How Clean is Dry Cleaning? — The Risks of Perchloroethylene

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

This is worth thinking about...

http://www.acsh.org/publications/priorities/0801/dryclean.html

See below....

Interestingly, after the Federal Govt. released a statement that is banning a dry cleaning chemical commonly used in the carpet cleaning industry, we have seen 3 carpet companies become overnight deck companies.

The market is changing, and it's not just the newbies who are changing it. The Government has an impact on various sectors.

Beth

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How Clean is Dry Cleaning? — The Risks of Perchloroethylene

by Jonathan H. Adler

Dry cleaners are one of the most ubiquitous of small businesses. In some communities there is a dry cleaner on nearly every corner, where consumers can receive one-day — or even one-hour — cleaning services. Although most shops are very small — the average dry cleaner has only five employees — nationwide the industry employs nearly 175,000 people. Yet, if some consumer and environmental activists have their way, dry cleaning will become a thing of the past.

Dry cleaning is not truly a "dry" process. Liquid chemical solvents are used to remove stains and soil from clothing in washing machines, and the solvent-cleaned garments are then dried. The primary dry-cleaning solvent used today is perchloroethylene, also known as tetrachloroethylene and commonly referred to as "perc" or PCE. First used in the 1930s, perc is now used, alone or in combination, by almost 90 percent of dry cleaners in the United States. It is the use of perc that has Greenpeace, Consumers Union and other groups up in arms.

A 1992 opinion piece in The New York Times labeled perc as "highly toxic" and called upon New York's city government to "remove all the city's cleaners from apartment buildings." That same year Consumer Reports claimed that "You're likely to be exposed to some level of perc simply by wearing recently dry-cleaned clothes or storing them in your house." "The consequences of perc's wanderings can range from general ill health to cancer and birth defects for workers, consumers and people who live near dry cleaners," according to Greenpeace, which has also cited claims that dry-cleaned clothing "placed in a closed car next to a bag of groceries has contaminated food in less than one hour." Greenpeace has called for a complete elimination of perc usage as part of its campaign to phase out the use of chlorine in all of its applications. But is perc really so bad?

Does Perc Cause Cancer?

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classifies perc as an animal carcinogen and places it on the continuum between possible and probable human carcinogens. The initial claims that perc might be a human carcinogen were based upon animal tests. A 1977 bioassay conducted by the National Cancer Institute indicated that perchloroethylene could induce liver cancer in mice, but not in rats. A 1985 study on rats and mice of both sexes conducted by the National Toxicology Program also concluded that there was "clear evidence" of the rodent carcinogenicity of perchloroethylene. Yet, while positive results in animal tests can provide some indication of whether a compound is potentially carcinogenic to humans, such tests are never conclusive.

If low-to-moderate exposure to perc presents a cancer threat to humans, one would expect to see epidemiological evidence, such as increased rates of cancers among dry-cleaning workers, who are exposed to significant levels of perc in their working environment. According to the assumptions of the EPA, one would expect approximately 350 additional cancers annually among dry-cleaning workers from perc exposure.

But occupational exposure studies have not found a smoking gun to correlate any cancer risk with occupational perc exposure. Some studies, such as that conducted by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), have found a slight increase in cancer mortality rates for dry-cleaning workers. Other studies suggest, however, that this increase could result from the fact that "dry cleaners may smoke more than members of other occupations" and suggest that alcohol use and expected socioeconomic status may also be factors. In those studies in which it was possible to subdivide workers by exposure to different solvents, the slight increase in cancer mortality was not observable in those subgroups exposed only to perc. If dry-cleaning workers are at risk from perc, scientific studies have yet to bear that out. In the words of the EPA Science Advisory Board, perc "is an example of a chemical for which there is no compelling evidence of human cancer risk."

This is not to say that perc is harmless. As with most chemical substances, the ill effects of perc are dependent upon the level of exposure. Exposure to high levels of perc — 200 parts per million (ppm) or more — for prolonged periods of time can induce headaches, dizziness, nausea and eye and skin irritation. Even higher exposures intensify these reactions and can, in extreme cases, result in unconsciousness or even death. High levels of perc exposure also have been correlated with damage to the liver and the central nervous system. Perc is also moderately toxic if ingested. Yet, exposure to such high levels of perc is extremely rare, if not nonexistent. The level inside most dry cleaners is no more than 30 ppm, far below the level at which acute effects can be observed.

Perc in Apartments

A recent study conducted by Consumers Union revived fears that those living near dry cleaners are risking their health. The CU study examined levels of perc in New York City apartments in the same buildings as dry-cleaning establishments. Most such apartments, CU found, have levels above the New York State guideline for long-term perc exposure. "The cleaners in the study had modern equipment, yet still made the air upstairs unfit to breathe," charged CU's Dr. Edward Groth, director of the study. Other studies conducted in New York and elsewhere have found that homes and apartments near dry cleaners can have elevated perc levels.

While it is certainly possible that some apartments above dry cleaners could have dangerously high perc levels, the CU study found nothing to suggest a widespread problem. The New York State guideline sets perc exposure levels at less than one one-thousandth of those levels at which health effects have been observed. And whereas the federal government's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets the acceptable perc exposure level at 25 ppm, the CU study measured perc levels in the parts per billion. Of 29 apartments examined, only eight had perc levels even one one-hundredth of the OSHA standard. The highest indoor perc level identified by CU was still less than one fifth of the current OSHA standard. Earlier studies, such as a 1991 review of apartment perc levels conducted by the New York State Department of Health and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, had similar findings. In short, there is little evidence to support the Greenpeace claim that the local dry cleaner is a very dangerous neighbor.

Perc Versus the Alternatives

When discussing the risks posed by perc, it is important to recognize that perc is used by most dry cleaners today because it is far safer than the alternatives it displaced. In the past most dry-cleaning solvents were petroleum derivatives, such as kerosene. Needless to say, the use of such highly flammable substances posed a significant threat of fire to early cleaners; and fires were frequent at cleaning plants. Interestingly enough, the first regulations to affect dry cleaning in the United States were local ordinances intended to reduce the risk of fire.

Greenpeace, in conjunction with the Center for Neighborhood Technology and the EPA, has been promoting a "non-toxic" alternative to perc and other chemical solvents. Greenpeace recommends the use of "Eco-Clean," an "organic" washing process virtually indistinguishable from the "wet" (water-based) cleaning process used by most consumers at home. The environmental group Great Lakes United (GLU) claims that water-based cleaning is no more expensive than dry cleaning, but still argues that "governments have to order the phase-out of perc within 10 to 15 years" in order "to ensure the commercial viability" of water-based alternatives. GLU and Greenpeace would like to see the end of dry cleaning altogether, as part of their larger campaign against all industrial uses of chlorine.

While phasing out chlorine chemistry may seem an extreme step, the EPA has responded to Greenpeace's pressure by investigating Eco-Clean's potential to be a perc replacement. Additionally, the dry-cleaning industry has tentatively agreed to expand the use of "wet" cleaning where it is practicable, even though industry representatives at the International Fabricare Institute and Neighborhood Cleaners Association are quick to point out that water-based cleaning processes cannot effectively clean all types of garments. Eliminating the use of perchloroethylene and other cleaning solvents would be the end of "dry-clean-only" garments.

Regulating Cleaners

Even if the Greenpeace campaign were to go away, dry cleaners would still not have an easy go of it. The use of perc by dry cleaners is heavily regulated. As noted above, occupational exposures are controlled by OSHA, and some states have workplace limits four times more stringent than required by federal law. As is the case with most chemicals, when it comes to disposal, perc is regulated as a hazardous waste, as are cleaning filters and other disposable items that may contain minute traces of the chemical. Perc is recycled by most dry cleaners; nevertheless, the disposal of hazardous wastes costs many dry cleaners several thousand dollars per year.

The EPA also regulates potential emissions of perc into the air. Originally, perc was controlled because the EPA believed that it might contribute to urban smog. It was learned in the early 1980s that perc is not a contributor to smog; but as of this writing, the EPA has yet to formally declare perc exempt from regulations designed to control smog under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (such action is expected shortly). Further, though soon to be exempt from one set of clean-air rules, perc is still subject to rules designed to control substances labeled by Congress as hazardous air pollutants. These rules will cost dry cleaners an estimated $30 million nationwide, according to the EPA, despite the lack of any evidence that present emission levels pose any threat to public health.

The small size of most dry cleaners has not enabled them to escape significant regulatory burdens. Dry-cleaning operations, particularly those involving perc, are heavily regulated. As is too often the case, these regulations are based more on unsubstantiated fears about threats to public health than on sound scientific evidence. To make matters worse, there are some extreme activists that would like to put all dry cleaners out of business. But dry cleaning is one of the comforts of modern life, and there is no reason why we should have to do without it.

Portions of this article were adapted from Jonathan Adler's Taken to the Cleaners: A Case Study of the Overregulation of American Small Business, published by the Cato Institute (1993).

Jonathan H. Adler is Director of Environmental Studies at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and author of Environmentalism at the Crossroads: Green Activism in America (Capital Research Center, 1995).