PCE Substitution Issues

Perchloroethylene (PCE) used in dry cleaning is probably the most significant source of human exposure for this compound. General public exposure to PCE is widespread from people transporting freshly dry-cleaned clothes in their cars and storing them in their homes. Occupational exposures of dry cleaning workers to PCE are more pronounced compared with the general public. PCE is considered by the National Toxicology Program to be reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen, based on sufficient evidence in laboratory animals and limited (and somewhat inconclusive) evidence in humans. There is evidence of reproductive abnormalities in drycleaning workers (spontaneous abortions, menstrual irregularities, but again, the studies are as yet inconclusive. PCE has been found as a soil or groundwater contaminant at nearly 800 Superfund sites.

So, there’s sufficient evidence of adverse effects based on laboratory animals, but inconclusive evidence directly from the human experience. Human exposure to PCE is widespread, and the consequences of low-dose carcinogen exposure to very large groups are uncertain. Exposed workers, though smaller in number, are still a sizeable group.

Substitutes for PCE for professional fabric cleaning exist, and for some, it may appear that PCE is a good candidate for exercising the precautionary principle:

When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof.

(A copy of the full Wingspread Statement can be found here)

However, anyone who is serious about phasing out PCE in dry cleaning needs to be aware of the realities of the fabric care industry. Dry cleaning remains a mom-and-pop type of operation, the kind of small business that is slowly drying up in this age of Wal-Mart. The profit margin on dry cleaning is slim, and many are probably treading water financially. Attitudes of both workers and owners on chemical hazards have been surveyed, and it appears that health and safety, while on workers’ minds, are not their highest concerns (the study doesn’t call it out, but I have to wonder if their biggest concern is making a living). Telling these folks to just give up perc for the sake of the environment or their health will fall on deaf ears.

In some places, government is taking a hand to move the PCE phase-out along. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has a pretty fearsome set of dry cleaning regulations, including a PCE phase-out, going on now with a completion date of 2020. Dry cleaners are being offered financial assistance by the district to purchase alternate wet cleaning machines. However, in places where the regulatory agencies aren’t quite as progressive as the SCAQMD, there may be other effective methods, combined with the financial assistance, to enable a PCE phase out. This would require consumer pressure applied elsewhere along the supply chain. Most apparel manufacturers do not label their “dry clean only” garments to allow wet cleaning methods, which might make cleaners reluctant to switch over voluntarily. Many retailers selling apparel pride themselves on their corporate environmental stewardship policies (see here and here). Selling the retailers on the idea of providing “no-perc” product lines and pressuring their suppliers to modify their labeling requirements, as a corporate citizenship activity, could be an alternative to governmental action in phasing out PCE.

It might work better than going to war with the corporations.