Copyright 2003 Newsday, Inc.  

Newsday (New York, NY)

January 29, 2003 Wednesday ALL EDITIONS

SECTION: VIEWPOINTS, Pg. A28

LENGTH: 907 words

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

BYLINE: By Peter Sinsheimer and Robert Gottlieb. Peter Sinsheimer is director of the Pollution Prevention Education and Research Center and Robert Gottlieb is a professor of urban and environmental policy, both at Occidental College, Los Angeles.

BODY:
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 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 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.

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 equipment.

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.

GRAPHIC: Newsday 2002 / David L. Pokress - An environmentally safe silicon-based dry cleaning system in use at a Long Beach shop.

LOAD-DATE: January 29, 2003