Commercialization of Professional Wet Cleaning:

Transcription

1 Commercialization of Professional Wet Cleaning: An Evaluation of the Opportunities and Factors Involved in Switching To a Pollution Prevention Technology in the Garment Care Industry Final Report October 28, 2002 POLLUTION PREVENTION EDUCATION AND RESEARCH CENTER URBAN AND EVIRONMENTAL POLICY INSTITUTE OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE Peter Sinsheimer Director, Pollution Prevention Education and Research Center Cyrus Grout Senior Research Associate, Pollution Prevention Education and Research Center Angela Namkoong Senior Research Associate, Pollution Prevention Education and Research Center Robert Gottlieb Henry R. Luce Professor of Urban and Environmental Policy, Director, Urban and Environmental Policy Institute, Occidental College

2 Acknowledgements This report required a wide range of input and technical review. A number of people provided significant support in terms of information, technical review, and comments. In particular we would like to thank Kelly Swegan, former PPERC Outreach Coordinator, for her tireless efforts to make this project a success. We would also like to thank, among others: Ed Becker,The Gas Company; Tim Carmichael, Coalition for Clean Air; Elaine Chang, South Coast Air Quality Management District; Sylvia Chico, Urban and Environmental Policy Institute; Paul Choe, Korean Dry Cleaners and Launderers Association; Yong Chon, 1Day Cleaners; Liz Church, Western Cleaner & Launderer; Rolando Cruz, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power; Thu Duong, Anawood Cleaners; Gabriel Florez, Beta Technologies; David Fuller, Wascomat; Eli Gichon, Eli s Airport Cleaners; Daniel Goldman, Wascomat; Jorge Gutierrez, The Gas Company; Jim Hoover, Laidlaw Corporation; Mike Hurrell, Southland Laundry Systems; Steve Kanaan, Anawood Cleaners; Helen Kim Yi, Korean Youth and Community Center; Myn Min Kim, Southern California Edison; Hans Kim, Natures Best Cleaners; Steven Kim, Orange County Environmental Health; Abid Latif, South Coast Air Quality Management District; Chung Liu, South Coast Air Quality Management District; Timothy Malloy, UCLA School of Law; Mike Mascaro, 7-Eleven Inc.; Ines Mireles, Del Mar Natural Cleaners; Moon Noh, San Clemente Natural Cleaning Center; Zion Orpaz, Golden State Laundry Systems; Ray Rangwala, Greater Los Angeles Dry Cleaning Association; Cristina Regalado, The California Wellness Foundation; Sandy Ro, Korean Youth and Community Center; Ron Rothman, Golden State Laundry Systems; Rocele Sagario, The California Wellness Foundation; Jeurgen Shaeffer, Miele; Jackie Smith, California Cleaners Association; Johng Ho Song, Korean Youth and Community Center; Anthony Star, Center for Neighborhood Technology; Yuriko Tanabe, European Finishing Equipment Corp; John Tipps, Clean Concepts Technology, Inc.; Craig Tranby, City of L.A. Environmental Affairs Department; Krishna Verma, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power; Randy Wente, Western Cleaner & Launderer; Joe Whang, Cypress Natural Cleaners; Jennifer Whang, Cypress Natural Cleaners; Paul Williams, Southern California Edison. Support for this report was made available through: The South Coast Air Quality Management District, The California Wellness Foundation, The Gas Company, and Southern California Edison.

3 Disclaimer The statements and conclusions in this report are those of the Pollution Prevention Education and Research Center and not necessarily those of any institution that has funded this work. The mention of commercial projects, their source, or their use in connection with material reported herein is not to be construed as actual or implied endorsements of such projects. This report was prepared as a result of work sponsored, paid for, in whole or in part, by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD). The opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the view of AQMD. AQMD, its officers, employees, contractors, and subcontractors make no warranty, expressed or implied, and assume no legal liability for the information in this report. AQMD had not approved or disapproved this report, nor has AQMD passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of the information contained herein.

4 Table of Contents Page Number Abstract Executive Summary 1. Introduction From Dry Cleaning to Professional Wet Cleaning Background to the Report: A Pollution Prevention Approach Description of the Professional Wet Cleaning Process Previous Research on the Viability of Professional Wet Cleaning Current Research Focus Methods Sample Selection Evaluation Criteria Study Design Results Cleaner Case Studies San Clemente Dry Cleaning Center Case Study Del Mar Cleaners Case Study Anawood Cleaners Case Study Day Cleaners Case Study Eli s Airport Cleaners Case Study Case Study Summary Analysis Overview Evaluation of Transition to Professional Wet Cleaning Attitudes Of Cleaners Towards Professional Wet Cleaning Performance Evaluation of Professional Wet Cleaning Financial Evaluation of Professional Wet Cleaning Resource Use Assessment Discussion Comparison With Other Studies Generalizing Results: Keys to Successful Commercialization Conclusion 5-4

5 List of Tables Page Number Table 3.1: Garment Profile and Performance at San Clemente Dry 3-4 Cleaning Center Table 3.2: Process Dependent Costs per 100 Garments Cleaned: 3-5 San Clemente Dry Cleaning Center Table 3.3: Garment Profile and Performance at Del Mar Cleaners 3-10 Table 3-4: Garment Profile and Performance at Anawood Cleaners 3-14 Table 3-5: Garment Profile and Performance at 1Day Cleaners 3-18 Table 3-6: Process Dependent Costs per 100 Garments Cleaned: 1Day Cleaners 3-19 Table 3-7: Performance Evaluation: Eli s Airport Cleaners 3-24 Table 3-8: Process Dependent Costs per 100 Garments Cleaned: 3-25 Eli s Airport Cleaners Table 4.1 Difficulty Ratings Transition to Professional Wet 4-3 Cleaning Table 4.2: Cleaners Concerns About Wet Cleaning Technology 4-4 Table 4.3: Motives For Switching to Professional Wet Cleaning 4-5 Table 4.4: Owner Satisfaction 4-5 Table 4.5 Number of Cleaners Experiencing Symptoms Association with PCE Exposure 4-6 Table 4.6: Garment Profile and Performance of Professional Wet 4-8 Cleaners Table 4.7: Process Dependent Costs per 100 Garments Cleaned 4-11 Table 4.8: Resource Use Per 100 Garments Cleaned: Dry Cleaning vs. Professional Wet Cleaning 4-14

6 List of Figures Page Number Figure 1.1: Professional Wet Cleaning System 1-4

7 List of Appendices Page Number Section A: San Clemente Dry Cleaning Center Key to Case Study Figures Performance Calculations for San Clemente Dry Cleaning Center A 1 Financial Calculations for San Clemente Dry Cleaning Center A 2 Resource Use Data A 7 Interview Moon Noh A 10 Section B: Del Mar Cleaners Key to Case Study Figures Performance Calculations for Del Mar Cleaners B 1 Interview Ines Mireles B 3 Section C: Anawood Cleaners Key to Case Study Figures Performance Calculations for Anawood Cleaners C 1 Interview Steve Kanaan C 2 Section D: 1Day Cleaners Key to Case Study Figures Performance Calculations for 1Day Cleaners D 1 Financial Calculations for 1Day Cleaners D 2 Resource Use Data D 7 Interview Yong Chon D 12 Section E: Eli s Airport Cleaners Key to Case Study Figures Performance Calculations for Eli s Airport Cleaners E 1 Financial Calculations for Eli s Airport Cleaners E 2 Resource Use Data E 7 Interview Eli Gichon E 9 Section F: Fees and Rate Schedules Permitting and License Fees F 1 LADWP Electricity Rate Schedule F 2 SDGE Electricity Rate Schedule F 3 SCE Electricity Rate Schedule F 4 Southern California Gas Company Rate Schedule F 5 City of San Clemente Water Rate Schedule F 6 Moulton Niguel Water District Rate Schedule F 6 Section G: Memorandum of Understanding G 1

8 Abstract This report, Commercialization of Professional Wet Cleaning, is one in a series of reports by the Pollution Prevention Education and Research Center evaluating the prospects for pollution prevention in the garment care industry in order to address the significant environmental and health impacts associated with the use of perchloroethylene (PCE), the chemical cleaning solvent used by 85% of all dry cleaners. This report is the first study to evaluate the transition from PCE-based dry cleaning to professional wet cleaning by multiple cleaners. The report analyzed the operations of five privately owned and operated dry cleaners who had switched from PCE-based dry cleaning to professional wet cleaning during the past fifteen months. Each of the five had received an equipment and training grant as part of the Professional Wet Cleaning Commercialization Project. The Commercialization Project, administered by the Pollution Prevention Education and Research Center at Occidental College, was designed to provide grants to cleaners switching from dry cleaning to professional wet cleaning and to evaluate the outcomes associated with that transition. By increasing the number of dedicated professional wet cleaners in the region, the Project sought to identify whether the establishment of a critical mass of professional wet clean facilities could provide demonstration sites as positive models for the garment care industry as well as create the infrastructure necessary to begin a larger transition towards non-pce based cleaning methods, including professional wet cleaning. The study identified several criteria it employed to evaluate the success of each cleaner s conversion to professional wet cleaning. It also analyzed the factors that facilitate an effective transition to professional wet cleaning. Study results indicate that cleaners switching from PCE dry cleaning to professional wet cleaning can maintain their level of service, reduce their operating costs, and avoid having to comply with complex and potentially onerous PCE regulations and liability concerns. In addition, significant energy benefits were identified. The study also pointed to training, proper installation of equipment and machine programming, as well as the availability of demonstration facilities for new cleaners to observe the cleaning process as the primary factors that can facilitate a transition to this new technology.

9 Executive Summary Background This report, Commercialization of Professional Wet Cleaning, is one in a series of reports by the Pollution Prevention Education and Research Center evaluating the prospects for pollution prevention in the garment care industry in order to address the significant environmental and health impacts associated with the use of perchloroethylene (PCE or perc), the chemical cleaning solvent used by 85% of all dry cleaners. It is the first study to evaluate the transition from PCE-based dry cleaning to professional wet cleaning by multiple cleaners. The operations of five privately owned and operated dry cleaners who had switched from PCE-based dry cleaning to professional wet cleaning during the past fifteen months were analyzed. Each of the five had received an equipment and training grant as part of the Professional Wet Cleaning Commercialization Project. The Commercialization Project, administered by the Pollution Prevention Education and Research Center at Occidental College, was designed to provide grants to 8 cleaners switching from dry cleaning to professional wet cleaning and to evaluate the outcomes associated with that transition. By increasing the number of dedicated professional wet cleaners in the region, the Project sought to identify whether the establishment of a critical mass of professional wet clean facilities that could serve as demonstration sites would become positive models for the garment care industry as well as create the infrastructure necessary to begin a larger transition towards non-pce based cleaning methods, including professional wet cleaning. Methods The report provides, through the five case studies, a plant level analysis that compares the real world conditions for each cleaner in its transition from dry cleaning to professional wet cleaning. Four key factors were evaluated. Owner satisfaction criteria were used to measure the satisfaction of owners who made the switch. Performance criteria addressed whether a professional wet cleaner could effectively clean the full range of garments normally cleaned in dry cleaning. Financial criteria were used to measure whether the one-time cost of equipment and the ongoing operating expenses associated with professional wet cleaning were similar to costs incurred in PCE dry cleaning. The resource impacts of professional wet cleaning compared to PCE dry cleaning were also measured. A summary level analysis was then undertaken to compare the experiences of each of the cleaners converting to professional wet cleaning.

10 Results Owner Satisfaction: Each of the cleaners indicated that the switch to professional wet cleaning represented a good business decision and would recommend professional wet cleaning to other cleaners who needed to purchase new cleaning equipment. The cleaners interviewed were attracted to wet cleaning because unlike PCE dry cleaning it didn t trigger government regulations and there were no health or environmental issues to worry about. In addition, the cleaners were able to obtain information and observe other successful cleaners who had made the transition. After switching, cleaners reported greater work satisfaction and would strongly recommend, if asked, that other cleaners also make a switch to wet cleaning. They reported feeling better physically (no headaches or dizziness) and mentally (no stress from PCE regulations) since switching. All the cleaners considered switching a good business decision, which reflects their confidence in the performance quality of wet cleaning and their confidence in the system s financial viability. Lack of reliable information on professional wet cleaning lead to concerns about performance and labor, and anxiety about using a new cleaning method for cleaners considering switching. Finding a good technician to install professional wet cleaning equipment was a challenge for cleaners who switched. Performance Assessment: Each of the five cleaners were able to process the full range of garments that had previously been dry cleaned and were able to successfully retain their customer base while switching their cleaning process. At each cleaner, more than 62% of garments carry a dry clean label. Each of the cleaners was able to successfully wet clean nearly all garments (greater than 96%) brought in by customers. For each cleaner, their overall success rate in processing customer garments in wet cleaning was comparable to their success rate as dry cleaners. No cleaner reported receiving negative customer responses associated with their switch to professional wet cleaning. Each cleaner reported some level of positive response from customers associated with their switch to professional wet cleaning. Financial Assessment: Operating costs were lower for cleaners in professional wet cleaning compared to when they were dry cleaning. Process dependent costs were reduced in professional wet cleaning between $3.59 and $17.49 per one hundred garments cleaned. While detergent costs were higher in wet cleaning, operating costs that were higher in dry cleaning included equipment, machine maintenance, hazardous waste, regulatory fees, electricity, and natural gas. The number of hours worked by employees did not increase for any of the five wet cleaners profiled.

11 Resource Assessment: Electricity use was substantially lower in processing garments in professional wet cleaning compared to dry cleaning. Natural gas use was somewhat lower, while water use appeared to be comparable or somewhat higher for wet cleaning, dependent on the volume of laundering done. Electricity use was between 12% and 46% lower in wet cleaning. Natural gas use was between 1% and 36% lower in wet cleaning. Water use rose by 17% at one cleaner and fell by 1% at another. Conclusion Study results indicate that cleaners switching from PCE dry cleaning to professional wet cleaning can maintain their level of service, reduce their operating costs, and avoid having to comply with complex and potentially onerous PCE regulations and liability concerns. In addition, significant energy benefits are identified. The study also pointed to training, proper installation of equipment and machine programming, and access to demonstration facilities to observe the cleaning process as the primary factors that can facilitate a transition to this new technology.

12 1. Introduction 1.1 From Dry Cleaning to Professional Wet Cleaning This report represents the latest research in a series of reports by the Pollution Prevention Education and Research Center evaluating the prospects for pollution prevention in the garment care industry. This includes the viability and the prospects for commercialization of professional wet cleaning as one potential pollution prevention alternative. Dry cleaning is a widely recognized method for cleaning delicate garments and a convenient service that is offered in nearly every community in the United States. For more than forty years, the vast majority of dry cleaners have relied on perchloroethylene (PCE) as the solvent used to clean clothes as part of the dry cleaning process. In recent years, however, a wide array of scientific studies and federal, state, and local regulatory actions have focused on PCE in relation to the health and environmental risks that it poses. Costly regulatory and liability actions are becoming increasingly prevalent for this industry, and have created significant economic burdens for cleaners, most of whom are small businesses. These concerns about the health and environmental effects of PCE, regulatory pressures, and the threat of liability actions have prompted, both inside and outside the garment care industry, a search for alternative cleaning processes. The first pollution prevention technology introduced commercially was professional wet cleaning -- a water-based cleaning process that uses computer-controlled washers and dryers, specially formulated detergents, and specialized finishing equipment to facilitate the cleaning of delicate garments in water. Beginning in the mid-1990 s, case study evaluations of professional wet cleaners concluded that professional wet cleaning represented a viable pollution prevention technology for the garment care industry. This report, Commercialization of Professional Wet Cleaning, is the first study to evaluate the transition from PCE-based dry cleaning to professional wet cleaning by multiple cleaners. The study identifies several criteria that it employs to evaluate the success of each cleaner s conversion to professional wet cleaning. It also analyzes the factors that facilitate an effective transition to professional wet cleaning. Study results indicate that cleaners switching from PCE dry cleaning to professional wet cleaning can maintain their level of service, remain profitable, and avoid having to comply with complex and potentially onerous PCE regulations and liability concerns. In addition, significant energy benefits were identified. Water use varied, dependent in part on the cleaner s previous volume of laundering as a dry cleaner. The study also pointed to training, proper installation of equipment and machine programming as the primary factors that can facilitate a transition to this new technology 1-1

13 1.2 Background to the Report: A Pollution Prevention Approach The report analyzed the operations of five privately owned and operated dry cleaners who had switched from PCE-based dry cleaning to professional wet cleaning during the past fifteen months. Each of the five received an equipment and training grant as part of the Professional Wet Cleaning Commercialization Project. The Commercialization Project, administered by the Pollution Prevention Education and Research Center at Occidental College, was designed to provide grants to 8 cleaners switching from dry cleaning to professional wet cleaning and to evaluate the outcomes associated with that transition. By increasing the number of dedicated professional wet cleaners in the region, the Project sought to identify whether the establishment of a critical mass of professional wet clean facilities could provide demonstration sites as positive models for the garment care industry as well as create the infrastructure necessary to begin a larger transition towards non-pce based cleaning methods, including professional wet cleaning. Support for the Professional Wet Cleaning Commercialization Project was provided by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, The California Wellness Foundation, The Gas Company, and Southern California Edison. The Commercialization Project was developed in part to explore the opportunities for a pollution prevention, rather than pollution control, approach as a more effective environmental strategy in addressing and regulating environmental hazards. The current structure of environmental policy primarily focuses on minimizing pollution that is released into the environment and, to a lesser extent, mitigating workplace or consumer hazards that may result from the use of hazardous materials. This approach has an endof-pipe focus; that is, controlling or mitigating the pollution after it has been created. The end-of-pipe or pollution control approach also emphasizes the use of technologies and procedures to control pollution releases, such as new equipment, monitoring and reporting requirements, and proper disposal. This type of regulation may help reduce environmental and occupation health impacts, but it fails to eliminate the source of the hazard or pollutant. Since the 1980s, an alternative policy approach, popularly known as pollution prevention, has been developed as a way to focus on reducing or eliminating the source of the hazard or pollutant through new technologies, process design change, and/or undertaking various other source reduction-related changes at any stage in a production cycle. Such changes can potentially eliminate the need for end-of-pipe regulatory controls entirely. Pollution prevention strategies may rely on regulatory tools, voluntary action, or economic incentives or disincentives. Pollution prevention potentially offers a new paradigm or framework for action for environmental policy and industry decision-making. To further that framework for action, the Pollution Prevention Education and Research Center (PPERC) was established in 1991 as an interdisciplinary research, teaching, technical assistance, and outreach center. PPERC faculty and staff are housed at Occidental College s Urban and Environmental Policy Institute. As part of its mission, PPERC has undertaken a series of industry-specific case studies and policy analyses to identify the opportunities and barriers to a pollution prevention approach. Since 1995, 1-2

14 PPERC has been involved in an evaluation of pollution prevention opportunities in the garment care industry. This industry has been subject to a protracted and often bitterly debated regulatory process involving end-of-pipe control requirements and liability considerations, and represents an important example of the need to assess the commercialization of this new approach in the specific context of a potential pollution prevention alternative. 1.3 Description of the Professional Wet Cleaning Process The first clearly identifiable pollution prevention technology in the garment care industry to emerge has been an aqueous-based alternative known as professional wet cleaning. 1 Wet cleaning, a process of hand-laundering delicate garments, had long been practiced by cleaners. 2 Professional wet cleaning industrialized this practice by using computercontrolled washers and dryers, specially formulated detergents, and specialized finishing equipment to create a cost-effective alternative to dry cleaning. The essential technological innovation of professional wet cleaning has been to mechanically simulate hand-laundering by retrofitting front loading commercial laundry machines with a computer to control the rotation of the drum in order to minimize agitation while providing sufficient movement for effective garment cleaning. (Figure 1.1) Wet clean washers are also equipped with a computer programmed detergent injection system, which allows the cleaner to specify the amount and type of wet clean detergent to be used for each load. Biodegradable cleaning agents have been formulated for wet cleaning by detergent manufacturers to maximize cleaning power while minimizing color change and shrinkage. Wet clean dryers include moisture sensors to assure that garments retain a proper amount of moisture after the dry cycle is complete. Specialized tensioning pressing machines are used to enhance the restoration of constructed garments, such as suit jackets, suit pants, and tailored items. 1 In 1991, the German company Miele, introduced machine wet cleaning as an alternative to perc dry cleaning for fabrics labeled dry clean only. 2 Encyclopedia Americana, 1970; Vol

15 Figure 1.1: Professional Wet Cleaning System Computer Controlled Washing Ultra gentle agitation Low water level & low water temperature High extraction speed Detergent Dispensing System Detergents remove stains/soils Conditioners add smoothness & softness Sizing adds body & helps with finishing Moisture Sensor Drying Precise moisture control Detects residual moisture in garments Prevents overdrying Finishing Tensioning Equipment Enhances restoration of constructed garments Uses steam to relax fibers and tension to reshape garments Hot air to dry 1-4

16 1.4 Previous Research on the Viability of Professional Wet Cleaning Soon after the introduction in the U.S. of the first professional wet clean washer and dryer systems in 1992, government agencies began to seek information whether professional wet cleaning constituted a viable substitute for PCE dry cleaning. A number of agencies sponsored a series of empirical evaluations in the United States and Canada to assess the feasibility of professional wet cleaning in a commercial setting. 3 The results from these case studies have collectively provided a base line of information regarding the performance, economic, and environmental viability of the pollution prevention substitute technology. 1.5 Current Research Focus Previous studies focused on cleaners who started up a new professional wet cleaning business. This is the first study to evaluate multiple cleaners who made the switch from PCE-based dry cleaning to professional wet cleaning. The report analyzes the conversion of five cleaners in the southern California region who made the switch from PCE dry cleaning to professional wet cleaning during the past fifteen months. A plant level analysis compares the real world conditions of each cleaner as they converted from dry cleaning to professional wet cleaning. To evaluate the success of each cleaner s switch, four key assessment criteria were developed. Performance criteria addressed whether a professional wet cleaner could effectively clean the full range of garments normally cleaned in dry cleaning. Financial criteria were used to measure whether the one-time cost of equipment and the ongoing operating expenses associated with professional wet cleaning were similar to costs incurred in PCE dry cleaning. The resource impacts of professional wet cleaning compared to PCE dry cleaning were also measured. Owner satisfaction criteria were used to measure the satisfaction of owners who made the switch. A summary level analysis was then undertaken to compare the experiences of each of the cleaners converting to professional wet cleaning. 3 Environment Canada; Participants, G. C. P. Green Clean: Final Report for the Green Clean Project, Environment Canada, 1995; Patton, J.; Eyring, W. Alternative Clothes Cleaning Demonstration Shop Final Report, Center for Neighborhood Technology, 1996; Pollution Prevention in the Garment Care Industry: Assessing the Viability of Professional Wet Cleaning, Pollution Prevention Education and Research Center, 1997; Sinsheimer, P.; Cho, J.; Gottlieb, R. Switching to Pollution Prevention: A Performance and Financial Evaluation of Cypress Plaza Cleaners And The Issues Associated With Converting from Dry Cleaning to Wet Cleaning, Pollution Prevention Education and Research Center, 1999; Star, A.; Ewing, S. Real World Wetcleaning: A Study of Three Established Wetcleaning Shops, Center for Neighborhood Technology,

17 2. Methods 2.1 Sample Selection The five cleaners evaluated in this study all serve as professional wet cleaning demonstration sites and are part of the Professional Wet Cleaning Commercialization Project. 4 As a demonstration site, each cleaner received an equipment grant of $12,500, technical assistance in selecting, installing, and operating professional wet clean equipment, and technical training in the operation of a professional wet cleaning facility. Each cleaner also received discounts from equipment manufacturers. 5 As a demonstration site, the cleaners agreed to host tours of their facility as well as to provide performance, financial, and resource use data to evaluate the impact of their switch. The cleaners evaluated in this study included: San Clemente Dry Cleaning Center, San Clemente, CA Del Mar Cleaners, Venice, CA Anawood Cleaners, Anaheim, CA 1Day Cleaners, Mission Viejo, CA Eli s Airport Cleaners, Van Nuys, CA 2.2 Evaluation Criteria A series of specific criteria were developed (in the form of questions to be answered) that sought to identify the parameters of what constituted professional wet cleaning viability and owner satisfaction. Performance Criteria Can a 100% professional wet cleaner operate successfully; that is, accept the range and types of garments that can be serviced by a professional dry cleaner? Can garments be professionally cleaned without significant problems? Can garments be professionally cleaned to the customer s satisfaction? Can a professional cleaning business maintain its customer base in terms of cleaning performance over time? 4 A sixth cleaner selected as a demonstration site, Rio Vista Cleaners, never operated dry clean equipment at this location prior to installing professional wet cleaning equipment. Before being allowed to operate at the location, the landlord required the current owner to remove an old dry clean machine and prohibited the installation of any new dry clean machines. Because this report focuses on cleaners who switched to professional wet cleaning, this cleaner was not included in this study. 5 Discounts on wet clean washers and dryers was provided by Wascomat. Discounts on tensioning finishing equipment was provided by the European Finishing Equipment Corporation. Discounts on detergent dispensing systems were provided by Beta Technologies. 2-1

18 Financial Criteria Are capital equipment costs for professional wet cleaning comparable to the costs for dry cleaning equipment? Is converting to professional wet cleaning comparable in relation to profitability? Do the financial risks associated with the cleaning process or other aspects of the business affect future costs or profit potential? Are the costs to consumers comparable? Resource Use Criteria Are the electricity, natural gas, and water uses in professional wet cleaning comparable to dry cleaning? Owner Satisfaction Criteria How satisfied are owners of cleaners who switch from dry cleaning to professional wet cleaning with their decision to convert? Have owners or workers experienced any adverse health effects associated with their exposure to cleaning chemicals prior to or after their switch to professional wet cleaning? How difficult was it for cleaners to convert to professional wet cleaning? 2.3 Study Design The study design was developed to address these specific performance, financial, resource use, and owner satisfaction criteria. A number of data sources were used in this evaluation, including: Records collected by the cleaners, automatic data loggers installed at individual cleaners, a structured interview questionnaire administered to each cleaner, and direct observation of cleaning operations Performance Assessment For this study, performance capacity refers to the ability of professional wet cleaning to successfully clean garments that would otherwise be brought to a dry cleaner. Three methods were used for assessing performance. A Profile of Customer Garments: A profile of the customer garments that were cleaned at each of the five wet clean facilities included information about the care labels of the garments (for example, whether a garment was labeled dry clean only ), the garment type (e.g., pants, jackets, etc.), and the fiber type (e.g., wool, 6 See Appendix A for a copy of the structured interview questionnaire. 2-2

19 rayon, etc.). Customer profile data was gathered through an inventory of customer garments brought into each cleaner. A Profile of Problem Garments: An analysis of rejected garments (garments the cleaner refused to clean at the facility), redos (garments that were brought back by customers for additional work), and customer claims (money or store credit for ruined or lost garments) provided a quantitative measurement of the extent and type of garments that pose a problem for each cleaner prior to and after switching to professional wet cleaning. Data on a number of characteristics of garment rejects, redos, and claims were collected at each cleaner after the switch took place. A structured interview was conducted to quantify the frequency of problem garments when the cleaner operated as a dry cleaner to serve as a comparison to the data gathered from the wet cleaning operations. Customer Response: Response by customers to cleaners switching from dry cleaning to professional wet cleaning was evaluated by tracking the customer retention rate, and through a structured interview with each cleaner Financial Assessment For this study, financial capability refers to the extent to which operating a professional wet cleaning facility can be profitable. Because two of the five cleaners removed their dry clean machine one year prior to converting to professional wet cleaning (Anawood Cleaners and Del Mar Cleaners), the financial analysis primarily focuses on the three cleaners who were operating through dry clean equipment up to the point that their professional wet clean equipment was installed (San Clemente Dry Cleaning Center, 1Day Cleaners, and Eli s Airport Cleaners). Equipment Cost: The type and cost of professional wet cleaning equipment purchased by each cleaner was described. The type and cost of dry cleaning equipment in use at each cleaner prior to the switch was also described. Process Cost Comparison: A comparison of operating costs of professional wet cleaning compared to dry cleaning was also undertaken. The purpose of this analysis was to assess the relative profitability of operating each facility as a dry cleaner and as a professional wet cleaner. This analysis isolates those costs that vary in the two processes, or the process dependent costs, thus identifying the relative costs of operating a professional wet cleaning facility. This analysis draws on financial records provided by each facility, information from industry sources and reports from regulatory agencies, as well as through a structured interview and follow-up interviews with each cleaner. 2-3

20 2.3.3 Resource Assessment An assessment of electricity, natural gas, and water use was undertaken to compare the relative resource demand of professional wet cleaning compared to dry cleaning. Electricity and Natural Gas Use: Monthly billing records for natural gas and electricity were evaluated at the three facilities operating dry cleaning machines immediately prior to switching to professional wet cleaning. In addition, natural gas and electricity meters were installed at two demonstration facilities prior to and after switching to professional wet cleaning. 7 Water Use: Monthly billing records for water use were evaluated at two of the three facilities operating dry cleaning machines immediately prior to switching to professional wet cleaning San Clemente Dry Cleaning Center and 1Day Cleaners. Eli s Airport Cleaners is not metered and does not pay a water bill Owner Satisfaction Assessment An assessment of owner satisfaction with the decision to switch to professional wet cleaning was carried out as part of a structured interview with each cleaner. Overall Satisfaction: To gain an understanding of the degree of satisfaction with their new cleaning process, each cleaner was asked a series of questions, including: whether they felt it was a good business decision to switch, whether they would make the same decision again, how strongly they would recommend professional wet cleaning to another cleaner considering a possible switch, how they experienced any specific acute health effects they could identify in relation to each cleaning process, and how they would rate their overall level of satisfaction as a professional wet cleaner compared to their satisfaction as a dry cleaner. Transition Issues: To understand the difficulty of converting to professional wet cleaning, a series of questions were posed, including: concerns the cleaner had about converting before they actually converted, the degree of difficulty in actually converting, the biggest difficulties experienced by the cleaner in converting, the degree of difficulty in learning a new cleaning process, and the importance of technical training. 7 At 1Day Cleaners, Southern California Edison installed and read electricity sub-meters prior to and after the cleaner switched to professional wet cleaning. The Gas Company installed natural gas sub-meters, which were read on a regular basis by the cleaner. At Eli s Airport Cleaners, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power installed and read electricity sub-meters prior to and after the cleaner switched to professional wet cleaning. The Gas Company installed natural gas sub-meters, which were read on a regular basis by the cleaner. 2-4

21 3. Results A case study evaluation was conducted for each of the five demonstration site cleaners who switch from dry cleaning to professional wet cleaning. Each case study includes: a background of the cleaner, including their motivation to switch; an evaluation of owner satisfaction in making the decision to switch; an evaluation of the transition process; a performance evaluation, and a financial evaluation (for the cases where financial data on costs before and after the switch were available). 3-1

22 3.1 San Clemente Dry Cleaning Center Case Study San Clemente Natural Cleaning Center OWNER: MOON NOH 913 S. EL CAMINO REAL, SAN CLEMENTE, CA Switch Date: 7/1/2001 Wet Clean Washer Aqua Clean, 40 lb Background Wet Clean Dryer Tensioning Pants Topper Tensioning Jacket Topper Detergent Daily Volume Staff Aqua Clean, 75 lb High Steam PAM510 High Steam JAM510 Laidlaw 220 garments 1 presser 1 shirt presser 1 counter/presser 1 counter/operator (owner) San Clemente Dry Cleaning Center is an owner-operator facility. The owner, Mr. Moon Noh, had been a dry cleaner for 27 years prior to switching to professional wet cleaning. He started his business in the same shop he owns today, which he bought after completing dry cleaning school (previously a requirement for obtaining a license). His interest in professional wet cleaning was due to the fact that his perc machine was reaching the end point of its useful life (10 years), and he wanted to switch to a technology that would free him from regulation. Mr. Noh decided to switch to professional wet cleaning after learning about the professional wet cleaning grant program and attending a demonstration workshop. On June 30, 2001 Mr. Noh s dry clean machine was removed from his shop. A new wet clean system was installed over July 1-3, and professional wet cleaning training was completed in this same period. By July 3, 2001, San Clemente Dry Cleaning Center was able to offer full service professional wet cleaning Transition Process Evaluation Before switching, Mr. Noh s biggest concerns about professional wet cleaning were shrinkage of wool and silk garments, bleeding of silk garments, the fear that the overall quality of cleaning would not be as good as dry cleaning, and the fear of paying additional claims for ruined garments. 8 He stated that making the switch was somewhat 8 See Appendix A for empirical data use in San Clemente Dry Cleaning Center case study. 3-2

23 difficult during the first two months due to problems with developing the correct programs for the washer and training employees in the use of the tensioning equipment. Mr. Noh stated that while learning how to wet clean garments was not difficult, training was very important in making a successful transition. The most important aspects of training for Mr. Noh were: learning how to operate and maintain the washer, dryer, and tensioning equipment; and learning how to talk with customers about the switch to the new cleaning technology Owner Satisfaction Evaluation Mr. Noh felt that switching to wet cleaning was an excellent business decision, and said he would make the same decision over again. He would strongly recommend wet cleaning to another cleaner who needs to buy new cleaning equipment. 9 The primary reasons for Mr. Noh s high level of satisfaction with professional wet cleaning include: the quality of cleaning is the same as before, he is free from regulation, he enjoys the work more, he is able to do his cleaning in the afternoon and on weekends, 10 and he feels better physically. In relation to acute health effects, Mr. Noh, when operating as a perc dry cleaner, reported experiencing symptoms of dizziness, headache, fatigue, a runny nose, and heightened allergic reactions. Since switching, Mr. Noh has not experienced any of these symptoms. One of Mr. Noh s pressers reported experiencing a runny nose when the cleaner operated as a dry cleaner. Since switching, the presser reported that this symptom has not re-occurred Performance Analysis Garment Profile Garments Wet Cleaned: Of the 220 garments processed at this facility each day, approximately 100 are professionally wet cleaned. 11 The remainder of the garments are either laundered or hand washed. A total of 32,250 items or approximately 2,150 garments per month, have been professional wet cleaned at the facility in the fifteen months of operations since the switch to wet cleaning. Care Label: Of the garments professionally cleaned at the facility, nearly three-quarters (73%) carry a dry clean label The cleaner stated that for a cleaner thinking about switching to professional wet cleaning: Good for your conscience, good for the environment, good for health, and good for customers. 10 Because the dry clean machines are attached to the boiler, dry cleaners traditionally do their cleaning in the morning hours. Because the wet clean system uses natural gas for heating, the cleaner is free to wet clean garments in the afternoon, after the boiler is turned off. 11 See Appendix A, p. A-1 for performance data. 12 Profile based on the labels of garments dry cleaned at San Clemente Dry Cleaning Center on 6/27/

24 Table 3.1: Garment Profile and Performance at San Clemente Dry Cleaning Center Dry Cleaning Garment Profile Dry Clean Label 73% Wet Cleaning Problem Garments Returned 0.21% 0.21% Sent Out 0.039% 0.019% Claims 0.012% 0.009% Success Rate 99.74% 99.76% Customer Response Retention Rate N/A 99.71% Negative Customer Response N/A 0% Problem Garment Analysis Returned: Since switching, one percent of garments have been returned by customers for additional work the same rate as when the cleaner used a dry clean machine. (Table 3.1) Shrinkage and stain removal are now the primary reason for redos in professional wt cleaning. When the cleaner was operating as dry cleaner, stain removal and pressing were the most common reasons for redos. Garments Sent Out: Similar to when the cleaner was dry cleaning, the only items the cleaner does not process in his shop are leather. Two ties were sent out soon after switching, before the cleaner learned to process these items in professional wet cleaning. Claims: Since switching, the cleaner has paid three claims for damaged garments two due to shrinkage and one due to color fading. The two claims for shrinkage occurred soon after switching, and the cleaner attributes the damage to incorrect programming on the professional wet cleaning washer a problem subsequently corrected. Overall Success Rate: Since switching to professional wet cleaning, the cleaner has successfully processed 98.8% of items brought in by customers a percent comparable to when the facility was operating as a dry cleaner (98.7%). Customer Response Customer Retention: Since making the switch to professional wet cleaning, the cleaner has lost one customer due to a claim out of a customer base of 350; thereby retaining nearly all (99.7%) of the customers he had prior to switching to professional wet 13 Figures on garment care label were not compiled at this and the other wet clean facilities after the switch since the customer base remained the same, assuming an equivalent garment profile. 3-4

25 cleaning. 14 In addition to retaining his customers, Mr. Noh reported a 5% gain or approximately 20 new customers. Customer Response: Mr. Noh changed the name of his shop to San Clemente Natural Cleaning Center in order to promote the environmental benefits of the new cleaning method. The cleaner notifies customers about his switch to professional wet cleaning through signs and brochures displayed in the shop, and an information sign installed two months after the switch. The customers response to wet cleaning has been positive overall. Although there were re-do s and claims processed since the switch, Mr. Noh s customers have not expressed concerns about the effectiveness of professional wet cleaning. Some customers have identified their preference for wet cleaning as non-toxic and environmentally preferable Financial Analysis To measure the relative profitability at San Clemente Dry Cleaning Center as a professional wet cleaning facility compared to its operation as a dry cleaning facility, specific line item expenses were measured. 15 Expenses that differ between the two cleaning processes are identified as process dependent costs. These costs have been standardized per 100 garments cleaned and summarized in the table below. Table 3.2: Process Dependent Costs per 100 Garments Cleaned: San Clemente Dry Cleaning Center Dry Clean Wet Clean Variable Expenses Labor 16 n.a. n.a. Solvent $1.06 $0.00 Detergent $1.13 $1.87 Water $0.92 $0.91 Electricity $1.79 $0.97 Gas $4.99 $4.81 Filter cost $1.27 $0.00 Hazardous waste disposal $2.11 $0.00 Machine Maintenance. $3.26 $0.56 Fixed Expenses Regulatory fees $2.29 $0.00 Equipment $6.22 $3.11 TOTAL $25.04 $ See Appendix A, p.10 (Wet Clean Survey) for customer response data. 15 Appendix A, p. A-2. for financial data. 16 Mr. Noh did not provide information on overall labor costs, but estimated that the labor utilized for dry cleaning averaged approximately 3 hours more per day (over a five day work week) than wet cleaning. The differential was related to the reduced time on pressing in wet cleaning spent by Mr. Noh s two pressers related to the advanced pressing equipment purchased as part of the switch. 3-5

26 Total Process Dependent Costs Comparison Total process dependent costs at San Clemente Dry Cleaning Center have been cut by more than 50% since switching to professional wet cleaning -- $25.04 in the dry cleaning operation versus $12.23 per 100 garments cleaned in wet cleaning. Costs Greater in Dry Cleaning Perc and Hazardous Waste: As a dry cleaner, Mr. Noh experienced a number of costs associated with the use of PCE solvent and the hazardous waste and air emissions it produces. He purchased approximately 80 gallons a year of PCE solvent at a cost of $7.50 a gallon. Mr. Noh estimated that it cost him $1,200 a year to dispose of the waste produced by using PCE solvent, which includes perc sludge and used filters. A PCE dry cleaner is also required to pay fees and purchase a number of permits from regulatory agencies because of the production and storage of hazardous waste, and the emission of hazardous air pollutants. These permits and fees cost Mr. Noh a total of $1, a year. Equipment and Maintenance Costs: The list prices of the equipment purchased by Mr. Noh in order to switch to professional wet cleaning totaled $35,383. This included a 40 lb washer, 75 lb dryer, a tensioning pants topper, and a tensioning jacket topper. Mr. Noh purchased his dry clean machine for over $52,000 in 2002 dollars. In addition to the initial costs being lower, a wet clean system has a longer life span (20 years) than a dry clean machine (15 years), and it costs less to maintain. Industry estimates for the maintenance of a PCE dry clean machine 17, based on a percentage of revenue, would be over $1,800 a year for Mr. Noh compared to $320 a year for the maintenance of wet clean equipment. Energy Use: Mr. Noh has significantly reduced his consumption of electricity (46%) since switching to wet cleaning. The average monthly cost to Mr. Noh for electricity as a dry cleaner was $84.51, compared to $45.66 as a wet cleaner. 18 Natural gas use has been slightly reduced (4%) by 15 therms or $8.52 a month. Costs Greater in Wet Cleaning Detergent: Mr. Noh spends an average of $88 a month on 15 gallons of detergents as a wet cleaner. 19 Wet clean detergent costs between $10.95 and $13.30 a gallon. As a dry cleaner, less than four gallons of detergent were used a month, at a cost of $16.00 a gallon. 17 An annual maintenance cost for PCE dry clean machines of 0.88% of revenue, based on IFI and NCAI estimates, was used for this study. 18 Mr. Noh consumed an average of kwh a month as a dry cleaner, and kwh as a wet cleaner. 19 Based on United Fabricare billing records from 10/01 to 8/

27 Costs Unchanged Labor: Since switching to wet cleaning, the pressers at San Clemente Dry Cleaning Center are now working three less hours a day. As the operator, Mr. Noh said that he puts the same amount of effort into running his shop as he did before switching. 20 Water: Water consumption has dropped slightly since switching to wet cleaning (1%, or about 150 gallons a month). Consumption had been falling steadily prior to switching to wet cleaning, so this reduction may be attributed in part to the continuation of that trend. No significant cost savings are gained, given the size of the reduction and the relatively low cost of water. 20 In response to interview question 10/1/02 3-7

28 3.2 Del Mar Cleaners Case Study Del Mar Natural Cleaners OWNER: INES MIRELES 701 WASHINGTON BLVD., MARINA DEL REY, CA Switch Date: 2/7/2002 Wet Clean Washer Aqua Clean, 40 lb Background Wet Clean Dryer Tensioning Pants Topper Tensioning Jacket Topper Detergent Daily Volume Staff Aqua Clean, 75 lb. High Steam PAM510 High Steam JAM510 Laidlaw 175 garments 2 pressers, 1 counter/delivery, 1 counter/bagging, 1 operator, 1 owner (counter) Del Mar Natural Cleaners, located in Marina Del Rey, is owned by Ines Mireles, a first generation Mexican immigrant. Ms. Mireles, a professional cleaner for over seven years, became the sole owner of the shop in January of She was the second dry cleaner in the South Coast region to make the switch from PCE dry cleaning to professional wet cleaning as part of the Professional Wet Cleaning Commercialization Project. Two years earlier, it was discovered that the soil at the plant site was contaminated with PCE. Due to this problem, Ms. Mireles was forced to discard her perc machine and thus became a drop shop for over a year. However, her landlord still refused to renew the lease if Ms. Mireles continued using perc, so she began looking at alternative technologies. Ms. Mireles decided to switch to wet cleaning after attending a workshop at Cypress Plaza Cleaners in Spring Training began for Ms. Mireles and a member of her pressing staff in January 2002, with a session at San Clemente Dry Cleaning Center observing how garments are processed in professional wet cleaning. Equipment was installed and in-store training was completed at Del Mar Cleaners February 1-3. Ms. Mireles began wet cleaning garments the day after training Transition Process Evaluation Before switching, Ms. Mireles major concerns about professional wet cleaning included learning a new cleaning method, shrinkage of wool garments, and that it would take 3-8

29 longer to finish garments. 21 Actual difficulties with the switch included problems with proper installation of equipment, problems with how the wet clean washer was programmed, and training employees in the use of the tensioning equipment. 22 Technical training was seen as very important in making a successful transition to professional wet cleaning; since it provided the cleaner with more confidence in processing garments on her own Owner Satisfaction Evaluation Ms. Mireles now feels that switching to professional wet cleaning was a good business decision, but was not sure in the beginning because of problems with quality control. 23 In spite of these early problems, she states that she would make the same decision to switch to wet cleaning again, and would strongly recommend wet cleaning to another cleaner who needs to buy new cleaning equipment.. Ms. Mireles rates her level of satisfaction as a wet cleaner to be higher in comparison to her level of satisfaction as a dry cleaner, because she doesn t worry any more about inspections or inhaling perc fumes. In relation to acute health effects, Ms. Mireles did not operate her dry cleaning machine, and did not experience any symptoms from perc exposure. Her operator, however, suffered from dizziness and headaches when dry cleaning. These symptoms have disappeared since switching to wet cleaning Performance Analysis Garment Profile: Garments Wet Cleaned: Of the 245 garments cleaned at the shop every day, about 175 are professionally wet cleaned. 24 A total of 31,605 garments have been professionally wet cleaned at the facility. 25 Care Label: Of the garments professionally cleaned at the facility, 63% carry a dry clean label See Appendix B for empirical data used in Del Mar Cleaners case study. 22 The cleaner reports that it took three days to train a new employee in the use of the tensioning form finisher. The new employee was provided basic instruction in the use of the machine, and the cleaner needed to return a number of garments for additional pressing during the first three days. After three days, the new presser learned the proper method and the need for intensive quality control was no longer necessary. 23 See Problem Garment Analysis below. 24 See Appendix B, p. B-1 for performance data. 25 Ms. Mireles professionally wet cleans about 4,515 garments a month, and has been a wet cleaner for over 7 months. 26 Profile based on the labels of garments dry cleaned at Del Mar Cleaners on 12/19/01. See Appendix B, p. 1 for performance data. 3-9

30 Table 3.3: Garment Profile and Performance at Del Mar Cleaners Dry Cleaning Garment Profile Dry Clean Label 63% Wet Cleaning Problem Garments Returned 0.33% 0.07% Sent Out 0.18% 1.3% Claims 0.012% % Success Rate 99.5% 98.6% Customer Response Retention Rate N/A 98.9% Negative Customer Response N/A 0% Problem Garment Analysis Garments Returned: Since successfully reprogramming the wet clean washer, only 3 garments a month, on average, are returned for additional work. 28 As a dry cleaner, customers brought back 3 to 4 garments a week. Initially, there was a higher return rate in wet cleaning due to problems with shrinking in wool and rayon pants and jackets. This was resolved by reprogramming the wet clean machine s computer. As a dry cleaner, most returns were due to trouble getting spots out. Garments Sent Out: As a dry cleaner, only leather items were sent out (about 8 a month). Now, leather items and ties are sent out (leather 8 a month, ties 12 a month). Ms. Mireles recently purchased equipment (tie forms) and is awaiting training in this area to begin processing ties in house. Claims: Before reprogramming the wet clean washer, the cleaner paid six claims; four were due to shrinkage, and two others were associated with shrinkage problems the cleaner felt to be without merit though she paid the claims to maintain goodwill with the customer. After reprogramming the washer, the cleaner has paid two claims; both due to shrinkage. As a dry cleaner, six to seven claims were paid every year, usually for discoloration or damage due to spot removal. Overall Success Rate: Since switching to professional wet cleaning, 98.7% of garments have been successfully wet cleaned, which is 0.4% lower than the success rate when dry cleaning. This lower success rate is primarily due to the number of ties being sent out. 27 Figures on garment care label were not compiled after the switch since the customer base remained the same, assuming an equivalent garment profile. 28 Problem garment analysis focuses on the experience of Del Mar Cleaners in the period of time after errors in her wet clean program were corrected at the end of May

31 Customer Response: Customer Retention: The cleaner has retained nearly all (98.9%) of the customers she had before the switch to wet cleaning. Five or six regular customers, according to Ms. Mireles, were lost due to claims out of a customer base of 500. Since the switch, Del Mar Cleaners has gained twenty new customers, which Ms. Mireles attributes in large part to the sign outside the facility advertising natural cleaning. Customer Response: Once Ms. Mireles became comfortable operating the new cleaning system, she decided to change the name of her shop, from Del Mar Cleaners, to Del Mar Natural Cleaners, which reflected the environmental benefits associated with the technology. Currently, customers are notified of the wet cleaning process through a sign at the counter, information brochures, and a sign outside above the parking lot. These signs promote the use of an environmentally preferable process, and a Good Earthkeeping Award, received from the city of Los Angeles, is displayed near the counter. Customers initial reaction to the switch has been increased interest in the cleaning process. None of the customers have expressed concerns about the quality of wet cleaning. Even in cases where there was damage to garments, the customers have not attributed the problem to the cleaning process Financial and Resource Use Analysis Data was not able to be compiled for a comparative financial analysis since Del Mar Cleaners had removed their dry clean machine one year prior to installing professional wet clean equipment Resource Use Analysis Data was not able to be compiled for a comparative resource use analysis since Del Mar Cleaners had removed their dry clean machine one year prior to installing professional wet clean equipment. 3-11

32 3.3 Anawood Cleaners Case Study Anawood Cleaners, All Natural OWNERS: STEVE KANAAN & THU DUONG 1223 S. EUCLID ST., ANAHEIM, CA Switch Date: 7/19/2002 Wet Clean Washer Aqua Clean, 40 lb Wet Clean Dryer Aqua Clean, 75 lb Tensioning Pants High Steam PAM510 Topper Tensioning Jacket High Steam JAM510 Topper Pressing Equipment 2 leggers, puffer, suzy, flat board, 2 shirt presses Detergent Laidlaw Daily Volume Staff 300 garments 3 Pressers full time 1 co-owners (operator) 1 co-owner (counter) Background Anawood Cleaners is located in Anaheim, and has two co-owners, Steve Kanaan and Thu Duong. Steve Kanaan, who facilitated the switch to wet cleaning, entered the dry cleaning business two and half years ago, and has co-owned his current shop for two years. For most of the past year, however, Anawood had been operating solely as a drop shop since the landlord was not willing to renew its lease while a PCE dry cleaning machine was used on the premises. In the summer of 2001 Mr. Kanaan and Ms. Duong attended a wet cleaning demonstration at Cypress Plaza Cleaners and decided to apply for the Professional Wet Clean Commercialization grant that they received in the Spring of In the week prior to installing professional wet cleaning equipment, the pressing staff and the cleaner spent a day observing the professional wet cleaning process at San Clemente Natural Cleaning Center. On July 13-14, 2002, professional wet cleaning equipment was installed. On-site technical training was completed on July 19. Anawood cleaners began processing all of its customers garments in the professional wet cleaning system the day after training on July 20, Transition Process Evaluation Before switching, the cleaner expressed concern about garment shrinkage and whether he would be able to learn enough from the training to be able to process all garments right 3-12

33 away. 29 The only difficulties identified by the cleaner in making the switch was finding a good installer, and correcting two installation problems; the gas line for the dryer was too small and an electrical circuit on the tensioning pants topper needed service. The cleaner expected the switch to wet cleaning to be very difficult, but did not find the kind of difficulties anticipated when the switch occurred. The cleaner attributes the relative ease in making the switch to the quality of technical training. A key to the success of the training was an extended session observing the professional wet cleaning process at the trainer s cleaners for both the cleaner and for the pressing staff that included a thorough explanation of how to operate the machines after they were installed Owner Satisfaction Mr. Kanaan now feels that switching to wet cleaning was a good business decision, but said it had been a hard decision to make. He would, however, make the same decision again, and strongly recommends wet cleaning to any cleaner who needs to buy new cleaning equipment, citing the environmental benefits, chemical dangers of perc, and freedom from regulation as his reasons. In relation to acute health effects, Mr. Kanaan experienced headaches in the evening as a dry cleaner, but hasn t since switching to wet cleaning. Mr. Kanaan rates his overall level of satisfaction as a wet cleaner as higher than when he was a dry cleaner Performance Analysis Garment Profile: Garments Wet Cleaned: Of the 320 garments cleaned at this facility each day, approximately 60 are professionally wet cleaned. 31 A total of 3,960 garments have been professionally wet cleaned at Anawood Cleaners. 32 Care Label: Of the garments professionally cleaned at the facility, over 90% have a dry clean label. 33 Problem Garment Analysis Garments Returned: Since switching, no garments have been returned by customers for additional work, an improvement from the cleaner s 2% rate of return as a dry cleaner. Mr. Kanaan attributes this primarily to more quality control. As a dry cleaner, returned items usually needed further stain removal. 29 See Appendix C for empirical data used in Anawood cleaners case study. 30 Ibid: Said he didn t like the smell of PCE in the shop when dry cleaning 31 See Appendix C, p. C-1 for performance data. 32 Mr. Kanaan professionally wet cleans about 360 garments a week, and has been a wet cleaner for over 11 weeks. 33 Label profile estimated by Mr. Kanaan, who reads the label on everything he cleans. 3-13

34 Garments Sent Out: As with dry cleaning, the only items the cleaner does not process in house are leathers. About three to four leather items were sent out every month as a dry cleaner, and about three a month have been sent out as a wet cleaner. Claims: No claims have been paid since switching three months ago. As a dry cleaner, only one claim was paid over two years for $20 related to a stain issue. Overall Success Rate: Since switching to wet cleaning, the cleaner has successfully cleaned 99.8% of garments brought in by customers two percent higher than when the facility was operating as a dry cleaner. Table 3-4: Garment Profile and Performance at Anawood Cleaners Dry Cleaning Wet Cleaning Garment Profile Dry Clean Label % Problem Garments Returned 2% 0% Sent Out 0.19% 0.19% Claims % 0.00% Success Rate 97.8% 99.8% Customer Response Retention Rate N/A 100% Negative Customer Response N/A 0% Customer Response Customer Retention: The cleaner has not lost any of his customer base since switching to wet cleaning. Customer Response: The cleaner immediately notified customers of the switch to professional wet cleaning with an information flyer on the counter, and has discussed what he considers to be the benefits of wet cleaning (e.g. chemical free, environmental benefits, no odor) with some his regular customers. In addition, the owners have placed an information brochure in a visible area of the shop, and are in the process changing the outside sign to read Anawood Cleaners, All Natural. By marketing their new process, they are hoping to attract customers concerned with the environment. The customers informed of the switch have not mentioned any concerns about performance issues regarding wet cleaning. The owner states that customers in general have not noticed a 34 Label profile was not compiled for the dry clean operation since it had not been operating on site immediately prior to the switch. 3-14

35 difference in quality, although they comment that clothes look cleaner and smell better once they have become aware of the switch (a factor that could also be associated with their environmental preferences as well) Financial and Resource Use Analysis Data was not able to be compiled for a comparative financial analysis since Anawood Cleaners had removed their dry clean machine one year prior to installing professional wet clean equipment Resource Use Analysis Data was not able to be compiled for a comparative resource use analysis since Anawood Cleaners had removed their dry clean machine one year prior to installing professional wet clean equipment. 3-15

36 3.4 1Day Cleaners Case Study 1Day Cleaners OWNER: YONG CHON LOS ALISOS, MISSION VIEJO, CA Switch Date: 07/20/ Background Wet Clean Washer Wet Clean Dryer Tensioning Pants Topper Tensioning Jacket Topper Detergent Daily Volume Staff Aqua Clean, 40 lb Aqua Clean, 75 lb High Steam, PAM510 High Steam, JAM510 Laidlaw 400 garments 2 presser 1 seamstress 1 operator (owner) 1 counter (owner) 1Day Cleaners, operated by Yong Chon, a first generation Korean immigrant, is located in Mission Viejo. Mr. Chon became a dry cleaner ten years ago; part of a career change decision. Although he had no previous experience in the industry, he was a knowledgeable entrepreneur and therefore felt confident that he could become a successful cleaner. As a result, he bought 1Day Cleaners, to enter the garment care business. After having suffered a stroke, Mr. Chon began to consider alternatives to perc due to concerns about possible health effects from exposure to perc. In addition, his landlord, 7- Eleven, Inc., had established a new policy whereby it would refuse to renew all leases for on-site dry cleaning plants at any of its facilities. Mr. Chon was then given the option of continuing his business as a drop off/pickup facility. Mr. Chon had heard from other cleaners about professional wet cleaning and attended a PPERC demonstration. Impressed by the technology and the possible health and environmental benefits associated with the process, Mr. Chon successfully applied to become one of the new professional wet cleaning demonstration sites. Mr. Chon subsequently asked PPERC to contact 7-Eleven, Inc. in order to explore the option of replacing his dry cleaning machine with professional wet cleaning equipment as a basis for extending his lease. PPERC submitted a memo to 7-Eleven Inc., through the property manager, and after an internal environmental review by 7-Eleven, Mr. Chon was granted a lease extension to operate as a wet cleaning plant. On July 19, 2002 Mr. Chon s dry cleaning equipment was removed from his facility. On July 20-22, professional wet cleaning equipment was installed. On-site technical training was completed July 23. Mr. Chon began processing all of his customers garments in the professional wet cleaning system the day after the training on July

37 3.4.2 Transition Process Evaluation Prior to switching, the only concern Yong Chon had about professional wet cleaning was how difficult it would be to remove oil based stains. 35 The biggest difficulties making the switch included the installation of new equipment, learning the mechanics of the machines, and getting rid of the old perc machine. While the cleaner found it instructive to visit three professional wet cleaning facilities before making the switch, he did not feel that the training was significant in making a successful transition. He did state that he would like to receive specific training to learn how to program the wet clean washer Owner Satisfaction Evaluation Mr. Chon feels that the decision to switch to wet cleaning was a good business decision, and he would make the same decision over again. He emphasizes operational cost savings and freedom from regulation and liability concerns. Mr. Chon is considering opening another professional wet cleaning operation that would be accompanied by a strong advertising campaign. In relation to acute health effects, Mr. Chon, when operating as a dry cleaner, experienced dizziness, headaches, fatigue and a runny nose. He also suffered from a stroke, which his doctor told him might have been a consequence of sleeping in the shop and breathing in perc fumes. Mr. Chon s wife, Joyce Chon, also experienced dizziness and headaches when they were operating as a dry cleaner. None of these symptoms have been experienced since switching to professional wet cleaning. Overall, Mr. Chon rates his level of satisfaction as a wet cleaner to be much higher than his level of satisfaction as a dry cleaner Performance Analysis Garment Profile: Garments Wet Cleaned: Of the 290 garments cleaned daily at this facility, approximately 85 are professionally wet cleaned, with the remainder laundered. 36 A total of 6,579 garments have been professionally wet cleaned at 1Day Cleaners in the three months since the switch. Care Label: Of the garments professionally cleaned at the facility, 68% carry a dry clean label See Appendix D for empirical data used in 1Day Cleaners case study. 36 See Appendix D, p. D-1 for performance data. Figure based on volume data collected 8/16/2002 9/30/2002. Mr. Chon also runs a large shirt laundry operation at the facility. 37 Profile is based on labels of garments dry cleaned at 1Day Cleaners on June 27,

38 Table 3-5: Garment Profile and Performance at 1Day Cleaners Dry Cleaning Garment Profile Dry Clean Label 68% Wet Cleaning Problem Garments Returned 0.05% 0% Sent Out 0.29% 0.29% Claims % 0.015% Success Rate 99.66% 99.69% Customer Response Retention Rate N/A 100% Negative Customer Response N/A 0% Problem Garment Analysis Garments Returned: Since switching, no garments have been returned for additional work. As a dry cleaner 0.05% of garments were returned for additional work. Stains and spots were common reasons for garments return when dry cleaning. Garments Sent Out: As with dry cleaning, the only items not processed on site are leathers and rugs. The cleaner has been sending out the same number of leathers and rugs as a wet cleaner that were being sent out when dry cleaning. Claims: One claim has been paid since switching due to a color transfer problem with a garment. As a dry cleaner, about one claim a year was paid, usually due to color transfer. Overall Success Rate: Since switching to wet cleaning, the cleaner has successfully wet cleaned 99.7% of garments brought in by customers, a rate nearly identical to the 99.6% success rate as a dry cleaner. Customer Response Customer Retention: The cleaner has retained 100% of his customer base since switching to professional wet cleaning. Customer Response: Mr. Chon has not notified customers of his switch to wet cleaning. He is waiting until the end of the year before initiating his marketing plans. He is hoping 38 Figures on garment care label were not compiled after the switch since the customer base remained the same, assuming an equivalent garment profile. 3-18

39 to open an additional wet cleaner and advertise the environmentally preferable, non-toxic qualities of this alternative technology. Although Mr. Chon has not informed his customers that he is using professional wet cleaning, a number of people (eight) have responded positively, due to the elimination of odor problems and more effective cleaning. Although one claim has been paid since using the professional wet cleaning system, the customer did not attribute it to wet cleaning although she was not aware of a change in the cleaning method Financial Analysis To measure the relative profitability at 1Day Cleaners as a professional wet clean facility compared to its operations as a dry cleaner, specific line item expenses incurred at the facility and process dependent costs were measured. 39 Expenses that differ between the two cleaning processes are identified as process dependent costs. These costs have been standardized per 100 garments cleaned and summarized in the table below. Total Process Dependent Costs Comparison Total process dependent costs at 1Day Cleaners have been cut by more than 15% since switching to professional wet cleaning -- $21.11 in the dry cleaning operation versus $17.52 per 100 garments cleaned in wet cleaning. Table 3-6: Process Dependent Costs per 100 Garments Cleaned: 1Day Cleaners Dry Clean Wet Clean Variable Expenses Labor No change No change Solvent $1.33 $0.00 Detergent $0.21 $4.41 Water $0.22 $0.34 Electricity $5.43 $4.77 Gas $5.72 $5.68 Filter cost $0.33 $0.00 Hazardous waste disposal $0.72 $0.00 Machine Maintenance. $2.43 $0.36 Fixed Expenses Regulatory fees $1.45 $0.00 Equipment $3.27 $1.96 TOTAL $21.11 $ See Appendix D, p.2-11 for financial data. 3-19

40 Expenses Greater as a Dry Cleaner Perc and Hazardous Waste: As a dry cleaner Mr. Chon faced a number of costs associated with the use of perc solvent and the hazardous waste and air emissions it produces. He purchased approximately 160 gallons of perc every year at $7.50 a gallon, and estimated that he spent $650 disposing of the hazardous waste he produced (80 gallons) every year. As a producer of hazardous waste and air emissions, Mr. Chon was required to purchase permits and pay fees totaling to $1, every year. Equipment and Maintenance Costs: The list prices of the equipment purchased by Mr. Chon in order to switch to professional wet cleaning totaled to $35,277. This included a 40 lb washer and 75 lb dryer, a tensioning pants topper, and a tensioning jacket topper. Mr. Chon did not purchase the dry clean machine he used prior to switching. The estimated cost of this machine is $44, Operating costs are considerably lower for wet cleaning when also factoring in the longer life span of wet cleaning equipment (20 years) than dry cleaning equipment (15 years), in addition to lower maintenance costs. Industry estimates for the maintenance of a perc dry clean machine, 41 based on a percentage of revenue, would be over $2,100 a year for Mr. Chon compared to $320 a year for the maintenance of wet clean equipment. Energy Use: Mr. Chon has reduced his consumption of electricity by 12% since switching to wet cleaning. The average monthly cost to Mr. Chon for electricity as a dry cleaner was $407, compared to $357 as a wet cleaner. 42 Costs Greater in Wet Cleaning Detergent: Mr. Chon has purchased 80 gallons of wet cleaning detergent for $ since switching to wet cleaning three months ago ($330 per month). Wet clean detergents cost between $11and $13 a gallon. As a dry cleaner, Mr. Chon used one gallon a month of dry clean detergent, which cost $16 a gallon. Water: Since switching to wet cleaning, water consumption has increased 17%. Mr. Chon uses 19, 074 gallons a month of water as a wet cleaner compared to 16,240 gallons a month as a dry cleaner. The financial impact of this increase is small -- $4 a month. Costs Unchanged Labor: The number of hours worked by employees at 1Day Cleaners has not changed since the switch to wet cleaning. Mr. Chon reported that he spends the same amount of 40 Based on a dry to dry with CA (PCE-B2) machine. 41 An annual maintenance cost for PCE dry clean machines of 0.88% of revenue, based on IFI and NCAI estimates, was used for this study. 42 Mr. Chon consumed an average of 2,415 kwh a month as a dry cleaner, and 2,122 kwh a month since switching to wet cleaning, according to estimates based on metering done at his shop before and after the switch. 3-20

41 time in the shop, but enjoys his work more as a wet cleaner in spite of having to work a little harder compared to when he was dry cleaning. Natural Gas: Based on daily meter readings taken before and after the switch, natural gas consumption at 1Day Cleaners has essentially remained the same. Average daily use before the switch was 28.6 therms compared to 28.4 therms after the switch. A longer time period of data collection will reveal a more certain picture of the effect that switching wet cleaning is having on natural gas use. 3-21

42 3.5 Eli s Airport Cleaners Case Study Eli s Airport Cleaners OWNER: ELI GICHON SHERMAN WAY, VAN NUYS, CA Switch Date: 7/27/2002 Wet Clean Washer Aqua Clean, 40 lb Background Wet Clean Dryer Tensioning Pants Topper Tensioning Jacket Topper Detergent Daily Volume Staff Aqua Clean, 75 lb High Steam, PAM510 High Steam, JAM510 Laidlaw 92 garment 1 operator (owner) 1 presser/counter Eli s Airport Cleaners, operated by Mr. Eli Gichon, is located in Van Nuys. Mr. Gichon began operating his dry cleaning business in His decision to switch to wet cleaning was motivated primarily by the concerns about exposure to perc for himself and his employee, including a concern about potential negative long term effects. He also received a few complaints by customers about perc odors on their garments. Additionally, he felt that regulatory restrictions and fees were affecting the shop s income. Mr. Gichon first learned about professional wet cleaning through an informational flier, and subsequently attended a Commercialization Project workshop in the Summer He also visited a number of other dedicated professional wet cleaning facilities. After Mr. Gichon applied for a professional wet cleaning demonstration project grant in the August 2001, he spent a full morning observing the professional wet cleaning process at San Clemente Natural Cleaning Center. Mr. Gichon reported that this session was essential to his understanding of how to process the full range of garments using professional wet cleaning technology. On July 26-27, 2002 Mr. Gichon s dry cleaning equipment was disconnected and the professional wet cleaning equipment was installed. On-site technical training was completed on July 28, Mr. Gichon began processing all of his customers garments in the professional wet cleaning system the day after training on July 29,

43 3.5.2 Transition Process Evaluation Before switching, Mr. Gichon s biggest concerns about professional wet cleaning were shrinkage, especially in garments with an inner lining, as well as concerns about the quality of cleaning. 43 The cleaner stated that he had considered wet cleaning to be very scary. 44 Difficulties identified by the cleaner in making the switch included: learning how to use the washer computer, making adjustments to the wash programs, learning how to sort garments, learning which wash cycles to use, and not having enough qualified technicians around. Yet, overall, the cleaner reported that making the switch was easy and that training was very important in making a successful transition to professional wet cleaning. The cleaner stated that without training it would have taken a couple of days of just experimenting. As part of training, the cleaner stated that it was important to go see it work at a demonstration site before installing the equipment Owner Satisfaction Evaluation Mr. Gichon feels that switching to wet cleaning was a good business decision, and he would make the same decision over again. He would recommend wet cleaning to another cleaner needing to purchase new cleaning equipment: I think everyone in the dry cleaning business should consider it, if not for full operation, at least as a supplement to dry cleaning. 45 Mr. Gichon also rates his level of satisfaction as a wet cleaner higher in comparison to his level of satisfaction as a dry cleaner, based in part on his concern with perc exposures. In response to the issue of acute health effects, Mr. Gichon noted that as a dry cleaner he would experience dizziness and nausea when cleaning the still of his dry clean machine, and his presser regularly suffered from headaches. No stills need to be cleaned at the shop any longer, and the pressers headaches have gone away since the transition to wet cleaning Performance Analysis Garment Profile: Garments Wet Cleaned: Of the 90 garments cleaned daily at this facility, approximately 40 are professionally wet cleaned, with the remainder laundered. 46 A total of 2,200 garments have been professionally wet cleaned at Eli s Airport Cleaners in the first eleven weeks after switching to wet cleaning. Care Label: Of the garments professionally cleaned at the facility, over three-quarters (76%) have a dry clean label See Appendix E for empirical data used in Del Mar Cleaners case study. 44 Interview 9/25/ Interview 9/25/ See Appendix E, p. E-1 for performance data. 47 Profile is based on labels of garments dry cleaned at Eli s Airport Cleaners during the time period of 3/8/2002 to 3/20/

44 Table 3-7: Performance Evaluation: Eli s Airport Cleaners Dry Cleaning Garment Profile Dry Clean Label 76% Wet Cleaning Problem Garments Returned 3% 3% Sent Out 0.83% 0.83% Claims 0.01% 0.00% Overall Success Rate 96.16% 96.17% Customer Response Retention Rate N/A 100% Negative Customer Response N/A 0% Problem Garment Analysis Returned: Since switching, 3% of garments have been returned for additional work, which is identical to the shop s return rate as a dry cleaning operation. In both cases, garments have primarily been returned due to problems related to stain removal. Mr. Gichon noted the oily stains on cotton and silk are difficult to remove with wet cleaning, but that stains in wool disappear better with wet cleaning. Garments Sent Out: As with dry cleaning, the only items not processed on site are leather. The cleaner has been sending out the same amount of leather as a wet cleaner (one or two items a week) that he had sent out as a dry cleaner. Claims: No claims have been made by customers since the switch to wet cleaning. Only about one claim a year was paid when dry cleaning, usually related to color transfer problems. Overall Success Rate: Since switching to wet cleaning, the cleaner has successfully wet cleaned 96.2% of garments, a rate comparable to his success rate as a dry cleaner. Customer Response Customer Retention: No customers have been lost since switching to wet cleaning. Customer Response: Mr. Gichon decided early on to switch the name of his cleaners to Airport Natural Cleaners to describe the water-based process of wet cleaning. Customers have been notified of the new cleaning method since the beginning of wet cleaning 48 Figures on garment care label were not compiled after the switch since the customer base remained the same, assuming an equivalent garment profile. 3-24

45 operations. Mr. Gichon has flyers at the front counter, has placed flyers with the cleaned clothes of new customers, and is offering discount coupons through large supermarkets such as Ralphs and Food 4 Less. In addition, he is considering increasing advertising efforts through direct mailing. Once informed of the switch, customers have not expressed concerns regarding quality issues with wet cleaning. According to Mr. Gichon, customers only care if clothes look good when they pick them up, 49 and wet cleaning has been keeping them satisfied. The shop has gained a few new customers, but it isn t clear whether or not they came specifically for the wet cleaning. A charter airline company that sends its linens to the shop for cleaning is considering marketing the health benefits of its wet cleaned napkins and tablecloths to customers Financial Analysis To measure the relative profitability at Eli s Airport Cleaners in operating as a professional wet cleaner compared to his profitability as a dry cleaner, specific line item expenses were measured. 50 Expenses that differ between the two cleaning processes are identified as process dependent costs. These costs have been standardized per 100 garments cleaned and summarized in the table below. Table 3-8: Process Dependent Costs per 100 Garments Cleaned: Eli s Airport Cleaners Dry Cleaning Wet Cleaning Variable Expenses Labor No change No change Solvent $4.41 $0.00 Detergent $1.02 $5.81 Water $0.00 $0.00 Electricity $9.10 $7.35 Gas $9.02 $6.07 Filter cost $0.52 $0.00 Hazardous waste disposal $1.96 $0.00 Machine Maintenance $3.25 $0.56 Fixed Expenses Regulatory fees $3.95 $0.00 Equipment $11.25 $7.20 TOTAL $44.48 $ Interview 9/25/02 50 See Appendix E, p. E2-E8 for financial data for this cleaner. 3-25

46 Total Process Dependent Costs Comparison Total process dependent costs at Eli s Airport Cleaners were cut nearly in half since switching to professional wet cleaning -- $44.48 per 100 garments cleaned with dry cleaning versus $26.99 per 100 garments cleaned with wet cleaning. Expenses Greater as a Dry Cleaner Perc and Hazardous Waste: As a dry cleaner, Mr. Gichon faced a number of costs associated with the use of perc solvent and the hazardous waste and air emissions it produces. He purchased approximately 12 gallons of perc solvent a month at a cost of $7.50 a gallon. Mr. Gichon paid $120 every three months ($480 a year) to dispose of the 60 gallons of hazardous waste produced every year. A perc dry cleaner is also required to pay a number of fees and obtain permits from regulatory agencies because of the production of hazardous waste, the storage of hazardous materials, and the emission of hazardous air pollutants. These permits cost Mr. Gichon a total of $ a year. Equipment and Maintenance Costs: The list prices of the equipment purchased by Mr. Gichon in order to switch to professional wet cleaning totaled $35,277. This included a 40 lb washer and 75 lb dryer, a tensioning pants topper, and a tensioning jacket topper. Mr. Gichon s dry clean machine came with the shop he purchased in 1995, and he estimated that it would have cost approximately $35,000, ($41,364 in 2002 dollars). In addition to initial equipment costs being lower, a wet clean system has a longer life span (20 years) than a dry clean machine (15 years), and costs less to maintain. Industry estimates for the maintenance of a perc dry clean machine 51, based on a percentage of revenue, would be $800 a year for Mr. Gichon compared to $320 a year for the maintenance of wet clean equipment. Energy Use: Mr. Gichon has significantly reduced his electricity (23%) and natural gas use (36%) since switching to wet cleaning. The average monthly cost to Mr. Gichon for electricity when dry cleaning was $185.93, compared to $ after the switch. 52 The average monthly cost for natural gas when dry cleaning was $184.20, compared to $ after the switch. 53 Costs Greater in Wet Cleaning Detergent: Since switching to wet cleaning, Mr. Gichon has purchased 25 gallons wet of wet clean detergent for $303.50, costing him approximately $120 a month. As a dry cleaner the monthly detergent cost was significantly lower at $20 a month. 51 An annual maintenance cost for PCE dry clean machines of 0.88% of revenue, based on IFI and NCAI estimates, was used for this study. 52 Mr. Gichon consumed an average of 1,514 kwh a month dry cleaning, and 1,173 kwh a month wet cleaning. Demand fell from 17.3 kw to 16 kw. 53 Mr. Gichon consumed an average of 296 therms a month dry cleaning, and therms a month wet cleaning. 3-26

47 Costs Unchanged Labor: Mr. Gichon reported that his employee does not work more hours now than when he was dry cleaning. He said that he puts in approximately the same amount of time when running his shop as a wet cleaner than as a dry cleaner. Water: It is not known how water consumption has been affected by the switch to wet cleaning because Eli s shop is not individually metered. Financially, there has been no impact because Eli is not billed for water use. 3-27

48 4. Case Study Summary Analysis 4.1 Overview This chapter summarizes the data evaluated in the individual case studies of dry cleaners that switched to professional wet cleaning. The summary analysis includes: Evaluation of Transition to Professional Wet Cleaning: evaluates factors related to making an effective switch to professional wet cleaning Indicates problems with installation and technical training for first two cleaners to convert Shows that these problems were resolved for last three cleaners to convert Indicates the importance of proper installation and technical training to successful conversion. Attitudes of Cleaners Towards Switch to Professional Wet Cleaning: identifies concerns cleaners had about professional wet cleaning before converting to this technology, how these concerns were resolved after the switch, and the satisfaction level of cleaners after their transition. Shows concern about quality of cleaning, and ability to learn new cleaning process before cleaners switch. Indicates lack of regulation, lease issues, and information provided at demonstration tours as the biggest motives to switch. Reveals high level of owner satisfaction with switch. Performance Evaluation of Professional Wet Cleaning: assesses the ability of cleaners to successfully wet clean garments they had previously dry cleaned. Show that problem garments (i.e. items returned for additional work, ruined, or sent out) occurred at a similar rate in wet cleaning and dry cleaning. Indicates the importance of proper programming of wet clean washer in avoiding problems (i.e. returned or ruined items) Shows few or no negative customer reactions to cleaners switching to a new cleaning process. Financial Evaluation of Professional Wet Cleaning: evaluates relative operating costs in processing garments in wet cleaning compared to dry cleaning. Shows a reduction in operating costs after cleaners switched to professional wet cleaning. Resource Evaluation of Professional Wet Cleaning: evaluates electricity, natural gas, and water use in professional wet cleaning compared to dry cleaning. Shows sizable reduction in electricity use, a small to large decrease in natural gas use, and no change to a moderate increase in water consumption. 4-1

49 4.2 Evaluation of Transition to Professional Wet Cleaning An evaluation of the transition process was conducted to understand issues related to making a smooth switch from dry cleaning to professional wet cleaning Problem Areas Identified in Transition Two problem areas were identified from experiences of cleaners making the transition to professional wet cleaning: problems related to the installation of equipment and issues related to technical training Equipment Installation Each of the cleaners experienced at least some problem with the installation of professional wet cleaning equipment. All but one of the cleaners experienced problems with the installation of the washer. These problems included: incorrect bolting to floor, inadequate drainage system for wastewater, incorrect wiring of detergent dispensing system, lack of a soft water system, and incorrect programming of washer. Two of the cleaners experienced programs with installation of the dryer; these problems included installing a natural gas supply line too small for the dryer and ineffective venting of exhaust. Four of the five experienced at least some problem with the installation of tensioning equipment. These problems included: incomplete electrical wiring, improper temperature setting, and incorrect installation of steam traps. While most of the problems with installation were corrected relatively quickly, two cleaners (San Clemente Natural Cleaning Center and Del Mar Cleaners) attributed an increase in problems processing garments to errors in the initial programming of the equipment. Training Three of the five cleaners interviewed stated that training was very important in making a successful transition from dry cleaning to wet cleaning. One of the cleaners commented that without training the transition period would have been longer since it was new equipment and he didn t know how to use it. Four of the cleaners stated that learning how to use and adjust the computer programs for the washer and dryer were one of the biggest difficulties in making the switch to wet cleaning. 54 This section evaluates issues identified through the structured interview process (Appendix A-E, Wet Clean Surveys) as well as direct observation at the cleaners during the installation process. 4-2

50 4.2.3 Cleaners Characterization of Transition According to the survey, the owners of San Clemente Dry Cleaning Center and Del Mar Cleaners, the first two cleaners who switched, stated that making the switch was somewhat difficult and not too difficult respectively. By contrast, the last three cleaners to convert reported that making the switch was not at all difficult. The difference in response can be attributed to the fact that by the time the third cleaner converted, most of the major problems with installation and training had been identified and resolved. (See Table 4.1) Table 4.1: Difficulty Ratings Transition to Professional Wet Cleaning How difficult did you think it would be to make the switch to professional wet cleaning? How difficult did you think it actually was to switch to professional wet cleaning? How difficult would you say it was to learn to do wet cleaning? Not at all difficult Not too difficult Somewhat difficult Very difficult Attitudes Of Cleaners Towards Professional Wet Cleaning The following analysis evaluates the attitudes of cleaners toward professional wet cleaning before and after cleaners switched Cleaners Concerns About Wet Cleaning Technology Concerns About Performance Issues: Four of the five cleaners interviewed mentioned anxiety about low performance quality as their main concern before switching to professional wet cleaning; all cited fear of shrinkage, especially with wool and silk garments. One cleaner also mentioned concerns about silk bleeding. (Table 4.2) Concern About Using A New Process: One cleaner expressed anxiety over the effectiveness of the technology while another cleaner mentioned fear of destroying garments through this process. Labor Concerns: One of the high volume cleaners listed fear of increased labor costs as a major concern before switching to wet cleaning. 55 This section evaluates issues identified through the structured interview process. See Appendix A-E, Wet Clean Surveys). 4-3

51 Table 4.2: Cleaners Concerns About Wet Cleaning Technology San Clemente Natural Cln Center Del Mar Cleaners Anawood Cleaners 1Day Cleaners Eli s Airport Cleaners Fear of Poor Performance Concern About Using a New System Concerns About Increased Labor Motives For Switching to Professional Wet Cleaning The cleaners cited several reasons for choosing wet cleaning over other alternative technologies. (See Table 4.3). Regulatory Compliance: Four of the cleaners were initially attracted to wet cleaning s lack of governmental regulations and fees otherwise required for perc and hydrocarbon machines. They stated that as dry cleaners, it was difficult to comply with all of the regulations regarding perc and were often stressed by inspections and fines due to regulatory violation fines. They believed that a switch to wet cleaning would enable them to avoid dealing with present and future regulations imposed on dry cleaners. Acute Health Effects of Perchloroethylene: All of the cleaners mentioned health concerns related to perc emissions as one of the reasons for preferring wet cleaning to perc dry cleaning machines. Two of the cleaners cited health concerns as the biggest incentive for switching. Each of the owners expressed relief at having a non-toxic alternative for themselves and/or their staffs, due to a range of acute health effects such as regular headaches experienced when dry cleaning. Contamination Issues/Lease Renewal: Three of the five cleaners stated that they chose wet cleaning technology because it was an environmentally preferable alternative to perc and hydrocarbon. These cleaners were forced to close down their dry cleaning plants to stay in business, since their landlords were concerned about possible site contamination. They were able to resume cleaning operations as a wet cleaning plant due to the nontoxic attributes of the new cleaning system. Information Obtained at Demonstration Tours: Three of the five cleaners stated that a major motivation for switching was seeing other wet cleaning plants and talking to the operators about their experience. Another cleaner recommended that other cleaners go see a demonstration site if they are considering switching to a non-perc alternative. According to the cleaners, the demonstration tours gave them confidence in the technology and in their ability to learn a new system. 4-4

52 Table 4.3: Motives For Switching to Professional Wet Cleaning San Clemente Natural Cln Center Del Mar Cleaners Anawood Cleaners 1Day Cleaners Eli s Airport Cleaners No Need For Regulations Positive Health Effects Ability to Renew Lease Useful Info from Tours Owner Satisfaction A number of questions were asked regarding the owner s overall satisfaction with switching to professional wet cleaning. (See Table 4.4) All five cleaners stated that switching to wet cleaning had been a good decision, and that they would make the same decision again. Four of the five stated that their level of satisfaction as a wet cleaner was higher than as a dry cleaner. When asked whether they would recommend wet cleaning to other cleaners who need to buy new cleaning equipment, all five said they would strongly recommend professional wet cleaning. Table 4.4: Owner Satisfaction San Clemente Natural Cln Center Del Mar Cleaners Anawood Cleaners 1Day Cleaners Eli s Airport Cleaners Switching as a Good Business Decision Would Make the Same Decision Again Higher Level of Satisfaction as Wet Cleaner Would Strongly Recommend Wet Cleaning 4-5

53 A number of factors appear to underlie this high level of satisfaction. Comparable Quality: All five of the cleaners stated that the quality of their cleaning service as at least as good the quality of their service as a dry cleaner; two stated that the quality was better because they now offer customers a non-toxic or odor free service. Free of Regulation: Four out of five cleaners mentioned being free from regulations as one of the reasons why they would recommend wet cleaning to other cleaners. Three of the cleaners expressed relief that they didn t have to worry about perc regulations. Better Health: All five operators experienced one or more of the symptoms associated with PCE exposure (e.g. headaches, dizziness) when operating as dry cleaners. In addition to the machine operator, two of the cleaners workers in the shop also experienced one or more of these symptoms. All symptoms have disappeared since switching to professional wet cleaning (See Table 4.5). Table 4.5 Number of Cleaners Experiencing Symptoms Association with PCE Exposure Headache Dizziness Runny Nose Fatigue Nausea Symptoms when operating as dry cleaner Symptoms since switching to wet cleaning? Performance Evaluation of Professional Wet Cleaning The performance evaluation of professional wet cleaning facilities focused on the extent to which the demonstration facilities were able to successfully wet clean the full range of garments they had previously dry cleaned. (See Table 4.6) Generally, the cleaners overall success rates as wet cleaners have been comparable to their success rates as dry cleaners Types of Garments Cleaned A customer garment profile was used to assess the types of garments serviced at each professional wet cleaner. Most garments professionally cleaned at the demonstration facilities were labeled dry clean or dry clean only (greater than 60%). 4-6

54 4.4.2 Problem Garments A problem garment profile was used to evaluate three types of problems typically encountered by a professional cleaner: garments sent out garments the cleaner did not feel capable of cleaning; garment redos garments brought back by customers for additional work; and garment claims garments irreversibly damaged during the cleaning process. Garments Sent Out: In all but one case, the only garments sent out by the cleaners, when dry cleaning or after switching to wet cleaning, were leather items. A couple of cleaners are intending to process leather on site, once special leather detergents designed for wet cleaning become available. Besides leather, Del Mar Cleaners also sends out ties for dry cleaning, but recently expressed interest in processing ties in house, purchased special tie forms and is awaiting additional training. Returned Garments: The rate at which garments are returned by customers for additional work has dropped or remained the same at each cleaner since switching to professional wet cleaning. In the cases where the return rate was lower, the cleaner reported fewer garments returned for spot or stain removal since switching to professional wet cleaning. These lower rates may also be attributed to higher levels of internal quality control. Claims: The claims rate for each cleaner since switching to professional wet cleaning is comparable to when they were dry cleaning. The first two cleaners to switch (San Clemente and Del Mar), experienced most claims shortly after installing wet cleaning equipment, when there were problems developing the correct washer programs. Del Mar Cleaners had six claims before reprogramming, and has had two since then. The last three cleaners to switch have had one claim among them. Since the last three cleaners all installed the improved washer programs, suggests that correct programming of the wet clean washer plays an important role in preventing garments from being damaged in professional wet cleaning. Overall Success Rate: The overall success rate of garments cleaned can be calculated by subtracting out the garments where problems occurred i.e., garments rejected, garments returned, and claims. Each wet cleaner was able to successfully process over 96% of customer garments; a rate comparable to when they were dry cleaning Customer Response Performance of professional wet cleaning can also be measured by analyzing how customers have responded to the cleaning service this is especially important in a service sector such as the garment care industry. Customer Retention Rate: The cleaners who switched from dry cleaning to professional wet cleaning were able to retain virtually all of their customers. 4-7

55 Response to Cleaning Technology: Four of the five cleaners informed their customers of their switch immediately after installing the professional wet cleaning equipment. Of the customers who informed their customers, none reported negative customer reactions and each has received some form of positive feedback. Two cleaners who have been wet cleaning for over six months have had success at attracting new customers interested in using an environmentally preferable cleaning method, increasing their customer base by 4% or more. Table 4.6: Garment Profile and Performance of Professional Wet Cleaners San Clemente Dry Cleaning Center Dry Clean Garment Profile Dry Clean Label 73% Wet Clean -- Del Mar Cleaners Dry Clean Wet Clean Anawood Cleaners Dry Clean Wet Clean 1Day Cleaners Dry Clean 63% % 68% Wet Clean -- Eli s Airport Cleaners Dry Clean Wet Clean 76% -- Problem Garments Returned 0.21% 0.21% 0.33% 0.07% 2% 0% 0.05% 0% 3% 3% Sent Out.039% 0.019% 0.18% 1.3% 0.19% 0.19% 0.29% 0.29% 0.83% 0.83% Claims.012% 0.009%.012%.0098%.0027% 0.00%.0038%.015% 0.01% 0.00% Overall Success Rate 99.74% 99.76% 99.5% 98.6% 97.8% 99.8% 99.66% 99.69% 96.16% 96.17% Customer Response Retention Rate N/A 99.71% N/A 98.9% N/A 100% N/A 100% % Negative Customer Response N/A 0% N/A 0% N/A 0% N/A 0% -- 0% 4-8

56 4.5 Financial Evaluation of Professional Wet Cleaning The financial evaluation of dedicated professional wet cleaning focused on how the capital costs of purchasing equipment and ongoing operating expenses in professional wet cleaning compared to dry cleaning. Two of the cleaners (Anawood and Del Mar) operated as drop shops for a period of time in between operations as dry cleaners and professional wet cleaners. This made it difficult to obtain utility and purchase records far back enough in time to be able to compare dry cleaning and wet cleaning costs. Therefore, the financial analysis was limited to San Clemente Dry Cleaning Center, 1Day Cleaners, and Eli s Airport Cleaners Total Process Dependent Costs Overall, the cost of processing garments was lower in professional wet cleaning than dry cleaning. (See Table 4.7) Eli s Airport Cleaners experienced the greatest reduction in operating cost ($17.49 per 100 garments cleaned, followed by San Clemente Natural Cleaning Center ($12.81 per 100 garments cleaned), and 1Day Cleaners ($3.59 per 100 garments cleaned) Costs Greater in Dry Cleaning Perc and Hazardous Waste: There are a number of costs paid by dry cleaners associated with the use of perc solvent and the hazardous waste and air emissions it produces. In terms of the purchase of perchloroethylene itself, the cleaners used between 60 and 160 gallons of solvent a year, at a cost of $7.50 a gallon. Waste generated from a perc dry clean machine is classified as hazardous, and the cleaner must pay for it to be hauled away. Waste disposal costs were estimated to be between $480 and $1200 a year. Permits must be obtained for having hazardous waste on site and for emitting hazardous air pollutants, at a cost of between $750 and $1,297 per year. 56 Equipment and Maintenance Costs: Based on the list price of equipment purchased by cleaners in the case studies, the cost of purchasing a 40 pound professional wet clean washer, 75 pound dryer, and tensioning finishing machines was about $35,000. These capital costs were lower than the cost for a comparably-sized perchloroethylene dry cleaning machine with primary and secondary vapor control systems, which ranged in price from $41,000-$47, As an operating expense, wet cleaning equipment costs are substantially lower than dry cleaning machines, due to the longer useful life of wet cleaning equipment 20 years on average for wet cleaning equipment and 15 years for 56 Not analyzed in this study are the costs of complying with regulations or fines paid by cleaners for noncompliance. 57 A 35 pound wet clean washer, has a minimum throughput of 84 pounds of garments cleaned per hour (assuming a 25 minute cycle time). A 50 pound dry clean machine, with an average cycle time of 45 minutes, has an average throughput of 67 pounds per hour. 4-9

57 dry cleaning machines. 58 Maintenance and repair costs in operating dry clean machines are substantially higher than for wet clean equipment. This is due, almost exclusively, to the upkeep and repair of complex pollution control devices on dry clean machines, such as refrigerated condensing systems and distillation units; devices not found in wet clean machines. Energy Use: All three cleaners have reduced their consumption of electricity and natural gas since switching to professional wet cleaning. The consumption of electricity has decreased between 12% and 46%. Natural gas use decreased a small amount for two cleaners, but fell significantly (36%) for the third cleaner. The ability for each to reduce energy use will vary depending on how operations were run before and after switching. For example, the cleaner experiencing a substantial decrease in natural gas use, Eli s Airport Cleaners, wet cleans garments in the afternoon, dries these garments to 20% residual moisture, and hangs them to air-dry the remaining amount overnight. The other two cleaners, 1Day and San Clemente, often process their garments for same day service, requiring them to use their dryer to remove the remaining moisture; a practice which uses more natural gas and electricity compared to an air-dry technique Costs Greater in Wet Cleaning Detergent: Dry cleaners use a relatively small amount of detergent in addition to perc solvent. Detergent costs were greater in wet cleaning for each cleaner, but to varying degrees. Wet clean detergent costs at 1Day Cleaners were nearly five times greater than at San Clemente Dry Cleaning Center. Mr. Noh in San Clemente has been reducing his detergent use by manipulating his programming without affecting cleaning quality. Water: While professional cleaners use a substantial amount of water to create steam for finishing equipment as well as for washing machines, if they are part of a shopping complex, they often do not pay a separate water bill. This was the case of Eli s Airport Cleaners. At 1Day Cleaners, water use increased by 17% (from 217 to 254 gallons per 100 garments cleaned). At San Clemente Dry Cleaning Center, water use decreased by 1% (from 374 to 367 gallons per 100 garments cleaned). 58 In interviews with equipment manufacturers and repair technicians, 15 years was given as the upper end estimate for dry clean machines (and only if preventive maintenance is practiced) and 20 years as the average useful life of wet clean machines. (Pollution Prevention in the Garment Care Industry: Assessing the Viability of Professional Wet Cleaning, Pollution Prevention Education and Research Center, 1997, Appendix 4-F). U.S. House Committee on Small Business, Subcommittee on Tax, Finance and Exports. In testimony before Congress on July 20, 2000, Bill Fisher, Chief Executive Officer for the International Fabricare Institute (IFI),the largest national garment care association in the United States, testified that the anticipated life of new PCE dry clean machines was typically between 8 and 14 years Helping Small Dry Cleaners Adopt Safer Technology: Without Losing Your Shirt. 106 th Cong., 2nd sess. 20 July. 4-10

58 4.5.4 Costs Unchanged Labor: None of the five cleaners profiled reported any increase in the number of hours worked by employees, and one cleaner (Mr. Noh) reported a reduction of three hours a day worked by employees. Another cleaner (Mr. Chon) reported that while he works the same number of hours, he has to work a little harder than when we had his dry clean machine. The greater labor efficiency at San Clemente Natural Cleaning Center may be due to the fact that this cleaner was the first cleaner converted and therefore has had the greatest experience as a wet cleaner. Mr. Chon s observation that he works somewhat harder may be due, in part to the fact that he measures all jackets (in the length, width, and sleeve) before and after the wash cycle to verify that the dimension of these garments has not changed. Table 4.7: Process Dependent Costs per 100 Garments Cleaned Eli's Airport Cleaners 1Day Cleaners San Clemente Dry Cleaning Center Dry Clean Wet Clean Dry Clean Wet Clean Dry Clean Wet Clean Variable Expenses Labor * n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Solvent $4.41 $0.00 $1.33 $0.00 $1.06 $0.00 Detergent $1.02 $5.81 $0.21 $4.41 $1.13 $1.87 Water ** n.a. n.a. $0.22 $0.34 $0.92 $0.91 Electricity $9.10 $7.35 $5.43 $4.77 $1.79 $0.97 Gas $9.02 $6.07 $5.72 $5.68 $4.99 $4.81 Filter cost $0.52 $0.00 $0.33 $0.00 $1.27 $0.00 Hazardous waste $1.96 $0.00 $0.72 $0.00 $2.11 $0.00 disposal Fixed Expenses Regulatory fees $3.95 $0.00 $1.45 $0.00 $2.29 $0.00 Machine Maint. $3.25 $0.56 $2.43 $0.36 $3.26 $0.56 Equipment $11.25 $7.20 $3.27 $1.96 $6.22 $3.11 TOTAL $44.48 $26.99 $21.11 $17.52 $25.04 $12.23 * No difference was reported for employee labor cost. ** A separate water bill was not paid by Eli s Airport Cleaners 4-11

59 4.6 Resource Use Assessment The resource use analysis compared the electricity, natural gas and water use of three of the demonstration facilities when they operated a perc dry cleaners and after they switched to professional wet cleaning. (See Table 4.8) At each of the facilities (San Clemente Dry Cleaning Center, 1Day Cleaners, and Eli s Airport Cleaners), monthly billing records were obtained from utility companies for a period of time before and after the cleaners switch. To evaluate energy use on a daily basis, electricity and natural gas submeters were installed at two of the cleaning plants -- 1Day Cleaners and Eli s Airport Cleaners Electricity Use At professional cleaners, electricity runs a number of pieces of equipment including: washers, dryers, air compressors and vacuum pump, and pressing equipment. A dry clean machine requires additional electricity to operate pollution control devices, including: refrigerated condensers, distillation units, and wastewater evaporators. At each cleaner evaluated, electricity use dropped substantially immediately after the cleaner stopped using his perc dry clean machine and started using professional wet cleaning equipment. At San Clemente Dry Cleaning Center, electricity use dropped from 24 to 13 kwh per 100 garments cleaned a reduction of 46%. At Eli s Airport Cleaners, electricity use dropped 23% -- from 74 to 57 kwh per 100 garment cleaned. At 1Day cleaners, electricity use dropped 12% -- from 32 to 28 kwh per 100 garments cleaned. In terms of absolute reduction, Eli s Airport Cleaners experienced the largest reduction (16.7 kwh/100 garments cleaned), followed by San Clemente Dry Cleaning Center (11 kwh/100 garments cleaned), followed by 1Day Cleaners (3.9 kwh/100 garments cleaned). The greater reduction at Eli s Airport Cleaners may be due to the fact that the dry clean machine used at this facility was a newer model machine and used a refrigerated condenser to cool solvent vapor the dry clean machines at the other two cleaners used cooling towers to cool solvent vapor; a less energy intensive device. The greater electricity reduction at San Clemente Dry Cleaning Center compared with 1Day Cleaners may, in part, be due to the actual operation of the vapor cooling system. 1Day Cleaners reported that their cooling tower was not operating immediately prior to switching to professional wet cleaning. 59 At 1Day Cleaners, Southern California Edison installed and read electricity sub-meters prior to and after the cleaner switched to professional wet cleaning. The Gas Company installed natural gas sub-meters, which were read on a regular basis by the cleaner. At Eli s Airport Cleaners, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power installed and read electricity sub-meters prior to and after the cleaner switched to professional wet cleaning. The Gas Company installed natural gas sub-meters, which were read on a regular basis by the cleaner. 4-12

60 The data is consistent with previous research, indicating a greater electricity use in dry cleaning. Our previous research estimated electricity use would be 24% lower at a professional wet clean facility compared to a dry cleaning plant Natural Gas Use At professional cleaners, natural gas is used by a boiler, which generates steam used by pressing equipment, and a spotting board. Dry clean machines use steam as a source of heat used during the drying cycle. Steam can also be used to generate hot water for laundry or wet clean washers as well as to generate heat for laundry or wet clean dryers. More typically, laundry or wet clean washers use a natural gas hot water heater as a source for hot water and dryers heated directly by natural gas. At each cleaner evaluated, natural gas use dropped immediately after the cleaner stopped using their perc dry clean machine and started using professional wet cleaning equipment. At Eli s Airport Cleaners, natural gas use dropped 36% -- from 14.5 to 9.3 therms per 100 garment cleaned. At San Clemente Natural Cleaners, natural gas use dropped 4% -- from 8.3 to 8.0 therms per 100 garments cleaned. At 1Day Cleaners, natural gas use dropped 0.7% -- from therms per 100 garments cleaned. As with electricity use, Eli s Airport Cleaners experienced the greater absolute reduction in natural gas use 5.2 therms per 100 garments cleaned; both San Clemente and 1Day experienced a reduction of less than 1 therm per 100 garments cleaned. The greater absolute reduction at Eli s may also be due to the amount of natural gas demanded from the newer dry clean machine compared to older systems. Previous research conducted by PPERC estimated that natural gas use would be greater (23%) in professional wet cleaning compared to dry cleaning. 61 The estimate of natural gas use in dry cleaning was based on industry estimates and research assumptions and not on the experience of cleaners switching from dry cleaning to professional wet cleaning Water Use In professional wet cleaning, water is used as the solvent. Yet, the pollution control devices on dry clean machines also require water use; refrigerated condensers use water in cooling the refrigerant, cooling towers evaporate water in the process of cooling PCE, carbon adsorbers are steam stripped; some distillation systems are equipped with steam injection. In both professional wet cleaning and dry cleaning, water is used by the boiler, laundry washers, and water conditioning systems. 60 Pollution Prevention in the Garment Care Industry: Assessing the Viability of Professional Wet Cleaning, Pollution Prevention Education and Research Center, 1997, p Pollution Prevention in the Garment Care Industry: Assessing the Viability of Professional Wet Cleaning, Pollution Prevention Education and Research Center, 1997, p

61 At 1Day Cleaners, water use increased by 17% after switching to professional wet rising from 217 to 254 gallons per 100 garments cleaned. At San Clemente Natural Cleaning Center, water used dropped slightly after switching: from 374 to 367 gallons per 100 garments cleaned. Previous research conducted by PPERC estimated water use at a professional wet cleaning facility to be 77% greater than at a dry clean shop. 62 Yet this previous research was based on industry estimates and research assumptions, not on actual water use at a dry cleaner switching to professional wet cleaning. The data from the current analysis suggest that the regional impact on water demand associated with a switch to professional wet cleaning is likely to be substantially smaller than previously estimated. Table 4.8: Resource Use Per 100 Garments Cleaned: Dry Cleaning vs. Professional Wet Cleaning Electric Energy Use Natural Gas Use Water Use KWh Per 100 Garments Cleaned Therms per 100 Garments Cleaned Gallons per 100 Garments Cleaned Dry Clean Wet Clean % Change Dry Clean Wet Clean % Change Dry Clean Wet Clean % Change San Clemente Natural Cl Ctr % % % 1Day Cleaners % % % Eli s Airport Cleaners % % n.a.* n.a. n.a. * Water use is not metered at this facility. 62 Pollution Prevention in the Garment Care Industry: Assessing the Viability of Professional Wet Cleaning, Pollution Prevention Education and Research Center, 1997, p

62 5. Discussion 5.1 Comparison With Other Studies The results from this study reinforce prior findings from case studies of professional wet cleaning in terms of performance capability and financial viability of this pollution prevention technology. What is unique to this study is that it focuses on the experience of existing perchloroethylene dry cleaners switching to professional wet cleaning. Cleaners evaluated in prior case studies were either mixed facilities (using both dry cleaning and wet cleaning), 63 start-up cleaners with no prior experience in garment care, 64 or those using a dry cleaning solvent other than PCE. 65 By documenting the experience of a number of dry cleaners switching to professional wet cleaning, this study is able compare the experience of each cleaner to identify key factors associated with making a successful conversion. In addition, because our Center provided technical assistance to each cleaner, we were able to identify problems with the conversion process as each new cleaner was converted. For example, problems with programming the wet clean washer occurred for the first two cleaners converted (San Clemente Natural Cleaning Center and Del Mar Cleaners). By installing wet clean washer programs immediately after the washer was installed, programming was not a problem for the last three cleaners converted (Anawood Cleaners, 1Day Cleaners, and Eli s Airport Cleaners). 5.2 Generalizing Results: Keys to Successful Commercialization Through the experience of a series of cleaners converting to professional wet cleaning, we have identified a number of key factors that are likely to be important for any cleaner making a switch to this technology. Technical Training Technical training provided to each cleaner converting to professional wet cleaning included observational training at another professional wet cleaning facility, half-day onsite training at the new facility immediately following installation, half-day on-site follow-up training (if necessary), and telephone consultation. This training was planned 63 Environment Canada; Participants, G. C. P. Green Clean: Final Report for the Green Clean Project, Environment Canada, Patton, J.; Eyring, W. Alternative Clothes Cleaning Demonstration Shop Final Report, Center for Neighborhood Technology, 1996; Pollution Prevention in the Garment Care Industry: Assessing the Viability of Professional Wet Cleaning, Pollution Prevention Education and Research Center, 1997; Star, A.; Ewing, S. Real World Wetcleaning: A Study of Three Established Wetcleaning Shops, Center for Neighborhood Technology, Sinsheimer, P.; Cho, J.; Gottlieb, R. Switching to Pollution Prevention: A Performance and Financial Evaluation of Cypress Plaza Cleaners And The Issues Associated With Converting from Dry Cleaning to Wet Cleaning, Pollution Prevention Education and Research Center,

63 around the daily schedule of the cleaners converting, creating minimal disruption, with initial on-site training taking place on a Sunday a day most cleaners are not open for business. A number of key factors associated with successful training of cleaners converting to professional wet cleaning were identified. These include: Observational training at an existing facility prior to installation. Programming washer, dryer, and tensioning equipment. Techniques for proper sorting, washing, drying, finishing. Techniques for processing specific garment types: ties, jackets, lined garments. Techniques for maintaining equipment: daily cleaning of dryer lint filter; checking lubrication of tensioning equipment. Techniques for spot removal. Recommendations for improving technical training for cleaners converting to professional wet cleaning include: Developing a technical training manual. Developing a Training Certification Program for professional wet cleaners who want to learn to train other cleaners making the switch. Encourage wet clean manufacturers to develop a training program. One manufacturer, Miele, offers training for any cleaner purchasing their equipment. Installation Each of the cleaners in this study were able to remove their dry clean equipment and install professional wet cleaning equipment over a two to three day period starting on a Friday and ending on Saturday or Sunday morning. Given that most cleaners only have one cleaning machine for delicate garments in their shop, it is critical for a smooth transition to professional wet cleaning that the equipment switch-out be done over a weekend. A number of key factors associated with successful installation of professional wet cleaning equipment were identified. These include: Design layout of professional wet cleaning equipment in plant to maximize efficient flow of garments through the system. Test equipment to verify proper installation. Ability to remove dry clean equipment and install wet clean system over a twothree day period. Recommendations for improving installation for cleaners converting to professional wet cleaning include: Manufacturers and vendors of equipment developing a list of qualified installers of their equipment Developing a Qualified Installer Program. 5-2

64 Demonstration Sites Each of the cleaners evaluated visited at least one other dedicated professional wet cleaning facility prior to installing equipment at their own plant. The initial visit to a demonstration site, seeing the equipment first hand and talking to an operator, provided essential information necessary in making the decision to switch. Each of the cleaners reported concerns about professional wet cleaning in terms of garment shrinkage and increased labor time; fears that were substantially dispelled after an initial or follow-up visit to a demonstration facility. Once the cleaners made the decision to switch, followup visits to demonstration sites were essential to learn the technical details of the professional wet cleaning process prior to installation of the equipment at each new facility. Keys to successful demonstration of professional wet cleaning include: Observing the complete cleaning process including: spotting, sorting, washing, drying, and finishing. Observing the processing of the full range of garment types and fabrics. Talking to the cleaner and pressing staff to address questions and concerns. Observing how cleaners interact with customers. Opportunities for cleaners to have hands on experience using wet clean equipment. The number of professional wet cleaning demonstration facilities in the greater Los Angeles region will be expanded from eight to twenty over the next two years to provide additional venues for cleaners to observe the wet cleaning process first hand. In addition, Southern California Edison, an investor-owned utility, will be installing professional wet cleaning equipment at their Customer Technology Application Center (CTAC) facility in Irwindale, California. The CTAC installation will be available for any cleaner who wants hands-on experience using professional wet cleaning equipment. Financial Incentives Each of the cleaners in this study received financial incentives to be part of a demonstration project. Even through cleaners switching to professional wet cleaning are able to successfully process the same garments they had previously dry cleaned, and do so at a lower cost than dry cleaning, developing financial incentives may induce more cleaners to switch. Two funding sources appear to be most appropriate to develop financial incentives for professional wet cleaning: Energy rebate programs. Given the data suggesting substantial energy savings associated with a switch to professional wet cleaning, rebate programs through the utilities should be developed Our center is currently working with The Gas Company and Southern California Edison on developing an energy rebate program for professional wet cleaning equipment. 5-3

65 Funds created from regulatory fines. Because dry cleaners have had difficulty complying with environmental regulation both in the southern California region and throughout the United States, fines have been exacted on cleaners violating their permit conditions. Using these fines as a resource to provide incentives for professional wet cleaning is appropriate because switching to professional wet cleaning eliminates the need for regulatory oversight altogether. Transition Planning Manual Each of the demonstration site cleaners received a professional wet cleaning technical information packet after attending a demonstration site workshop. The packet included basic information on professional wet cleaning, an equipment report providing list pricing of wet clean equipment, and brochures from different equipment manufacturers. A more detailed Transition Planning Manual should be developed to assist any cleaner interested in making a transition to professional wet cleaning. The manual should include information on how to choose equipment to purchase, how to assure proper installation of equipment, what financial incentives are available, and what information needs to be learned during training to make the process of switching from dry cleaning to professional wet cleaning smooth, quick, and successful. 5.3 Conclusion As the above discussion indicates, a transition from dry cleaning to professional wet cleaning can take place as a benefit to cleaners while also providing significant environmental benefits. The discussion also provided a set of programmatic initiatives that could facilitate such a transition. In addition, regulatory actions may further intensify the need for such a transition. The evaluation of the experiences of the five cleaners provides a valuable base line of information for cleaners, regulators, and the general public. As cleaners seek to make a transition to a non-perc based system, it is important that such real-world information be made available. We would welcome the opportunity to extend this comparison to other non-perc based systems as well (e.g., Green Earth, CO2, and hydrocarbon-based systems as the most developed of such alternatives). To pursue a path of pollution prevention change effectively requires this kind of hands-on information about the nature of the change, as well as an ability to evaluate and address health and environmental impacts and the overall viability of each of the systems involved. It is a path worth taking for regulator and regulated alike. 5-4

66 APPENDIX A San Clemente Dry Cleaning Center Case Study: Key to Figures Performance Calculations for San Clemente Dry Cleaning Center Volume Volume has not changed since the switch to wet cleaning, so the same volumes are applied to both wet cleaning and dry cleaning periods. In determining the return, sent out, claims, and overall success rates, only the volume of wet cleaned garments is accounted for the denominator laundry is excluded from these calculations. Care label and fiber type figures are based on a data collected at the shop on 6/27/01, prior to the switch to wet cleaning. Data was recorded for each garment, excluding shirt laundry, regarding the garment type, care label, and fiber type. - Operates five days a week for over 15 months - Estimated total volume Average garments wet cleaned per day * 5 = 500 garments wet cleaned a week * 4.3 = 2150 per month * 15 months = 32,250 total garments wet cleaned Return Rate The figures used to determine the below rates are based on responses to interview questions by Mr. Noh Dry cleaning, 4-5 garments a month: 4.5/2150 = % - Wet cleaning, 4-5 garments a month: 4.5/2150 = % Sent Out - Dry cleaning, 10 per year: 10/(2150*12months) = % - Wet cleaning, 6 in 15 months: 6/(2150*15months) = % Claims Rate - Dry cleaning, 3 claims a year: 3/(2150*12) = % - Wet cleaning, 3 claims in 15 months: 3/(2150*15) = % Overall Success Rate - Dry Cleaning: % return, % claims, % sent out: 99.74% - Wet Cleaning: % return, % claims, % sent out: 99.76% Care Label Frequency/Fiber Type - 73% dry clean label based on profile - 46% were of traditional dry clean fibers (wool, silk, rayon) based profile 67 Interview 10/1/02 A - 1

67 APPENDIX A Financial Calculations for San Clemente Dry Cleaning Center All per 100 garments figures are calculated by dividing by the total number of garments cleaned per month (220*5*4.3 = 4,730) or per week (220*5 = 1100) and then multiplying by 100. In this case, laundered garments are included. Cost Adjustments All dollar terms in this report are adjusted to 2002 dollars using the U.S. Department of Labor s Consumer Price Index (CPI). The following years are relevant to this case study: CPI 2002: CPI 1997: CPI 1991: Base Year: = 100 Revenue The CTSA (1997) study assumes a revenue of $3.00 per pound of garments processed. Assuming a relation of 1.1 pounds per garment, $3.00 per pound = $3.30 per garment. Adjusted to 2002 dollars based on the CPI, an average revenue of $3.70 is assumed. Moon s monthly volume is 4,730 garments, so estimated annual revenue is $3.70*4,730*12 = $210,580. Water Dry Clean: from July 2000 to June 2001, average monthly water use = 23.5 HCF Wet Clean: from August 2001 to July 2002, average monthly water use = HCF The city of San Clemente charges a flat rate of $1.85 per unit (748 gallons). 68 Dry Clean cost per month: 23.5*1.85 = $43.48 Per 100 garments = ($43.48/4730)100 = $0.92 Wet Clean cost per month: 23.3*1.85 = $43.11 Per 100 garments = ($43.11/4730)100 = $0.91 Electricity (SDGE) Figures are based on utility records from 4/29/99 to 3/29/02. Average kwh/day for dry cleaning was calculated based on billing records from the months of 4/99 to 6/01. Average kwh/day for wet cleaning was calculated based on billing records from the months of 7/01 to 3/02. Dry Clean: kwh/day 30.5* = kwh/month Per 100 garments: ( /4730)100 = kWh/100 Wet Clean: kwh/day 30.5 * = kwh/month Per 100 garments: ( /4730)100 = kWh/ See Appendix F A - 2

68 APPENDIX A Reduction: = kwh/day, / = 46% Cost 69 : Total UDC Cost in Secondary Summer: $ Primary Summer: $ Secondary Winter: $ Primary Winter: $ Average Cost throughout the year: $ Monthly before: * = $84.51 Per 100 garments: ($84.51/4730)100 = $ Monthly after: * = $45.66 Per 100 garments: ($45.66/4730)100 = $ Natural Gas Consumption estimates are based on utility records from the Southern California Gas Company. Billing records for the months of 2/99 to 6/01 are used to estimate consumption while dry cleaning, and billing records for the months of 7/01 to 3/02 are used to estimate consumption while wet cleaning Dry Clean: Average monthly use therms Per 100 garments: (391.53/4730)100 = Wet clean: Average monthly use therms Per 100 garments: (375.78/4730)100 = Reduction: = therms/month, percent savings = 4.02% Southern California Natural Gas Company uses a tiered rate schedule. The tiers are different in winter months and summer months Summer (April-November): Tier 1 rate charged for first 100 therms. - Winter (December-March): Tier 1 rate charged for first 250 therms. Tier 1 rate as of October 2002: $ Tier 2 rate as of October 2002: $ The Summer rate is charged for 2/3 of the year, and the winter rate for 1/3 of the year. To determine an average monthly price the two rates were combined, with the Summer rate being weighted by 2/3, and the Winter rate by 1/3. Dry Clean: Summer: [(100* ) + (291.53* )](2/3) = $ Winter: [(250* ) + (141.53* )](1/3) = $84.33 Dry Clean Cost: $ Wet Clean: Summer: [(100* ) + ( * )](2/3) = $ See Appendix F 70 See Appendix F A - 3

69 APPENDIX A + Winter: [(250* ) + (125.78* )](1/3) = $81.51 Wet Clean Cost: $ Dry clean cost per month: $ Per 100: /4730 * 100 = $4.989/100 Wet clean cost per month: $ Per 100: /4730 * 100 = $4.808/100 Labor In an interview on10/1/02 Moon reported that his employees work three hours less per day, five days a week. - Marta, presser and counter work: 1 hour less/day - Onesimo, presser: 2 hours less/day Solvent Dry Cleaning: Moon estimated that he purchased 80 gallons of perc every year at a cost of $7.50 a gallon. - Annual Cost: $600 - Monthly Cost: $50 - Per 100 garments: ($50/4730)100 = $1.057 Wet Cleaning: No solvent Cost. Detergent Dry Clean: Moon estimated that he used 40 gallons of dry clean detergent every year at a cost of $16 a gallon. - Annual cost: $640 - Monthly cost: $ Per 100 garments: (53.33/4730)100 = $1.127 Wet Clean: Over a ten month period, Moon purchased 35 gallons of Power Brite at a gallon for $446.25, and 40 gallons of Soften All at $10.95 a gallon for $ Assuming he didn t maintain any inventory during this period, his wet clean detergent costs are: - 10 month cost: = $ Monthly cost: $ Per 100 garments: (88.425/4730)100 = $1.869 Filter Cost Dry Clean: Moon s dry clean machine had six filters, which he changed 4 times a year. A pack of six filters cost $180, or $30 each. - Annual Cost: $30*6 filters*4 times a year = $720 - Monthly cost: $60 - Per 100 garments: (60/4730)100 = $ Based on United Fabricare billing records from 10/5/01 to 8/20/02. A - 4

70 APPENDIX A Wet Clean: No filter cost. Hazardous Waste Disposal Dry Clean: Moon estimated his hazardous waste disposal costs to amount to $1,200 per year. This is consistent with hazardous waste volume estimates made in the EPA s CTSA study 72, and disposal fees quoted by Safety-Kleen Inc. Safety-Kleen Inc. charges $139 for the disposal of 16 gallons of perc sludge, for a cost of $8.69 per gallon. They charge $139 for the disposal of three standard filters, for a cost of $46.33 per filter. - Annual cost: $1,200 - Monthly cost: $100 - Per 100 garments: (100/4730)100 = $2.114 Wet clean: No hazardous waste costs. Regulatory Fees Wet cleaning is not subject to any regulations. As an Orange County dry cleaner, Mr. Noh would have to pay the following annual fees: 73 - Hazardous Waste: $ Hazardous Materials: $ Public Health: $298 - SCAQMD operating fee: $ Toxic Hot Spot Fee: $ State tax surcharge fee: $ CARB training renewal ($75.00 every three years): $25.00 TOTAL ANNUAL COST: $1, Machine Maintenance Dry cleaning: The Neighborhood Cleaners Association International (NCAI) estimates the annual maintenance costs for a PCE-based dry cleaner to be between 1.25% and 3% of total annual revenues. The International Fabricare Institute (IFI) estimates annual maintenance costs for PCE-based operations to be between 2.27% and 3.26% of total annual revenues. 74 Averaging the low ends of both of these estimates yields a rate of 1.76% of total revenue for equipment maintenance costs. Assuming a the dry clean machine in a facility accounts for 50% of maintenance costs, the annual cost of maintaining a PCE dry clean machine based upon NCAI and IFI s estimates is 0.88% of total revenue. - Annual maintenance costs: $210,580*0.88% = $1,853 - Monthly maintenance costs: $ Per 100 garments: ($154.43/2043)*100 = The EPA s 1997 CTSA study estimated that a cleaner using 417 gallons of perc would produce 658 gallons of hazardous waste a year, or about one and a half times the quantity of perc used. If Mr. Noh used 80 gallons of perc, about 120 gallons of waste production could be expected. 120 gallons * $8.69/gallon = $1,042 cost for disposal. It also costs about $46 to dispose of each filter according to Safety-Kleen. 73 See Appendix F 74 EPA, 1997: Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment. A - 5

71 APPENDIX A Wet cleaning: Expected maintenance costs for a wet clean system over the life span of the system total to $5, $6,394 in 2002 dollars -- based upon the 1997 UCLA/PPERC study. 75 This figure included a replacement of the computer control unit ($1,500), although it is likely to last longer than the lifetime of the system. It is assumed that a wet clean system will last for 20 years: - Annual maintenance costs: $6394/20 = $320 - Monthly maintenance costs: $320/12 = $ Per 100 garments: ($26.67/2043)100 = $1.31 Maintenance on equipment in the rest of the plant is not process dependent and is therefore not accounted for. Equipment Costs Dry Clean: Moon purchased his dry clean machine for approximately $45,000 in 1991, including taxes and installation. Assuming that the list price was $40,000 in 1991, the cost of the machine in 2002 dollars is (180.7/136.6)*$40,000 = $52,914. Moon in fact only got 10 years of use out of his machine, but assuming he could have used it for 15 years, the amortized cost of his dry clean machine would be $3, Annual equipment cost: $3,527 - Monthly equipment cost: $ Per 100 garments: $6.215 Wet Clean: Wet Clean: The list price for the wet clean system (washer and dryer), including the steel base for the washer and the detergent pump system totaled to $16,393. Pants and jacket toppers were also purchased for a total of $18,990. The total cost of equipment (based on list prices) comes to $35,383. A life span of 20 years is assumed for this equipment. - Annual equipment cost: $1,769 - Monthly equipment cost: $147 Per 100 garments: ($147/4730)*100 = $ Gottlieb, et al Pollution Prevention in the Garment Care Industry. A - 6

72 APPENDIX A Resource Use Data for San Clemente Dry Cleaning Center San Clemente Dry Cleaning Center Electricity Consumption San Diego Gas and Electric Utility Records Bill date Days kwh kwh/day 03/29/ /28/ /29/ /28/ /28/ /26/ /27/ /27/ /27/ /27/ /29/ /27/ /29/ /28/ /29/ /28/ /28/ /27/ /28/ /29/ /31/ /28/ /30/ /28/ /01/ /31/ /30/ /30/ /29/ /30/ /31/ /30/ /29/ /28/ /29/ Wet Cleaning: kwh/day Dry Cleaning: kwh/day Wet Cleaning: kwh/month Dry Cleaning: kwh/month Reduction 46% A - 7

73 APPENDIX A San Clemente Dry Cleaning Center Southern California Gas Company Utility Records Month Therms Average Dry Cleaning Average Wet Cleaning Reduction % Reduction 4.02% A - 8

74 APPENDIX A City of San Clemente Water Utility Records San Clemente Dry Cleaning Center One Unit = 748 Gallons Month January February March April May June July August September October November December Total Average Overall One Year Before and After Average Per Month Dry Cleaning Average Per Month Wet Cleaning A - 9

75 APPENDIX A WET CLEAN SURVEY Cleaner: Moon Noh Date: 10/1/02 Shop and Cleaner History 1. How long have you been a cleaner? 27 years 2. How long have you owned your current shop? 27 years What was your experience cleaning before owning this shop? Went to dry cleaning school to get a license couldn t buy a shop without one. 3. What motivated your decision to switch to professional wet cleaning? A. Change perc machine for alternative (old machine regulations) B. Free from regulation C. Grant available was already looking for alternatives D. Talked to other cleaner about switch convinced through workshop. (2 seminars, Hans and Joe) Performance Questions (looked into CO2 and hydrocarbon also) 1. Have you notified customers of your switch to professional wet cleaning? ½ yes How? Sign When? 2 months after switching Why not? If people ask, very proud to tell them. People did not notice a difference in quality. 2. Have you talked to your customers about your switch to professional wet cleaning? Yes How so? Give brochure to read about it. Regular customers talk about it. New customers only if they ask. 3. Have any of your customers responded negatively to your switch to professional wet cleaning? No no negative customer yet. A - 10

76 APPENDIX A In what way? How many? What %? 4. Have any of your customers responded positively to your switch to professional wet cleaning? Yes, very positively In what way? Finally you are doing something different Customers who asked about it were happy. How many? What %? 20% 5. Have you lost any customers because of your switch to wet cleaning?yes How many?1 What %? Why? Complained that silver color in her bead came off 6. Have you gained any customers because of your switch to wet cleaning? Yes How many? 15 people (come from a distance) 4/5 from local area What %? 5% Why? New customers came b/c it s free from toxic chemicals, environmentally friendly. 7. What is your current volume of garments cleaned per day? Avg WC Has your volume changed since your switch? Yes increase about 5% 8. When you were dry cleaning, how often did customers bring garments back because of problems with the quality of cleaning? 4/5 month Reasons: spots, press, didn t look clean 9. Since your switch to wet cleaning, how often have customers brought back garments because of problems with the quality of cleaning? 4/5 month A - 11

77 APPENDIX A Reasons: shrinking (1 in 5 mo.), spotting, pressing Nov Jan: 6 pieces (sweaters) 10. When you were dry cleaning, approximately how often did you pay claims or give store credit to customers? 3 times/year - $300 Reasons: Shrinkage Color transfer Lost 11. Since switching to wet cleaning, approximately how often do you pay claims or give store credit to customers? 3 over a 1 ½ years Reasons: 1 sweater color faded, but was natural fading, not due to wet clean 2 shrank, but one jacket didn t really shrink Would you attribute any claims to the wet cleaning process? No Reasons: Program was wrong for one used washing cycle 12. When you were dry cleaning, how often did you send out garments. (including leather)? 10/year Garments Reasons Leather 13. As a wet cleaner, how often do you send out garments (including leather)? Garments year ½ 6 garments Reasons Leather 2 delicate silk ties 14. Overall, How would you rate the quality of your cleaning service as a wet cleaner in comparison to the quality of your cleaning service when you were a dry cleaner? 1) better 2) equivalent 3) worse 4) don t know Explain: Same as dry clean. Customers don t know same quality + non toxic. Transition and Training A - 12

78 APPENDIX A 1. Before you switched, what concerns did you have about switching to professional wet cleaning? (list and rank) - Afraid of destroying garments - Quality: is it going to be the same, especially wool and silk shrinkage - Concerned about bleeding silk: now less problems than dry cleaning - Afraid of paying claims 2. How difficult did you think would be to make the switch to professional wet cleaning? - not at all difficult Why?: - not too difficult - somewhat difficult - very difficult 3. How difficult do you think it actually was to switch to professional wet cleaning? - not at all difficult Transition for 2 months - programming - not too difficult - somewhat difficult - very difficult 4. What were the biggest difficulties in making the switch to wet cleaning? (list and rank) - equipment - training employees - knowing how to use the equipment programming, form finisher 5. Did you have concerns about having to learn a new cleaning process? No What Concerns? Was very confident that I could do, because he went to see other cleaners. Very anxious to do wet cleaning 6. How difficult would say it was to learn to do wet cleaning? - not at all difficult Why?: - not too difficult - somewhat difficult - very difficult 7. How important would you say the training was to making a successful transition to wet cleaning? - not at all important - not too important A - 13

79 APPENDIX A - somewhat important - very important 8. Would you have liked the training to be different in any way? Yes How so? - training on how to program - academic training interaction of chemicals and fibers - know how to operate and maintain machine - how to handle customers introduce new tech Owner Satisfaction 1. Do you feel your decision to switch to wet cleaning was a good business decision? Excellent decision 2. Given the opportunity, would you make the same decision to do wet cleaning over again? Yes If I started the business again 3. How strongly would you recommend wet cleaning to another cleaner who needed to buy new cleaning equipment? - not recommend Why?: Good for your conscience - recommend Good for the environment - strongly recommend Good for health employee/cust Equivalent to dry cleaning Free from regulation 4. What advice would you give to anyone considering switching to wet cleaning? 5. How would you rate your level of satisfaction as a wet cleaner in comparison to when you were a dry cleaner? A - 14

80 APPENDIX A - much lower - lower - equal - higher - much higher 6. When you were dry cleaning, did you experience any of the following conditions? - dizziness - nausea - headache - fatigue - runny nose - Chronic illness: More allergy reactions 7. When you were dry cleaning, did any of your employees experience any of the following conditions? - dizziness - nausea - headache - fatigue - runny nose - Chronic illness: 8. Since your switch to wet cleaning have you experienced any of the following conditions? - Dizziness None Employees?: - nausea - headache - fatigue - runny nose - Chronic illness: Financial 1. Has there been any change in the number hours worked by your employees since switching to wet cleaning? Less hours A - 15

81 APPENDIX A Employee Job Hours/day Hours/week Any Changes Marta Presser/counter 3 or 4/day 1 hr less/day Onesimo Presser 4 2 hrs less/day Juan Shirt presser 6 Same Moon Counter/operator 10 Same 2. Since you switched, has the type of work you do in your shop changed? Cleaning method changed clean in afternoon, spotting 3. Compared to when you were dry cleaning, do you feel that you now have to put more or less effort into running your shop? Same Less effort: machine is simple 4. In the year prior to switching, what maintenance did you perform on equipment at your plant? - Change distilled unit: $4,000 - Change pump: $450 All months before switching - Freezing unit: $2, Since switching to wet cleaning, how much maintenance have you had to perform on equipment at your plant? Regular maintenance check grease, pressing 6. Did you ever have to make any major repairs to your dry cleaning Machine? See number 4 above 7. What were your average yearly disposal costs? $1200 per year Who was your waste hauler (contact info)? AAD 8. What fees were you required to pay as a dry cleaner, and to whom? AQMD/Hot Spot Fire Health Dept A - 16

82 APPENDIX A EPA 9. Utility providers CADL# Electric Account# Gas Account# Water Account# 10. Would you contact your detergent and solvent suppliers for billing records? How much do you charge for wet cleaning the following garments? - Pants: 3.25 and up - Jackets: 5.50 and up - Skirts: Blouses: Silk: Suede: Suit (two piece): Non-coat Jacket: Dress: Wedding Dress minimum A - 17

83 APPENDIX B Del Mar Cleaners Case Study: Key to Figures Volume Volume has not changed since the switch to wet cleaning, so the same volumes are applied to both wet cleaning and dry cleaning periods. In determining the return, sent out, claims, and overall success rates, only the volume of wet cleaned garments is accounted for the denominator laundry is excluded from these calculations. Care label and fiber type figures are based on a data collected at the shop on 12/19/01, prior to the switch to wet cleaning. Data was recorded for each garment, excluding shirt laundry, regarding the garment type, care label, and fiber type. The transition period is during February 2001 through May 2001, after which reprogramming took place: 6 claims during transition period, two after. For the purpose of this report only the post transition period is referred to in order to more accurately compare wet cleaning and dry cleaning. - Operates six days a week: at time of report for over 8 months, 4.5 months post transition - Between 9/9 and 9/16 wet cleaned 193 lbs/day 193/1.1 = 175 garments per day, this was verified with cleaner * 6 = 1,050 garments a week * 4.3 weeks per month 4,515 per month - 4,515 * 4.5 months = 20,317 total garments wet cleaned Return Rate The figures used to determine the below rates are based on responses to interview questions by Ms. Mireles Dry cleaning, 3 or 4 returned a week: 3.5/1050 = 0.33% - Wet cleaning o Early on (pre-transition), 4-5 a week due to programming issues o Now (post-transition), 3 a month: 3/4515 = 0.066% Sent Out - Dry cleaning, 8 leathers a month: 8/4515 = 0.177% - Wet cleaning, 8 leathers a month + 12 ties a week 60 a month: 60/4515 = 1.329% Claims Rate - Post transition (June and on): 2 claims over 4.5 months 2/(4.5*4515) = % - As a dry cleaner, 6-7 a year: 6.5(4515*12) = % Overall Success Rate - Wet Cleaning: 0.066% return, % claims, 1.329% sent out: % - Dry Cleaning: 0.33% return, % claims, 0.177% sent out: % Care Label Frequency/Fiber Type 76 Interview 9/26/02 B - 1

84 APPENDIX B - Care label: 63% dry clean label - Fiber type: 32% wool, silk, rayon or mixes there-of B - 2

85 APPENDIX B WET CLEAN SURVEY Cleaner: Ines Mireles Date:9/26/02 Shop and Cleaner History 1. How long have you been a cleaner? 7 years 2. How long have you owned your current shop? Sole owner since January What was your experience cleaning before owning this shop? None 3. What motivated your decision to switch to professional wet cleaning? A. Landlord didn t want to renew lease. Contaminated ground. B. C. D. Performance Questions 1. Have you notified customers of your switch to professional wet cleaning? How? Sign on counter Sign outside Brochure When? Very Beginning July July/August Why not? 2. Have you talked to your customers about your switch to professional wet cleaning? Yes How so? Ask about process. Explain about moisture, detergents, non-toxic. Afraid to explain water based system. Now, better. No problems. B - 3

86 APPENDIX B 3. Have any of your customers responded negatively to your switch to professional wet cleaning? No In what way? How many? What %? 4. Have any of your customers responded positively to your switch to professional wet cleaning? Yes In what way? Haven t lost costumers. Gained customers that used to go to Santa Monica but prefer Del Mar due to closer location. Interested in process of wet cleaning. How many? 1 out of 10 What %? Have you lost any customers because of your switch to wet cleaning? yes 6. How many? Five or Six (500 regular costumers) What %? Why? Claims. 7. Have you gained any customers because of your switch to wet cleaning? Yes How many? 20 What %? 4% Why? From sign outside, from Santa Monica Cleaner 8. What is your current volume of garments cleaned per day? 280 pounds busy. 260 pounds, slow Has your volume changed since your switch? Same. B - 4

87 APPENDIX B 9. When you were dry cleaning, how often did customers bring garments back because of problems with the quality of cleaning? ¾ a week-spots Reasons: Spots. Complaints related to being late. 10. Since your switch to wet cleaning, how often have customers brought back garments because of problems with the quality of cleaning? 4-5 times a week. Before reprogramming. Now 3 a month. Reasons: Before: Shrinkage: wool, rayon, pants, jackets. Now: Shrinkage: silk, ties 11. When you were dry cleaning, approximately how often did you pay claims or give store credit to customers? 6-7 a year Reasons: Discoloration (near the spot) Damage due to spot removal 12. Since switching to wet cleaning, approximately how often do you pay claims or give store credit to customers? Used wrong program and wrong sorting. 6 Reasons: 4 shrunk (same customer). Two were fine (in her opinion) Before reprogramming: all of them (6) After reprogramming: 1 blue jacket-color faded. Would you attribute any claims to the wet cleaning process? Used the wrong program. Not sorted right. Reasons: Six claims-wrong programming leading to shrinkage. 13. When you were dry cleaning, how often did you send out garments. (including leather)? Garments Reasons Leather Couldn t clean on site Suede 14. As a wet cleaner, how often do you send out garments (including leather)? Garments Reasons Ties Wrinkle inside the tie Leathers 15. Overall, How would you rate the quality of your cleaning service as a wet cleaner in comparison to the quality of your cleaning service when you were a dry cleaner? B - 5

88 APPENDIX B 1) better 2) equivalent 3) worse 4) don t know Explain: Better for customers (same number of customers) Transition and Training 1. Before you switched, what concerns did you have about switching to professional wet cleaning? (list and rank) Fear of having problems with wool. New, didn t know how it would work. Greater amount of work (measure garment) Take longer (due to measurement) 2. How difficult did you think would be to make the switch to professional wet cleaning? - not at all difficult Why?: Fear of shrinkage. - not too difficult Loosing customers. Try for 7 months - somewhat difficult - very difficult 3. How difficult do you think it actually was to switch to professional wet cleaning? - not at all difficult *Problems: insulation problems. - not too difficult Dryer not installed correctly. Wrong - somewhat difficult Programming - very difficult 4. What were the biggest difficulties in making the switch to wet cleaning? (list and rank) Fear of arising problems Training took 2-3 days for tensioning. Trained by Enrique. 5. Did you have concerns about having to learn a new cleaning process? No What Concerns? 6. How difficult would say it was to learn to do wet cleaning? - not at all difficult Why?: - not too difficult - somewhat difficult - very difficult 2-3 Day period. Slow in pressing. Re-pressed due to low quality. B - 6

89 APPENDIX B 7. How important would you say the training was to making a successful transition to wet cleaning? - not at all important - not too important - somewhat important - very important Observation: Important. Gave her more confidence. Follow up training. 8. Would you have liked the training to be different in any way? How so? Was not aware of how important training was. Cross training would be better. Owner Satisfaction 1. Do you feel your decision to switch to wet cleaning was a good business decision? Now, yes. Before not sure due to problems with garments. 2. Given the opportunity, would you make the same decision to do wet cleaning over again? Yes. 3. How strongly would you recommend wet cleaning to another cleaner who needed to buy new cleaning equipment? - not recommend Why?: Non-toxic (breathing). No - recommend inspections-tickets - strongly recommend 4. What advice would you give to anyone considering switching to wet cleaning? Check equipment s installation (washer & dryer). Check on the programming. B - 7

90 APPENDIX B 5. How would you rate your level of satisfaction as a wet cleaner in comparison to when you were a dry cleaner? - much lower - lower - equal - higher - much higher *More relaxed-no breaking laws. Not worried about inspections. Difficult to make decisions with partner. 6. When you were dry cleaning, did you experience any of the following conditions? No. - dizziness - nausea - headache - fatigue - runny nose - Chronic illness: 7. When you were dry cleaning, did any of your employees experience any of the following conditions? Enrique - dizziness - nausea - headache - fatigue - runny nose - Chronic illness: 8. Since your switch to wet cleaning have you experienced any of the following conditions? - Dizziness Employees?: Stopped - nausea - headache - fatigue - runny nose - Chronic illness: Financial 1. Has there been any change in the number hours worked by your employees since switching to wet cleaning? No Spotting-faster with wet cleaner. Laundry, dryer, twice as fast. B - 8

91 APPENDIX B Employee Job Hours/day Hours/week Any Changes Enrique Cleaner 40 Angela Presser 45 Deo Presser 45 Ines Owner Reina Counter/Delivery 40 Miguel Counter/bagging Since you switched, has the type of work you do in your shop changed? No. More inspection before bagging same amount of time. 3. Compared to when you were dry cleaning, do you feel that you now have to put more or less effort into running your shop? Same (owner) Less effort for Enrique. Same pressing time. 4. In the year prior to switching, what maintenance did you perform on equipment at your plant? Repairs-six times, six years. 5. Since switching to wet cleaning, how much maintenance have you had to perform on equipment at your plant? Once. Form fitted screw came loose. 6. Did you ever have to make any major repairs to your dry cleaning Machine? Everything was simple. Machine was 12 years old by last year. Machine was leaking. Couldn t see leakage for every repair 7. What were your average yearly disposal costs? every three months Who was your waste hauler (contact info)? Hazardous waste disposal 8. What fees were you required to pay as a dry cleaner, and to whom? County of Los Angeles 250 AMD 280 B - 9

92 APPENDIX B Fire Permit 9. Utility providers CADL# Electric DWP Gas The Gas Company Water 10. Would you contact your detergent and solvent suppliers for billing records? How much do you charge for wet cleaning the following garments? Pants 3.50 Before: Pants Jackets 4.75 Jackets Skirts 4.50 Skirts Shirts 3.75 Shirts Blouses 4.50 Blouses Same as Before B - 10

93 APPENDIX C Anawood Cleaners Case Study: Key to Figures Volume Volume has not changed since the switch to wet cleaning, so the same volumes are applied to both wet cleaning and dry cleaning periods. In determining the return, sent out, claims, and overall success rates, only the volume of wet cleaned garments is accounted for the denominator laundry is excluded from these calculations. Figures for care label and fiber type are based upon phone conversations with Mr. Kanaan, and estimates he made. - Operates six days a week: at time of report operated for 11 weeks as a wet cleaner - Between 8/13/2002 and 9/24/2002 average garments cleaned per day Average garments wet cleaned per day * 6 * = 360 wet cleaned garments per week * 4.3 = 1,548 per month * 11 weeks = 3,960 total garments wet cleaned Return Rate The figures used to determine the below rates are based on responses to interview questions by Mr. Kanaan Stated in interview, no garments brought back for additional work since switching - As a dry cleaner 2% of garments returned (stated in interview) Sent Out - 3 per month as both a wet and dry cleaner. - 3/1,548 garments per month =.1938% Claims Rate - Zero Claims since switching to wet cleaning: 0% - As a dry cleaner 1 claim over two years. o 1/(1,548 garments per month * 24 months) =.0027% Overall Success Rate - Wet Cleaning: 100% - (0% return, 0% claims, % sent out) = 99.81% - Dry Cleaning: 100% - (2% return, % claims, % sent out) = 97.80% Care Label Frequency/Fiber Type - 92% dry clean label according to phone discussion with Steve - 91% were of traditional dry clean fibers (wool, silk, rayon): 8% rayon/rayon mix, 10% silk/silk mix, 75% wool/wool mix, 8% no label. 77 Interview 10/1/02 C - 1

94 APPENDIX C WET CLEAN SURVEY Cleaner: Steve Kanaan Date: 10/1/02 Shop and Cleaner History 4. How long have you been a cleaner? 2 ½ years Drop shop for a year 5. How long have you owned your current shop?2 years What was your experience cleaning before owning this shop? None 6. What motivated your decision to switch to professional wet cleaning? A. Can t have a dry cleaning machine on premise renew lease B. C. D. Performance Questions 16. Have you notified customers of your switch to professional wet cleaning? How? Flyer on counter When? Immediately Why not? 17. Have you talked to your customers about your switch to professional wet cleaning? Some of them regular customers How so? Chemical free, environmental, good smell, - nobody complains C - 2

95 APPENDIX C 18. Have any of your customers responded negatively to your switch to professional wet cleaning? No In what way? How many? What %? 19. Have any of your customers responded positively to your switch to professional wet cleaning? Ok In what way? It seems the same. It s cleaner, smells better if you tell them How many? What %? 20. Have you lost any customers because of your switch to wet cleaning? Not that I know of. How many? What %? Why? 21. Have you gained any customers because of your switch to wet cleaning? Not that notice. How many? What %? Why? 22. What is your current volume of garments cleaned per day? 300 Has your volume changed since your switch? Wet cleaning 50 a day Laundry 150 Shirt Laundry 100 C - 3

96 APPENDIX C 23. When you were dry cleaning, how often did customers bring garments back because of problems with the quality of cleaning? 2% a month stain (spotting) 24. Since your switch to wet cleaning, how often have customers brought back garments because of problems with the quality of cleaning? None Reasons: More quality control 25. When you were dry cleaning, approximately how often did you pay claims or give store credit to customers? Once - $20 credit Reasons: Put the stain in 26. Since switching to wet cleaning, approximately how often do you pay claims or give store credit to customers? Reasons: Would you attribute any claims to the wet cleaning process? He blamed detergent Reasons: 27. When you were dry cleaning, how often did you send out garments. (including leather)? Garments Reasons Leather 3 or 4 per month 28. As a wet cleaner, how often do you send out garments (including leather)? Garments Reasons Leather 3 a month C - 4

97 APPENDIX C 29. Overall, How would you rate the quality of your cleaning service as a wet cleaner in comparison to the quality of your cleaning service when you were a dry cleaner? 1) better 2) equivalent 3) worse 4) don t know Explain: same thing no complaints Transition and Training 9. Before you switched, what concerns did you have about switching to professional wet cleaning? (list and rank) No, I wasn t worried about anything 10. How difficult did you think would be to make the switch to professional wet cleaning? - not at all difficult Why?: Might shrink, water soap - not too difficult - somewhat difficult - very difficult 11. How difficult do you think it actually was to switch to professional wet cleaning? - not at all difficult - not too difficult - somewhat difficult - very difficult 12. What were the biggest difficulties in making the switch to wet cleaning? (list and rank) Took time to find a good installer. Put on the wrong gas line. 13. Did you have concerns about having to learn a new cleaning process? Yes What Concerns? Worried about learning. Not ready right away. C - 5

98 APPENDIX C 14. How difficult would say it was to learn to do wet cleaning? - not at all difficult Why?: - not too difficult - somewhat difficult - very difficult Good explanations of how to use machines San Clemente: actually show the whole process. 15. How important would you say the training was to making a successful transition to wet cleaning? - not at all important - not too important - somewhat important - very important 16. Would you have liked the training to be different in any way? No How so? Called Moon about garments/machine (2 last week) 17. Was there anything that could have made your training easier? No Owner Satisfaction 9. Do you feel your decision to switch to wet cleaning was a good business decision? Now: it s a good decision Before: hard decision to make 10. Given the opportunity, would you make the same decision to do wet cleaning over again? Yes 11. How strongly would you recommend wet cleaning to another cleaner who needed to buy new cleaning equipment? - not recommend Why?: - recommend - strongly recommend Because of environmental benefits, chemical is bad for us. Regulation free. C - 6

99 APPENDIX C 12. How would you rate your level of satisfaction as a wet cleaner in comparison to when you were a dry cleaner? - much lower - lower - equal - higher Because of the smell - much higher 13. When you were dry cleaning, did you experience any of the following conditions? - dizziness - nausea - headache In the evening - fatigue - runny nose - Chronic illness: 14. When you were dry cleaning, did any of your employees experience any of the following conditions? - dizziness - nausea - headache Never complained to me - fatigue - runny nose - Chronic illness: 15. Since your switch to wet cleaning have you experienced any of the following conditions? - Dizziness Employees?: - nausea - headache No - fatigue - runny nose - Chronic illness: Financial 11. Has there been any change in the number hours worked by your employees since switching to wet cleaning? No Employee Job Hours/day Hours/week Any Changes Presser 6-8 Same Presser 6-8 Same Presser 6-8 Same Thu 40 Same Steve 14 Same C - 7

100 APPENDIX C 12. Since you switched, has the type of work you do in your shop changed? The same. Wet cleaning in the morning and some in the evening if there is a lot of work. 13. Compared to when you were dry cleaning, do you feel that you now have to put more or less effort into running your shop? Same 14. In the year prior to switching, what maintenance did you perform on equipment at your plant? 15. Since switching to wet cleaning, how much maintenance have you had to perform on equipment at your plant? Boiler: Press spring just went out 16. Did you ever have to make any major repairs to your dry cleaning Machine? Valve leaks, re-seal almost every week = $1000 a month 17. What were your average yearly disposal costs? Who was your waste hauler (contact info)? 18. What fees were you required to pay as a dry cleaner, and to whom? AQMD Health Dept (OC) Fire 19. Utility providers CADL# Electric Account# Gas Account# Water Account# 20. Would you contact your detergent and solvent suppliers for billing records? United Fabricare C - 8

101 APPENDIX C How much do you charge for wet cleaning the following garments? Blouses 2.50 Pants 2.50 Jackets 7.00 Skirts 2.50 Shirts 2.50 Dress 5.00, 7.50, 9.50, Wedding dress Women s suit 9.00 Men s suit 7.00 Sweater 2.50 Jackets 5.00 Prices have remained the same i. $900 to take perc out ii. $1500 to take machine out C - 9

102 APPENDIX D 1Day Cleaners Case Study: Key to Figures Performance Calculations for 1Day Cleaners Volume Volume has not changed since the switch to wet cleaning, so the same volumes are applied to both wet cleaning and dry cleaning periods. In determining the return, sent out, claims, and overall success rates, only the volume of wet cleaned garments is accounted for the denominator laundry is excluded from these calculations. Figures for care label and fiber type are based upon data collected at 1Day Cleaners on 7/15/02 prior to the switch to wet cleaning. The care label and fiber type was recorded for each garment excluding shirt laundry. - Operates six days a week, three months as a wet cleaner - Between 8/16 9/30 average total volume: 85 wet clean laundry = *6*4.3 = 7,482 garments processed per month (including laundry) - Average garments wet cleaned per day = * 6 = 510 wet cleaned garments per week * 4.3 = 2,193 per month * 3 months = 6579 total garments wet cleaned Return Rate The figures used to determine the below rates are based on responses to interview questions by Mr. Chon Wet cleaning: No garments returned 0% - Dry cleaning: 1 a month 1/2193 = % Sent Out - 1 in summer, 2 in winter per week for both wet and dry cleaning /510 = % Claims Rate - Wet cleaning: 1 claim since switching 1/6579 = 0.015% - As a dry cleaner: 1 claim/year 1/(2193*12) = % Overall Success Rate - Wet Cleaning: 100% - (0% return, 0.015% claims, % sent out) = 99.69% - Dry Cleaning: 100% - (0.0456% return, % claims, % sent out) = 99.66% Care Label Frequency/Fiber Type - 68% dry clean label based on profile - 36% were of traditional dry clean fibers (wool, silk, rayon) based profile 78 Interview 10/1/02 D - 1

103 APPENDIX D Financial Calculations for 1Day Cleaners All per 100 garments figures are calculated by dividing by the total number of garments cleaned per month (290*6*4.3 = 7,482) or per week (290*6 = 1,740) and then multiplying by 100. In this case, laundered garments are included. Price Adjustments All dollar terms in this report are adjusted to 2002 dollars using the U.S. Department of Labor s Consumer Price Index (CPI). The following years are relevant to this case study: CPI 2002: CPI 1997: Base Year: = 100 Revenue The CTSA (1997) study 79 assumes a revenue of $3.00 per pound of garments processed. Assuming a relation of 1.1 pounds per garment, $3.00 per pound = $3.30 per garment. Adjusted to 2002 dollars based on the CPI, an average revenue of $3.70 per garment is assumed for the purposes of this study. Mr. Chon does a high volume of shirt laundry (100 shirts a day) at a cost of $0.99 each, so revenue will be calculated using $0.99 for 100 garments a day, and $3.70 for 190 garments a day: ($3.70*190*6*4.3*12) + ($0.99*100*6*4.3*12) = $248,300 per year. Water In the twelve months prior to switching to wet cleaning in July 2002, the average monthly water use was units (1 unit = 748 gallons). In the first two months of wet cleaning, average monthly consumption rose to 25.5 units. Records were available dating back to 1990, but only consumption from a year prior to the switch was used in the analysis. Consumption during 2001 was consistently higher than consumption during 2000 and previous years. Including records from more than one year back would have overstated the increase in water consumption for which the switch to wet cleaning is responsible. Also it is not clear how garment volume may have fluctuated more than a year back.. - Dry Clean: Water per month units o Per 100 garments: (21.72/7482)*100 = 0.28 units - Wet Clean: Water per month units o Per 100 garments: (25.50/7482)*100 = Increase: 3.78 units, 17% The billing rate for water consumption increases after every 10 th unit of consumption: 1-10 is $0.70/unit, is $0.80/unit, etc. 80 1Day Cleaners is billed every two months, and so is effected differently by the tiered rate schedule than if billed every month. Every other month, 1Day Cleaners was billed $32.12 for an average of units of consumption as a dry cleaning, and $50.30 for 50.1 units as a wet cleaner. - Dry clean cost/month: $16.06 o Per 100 garments: ($16.06/7482)*100 = $ Wet clean cost/month: $ EPA, 1997: Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment. 80 See Appendix F D - 2

104 APPENDIX D o Per 100 garments: ($25.15/7482)*100 = $0.336 Electricity (Southern California Edison) Figures are based on metering done at the shop by Southern California Edison between 6/29/02 and 8/28/02. Average daily use was calculated based upon Monday through Saturday meter readings (1Day Cleaners operates 6 days a week). The time period of 6/29-7/19 is the basis for dry clean electricity use, and 7/21-8/28 is the basis for wet clean electricity use. New equipment was being installed on the 20 th of July, and this date was not included in the analysis. Average Daily Use (Monday-Saturday) - Dry Clean: kwh - Wet Clean: kwh Average Monthly Use - Dry Clean: kwh * (30.5 days/month 4.3 Sundays/month) = 2,415 kwh o Per 100 garments: (2415/7482)*100 = Wet Clean: kwh * (30.5 days/month 4.3 Sundays/month) = 2,122 kwh o Per 100 garments: (2122/7482)*100 = Reduction in kwh: 2,415-2,122 = 293 kwh, 293/2415 = 12.1% Edison charges a winter rate of $ eight months out of the year, and summer rate of $ four months out of the year. Combining these two rates gives us an average rate for the year: $ *(1/3)+$ *(2/3) = $ /kWh 81 Monthly Cost Dry Cleaning: 2415* = $ Per 100 garments: ($406.57/7482)100 = $5.43 Monthly Cost Wet Cleaning: 2122* = $ Per 100 garments: ($357.24/7482)100 = $4.77 Natural Gas Daily meter readings were recorded at the shop before and after the switch (7/2/02 8/15/02). The average daily change in the meter on days when the shop was in operation before the switch was 28.6, compared to 28.4 after the switch. Average Daily Use - Dry Clean: 28.6 therms - Wet Clean: 28.4 therms Average Monthly Use - Dry Clean: 28.6*(30.5 days/month 4.3 Sundays/month) = 749 therms o Per 100 garments: (749/7482)*100 = Wet Clean: 28.4*(30.5 days/month 4.3 Sundays/month) = 744 therms o Per 100 garments: (744/7482)*100 = 9.94 Reduction in kwh per month: = 5 therms, 5/749 = 0.66% Dry Clean: Average monthly use 749 therms Per 100 garments: (749/7482)*100 = Wet clean: Average monthly use 744 therms Per 100 garments: (744/7482)*100 = See Appendix F D - 3

105 APPENDIX D Southern California Natural Gas Company uses a tiered rate schedule. The tiers are different in winter months and summer months Summer (April-November): Tier 1 rate charged for first 100 therms. - Winter (December-March): Tier 1 rate charged for first 250 therms. Tier 1 rate as of October 2002: $ Tier 2 rate as of October 2002: $ The Summer rate is charged for 2/3 of the year, and the winter rate for 1/3 of the year. To determine an average monthly price the two rates were combined, with the Summer rate being weighted by 2/3, and the Winter rate by 1/3. Dry Clean: Summer: [(100* ) + (649* )](2/3) = $ Winter: [(250* ) + (499* )](1/3) = $ Dry Clean Cost: $ Wet Clean: Summer: [(100* ) + (644 * )](2/3) = $ Winter: [(250* )(1/3) + (494* )] = $ Wet Clean Cost: $ Dry clean cost per month: $ Per 100: $427.87/7482 * 100 = $5.72 Wet clean cost per month: $ Per 100: $425.18/7482 * 100 = $5.68 Labor Mr. Chon reported that his employees don t work any more or less hours than they did before the switch to wet cleaning. 83 Solvent As a dry cleaner, Mr. Chon bought 160 gallons of perc a year at $7.50 per gallon. - Annual cost: $ Monthly cost: $100 - Cost per 100 garments: (100/7482)*100 = $1.33 Water is used as a solvent in wet cleaning, the consumption of which is addressed above. Detergent Dry Clean: As a dry cleaner, Mr. Chon used one gallon a month of dry clean detergent at a cost of $16.00 per month. - Annual cost: $192 - Monthly cost: $16 82 See Appendix F 83 Interview 10/1/02 D - 4

106 APPENDIX D - Per 100 garments: (16/7482)*100 = $0.214 Wet Clean: Over three months, Mr. Chon has purchased 80 gallons of wet clean detergent at a total cost of $ Some of this is in inventory, but assuming that all of it was used over a three month period: - Monthly cost: $991.25/3 = $ Annual cost: $330.3*12 = $3, Per 100 garments: ($330.3/7482)*100 = $4.41 Filter Cost Dry Clean: Mr. Chon replaced 10 filters a year at a cost of $30 each. - Annual Cost: $300 - Monthly cost: $25 - Per 100 garments: (25/7482)100 = $0.33 Wet Clean: No filter cost. Hazardous Waste Disposal Dry Clean: Mr. Chon stated that he disposed of approximately 80 gallons of perc sludge, and 10 filters every year. The sludge cost him $5 a gallon to dispose of, and the filters cost $25 each. - Annual cost: $5*80+10*$25 = $650 - Monthly cost: $ Per 100 garments: (54.17/7482)*100 = $0.724 Wet clean: No hazardous waste costs. Regulatory Fees As a non-anaheim Orange County Dry cleaner, Mr. Chon would have to pay the following annual fees: 84 - Hazardous Waste: $ Hazardous Materials: $ Public Health: $298 - SCAQMD operating fee: $ AQMD Toxic Hot Spot Fee: $ State tax surcharge fee: $ CARB training renewal ($75.00 every three years): $25.00 TOTAL ANNUAL COST: $1, Monthly Cost: $ Per 100 garments: $1.45 None of the above regulation fees are applicable to a wet cleaning operation. Machine Maintenance Dry cleaning: The Neighborhood Cleaners Association International (NCAI) estimates the annual maintenance costs for a PCE-based dry cleaner to be between 1.25% and 3% of total annual revenues. The International Fabricare Institute (IFI) estimates annual maintenance costs for PCE-based operations to be between 2.27% and 3.26% of total 84 See Appendix F D - 5

107 APPENDIX D annual revenues. 85 Averaging the low ends of both of these estimates yields a rate of 1.76% of total revenue for equipment maintenance costs. Assuming that the dry clean machine in a facility accounts for 50% of maintenance costs, the annual cost of maintaining a PCE dry clean machine, based upon the low end of the NCAI and IFI s estimates, is 0.88% of total revenue. - Annual maintenance costs: $248,300*0.88% = $2,185 - Monthly maintenance costs: $182 - Per 100 garments: ($182/7482)*100 = $2.43 Wet cleaning: Expected maintenance costs for a wet clean system over the life span of the system total to $5, $6,394 in 2002 dollars -- based upon the 1997 UCLA/PPERC study. 86 This figure includes a replacement of the computer control unit ($1,500), although it is likely to last longer than the lifetime of the system. It is assumed that a wet clean system will last for 20 years: - Annual maintenance costs: $6394/20 = $320 - Monthly maintenance costs: $320/12 = $ Per 100 garments: ($26.67/7482)100 = $0.356 Maintenance on equipment in the rest of the plant is not process dependent and is comparable for wet cleaning and dry cleaning. Equipment Costs Dry Clean: Mr. Chon s dry clean machine came with the purchase of his shop. It s estimated price is based on figures for a dry to dry with CA (PCE B2) machine, taken from the EPA s CTSA report. The report listed a price of $39,258 in 1997 dollars, or $44,116 in 2002 dollars ((180.7/160.8)*$39,258=$44,116) A life-span of 15 years is assumed for the purposes of this study Annual equipment cost: $2,941 - Monthly equipment cost: $245 - Per 100 garments: ($245/7482)*100 = $3.27 Wet Clean: The list price for the wet clean system (washer and dryer), including the steel base for the washer and the detergent pump system totaled to $16,287. Pants and jacket toppers were also purchased for a total of $18,990. The total cost of equipment (based on list prices) comes to $35,277. A life span of 20 years is assumed for this equipment. - Annual equipment cost: $1,764 - Monthly equipment cost: $147 - Per 100 garments: ($147/7482)*100 = $ EPA, 1997: Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment. 86 Gottlieb, et al Pollution Prevention in the Garment Care Industry. 87 Mr. Gichon s machine was seven years old when he stopped using it, but it could have been operated for longer. D - 6

108 APPENDIX D Resource Use Data for 1Day Cleaners Electricity Use 1Day Cleaners Metering at Facility by Southern California Edison Day of Week Date kwh kwh mon-fri kwh mon-sat Saturday 6/29/ Sunday 6/30/ Monday 7/1/ Tuesday 7/2/ Wednesday 7/3/ Thursday 7/4/ Friday 7/5/ Saturday 7/6/ Sunday 7/7/ Monday 7/8/ Tuesday 7/9/ Wednesday 7/10/ Thursday 7/11/ Friday 7/12/ Saturday 7/13/ Sunday 7/14/ Monday 7/15/ Tuesday 7/16/ Wednesday 7/17/ Thursday 7/18/ Friday 7/19/ Saturday 7/20/ Change Out Equipment Sunday 7/21/ Monday 7/22/ Tuesday 7/23/ Wednesday 7/24/ Thursday 7/25/ Friday 7/26/ Saturday 7/27/ Sunday 7/28/ Monday 7/29/ Tuesday 7/30/ Wednesday 7/31/ Thursday 8/1/ Friday 8/2/ Saturday 8/3/ Sunday 8/4/ Monday 8/5/ Tuesday 8/6/ Wednesday 8/7/ Thursday 8/8/ Continued on Next Page D - 7

109 APPENDIX D Electricity Use 1Day Cleaners Metering at Facility by Southern California Edison (Continued) Day of Week Date kwh kwh mon-fri kwh mon-sat Friday 8/9/ Saturday 8/10/ Sunday 8/11/ Monday 8/12/ Tuesday 8/13/ Wednesday 8/14/ Thursday 8/15/ Friday 8/16/ Saturday 8/17/ Sunday 8/18/ zmonday 8/19/ Tuesday 8/20/ Wednesday 8/21/ Thursday 8/22/ Friday 8/23/ Saturday 8/24/ Sunday 8/25/ Monday 8/26/ Tuesday 8/27/ Wednesday 8/28/ kwh kwh mon-fri kwh mon-sat Average Daily Use Dry Cleaning Average Daily Use Wet Cleaning Wet Cleaning Avg Daily Reduction Wet Cleaning Energy Reduction % 12.23% 12.36% 12.11% D - 8

110 APPENDIX D 1Day Cleaners Electricity Utility Records Southern California Edison End Date Days Usage Avg Usage 9/20/ /22/ /23/ /24/ /23/ /24/ /26/ /23/ /24/ /22/ /21/ /22/ /20/ /22/ /24/ /21/ /23/ /24/ /26/ /23/ /23/ /22/ /22/ /20/ /21/ /22/ /24/ /22/ /23/ /24/ /23/ /23/ /24/ /23/ /22/ /22/ Average DC Average WC Reduction % Reduction 25% 23% D - 9

111 APPENDIX D FACILITY GAS METER READINGS - 1DAY CLEANERS Date Start Finish Meter Reading Change per Day Time Elapsed 7/1/02 6:00 14: :00 7/2/02 5:30 14: :30 7/3/02 5:30 14: :00 7/6/02 5:40 13: :30 7/8/02 5:30 13: :00 7/9/02 5:40 14: :20 7/10/02 5:30 13: :30 7/11/02 6:00 14: :00 7/12/02 6:00 13: :30 7/13/02 6:00 12: :00 7/15/02 5:50 12: :40 7/16/02 5:30 13: :20 7/17/02 5:00 13: :00 7/18/02 5:15 14: :15 7/19/02 3:30 12: :30 7/20/02 6:00 12: :00 7/22/02 5:30 14: :30 7/23/02 6:00 16: :30 7/24/02 6:00 17: :00 7/25/02 6:00 14: :30 7/26/02 6:00 13: :30 7/27/02 6:00 12: :00 7/29/02 6:00 13: :30 7/30/02 6:08 13: :52 7/31/02 6:00 14: :00 8/1/02 6:00 13: :00 8/2/02 6:00 13: :10 8/3/02 6:00 12: :00 8/5/02 6:00 13: :30 8/6/02 6:00 13: :00 8/7/02 6:00 13: :00 8/8/02 6:00 12: :00 8/9/02 6:00 13: :00 8/10/02 6:00 13: :00 8/11/02 6:00 12: :00 8/14/02 6:00 13: :00 8/15/02 6:00 13: :30 Therms Daily Average Dry Cleaning Therms Daily Average Wet Cleaning % Change in Daily Use 0.83% D - 10

112 APPENDIX D 1Day Cleaners Water Consumption* Moulton Niguel Water District One Unit = 748 Gallons Year Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov *Customer is billed every other month, each figure accounts for two months consumption. D - 11

113 APPENDIX D WET CLEAN SURVEY Cleaner: Yong Chon Date:10/1/02 Shop and Cleaner History 7. How long have you been a cleaner? 10 years 8. How long have you owned your current shop? 10 years What was your experience cleaning before owning this shop? None 9. What motivated your decision to switch to professional wet cleaning? A. Didn t like the smell of perc. B. Landlord wouldn t renew the lease. C. Health Problems D. Performance Questions 30. Have you notified customers of your switch to professional wet cleaning? No yet. How? When? Why not? People may not understand the difference between laundry and wet cleaning 31. Have you talked to your customers about your switch to professional wet cleaning? No How so? People do notice the good smell, and comment on the clothes being cleaner. D - 12

114 APPENDIX D 32. Have any of your customers responded negatively to your switch to professional wet cleaning? No. Only one problem. Paid claim. In what way? How many? What %? 33. Have any of your customers responded positively to your switch to professional wet cleaning? yes In what way? Better smell, cleaner clothes How many? 7-8 persons What %? 34. Have you lost any customers because of your switch to wet cleaning? No How many? What %? Why? 35. Have you gained any customers because of your switch to wet cleaning? No How many? What %? Why? *Always slow after school starts. This year is slow. 36. What is your current volume of garments cleaned per day? 400 a day Has your volume changed since your switch? 200 wet cleaning, 100 shirts, 100 laundry 37. When you were dry cleaning, how often did customers bring garments back because of problems with the quality of cleaning? 1 a month Reasons: Stain, spots. D - 13

115 APPENDIX D Problems with pressing and tensioning with wet cleaning. More problems with cleaning oil stains. Spend more time on it than with perc. 38. Since your switch to wet cleaning, how often have customers brought back garments because of problems with the quality of cleaning? None Reasons: Problem with wool pants-stretching. Didn t go to customer. 39. When you were dry cleaning, approximately how often did you pay claims or give store credit to customers? 1 a year Reasons Color Transfer 40. Since switching to wet cleaning, approximately how often do you pay claims or give store credit to customers? yes Reasons:_wet cleaning Would you attribute any claims to the wet cleaning process? Reasons: 41. When you were dry cleaning, how often did you send out garments. (including leather)? 2 per week in winter (leather). Once a month for rugs. Garments Reasons Leather Rugs 42. As a wet cleaner, how often do you send out garments (including leather)? Once a week for leather (summer), once a month for rugs. Garments Reasons Leather Rugs 43. Overall, How would you rate the quality of your cleaning service as a wet cleaner in comparison to the quality of your cleaning service when you were a dry cleaner? 1) better 2) equivalent 3) worse 4) don t know Explain: No smell. Used to get stains on skin with perc. Less expensive (spot remover) D - 14

116 APPENDIX D Transition and Training 18. Before you switched, what concerns did you have about switching to professional wet cleaning? (list and rank) Just another type of job that he had to do. He felt that learning was not a concern. Didn t like perc. 19. How difficult did you think would be to make the switch to professional wet cleaning? - not at all difficult Why?: - not too difficult - somewhat difficult - very difficult *Experience with other business. *Hard to get oil based stains out. 20. How difficult do you think it actually was to switch to professional wet cleaning? - not at all difficult - not too difficult - somewhat difficult - very difficult 21. What were the biggest difficulties in making the switch to wet cleaning? (list and rank) Getting rid of perc machine. Installation with pressing machine. Washing machine installation. Recommend good company installation. Must know the mechanics of the machine. 22. Did you have concerns about having to learn a new cleaning process? No. What Concerns? Not afraid of learning different things. If you want to learn, it s easier than dry cleaning. 23. How difficult would say it was to learn to do wet cleaning? - not at all difficult Why?: - not too difficult - somewhat difficult - very difficult D - 15

117 APPENDIX D 24. How important would you say the training was to making a successful transition to wet cleaning? - not at all important - not too important - somewhat important - very important Still had to learn program 25. Would you have liked the training to be different in any way? How so? Put program first, then teach programming. Teach programming. 26. Was there anything that could have made your transition easier Explain how to avoid shrinking. Owner Satisfaction 16. Do you feel your decision to switch to wet cleaning was a good business decision? Yes, I think so. Watch through winter. Plans for another branch (wet cleaning only) with strong advertisement. 17. Given the opportunity, would you make the same decision to do wet cleaning over again? Yes 18. How strongly would you recommend wet cleaning to another cleaner who needed to buy new cleaning equipment? - not recommend Save in operation. Hydrocarbon has - recommend a bad smell. Avoid Regulations. - strongly recommend 19. How would you rate your level of satisfaction as a wet cleaner in comparison to when you were a dry cleaner? - much lower - lower - equal - higher - much higher *Much better than perc 20. When you were dry cleaning, did you experience any of the following conditions? - dizziness - nausea - headache - fatigue D - 16

118 APPENDIX D - runny nose - Chronic illness: *Had a stroke and the doctor suggested it might be a consequence of sleeping in the shop, breathing in the perc fumes. 21. When you were dry cleaning, did any of your employees experience any of the following conditions? Joyce Chon (wife) - dizziness - nausea - headache - fatigue - runny nose - Chronic illness: 22. Since your switch to wet cleaning have you experienced any of the following conditions? None - Dizziness Employees?: - nausea - headache - fatigue - runny nose - Chronic illness: Financial 21. Has there been any change in the number hours worked by your employees since switching to wet cleaning? It s the same once you know how to use the machine. Less time to rest than with dry cleaning Employee Job Hours/day Hours/week Any Changes Salvador Presser 40 Employee Presser 40 Joyce Counter 10 Yong Cleaner Seamstress Seamstress Since you switched, has the type of work you do in your shop changed? Wet cleaning = cleaning in afternoon- for drying at night. Save electricity and gas 23. Compared to when you were dry cleaning, do you feel that you now have to put more or less effort into running your shop? Enjoy it more even if he has to put more effort. Spent more time with perc equipment when it broke down. D - 17

119 APPENDIX D 24. Since switching to wet cleaning, how much maintenance have you had to perform on equipment at your plant? Pants presser-steam leaking in the back = $ Did you ever have to make any major repairs to your dry cleaning Machine? First five years, no problem. After=more problems. More time, money. Replaced motor for the fan. Used the perc machine for ten years. 26. What were your average yearly disposal costs? Who was your waste hauler (contact info)? 10 Filters for $25 each. 80 gallons ($5 per gallon) 27. What fees were you required to pay as a dry cleaner, and to whom? AQMD, Fire, Waste Fee, Permit, Inspection 28. Utility providers CADL# Electric Edison Account# Gas The Gas Company Account# Water: SMWD Account# 29. Would you contact your detergent and solvent suppliers for billing records? How much do you charge for wet cleaning the following garments? Pants 3.75 Jackets 6.00 Skirts 3.50 Shirts 3.00 Blouses 3.75 Suede Suits: =9.75 Non-coat jackets: 6.00 Dress: 7.50 Wedding dress: 75 with box Before: Pants Jackets Skirts Shirts Blouses Do you have any tickets? How Many? Almost a thousand dollars in tickets. Old machine-used to smell and leak perc. D - 18

120 APPENDIX E Eli s Airport Cleaners Case Study: Key to Figures Performance Calculations for Eli s Airport Cleaners Volume Volume has not changed since the switch to wet cleaning, so the same volumes are applied to both wet cleaning and dry cleaning periods. In determining the return, sent out, claims, and overall success rates, only the volume of wet cleaned garments is accounted for the denominator laundry is excluded from these calculations. Figures for care label and fiber type are based upon data collected at Eli s Airport Cleaners during the time period of 3/8/02-3/20/02 prior to the switch to wet cleaning. The care label and fiber type was recorded for each garment processed at the shop. For the purpose of this report, only garments that were professionally cleaned are considered. - Operates five days a week, 11 weeks as a wet cleaner - Between 7/29/02 10/17/02 average total volume: 95 - Average garments wet cleaned per day * 5 = 180 wet cleaned garments per week * 4.3 = 774 per month * 11 weeks = 1980 total garments wet cleaned Return Rate The figures used to determine the below rates are based on responses to interview questions by Mr. Gichon Stated in interview that approximately 3% of garments are returned as both a wet cleaner and a dry cleaner. Sent Out Rate - For both wet and dry cleaning, 1 or 2 leather garments are sent out a week /180 = 0.833% Claims Rate - Zero Claims since switching to wet cleaning: 0% - As a dry cleaner 1 claim a year: 1(774*12months) = % Overall Success Rate - Wet Cleaning: 3% return, 0% claims, 0.833% sent out: % - Dry Cleaning: 3% return, % claims, 0.833% sent out: % Care Label Frequency/Fiber Type - 76% dry clean label based on profile - 91% are of traditional dry clean fibers (wool, silk, rayon) based phone conversation with Mr. Gichon. 88 Interview 9/25/02 E - 1

121 APPENDIX E Financial Calculations for Eli s Airport Cleaners All per 100 garments figures are calculated by dividing by the total number of garments cleaned per month (95*5*4.3 = 2043) or per week (195*5 = 975) and then multiplying by 100. In this case, laundered garments are included. Price Adjustments All dollar terms in this report are adjusted to 2002 dollars using the U.S. Department of Labor s Consumer Price Index (CPI). The following years are relevant to this case study: CPI 2002: CPI 1997: CPI 1995: Base Year: = 100 Revenue The CTSA (1997) study 89 assumes a revenue of $3.00 per pound of garments processed. Assuming a relation of 1.1 pounds per garment, $3.00 per pound = $3.30 per garment. Adjusted to 2002 dollars based on the CPI, an average revenue of $3.70 is assumed for the purposes of this study. Mr. Gichon s monthly volume is 2,043 garments, so estimated annual revenue is $3.70*2043*12 = $90,709 Water Eli s Airport Cleaners is not directly billed for water consumption. The facility is located in a mini-mall and shares a water meter with a number of other shops. The owner of the property is billed for water. Changes in consumption have no financial implications to Mr. Gichon. Electricity (LADWP) Consumption estimates are based on utility records from 8/27/2001 to 9/26/02. The billings dates from 8/27/02 7/27/02 were used to estimate electricity consumption and demand while dry cleaning, and billing dates from 8/27/02 9/26/02 were used to estimate electricity consumption and demand while wet cleaning. Records were available for further back in time than one year, but consumption during the previous year was consistently lower than consumption during two years ago. Using records from two years back would have overstated the impact of wet cleaning on the reduction of electricity consumption. Dry Clean: kwh/month 17.3 kw Demand Per 100 garments: ( /2043)100 = kwh/100 Wet Clean: kwh/month 16.0 kw Demand Per 100 garments: (1173.5/2043)100 = kwh/100 Reduction in kwh: = , / = 22.5% Reduction in kw: = 1.3 kw, 1.3/17.13 = 7.6% 89 EPA, 1997: Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment. E - 2

122 APPENDIX E The energy charge per kwh in Los Angeles is $ There is also an Energy Cost Adjustment (ECA) charge per kwh of $ Total Cost/kWh: $ Total Cost/kW: $2.25 Monthly Cost Dry Cleaning: [$ * ] + [17.13*2.25] = $ Per 100 garments: ($185.93/2043)100 = $9.10 Monthly Cost Wet Cleaning: [ *1173.5] + [16.0*2.25] = Per 100 garments: ($150.23/2043)100 = $7.35 Natural Gas Consumption estimates are based on utility records from the Southern California Gas Company. Billing records for the months of 8/2001 to 7/2002 are used to estimate consumption while dry cleaning, and billing records for the months of 8/2002 to 9/2002 are used to estimate consumption while wet cleaning. Records are available further back in time, but only records from a year prior to switching were used. Consumption two years prior to switching was consistently higher than consumption one year prior to switching. If records from more than one year before the switch were used, the impact of wet cleaning on the reduction of natural gas use would be overstated. Dry Clean: Average monthly use therms Per 100 garments: (295.83/2043)100 = Wet clean: Average monthly use therms Per 100 garments: (189.5/2043)100 = 9.28 Reduction: = therms/month, percent savings = 36% Southern California Natural Gas Company uses a tiered rate schedule. The tiers are different in winter months and summer months Summer (April-November): Tier 1 rate charged for first 100 therms. - Winter (December-March): Tier 1 rate charged for first 250 therms. Tier 1 rate as of October 2002: $ Tier 2 rate as of October 2002: $ The Summer rate is charged for 2/3 of the year, and the winter rate for 1/3 of the year. To determine an average monthly price the two rates were combined, with the Summer rate being weighted by 2/3, and the Winter rate by 1/3. Dry Clean: Summer: [(100* ) + (195.83* )](2/3) = $ Winter: [(250* ) + (45.83* )](1/3) = $67.19 Dry Clean Cost: $ Wet Clean: 90 See Appendix F 91 See Appendix F E - 3

123 APPENDIX E Summer: [(100* ) + (89.5 * )](2/3) = $ Winter: (189.5* )(1/3) = $44.72 Wet Clean Cost: $ Dry clean cost per month: $ Per 100: /2043 * 100 = $9.02 Wet clean cost per month: $ Per 100: /2043 * 100 = $6.07 Labor Mr. Gichon reported that his full time employee doesn t work any more or less hours than he did before the switch to wet cleaning. 92 Solvent Mr. Gichon estimated that he used 12 gallons of perc solvent a month at cost of $7.50 a gallon. - Annual cost: $1,080 - Monthly cost: $90 - Cost per 100 garments: (90/2043)*100 = $4.41 Water is used as a solvent in wet cleaning and is addressed above. Detergent Dry Clean: Mr. Gichon purchased two 25 gallon drums of dry clean detergent every year at a cost of $5.00 a gallon. - Annual cost: $250 - Monthly cost: $ Per 100 garments: (20.83/2043)100 = $1.02 Wet Clean: Since switching to wet cleaning, Mr. Gichon has purchased 10 gallons of Powerbrite at $12.75 a gallon, 10 gallons of Soften All at $10.95 a gallon, and 5 gallons of Soft n Brite at $13.30 a gallon. 93 Mr. Gichon has been a wet cleaner for 11 weeks, and assuming he has no inventory of wet clean detergent, his weekly detergent is cost: [10 gallons*($12.75+$10.95)+5 gallons*$13.30]/11 weeks = $ Monthly cost: $27.59*4.3 = $ Annual cost: $118.64*12 = $1, Per 100 garments: ($118.64/2043)100 = $5.81 Filter Cost Dry Clean: Mr. Gichon s dry clean machine had two spin disk filters, each of which were changed five times over a period of seven years. Each filter cost $90. - Annual Cost: ($90*2*5)/7 years = $ Monthly cost: $ Per 100 garments: (10.71/2043)100 = $ Interview 9/25/02 93 Detergent prices quoted by United Fabricare Supply, Inc. October E - 4

124 APPENDIX E Wet Clean: No filter cost. Hazardous Waste Disposal Dry Clean: Mr. Gichon estimated hazardous waste disposal to cost him $120 every three months to dispose of 60 gallons of perc sludge every year. That is $8.00 a gallon, which is comparable to the price of $139 for 16 gallons ($8.69/gallon) quoted by Safety-Kleen, Inc. - Annual cost: $120*4 times/year = $480 - Monthly cost: $40 - Per 100 garments: (40/2043)100 = $1.96 Wet clean: No hazardous waste costs. Regulatory Fees As a Los Angeles County dry cleaner, Mr. Gichon would have to pay the following annual fees: - Hazardous Waste: $ Hazardous Materials: $ SCAQMD operating fee: $ Toxic Hot Spot Fee: $ State tax surcharge fee: $ CARB training renewal ($75.00 every three years): $25.00 TOTAL ANNUAL COST: $ Monthly cost: /12 = $ Per 100 garments: (80.70/2043)*100 = $3.95 None of the above fees are applicable to a wet cleaning operation. Machine Maintenance Dry cleaning: The Neighborhood Cleaners Association International (NCAI) estimates the annual maintenance costs for a PCE-based dry cleaner to be between 1.25% and 3% of total annual revenues. The International Fabricare Institute (IFI) estimates annual maintenance costs for PCE-based operations to be between 2.27% and 3.26% of total annual revenues. 94 Averaging the low ends of both of these estimates yields a rate of 1.76% of total revenue for equipment maintenance costs. Assuming a the dry clean machine in a facility accounts for 50% of maintenance costs, the annual cost of maintaining a PCE dry clean machine based upon NCAI and IFI s estimates is 0.88% of total revenue. - Annual maintenance costs: $90,709*0.88% = $ Monthly maintenance costs: $ Per 100 garments: (66.52/2043)*100 = $3.25 Wet cleaning: Expected maintenance costs for a wet clean system over the life span of the system total to $5, $6,394 in 2002 dollars -- based upon the 1997 UCLA/PPERC study. 95 This figure included a replacement of the computer control unit 94 EPA, 1997: Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment. 95 Gottlieb, et al Pollution Prevention in the Garment Care Industry. E - 5

125 APPENDIX E ($1,500), although it is very likely to last longer than the lifetime of the system. It is assumed that a wet clean system will last for 20 years: - Annual maintenance costs: $6394/20 = $320 - Monthly maintenance costs: $320/12 = $ Per 100 garments: ($26.67/2043)100 = $ Maintenance on equipment in the rest of the plant is not process dependent and is comparable for wet cleaning and dry cleaning. Equipment Costs Dry Clean: Mr. Gichon s dry clean machine came with the shop he purchased in 1995, but he estimated that it would have cost about $35,000 (180.7/152.9)*$35,000 = $41,364 in 2002 dollars had he paid for it separately. A life-span of 15 years is assumed for the purposes of this study Annual equipment cost: $2,758 - Monthly equipment cost: $230 - Per 100 garments: ($230/2043)*100 = $11.25 Wet Clean: The list price for the wet clean system (washer and dryer), including the steel base for the washer and the detergent pump system totaled to $16,287. Pants and jacket toppers were also purchased for a total of $18,990. The total cost of equipment (based on list prices) comes to $35,277. A life span of 20 years is assumed for wet cleaning equipment equipment. - Annual equipment cost: (35277/20) = $1,764 - Monthly equipment cost: $147 - Per 100 garments: ($147/2043)*100 = $ Mr. Gichon s machine was seven years old when he stopped using it, but it could have been operated for longer. E - 6

126 APPENDIX E Resource Use Data for Eli s Airport Cleaners Electricity Use - Los Angeles DWP Utility Records Eli's Airport Cleaners Date Consumption (kwh) Demand 09/28/99 2, /28/99 1, /30/99 2, /30/99 1, /01/00 2, /01/00 1, /29/00 1, /27/00 1, /26/00 1, /27/00 2, /27/00 1, /25/00 1, /26/00 2, /26/00 1, /29/00 2, /29/00 2, /30/01 1, /28/01 1, /29/01 1, /27/01 1, /29/01 1, /27/01 1, /27/01 1, /27/01 1, /26/01 1, /26/01 1, /29/01 1, /31/01 1, /30/02 1, /28/02 1, /29/02 1, /29/02 1, /29/02 1, /27/02 1, /29/02 1, /27/02 1, /26/02 1, Overall One Year Overall One year Average Dry Cleaning Average Wet Cleaning Reduction E - 7

127 APPENDIX E % Reduction 33.96% 22.51% 7.62% 6.61% Eli's Airport Cleaners Southern California Gas Company - Utility Records Year Month Therms Overall 1 Year Before Switch Avg Dry Cleaning Avg Wet Cleaning Reduction % Reduction 51% 36% E - 8

128 APPENDIX E WET CLEAN SURVEY Cleaner: Eli Date: 9/25/02 Interviewer: Peter and Cyrus Shop and Cleaner History 10. How long have you been a cleaner? 9 years Wanted to get into a cash business open his own small business to help provide for retirement. 11. How long have you owned your current shop? 9 years What was your experience cleaning before owning this shop? None 12. What motivated your decision to switch to professional wet cleaning? A. Uncomfortable with perc, uneasy cleaning perc from the still B. Some customer complaints C. Did want employees to face any long term health effects. D. Too many regulatory restrictions and fees affecting income E. Once exposed to wet cleaning, thought it could do the job. Performance Questions 44. Have you notified customers of your switch to professional wet cleaning? Yes How? Flyers in front Flyers with clothes In the process of direct mailing When? From the start Why not? 45. Have you talked to your customers about your switch to professional wet cleaning? Yes How so? Tell them about the benefits of wet cleaning. Customers only care if clothes look good when the pick them up. The charter airlines were interested in the health benefits no perc on napkins etc, may use as PR E - 9

129 APPENDIX E 46. Have any of your customers responded negatively to your switch to professional wet cleaning? No In what way? How many? What %? 47. Have any of your customers responded positively to your switch to professional wet cleaning? 1 or 2 In what way? How many? What %? 48. Have you lost any customers because of your switch to wet cleaning? No How many? What %? Why? 49. Have you gained any customers because of your switch to wet cleaning? Has gained a few customers, but can t tell whether or not it is due to the wet cleaning. How many? What %? Why? 50. What is your current volume of garments cleaned per day? Has your volume changed since your switch? 51. When you were dry cleaning, how often did customers bring garments back because of problems with the quality of cleaning? About 3%, usually for stains we couldn t get out. E - 10

130 APPENDIX E 52. How often have customers brought back garments because of problems with the quality of cleaning since your have switched to wet cleaning? 3% for the same reasons. Oily stains on cotton and silk are tough to get out, but wool stains disappear better with wet cleaning. 53. When you were dry cleaning, approximately how often did you pay claims or give store credit to customers? About 1 time/year Reasons: Usually for color transfer 54. Since switching to wet cleaning, approximately how often do you pay claims or give store credit to customers? None so far Reasons: Would you attribute any claims to the wet cleaning process? Reasons: 55. How often did you send out garments when you were dry cleaning (including leather)? Garments Reasons Just leather about 1 or 2/wk 56. How often do you send out garments as a wet cleaner (including leather)? Garments Reasons Just leather 1 of 2/wk E - 11

131 APPENDIX E 57. Overall, How would you rate the quality of your cleaning service as a wet cleaner in comparison to the quality of your cleaning service when you were a dry cleaner? 1) better 2) equivalent 3) worse 4) don t know Explain Transition and Training 27. Before you switched, what were your biggest concerns about switching to professional wet cleaning? (list and rank) Biggest concern was the shrinkage, especially in garments with an inner lining. Some concern about the quality of cleaning. 28. How difficult did you think would be to make the switch to professional wet cleaning? - not at all difficult - not too difficult - somewhat difficult - very difficult 29. How difficult do you think it actually was to switch to professional wet cleaning? - not at all difficult Very Easy - not too difficult - somewhat difficult - very difficult 30. What were the biggest difficulties in making the switch to wet cleaning? (list and rank) - Learning how to work the computer, how to make adjustments yourself. - Not enough factory qualified technicians around. 31. Did you have concerns about having to learn a new cleaning process? What Concerns? No after 5 yrs of dry cleaning, started washing as many garments as he could. Used to dry clean everything, or send it out. E - 12

132 APPENDIX E 32. How difficult would you say it was to learn to do wet cleaning? - not at all difficult - not too difficult - somewhat difficult - very difficult Takes some time to learn how to sort everything and to know what wash cycles to use. 33. How important would you say the training was to making a successful transition to wet cleaning? - not at all important - not too important - somewhat important - very important It s new equipment w/o training may have had to use a couple of days just to experiment. It was very important to go down and see it. On the phone, I think wet cleaning is very scary. 34. Would you have liked the training to be different in any way? How so? A bit longer Owner Satisfaction 23. Do you feel your decision to switch to wet cleaning was a good business decision? Yes: it s an alternative that works fine. 24. Given the opportunity, would you make the same decision to do wet cleaning over again? Yes 25. How strongly would you recommend wet cleaning to another cleaner who needed to buy new cleaning equipment? - not recommend - recommend - strongly recommend ( fully ) E - 13

133 APPENDIX E 26. What advice would you give to anyone considering switching to wet cleaning? I think everyone in the dry cleaning business should consider it, if not for full operation, at least as a supplement to dry cleaning. 27. How would you rate your level of satisfaction as a wet cleaner in comparison to when you were a dry cleaner? - much lower - lower - equal - higher - much higher Feel better with perc being gone 28. Did you experience any of the following conditions while you were dry cleaning? - Dizziness - when cleaning still - Nausea - when cleaning still - Headache -Nick (full time employee) - fatigue - runny nose - Chronic illness: 29. Have you experienced any of the following conditions since your switch to wet cleaning? - dizziness - nausea - headache - fatigue - runny nose - Chronic illness: None Nicks headaches have gone away E - 14

134 APPENDIX E Financial 30. Has there been any change in the number hours worked by your employees since switching to wet cleaning? No change Employee/Owner Job Hours/day Hours/week Any Changes Eli Owner Nick various 8 wk, 4 sat 44 none 31. Has the nature of the work you do in your shop changed since you switched? Hanging garments in the afternoon nothing significant 32. Do you feel that you now have to put more or less effort into running your shop than you did when dry cleaning? Same 33. In the year prior to switching, what maintenance did you perform on equipment at your plant? Usually dollars per year for the shop overall, usually for steam problems. - Steam traps being blocked - Steam pipes - Pads 34. Since switching to wet cleaning, how much maintenance have you had to perform on equipment at your plant? None 35. Did you ever have to make any major repairs to your dry cleaning Machine? Leak in chilling equipment in previous year($1600) only major repair. Machine 8 yrs old E - 15

135 APPENDIX E 36. What were your average yearly disposal costs? $1500 Who was your waste hauler (contact info)? Envirowaste 37. What fees were you required to pay as a dry cleaner, and to whom? Fire Hazardous AQMD Overall about 1600/year 38. Would you contact your detergent and solvent suppliers for billing records? How much do you charge for wet cleaning the following garments? - Suit: Coat: 6:50 - Dress: Sport Jacket: Sweater: Skirt: Blouse: Slacks Pants: Shorts: Neck ties: Shirts (laundry) 0.99 E - 16

136 APPENDIX F Permitting and License Fees SCAQMD Cost Issuer Frequency Notes Annual operating fee $ SCAQMD annual For 0-5 employees Toxic hot spot fee $ SCAQMD annual For 0-10 employees Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste License $ LACFD annual For 0-5 employees Hazardous Materials License $ LAFD annual For 0-3 chemicals These two fees are now incorporated into one fee: LAC Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) Orange County Anaheim Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program 97 $ AFD annual For 55 gallons of hazardous materials or waste Hazardous Waste License 98 $ AFD annual New program Non-Anaheim Hazardous Waste License $ OCFA annual For 0-5 employees Hazardous Materials License $ OCFA annual For 0-10 employees Public Health License $ COHCA annual For 0-10 employees California Air Resources Board Training Course $ CARB one time Cost for first time Renewal $ CARB annual Based on $75.00 renewal fee every three years State Tax Surcharge Fee $ CA annual TOTALS Los Angeles County City of Los Angeles $ Orange County Anaheim $ Non-Anaheim $ 1, CONTACTS AQMD Small Business Assistance Orange County Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) Los Angeles Fire Department (213) County of Orange Health Care Agency Anaheim Fire Department (714) California Air Resources Board Orange County Fire Authority (714) (CARB) - Training Program (714) (714) (916) F - 1

137 APPENDIX F Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Electric Rate Schedule 1. Applicability SCHEDULE A-1 SMALL GENERAL SERVICE Applicable to General Service, including lighting and power and charging of batteries of commercial electric vehicles, which may be delivered through the same service in compliance with the Department's Rules. Applicable to service below 30 kw demand. Not applicable to service which parallels, and connects to, customer's own generating facilities, except as such facilities are intended solely for emergency standby. 2. Monthly Rates a. Rate A (1) Service Charge $ 4.00 (2) Facilities Charge - per kw $ 2.25 (3) Energy Charge - per kwh $ (4) ECA - per kwh $ (5) ESA - per kw $ Billing The bill under Rate A shall be the sum of parts(1) through (5). F - 2

138 APPENDIX F San Diego Gas and Electric Electricity Rate Schedule F - 3

139 APPENDIX F Southern California Edison Rate Schedule F - 4

140 APPENDIX F Southern California Gas Company Rate Schedule (Relative Rates: Schedule GN-10 Tiers I and II) F - 5