35% WET
$3,054
$484
$42O
$615
$98
$227
$155
neghgble
$21
$231
$20
$174
$244
$165
$21
$0
$0
$990
$150
$151
$1O9
$535
$534
$242
$300
$644
$643
$1O7
$133
$226
$280
$1,330
$1,612
$403
$322
$65
$12
$8
$20
$6
$7
$110
$448
$495
$1,091
$66
$20
$22
$60
$10
$48
$356
$10
$228
$158
$19
$703
$290
$604
$1,593
$2.689
$1,250
$4,553
$31,200
$27.195
$9,360
$8,840
$25,OOO
$16,763
$444
$1 ,249
$547
$9,100
$24,336
$5,928
$23.530
$884
$3.380
$4,056
$10,556
$7,670
60% DRY/
4O%WET
$2,959
$447
$588
$90
$210
$152
negligble
$19
$231
$23
$174
$279
$165
$21
$0
$0
$990
$150
$151
$109
$535
$534
$242
$3OO
$644
$643
$107
$133
$226
$280
$1,330
$1,612
$403
$322
$65
$12
$8
$20
$6
$7
$110
$448
$457
$1,007
$76
$20
$21
$64
$9
$47
$330
$10
$261
$181
$22
$649
$268
$604
$1,593
$2,697
$1,25O
$4,549
$31,2OO
$27.195
$8,320
$10,400
$25,000
$16,849
$410
$1,153
$505
$9,100
$24,336
$5,928
$23,530
$884
$3,380
$4,056
$10,556
$7,670
$239,524 $239,621 $239,723
55% DRY
45% WET
$2,866
$410
$357
$562
$83
$193
$149
negligble
$18
$231
$25
$174
$314
$165
$21
$0
$0
$99O
$15O
$151
$1O9
$535
$534
$242
$30O
$644
$643
$107
$133
$226
$280
S1.33O
$1,612
$403
$322
$65
$12
$3
$20
$6
$7
$110
$448
$419
$923
$85
$21
$21
$67
$9
$47
$305
$11
$294
$203
$25
$594
$246
$604
$1,593
$2,7O5
$1,25O
$4,546
$31,200
$27,195
$7,80O
$11,440
$25,OOO
$16,935
$376
$1,057
$463
$9,100
$24,336
$5,928
$23,530
$884
$3,380
$4,056
$10,556
$7,670
$239,827
50% DRY
50% WET
$2,778
$373
$326
$536
$75
$176
$146
negligble
$16
$231
$28
$174
$349
$165
$21
$0
$702
$0
$150
$151
$1O9
$535
$534
$242
$300
$644
$643
$107
$133
$226
$280
$1,330
$1,612
$403
$322
$65
$12
$8
$20
$6
$7
$110
$448
$381
$839
$94
$21
$20
$71
$8
$46
$280
$11
$326
$226
$28
$54O
$223
$604
$1,593
$2,712
$1,250
$4,543
$31,200
$27,195
$7280
$12.480
$25,000
$17,021
$342
$961
$420
$9,100
$24,336
$5,928
$23,530
$884
$3,380
$4,056
$10,556
$7,670
$239,650
45% DRY
55% WET
$2,778
$373
$294
$536
$75
$159
$146
negligble
$15
$249
$31
$187
$383
$165
$21
$0
$702
$0
$150
$151
$1O9
S53S
$534
$242
$300
$644
$643
$107
$133
$226
$280
$1,330
$1,612
$*03
$322
$65
$12
$8
$20
$6
$7
$110
$448
$343
$756
$1O4
$22
$20
$75
$7
$46
$255
$11
$359
$248
Ł31
$486
$201
$6O4
$1,593
$2,720
$1,250
$4,539
$31,2OO
$27,195
$6,760
$14,040
$25,000
$17,192
$308
$865
$378
$9,100
$24.336
$5,928
$23,530
$884
$3.380
$4,O56
$10,556
$7,670
$240,559
-------
Exhibit VI.3 (Continued)
MODEL CLEANING FACILITY PROFILE
Summary of Model Output
CLEANING EQUIPMENT
PRESSING EQUIPMENT
START-UP COSTS
(EQUIPMENT & SUPPLIES)
SUPPLIES
ADDITIONAL UTnJTIES
LABOR
HAZARDOUS WASTE
DISPOSAL
OPERATION A MANAGEMENT
TOTAL
SO— pound no— vent dry— to— dry machine with RC
maintenance
electricity
7.5-ton Refrigerated Chiller
maintenance
electricity
7.5-ton Integrated AeroCooling Unit
maintenance
electricity
18-pound top loading washing machine (domestic use)
electncty
18-pound front load tumble dryerjdomestic use)
electncty
spotting board with steam gun
scrubbing board / industrial sink w/drainer (3x2x2 ft)
4 HP
boiler 10 HP
20 HP
maintenance
air compressor (5HP)
vacuum pump unit (RP— 5)
utility presser with steam iron attachment
maintenance
pants topper
maintenance
logger with steam iron attachment
maintenance
3— way puff iron
maintenance
steam form finisher Csuzie")
maintenance
installation and nggng (electrical, gas. water, etc )
lease hold improvements (const, decor, $ register, etc)
signage
initial inventory ot supplies (hangers, bags, spot chems)
initial fill up of dry cleaning machine with perc
hazardous waste disposal start-up fees
baggng rack
scale kart
6 bu basket
8 bu basket
slick rails
8OO slot conveyer
perchlorethylene (S/gaJ)
chargng detergent for the Dry Cleaning machine
fabric softener
ammonia
amyl acetate
general formula
moisture stock
neutral lubricant
oily type paint remover
peroxide
Vital Elements All Purpose Cleanser
Vital Elements Fabric Cleanser (100%)
Vital Elements Fabric Cleanser 1O%
standard carbon core filters
double all carbon filters
bags
hangers
water and sewage
electricity (general)
gas / oil
front counter help
Dresser
Dry Cleaning spotter/cleaner
Wet Cleaning spotter
manager
payroll taxes & insurance
seperator water (gal/yr)
filter disposal
still bottoms and lint disposal
nsurance (non- labor)
rent or building overhead
advertising
outside work
claims
office expenses
admmsitrative expenses
bank charges
miscellaneous
40% DRY
60% WET
$2,/ve
$373
$263
$536
$75
$142
$146
negligble
$13
$268
$33
$200
$418
$165
$21
$0
$7O2
$0
$150
$151
$1O9
$535
$534
$242
$300
$644
$643
$107
$133
$226
$280
$1,330
$1,612
$403
$322
$65
$12
$8
$20
$6
$7
$110
$448
$305
$672
$113
$23
$19
$78
$6
$45
$229
$11
$391
$271
$33
$432
$179
$604
$1,593
$2.728
$1.250
$4.536
$31,200
$27,195
$5,720
$15,O8O
$25,000
$17,192
$273
$769
$336
$9,100
$24.336
$5,928
$23,530
$884
$3,380
$4,O56
$10,556
$7,670
$240,257
35% DRY
65% WET
$2,//o
$373
$231
$536
$75
$125
$146
negligble
$11
$287
$36
$213
$453
$165
$21
$0
$702
$0
$150
$151
$109
$535
$534
$242
$300
$644
$643
$107
$133
$226
$280
$1,33O
$1,612
$403
$322
$65
$12
$8
$20
$6
$7
$110
$448
$267
$588
$123
$23
$18
$82
$6
$45
$204
$12
$424
$293
$36
$378
$156
$604
$1,593
$2,736
$1 ,250
$4,533
$31,200
$27,195
$5,2OO
$16,120
$25,000
$17.278
$239
$673
$294
$9.1OO
$24,336
$5,928
$23,530
$884
$3,380
$4,056
$10,556
$7,670
$240,560
3O%DRY
70% WET
$2,//o
$373
$200
$536
$75
$108
$146
neghgble
$10
$3O6
$39
$226
$488
$165
$21
$O
$702
$0
$15O
$151
$109
$535
$534
$242
$300
$644
$643
$107
$133
$226
$280
$1,330
$1,612
S4O3
$322
$65
$12
$8
$20
$6
$7
$110
$448
$229
$5O4
$132
$24
$18
$85
$5
$44
$179
$12
$457
$316
$39
$324
$134
$604
$1,593
$2,744
$1,25O
$4,530
$31.200
$27,19S
$4,680
$17,68O
$25,000
$17.450
$20S
$577
$258
$9.100
$24.336
$5.928
$23,530
$884
$3,380
$4,056
$10.556
$7,670
$241 ,470
25% DRY
75% WET
S2,ffd
$373
$168
$536
$75
$91
$146
negligble
$8
$325
$41
$239
$523
$165
$21
SO
$702
$0
$150
$151
$109
$535
$534
$242
$3OO
$644
$643
$107
$133
$226
S28O
$1.330
$1,612
$4O3
$322
$65
$12
$8
$20
$6
$7
$110
$448
$190
$420
$142
$24
$17
$89
$4
$44
$153
$12
$489
$339
$42
$270
$112
$604
$1,593
$2,752
$1.250
$4,526
$31.200
$27,195
$4,160
$18,720
$25,OOO
$17,535
$171
$480
$210
$9.100
$24.336
$5.928
$23,530
$884
$3,380
$4,056
$10.556
$7,670
$241 .773
2O% DRY
80% WET
$2,r/o
$373
$137
$536
$75
$74
$146
negligble
$7
$343
$44
$253
$558
$165
$21
$0
$702
$0
$150
$151
$109
$535
$534
$242
$300
$644
$643
$107
$133
$226
$280
$1,33O
$1,612
$403
$322
$65
$12
$6
$20
$6
$7
$110
$448
$152
$336
$151
$25
$16
$92
$3
$43
$128
$12
$522
$361
$45
$216
$89
$604
$1.593
$2.760
$1,250
$4,523
$31,200
$27,195
$3,120
$20,280
$25,000
$17,621
$137
$384
$168
59,100
$24.336
$5,928
$23,530
$884
$3,380
$4,056
$10,556
$7,670 |
15% DRY
85% WET
$2, f to
$373
$105
$536
$75
$57
S146
negligble
$5
$362
$46
$266
$593
$165
$21
$0
$702
$0
$150
$151
$109
$535
$534
$242
$300
$644
$643
$107
$133
$226
$280
$1,330]
$1,612
$403
$322
$65
$12
$a
$20
$6
$7
$11O
$448
$114
$252
$161
$26
$16
$96i
$2
$42
$103
$13
$555
$384
$47
$162
$67
$6O4
$1.593
$2,768
$1,250
$4,520
$31.200
$27,195
$2,600
$21.320
$25,000
$17,707
$103
$288
$126
$9,1OO
$24.336
$5,928
$23,530
$884
$3.380
$4,056
$10,556
$7,670
$242,077 $242,381
-------
MOOBLCLBA]
SIUIIIDI
CLUANING JUUUm*Wl
PRESSING EQUIPMENT
STAKWJP COSTS
(EQUIPMENT* SUPPLIES)
SUPPLIES
ADDmONALUniJTIES
LABOR
HAZARDOUS WASTE
DISPOSAL
OPERATION A MANAGEMENT
TOTAL
_ .
NiNGFAOLmr PROFILE
iy of Model Output
so—pound no— VBnt dry—to— div irmohins WIB i nc
mtintvunoe
-------
APPENDIX VH
LIST OF GARMENTS USED IN WEAR TEST
The thirteen garments and their care labeling are as follows:
1 -Men's Blue Suit
No label
2 -White Short Sleeved Blouse
100% Silk
Dry Clean
3 -Navy Sweater with Covered Buttons
100% Acrylic
Machine Wash Warm, Delicate Cycle, No Bleach, Tumble Dry
4 -White Beaded Blouse
100% Polyester
Machine Wash Warm Delicate Cycle, Tumble Dry Low, Cool Iron, Non-Chlorine Bleach
5 -Navy Crew Neck Sweater
85% Wool/ 15% Nylon
Dry Clean, Hand Wash Cold, Mild Detergent, Dry Flat, No Bleach, Don't Twist or
Wring
6 - White Sweater
100% Cotton
Hand Wash Cold, Dry Flat
7 -Green Blouse
100% Rayon
Home Wash Cold, Line Dry, Dry Clean
8 -White Pleated Knit Skirt
100% Cotton
Machine Wash Warm, Dry Flat
9 -Men's Green/Brown Suit
100% Wool
Dry Clean
10 -Black Sweater w/ Gold Beads
45 % Cotton / 55 % Ramie
Hand Wash Cold, Flat Dry, No Dry Clean
11 -Red Plaid Blouse
100% Rayon
Machine Wash Cool, Line Dry
12 -Brown Microfiber Jacket
100% Polyester
Dry Clean
13 -Black Skirt w/Kick Pleat
Wool Shell / Acetate Lining
Dry Clean Only, Steam Press
-------
APPENDIX
PROTOCOL FOR TEST GARMENTS WEAR STUDY
These tests are described below. Some are performed before the volunteer receives the garment
(initial marking and measuring) while other tests are performed before and after each cleaning.
PHYSICAL/QUANTITATIVE TEST:
SHRINKAGE
FABRIC: Garments marked 10 in. (length) X 10 in. (width) on a section of fabric with
no seams or pleats. If a garment is lined, marking should be made both on the lining
fabric and the shell fabric. All marking should be done with indelible ink or thread (or
bofh) to assure retention of the markings through several cleanings. Care should be
taken to make the markings so that they are not visible or 'noticeable' when the garment
is worn.
SEAM: Each garment type should be measured as follows:
Jacket: Measure underarm seam from armpit to cuff. Measure middle back seam from
top of collar to bottom hem.
Trouser: Measure right inseam from crotch to bottom hem. Measure right outseam from
top of belt to bottom hem. Measure waist from end to end.
Blouse: Measure right underarm seam from armpit to cuff. Measure front placket from
neckline to bottom hem. Measure collar from one end to the other.
Sweater: Lay the garment flat with sleeves out to the sides. Measure underarm seam
from armpit to cuff. Measure from mid-back neckline to hem. Sleeve length
measurements may be done in one of two ways.
- For sweaters without a set-in sleeve (fully-fashioned): Measure from neckline to
cuff along top of sleeve.
- For sweaters with set-in sleeve: Measure from shoulder seam to cuff along top
of sleeve.
Skirt: Measure "zipper" seam from waist to hem.Measure waist from one end to the
other.
VISUAL/SUBJECTIVE TESTS:
APPEARANCE TESTS
Overall appearance of the garment should be noted for dirt, wrinkles, puckers at the
seams, splotchiness of color, distortions, tears, etc. General guidance for evaluation of
-------
garment appearance may be obtained in American Association of Textilists, Chemists and
Colorists (AATCC) Methods.
Color change should be determined according to AATCC Methods.
Shoulder pads should be examined for appearance and lumpiness.
All buttons, accessories, trim, etc. should be examined for appearance and damage.
ODOR TESTS
The following questions should be answered for each garment:
1 - Does the garment have a scent?
2 - Does the garment have an odor?
3 - Characterize the odor?
4 - Would you accept this garment?
Odor should be noted especially in critical areas such as armpits and crotch areas.
RECORDING OF RESULTS
All results should be recorded on log sheets prepared specifically for this purpose. Each
garment should have its own sheet that will be used when that particular garment is in process.
Volunteers should also be given a daily diary (garment wear log) and a postcard for their
evaluation of garment appearance.
-------
APPENDIX IX
GARMENT WEAR LOG
Exhibit IX. 1 A sample garment wear log.
Exhibit IX.2 A summary for each question.
Exhibit IX.3 A listing of individual responses for each question.
-------
Exhibit IX. 1 Sample Garment Wear Log
Thank you for participating in this test of an alternative dry cleaning method. To aid us in our
clothes cleaning analysis, please fill out a garment wear log for each two day wearing schedule.
Name:
Date Worn:
Garment Label (A or B):
Garment type:
How many hours did you wear the garment over the past two days?
What type of job do you have? Is it a desk job or does it involve a lot of walking, time outside,
moving of heavy objects?
Did you participate in any unusual activity in the garment aside from what you normally do
during your working day? Did you wear the garment after work? If so, what did you do in it
(sports, dinner out, attended a concert, went to a bar or night club)?
Did you spill any food on the garment or soil/stain it in any other way (coffee, wine, ink, mud,
grease)?
Did you get the garment wet in any way (in the rain, washing dishes)?
What was the weather like (rainy, snowy)?
Do you have any other comments as to the wearing of the garment during the two consecutive
days?
Have you worn the garment in a smoke filled room? Worn how long in a smoke filled room?
In its present condition, is this garment acceptable to you, and would you wear it again?
-------
Exhibit DC.2 Summary of Results - Garment Wear Log1
How many hours did you wear the garment over the past two days?
Average = 14.4 hours
What type of job do you have? Is it a desk job or does it involve a lot of walking, time outside,
moving of heavy objects?
Desk Job Not a desk job No answer
Dry cleaning 24 0 1
Wet Cleaning 23 2 0
Did you participate in any unusual activity in the garment aside from what you usually do?
Yes No No answer
Dry cleaning 5 20 0
Wet Cleaning 7 17 1
Did you wear the garment after work?
Yes No No answer
Dry cleaning 9 16 0
Wet Cleaning 6 18 1
Did you spill any food on the garment or soil/stain it hi any other way (coffee, wine, ink, mud,
grease)?
Yes No No answer
Dry cleaning 5 20 0
Wet Cleaning 3 22 0
llt is important to note that the total number in any given category is 50. This results from
each respondent submitting logs four times - two for the multiprocess wet cleaning and two for
dry cleaning. One respondent answered only twice, therefore 50 possible answers rather than
52.
-------
Did you get the garment wet in any way?
Yes
Dry cleaning
Wet Cleaning
1
3
No
24
21
No answer
0
1
What was the weather like?
Dry cleaning
Wet Cleaning
Clear/Dry
Sunny
19
9
Rainy/
Damp
1
10
Cloudy
1
3
No answer
4
3
Did you wear the garment hi a smoky room? (Question only asked on revised edition.)
Yes No No answer
Dry cleaning
Wet Cleaning
4
1
6
18
15
6
Average number of hours worn in a smoke-filled room = 1.5
In its present condition, is this garment acceptable to you and then, would you wear it again?
(Question only asked on revised edition.)
Dry cleaning
Wet Cleaning
Yes
6
18
No
4
1
No answer
15
6
-------
Exhibit IX. 3 Garment Wear Log Data
GARMENT WEAR LOG DATA LEGEND
(1) - Date worn
1st = 11/23; 2nd = 11/30; 3rd = 12/2; 4th = 12/7
(2) - Garment Type
WSS = white silk shirt TRS = teal rayon shirt
MWS = micro-wool suit CMR = camel micro rayon jacket
WCS = white cotton skirt BWS = black wool skirt
CCS = cream cotton sweater WBT = white beaded top
BAS = black appliqued sweater NAS = navy acrylic sweater
NWS = navy wool sweater WSP = wool suit, pleated pants
PRS = plaid rayon shirt
(3) - Number of hours worn during the day
(4) - Do you have a desk job or do you move around a lot during the day?
DJ = Desk Job; MA = Move around a lot; NA = No answer
(5) - Did you participate in any unusual activity in the garment aside from what you normally do
during your work day?
YS = Yes; NO = No; NA = No answer
(6) - Did you wear the garment after work?
YS = Yes; NO = No; NA = No answer
(7) - Did you spill any food on the garment or soil or stain it in any way?
YS = Yes; NO = No; NA = No answer
(8) - Did you get the garment wet in any way?
YS = Yes; NO = No; NA = No answer
(9) - Did you wear the garment in a smoke filled room?
YS = Yes; NO = No; NA = No answer
(10) - Number of hours worn in a smoky room
(11) - In its present condition is this garment acceptable to you?
YS = Yes; NO = No; NA = No answer
(12) - Would you wear the garment again?
YS = Yes; NO = No; NA = No answer
-------
GARMENT WEAR LOG DATA SUMMARY - DRY CLEANING
ID*1
101
103
201
203
301
303
401
403
501
503
601
701
703
801
803
901
903
1001
1003
1101
1103
1201
1203
1301
1303
(1)
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
1st
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
GARMENT
ID #'
102
104
202
204
302
304
402
404
502
504
602
702
704
802
804
902
904
1002
1004
1102
1104
1202
1204
1302
1304
(1)
2nd
4th
2nd
4th
2nd
4th
2nd
4th
2nd
4th
2nd
2nd
4th
2nd
4th
2nd
4th
2nd
4th
2nd
4th
2nd
4th
2nd
4th
(2) (3)
WSS 12
WSS 18
MWS 12
MWS 16
WCS 12
WCS 22
CCS 12
CCS 17
BAS 12
BAS 16
NWS 12
PRS 14
PRS 22
TRS 12
TRS 12
CMR 12
CMR 16
BWS 15
BWS 18
WBT 12
WBT 14
NAS 12
NAS 16
WSP 12
WSP 16
WEAR LOG
(4)
DJ
DJ
DJ
DJ
DJ
DJ
NA
DJ
DJ
DJ
DJ
DJ
DJ
DJ
DJ
DJ
DJ
DJ
DJ
DJ
DJ
DJ
DJ
DJ
DJ
(5)
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YS
YS
NO
NO
NO
YS
YS
NO
NO
YS
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
(6)
NO
YS
NO
NO
YS
NO
NO
NO
YS
NO
NO
YS
YS
NO
YS
YS
NO
NO
NO
YS
NO
NO
NO
NO
YS
(7)
NO
NO
NO
NO
YS
NO
NO
YS
YS
NO
NO
NO
NO
YS
NO
NO
NO
YS
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
(8)
NO
NO
NO
NO
YS
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
(9)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
YS
NA
YS
NA
NO
NA
NA
NO
NA
YS
NA
NO
NA
NO
NA
NO
NA
NO
NA
YS
(10)
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
(11)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
YS
NA
NO
NA
NO
NA
NA
NO
NA
NO
NA
YS
NA
YS
NA
YS
NA
YS
NA
YS
(12)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
YS
NA
NO
NA
NO
NA
NA
NO
NA
NO
NA
YS
NA
YS
NA
YS
NA
YS
NA
YS
DATA SUMMARY - WET CLEANING
(2) (3) (4)
WSS 19
WSS 9
MWS 16
MWS 12
WCS 20
WCS 14
CCS 17
CCS 16
BAS 16
BAS 12
NWS 19
PRS 23
PRS 17
TRS 17
TRS 13
CMR 16
CMR 4
BWS 18
BWS 16
WBT 15
WBT 0
NAS 16
NAS 12
WSP 16
WSP 4
DJ
DJ
DJ
DJ
DJ
DJ
MA
DJ
DJ
DJ
DJ
DJ
DJ
MA
DJ
DJ
DJ
DJ
DJ
DJ
DJ
DJ
DJ
DJ
DJ
(5)
NO
YS
NO
NO
NO
NO
YS
YS
YS
NO
NA
NO
YS
YS
YS
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
(6)
NO
YS
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YS
YS
NO
NA
YS
YS
NO
YS
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
(7)
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YS
NO
YS
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YS
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
(8)
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YS
NO
YS
NO
NO
NO
NO
NA
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YS
NO
(9)
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NA
NO
NA
NO
NO
YS
NA
NA
NO
NA
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NA
NO
(10)
0
0
0
0-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(11)
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
NA
YS
NA
YS
YS
YS
NA
NA
NO
NA
YS
YS
YS
YS
NA
YS
YS
YS
YS
(12)
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
NA
YS
NA
YS
YS
YS
NA
NA
NO
NA
YS
YS
^iS
YS
NA
YS
YS
YS
YS
'The last two digits of the identification number reflect cleaning cycle. The first two
designate the participant. Therefore, 101, 102, 103, &104 is one person, as is 1101 - 1104.
-------
APPENDIX X
TEST GARMENT POSTCARD SURVEY
Exhibit X. 1 A sample test garment postcard
Exhibit X.2 A summary for each question.
Exhibit X.3 A listing of individual responses for each question.
-------
Exhibit X. 1 Test Garment Postcard
Name:
Garment Letter
Garment type:
Thank you for participating in EPA's Design for the Environment dry cleaning project. Please rate your satisfaction with
the quality of dry cleaning you received.
Is clothing clean overall? O Yes D No
Are clothes pressed and finished nicely? O Yes O No
Were stains or spots removed? D Doesn't apply O Yes Q No
How is color? O No change O Some overall change with improvement
O Some overall change, not an improvement O Some unevenness in color
How is size? O No change O Some shrinkage O Some stretching
Do any seams pucker or bulge out? O Yes O No
Send to-
Are buttons or aecorations OK?
Is any odor present? O Yes
Nincy Kawatoski
Environmental Protection Agency
TS-779 Room 235 ET
401 MSL.SW
Washington. DC 20460
O Doesn't apply
O No
O Some broken or missing O OK
Thank you.
-------
Exhibit X.2 Summary of Results - Test Garment Postcard Survey1
Are clothes pressed and finished nicely?
Total Number
Yes No Applicable
Dry cleaning
Wet Cleaning
23 (92%)
25 (100%)
2(8%)
0
25
25
Were stains or spots removed?
Dry cleaning
Wet Cleaning
Yes
6 (86%)
4 (100%)
No
1 (14%)
0
Total Number
Applicable
7
4
How is color?
No Change
Dry cleaning 21 (84%)
Wet Cleaning 24(96%)
Some overall Some overall Some
change with change, not an unevenness Total Number
improvement improvement in color Applicable
1 (4%)
0
0
1 (4%)
3 (12%)
0
25
25
How is size?
No Change
Dry cleaning 24 (100%)
Wet Cleaning 22 (88%)
Some
shrinkage
0
0
Some
stretching
0
3 (12%)
Total Number
Applicable
24
25
'It is important to note that the total number in any given category is 50. This results from
each respondent submitting logs four times - two for the multiprocess wet cleaning and two for
dry cleaning. One respondent answered only twice, therefore 50 possible answers rather than
52.
-------
Do any seams pucker or bulge out?
Yes
No
Total Number
Applicable
Dry cleaning
Wet Cleaning
Are buttons or decorations
Dry cleaning
Wet Cleaning
Is any odor present?
Dry cleaning
Wet Cleaning
If odor is present, is it
Dry cleaning
Wet Cleaning
Is clothing clean overall?
Dry cleaning
Wet Cleaning
4(17%)
2 (9%)
OK?
Some broken
or missing
3 (14%)
1 (5%)
Yes
6 (24%)
3 (12%)
Acceptable
5 (100%)
3 (100%)
Yes
25 (100%)
25 (100%)
20(83%)
21 (91%)
OK
18 (86%)
18 (95%)
No
19 (76%)
22 (88%)
Prefer not
to have
0
0
No
0
0
24
23
Total Number
Applicable
21
19
Total Number
Applicable
25
25
Total Number
Applicable
5
3
Total Number
Applicable
25
25
-------
Exhibit X.3 Garment Wear Log Data
GARMENT WEAR LOG DATA LEGEND
(1) - Date worn
1st = 11/23; 2nd = 11/30; 3rd = 12/2; 4th = 12/7
(2) - Is clothing clean overall?
YS = Yes; NO = No; NA = No answer
(3) - Are clothes pressed and finished nicely?
YS = Yes; NO = No; NA = No answer
(4) - Were stains or spots removed?
YS = Yes; NO = No; NA = No answer
(5) - How is color?
NC = No change; CI = Some overall change with improvement;
CN = Some overall change, not an improvement; SU = Some unevenness in color;
(6) - How is size?
NC = No change; SH = Some shrinkage; ST = Some stretching
(7) - Do any seams pucker or bulge out?
YS = Yes; NO = No; NA = No answer
(8) - Are buttons or decorations OK?
DA = Doesn't apply; BM = Some broken or missing; OK = OK; NA = No answer
(9) - Is any odor present?
YS = Yes; NO = No; NA = No answer
(10) - If odor is present:
AC = Acceptable; PN = Prefer not to have; NA = No answer
-------
SUMMARY OF POSTCARD SURVEY DATA
DRY CLEANING
ID*1
101
103
201
203
301
303
401
403
501
503
601
701
703
801
803
901
903
1001
1003
1101
1103
1201
1203
1301
1303
(1)
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
1st
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
(2)
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
(3)
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
NO
NO
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
(4)
DA
YS
DA
DA
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
NO
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
(5)
NC
NC
NC
NC
SU
CI
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
SU
SU
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
(6)
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
NC
(7)
NO
NO
YS
NO
NO
NO
YS
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YS
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NA
YS
NO
NO
NO
(8)
OK
OK
OK
OK
DA
DA
OK
DA
BM
BM
DA
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
BM
OK
OK
OK
OK
(9)
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YS
NO
YS
NO
NO
NO
NO
YS
NO
NO
NO
YS
NO
NO
YS
YS
NO
NO
(10)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
AC
NA
AC
NA
NA
NA
NA
AC
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
AC
AC
NA
NA
WET CLEANING
ID*1
102
104
202
204
302
304
402
404
502
504
602
702
704
802
804
902
904
1002
1004
1102
1104
1202
1204
1302
1304
(1)
2nd
4th
2nd
4th
2nd
4th
2nd
4th
2nd
4th
2nd
2nd
4th
2nd
4th
2nd
4th
2nd
4th
2nd
4th
2nd
4th
2nd
4th
(2)
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
(3)
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
(4)
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
YS
YS
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
YS
DA
YS
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
(5)
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
(6)
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ST
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ST
ST
NC
NC
(7)
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NA
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YS
YS
NO
NA
(8)
OK
OK
DA
OK
DA
DA
DA
OK
OK
DA
DA
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
BM
OK
OK
OK
OK
(9)
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YS
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YS
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YS
(10)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
AC
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
AC
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
AC
'The last two digits of the identification number reflect cleaning cycle. The first two
designate the participant. Therefore, 101, 102, 103, &104 is one person, as is 1101 - 1104.
-------
Appendix XI
Shrinkage Test: Percent Change in Size of Test Garment
The (-) symbol preceding percent shrinkage designates stretch, or negative shrinkage
CYCLE I
I
after wear
%
MEN'S BLUE
UNMARKED
DRYCLEAN
length
width
inseam(R)
sideseam(R)
waist
WETCLEAN
length
width
inseam(R)
sideseam(R)
waist
MEN'S BLUE
UNMARKED
DRYCLEAN
center back
sleeve(R)
sleeve(L)
shoulder width
WETCLEAN
center back
sleeve(R)
sleeve (L)
shoulder width
II
III
after clean after press
% %
SUIT TROUSER
0.0%
0.0%
-0.8%
-0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
2.5%
-0.8%
-1.2%
0.1%
0.0%
1.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.5%
-0.8%
-1.2%
0.1%
-1.3%
0.0%
-1.2%
-1.2%
-0.7%
0.0%
2.5%
-0.8%
-0.6%
0.1%
SUIT JACKET
-0.8%
5.1%
-0.8%
0.0%
-0.8%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
-0.4%
4.4%
-0.8%
0.6%
-0.8%
0.7%
0.7%
0.0%
-2.0%
2.9%
-1.5%
0.0%
-0.8%
0.7%
0.7%
0.0%
WHITE SHORT SLEEVE BLOUSE
100% SILK
DRYCLEAN
shoulder(L)
sleeve(R)
center back
back hem
WETCLEAN
shoulder(L)
sleeve(R)
center back
back hem
-2.5%
0.0%
-0.6%
-0.6%
-4.5%
0.0%
-1.6%
-4.2%
0.0%
7.7%
0.0%
-1.2%
-2.4%
0.0%
1.6%
1.2%
-4.8%
7.7%
-1.1%
-4.8%
-2.2%
3.7%
1.1%
-1.2%
CYCLE
I
after wear
%
-1.3%
0.0%
-0.4%
-1.2%
-0.4%
0.0%
2.5%
-0.4%
-1.2%
-3.6%
-1.2%
2.2%
-1.5%
-1.3%
-0.8%
1.5%
1.5%
-1.3%
-2.5%
7.7%
-1.1%
-4.8%
-2.4%
0.0%
0.6%
-1.8%
n
ii
after clean
%
1.2%
1.2%
0.0%
-1.2%
-0.4%
0.0%
2.5%
-0.4%
-0.9%
-3.6%
-1.2%
3.6%
-1.5%
-1.3%
-0.8%
-0.8%
1.5%
-1.3%
-2.5%
7.7%
0.0%
-3.6%
-2.2%
0.0%
1.6%
1.8%
III
after press
%
0.0%
0.0%
-0.4%
-1.2%
-0.4%
0.0%
2.5%
-0.4%
-1.2%
-3.6%
-1.6%
2.9%
-1.5%
-1.3%
-0.8%
0.7%
1.5%
-0.7%
-2.5%
7.7%
-1.1%
-4.8%
-2.2%
0.0%
0.6%
-0.6%
CYCLE
I
after wear
%
0.0%
0.0%
-0.4%
-1.9%
-0.7%
0.0%
2.5%
-0.4%
-1.2%
-3.6%
-1.6%
2.9%
0.8%
-1.3%
-0.8%
0.7%
0.7%
-1.3%
-2.5%
7.7%
0.5%
-3.0%
-2.2%
0.0%
1.6%
0.0%
III
II
after clean
%
0.0%
0.0%
-0.4%
-1.2%
-0.7%
0.0%
2.5%
-0.4%
-0.6%
-3.6%
-0.8%
3.6%
-0.8%
-1.3%
-0.8%
0.7%
0.7%
-0.7%
-2.5%
7.7%
1.1%
-3.0%
2.2%
0.0%
1.6%
3.1%
III
after press
%
0.0%
0.0%
-0.8%
-1.2%
-0.4%
0.0%
2.5%
-0.8%
-0.9%
-3.6%
-1.6%
'2.2%
-1.5%
-1.3%
-0.8%
0.7%
0.7%
-0.7%
-4.8%
7.7%
1.1%
-3.0%
-2.2%
0.0%
2.1%
1.8%
-------
Appendix XI
Shrinkage Test: Percent Change in Size of Test Garment
(continued)
CYCLE I
I II
after wear after clean
III
after press
NAVY SWEATER WITH BUTTONS
100% ACRYLIC
DRYCLEAN
length 0.0% 0.0%
width 0.0% 0.5%
sleeve(R) -0.7% 0.7%
sleeve(L) 0.0% 0.7%
center back 0.0% 2.6%
WETCLEAN
length 0.0% 0.0%
width -2.5% 0.0%
sleeve(R) 2.8% 5.6%
sleeve(L) 0.0% 0.7%
center back 0.0% 0.9%
WHITE BEADED BLOUSE
100% POLYESTER
DRYCLEAN
center back 0.0% 0.5%
sleeve(R) -0.8% -0.8%
center front -0.7% -0.7%
hem(L) 1.3% 2.5%
shoulder(R) 0.0% 100.0%
WETCLEAN
center back 0.0% 0.0%
sleeve(R) 13.3% 14.1%
center front -1.3% -0.7%
hem(L) 1.2% 1.2%
shoulder(R) 0.0% 0.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
-1.4%
2.8%
-3.5%
-5.0%
0.0%
-1.4%
-4.3%
-6.4%
-0.5%
-2.4%
-2.0%
1.2%
0.0%
0.0%
14.1%
-0.7%
1.2%
0.0%
NAVY CREW NECK SWEATER
85% WOOL/15% NYLON
DRYCLEAN
length 0.0% 6.2%
width 0.0% 1.2%
sleeve(R) 1.1% 2.2%
sleeve(L) -2.2% -2.2%
center back 0.0% 4.3%
WETCLEAN
length -6.3% 0.0%
width 5.0% 5.0%
sleeve(R) 1.6% 2.7%
sleeve(L) -1.6% 4.3%
center back 0.0% 4.2%
2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
-2.8%
-0.5%
0.0%
5.0%
2.2%
3.8%
1.8%
CYCLE
I
after wear
-2.5%
0.0%
1.4%
1.4%
-3.5%
0.0%
0.0%
2.1%
-0.7%
-5.1%
-0.5%
-2.4%
-2.0%
1.2%
2.3%
0.0%
14.8%
-1.3%
1.2%
-2.2%
6.6%
1.2%
2.2%
0.0%
-1.0%
-1.3%
6.2%
2.2%
2.7%
0.9%
II
II
after clean
0.0%
1.3%
0.0%
4.2%
-2.2%
0.0%
0.0%
2.1%
1.4%
-4.7%
-0.5%
-2.4%
-2.0%
1.2%
2.3%
0.0%
14.1%
-1.3%
1.2%
-2.2%
3.7%
1.2%
3.2%
1.1%
-1.0%
0.0%
5.0%
2.2%
3.8%
1.8%
III
after press
-7.5%
-3.8%
-1.4%
-1.4%
-7.0%
-3.8%
-2.5%
1.4%
-0.7%
-6.4%
-0.5%
-3.2%
-2.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
14.1%
-1.3%
1.2%
-2.2%
0.0%
0.0%
1.1%
-1.7%
-1.4%
0.0%
2.5%
2.2%
2.7%
23%
CYCLE HI
I
II
after wear after clean
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-1.7%
-1.3%
-7.5%
0.7%
-1.4%
-6.4%
-1.0%
-2.4%
-2.0%
1.2%
2.3%
0.0%
14.8%
-0.7%
1.2%
-2.2%
MISSING
MISSING
-2.5%
-7.5%
0.0%
2.8%
-1.7%
1.2%
-5.0%
2.8%
0.0%
-3.4%
-0.5%
-2.4%
-2.0%
1.2%
2.3%
0.0%
14.1%
-0.7%
1.2%
-2.2%
III
after press
-5.0%
-125%
0.0%
1.4%
-5.7%
0.0%
-3.5%
-5.7%
-3.4%
-0.5%
-3.2%
-2.0%
1.2%
2.3%
0.0%
14.1%
-0.7%
1.2%
-2.2%
-------
Appendix XI
Shrinkage Test: Percent Change in Size of Test Garment
(continued)
CYCLE I
I II
after wear after clean
WHITE SWEATER
100% COTTON
DRYCLEAN
length 0.0% 2.5%
width 0.0% -3.8%
sleeve(R) 13% 3.2%
sleeve(L) 1.9% 3.2%
center back 0.0% 4.3%
WETCLEAN
length -1.3% 1.2%
width 0.0% -3.8%
sleeve(R) 2.5% 3.1%
sleeve(L) 1.9% 2.5%
center back -1.0% 0.0%
GREEN BLOUSE
100% RAYON
DRYCLEAN
length 0.0% 1.2%
width 0.0% 1.2%
collar 0.0% 0.0%
sleeve(R) 0.0% 1.0%
sleeve(L) 0.0% 2.1%
center back 0.0% 1.5%
WETCLEAN
length -2.5% 7.5%
width 0.0% 2.5%
collar -1.5% 0.0%
sleeve(R) 0.0% 5.1%
sleeve(L) 0.0% 4.5%
center back 0.0% 8.3%
III
after press
0.0%
-2.5%
1.3%
1.3%
2.9%
-1.3%
-3.8%
2.5%
2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
-1.3%
-2.3%
-1.1%
-1.0%
-0.5%
7.5%
2.5%
-0.7%
1,7%
2.8%
5.9%
WHITE PLEATED KNIT SKIRT
100% COTTON
DRYCLEAN
waist -1.0% -5.8%
length 0.0% 3.3%
WETCLEAN
waist -1.9% 0.0%
length -1.1% 1.1%
1.0%
0.0%
-1.0%
0.5%
CYCLE H
I II III
after wear after clean after press
0.0% 2.5% 0.0%
0.0% -3.8% -2.5%
1.9% 3.2% 0.6%
3.2% 4.4% 0.6%
1.0% 2.4% 0.5%
0.0% 1.2% 0.0%
-1.3% -1.3% 0.0%
3.1% 1.9% 1.9%
2.5% 2.5% 1.9%
0.0% 1.4% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
-3.9% -3.1% -1.5%
-3.2% -3.2% -3.7%
-1.6% -1.6% -1.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
7.5% 7.5% 5.0%
1.2% 2.3% 1.2%
0.0% 0.0% 1.5%
1.7% 2.3% 0.0%
2.8% 3.4% 1.1%
5.4% 5.4% 3.9%
-1.0% 0.5% 1.0%
0.0% 0.5% -2.2%
-1.0% 1.9% 1.4%
-1.1% 1.1% 1.1%
CYCLE HI
I II III
after wear after clean after press
0.0% 2.5% 0.0%
-2.5% -2.5% -3.8%
0.6% 2.6% 2.6%
0.0% 0.0% 1.9%
0.0% 0.0% 1.5%
-2.5% 0.0% -1.3%
-2.5% 0.0% -2.5%
0.6% 1.3% 1.3%
1.3% 1.3% 1.9%
-1.5% 1.0% 0.0%
0.0% 1.2% 0.0%
0.0% 1.2% 0.0%
-4.6% -1.5% -3.1%
-5.3% -3.2% -3.7%
-1.6% 0.0% -1.6%
0.0% 0.5% 0.0%
5.0% 8.7% 8.2%
2.5% 7.5% 3.7%
1.5% 3.8% 1.5%
0.0% 3.4% 4.0%
-0.6% 2.3% 2.8%
4.9% 9.3% 9.3%
-1.0% 1.9% 1.9%
0.0% 2.2% 1.6%
not measured
not measured
-------
Appendix XI
Shrinkage Test: Percent Change in Size of Test Garment
(continued)
CYCLE I
I II III
after wear after clean after press
% % %
GREEN/BROWN SUIT TROUSER
100% WOOL
DRYCLEAN
length 0.0% 2.5% 0.0%
width 0.0% 1.2% 0.0%
inseam(R) -0.8% 0.0% -0.8%
sideseam(R) 0.0% 0.6% -0.3%
waist 0.0% 0.3% -1.0%
WETCLEAN
length 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
width 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
inseam(R) 1.2% 2.4% 2.4%
sideseam(R) 0.6% 1.6% 1.8%
waist 0.0% 0.7% 0.7%
GREEN/BROWN SUIT JACKET
100% WOOL
DRYCLEAN
center back 0.0% 0.8% -0.8%
sleeve(R) 1.5% 2.9% 0.7%
sleeve(L) 2.2% 3.6% 1.4%
shoulder width 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
WETCLEAN
center back -1.6% -0.4% -0.4%
sleeve(R) 3.6% 3.6% 2.9%
sleeve(L) 0.7% 1.4% 1.4%
shoulder width -2.6% -2.0% -2.0%
BLACK SWEATER W/GOLD BEADS
45% COTTON/55% RAMIE
DRYCLEAN
length 0.0% 1.2% -2.5%
width 0.0% 1.2% 0.0%
sleeve(R) 0.6% 4.9% 2.4%
sieeve(L) 3.0% 6.0% 0.6%
center back 0.0% 5.5% -1.4%
WETCLEAN
length 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
width -5.0% -5.0% -5.0%
sleeve(R) 1.2% 3.7% 0.6%
sleeve(L) 1.2% 4.2% 0.6%
center back 0.0% 6.0% 0.0%
CYCLE
I
after wear
%
2.5%
0.0%
2.0%
1.8%
-0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
2.4%
0.3%
0.0%
-0.4%
1.5%
1.4%
-0.7%
-0.4%
2.9%
0.7%
-2.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
2.4%
2.4%
-1.4%
-1.3%
-1.3%
0.6%
3.7%
0.0%
II
II
after clean
%
2.5%
1.2%
2.8%
2.4%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
2.8%
1.8%
0.0%
0.0%
1.5%
1.4%
-2.0%
-0.4%
2.9%
0.7%
-3.3%
5.0%
2.5%
4.9%
6.5%
4.6%
1.2%
0.0%
0.6%
2.4%
2.8%
III
after press
%
1.2%
0.0%
1.6%
1.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.8%
1.2%
0.0%
-0.4%
1.5%
0.7%
-2.6%
-1.2%
2.9%
0.7%
-3.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.4%
-2.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
0.0%
CYCLE
I
after wear
%
1.2%
1.2%
2.0%
1.2%
-1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.0%
1.2%
-0.4%
-0.4%
0.7%
1.4%
-2.6%
-0.8%
2.9%
0.7%
-3.9%
-1.3%
2.5%
3.0%
4.1%
0.0%
0.0%
-5.0%
1.2%
3.0%
0.9%
III
II
after clean
%
2.5%
1.2%
2.8%
2.1%
0.0%
1.2%
1.2%
2.8%
1.2%
0.3%
0.0%
1.5%
2.2%
-2.6%
-0.4%
2.9%
1.4%
-3.3%
1.2%
3.7%
3.0%
5.3%
2.8%
1.2%
-1.3%
3.0%
4.2%
1.9%
III
after press
%
0.0%
0.0%
2.0%
1.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.0%
0.9%
0.3%
-0.4%
0.7%
1.4%
-2.6%
-0.8%
2.9%
0.7%
-2.6%
2.5%
2.5%
3.0%
4.8%
-0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
3.0%
4.2%
1.4%
-------
Appendix XI
Shrinkage Test: Percent Change in Size of Test Garment
(continued)
CYCLE I
I
II
III
after wear after clean after press
RED PLAID
BLOUSE
100% RAYON
DRYCLEAN
length
width
collar
sleeve(r)
sleeve(L)
placket
WETCLEAN
length
width
collar
sleeve(r)
sleeve(L)
placket
0.0%
0.0%
1.5%
8.6%
7.2%
0.9%
0.0%
-2.5%
-3.9%
11.7%
9.2%
0.9%
1.2%
-1.3%
2.3%
11.7%
9.1%
1.8%
0.0%
-2.5%
-2.3%
11.7%
9.2%
1.8%
0.0%
-5.0%
0.0%
9.2%
7.8%
0.0%
-1.3%
-1.3%
-3.1%
9.2%
8.5%
1.8%
BROWN MICROFIBER JACKET
100% POLYESTER
DRYCLEAN
SHELL
length
width
LINING
length
width
shoulder width
sleeve (R)
sleeve(L)
center back
WETCLEAN
SHELL
length
width
LINING
length
width
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-1.5%
-1.5%
0.8%
0.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
1.3%
-0.8%
-1.5%
1.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-1.3%
-1.3%
0.0%
-1.5%
-2.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
shoulder width
sleeve(R)
sleeve(L)
center back
-3.1%
-2.3%
-1.7%
-2.3%
-1.5%
-0.8%
-2.3%
-1.5%
-1.3%
CYCLE
I
after wear
0.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
9.9%
7.2%
0.0%
-1.3%
-2.5%
-3.1%
9.9%
8.5%
1.8%
1.2%
0.0%
-0.6%
-1.5%
-1.5%
0.8%
0.0%
-1.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-3.1%
-1.5%
-1.3%
II
II
after clean
0.0%
-2.5%
1.5%
11.1%
8.5%
1.3%
0.0%
-2.5%
-2.3%
9.9%
9.2%
1.8%
0.0%
0.0%
-0.6%
-1.5%
-1.5%
0.8%
0.0%
-1.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
-2.3%
-1.5%
-0.8%
III
after press
0.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
8.6%
8.5%
0.0%
-1.3%
-2.5%
-3.1%
9.9%
8.5%
1.3%
-1.3%
0.0%
-1.3%
-2.2%
-1.5%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.2%
-3.1%
-2.3%
-0.4%
CYCLE III
I
II
after wear after clean
0.0%
-1.3%
-0.8%
9.2%
6.5%
0.4%
-1.3%
-2.5%
-3.1%
10.5%
6.6%
1.8%
0.0%
0.0%
-1.3%
-2.2%
-1.5%
-0.4%
0.0%
-1.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-3.9%
-2.3%
-0.4%
0.0%
-1.3%
-0.8%
9.9%
7.2%
1.3%
-1.3%
-2.5%
-2.3%
11.7%
7.9%
1.8%
0.0%
1.2%
-0.6%
-2.2%
-1.5%
0.4%
0.0%
-1.3%
0.0%
-1.2%
1.2%
-2.3%
-0.7%
-0.4%
III
after press
0.0%
-1.3%
-0.8%
9.2%
6.5%
1.3%
0.0%
-3.8%
-3.1%
11.1%
9.2%
3.1%
0.0%
1.2%
-1.9%
-3.0%
-1.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
-3.9%
-2.3%
-0.4%
-------
Appendix XI
Shrinkage Test: Percent Change in Size of Test Garment
(concluded)
CYCLE I
I
after wear
II
III
after clean after press
BLACK SKIRT W/KICK PLEAT
WOOL SHELL/ACETATE LINING
DRYCLEAN
SHELL
length
width
LINING
length
width
waist
center back
WETCLEAN
SHELL
length
width
LINING
length
width
waist
center back
0.0%
2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-2.2%
-0.9%
0.0%
-1.3%
1.2%
1.2%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-2.2%
-0.9%
0.0%
-1.3%
0.0%
0.0%
-2.5%
-1.8%
0.0%
0.0%
1.2%
0.0%
-2.2%
-0.9%
CYCLE
I
after wear
0.0%
-1.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
-1.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-3.4%
-0.9%
II
II
after clean
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
-1.4%
1.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-2.2%
-0.9%
III
after press
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.8%
-1.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-2.6%
-0.9%
CYCLE
I
after wear
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-1.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-2.6%
-0.9%
III
II
after clean
1.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.7%
-0.5%
1.2%.
0.0%
1.2%
0.0%
-1.7%
-0.5%
III
after press
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.7%
-1.8%
0.0%
0.0%
1.2%
0.0%
-2.2%
-0.9%
-------
APPENDIX XII
VISUAL TESTING
Exhibit XII. 1 Participant questionnaire, instructions, and test evaluation form
Exhibit Xn.2 Visual test results
-------
Exhibit XH.l
Visual Tests
Participant Questionnaire, Instructions, and Example Survey
How often do you take personal items to be dry cleaned?
nLess than once a month n About twice a month
nAbout once a month n More than twice a month
Are you male or female? n Male n Female
How old are you?
n 19 or under n 20-29 n 30-39 n 40-49 n 50-59
D 60-69 n 70 or above
Thank you very much for participating in the dry cleaning study!
INSTRUCTIONS
Please read carefully before beginning the study.
You are about to participate in a study on dry cleaning. In this study, we are interested in your
personal judgements on dry cleaning quality.
You will be shown several different garments. Please take your time and look at each garment
carefully. After you have had time to look at the garments, you will be asked to answer some
simple questions.
The garments that you will be shown have been dry cleaned. Each garment was worn for
several days in a typical office environment before cleaning. No garment was heavily soiled.
stained or spotted before cleaning.
You will be able to look at the garments, but not touch them. This prevents garments from
becoming wrinkled.
Simply answer questions as if you have received the clothing shown back from a professional
cleaner.
Thank you for participating in this study!
-------
Exhibit XH.2 Visual Test Results
Garment
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Type
Blue wool
suit
Green wool
blend suit
Brown jacket
White silk
blouse
Green rayon
blouse
Plaid rayon
blouse
White cotton
pleated skirt
Black wool
skirt
Navy acrylic
sweater
Cream cotton
knit sweater
White
polyester
braided trim
blouse
Black ramie
cotton
sweater
Cleaning
Process
Wet
Dry
Wet
Dry
Wet
Dry
Wet
Dry
Wet
Dry
Wet
Dry
Wet
Dry
Wet
Dry
Wet
Dry
Wet
Dry
Wet
Dry
Wet
Dry
Number
"Acceptable"
14
15
13
19
7
0
6
0
10
15
18
16
10
15
18
15
15
13
4
5
14
11
19
8
Number "Not
Acceptable"
5
4
6
0
12
19
13
19
9
4
1
3
9
4
1
4
4
6
15
14
5
8
0
11
Num
equa
nrpff
LH \sl\
dry"
5
16
19
19
9
14
7
17
14
,0
13
17
-------
APPENDIX
Detail of Visual Standards Testing
Exhibit Xffl.l Wet cleaned visual standards testing results
Exhibit XTQ.2 Dry cleaned visual standards testing results
-------
Exhibit Xm.l Wet Cleaned Visual Standards Testing Results
Garment
Description
Green Brown
Suit Trouser
Green Brown
Suit Jacket
Green Rayon
Blouse
White Beaded
Blouse
White Silk
Blouse
Men's Blue
Suit Trousers
Men's Blue
Suit Jacket
Black Sweater
Gold Beads
White Pleated
Knit Skirt
Navy Sweater
with Buttons
Red Plaid
Blouse
White Sweater
100% Cotton
Black Wool
Skirt
Brown Micro
Fiber Jacket
Grey
Scale
5
4-5
4-5
4-5
5
4-5
5
4-5
4-5
4-5
4-5
Describe
Color
darker
slightly darker
dingier than
control
darker,
brighter
black; looks
better than
control
colors are
darker deeper
dingy, color
is dirty
darker black,
brighter black
darker
Garment Distortions
Abrasions
stains on cuffs/loss of
color hi crease of
collar, buttonholes
light mark on left side
stains on left sleeve
fuzzing very slightly
all over
fraying of collar some
piling
piling, stains, fuzzing
on front, back &
Garment
Feel
slightly
softer
softer
stiff &
coarse
same
softer
softer
softer
softer
softer
stiff
Look of Trim
Buttons Other
abrasion on
many buttons
abrasion of
beads -
slightly
2 buttons
missing
pressing bad
sleeves
-------
Exhibit Xm.2 Dry Cleaned Visual Standards Testing Results
Garment
Description
Green Brown
Suit Trouser
Green Brown
Suit Jacket
Green Rayon
Blouse
White Beaded
Blouse
White Silk
Blouse
Men's Blue
Suit Trousers
Men's Blue
Suit Jacket
Black Sweater
Gold Beads
White Pleated
Knit Skirt
Navy Sweater
with Buttons
Red Plaid
Blouse
White Sweater
100% Cotton
Black Wool
Skirt
Brown Micro
Fiber Jacket
Grey
Scale
4-5
4-5
4-5
4-5
4-5
4-5
4-5
5
3
4-5
4-5
3
4-5
3-4
Describe
Color
darker
slightly red
darker
redder
lighter
yellowed
dingier
darker
redder
darker
redder
pink, lost
color/would
not accept
lighter blue
darker,
deeper colors
pink/looks
old, lost all
color
browner,
darker
Garment Distortions
Abrasions
grey streaks on
right/seam on left
sleeve unraveling
stains on right armpit/
sleeve, center front
slight fuzzing all over
slight fuzzing all over
looks crushed/piling
on sleeve, body &
Garment
Feel
stiff
stiff
stiffer
stiff
stiff
stiff
stiff
same as
control
stiff
stiff, gritty
stiffer
stiff
softer
stiff
Look of Trim
Buttons Other
buttons
melted
slightly
shoulder pads
good
beads melted
significantly
buttons good
collar/wrinkles all
over
-------
APPENDIX XIV
ODOR TEST RESULTS
Exhibit XIV. 1 Details of odor test of multiprocess wet cleaned garments
Exhibit XIV.2 Details of odor test of dry cleaned garments
-------
Exhibit XTV. 1 Details of Odor Test of Multiprocessed Wet Cleaned Garments'
Garment
Description
Green Brown
Suit Trouser
Green Brown
Suit Jacket
Green Rayon
Blouse
White Beaded
Blouse
White Silk
Blouse
Men's Blue
Suit Jacket
Men's Blue
Suit Trousers
Black Sweater
Gold Beads
White Pleated
Knit Skirt
Navy Sweater
with Buttons
Red Plaid
Blouse
White
Sweater 100%
Cotton
Black Wool
Skirt
Brown Micro
Fiber Jacket
Tester
Number
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
Odor
no odor
no odor
no odor
no odor
very light desirable, not
objectionable
no odor
very light/desirable/not
objectionable
Light odor
no odor
no odor
light odor
light odor
light odor
light odor
pleasant, light perfume,
not objectionable
medium odor/desirable
no odor/desirable/not
objectionable
no odor
very light/ok, not
objectionable
no odor
very light, desirable, not
objectionable
light
light
light
light odor, desirable/not
objectionable
no odor
light/ok, not objectionable
no odor
Characterize
Odor
none
none
none
none
perfume
none
cloth
cosmetic
cloth
none
clothing
none
clothing
no odor
perfume
cosmetic
cloth
none
sweet cloth
none
sweet
perfume
deodorant
clothing
none
clean cloth
none
cloth
none
Acceptance
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
'Tests were performed on December 16, 1992.
-------
Exhibit XIV.2 Details of Odor Test of Dry Cleaned Garments'
Garment
Description
Green Brown
Suit Trouser
Green Brown
Suit Jacket
Green Rayon
Blouse
White Beaded
Blouse
White Silk
Blouse
Men's Blue
Suit Jacket
Men's Blue
Suit Trousers
Black Sweater
Gold Beads
White Pleated
Knit Skirt
Navy Sweater
with Buttons
Red Plaid
Blouse
White
Sweater 100%
Cotton
Black Wool
Skirt
Brown Micro
Fiber Jacket
Tester
Number
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
Odor
no odor
no odor
no odor
no odor
body odor/objectionable,
undesirable
no odor
no odor
no odor
heavy odor/undesirable,
objectionable
very light
light odor
light odor
light odor
light odor
very light odor
light odor/desirable
light odor undesirable,
objectionable
objectionable
very light
no odor
no odor
no odor
very light, undesirable,
objectionable
light
light odor, desirable/not
objectionable
light
light odor, undesirable,
objectionable
light
Characterize
Odor
none
none
none
none
body odor
none
none
none
body odor
soap
clothing
none
clothing
no odor
clothing
cosmetic
PCEor
acetic
PCE
clothing
none
cloth
none
acetic acid
chemical
cloth
PCEor
chemical
bad solvent,
acetic or
PCE
PCE
Acceptance
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
no
yes
'Tests were performed on December 16, 1992.
-------
APPENDIX XV
GENERAL CUSTOMER SATISFACTION POSTCARD SURVEY
Exhibit XV. 1 Sample general wear postcard survey
Exhibit XV.2 Summary of responses: general customer satisfaction postcard survey
Exhibit XV.3 A listing of responses to each survey question
Exhibit XV.4 A summary of the written comments by respondents
-------
Exhibit XV. 1 Sample General Wear Postcard Survey
Garment type:
Thank you for participating in EPA's Design for the Environment dry cleaning project.
Please rate your satisfaction with the quality of dry cleaning you received.
Are clothes pressed and finished nicely? G Yes G No
Were stains or spots removed? G Doesn't apply O Yes G No
How is color? O No change O Some overall change with improvement
O Some overall change, not an improvement O Some unevenness in color
How is size? O No change O Some shrinkage G Some stretching
Any tears? O Yes O No Do any seams pucker or bulge out? O Yes G No
Are buttons or decorations OK? G Doesn't apply G Some broken or missing G OK
Is any odor present? G Yes O No
If odor is present: O Acceptable O Prefer not to have
Is clothing clean overall? O Yes G No
Please drop this card in any mailbox. Thank you.
-------
Exhibit XV.2 Summary of Responses: General Customer Postcard Satisfaction Survey
Are clothes pressed and finished nicely?
Yes
Total Number
No Applicable
Dry cleaning
Wet cleaning
Were stains or spots removed?
Dry cleaning
Wet cleaning
How is color?
No Change
Dry cleaning 83.9%
Wet cleaning 92.7%
How is size?
No Change
Dry cleaning 87.4%
Wet cleaning 93.6%
Any tears?
Dry cleaning
Wet cleaning
89.5%
93.2%
Yes
72.7%
72.6%
Some overall
change with
improvement
9.5%
4.5%
Some
shrinkage
9.4%
5.2%
Yes
9.5%
2.7%
10.5% 171
6.8% 177
Total Number
No Applicable
27.3% 66
27.4% 62
Some overall Some
change, not an unevenness
improvement in color
3.6% 3.0%
1.1% 1.7%
Some Total Number
stretching Applicable
3.1% 159
1.2% 173
Total Number
No Applicable
90.5% 137
97.3% 148
Total Number
Applicable
168
178
Do any seams pucker or bulge out?
Yes
Dry cleaning
Wet cleaning
Are buttons or decorations OK?
Some broken
or missing
Dry cleaning
Wet cleaning
Is any odor present?
Dry cleaning
Wet cleaning
6.5%
0.0%
Yes
15.4%
4.4%
Total Number
No Applicable
9.5%
2.7%
90.5%
97.3%
137
148
OK
93.5%
100.0%
No
84.6%
95.6%
Total Number
Applicable
108
126
Total Number
Applicable
169
181
-------
Exhibit XV.2 Summary of Responses: General Customer Postcard Satisfaction Survey
(concluded)
If odor is present, is it
Dry cleaning
Wet cleaning
Is clothing clean overall?
Dry cleaning
Wet cleaning
Acceptable
56.0%
55.6%
Yes
92.9%
92.2%
Prefer not Total Number
to have Applicable
44.0%
44.4%
No
7.1%
7.8%
25
9
Total Number
Applicable
168
179
-------
Exhibit X V.3 A Key to Survey Responses
(1) Are clothes pressed and finished nicely?
YS = Yes; NO = No; NA = No answer
(2) Were stains or spots removed?
DA = Doesn't apply; YS = Yes; NO = No; NA = No answer
(3) How is color?
NC = No change; CI = Some overall change with improvement
CN = Some overall change, not an improvement; SU = Some unevenness i
(4) How is size?
NC = No change; SH = Some shrinkage; ST = Some stretching
(5) Any tears?
YS = Yes; NO = No; NA = No answer
(6) Do any seams pucker or bulge out?
YS = Yes; NO = No; NA = No answer
(7) Are buttons or decorations OK?
DA = Doesn't apply; BM = Some broken or missing; OK = OK; NA = N
(8) Is any odor present?
YS = Yes; NO = No; NA = No answer
(9) If odor is present:
AC = Acceptable; PN = Prefer not to have; NA = No answer
(10) Is clothing clean overall?
YS = Yes; NO = No; NA = No answer
-------
Exhibit XV.3 General Customer SatisfactionPostcard Surveys
Wet Cleaning
ID# (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
10201
10301
10601
15307
15308
15309
15310
15311
15328
15343
15345
15349
15350
15370
15371
15372
15373
15384
15386
15387
15388
15389
15390
15398
15399
16034
16037
16047
16075
16079
16086
16211
16213
16227
16230
16307
16308
16309
16310
16311
16342
16460
16461
16463
16464
16465
16479
16483
16497
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
DA
DA
YS
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
YS
YS
DA
DA
YS
YS
YS
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
YS
DA
DA
DA
YS
NO
NO
YS
DA
NO
NO
YS
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
NO
YS
NO
NO
DA
NO
YS
YS
DA
DA
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
CI
CI
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
CN
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
su
CN
NA
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NA
SH
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
SH
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
NC
NO
NO
NO
YS
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YS
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NA
NO
NA
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NA
NO
NO
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NO
NA
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NA
NA
NO
NO
NA
NO
NO
NO
NO
NA
NA
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
OK
OK
DA
NA
OK
OK
OK
DA
OK
OK
OK
DA
DA
DA
DA
OK
DA
DA
NA
DA
DA
NA
DA
OK
OK
OK
DA
OK
DA
NA
OK
OK
OK
NA
OK
DA
DA
DA
DA
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
YS
NO
YS
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YS
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YS
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
PN
NA
PN
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
AC
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
AC
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
NO
YS
NO
YS
YS
YS
NO
NO
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
NO
YS
NO
YS
YS
YS
-------
Exhibit XV.3 General Customer Satisfaction Postcard Surveys
Dry Cleaning (continued)
ID#
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
16277
16278
16279
16280
16290
16291
16293
16294
16295
16297
16299
16412
16413
16414
16422
16436
16437
16438
16439
16440
16447
16449
18011
18104
18108
18227
18228
18229
18314
18316
18325
18327
18341
18349
18359
18360
18361
18362
18363
18376
19061
19114
19115
19117
19128
19129
19162
19183
19188
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
NO
NO
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
NO
YS
NO
NO
NO
NO
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
DA
DA
DA
DA
NO
NO
DA
DA
DA
DA
YS
YS
DA
NO
DA
YS
DA
YS
YS
DA
DA
NO
YS
DA
NO
DA
DA
DA
YS
DA
DA
DA
DA
YS
NO
DA
DA
DA
CI
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
CI
NC
NC
CN
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
su
NC
SU
CN
SU
su
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
SH
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
SH
NC
ST
ST
ST
ST
NC
NC
NA
ST
NC
NC
NC
NC
NA
NA
NC
NO
YS
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NA
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YS
NO
NA
NO
NO
NO
NA
NA
NA
NO
NO
NA
NA
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NA
NO
NO
YS
NA
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YS
YS
YS
NA
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
OK
DA
DA
DA
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
DA
OK
OK
DA
OK
OK
OK
OK
DA
OK
OK
DA
DA
OK
BM
OK
OK
OK
DA
DA
OK
OK
OK
OK
BM
OK
OK
OK
OK
DA
OK
OK
DA
OK
OK
OK
OK
NO
YS
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YS
YS
NO
YS
YS
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NA
NO
YS
NO
NO
NO
YS
NO
YS
YS
YS
YS
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NA
PN
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
PN
AC
NA
AC
AC
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
AC
NA
NA
NA
AC
NA
PN
PN
PN
PN
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
NO
YS
YS
NO
YS
YS
YS
YS
NO
YS
YS
NO
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
-------
Exhibit XV. 3 General Customer Satisfaction Postcard Surveys
Dry Cleaning (continued)
ID# (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
19196
19207
19215
19219
19220
19229
19232
19233
19244
19245
19255
19264
19265
19270
19351
19353
19354
19361
19374
19375
19376
19377
19378
19385
19386
19387
19388
19389
19390
19395
19396
19397
19398
19400
19402
19419
19420
19423
19428
19429
19494
19496
19497
19499
19557
19559
19560
19561
19573
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
NO
NO
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
NA
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
NO
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
DA
YS
DA
YS
YS
YS
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
YS
YS
DA
YS
DA
YS
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
NA
DA
DA
DA
YS
NO
YS
NO
YS
YS
YS
DA
YS
NO
YS
DA
YS
YS
DA
NO
DA
DA
DA
DA
NO
NC
CN
NC
NC
NC
CI
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
CI
CI
NC
CN
NC
NC
NC
NC
CI
CI
NC
NC
CI
CI
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
CI
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
CI
CI
CI
CI
NC
SH
SH
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NA
NA
NC
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
SH
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NA
NO
NO
NO
NA
NO
YS
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NA
NA
NA
NA
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YS
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NO
NO
NA
NA
NO
NA
NA
NA
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NA
NA
OK
OK
DA
OK
OK
OK
DA
DA
OK
OK
DA
OK
OK
DA
OK
OK
OK
NA
DA
DA
OK
DA
DA
NA
DA
DA
DA
NA
NA
OK
DA
DA
DA
OK
OK
OK
OK
DA
OK
DA
OK
OK
DA
DA
NA
NA
NA
NA
DA
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YS
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YS
YS
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NA
NO
NO
NO
NO
NA
NO
NO
NO
NO
YS
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YS
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
AC
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
AC
AC
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
PN
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
AC
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
NA
NA
YS
YS
NO
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
NO
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
-------
Exhibit XV.3 General Customer Satisfaction Postcard Surveys
Wet Cleaning (concluded)
ID# (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
19641
19704
19711
19714
19715
19738
19739
19740
19741
19742
19747
19748
19768
19800
19806
19808
19809
19812
19813
19824
19825
19826
19827
19828
19832
19833
19834
19843
19844
19845
19846
19847
19848
19849
YS
YS
NA
YS
YS
NO
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
NA
NO
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
NO
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
DA
YS
NO
DA
NO
YS
YS
DA
DA
DA
YS
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
YS
DA
DA
DA
DA •
DA
DA
NO
DA
NA
DA
DA
DA
YS
DA
YS
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
CI
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
SH
NC
SH
NA
NA
NC
SH
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
SH
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
SH
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YS
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
DA
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
NA
OK
OK
DA
OK
DA
DA
DA
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
DA
DA
OK
OK
OK
OK
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YS
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
PN
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
YS
YS
NO
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
-------
Exhibit XV. 3 General Customer Satisfaction Postcard Surveys
Dry Cleaning
ID#
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
15266
15267
15268
15269
15273
15281
15289
15295
15407
15713
15714
15716
15724
15729
15731
15732
15735
15736
16120
16135
16136
16137
16138
16143
16144
16152
16153
16154
16155
16159
16161
16164
16165
16166
16170
16171
16172
16184
16189
16190
16195
16199
16250
16251
16253
16259
16260
16275
16276
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
NO
NO
NO
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
NO
NO
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
NO
NO
YS
YS
DA
DA
DA
NO
DA
NO
DA
DA
NO
DA
YS
DA
NO
DA
DA
DA
NO
DA
YS
DA
NO
YS
YS
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
YS
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
NO
YS
YS
YS
YS
DA
DA
NC
CI
NC
NC
NC
CN
su
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NA
NA
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
CI
NC
NC
CN
NC
NC
NC
NC
SH
SH
SH
NC
NC
NA
SH
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
SH
NC
SH
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NO
NO
NO
NO
NA
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NA
NA
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YS
NO
NO
NO
NA
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YS
YS
YS
NO
NO
NO
NA
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NA
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NA
NO
NO
NO
NO
YS
YS
DA
OK
DA
DA
BM
OK
BM
DA
OK
OK
DA
OK
OK
OK
DA
OK
DA
DA
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
DA
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
DA
BM
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
DA
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
DA
DA
OK
OK
NO
NO
NO
YS
YS
NO
NO
NO
NO
YS
YS
YS
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YS
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NA
NA
NA
AC
PN
NA
NA
NA
NA
PN
PN
PN
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
AC
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
NO
YS
NO
NO
NO
YS
YS
NA
NA
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
NO
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
NO
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
-------
Exhibit XV.3 General Customer Satisfaction Postcard Surveys
Wet Cleaning (continued)
ID# (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
16498
16499
16504
16505
16506
16507
16508
16509
16510
16511
16514
16515
16517
16520
16551
16552
16555
J6557
16559
18000
18001
18002
18003
18004
18025
18028
18036
18042
18043
18044
18051
18433
18434
18440
19001
19014
19015
19018
19019
19024
19039
19040
19041
19042
19043
19044
19045
19046
19047
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
NO
YS
YS
NO
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
NO
YS
NO
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
YS
DA
YS
DA
DA
YS
DA
YS
NO
YS
YS
NO
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
NO
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
NO
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
YS
YS
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
CI
CI
CI
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
su
NC
NC
NC
NC
CI
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
SH
SH
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NA
NO
NO
NA
NO
NA
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YS
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NA
NA
NA
NO
NO
YS
NO
YS
NO
NO
NA
NO
NO
OK
OK
DA
DA
DA
DA
OK
OK
OK
OK
DA
DA
DA
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
DA
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
DA
OK
OK
OK
DA
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
DA
DA
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
DA
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YS
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
AC
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
PN
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
NO
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
-------
Exhibit XV.3 General Customer Satisfaction Postcard Surveys
Wet Cleaning (continued)
ID# (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
(8)
(9) (10)
19048
19049
19050
19062
19063
19064
19077
19079
19094
19095
19300
19308
19310
19313
19332
19333
19500
19501
19502
19503
19504
19505
19506
19509
19510
19512
19513
19514
19515
19516
19529
19535
19537
19538
19539
19540
19541
19542
19543
19600
19602
19603
19604
19612
19632
19633
19634
19635
19639
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
NO
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
NA
NA
YS
YS
YS
YS
NO
YS
NO
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
NO
YS
NO
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
DA
DA
YS
DA
YS
NO
DA
DA
DA
DA
YS
NO
NA
NA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
YS
DA
NA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
su
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
CI
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ST
NC
NC
NC
NC
ST
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
NA
NA
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NA
NA
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NA
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NA
NO
NA
NO
NO
NO
NA
NO
NO
NO
NA
NA
NO
NO
NO
NA
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NA
NA
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NA
NA
NA
NO
NO
NO
DA
NA
OK
OK
OK
OK
DA
DA
OK
OK
OK
DA
OK
OK
OK
DA
DA
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
NA
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
NA
NA
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
DA
DA
OK
OK
OK
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YS
YS
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
AC
AC
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
NO
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
NO
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
NO
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
NO
NO
YS
NO
YS
YS
YS
NA
NA
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
-------
Exhibit XV. 3 General Customer Satisfaction Postcard Surveys
Dry Cleaning (concluded)
(1)
(2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
19574
19650
19652
19653
19654
19655
19679
19681
19682
19683
19684
19685
19686
19687
19688
19694
19696
19698
19708
19750
19751
19755
19763
19764
19769
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
NO
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
NA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
YS
DA
YS
DA
YS
YS
DA
YS
DA
DA
YS
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
SH
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
SH
NC
SH
SH
NC
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YS
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YS
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NA
OK
DA
DA
DA
DA
OK
OK
OK
BM
BM
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
DA
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YS
YS
NO
NO
NO
YS
NO
NO
NO
YS
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
AC
NA
NA
NA
NA
AC
NA
NA
NA
AC
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
YS
-------
Exhibit XV.4 Written Comment Summary
Wet Cleaning
15307 Shoulder pad detached
15384 Dislike tags stapled to clothes
15386 Dislike tags stapled to clothes
16551 Great
18000 Don't staple tags to clothes
18025 Collar wasn't flattened
18028 Couldn't remove mayonnaise stain
19040 Stains were created
19308 Spots not removed - wants $3 back
19313 Shouldn't staple tags to clothes
19512 Not as clean as usual
19529 A little shiny, too pressed
19738 Silk blouse ruined shape wise
19800 Slight odor
19843 Lot of lint on garment
Dry Cleaning
15267 Cleaner than ever
15289 Zipper doesn't work
15729 Improvement over usual odors
16137 Lint
16138 Same spot, very disappointed
16166 Too much waste, plastic, paper
16184 Happy but took too long
16438 Worst job ever seen
18101 Didn't remove spots
19129 Blue ink stain remained
19361 Shoulder pads bunch up
19374 Great project, very satisfied
19375 Please continue program
19376 Great project
19378 Fantastic job
19385 Appeared to irritate eyes
19386 Mild eye irritation
19387 Some eye irritation
19388 Some eye irritation
19389 Caused some eye irritation
19390 Caused some eye irritation
19395 Spots not removed, too expensive
19396 Too expensive
19397 Spots on tie, too expensive
19398 Too expensive
19423 New spots and stains
19428 Too expensive
19429 Too expensive
19494 Too expensive compared to usual
19574 New spot on back
19708 Pressing could be better
------- |