Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155-0245
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2005-12-29T05:00Z

1/
21/
05
Screening
Analysis
Results
­
Annual
Costs
Compared
to
Revenues
for
Affected
Parent
Firms
­
Dry
Cleaning
RR
Options
Parent
Firms
Affected,
Individually
and
by
Category
Total
Revenues
in
2002
for
Each
Affected
Firm
Is
the
Firm
Small?
Annualized
Costs
(
Including
PCE
savings)

LDARa
+

Machine
Replacement
(
A)
b
(
A)/
Revenues
d
(
in
%

terms)
LDAR
+
RC
(
B)
(
B)/
Revenues
(
in
%
terms)
LDAR
+

CA
(
C)
(
C)/
Revenues
(
in
%
terms)
LDAR
+

PCE
Sensor­
Lockout
(
D)
(
D)/
Revenues
(
in
percentage
terms)

Industrial
ALAC
Garment
Services
3,800,000
Yes
$
83,141
2.19
($
15,717)
c
(
0.41)
($
26,503)
(
0.70)
($
49,597)
(
1.31)

White
Tower
Industrial
Laundry
15,000,000
No
218,972
1.46
20,529
0.14
(
17,022)
(
0.11)
(
12,148)
(
0.08)

Libra
Industries,
Inc.
10,500,000
Yes
(
4,544)
(
0.04)
(
4,544)
(
0.04)
9,310
0.09
6,317
0.06
Circle
Environmental
Yes
(
5,191)
(
5,191)
(
5,191)
(
6,414)
Complete
Laudering
Services
Yes
(
5,603)
(
5,603)
(
5,603)
(
3,786)

Midwest
Industrial
Laundry
Yes
(
119)
(
119)
(
119)
805
Spic
and
Span
,
Inc
7,500,000
No
2,072
0.03
2,072
0.03
2,072
0.03
4,216
0.06
Leather
Leather
Rich
(
Leather
Technologies?

)
7,500,000
No
3,270
0.04
3,270
0.04
3,270
0.04
14,985
0.18
Acme
Sponge
&
Chamois
Co.
14,000,000
Yes
189
0.0014
189
0.0014
189
0.0014
804
0.00574
Commercial
Bergmann's,

Inc.
11,500,000
No
40,237
0.35
(
2,544)
0.02
6,137
0.05
1,365
0.01
Jim
Massey's
Cleaners
&

Laundry
16,600,000
No
14,511
0.09
(
2,016)
(
0.01)
3,165
0.02
508
0.003
Sam
Meyer
Formal
Wear
15,000,000
No
24,598
0.16
1,434
0.01
6,908
0.05
6,096
0.05
Quality
Chinese
Laundry
Yes
2,623
2,623
2,623
10,211
Peerless
Cleaners
3,800,000
Yes
23,621
0.62
2,991
0.08
8,370
0.22
10,611
0.28
a
LDAR
=
leak
detection
and
repair;
RC
=
refrigerated
condenser;
CA
=
carbon
adsorber;
PCE=
perchloroethlyene
b
Definition
of
options
A
through
D
are
meant
to
show
clearly
the
linkage
between
the
controls
analyzed
and
the
associated
costs.
c
Values
in
parentheses
are
negative.
d
Revenues
are
for
2002
­
the
year
for
which
the
costs
are
estimated.
Annual
costs
in
the
analysis
=
Annualized
capital
+
MRR
labor
(
where
appropriate)
+
operating
cost
+
PCE
savings.

Discussion
of
Results
There
are
14
parent
firms
affected
by
the
dry
cleaning
residual
risk
standard
at
the
current
time
(
this
analysis
does
account
for
the
removal
of
Cadet
Cleaners).
Of
these
firms,
eight
(
or
more
than
half)
are
small
according
to
Small
Business
Administration
(
SBA)
size
standard
guidelines.
Revenue
data
could
not
be
found
for
4
of
the
14
affected
firms.
The
firm
with
the
largest
annual
revenues
among
those
that
had
available
data
is
Jim
Massey's
Cleaners
&
Laundry
with
$
16.6
million
in
revenues
in
2002
(
the
year
of
the
analysis).
All
of
the
firms
have
excellent
credit
ratings
except
for
White
Tower
(
which
had
a
very
good
credit
rating).

Impacts
in
this
analysis
are
calculated
as
annual
costs/
annual
revenues
for
the
affected
firms.
Annual
costs
are
estimated
according
to
the
equation
listed
below
the
table.
Costs
include
LDAR
along
with
the
costs
of
the
other
options,
and
do
account
for
savings
from
reduced
PCE
use.
These
impacts
are
quite
low
for
the
options
examined
in
this
analysis.
Only
ALAC
and
White
Tower
experience
annual
costs
that
are
1%
of
revenues
or
higher,
and
these
occur
only
for
the
LDAR
+
machine
replacement
option.
In
fact,
there
are
many
instances
of
cost
savings
for
these
firms
under
these
options.
Two
firms,
Circle
Environmental
and
Complete
Laundering
Services,
are
expected
to
have
cost
savings
under
each
of
these
four
options.
All
of
the
industrial
firms
except
Spic
and
Span,
Inc.
are
expected
to
have
cost
savings
under
some
or
all
of
these
four
options.
In
these
cases,
the
savings
from
reduced
PCE
usage
outweigh
the
costs
from
applying
the
options.

Based
on
this
analysis
only,
there
should
be
concerns
with
impacts
only
for
the
LDAR
+
machine
replacement
option.
The
costs
of
1%
or
more
from
revenue
for
ALAC
and
White
Tower
may
suggest
the
possibility
of
significant
impacts
to
these
firms
under
this
option
(
but
under
this
option
only).
However,
there
is
little
likelihood
of
significant
impacts
to
any
of
these
firms
including
ALAC
and
White
Tower
under
all
the
other
options
based
on
this
analysis
only.