Agency Proposes New Regulation on Perc Use by Dry Cleaners
State Environmental Regulation columnist Charlotte A. Biblow writes that about 70 percent of the dry cleaners located in the state still use perc as their solvent of choice, despite a 1997 regulation encouraging them to switch to alternate solvents. A new proposal would impose significant financial and management costs on dry cleaners, and have significant implications for their suppliers, workers, landlords and neighbors.
July 26, 2017 at 02:04 PM
9 minute read
According to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), there are about 2,000 dry cleaning facilities in New York state that use perchloroethylene (“perc”) as the solvent in their dry cleaning machines. Most of these facilities are located within the New York City metropolitan area.
Twenty years ago, in 1997, the NYSDEC enacted a regulation aimed at minimizing the public's exposure to perc vapors by reducing and controlling releases of perc from dry cleaning establishments. The regulation deals with design and performance standards for dry cleaning machines, ventilation standards, operation and maintenance requirements, and operator training and certification. The regulation has deadlines for replacing older, outdated machines that are more pollution-prone with modern machines (so-called fourth generation machines) that employ vapor protection devices to prevent perc from migrating from the machines into adjacent spaces or the ambient air.
Although the regulation encourages dry cleaners to switch to alternate solvents, the NYSDEC reports that about 70 percent of the dry cleaners located in the state still use perc as their solvent of choice. This is because perc has good cleaning properties, is nonflammable, and is cost effective.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWhen It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
8 minute readAre Federal and State Superfund Laws the Best Way to Address Microplastics?
10 minute readTrump's Selection of Zeldin to Head EPA Draws Surprise, Little Hope of Avoiding Deregulation
Trending Stories
- 1Deal Watch: What Dealmakers Are Thankful for in 2024
- 2'The Court Will Take Action': Judge Upbraids Combative Rudy Giuliani During Outburst at Hearing
- 3Attorney Sanctioned for Not Exercising Ordinary Care: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
- 4$1.9M Settlement Approved in Class Suit Over Vacant Property Fees
- 5Former Wamco Exec Charged With $600M 'Cherry-Picking' Fraud
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250