=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL’S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #431
—March 2, 1995—
News and resources for environmental justice.
==========
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@igc.apc.org
==========
The Back issues and Index are
available here.
The official RACHEL archive is here.
It’s updated constantly.
To subscribe, send E-mail to rachel-
weekly-request@world.std.com
with the single word SUBSCRIBE in the message. It’s
free.
===Previous
Issue==========================================Next
Issue===
DRY CLEANING: IS REGULATION NECESSARY?
As the Congress moves to rid the U.S. of all effective
environmental regulation, [1]we should ask whether the
alternative –reliance on the marketplace by itself to control
pollution –is likely to work. Here we examine a case study
–the dry cleaning industry.
There is nothing dry about dry cleaning. All materials
processed by dry cleaners–clothing, rugs, or whatever–are
soaked in toxic solvents. A few cleaners (about 6%) use Stoddard
solvent. The other 94% use perchloroethylene, or “perc” as it is
known in the business. [2]Perc is a hydrocarbon derived from
petroleum, with chlorine molecules attached. As a “chlorinated
hydrocarbon,” perc shares certain characteristics with other
chlorinated hydrocarbons: they tend to be soluble in fat and not
in water (and therefore they tend to accumulate in fatty tissues
as they pass through the food chain); they tend to persist for a
long time in the environment; and they tend to be toxic. Perc has
all of these characteristics.
There are 35,000 dry cleaning establishments in the U.S. and
Canada. Together they use 300 million pounds [136 million
kilograms] of perc each year. Of this, 13 million pounds is
recycled; the remaining 287 million pounds are released into the
environment. [3] According to estimates by U.S. and Canadian
researchers, as much as 90 percent of perc is lost directly to
the atmosphere; [4]presumably the remainder is washed down the
drain along with process water. (Most dry cleaning machines use
perc with water added.)
It should be no surprise, then, that perc can be found almost
everywhere in the environment, and in much of our food and water.
At 577 sites in the U.S., perc could be measured in the air at
an average (median) concentration of 1 microgram per cubic meter
(1 ug/m3). [4]In the U.S., a government survey of “finished
water” (water taken directly from the tap) of 36 cities showed
that 25% of drinking water contains perc at an average (median)
concentration of 3.0 parts per billion (ppb). In Canada, 30
potable water supplies (treated water) contained 1 ppb average, 2
ppb maximum.
Fish in the sea contain 0.3 to 43 ppb of perc. Surveys of U.S.
food samples have found perc in grape jelly, chocolate sauce,
wheat and corn. As you might expect, butter and oil can contain
high levels of perc–100 to 1000 ppb. Perc was detected in 7 out
of 8 samples of human breast milk; [4]after one mother visited a
dry cleaning shop and was then tested, her milk contained 1 ppm
(1000 ppb) of perc –500 times as high as the U.S. drinking water
standard for children. Therefore we know that many Americans
start life imbibing a cocktail of milk laced with perc. (The
alternative, infant formula made with tap water, is likely to be
even more contaminated, and is certainly less nutritious and less
beneficial to both mother and child.)
The average exposures of average Americans and Canadians to perc
are relatively low. However, there are a few sub-populations who
may be getting very high exposures: dry-cleaning workers, and
people who live in or near buildings that house dry cleaners. A
study of 950 dry cleaners in New York reveals that 700 of them
are housed in buildings that also have residential apartments. [5]
Many of these apartments can be expected to have
higher-than-normal levels of perc in the air. In extreme cases,
buildings near dry cleaners can smell almost as strongly of perc
as the dry cleaning establishments themselves; an estimated one
million Americans live in such circumstances today.
Most people know what perc smells like because they carry perc
home on their freshly dry-cleaned clothes and it is then released
into their homes over a 5-to-6-day period. An estimated 100
million Americans expose themselves to low levels of perc by this
means each year.
An estimated 537,000 people work in dry cleaning establishments
where they may be exposed to average levels that can exceed 170
ppm [parts per million] in the air, though the levels have been
dropping in recent years in response to government regulation and
enforcement. From studies of these workers (and of people
drinking perc-contaminated water), it has been shown that perc
causes nervous system disorders (headaches, nausea, dizziness and
other problems of the central nervous system), infertility, [6]
and several kinds of cancer in humans, including leukemia, and
cancer of the lung, cervix, liver, pancreas, skin, and
esophagus. [7]
Indirectly, perc contributes to destruction of the earth’s ozone
layer. When perc degrades in the atmosphere, about 8% of it turns
into carbon tetrachloride, which is a powerful ozone-depleting
chemical. Perc from dry cleaners releases up to 21 million
pounds of carbon tet each year.
The good news is that there are readily-available alternative
cleaning technologies that do not rely on toxic chemicals; that
are more profitable for the owner or operator; and that would
create 33,000 more jobs if the whole U.S. dry cleaning industry
were to make the switch.
The new technology is known as “multiprocess wet cleaning;” it
relies on a combination of water, natural soaps, steam and heat
to clean clothing. Careful inspection and cleaning of garments
is done by a skilled technician who decides which technique
(steaming, scrubbing, etc.) will best clean a garment on an
individual basis –as opposed to dry cleaning, where garments
receive a standard treatment. The type of garment, its fabric
category, and the degree of soiling and/or stains are key factors
in the technician’s decision of how best to clean any given
garment. In other words, the new technology substitutes
information, skilled judgment, and labor for toxic chemicals,
increasing both jobs and profits in the bargain.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ran a pilot test of the new
technologies –which Greenpeace has dubbed greenclean –and EPA
reports that greenclean “is economically competitive and performs
as well as, or better than, traditional dry cleaning.” EPA
calculations show that dry cleaners who convert an existing shop
or start up a new greenclean operation will increase their
profits by 5% and their return on investment by 78%. Converting
to greenclean will also provide more skilled jobs in the
marketplace because it requires 21% more labor. A survey of over
350 customers revealed that customers preferred greenclean over
dry cleaning in terms of overall quality of cleaning. One company
that sells franchises to the technology is Eco Franchise (their
stores are called Ecomat) at 1-800-299-2309, or 212-769-1777. (We
are NOT endorsing their business operations, about which we know
nothing. Based on EPA tests, we believe their technology is
superior to dry cleaning.) There are several Ecomat cleaning
shops operating now in New York City.
So here is a clear place for the market to prove itself. A
dangerous, polluting technology should be driven off the market
by a cheaper, cleaner, more profitable alterative, if the
pure-market boosters are right.
Unfortunately, all indications are that the switch cannot take
place without increased government intervention. Most dry
cleaners are very small operations; they can’t take the risks
involved in any changeover until the technology has proven itself
and has shown itself to be a market success. Likewise, the
technology cannot develop many customers and prove itself until
the change has occurred. In sum, it’s a chicken-and-egg problem.
Dry cleaners, being small, get their information chiefly from
other dry cleaners and from vendors of chemicals and equipment.
Chemicals and expensive equipment are absent from greenclean, so
vendors aren’t pushing it. Finally, many garments today are
labeled “dry clean only” and wet-process cleaners are reluctant
to take on the liabilities involved in ignoring such a label;
labeling standards in the garment industry will have to change.
Government –acting on its clear mandate to protect public health
and safety –could make it happen. By placing an eco-tax on
perc, the government could pay for a program of information,
demonstration, and technical assistance to small dry cleaners, to
help them evaluate the changeover for themselves. And who
besides government can alert consumers to the real hazards of
perc? In the ideal case, government would ban the sale of dry
cleaning equipment that relies on dangerous toxic chemicals like
perc. (This might be construed as a “taking” of the equipment
manufacturers’ rights –but purveyors of perc and perc-using
equipment have “taken” our right to clean air, clean water, and
clean food. They have cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of
dollars in toxic dump cleanup costs, and water filtration costs,
not to mention health costs. It seems fair that “the greatest
good for the greatest number” should be the ethical standard of
judgment here, and that sellers of broadly destructive machines
and chemicals should be penalized for their antisocial,
dangerous, polluting behavior.)
Can market mechanisms clean up the dry cleaning industry?
Apparently not, at least not by themselves. Some government
intervention will be necessary.
                
                
                
                
    
–Peter Montague
===============
[1] Carol Browner, chief of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) says H.R. 1022, passed by the U.S. House of Representatives
February 28, 1995, is “…a full frontal assault on protecting
public health and the environment….” “This legislation will
undermine virtually every health protection that the American
people depend on,” she said. See U.S. EPA ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS
(press release R-37) February 28, 1995, pg. 1.
Descriptor terms: dry cleaning; tetrachloroethylene;
perchloroethylene; chlorinated hydrocarbons; ozone depletion;
human health; drinking water; food safety; food contamination;
fish; wildlife; breast milk; occupational safety and health;
indoor air pollution; infertility; central nervous system
disorders; leukemia; lung cancer; cervical cancer; esophageal
cancer; us epa; us environmental protection agency; greenclean;
ecomat; labeling standards; garment industry; regulation;
taxation; eco tax; takings;