TL: CHLORINE-FREE Vol.3, No.1 SO: Greenpeace (GP) DT: May 23, 1994 Keywords: environment toxics chlorine health / Spring 1994 "Hell has no fury like a congressman who discovers he's not the man he thought he was." - Last line of a Newsweek article (March 21, 1994) reporting on recent evidence linking chlorinated and other chemical pollutants to shrinking penises and falling sperm counts. ------------------------- CONTENTS: MYTHS OF THE CHLOROPHILE: Facts Supporting a Chlorine Phase-out, by Jay Palter WEDO AND GREENPEACE LAUNCH NATIONAL CAMPAIGN ON WOMEN'S HEALTH, by Joan D'Argo TOXIC DRY CLEANING IN YOUR BACKYARD, by Bonnie Rice CHLORINE-FREE WORLD NEWS ------------------------- Editor: Jay Palter Contributors: Joan D'Argo, Bonnie Rice, Mark Floegel, Joe Thornton, Thomas Belazzi, Wytze van der Naald CHLORINE-FREE is a publication of Greenpeace's international Chlorine-Free campaign. For more information, contact: Greenpeace, 185 Spadina Ave., Toronto, ON M5T 2C6 ph. (416)345-8408 fax (416)345-8422 Greenpeace, 847 W. Jackson, Chicago, IL 60607 ph. (312)563-6060 fax (312)563-6099 MYTHS OF THE CHLOROPHILE: Facts Supporting a Chlorine Phase-out by Jay Palter, et al.* ------------------------- All over this planet, chlorine-based poisons are increasingly being identified as root causes of ecological destruction -- from ozone depletion, to food contamination, to immune failure and infertility in wildlife and humans. A growing number of public health, scientific and political bodies are calling for the phase-out of chlorine-based poisons and the industrial processes that create them. In the past two years, the American Public Health Association, the International Joint Commission on the Great Lakes, and four major international conventions have added their voices to the chorus of calls to phase out chlorine. In response, the chemical industry and other chlorophiles [1] can be heard repeating a series of myths -- about the chlorination of drinking water, naturally occurring toxins, chemical-by-chemical proof of harm as "good science", chlorine- based pulp bleaching and PVC plastic -- all in defense of maintaining the production of chlorine-based chemicals. In exposing and refuting the mythology of the chlorophile, it is clear that the chemical industry has utterly failed to offer compelling arguments for why an orderly economic transition away from chlorine chemistry should not occur. ------------------------- THE MYTH OF UNSAFE DRINKING WATER Phasing out chlorine means that public health will be threatened by waterborne diseases. The chlorophile claims that 20,000 people died of cholera after drinking water chlorination ceased in Peru. ------------------------ Chlorine-free advocates recommend the use of SAFE drinking water disinfection, NOT no disinfection, as the chemical industry implies. Hundreds of communities around the world (among them Paris, Amsterdam and Munich) are already providing safe, chlorine-free water using ultraviolet light, ozone, or filtration-based disinfection. The cholera epidemic in Peru was caused by the lack of proper sanitation, making any satisfactory purification of drinking water impossible [2]. In fact, one study of the cholera virus that caused the Peru epidemic found that it was resistant to chlorine disinfection [3]. Chlorinating drinking water replaces one type of serious public health problem with another. Instead of waterborne infectious diseases, chemically induced diseases such as cancer, birth defects, and other effects associated with chlorination by- products in our drinking water are harming public health. Increasingly, chlorination systems are neither regarded as practical nor effective for developing countries, particularly in rural settings. Chlorine may remain necessary only for episodes of emergency contamination. These would be far less common if developing nations were provided adequate resources to install infrastructures to provide safe, chlorine-free drinking water and to adequately treat sewage. Despite the existence of safe and effective alternatives, water chlorination only accounts for about one percent of total chlorine use and would not be at the top of any priority list for phasing out major polluting uses of chlorine. ----------------------------------- THE MYTH OF "NATURAL" DIOXIN AND OTHER INDUSTRIAL ORGANOCHLORINES Some studies have found as many as 1,500 organohalogens ("halogens" include chlorine, bromine, fluorine and iodine) are produced in nature. These and other "natural" sources of organochlorines, such as dioxin from wood-burning, are used by the chlorophile to justify the industrial generation and ecological effects of dioxin and all other organochlorines. ----------------------------------- A number of organochlorines are produced naturally, mostly by algae and fungi. However, only the simplest organochlorine -- chloromethane -- is produced in significant quantities and Lovelock has suggested that this chemical is involved in the delicate regulation of the stratospheric ozone layer [4]. While far in excess of human-made quantities, naturally occurring chloromethane represents a minor contribution to total chlorine levels in the stratosphere. The two major ozone depleting substances are still the human-made CFC-11 and CFC-12 [5]. Other naturally occurring organochlorines are produced by organisms only in TINY quantities -- precisely because of their toxicity -- for use as natural pesticides, antibiotics, and chemical defenses. Most importantly, no organochlorines whatsoever are known to occur naturally in the tissues of people, mammals, terrestrial vertebrates and other higher species. Yet, hundreds of industrial organochlorines are now accumulating in our tissues [6]. Many dioxin sources characterized as "natural" or non- industrial, such as wood-burning, actually originate in the chemical industry. Dioxins and furans are almost completely absent in tissue samples from ancient Chilean mummies and Inuits -- people from cultures that did extensive indoor wood- burning and would have been highly exposed to wood smoke. If dioxin formation is associated with wood-burning today, it is related to extensive chlorinated pesticide use in modern forestry and global chlorine pollution of forests. According to one scientific review, "In ancient human tissue, frozen over 100 years ago, as in silt samples from lakes corresponding to time periods associated with less-chlorinated synthetic chemicals, very little if any chlorinated dioxins or dibenzofurans can be detected, suggesting that most chlorinated dioxins found at present are relatively new and derive from other chlorinated synthetic chemicals." [7] Attempts to date to ascribe sources to the high levels of dioxin found in the environment usually account for only around 10 percent of dioxin, primarily from combustion sources. [8] Table 1 lists known industrial sources of dioxin that are often omitted from dioxin source inventories. Despite the chemical industry's attempts to "naturalize" their poisons, the global build-up of organochlorine pollutants in the environment and the food chain appears as a recent phenomenon caused by the rise of industrial chlorine chemistry in the twentieth century. --------------------------------------------------------- TABLE 1 -- KNOWN INDUSTRIAL SOURCES OF DIOXIN * Production of chlorine by mercury cell * Production of vinyl chloride monomer * Processes involving chlorophenols * Processes involving pentachlorophenol * Production of organochlorine pesticides (2,4-D, 2,4,5-T, lindane) * Processes involving aromatic organochlorines * Processes involving aliphatic organochlorines * Production, use and incineration of PCBs * Chlorine-based pulp bleaching processes * Magnesium smelting * Nickel smelting * Scrap metal smelting * Steel smelting * Copper wire recycling * Dry cleaning processes using perchloroethylene ---------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- THE MYTH THAT CHEMICAL-BY-CHEMICAL PROOF OF HARM IS "GOOD SCIENCE" Chlorophiles claim that phasing out chlorine-based chemicals as a class is unwarranted since only individual "bad actor" compounds may pose a problem (if any exists). CanTox Consultants, working for the U.S. Chlorine Institute, have presented four so-called "scientific principles", asserting this position: 1. It is unscientific to regulate organochlorines as a class because each compound has specific chemical and biological behavior. 2. Each chemical has a no-effect threshold. 3. Organisms can accommodate and detoxify low doses of toxic chemicals. 4. Causal linkages between individual chemicals and health effects must be plausible and specifically proven for each compound. [9] -------------------------------------------- Responding to each of the four CanTox "principles," Dr. David Ozonoff, Environmental Health Department chairperson at the Boston University School of Public Health, has summarized: "Even on cursory examination, we can see that these so-called principles are either empty of meaning or amount only to assertions, not principles." [10] 1. While it is obvious that each chemical is different, there are several good reasons -- that are more relevant to preventive environmental and public health policy -- for treating organochlorine poisons as a class. First, this class of chemicals tends to be persistent, toxic, and/or bioaccumulative. "This is not a generally benign set of compounds with a few bad actors, but a problematic group, from the public health point of view," according to Ozonoff. Second, most of the thousands of chlorinated chemicals in commerce have not been adequately tested. Since we know that there is a high probability that untested members of this class will turn out to pose a hazard to public health, there is good scientific reason to consider organochlorines harmful until proven safe. On this basis, the American Public Health Association has recommended that this class of compounds be phased out, with individual exceptions to be made upon proof of safety. [11] Third, organochlorines are produced in complex mixtures in virtually all processes that involve chlorine. Preventing the production of chlorine and its use in processes that create organochlorines is more effective than trying to control each chemical individually. 2. The CanTox assertion of a "no-effect" threshold is simply incorrect. It is generally accepted by the scientific community that there is no determinable threshold for carcinogens. Biological mechanisms like normal cell division amplify genetic damage. This is also a factor with birth defects, immune system damage and nervous system effects. During sensitive periods of development, tiny exposures to organochlorines can cause hormonal disruptions that trigger a cascade of biological effects. Scientists working on USEPA's dioxin reassessment have recently concluded that there does not appear to be any safe dose for dioxin. [12] Even if individual chemicals did have a threshold, the cumulative exposure to hundreds of compounds -- each below its "safe" level -- can combine to cause an effect. Thus, the existence of thresholds has little practical value for preventive environmental regulations or health protection. 3. Another assertion of doubtful validity is the claim that organisms can safely accommodate and detoxify toxic chemicals. "While we do indeed have detoxifying mechanisms, we also know that often it is these very mechanisms which are the root of the trouble, as when a detoxifying mechanism actually changes a non- carcinogen to a carcinogen," according to Ozonoff. Further, the body has no known method for effectively detoxifying dioxin. 4. Requiring proof that an individual chemical has harmed human health before preventive action can be taken is unscientific, unethical and contrary to the principles of public health, such as the primacy of disease prevention. Since we are exposed to thousands of toxins that cause additive or multiplicative effects on human health, there is no way for epidemiologists to trace health effects back to an individual chemical. The link between organochlorines and widespread harm is highly plausible, since these chemicals are known to cause a wide range of health effects in both animals and humans, including genetic mutations, hormonal disruptions, metabolic changes, cancer, birth defects, developmental abnormalities, behavioural dysfunction, and immune suppression. ------------------------ THE MYTH THAT CHLORINE-BASED BLEACHING IS "SAFE" Paper industry officials claim that wastewater from pulp mills bleaching without chlorine is as toxic to fish as pollution from mills that use chlorine, based on a Canadian studies which used elevated levels of a fish liver enzyme (EROD) as an indicator of toxicity. Chlorophiles use these studies to claim that the toxic effects of pulp mill effluent on fish are not caused by organochlorine discharges (some postulate instead a mystery substance, Chemical X, as the culprit) and that efforts to eliminate chlorine from pulp mills is misdirected. ------------------------ It is well known that organochlorines are not the only toxic compounds in pulp mill effluent, but that fact in no way minimizes the hazards of organochlorines. In fact, the Canadian researchers acknowledge that damage to fish and other aquatic species is most severe from mills using large amounts of chlorine and less severe when chlorine is reduced, while the Swedish Environment/Cellulose Project makes very clear that damage is least severe when no chlorine is used at all. [13] The Canadian data in no way alleviates the need to phase-out all chlorine use in the paper industry for several reasons. First, ecological concern surrounding chlorine-based bleaching in pulp mills is based a large body of scientific evidence linking the resulting organochlorine pollution and reproductive, developmental, immunological, and hormonal toxicity in wildlife and humans. The Canadian study does not address these effects and, hence, in no way undermines the need to prevent organochlorine formation by eliminating chlorine-based bleaching. Second, the EROD fish liver enzyme is a highly variable indicator of ecological effects that responds to many factors other than chemical stimuli, i.e., changes in water temperature or the reproductive condition of a fish. [14] Using EROD comparisons to draw sweeping conclusions about chemical toxicity are indefensible in the absence of controls on all other EROD- related factors. Third, in some of the experiments, researchers manipulated pulp mill effluents to remove the most toxic chemicals (low molecular weight portion), testing instead with the less toxic (high molecular weight portion) of mill effluents. Over time in the environment, however, these large molecules are transformed into more toxic, lower-weight molecules. Using the least toxic fraction of organochlorine effluents as a basis to conclude that the entire effluent is non- toxic is clearly indefensible. Finally and most significantly, the Canadian data confirms that pulp mills generate toxic effluents, including organochlorines, that can only be eliminated by designing mills that discharge no effluent. Eliminating chlorine -- which is highly corrosive to piping -- is a necessary first step toward "closed-loop" pulp mill technology. -------------------- THE MYTH OF PVC Chlorophiles claim that PVC (polyvinyl chloride) conserves energy and resources and is recyclable. They claim that PVC does not increase dioxin emissions from municipal waste incinerators and PVC fires do not generate more dioxins than wood or fuel fire residues. -------------------- One-third of the world's total production of chlorine is used to make PVC. PVC is composed of ethylene, a non-renewable petroleum derivative, and up to 60 percent chlorine. PVC products serve an important function for the chemical industry; they act as a "sink" for dumping the excess chlorine that results from the electrolytic production of caustic soda from salt. Both chlorine and ethylene production are extremely energy intensive. For instance, chlorine production alone accounts for one quarter of all the energy consumed by the German chemical industry (or two percent of the total national energy demand). Energy costs make up as much as 75 percent of the fixed costs of producing chlorine. [15] Thousands of toxic and energy intensive additives are also required to render PVC pliable, stable, or resistant to degradation. PVC is harmful to the environment during its production and use, in cases of fires, and because numerous toxic additives are used to give PVC specific physical properties. [16] A recent study by the Tellus Institute concluded that the environmental impacts associated with the PVC lifecycle are more severe than those associated with any other packaging material. [17] Other lifecycle analyses recommend alternatives to many PVC applications including such as window frames, floorings, cable/wire coverings, cars and furniture. Only by ignoring organochlorine emissions in PVC production, toxic additives in PVC products, and pollution from PVC disposal can PVC appear "environmentally friendly." Only a tiny fraction of the total PVC waste stream is recycled into material for the same original use. Chemical additives found in the wide range PVC products complicates PVC recycling schemes. Many so-called recycling schemes are more aptly termed "down-cycling," since the resulting material can only used for low-grade applications. Plastics recyclers are increasingly opposing PVC packaging since it is easily mistaken for other plastics and contaminates existing recycling operations. Burning PVC causes large emissions of dioxins, furans, and many other organochlorine compounds. According to the USEPA, "The formation of dioxins is generally understood to occur as a result of burning organic material with chlorine-containing material." [18] Testing data from numerous accidental fires in Europe and North America confirm that PVC fires result in dioxin contamination and release large amounts of highly corrosive hydrochloric acid. In response to all of the hazards associated with PVC, over 150 European communities have declared PVC-free building policies. The German Federal Office of the Environment is recommending substitution of PVC in all areas susceptible to fires because of the hazards. [19] Alternatives for virtually all uses of PVC are presently available. [20] Traditional materials which are renewable, reusable, recyclable and less energy intensive, such as sustainably harvested wood, glass, paper, ceramics and metal are often the best alternatives. In some cases, eliminating uses altogether is the most environmentally sound option. ------------------ * Background materials for this article were originally compiled by T. Belazzi with extensive input by R. Stringer, P. Johnston, W. van der Naald, J. Thornton, M. Knapp, M. Floegel, M. Besieux and M. Krautter. NOTES: 1. "Chlorophile" designates one with a vested interest in chlorine's continued production and widespread use. 2. "Evaluacion Del Rol de la chloraciondel agua de bebida en la propagacion y control de la epidemia de colera en Peru," written by OACA (Oficina de Assesoria y Consultoria Ambiental), DIGESA (Direccion General de Salud Ambiental) and the Peruvian University Cayetano Heredia. 3. Rice, E.W. et al., "Chlorine and survival of 'rugose' Vibrio cholerae" (letter). The Lancet, No. 8821, Vol. 340, Sept 19, 1992, p.740. 4. Lovelock, J., "Natural Halocarbons in the air and in the sea." Nature 256:193-4, July 1975. 5. Simmonds, P.G., et al., Atmos. Environ. 27A(9), 1397-1407, 1993. 6. See Vallentyne, J., "Testimony and submission before the Alberta-Pacific Environmental Impact Assessment Review Board. Edmonton, Alberta. December 1, 1989." Reprinted by Greenpeace as "The Case for Phasing Out Organohalogens". See also International Joint Commission, Science Advisory Board Report. Windsor, Ontario, 1989. 7. Schechter, A., "Dioxins in humans and the environment." Biological basis for Risk Assessment of Dioxins and Related Compounds. Banbury Report 35:169-212, 1992. 8. See Harrad, S.J. and Jones, K.C., "Dioxins at large." Chemistry in Britain, Dec. 1992: 1110-1112. See also Travis, C.C. and Hattemer-Frey, H.A., "Human exposure to dioxin." Sci. Tot. Environ. 104: 97-127. 9. CanTox Inc., "Scientific Principles for Evaluating the Potential for Adverse Effects from Chlorinated Organic Chemicals in the Environment." May 7, 1993. 10. All quotations in this section are from Ozonoff, D., "Taking the Handle off the Chlorine Pump." Remarks at the Public Health Forum, Boston University School of Public Health. October 5, 1993. Reprinted by Greenpeace. 11. "Recognizing and Addressing the Environmental and Occupational Health Problems Posed by Chlorinated Organic Chemicals." American Public Health Association, October 1993. 12. Portier, et al., Fund. and Applied Toxicology 20:48-56. 13. See Carey, J. et al. (unpublished). "Recent Canadian Studies of the Physiological Effects of Pulp Mill Effluent on Fish." Canada Centre for Inland Waters, P.O.Box 5050, 867 Lakeshore Rd., Burlington, Ont. L7R 4A6. See also Sodergren, A., et al. Bleached Pulp Mill Effluents: Composition, fate and effects in the Baltic Sea. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency Report #4047, pp.54- 57. 14. Jiminez, B.D., et al., "Hepatic Enzymes as Biomarkers: Interpreting the effects of Environmental, Physiological and Toxicological Variables," in McCarthy, J.F et al., Biomarkers of Environmental Contamination. Lewis Publishers, pp.123-142, 1990. 15. Household and Personal Products Industry. February 1993 p.22. 16. Federal Office of the Environment, Germany, "Environmental Damage by PVC -- An Overview," Berlin, June 1992. Translation available from Greenpeace. 17. Ackerman, F., et al., The Tellus Institute Packaging Study. Boston: The Tellus Institute, 1992. 18. National Dioxin Survey: Tier 4: Combustion Sources. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986. 19. Impacts on the Environment from the Manufacture, Use, Disposal and Substitution of PVC. German Federal/State Commission on Environmental Chemicals. Duesseldorf, Sept. 1992. Translation available from Greenpeace. 20. See Alternatives to PVC Products (selected chapters from "PVC Phase-Outs by Local Communities," Greenpeace Austria, 1992. Translation available from Greenpeace. WEDO AND GREENPEACE LAUNCH NATIONAL CAMPAIGN ON WOMEN'S HEALTH by Joan D'Argo ----------------------------- As new evidence confirms that environmental contamination is a major underlying cause in the decline of human health, women -- now more than ever -- need to step forward to call for an end to the poisoning. Women founded the modern environmental movement, are its backbone everywhere in the world, and suffer most directly from environmental devastation. We are also powerful forces for change, especially when we are organized. The New York-based Women's Environment & Development Organization (WEDO) and Greenpeace have undertaken a joint campaign to support and strengthen the growing network of women who see their health as inextricably linked to the environment. Breast cancer (because it is a disease that has affected so many women's lives), serves as an entry point or "door" into this broader discussion. This new campaign, called "Women, Health & the Environment: Action for Cancer Prevention," was formally launched at a national planning meeting held in mid-February in Austin, Texas. The meeting (generously supported by the Breast Cancer Fund and the Austin-based Foundation for a Compassionate Society), brought together a diverse cross-section of scientists and women's health activists from a variety of backgrounds. In total, 34 women from the US, Canada and Mexico participated, representing a wide range of expertise. The meeting itself was groundbreaking. It was the first time that such a diverse group of women gathered to address and confront the polluting practices that lie behind the cancer epidemic we face today. Among the groups represented included the National Women's Health Network, the Women of Color Breast Cancer Survivors Support Project, Gulf Coast Tenants Organization, National Latina Health Network, the Mautner Project for Lesbians with Cancer, Casa da la Mujer Grupo Focter X, Breast Cancer Action and the Women's Community Cancer Project. The "Austin Statement," a one-page consensual statement, was drafted to reflect the purpose and collective focus of the national planning meeting participants. It begins, "We are Rachel's Children. We are women from Canada, Mexico and the US and are dedicated to ending the silence about the deterioration of women's health and its connection to the environment." (We are named in honor of Rachel Carson. After her ground-breaking book Silent Spring was published in 1962, many critics from the chemical industry asked: "Why should Rachel Carson be concerned? She doesn't have any children.") The Austin Statement will be used as a rallying cry for this campaign and additional endorsements will be sought from organizations in our neighboring regions and countries. Ongoing communication and networking among the planning meeting participants is essential toward building the "Action for Cancer Prevention" campaign. Therefore, the WEDO/Greenpeace project team will be publishing a newsletter on a bi-monthly basis called "Rachel's Children: Fighting for Our Lives". The newsletter will be a vehicle to share ideas, updates and events among the growing network of project participants, as well as provide important links among the diverse groups involved. As a way of inviting new partners to this campaign, we are also developing a brochure that will be printed in both English and Spanish explaining how women can get involved. Initial plans were laid to organize a series of dynamic activist conferences and scientific public hearings over the next year. These events are being organized to inform, support and link women around the country to demand the elimination of the environmental hazards that contribute to the decline of women's health. Groups in the following locations have either begun planning or are considering holding regional events: Boston; Dayton, OH; San Francisco; Raleigh, NC; Los Angeles and New Orleans (commonly called the "heart of Cancer Alley"). Events are also being considered for Atlanta and Toronto. The Foundation for a Compassionate Society kicked off this campaign by organizing the first conference and public hearing to coincide with the national planning meeting. Originally planned as a state-wide conference and public hearing, "The Breast Cancer Epidemic and Nuclear Radiation: Women's Action for the Environment" attracted almost 350 people at its peak and made national news, acutely demonstrating the need for this type of event. Strong partnerships were forged among the diverse groups to develop and collectively advocate for an effective public policy agenda that has prevention as its centerpiece. Because a healthy environment is critical to prevention, each region will be addressing environmental issues of local concern. The planning meeting participants also agreed to focus concerted national action on two areas of special concern: chlorinated pesticides and nuclear radiation. We declared that women will no longer be the toxic waste dumps for the chlorine and nuclear industries. Chlorinated pesticides may be among the most important breast cancer risk factors ever identified. For example, results from a recent New York University Women's Health Study found that women with the highest concentrations of chlorine- based pesticides and other organochlorines in their blood and fat have been found to have breast cancer risks four to ten times higher than women with lower concentrations. Many of these pesticides, for example atrazine, are still in widespread use throughout the US and around the world. (For a full presentation of the organochlorine/breast cancer link, see the Greenpeace report "Chlorine, Human Health and the Environment: The Breast Cancer Warning.") Mounting scientific evidence also links low-level radiation to breast and thyroid cancers and to the horrifying effects of relatively small amounts of strontium 90, iodine 135 and other radioactive particles. To date, Physicians for Social Responsibility has played an active role in alerting the public to the immediate and long-term dangers caused by the dependence on nuclear power and weapons. Despite calls for immediate action, our governments have failed to demonstrate the political will to replace the chlorine and nuclear industries with clean production, renewable energy and healthy workplaces. Clearly, active citizen involvement and public dialogue with key actors in the public and private sectors is required. Ultimately, we view these issues as basic human rights issues and believe that together, with effort, we can create the political will and awareness necessary to address the urgency of these issues. While this project has its roots in the US, it has already made ties with women in Mexico and Canada and recognizes the need for women everywhere to collectively call for an end to the poisoning. We invite all women and men to join the "Action for Cancer Prevention" campaign to achieve these basic human rights. For more information contact Greenpeace at 312-563-6060 and/or WEDO and 212-759-7982. ----------- TOXIC DRY CLEANING IN YOUR BACKYARD by Bonnie Rice ----------------------------------- Do you know what actually happens to your clothing when you drop it off at the dry cleaners? In fact, dry cleaning is not "dry" or "clean". Over 90 percent of all dry cleaners in the U.S. and Canada immerse your clothes in a toxic, chlorinated solvent called perchloroethylene, or "perc" in order to "clean" them. Over 300 million pounds of perc are used annually in more than 30,000 dry cleaning facilities across the U.S. and Canada. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), dry cleaners are "one of the largest groups of chemical users which come into direct contact with the public." U.S. Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data reveals that dry cleaners release over 12 times as much perc to the air as all other American industries combined. THE DANGERS OF DRY CLEANING Perc is listed as a Hazardous Air Pollutant under the 1990 U.S. Clean Air Act, and has also been specified in the International Joint Commission's secondary track list as a chemical of concern found in the Great Lakes environment. The USEPA's Carcinogen Assessment Group and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) both classify perc as a probable human carcinogen. Numerous epidemiological studies show a clear association between a wide array of serious health effects and exposure to perc in the workplace: * Perc is known to attack the central nervous system -- workers in perc dry cleaning plants and people living near them frequently complain of headaches, nausea, dizziness, irritability, and other problems related to the central nervous system. Liver and kidney damage has also been linked to perc exposure. * Perc is a suspected cause in a myriad of reproductive disorders -- Scandinavian studies show an association between occupational exposure to perc and three to four- fold increased risk of miscarriage in dry cleaning workers. Infertility in both men and women and menstrual disorders have also been linked to perc exposure. * Studies of dry cleaning workers have also found an association between exposure to perc and increased risk of several types of cancer, including cancer of the esophagus, kidney, liver, bladder, lung, cervix, and pancreas. Studies of populations exposed to perc- contaminated drinking water have revealed a two to seven- fold increase in leukemia due to perc exposure, as well as higher rates of bladder cancer. Perc has also been linked to environmental destruction. Perc in the environment degrades into trichloroacetic acid (TCA), a potent herbicide, that has been linked to extensive damage to trees in the Black Forest and northern Alps of Europe. Perc use is also associated with destruction of the stratospheric ozone layer as a result of perc's degradation in the environment to carbon tetrachloride -- a known ozone-depleter with an atmospheric lifetime of over 70 years. WIDESPREAD HUMAN EXPOSURE TO PERCHLOROETHYLENE Human exposure to perc is extensive; it spans all segments of the population, through contaminated air, water, and food. Once inhaled or ingested, perc accumulates in the body, and has been found in the blood, fatty tissue, breath, and breast milk of the general U.S. and Canadian populations. People who live in close proximity to dry cleaning plants are at high risk of perc exposure. Perc levels hundreds of times higher than the New York State indoor air quality guideline of 15 parts per billion (ppb) have been found in residences near dry cleaning plants. High perc levels in homes poses a severe threat to public health, since the duration of exposure is often longer than dry cleaning workers, especially for small children and the elderly people who may spend longer periods at home. Perc from dry cleaning plants is also contaminating food and water supplies. Dry cleaners have been found as the source of contamination in numerous investigations of severely contaminated groundwater. Tests of food from stores or residences near dry cleaning plants have revealed perc levels hundreds of times higher than background levels. Since perc accumulates in fatty tissue, infants can be exposed to dangerous levels through contaminated breast milk. A New York Department of Health study calculated a significantly increased risk of cancer (ranging from 58 to 600 excess cancer cases per million) for infants exposed via contaminated breast milk for one year from an occupationally exposed mother. Elevated cancer risk was also found in breast-fed infants of mothers exposed to perc in their homes (ranging from 1.4 to 220 excess cancer cases per million infants). Even casual exposure to dry cleaned clothes can be a cause for concern. Dry cleaned clothes off-gas perc, resulting in higher perc levels (and the associated risk) wherever the clothes are placed, usually in the home or car. "Airing" of clothing outside does not mitigate the problem, as it takes several days for the perc levels in the clothing to drop, according to a USEPA study. Tests of food stored in a closed car with dry cleaned clothes for as little as one hour have revealed elevated levels of perc. SAFE ALTERNATIVES TO PERC EXIST In 1992, the USEPA ran a series of tests comparing traditional, perc-based dry cleaning to "multi-process wet cleaning" -- a method based on water, instead of a toxic solvent. Multi-process wet cleaning, or "Green Cleaning", is based on a combination of heat, steam, vacuum, water and natural soaps to clean clothing. Careful inspection and cleaning of garments is done by a skilled technician, who decides which technique will best clean a garment on an individual basis. The type of garment, its fabric category, and the degree of soiling and/or stains are key factors in the technician's decision of how best to clean any given garment. This process is currently in use in commercial settings in New York City. The USEPA report, released in 1993, documenting the results of the tests states that "wet cleaning is technically feasible and economically competitive with perc dry cleaning". The report concluded that Green Clean is as effective, slightly cheaper (in terms of operating costs), and preferred by customers over traditional perc-based cleaning. The report also considered the economic costs and benefits of conversion from perc-based dry cleaning and found that Green Cleaning required 42 percent less capital investment to install, gave a 78 percent better return on investment and increased profits by 5 percent. Green Cleaning offers a 21 percent increase in employment opportunities which, when applied to current employment levels in the dry cleaning industry, translates into over 33,000 new, skilled jobs created by an industry-wide shift to Green Cleaning. Even greater economic gains would be realized if the full social costs of using a toxic chemical were reflected in the analysis; the study did not take into account the costs for remediation of air or groundwater contamination, medical bills, and other costs which are associated with the use of perc. Other, more automated water-based methods have since been identified and introduced successfully on the market in a limited capacity as well. Dry cleaners in Europe have found that machines based on carefully controlled water temperature, mechanical action and heat combined with specially formulated soaps can successfully replace perc machines. BEGINNING THE TRANSITION Phasing out toxic chemicals in the dry cleaning industry, as with any other industry, requires careful planning and recognition of possible obstacles which could derail a smooth progression to clean production. Additionally, because the dry cleaning industry is comprised of many accessible training in water-based cleaning techniques; and uncertainties about market demand. Demonstration projects in multiple locations across the U.S. and Canada are an important first step in demonstrating the viability of the alternatives and establishing a basis for worker training. These sites, run by non-profit organizations, will provide industry members with the opportunity to both evaluate the performance of the methods in a real world setting and to measure the finan accessible training in water-based cleaning techniques; and uncertainties about market demand. Demonstration projects in multiple locations across the U.S. and Canada are an important first step in demonstrating the viability of the alternatives and establishing a basis for worker training. These sites, run by non-profit organizations, will provide industry members with the opportunity to both evaluate the performance of the methods in a real world setting and to measure the financial viability of a commercial operation. These projects can also be a source of public education on the dangers of perc. Governmental agencies and other organizations concerned with pollution prevention will need to play a critical role in funding and organizing such projects. Recently, the USEPA committed funding for a demonstration project in Chicago, slated to begin in the fall of 1994. Environment Canada is planning demonstration of wet-cleaning methods at sites in Ontario this year as well. Successful demonstration projects in several key cities in the U.S. and Canada will need to be established in order to bring about any substantial industry shift to water-based cleaning. Public education on the dangers of perc is also a crucial component of any phase-out plan. Without a market for environmentally safe cleaning, no change will occur. Agencies involved in pollution prevention and protection of public health should play a key role in alerting the public to the health threat posed by the use of perc in dry cleaning, and the existence of viable alternatives. Local community-based groups can also be instrumental in building public awareness of the dangers of perc-based dry cleaning. Groups already involved in fighting toxic chemicals, incinerators, and cement kilns are strong potential allies; public health advocacy groups, labor and occupational health organizations, and groups interested in alternative economic development can all add valuable expertise. Once a community is aware of the dangers from perc-based dry cleaning, it can help an existing shop convert or bring an environmentally safe demonstration shop to their community. Actions to help bring this about could include ensuring that local dry cleaners have information on alternatives, and meeting with local public health and environmental officials to gain their help in establishing green cleaning in the community. Activists can initiate testing of perc levels in residences in the community, with the goal of organizing tenants to ban perc dry cleaning facilities from buildings which contain residences and/or other businesses, and identify key targets for conversion by surveying local cleaning shops for elevated perc levels or investigating complaint records to find the worst offenders. Many dry cleaners, once apprised of the technical viability and financial attractiveness of alternatives, will wish to convert to environmentally safe processes as soon as possible; others will proceed relatively quickly if incentives and assistance are available to ease the transition. Still others will not convert until forced to do so. Therefore, regulation must also play a role. Activists should demand that regulators both establish timelines to phase out the use of perc in dry cleaning and ensure that the proper assistance programs are in place to ease the transition. Specifically, a regulatory timeline should immediately ban new purchases of perc-based equipment in order to discourage investment in polluting technology, set interim goals prioritizing the phase-out of perc plants in residential buildings, and establish a strict enforcement program while perc is still in use. The threats posed by the dry cleaning industry's use of perc are real and immediate. The recent identification, testing, and marketing of safe and effective water-based cleaning methods now shows that the phase-out of perc is feasible and economically beneficial for the dry cleaning industry. ------------------------- CHLORINE-FREE WORLD NEWS ------------------------ GREAT LAKES. In February, the International Joint Commission (IJC) released its Seventh Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water Quality which repeated its call on Canadian and U.S. governments to phase out the production and use of chlorine-based compounds. In its report, the IJC cites "mounting evidence" linking toxic substances in the environment "to reproductive, metabolical, neurological and behavioural abnormalities; to immunity suppression leading to susceptibility to infections and other life-threatening problems; and to increasing levels of breast and other cancers." The report also cites links to "long- term reproductive and inter-generational effects" and "effects on endocrine systems." The Commission first proposed "sunsetting" chlorine two years ago. In response, the chemical industry formed a new lobby group --the Chlorine Chemistry Council of the Chemical Manufacturers Association -- and launched a massive public relations and lobby campaign to persuade the IJC to reverse itself. Despite this multi-million dollar industry lobby effort, the IJC has reaffirmed and strengthened its position. In a letter to the U.S. Senate, IJC Chairperson Gordon Durnil wrote: "Today the heart of our message is that the integrity of the human species will be increasingly compromised unless we act decisively to bring the growing problem of persistent toxic substances under control. We are convinced that the dangers posed to humans will increase with passing generations." The IJC report is one of the most important statements ever made for the future of environmental policy in North America and is must reading for chlorine-free activists. To obtain copies, contact the IJC in Washington (202-736- 9024), Ottawa (613-995-2984) or Windsor (519-257-6700). UNITED STATES. The campaign for a chlorine phase-out received support in the Clinton administration's proposals for Clean Water Act reauthorization. Clinton's proposals included a call for a national strategy to "substitute, reduce, or prohibit the use of chlorine and chlorinated compounds." Special attention would be paid to the use of these substances in the paper industry, in PVC and other plastics, in industrial solvents, and in the disinfection of water and wastewater. The proposal would begin with an 18-month study and conclude after 30 months with a national action strategy to be prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator. The proposed chlorine phase-out amendments were among the top priorities of U.S. environmentalists in Washington lobbying for improvements to the Clean Water Act. However, the powerful chemical industry lobby declared war on the Clinton administration and, through a fierce campaign of disinformation, temporarily derailed the administration's chlorine proposal in the Senate committee. In Congress, the Chlorine Zero Discharge Act of 1993 (H.R.2898), already with 37 co-sponsors (as of March 2, 1994), is building momentum. If passed, this legislation would mandate the phase-out of all chlorine-based bleaching in the U.S. pulp and paper industry within five years. Finally, the long-awaited final report of the EPA reassessment of dioxin is due out soon and is expected to confirm that harm from dioxin -- a chlorine-based toxin generated by a wide range of chlorine uses -- is of significant public health concern. For more information or copies of the Clinton chlorine proposals and/or the Chlorine Zero Discharge Act of 1993, contact Mark Floegel (202)462-1177. CANADA. Greenpeace and Canada's major environmental organizations have called for a national strategy to phase out persistent toxins starting with chlorine-based chemicals. The demand was made in a joint letter to federal environment minister Sheila Copps on February 17. In campaign documents issued during the 1993 federal election, the now governing Liberal party promised "to match EPA regulatory efforts" and to commit to "regulatory initiatives whose standards will never be less stringent than those required by the IJC...." With the Clinton administration's recent proposals and the IJC's repeated calls for a chlorine phase-out, "any further delay in the Canadian government's development and implementation of a national strategy for phasing out chlorinated compounds and other persistent toxins is unjustifiable and will only bring greater harm to the ecosystem and human health," wrote the environmentalists. While no formal response has been received from the minister, she was quoted as saying in response "...[quote from CP]...". For more information or copies of the letter, contact Jay Palter (416)345-8408. BELGIUM. The Solvay corporation have responded to Greenpeace's effective chlorine-free initiatives with a fierce disinformation and harrassment campaign in Belgium. During October to December 1993, while Greenpeace was touring the communities along the Maas River in Belgium and Holland raising awareness about chlorine pollution, Solvay followed Greenpeace's every step with a bus displaying industry propaganda. (The feature article in this edition of CHLORINE-FREE addresses some of the lies and disinformation Solvay and others perpetuate to protect their profits.) Additionally, Solvay is suing Greenpeace for lost production time claimed to have resulted from a Greenpeace protest in March 1993, and have won a court order freezing Greenpeace Belgium bank accounts as a pressure tactic. Such desperate tactics reflect the industry's serious concerns about the future of its chlorine business. Recently, a Flemish environmental umbrella organization published the results of a survey on disposable food packaging in order to evaluate the results of their PVC-Free packaging campaign started in 1991. In 1991, 63 percent of this packaging was PVC; in 1993, 42 percent was PVC; and in 1994, only 27 percent is PVC. AUSTRIA. The parliament of the province of Salzburg, Austria has unanimously agreed to immediately stop the use of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic in public buildings wherever possible. Well over half of the provinces and capital cities in Austria have passed a PVC-free resolution. Throughout Europe, over 150 communities have adopted similar PVC-free resolutions. (Salzburg is the home province in Austria of Solvay, Europe's largest chlorine and second largest PVC producer. This year, Solvay closed their Hallein PVC plant in Salzburg.) Greenpeace Austria lost a recent first court decision surrounding its billboard campaign calling PVC an "environmental poison" (in German "Umweltgift"). Despite the decision, the court agreed that PVC causes environmental problems and poses risks during production, use and disposal. However, the term "environmental poison" -- which implies environmental damage resulting from production, use and/or disposal of a substance -- was narrowly interpreted by the court as meaning immediate toxicity as in the common meaning of the term "poison," eg., strychnine. Greenpeace cited CFCs, which cause ecological harm through ozone destruction not acute toxicity, as an example of an environmental poison. The judge based his decision on the claim that the "average intelligent non-expert consumer" could not distinguish between a "poison" and an "environmental poison". However, a nationwide poll sponsored by Greenpeace in February confirmed that 86 percent of people polled could, in fact, make such a distinction. Greenpeace Austria successfully appealed the decision. That production, use, transport and disposal of PVC can lead to significant environmental damage justifies the Greenpeace statement, according to the High Court's decision. Accidents in production and transport cannot be ignored and can lead to severe damage for humans and the environment. Dioxins and furans caused by PVC-fires, in the eyes of the High Court, highlight the dangers of PVC. The PVC industry also sued Greenpeace for the poster itself, drawn by the Austrian cartoonist Gerhard Haderer, depicting a man's head with an open toilet seat on top -- as a symbol for the unnecessary use of damaging substances such as PVC (toilet seats in Austria are mostly made out of PVC). The High Court dismissed this case on the grounds of "freedom of art". For further information on the recent decision, contact Thomas Belazzi or Florian Faber at Greenpeace Austria (43)1-713-0031. NETHERLANDS. In February, Akzo announced it will postpone until further notice its expansion of chlorine capacity at its plant in Rotterdam. Insecure chlorine markets and environmental pressure were noted as reasons for the decision. This decision follows actions by Greenpeace Netherlands at the plant. A subsequent lawsuit by Akzo against Greenpeace resulted in a court ruling forbidding Greenpeace from ever doing another action at the Akzo site. Greenpeace is appealing this decision. In a similar action against Solvay one month earlier the court decided that Greenpeace was entitled to do blockades because it serves the public interest. AUSTRALIA. In February, Greenpeace blockaded a PVC plant in Altona, near Melbourne, owned by the Geon corporation. The protest coincided with a United Nations conference on Clean Production in Melbourne at which the Australian federal environment minister spoke. The Geon action solicited an extraordinary response from the chemical industry downunder. The February/March edition of the Australian Chemical Industry Council (ACIC) "Media Report" focused exclusively on the chlorine-free campaign and the "dire consequences" of U.S. president Clinton's proposals. Aside from the usual rhetoric, the newsletter reminded subscribers that ACIC offers "an intelligence service which as its basis includes faxed Greenpeace press releases." END ----------