Comment Log Display

May 10, 2006

Mr. Bob Fletcher
California Air Resources Board
1101 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814

Re:  Dry Cleaning ATCM 

Dear Mr. Fletcher:

We are writing to express our strong opposition to the Air
Resources Board (ARB) staff’s proposed amendments to the Airborne
Toxic Control Measure for Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning (Dry
Cleaning ATCM).  There is ample scientific data showing that
perchloroethylene (“perc”) is very harmful to human health, and
dry cleaners using this chemical pose an unacceptable health risk
to their employees, their customers, and their neighborhoods.  And
yet, the ARB proposed ATCM will not protect Californians from this
toxic chemical.  Given that ARB acknowledges that there are
cost-effective non-toxic, non-smog forming alternatives, we urge
the board to replace the current proposal with an expeditious
phase-out of perc dry cleaning. Additionally, to ensure that ARB
does not unintentionally create a shift to Volatile Organic
Compounds-containing (VOC) systems, ARB should phase out new
hydrocarbon dry cleaners. 

Perchloroethylene is known to the State of California to cause
cancer.  The non-cancer health effects include headaches,
dizziness, nausea, vomiting, fainting, fluid build up in the
lungs, and damage to the central nervous system, kidneys, liver,
and reproductive system.  In addition, perc is estimated to have
contaminated one in ten public drinking wells in California. 

Given the very harmful impacts of this toxic chemical, we have
many serious concerns with ARB’s proposed amendments to the Dry
Cleaning ATCM including:

1.	The ARB proposal prohibits new perc machines and phases-out
existing perc machines only in co-residential facilities.  This
approach should be the requirement for all perc dry cleaners in
California.  However, the proposal would allow the continued use
of perc indefinitely in non-co-residential facilities.  This
simply doesn’t make sense. 
a.	The risk to neighbors, consumers and workers is not limited to
co-residential facilities. 
b.	The South Coast Air Quality Management District adopted a
phase-out approach in 2002. 
c.	There are non-toxic and non-smog forming alternatives available
and being used successfully in California.   

2.	A cleaner which installs the suite of pollution control
technologies called for in this proposal will still expose their
workers, their customers, and their neighbors to unacceptable
health risks from perc.  No control technology available reduces
the risk from perchloroethylene dry cleaning machines to
acceptable levels.  

3.	The proposal unfairly sets up perc dry cleaners for future
regulation and expense because it does not adequately reduce
health risks and these risks will have to be addressed.

4.	The proposal relies heavily on complicated pollution control
technologies even though serious issues have been identified
regarding compliance, training and maintenance to ensure these
controls work as designed.

5.	Compliance has been a longstanding challenge for regulators
trying to reduce pollution from dry cleaners.  This proposal does
nothing to address the fact that neither ARB nor the Air Districts
have sufficient resources to adequately monitor compliance with
current regulatory requirements or additional requirements. 

6.	Relative to the siting of new facilities, the proposal calls
for a 300-foot buffer zone between new perc dry cleaners and the
boundary of any area that is zoned for residential use, or which
contains a sensitive receptor.  The proposal does NOT require
buffer zones for new dry cleaners in commercial zones even though
the ARB analysis shows very little difference in health risks
between neighboring residences and commercial businesses.

7.	Though ARB staff has identified current and future industry
shifts to VOC alternatives as a major concern, the proposal does
nothing to address this problem. Instead, ARB is further
encouraging the shift to hydrocarbon alternatives.  This creates
unfair burdens on owners because additional regulations will be
required of them in order to address increases in smog-forming
emissions resulting from their operations.  ARB should have a
proactive approach that phases out smog-forming alternatives and
encourages the use of non-toxic, non-polluting technologies.


One other major concern we have is that ARB staff seems to be
using questions about the effectiveness of alternatives to perc as
a justification for an ATCM proposal which accommodates continued
perc use.  It is really frustrating that ARB staff has questions
about the effectiveness of alternatives given their very limited
implementation of the AB 998 program which is aimed at
demonstrating the known viability of alternatives and at
encouraging the use of non-toxic, non-smog forming alternatives. 

The legislation, which was signed into law in 2002 and took effect
in January 2003, directed ARB to apply a fee on the perc used in
dry cleaning, use some of the funds collected to establish a
demonstration program of non-toxic, non-smog forming alternatives,
and use the additional funds for grants to cleaners which are
making the transition to these safer alternatives.   

Our understanding is that more than two years after this law took
effect ARB:  1) may not be fully collecting fees on the perc used
by California dry cleaners, 2) has not implemented a single
demonstration and, 3) has only made 14 grants in a state with
almost 5,000 dry cleaners.  We believe this lack of progress has
led ARB staff to propose a less health protective Dry Cleaning
ATCM.  To protect public health from toxic chemicals ARB must do
more to prevent pollution and encourage the use of non-toxic
alternatives.

We remain committed to working with you to phase out the use of
perc in dry cleaning and encourage the use of non-toxic, non-smog
forming alternatives to protect the health of all Californians.

Sincerely,

 
Tim Carmichael
Coalition for Clean Air

Carmen Hayes
AFSCME Local 3090

Bonnie Holmes-Gen
American Lung Association of California

Raul Macias
Anahuak Youth Sport Association

Tom Frantz
Association of Irritated Residents

Jeanne Rizzo, R.N.
Breast Cancer Fund

Jane Williams
California Communities Against Toxics

Susan Smartt
California League of Conservation Voters

Robina Suwol
California Safe Schools

Jose Carmona
Center for Energy Efficiency 
and Renewable Technologies

Cynthia Babich 
Del Amo Action Committee

Teresa De Anda
El Comite Para el Bienestar de Earlimart

Jim Stewart, PhD
Earth Day Los Angeles

Mary Luevano
Global Green USA

Neil Gendel                                             
Healthy Children Organizing Project                 
Felipe Aguirre
Inquilinos Unidos Pro-Justicia Ambiental

Marlom Portillo
Instituto De Educación Popular Del Sur De California ( IDEPSCA)

Lorena Domínguez
Lideres Campesinas

Sherlina Nageer, MPH
Literacy for Environmental Justice

      
Felipe Aguirre
Mayor Pro Tem 
Maywood, CA.

Julie Masters 
Natural Resources Defense Council

Hector Alvarado
Padres Unidos de Maywood (PUMA)

Gary A. Patton, Executive Director
Planning and Conservation League

David Lighthall, Ph.D.
Relational Culture Institute

Bill Magavern
Sierra Club 

Suzan Luu
Southern California Coalition for Occupational Safety & Health
SoCalCOSH

Conner Everts
Southern California Watershed Alliance

Susan Frank
Steven and Michele Kirsch Foundation

Alejandra Domenzain 
Sweatshop Watch

Frances C. Schreiberg 
WorkSafe 

 


Cc:	Senator Alan Lowenthal
	Assembly Member Sally Lieber
Catherine Witherspoon
	Dan Donohue