National Clothesline

The California Air Resources Board decided that its own staff’s proposal for regulating perc drycleaners did not go far enough, instead voting at its May meeting to move toward a complete phase-out of perc in the state.

Prior to the May 25 board meeting, the staff had recommended that the state’s regulations for perc drycleaning be tightened up, while continuing to allow the use of perc to continue in most locations. The staff recommended that perc be phased out in “co-residential” locations, but perc could still be used elsewhere provided the facility met equipment and operating requirements.

That was not good enough for the nine-member governing board who, after listening to arguments for several hours, voted unanimously to direct the staff to draw up a new plan that would completely phase out perc. That would bring the rest of the state in line with a phase-out plan previously adopted in 2002 by the South Coast Air Quality Management district that calls for a phase-out of perc in the four-county Los Angeles area it governs.

The SCAQMD plan projects a total phase-out by 2020. The governing board did not stipulate a deadline for a statewide phase-out. Rather, the board directed the staff to come up with a plan that would permit no new perc machines and phase out existing uses with “minimal economic impact” on drycleaners. Staff members indicated it would take six to eight months to draw up a new proposal. When that is done, the board will hold another hearing, probably sometime early next year.

Although agreed on wanting a full phase-out, board members were not sure what should replace perc. Some suggested that hydrocarbon solvents should be restricted, too. A massive switch from perc to hydrocarbon solvent, which to date has been the predominant favorite of switchers, could lead to increases in ground-level ozone, which would amount to trading one type of air pollution for another.

A complete phase-out of perc was among the options that had been considered by the CARB staff in developing its proposal. The staff had rejected that option in part because of uncertainties involved with the various perc replacement options and also because of the impact a phase-out could have on California drycleaners, 40 percent of whom gross under $100,000 annually, according to a CARB survey.

CARB currently has a grant program that offers financial assistance to cleaners who want to switch to a non-perc alternative. However, not only is the number and size of the grants limited, the scope is, too, since hydrocarbon equipment is not eligible; in essence only wetcleaning and liquid carbon dioxide equipment qualify under the program as it is currently constructed.

The May 25 hearing brought out opponents of perc from both within and outside the industry. In addition to the usual environmental groups calling for the end of perc, there were representatives of manufacturers, distributors and users of wetcleaning systems and at least one drycleaner who formerly used perc urging that “perc needs to go.”

Other drycleaners, along with representatives of industry trade associations, made the case for perc. One indication that the case wasn’t being heard arose when Steve Risotto of the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance brought up the recently published study based on drycleaners in Nordic countries that showed negligible additional cancer risk for workers exposed to perc.

Asked by a board member if they were aware of the study, a CARB staff member said he had heard of it but hadn’t read it, then alluded to other, older studies that were less favorable to perc.

HSIA has since requested a meeting with the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to review the Nordic study and other recent research. OEHHA, which along with CARB is part of the California Environmental Protection Agency, is responsible for conducting the health assessments used by CARB for its analysis of regulatory impacts.