End, Don't Try to Filter, Dry-Cleaning Fumes

advertisement | advertise on newsday

Anyone who has taken clothes to a dry cleaner has

experienced it. You can detect a slight (and sometimes even stronger) chemical

smell when you remove the clothes from the plastic wrapping. Many of us wonder:

Does that chemical smell indicate we're being exposed to something harmful?

In fact, the chemical we smell, perchloroethylene or perc, is bad for the

environment, a health hazard for those who work at dry cleaning facilities and

a problem for the communities where dry cleaners are located.

In New York, the problem is exacerbated because so many cleaners are

located below residences. A bitter fight took place a couple of years ago

between the chemical industry and cleaners against environmental critics and

advertisement | advertise on newsday

politicians such as former city Public Advocate Mark Green, who championed the

idea of getting rid of the perc. Today, cleaners are required to install

expensive equipment to control the perc that escapes into the air.

In Los Angeles, the local air district recently voted for a lengthy

phase-out of perc that would allow cleaners to make a switch to an


environmentally preferable, non-toxic system rather than try to lessen the

impact through expensive control equipment as in New York. The air district

also provided an incentive fund for cleaners to make the switch.

What is contentious about this issue is that perc has long been the

favorite cleaning solvent for the vast majority of dry cleaners in New York, in

advertisement | advertise on newsday

Los Angeles and around the country. Dry cleaners are typically small

neighborhood businesses. So while the amount of perc that escapes into the air

from a single dry cleaning plant might be small, the cumulative effect from the

several thousand cleaners in New York or Los Angeles becomes a major

environmental and health hazard for communities and cleaners alike.

advertisement | advertise on newsday

As early as the 1970s, research began to indicate that perc could cause

cancer. Given those risks, a number of government agencies sought to minimize

exposure. As in the New York situation, expensive devices were required that

reduced some of the exposure but failed to eliminate the problem.

As the battles over perc dry cleaning have intensified, so has interest in

alternatives to perc. The first such alternative introduced was professional

wet cleaning - a non-toxic cleaning process that uses computer-controlled

washers and dryers, specially formulated detergents, and special pressing


Our research has indicated that this alternative, more environmentally

friendly system compares favorably to the perc-based system. It can clean the

clothes as well as the perc process, it can be as profitable (in fact some key

costs, including the up-front costs of the machines, are cheaper), and it has a

number of environmental and health benefits, starting with the elimination of

the perc.

We also found that the cleaners who have made the switch from perc to

professional wet cleaning - many of them long-time dry cleaners - are strongly

satisfied with their switch, as they have been able to avoid dealing with

hazardous waste disposal charges, liability concerns and other regulations for

cleaners. Some also no longer suffer from dizziness, headaches, fatigue, runny

noses and heightened allergic reactions.

As evidence of the successful application of this one system - professional

wet cleaning - and the availability of several other alternatives has became

apparent, some policymakers are starting to explore the idea that instead of

imposing burdensome regulations, a win-win solution is available. The lessons

from Los Angeles for New York are instructive in that regard, especially given

New York's lengthy and protracted battles in regulating perc use.

First, it is clear that the problems with perc will not be easily addressed

by relying on expensive efforts to try to better control but not eliminate

perc use. One of the problems of such an approach is that cleaners have

difficulty in meeting those rules. When cleaners get occasionally monitored,

the non-compliance rates are extremely high, between 70 percent and 95 percent,

according to several studies.

Second, the switch to an alternative like wet cleaning becomes a lot more

palatable once several cleaners have made the switch. These new wet cleaners

can then serve as demonstration sites for other cleaners - and for policymakers

as well.

Third, a lengthy phaseout provides the best regulatory approach. Since dry

cleaning equipment lasts about 10 years (and about 14 years according to the

industry), as little as a 10 or even 15- year phase-out would allow a cleaner

to purchase the new equipment at the point in time when the old equipment had

run its course.

The cleaner wouldn't be penalized by having to give up a machine. In fact,

the up-front costs for the new non-toxic system would be cheaper - and so would

operating costs once the system was in place.

By the end of a phase-out, cleaners and their workers would no longer be

breathing perc fumes, community and customer exposure to perc would disappear,

and one of the largest sources of perc pollution would be eliminated.

An incentive program for cleaners to switch from perc to a non-toxic

alternative like wet cleaning could begin the process that leads to a phase

out. And such a transition is the best kind of change from a business, worker,

community and environmental perspective alike. It's chemical-free cleaning and

it's a win-win proposition for everyone.

You also may be interested in: