It’s Time to Get Toxic Chemicals Out Of Dry Cleaning

January 22, 2019

January 22, 2019


Today’s Guest Blog is by Steve Whittaker and Ashley Pedersen with the Local Hazardous Waste Management Program in King County, Washington. The article was originally posted in Environmental Health News on December 13, 2018.


Perchloroethylene, a probable human carcinogen, remains the most frequently-used solvent for dry cleaning. It's time to help the industry change—and our county is doing just that.


When perchloroethylene (PERC) was introduced to the dry cleaning industry in the 1930s, it must have seemed like a miracle solvent.

It cleans clothes well and – most importantly – it is nonflammable. This is in contrast to the previous solvents, like Stoddard solvent, gasoline, turpentine, and even benzene. Because the use of these flammable solvents resulted in catastrophic fires and explosions, government regulations forced dry cleaners to move out of highly populated areas. With the advent of PERC, dry cleaners could move back to population centers, where the customers were.


The dry cleaning industry provided a unique opportunity for a whole generation of immigrants. A 2011 survey indicated that in King County, Washington, for instance, more than 80% of dry cleaning business owners emigrated from South Korea. For many of these immigrants, dry cleaning was the ideal business. They readily grasped the complexity of the dry cleaning process and were able to build successful businesses through hard work.


Unfortunately, very few are aware of the health risks associated with a lifetime of using a hazardous chlorinated solvent.


Old machines, hazardous exposures 


The earliest dry cleaning technology used "transfer machines," where fabrics washed in PERC were manually transferred to dryers while still wet. The exposures to PERC were massive, and several epidemiological studies suggest excess risk for cancer and adverse effects on the nervous system, kidneys, liver, immune system and the hematologic (blood) system.


Although transfer machines are now banned in the United States and replaced with enclosed "dry-to-dry" machines, we still see PERC exposures. In King County, most PERC machines are more than 20 years old, which is past their operational lifespan of 15 years. These old machines are leaking. We have measured hundreds of parts per million of PERC in the ambient air of dry cleaners.


Workers are also exposed to PERC when they remove fabrics from the machine, handle their hazardous waste, and deal with accidental spills.


Here in King County, the Local Hazardous Waste Management Program has provided technical assistance to the dry cleaning community for more than 20 years.


When we considered the legacy of PERC's effects on health and the environment, we realized that we needed to get PERC out of dry cleaning.


There are almost 200 sites in King County contaminated with PERC. In addition, some of our local communities draw their drinking water from shallow aquifers, which contain detectable levels of PERC. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently evaluating PERC for possible restriction, so we recognized an opportunity to help dry cleaners switch to safer alternatives – and avoid "regrettable substitutes" – ahead of potential federal regulations.


Making the switch


Several jurisdictions have already taken steps to remove PERC dry cleaning machines from circulation. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) passed a regulation in 2007 phasing-out PERC dry cleaning by 2023. The Cities of Philadelphia and Minneapolis have also passed phase-outs.


Other jurisdictions have given tech and financial support to help dry cleaners switch to safer alternatives, including Massachusetts (via the Toxics Use Reduction Institute), New York State, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, and the City of Minneapolis.

We engaged our dry cleaning community to find out what it would take to help them switch. We worked with leaders in the Korean-American community to host meetings of the local dry cleaning association, facilitated focus groups, and conducted numerous interviews with dry cleaners – all in Korean. We learned that cost was the single greatest barrier to replacing old PERC machines with safer technology.


In 2018, we began offering $20,000 equipment reimbursement grants to help dry cleaners replace their PERC machines with professional wet cleaning, which relies on water and detergent, rather than an organic solvent.


The latest generation of professional wet cleaning is an integrated system, comprised of a programmable washer, a moisture-sensing dryer, and specialized detergents and conditioners that allow any "dry clean only" fabric to be washed in water.


So far, we have provided grants to seven dry cleaners — and all seven are no longer inhaling PERC. Some workers are reporting significant improvements in their health. Shop owners are also saving money because they no longer generate hazardous waste and their utility bills are much lower.


Our goal is to make King County PERC-free by 2025 by offering 10 grants of $20,000 per year.

Providing grants to small businesses is a positive step in helping eliminate dangerous chemical exposures that impact the health and environment in our communities.


Ashley Pedersen and Steve Whittaker are with the Local Hazardous Waste Management Program in King County, Washington, where they manage the county's financial incentive program to transition PERC dry cleaners to safer alternatives.


LHWMP is a regional collaboration between Public Health - Seattle & King County, King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Seattle Public Utilities, and suburban cities in King County.


Environmental Health News publication of Environmental Health Sciences, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to driving science into public discussion and policy on environmental health issues, including climate change. The article is reprinted by permission.



Disclaimer: Guest blogs represent the opinion of the writers and may not reflect the policy or position of the Northeast Recycling Council, Inc.

Share Post

May 28, 2025
Waste Advantage NERC’s Material Recovery Facilities (MRF) Commodity Values Survey Report for the period January – March 2025 showed a slight jump in the average commodity prices for Q1. The average value of all commodities increased by 9% without residuals to $102.34 and 8% with residuals to $89.62, as compared to last quarter. Single stream increased by 12% without residuals and 11% with residuals, while dual stream/source separated increased by 10% without residuals and 9% with residuals compared to last quarter. The average percentage for outbound tons marketed per commodity in calendar year 2024 showed decreases for all commodities as compared to 2022, except for polypropylene and bulky rigids, which increased by 40% and 29%, respectively. We also see an increase in mixed glass and residue, as compared to 2022, by 31% and 8%, respectively, further offsetting the decreases in marketed commodity percentages across the board. Notably, green, brown, and clear glass had the largest fall with clear glass decreasing by 77%. Changes in calculation methodology may affect these trends. Percentages are derived from tonnages reported for calendar year 2024 as opposed to percentage breakdowns in previous years. This is the 24th quarterly report in NERC’s series of reports on the market value of commodities from MRFs in the Northeast. This report includes information from 19 MRFs representing twelve (12) states: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia. These survey results reflect the differing laws and collection options in the participating states. Five of the states included in this report have beverage container deposit laws. As a result, fewer glass bottles, PET bottles and aluminum cans are processed in MRFs in those states. Those MRFs are also likely to have less revenue from those recyclables. In addition, the report reflects a mix of single stream, dual stream, and source separation to collect recyclables with single stream being the most common approach. The type of collection used will have an impact on MRF design and operation. Thus, the data from this report reflects the unique blend of facilities and statewide laws in the reporting states. Residual refers to the incoming material that cannot be marketed and goes to disposal. The value without residuals reflects the value of a perfect ton of marketed material, while the value with residuals reflects the value of each ton processed with the costs associated of disposing unmarketable material. Note: In many cases, recovered glass goes to market but at a negative value. This data is not intended to be used as a price guide for MRF contracts. NERC’s database represents single and dual stream MRFs, states with and without beverage container deposits, a wide variety in markets and geographic access to markets, and variety of materials collected for processing at the participating facilities. As a result, it represents the diversity of operating conditions in these locations and should not be used as a price guideline for a specific program. For more information, contact Megan Schulz-Fontes, Executive Director, at megan@nerc.org or visit www.nerc.org .
By Megan Fontes May 22, 2025
2024 Average Percentage of Outbound Tons Marketed per Commodity Published; New Format: Report Includes Q1 2025 Individual Commodity Average Prices
By Antoinette Smith April 1, 2025
In recent years, the recycling industry has seen negative media coverage that has not only perpetuated myths but also contributed to public mistrust of collection and recycling – and ultimately could be contributing to lower collection rates. To help counteract the misinformation, the Maryland Recycling Network presented a March 27 webinar featuring Gretchen Carey, president at MassRecycle, and Chaz Miller of Miller Recycling Associates. Misinformation about recycling was merely “background noise” to Carey until October 2022, when Greenpeace published a scathing report about the failings of plastic recycling. Soon NPR and The Boston Globe picked up the story and compounded the issue with statements like “not even plastic water bottles are recyclable,” Carey said, calling this “a patent lie.” Carey and her colleagues were “crushed,” but after overcoming her initial anger, she reached out to NPR and the Globe to rebut the story. She also tried to get other local publications to publish her written response to the negative coverage but was rebuffed. Seeing that these efforts weren’t going far, MassRecycle invited members of the media and the general public on MRF tours at several sites in Massachusetts and Connecticut. Providing real-time evidence of recycling infrastructure helped industry outsiders step out of the echo chamber and hear a contrasting perspective, Carey said in the webinar. “You can talk the game, but them seeing for themselves is the important part,” she explained. During the tours, the public attendees learned that throwing away recyclables deprives the community of valuable commodities, she said, and that state guidelines restrict what can be put in the landfill. Carey added that the tours brought home the message by explaining that recycled materials need a consistent end market to justify collection and processing. For example, Ardagh closed its glass bottling facility in Massachusetts in 2018. The closure eliminated a key end market for recycled glass and caused collector Strategic Materials to stop taking local recovered glass. Local MRFs subsequently lost that revenue stream. When residents don’t trust recycling infrastructure, they put fewer items in their curbside bins, and ultimately paper, metals and glass wind up as collateral damage, Miller said. So it’s vital to make sure the public knows where their recyclables and that end markets exist to use these materials. Read the full article.
More Posts