foe aS

PERCHLOROETHYLENE IN THE AIR.
IN APARTMENTS
ABOVE NEW YORK CITY DRY CLEANERS af

A SPECIAL REPORT FROM
CONSUMERS UNION

WITH TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FROM
THE CENTER FOR OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
AT HUNTER COLLEGE

BY

DEBORAH WALLACE, PH. D
EDWARD GROTH III, PH.D.
ELLEN KIRRANE, M.S.
BARBARA WARREN. R.N., M.S.
JEAN HALLORAN

OCTOBER. 1995


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

PART I: TESTS FOR PERC IN THE AIR IN APARTMENTS

STUDY METHODOLOGY
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
Health Implications of Perc in Apartments

Non-cancer health hazards
Potential cancer risk

Does Modern Equipment Prevent Perc Polution?

Limitations of Our Study

PART II: ANALYSIS OF REGULATORY POLICY OPTIONS

A CRITICAL REVIEW OF REGULATORY PROGRAMS
Federal Regulatory Programs
New York State Regulatory Programs
New York City Regulatory Programs
EVALUATION OF POLICY OPTIONS

Amending the Building Code

Water-Based Cleaning Processes

won

10

a fa

LS

LS

16

n by

2:

21

22


CONTENTS, Continued
Section Page

PART II, continued

Advanced Perc-Based Technology With

Increased Government Regulation 23
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF CONTROLS 24
Benefits of Controls 25
Costs of Controls 25
Impacts on Dry Cleaners 20
Impacts on Consumers 28

PART I: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CONCLUSIONS 32

RECOMMENDATIONS 32
FIGURES AND TABLES 35
REFERENCES 43
APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: Laboratories That Can Test for Perc
APPENDIX B: Useful Contacts on Perc Issues

APPENDIX C: About the Authors

a



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study and this report are the work of the authors
whose names appear on the title page. We are responsible for
the study's design and conduct, and for all the conclusions,
judgments, and interpretations in the report, including any
errors. Nevertheless, the study was assisted and supported in
Many ways by numerous people who gave generously of their time
and expertise, and we gratefully acknowledge their help.

Patricia Doyle of the Center for Occupational and Envi-
ronmental Health of Hunter College was our field technician,
and conducted most of the testing for perc in apartment air.

Bonnie Rice of Greenpeace and Eric Frumin of the Union of
Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees, and volunteers
from both organizations, distributed leaflets and assisted us
with outreach efforts to contact apartment residents. We give
special thanks to the residents of the apartments we tested,
who patiently answered our questions, gave us their precious
time, and even more patiently awaited test results. Without
their participation, the study would literally not have been
possible.

Many individuals with expert knowledge of aspects of the
problem provided technical support and information, for which
we are very grateful. They included Dale Hattis of the Center
for Technology, Environment and Development, Clark University;
Kim Thompson of the Harvard School of Public Health; the New
York Neighborhood Cleaners Association; Scott Lutz of the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District; George Alexeef of the
California Department of Health Services; Judith Schreiber of
the New York State Department of Health; Audrey Thier of the
New York State Legislative Commission on Toxic Substances;
Suzanne Mattei of the New York City Office of the Public
Advocate; and Lynn Goldman, Ohad Jehassi, James Cogliano, and
Lance Wallace of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

We thank R. David Pittle, Technical Director of Consumers
Union, and Dan Kass, Director of the Center for Occupational
and Enviromental Health of Hunter College, for their support
of the study while it was in progress and for their critical
and helpful comments on the manuscript of this report.

We also thank the Sherman Faundation, the Joyce Mertz-
Gilmore Foundation, the Robert Sterling Clark Foundation, the
New York Community Trust and the Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation
for their generous support of Consumers Union's work on toxic
air pollution in New York City.

skniGk



SUMMARY

Tests conducted by the New York State Health Department
in 1991 demonstrated that the air in apartments located above
dry cleaners is polluted with perchloroethylene (“perc; tor
short), the primary solvent used in dry cleaning. NYSDOH has
called this "a high risk environmental health problem." The
state has also established 100 micrograms of perc per cubic
meter of air (100 pg/m*) as a guideline for maximum safe long-
term public exposure to this pollutant.

In the NYSDOH study, the highest perc levels were found
in apartments above dry cleaners that had old-fashioned dry-
cleaning equipment; apartments above cleaners with more modern
"ary-to-dry" equipment had lower, although still rather high,
perc levels. In 1994, New York State concluded a negotiated-
rulemaking process which produced a proposal to require all
ary cleaners located in residential buildings to use modern
unvented, dry-to-dry machines. The proposal has not yet been
implemented by the Pataki administration.

Our study examined whether the use of modern dry-cleaning
equipment would produce acceptably low perc levels in the air
of residences located above the cleaners. We selected 12 dry
cleaners with modern, dry-to-dry machines, located in New York
City apartment buildings, and tested the air in 29 apartments
in those buildings for perc. We sampled for 24-hour periods,
on four different days, in each apartment.

We found that modern equipment does not prevent serious
perc pollution of apartments above dry cleaners. Twenty-four
of the 29 apartments had average perc levels above 100 pg/m’,
the state health guideline; eight apartments had average perc
levels above 1,000 pg/m®. The highest average perc level in
an individual apartment was 25,086 pg/m°. Exposure to perc at
the levels we found in many apartments we tested poses a clear
danger to the health of the apartments' residents.

Although perc pollution from dry cleaners in residential
buildings has been recognized as a significant public-health
problem for several years, to date local, state and Federal
governments have failed to solve the problem. These findings
suggest that the approach currently being pursued by New York
State, requiring all dry cleaners to install more modern dry-
cleaning equipment, will improve the situation above cleaners
with older equipment, but will not guarantee acceptably low
perc levels in apartments' air. We recommend that the New
York City building code be amended to prohibit dry cleaners
from operating in residential buildings. We also recommend
that people who live in apartments upstairs from a dry cleaner
get their air tested for perc.



INTRODUCTION

Perchloroethylene, known as "perc" for short, is the
solvent most dry cleaners use for normal cleaning. Perc has a
variety of toxic effects, which have been documented primarily
in studies of dry-cleaning workers and others exposed to perc
on the job. Excessive exposure to perc damages the central
nervous system’, the liver”, the kidneys®, and the reproductive
system‘'>, In animal studies, perc causes liver and kidney
damage’'*, effects on the nervous system®, and several types of
cancer®. The International Agency for Research on Cancer, an
expert body, recently reclassified perc as a “probable human
carcinogen"®, which means there are reliable studies of human
populations exposed to perc that show elevated cancer rates.

According to the New York State Department of Health (NYS
DOH), about 170,000 state residents are exposed to high perc
concentrations because they either live in apartments near a
dry cleaner or work in a building with a dry cleaner’. NYSDOH
has established a guideline for safe long-term exposure of the
general public to perc in air, based on non-cancer effects,
of 100 micrograms of perc per cubic meter of air (100 pug/m*) .
The California Air Resources Board reviewed the same evidence
and has set its state guideline for public perc exposure at an
even lower level, 35 ypg/m°.%*:1%

NYSDOH conducted the first major study of perc levels in
air in apartments above dry cleaners, in 1991. Ina series of
studies in the Albany and New York City areas, NYSDOH found
perc levels above the 100 yg/m*® health guideline in 39 of 40
buildings.’® Their tests found extremely high perc levels, up
to 197,000 pg/m°*, in apartments above dry cleaners with old-
fashioned “transfer" machines, in which clothes are shifted
from a washer to a separate dryer, allowing perc vapors to
escape into the air. Somewhat lower perc levels were measured
in apartments above cleaners with "dry-to-dry" machinery, in.
which both steps occur in a single chamber’®'**. There are two
types of dry-to-dry machines: older, "vented" machines, which
emit perc fumes into the air, and newer, "non-vented" machines
that condense and recycle solvent fumes during cleaning. The*
NYSDOH study found much lower perc levels in apartments above
modern non-vented dry-to-dry machines (6 to 1,910 ug/m?*) than
it did above vented machines (160 to 55,000 pg/m’) .*??

In a similar but more limited study, the (San Francisco)
Bay Area Air Quality Management District measured perc levels



of 2 to 1,231 ywg/m® in residential areas of buildings above
five dry cleaners with non-vented dry-to-dry machines.” The
potential for perc pollution of apartments exists wherever dry
cleaners are located in residential buildings. However, the
extent of this problem outside New York State has not yet been
well documented, and no estimate of the number of apartment
residents exposed to perc nationwide is available.

According to a NYSDOH survey, about 500 New York City dry
cleaners--more than a fourth of the City's total--are located
in residential buildings. Apartments in those buildings house
an estimated 70,000 people. Of those 500 cleaners, 34 percent
have old-fashioned transfer machines; 18 percent have vented
dry-to-dry machines; and the remaining 48 percent have modern,
non-vented dry-to-dry machines.?’

During 1993-94, the New York State Departments of Health
and of Environmental Conservation carried out a regulatory
negotiation process involving the state government, the dry-
cleaning industry, a labor union, and consumer and environ-
mental groups, seeking a consensus solution to the problem of
perc pollution in apartment buildings. Consumers Union's
Consumer Policy Institute took part in those negotiations as a
consumer representative. The process produced a proposal to
require that cleaners operating in residential buildings use
only non-vented dry-to-dry machines. As the DEC was preparing
to issue the proposed rule for public comment in January this
year, incoming Governor George Pataki imposed a moratorium on
all new regulations; as of this writing, the rule on dry
cleaners has not been formally proposed.

To explore whether requiring modern dry-cleaning machines
will reduce perc pollution in apartments to acceptable levels,
we measured perc in the air in apartments above cleaners that
are already using modern, non-vented equipment. Part I of
this report describes our test methods and results. Part II
reviews government regulatory programs, examines some policy
options, and looks at social and economic impacts of efforts
to control perc emissions. Part III presents our conclusions
and policy recommendations.



3d

CONCLUSIONS

Our study has confirmed and expanded on earlier work by
NYSDOH, which found that perc air pollution in apartments in
buildings where dry cleaners are located poses a hazard to the
health of residents. NYSDOH's study found the highest perc
levels above cleaners with older, outmoded equipment; ours
focused on cleaners with more modern dry cleaning equipment.
Our results show that, while modern technology generally does
produce lower perc levels in apartments than those produced
by the older machines, perc exposure in many apartments above
cleaners with newer machines still exceeds the state's health
guideline by a wide margin. In a 1992 letter to the EPA, the
NYSDOH said, "... our data suggest that even state of the art
control equipment may not adequately protect the many people
living in apartments adjacent to dry cleaners."** Our study
supports that hypothesis.

Our examination of federal, state and city regulatory
programs that address residential exposures to perc shows that
no level of government has effectively solved this problem.
The U.S. EPA has accomplished very little, although federal
leadership is urgently needed, both in scientific efforts to
document the problem and in the search for effective regula-
tory solutions. New York State has developed a complex regu-
latory approach, but the proposal has been held up for nearly
a year by the Pataki Administration, and as of this writing
has not yet been formally proposed for enactment. Our study
suggests, in fact, that even if it were enacted, the proposed
state approach would probably not adequately protect apartment
residents' health. New York City agencies have attempted to
address the problem with limited staff and resources, and have
had limited success. While local enforcement could be beefed
up and better targeted, the continuing problems we found with
perc pollution of apartments by cleaners intensively regulated
by City agencies seem to indicate that perc-based cleaning is
not compatible with residential buildings. Even extraordinary
agency oversight does not seem likely to protect public health
adequately.

In public policy debates over this issue, the interests
of dry cleaners have been ably represented by two major trade
associations, the Neighborhood Cleaners Association of New
York and the International Fabricare Institute, the industry's
national voice. The Halogenated Solvent Manu.acturers Associ-
ation, representing chemical companies that sell perc, is also
a player. The industry organizations have focused on avoiding
or mitigating adverse economic impacts on their members, which
of course is their appropriate role. The industry groups also



82

have tended to respond aggressively to adverse publicity about
perc pollution from dry cleaners. New York City's Office of
the Public Advocate (Mark Green), labor unions that represent
dry cleaning workers, the environmental advocacy organization
Greenpeace, a few other citizens' groups, and the media have
published reports”!:** warning consumers about perc's hazards,
and called for effective government action to protect public
health. As far as we know, however, no responsible government
agency has systematically sought to identify people exposed to
high perc levels in apartments above dry cleaners, to inform
them of the potential hazards of perc, or to determine their
exposure and evaluate their health.

Based on this study, we conclude that New York State's
impending proposal for a technology-based regulatory approach
to prevent perc pollution in residential buildings will not do
enough to solve the problem. Additional sound, effective and
less costly approaches are also needed.

RECOMMENDATIONS

(1) New York City should amend its building code to prohibit
perc-based dry cleaning operations in residential buildings.
Such a change would bring the City's code into conformance
with the State code, which, under law, it is required to be.
In our judgment, this approach is the most effective and is
probably the most economically efficient way to reduce perc
exposure to acceptable levels. We urge that attention be paid
to this policy option, and that efforts not focus only on the
better-technology-and-more-regulatory-oversight model about to
be proposed at the state level. Dry cleaners that operate as
drop-off centers should be exempted from the ban, although air
monitoring should be conducted to verify that such facilities
produce safe perc levels in nearby apartments. Cleaners that
employ a water-based process should also be exempt from a ban.
To mitigate economic impacts, existing perc-based facilities
could be given a grace period to relocate or convert to perc-
free operations.

(2) As long as perc-based dry cleaners remain in residential
buildings, under any planned regulatory approach, the New York
City Department of Health and the Department of Environmental
Protection should use their authority more aggressively. DOH
needs to take a more proactive regulatory approach. It should
inspect dry cleaners without waiting for a citizen complaint,
and should test the air for perc in apartments above cleaners,
using methods that detect levels near the state health guide-



33

line of 100 yg/m®. NYCDOH should also develop an inspection
protocol that targets dry cleaners for periodic, unannounced
visits, perhaps similar to its current inspection program for
food establishments. During the same transitional period, the
NYCDEP should evaluate dry cleaning operations for fugitive
emissions, and should not renew permits for facilities where
leaks or maintenance deficiencies create a clear potential for
pollution of nearby apartments.

(3) New York State should provide financial and technical
support to the New York City agencies that must manage perc
pollution problems. Most of the State's dry cleaners located
in residential buildings are in New York City. It is only
fair that part of the taxes City residents pay to the state be
earmarked for this City public health program.

(4) The Pataki Administration should formally propose the
negotiated rule on perc from dry cleaners, and open it up to
public comment. Our study suggests that modern dry cleaning
equipment will not fully protect building residents' health.
Nevertheless, the rulemaking process should go ahead, so that
NYSDEC can evaluate whether additional measures are necessary
to protect public health, and whether alternatives to its
proposed approach may be more effective, less costly, or both.

(5) Owners and managers of dry cleaners currently located in

residential buildings should seriously consider changing to a

drop-off store, converting to a water-based process, or moving
to a commercial or industrial building. These options may be

less costly to the cleaners, and more effective from a public

health standpoint than upgraded perc-based cleaning methods.

(6) State and City policymakers should develop means to offer
financial assistance to dry cleaners who must make changes to
eliminate perc pollution. Assistance should be available for
investment in water-based cleaning processes and conversion to
drop-off operations. Incentives should favor these approaches
because they are more likely to achieve the goal, preventing
perc pollution in apartments, than are new, low-emission perc-
based cleaning systems.

(7) Landlords of residential buildings.should neither grant
nor renew leases to on-premises dry cleaners using perc-based
cleaning methods. Landlords whose buildings currently have a
perc-based dry cleaning operation in them should assist tenant
efforts to get apartment air tested for perc, and demand that
the cleaner take action if levels are above 100 yg/m’.

(8) Tenants living above dry cleaners should have the air in



34

their apartments tested for perc. To get a reasonable average
estimate, we recommend that testing be done on at least three
separate days. The appropriate test method is known as NYSDOH
Method 311-19; a list of NYSDOH-approved laboratories that can
do the testing is appended to this report. If a tenant files
an odor complaint with NYSDOH, the agency will inspect the dry
cleaner and test the apartment's air for perc, although tests
may not be done on multiple days. To learn about inspections
and enforcement actions related to the dry cleaner in their
building, tenants can file a freedom of information request
with NYCDOH and NYCDEP.

(9) NYSDOH and NYCDOH should prepare educational materials
and conduct outreach programs to inform residents about the
public-health implications of dry cleaner emissions. Signs or
fact sheets containing this information should be required to
be posted in the lobby or another central location in residen-
tial buildings that contain perc-using dry cleaners.

(10) The U.S. EPA should aggressively address the problem of
dry cleaning emissions that pollute apartments, nationwide.
EPA should determine the national extent of this problem, and
follow through with its research on the economic and technical
feasibility of alternative cleaning methods. EPA can also add
substantial scientific weight to state and local regulatory
efforts by completing its long-awaited risk assessment for
perc exposure. And to abate public health hazards that are
not being effectively addressed by the states and cities, EPA
needs to promulgate national regulations that will eliminate
this problem.