The Public's Health Gets Taken to the Cleaners
- By Laurie Earl
- Oct 01, 2007
How many Americans realize as they’re pumping gas
into their cars that in most states a small fraction of
the price per gallon (usually a fraction of a penny) is
directed to a government-administered program to clean up
pollution from leaking underground tanks? There are no signs
on the pumps, no coverage in the mainstream media – these
programs go virtually unnoticed. How ironic that arguably the
single most effective environmental program, a program that
has resulted in the remediation of tens of thousands of petroleum
spills across the country, exists in anonymity. It isn’t surprising,
then, that we remain ignorant of the second most substantial
threat to our drinking water resources — releases of
dangerous chemicals by dry cleaners.
That fuel contamination funding programs are active in
most states owes to a couple of simple facts. First, they are
equitable — the fees to remedy the pollution are paid by the
people who benefit from the product — so if you don’t buy
gas, you don’t pay a fee. Second, the programs work — the
volume of gasoline consumed is staggering, and as such even
a fee of a fraction of a cent per gallon generates a substantial
sum. This cleanup funding mechanism, coupled with improvements
in tank construction and monitoring, has removed
leaking fuel tanks from our list of urgent environmental concerns.
The problem posed by dry-cleaning chemicals, however,
remains unaddressed.
Unbeknownst to many, the dry-cleaning process isn’t dry at
all; it simply uses non-water-based solvents to clean garments.
The earliest process chemistry relied on refined petroleum
products, such as kerosene. The flammability of the earliest
fluids, however, motivated the development of a substitute,
and in the 1940s the industry developed the chlorinated solvent
perchloroethylene (perc), which remains the predominant
chemical used by dry cleaners today.
Promoting Cleanups
of Dry-cleaner Sites The State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners was
established in 1998, with support from the EPA Office of
Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation. It is
comprised of representatives of the 13 states with established
dry-cleaner remediation programs. SRCD provides a
forum for interested parties to share programmatic, technical,
and environmental information to improve the remediation of
dry-cleaner sites. The SRCD website contains links to individual
state programs and implementing legislation, as well as
to a wide variety of technical resources and case studies.
Visit SRCD at www.drycleancoalition.org. |
While of utility to the dry-cleaning process, perc, unfortunately,
has been established by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to be a potential carcinogen. Its degradation
product, vinyl-chloride, is a known carcinogen. In addition
to the potential hazard posed by perc to dry-cleaner workers,
perc can migrate through concrete floors and has the
propensity to leak from sanitary sewer mains. Perc releases
from dry cleaners and consequent contamination of groundwater
resources are very common. EPA has established a maximum
contaminant level (MCL) of 5 parts per billion (ppb) for
perc in groundwater.
Just as gasoline is no longer stored in unsafe tanks, the drycleaning
industry is slowly moving towards the use of moreenvironmentally friendly garment cleaning techniques (carbon
dioxide and water-based cleaning systems) and dry-cleaning
equipment that does not discharge waste solvent to the
environment (closed-loop systems). The evolution has been in
part motivated by legislation — for example, a law enacted in
California in January 2007 phases out the use of perc and legislates
a complete ban by 2023. Financial incentives have also
been established to help business owners (most dry cleaners
are small independent businesses) pay for the replacement of
older equipment with non-perc cleaning machines.
While recognizing advances in the development of alternatives,
what remains unaddressed is the damage that has been
done and will continue to be incurred for the decades that pass
before the chemical is completely phased out. There are
approximately 27,000 perc-based dry cleaners operating in
the United States today. Additionally, there probably are at
least as many properties that have been operated as dry cleaners
in the past. Estimates have pegged the percentage of cleaners
that have leaked or released perc into the environment at
approximately 75 percent. When considered in its totality, the
universe of potentially perc-contaminated property and the
risk to human health and the environment is substantial.
Why Perc Releases From Dry Cleaners
Remains Largely Unaddressed
In a California study referenced by the California Air Resources
Board (CARB) in 2005, one water supply well in every ten tested
was shown to contain dry-cleaning solvents. One in ten. A
2006 national study by the United States Geological Survey
found 5 percent of wells tested (both domestic and municipal
supply wells) to contain the solvents. This is no small frequency,
this is epidemic. Yet only 13 states have seen fit to implement a
program similar to the extremely successful underground tank
contamination response program. How can this be?
Lack of a Strong Political Lobby
Unfortunately perhaps, progressive environmental policy doesn’t
always flow from the obvious need to do good. The success
of the underground tank funding programs owes in large part
to the work by major oil companies and industry advocates
who recognized the enormous financial liability posed by leaking
tanks. The dry-cleaning lobby, due largely to the fact that most dry cleaners are small independent businesses, is not as
strong, and has been unable or unwilling in most states to gain
the political traction necessary to win the results achieved by
the oil lobbies.
“Corporate Polluters Must Pay” Mentality
Many environmental advocates remain wed to the notion that
only the large corporate interests should be held responsible
for environmental degradation caused by their products. The
cost to clean must be exclusively borne by these corporations;
the small businesses that elected to use (and spill) the product
and the consumers that demand the service should not be
held accountable. To these passionate people a solution that
does not exact punishment against the manufacturers of the
chemicals is unacceptable.
It’s a Tax
Politicians and their advisors are deathly afraid of anything
that resembles a tax. Regardless of the fact that a fee levied on
a product, paid only by those who use the product, and directed
exclusively to a program to administer a cure for the damage
caused by the product is not by definition a tax, it looks enough
like one to motivate the politically timid to do … nothing.
Dry Cleaners Complain “It Will Put Me out of Business”
This is the call to arms heard from small business owners who
believe that a per-garment surcharge will lessen the demand
for their services. This is a legitimate concern, though a program
thoughtfully enacted (as observed in the 13 states with
programs – see sidebar), can accomplish its environmental
objectives without putting anybody out of work.
The businesses
that may find themselves with less work are those that prefer
to remain out of the public view. These are the entities that
profit from environmental litigation. The establishment of a
program to address dry-cleaning chemical pollution en masse
would significantly lessen the need for this type of contamination-
driven lawsuit. And those who profit from the lawsuits
have a vested interest in seeing a progressive solution kept sidelined
for as long as possible.
Regulators Worry “It Will Put Dry Cleaners out of Business”
This sentiment is actually an indirect reason for the lack of
consistent state to state funding programs. It doesn’t pertain to
a program per se, it’s a belief held by environmental regulators
charged with the enforcement of environmental laws. Regulators
are often reluctant to pursue vigorous enforcement of
releases from dry cleaners – because they believe enforcement
will put the dry cleaners out of business. This compassion is
well-meaning and in the short term protects the lives and livelihoods
of the families that own the cleaners. But in the long
run the lack of vigorous enforcement has the larger problem
seem less severe than it truly is; were dry cleaners folding
under the financial pressure of needed cleanup it is certain that
the clamor for relief would be heard.
A New Approach
Economists refer to environmental costs that flow from drycleaning
chemicals and gasoline (and myriad other products)
as “externalities.” These are expenses associated with a product
or a practice that are ultimately incurred, not necessarily by
the product’s manufacturer or user, but by the general public
or the environment. These are expenses whose cost is not factored
into the product’s price, and for which no mechanism
exists for convenient allocation. Externalities exist because of
the lack of immediate connection between the product and the
damage it causes. Once a connection is made, an accommodation
can be crafted, either through legislation that requires
“cradle to grave” product responsibility, or through a levy program
such as that applied to the underground storage tank
externality.
Some will protest that the manufacturer must bear ultimate
responsibility, that the profit associated with bringing a dangerous
chemical to the market should be diminished such that
all externalities are internalized, or back-charged to the chemical’s first developer. In the case of dry-cleaning solvent, such
an argument may be specious, as the hazards associated with
the chemical have been known by its users and by environmental
regulators for many years.
At the end of the day, though, what do these arguments
really prove? At the end of the day the consumer pays; the
consumer always pays. If the externality of human health
and the environment had been incorporated into the price of
the dry-cleaning solvent at its point of manufacture, the
expense would have been secondarily reflected in the price of
cleaning the garments. The fact is clear — the consumer has
thus far been buying the dry-cleaning service at a discount.
Every customer of a dry cleaner that uses or used perc has
paid a bill that did not include the cost to human health and
the environment. These charges have been accruing, are now
overdue, and there is no resource available to pay the bill.
The confluence of opinion, indifference and vested interest
has thus far blocked the implementation of a simple, inexpensive
and proven-effective approach to environmental protection
in most states. At what cost? As the years pass, the drinking
water resources contaminated by these chemicals increase
in number. At a time when changing weather patterns have
mountain snowpacks diminished and overproduction has
depleted the great American aquifers to a shadow of their
original selves, the availability and sustainability of water
resources in some areas is called into question.
Groundwater
resources are increasingly precious commodities — we ignore
the threat to these resources, and elect to avoid a simple measure
to increase their quality and protection, at our own peril.
It is imperative that the states without programs work now
to craft legislation necessary for the overdue solution to this
pressing problem. The legislation won’t be new or bold, and
won’t necessarily be without early opposition, as those who
perceive their interests threatened will throw up hurdles and
smokescreens in an attempt to move the undertaking off
course.
A tally of the beneficiaries, however, demonstrates
that the measure will engender broad support, and, once the
fires of obfuscation burn out, the path to an extremely positive
legislative undertaking will be visibly clear.
This article originally appeared in the 10/01/2007 issue of Environmental Protection.
About the Author
Laurie Earl, JD, is a Jones Day associate who provided substantial assistance with this article. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Jones Day.