National Clothesline

The City of Philadelphia’s plan to restrict the use of perc and to completely disallow the use of n-Propyl Bromide (nPB) as drycleaning solvents came under attack from several quarters at a public hearing last month.

The city’s Air Pollution Control Board listened to critics but offered no response, instead promising to respond to the comments in the future. The perc and nPB proposal and comments will be reviewed by the board Sept. 29 for final approval and could become effective as early as next month.

Cleaners operating in co-residential locations or those located next to “sensitive receptors” such as daycare centers, grade schools and healthcare facilities, would have to quit using perc by Dec. 31, 2013.

Cleaners in co-commercial situations — those that share a wall, ceiling or floor with other businesses — would be able to continue using perc but would have to apply for a license and meet a number of requirements. Primarily they will have to show that the airborne concentration of perc in adjoining establishments is no more than 40 parts per billion.

Stand-alone facilities would be exempt from those requirements but they must use at least fourth-generation equipment with a drying sensor and spill containment.

At the hearing, cleaners, trade association representatives and representatives of companies selling nPB as a cleaning solvent for drycleaning objected to the proposal on a number of grounds.

Cleaners pleaded for more time to meet the new requirements and asked for financial assistance if the city decides they must replace their perc machines.

“New Jersey has money to help drycleaners replace their equipment but the city has none,” said Jason Kim, president of the Philadelphia Korean American Drycleaners Association.

Further, he said, having one set of rules for cleaners in the city and another for those outside the city limits is unfair. Cleaners in the city are likely to turn to operating drop stores and sending the cleaning outside the city, he said, thus causing a loss of both jobs and tax revenue for the city.

Other association representatives noted that many of the proposed requirements already exist in the form of federal and state rules. Cleaners would be duplicating their efforts on many of the maintenance and record-keeping requirements.

“It’s a tremendous burden to ask small business owners to duplicate all that paperwork,” said Carol Memberg, executive director of the Pennsylvania and Delaware Cleaners Association.

Cleaners would face an even greater burden if they have to buy new cleaning machines. Mia Nam, daughter of the owners of Lee’s Drycleaners in Philadelphia, said her parents are still paying for a new fourth-generation drycleaning machine that they might not be able to use if the rule is approved.

“It will destroy my parents’ business,” she said.

Other cleaners told the board they have doubts about the various perc alternatives and asked for more time until better alternatives are available.

The regulations would squash one of the alternatives completely. A late addition to the proposal is a ban n-Propyl Bromide, sold for drycleaning under the trade names of DrySolv and Fabrisolv.

Earlier versions of the regulatory proposal made no mention of nPB, but it appeared in a June draft that was reviewed by the board on the recommendation of Dr. Adam Finkel, who was commissioned by the board to assist in writing the regulations.

Jon Meijer of the Drycleaning & Laundry Institute told the hearing board that an nPB ban should not be considered at this time.

“This is a perc regulation,” he said. “You should go through a separate process for any others.”

DrySolv and Fabrisolv representatives urged the board to drop its ban of nPB. They argued that it is not only safe but also preferable to other drycleaning solvents.

“It is the most ‘green’ alternative,” said Dov Shellef of Fabrisolv. “It saves energy and uses less detergent.”

Rich Morford, a DrySolv attorney, noted that EPA has approved nPB for its Significant New Alternative Policy (SNAP) program. Under SNAP, EPA evaluates and regulates substitutes for ozone-depleting chemicals that are phased out under the stratospheric ozone protection provisions of the Clean Air Act. EPA’s SNAP program does not, however, apply specifically to drycleaning.

Morford said that extensive testing of nPB for the SNAP program indicates it is safe for use as a drycleaning solvent.

“It is a safe and workable solution,” he said. Banning it would take away the best alternative for drycleaners since an existing fourth- or fifth-generation perc machine can be modified to use nPB for about $5,000, he added.

The air board said a comment and response document will be posted on the Air Management Services web site at www.phila.gov/health/AirManagement/index.html. The board will then review and vote on the issue at its Sept. 29 meeting.